OK to post in Traditional Forum??

[Armyvet007]

And this helps the situation how?

First- “The only reason I keep coming back to the sub-forum is because assume there traditionalism then the hostility toward anything non-traditionalist I see displayed within the forum.” should be “The only reason I keep coming back to the sub-forum is because Iassume there is something more totraditionalism then the hostility toward anything non-traditionalist I see displayed within the forum.”
Second- I don’t know how it will help the situation. I assumed an honest appraisal of a first impression might help traditionalists on here realize that some of the hostility originates from somewhere other then non-traditionalists simply not liking them [and I agree with ya’ll that there are some non-trads that simply do not like ya’ll and come on to this sub-forum simply to cause conflict]. Hostility works both ways. If I acted hostile toward them the first time they met me or in the case of these forums asked a question/tried to make a point, I shouldn’t be suprised that they have a hostile attitude toward me.*

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I dont think Ohana said anything about removing or changing this forum at all. Merely adding another sub-forum that “non-Traditionalist” Roman Catholics can post in about general information.

That would be the rest of the forum, wouldn’t it?

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I certainly don’t want to try to set limits on anyone posting in this forum. I guess I’d just like all of us (myself included) to be more aware of why we post, the motivations behind our postings, and see how that fits the purpose of this forum and our overall Catholic faith. Obviously it is impossible for me or anyone to judge the motives and inner workings of another poster, so I may easily be mistaken about this, but it does sometimes feel like some people post here to bait, rile, or attack traditional Catholic practices and positions.

I admit it would be a rather boring forum if all us trads did here was confirm ourselves in our beliefs, but then again, I tend to enjoy rhetoric (for good and for ill)…

• PAX

 

[sulkow82]

I am wondering if it is ok to post or comment in this Forum.

As a “semi-traditionalist” I think it should be ok.

I don’t have a problem with civil conflict - in fact I think it is healthy sometimes and helps us define our positions, but it is not good if destructive to faith or individual concerns. What say you?

I agree with you here.

If you want to start a thread about traditional Catholicism, then why shouldn’t you?

The only time there is an issue is when some feel the need to criticize what traditionalists believe.

Here is where the sticky on Traditionalism is an excellent idea. I personally have seen a wide range of definitions of what constitutes “Traditionalism” (I’m including other boards outside of this because it affected my understanding of the term before I found this board.) The definitions I personally have seen range from sedevacantism (at the extreme conservative side) to acceptance of VAT-II in light of established Tradition (my personal point of view).

I also think that a certain amount of disagreement is good. We are in the wake of some very poor catechesis a few decades ago. When this occurs with a generation that has never seen the culture of the Catholic Church “in days long passed,” there will be questions, concerns and fears (from younger generations) in response to a Pope (Benedict XVI) who wants to return the Church to the way it was. This Traditionalist forum (when used properly) can be a venue for calming those “red alert” signals from those who don’t understand.

 

[JustaServant]

First- “The only reason I keep coming back to the sub-forum is because assume there traditionalism then the hostility toward anything non-traditionalist I see displayed within the forum.” should be “The only reason I keep coming back to the sub-forum is because Iassume there is something more totraditionalism then the hostility toward anything non-traditionalist I see displayed within the forum.”
Second- I don’t know how it will help the situation. I assumed an honest appraisal of a first impression might help traditionalists on here realize that some of the hostility originates from somewhere other then non-traditionalists simply not liking them [and I agree with ya’ll that there are some non-trads that simply do not like ya’ll and come on to this sub-forum simply to cause conflict]. Hostility works both ways. If I acted hostile toward them the first time they met me or in the case of these forums asked a question/tried to make a point, I shouldn’t be suprised that they have a hostile attitude toward me.*

Maybe you’re a little confused about the purpose of Catholic Answers. The purpose is to dialogue or debate in a mature fashion with people from different backgrounds. If you are here for a bar fight, I suggest you re-aquint yourself with the rules of CAF.

 

[Armyvet007]

Maybe you’re a little confused about the purpose of Catholic Answers. The purpose is to dialogue or debate in a mature fashion with people from different backgrounds. If you are here for a bar fight, I suggest you re-aquint yourself with the rules of CAF.

Which is what I’ve tried to do. But how am I supposed to have a dialogue with people who automatically label me as a “liberal”, “modernist”, or “cafeteria” Catholic simply because I’m not a traditionalist and/or because I disagree with them? What sort of dialogue am I supposed to have with people who see every question, comment, and criticism as a hostile attack on traditionalism? What sort of dialogue am I supposed to have with people whose first reaction to the OP of this thread is to assume it’s a dishonest attempt to get rid of the traditional sub-form? Who have yet to apologize to the OP for their unfair judgement of his character and reason for creating this thread. Please tell me, how do I hold a discussion with people who are pretty much waiting for the next poor SOB that walks into the bar so they can start fighting?

Hey, I get it, there are some posters on this site that “have it out” for traditionalists. But you need to remember that not all of us non-traditionalists are “out to get you”, and that not all traditionalists are “angels” when it comes to behavior on this site and sub-forum.

I’m not saying all the traditionalists on here behave this way, but there are enough that do that it gives all of you a bad name and gives people like me who had no clue as to traditionalism prior to CAF a rather bad first impression. And the apparent “blindess” of the civil traditionalists on here in regards to the uncivil ones isn’t very helpful in changing this bad first impression. Frankly if someone wants a bar fight, I can lower myself enough to engage in one but that’s not the reason I come to CAF. If I wanted “I win” arguments and pettiness I’d go back to the news sites forums.

 

[tabycat]

IMHO Traditional Forum should be keeped, even if it’s as a bit of a safty velve for the other forums.

 

[floresco]

As for the hostility toward traditionalists part of it is a direct result of some traditionalists. Prior to me finding CAF I had no clue traditionalism existed; my first impression of it was formed by the traditional sub-forum. It wasn’t good. It wasn’t good because half the posts seemed to consist of hostile comments from traditionalists toward non-traditionalists. That stereotype flo mentioned about traditionalists being close-minded, intolerant, foolish, etc.; yeah that’s what I walked away with as my first impression of traditionalists.

If only half of the self-described traditionalist had negative behaviour, why did you decide the members of this half were the typical ones? Why didn’t you form your impression of traditionalists on the half with positive behaviour?

Every group I have ever encountered has had both pleasant and unpleasant people in it. It is unavoidable that some traditionalists will not be very nice. But people choose to identify traditionalism with these people. They could just as easily choose to identify traditionalism with the pleasant people.

 

[choliks]

I’ve been hanging out and posting in the TC for quite a while now, yet I only go to the OF.

I think the key is respecting the preferences of the Traditionalists in terms of liturgy, and appreciate their zeal and ideals. While those of us who don’t assist in the EF can definitely express our opinions and insights without stepping on anybody’s toes.

As long as there’s no bashing of the Church, the religious and the clergy, and the Mass (both forms), and calling the Pope heretic, we are cool.

 

[floresco]

Please tell me, how do I hold a discussion with people who are pretty much waiting for the next poor SOB that walks into the bar so they can start fighting?

They aren’t waiting to start fighting. They are expecting the next person to walk in to attack because it is what has happened in the past. And so they are suspicious and quick to take offense. It is not right, but it is understandable.

Hey, I get it, there are some posters on this site that “have it out” for traditionalists. But you need to remember that not all of us non-traditionalists are “out to get you”, and that not all traditionalists are “angels” when it comes to behavior on this site and sub-forum.

I’m not saying all the traditionalists on here behave this way, but there are enough that do that it gives all of you a bad name and gives people like me who had no clue as to traditionalism prior to CAF a rather bad first impression. And the apparent “blindess” of the civil traditionalists on here in regards to the uncivil ones isn’t very helpful in changing this bad first impression. Frankly if someone wants a bar fight, I can lower myself enough to engage in one but that’s not the reason I come to CAF. If I wanted “I win” arguments and pettiness I’d go back to the news sites forums.

When there has been a history of division and hostility, it is very hard to overcome the accumulated bad feelings. We are all affected by it. We all have to try a little harder to be patient with each other, forgiving of each other, and to have compassion for each other. I am so tired of the constant brawling. Please choose another way.

 

[Cat]

Please allow me to ask a question pertinent to the OP.

In one of the recent threads, there was a poll asking the question, “Do you think that the Latin Mass should be the universal Catholic Mass again?” (This thread has been closed, BTW.)

I responded to the poll and answered the question. I tried very hard to answer it with respect and politeness, but the answer I gave was not the one that most traditionalists want to hear. I made it clear that my answer was my personal opinion, and I thought I made it clear that if I was wrong, that would be OK with me.

So here’s my question–should I have just stayed away from the question, and allowed the traditionalists to answer in the positive and not have to face any negative responses?

I honestly don’t see the use of that, but maybe that’s just me.

But is this what the traditionalist Catholics prefer?–a “cheering section”, so to speak, for their traditional approach to Catholicism, and all others with views that differ from them should just avoid this section entirely?

If this is what traditionalists prefer–that the only people who should post in this section are traditionalists who all agree with each other, then I will stay away in the future.

I have a group of very nice Catholic traditionalist friends in my real life outside of the computer, and I can continue to associate with them (while not attending the Latin Mass), and learn all about traditionalism from people that I know (and trust) personally. That’s probably better anyway. I like many of the people who live inside my computer, but you guys don’t bake cookies for me!

This is a serious question, BTW. I honestly am not trying to be sarcastic or nasty. I would honestly like to know if the traditionalists would prefer to make this section “exclusively” for the use of traditionalists who pretty much agree with each other. And I’m serious–if this is what you all prefer, then I will bid you farewell, at least in this section. I have no problem with staying out of circles of people who prefer to associate only with each other. I understand. That’s cool with me, and I can see why people want to associate with their friends. It sure makes life more peaceful.

 

[corsair]

Just watch’n

 

[Armyvet007]

If half of the self-described traditionalist had negative behaviour, why did you decide the members of this half were the typical ones? Why didn’t you form your impression of traditionalists on the half with positive behaviour?

Every group I have ever encountered has had both pleasant and unpleasant people in it. It is unavoidable that some traditionalists will not be very nice. But people choose to identify traditionalism with these people. They could just as easily choose to identify traditionalism with the pleasant people.

Possibly because I didn’t see any of the pleasent people trying to correct the behavior of the unpleasent ones. Possibly because humans don’t naturally see/find something different then what they are used to and go “oh that must be a good thing”; instead we usually find something different and poke it with a long enough stick that when it attacks the stick it won’t get us [base reaction to different is the assumption it is bad until proven otherwise]. And possibly because this negative behavior seemed to be limited to this sub-forum.

If you walk up on a guy with a ticked off look on his face whose muttering about “them” and how he doesn’t “like them” would you, as one of “them”, really think “oh he’s really a nice guy I just need to get to know him”? I wouldn’t. I’d figure he’s unpleasant man who has an ax to grind against “them.” I’d especially think this if his more friendly looking buddy didn’t bother to tell him to calm down/stop but instead occasionally agreed with some of the ticked off guy’s points.

 

[floresco]

This is a serious question, BTW. I honestly am not trying to be sarcastic or nasty. I would honestly like to know if the traditionalists would prefer to make this section “exclusively” for the use of traditionalists who pretty much agree with each other. And I’m serious–if this is what you all prefer, then I will bid you farewell, at least in this section. I have no problem with staying out of circles of people who prefer to associate only with each other. I understand. That’s cool with me, and I can see why people want to associate with their friends. It sure makes life more peaceful.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with non-traditionalists posting here when they are considerate of the sensibilities of traditionalists. I’m bothered by the one’s that seem to be here for the purpose of provoking fights.

 

[floresco]

If you walk up on a guy with a ticked off look on his face whose muttering about “them” and how he doesn’t “like them” would you, as one of “them”, really think “oh he’s really a nice guy I just need to get to know him”? I wouldn’t. I’d figure he’s unpleasant man who has an ax to grind against “them.” I’d especially think this if his more friendly looking buddy didn’t bother to tell him to calm down/stop but instead occasionally agreed with some of the ticked off guy’s points.

I think that your feelings are understandable too. Everyone feels attacked and everyone feels that the other side started it. But if we don’t make some effort to get past this, nothing will change.

I will try to be more conscious of situations that call for telling my fellow trads to calm down.

 

[Armyvet007]

They aren’t waiting to start fighting. They are expecting the next person to walk in to attack because it is what has happened in the past. And so they are suspicious and quick to take offense. It is not right, but it is understandable.

**Ok. I had no clue about attacks *. I’ve been a member of the forum since '11 but really didn’t actively start using it until a few months ago. Knowing this now, I’ll do my best to be more careful on how I word and approach subjects on here. ***

When there has been a history of division and hostility, it is very hard to overcome the accumulated bad feelings. We are all affected by it. We all have to try a little harder to be patient with each other, forgiving of each other, and to have compassion for each other. I am so tired of the constant brawling. Please choose another way.

I’m not after a brawl or argument or even conflict. What I’m after is a better understanding of traditionalism because, as I’ve stated before, the whole concept is new to me. If my posts come off as being aggressive or conflict prone I apologize for that. Between my ingrained military thought process [in which being aggressive is not only a good thing, but the norm] and my interpersonal issues stemming from Iraq, I’m doing my best to change. Four years ago, I’d have lasted maybe 2 posts on here before being banned for "picking fights."

Frankly, this apparent division/friction between non-traditionalists and traditionalists bothers me a lot. We’re both Catholics, we shouldn’t be trying to start brawls or put each other down. For the record, I have no issue with traditionalism [as defined/accepted by the Church] nor with traditionalists [as defined/accepted by the Church]. I don’t “get it,” but as I said on another thread me not “getting it” doesn’t matter since the Church does “get it.” What I have issue with are those within and without traditionalism doing there best to tear the other down [the “if you aren’t trad you aren’t really a Catholic” and the “trads are just reactionaries who place themselves above the Pope” crowds].

 

[TrueLight]

Frankly, this apparent division/friction between non-traditionalists and traditionalists bothers me a lot. We’re both Catholics, we shouldn’t be trying to start brawls or put each other down. For the record, I have no issue with traditionalism [as defined/accepted by the Church] nor with traditionalists [as defined/accepted by the Church]. I don’t “get it,” but as I said on another thread me not “getting it” doesn’t matter since the Church does “get it.” What I have issue with are those within and without traditionalism doing there best to tear the other down [the “if you aren’t trad you aren’t really a Catholic” and the “trads are just reactionaries who place themselves above the Pope” crowds].

Such rancor!

I used this word twice today.

Does the church define “traditionalists?” Does it need to?

 

[floresco]

Frankly, this apparent division/friction between non-traditionalists and traditionalists bothers me a lot. We’re both Catholics, we shouldn’t be trying to start brawls or put each other down. For the record, I have no issue with traditionalism [as defined/accepted by the Church] nor with traditionalists [as defined/accepted by the Church]. I don’t “get it,” but as I said on another thread me not “getting it” doesn’t matter since the Church does “get it.” What I have issue with are those within and without traditionalism doing there best to tear the other down [the “if you aren’t trad you aren’t really a Catholic” and the “trads are just reactionaries who place themselves above the Pope” crowds].

That is what I think too. I’m a trad married to a non-trad, so overcoming this division is personal for me. My husband does not get why I want to attend the Extraordinary form, but that does not make him a bad man or a bad Catholic.

Thanks for being so understanding.

 

[Armyvet007]

Such rancor!

I used this word twice today.

Does the church define “traditionalists?” Does it need to?

Why do you need to see ill-will and insults when they aren’t there?

You’ve also done that twice today.

First with Ohana’s post and now in my last post.

 

[floresco]

Such rancor!

I used this word twice today.

Does the church define “traditionalists?” Does it need to?

Armyvet’s post was pretty much the opposite of rancor. I was moved by how kind and understanding he was. I think he must have got your back up earlier and you just aren’t seeing it. Perhaps you could pray about it or sleep on it or both and give him another chance.