Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
‘My children, the saints were so completely dead to themselves, that they cared very little whether others agreed with them. People in the world say, “Oh, the saints were simpletons!” Yes, they were simpletons in worldly things; but in the things of God they were very wise. They understood nothing about worldly matters, to be sure, because they thought them of so little importance that they paid no attention to them.’

St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
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).
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that I can’t stand the stereotypes. I said that people who base their judgments of others on stereotypes are doing something wrong. I might not have agreed with every single point that Shin and IntegraCatholic made, but they expressed themselves with clarity and charity. I am happy to be considered part of the same group as they are. I would rather be like them than dismiss opinions that I disagree with as “ridiculous.”
 
floresco said:
I didn’t say that I can’t stand the stereotypes. I said that people who base their judgments of others on stereotypes are doing something wrong. I might not have agreed with every single point that Shin and IntegraCatholic made, but they expressed themselves with clarity and charity. I am happy to be considered part of the same group as they are. I would rather be like them than dismiss opinions that I disagree with as “ridiculous.”
Click to expand...
How can you blame people for having a bad impression of you Trads when the ones reinforcing the bad stereotypes are the ones giving that impression? You know with your logic, Muslims can reprove non-Muslims for viewing Islam as a terrorist religion because of the actions of fanatical nutcases while avoiding the responsibility they have in keeping them in check. :rolleyes:
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
How can you blame people for having a bad impression of you Trads when the ones reinforcing the bad stereotypes are the ones giving that impression? You know with your logic, Muslims can reprove non-Muslims for viewing Islam as a terrorist religion because of the actions of fanatical nutcases while avoiding the responsibility they have in keeping them in check. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the sin of rash judgment:2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
    When one assumes that the trad one just met has various moral faults because of one’s stereotypes, this is not a sufficient foundation. I think the CCC is pretty clear on this. The people judging based on stereotypes are committing a sin. People in the group being stereotyped are the one’s being sinned against. We have no responsibility to take on the almost impossible task of convincing people to let go of their prejudices.
 
floresco said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the sin of rash judgment:2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
    When one assumes that the trad one just met has various moral faults because of one’s stereotypes, this is not a sufficient foundation. I think the CCC is pretty clear on this. The people judging based on stereotypes are committing a sin. People in the group being stereotyped are the one’s being sinned against. We have no responsibility to take on the almost impossible task of convincing people to let go of their prejudices.
Click to expand...
This only applies to a person, not entire groups of people. They’re two clearly different things. Secondly, we are not talking about judging, we are talking about how bad stereotypes are the fault of those who reinforce them. Thirdly, there is a difference between assuming something that is already true and hypothesizing something based on observation. I do not immediately assume every Trad I meet are the likes of Shin but I do ready myself with what words to say should that Trad prove my hypothesis for that particular encounter. And finally, following from that, you can see that stereotypes aren’t necessarily insufficient. They can be true at times. Thus, you can’t blame people for being on their guard. Period.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I do not immediately assume every Trad I meet are the likes of Shin . . .
Click to expand...
For me, your entire post was so dominated by this comment, that I was unable to absorb anything else. You are writing as if there were something wrong with Shin. This person is polite and reasonable and has opinions you disagree with. It is fine with me if you assume that I am like that. I would be honoured. I wish that I were that nice.
 
floresco said:
For me, your entire post was so dominated by this comment, that I was unable to absorb anything else. You are writing as if there were something wrong with Shin. This person is polite and reasonable and has opinions you disagree with. It is fine with me if you assume that I am like that. I would be honoured. I wish that I were that nice.
Click to expand...
Well as you can see from the other posters, I doubt everyone is going to agree with you on that one. And if you wanna know the problem I have with the likes of your friend there, I’d give a list later cuz I’m getting tired right now of repeating myself. :rolleyes:
 
JDobbs said:
IntegraCatholic: you make 2 rash judgments:

You are making a judgment that the choice of movies is devoid of consideration of the Faith.
Click to expand...
No, that isn’t a rash judgment. To choose power in se over truth in se is evil. Moreover, if someone were choosing power over truth, then there can be no legitimate consideration of the faith.
And you do? Who are you?
Click to expand...
Someone who has studied the first principles of the science of ethics.

Lost,

Please look up the principle of double effect on Google.
 
IntegraCatholic said:
Please look up the principle of double effect on Google.
Click to expand...
Already knew about it a long time ago and if anything, I can make it suit my position as much as you might probably make it suit yours.

P.S.

Unless you didn’t know, googling it also lets me in on its criticisms.
 
pnewton said:
Would it be fair to say traditional Catholics can be a bit touchy?
Click to expand...
A bit touchy you say? I have watched the Church spin out of control, what people believe or not believe change daily, mass turned around,offered to the people rather then to God.Listened about “the spirit of vatican II” till I was almost tempted to join the local sspx church. Watched vocations in our area dwindle to NOTHING.Our priest has to service 3 churchs.I am neither a N.O Catholic or traditonal Catholic, things were not perfect then , but if would be fair to say better then now! What ever happened to just being a Catholic!
 
garyfigurski said:
A bit touchy you say? I have watched the Church spin out of control, what people believe or not believe change daily, mass turned around,offered to the people rather then to God.
Click to expand...
First, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is always offered to God, so I have no idea what you meant by that statement.

Now, If one bothers to go back to the statement made over a month ago, in the context, he would find that someone said he was a bit touchy as a traditionalist. Then another poster made a big deal about capitalization on an internet post. :rotfl: Since this thread is about myths (if you remember the topic) then I thought I would add the question connected to the grammar issue. This thread has sense become much harsher and antagoinstic than it was then. I apologize if my attempt to lighten things up caused your blood pressure to elevate.

I would like to add one more thing in regards to stereotypes being reinforced here. It is unwise to base any stereotype from people who post here. I suspect that there are some that strongly dislike the traditional mindset, yet pose here as traditionalists to show an absurd paradoy of anger and venom. Do not assume all is as it appears. I saw one poster last week that did this. As I mulled it over, there have been others that have come and gone by way of banning so fast, I think this may be happening. This is just one more reason to avoid broad-based assumptions.
 
All I know with my many years on this earth is that I am plain vanilla Catholic. Nothing fancy…I attend Mass regularly, try to keep the 10 commandments, help others when I can, pray daily and love Jesus deeply with all my heart. I thought this was what a Catholic was. Now I am confused by traditional, non-traditional and Catholics born before the 1960"s. And all these abbreviations make the thread hard to read. EF, JP2…etc. I’d have to find a place to look up what they all mean! What ever happened to plain English language and being a standard Catholic?
 
IntegraCatholic said:
I trust principles of moral theology over a list published by mystery man in the Vatican.
Click to expand...
That’s fine for you but it isn’t what the Church’s position has been on the subject of movies.
The statement was: I am not going to change because I would lose power. What else is that than (literally) serving of mammon?
Click to expand...
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like this.
No moral literature or art from that time depicts adultery in the way that modern society does, to take one example.
Click to expand...
That isn’t true. The King Arthur Legends and some of the Canterbury Tales depict adultery. In fact, there were many stories and songs about the subject at the time.
Modern man at his worst.
Click to expand...
This is very condescending. In what way was I being “modern” man at his worst? It is very true that stories weather told in books or on the screen or stage can give some insight into love and grace, etc. This is a common fact. There is nothing “modern” about that.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I didn’t say any of that is wrong.
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t say that exactly but you have been implying that you can’t find any of that stuff in movies.
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.
Click to expand...
This quote is very strange. It would seem that you didn’t read a thing that I said. I believe strongly that one needs to be discerning and that it does depend on the context of the movie. By your criteria, movies that depicts the horrors of war or someone who is living a terrible lifestyle but is redeemed in the end could not possibly be good movies to watch because it shows “bad” stuff in it. This is not the sort of criteria that the Church uses. This is very rigid and and absurd because by this criteria no Shakespeare can be read and seen or anything else in classic literature as well. You can’t read Oedipus or the Divine Comedy or the Decameron or the Canterbury Tales. I am merely pointing out that the criteria that you mention is not Catholic teaching. It is your own opinion. That is all.
 
Based on some of the posts I’ve seen on this particular board, folks consider themselves traditional Catholics if they attend Mass every Sunday.
 
If art depicts sin in such a way that it normally entices others to sin by reading it, then it is morally evil art.

Paintings, TV, books, you name it.

One instance corrupts the entire and makes it as a whole evil, not good.
  1. So: A TV show that flashes some body parts – morally evil. Not good.
  2. A man, viewing a movie, which flashes a body part and focuses the camera, and plays the suggestive music, is entering a near occasion of sin. He is not permitted to do that, he is morally obligated to -not- do this. If he expects a show will do this, and he will fall into temptation – whether he knows for certain or not it will do this, he must avoid it. He must hate the temptation itself given into or not.
  3. Viewing these things casually, tempted by them or not, makes one succumb to believing they are acceptable rather than realizing the true depth of the offense to God they are.
Certain books can be edited to remove bad content by those who would not be enticed to sin by it, but this approach well, don’t rely on it.

This isn’t really “traditional”, it’s basic plain Catholic stuff. 🙂 I’m not a ‘trad’, I reject that shorthand label, I’m just a plain Catholic I’ll defend myself that much.

When I see Catholics who understand that to love tradition is to -be- Catholic and the myths and realities… It is to be expected they are upset by the destruction of tradition, Catholics are a suffering people who have seen devastation throughout the entire Faith. But that is not all they are, or all they must allow themselves to be. They must take joy in what they have of God, and be at peace with Providence however much ruined things are.

Some Catholics are so overly sorrowed and rightly angry at what has occurred that they have overly embraced these passions rather than the joy of their faith. But also those who did the destruction and continue it, like to pretend that all they do is good, and so any conflict they pretend to be the victims of rather than the originators of. Like the innocent face assumed by the wreckovaters who actually intend the destruction of the sanctuary.

Showing the beauty of the sanctuary as well as the ugliness of their work is the way they are defeated. 😃
 
pnewton said:
First, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is always offered to God, so I have no idea what you meant by that statement.

Now, If one bothers to go back to the statement made over a month ago, in the context, he would find that someone said he was a bit touchy as a traditionalist. Then another poster made a big deal about capitalization on an internet post. :rotfl: Since this thread is about myths (if you remember the topic) then I thought I would add the question connected to the grammar issue. This thread has sense become much harsher and antagoinstic than it was then. I apologize if my attempt to lighten things up caused your blood pressure to elevate.

I would like to add one more thing in regards to stereotypes being reinforced here. It is unwise to base any stereotype from people who post here. I suspect that there are some that strongly dislike the traditional mindset, yet pose here as traditionalists to show an absurd paradoy of anger and venom. Do not assume all is as it appears. I saw one poster last week that did this. As I mulled it over, there have been others that have come and gone by way of banning so fast, I think this may be happening. This is just one more reason to avoid broad-based assumptions.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. What I was pointing out about the Mass is with the priest facing the people we have closed ourselves in a circle of priest and people. It draws our attention to the priest(for me anyway) and the priest to “showmenship” a little black humor on my part.
 
Another interesting phenomenon on this board is that new posters tend to post many faith and/or morals questions here, as opposed to the apologetics board.

I believe they are either interpreting the ‘traditional’ to mean something more like ‘authoritative’, or, they actually know the difference and want to hear an explanation from traditional Catholics as opposed to the modern Catholic apologists/liturgists.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Another interesting phenomenon on this board is that new posters tend to post many faith and/or morals questions here, as opposed to the apologetics board.

I believe they are either interpreting the ‘traditional’ to mean something more like ‘authoritative’, or, they actually know the difference and want to hear an explanation from traditional Catholics as opposed to the modern Catholic apologists/liturgists.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I hadn’t noticed this, interesting! I agree with the approach. The so-called ‘traditional’ interpretation is the safer to start from, and work off of, rather than the looser.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top