Misconceptions about Traditional Catholics

[Son_of_Niall]

Reading through this thread, one thing I’ve realized is that one man’s misconception is another man’s reality.

All I can say is that if I’d encountered some of these attitudes at a particular point in my life, four years ago, I’d probably be a Lutheran by now.

Like Protestant fundamentalists, they produce the exact opposite of their stated intent.

BTW, LOVE the new CAF logo.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your kind response. I was beginning to fear that this entire thread would devolve from misconceptions about traditonalists, into how bad or shallow my attitude or beliefs are. So your considerate and fair response means a lot to me.

I do agree that sometimes traditionalists lose sight of the bigger picture, but that’s a problem for the individual, not the movement as a whole. What the movement advocates is very much in line with what the Church teaches. While I don’t think I or others have ever been so distracted by this that we now think Christ died for communion rails, it is true that sometimes we get caught up in the “less important” because generally it’s less recognized and, unfairly, more vilified than what’s “more important”.

I have never once tried to encourage disobedience or disrespect of one’s superior. You’ll see that if you go to the (now closed) thread where the poster was saying he was justified in dissenting from the Pope if he goes against tradition, which I strongly disagreed with. Just because I passionately fight for the Church does not mean I fight the Church passionately. I get endlessly frustrated when people fail to distinguish between the two. My community fought to keep our communion rails, and we did so respectfully and calmly – but due to common misconceptions of traditionalists, all that will be read there is “my community fought”, as if to fight is synonymous with to rebel or sow discord.

Truly too much time is spent probing the disposition of traditionalists, while ignoring what they say. THAT’S what I cannot stand and frustrates me endlessly. And people do stupid things when they’re frustrated, sometimes – I apologize if I have come across as uncharitable to any other posters here.

God bless

I too apologize if I came down too hard on you. I have no right to speak to you as if you were one of my brothers. You have my permission to call me out on it, if I ever do so.

I love you very much. When my superior of 40 years ago told me that I was not called to be a priest but to train priests, after I had just returned from Rome with my doctorate in theology and ready for Holy Orders, I learned a tough lesson on obedience, silence and love. I was young and foolish then. I felt cheated and misled. I eventually left the community, married, was widowed and now I’m back. But I’m an adult now. I understand the value of obedience and calm submission. How so?

Now I realize that he was right. Christ called me to be a brother to all, just as he is the firstborn among many brothers. I have found out that my love for all, as Christ the brother, has done wonders for my soul. I don’t always do wonders for others. I wish I did.

But I have found that I can love others as Christ our brother loved us from the cross. I just have to keep chipping away at it until I get it right. Someday I just may, if you and others like you help me. :hug3:

 

[Sirach2]

EphelDuath:

So please once more, cease telling us about how “wrongs done allegedly or actually to the Church does not cause any disquiet” to us. That is a judgment of the heart. I would strongly advocate bringing up this issue with your spiritual adviser in the OCDS.

I should have realized you might misunderstand St. Teresa and the language used by religious, especially since you are a layperson. In doing so, you have accused me of judging you, whereas you have rendered a very rashful judgment of my post.

In the words of another Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, who is also a Carmelite, please take a moment to understand the way they use the word “disquiet.” It is not simply a lack of silence or a slight agitation.

From St. John’s Spiritual Canticle.
He calls these troubles and disturbances of the inordinate passions and operations “anger.” Just as anger is a certain impulse which troubles peace by going beyond its limits, so all the passions, etc., which we mentioned, exceed by their movements of the limits of peace and tranquility, and when they touch the soul they cause disquietude.

In religious life, these are serious and inordinate, and much to be avoided as the plague.

So your judgment of me, inferring that I need to discuss this with my spiritual advisor, is rash due to your complete incomprehension. Any discussions between you and I are not on a mutually understanding basis and therefore kick against the goad. I have no clue how to help you over the hurdle of your dogmatism, but while it exists, there is no point in trying.

 

[EphelDuath]

Well, I’ve asked you to apologize and cease from personal attacks and misquoting/misattributing falsehoods to me, and you’ve indicated no intentions of doing so. So in order to prevent continued disruption of threads on this forum I will no longer acknowledge or respond to your posts.

Best wishes and God bless to you!

 

[MarkInOregon]

There is no such thing as a Traditional Catholic. We are to observe Church teaching, that’s it. Yes, there are those who only partly or selectively observe this or that, but such labeling is divisive. Any issues should be dealt with on an individual basis.
Peace,
Ed

Thank you Ed.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I… don’t think you are.

Either that or a “Traditional Catholic” means something entirely different to you…

And people wonder why there are misconceptions and hard feelings. Go figure.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ccmcmg]

Again, with all due respect Brother. I am quite exhausted with how me and those likeminded to myself are treated. We do exactly what the Holy Father tells us, his venerable predecessors have told us, and what the Council has promulgated, and we are frequently accused of having uncharitable attitudes, opposing authority, or even promoting schism. I mean, in this thread alone I’ve had my own words misquoted and used to attack my motives when I have done so such thing to anybody else.

I feel that those of us who are participating and supporting the OF or Vatican II are the ones (at least on CAF, often) are being accused of being uncharitable, not real Catholics, or not good enough. I am a traditional Catholic. I am not, however a ‘traditionalist’. There is room in the Faith for all of us, and as long as we are practicing as approved by Rome, even when it’s things you and I might not agree with or like, then that’s how it should be.

I have some causes that I’m very, very passionate about that aren’t related to Catholicism. I believe that my way is the right way for me, and trying to explain it to others who don’t have the same viewpoint and same life experience can be difficult, if not impossible. At that point, I have to stop; it’s hard, but I have to.

 

[JustaServant]

What are some misconceptions about Traditional Catholics that you have come up against, and how did you respond?

I think many misconceptions about Traditional Catholicism comes fromTraditional Catholics themselves.
There are two sides to every story, and often times the truth is somewhere in between.
I was a kid when all the changes came. I saw what it did to my parents and many of their generation (WW2). Timing is everything, and in hindsight, many of the changes were not implimented in a proper way. In fact, it was a textbook example, IMHO, of how NOT to impliment change.
I was there, and I saw what happened.
They were told the Latin Mass was now “illegal” and if they went to a TLM, they were “no longer Catholic”.
Neither of which was true. But the damage was done.
And neither side could claim the high ground in those days.
That’s one of the reasons I threw my hands in the air and left the Church for twenty years.
Neither liberal nor trad really seem to understand the feelings of the generation these changes occured in.
The longer a group is independent, and stays cut off from the Church, the harder it is for reconciliation, the more entrenched they become, almost like a divorce. This is a problem Protestant churches are very familiar with.
**When the first generation of trads started to die off, the reasons for reconcliation became dimmer for the next generation. **
What passes as ‘Traditionalism’ today is in no way to be compared to the previous generation. I notice many of the modern trads are not old enough to remember the changes or the reasons for the previous generation’s concern. Many modern trads are converts who have replaced one form of extreme religion for another. The movement was hijacked by people who appear to have no interest in authority. They come off as caustic, angry, and bitter. Once authority is rejected, the battle can continue for centuries.
Take my word for it, as a former Baptist.
I believe if my parents were alive they would want nothing to do with modern, 21st century trads. I believe they would have been quite happy with the changes Pope Benedict has made to the OF.
They certainly would have been happy that the EF was available again.
My :twocents:

 

[JustaServant]

BTW, LOVE the new CAF logo.

Absolutely, love the logo.
Cyber secret handshake.

 

[CruceSignati]

Alright, so now that any disagreements have been sorted out…

What is the root of these misconceptions, and what can we do about it?
I’m not wanting to start a war over this (just trying to keep the conversation moving ), but the fact still remains: there are many people who call themselves Catholic, yet they resent or misunderstand many of the Church’s traditions. If it continues like this and the Church gradually becomes divided against itself, there will be many issues. So what can we do?

 

[RPRPsych]

Like Protestant fundamentalists, they produce the exact opposite of their stated intent.

True!

BTW, LOVE the new CAF logo.

Me too. It looks nice and heraldic.

 

[otjm]

Alright, so now that any disagreements have been sorted out…

What is the root of these misconceptions, and what can we do about it?
I’m not wanting to start a war over this (just trying to keep the conversation moving ), but the fact still remains: there are many people who call themselves Catholic, yet they resent or misunderstand many of the Church’s traditions. If it continues like this and the Church gradually becomes divided against itself, there will be many issues. So what can we do?

Since you don’t say what traditions you are talking about, it is a bit hard to answer.

Some people may resent older traditions; some may misunderstand them; others may simply not care one way or the other, and yet still others may simply not like them. It is dangerous to attempt to distill people’s reactions to one or two categories without a lot of research with each individual.

And as to traditions (which I am assuming you addressed with a lower case “t” for a reason), new traditions may well be forming as we speak.

One of the older traditions that seems to be thoroughly out of favor is Mother of Perpetual Help devotion. I can’t recall seeing it since somewhere in the very early 1960’s.

However, a new tradition seems to have developed (or perhaps it is an old one revived) and that is 24/7/363 24 hour adoration. That has been going on in my parish for over 15 years; and there are other parishes which have perpetual adoration; and others which have adoration once or more per week.

So also the spread of the LOTH among the laity (in spite of some, self-styled traditionalists trying to insist that the laity had no business or right to do so).

So while we can sit and bemoan the loss of old traditions, or their fading into only a very small minority of the active Catholic population, all is not abysmal.

 

[felsguy]

Alright, so now that any disagreements have been sorted out…

What is the root of these misconceptions, and what can we do about it?
I’m not wanting to start a war over this (just trying to keep the conversation moving ), but the fact still remains: there are many people who call themselves Catholic, yet they resent or misunderstand many of the Church’s traditions. If it continues like this and the Church gradually becomes divided against itself, there will be many issues. So what can we do?

Likewise just to keep the conversation moving, are you so sure that there are all these folks out there who resent so many of the customs, practices, and devotions (“little t” traditions) of the Church or might much of this just be a meme often perpetuated on forums such as CAF? “Resent” suggests a strong dislike or opposition. Might it not be more accurate to say many no longer find some of these traditions appealing or spiritually beneficial? Cannot these individuals still rightly call themselves Catholic?

I understand otjm to be saying much of the same thing here.

Since you don’t say what traditions you are talking about, it is a bit hard to answer.

Some people may resent older traditions; some may misunderstand them; others may simply not care one way or the other, and yet still others may simply not like them. It is dangerous to attempt to distill people’s reactions to one or two categories without a lot of research with each individual.

And as to traditions (which I am assuming you addressed with a lower case “t” for a reason), new traditions may well be forming as we speak.

One of the older traditions that seems to be thoroughly out of favor is Mother of Perpetual Help devotion. I can’t recall seeing it since somewhere in the very early 1960’s.

However, a new tradition seems to have developed (or perhaps it is an old one revived) and that is 24/7/363 24 hour adoration. That has been going on in my parish for over 15 years; and there are other parishes which have perpetual adoration; and others which have adoration once or more per week.

So also the spread of the LOTH among the laity (in spite of some, self-styled traditionalists trying to insist that the laity had no business or right to do so).

So while we can sit and bemoan the loss of old traditions, or their fading into only a very small minority of the active Catholic population, all is not abysmal.

It strikes me that traditions develop from our responses to our beliefs and that these responses are shaped by the particular time and culture. Dogmas and doctrines do not change. Times and cultures do. Consequently new traditions can begin to form and old ones can fade away.

I fully realize that this however is often a difficult, unsettling, and even threatening process, both in the Church and in the secular world. We are indeed creatures of habit. For the most part we find comfort in routine and stability.

What are our options? I think that clinging to all the traditions of the past eras is futile and doing away with them all is foolish. I suggest, trite as it may sound, the middle ground, a balanced approach that allows each of us to pick and choose from among the customs, devotions, and practices permitted by the Church and all of us to be called Catholic as we do so.

.

 

[JReducation]

I find all of this fascinating. I can’t think of a single Catholic tradition or custom that I resent, dislike or avoid.

However, I avoid some traditionalists and some dissenters as I would the common cold. Some drive me crazy. You can’t take them to IHOP without them bringing up one of their concerns. Maybe they do it to me because I’m a religious or because I was a theology professor. I don’t know if they do it to everyone. But they do it to me. The truth is that I want to eat pancakes, not discuss the merits or demerits of the OF or an all male priesthood. I have actually stopped people and said, “Do you mind if we talk about our meal and our time together. The form of the mass or the male priesthood is better for a classroom discussion.”

I’ve had some very good experiences. That’s why I don’t avoid all Trads or all dissenters. I have met some who are very polite and they drop it. Usually, the next time they meet me, they don’t bring up religion at all unless they want to go to spiritual direction; but in that case, they’ll ask me for spiritual direction. That changes the texture of the situation. You’re supposed to discuss issues that are important to your faith in that setting.

But those whom I stop and ignore my request to stop or get upset, I stay away from as I would someone with a bad cold. We don’t need to be around people who eat and drink religion 24/7. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the nuns on the bus discussing their issues or the traditionalist discussing the mass. If that’s all the person is going to bring to the table in any relationship, it’s disconcerting to many of us. Even in monastic communities that pray around the clock, they discuss baseball.

I feel that it borders on disrespect, because human beings are very beautiful. We should come to the table ready to share and enjoy everything that is beautiful about us, not just one thing that preoccupies us. It’s OK once or twice, but not all the time.

 

[hoop0826]

I read a really insightfull blog post the other day which made me think about this whole debate in a much different way. The arguement that many “traddies” make is that the Church is taken over by moderns - yet this article argues that the “traddies” are actually the moderns and that Vatican II council actually saved the world from modernism.

Here’s the link if interested:

how-vatican-ii-saved-the-world-from-modernism

On a very different note, Joseph Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI, has written so well on the faith that either traditional Catholic or not they really shine like gold.

 

[JReducation]

I hate labels, don´t you?

 

[johnnyc176]

I hate labels, don´t you?

How bout this misconception…only liberals and modernists love Pope Francis?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=844786

 

[JReducation]

How bout this misconception…only liberals and modernists love Pope Francis?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=844786

Also a misconception.

I for one refuse to discuss the term “Modernism”. I find that too many people throw that term around as if it were fast food. But most people have no clue what it really means. Before anyone goes quoting St. Pius X, don’t bother. I read him in the seminary and I also read the letters, documents, dialogues and other discussions that led to his condemnation of Modernism. Herein lies the problem. The average man who does not have the background to this condemnation tends to make this umbrella sooooooooo wide that it becomes irrelevant. In fact, Pope Pius’ umbrella was quite narrow. If he saw how many people we try to shove under the label of Modernist, he would be stunned.

Libera is as silly as conservative. These are points on a continuum. The person on my left is a liberal and the one on my right is conservative. But to the person on my right, I’m to his left. Get my point?

 

[EphelDuath]

I for one refuse to discuss the term “Modernism”. I find that too many people throw that term around as if it were fast food. But most people have no clue what it really means. Before anyone goes quoting St. Pius X, don’t bother. I read him in the seminary and I also read the letters, documents, dialogues and other discussions that led to his condemnation of Modernism. Herein lies the problem. The average man who does not have the background to this condemnation tends to make this umbrella sooooooooo wide that it becomes irrelevant. In fact, Pope Pius’ umbrella was quite narrow. If he saw how many people we try to shove under the label of Modernist, he would be stunned.

It has a narrow definition, but it applies to many things. In that sense, it’s not very useful to criticize individual things as being “modernistic”, since there’s always a more specific term that can be used than that. (For example, the statement “the Catholic Church can believe that abortion is a sin, but we live in a civil society where religion isn’t shoved down your throat” is modernistic, but more specifically the error here is secularist antinomialism, so it’s much more useful to discuss it in that context.)

But, I don’t think “modernism” is overall a useless term. I for one don’t really want to have to write “those who believe that modern man due to the advancement of the sciences now knows things that the Catholic Church has erroneously decreed to be false” when all of that is finely summarized by “modernists”. For example, when one talks about all of the reasons why the New Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible is offensive to our faith and misleading for the faithful, he can neatly branch all of the problems together to say that the translation was crafted with a modernistic approach, but then outline all of the individual problems, such as the gender neutral language which subtly deteriorates the prophecies of Christ’s manhood.

 

[hoop0826]

But this whole discussion seems to be within Latin rite of the Church only. So within any organic being there is both conservative parts because it must be of the same signature or “DNA” througout, but also there must be a growth to form new life which is liberal.