Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[EnchantedEve]

With all due respect, you and other traditionalist Catholics are perfectly entitled to spout your opinions. That doesn’t mean that you have any authority, or that anyone should listen to you - especially when it comes to challenging papal authority and the legitimacy of Vatican II.

I do not recall anyone here claiming to speak on their own authority, or claim that their opinions have merit in and of themeselves.

Challenging Vatican II and rejecting the current Pope is never appropriate.

Really? Do elaborate, I was unaware the Holy Father receives direct revelation and never errs. I do not think anyone here was advocating sedevacantism. Why make this statement?

Keep it simple. When the priest faces the altar, the parishioners cannot hear the liturgy. In the Novus Ordo Mass, the priest faces the congregation and speaks in the vernacular. The general reasoning is that the congregation receives more spiritual benefit by 1.) actually hearing and understanding the liturgy in its entirety as recited by the priest, and 2.) that the liturgy is better understood in the language of the parishioners, and not in a language they do not understand (i.e., Latin).

So what? Worship is rendered to God, not ourselves. I am not certain why this should be an important change. The Mass is rendered for our benefit only secondarily, not primarily. To make these changes is to inverse the primary with the secondary purposes of liturgy, and therefore changes the purpose of the liturgical act. Is this not a legitimate point of concern?

Communion in the hand is still an acceptable form of receiving Communion in the Church. It is the norm in nearly every parish within the United States, and has been so for decades.
If it was truly a controversial issue, the Pope and the bishops would have banned the practice long ago.

Actually, this practice is already heavily discouraged by Rome, even if the bishops ignore it. Pope John Paul II already stated that handling of the Sacred Species belonged properly only to priests.

It is my personal opinion that the heightened criticism by traditional Catholics against the liturgy of the Novus Ordo Mass does a great deal more harm to the Church than good. These issues should be handled within the Church hierarchy, and opposition should not be voiced publicly by outspoken critics.

Where is this found in Church history? Numerous saints and laity criticized and even disobeyed Popes and bishops. I do not recall where it says in Canon Law or the Creed that upon becoming Catholic we throw away our brains.

To most Catholics - the majority of whom have never and will likely never attend a Mass in the Extraordinary form ("Latin Mass’) - the traditional Latin Mass is considered an “outdated” relic of the past. This is a general opinion of the majority of Catholics worldwide, rightly or wrongly.

What the majority of Catholics believe is irrelevant, and as you would probably agree, majority opinion holds no authority in the Church.

No. I am not interested in taking that bait. You can do your own research to determine the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, and come to your own conclusions about which traditions are relevant or not.

None. Nothing which has been ratified by the blood of the martyrs, the grace of God, and the testiment of history can ever become irrelevant, Do we therefore cast aside pre-Vatican II Papal encyclicals as irrelevant as well? Where does this road to novelty cease?

 

[Aramis]

What is the deal with cigars and traditionalists? Yucky.

currently fashionable means of getting a nicotene buzz.

Some are actually quite tasty. Both to smoke and to simply chew upon.

I quit smoking just over a year ago.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I do not recall anyone here claiming to speak on their own authority, or claim that their opinions have merit in and of themeselves.

I am speaking in general terms. Traditionalist Catholics, while representing a tiny minority of the Catholic Church, are certainly by all accounts - in my opinion - some of the most vociferous opposition to the Pope and Vatican II. I have personally read some of the most belligerent writings by lay “traditionalist” Catholics that level the most virulent criticism of the Church I have ever read. They are exceptionally vocal.

Really? Do elaborate, I was unaware the Holy Father receives direct revelation and never errs. I do not think anyone here was advocating sedevacantism. Why make this statement?

It’s never appropriate to criticize the current Pope or Vatican II in a public forum. For decorum reasons for one, and due to the damage that this heightened criticism causes.

Traditionalist Catholics are very vocal in their opposition to the current Pope and Vatican II. This is evident by anyone that has read their literature or followed the traditionalist movement for any length of time.

Sedevacantism and Conclavism are both considered to fall under the heading of the 4 generally recognized categories of “traditional Catholics”. I have already thoroughly explained this below - in more than 1 post now.

So what? Worship is rendered to God, not ourselves. I am not certain why this should be an important change. The Mass is rendered for our benefit only secondarily, not primarily. To make these changes is to inverse the primary with the secondary purposes of liturgy, and therefore changes the purpose of the liturgical act. Is this not a legitimate point of concern?

It’s only a legitimate concern to traditional Catholics. I have already outlined quite clearly the reasoning for the change. Whether you agree or disagree is another matter.

Actually, this practice is already heavily discouraged by Rome, even if the bishops ignore it. Pope John Paul II already stated that handling of the Sacred Species belonged properly only to priests.

There is already another thread that just started on this specific topic that discusses this issue in extensive detail. Let’s stay on topic.

Where is this found in Church history? Numerous saints and laity criticized and even disobeyed Popes and bishops. I do not recall where it says in Canon Law or the Creed that upon becoming Catholic we throw away our brains.

Personal opinion, as I clearly state in my response. I can also think of many Protestant leaders that criticized and disobeyed the Pope. I am of the opinion that taking this route - heightened criticism - does more harm than good and should be avoided at all costs.

Yes, you are entitled to your own independent thought. This doesn’t imply that you discard your “brain”, as you suggest. It does, however, mean that — as a Catholic — one should speak respectfully about the Pope and not engage in inflammatory, anti-papal rhetoric.

If you disagree with the Pope, or Vatican II, you are perfectly entitled to write a private letter to your priest or Archdiocese to address your concerns.

Voicing vitriolic displeasure with the Pope and Vatican II in a public forum is both ineffective and could potentially lead others away from the faith. That is the danger.

What the majority of Catholics believe is irrelevant, and as you would probably agree, majority opinion holds no authority in the Church.

By the same line of reasoning, minority opinions are generally a minority opinion for a reason.

None. Nothing which has been ratified by the blood of the martyrs, the grace of God, and the testiment of history can ever become irrelevant, Do we therefore cast aside pre-Vatican II Papal encyclicals as irrelevant as well? Where does this road to novelty cease?

The original question posed was whether I would personally describe any traditions that I felt were outdated or irrelevant. It is not my place to do so. You can read about the liturgical changes that took place as a result of Vatican II, and make your own decisions about what is relevant or outdated. I, for one, won’t be baited into a debate on personal opinions on specific traditions.

As far as novelty goes, one could argue that there have been some truly positive benefits to the changes brought about by Vatican II. I can think of not a few.

If traditionalists were truly intellectually honest, they would address both the criticisms - and the praise - of Vatican II at the same time. Unfortunately, for too many traditionalists, all you hear is hyper-criticism of both the current Pope and the “evils” of Vatican II.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I am speaking in general terms. Traditionalist Catholics, while representing a tiny minority of the Catholic Church, are certainly by all accounts - in my opinion - some of the most vociferous opposition to the Pope and Vatican II. I have personally read some of the most belligerent writings by lay “traditionalist” Catholics that level the most virulent criticism of the Church I have ever read. They are exceptionally vocal.
It’s never appropriate to criticize the current Pope or Vatican II in a public forum. For decorum reasons for one, and due to the damage that this heightened criticism causes.
Traditionalist Catholics are very vocal in their opposition to the current Pope and Vatican II. This is evident by anyone that has read their literature or followed the traditionalist movement for any length of time.
Sedevacantism and Conclavism are both considered to fall under the heading of the 4 generally recognized categories of “traditional Catholics”. I have already thoroughly explained this below - in more than 1 post now.
It’s only a legitimate concern to traditional Catholics. I have already outlined quite clearly the reasoning for the change. Whether you agree or disagree is another matter.
There is already another thread that just started on this specific topic that discusses this issue in extensive detail. Let’s stay on topic.
Personal opinion, as I clearly state in my response. I can also think of many Protestant leaders that criticized and disobeyed the Pope. I am of the opinion that taking this route - heightened criticism - does more harm than good and should be avoided at all costs.
Yes, you are entitled to your own independent thought. This doesn’t imply that you discard your “brain”, as you suggest. It does, however, mean that — as a Catholic — one should speak respectfully about the Pope and not engage in inflammatory, anti-papal rhetoric.
If you disagree with the Pope, or Vatican II, you are perfectly entitled to write a private letter to your priest or Archdiocese to address your concerns.
Voicing vitriolic displeasure with the Pope and Vatican II in a public forum is both ineffective and could potentially lead others away from the faith. That is the danger.
By the same line of reasoning, minority opinions are generally a minority opinion for a reason.
The original question posed was whether I would personally describe any traditions that I felt were outdated or irrelevant. It is not my place to do so. You can read about the liturgical changes that took place as a result of Vatican II, and make your own decisions about what is relevant or outdated. I, for one, won’t be baited into a debate on personal opinions on specific traditions.
As far as novelty goes, one could argue that there have been some truly positive benefits to the changes brought about by Vatican II. I can think of not a few.
If traditionalists were truly intellectually honest, they would address both the criticisms - and the praise - of Vatican II at the same time. Unfortunately, for too many traditionalists, all you hear is hyper-criticism of both the current Pope and the “evils” of Vatican II.

Surpisingly, I mostly agree with you. Though I consider myself traditional (although I attend the New Mass, so it is more philosophical), I am often stunned at the non-traditional manner in which trads flippantly and disrespectfully criticize the Holy Father. This is completely out of order, uncouth, and immaterial to subject. The Holy Father is always to be addressed with respect and reverence due to his office, even if we disagree.

That being said in your view, may we respectfully disagree with the Holy Father publically, if done with reverence to his esteemed office? I believe yes, which is why I mentioned the historical examples, but I am interested in your thoughts. With regarding to sedevacantism the wording you used “rejecting the current Pope,” made it seem like it addressed the sede position.

You are correct, out of hand or excessive criticism of the hierarchy and the Holy Father is a possible cause for scandal, and should be avoided.

And, wow, again I agree. Personally (I often tell my wife this), I think the Church in 1959 needed a Vatican II, and a Pope John XXIII. However, I think the inorganic and slipshod manner with which it was handled was extremely unfortunate, and alas, damaged the concept of renewal in the eyes of many, including those who did not become traditional as a result. I also feel it has been carried far and away from its original intent, in the “spirit of Vatican II.” I appreciate many of the sound ideas behind Vatican II, but I cannot accept the poor manner in which it has been executed. I am hoping the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, will instrumental in changing this.

Good call on the personal views, by the way. Could get messy, otherwise.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I am often stunned at the non-traditional manner in which trads flippantly and disrespectfully criticize the Holy Father. This is completely out of order, uncouth, and immaterial to subject. The Holy Father is always to be addressed with respect and reverence due to his office, even if we disagree.

Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

Traditionalists that disrespect the Pope and Vatican II do more harm to their cause than good.

That being said in your view, may we respectfully disagree with the Holy Father publically, if done with reverence to his esteemed office? I believe yes, which is why I mentioned the historical examples, but I am interested in your thoughts.

One of my favorite saints, Padre Pio, was always respectful towards his superiors, and according to what I have read, never took liberties to disagree with them. He always took a humble approach, and never gave voice to criticism of his superiors even if he felt otherwise.

Padre Pio is worth emulating in this manner. As a modern day saint, he was most traditional in his outlook and faith.

In my personal opinion, it is not the place of the laity to publicly rebuke the Pope, nor Vatican II.

I would even go so far as to say that rebuking the Pope - even if done respectfully and tactfully - runs the risk of swaying some listeners from the faith. I view the benefits of respectfully rebuking the Pope as inferior to keeping silent.

The best approach is to express these concerns through the appropriate channels - privately through a local priest or through the Archdiocese.

And, wow, again I agree. Personally (I often tell my wife this), I think the Church in 1959 needed a Vatican II, and a Pope John XXIII. However, I think the inorganic and slipshod manner with which it was handled was extremely unfortunate, and alas, damaged the concept of renewal in the eyes of many, including those who did not become traditional as a result. I also feel it has been carried far and away from its original intent, in the “spirit of Vatican II.” I appreciate many of the sound ideas behind Vatican II, but I cannot accept the poor manner in which it has been executed. I am hoping the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, will instrumental in changing this.

It’s not my place to judge. I will leave these decisions up to the Pope and the Church hierarchy. I do see some tremendous positives that have resulted in Vatican II, and not all negatives.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I do see some tremendous positives that have resulted in Vatican II, and not all negatives.

Agreed. However, on the saint point, do you at least believe that there were some saints who publically (and privately) disagreed with the Pope, and that this is a legitimate option, even if one you do not agree with? Just curious.

Thanks for your response.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Agreed. However, on the saint point, do you at least believe that there were some saints who publically (and privately) disagreed with the Pope, and that this is a legitimate option, even if one you do not agree with?

I suppose it’s possible. In perusing Butler’s Lives of the Saints, I don’t recall reading any saints that publicly or privately disagreed with the Pope. I am sure that at some point this happened, but I can’t cite a specific instance.

Most saints were in communion with the Pope, and did everything they could to support the Church - many by building hospitals, caring for the poor, building Catholic schools, spreading the Gospel to faraway lands, etc.

As far as the legitimacy of disagreeing with the Pope, I personally feel that these circumstances should generally be few and far between except in the most egregious and necessary of situations. The Pope needs our prayers and moral support. Criticism - especially open, public criticism - does not lend itself to moral support and degrades papal authority.

For example, is it legitimate for traditionalists to criticize the Church hierarchy over liturgical matters, such as “Communion in the hand” or “Mass in the vernacular”? To me, these issues should be addressed at the local level. Criticizing Vatican II or the Pope on these matters is unwarranted and ineffective. Changes in liturgy - especially now with the Motu Proprio in effect - can be effectively addressed within the local Archdiocese.

Most criticisms can and should be directed at the local level. If someone is dissatisfied with the liturgy in their local parish, they can take proactive steps with their local priest and Archdiocese to implement changes.

What would I consider an egregious situation warranting the Pope’s attention? Child abuse, for one. Poverty for another. There are far more serious matters than liturgical concerns - such as child abuse and poverty - that warrant the Pope’s attention.

Frankly, these arguments by traditionalists railing against the changes in the liturgy pale in comparison. If traditionalists invested 1/10th of their energy directed at changing the liturgy to eradicating poverty, the Church would be all the better.

As a Catholic, I find the arguments about the liturgical changes after Vatican II tiresome. And while some of the arguments may, in fact, be valid, the invective and virulence of the argument destroy its rationale. I would actually be more in agreement if the arguments weren’t so hostile towards the Pope, in general, and Vatican II.

I do, in fact, enjoy the Latin Mass, and even prefer it on occasion, but I also see the benefit in having the Mass available in the vernacular. I draw the line when I hear excessive criticism of Vatican II and the current Pope.

 

[franklinf]

No. I am not interested in taking that bait. You can do your own research to determine the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, and come to your own conclusions about which traditions are relevant or not.

What bait? You are the one that said you feel certain traditions are no longer relevant. I already know what I feel about traditions and their relevance. I am curious as to why you wrote that as I can’t think of any “irrelevant” or “outdated” traditions.

I am genuinely curious as to what traditions you feel are no longer relevant. Is it the rosary? Frequent confession? Abstaining from meat on Friday? Crossing oneself when passing a Church? What exactly is it that you find irrelevant for a Catholic?

 

[StGerardMajella]

I have no interest in engaging in a debate on this subject. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at answering your question. I would state categorically that there are certainly much more important and pressing issues to discuss than questions about which traditions are relevant, and which ones are not.

I personally believe - as does the Catholic Church - that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. I have no problems with traditionalist Catholics practicing traditions that they find meaningful and relevant, provided they are in communion with the Holy See.

As I said earlier, you can do your own research to determine the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, and come to your own conclusions about which traditions are relevant or not.

I will say this: Clearly, traditionalists generally object to many, many changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of these changes were, in my opinion, warranted and necessary. I do feel that some of the traditionalist rhetoric about liturgical changes is a bit over the top and a bit excessive.

Some of these traditions have been dropped due to changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of the changes were brought about by what was earlier referred to as “novelty”.

Frankly, concerns about liturgical abuses should be directed towards the local parish priest, and/or addressed through the local Archdiocese. You now have more than enough ammunition to do so through the Motu Proprio.

As I mentioned earlier, the main issue that traditionalists need to come to terms with is their movement’s heightened criticism of the Pope, and their criticism of Vatican II. This is far more serious than addressing changes in the liturgy, and which “traditions” are relevant and which ones are not.

Does it matter whether one receives Communion in the hand versus Communion at the rail? To traditionalists, this is a major issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, this is not a relevant issue.

Does it matter whether the priest stands facing the altar during Mass or turns towards the congregation to speak during Mass? Again, to traditionalists, this is a major contentious issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, they much prefer the priest facing the congregation, and do not think that this is an important nor relevant matter. For traditionalists, however, this is a major source of vociferous debate.

I could continue, but you get the general drift. Just because traditionalists find certain parts of the Novus Ordo liturgy objectionable, does not mean that their opinion is aligned with the Holy See, or the rest of the Catholic Church for that matter.

Just because traditionalists consider some traditions relevant and important, doesn’t necessarily correlate that these traditions are, in fact, truly important and relevant to the large majority of Catholics worldwide. Traditionalists, by all estimates, comprise only a tiny percentage of the entire Catholic Church.

I would also argue - as I said earlier - that I find the whole discussion tiresome, as there are many, many more important issues for the Church to address than liturgical concerns. Child abuse, poverty, and many other social issues certainly take precedent.

It would be nice for once if traditionalists took aim at addressing pressing social issues, and redirect these liturgical discussions towards more meaningful ends.

 

[franklinf]

I have no interest in engaging in a debate on this subject. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at answering your question. I would state categorically that there are certainly much more important and pressing issues to discuss than questions about which traditions are relevant, and which ones are not.

I personally believe - as does the Catholic Church - that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. I have no problems with traditionalist Catholics practicing traditions that they find meaningful and relevant, provided they are in communion with the Holy See.

As I said earlier, you can do your own research to determine the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, and come to your own conclusions about which traditions are relevant or not.

I will say this: Clearly, traditionalists generally object to many, many changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of these changes were, in my opinion, warranted and necessary. I do feel that some of the traditionalist rhetoric about liturgical changes is a bit over the top and a bit excessive.

Some of these traditions have been dropped due to changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of the changes were brought about by what was earlier referred to as “novelty”.

Frankly, concerns about liturgical abuses should be directed towards the local parish priest, and/or addressed through the local Archdiocese. You now have more than enough ammunition to do so through the Motu Proprio.

As I mentioned earlier, the main issue that traditionalists need to come to terms with is their movement’s heightened criticism of the Pope, and their criticism of Vatican II. This is far more serious than addressing changes in the liturgy, and which “traditions” are relevant and which ones are not.

Does it matter whether one receives Communion in the hand versus Communion at the rail? To traditionalists, this is a major issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, this is not a relevant issue.

Does it matter whether the priest stands facing the altar during Mass or turns towards the congregation to speak during Mass? Again, to traditionalists, this is a major contentious issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, they much prefer the priest facing the congregation, and do not think that this is an important nor relevant matter. For traditionalists, however, this is a major source of vociferous debate.

I could continue, but you get the general drift. Just because traditionalists find certain parts of the Novus Ordo liturgy objectionable, does not mean that their opinion is aligned with the Holy See, or the rest of the Catholic Church for that matter.

Just because traditionalists consider some traditions relevant and important, doesn’t necessarily correlate that these traditions are, in fact, truly important and relevant to the large majority of Catholics worldwide. Traditionalists, by all estimates, comprise only a tiny percentage of the entire Catholic Church.

I would also argue - as I said earlier - that I find the whole discussion tiresome, as there are many, many more important issues for the Church to address than liturgical concerns. Child abuse, poverty, and many other social issues certainly take precedent.

It would be nice for once if traditionalists took aim at addressing pressing social issues, and redirect these liturgical discussions towards more meaningful ends.

You just refuse to address my point. I never once said I was intending to engage in debate. You made a specific claim - that certain traditions are outdated and no longer interested. I asked for clarification - what traditions are outdated and no longer relevant. Either provide an answer or retract the statement. If you’re going to make a bold claim like that, then you should at least have an idea of some examples. Again, no debate just desiring a little clarification and detail.

Why do you keep saying that I should do research on the liturgical changes of Vatican II and determine what traditions are relevant? That is an irrelevant statement! I am asking what you feel are the outdated traditions. Furthermore, traditions don’t just refer to the Mass so I don’t see how the Conciliar documents would shed much light on your claim.

Furthermore, I resent you lumping in the response to my question with a statement on the validity of the Novus Ordo. Never once I have said that the Novus Ordo was invalid. There is no reason to insinuate that I, or traditional Catholics, feel that way. One can feel the liturgy is deficient in certain aspects and yet still be completely valid.

As for the last part of your argument, I must disagree with you. The Church’s focus must always be on the spiritual and not the temporal. The salvation of souls always comes before well-being here. Thus, the emphasis on liturgical abuses and issues rather than social issues.

 

[franklinf]

[1] Does it matter whether one receives Communion in the hand versus Communion at the rail? To traditionalists, this is a major issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, this is not a relevant issue.

[2] Does it matter whether the priest stands facing the altar during Mass or turns towards the congregation to speak during Mass? Again, to traditionalists, this is a major contentious issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, they much prefer the priest facing the congregation, and do not think that this is an important nor relevant matter. For traditionalists, however, this is a major source of vociferous debate.

1. Many Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo also don’t believe in the Real Presence, so I would say there is a very real reason for it being a major issue. It is no wonder the early Christians began receiving on the tongue as they came to fully understand the Eucharist and the protestants “reformers” re instituted receiving Communion on the hand.
2. Again, many Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo don’t regulary attend Mass, don’t receive Confession, don’t believe or practice many of the tenets of the Catholic Faith. Just because it is preferred, does that make it right? Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[StGerardMajella]

If you’re going to make a bold claim like that, then you should at least have an idea of some examples. Again, no debate just desiring a little clarification and detail.

I gave you two very specific examples widely debated by traditionalists - Communion in the hand, and the priest facing the congregation.

Re-read my response. The liturgical issues that traditionalists find so very important and relevant - and there are many - are not necessarily relevant nor important to the majority of Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo. I can’t be any more direct.

Why do you keep saying that I should do research on the liturgical changes of Vatican II and determine what traditions are relevant?

Because, frankly, it’s your movement’s issue, not mine. Traditionalists are constantly in debate over liturgical matters. And not to point you out directly - I am referring to the traditionalist movement in general.

It makes no difference to me whether Mass is said in Latin, or in the vernacular. As long as the Mass is officially recognized by the Pope, it’s fine with me.

Furthermore, I resent you lumping in the response to my question with a statement on the validity of the Novus Ordo. Never once I have said that the Novus Ordo was invalid. There is no reason to insinuate that I, or traditional Catholics, feel that way

Your movement - the traditionalist Catholic movement - very much attacks the Novus Ordo. Just read their literature, study their web sites, visit their discussion forums, and listen to their rhetoric. Anyone that studies the traditionalist Catholic movement for any length of time very much knows that the Novus Ordo is very much under attack from this movement.

In fact, they’re not even cautious about voicing their distaste for the Novus Ordo - It’s very much wide out in the open.

Obviously, not every traditionalist Catholic believes that the Novus Ordo is invalid. Agreed. Don’t take a general statement related to the traditionalist movement in general, and think that I am attacking you personally - I am not. My apologies if you took this statement personally. That was certainly not my intention.

But there are certain segments within the traditionalist Catholic movement that do most definitely attack the Novus Ordo - specifically sedevecantists, conclavists, and the SSPX.

While you might not like to be lumped in with these categories, those that attack the Novus Ordo do fall under the general definition traditional Catholicism, which is the subject of this thread.

As for the last part of your argument, I must disagree with you. The Church’s focus must always be on the spiritual and not the temporal. The salvation of souls always comes before well-being here. Thus, the emphasis on liturgical abuses and issues rather than social issues.

I definitely agree that the Church should be focused primarily on spiritual issues. Obviously, the Church feels strongly that temporal issues are important as well, as they devote considerable manpower, time, and money through their charitable efforts to eliminate poverty, etc. It’s hard to save souls if they can’t meet their most basic sustenance needs.

It does not follow, however, that spiritual salvation is necessarily determined by whether a Mass is said in Latin or the vernacular. The liturgy is very important, but the salvation of souls is not predicated on whether the priest faces the altar or not.

 

[FrancisFan516]

I can’t believe I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading this argument.

I gotta go fix my lawnmower…

 

[StGerardMajella]

I can’t believe that anyone calling themselves a traditional Catholic would attack the Pope and Vatican II.

 

[Schnitz]

StGerardMajella:

I can’t believe that anyone calling themselves a traditional Catholic would attack the Pope and Vatican II.

Why not? You “lump” conclavists and sedevecantists in with all other “traditional Catholics.” If these people don’t recognize the Pope or Vatican II, then how is this a shock to you?

 

[StGerardMajella]

Schnitz - You’re right. I’m wrong. I’ve made a terrible mistake.

 

[Schnitz]

StGerardMajella:

Schnitz - You’re right. I’m wrong. I’ve made a terrible mistake.

Lol. Come off it now StGerardMajella! You can’t leave me hanging like that! Haha. That’s not fair.

I agree with many of the concerns that you have raised throughout much of your posts on this thread. I understand where your frustration comes from in listening to many of us “traditional Catholics” whine about what we see as liturgical abuses and an erosion of our Catholic heritage/culture. However, with that being said, I also don’t think that it is very fair to those of us who do obey the Pope, accept the NO as a valid and licit mass (albeit with abuses), and see Vatican II as a valid council but still consider ourselves “tradition Catholics” to be lumped in with those heretics who reject the Papacy, etc. That is all that I am trying to get at.

God Bless.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Schnitz - Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you. I just wish more traditionalists like yourself would stand up and vocalize what you just said - that the Novus Ordo is legitimate, etc.

It isn’t fair that all traditional Catholics are painted with a broad brush.

Unfortunately, to most outsiders - and to many Catholics - when traditionalists engage in these debates, impressions are formed.

Who wants to associate with a movement that is anti-semitic? What Catholic wants to associate with a movement that rebukes papal authority? Who wants to join a movement that chastizes the modern Novus Ordo liturgy? Do I really want to be associated with a movement that is so, well, anti-Catholic?

What do you think the average Jew thinks when they hear about Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial?

What do you think potential converts think about the Catholic Church when they read an article or a discussion forum bashing the Pope?

The traditionalist movement does a major disservice to itself when it engages in these actions - critiquing the Pope, etc.

For all the good that is in traditional Catholicism - and there is plenty - these are the impressions that the outside world and Novus Ordo Catholics come away with as their first impressions of the traditionalist movement. It turns people away that would otherwise be on your side.

The traditions of the Church are valuable, and have a rightful place within the Church. Traditionalists should do everything they can to protect these traditions, and that includes taking a very vocal stand against some elements within their traditionalist movement that are stepping out of line.

 

[Schnitz]

Thank you StGerardMajella for your kind and insightful remarks. While I will speak out against what I believe to be abuses in the liturgy, wrongful implementations of Vatican II, and all of the other complaints that you are well aware of, I will also be more than willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with yourself and others like you in speaking out against those who challenge the authority of the Pope, validity of Vatican II, etc.

 

[Sir_Alec]

To most Catholics - the majority of whom have never and will likely never attend a Mass in the Extraordinary form ("Latin Mass’) - the traditional Latin Mass is considered an “outdated” relic of the past. This is a general opinion of the majority of Catholics worldwide, rightly or wrongly.

I feel sorry for any Catholic who believes that a Rite that nourished so many saints and comforted millions of people could be considered “outdated”.