How should we deal with Catholics who are badly mistaken about matters of Catholic tradition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_B_NY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_B_NY said:
40.png
gracepoole:
We can all define “Catholics traditions about which Catholics are badly mistaken” differently.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be a problem, understood.
Click to expand...
So…you can’t or won’t provide examples of what you mean when describing the above? I’m confused.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
Some Catholics are badly mistaken about matters of Catholic tradition.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about “Tradition” or “tradition” because there’s an important difference between the two. The first, Apostolic Tradition, involves unchanging matters of faith whereas the second simply involves long-standing customs which can (and do) change.
 
InThePew said:
Are you talking about “ T radition” or “ t radition” because there’s an important difference between the two. The first, Apostolic Tradition, involves unchanging matters of faith whereas the second simply involves long-standing customs which can (and do) change.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about traditional Catholicism, not Catholic Tradition.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
40.png
gracepoole:
I’m confused.
Click to expand...
I was just referencing the point made earlier about whether it’s best to just ignore in those cases and that was my fallback position. Unless anyone else had success otherwise.
Click to expand...
At this point I have to assume that you’re refusing to give examples to support your question. How can anyone answer the question of how to deal with these Catholics when we don’t know what you mean by “matters of Catholic tradition”?
 
Yes, and we should love Him and the Church He died for.
 
Last edited:
Yes, true and also did we give our best love and worship to the Father. Jesus gave us His Body and Blood in the Holy Church, and through Him we can love others.
 
I can only hope and pray that I would do the same and never fail. In my strong moments, yes. In my weak ones, I can’t even do a little good deed (or avoid something worse). But I ask Jesus to give me His strength, so I will die for the Faith.
 
I would be very wrong to question or doubt in such a way. Some traditionalists make sweeping judgements and I understand, because one can generalize (I attend many NO Masses in different parishes). But judgements against others, especially about their love of God or commitment - that is very wrong as I see it.
I just respond to expressions of ignorance and opposition, as well as denials of doctrine of the Faith. That’s different.

But yes, the OF is an Eternal Offering. It cannot be compared. It is infinite.
 
InThePew said:
40.png
Bill_B_NY:
Some Catholics are badly mistaken about matters of Catholic tradition.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about “Tradition” or “tradition” because there’s an important difference between the two. The first, Apostolic Tradition, involves unchanging matters of faith whereas the second simply involves long-standing customs which can (and do) change.
Click to expand...
I’ll try to help Bill out a bit here, as he has only been with us for three days.

I suggested that this question was intended for “traditional Catholics” who would identify as such by regular participation in the Traditional Catholic section of CAF. We are all equal members of Christ’s Catholic Church and also CAF, but they (and I am not one) have their own expertise and concerns.

As a general comment, while I am not a “traditional Catholic” by my own definition above, I certainly do often meet other Catholics IRL (not so much in CAF) who are woefully ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Just recently I had a priest advise non-Catholic friends of mine that they could receive communion in the Catholic Church, with no caveats (and I’ve seen such advice being widely given by lay Catholics). If such ignorance is alarming to non-“traditional Catholics”, I can imagine that there are other matters which are specifically of concern to “traditional Catholics”, hence my suggestion that the OP question best be answered within those circles. I might find the discussion illuminating myself.
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
Just recently I had a priest advise non-Catholic friends of mine that they could receive communion in the Catholic Church, with no caveats (and I’ve seen such advice being widely given by lay Catholics). If such ignorance is alarming to non-“traditional Catholics”, I can imagine that there are other matters which are specifically of concern to “traditional Catholics”, hence my suggestion that the OP question best be answered within those circles. I might find the discussion illuminating myself.
Click to expand...
I think that’s an excellent example and a very fair question. I’d find that a big problem, and one that is difficult to deal with.
 
Remember that Jesus participated in the Temple Rituals, and followed the Rite to the letter. The liturgy of the early Church had ceremony. It wasn’t just a free-for-all.
 
Paul VI discussed this at length in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam:
But it seems to Us that the sort of relationship for the Church to establish with the world should be more in the nature of a dialogue, though theoretically other methods are not excluded. We do not mean unrealistic dialogue. It must be adapted to the intelligences of those to whom it is addressed, and it must take account of the circumstances. Dialogue with children is not the same as dialogue with adults, nor is dialogue with Christians the same as dialogue with non-believers. But this method of approach is demanded nowadays by the prevalent understanding of the relationship between the sacred and the profane. It is demanded by the dynamic course of action which is changing the face of modern society. It is demanded by the pluralism of society, and by the maturity man has reached in this day and age. Be he religious or not, his secular education has enabled him to think and speak, and conduct a dialogue with dignity.

Moreover, the very fact that he engages in a dialogue of this sort is proof of his consideration and esteem for others, his understanding and his kindness. He detests bigotry and prejudice, malicious and indiscriminate hostility, and empty, boastful speech.

If, in our desire to respect a man’s freedom and dignity, his conversion to the true faith is not the immediate object of our dialogue with him, we nevertheless try to help him and to dispose him for a fuller sharing of ideas and convictions.

Our dialogue, therefore, presupposes that there exists in us a state of mind which we wish to communicate and to foster in those around us. It is the state of mind which characterizes the man who realizes the seriousness of the apostolic mission and who sees his own salvation as inseparable from the salvation of others. His constant endeavor is to get everyone talking about the message which it has been given to him to communicate…

How greatly we desire that this dialogue with Our own children may be conducted with the fullness of faith, with charity, and with dynamic holiness. May it be of frequent occurrence and on an intimate level. May it be open and responsive to all truth, every virtue, every spiritual value that goes to make us the heritage of Christian teaching. We want it to be sincere. We want it to be an inspiration to genuine holiness. We want it to show itself ready to listen to the variety of views which are expressed in the world today. We want it to be the sort of dialogue that will make Catholics virtuous, wise, unfettered, fair-minded and strong.
Click to expand...
 
Dovekin said:
Paul VI discussed this at length in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam :
Click to expand...
I don’t think he was talking about conflicts within the Church among Catholics.
He did say that he thought the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. If he was correct, then we’d need some way to deal with it.
I think that’s what this post is about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top