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

[pnewton]

I pointed out also that the topic shifts from sedevacantists to faithful traditionalists in union with the Holy See. That’s an unfair categorization.

But that remains a problem with all categorization. Almost all of it is unfair if carried very far. I not that in the very first post this problem was at least acknowledged. I do not know if that makes it better or not. I cannot tell you how many times I had to pad a post to verbal circle and avoid some of the hot labels used on people: radtrad, CINO, NO Catholics, liberal, alt-right, it is quite a challenge. If you are going to say something bad, it is probably worth the effort to type out a sentence specifying who you are speaking of.

Sedevacantists are such a small subset of any group, they are best left out. The only thing I can say in acknowledgement to the OP, and I think most will agree, is that with Pope Francis, more of the criticism has come from the political right than the left, at least for now. Why that is varies from person to person, and topic to topic. But it is nothing new for the Catholic Church to run counter to what individual Catholics think. Being a faithful Catholic by coincidence (hey, the Pope agrees with me!) is no moral leap. Obedience is only tested and is virtuous when we submit with humility to that which we don’t agree with. In this light, one could point out that traditionalist Catholics who live where that is not possible also have the tendency to be the most virtuous.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I encountered someone here who is very upset with Taylor Marshall, for example. This is illustrative.

1. TM is a convert from Protestantism. So, he was a hero and guide for others. He was invited to EWTN, Coming Home Network, and those sorts of things. Kind of a “clean-cut” new convert with good Protestant background. He was friendly and open and earnest.
2. Then TM changed and became a traditionalist.
3. Now, he celebrates a different liturgy. He is interested in the Latin Language. He thinks that things are not completely good in his new home.
4. This is a betrayal for his friends. TM is “arrogant”, he is looking down on his former clean-cut ways and now involved in the “dirty” world of conspiracies, end-time prophecies, disagreement with Vatican II and the underground scene of Latin Masses. He winks at his audience with a knowing-attitude that there are modernists and enemies that have infiltrated the Church. All is not rosy and good as we would have wished - TM has been taken-in by hostile, even anti-Catholic forces. He may even be losing his faith (as Gerry Matatics did)

Me? I want the innocent world to be real – as I believe it certainly was at one time. I know it was - I encountered it. The average, rank-and-file, not college educated (no need for it) person - could walk into just about any parish, go to any Mass, listen to any sermon - and be fully edified and taught correctly and well. Priests and sisters were devout and intense about the Faith for the vast majority. it would be unthinkable to need to “find a good parish” - a few did for personal reasons, but the Faith was 100% good.

I want that. Not a Latin Mass underground, or conspiracy world where modernists have infiltrated.

But sadly, that innocent world was destroyed and has to be recaptured and defended and promoted and promulgated all over again.

Until then, we will have angry and bitter and (often unjust) and sinful traditionalists dividing others and hurting themselves and others as they seek something that makes sense and they fight against all of the enemies that they either see or not see, right or wrong. That is damaging. I am very sympathetic to anyone who has been hurt by such traditionalists - as I have been for many years. But it’s our reality. We can’t just condemn and brow-beat or throw hatred upon them. Love our enemies. Do good to those who persecute us. Try to understand and bring healing.

 

[stpurl]

I do not believe that I was ‘misinterpreting the rules’. I was pointing out that a systematic charge of one (and only one) group of Catholics as being more prone to Pharisee behavior and disobedience due to the group’s belief in tradition is not fair or kind.

If you check through the posts, every time that a poster tries to counter that charge by noting (correctly) that all individuals, no matter what their ‘group’, can act badly, and that it is not the ‘group worldview’ that makes them do so, several other posters attempt to drag things right back to “Traditionalist’.

One poster was quite specific in his charge that “Traditionalists” were prone to ‘insubordination’ because “SSPX” was ‘disobedient to the Pope.

So he lumped all ‘trads’ under one small subset. And then others just ‘kept on going’.

It’s as though they feel if they just keep on saying, “Trads are bad” often enough they can either claim, “Well nobody disputes that SSPX etc” or just carry on as though their interpretation is so well known it doesn’t even need defense.

I have never been ‘against’ discussion or trying to ‘shut it down’. However, once a question has been asked and answered several times over, there really is no more need for discussion on THAT topic.

 

[PrayForMe]

For the record, I have no problem with Trads, generally speaking. I’ve been to many Latin Masses myself and wish I could attend one every week. There is some real good that the Traditional movement is doing for the Church.

My problem is exclusive to the specific Trads who are bad apples, that’s all.

 

[stpurl]

But the original poster was complaining that the entire group of “Traditional Catholicism’ was hijacked by a pharisee spirit and ‘widespread insubordination we see consuming traditionals’.

Can you imagine the howls if people complained of this regarding ‘progressive Catholics’? Or ‘Modern” Catholics? People would say, and rightly, that no matter how an individual or even SMALL group of people within a ‘label’ or group behaved as individuals, it did not mean the whole group was tainted.

Look at the people who condemn Catholics as a group for “the Crusades” or “abuse of natives’ etc. as if this was part and parcel of theology and built into Catholicism itself.

And yet somehow because a tiny group of people who like SOME traditional practices but who deny others, like the sedes, are somehow considered as the ‘whole’ of Trads? Considered as far more likely to succumb to Gnosticism etc.? Gnosticism? The people who want to stick to ‘eternal dogma” are more likely to go gnostic than Catholics who are looking for ‘nothing but new?”

I would no more condemn Catholics who view themselves as progressive or modern for the few extremists going off the rails and tar the whole idea (for there are wonderful and good things coming out of some modern ways of understanding Catholic teaching). . .and I would wish the same respect were extended to all Catholics.

 

[puer.dei]

But the original poster was complaining that the entire group of “Traditional Catholicism’ was hijacked by a pharisee spirit and ‘widespread insubordination we see consuming traditionals’.

No. You keep trying to make the OP say that,when they didn’t. The OP specified:
“a considerable portion of Traditional Catholics (at least online).”
That is the OP’s experience.

 

[jeannetherese]

“a considerable portion of Traditional Catholics ( at least online ).”

Actually, the headline says: Traditional Catholicism (especially online).
I messaged the OP requesting a change of headline to help deal with the mixed messages and received a refusal.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
As long as the mixed messages persist, I fear we’ll continue to experience confusion and problems determining terms and parameters. Maybe this is a good moment to take a break for some basketball- or a bit of rest and relaxation in the sun.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe that I was ‘misinterpreting the rules’.

Obviously not. I know you do not believe you were. I said it was what I thought. Do you really have a problem with someone not agreeing with you? And if what you said isn’t "against’ discussion, I will have say that is something else I cannot see. Sure looks like you want to shut down discussion.

 

[stpurl]

To answer your question, no, I don’t have a problem with someone not agreeing with me. I truly don’t know why you would even ask such a question. Nor am I against discussion, though I find ‘beating a dead horse’ types of discussions not my cup of tea, though to each his own.