Is it just me or is Traditional Catholicism (especially online) hijacked by a Pharisee spirit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatienceAndHumility
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stpurl said:
Insubordination?

And this does not exist in those who attend the OF? Really?
Click to expand...
It does, though that’s a bit of a red herring. I’m not saying everyone who attends a Latin Mass is insubordinate, I’ve been to many Latin Masses myself. What I AM saying is SOME (again, not all) Traditionalists are prone to going astray because they basically reject authority.
 
Last edited:
IOW, you are actually supporting me in noting individuals can go to extremes.

However, you unfairly I believe paint ‘traditionalism’ itself as ‘fostering insubordination.’

The majority of traditionalists are so far from insubordination that it’s really stunning you claim that.

I am not impugning the NO (a perfectly valid rite) but seriously, I’m almost 64. I have seen far more insubordination ‘built into’ the modern “regular Catholic” attitude. Ad libbed liturgy to this day, despite the GIRM. Priests and bishops speaking out against Humanae Vitae. People being told to ignore Catholic teaching ‘if their conscience is clear’. Priests gleefully ‘calling out’ their bishops, mocking ‘rigid people’. . .

And yet a smallish group of Catholics who simply want to practice the Catholic faith utilizing devotions and a rite that would be familiar to every other Catholic the world over for hundreds of years. . .they are somehow ‘hard wired’ for insubordination?

I truly do not see that.
 
The vast majority of Catholics reject defined, essential teachings of the Church. We need to work on that. Traditionalists are not among that group. The rank and file Catholics have rejected the magisterium - and sadly, many of our priests are in the same error. They need our prayers and help to be converted.
Traditionalists are far from being the problem here.
 
May I ask why you limit this to traditionalists? HOW are traditionalists rejecting authority?

The EF was never abrogated.

The SSPX is irregular but not in schism.

So what authority is rejected?

And in the very tiny minority of sedevacantists —a position which the vast majority of traditionalists REJECT—even there, the authority rejected is that of the current Pope, not the authority of Christ per se or His teachings.

I do not believe in sedevacantism but there have been periods in the history of the Church where there were antipopes for more than 70 years. Furthermore, there were saints during that period who had supported the ‘wrong pope’ (although it was not known definitively that the pope was ‘wrong’ until years later). Yet they were still saints.

So ‘insubordination’ relates more to knowingly rejecting an accepted authority, and not to rejecting what is (In this case erroneously) believed to be a wrong authority.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
I am not impugning the NO (a perfectly valid rite) but seriously, I’m almost 64. I have seen far more insubordination ‘built into’ the modern “regular Catholic” attitude. Ad libbed liturgy to this day, despite the GIRM. Priests and bishops speaking out against Humanae Vitae. People being told to ignore Catholic teaching ‘if their conscience is clear’. Priests gleefully ‘calling out’ their bishops, mocking ‘rigid people’. . .
Click to expand...
We have pro-gay marriage clergy (!!?) as I have emailed to correct some. Magazine US Catholic applauds gay marriage. National Catholic Reporter applauds just about every heresy known - and even new ones. We can’t send kids to Catholic schools because of sex ed and trans rights indoctrination … we have a mess on our hands and it’s not the traditionalists doing all of that.
 
However, the SSPX priests hold valid liturgies, can administer the sacraments (at the express will of Pope Francis himself) and are in an irregular status. It’s a complicated situation but again, they are not insubordinate.
 
A defiance of the Pope and establishment of parishes independent of local bishops - is the definition of insubordination. They’re disobedient. They have their reasons and self-justifications, of course. But they are not the law-makers or adjudicators of the law. That belongs to the Holy See. They are in defiance of the Church - for their own reasons.
 
PrayForMe said:
40.png
LisaB:
For example?
Click to expand...
There are those in the Traditionalist movement who criticize anyone and anything that they don’t consider “Traditional” enough. They can also become so attached to the Latin Mass that they would stay home on Sundays before they would go to what they consider an “inferior Novus Ordo Mass”.
Click to expand...
Yea, I can see that. There may be some “us vs them” attitude sometimes, I agree.

And while I don’t condone missing Mass when no TLM is available, also try to understand that when you are used to the TLM and go there exclusively, not just once in a while, it’s really, really hard to go to Novus Ordo even out of necessity like while traveling. You should still go to meet the obligation but it’s hard. I feel like a fish out of water at a Novus Ordo and can’t focus for a minute. Some in my parish go to great lengths to make sure they are near a TLM every Sunday- like arranging their travel around it, getting up at 5 if they spent a weekend away so they can make it home for Mass, etc. I get it. I think I will start doing the same. It’s certainly not for appearances sake, believe me.
 
stpurl said:
May I ask why you limit this to traditionalists? HOW are traditionalists rejecting authority?
Click to expand...
You’re attributing an argument to me here that I’m not making. I never said Traditionalists are “rejecting authority”. I said SOME do, primarily those who belong to sects outside the Catholic Church (and yes, those do exist, even if they are small in quantity).
stpurl said:
The EF was never abrogated.

The SSPX is irregular but not in schism.

So what authority is rejected?
Click to expand...
Again, this is not relevant to the argument I am making. I never said anything about the Latin Mass being abrogated or about the SSPX being in schism.
stpurl said:
And in the very tiny minority of sedevacantists —a position which the vast majority of traditionalists REJECT—even there, the authority rejected is that of the current Pope, not the authority of Christ per se or His teachings.
Click to expand...
Yes, but rejecting the Pope is kind of a problem since the Papacy is a key tenant of the Catholic Faith and one of the things Protestants like Luther rejected when starting the Reformation.
stpurl said:
So ‘insubordination’ relates more to knowingly rejecting an accepted authority, and not to rejecting what is (In this case erroneously) believed to be a wrong authority.
Click to expand...
It depends how you define “accepted authority”. The Church hierarchy is universally accepted by Catholics, so rejecting that would certainly be a problem for anyone purporting to be Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Again a complicated situation; but the SSPX is a very small portion of traditionalist Catholics, correct?
 
Yes, exactly. There are many more traditionalists obedient to the Church than in SSPX. We cannot sweep all traditionalists Catholics into that category of insubordination.
 
The main point though is that insubordination, rejection, etc. is not something that is either limited to traditionalists or endemic to the concept of traditionalism itself—all those things are choices of individuals, whether they ‘like Latin’ or ‘guitar Mass.”
 
PrayForMe said:
Yes, but rejecting the Pope is kind of a problem since the Papacy is a key tenant of the Catholic Faith and one of the things Protestants like Luther rejected when starting the Reformation.
Click to expand...
If the topic is sedevacantists, then that should be specified in the OP. We shouldn’t sweep everyone into that grouping.
 
Right. It’s like moving the goal posts. There are extremists in all groups.
 
I think pointing at traditionalists is aiming at the wrong target when it comes to problems in the Church today. Traditionalists are friends of the Catholic Faith. We have some real enemies to deal with, on the contrary.
 
I personally do not like modern dress styles. I imagine it was just as hot and uncomfortable to dress modestly in Jesus’ day as it is today, especially in the climate he lived in. What passes as modest today to me is not modest at all but indicative of how far we have fallen as a Christian community. Being middle-aged means that you missed the 1940s and 1950s where most Christian women did dress what I call modestly. Beginning in the mid-1950s came hot pants and short shorts which ushered in the 1960’s sexual revolution and it’s been downhill ever since. The more immodest dress trends become the more inured we tend to become to it. When I am in church I tend to close my eyes a lot so as not to be distracted or tempted by much of the dress styles that abound.

The greatest person who ever lived is on the altar at the consecration and some people come to this momentous event dressed like it was a Saturday afternoon picnic in the park. My guideline is, dress modestly and neatly. If all one has is a pair of jeans, fine, but if possible, men should wear a pair of slacks, and women, an outfit that covers their bodies, and that includes sleeves, no plunging necklines, and a modest-length dress (1940 it was below the knee, 1950 it was at the knee, 1960 it went above the knee, and where it is now is anyone’s guess), or slacks, and avoid tight-fitting clothes. Those who want to dress modestly will be able to find modest clothing, but I agree that the majority of clothing offered for women today makes it a real chore; the designers are definitely not in the business to satisfy Christian values. I doubt that many women, except those as old as I am, will agree with me because the commercial world has been allowed to dictate what women will wear and has redefined modesty to something totally unrecognizable to anyone from the mid-20th century. Jen, I don’t think the traditional folks you mentioned are wrong, but for anyone born after, say, 1955, I can understand that it may be a difficult thing to grasp. We are to a great degree the product of our times and traditionally-minded Catholics go against the flow. Also, I see things from a man’s point of view, which I am sure is far different from that of a woman. Just my two cents.
 
stpurl said:
The main point though is that insubordination, rejection, etc. is not something that is either limited to traditionalists or endemic to the concept of traditionalism itself—all those things are choices of individuals, whether they ‘like Latin’ or ‘guitar Mass.”
Click to expand...
True. What is also true, however, is Traditionalists who do reject authority are more prone to becoming scattered sheep on the wrong path. That is my main point.
 
Is that what you think traditionalists are doing? I think they are trying to stave off a modern spirit that has watched over 70% of Catholics deny the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, to mention just one current trend. At one time, I understand that Pope Benedict XVI was working on a liturgy that combined the best of the Latin Mass with the best of the Novus Ordo. I don’t know if he abandoned that project, but I sure hope not. As someone who grew up in the Latin rite, but have spent most of my life in the Novus Ordo, I can see good in both. I mean, we did not practice the one for over 1,900 years and suddenly find it irrelevant. It was and is still relevant. The best of the two together would be even more relevant IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top