Another TradCath Thread

[J_Dudycha]

Can you please refer me to the Fr. Ripperger work you mentioned ?

Thanks.

 

[Emeraldlady]

This is from this time last year.

 

[J_Dudycha]

To everyone who has commented, and is reading this:

First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate everyone for giving their time, and offering resources/explanations as to how to understand this issue. But, more importantly, the seemingly salty responses and uncharitable tone coming from certain participants herein is abundantly obvious, and highly discouraging; I don’t need to name names, but I trust that any impartial reader of this thread will understand to what/whom I am referring.

Now, I’m just speaking for myself here, but, when I take these observations into account, and note the position which “they” are defending, I cannot see how anyone would be persuaded by the words which contain no hint of humility or brotherly love. Or ?

My biggest takeaway from this thread so far is not just that there are different streams of “traditionalists” in the Catholic church today, but that there are decidedly anti-Catholic sentiments coming from certain corners of the “traditionalist” movement; I am still eager to hear from one of these latter “traditionalist” how they justify their defiance of the current Pope and the Ordinary Mass in lieu of Matthew 16:18.

I pray that we all may be edified in the continuing discussion. Let’s continue in kindness and humility.

Peace.

 

[J_Dudycha]

These are the droids I’ve been looking for !! Thank you.

 

[J_Dudycha]

I have found these two articles to be helpful:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-form-of-the-mass-is-not-doctrinal

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/dissent-of-a-traditionalist-stripe

 

[Fauken]

I cannot see how anyone would be persuaded by the words which contain no hint of humility or brotherly love. Or ?

Don’t you think this is a tad offensive? The topic of Vatican II is a tad controversial, because you don’t have to prefer the EF to admit that in the aftermath of Vatican II that there were abuses done in the name of it. Is this due to the nature or the OF? Is this due to the vague wording of the documents of Vatican II? Is this due to priests running roughshod with the Mass? Is this due to the culture at that time? That is what people debate.

Another thing is that there were bishops who wrongly suppressed the TLM in their diocese. The TLM was never suppressed, but they cracked down on priests celebrating it. You even had, in at least one case, needed a permission slip to attend a form of Mass which hadn’t been suppressed!

New Liturgical Movement: Latin Mass Permission Slip from 1985

This treatment which lasted for decades has left traditionalists feeling raw. The treatment from their bishops that suppressed something we love that should have never been suppressed.

I am still eager to hear from one of these latter “traditionalist” how they justify their defiance of the current Pope and the Ordinary Mass in lieu of Matthew 16:18.

In what way do I defy Pope Francis? How do I know if I’m an “anti-Catholic traditionalist”? I am a traditionalist Catholic. I prefer the TLM. I hold Pope Francis to be my Pope. But the liturgy and form of Mass is not protected by papal infallibility. Otherwise, why isn’t the argument that the sedevacantist radical SSPV puts forth not valid (they argue that the Tridentine Mass as it was put forth by Pope Pius V cannot be changed and that his papal bull Quo Primium was for all time)

 

[J_Dudycha]

Don’t you think this is a tad offensive?

I can certainly see how that might seem offensive, but please trust me when I say (type?) that my intention was never to offend.

The topic of Vatican II is a tad controversial, because you don’t have to prefer the EF to admit that in the aftermath of Vatican II that there were abuses done in the name of it. Is this due to the nature or the OF? Is this due to the vague wording of the documents of Vatican II? Is this due to priests running roughshod with the Mass? Is this due to the culture at that time? That is what people debate.

Sorry, but I can’t admit that because I don’t know enough about it. As I said in the OP, I am merely a soon-to-be catechumen who is seeking to better understand the different currents within Catholicism.

Still, it seems to me that the following words in the following link carry a particular gravitas, moreso than any V2 objection: ‘It is not easy to understand how Catholics styling themselves “traditionalists” could come to consider a general council of the Church to be in fundamental error, since the tradition of the Church is that the formal acts of a general council of the Church ratified by a pope enjoy the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.’

Wouldn’t you agree ??

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/dissent-of-a-traditionalist-stripe

In what way do I defy Pope Francis? How do I know if I’m an “anti-Catholic traditionalist”? I am a traditionalist Catholic. I prefer the TLM. I hold Pope Francis to be my Pope. But the liturgy and form of Mass is not protected by papal infallibility. Otherwise, why isn’t the argument that the sedevacantist radical SSPV puts forth not valid (they argue that the Tridentine Mass as it was put forth by Pope Pius V cannot be changed and that his papal bull Quo Primium was for all time)

I cannot say, for I do not know what style of “traditionalist” you consider yourself to be. I think that the link I shared above gives a the definition of “traditionalist” which I have been referencing. oint_up_2:t3:

 

[J_Dudycha]

Right on.

What do you make of the following quote: It is not easy to understand how Catholics styling themselves “traditionalists” could come to consider a general council of the Church to be in fundamental error, since the tradition of the Church is that the formal acts of a general council of the Church ratified by a pope enjoy the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

???

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/dissent-of-a-traditionalist-stripe

 

[Fauken]

Sorry, but I can’t admit that because I don’t know enough about it. As I said in the OP, I am merely a soon-to-be catechumen who is seeking to better understand the different currents within Catholicism.

I know, those were rhetorical questions showing what kind of questions are discussed in regards to what happened after Vatican II.

Still, it seems to me that the following words in the following link carry a particular gravitas, moreso than any V2 objection: ‘It is not easy to understand how Catholics styling themselves “traditionalists” could come to consider a general council of the Church to be in fundamental error, since the tradition of the Church is that the formal acts of a general council of the Church ratified by a pope enjoy the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.’

Wouldn’t you agree ??

First of all, the very title of the article states that it is particularly aimed at SSPX arguments. The SSPX, while not schismatic, are in an irregular situation with the Vatican. One of their arguments is that Vatican II is not an infallible council because it was never meant to be one. Either way, not all traditionalists attend or even support the SSPX, which I am not, so I am presumably not one of those “anti-Catholic” traditionalists you were referring to.

Traditionalism is a spectrum. And the SSPX aren’t even the most radical, sadly.

 

[27lw]

1985 was quite the year! This is a fun read too – arrested for kneeling in church. From those nice Canadians, even.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/34/index.do
OP, do you realize how contentious these post- Vatican II years were for many people? I think there are many who just “lean” towards liturgy / viewpoints that are pre-1965, but that doesn’t mean we reject the current pope. I guess I’m just hoping that some future pope might be able to bridge the yawning gap between pre- and post- Vatican II thought / liturgy.

 

[stpurl]

But why would you ‘presume’ the worst? As Catholic Christians, aren’t we supposed to assume the best about people? Especially people who have ‘only been here 2 days’.

 

[stpurl]

But wait, there’s more! “YOU” are defining Traditional Catholics with two and only two criteria, and of those two, the second is NOT something that the majority of Traditional Catholics do!!!

 

[stpurl]

And you see nothing, absolutely nothing, salty, uncharitable, lacking in brotherly or sisterly love, from posters who are lambasting ‘traditional’ people?

There is nothing even remotely upsetting in the rush and continuing hammering and labeling of ‘traditionalists’ by assigning to them views and actions which they don’t even do?

It appears many here equate ‘traditionalist’ solely to SSPX, ‘rad trad fringe’ and as far as they’re concerned, if you like Latin, then you’re rad. And that’s that. You’re a dissident, you’re a hypocrite, and YOU are the ‘uncharitable’ one by daring to claim otherwise, it seems!!

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

I’ve seen it done plenty of times on this forum alone, and this forum is far from a radical Traditionalist hangout.

Too true. As an Orthodox Christian with an outside perspective, it is disappointing to see that CAF does not allow any dialogue or discussion that even smacks at all of a reasonable critique of Vatican II and the failures of the Conciliar Constitutions to live up to the standards of the constant 2,000 year Magisterium of the Catholic Church and her living Sacred Tradition. In Orthodoxy (and the period of the Undivided Church) we have had countless times when Councils were called and held then declared Robber Councils as their impact was seen on the Church and ultimately found contrary to the Deposit of the Faith.

Sadly it seems the traditionalists on CAF seem to be silenced rather quickly, or shouted down by the progressives (see Modernists-Liberals) on this Forum without being allowed to express their beliefs freely. The persecution of orthodox Traditionalists in today’s Catholic Church is reminiscent of the days of the Arian controversy when the majority of the Church was overwhelming on the Arian side. May God save and strengthen all orthodox/traditionalist Catholics.

Now you may flag me, cuff and place me in the appropriate dungeon for reprogramming.

 

[Aquinas11]

seemingly salty responses and uncharitable tone

highly discouraging

I cannot see how anyone would be persuaded by the words which contain no hint of humility or brotherly love.

there are decidedly anti-Catholic sentiments coming from certain corners of the “traditionalist” movement;

Let’s continue in kindness and humility.

your posts hardly amount to “kindness and humility” or “brotherly love”, as they challenged whether traditionalists are legitimately Catholic and then used caricatures to attack them

“TradCaths” tend to harken back to a mythical “golden age of Catholicism” when everything was peaches and cream

if they are truly Catholics,

Doesn’t obedience to the Church mean not getting so frazzled

TradCaths’ border upon outright defiance of Catholic teaching in which case they can no longer call themselves Catholic,

 

[Paul_Edwards]

The intellectual in me sees your advice as anti-intellectual, but the faithful/humble man in me sees your advise as the wisest here thus far.

Thankyou. Sometimes we have to suppress our intellectual abilities out of respect for our superiors (and to avoid division from within the church). This often leads to greater (although delayed) effects for the church in the future. For example if priests in the FSSP and ICKSP said everything that was on their mind all the time then there wouldn’t be an FSSP or an ICKSP. So sometimes for the sake of the greater good we have to say the right things at the right times and also remain silent at the right times.

A few months ago an FSSP priest I know wisely said “If you want me to continue being your pastor at this church, I have to be careful. I cannot get myself into trouble.” We must adopt a similar approach to some extent.

 

[27lw]

I’m confused – is that happening on this thread? Why are you dragging it on here? Or at least link to it!

 

[TMC]

I screwed that up, sorry. I will fix it.

 

[Jbrady]

or shouted down by the progressives (see Modernists-Liberals) on this Forum

Sorry, but you are way off there. There are few progressives that post on this forum, and those that do, don’t last long.

The main demographic of this forum is conservative and moderate-conservatives, with some moderates and Traditionalists thrown in. The Traditionalists are well tolerated and even welcome as long as they don’t knock the Pope and Church teachings. It’s true that radical Traditionalists, sedevacantists, and other haters of Pope Francis soon outwear their welcome, but it has nothing to do with their preference for the Latin Mass, unless they disparage the Ordinary Form.

In any case, among the regulars here, Traditionalists outnumber progressives and “modernists” by a wide margin.

 

[J_Dudycha]

Lambasting ?

Continued hammering ??

Sorry, but I don’t see that at all.

And, forgive me, but don’t you see how your final sentence basically reinforces my point about “traditionalists” being salty and uncharitable?