Orthodox Catholics vs. Traditionalist Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidJoseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DavidJoseph

Guest
How would you respond to a traditionalist who says that “neo-conservatives” (his word for Catholics who are orthodox, EWTN-type Catholics) want to act like the pope can do no wrong? More specifically, he claims that #1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history, #2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church, and #3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
 
Dear friend
I am unsure of what you mean by the labels assigned to people.
I am Catholic which means I love our Church, I obey the Pope and the Magisterium; nothing much has changed in 2000 years
 
I don’t like labels either, actually. But I’ll gladly explain.

“Traditionalist” can refer to those Catholics who just happen to love the Tridentine Latin Mass. Nothing wrong with that. But in this case it refers to those who think the Novus Ordo Mass of today is in and of itself a travesty, who try to be more Catholic than the pope, who criticize him for everything under the sun (e.g. claiming he doesn’t take action against dissenters, that he promotes religious indifferentism, etc.), and who blame most of the problems in the Church today on Vatican II itself rather than on misinterpretations of Vatican II. Members of the SSPX would fit this description, as would most of those who attend independent Tridentine Masses. But it also describes some who attend indult Masses. This person in question happens to attend indult Masses – he attends my parish, actually – ours is an indult parish staffed by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

When this person refers to “neo-conservatives,” he’s referring to Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium, who choose to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt, and who know where the true blame for the Church’s problems lies.
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
How would you respond to a traditionalist who says that “neo-conservatives” (his word for Catholics who are orthodox, EWTN-type Catholics) want to act like the pope can do no wrong?
Click to expand...
So is your friend is traditionalist and he says that EWTN-type Catholics can “do no wrong”–so he’s agreeing with them? I’m confused
40.png
DavidJoseph:
More specifically, he claims that #1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history,
Click to expand...
Again, I’m confused…as opposed to the neo-conservatives…or liberals…I thought he said that “neo-con’s” can do no wrong.

DavidJoseph said:
#2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church,
Click to expand...

I’m really confused…please help and I’ll try and answer.
40.png
DavidJoseph:
and #3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
Click to expand...
They being the traditionalists, the “neo-con’s”, or the liberals?
 
It is fine to love the tridentine Mass in approved assembly’s but to deny the legitamicey of the new Mass is schismatic.
The Church is Holy and we should all obey her, If people dissent they are no longer Catholic, they excommunicate themselves. End of story
 
In that case with your definition, I would tell them that they are not Catholic. Obviously they think they are, but you and me, and most of the Catholics on this forum are loyal to the Nicene Creed. We believe in what the Church and the Majesterium has taught for over 2000 years. The most we can do is to pray for their conversion.

My prayers are with you!
 
40.png
Sanctus:
So is your friend is traditionalist and he says that EWTN-type Catholics can “do no wrong”–so he’s agreeing with them? I’m confused
Click to expand...
No, I said that he says EWTN-type Catholics think the pope can do no wrong.
Again, I’m confused…as opposed to the neo-conservatives…or liberals…I thought he said that “neo-con’s” can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
No, he said neo-cons think the pope can do no wrong! He was accusing us of turning a blind eye to what he considers “misdeeds” on the pope’s part.
I’m really confused…please help and I’ll try and answer.
Click to expand...
He says that “neo-cons” are enemies of the Church because, according to him, we refuse to criticize the pope, and thus he thinks we’re causing the problems in the Church to continue.
They being the traditionalists, the “neo-con’s”, or the liberals?
Click to expand...
The neo-cons.
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
How would you respond to a traditionalist who says that “neo-conservatives” (his word for Catholics who are orthodox, EWTN-type Catholics) want to act like the pope can do no wrong? More specifically, he claims that #1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history, #2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church, and #3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
Click to expand...
Some people do act like the pope can do no wrong, I’d say… not necessarily everybody (defending Assisi I & II are good examples). If the “right” view of history is that Protestants are heretics and should not be writing the Catholic Mass, then Traditionalists do have the right view.
 
40.png
challenger:
Some people do act like the pope can do no wrong, I’d say… not necessarily everybody (defending Assisi I & II are good examples). If the “right” view of history is that Protestants are heretics and should not be writing the Catholic Mass, then Traditionalists do have the right view.
Click to expand...
  1. It’s one thing to think that Assisi 1 and 2 weren’t a good idea. It’s another thing to assume the worst about such things. Isn’t it a law of charity not to immediately assume the worst about anyone until or unless there’s sufficient evidence to show that the assumptions are justified?
  2. The claim that Protestants helped compose the Novus Ordo Mass is a flat-out, vicious lie. There were Protestants who were observers, but they did NOT help write the Mass. On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal” (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
He says that “neo-cons” are enemies of the Church because, according to him, we refuse to criticize the pope, and thus he thinks we’re causing the problems in the Church to continue.
Click to expand...
Ohhhh…gotcha, sorry, I was really lost.
 
Remember, its fine to do the mass in other languages because Jesus’ first disciples wouldnt’ve done it in Latin with the exception of those in Rome. They spoke Aramaic and Greek most.
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
How would you respond to…claims that
#1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history,
Click to expand...
the ‘right’ view of Church history would include both Vatican Councils along with J’s declaration that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her, but would exclude the thinking that everyone from John XXIII on has been a false pope;
#2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church,
Click to expand...
those of us whose lives are not so visibly Christ-like that folks are coming up to us on the street asking how they can get what we have, are enemies of Holy Mother Church. btw, who would be the ‘false’ enemies of the Church;
#3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
Click to expand...
to criticize maliciously and/or with false argument can certainly be considered an attack- neither should be done, regardless of the subject. if one engages in constructive criticism, the object can be built up and fortified. if someone simply wants to whine and complain from a selfish perspective and hurl insults and condemnations, only damage (to both parties) will result. the damage will not be to the ‘Church’ as a entity, but rather to the members of the Church whose faith could be shaken or lost. if we humbly ask questions of the church, like a child seeking knowledge from their loving parent, we will serve to confirm and strengthen our faith which we can then better share with others.

our catholic friends who read periodicals like the remnant would be well served with prayers and charity. they are well-intended, tho they themselves will note that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. perhaps suggesting that they read the actual documents of the second council and also to compare the teachings (not the phrasings) of the new catechism to that of trent’s will help their faith return to its fullness. [rosiland moss once told a caller to a radio program that when she was looking into the faith, the second council documents were not available and so she read the catechism of trent and that if when the VatII docs became available, there were discrepancies, they would have exposed the Church as a teaching fraud and kept her from entering full communion.]
thanks for listening, t

Glory be Jesus Christ!
 
We should be with each other, and not against each other especially in matters liturgical. I am what you’ve called an “orthodox” Catholic, I prefer the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin and facing east - but I love the Tridentine Mass also and strongly believe that every priest in the Roman rite should have the right to celebrate it along with the Novus Ordo, and the lifting of any restrictions for its use.

I believe that both rites can legitimately coexist peacefully - I don’t understand the need to eliminate one or the other - and apparently neither did Pope Benedict XVI while he was Prefect of the CDF.

We should be on the same side to pray and work for a renewal of the Sacred Liturgy in the whole Church - and an end to liturgical abuses.

I also pray that the Pope will move forward with a universal indult for the Tridentine Mass - as I have a hunch that a further normalization of this liturgy into the Church’s life will inevitably lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of the Liturgy itself-- which might very well result in the renewal of the liturgical reform as Vatican II envisioned it.
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
How would you respond to a traditionalist who says that “neo-conservatives” (his word for Catholics who are orthodox, EWTN-type Catholics) want to act like the pope can do no wrong? More specifically, he claims that #1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history, #2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church, and #3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
Click to expand...
The difficulty traditionalists have is in rightly dividing authority and rightly dividing tradition. They mix what is tradition with what is Tradition. They cannot discern a Pope’s personal failings from his doctrinal purity. They have a skewed vision of how the Church excercises it’s authority, being careful when it pulls tares, not to get some of the wheat as well. They focus on God’s judgement, rejecting his mercy, while of course liberal Cathoics are too much on the other side. This is my experience with my traditionalist brother and those like him. Mr. Madrid picked a perfect name for his book, More Catholic than the Pope. They tend to ignore history or like Protestants pick quotes out of context to their advantage. Ignornoring the historical context in which they were written.

So how do you handle them. That is something I am not a very good judge on since I have worked on my brother for years now. At times it seems like I made some progress then he slides deeper in to the movement. He seems only more entrenched in traditionalism and flies off the handle if I even in the slightest suggest he is not orthodox in his views. My recommendation is charitable responses and much prayer for their souls. Sorry if that isn’t much help. 😦
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
No, he said neo-cons think the pope can do no wrong! He was accusing us of turning a blind eye to what he considers “misdeeds” on the pope’s part.
Click to expand...
Your friend obviously does not believe in the omnipotence of the Holy Sprit who protects the Church from teaching in error. Your friend also does not seem to think that Jesus will keep his promise "…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat 16:18
 
Orthodox Catholics means that they follow the teachings of the Church and are faithful to it.
There are Traditional Cahtolics and Traditionalist
The second one (Traditionalist) are the ones who are the SSPXers etc…

Tell him this:
Pride is an ugly thing. The Church needs all of its members praying from within it’s walls, not from without. In order to restore Tradition (the Mass) if it be the Will of God, and to correct all error that many priest and bishops may be guilty of.
Assure him that in the military deserters are shot because death is what they deserve…the same justice should be held true in this case…however in the church, it is eternal damnation (unless of course they do not have sufficient knowledge :))…

Even if the reverence is under the SSPX or Sedevacantist or whatever, they still need to stay faithful to the magesterium of the church…even when it hurts…I imagine obedience can be worked in here somehow.
 
40.png
DavidJoseph:
How would you respond to a traditionalist who says that “neo-conservatives” (his word for Catholics who are orthodox, EWTN-type Catholics) want to act like the pope can do no wrong? More specifically, he claims that #1 --traditionalists have the “right” view of Church history, #2 – that “neo-conservatives” are the true enemies of the Church, and #3 – that they believe that to criticize the Church is to attack and thus weaken the Church?
Click to expand...
Forgive me for quoting and not linking below. I’m still not very tech-savvy. Honestly, I’m not sure how to respond to your friend… this is the best I can offer…

“Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of Our Lord… that [the] power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, ** are bound,** by their duty of hierarchical subordination, ** to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church…**” First Dogmatic Canon on the Church of Christ (Pastor Aeternus) Pope Pius IX, 1870.

It seems to me that difference between your friend and orthodox Catholics is in their idea of what obediance to a religious superior is.
If your friend does not accept Vatican II, he would do well to look at the teaching of Vatican I (quoted above). (A “true” view of Church history, must involve some familiarity with previous Councils.) We Catholics are all bound to submit to the Pope on matters of Church government- this includes matters of liturgy. Yes, the Pope is still a fallible human being capable of error, HOWEVER religious obediance does not include bad-mouthing or second-guessing our superiors.

True submission and obediance requires trust in God (St. Therese has something to say on this…) and a just suspension of our personal preferences. Obviously, this does not apply if the superior orders us to sin, and certainly we have an obligation to warn our superiors if we see them about to make a grave error, but I do not see the Church today promulgating any sort of false teaching or leading Catholics into error. (Yes, there are abuses, but the Pope certainly isn’t encouraging them.)

As an orthodox Catholic, I don’t see just criticism of the Church as an attack. I probably would largely agree with your friend on aesthetics/reverence in the liturgy (except I prefer the NO mass) and on the hierarchy in the U.S. However, I see unneccessarily fomenting trouble within the Church, when She is under serious attack from other quarters, as pointless, at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top