I am not a Traditionalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter maurin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Except the Latin part but yeah, something like that. I think that this was how it would have been intended by the Council Fathers (as per more learned authors and theologians). The whole “anything goes” NO Mass is folks with an agenda walking a fine line.
I sometimes visit the one nearby & they are expanding the Latin including the Credo & Gloria.
 
Then Aristotle was wrong. 🙂
Tis one possibility, true. Another is that Aristotle wasn’t. And because St. Thomas Aquinas took Aristotle’s work and ran with it–of course I do NOT mean copied it or Christianized it, I simply mean he ran with it–Aristotle may not have been wrong.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
 
Aristotle is very wrong. That is a very modern way to think of truth, maybe not so modern as I once thought. Truth is not fluid, bendable or malleable in any way.

Truth is what it is. It is rigid, unmovable that’s why people are afraid of real truth, they want a version they can feel good about so they make their own.
I think that you may have misunderstood my use of Aristotle in the context in which I made my statement. Another poster was speaking of the extremes of Traditionalism and the extremes taken by some in the NO. He (or she) and I were NOT talking about anything else. Nota Bene that I am talking about ‘extremes.’ And one other thing: God is Truth. truth (small ‘t’) is something a bit different. I am 43 years old. That is the truth. But it is not ‘Truth.’

You also state that “people are afraid of real truth, they want a version they can feel good about so they make their own.”

I disagree to some extent. When people are not taught what Truth is, if people do not live surrounded by that Truth, then people will do what seems right to them.

The biggest problem, I think, in our beloved Holy Mother Church today is that the Truth is not being taught from the top down. It is not being taught consistently nor is it being taught in language that is simple enough for even the dullest of us to understand. So we do the best we can do under our limited understanding.
 
The truth is in the middle of two extremes. You just have a misplaced definition of where the extremes are. Think of it this way, Materialism (matter is the only good) versus Manicheism (only the spirit is good in any way) and in the Middle is the Catholic Church.

The truth is the Truth, and there is only one way to hit the truth, but there are many ways to miss, just like there is one way to hit the bullseye but there are thousands of ways to miss it.

I think the poster you responded to was trying to show that you can miss the truth by going too far to the left, and you can miss it by going too far to the right as well.

A lone Raven
a much better explanation than I was able to muster above. Thank you brother or sister!!!
 
People really mis interpert. The gates of hell will not prevail over the church as a whole, that does not mean all local dioceses are protected. We saw that during the Arian heresy, and also when large numbers of Bishops went with the local princes in the 1500s and took entire dioceses into Lutheranism.
Very true, and thank you for that distinction. I had in my mind, though, when I typed that response, the Bishops teaching as a whole; in that respect, I think, they are protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

But you make an important distinction, and you are correct to call to my attention that “people really misinterpret.” I wouldn’t be maurin if I didn’t mess it up once in awhile!!!
 
just an observation:

those who are in traditional parishes tend to live by the church’s teaching against birth control. those in NO parishes who are living the church’s teaching against birth control are open to traditional forms of worship (or, they agree that it has its place). they are usually not “anti-traditional”. those in NO parishes who couldn’t care less about the church’s traditional teaching on birth control (much less, live it) also couldn’t care less about its traditional forms of worship.

just an observation. those who respect traditional teaching have a respect for traditional worship. i’m not saying they prefer traditional worship, but they don’t think it is a bad thing.

any nay-sayers?
The NO new agers who couldn’t care less about the Church’s Traditional forms of worship that you refer to above, I have a feeling that proper and consistent Catechesis might just be the cure. That has been my observation. I agree with what you wrote. In Parishes where I have made my home in the last 10 years that had consistent ‘continuing adult ed.’ classes in the faith, the community as a whole was much more open, in fact looked forward to more Traditional ‘‘additions.’’ But we understood what we were participating in. I have found, since my work has moved me twice in the last two years to different states, that Parishes such as the one I referred to are rare, few and far in between.

😦
 
The NO new agers who couldn’t care less about the Church’s Traditional forms of worship that you refer to above, I have a feeling that proper and consistent Catechesis might just be the cure. That has been my observation. I agree with what you wrote. In Parishes where I have made my home in the last 10 years that had consistent ‘continuing adult ed.’ classes in the faith, the community as a whole was much more open, in fact looked forward to more Traditional ‘‘additions.’’ But we understood what we were participating in. I have found, since my work has moved me twice in the last two years to different states, that Parishes such as the one I referred to are rare, few and far in between.

😦
You will save about half of the Innovative NO people.
The other half are too self centered to care about BC or church traditions, other than the pretty wedding, the big party for the Baptisms and the near-wedding reception that they are throwing for First Communion.
 
In the TLM & other old E-Rites everything had a meaning.
In the NO mindset nearly everthing is “what is MY preference or feeling”. The Universal meanings are irrelevant in most cases.
Lack of knowledge and understanding keeps many people in darkness, prejudice, and even hatred in some instances for those who worship differently. Catechesis is a great need and if one does not seek it through programs offered at the parish or from private study, then mindsets do develop without a sound basis for Truth.

Ethereal worship derived through externals becomes a desire to be pursued above all else, because of an attachment to the senses which are ever prone to pleasure, including spiritual pleasure. This is at the root of man’s sinfulness such as gluttony, lust, avarice. The pursuit of pleasure subtly progresses to spiritual capital vices as well, until God brings the spirit into purification. Very seldom does a person recognize this shadow of darkness due to attachment for what their senses find most pleasurable. Personal preference then becomes the interpreter of good liturgy, rather than its essence or doctrine.

In many respects, this is more praiseworthy than the utter indifference found in some persons who go to mass solely to avoid mortal sin in the third commandment. “These people give me lip service, but their hearts are far from me.” Religion is left at the church door before entering the parking lot, and the faith which espouses love of God and neighbor in their work week is barely recognizable.

The Lord’s Spirit is evidenced in those who are joyful, hopeful, merciful, compassionate, welcoming, forbearing, nonjudgmental, patient … Can we honestly discern this Spirit within the many accusations circulating in this forum? The book of Revelation teaches us that the “accuser of the brethren” is the devil. If we were directed by God to “go where My Spirit is” … where would we find it? In choosing the people with whom one worships, even the lukewarmness of some would be a more fitting atmosphere than insolent pride.
 
Catholicism and Satanism are not the extremes of anything. One is Truth, the other is not.

** Try to keep it real, rational and above-board. Please./**quote]

Golly, I thought I was keeping it real, rational and above-board. Truth is what it is. If you put truth on a continuum to the right side, there would be nothing to its right. Truth does not have varying degrees of validity. It is either true or not. Lies, on the other hand, fill out the continuum with varying degrees of untruth. There are white lies, garden variety lies, lies that cause great harm–a virtual garden of lies of every shape and form. The ultimate lie is of course Satan.
So, Catholicism, being true is on the extreme right and Satanism, the ultimate lie is on the extreme left. Please notice that I did not use an adjective with true. It can have no modifier. If you think about it rationally, truth is always on the extreme, never in the middle.
 
maurin;1824785:
Catholicism and Satanism are not the extremes of anything. One is Truth, the other is not.

Try to keep it real, rational and above-board. Please./
quote]

Golly, I thought I was keeping it real, rational and above-board. Truth is what it is. If you put truth on a continuum to the right side, there would be nothing to its right. Truth does not have varying degrees of validity. It is either true or not. Lies, on the other hand, fill out the continuum with varying degrees of untruth. There are white lies, garden variety lies, lies that cause great harm–a virtual garden of lies of every shape and form. The ultimate lie is of course Satan.
So, Catholicism, being true is on the extreme right and Satanism, the ultimate lie is on the extreme left. Please notice that I did not use an adjective with true. It can have no modifier. If you think about it rationally, truth is always on the extreme, never in the middle.
👍
 
maurin;1824785:
Catholicism and Satanism are not the extremes of anything. One is Truth, the other is not.

** Try to keep it real, rational and above-board. Please./**
quote]

Golly, I thought I was keeping it real, rational and above-board. Truth is what it is. If you put truth on a continuum to the right side, there would be nothing to its right. Truth does not have varying degrees of validity. It is either true or not. Lies, on the other hand, fill out the continuum with varying degrees of untruth. There are white lies, garden variety lies, lies that cause great harm–a virtual garden of lies of every shape and form. The ultimate lie is of course Satan.
So, Catholicism, being true is on the extreme right and Satanism, the ultimate lie is on the extreme left. Please notice that I did not use an adjective with true. It can have no modifier. If you think about it rationally, truth is always on the extreme, never in the middle.

SnorterLuster,

I would like to thank you for continuing to twist my original statement that concerned Aristotle.

So you know: Catholicism and Satanism ARE NOT extremes of the same pole. They are two different poles. I had nor have no intention of comparing them.

I agree with your assessment of what Truth is, in the context in which you have described it. Keeping things “above-board” means to try to discuss things in the same context as the original intention. Not bring in a different view.

You have put a slant on my words that I did not intend.

And one question that I had: you are saying that there are no varying degrees of truth, correct? Judaism contains NO truth? (To make myself perfectly clear, I certainly do not say that Judaism IS truth, only asking if, in your opinion, since you state there is no varying degrees in truth, if Judaism contains some of the truth.) Just a question.
 

And one question that I had: you are saying that there are no varying degrees of truth, correct? Judaism contains NO truth? (To make myself perfectly clear, I certainly do not say that Judaism IS truth, only asking if, in your opinion, since you state there is no varying degrees in truth, if Judaism contains some of the truth.) Just a question.
Judaism is a whole set of beliefs, not a particular statement that, on its own, can be held as true or false.

Every “set” of beliefs, philosophy, religion, science theories, political structure and the like contain some truth. That truth is the spark that keeps its propagation lit.
Protestantism moves along from the Truth contained in it, but the UNTRUTH goes along for the ride.
Liberalism is the same way.
No one in his right mind is going to embrace a set of beliefs that manifestly have NO truth in them.
However, the truth contained in them has the sole purpose of advancing the untruth in it.
 
SnorterLuster;1825626:
And one question that I had: you are saying that there are no varying degrees of truth, correct? Judaism contains NO truth? (To make myself perfectly clear, I certainly do not say that Judaism IS truth, only asking if, in your opinion, since you state there is no varying degrees in truth, if Judaism contains some of the truth.) Just a question.
Certainly Judaism contains truth. It also contains untruths. If it was wholly and completely the truth, then it would be Catholicism.
 
SnorterLuster;1825626:
since you state there is no varying degrees in truth Just a question.
SnorterLuster,

I should NOT have phrased that as a statement, but rather as a question: are you stating that there are no degrees in truth?

My point is that, as you stated above above, that if another religion contained the whole truth it would be Catholicism–I agree perfectly–but another religion can contain some truth, or parts of the truth.

In order to state my point, or try to, more clearly, everything participates in the Truth to varying degrees. Is that an acceptable statement to my position?
 
Catholicism and Satanism are not the extremes of anything. One is Truth, the other is not.

Try to keep it real, rational and above-board. Please.
One is truth catholicism and the other
satanism is deception
and I don’t think there is anything wrong with adjectives.
Everything from the far “left” if you care so say catholicism___all include ________________to the far right is deception satanism.
When you leave catholicism or( if you were never there) on your journey towards satanism by way of deception.
I think we are being rational.
 
maurin;1825833:
SnorterLuster,

I should NOT have phrased that as a statement, but rather as a question: are you stating that there are no degrees in truth?

My point is that, as you stated above above, that if another religion contained the whole truth it would be Catholicism–I agree perfectly–but another religion can contain some truth, or parts of the truth.

In order to state my point, or try to, more clearly, everything participates in the Truth to varying degrees. Is that an acceptable statement to my position?
If you only have part of a truth don’t you have a half truth?
dessert
 
Judaism is a whole set of beliefs, not a particular statement that, on its own, can be held as true or false

However, the truth contained in them has the sole purpose of advancing the untruth in it.
How true this is so if you only have a half truth or part of the truth you can get deceived. dessert
 
Judahism has a truth there is a messiah to save the world, the whole truth is he has already been here and risen. If you become enlightened to the truth wouldn’t you want to embrace it?
Completely? With your whole heart body and soul oh and the mind but there is the sticky how do we get it with our mind?dessert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top