How does this sound to you?

[floresco]

I have a good friend with whom I have discussed religion quite a bit. We are both Catholic but have often disagreed about tradition in Catholicism. To sum up our views, I am a trad and he is not. He posted the following a few days ago and sent me a copy with the question “Is this a fair description of how trads think?” I did think it was fair and appreciated how he had avoided common negative stereotypes. It left me feeling that he was really trying to understand me rather than merely argue with me. I was greatly encouraged.
I asked him if he would like me to post it in a “trad” forum for more feedback and he was delighted with my offer. So here it is:
Yes, Vatican II opened a new window, but all that came in from outside was smoke and pollution. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. People are using the excuse of “the spirit of Vatican II” to do sacrilegious, blasphemous things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II, or with Christianity at all. Much of what has happened since then was not only never imagined by the council, but explicitly forbidden by it. When the Protestant reformation occurred, churches were smashed to get rid of Catholic things like tabernacles and statues of saints, and now we are voluntarily doing what they tried to force us to do. People were martyred, put to death, for believing in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and now even most Catholics don’t believe in it. We have lost the most precious thing we had, the sacrifice of the Mass, where Jesus himself was physically offered as a sacrifice for the propitiation of sins, and turned into not much more than a community meal. We have lost the sense of sin, the sense that some things are really always wrong. We have lost our sense of awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles are explained away as pious stories. So now, no wonder that attendance at Mass is dropping, as people realize that it is not much more than a lecture and a social gathering, and they have better ways to spend their Sunday mornings. Even the previous Pope sometimes acted as if Catholicism is just one of many religions, any of which can freely be interchanged with the others, because we have lost our sense of some things being true and other things not being true – we treat it as if none of it is really true and we only believe things to make us happy, without really believing them.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Sounds about how I think as well. Good summary.

 

[JHow]

… Even the previous Pope sometimes acted as if Catholicism is just one of many religions, any of which can freely be interchanged with the others…

I realize your comments are directed to traditionalists, which I am not, being a convert well post VII and having experience only with ordinary form mass in the Polish and English languages, but I think this bit above is a little extreme, and I would hope is not held by a lot of traditionalists.

The previous Pope might not have been satisfactory from a traditionalist standpoint, but viewed from outside the Roman Catholic church, I don’t think JP II can be fairly characterized as acting as if Catholicism was was equal to other religions, one among many, so to speak. He came from a time and place where the Church represented a real moral difference between itself the surrounding cultures (Nazis, Communism) and even to a non-catholic it was clear that the Pope stood for something very different. In a world where a priest could get killed for his sermons (Popieluszko), maybe the Pope has to take a larger view of things?

 

[floresco]

The previous Pope might not have been satisfactory from a traditionalist standpoint, but viewed from outside the Roman Catholic church, I don’t think JP II can be fairly characterized as acting as if Catholicism was was equal to other religions, one among many, so to speak.

Personally, I prefer to avoid second-guessing the decisions of a pope, but this seems to be a fairly common concern among traditionally inclined Catholics. That is what is relevant for purposes of this thread. Perhaps you would like to start another thread to discuss it further.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I have a good friend with whom I have discussed religion quite a bit. We are both Catholic but have often disagreed about tradition in Catholicism. To sum up our views, I am a trad and he is not. He posted the following a few days ago and sent me a copy with the question “Is this a fair description of how trads think?” I did think it was fair and appreciated how he had avoided common negative stereotypes. It left me feeling that he was really trying to understand me rather than merely argue with me. I was greatly encouraged.
I asked him if he would like me to post it in a “trad” forum for more feedback and he was delighted with my offer. So here it is:
Yes, Vatican II opened a new window, but all that came in from outside was smoke and pollution. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. People are using the excuse of “the spirit of Vatican II” to do sacrilegious, blasphemous things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II, or with Christianity at all. Much of what has happened since then was not only never imagined by the council, but explicitly forbidden by it. When the Protestant reformation occurred, churches were smashed to get rid of Catholic things like tabernacles and statues of saints, and now we are voluntarily doing what they tried to force us to do. People were martyred, put to death, for believing in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and now even most Catholics don’t believe in it. We have lost the most precious thing we had, the sacrifice of the Mass, where Jesus himself was physically offered as a sacrifice for the propitiation of sins, and turned into not much more than a community meal. We have lost the sense of sin, the sense that some things are really always wrong. We have lost our sense of awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles are explained away as pious stories. So now, no wonder that attendance at Mass is dropping, as people realize that it is not much more than a lecture and a social gathering, and they have better ways to spend their Sunday mornings. Even the previous Pope sometimes acted as if Catholicism is just one of many religions, any of which can freely be interchanged with the others, because we have lost our sense of some things being true and other things not being true – we treat it as if none of it is really true and we only believe things to make us happy, without really believing them.

Wow…I sure hope NOT…that would put me squarely at odds with traditionalists. None of the bold and underlined applies to anything that I see at my local parish. Of course sin is constantly preached about as well as our need for reconciliation.

 

[floresco]

Let me clarify that I am looking for feedback from trads to see if they feel this is a fair representation of their views. I do not need to start a new thread to find out if non-trads disagree with trads. Most of the threads here fulfill that purpose admirably.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Let me clarify that I am looking for feedback from trads to see if they feel this is a fair representation of their views. I do not need to start a new thread to find out if non-trads disagree with trads. Most of the threads here fulfill that purpose admirably.

Sorry…I’ll go into lurk mode for the show. Just to clarify…who exactly do you mean then when you say “we have lost our sense of sin and we have this, and we have that”?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

I realize your comments are directed to traditionalists, which I am not, being a convert well post VII and having experience only with ordinary form mass in the Polish and English languages, but I think this bit above is a little extreme, and I would hope is not held by a lot of traditionalists.

The previous Pope might not have been satisfactory from a traditionalist standpoint, but viewed from outside the Roman Catholic church, I don’t think JP II can be fairly characterized as acting as if Catholicism was was equal to other religions, one among many, so to speak. He came from a time and place where the Church represented a real moral difference between itself the surrounding cultures (Nazis, Communism) and even to a non-catholic it was clear that the Pope stood for something very different. In a world where a priest could get killed for his sermons (Popieluszko), maybe the Pope has to take a larger view of things?

“Larger” view of things? What is that supposed to mean? Do you believe Catholics, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Larger” view of things? What is that supposed to mean? Do you believe Catholics, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?

Isn’t that how the gentiles were converted by the Apostles? They started by saying that the unnamed supreme god they worship is God.

 

[floresco]

Sorry…I’ll go into lurk mode for the show. Just to clarify…who exactly do you mean then when you say “we have lost our sense of sin and we have this, and we have that”?

This is how my friend thinks that trads view society. In that last bit the “we” means “we as a society”. He isn’t saying he thinks that trads think that about ourselves.

 

[floresco]

Let me put it this way, if you do not think of yourself as a trad, what you are about to write will probably derail the thread. Please think before you post.

 

[JReducation]

“Larger” view of things? What is that supposed to mean? Do you believe Catholics, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?

The last time that the Catholic Church spoke on this subject, the answer was, “Yes, we do” If you’re talking about the Trinity, that’s a whole other thread and a whole other issue. The Trinity has always existed, but Abraham did not know it, neither did Mary. But they prayed to the same God that you and I pray to. The case has not changed for the Jews and the Muslims. They don’t know any more than did Abraham or Mary about the Trinity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[floresco]

 

[Warrenton]

Flor- In a word, no.

First and foremost, traditionalism is about how we pray. First in importance is the mass. Traditional RCs prefer the tridentine mass. Second would be the other types of prayers, like the rosary and the little office. Third is might be called an “aesthetic.” Under that heading is a preferenence for Catholic forms of art and architecture. This does not necessarilly mean everything needs to be baroque or gothic, but it does mean that the average Walmart is more conducive to worship than than the cathedral in Los Angeles. Along with this would go the newer translations of scripture: “sabbaoth” does not mean “mighty king.”

What about Vatican II? Merely a catalyst. Some things in were good (yay! the Reformation is over!) Many things were obscure (what, no “anathema sit?”). But the feelings that it opened up had been brewing a long time, and we were probably in for it regardless. Had there been no Vat 2, priests would be saying the mass in vernacular anyway by now. Consider our bretheren, the Jews. No Vat 2 for them, and they have been buffeted by more radical changes than we have.

What Vat 2 did get right is the part about traditions belonging to the people. Ironically, we trads are on the strongest ground when we demand the old forms through Vat 2. So we should not be too busy sawing off the limb we’re sitting on. I’m not suggesting dear old Anibale foresaw the restoration, but it was logical within the corpus of the council’s work.

Though not technically part of Vat 2, I cannot see how any trad can find fault with Humanae Vitae. (I know Solange Hertz disagreed, but not with most of it). For that document to have come out when it did is miraculous. By itself, it is the second big limb of the traditionalist tree.

Last is traditionalists’ concept of the Church, which is that it is an actual body that acts like a human body, meaning it can observe, speak, and relate. Trads believe this body is the most important body on earth and sooner or later, all people must decide whether to be inside or outside of it.

Note that these issues have been arranged in the order that distiguishes traditionalists from others, not in the order that is perhaps most important from the standpoint of salvation.

All the other issues, like your friend mentioned, flow from one of these three things.

 

[ProVobis]

“Larger” view of things? What is that supposed to mean? Do you believe Catholics, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God?

Catholics (in fact, all Christians) pray to a Trinitarian Deity. I’d leave it to the theologians to decide about the sameness part.

 

[floresco]

First and foremost, traditionalism is about how we pray. First in importance is the mass. Traditional RCs prefer the tridentine mass. Second would be the other types of prayers, like the rosary and the little office. Third is might be called an “aesthetic.” Under that heading is a preferenence for Catholic forms of art and architecture. This does not necessarilly mean everything needs to be baroque or gothic, but it does mean that the average Walmart is more conducive to worship than than the cathedral in Los Angeles. Along with this would go the newer translations of scripture: “sabbaoth” does not mean “mighty king.”

I made a similar point in discussion with him. He was focusing on how trads view the Church and world but did not say anything about prayer and spirituality. The main reason I identify myself with tradition is because I have such a strong sense of connection with the past. To pray as our ancestors in faith prayed is for me an experience of the Communion of Saints.

I do think he was being much more fair to common trad positions than I often see them presented by non-trads, but he didn’t say anything about the underlying spirituality. I think he realized his description was incomplete, though, which is why he was asking me for feedback.

 

[Warrenton]

I do think he was being much more fair to common trad positions than I often see them presented by non-trads, but he didn’t say anything about the underlying spirituality. I think he realized his description was incomplete, though, which is why he was asking me for feedback.

You and I think alike. I think your friend was being fair. I just prefer to focus on what we stand for, rather than what “we have lost.”

 

[laszlo]

We have lost the most precious thing we had, the sacrifice of the Mass, where Jesus himself was physically offered as a sacrifice for the propitiation of sins, and turned into not much more than a community meal.

Here is an interesting CARA survey about it. 74% of Catholics believe in the transubstantiation, Christs real presence in the Eucharist

nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2010/10/christian-belief-in-and-knowledge-of.html

The Survey distinguishes an group of those who themselves believe, that say the the Church does not believes in the real presence

Also, the propitiation as concept was introduced by the Council of Trident, and means that the mass can be offered for getting God’s appeasement for our loved ones, and then Mass intentions are rightful.

Chap.2. The Sacrifice is a Visible Propitiation for the Living and the Dead ]
940 … Therefore, it is offered rightly according to the
tradition of the apostles [can. 3], not only for the sins of the
faithful living, for their punishments and other necessities, but also
for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged.

Jesus sacrifice is the expiation of the sins, virtually for all, actually for many who cooperate with Him.