People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[JReducation]

I have no idea what the poster you are replying to is thinking when he/she asks about Pope John Paul being “brought up on charges”?? It almost sounds as if he/she thinks the canonization process involves a trial??

I would like to know where you got your infomation about the progress being made on Pope John Paul’s cause for sainthood. He has not been beatified yet, though the positio has been handed over to the proper personnel in Rome. Now the Positio must be examined by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

In the case of sainthood because of “heroic virtue”, & this is the usual path for someone who is not a martyr, the positio is examined by historians, by theologians, by doctors and then there is an exam by the cardinals. Only after all this “passes muster”, can Pope John Paul II be beatified & entitiled to the title “Blessed”. Beatification also ,of course, allows Catholics to give limited veneraltion to the person in question.

Whoops! I almost forgot…Rome is hoping for John Paul’s beatification to occur on the anniversary of his death in 2009. But, keep in mind, this is only** hoping**.

Hi

Go back to my post 587, the poster to whom I was responding was talking about John XXIII, not John Paul II. It’s John XXIII whom I’m speaking about.

Hope this clarifies the confusion.

JR

 

[elts1956]

It’s rather hard to discuss tradtional Catholicism, as we have t

 

[Ghoti]

Oh, yeah, to my American friends…belated Happy “That Little Unpleasantness In The Colonies” Day!!

 

[piojunbabia]

Re: People who do not like traditional Catholicism

they thought that Catholicism started in Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Re: People who do not like traditional Catholicism

they thought that Catholicism started in Vatican II.

Catholicism did not start in VII, but it also did not die there.

 

[KingAlfred]

Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum? Are they trying to convert traditional Catholics to less traditional Catholicism? I can understand trying to convert someone who thinks that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is illicit or invalid, but why would one want to convert someone who just prefers the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Most of the people who I know who prefer the Extraordinary Form would be happy liturgically if every Mass was just celebrated sans liturgical abuses. Why is this a bad thing?

Well, as someone who likes V2, I’d have to say that many probably suspect traditionalists want to force the Church backward in time.

 

[consumedconvert]

Catholicism did not start in VII, but it also did not die there.

 

[KingAlfred]

Re: People who do not like traditional Catholicism

they thought that Catholicism started in Vatican II.

Heck no. I’m a huge fan of Church history and appreciate all of it. Actually, IMO, the Church’s most ‘heroic period’ was that between the fall of Rome (AD 476) and the conversion and assimilation of the Vikings around the end of the AD 900s. This was an extremely important period – the Early Middle Ages – in which the Church literally held Western Europe together, under the destructive pressures of barbarian invasion, over the course of five centuries.

V2 was simply a momentous ‘opening up’ of the Church, to more fully embrace the modern age. It was a great work.

 

[ethelzguy]

Well, as someone who likes V2, I’d have to say that many probably suspect traditionalists want to force the Church backward in time.

Pretty much, as evidenced by the rhetoric posted here.

 

[EasterJoy]

Re: People who do not like traditional Catholicism

they thought that Catholicism started in Vatican II.

There are those who think that “traditional Catholicism” and “real Catholicism” are the same thing, too. In other words, the less traditional you are, the less you are really Catholic…and Popes don’t get mulligans.

Well, is that true or false?

 

[japhy]

There are those who think that “traditional Catholicism” and “real Catholicism” are the same thing, too. In other words, the less traditional you are, the less you are really Catholic…and Popes don’t get mulligans. Well, is that true or false?

Can we define “traditional” again? Sorry.

Clearly, a person who denies an element of the faith that is based on the Apostolic Tradition (e.g. Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, male ordination) is not fully Catholic.

However, snubbing little-“t” traditions (e.g. praying the Rosary, spending time in Eucharistic Adoration, genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament, bowing your head at the name of Jesus) does not make you not a Catholic. Whether it makes you “less” of a Catholic is probably a subject for a lengthy philosophical debate. I would say you are not “less” Catholic than someone else for eschewing such traditional practices; if you can grow in holiness without resorting to these devotions, then God has blessed you, but I would say you’re missing out on something. If you’re simply unaware of them, that’s nothing to hold against you. However, if you avoid them for the wrong reasons… that’s another story. If you see the Rosary as a superstition or idolatry, for example, it would seem you don’t understand your Catholic faith well enough.

Flouting the discipline of the Church (e.g. refusing to make penance on Fridays, blowing off Sunday Mass) is a mark of a less-than-genuine Catholicity.