I'm interested in determining really how Traditional I am

[Cristiano]

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.

Please re-read my post. I was saying that I rather be condemned as a “liberal” by men then being condemned by God as “anything” even as a “traditionalist”. Again a “liberal” Catholic is a definition given by men and people in this forum apply it quite “liberally”. I would be more hesitant to deal with (as in accepting) the label of “modernism” because that to me has been clearly defined by the Church.

Anyway, how someone that rejects some teachings of the Church would support further studies and spiritual growth to someone else? If we do not consider the Church infallible why would you deepen your studies in order to better form your conscience and overcome your own misunderstandings?

Traditional Catholics can reject the teachings of the Church through their own actions!

 

[SemperFidelis]

I would be more hesitant to deal with (as in accepting) the label of “modernism” because that to me has been clearly defined by the Church.

From Blessed Pius IX:

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

1. 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.—Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
2. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. p 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
3. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

Also, check out liberalismisasin.com/, a book that was widely praised by the Holy See.

 

[Extraordinary]

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?

If I assume the orans position during the Mass – be it the ordinary or extraordinary rite, I do little to impact the Mass itself, the celebrant or my fellow worshippers – certainly far less than one who insists on kneeling for instance, when the rubics clearly indicate standing.

On the other hand, if someone let loose a cage of animals on in the sanctuary, it would have a direct, material impact. You are trying to equate two activities which are vastly different and have different impacts. You are inferring they both have consequences and they do not, only one does – that’s your fallacy.

Where in the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass does it restrict the laity from assuming the orans position?

 

[arieh0310]

If I assume the orans position during the Mass – be it the ordinary or extraordinary rite, I do little to impact the Mass itself, the celebrant or my fellow worshippers – certainly far less than one who insists on kneeling for instance, when the rubics clearly indicate standing.

On the other hand, if someone let loose a cage of animals on in the sanctuary, it would have a direct, material impact. You are trying to equate two activities which are vastly different and have different impacts. You are inferring they both have consequences and they do not, only one does – that’s your fallacy.

Where in the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass does it restrict the laity from assuming the orans position?

Evidently, the concept of reductio ad absurdum eludes you. “Because it isn’t prohibited means it is allowed” is not a position we should adopt with regard to the liturgy, and the reductio proves how ridiculous your position is.

Read the Adoremus article, orans was reserved to the clergy for centuries. I don’t have the rubrics for the laity for the 1962 missal handy, so I cannot give you a citation for what postures are allowed.

 

[Cristiano]

From Blessed Pius IX:

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

1. 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.—Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
2. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. p 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
3. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

Also, check out liberalismisasin.com/, a book that was widely praised by the Holy See.

1- Are you saying that the Syllabus of errors is infallible teaching? If yes than you should address my comment in post #5 of forum on the Separation of Church and State.

2- With this reference you are referring to something specific about Church and State while I doubt that today the main source of Catholic “liberals” and “modernist” distance themselves form the Church because of this doctrine.

3- The book that you are referring to is not infallible teaching even if it is of considerable value.

4- While I agree with your overall thinking I disagree with your methodology in addressing my points. I think that you misrepresenting my statements.

 

[MrS]

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?

Because some one has been monkeying around with the liturgy.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_12_170.gif(single handed orans)

%between%

 

[Pious_Mat]

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

A quick note on the nature of the GIRM: the GIRM is proclusive, meaning that it says what we should do.

The American legal system is preclusive, meaning it outlines what we shouldn’t do.

In a preclusive system, one can argue that anything not explicity said is allowed, since if it is not mentioned, it is not an error.

In a proclusive system, everything that should be done is mentioned, and although not everything that is not mention is an abuse, what isn’t mentioned shouldn’t be done, or else the GIRM quickly loses authoritative status (if I can proscribe a new practice, then I am equal to the GIRM).

Most arguments that are made about the GIRM, including the monkeys in the sanctuary argument, assume that the GIRM is pre- rather than pro-, which is an logical fallacy in itself.

 

[arieh0310]

Most arguments that are made about the GIRM, including the monkeys in the sanctuary argument, assume that the GIRM is pre- rather than pro-, which is an logical fallacy in itself.

Yes, the monkeys reductio is assuming a preclusive GIRM (which it isn’t). That is why it is such a great argument against those who say, “well, it ain’t specifically prohibited.”

 

[TMGallyon85]

I really don’t understand how hard following the GIRM can be. Some people obviously dont care what the GIRM says. You read it and do as it says, done. Like the Liberals with the Constitution, It isn’t some living document that changes on a whim. The GIRM doesn’t either. It is concrete until it is revised by the Church. As for the monkeys in the sanctuary, give them some banana’s, they will go away

 

[Darnok]

Pax et Caritas:

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.

The issue here then becomes what are the baseline requirements (as seen by the Church) for being “United” with her.

[Analogy of a hunter]

Hmmm. I personally thought I answered the issue you address with the hunter. I thought I spoke to that when I walked through (what I believe to be) the criteria for being in a state of sin. I, however, do appreciate what you are trying to say here.

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.

Thanks. God bless you.

Cristiano:

What are you going to do once you know how traditional you are (assuming that we can use a metric to measure it)?

What I’m going to do with it is the same thing I am going to do to measure it: Pray. Those which I have any problems with, I would then seek resolution to be in line with the Holy See. The one thing I would need to research more is the Syllabus of Errors, et al.

I’m curious, what do you think about the SSPX? Do you have a problem with them? If so, why?

I know this question was not specifically directed towards me. I, however, would like to address it for the sake of completeness. As far as I’ve seen, I believe that the SSPX had some good intentions (ie. preservation of the Tridentine Mass). They, however, went horribly wrong with how to go about it.
I’ve never met (online or offline) any SSPX members. I have met, however, some of their supporters (online). They were trying to tell me that Mary has a plan for our salvation separate from God’s and I was offending her by taking my petitions/ prayers to Christ (as opposed to through her). They were claiming that this is pre-Vatican II dogma.
I was offended by them saying this and their saying I was guilty of hubris by taking my prayers to God. So, I left the group.

 

[Cristiano]

What I’m going to do with it is the same thing I am going to do to measure it: Pray. Those which I have any problems with, I would then seek resolution to be in line with the Holy See. The one thing I would need to research more is the Syllabus of Errors, et al.

Keep going in that direction. It looks like an healthy attitude.