T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This response caught my eye, and I thought I should bring it to CA forum users attention. You’ll see why.
I have to say that while there might be ‘some’ angry people here --I’m as likely to find the ‘sentiments’ ascribed above in people who are** not **Traditionalists–but those sentiments won’t be called ‘anger’ or ‘hatred’ but instead caring, and righteous, and ‘justified.’
To CA’s credit, that type of ‘angry Trad’ post which apparently to many people is the ‘real Trad’ viewpoint --the Feeneyite, rejection of Vatican 2, S–V-- etc. is likely to result in quick banning. However, it appears that the responses of more of the “angry nonTrad” are given more leeway. Or are seen as not being ‘angry’ at all but simply ‘responses’ driven by being ‘goaded’.
Furthermore to me the most important point is that ‘all’ traditionalists are being lumped into this "angry Trad’ mold of liturgy police, Vatican 2 hating, elitist pigs, simply because the true ‘angry’ people --the Feeneyites and the S–V-- happen to **share **a desire to attend a Latin Mass and to ‘bring back’ traditions like family rosaries and May crownings and such.
And that is unfair and unkind to the huge majority of those of us who identify as Traditionalists who are emphatically NOT in any way, shape or form ascribing to the extremist positions supporting S—V— or Feeneyism.
And it gets very tiresome in being ‘tarred with the brush of anger and nastiness’ simply by virtue of wanting to share (not force) the kinds of Catholic practices that Catholics have lived with and loved for centuries. . .in a spirit of love, reverence, and helpfulness. . .only to be told how mean, angry, and hateful we are because somebody who ‘says’ they are Traditionalist said something ‘hateful’ about Vatican 2 and so now anybody who says he/she is traditionalist is a mean hateful person by definition.
Now I’m not advocating ‘angry Trad’ views. I’m a happy Trad myself–I am a ‘sad Trad’ only when seeing how misinterpreted many Traditionalists are by their fellow Catholics. I am a ‘grieving Trad’ when I consider the years that have gone by without the traditional Mass --but a ‘hopeful’ Trad because that is being redressed. I am a ‘loving Trad’ who wants people to at least experience the joy and beauty of the traditional liturgy now and then while never in the least desiring to ‘force’ people into its attendence and depriving them of the Mass with which they have known and grown up with for some 40 years. I know how it feels to have this ‘taken away’ --why would I want to subject others to a loss as ‘wrongly’ as this was done to me and other traditionalists?
I am an ‘equalizer’ Trad who loves both forms of the Mass. I am an ‘impartial Trad’ in that I can see and acknowledge that any given priest or parish can take a Mass and bring in abuses–some knowingly and some not–but that does not mean that either Mass, intrinsically and of its nature–is more ‘predisposed to abuse intrinsically’ than the other. I do feel the OF has had historically ‘more’ abuses involved in it than the EF, and more severe ones too–but again, that was because of the ‘human error factor’ and most often innocent ignorance as to what the Vatican Council had actually said about the Mass.
As such, the knee-jerk responses about "angry, bitter’ holier-than-thou, mean Trads’ --which are either ‘passed over’ or worse yet, accepted as ‘gospel truth’ and further cemented into what 'everybody knows about those angry trads; such as the poster gave above-- are gravely injurious not only to the poster himself but to all of us–“Trads” and “nonTrads” alike. In this kind of injury to members of the body of Christ, we all wind up suffering. . .and for wounds which careful, prayerful attention to Christian teaching should have prevented in the first place.
Now, being a long-time forum member and having freely expressed my opinions on subjects–always striving for charity and clarity, sometimes more successfully so than other times-and likewise reading many others’ opinions, from all ‘extremes’ and in between–
I have to say that while there might be ‘some’ angry people here --I’m as likely to find the ‘sentiments’ ascribed above in people who are** not **Traditionalists–but those sentiments won’t be called ‘anger’ or ‘hatred’ but instead caring, and righteous, and ‘justified.’
To CA’s credit, that type of ‘angry Trad’ post which apparently to many people is the ‘real Trad’ viewpoint --the Feeneyite, rejection of Vatican 2, S–V-- etc. is likely to result in quick banning. However, it appears that the responses of more of the “angry nonTrad” are given more leeway. Or are seen as not being ‘angry’ at all but simply ‘responses’ driven by being ‘goaded’.
Furthermore to me the most important point is that ‘all’ traditionalists are being lumped into this "angry Trad’ mold of liturgy police, Vatican 2 hating, elitist pigs, simply because the true ‘angry’ people --the Feeneyites and the S–V-- happen to **share **a desire to attend a Latin Mass and to ‘bring back’ traditions like family rosaries and May crownings and such.
And that is unfair and unkind to the huge majority of those of us who identify as Traditionalists who are emphatically NOT in any way, shape or form ascribing to the extremist positions supporting S—V— or Feeneyism.
And it gets very tiresome in being ‘tarred with the brush of anger and nastiness’ simply by virtue of wanting to share (not force) the kinds of Catholic practices that Catholics have lived with and loved for centuries. . .in a spirit of love, reverence, and helpfulness. . .only to be told how mean, angry, and hateful we are because somebody who ‘says’ they are Traditionalist said something ‘hateful’ about Vatican 2 and so now anybody who says he/she is traditionalist is a mean hateful person by definition.
Now I’m not advocating ‘angry Trad’ views. I’m a happy Trad myself–I am a ‘sad Trad’ only when seeing how misinterpreted many Traditionalists are by their fellow Catholics. I am a ‘grieving Trad’ when I consider the years that have gone by without the traditional Mass --but a ‘hopeful’ Trad because that is being redressed. I am a ‘loving Trad’ who wants people to at least experience the joy and beauty of the traditional liturgy now and then while never in the least desiring to ‘force’ people into its attendence and depriving them of the Mass with which they have known and grown up with for some 40 years. I know how it feels to have this ‘taken away’ --why would I want to subject others to a loss as ‘wrongly’ as this was done to me and other traditionalists?
I am an ‘equalizer’ Trad who loves both forms of the Mass. I am an ‘impartial Trad’ in that I can see and acknowledge that any given priest or parish can take a Mass and bring in abuses–some knowingly and some not–but that does not mean that either Mass, intrinsically and of its nature–is more ‘predisposed to abuse intrinsically’ than the other. I do feel the OF has had historically ‘more’ abuses involved in it than the EF, and more severe ones too–but again, that was because of the ‘human error factor’ and most often innocent ignorance as to what the Vatican Council had actually said about the Mass.
As such, the knee-jerk responses about "angry, bitter’ holier-than-thou, mean Trads’ --which are either ‘passed over’ or worse yet, accepted as ‘gospel truth’ and further cemented into what 'everybody knows about those angry trads; such as the poster gave above-- are gravely injurious not only to the poster himself but to all of us–“Trads” and “nonTrads” alike. In this kind of injury to members of the body of Christ, we all wind up suffering. . .and for wounds which careful, prayerful attention to Christian teaching should have prevented in the first place.
