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

[floresco]

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.

The error of antiquarianism is the belief that ancient practices should automatically be assumed to be superior to more recent ones. He speaks directly against this when he says, “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.” This does not mean that it is always wrong to restore ancient practices.

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.

Pretty much all the examples he gave of ancient practices that should not be adopted are common now.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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??

The Pope can’t be excommunicated.

 

[floresco]

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??

Wouldn’t it make sense to ask that question in its own thread? It has nothing to do with this one.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

The error of antiquarianism is the belief that ancient practices should automatically be assumed to be superior to more recent ones. He speaks directly against this when he says, “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.” This does not mean that it is always wrong to restore ancient practices.

Pretty much all the examples he gave of ancient practices that should not be adopted are common now.

I agree.

 

[BlindManWalking]

Then you probably did not understand it.

He said one should not wish for the return to primitive table form. This happened. Someone wished for it and then made an excuse, which is now widely accepted, of either its presence in: 1) religious institutions 2) early Church.

In fact, so much of the issues us trads have brought up fall into the exact mindset as I read it.

If I don’t understand it, explain it!

As I read it, the regression of the Church is being called progression.

That don’t pass the smell test.

 

[floresco]

He said one should not wish for the return to primitive table form. This happened. Someone wished for it and then made an excuse, which is now widely accepted, of either its presence in: 1) religious institutions 2) early Church.

In fact, so much of the issues us trads have brought up fall into the exact mindset as I read it.

If I don’t understand it, explain it!

As I read it, the regression of the Church is being called progression.

That don’t pass the smell test.

In the passage I quoted, Pope Pius XII is condemning antiquarianism and giving specific examples of changes being proposed or illicitly introduced in his time that were based on antiquarianism. In spite of his condemnation, these practices are now common. The usual position among traditional Catholics would be to agree with Pius XII that these practices are wrong.

 

[BlindManWalking]

In the passage I quoted, Pope Pius XII is condemning antiquarianism and giving specific examples of changes being proposed or illicitly introduced in his time that were based on antiquarianism. In spite of his condemnation, these practices are now common. The usual position among traditional Catholics would be to agree with Pius XII that these practices are wrong.

All you did is tell me why I am right for what I said that you originally said I was wrong for saying was right.

confused yet? I am.

I know the trad POV, I’m asking why you are telling me I am wrong for expressing it. All you’ve done so far as reiterate what I said.

 

[floresco]

All you did is tell me why I am right for what I said that you originally said I was wrong for saying was right.

confused yet? I am.

I know the trad POV, I’m asking why you are telling me I am wrong for expressing it. All you’ve done so far as reiterate what I said.

I certainly am confused. Your response to the quote from Pius XII was “Somehow, I think you just hurt the case of the anti-antiquarians/accusers of that which is not.”

Pius the XII was an anti-antiquarian as the quoted passage shows. How does it hurt the case for anti-antiquarians to show that a pope supports them? I have no idea what you meant by “accusers of that which is not” because it does not make sense.

 

[BlindManWalking]

I certainly am confused. Your response to the quote from Pius XII was “Somehow, I think you just hurt the case of the anti-antiquarians/accusers of that which is not.”

Pius the XII was an anti-antiquarian as the quoted passage shows. How does it hurt the case for anti-antiquarians to show that a pope supports them? I have no idea what you meant by “accusers of that which is not” because it does not make sense.

I’m sorry, that sentence was poorly written.

Basically, I don’t see trads as antiquarian, I see trads as "quit screwing things up!"ian.

Whereas the exact excuses we see for the things in today’s average parish which is not of SSPX, FSSP, ICK, etc are blatantly contradicted by the man’s words.

Furthermore, to add insult to injury when expressing that, the defenders of the primitive table form, etc point to antiquarian reasons while accusing trads of being antiquarian, which I don’t think we are.

I want to know how the bloody hell we went from HHPPXII saying such things are bad to want to return to, to returning to it and it being called good.

I understand that certain elements of the Church have always had the table form of altar, for good reason probably too. But those are not secular entities, and any argument for the historical norm (early Church) prior to the organic change (Ad orientem, etc) is, by definition, antiquarian.

In other words, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

[James924]

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.
.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[floresco]

I’m sorry, that sentence was poorly written.

Basically, I don’t see trads as antiquarian, I see trads as "quit screwing things up!"ian.

Whereas the exact excuses we see for the things in today’s average parish which is not of SSPX, FSSP, ICK, etc are blatantly contradicted by the man’s words.

Furthermore, to add insult to injury when expressing that, the defenders of the primitive table form, etc point to antiquarian reasons while accusing trads of being antiquarian, which I don’t think we are.

I want to know how the bloody hell we went from HHPPXII saying such things are bad to want to return to, to returning to it and it being called good.

I understand that certain elements of the Church have always had the table form of altar, for good reason probably too. But those are not secular entities, and any argument for the historical norm (early Church) prior to the organic change (Ad orientem, etc) is, by definition, antiquarian.

In other words, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Oh, I see where the confusion is coming from. You have heard traditional Catholics accused of being antiquarian and you were alluding to that. It never occurred to me that anyone would make such an absurd accusation, so I did not understand you.

 

[da_nolo]

I’m a Roman Catholic convert. As an outsider, I fell in love not only with the Roman Catholic Rite but the Catholic Church as a whole. Doesn’t it seem a bit unfair to refer to the Roman Rite as “Traditional Catholicism” and exclude Eastern Catholic Rites to their own forum simply titled “Eastern Catholicism”? This seems to create a false dichotomy between “Traditional” and “Eastern” Catholicism, at least in my opinion. Thoughts?

God Bless.

There’s no such thing as ‘roman’ Catholic unless you refer to heritage. its the Latin Rite which deals with more than just rome.

the word Catholic means universal which all ‘rites’ express. there is as there should be no difference between the rites other than language. there could be more, but the core teachings are the exact same.

To be one under God we must be one on Earth. :crying:

no discussion needed

 

[TrueLight]

No, I don’t find it offensive at all.

 

[patrick457]

There’s no such thing as ‘roman’ Catholic unless you refer to heritage. its the Latin Rite which deals with more than just rome.

the word Catholic means universal which all ‘rites’ express. there is as there should be no difference between the rites other than language. there could be more, but the core teachings are the exact same.

To be one under God we must be one on Earth. :crying:

no discussion needed

Actually there is more difference than just language. There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, yes, but you have manifold, different expressions of that same faith, with the differences not just lying in language. This is what counts as true diversity (unlike what some people pass off as ‘diversity’ nowadays).

 

[Cinette]

I find the title “Traditional Catholicism” to be a little confusing, personally.
I believe what I am considered is a “traditional Catholic,” little “t”
to indicate that I follow the Pope,
and also an “orthodox Catholic,” little “o”
to indicate that I follow the Magisterium.
It would be nice if simply saying “Catholic”
were enough to make yourself understood …
maybe I simply should say “Catholic” anyways
and leave it to everybody else to figure out
what it means.

Intriguing thread topic, thanks.

*We belong to the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a nickname given us by the Anglicans. The name of our Church is the Catholic Church.

I have been to the Maronite Church and loved their liturgy - they are also faithful and conservative - no compromise, no Cafeteria stuff…

To be a Catholic one must follow the Magisterium. We have the deposit of Faith and the Magisterium is part of our structures.

Cinette
*

 

[hosemonkey]

I’m afraid the numbers don’t support you here. To imply that figures today are anywhere near what they were prior to 1969 is just denial. I think in my reading the lowest mass attendance got in the pre-conciliar age was around 75%. That would be a miracle today. Also, your logic is a bit flawed, if I may point that out, in that if the TLM and the vastly different seminary formation of tradtional priests (FSSP, ICK, etc) didn’t make a difference, then the TLM communities that still exist today would have the same problems that NO communities do. But they don’t. We’re all living in the same world. Both communities lived through the sexual revolution. The only difference between the two is the liturgy and the formation of the priests. If anything, that proves that there is

something special about the TLM and traditional priestly formation and traditionalism as a whole that significantly protects (I never claimed “guarantees” as you said) against the trends that the rest of the church is facing today.

EDIT: Some numbers. These are a decade old and things generally have continued getting worse (Note: credit to an article by Pat Buchanan):

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven.

The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.

We can’t patch up the hull of this ship if we keep pretending there are no holes in it…

If you have an hour to kill, Michael Vorris and RealcatholicTV put together a good documentary covering a lot of this stuff. Its at Catholic Investigative Agency – Real Catholic TV and the video is called "weapons of MASS destrution, or confusion or something.

I agree with you 100%. You have put your finger on the rot that the highjacking of Vatican II brought about. It is going to take a long time for that damage to be repaired. Some signs of life are returning, but you still have so many Catholics who have no clue about what they have lost, have no idea of what has been taken from them, have no idea about the teaching of the Church, are not outraged at the behaviour of so-called “Catholic” politicians and public figures and think that mass attendance twice a year still qualifies them as “good Catholics.” We gotta keep praying, we gotta keep supporting the return to tradition and to the core values that we have departed from. We must support the priests and bishops that are struggling to rebuild what has been lost. We have endured forty years of thirst in the dry desert, we must re-open the flowing wells that the "spirit of Vatican II capped off. Our Holy father sees this, we must support his efforts to combat the reactionary forces that would keep us thirsty. we are members of the Church that conquered the world, why are we skulking home like a beaten army?

 

[WFS5801]

I’m a Roman Catholic convert. As an outsider, I fell in love not only with the Roman Catholic Rite but the Catholic Church as a whole. Doesn’t it seem a bit unfair to refer to the Roman Rite as “Traditional Catholicism” and exclude Eastern Catholic Rites to their own forum simply titled “Eastern Catholicism”? This seems to create a false dichotomy between “Traditional” and “Eastern” Catholicism, at least in my opinion. Thoughts?

First off I don’t think it’s a “false” dichotomy – there are real differences between the two, hence a true dichotomy. I also don’t think it is offensive to use the terms “Traditional Catholicism” or “Eastern Catholicism” – there just descriptions of the reality that exists. I suppose someone could use “Traditional Catholic” (for example) as a pejorative, but the term, itself, is neutral.