Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

[pnewton]

-but for some reason it is the traditional Catholics who get SUSPENDED under their name on Catholic forums

The has been stated before and is not factual. I have seen others suspended and banned. Sometimes I can see where the poster was in violation of the rules and at others times I can’t. I am not a moderator here. Unless one of them steps in with information on this topic, speculation is senseless.

 

[pgoings]

This letter rad-Trads love to think applies to them does not, it only applies to the individual that it was addressed to.

Yes, but in this case the author (Msgr. Perl) requested the publication of the answer (to an individual) on the web site of Una Voce for public consumption. May I ask if the author of your dispensation from abstinence has ever asked to have it similarly published? If not, please note that I believe this to be the essential difference.

–Paul

 

[Kielbasi]

Dr. Bombay writes

Just curious…where might I find one of these Anglican Use Masses in my area? Should I contact my diocese? This is fascinating. I never knew such a thing existed.

The anglican use mass only exists in a handful of parishes, less than 10, in the whole US.

Since no one is being trained in any seminary for saying this particular liturgy, its future expansion depends on the number of existing Episcopalian priests who convert to Catholicism, and then seek ordination as Catholic priests.

The future of the Anglican use mass is pretty iffy.

 

[jimmy]

I agree that some traditionalists tend to be a little self-righteous. But it is not the traditionalists that are promoting liturgical abuses. That rests squarely on the shoulders of the liberals.

 

[bear06]

pgoings:

David,

This letter is from Msgr. Arthur Calkins of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” and is addressed to Una Voce America; the request was also apparently made that Una Voce post the letter on its public web site. The letter contains a copy of Msgr. Perl’s response to an individual’s questions about the S.S.P.X. I would submit that the publication of the answers to a wide audience may be reasonably inferred as an intent to establish general principles for anyone wishing to assist at Masses of the S.S.P.X. for reasons of devotion. Obviously you disagree, but in the absence of further clarification it does seem that the P.C.E.D. published these answers for a reason. If you believe that these answers were intended to apply only to the questioner, why did not Msgr. Calkins make this clear in his letter to Una Voce? In fact, Msgr. Perl says, “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us,” which is in the past tense; whether that refers merely to the time the original letter was sent, or to whether the advice was only for a specific set of circumstances, is unclear.

What does seem clear is that reasonable people could infer wildly different things from such a communication and its method of distribution (the Una Voce web site). As I said previously, a simple note from the C.D.F. could eliminate all doubt on both sides.

–Paul

Paul,

You might want to ask yourself why the second letter needed to be posted at all then if it just restated what the first letter said. This letter was sent to clarify that this was sent to a specific person for a specific set of circumstances which we will probably never know since that person let the response fly all over the place but never revealed the original questioning letter. This should make you wonder.

 

[bear06]

Cancer attacks the body from within.

OK, I’ll get on board with this one. The SSPX is now considered in my book to be a bad bacterial infection.

 

[bear06]

Fogny:

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles Changes “Ash Wednesday”
to resolve conflict with the "Chinese New Year & see below.

Do you feel these actions clash with Tradition or benefit lay people
in a groundbreaking way? Modernist or “Catholic”.?

press.la-archdiocese.org/2005/050128BlackHistoryMass.html

Here we go again. How come one of the main defenses for the SSPX and rad-Trads is “How come the liberals don’t get in trouble?”? (which by the way isn’t true!) I’m starting to wonder if any of you have kids. When I punish my kids for being disobedient they know that giving a litany of offenses of their siblings is no defense! You are right. Cardinal Mahoney isn’t obedient. Is this a logical or moral reason why the SSPX is should be allowed to sin too?

 

[bear06]

I shall ask again-as a Conservative Catholic

And I will answer as a conservative Catholic…

-why is there so much dislike for people like myself

,

There’s no dislike from me - only disagreement. You can disagree with a person and not have ill-will towards them.

To call those who hold tradition dear arrogant is mean spirited

I hold tradition and Tradition very dear and don’t forget that we (those who don’t have an attachment to the TLM) have been called arrogant too. This is not a one way street.

It is actually the liberals who can be defined as schismatics as they are the ones who are continuously pushing for changes in church teachings and the easing of the rules-but for some reason it is the traditional Catholics who get SUSPENDED under their name on Catholic forums like this and are called schimsatic or dinosaurs or whatever mean name that gets thrown our way.

Please just look at the Vatican’s list of dissenters. It’s not even close to primarily made up of right side dissenters. Also, the “traditional Catholics” are not the only ones who have been suspended for their actions on this forum. Franciscum has also been suspended. Why is it that we (folk not attached to the TLM) aren’t always trying to make a martyr of him. BTW, can you show me where someone called someone schismatic or a dionosaur? Chances are if it actually happened it was the above mentioned person who was suspended.

 

[pgoings]

This should make you wonder.

I do wonder; so, obviously, do many others. The real tragedy is that all of this divisive bickering (at least that of reasonable persons) could be eliminated by an explicit general statement from the C.D.F. I’m sure that they have their reasons for not releasing one, but you have to admit that it is an issue which desparately needs unambiguous clarification.

I do believe that one can assist at S.S.P.X. Masses out of devotion, based on the letter which, although originally addressed to an individual, was published later (at the request of its author) to the general public. I realize that you disagree with this conclusion, and I understand the reasons for your disagreement. I am saddened by the way in which this issue has divided good and loyal catholics. Again, it could be clarified with relatively little effort.

–Paul

BTW, I have no dog in this fight. I last assisted at an S.S.P.X. Mass about eight years ago with a friend; other than that, my only contact was going into their chapel to pray before the Blessed Sacrament when I was at university, some twenty years ago.

 

[katolik]

ByzCath:

Hmmm, “the CHURCH would have an indult in every diocese that desires one.”

I believe that this is what we have. The Church does have an Indult in every diocese that desires one. As it is the bishop who makes this decision.

I understand that those who do not have a TLM but want one might be upset, but maybe the bishop has decided that one can not be supported. If it can be supported then I think it falls on those who want it to show the bishop this.

Yes that is why I wonder why there are no indult Masses for the Catholics of Russia, Ukraine, Lithaunia,Latvia,Belarus, Slovakia,Hungary,Norway and Finland. That’s just in Europe.
What about the 4 Indult Masses per Sunday in Poland[40 million Catholic], 5 Indult Masses in Spain[35 million Catholics], 2 Indult Masses in Portugal[10 million Catholics]? Hardly wide and generous.

 

[katolik]

Defensor Fidei:

Bulldog,

I do not dis-like you. Nor do I have a dislike to tradtionalism.

As an altarboy in the mid seventies, I can tell you (as an eyewitness) how much the Mass has changed and how sad it is to see what they have done to our Churches. Mass in the venacular is a good thing, however the way it has been handled is not.

What I dis-like is false tradtionalism. There are plenty of people who run around and make up facts and figures about what the Church used to be and what it should be like. This false tradtionalism is what is causing all the problems.

-Ted

Please don’t tell me it is my fault that there are empty seminaries,closed churches, and decrepit sacral archetecture on me. Those 100 people at the Indult Mass truly are Masons and Jews set out on destroying the Church, ya sure!

 

[Nota_Bene]

Defensor Fidei:

Bulldog,

I do not dis-like you. Nor do I have a dislike to tradtionalism.

As an altarboy in the mid seventies, I can tell you (as an eyewitness) how much the Mass has changed and how sad it is to see what they have done to our Churches. Mass in the venacular is a good thing, however the way it has been handled is not.

What I dis-like is false tradtionalism. There are plenty of people who run around and make up facts and figures about what the Church used to be and what it should be like. This false tradtionalism is what is causing all the problems.

-Ted

You got that right.

By looking so foolish, they also aid the “ultra-liberals/progressives/modernists”

 

[Nota_Bene]

Fogny:

I am not saying that, I just think that the Latin Rite is Catholic.
The Anglo- Catholic is Modernist at best.

Fogny

The Anglican-Use Mass is by indult – just like the Tridentine Mass. Both fall within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Your use of “Modernist” is simply silly.

 

[EddieArent]

BulldogCath:

Eddie-Dont you know that they have to wait and get every liberal theologian and (name removed by moderator)ut before an interpretation can be once again-is this not like the 4th time since Vatican II-that a “New” translation can be sent forth? Then they of course must run it past the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants, the Hindus, the Buddhists (did I leave anyone out) to make sure that there is nothing offensive in it.

You see, the church has forgot that they are in the business of teaching sound, solid catechism and teachings -leading to the saving of souls to keep them out of mortal sin and hell.

Heck-what is one more translation-see that is what disgusts people that are true to the faith, why the need to play with words? Why the need to change the words and meanings to the sacrments? Why did the Pope refuse to take the Papal Oath? Why Why Why??? Was the church and her traditions that bad and offensive for all of those years that it needed to be discarded?

I hear you BullDog. They say they are re-translating the new Mass. But who knows what the quality will be? I love my 1962 Missal with Latin/English. Easy, precise, translations.

Here in Orlando, I’ve all but given up for an indult. My last coorespondance was with a priest saying that there is interest, great interest in deed, but they can’t find a priest to celebrate the indult. How truthful that is when we have priests serving countless numbers of ministires and they pulling my leg by changing the status of the proposed indult on me several times isn’t good.

I went to the local SSPX chapel the past two weeks. No one was bad mouthing Holy Mother Church in any way. Just devout worship and sermons that I have never heard of in Orlando. Everyone was telling me “You go there they will say this and that about Pope John Paul II and the Novus Ordo.” Think again. The homilies were every bit as good as Father Angelus and company from EWTN. Atleast when I go there, which I plan to do often I know I’m going to a Catholic Mass.

 

[daisydots]

SouthCoast:

I’m confused. Is the “and also with you…” not a part of the standard liturgy??.. Or the extending of the hands?..

I have read that it is not theologically correct for the congregation to extend their arms when the priest does. It is because he is acting as Jesus, and it is Jesus giving you his blessing. It does not make sense, I think, since we are not Jesus or his “alter Cristus”, for the congregation to bless the priest as if we have suddenly become Jesus! magnificat

 

[Tietjen]

bear06:

Well, I agree with you but I don’t see the point. This just gets them stirred up again!

For anyone scratching their heads and wondering what this is all I about, here are some educational sites.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
tcrnews2.com/sspx.html cin.org/cinmateo.html
sspx-cult.com/SSPXDeprogramming.htm matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html jloughnan.tripod.com/sspx-1.htm home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/index.htm

ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS
catalog.osv.com/Catalog.aspx
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIC columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/jp2-vc2.html home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/schism.htm ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM - ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

Thank you for the links that I hope will help explain what all this prideful bickering is about. I was brought up in the Catholic Church but at 22 fell away until I was 37. This “falling away” was brought about by my own pride as I had my own personal disagreements with a local priest and then began to listen to the anti-Catholic propaganda of some Protestants. However, I believe that deep inside me there was always the desire to reunite with the Church and eventually that surfaced and I returned. Now, I see all this arguing and dissention and I am very confused. Are there two Churches now? My post probably sounds ignorant and I apologize for that, but I’d truly like to understand why there is such a division. The Church has but one human leader on Earth and that is the Bishop of Rome. I was born in 1965 and therefore know little about pre-Vatican II traditions; however, I have faith and believe that the Pope’s authority over the Church in all things related to faith and morals is infallible. Is this arguing concerning faith & morals or is it concerning human traditions (little “t”) as opposed to Apostolic Traditions (big “T”)?

 

[Nota_Bene]

EddieArent:

I hear you BullDog. They say they are re-translating the new Mass. But who knows what the quality will be? I love my 1962 Missal with Latin/English. Easy, precise, translations.

Here in Orlando, I’ve all but given up for an indult. My last coorespondance was with a priest saying that there is interest, great interest in deed, but they can’t find a priest to celebrate the indult. How truthful that is when we have priests serving countless numbers of ministires and they pulling my leg by changing the status of the proposed indult on me several times isn’t good.

I went to the local SSPX chapel the past two weeks. No one was bad mouthing Holy Mother Church in any way. Just devout worship and sermons that I have never heard of in Orlando. Everyone was telling me “You go there they will say this and that about Pope John Paul II and the Novus Ordo.” Think again. The homilies were every bit as good as Father Angelus and company from EWTN. Atleast when I go there, which I plan to do often I know I’m going to a Catholic Mass.

Too bad they are not Catholic like the actual Masses you see on EWTN…

 

[BulldogCath]

This is the problem in a nutshell. Before Vatican II, the defenders of the faith-the Traditionalists, were in full communion with Rome and never imagined a Council would be called and see all that was passed down for centuries (tradere is latin for passed down, hence the word tradition) get thrown out and all Thomastic teachings as well as other Doctors of the church be thrown out and Kung and his cronies be subsituted for these holy holy men. On top of that you get a new mass, a new cathechism, and new bible translation, new sacraments (which I think along with the mass leaves me most concerned, as sacrements are instituted by Christ and should not change to suit a political agenda, which Vatican II was). And then, after the council was over-those that were considered conservatives or traditionalists or whatever you want to call them-are now, schismatic for believing what they and their parents and their parents before them were taught. Never in the history of the church has something like this happened, and it will never heal with the leadership you have now.

Worse yet- everytime you turn around the Vatican is pushing out some new teaching on an subject-and never explaining why we should believe this way and why the old or past way needs to be changed or was wrong or whatever. Encyclicals are not infallible-and therefore need an explanation attached to them-as well as why 1000 people now enjoy beautification as saints.

**So to top it off-it is not arrogance-it is really a sense of pride on the part of traditionalists. And actually if you compare the wishy washy teachings of ecumenism, lay people handing out communion, and all of the changes, the new mass-and then you go to a beautiful high mass with the chanting and the feeling of reverence, it is like the traditionalist is driving the luxury car, and pulls up to a light and next to him is the Yugo or Chevy Chevette which represents the Novus Ordo mass. Why would they not feel a bit arrogant. They have 1960 years of tradition and saints behind them, and who do we have-John XXIII and Hans Kung? **

bear06:

And I will answer as a conservative Catholic…

,

There’s no dislike from me - only disagreement. You can disagree with a person and not have ill-will towards them.

I hold tradition and Tradition very dear and don’t forget that we (those who don’t have an attachment to the TLM) have been called arrogant too. This is not a one way street.

Please just look at the Vatican’s list of dissenters. It’s not even close to primarily made up of right side dissenters. Also, the “traditional Catholics” are not the only ones who have been suspended for their actions on this forum. Franciscum has also been suspended. Why is it that we (folk not attached to the TLM) aren’t always trying to make a martyr of him. BTW, can you show me where someone called someone schismatic or a dionosaur? Chances are if it actually happened it was the above mentioned person who was suspended.

 

[EddieArent]

Nota Bene:

Too bad they are not Catholic like the actual Masses you see on EWTN…

“…all members of the SSPX are Catholic Christians.”

Father Bob Levis

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=426417&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=30&Author=&Keyword=SSPX&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

Hmmm…not Catholics? EWTN would disagree. Nice try.

 

[Nota_Bene]

"…all members of the SSPX are Catholic Christians."

Father Bob Levis

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=426417&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=30&Author=&Keyword=SSPX&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

Hmmm…not Catholics? EWTN would disagree. Nice try.

You are wrong.

Unfortunately you seem to be misunderstanding Fr. Levis’ posting. Even if you weren’t, it’s not up to Fr. Levis, but rather the Church as to who is actually a Catholic Christian.

Next?