Another TradCath Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter J_Dudycha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I may, I don’t see how simply asking a question is “challenging.”

I’m not even fully Catholic (yet); I was/am legitimately curious as to how “TradCaths” harmonize their [seeming] stubbornness with their trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church.
 
Jbrady said:
The Traditionalists are well tolerated and even welcome as long as they don’t knock the Pope and Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Critiques of the Pope have historically been tolerated and as several Saints have done, called him to repentance. When the Pope falls into the mortal sin of idolatry, or spreads false teachings regarding marriage (Amoris Laetitia), or fosters pantheism (Pachamama) and relativism (Abu Dhabi) it is definitely time for a call to repentance and to question whether he has the possibility of going apostate.

These are the days to tread carefully, and while I agree there are some RadTrads that lose the charity of true Christian Faith, they may have a prophetic witness in the Church as a sort of spiritual canary in the coalmine.
Jbrady said:
In any case, among the regulars here, Traditionalists outnumber progressives and “modernists” by a wide margin.
Click to expand...
Methinks our definitions of who is a Modernist and who is a Traditionalist are quite different… 🤔

Peace be to all.
 
Last edited:
I’m really regretting not offering some solid definitions of ‘traditionalist’ and ‘modernist’ in the OP. :confused:

Peace.
 
There are faithful traditionalists(FSSP,ICKSP,IBP…), those who are irregular(SSPX) and those who are out of communion(sedevacantists, conclavists).

When we’re talking about faithful traditionalists, there are those who are a bit more “serious”, and those who aren’t. There are many problems in the Church, from pedophilia, secret homosexuals, theft, liturgical abuses, false ecumenism etc…
Criticism is not forbidden. You are not obliged to support and like EVERYTHING a pope says or does. Criticism is not forbidden. Sometimes, correcting our superiors with love and humility is necessary, whether that be because of a liturgical abuse or an error preached in a homily, things like that.

But, when correcting/criticising, we need to have love and humility. Because, when we correct, we show care for sound doctrine, and when we do it with humility and love, we show our love and respect for those we are correcting, in this case, our superiors.
Let’s imagine a situation

If a priest says something outright wrong in a homily, do you think God would be angry when, after the Mass, you approach the priest and talk to him about it with humility and love, and he acknowledges his mistake and says he will apologize for saying that in the homily and repent, do you think God would punish you because you corrected your superior regarding some teaching? No, he would not.

I am not what is understood as a traditional Catholic(I attend Novus Ordo and so), but I think we can all admit that problems are present in the Church(liturgical abuses, pedophilia, theft, false ecumenism, and so on and so on…)
 
J_Dudycha said:
‘modernist’
Click to expand...
There is no definition of “modernist” in today’s context. It is a historical term only ever used by ultra-conservatives and Traditionanists to disparage anyone that does not agree with them. Other than that, it is just a meaningless insult that’s casually tossed around.
 
Last edited:
Jbrady said:
There is no definition of “modernist”. It is only ever used by ultra-conservatives and Traditionanists to disparage anyone that does not agree with them. Other than that, it is just a meaningless insult.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, but the popes have issued definitions of Modernism and battling this for centuries:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

And here is a succinct definition given by Pope Pius XI:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

St. Pope Pius X:

 
CroatCatholic said:
Criticism is not forbidden. Sometimes, correcting our superiors with love and humility is necessary, whether that be because of a liturgical abuse or an error preached in a homily, things like that.

Let’s imagine a situation
Click to expand...
Yes. Let’s imagine a situation:

Back in the day that Traditionalists so fondly long for, do you seriously think that even the lowliest parish priest would have tolerated any criticism from a mere layman?

Of course not. If clergy were going to be “corrected” at all, it was going to be exclusively by other clergy. The opinion of the laity didn’t count for much, and was not sought out or welcome.

And as for criticizing the Pope, no layman would have ever dared, and it would not have been tolerated at all.

I have always find it hypocritical that those Traditionalists who most harshly criticize the Pope are those who most yearn for the Pre-Vatican II “Golden Age”.
 
Last edited:
PilgrimMichelangelo said:
Forgive me, but the popes have issued definitions of Modernism and battling this for centuries:
Click to expand...
The word is never, ever used in accordance with those historical meanings today except perhaps in history classes.

When used to refer to the present-day, it is exclusively and meaningless insult, and never nothing more. And it almost always preceeds are rant or tirade on the evils of the present Pope or of Vatical II.

Sorry, but I have never seen a single exception, and am sure that if I live to a ripe old age, I never will.
 
J_Dudycha said:
Doesn’t obedience to the Church mean not getting so frazzled over what’s happened/happening in the Church today ??
Click to expand...
No. Obedience to the Church means obedience to the infallible magisterium. For example, when Peter taught something which was contrary to Church principles, Paul refused to go along with him.
 
He opposed him “to his face” which is a rather strong phrase in Greek
 
Why do you insist on stereotyping ‘all’ traditionalists as the most radical breed?

A. We do not all fondly ‘long for’ some halcyon period ‘long ago.
B. The opinion of laity didn’t matter much? Tell that to St. Catherine of Siena. Doctor of the Church. Tell that to people like Joseph Kennedy, Agatha Christie, C.S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien (yes I know some are Anglican. They are still laity), various religious sisters and nuns who although religious are not ‘clergy’, etc.

And the real hypocrisy is the assumption that after one has erected a strawman of ‘traditionalist’ one can also assume that said strawman shows hypocrisy based on one’s imagining of that person’s imagination!
 
What you may hear (or not) does not represent the entire sum total of what is ever spoken or recorded.

What you have said of the word Modernism remains your own personal opinion based only on your ‘experiences’. Using loaded words like associating it with ‘rants’ and ‘tirades’ is itself a strategy to render the whole concept of people using modernism in any other way than your opinion as being itself nothing but the ‘rants’ of some ‘traditionalist’ who is himself or herself not nearly so Christian etc etc.

It’s trying to stop a discussion without even permitting another point of view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top