I'm interested in determining really how Traditional I am

  • Thread starter Thread starter Darnok
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Darnok

Guest
To give a little back-round of myself and my situation. I grew up in the post-Vatican II church attending secular parish (priests of no religious order). We celebrated the Novus Ordo and did not do such things as raising hands at the Our Father.
I moved to Hawaii in 1989 and registered with the local Parish. Now I attend mass regularly and my priests are Capuchin. I am presently entering the Secular Franciscans (one of my home parish priests is the Hawaii State spiritual advisor for the SFO).
My parish uses the N.O. and does raise hands at the Our Father. I do not as I see no reason for it. Interestingly, I’ve heard of parishes which replaced the sign of peace with raising hands. In my parish, both is done.
I fully believe that the Tridentine mass MUST. With the same passion that I believe it should be preserved, I also feel like I’m not called to be one of those preserving it.
I would be like to be asked questions and receive feedback to determine just how Traditional I really am. and what it really means to be Traditional. I’m thinking not of determining how traditional my rites and rituals are, but rather my spirituality and beliefs.
I just hope this doesn’t come across as self serving or pretentious on my part.
 
There is nothing in the rubrics of the Pauline Mass or the Tridentine Mass that prohibit the laity from making use of the orans position. Doing so is not an unauthorized addition to the Mass. I attended both types of Masses on Sunday and saw the position being assumed by the laity at each of them.

The sign of peace is obviously an option with the Pauline Mass. A wonderful option if not abused. I love to see visiting celebrants (usually bishops) make use of it on televised EWTN Masses.

FWIW, “Mass” is properly capitalized.
 
Darnok said:
I would be like to be asked questions and receive feedback to determine just how Traditional I really am. and what it really means to be Traditional. I’m thinking not of determining how traditional my rites and rituals are, but rather my spirituality and beliefs.
I just hope this doesn’t come across as self serving or pretentious on my part.
Click to expand...
A Traditional Catholic is simply a Catholic who still believes and “thinks” as Catholics always have. Liberalism and modernism are the errors or our day. The 4th century had Arianism, we have liberalism.

I’ll give you a few questions to either consider or respond to, and then a few Papal Encyclicals to read - both of which deal with the issues flowing from modernism and liberalism.

Questsion 1: Do you believe in Religious liberty? Do you believe that everyone has the right to belong to whatever religion they choose? That is actually a liberal error. That doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to convert… not at all; it simply means that we only have a “right” to do what it is true and good, and belonging to a false religion is neither. False religions can be tolerated, but never can one have a right to belong to them.

Question 2: Do you believe the State should be united to the Church? In other words, should the State by subject to the Roman Catholic Church and subject to the Pope, although having separate duties? The contrary has been condemned as an error of the Liberals.

Question 3: Do you believe that Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, is more or less good and praiseworthy?; or do you believe that, regardless of the good intentions of the members, they are sects of perdition, and in no way whatsoever a part of the one true Church? (Our “common baptism” does not make a heretic part of the Church.)

Those are a few questions to think about. Here are a few encyclicals and Papal documents to read.

1.) Mirari Vos, of Pope Gregory XVI. This is short and easy to understand.

2.) Mortalium Animos. Another short and easy to understand encyclical.

3.) Libertas of Pope Leo XII. This is probably the best encyclical in shining the light on the errors of Liberalism. This encylicals needs to not only be read, but learned. It sets everything in its proper order, teaches a person how to think with respect to the errors of our day, and clears up a lot of liberal confusion.

You should also read the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (particularly numbers 15, 77, 78, 79, 80), and the Syllabus Lamentaballe (may have spelled that wrong) of Pope Pius X.

If you read those documents and believe them you are a Traditionalist, since these documents refute the errors of the modernists and liberals.

Then, if you want to go one step further, you can read the book “Liberalism is a sin”, which is available to read online. This book was written in the lat 1800’s. It was given a glowing approval by the Holy Office.
 
Extraordinary said:
There is nothing in the rubrics of the Pauline Mass or the Tridentine Mass that prohibit the laity from making use of the orans position. Doing so is not an unauthorized addition to the Mass. I attended both types of Masses on Sunday and saw the position being assumed by the laity at each of them.
Click to expand...
That is the “monkeys in the sanctuary” argument and it just doesn’t fly. (the “monkeys in the sanctuary” argument goes like this: since the GIRM doesn’t specifically prohibit monkeys in the sanctuary it must be OK). The GIRM cannot prohibit every idea people come up with.

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html
 
Question 1: Do you believe in Religious liberty? Do you believe that everyone has the right to belong to whatever religion they choose?
Click to expand...
I’ve actually wondered about this. God gave Adam and Eve the choice of doing right or wrong. It’s not so much choosing to belong to a different religion. I more think of it as people seeking to belong to a different religion and then claiming to God “I was led astray”, or “I didn’t know” when they knew full well that it’s against God’s will.
Do you believe the State should be united to the Church? In other words, should the State by subject to the Roman Catholic Church and subject to the Pope, although having separate duties?
Click to expand...
I believe that would be a wonderful ideal. I would love to see the Vatican as the leading central authority for Christian faith and morals. Do you mean that U.S. would use Catholic doctrine as the basis for establishing ethics laws (abortion, behavior of government officials, etc.)? If the answer to my question is yes, then my answer to your question is yes.
Beyond this, I would like to know more about how this is envisioned. Does this mean that it would be a matter of civil law that the President be Catholic (similar to how it’s required by British law that the King of England be Anglican)?
The contrary has been condemned as an error of the Liberals.
Click to expand...
Sources please.
Do you believe that Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, is more or less good and praiseworthy?
Click to expand...
As a specific example, I can’t respond to the example of Eastern Orthodoxy because I know nothing of what they teach. As for Protestantism, I believe it’s a nice package with confusion behind it. Protestantism has some praiseworthy aspects to it (ie. encouraging a personal relationship with God). However, they have ignored some core truths to get that going. The results are confusion.
do you believe that, regardless of the good intentions of the members, they are sects of perdition, and in no way whatsoever a part of the one true Church? (Our “common baptism” does not make a heretic part of the Church.)
Click to expand...
Even Sedes teach a truth once in a while. I, however, believe that God will judge each individual person as an individual. The Catholic teaching on the qualifications of sin reigns here for me. The person must know that its a sin (ie. actively knows that the CC is the one true Church), has free will to make a decision (ie. wasn’t born into another church and never given a chance to decide for themselves), and still denies the CC, then yes, that person is in a state of mortal sin.
Here are a few encyclicals and Papal documents to read.
Click to expand...
(edited for space)

Thanks for the list of documents. BTW: I’ve posted this question before on other BBSs. This is the first time I’ve ever gotten a coherent answer. Thanks! 👍
 
Darnok said:
I’ve actually wondered about this. God gave Adam and Eve the choice of doing right or wrong. It’s not so much choosing to belong to a different religion. I more think of it as people seeking to belong to a different religion and then claiming to God “I was led astray”, or “I didn’t know” when they knew full well that it’s against God’s will.

I believe that would be a wonderful ideal. I would love to see the Vatican as the leading central authority for Christian faith and morals. Do you mean that U.S. would use Catholic doctrine as the basis for establishing ethics laws (abortion, behavior of government officials, etc.)? If the answer to my question is yes, then my answer to your question is yes.
Beyond this, I would like to know more about how this is envisioned. Does this mean that it would be a matter of civil law that the President be Catholic (similar to how it’s required by British law that the King of England be Anglican)?

Sources please.

As a specific example, I can’t respond to the example of Eastern Orthodoxy because I know nothing of what they teach. As for Protestantism, I believe it’s a nice package with confusion behind it. Protestantism has some praiseworthy aspects to it (ie. encouraging a personal relationship with God). However, they have ignored some core truths to get that going. The results are confusion.

Even Sedes teach a truth once in a while. I, however, believe that God will judge each individual person as an individual. The Catholic teaching on the qualifications of sin reigns here for me. The person must know that its a sin (ie. actively knows that the CC is the one true Church), has free will to make a decision (ie. wasn’t born into another church and never given a chance to decide for themselves), and still denies the CC, then yes, that person is in a state of mortal sin.

(edited for space)

Thanks for the list of documents. BTW: I’ve posted this question before on other BBSs. This is the first time I’ve ever gotten a coherent answer. Thanks! 👍
Click to expand...
The Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pius IX is found here.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

I have found this site an excellent reference source for papal
documents, btw.
 
"Pax et Caritas:
Question 1: Do you believe in Religious liberty? Do you believe that everyone has the right to belong to whatever religion they choose?
Click to expand...
Darnok said:
I’ve actually wondered about this. God gave Adam and Eve the choice of doing right or wrong. It’s not so much choosing to belong to a different religion. I more think of it as people seeking to belong to a different religion and then claiming to God “I was led astray”, or “I didn’t know” when they knew full well that it’s against God’s will.
Click to expand...
God gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose right or wrong, but he did not give them the right to choose right or wrong. The ability to do something does not equate to the right to do it. Pope Leo XIII clears this up in the encyclical I mentioned above (Libertas).

The Pope distinguishes between natural liberty (which is another name for free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what we are able to do, whereas moral liberty is what we are allowed to do - or what we have a “right” to do. The pope explains that “a right is a moral power”, and that man only has a right to do what is true and good.

There are three things to consider: God’s Rights, man’s duties, and lastly man’s rights.

God has all Rights. He can do or command whatever He wants. Man then has the obligation - the duty - to do what God commands. Lastly, man has the right to the means necessary for him to fulfill his duties towards God. The Liberals invert the order and place man’s rights at the summit, while they completely disregard both God’s Rights, and man’s corresonding duty. Then, after disregarding man’s duties (except when it applies to their new religion of environmentalism) the Liberals claim for man rights that he does not possess (rights to have an abortion, etc.), while at the same time attempting to take away rights that he does possess (such as the right to educate our children, since we have d duty to God to see to it that they receive a good education). Our rights come to us from God, and God gives no man the right to violate any of His laws.
40.png
Pax:
Do you believe the State should be united to the Church? In other words, should the State by subject to the Roman Catholic Church and subject to the Pope, although having separate duties?
Click to expand...
40.png
Darnok:
I believe that would be a wonderful ideal. I would love to see the Vatican as the leading central authority for Christian faith and morals. Do you mean that U.S. would use Catholic doctrine as the basis for establishing ethics laws (abortion, behavior of government officials, etc.)? If the answer to my question is yes, then my answer to your question is yes.
Beyond this, I would like to know more about how this is envisioned. Does this mean that it would be a matter of civil law that the President be Catholic (similar to how it’s required by British law that the King of England be Anglican)?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to imagine the union of Church and State in America, since America is not a Catholic Country. The union of Church and State is the ideal, but not always practically possible. We are only required to believe that the State should be united to the Church, not that it must be.

In a Catholic country, the Church and State are united. They have different functions, but they are united and work together. Ideally the laws of the Church will be refelcted in the State. Therefore, as you said, no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no public profession of a false religion (which is a sin against the 1st commandment), etc.
40.png
Pax:
The contrary has been condemned as an error of the Liberals.
Click to expand...
40.png
Darnok:
Sources please.
Click to expand...
The Syllabus of errors issued by Pope Pius X and Pope Pius IX, as well as teh encyclical Libertas. Here are two examples:

Syllabus of Pope Pius IX: [It is an error to hold that] “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (#77); and

[It is an error to hold that] “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (# 55)

In the encyclical Libertas, Pope Leo XIII discusses in detail why the two should be united, and the end result of their separation.

I started to repond to the last part, but don’t have time just yet. If you want a reply (and I have one), just let me know.

BTW, you seem very sincere and honest in your approach. Maintain that state of mind and read the documents I mentioned in the first e-mail. They will answer all of your question. I would suggest, most of all, the enyclical Libertas. When you have some free time, print it out and sit down with a highlihter. Take your time and really try to absorb it. It is a must read for today.

God Bless,
 
"Pax et Caritas:
Question 1: Do you believe in Religious liberty? Do you believe that everyone has the right to belong to whatever religion they choose?
Click to expand...
Darnok said:
I’ve actually wondered about this. God gave Adam and Eve the choice of doing right or wrong. It’s not so much choosing to belong to a different religion. I more think of it as people seeking to belong to a different religion and then claiming to God “I was led astray”, or “I didn’t know” when they knew full well that it’s against God’s will.
Click to expand...
I want to make another comment on what you wrote above, especially due to what you underlined.

You seem to be confusing subjective guilt with rights. They are two different things. I think I can make it clear with this example…

Let’s say that a person was hunting. He saw what he believed to be a deer and shot it dead. He then realized that what he killed was not a deer but a fellow hunter.

Now, if this person truly thought he was shooting a deer, he was not guilty in God’s eyes… but that does not mean he had a “right” to kill the other hunter.

A right is not determined by subjective guilt. We only have the right to do what is objectively good; in other words, the act itself must be good regardless of what we subjectively believe.

That is why no one has the “right” to profess a false religion. Regardless of their guilt, the act itself is objectively against God’s law. Just as the hunter had no right to kill the other hunter since it was objectively wrong (even though he was not subjectively guilty) so too, no one has the right to profess a false religion. subjective innocents does not give someone the right to do what is objectively wrong. Did that make sense?
 
Quote "
Question 3: Do you believe that Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, is more or less good and praiseworthy?; or do you believe that, regardless of the good intentions of the members, they are sects of perdition, and in no way whatsoever a part of the one true Church? (Our “common baptism” does not make a heretic part of the Church.)"

I have no problem whatsoever with Eastern Orthodoxy. But I do have a huge problem with Protestants.
 
bkovacs said:
Quote "
Question 3: Do you believe that Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, is more or less good and praiseworthy?; or do you believe that, regardless of the good intentions of the members, they are sects of perdition, and in no way whatsoever a part of the one true Church? (Our “common baptism” does not make a heretic part of the Church.)"

I have no problem whatsoever with Eastern Orthodoxy. But I do have a huge problem with Protestants.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox are true heretics and true schismatics. They are heretics because they deny man dogmas of the faith, such as The Immaculate conception, and the Primacy of the Pope, and they are schismatics because they reject the office of the Pope as the head of the Church.

How can you not have a problem with heretics and schismatics?

I’m curious, what do you think about the SSPX? Do you have a problem with them? If so, why?
 
Darnok said:
To give a little back-round of myself and my situation. I grew up in the post-Vatican II church attending secular parish (priests of no religious order). We celebrated the Novus Ordo and did not do such things as raising hands at the Our Father.
I moved to Hawaii in 1989 and registered with the local Parish. Now I attend mass regularly and my priests are Capuchin. I am presently entering the Secular Franciscans (one of my home parish priests is the Hawaii State spiritual advisor for the SFO).
My parish uses the N.O. and does raise hands at the Our Father. I do not as I see no reason for it. Interestingly, I’ve heard of parishes which replaced the sign of peace with raising hands. In my parish, both is done.
I fully believe that the Tridentine mass MUST. With the same passion that I believe it should be preserved, I also feel like I’m not called to be one of those preserving it.
I would be like to be asked questions and receive feedback to determine just how Traditional I really am. and what it really means to be Traditional. I’m thinking not of determining how traditional my rites and rituals are, but rather my spirituality and beliefs.
I just hope this doesn’t come across as self serving or pretentious on my part.
Click to expand...
What are you going to do once you know how traditional you are (assuming that we can use a metric to measure it)?

I personally would and do wonder more about my ignorance and lack of Christian behaviors. I rather be a “liberal” Catholic (according to some men) than a “traditionalist” the puts himself above everything (according to God). Just forget about trying to fit in a label, do yourself a favor and do a deep dive into your studies and spiritual growth. I warn you that at the end you might consider yourself a more loving “traditionalist” or a more rigid “liberal” that you ever thought.
 
Cristiano said:
What are you going to do once you know how traditional you are (assuming that we can use a metric to measure it)?

I personally would and do wonder more about my ignorance and lack of Christian behaviors. I rather be a “liberal” Catholic (according to some men) than a “traditionalist” the puts himself above everything (according to God). Just forget about trying to fit in a label, do yourself a favor and do a deep dive into your studies and spiritual growth. I warn you that at the end you might consider yourself a more loving “traditionalist” or a more rigid “liberal” that you ever thought.
Click to expand...
You’d rather reject some teaching of the Church and put yourself in danger of salvation, than be regarded as too “rigid” by men?
 
arieh0310 said:
That is the “monkeys in the sanctuary” argument and it just doesn’t fly. (the “monkeys in the sanctuary” argument goes like this: since the GIRM doesn’t specifically prohibit monkeys in the sanctuary it must be OK). The GIRM cannot prohibit every idea people come up with.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s your response just just doesn’t fly. You are trying to logically equate assuming the orans position with “monkeys in the sanctuary” and that is just plain silly.
 
Extraordinary said:
Actually it’s your response just just doesn’t fly. You are trying to logically equate assuming the orans position with “monkeys in the sanctuary” and that is just plain silly.
Click to expand...
It is called a reductio ad absurdum and it is perfectly logical conclusion to your premise. Of course the orans and monkeys are not the same, but monkeys in the sanctuary is a logical result of your reasoning. It proves that your reasoning has a logical fallacy.

Aside from the fallacy of your argument, the fact remains that the orans was a posture reserved for the priest alone for centuries. Gee, any wonder why there is a blurring of the priest/laity distinctions today?
 
SemperFidelis said:
You’d rather reject some teaching of the Church and put yourself in danger of salvation, than be regarded as too “rigid” by men?
Click to expand...
Can you please explain how do you get the impression that I am saying that?

I just addressed the use of labels, and I also made it clear that I am concerned more about Christ’s judgment than men’s judgment.

Rejecting the teaching’s of the Church is rejecting God (at least according to my standards). That would not do too well if you are concerned with Christ’s judgment.
 
Cristiano said:
Can you please explain how do you get the impression that I am saying that?

I just addressed the use of labels, and I also made it clear that I am concerned more about Christ’s judgment than men’s judgment.

Rejecting the teaching’s of the Church is rejecting God (at least according to my standards). That would not do too well if you are concerned with Christ’s judgment.
Click to expand...
Well you said you would rather be a liberal Catholic than a “traditionalist.” A liberal Catholic by definition is someone who rejects some teaching of the Church (ie: birth control). I don’t know too many traditional Catholics who reject teachings of the Church however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top