Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[CWBetts]

They were not airing opinions but demonstrating facts. I hope you will actually read the document befre you comment further - or simply open a 1962 Missal alongside a 1969 one. As the old storytellers used to say around the hearth fire at the end of their tale, “Ní mé a chum nó a cheap é” – ‘I didn’t just make this up’.

To help you out, look at the Mass for All Souls Day. Can you quote for us where, in the Novus Ordo Mass, it mentions the word ‘soul?’
When you have done this, an intelligent discussion can ensue.

I am unsuubscribing from this thread because I will no longer tolerate to be made to feel that I am less Catholic by some arrogant jerk who seems to support an organization (SSPX) that until only recently, had excommunicated Bishops among its numbers.

 

[mullenpm]

CW, I agree and am out of here also.

The thread has been overtaken by the SSPX :sad_yes:

:knight2::knight1:

 

[numealinesimpet]

I am unsuubscribing from this thread because I will no longer tolerate to be made to feel that I am less Catholic by some arrogant jerk who seems to support an organization (SSPX) that until only recently, had excommunicated Bishops among its numbers.

If Our Lord will forgive my using the Line…“If there was harm in what I said, show us the harm in it”. Instead of calling names, CWBetts could have replied to my simple questions.

A Catholic can always back up his statements, because our religion is based on the Truth. The SSPX have never been afraid to debate their points. That is one reason I personally have respected them. Now, on the web, is a golden opportunity for us to air our different perceptions, exchange information, and work together towards a resolution of the many conflicts in the Church and the World. I believe in honest debate.

The fact is: A careful comparison of the 1962 (Tridentine) Missal and the 1969 (Novus Ordo) will show a very disturbing fact: certain entire facets of Catholic theology have been simply edited out of the Novus Ordo text. And this was done “silently”, as proofreaders say: no official statement has been made, you can only find out by comparing the two Missals side by side.

Let me give an example: The Collect for the Feast of S. Fidelis Sigmaringen has been edited in line with a trend that is seen throughout the Missal. Phrases deleted from the old Collect are in square brackets.

“O God, who didst vouchsafe to inflame the soul of] Blessed Fidelis [with seraphic ardour,] & to adorn him with the palm of martyrdom & with glorious miracles] in spreading the true faith: we beseech Thee, through his merits and intercession, so to strengthen us] by Thy grace in faith & charity, that we may deserve to be found faithful in Thy service unto death].”

A short booklet on this topic, packed with quotations from the published texts – and not a mere statement of opinions – is Rev. A. Cekada’s “The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass” ISBN 0-89555-447-X.

 

[numealinesimpet]

CW, I agree and am out of here also.

The thread has been overtaken by the SSPX :sad_yes:

:knight2::knight1:

The title of this thread is, “Can someone explain traditionalism to me?” Newcomers to the trad/Modernist conflict within the Church are invited to consider what the trads have been saying for decades: “The party which gained the upper hand after Vatican II refuse to debate the issues.” Can this be because they have no answer?

This is a free forum. Anyone is entitled to contribute, provided they keep to the rules of courtesy and honest reporting of alleged facts.

Pope Benedict has now invited the SSPX bishops to doctrinal discussions relating to the Second Vatican Council. In his letter explaining his move, he praised the good fruits of what we might here call the Traditionalist segment of the Church (without repudiating other movements in the contemporary scene). Is it asking too much for us to exchange views and reliable facts, within the rules of the forum?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Some may be amazed that the Sedevacantist heresy is entertained at all. With your patience, I will explain a little further.

In the atmosphere of the 1950s, Catholics and Protestants took positions of open enmity, fully supported by their religious superiors. The Protestants believed, and taught in their schools, the most outrageous lies against the Catholics. I sat in on a Religion class in England about 1963 wherein the pupils were solemnly told by their teacher, “The monks spent their time gorging on food and getting drunk. The Friday law against meat was introduced because it was the only way to get these blighters to starve”. Protestant schoolchildren were taught that the bibles were chained in monasteries because the Catholic church wanted to stop people reading it. This was first alleged, I think, by Luther. It did not seem to occur to any of them that, since the Bible only got to them by being handwritten for 1100 years by Catholic monks (including the Greeks, who were in union with Rome for many centuries after the Apostles) … if the Church had wanted people not to read the Bible, they would simply have stopped copying it out … which of course raises the interesting point that we can only accept the Bible on trust from the Catholic Church, as no original copies of the Gospels or other biblical books remain in existence.
On the other side, Catholics stoutly denied that any but the tiniest minority of the Popes were anything but the saintliest and most learned of men. In Ireland, if you so much as hinted at anything else, you were in serious danger of being knocked down in the street. Some of them were. Yet this also was a falsification of history.
When the lovely film ‘The Song of Bernadette’ was released, readers from the North of Ireland will remember how it was received! The cinemas were packed. In ‘mixed areas’, the Prods all sat down one side of the cinema, & the Papists (the ‘Taigs’, as we are affectionately known by the Prods) sat on the other. The moment the (obviously saintly) Bernadette made her appearance on the screen, all the Taigs cheered at the top of their lungs, and all the Prods booed! And so on throughout the film! It was like a b****y football match!
By 1960,however, things were wearing thin. When Pope John issued his encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris’, [Peace on Earth] addressed, not merely (as was the custom) to the Catholic Church, but ‘to all men of good will’, it struck an immediate chord. He was not known as ‘Good Pope John’ for nothing. Whatever else may be said against him, he broke the ice, and let a little kindness back into a region that had hardened for perhaps too long. S. Paul tells us, that in a conflict it is the stronger who must give way a little, out of charity to his weaker neighbour.

To be continued …

 

[CWBetts]

Ok I will bite. The SSPX is in no way a group of loyal Catholics. They ignore the idea of obedience to the Holy See. As far as word changes in the Liturgy: as long as the meaning does not change, as long as the intent does not change, actual words are not that important to retain validity. If exact wording was important, then Eastern Catholics could not be in communion with Rome, because their Divine Liturgy is not Identical to the Liturgy of th Eucharist found in the Missal. I stand by my statements. Th SSPX and their followers display an almost unbrlievable hubris. They think they know more than the Vatican. Kind of reminds me of Martin Luther.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Ok I will bite. The SSPX is in no way a group of loyal Catholics. They ignore the idea of obedience to the Holy See. As far as word changes in the Liturgy: as long as the meaning does not change, as long as the intent does not change, actual words are not that important to retain validity. If exact wording was important, then Eastern Catholics could not be in communion with Rome, because their Divine Liturgy is not Identical to the Liturgy of th Eucharist found in the Missal. I stand by my statements. Th SSPX and their followers display an almost unbrlievable hubris. They think they know more than the Vatican. Kind of reminds me of Martin Luther.

Tnx, CWBetts. I did not mean to sound offensive. I apologise if I did so. It is not easy in cold print to get the nuances across.

On just one point for this posting:

As far as word changes in the Liturgy: as long as the meaning does not change, as long as the intent does not change, actual words are not that important to retain validity.

The problem with the post-Vatican II Church is nothing so obvious as a crude denial of an infallible dogma. So much is done by insinuation and especially by silence. This, I might add, is where the Sedevacs fall down in throwing around the charge of heresy. The Church, as such, has never actively taught a heresy. (With one possible exception: that of Religious Liberty). But since the 60s she has not succeeded in weeding out those in positions of authority who have taught explicit heresies.

Now I will give, not an incontrovertible quotation of some text, but my own judgment – opinion if you like – of what has been happening.

Most adults do not study their Faith actively after they leave school. Their main, if not only, contact is with the Sunday Liturgy. Now approximately 75% of all the actual prayers of the TLM were omitted in the NO (that at least is verifiable fact). Even as regards the Readings, although the 3-year cycle was described in so many words by the Vatican as “opening up more lavishly the treasures of Holy Scripture to the Faithful” – the reality is that all the ‘hard sayings’ have been deleted out. The range of Scripture has been narrowed, not broadened.

Meanwhile, ‘for reasons beyond the scope of this posting’ … the schools stopped teaching the catechism.

The combined effect of all this was devastating. The older generation, trundling along to the new Order of Mass, did not notice the omissions. Their children, however, denied any other access to the content of the Faith, never learned certain essential components of the Faith. Also, they were denied the experience of the Presence of Holiness by a Liturgy which, by set intention, was more folksy, people-oreinted, yet less directed to the Presence of the Holy.

The end result was that the younger generation lapsed en masse, and their parents could not figure out why.

As an antidote to this, I affirm that the Traditional Way really works.

Where does the fight back start? I affirm without hesitation that it starts with daily recitation of the family Rosary.

Sr Lucia of Fatima said this:–

The most holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or, above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary.  There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.  With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves; we will sanctify ourselves; we will console Our Lord, and obtain the salvation of many souls.

**
Conversation between Sr Lucy of Fatima & Father Fuentes, 26 Dec 1957.

 

[CWBetts]

Religious Liberty is not hersy. In fact, it was alluded to by St. Augustine of Hippo. I will take the word of a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH over you, no offense. I would take the word of a Doctor of the CHurch over my own )very fallible) opinions. We cannot, must not frce conversions. A person is free to choose whatever religion he wishes, and we cannot force them to become Catholic. Religios Liberty does notsay that all religions are of equal value.

 

[numealinesimpet]

We trads are grateful to Pope Benedict XVI for affirming in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that (contrary to a widespread misconception) the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated.

This would be an opportune moment to scotch, once and for all, some common false accusations against Archbp. Lefebvre: e.g. that he was excommunicated by Pope Paul II and is in schism, and that he declared the New Order of Mass to be invalid.

To some readers: I must aologise if any of this seems to be getting very technical: yet the law is our protection, and there are times when a very precise statement is needed. I have tried to give it in the following, of which a version was published in many Irish newspapers:–

On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin - not Pope John Paul - declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops has ever been excommunicated. Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine, and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.

The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl Gantin - which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority - is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a yellow line, while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon.

Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith. Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”. This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to find a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. They are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Religious Liberty is not heresy. In fact, it was alluded to by St. Augustine of Hippo. I will take the word of a DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH over you, no offense. I would take the word of a Doctor of the Church over my own (very fallible) opinions. We cannot, must not force conversions. A person is free to choose whatever religion he wishes, and we cannot force them to become Catholic.

Agreed. When this has been attempted, the results have been disastrous. The most glaring case was that of Charlemagne, who forcibly ‘converted’ the North German tribes, by the sword and by trickery, instead of leaving it to the bishops, who were qualified in these matters. Charlemagne (9th century) acted from the best of motives. He realised that a nation would self-destruct if its members did not share a common vision. "Where there is no vision, the people perish’. But he was in a hurry to consolidate his Empire, and the North Germans were in a strategic location. I have heard that the North Germans never did quite catch on to the Catholic Message. And, of course, it is from them that Martin Luther came.

Religious Liberty does not say that all religions are of equal value.

The immemorial Catholic position is that one may need to tolerate the adherents of a false religion within the nation, for the greater good; but that they have no right as such to their error. Our Lord said, “All they who are of the truth hear My voice.” Yet, as it says in S. Paul somewhere, ‘How will they believe, if they have not heard?’ Hence, the Catholic practice was to allow individuals to continue with their religion in the private forum but not in the public forum, unless the greater good of the community demanded it. Yet this was a toleration from the Church, not a ***right inherent ***in the individual. Nobdy has the right to be wrong. To affirm this is a sin against the First Commandment. We can be allowed to be wrong, but we have no right to be wrong.

Now the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty directly contradicts this when is states that individuals have the right to practise their own religion in the private and in the public forum. This is a 180 degree reversal of all previous teaching.

Luckily, thanks to the nota praevia (see future posting!) this directly heretical statement, in the corpus of documents of Vatican II, is declared not to be infallible and therefore, in light of its direct contradiction of all previous teaching, is not binding on the Faithful.

 

[CWBetts]

Agreed. When this has been attempted, the results have been disastrous. The most glaring case was that of Charlemagne, who forcibly ‘converted’ the North German tribes, by the sword and by trickery, instead of leaving it to the bishops, who were qualified in these matters. Charlemagne (9th century) acted from the best of motives. He realised that a nation would self-destruct if its members did not share a common vision. "Where there is no vision, the people perish’. But he was in a hurry to consolidate his Empire, and the North Germans were in a strategic location. I have heard that the North Germans never did quite catch on to the Catholic Message. And, of course, it is from them that Martin Luther came.

The immemorial Catholic position is that one may need to tolerate the adherents of a false religion within the nation, for the greater good; but that they have no right as such to their error. Our Lord said, “All they who are of the truth hear My voice.” Yet, as it says in S. Paul somewhere, ‘How will they believe, if they have not heard?’ Hence, the Catholic practice was to allow individuals to continue with their religion in the private forum but not in the public forum, unless the greater good of the community demanded it. Yet this was a toleration from the Church, not a ***right inherent ***in the individual. Nobdy has the right to be wrong. To affirm this is a sin against the First Commandment. We can be allowed to be wrong, but we have no right to be wrong.

Now the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty directly contradicts this when is states that individuals have the right to practise their own religion in the private and in the public forum. This is a 180 degree reversal of all previous teaching.

Luckily, thanks to the nota praevia (see future posting!) this directly heretical statement, in the corpus of documents of Vatican II, is declared not to be infallible and therefore, in light of its direct contradiction of all previous teaching, is not binding on the Faithful.

You have now shown me that you are simply someone who has misinterpreted the Vatican 2 documents, as is true with most traditionalists who rail against the council

 

[numealinesimpet]

You have now shown me that you are simply someone who has misinterpreted the Vatican 2 documents, as is true with most traditionalists who rail against the council

Are you going to show me where I am wrong?

 

[CWBetts]

Are you going to show me where I am wrong?

The Religious Liberty doctrine says that we cannot force conversion or persecute others for their beliefs, therefore everyone has an inherent freedom in choice as to haow they worship. To say otherwise robs people pf their dignity because it denies them their free will.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Religious Liberty doctrine says that we cannot force conversion or persecute others for their beliefs, therefore everyone has an inherent freedom in choice as to haow they worship. To say otherwise robs people pf their dignity because it denies them their free will.

You are still ignoring the vital distinction. To repeat, this has always been conceded in Catholic thought – in the private forum. However, it cannot be allowed in the public forum, for the sake of the common good. A huge amount of damage has been done since the mid-60s as a result of the neglect of this distinction. The explicit repudiation of this true Catholic doctrine in the Decree on Religious Liberty – that single word AND – “in the public AND private forum” … is the nearest thing to a direct heresy in the whole Vatican II corpus. One direct result was that all states that were avowedly Catholic were instructed by the Vatican to remove this from their State constitutions. This included Ireland. I believe it happened in Spain, Malta, the Phillipines, Portugal and elsewhere. All this was raised by Mge Lefebvre in audience with Pope Paul VI. “your Holiness,” he protested, “We have Moslem States, Protestant States, Atheist states: but we are no longer allowed to have Catholic States!” According to Mgr Lefebvre, the Pope simply refused to adress the issue, saying, “Perhpas … but let us leave these theological issues”.

For literally centuries, the popes had repeatedly warned that ‘Religious Liberty’, fine-sounding as it is, in practice makes it impossible to practise any religion. It is destructive of all religions.

The facile liberalism that had been infecting the world for centuries, and against which the Church had so valiantly fought, was suddenly adopted [although not in a binding way] as official Catholic teaching.
Facile? This “Religious Liberty” is a game of pampered Western intellectuals, whose worst visible enemy was the Catholic church with its nasty restrictions. Citizens of other parts of the world have truly said that the proponents of this have no conception of what it would really be like to live under some of the religions that are around.

Consider ancient Mexico. They believed, no doubt sincerely, that to keep the sun shining required a constant supply of fresh human blood. Naturally, they fulfilled their religious duties by ensuring that the sun did, in fact, continue shining.

Under the Principle of Freedom of Religion in the Public domain, must they be allowed to continue? If not, under what principle can they be restrained? Under what principle can abortion be restrained? That they may practise their own religion, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else? But by what principle is this an infallible statement? What if they reply, “Sorry, that rule isn’t in our religion, and we demand the right to practise our own principles?”

These identical arguments, to repeat, were put forward repeatedly by the popes and the Church for centuries. Now they are still advanced only by what are termed the Traditionalists. You will find all this on the web. It’s not as if the documentation were under lock and key.

 

[I_Believe]

So I have only been Catholic for two years. And this means what? That I don’t know anything? I know that when Traditionalists start crowing about things they see as abuses which are not, it annoys me. I still fail to see where VII really changed anything. The vernacular started creeping into the Mass before the first session of VII ever met. Archbishop Fulton Sheen espoused openess to other faiths as early as 1953. The council was pastoral. No new Dogmas, just clarification on practices. Yet Traditionalists hearken back to some nostolgic era that probably never was. Nostolgia is funny that way.

Carl, go over to Liturgy and Sacraments. Look at the titles of the threads. The majority of the threads on Liturgical Abuse are not posted by trads. They are posted by confused Catholics wanting to know what the heck is going on in their parishes.

I’m glad you are now Catholc, even if you disagree with every word I say. My point is, as a new Catholic, you can’t see why trads are in the fight in the first place. And when they try to explain their positions, you pooh pooh their words as arrogant. All they want is to place the crown back on our Lord’s head. That’s all. All agendas are not evil.

 

[CWBetts]

You are still ignoring the vital distinction. To repeat, this has always been conceded in Catholic thought – in the private forum. However, it cannot be allowed in the public forum, for the sake of the common good. A huge amount of damage has been done since the mid-60s as a result of the neglect of this distinction. The explicit repudiation of this true Catholic doctrine in the Decree on Religious Liberty – that single word AND – “in the public AND private forum” … is the nearest thing to a direct heresy in the whole Vatican II corpus. One direct result was that all states that were avowedly Catholic were instructed by the Vatican to remove this from their State constitutions. This included Ireland. I believe it happened in Spain, Malta, the Phillipines, Portugal and elsewhere. All this was raised by Mge Lefebvre in audience with Pope Paul VI. “your Holiness,” he protested, “We have Moslem States, Protestant States, Atheist states: but we are no longer allowed to have Catholic States!” According to Mgr Lefebvre, the Pope simply refused to adress the issue, saying, “Perhpas … but let us leave these theological issues”.

For literally centuries, the popes had repeatedly warned that ‘Religious Liberty’, fine-sounding as it is, in practice makes it impossible to practise any religion. It is destructive of all religions.

The facile liberalism that had been infecting the world for centuries, and against which the Church had so valiantly fought, was suddenly adopted [although not in a binding way] as official Catholic teaching.
Facile? This “Religious Liberty” is a game of pampered Western intellectuals, whose worst visible enemy was the Catholic church with its nasty restrictions. Citizens of other parts of the world have truly said that the proponents of this have no conception of what it would really be like to live under some of the religions that are around.

Consider ancient Mexico. They believed, no doubt sincerely, that to keep the sun shining required a constant supply of fresh human blood. Naturally, they fulfilled their religious duties by ensuring that the sun did, in fact, continue shining.

Under the Principle of Freedom of Religion in the Public domain, must they be allowed to continue? If not, under what principle can they be restrained? Under what principle can abortion be restrained? That they may practise their own religion, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else? But by what principle is this an infallible statement? What if they reply, “Sorry, that rule isn’t in our religion, and we demand the right to practise our own principles?”

These identical arguments, to repeat, were put forward repeatedly by the popes and the Church for centuries. Now they are still advanced only by what are termed the Traditionalists. You will find all this on the web. It’s not as if the documentation were under lock and key.

Youa re endorsing the persecution of non-Catholics. You aren’t a member of the IRA are you?

 

[PJM]

Like all strings this OP has gotten just wee bit off track

I’d like to respond to the original question.

It is not so much how ones practices our Roman Catholic Traditional Faith, as it is understanding how and why we should practice our Faith.

The Theology, of who we are in relation to our God, has changed in a most notable and dramatic way. And as the Pew Report shows, not for the better.

Prior to the ending of Vatican II in 1965 the Sacred Liturgy was the center of Catholic GOD CENTERED worship. Today, one can ask if this is still the case, and the truthful response is often it is not.

With the removal of Communion Rails, removal often of the Tabernacle to other locations, priest saying Mass to [no longer for] the laity, by facing them and like it or not, being “on stage.” Our once sacred Liturgy is at least as much about us as it is about God.

This has been further exasperated by the influx of the laity to roles that for nearly 2,000 years were exclusively the Priest and Bishops, so the lines of authority have been greatly muted and frankly somewhat confusing. *

The effect of these changes is to effectively change the very purpose of why we attend Mass, and what the sacred Liturgy should be about.

CCC 1074 “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; it is also the font from which all her power flows.” It is therefore the privileged place for catechizing the People of God. “Catechesis is intrinsically linked with the whole of liturgical and sacramental activity, for it is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that Christ Jesus works in fullness for the transformation of men.”

**CCC 1324 **The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

One can ask does today’s Liturgy still meet these Teachings? The answer is sadly no. Our Liturgy has become increasingly “Horizontal- people focused” and as a natural result, far less of a Vertical God centered focus has evolved.”

Comparing stats from 1965 to today clearly gives evidence of how wrong what we are doing
has been and continues to be.

Tradition or non-Tradition is not really the issue. Our understanding of who and what God is and who and what we are in relation to this knowledge is what the true issue is. One could make a very strong case that we have lost much of our God centered perspective, so by default, Traditionalism is regaining this lost treasure of the Roman Catholic Church.

Love and prayers,
Pat*

 

[Nicandro]

What is traditionalism?

You have fallen into a soup of Imago Dei theology while clinging to the croutons of the Latin Rite.

Don’t worry, the Chef made the soup to stay hot until the end of days.

 

[numealinesimpet]

You are endorsing the persecution of non-Catholics. You aren’t a member of the IRA are you?

No, I am not a member of the IRA. Ah, so we are resorting to personal insults, are we? Or ‘guilt by association’, one of the favourite unfair ploys of The world? Your debating didn’t last very long before it descended again…

(You forgot to ask me whether I am anti-Semitic.)

What I am doing is repeating Catholic teaching.

You will find that many of the “orientations” of Vatican II were condemned, sometimes word for word, by generations of popes. Mgr Lefebvre always said that he accepted Vatican II in the light of Catholic tradition. You will notice that none of these particular “orientations” are actually binding on the faithful. That is what the Catholics nowadays named as traditionalists have been trying to tell the rest of the Church all this time. Now at last a real debate is opening up.

You are endorsing the persecution of non-Catholics.

CWBetts mentioned S. Augustine. It is interesting what S. Augustine actually said about heretics who refuse to be persuaded.

The American State has made a fairly successful attempt at building a community including different religions and ancestral cultures. One way it has done this is to enshrine in its secular law the Separation of Church and State. This, however, in Catholic teaching is a situation to be tolerated as the lesser of two evils: it is not the norm, or the desirable state. We speak otherwise every time we say the Our Father.

The private individual is not allowed to take certain courses of action even if a Greater Good can be perceived. For example, I cannot kill my neighbour even if I am sure that he will commit a string of murders. But the ruler(s) of a country are precisely under an obligation to safeguard the Common Good, even if it is detrimental to particular individuals. They must weigh it up… That is precisely what they are there for, in the scheme of things. What is forbidden to a private individual may be a duty, under pain of mortal sin, to the ruler. That is why Capital punishment is lawful in principle, even if it is not always appropriate, whereas it is unlawful just to gun down your neighbour in the street. You must report him to the law enforcers. And they must enforce the law. Meanwhile, the legislators are under an objective obligation to pass laws that are in conformity with the Divine Law. God established the Catholic Church to keep alive until the end of the world the knowledge of what the Divine Law actually is. That is why we are duty bound to pray for our rulers. They need the Grace from our prayers.

Now I, as an individual, may not physically prevent my neighbour from selling pornography or promoting false religion publicly; but in Catholic teaching this is the actual duty of the lawmakers. However, prudence may dictate a toleration for the time being.

All this is, of course, anathema to The World. Since The World is by definition at enmity with God it cannot countenance these attitudes. That is one of the reasons why the Church and the World will be at enmity until the Last Day, as Our Lord, Holy Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church has always maintained.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Here is a piece of news (well, only 4 years old) illustrating precisely where the false doctrine of “Religious Liberty as a Right in the Public Forum” leads to:–

The Final Consequence of “Religious Liberty”

by Christopher A. Ferrara

******* As Pope after Pope warned before the Second Vatican Council, if the Church were to consent to allow Herself to be reduced to the level of other sects before the law in the name of “religious liberty,” it would only be a matter of time before this “liberty” would degenerate into the persecution of Catholics. As Pope Leo XIII warned in his monumental encyclical Immortale Dei:

Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named — and for the time being they are greatly in favor — it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church,** and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people…**. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government….

******* What Leo XIII predicted has come to pass throughout former Christendom. And now, in Canada, we see the final consequence of the modern notion of “religious liberty.” As reported by LifeSiteNews.com on July 19, 2005, “Canada’s national public radio CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism.” And this, mind you, only days before Canada legalized “gay marriage.”

******* The professor in question, a Mr. Ferguson, opined during the broadcast that “Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate … Couldn’t we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood.”

******* Lifesite’s report notes that “The former professor pitched his idea as a boon to religious freedom. ‘We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions,’ he said. ‘They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility?’”

******* Thus, precisely as Leo warned, the enemies of the Church, acting in the name of “religious liberty,” are now proposing the Catholic Church “differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government….”

******* Behold the final consequence of the modern notion of “religious liberty” – liberty for everyone and everything except the truth enunciated by the one true Church, whose enemies now threaten openly to regulate Her very existence by the power of State.