Can I call myself traditional?

[dconklin]

Sacred Tradition, and the Church’s own tradition. What other “traditions” are you thinking of?

There are local and regional traditions. When I went to Mass in Singapore I was not following their traditions. For instance, at the Kiss of Peace, they merely bow to each other. I was the big American reaching out to shake hands with all around me - and getting odd glances. I would not have been considered a traditionalist there.

 

[CDNowak]

There are local and regional traditions. When I went to Mass in Singapore I was not following their traditions. For instance, at the Kiss of Peace, they merely bow to each other. I was the big American reaching out to shake hands with all around me - and getting odd glances. I would not have been considered a traditionalist there.

ahh, ok.

Usually in reference to the liturgy (apart from the Traditions of various Rites), I have heard local traditions in this sense referred to as custom, to avoid confusion with the Church’s tradition.

 

[Timothysis]

Which then of course leads to speculation about Scripture being a Work of Man and not GOD.

No it doesn’t. The Church has long taught that some things in the bible are literal and some are not. If I’m not mistaken, even St. Augustine did not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

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.

Is the Bible a science book or a book of theological Truths? As a science book, it fails miserably; as a collection of theological Truths it is unsurpassed. The only “narrow view” of creation is the one that we choose to impose. It is hard to imagine that Christ would have to suffer and die so miserably because two people took a bite of fruit.

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.

On the contrary, I think that the better educated people have become in recent times has made a tremendous amount of progress in truly understanding what exactly it is that we believe. It used to be good enough for someone to ask "why did God make you"? and get a robot like response to the letter, or for someone to ask why we believe a certain belief and get the response "because father said so." The Church still teaches the Spiritual Truth about Original Sin as it always has (its in the catechism), so I don’t think the point is even one of importance.

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

Me either. I just don’t believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and neither does the Church require us to believe that.

 

[Robert_Burns]

No it doesn’t. The Church has long taught that some things in the bible are literal and some are not. If I’m not mistaken, even St. Augustine did not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Robert: Really? In which work specifically? Proof?

Is the Bible a science book or a book of theological Truths? As a science book, it fails miserably; as a collection of theological Truths it is unsurpassed. The only “narrow view” of creation is the one that we choose to impose. It is hard to imagine that Christ would have to suffer and die so miserably because two people took a bite of fruit.

Robert: Thats a somewhat simplistic view of theology. Scripture is not written in human terms - it is written in Spiritual Depth. All science books pale in comparison. Name one that has been debated as heavily for the last 2000 years . Christ suffered and died not because two people bit fruit - but because the two people who sinned against GOD did so when sin had not existed prior and thus stained all future generations. You forget - the Devil and his Angels sinned once and that was it. No redemption for them because they are on a higher plane.

On the contrary, I think that the better educated people have become in recent times has made a tremendous amount of progress in truly understanding what exactly it is that we believe. It used to be good enough for someone to ask "why did God make you"? and get a robot like response to the letter, or for someone to ask why we believe a certain belief and get the response "because father said so." The Church still teaches the Spiritual Truth about Original Sin as it always has (its in the catechism), so I don’t think the point is even one of importance.

Robert: And I think that education is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the underpinnings of free masonic thought permeate these United States and that over glorification of Science coupled with snobbery in academia has led to a concerted effort to subjugate Church teachings as nothing more than superstition or a product of a less enlightened society that was easily fooled. Unfortunately , this attitude misses the obvious point - that the Holy Ghost isnt fooled nor is the Magisterium. Scripture says what it says in an enlightened Spiritual Context that is deeper than the simplisitc definition of the average academic. Take for example the discourse of Our Lord and Nicodemus. Our Lord was not talking about the Physical but the Spiritual. And the Church teaches from Scripture under Spiritual Guidance. Hense , only it can dicern. Man in his pride , falsely thinking that man made concepts and perceptions have a place in the Spiritual Realm. Omnipotent Intelligence cannot be defined. The Scriptures are written as they are written to defeat such attempts at dicernment. Its truths revealed by Spiritual Examination. So when someone wants to talk about Adam and Eve - perhaps they should likewise discuss

 

[Robert_Burns]

Me either. I just don’t believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and neither does the Church require us to believe that.

Robert: I beg to differ

Magisterium

In affirming the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God created all things, material and spiritual, out of nothing. Here is a very brief chronology of the Church’s teaching on the creation of the universe:

561 – Pope Pelagius I writes a letter to King Childebert I in which he states: “For I confess that…Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man.” The early Church always affirmed that man was formed from the earth, and not from an ape.

1215 – Lateran Council IV – “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).

1860 – Council of Cologne – “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore, we declare that…those…who…assert…man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” The Church again affirms that man is not the product of an evolutionary process. Man was formed “immediately.”

1870 – Vatican Council I issues an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation. In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).

 

[Robert_Burns]

Me either. I just don’t believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and neither does the Church require us to believe that.

Robert: I beg to differ

1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states: “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

 

[Timothysis]

Certainly the underpinnings of free masonic thought permeate these United States …

 

[Timothysis]

Me either. I just don’t believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally and neither does the Church require us to believe that.

Robert: I beg to differ

In affirming the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God created all things, material and spiritual, out of nothing.

And nowhere have I disputed that “God created all things, material and spiritual, out of nothing.” The Church does not require a literal belief in the story of Adam and Eve anymore than they require a literal belief in the source of the world’s languages being the Tower of Babel.

 

[Robert_Burns]

You disagree?

 

[Timothysis]

You disagree?

I have no use for conspiracy theories involving freemasonry.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I have no use for conspiracy theories involving freemasonry.

Robert: And we all know that Free Masonry doesnt exist right? But isnt it funny that its a Mortal Sin to be a member. Gee imagine that, I am glad the Church doesnt pooh pooh it like you do.

 

[PJM]

=AdvanceAlways;6914514]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…

My dear friend,

Not ONLY are you Traditional, Conserative and a GOOD Catholic; your on the road to sainthood!

Keep up the GOOD WORKS,

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Thank you for all of you’re wonderful replies, I’ll take more time to respond in depth tomorrow but im on an awful wifi network right now. Your comments were very reassuring. I should throw in one more thing, another knock people have thrown at me for not being really traditional is my love for America and the Constitution. I don’t know if anyone has had similar experiences but man does that one really get under my skin. Thank you to those who offered prayers and to all y’all for replying!

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Ughh, just when I feel like I have some solid answers, more problems arise…

I’m not gonna lie, I’ve been fretting about some of this stuff recently…

From reading around here, it seems that some positions that traditionalists take and claim are the only positions acceptable by God are thing that I cannot justify nor can I support.

• I cannot and will not support monarchy on earth or a Catholic confessional state
  -I do not believe Franco was a good man (I see a lot of Franco worship from some traditional circles.)
• I believe in the American Republic, but it seems that belief in Republican government and human liberty would make me a “modernist” or “liberal heretic.”

These things are really throwing me into a hard position with my faith… I’ve been losing sleep over a lot of this because from what I’ve read here, I feel like everything that I hold dearly is anathema…

 

[floresco]

Ughh, just when I feel like I have some solid answers, more problems arise…

I’m not gonna lie, I’ve been fretting about some of this stuff recently…

From reading around here, it seems that some positions that traditionalists take and claim are the only positions acceptable by God are thing that I cannot justify nor can I support.

• I cannot and will not support monarchy on earth or a Catholic confessional state
  -I do not believe Franco was a good man (I see a lot of Franco worship from some traditional circles.)
• I believe in the American Republic, but it seems that belief in Republican government and human liberty would make me a “modernist” or “liberal heretic.”

These things are really throwing me into a hard position with my faith… I’ve been losing sleep over a lot of this because from what I’ve read here, I feel like everything that I hold dearly is anathema…

There is not some official trad manifesto that you have to pledge allegiance to. I understand being a trad as valuing tradition in general and the traditional Latin Mass in particular. The issues you mention above are not things that I even take a position on. I have not studied them sufficiently. From what I have learned they are complex questions and I expect it to take a lot of time and thought to reach an opinion. I approach these questions as a loyal and obedient Catholic looking to the wisdom of the Church for answers.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

There is not some official trad manifesto that you have to pledge allegiance to. I understand being a trad as valuing tradition in general and the traditional Latin Mass in particular. The issues you mention above are not things that I even take a position on. I have not studied them sufficiently. From what I have learned they are complex questions and I expect it to take a lot of time and thought to reach an opinion. I approach these questions as a loyal and obedient Catholic looking to the wisdom of the Church for answers.

I guess at this point, my concern isn’t even so much on the label. I’m a Catholic, no adjectives. Thanks for your reply.

 

[CDNowak]

• I cannot and will not support monarchy on earth or a Catholic confessional state
  -I do not believe Franco was a good man (I see a lot of Franco worship from some traditional circles.)
• I believe in the American Republic, but it seems that belief in Republican government and human liberty would make me a “modernist” or “liberal heretic.”

The only one that runs into any conflict with tradition is not supporting a “Catholic confessional” state, and since there is, AFAIK only one of those…

 

[AdvanceAlways]

The only one that runs into any conflict with tradition is not supporting a “Catholic confessional” state, and since there is, AFAIK only one of those…

Well of course I support that one lol!

 

[magdalina]

Ughh, just when I feel like I have some solid answers, more problems arise…

I’m not gonna lie, I’ve been fretting about some of this stuff recently…

From reading around here, it seems that some positions that traditionalists take and claim are the only positions acceptable by God are thing that I cannot justify nor can I support.

• I cannot and will not support monarchy on earth or a Catholic confessional state
  -I do not believe Franco was a good man (I see a lot of Franco worship from some traditional circles.)
• I believe in the American Republic, but it seems that belief in Republican government and human liberty would make me a “modernist” or “liberal heretic.”

These things are really throwing me into a hard position with my faith… I’ve been losing sleep over a lot of this because from what I’ve read here, I feel like everything that I hold dearly is anathema…

I a bit confused.

Why would one who labels oneself a “traditionally oriented Catholic” consider joining the Trinitarians? Although they have a long and noble history, they are not exactly thought of as friends of Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, they actively suppress its use in at least one parish here in California.

From what I know, PFSP and CNRJ [also named in your signature] are both on the traditional side of the spectrum. The Trinitarians of today seem to represent a total disconnect.

Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?

Maggie

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I a bit confused.

Why would one who labels oneself a “traditionally oriented Catholic” consider joining the Trinitarians? Although they have a long and noble history, they are not exactly thought of as friends of Traditional Latin Mass. In fact, they actively suppress its use in at least one parish here in California.

From what I know, PFSP and CNRJ [also named in your signature] are both on the traditional side of the spectrum. The Trinitarians of today seem to represent a total disconnect.

Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?

Maggie

I’ve had them in my sig since I first began discerning five years ago before I discovered the tlm.