Biggest Myths About Traditional Catholics

[rapunzel77]

One instance corrupts the entire and makes it as a whole evil, not good.

 

[Shin]

I agree with this in regards to what traditionalists are upset about. I want to promote the Catholic Faith as it has been practiced for over 2,000 years with all the traditions and worldview that comes with it.

 

[rapunzel77]

One of the things that I have come to discover is that we live in a time of great ignorance, and even those who seek the basic fundamentals and deeper knowledge thereof of the Catholic Faith have to be patient and realize they have to take some time and searching to find it. God will give to those who seek what they seek, but do not assume, one year a Catholic, three years a Catholic, many years a Catholic… in these times…

I agree. This is why we must show more love to each other as well. There are many people who are ignorant. Many don’t know their faith. They don’t know what they are missing. I am a convert. I came to the Catholic faith through classic literature, history, and some movies. I know that sounds very bizarre to some but I believe that God can use anything to bring us closer to Him.

That you are still not missing many basic fundamentals that people of the past had on hand simply and easily.

Those Catholics who know tradition become upset because of this, and they themselves suffer from it to a degree too, though a lesser one.

There are many so-called traditionalists who are just as ignorant as those who go to the OF Mass. We are all in need of rediscovering the Faith and living it. I hope that I am living my Faith, trusting God and allowing Our Lady to help me every day. Sure, I fail at times. We all do. But that is all I can do is to trust and to avail myself of the sacraments, especially confession and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Much has been lost, and justly so in so many cases, because it was not loved as it should have been. But those who love it still find it. The Lord provides to all who truly do, if they keep seeking and are ready to believe.

Very, very true. We will not regain everything. This is also why I think we need to look foreward, not backward. The so-called “golden” age was not so golden. It can’t be like the “old days.” I see the pendulum swings through history. The 19th-21st centuries is a very good example of it. There are things that we must guard against. Love of traditional ways and perhaps some old-fashioned ones should not lead also to racism, sexism, and uber nationalism. The evils of the 17th-19th centuries were borne out in the 20th and on to the 21st centuries.

The key is to look to the future. Right now, there is a lot of pessimism and rightly so in some cases. However, I believe that it will be worse for all of us if we retreat into little fortresses while all hell breaks loose on the world. I came from a protestant/baptist background. They loved talking about the “rapture” and the end of the world all the time. It seemed that they were hoping for it to come soon ie. talking about how there will be massive amounts of death but they will be whisked away. Sure, we should be aware of the evils that are in the World but we also should be salt and light. I fear that we have been neither for soooo long that we don’t know how to be salt and light anymore .

 

[Shin]

I too believe God can use anything to bring us to Him, and found this out through many things… but… that He is willing to get down into the mud to seek us out, does not mean we should remain there. He comes there to bring us out of it, - there is no escaping goodness in Creation, because every evil must make use of it for the building blocks – but it is not for us to continue to live within it.

We must live for Heaven not for Earth! And the rewards for given up earth for Heaven are more different than night and day, coal and diamonds.

Poverty is one of the three Evangelical Counsels for more than one reason!

 

[Magnus467]

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?

Hooray for you! This should indeed be our attitude. I personally dislike the labels that people use like traditional and Novus Ordo Catholic (ridiculous). I think it just tears the Church apart. We should be more focused on obedience to God and following his commandments than obsessing over other things that are not necessary for salvation.

 

[rapunzel77]

I too believe God can use anything to bring us to Him, and found this out through many things… but… that He is willing to get down into the mud to seek us out, does not mean we should remain there. He comes there to bring us out of it, - there is no escaping goodness in Creation, because every evil must make use of it for the building blocks – but it is not for us to continue to live within it.

We must live for Heaven not for Earth! And the rewards for given up earth for Heaven are more different than night and day, coal and diamonds.

Poverty is one of the three Evangelical Counsels for more than one reason!

I think this is where we differ. I don’t consider Shakespeare and Chaucer and the other classic literature and the movies that I watch to be in the gutter and the mud. I believe that we need stories and myths and this is some of the greatest literature out there. We will not agree on this but I don’t believe it to be mud at all.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I too believe God can use anything to bring us to Him, and found this out through many things… but… that He is willing to get down into the mud to seek us out, does not mean we should remain there. He comes there to bring us out of it, - there is no escaping goodness in Creation, because every evil must make use of it for the building blocks – but it is not for us to continue to live within it.

If Christ was so desperate to get people out of the mud, He wouldn’t have sent His apostles into it to reach out. He’d have brought them to heaven with Him.

As you long as you eat and breathe, as long as you wake up each day, alive, you are in that mud. There is no escaping reality either.

 

[Shin]

Well, let me put it this way - if you read as much of the writings of the saints as you read of secular books, you may change your tastes, and that is the challenge I will end my part in this with, I hope.

If you give even 50/50, one will triumph over the other, and what was sweet will become more bitter, and bitter sweet.

LW, from what I’ve seen of you, you think a month’s sabbatical from watching TV and replacing it with holy writings would kill you. You might be right! Be careful the holy water doesn’t start to sting!

 

[rapunzel77]

Well, let me put it this way - if you read as much of the writings of the saints as you read of secular books, you may change your tastes, and that is the challenge I will end my part in this with, I hope.

If you give even 50/50, one will triumph over the other, and what was sweet will become more bitter, and bitter sweet.

LW, from what I’ve seen of you, you think a month’s sabbatical from watching TV and replacing it with holy writings would kill you. You might be right! Be careful the holy water doesn’t start to sting!

Reading lives of the saints and spiritual works are good. However, that isn’t the only thing that is fit for reading. Reading Shakespeare, Chaucer, Tolkien, CS Lewis, JK Rowling, etc are also good. Watching Braveheart, the Mission, the Passion, Apocalypto, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc is also good. There is no reason why one can’t do both.

 

[ncjohn]

There are many so-called traditionalists who are just as ignorant as those who go to the OF Mass.

Given your overall attitude I somehow know you didn’t mean this the way it came out.

I grew up pre-Vatican II but prefer the OF liturgy far and away. I am most assuredly not ignorant of tradition nor are those with whom I associate in similar circumstances. While I do still adhere to many of the traditions I grew up with I do not consider myself a traditionalist though I do consider myself a Tradtional Catholic. I don’t buy into the myths about traditionalists though I have to admit to having run into my share of them here who do at least appear to match some of those stereotypes.

Just thought I’d chime in because of the offensive way that statement came across. There are plenty of myths about Catholics who prefer the OF liturgy also.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well, let me put it this way - if you read as much of the writings of the saints as you read of secular books, you may change your tastes, and that is the challenge I will end my part in this with, I hope.

I read, mmkay? They have good advice but like secular works, they need as much filtering. Whereas the good things in secular works need to be filtered of the sleazy stuff, religious works need to be filtered of their Puritanical overtones.

LW, from what I’ve seen of you, you think a month’s sabbatical from watching TV and replacing it with holy writings would kill you. You might be right! Be careful the holy water doesn’t start to sting!

Oh please, the same thing would probably happen with Hellboy, Dante (from Devil May Cry), and Ghost Rider, yet they’re still heroes.

P.S.

I don’t watch TV. If I wanted to watch something, I’d use the internet. There’s a lot more variety.

 

[rapunzel77]

Given your overall attitude I somehow know you didn’t mean this the way it came out.

I grew up pre-Vatican II but prefer the OF liturgy far and away. I am most assuredly not ignorant of tradition nor are those with whom I associate in similar circumstances. While I do still adhere to many of the traditions I grew up with I do not consider myself a traditionalist though I do consider myself a Tradtional Catholic. I don’t buy into the myths about traditionalists though I have to admit to having run into my share of them here who do at least appear to match some of those stereotypes.

Just thought I’d chime in because of the offensive way that statement came across. There are plenty of myths about Catholics who prefer the OF liturgy also.

I’m sorry that I was misunderstood . What I meant is that there are some traditionalists who believe they are very knowledgeable about the Faith and adhere to tradition, etc. They think that they know more that people who go to the OF. The fact is that many Catholics, both who go to the EF and the OF are ignorant of the Faith and tradition. There are some, like yourself, who are traditionally minded who go to the Of and there are those who are not that go to the EF. Overall, many Catholics don’t know their faith. Its a sad fact. That is what I was alluding too. I hope that was clearer .

 

[ncjohn]

I’m sorry that I was misunderstood . What I meant is that there are some traditionalists who believe they are very knowledgeable about the Faith and adhere to tradition, etc. They think that they know more that people who go to the OF. The fact is that many Catholics, both who go to the EF and the OF are ignorant of the Faith and tradition. There are some, like yourself, who are traditionally minded who go to the Of and there are those who are not that go to the EF. Overall, many Catholics don’t know their faith. Its a sad fact. That is what I was alluding too. I hope that was clearer .

Thanks. I was quite sure you didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

 

[revert_jen]

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).

I never said I couldn’t stand the stereotypes. I can. A thread with the purpose of listing the stereotypes is not the same thing as a thread with the purpose of whining about them. Naturally some whining does take place, but that is by the way.

All stereotypes are natural actions of human judgement, but nonetheless all stereotypes are unjust. No group exhibits wholesale characteristics like that, unless they are the defining characteristic of the group. For example, it is unjust to say that all green-eyed people are jealous. It’s also unjust to say they are all lively. In fact the only just thing you can say about all green-eyed people is that they have green eyes.

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).

Apparently you missed my point that I don’t want to deal them a blow just because they are merely expressing a viewpoint which differs from my own, even if we do share a label. I don’t want to isolate the “bad guys” from the rest of us. I’m not without sin. I’m not without errors in judgement. I wouldn’t want to be isolated and dealt blows just for being in error, even if there were rock-solid proof that I were in error.

In the current case, those to whom you have chosen to refer in a negative manner are merely expressing a difference of opinion with you about a matter which admits of legitimate disagreement. Legitimate disagreement (at least the way I am using it) means neither side has left the bounds of orthodoxy. There is no rock-solid proof that they are in error, merely people’s opinion. So feel free to disagree, but it would be wise to be kinder about it, and also to remember, as a little spark in the back of your mind, that even if they are in error for the most part, they may have something to teach you that it would be good for you to know.

It is also somewhat insulting and very unfair to equate other posters with Jack Chick, who published many factual falsehoods. Certainly you can disagree with other posters’ interpretations of the facts, or the relevance of the saints’ writings to modern life, but unless you are suggesting that, for example, they are making up spurious quotes from the saints to support their position, you would do well to stop comparing them to Jack Chick.

–Jen

P.S. From the forum rules:

“Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.”

“Trads” may or may not be included in that stricture, but “fundies” certainly would be.

 

[revert_jen]

I read, mmkay? They have good advice but like secular works, they need as much filtering. Whereas the good things in secular works need to be filtered of the sleazy stuff, religious works need to be filtered of their Puritanical overtones.

That’s really funny. You are accusing Catholic saints of being (capital P) Puritanical? Both the Puritans and the saints would be quite offended. Well, maybe the saints wouldn’t be offended because they are saints and humility is a big virtue. But they’d certainly be amused.

And I think you’d find it hard to get support here for the opinion that the writings of the saints need “as much filtering” as a modern novel or movie.

I’ll agree that you need some cognizance of the difference between their time and ours, and some reflection that although we are all called to be saints, a) we don’t all have to be the same sort of saints, and b) it’s pretty hard to get there all in one go.

But I won’t agree that there is the same need or level of filtering required. For one thing, as we live in the culture of today, we are, in general, more likely to commit the errors of today (e.g. those same ones that are promoted in modern works), than the ones of yesterday (e.g whichever ones would be in the writings of saints from 100+ years ago). For another, the writings of the saints are at least guaranteed to be writings of holy men and women, although of course they are not in any way infallible. The secular works of today certainly do not come with the same guarantee.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

Secondly, we are not talking about judging, we are talking about how bad stereotypes are the fault of those who reinforce them.

Well, you are talking about that. Some people are talking about how when stereotypes are acted upon, the responsibility for the actions still rests firmly on the actor.

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.

So, you don’t assume that all traditionalists are bad, you just start preparing for them to be so. That’s WAAAAY different.

Seriously, though, one of the biggest hindrances to the eradication of stereotypes within an individual mind is the whole thing you are describing above. There is a not-insignificant tendency for that type of prejudicial behavior to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What can happen is, you hear that someone self-identifies as a traditionalist, and you start preparing for them to do something you consider stereotypical for traditionalists. This affects the tone of your posts, quite possibly without your knowledge, and to some extent brings about the behavior you are expecting. Your stereotype is reinforced, to some extent by your own actions, and leads to you feeling even more right in holding it. It also makes you more likely to see the stereotypical behavior even if it is not in fact present.

I’m not saying that this is something that has happened with you about this specific issue or any other issue for that matter. It is an inherent possibility with any stereotype against which one is not actively fighting, however. This phenomenon was a cause of great difficulty during the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 60s, and to a greater or lesser extent it is still a problem in race relations today. Just a word to the wise.

BTW, I would also like to say that if I didn’t respect you, I wouldn’t bother arguing with you about these things. I’d just unsubscribe from the thread.

–Jen

(Sorry to drop all these posts at once, but work got busy and I couldn’t sign on for a couple of days.)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But I won’t agree that there is the same need or level of filtering required. For one thing, as we live in the culture of today, we are, in general, more likely to commit the errors of today (e.g. those same ones that are promoted in modern works), than the ones of yesterday (e.g whichever ones would be in the writings of saints from 100+ years ago). For another, the writings of the saints are at least guaranteed to be writings of holy men and women, although of course they are not in any way infallible. The secular works of today certainly do not come with the same guarantee.

Would you rather I said medieval misconceptions and superstition? Again, like other traditionalists, you are making the mistaken implication that the eras with more saints (e.g. the middle ages) were somehow morally superior to modern times. That’s no more ignorant a statement than an atheist saying we know better now than then because of the Enlightenment.

Truth is we have never moved forward even once. When we become righteous in one aspect, we become appalling in another. Different eras, different mistakes, but still the same amount of mistakes. You claim secular works promote errors of modern day well I can definitely say the quotes provided by some people here promote errors of the old days (e.g. prudishness, lack of taste, no respect for other cultures, lack of tact, no support for human progress, lack of philosophizing etc).

Seriously, though, one of the biggest hindrances to the eradication of stereotypes within an individual mind is the whole thing you are describing above. There is a not-insignificant tendency for that type of prejudicial behavior to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. What can happen is, you hear that someone self-identifies as a traditionalist, and you start preparing for them to do something you consider stereotypical for traditionalists. This affects the tone of your posts, quite possibly without your knowledge, and to some extent brings about the behavior you are expecting. Your stereotype is reinforced, to some extent by your own actions, and leads to you feeling even more right in holding it. It also makes you more likely to see the stereotypical behavior even if it is not in fact present.

I’m not saying that this is something that has happened with you about this specific issue or any other issue for that matter. It is an inherent possibility with any stereotype against which one is not actively fighting, however. This phenomenon was a cause of great difficulty during the Civil Rights movement in the US in the 60s, and to a greater or lesser extent it is still a problem in race relations today. Just a word to the wise.

Again, how is this not the fault of the one reinforcing? And furthermore, it’s quite a stretch to say a person’s caution will cause him to see things that aren’t there. There’s a fine line between being on your guard and complete paranoia. It also takes a lot of mental leaps to go from one, to the other.

All you’ve really done is describe the process in which people become increasingly biased towards a stereotype. Again, they are not judging but merely hypothesizing and mentally preparing to handle a situation should that hypothesis be proven true. And like I said before, stereotypes can be proven true and I say this because such stereotypical traits are brought about by being a member of a certain group.

To make a long story short, people wouldn’t be getting cautious if they had no reason for it.

 

[revert_jen]

Would you rather I said medieval misconceptions and superstition? Again, like other traditionalists, you are making the mistaken implication that the eras with more saints (e.g. the middle ages) were somehow morally superior to modern times. That’s no more ignorant a statement than an atheist saying we know better now than then because of the Enlightenment.

I’m afraid that I never said anything even to imply that eras with more saints are morally superior to modern times. That one came out of your own head. I’m saying thast saints are better than non-saints. I wasn’t talking about secular writings from the middle ages versus the writings of more modern saints. I was talking about the writings of saints of whatever era versus the works of modern non-saints.

You claim secular works promote errors of modern day well I can definitely say the quotes provided by some people here promote errors of the old days (e.g. prudishness, lack of taste, no respect for other cultures, lack of tact, no support for human progress, lack of philosophizing etc).

I’m afraid it is very ignorant to accuse the middle ages of a lack of philosophizing (Aquinas???) and accusing them of a lack of taste is just silly, since that can only be your personal opinion. People from that era, seeing some modern art that involves large quantities of urine for example, might have at least as much justification in making the reverse accusation. And I’m not sure that “tact” is even a virtue.

But that is all by the way. My point never has been that the middle ages were better than the modern era. (I never bothered to look up when the saints lived who were being quoted, so I couldn’t have been referring to a specific era.) My point is that we are immersed in our own culture, so the errors of our own age are familiar to us and we have to fight them actively. The errors of another age, especially those which are in contrast to the errors of our age, immediately appear to us as errors, so we are in much less danger of falling into them. The thing that we have to be careful of, is being so immersed in our own culture that even the virtues of another age appear to us as errors.

And furthermore, it’s quite a stretch to say a person’s caution will cause him to see things that aren’t there.

What, you mean like seeing a preference for the middle ages over the modern era in a preference for saints over non-saints? That could never happen.

To make a long story short, people wouldn’t be getting cautious if they had no reason for it.

Apply everything you said to a stereotype with which you disagree, e.g. a racial stereotype, and see if what you are saying sounds just as convincing to you. It doesn’t convince me at all.

–Jen