C
consumedconvert
Guest
I believe that term was invented by our mistaken friends the Protestants. At least that’s the only other place I’ve ever heard it.
- Status
P
piouswoman
Guest
It is quite pointless for you to say such things as this…are you aware that the New Mass (Novus Ordo) at Vatican II was composed with the help and (name removed by moderator)ut of SIX PROTESTANT MINISTERS? Please, wake up.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Was it? Did the Pope approve? Oh, okay.
Call me what you like. I’ve been called a Pope-worshipper before, but by Protestants who mischaracterized my faith or misunderstood my faith.
Where Peter is, there is the Church.
God help me, I never want to be anywhere else!
T
tcraig
Guest
What does this have to do with anything? It’s still a Catholic mass, not a protestant service, formally promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
Protestants were invited to sit in at the Council of Trent, too. Since all declined the invitation, it’s impossible to speculate whether they would have given (name removed by moderator)ut or not.
V
VivatJesus
Guest
From the horse’s mouth…my, I wish you had a proper understanding of Catholic obedience (you practice what is known as false obedience, btw
)…the Pope is not infallible in everything he says or approves. Some of our more colorful popes of the Renaissance apparently approved of having mistresses and fathering bastard children…I guess that’s OK though, the pope approved it! Apparently they don’t teach papal infallibility very well in RCIA…
E
elts1956
Guest
Too bad some of the leaders had to go so far as to throw themselves out the Vatican door. I wonder if they will ever walk back in? In the meantime they are causing confusion and instability within some of those who are faithful to the Vatican. The only way individuals can begin to understand what has happened is to read all the documents the Popes have written in the past forty years. No mean feat. And then interpret them? Not for the ordinary lay person. Much misinterpretation and misunderstandings have resulted because of these attempts. If we cannot intrepret the Bible without the help of learned theologians, the Magisterium and the Pope, what makes one think personal interpretation of what has been written by the Pope before and after Vatican II is open to personal interpretation?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Ah, piouswoman…your pro-SSPX arguments continue to get shot down like fish in a barrel…so you have now resorted to throwing around the term “papolatry” as your defense?
It strikes me, that perhaps you realize that the end is near for the SSPX “irregular standing”, and that a declaration of schism and/or heresy is at hand…so using the term “papolatry” becomes the battle cry of the next level of denial.
H
HOPEFUL_IN_UK
Guest
I’ve been thinking about this post…
First, there seems to be the assumption on the part of many SSPXers that those of us who don’t agree with the SSPX just need to read more documents. The truth is that many of us have read them. I don’t rely only on Catholic Answers to tell me what to think. I’ve read the writings of both sides of the argument.
Second, why must I do all that reading just so I can know what I ought to do? Isn’t that why we have a Pope? Have you read every pertinent document in order to fully understand the reasoning behind every sect that has left the Catholic Church? Or, do you have a personal “line” that, if it’s crossed, you can write off the group as being wrong?
For me, I saw that the line was crossed when I read the excommunication from JPII. I have no real interest in delving into cannon law, looking for loopholes (although I have read their arguments.) At the end of the day, I know that I cannot go wrong by trusting the Pope. Even if the Pope is mistaken, I know that he will bear the responsibility for it. Of course you can say, “Well, now, I’m not sure I agree with that…” and I know that Popes have been mistaken and have been corrected by the faithful. But, I just draw the line at outright corporeal disobedience. Specific acts have been forbidden (not specific opinions) and those specific acts - namely, the ordination of priests and bishops without permission - have been carried out. That is crossing the line and no amount of talking (not to mention name-calling) is going to make me budge on that point.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, it was just another logical fallacy. It is called appeal to common knowledge. In fact, it is only some like the SSPX who buy into the Protestant conspiracy or the Masoninc conspiracy. Yes, Protestants were present as observers, as were reporters and others.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
What strikes me the most about this definition of “traditional Catholic” is that all of these are externals. Not that any of them are bad things, but they are not dogmatic teaching.
I always thought the definition of a “traditional Catholic” was simply a Catholic who believes the teachings of the Church and follows them.
What’s wrong with new catechisms? Should there never be another new catechism, or do you just not like the CCC? One previous poster exaggerated quite a bit. The CCC has been revised only once, not over and over again, and that was only to make sure the English edition conformed to the official Latin edition (as the first edition was based on the original French edition). And he/she made it sound like the Compendium was some final act of desperation because the CCC is some sort of abomination. This seems a bit unfair, to say the least.
D
DL82
Guest
I am a recent convert to Catholicism, and I have a love of the Latin Mass and traditional Catholicism, although I don’t agree with SSPX, or some of the more exclusivist, fundamentalist views held by some ‘traditional’ Catholics.
I guess part of that is knowing what a sinner I have been, and how Christ through His Church has forgiven me. I wouldn’t want to limit others’ exposure to that mercy. Those who claim that only ‘traditional’ Catholics are loyal to the Body of Christ are missing out the huge number of very devout, prayerful, obedient progressive Catholics out there. It’s also difficult to imagine that most of the people I was lucky enough to go through RCIA with would have become Catholic if everything was still in Latin.
The Love of God is so incredible, and the breadth of His mercy expressed through the whole of His Church so breathtaking, I can’t believe people can get hung up on such minor points as which direction the priest is facing. I find some of the discussions traditionalists have, such as whether the Church should still denounce heliocentrism, or whether there should be a return to Catholic Monarchy/ the Holy Roman Empire, have absolutely no relevance to the real world. In this year dedicated to St Paul, I fail to see how such petty squabbling brings Christ’s message to the world.
At the same time, I realise I have not lived through the disruption and abuses that many tell me were common in the 1970s and 1980s in the Church. Maybe if I had, I would understand the SSPX/ radical traditionalist positions and be more sympathetic.
I also realise that many of the great saints of the Church, such as St John of the Cross, St Alphonsus Liguori, and even St Athanasius for a time, had their disputes with their superiors and/or with Rome, and they were later justified for following their consciences. I wasn’t around pre-Vatican II, so I don’t know what a well-informed pre-Vatican II Catholic conscience would make of the Council’s reforms. All I can do is trust God’s promise and try to form my conscience as the current Church dictates.
I guess part of that is knowing what a sinner I have been, and how Christ through His Church has forgiven me. I wouldn’t want to limit others’ exposure to that mercy. Those who claim that only ‘traditional’ Catholics are loyal to the Body of Christ are missing out the huge number of very devout, prayerful, obedient progressive Catholics out there. It’s also difficult to imagine that most of the people I was lucky enough to go through RCIA with would have become Catholic if everything was still in Latin.
The Love of God is so incredible, and the breadth of His mercy expressed through the whole of His Church so breathtaking, I can’t believe people can get hung up on such minor points as which direction the priest is facing. I find some of the discussions traditionalists have, such as whether the Church should still denounce heliocentrism, or whether there should be a return to Catholic Monarchy/ the Holy Roman Empire, have absolutely no relevance to the real world. In this year dedicated to St Paul, I fail to see how such petty squabbling brings Christ’s message to the world.
At the same time, I realise I have not lived through the disruption and abuses that many tell me were common in the 1970s and 1980s in the Church. Maybe if I had, I would understand the SSPX/ radical traditionalist positions and be more sympathetic.
I also realise that many of the great saints of the Church, such as St John of the Cross, St Alphonsus Liguori, and even St Athanasius for a time, had their disputes with their superiors and/or with Rome, and they were later justified for following their consciences. I wasn’t around pre-Vatican II, so I don’t know what a well-informed pre-Vatican II Catholic conscience would make of the Council’s reforms. All I can do is trust God’s promise and try to form my conscience as the current Church dictates.
- Status