Does anybody else find the title "Traditional Catholicism" a bit offensive?

[LilyM]

Nope, I don’t think he struck out. Mothers aren’t the heart of the home anymore. Home is a place for everyone to come sleep before they all head back to their real homes, which are Dad’s office, Mom’s office, public schools, and daycare the next morning.

People are barely having kids anymore. Children are viewed as burdens more than blessings. Women, rather than liberated, are sexual objects more today than ever before. The virtue of sexual chastity and virginity until marriage has almost disappeared. Divorce is the norm, staying married is the exception. The majority of women in places of political power are the ones with the evil anti-life, anti-Christ world views.

Most importantly, 50 million murdered infants later (US alone), I think we can say the seismic social shift did far more harm than good.

For the most part, mothers never were really the heart of the home in the way you seem to fondly imagine.

Apart from a brief postwar halcyon period, rich women were busy running large landed estates and/or supervising huge domestic households consisting of scores of people. When they weren’t leading glittering social lives.

They were lucky to have an hour or so a day with their children before nanny (to whom the care of the child was by and large left) whisked them off for school lessons with governess, or to bed. If they weren’t packed off to boarding school with barely a visit to or from the folks for months on end.

And poor women were busy working alongside their husbands in the fields, or as domestics in the houses of the abovementioned rich. Then doing their not inconsiderable share of chores for their own household when able. Not a short or easy working day by any means. Childcare was usually left to grandmothers or older children.

Even middle classes would have the wives helping in the shop or entertaining clients, customers, business colleagues or whatnot. Or else doing the bookkeeping or keeping
track of business correspcondence.

Women were ALWAYS objectified. They were business partners, economic pawns in the hands of their parents, breeding animals, fieldhands, employees, managers, public relations gurus, social secretaries and domestic drudges. In few of these roles were they regarded with anything approaching love or affection.

And just look at the number of domestics who were sexually abused and made pregnant by their male employers, and listen to all the crass sexist jokes doing the rounds about attractive maids or female secretaries, if you think they weren’t objectified or harassed!

Women have always been workers, and always worked darn hard. Which is as it should be - the wonderful chapter in Proverbs describing the perfect wife describes a working woman - a business woman - one who spends her time making and selling things and is up before sparrows to fit in everything she needs to do.

 

[Skeptic92]

I don’t think so. Because when no EF’s available, most traditional Catholics I know would prefer a Byzantine Mass over the OF. Although I’ve never been, I understand it’s a very reverent Mass.

Very true, I only attend the EF back home (or I attend a very well celebrated Ordinary Form celebrated at the Parish I was received in), and while I’m at university I attend a Byzantine Rite Parish, because to be honest, the celebration of the Ordinary Form here is absolutely horrible. Guitars, Homilies that more belong in a low Church Anglican service, with no mention of the Catechism, the Church Fathers, the last time I attended there wasn’t even mention of that days readings! and the list carries on.

Yet I have never seen these problems in any Parish that celebrates the EF, or the Byzantine rite, it seems only a problem in the Ordinary Form parishes, that appear to be run by the congregation, and not the Priest, luckily the parish i was received in the Parish Priest put his foot down and is slowly starting to correct the mistakes of his predecessor (mainly due to the 60-odd year old modernists that just wants the Church to change according to liberal ideas and feminism).

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think so. Because when no EF’s available, most traditional Catholics I know would prefer a Byzantine Mass over the OF. Although I’ve never been, I understand it’s a very reverent Mass.

I would give the non-English Masses or DL’s a try. The Syriac consecration is awesome.

 

[floresco]

My point in making this thread was to evaluate the term “Traditional Catholicism” as being exclusive to Western Catholicism considering that Eastern Catholicism is just as traditional as the EF in the West. I obviously understand Traditional Catholicism also separates “OF Catholics” from “EF Catholics” in some instances, but I mean to point out how this term also (unfairly) separates Eastern Catholics from Western Catholics.

It does not separate Eastern from Western Catholics. There are Eastern Catholics who call themselves traditional and participate on forums for traditional Catholics such as Fisheaters. It is my impression that Eastern Catholics and traditional Western Catholics have more in common with each other than they do with liberal Western Catholics.

While the term “traditional Catholicism” refers primarily to a phenomenon occurring primarily in Western Catholicism, it is not creating a division between East and West. If people talk about “married women” to discuss a difference between women who are married and unmarried, this term does not unfairly separate men from women.

 

[floresco]

Ok, so the Protestants and Catholic post-V2 advocates of change were wrong and mistaken in trying to (so they seem to have thought) ‘turn the clock back’ to a better and purer Apostolic faith.

So trying to return the Church to the praxis and disciplines of 1962 - or 1562 - or whenever the V2 bashers think was the Golden Age of Catholicism - is so obviously different to turning it back to, say, 362 or 162 … how exactly?

And why is any attempt to go back to 1962 or 1562 or whenever not every bit as doomed to failure as to 362 or 162?

The idea that earlier forms of Christianity should be automatically considered as purer or better is a heresy called antiquarianism. If Vatican II had really done that, it would have been a heretical council. Vatican II, as you so clearly illustrate, is not well understood.

You also do not seem to understand traditional Catholicism. I consider myself a traditional Catholic and I have no desire to go back to any period in Church history. I want sound doctrine and practice that develops organically.

 

[floresco]

Women were ALWAYS objectified. They were business partners, economic pawns in the hands of their parents, breeding animals, fieldhands, employees, managers, public relations gurus, social secretaries and domestic drudges. In few of these roles were they regarded with anything approaching love or affection.

Wow, have you ever bought into the feminist propaganda! It’s pretty sad to see in a Catholic.

 

[Exsilivm]

I find the name “traditional Catholic” as it often gets used — to be rather a misnomer.

I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.

Let us all profess and live the Catholic Faith – in full communion with Peter (Pope Benedict XVI)./

I wonder if it is simply a “preference” for a historical period. However, the name is not important. The idea behind the name is important. They could call themselves “retrogrades” or, as the French call them, “integristes,” and the issues would remain as difficult as before. A rose by any other name…

 

[Exsilivm]

Women were ALWAYS objectified. They were business partners, economic pawns in the hands of their parents, breeding animals, fieldhands, employees, managers, public relations gurus, social secretaries and domestic drudges. In few of these roles were they regarded with anything approaching love or affection.

How is this different from the vast majority of men and women in any time? And why do you think husbands and parents did not love their wives and daughters?

 

[ProVobis]

The idea that earlier forms of Christianity should be automatically considered as purer or better is a heresy called antiquarianism.

I wouldn’t call it heresy but certainly if a practice had been condemned by a Pope or council, it cannot be universally applied in the present as “purer or better.” But that should be obvious.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

@OP: I personally do not take offence but I understand what you mean. I would like this part of the forums to be listed as Western Catholicism but I don’t know how hard that would be for the mods change the title or if it would make a difference. Plus I don’t see the Eastern Catholics raising a stink about it so why should I?

In short apart from my own personal preference, the fact remains that the title “Traditional Catholicism” is a good enough title.

 

[PhilOSophia]

The great benefit of the 60’s revolution: You can now do whatever you want.
The great deficit of the 60’s revolution: You can now do whatever you want.

The impetus and result: Pride, rebellion and disorder. The marks of the Evil One.

It’s grimly ironic that Women’s Lib has led to them to serial concubinage instead of marriage, with the disease, heartache and illegitimate children that go with that. Those that are married are now ‘liberated’ to work a tiring job, same as men, AND bring up the kids.

It’s great for men, 'though. They can sow their oats far and wide. Have five children by different women and dodge the maintenance payments. In the old days, a woman’s relatives would have beaten them up. Now, Mummy lets the ‘lover’ sleep in the same house!

Great days. For cads.

The Council and the New mass are eventually going to be put on the shelf of history. Neither has borne much of value, unless you count expressing your personality at the ‘Lord’s Supper’ a good development.

 

[NewsTheMan]

To answer the OP:

The Eastern Catholics also have ‘traddies’. The Society of Saint Josephat is kinda like the Eastern SSPX (but, incidentally, their founder has officially been excommunicated so they’re a bit worse off canonically). Many Eastern Catholics identify as ‘traditional’ Catholics within their own particular Church (Byzantine traddies are the ones most on the web).

 

[floresco]

I wouldn’t call it heresy but certainly if a practice had been condemned by a Pope or council, it cannot be universally applied in the present as “purer or better.” But that should be obvious.

Pius XII condemned antiquarianism in the encyclical Mediator Dei
**61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.**

 

[Iotaunum]

Your user name = one of my top 5 favorite books (by Romano Amerio)

Mine too. There is so much information in it- such a detailed analysis that I have read it twice and intend on reading it again.

 

[BlindManWalking]

Pius XII condemned antiquarianism in the encyclical Mediator Dei
**61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; **were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Uh, so… where does this lead us with the issue of non-Traditional parish set ups?

Somehow, I think you just hurt the case of the anti-antiquarians/accusers of that which is not.

 

[floresco]

Somehow, I think you just hurt the case of the anti-antiquarians/accusers of that which is not.

Then you probably did not understand it.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Pius XII condemned antiquarianism in the encyclical Mediator Dei
**61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.**

I don’t see in this where he is condemning antiquarianism but is just saying that both the antiquities and recent movement of God should both be held in esteem. Just my opinion but it seems he isn’t saying we shouldn’t look to the past or esteem things of the past better than now just because of the fact that they are antique but that isn’t saying we shouldn’t restore what needs restoring.

I thought this part was interesting: “Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform”
God Bless.

 

[Mike30]

To answer the OP:

The Eastern Catholics also have ‘traddies’. The Society of Saint Josephat is kinda like the Eastern SSPX (but, incidentally, their founder has officially been excommunicated so they’re a bit worse off canonically). Many Eastern Catholics identify as ‘traditional’ Catholics within their own particular Church (Byzantine traddies are the ones most on the web).

It may be the same group, but there is a group who proclaimed an excommunication against Pope Benedict XVI last year I believe. They have videos of the statement on You Tube.

 

[NewsTheMan]

It may be the same group, but there is a group who proclaimed an excommunication against Pope Benedict XVI last year I believe. They have videos of the statement on You Tube.

Haha, I’ve seen that video. It’s quite the joke, but sad too of course. It’s not the same group though - the Priestly Society of Saint Josephat hold that they are faithful and loyal to the Pope but are to remain canonically outside the Church until things improve (in their eyes that is).

 

[Big_Feet]

It may be the same group, but there is a group who proclaimed an excommunication against Pope Benedict XVI last year I believe. They have videos of the statement on You Tube.

That actually brings up another question (though, purely hypothetical)…If the Pope does something and is ExCommunicated from the Church who does he have recourse to inorder to lift the excommunication??