Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think if you take a look at the movies you find acceptable currently, and just use these two guidelines – no low cut dresses, or too high, no passionate kisses between the unmarried, and no ‘the Lord’s name taken in vain’, you’ll have a lot more to cull from your viewing collection than you think you do.

If you don’t good. I don’t want to derail so I’ve been trying to close this after making the point. Have I made it? I think I have.

Th only point you’ve made is that the stereotypes surrounding Trads have a firmer basis in reality than some of the nicer Trads would like to believe (no offense, rapunzel). Thanks for being the example, no really.

 

[rapunzel77]

It’s a simple equation. One doesn’t take the Lord’s name in vain. One isn’t pleased by it.

One doesn’t play recordings that do it either, not much difference than saying it yourself, if any.

One doesn’t, especially with men, sit them in front of people immodestly dressed. Especially when the TV cameras like to focus on this. Or see the ‘spice’ of a ‘forbidden romance’ as something acceptable.

I think if you take a look at the movies you find acceptable currently, and just use these two guidelines – no low cut dresses, or too high, no passionate kisses between the unmarried, and no ‘the Lord’s name taken in vain’, you’ll have a lot more to cull from your viewing collection than you think you do.

If you don’t good. I don’t want to derail so I’ve been trying to close this after making the point. Have I made it? I think I have.

Its not that simple though. You must look at the context of the movie. The setting, etc. Catholics are not prudes. We are not meant to be in little fortresses and flies in amber who think it is still 1950. Those two guidelines are silly. It doesn’t take into any consideration the content, the plot, the setting of the movie, book, etc. Again, with that criteria Shakespeare would have to be thrown out. So would Chaucer, all the Greek plays, etc. You would have to throw out most classic literature as well as the movies that are associated with them. That is not a good criteria.

 

[Shin]

Its not that simple though. You must look at the context of the movie. The setting, etc. Catholics are not prudes. We are not meant to be in little fortresses and flies in amber who think it is still 1950. Those two guidelines are silly. It doesn’t take into any consideration the content, the plot, the setting of the movie, book, etc. Again, with that criteria Shakespeare would have to be thrown out. So would Chaucer, all the Greek plays, etc. You would have to throw out most classic literature as well as the movies that are associated with them. That is not a good criteria.

Well we will have to agree to disagree.

‘Remember also that for you certain useless books, though not bad, will be pernicious; because they will make you lose the time that you can employ in occupations profitable to the soul. In a letter to his disciple Eustochium, St. Jerome stated for her instruction that in his solitude at Bethlehem he was attached to the works of Cicero, and frequently read them, and that he felt a certain disgust for pious books because their style was not polished. He was seized with a serious malady, in which he saw himself at the tribunal of Jesus Christ. The Lord said to him: “Tell me; what are you?” “I am,” replied the saint, “a Christian.” “No,” rejoined the Judge, “you are a Ciceronian, not a Christian.” He then commanded him to be instantly scourged. The saint promised to correct his fault, and having returned from the vision he found his shoulders livid and covered with wounds in consequence of the chastisement that he had received. Thenceforward he gave up the works of Cicero, and devoted himself to the reading of books of piety. It is true that in the works like those of Cicero we sometimes find useful sentiments; but the same St. Jerome wisely said in a letter to another disciple: “What need have you of seeking for a little gold in the midst of so much mire,” when you can read pious books in which you may find all gold without any mire?’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

Some people look in the mire for gold… others look in the treasury. It’s impossible to dig in the dirt without getting dirty. And when you get used to it, you no longer understand that you are… so you have to get out of it, just get out of it, at least for the time necessary to realize. And so:

‘Deny your desires and you will find what your heart longs for. For how do you know if any desire of yours is according to God?’

St. John of the Cross

Give it a chance. Just give it all up for a time. Replace it with a spiritual practice! See if it does you good. Give it a try! I will pray for you!

 

[Aramis]

Who are these people? At a street level and within parishes I think trads are largely invisible and unheard. How many N.O. attenders are even aware of any or what is troubling them?

Internet forums and blogs are a niche area compared to the wider Church.

In Anchorage, some of them made a big show of going forward to communion on their knees the entire way; others would show up for fellowship times (AKA Coffee and Donuts) following masses and talk loudly about how great the local SSPX shrine was. Others still taking every chance possible to talk about “how great the mass was in the 50’s…”

The knee-walkers were asked not to drop to their knees until they got to the front, because generally, they were slow, and tried to block others going around them. Obviously focused upon the visbility of their actions and their “visible piety.”

Several of the Traditionalist crowd make a big show of walking out during the processional if they see female altar servers. (Many more simply suffer through, then complain during fellowship time.)

Mostly, tho’, it’s the “complain to anyone who will listen” types that most of us will encounter away from the SSPX and FSSP oratories.

Then there are the “drop the literature” types… and the literature in question often makes claims the SSPX doesn’t… but is distributed by pro-SSPX laity and lists mass times at an SSPX oratory.

It’s even more obnoxious when they show up to a Byzantine parish, and then start complaining about the lack of Latin during the fellowship time. Especially when it was in Slavonic.

One “Trad” showed up at St Nick (A Ruthenian parish), and then started complaining about the use of the vernacular, and the singing not being “proper Gregorian Chant,” the priest “wearing Orthodox vestements,” women not being veiled, the lack of a rosary before “mass” (he showed up at 940… just as matins were beginning; the rosary was started at 905 and ended at 930…), the lack of cassocks on the servers, and the lack of sanctus bells (which are prohibited by the Ruthenian rubrics), and commemorating the “wrong bishops”… Oh, and Monsignor’s lack of Birretta was also an issue for him, and the crown bothered him something fierce, too. In short, he showed up and made a complete *** of himself. He later started showing up at various roman parishes… handing out SSPX chapel recruiting flyers… flyers which denied the validity of the Bishop and the OF mass, and listing the local Shrine of St. Therese SSPX Chapel mass times.

By contrast, I know of several families who receive on their knees, but do so in a manner that doesn’t make life difficult for others. I know of one family that won’t attend any parish that uses female altar servers (I can’t think of a single Roman parish that doesn’t in the Anchorage area aside from the SSPX chapel; the Ruthenian parish doesn’t, either, as Ruthenian Particular Law for the Metropolia prohibits them).

We have about 4 Traditionalist Roman Rite families at St. Nick; all of them have come to accept that (1) it’s NOT a Roman parish (2) they are not going to latinize it any (3) it is a beautiful and valid expression of the catholic faith, (4) No one is going to comment on veils one way or the other unless you just got a new one, and (5) the rest of the parish isn’t that interested in the Latin Mass so it’s not a happy topic of discussion. We also have one Traditionalist Anglican who attends, because he rejects the Episcopal Church’s ordination of active homosexuals, Women, and actively homosexual Women… He’s pretty clear that, given the choice, he’ll go for an Anglican Ordinariate parish should one open.

 

[floresco]

Th only point you’ve made is that the stereotypes surrounding Trads have a firmer basis in reality than some of the nicer Trads would like to believe (no offense, rapunzel). Thanks for being the example, no really.

I saw somebody who was stating a view that you disagree with. I didn’t see anything loud or obnoxious about it. If I am not allowed to state my opinions in order to be considered a “nicer trad” then I am turning in my card.

By the way, could you remind me why you are in charge of saying which trads are acceptable? I can’t remember.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Shin, that was a very good post. Wonderful passage from St. Alphonsus, too. I’ve come across it a couple times in my reading of his works, and both times it struck me. I am glad to have this important refresher.

Again, with that criteria Shakespeare would have to be thrown out. So would Chaucer, all the Greek plays, etc. You would have to throw out most classic literature as well as the movies that are associated with them. That is not a good criteria.

One has to distinguish possible justifying factors for studying such works. For example, Chaucer and Shakespeare had such an influence on the English language, such that any student of English needs to read their works. Likewise of most classic literature. “Kicking back and watching a movie” isn’t a good enough reason. There are any number of legitimate recreations. Movies aren’t a necessity. Even if there were not a single moral movie available, one could still divert himself in hundreds of other ways.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I saw somebody who was stating a view that you disagree with. I didn’t see anything loud or obnoxious about it. If I am not allowed to state my opinions in order to be considered a “nicer trad” then I am turning in my card.

Who says being loud and obnoxious were even the primary highlights of a bad Trad stereotype? The loud and obnoxious part is only what makes them easier to notice and have people treat as the representative.

The traits of the bad stereotype, well I can make a list (and I believe rapunzel already hinted some of them). Looking at your buddy Shin there, you won’t find a finer example of why people (not just OF Catholics) can’t stand Trads.

By the way, could you remind me why you are in charge of saying which trads are acceptable? I can’t remember.

You tire of stereotypes yet you have one who reinforces it right there. You are exhibiting the very irony I was talking about.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One has to distinguish possible justifying factors for studying such works. For example, Chaucer and Shakespeare had such an influence on the English language, such that any student of English needs to read their works. Likewise of most classic literature. “Kicking back and watching a movie” isn’t a good enough reason. There are any number of legitimate recreations. Movies aren’t a necessity. Even if there were not a single moral movie available, one could still divert himself in hundreds of other ways.

We’re not just talking language here. We’re talking art and that in of itself can be a necessity when one chooses art as their career path. Then you have to consider all the academia and knowledge that comes in the perfection of such arts. I’ve watched many movies during my American, African, Asian, and European literature classes alone and they would make the likes of St. Alphonsus faint, but guess what? That just gave me more practice in applying literary theories in critiquing. Got pretty high marks too. Such knowledge can grant power and with that power, you can influence the world with your craft. I’m not about to throw such knowledge away because someone (saint or not) told me to be afraid of getting myself dirty.

This is the problem I have with those who actually embody the worst of Traditionalist stereotypes, they emulate the medieval, Savonarolan zealotry of promoting in a bubble and prefer to close up the doors of the Church from the world. If that was what Christ intended for us, then I don’t see the point in the blessing of the Apostles with the gift of languages nor the trials of Paul the Evangelist.

 

[revert_jen]

You tire of stereotypes yet you have one who reinforces it right there. You are exhibiting the very irony I was talking about.

Actually, I don’t recall anyone mentioning being “anti-TV” as being a traditionalist characteristic, although I might have missed it. Also, I have met with devout non-traditionalist Catholics (and also Protestants) who were against TV. You can classify anyone who disagrees with you as being some sort of evil traditionalist if you like, but don’t expect everyone to agree with you.

I totally disagree with Shin’s point of view (although I can’t watch a lot of network TV myself, USA has some good shows, and there are lots of great movies, and I read a LOT of books), but his point of view was expressed kindly, non-insultingly (well, not insulting to us assuming we’re not film-makers ), with supporting quotes from the saints.

So what is wrong with him expressing that POV? Are the only people who are allowed to express themselves the people whose views you personally consider to be reasonable? I thought the point of coming on a forum like this was partly to interact with people who have different views from our own, not to revile them for conforming to your personal view of what a traditionalist is like. At least he didn’t engage in name-calling, or saying that “everyone can’t stand” a group of people which, by the way, is the point of this group (meaning the Traditional Catholicism forum) and AFAIK have not done anything to deserve that you insult them.

Sure, feel free to disagree with him and other traditionalists. They can feel free to disagree with you. But why are you calling on other traditionalists to start “cutting down the volume of their nagging cries for the reverse of civilization?” And why, in Heaven’s name, were any of us considering doing it? (I know you can’t answer that one, but I can’t either.)

I think I’d rather just take the stereotypes, inaccurate as they are for me, than form a pack with the other “good trads” so we can go baying after anyone who calls himself a traditionalist but has views we don’t like.

Rapunzel managed to disagree without name-calling and derision. She has chosen the better way.

–Jen

 

[Lutheranteach]

-that all we do is whine and complain about anything “modern”
-that we think that the 50’s and before was the golden age of the Church and that we want to get back to those times.

Those are the ones that I see Traditional Catholics, on an anecdotal basis, of perpetuating.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I’ve watched many movies during my American, African, Asian, and European literature classes alone and they would make the likes of St. Alphonsus faint, but guess what? That just gave me more practice in applying literary theories in critiquing.

This is why throughout history theatre has always been considered a bad profession, even worse than lawyers…

Got pretty high marks too. Such knowledge can grant power and with that power, you can influence the world with your craft. I’m not about to throw such knowledge away because someone (saint or not) told me to be afraid of getting myself dirty.

Some choose to save their souls; some choose to serve mammon.

If that was what Christ intended for us, then I don’t see the point in the blessing of the Apostles with the gift of languages nor the trials of Paul the Evangelist.

The Catholic Middle Ages are wrong. Modern secular society is right.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

-that we lack a sense of humor

I think this may be a common image of the Right. As my priest pointed out in a homily, true humor is a virtue ~ eutrapelia. I don’t think anyone who reads GK Chesterton or Abp Fulton Sheen could miss the humor in both and in the writings of many saints throughout history.

-that we hate Jews and are anti-semetic

Apparently praying for the salvation of the Jews is anti-Semetic according to modernist ecumenicist thinking. One would think that if we were anti-Semetic, we would be calling down judgment on the Jews instead.

-that we refuse to have interfaith discussions with people of other religions/denominations

As long as it is ordered towards the conversion of people to the True Faith and not “mutual enrichment of our respective religious traditions” or some such nonsense, then sure.

-that we hate all forms of music except for Chant and polyphony

I primarily listen to Power Metal.

-that the women must dress almost if not entirely like the amish or the duggars

When I visited the monastery and lay community at Clear Creek, Oklahoma, there were many girls in homemade dresses and such. But that seems to simply be a product of the culture down there. I will (probably) never really experience Flannery O’Connor’s experience of being a Catholic in the Protestant South but it seems to me that if you live in the rural South, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or atheist, you will probably dress similarly.

Traditionalists may have a better grasp on what it means to dress properly than NO Catholics. I’ve never seen anyone wearing short-shorts and tank tops to a traditional Mass, nor are jeans and a t-shirt popular attire. We should dress conservatively all the time but especially at Church. Most men wear button-up shirts with jackets (the little boys look adorable) and most women wear skirts or dresses and veils.

-that Vatican was a terrible council and that it might be close to an illegitimate council

Vatican II has serious problems, of which are too numerous to go into here.

-that it is fine to follow clergy and bishops who are either excommunicated or suspended or just independent

No orthodox Catholic would think so. The sedevacantists only do so because of their flawed Ecclesiology.

-that we are uncharitable and elitist.

Fr. Ripperger, FSSP, has a talk about some of the problems in the Traditionalist movement. He mentions a certain “neo-gnosticism” among strains of Traditionalists who see the Old Rite almost as a kind of “secret knowledge” for the few rather than trying to get all people interested in Tradition. As I am part of a parish that is growing rapidly, I don’t really see that locally, but I have seen elements of that on Trad forums.

The same goes for being uncharitable. Certainly all forms of sin against charity, including detraction and calumny, seem to be popular past times among certain Traditionalists against members of the hierarchy, but they remain sins still the same and true Catholics should recognize the line between resisting falsehoods and attacking people. My priest had a whole homily a couple months ago on making sure we treat priests and bishops with respect, even when we criticize them because the office they hold demands respect even if the man who holds that office fails to live up to our expectations personally or in his duties.

-that we are racist

The Trad. movement does seem to be very white. Hopefully we don’t uphold the Catholic version of the Episcopalian WASPs, but it is something that we do need to address. I was talking to a Filipino guy on the bus on my way to Mass on Sunday and he asked me if there were many Filipinos there and I admitted that it was mostly white. This is something that we should work on.

Of course, if my social beliefs are aligned by the Southern Poverty Law Center or other far-Left groups as “extremist Right-wing” or “racist” or “supremacist” or whatever, I’m fine with that

-that all we do is whine and complain about anything “modern”

There is a difference between “modern” and “modernism”. I have a netbook, a cell phone and a Blu-Ray player and all sorts of modern things but try to avoid modernism (and yes, even with all that junk, consumerism/materialism). I’m not sure exactly what “modern” things are, if you look at the way people function individually and in society, it’s fundamentally the same today as it was a thousand years ago or five thousand years ago.

I’ll still complain about modern art though

-that we think that the 50’s and before was the golden age of the Church and that we want to get back to those times.

The 1950s were already influenced strongly by modernism, which had begun to attack the Church in large numbers by the 1920s. I wasn’t alive then but I can still see the influences.

-that we won’t watch any movies made after 1965

Yesterday, I watched “The Fifth Element”. Saturday, I watched the new Toy Story (in 3D!). I like certain movies from the 1950s, 60s and before but those are just the major classic movies that everyone loves.

I know, I know the list is endless. Granted, there are some traditional Catholics who reinforce some of these myths. I’ve known some.

Every stereotype has elements of truth. Sometimes Irishmen (or Germans or Russians) really are drunks and the French snooty and Italians loud. Of course, we want to present Catholic Tradition as a universal thing and not a sort of subculture but sometimes it is difficult, especially in a post-Christian society and after liberals/progressives/modernists have confused Catholics for so many years about what the Church actually teaches.

 

[rapunzel77]

This is why throughout history theatre has always been considered a bad profession, even worse than lawyers…

Some choose to save their souls; some choose to serve mammon.

The Catholic Middle Ages are wrong. Modern secular society is right.

You are proving the stereotype again with these statements. The Church has not taken this position about the theatre, movies, etc. In fact, the Church encourages the arts even to the point of drawing up a list of 45 films in 1995 that the Vatican believes to be must see movies. I think that the list can be expanded but they list so very good movies on there that you and Shin would find appalling.

I also think you are being very condescending with your statement, “some choose to save their souls, some choose to serve mammon.” We need to be discerning. This is correct. However, we don’t need to shut ourselves off from everything either. As for as your other statement “The Catholic Middle Ages are wrong. Modern secular society is right,” I find to be insulting. This is not what I nor Lost Wanderer is saying. In fact, you would probably find the Catholic Middle Ages to be appalling too. They were not prudish nor were they stern, rigid, etc. In fact they were very lively and bawdy at times. Just look at some of their literature and art, specifically in the margins of illuminated manuscripts of the Gospels, etc. Also, check out some of the very interesting statues in some of the Cathedrals. They were not afraid to talk about nor to depict all aspects of human nature and society. We shouldn’t be afraid either. Granted, we need to be discerning. We shouldn’t fill up our minds with trash. Literature, theatre, art, and film speaks to the human condition by depicting our hopes, fears, hatred, and love. The great myths and stories are very important to learn and to retell over and over again. In fact, one can probably gain more insight into love and grace from a movie than they can by just reading theology books. The themes of love, honor, sacrifice, etc as well as the themes of pain, betrayal, cowardice, etc are depicted very well in literature and film. This is also why the Church has never condemned it. In fact, She has done the opposite.

There is good stuff out there. I know there is because I have in my possession some very good movies. I have handpicked them myself for various reasons. All of them have heart and are enjoyable to watch. Granted, some of them depict violence. There is probably some “bad” words in it too, etc. However, they are very good and well done movies.

Life isn’t sterile nor austere. It is full of pain and sorrow. It also also full of joy and love. It is both ugly and pretty. This is why Shakespeare and Chaucer and Dickens still endure. It is also why movies like Schindler’s List, Gone with the Wind, the Mission, Braveheart, the Toy Story Trilogy, Gladiator, Apocalypto, the Original Star Wars trilogy, the Lord of the Rings, Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, the Wizard of Oz, Dances with Wolves, Avatar, Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero, etc are considered very good movies. They have heart. They depict life in all its pain, ugliness, joy, and love. They retell some of the oldest myths in new ways. We need stories. We need art. We need good films. Film is just as much a worthy medium to tell a story in as literature is. It all depends upon the the movie. I know there is a lot of trash out there. Most of my movies are either historical, fantasy, action, sci-fi, or drama films. I have very, very few comedies since there are so many trashy ones. Again, it all comes down to discernment. Everyone’s tastes are different. Its fine if you and Shin don’t like movies but don’t imply that those of us who do are selling our souls. That is what I find offensive.

 

[rapunzel77]

I think this may be a common image of the Right. As my priest pointed out in a homily, true humor is a virtue ~ eutrapelia. I don’t think anyone who reads GK Chesterton or Abp Fulton Sheen could miss the humor in both and in the writings of many saints throughout history.

I completely agree. It is a sad image that I think we need to work to change more.

Apparently praying for the salvation of the Jews is anti-Semetic according to modernist ecumenicist thinking. One would think that if we were anti-Semetic, we would be calling down judgment on the Jews instead.

Praying for the conversion of the Jews is a good thing. What I do find disturbing are some of the conspiracy theories and of course some who think that what bishop foot in mouth said about the Holocaust was true.

As long as it is ordered towards the conversion of people to the True Faith and not “mutual enrichment of our respective religious traditions” or some such nonsense, then sure.

That is fine but I think it first starts with being friends and understanding where they are coming from and even acknowledging that they have some good in their systems. That is what the Church has always done.

When I visited the monastery and lay community at Clear Creek, Oklahoma, there were many girls in homemade dresses and such. But that seems to simply be a product of the culture down there.

I’ve been there too. It is a beautiful and very peaceful monastery. My personal style is more behemian. I like peasant shirts and flowy skirts. I guess I dress like a hippie sometimes …lol.

Vatican II has serious problems, of which are too numerous to go into here.

True. However, I specifically pointed out that one because weather we like it or not, Vatican II is a council of the Church. It isn’t the super council but it is still a council. Some traditionalists act as if they can ignore it completely.

Fr. Ripperger, FSSP, has a talk about some of the problems in the Traditionalist movement. He mentions a certain “neo-gnosticism” among strains of Traditionalists who see the Old Rite almost as a kind of “secret knowledge” for the few rather than trying to get all people interested in Tradition. As I am part of a parish that is growing rapidly, I don’t really see that locally, but I have seen elements of that on Trad forums.

Sadly, this is very true and it is this in particular that needs to be fixed.

The same goes for being uncharitable. Certainly all forms of sin against charity, including detraction and calumny, seem to be popular past times among certain Traditionalists against members of the hierarchy, but they remain sins still the same and true Catholics should recognize the line between resisting falsehoods and attacking people.

True.

The Trad. movement does seem to be very white. Hopefully we don’t uphold the Catholic version of the Episcopalian WASPs, but it is something that we do need to address. I was talking to a Filipino guy on the bus on my way to Mass on Sunday and he asked me if there were many Filipinos there and I admitted that it was mostly white. This is something that we should work on.

Thank you . At my parish, since it is downtown, we do get a variety of people from various ethnic background. However, much that I see in the traditionalist movement is to eurocentric. I love European culture and history but I also see a lot to admire in other cultures too. This is also why when it comes to dress codes, music, art, literature, movies, etc it won’t necessarily be the same to someone from a different culture. I don’t think they all need to look like white mid-westerners or Europeans. I think that if the traditionalist movement wants to expand then these issues need to be addressed more. We need to work on it.

Of course, if my social beliefs are aligned by the Southern Poverty Law Center or other far-Left groups as “extremist Right-wing” or “racist” or “supremacist” or whatever, I’m fine with that

I understand that. My social beliefs are in line with the Catholic faith. However, I’m not completely a conservative.

There is a difference between “modern” and “modernism”. I have a netbook, a cell phone and a Blu-Ray player and all sorts of modern things but try to avoid modernism (and yes, even with all that junk, consumerism/materialism). I’m not sure exactly what “modern” things are, if you look at the way people function individually and in society, it’s fundamentally the same today as it was a thousand years ago or five thousand years ago.

I was referring to the arts, etc.

I’ll still complain about modern art though

I second this too .

The 1950s were already influenced strongly by modernism, which had begun to attack the Church in large numbers by the 1920s. I wasn’t alive then but I can still see the influences.

Exactly. I think I get this more from the elderly though. They are the ones that I see that want things back the way they were. We can’t go backward. We can only go forward.

Of course, we want to present Catholic Tradition as a universal thing and not a sort of subculture but sometimes it is difficult, especially in a post-Christian society and after liberals/progressives/modernists have confused Catholics for so many years about what the Church actually teaches.

I know it is difficult but if we don’t do it then no one will. I want to show that the traditional Catholic Faith is attractive. I also want to show that we aren’t all bitterman trads who have no sense of humor and complain all the time. That is a sad way to live and I am sure it is not the way that Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Church would have us live.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

In fact, the Church encourages the arts even to the point of drawing up a list of 45 films in 1995 that the Vatican believes to be must see movies. I think that the list can be expanded but they list so very good movies on there that you and Shin would find appalling.

I trust principles of moral theology over a list published by mystery man in the Vatican.

I also think you are being very condescending with your statement, “some choose to save their souls, some choose to serve mammon.” We need to be discerning. This is correct. However, we don’t need to shut ourselves off from everything either.

The statement was: I am not going to change because I would lose power. What else is that than (literally) serving of mammon?

In fact, you would probably find the Catholic Middle Ages to be appalling too. They were not prudish nor were they stern, rigid, etc.

Not at all. And I don’t idealize them, either. I am not a stern or rigid person, actually. I also have a lot of experience with the history of Europe on a first-hand basis, re: your following comments.

They were not afraid to talk about nor to depict all aspects of human nature and society.

No moral literature or art from that time depicts adultery in the way that modern society does, to take one example.

In fact, one can probably gain more insight into love and grace from a movie than they can by just reading theology books.

Modern man at his worst.

The themes of love, honor, sacrifice, etc as well as the themes of pain, betrayal, cowardice, etc are depicted very well in literature and film. This is also why the Church has never condemned it. In fact, She has done the opposite.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn’t say any of that is wrong.

Film is just as much a worthy medium to tell a story in as literature is. It all depends upon the the movie.

I disagree that it is as worthy, but that is basically what I’ve been saying. You’re saying that it doesn’t depend upon the movie. It just depends whether it has something good in it. It’s okay if there is bad, just so long as there is good. I’m saying that it depends upon the movie: there cannot be objectively evil things in it. Otherwise, it is evil. You have to take it in toto. That is how a moral act works.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So what is wrong with him expressing that POV? Are the only people who are allowed to express themselves the people whose views you personally consider to be reasonable? I thought the point of coming on a forum like this was partly to interact with people who have different views from our own, not to revile them for conforming to your personal view of what a traditionalist is like. At least he didn’t engage in name-calling, or saying that “everyone can’t stand” a group of people which, by the way, is the point of this group (meaning the Traditional Catholicism forum) and AFAIK have not done anything to deserve that you insult them.

You’re missing the point. Who said anything about denying them their right to express their views, ridiculous they may be? I am just saying that since you people can’t stand the stereotypes, then you oughta take it up with the people reinforcing them (like Shin and IntegraCatholic).

Sure, feel free to disagree with him and other traditionalists. They can feel free to disagree with you. But why are you calling on other traditionalists to start “cutting down the volume of their nagging cries for the reverse of civilization?” And why, in Heaven’s name, were any of us considering doing it? (I know you can’t answer that one, but I can’t either.)

I think I’d rather just take the stereotypes, inaccurate as they are for me, than form a pack with the other “good trads” so we can go baying after anyone who calls himself a traditionalist but has views we don’t like.

Rapunzel managed to disagree without name-calling and derision. She has chosen the better way.

Apparently you missed the part a few posts back where I said disagreeing with them is equal to handing them a blow. Anything that isolates one member from the rest of those he/she identifies with is an effective way to kill any impression that said person represents them. Again, Jack Chick is the best example out there (along with the a few fundies I know on YouTube).

 

[white_sheep]

I deny the opinion that I must have been alive before the 60’s and that there must have been no problems in the Church liturgy prior to 1960 for me to hold the opinion that the traditional liturgy is better.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The statement was: I am not going to change because I would lose power. What else is that than (literally) serving of mammon?

Then I guess those who get into politics or engage in the scientific community are also condemned for serving Mammon regardless of their intentions to use such power for the Christian cause.

Oh yes, power is eeevil.

I’m saying that it depends upon the movie: there cannot be objectively evil things in it. Otherwise, it is evil. You have to take it in toto. That is how a moral act works.

No, that is how you think moral acts work. Reality though, exists to defy your moral perfectionist standards. The section regarding the ethics of war found in the Catechism is a clear cut evidence of that.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Then I guess those who get into politics or engage in the scientific community are also condemned for serving Mammon regardless of their intentions to use such power for the Christian cause.

Oh yes, power is eeevil.

To choose power over truth is evil.

No, that is how you think moral acts work. Reality though, exists to defy your moral perfectionist standards. The section regarding the ethics of war found in the Catechism is a clear cut evidence of that.

You don’t understand ethics. If you are unwilling to learn the first principles of the science, I can’t continue to discuss something about ethics with you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

To choose power over truth is evil.

Impossible. Truth is the source of power. When you know something is true, you can use that knowledge to your advantage.

You don’t understand ethics. If you are unwilling to learn the first principles of the science, I can’t continue to discuss something about ethics with you.

No, more like you have a skewed, black-and-white view. All you say is that something must be 100% good or else it’s all evil. The reality of just wars on the other hand, don’t seem bound to that.