Can I call myself traditional?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdvanceAlways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AdvanceAlways

Guest
Hey all, so this has been bugging me for a while now, and I was looking for a voice of reason, rather than someone screaming “MODERNIST!” at me…

Am I a traditional Catholic?

I only attend the Latin Mass, I recognize the validity of the NO, but I will always take the EF over it. I have and will continue to defend and promote the EF.

On another forum which I won’t name, I’ve been labeled a false traditionalist or a “modernist” because I don’t see Dignitatis Humanae and Nostrae Atatae as horrible documents which have corrupted the Church.

I have problems with how rogue priests implemented Vatican II and the liturgical disasters that ensued and are still present in some places today. It seems though that some would claim I’m a modernist because I don’t see today’s society are inherently bad and I don’t want to return to some mythical golden age of Catholicism that never existed.

So I guess, I am just wondering if I truly fit in as a traditional Catholic? Aside from the other forum I’m asking because I attended Masses with a certain cannonically irregular society for a long time but have recently reconciled with the Church and I’m still slightly confused…
 
AdvanceAlways said:
Hey all, so this has been bugging me for a while now, and I was looking for a voice of reason, rather than someone screaming “MODERNIST!” at me…

Am I a traditional Catholic?

I only attend the Latin Mass, I recognize the validity of the NO, but I will always take the EF over it. … I have and will continue to defend and promote the EF.

So I guess, I am just wondering if I truly fit in as a traditional Catholic? Aside from the other forum I’m asking because I attended Masses with a certain cannonically irregular society for a long time but have recently reconciled with the Church and I’m still slightly confused…
Click to expand...
I could not say if you fit in or not, it depends on the group.

No doubt in my mind that you are traditional, in good standing with Rome. I think most traditionalists accept Vatican II but believe problems arose after it due to changes.

I was raised Catholic during the transiton so I have experienced several forms of the Mass, and Divine Liturgy. All the liturgies require the people to be calm and attentive, and fully participate, to create the awesome reverence.
 
I’d say yes, definitely. You’re more “traditional” than I am, that’s for sure! 🙂
 
There are many traditions out there so among a few of them you will not be seen as a traditionalist. I have tried to make it a personal goal not to worry so much about what others may think and concentrate on how I am seen in God’s eyes. After pondering Scripture for a while, I see that he loves me in all my traditions as well as peculiarities.
 
Personally, I would say you were Traditional. That is a good thing 🙂
You asre loyal to Our Holy Father, and you like the TLM. You follow what the church teaches and upholds its wonderful traditions. I will pray for you, and your vocation (I read your signature!!) God Bless 🙂 :signofcross::byzsoc:
 
Congratulations on your vocation! From your post, I’m sure that you will be a tremendous asset to your seminary class! I will pray for you and I’m inspired to believe that there will be more young men with your wise approach to our faith that will follow your lead! God Bless You, and have an awesome time during your undergrad years!👍
 
Since there is neither a defined term for “traditionalist” or “modernists,” the terms are relatively meaningless except to those who place a false importance to them.

You certainly seem like a Traditional Catholic, just like the many millions of Catholics in the world who are faithful children of the Church regardless as to the form of mass that is preferred, but not a “traditionalist” as the term is bounced around here (which is, to me, a good thing).

“Modernism” has a myriad of meanings and can be as different from one person to another. According to Pope St. Pius X, I am a “modernist” because I don’t believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal story, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that the gospels were “authored” in the way that we understand authorship today. Yet, the Church does not have a problem with such points of view. So, what does all of this mean? It’s like the statement about pornography put forth by a Supreme Court Justice whose name escapes me at the moment; "I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it!" In my opinion, both terms are meaningless and only serve to cause further divisions.
 
AdvanceAlways said:
So I guess, I am just wondering if I truly fit in as a traditional Catholic? Aside from the other forum I’m asking because I attended Masses with a certain cannonically irregular society for a long time but have recently reconciled with the Church and I’m still slightly confused…
Click to expand...
Well I call myself a traditional Catholic and you are as qualified to have that label as I am. 😃

My views are pretty similar to yours and I sometimes get told that I am not a “real trad” but there are plenty of other traditional Catholics that accept me as one. You don’t have to think you know better than the Pope to be a trad.
 
Timothysis said:
According to Pope St. Pius X, I am a “modernist” because I don’t believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal story
Click to expand...
You mean literal as in “it happened 6000 years ago exactly according to the sequence of events written” or literal as in those two people existing? As I would imagine you know, Adam and Eve’s existence is known de fide.

This is not meant to be snide, but just a clarification.
 
AdvanceAlways said:
Hey all, so this has been bugging me for a while now, and I was looking for a voice of reason, rather than someone screaming “MODERNIST!” at me…

Am I a traditional Catholic?

I only attend the Latin Mass, I recognize the validity of the NO, but I will always take the EF over it. I have and will continue to defend and promote the EF.

On another forum which I won’t name, I’ve been labeled a false traditionalist or a “modernist” because I don’t see Dignitatis Humanae and Nostrae Atatae as horrible documents which have corrupted the Church.

I have problems with how rogue priests implemented Vatican II and the liturgical disasters that ensued and are still present in some places today. It seems though that some would claim I’m a modernist because I don’t see today’s society are inherently bad and I don’t want to return to some mythical golden age of Catholicism that never existed.

So I guess, I am just wondering if I truly fit in as a traditional Catholic? Aside from the other forum I’m asking because I attended Masses with a certain cannonically irregular society for a long time but have recently reconciled with the Church and I’m still slightly confused…
Click to expand...
Well - the only problem I see is a label being necessary. I am a Catholic. I was Baptised in 1956. Way before all this occured. If I was in a car accident and had an hour to live am I going to want a Catholic Priest to offer me the last Rites? Why yes , of course. If a Sedevacantist showed up first would I wait for a SSPX or a SSPV just so that I was “certain” not knowing if one might not get there in time. No I wouldnt. Personally , I get tired of people trying to tell me who is and isnt a Priest. How good or poor a Catholic I am based on where I go to recieve the Sacraments.

Ultimately on judgement day I am going to be standing before the Throne of the Lord Jesus Christ and I am going to have to render an accounting of just how good a steward I was of the Graces GOD Gave me in this life - how well I lived the Commandments - how good I was at avoiding temptation - how charitable I was and how well I lived my Faith. And since I believe in Divine providence - that sedevacantist Priest standing before my death bed would tell me all I need to know.

And you know - none of you in this forum will be there with me at that time - it will be just Me and the Lord. And it will be the same for every one of you as well. It almost seems sometimes like we are looking for divisiveness , one upsmanship or holier than thou type rhetoric when topics like this are introduced. That is my opinion , anyway.

Pax
 
excelsus said:
You mean literal as in “it happened 6000 years ago exactly according to the sequence of events written” or literal as in those two people existing? As I would imagine you know, Adam and Eve’s existence is known de fide.

This is not meant to be snide, but just a clarification.
Click to expand...
If there was a specific “first” person in all of creation, then we may call him by the name of Adam and be content that we are within the realms established by the Church.

If we are to believe in an Adam and Eve who went about in a garden and took a prohibited bite of fruit, then it is ours to believe as such, but not required of the Catholic conscience.
 
Timothysis said:
If there was a specific “first” person in all of creation, then we may call him by the name of Adam and be content that we are within the realms established by the Church.

If we are to believe in an Adam and Eve who went about in a garden and took a prohibited bite of fruit, then it is ours to believe as such, but not required of the Catholic conscience.
Click to expand...
Robert : I have no problem stating that I believe in the literal Story of Creation in Scripture.
 
Robert_Burns said:
Robert : I have no problem stating that I believe in the literal Story of Creation in Scripture.
Click to expand...
And it is your right to have your own thoughts and opinions about the subject.

I have no problem believing that the creation story in Genesis is a literary attempt by ancient authors to explain the creation of the world by God, the fallen state of the human race, the need of a redeemer and the promise of He who is/was to come.
 
You shouldn’t call yourself anything other than a Catholic.

Here’s a “traditional” pope on the topic. From HH Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical Beatissimi Apostolorum:

“24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
 
AdvanceAlways said:
I only attend the Latin Mass, I recognize the validity of the NO, but I will always take the EF over it. I have and will continue to defend and promote the EF.
Click to expand...
I don’t think labels are that important. I don’t consider myself a traditionalist but I prefer the EF and would like to see more Latin in all OF. I find myself agreeing with a lot of progressive movements but mostly these are outside of church. (I’ve only been in IT for over 35 years so changes to me are a fact of life, except they must make sense.) I think, however, more discipline is required and whatever worked before should be restored. I don’t think we’d want to relax our military discipline and, as we’re supposed to be soldiers of Christ, I don’t think we should relax our Catholic discipline either.
 
dconklin said:
There are many traditions out there so among a few of them you will not be seen as a traditionalist. I have tried to make it a personal goal not to worry so much about what others may think and concentrate on how I am seen in God’s eyes. After pondering Scripture for a while, I see that he loves me in all my traditions as well as peculiarities.
Click to expand...
Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s own tradition. What other “traditions” are you thinking of?
 
Timothysis said:
And it is your right to have your own thoughts and opinions about the subject.

I have no problem believing that the creation story in Genesis is a literary attempt by ancient authors to explain the creation of the world by God, the fallen state of the human race, the need of a redeemer and the promise of He who is/was to come.
Click to expand...
Which then of course leads to speculation about Scripture being a Work of Man and not GOD.

Take for example the Story of Balaam in Numbers :

Numbers

22:22. And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ***, and had two servants with him.

22:23. The *** seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way,

22:24. The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed.

22:25. And the *** seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:

22:26. And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him.

22:27. And when the *** saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff.

22:28. And the Lord opened the mouth of the ***, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?

22:29. Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee.

Do you believe that the beast actually spoke? Many believe this an impossibility.
They cite the fact that a donkey is physically incapable of speaking. But then we see in the New Testament :

2 Cor 12

12:1. If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

12:2. I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.

12:3. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth):

12:4. That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter.

12:5. For such an one I will glory: but for myself I will glory nothing but in my infirmities.

Its known as “Cognitive Locution”.

Therefore - to state that the Story of Adam and Eve is physically impossible simply because Man cannot comprehend the Truths of GOD is in fact a rather narrow view of Creation IMO.

Since Holy Mother the Church has taught the Spiritual Truth about Original Sin using among other things the Scriptural Account of Adam and Eve for centuries - one would have to assume that today men are less attune to the Spiritual perception than in centuries past.

I dont have a problem with Adam and Eve or with Balaam and his beast of burden as a result.

Pax
 
I consider anyone who actually believes what the Church teaches to be a traditional Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top