Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cranch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I refer to this as Zombieism.
I prefer slavery. Since I recognize the role of the Holy Father as the vicar of Christ, would not a slave to Christ be bound to follow His representative?

I also prefer the term humility. After all, anytime I follow my opinion contrary to that of Vatican, I am believing that somehow my opinion is superior to that of the more educated and authoritative consensus. What struck me strange about this article is how the author labeld the Conservatives as American-minded and the Traditionalist as Roman. I thought then how topsy-turvy that was. Independence and personal freedom seems more of an America idea than humility and submission.

Zombies? Yes, but only if you will grant that we do so with full will and engagment of the intellect.
 
A key suggestion in this well-thought out piece is that there is such a thing as a “hyperdevoted religious psychotic”. The Catholic Church used to have built-in mechanisms to help people avoid religious insanity, to be followers of Christ who are also able to live normal, joyful lives. Nowadays, the Church is split, perhaps irrevocably, into not just the American view of right and left, but into many different movements, some of which are really quite protestant (not in the sense of mainstream Protestant Churches, but in the sense of hyper-religious fundamentalist protestantism). Unfortunately, a Catholic Church led by a Pope who lived too long until feeble-mindedness let all the genies out of the bottle at the same time, may now be damaged beyond repair.

The hyperdevoted religious psycotics never recognize themselves, but they do recognize those who aren’t, and they are always quick to label them as not being Catholic. The old saying that you can’t be more Catholic than the Pope comes to mind.
 
A key suggestion in this well-thought out piece is that there is such a thing as a “hyperdevoted religious psychotic”.
The problem with this phrase is implication that excessive devotion is a psychosis. How can one be too devoted to God?

Also, I know that JPII had Parkinson’s and he was a physical wreck, but I never heard him described as feeble-minded. Why do you think he was?
 
The old saying that you can’t be more Catholic than the Pope comes to mind.
If you would, explain for us what this means…really…I would be curious to hear what you think.

Gorman
 
If you would, explain for us what this means…really…I would be curious to hear what you think.

Gorman
I don’t know what others’ opinions are on this but, to me, it means that someone thinks that their version of Tradition is more Catholic than the Pope’s authentic interpretation of it.
 
I don’t know what others’ opinions are on this but, to me, it means (and I could go into more depth later) that someone thinks that their version of Tradition is more Catholic than the Pope’s authentic interpretation of it. They believe they know the proper implementation of interpretations, legislations, judgments, etc. even the this is only proper to the Pope.
 
I was just quoting the expression used by the author of the article, but no, excessive devotion to religion is not necessarily psychosis. But it certainly can fall under the broader category of what is usually referred to as hyperreligiosity.

This is when the outward forms of the religious experience go beyond the bounds of true spirituality and become distorted into being the main focus of daily life to an exaggerated extent. Rather than it helping people to become more loving, more charitable, and being of more value to the rest of society, etc., it causes suspicion of everyone who doesn’t think the same, hate, angst and constant guilt. It destroys life rather than affirms it, because when in this mindset, it’s literally impossible to be religious and pious enough, to be perfect enough or to be"devoted" enough. It aleniates the sufferer from friends and family, and as we often see, from the mainstream of the group within which they are trying to be more religious and pious. They always seem to think they know what God is or was thinking more than anyone else does. Not psychotic, but there certainly is a potential for it.

It’s tough to fight this, because any attempt to help someone who is afflicted is seen as evil, or not religious. People have to eventually realize what is going on for themselves. But unfortunately, these days, a number of “movements” within the Catholic Church seem to encourage it.

To his credit, Pope Benedict, I think, is trying to gradually move back to the center with is frequent reminders that God is Love. He hints at it, anyway. At some point, these movements are going to rip the idea of Catholicism right out of the Church and split it apart if not checked somehow.
 
I don’t know what others’ opinions are on this but, to me, it means (and I could go into more depth later) that someone thinks that their version of Tradition is more Catholic than the Pope’s authentic interpretation of it.
I’m curious as to if you think this also applies to the current and past claimants to the papacy. Is their version of tradition more Catholic than previous “versions”. The entire idea of a “version of tradition” is suspect…IMHO…when Pope Pius XII said that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, he was not really saying anything new. The idea that the Mystical Body subsists in the Catholic Church is new.

The “John Courtney Murray idea” of religious liberty is something new…even he admitted this. He said it was up to future theologians to explain the break from past Church teaching. Why?

Given the extent of the destruction in the aftermath of the modernist takeover (who can deny that this has happened)…is this not a valid question?
 
I’m curious as to if you think this also applies to the current and past claimants to the papacy. Is their version of tradition more Catholic than previous “versions”. The entire idea of a “version of tradition” is suspect…IMHO…when Pope Pius XII said that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, he was not really saying anything new. The idea that the Mystical Body subsists in the Catholic Church is new.
I specifically put Tradition with a bold and capital T. A Pope cannot err in matters of Tradition so if you think there’s a conflict then you are wrong not the Pope. They are one in the same so their Tradition is consistent.
The “John Courtney Murray idea” of religious liberty is something new…even he admitted this. He said it was up to future theologians to explain the break from past Church teaching. Why?
Given the extent of the destruction in the aftermath of the modernist takeover (who can deny that this has happened)…is this not a valid question?
Was he elevated to the papacy?! Whoa! I missed that one. 😉
 
I specifically put Tradition with a bold and capital T.
This really has no meaning, I hope you realize.
A Pope cannot err in matters of Tradition
What do you mean by this statement?
…so if you think there’s a conflict then you are wrong not the Pope.
If a claimant was an anti-pope he would not be infallible because he would not be a true pope. He could be wrong.
They are one in the same so their Tradition is consistent.
How? The argument is that the “new tradition” is a break with tradition…if that is the case, then we need to understand why. What is the explanation for this situation?

Gorman

P.S.
Was he elevated to the papacy?! Whoa! I missed that one.
I never said JC Murray was elevated to the papacy…but his false doctrine was accepted by these “popes”. How?

Maybe you should spend more time studying doctrine and less time trying to be cute. 🙂
 
This really has no meaning, I hope you realize.
Uh, yes it does. Tradition cannot be changed and tradition can.
What do you mean by this statement?
Tradition with a capital “t” is a truth which cannot change.
If a claimant was an anti-pope he would not be infallible because he would not be a true pope. He could be wrong.
If we’re discussing theories, he could be wrong in matters of Tradition because he wasn’t the Pope in the first place.
How? The argument is that the “new tradition” is a break with tradition…if that is the case, then we need to understand why. What is the explanation for this situation?
First of all I haven’t seen a direct quote from Murray. This seems to be Murray’s argument. Secondly, I doubt that you’ll find a document from the Magisterium saying that the Church has ever broken with Tradition. I understand that you don’t appreciate the big and little “t” but those of us who have been around for awhile on both sides of this debate have been very clarify which one we are talking about. It’s the difference between, say, a doctrine and a discipline.
I never said JC Murray was elevated to the papacy…but his false doctrine was accepted by these “popes”. How?
This really can’t be debated until you give me quotes on Murray’s theories and the supposed accepting of his false doctrine by any of the popes. You are, it would seem, suggesting that popes are declaring that the post-conciliar popes are anti-popes and or heretics. Are you really declaring that the teachings made by the Magisterium on Religious Liberty are heretical?
Maybe you should spend more time studying doctrine and less time trying to be cute.
One can do both!😉
 
… The argument is that the “new tradition” is a break with tradition…if that is the case, then we need to understand why. What is the explanation for this situation?
I think y’all need to be more precise about what “tradition” you mean, no? Definitive, immutable Tradition differs from other tradition.

For instance, for the first 1200+ years in the Latin Church, it was tradition to allow infants to partake of the Holy Eucharist. That tradition no longer exists today, right? In fact, this 1200-year-old Catholic tradition is now against canon law in the Latin Church, isn’t it? I’m suprised there isn’t a “traditionalists” movement offended by this clearly “modernist” change in tradition, likely instigated by the Masons. :rolleyes:

It seems some Traditions are immutable and some traditions, even traditions of apostolic origin, are not immutable. It depends very much on the nature of the tradition.
 
The difference between “Tradition” and “tradition?” The first is immutable, the second, not so much (meaning it isn’t), exactly as Bear and Dave have described.
 
Uh, yes it does. Tradition cannot be changed and tradition can.
Tradition with a capital “t” is a truth which cannot change.
Both of these statements are using unorthodox and ambiguous wording. Nothing like this is found in any dogmatic theology manual. Do you have a authortative source for this terminology?
If we’re discussing theories, he could be wrong in matters of Tradition because he wasn’t the Pope in the first place.
And that’s what I said…an anti-pope is not a true pope…he just appears to be. He would be a false claimant.
First of all I haven’t seen a direct quote from Murray. This seems to be Murray’s argument. Secondly, I doubt that you’ll find a document from the Magisterium saying that the Church has ever broken with Tradition. I understand that you don’t appreciate the big and little “t” but those of us who have been around for awhile on both sides of this debate have been very clarify which one we are talking about. It’s the difference between, say, a doctrine and a discipline.
If you don’t know who John Courtney Murray is (and his doctrine) then I suspect that you have not looked very closely at the doctrine of Religious Liberty as found in Dignitatis Humanae. They are one in the same.

I’ve been around for awhile as well…and no, I do not find this big T, little t thing very clear at all. It is ambiguous and unorthodox terminology.
This really can’t be debated until you give me quotes on Murray’s theories and the supposed accepting of his false doctrine by any of the popes.
Read Dignitatis Humanae.
You are, it would seem, suggesting that popes are declaring that the post-conciliar popes are anti-popes and or heretics.
If there is a long interregnum…there is no pope to declare anything until this crisis is ended.
Are you really declaring that the teachings made by the Magisterium on Religious Liberty are heretical?
I am not declaring anything…I am merely pointing out that there is a conflict between Tradition (as you put it) and Vatican II theology. This is not an issue of mutable disciplines…the doctrinal judgment in a Church discipline is infallible anyway…so I don’t see your point about the little “t” tradition.
One can do both!
Just make sure you do the important one first…the cuteness sometimes gets in the way.
 
I am merely pointing out that there is a conflict between Tradition (as you put it) and Vatican II theology.
In the end, anti-Vatican II polemics typically end in the antagonist asserting speculative opinion about Scripture and Tradition as though such opinion were equivalent to magisterial authority. In the final analysis, Catholics “must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8). And since Lefevrists and Sedevacantist have no judgment of a pope agreeing with the above claim, they remain in dissent with the Chair of Peter…a very un-Catholic thing for sure.

I wonder how many more popes there will be who continue to uphold the teachings of Vatican II before the ant-Vatican II people will finally realize they are indeed contending against the Chair of Peter? There have been four popes beginning with Paul VI. With every new pope the “crazy anti-Vatican II uncles in the attic” seem evermore crazy, don’t they?

I imagine that anti-Vatican II polemicists will fair no better in Catholic history than the anti-Vatican I polemicists who came before them.
 
In these days of moral relativism where anything said in the name of philosophical calisthenics gets heard, one tends to cling to anything that promise orthodoxy. So the differences between Traditionalists and Conservatives pale in comparison with the spiritual desolation in the secular world.
Frankly speaking, I would not mind having a menu of all the missals available at the church door. It’s like complaining about momma’s long menu lists while the rest of the world is starving.
 
Both of these statements are using unorthodox and ambiguous wording. Nothing like this is found in any dogmatic theology manual. Do you have a authortative source for this terminology?
I believe the Church calls it Sacred Tradition and, no, I don’t think the Church has produced a document called "Tradition with a capital “T” but many others have. I’d consider them fairly well catechized and you might also want to search the forums. I don’t think you’ll find too many who argue over this one. If you’d like to find more on the fact that this is a widely popular belief, google tradition, capital, t and you’ll pull up more. For your reading pleasure - a few articles pointing out Traditions and traditions:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp
scborromeo.org/papers/traditio.PDF
surprisedbytruth.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=57
mark-shea.com/tradition.html
jimmyakin.org/2004/12/a_few_words_fro.html
And that’s what I said…an anti-pope is not a true pope…he just appears to be. He would be a false claimant.
And what does this have to do with any of the post Vatican II popes or Humanae Dignitatis?
If you don’t know who John Courtney Murray is (and his doctrine) then I suspect that you have not looked very closely at the doctrine of Religious Liberty as found in Dignitatis Humanae. They are one in the same.
And I’m still waiting for you to tell me the exact parts of DH that you think part with Tradition? Either you’re saying that the pope has promulgated a heretical document or that he was not really the pope. Which is it? You’re suggesting something.
I’ve been around for awhile as well…and no, I do not find this big T, little t thing very clear at all. It is ambiguous and unorthodox terminology.
Read the above articles and maybe you’ll figure it out.
Read Dignitatis Humanae.
I have read it and in the light of the constant Tradition of the Church.
If there is a long interregnum…there is no pope to declare anything until this crisis is ended.
And when was the last time we had that happen?!
I am not declaring anything…I am merely pointing out that there is a conflict between Tradition (as you put it) and Vatican II theology.
Where?
This is not an issue of mutable disciplines…the doctrinal judgment in a Church discipline is infallible anyway…so I don’t see your point about the little “t” tradition.
I never said it was. You were the one who used the little “t”. I used the big “T”
Just make sure you do the important one first…the cuteness sometimes gets in the way.
Ah, cuteness never gets in the way. Some take themselves waaaaaaaayyy to seriously around these parts.👍
 
Bear and gorman - Could I respectfully suggest a new thread with where you’re going with this thing? 🙂 - Cranch (the OP)
 
As Cranch has requested, please get back on topic or I will close the thread. And watch the uncharitable attitude and language.
 
Read the above articles and maybe you’ll figure it out.
The above “articles” are not authoritative sources…they are unauthorised laymen doing their own theology. Please quote some real authorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top