Question for you Trad. Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mcklintock82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
floresco said:
I am familiar with the argument. But if we are trying to answer the question of the OP rather than ride our own hobby horses, what is important is what he meant by the term.
Click to expand...
I suppose that’s fair enough. I would continues to say, however, that we need to be careful about advising anyone to consult sites that might also have “hobby horses” that the Church doesn’t ride.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I suppose that’s fair enough. I would continues to say, however, that we need to be careful about advising anyone to consult sites that might also have “hobby horses” that the Church doesn’t ride.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Pope St. Pius X was not speaking of “traditionalist” Catholics as a “party.” He was speaking of traditionalists in general or conservatives, if you will. There may be people who self-identify as traditionalists, but what of this, from HH Pope Benedict XV’s Beatissimi Apostolorum:

" It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself."

We are either Catholics, believing the whole body of the Church’s teaching, or we aren’t Catholics. The names we give each other are hardly helpful. We refer, for example, to “cafeteria Catholics,” when in truth, if they are picking and choosing, then they’ve ceased to be Catholic. And one who does not pick and choose, but gives the assent of faith to all that the Church teaches is likewise not “traditional,” they are simply Catholic. The person who attends the OF as opposed to the EF is not lacking in “tradition,” but it doesn’t matter anyway, because, in the eyes of the CHURCH, they are JUST A CATHOLIC.
Click to expand...
Right, he identified a group who held a certain view. And he called them traditionalists.

Pope BXVI’s (not BXV as you indicated) concerns are valid of course, but unless we drop the terms “Eastern” , “Roman” and “Orthodox”, we don’t fully embrace them do we ?

It’s H.H.'s will we stop using the terms, but the encyclical itself shows there is indeed such a term as “traditionalist”. Again, you say there is no such thing when there is, or H.H. would not be acknowledging such.
 
At_Trent said:
Right, he identified a group who held a certain view. And he called them traditionalists.

Pope BXVI’s (not BXV as you indicated) concerns are valid of course, but unless we drop the terms “Eastern” , “Roman” and “Orthodox”, we don’t fully embrace them do we ?

It’s H.H.'s will we stop using the terms, but the encyclical itself shows there is indeed such a term as “traditionalist”. Again, you say there is no such thing when there is, or H.H. would not be acknowledging such.
Click to expand...
On the contrary: I was refering to Pope Benedict XV, successor to Pope St. Pius X and author of *Beatissimi Apostolorum. *Look it up.

I don’t deny that there is a term “traditionalist” and I don’t deny that there is a mindset. I deny that there is such a thing in reality, since the Church Herself teaches that one that does not adhere to all of Her teachings has departed from Her Communion. I also base the claim that we are not to do such things on Beatissimi Apostolorum.

“Eastern” and “Roman” (or Latin) refer to rites or individual Churches in union with the Pope, Roman being the Church and rite of which he himself is head.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I suppose that’s fair enough. I would continues to say, however, that we need to be careful about advising anyone to consult sites that might also have “hobby horses” that the Church doesn’t ride.
Click to expand...
Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone was looking for a site exactly like Fish Eaters. Are you saying that you would not tell this person about it because you don’t think that FE is Catholic enough?
 
floresco said:
Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone was looking for a site exactly like Fish Eaters. Are you saying that you would not tell this person about it because you don’t think that FE is Catholic enough?
Click to expand...
“Catholic” enough? That’s an interesting way to put it. But I’ve already stated why I would not point the site out, ie., the areas that are problematic. Also, there are enough sites that are unquestionably orthodox and loyal to the Church that I would not have to point of FE.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
On the contrary: I was refering to Pope Benedict XV, successor to Pope St. Pius X and author of *Beatissimi Apostolorum. *Look it up.

I don’t deny that there is a term “traditionalist” and I don’t deny that there is a mindset. I deny that there is such a thing in reality, since the Church Herself teaches that one that does not adhere to all of Her teachings has departed from Her Communion. I also base the claim that we are not to do such things on Beatissimi Apostolorum.

“Eastern” and “Roman” (or Latin) refer to rites or individual Churches in union with the Pope, Roman being the Church and rite of which he himself is head.
Click to expand...
You are correct, I was thinking of something BXVI said.

But still, Pope Pius X identified the group. It exists. Trads exist, therefore they are.
 
At_Trent said:
You are correct, I was thinking of something BXVI said.

But still, Pope Pius X identified the group. It exists. Trads exist, therefore they are.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict still said what he said. I think the proper interpretation is that Pope St. Piux X was not identifying not a party or a rite or anything other than a mindset or a stance, given his adamant opposition to modernism (which is a heresy that is closely defined and doesn’t amount to all that is new or contemporary). If a liberal or a progressive or a cafeteria Catholic is guilty of that particular heresy (and again, it’s a closely defined one), then they’ve ceased to be a Catholic and no one who is STILL a Catholic is in need of a qualifier. It almost as if, by insisting on the right to say “I’m a traditional Catholic,” that the rest of the Church is so tainted that there needs to be a qualifier or adjective to set one apart.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Pope Benedict still said what he said. I think the proper interpretation is that Pope St. Piux X was not identifying not a party or a rite or anything other than a mindset or a stance, given his adamant opposition to modernism (which is a heresy that is closely defined and doesn’t amount to all that is new or contemporary). If a liberal or a progressive or a cafeteria Catholic is guilty of that particular heresy (and again, it’s a closely defined one), then they’ve ceased to be a Catholic and no one who is STILL a Catholic is in need of a qualifier. It almost as if, by insisting on the right to say “I’m a traditional Catholic,” that the rest of the Church is so tainted that there needs to be a qualifier or adjective to set one apart.
Click to expand...
When you take a look at this den of dissent
ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/john-paul-ii-real-reason-church-polarization?page=3
… you can see that modernism is a tumor that is eating away at Catholicism.

Modernism exists, and it grows steadily. It will never overcome Holy Mother Church as long as churchmen loyal to Tradition exist, Deo gratias.

Traditionalists exist.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
  • Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique
You are not totally wrong JKirk, and I see what you are trying to say, but to agree with all you say on the matter is to imply that all who style themselves traditionalists are a sort of elitist.

I’m a traditional Roman Catholic, and by that I mean I look to Tradition as the measuring stick in all matters. My worldview, and my embrace, neutrality, or rejection of non-dogmatic teaching.

H.H. has said Church teaching is not frozen and restricted to the pre - VII days, but also adds that those who defend the Council must do so in light of Tradition. That is what traditionalists do, and the OP asked what traditionalists suggest he turn to for help in his query. He didn’t ask if traditionalists exist, and he didn’t ask for thoughts from those who do not style themselves traditionalists if they have concerns regarding traditionalist resources.

Have your say in reply if you like, but if we continue this discussion, we will wind up hijacking the thread. Let’s just agree to disagree.

pax
 
At_Trent said:
When you take a look at this den of dissent
ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/john-paul-ii-real-reason-church-polarization?page=3
… you can see that modernism is a tumor that is eating away at Catholicism.
I do not disagree with you. I personally feel that the hierarchy should deal with Fr. MacBrien. That they have not, I must charitably conclude, is due to attempt on their part to be charitable.

Modernism exists, and it grows steadily. It will never overcome Holy Mother Church as long as churchmen loyal to Tradition exist, Deo gratias.
As long as Tradition (that which is handed down from the Apostles) isn’t confused with tradition.

Traditionalists exist.
Every Catholic who is truly Catholic is a “traditionalist” because we give our assent to all that is taught by the Church. As long as you are comfortable with that including people who like the OF, etc., then there’s only what Benedict XV said left to contend with…me, I’m just a Catholic.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
  • Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique
I gave you my take on that. I don’t claim infallibility, but until the Holy declares a seperate “traditional” rite, I’m going with the definition that a Catholic assenting to all the Church teaches is as much a traditionalist as you and that the label does not need to exist to distinguish Catholic from Catholic.

You are not totally wrong JKirk, and I see what you are trying to say, but to agree with all you say on the matter is to imply that all who style themselves traditionalists are a sort of elitist.

**Some are elitist, some aren’t. **

I’m a traditional Roman Catholic, and by that I mean I look to Tradition as the measuring stick in all matters. My worldview, and my embrace, neutrality, or rejection of non-dogmatic teaching.

**I’m a Roman Catholic, and by that I mean I look to Tradition as the measuring stick in all matters. My worldview, and my embrace, neutrality, or rejection of non-dogmatic teaching. **

H.H. has said Church teaching is not frozen and restricted to the pre - VII days, but also adds that those who defend the Council must do so in light of Tradition. That is what traditionalists do, and the OP asked what traditionalists suggest he turn to for help in his query. He didn’t ask if traditionalists exist, and he didn’t ask for thoughts from those who do not style themselves traditionalists if they have concerns regarding traditionalist resources.

**I would not blame the OP if he lost interest entirely and wandered off to get some popcorn, but…sedevacantists, the SSPX, etc., self-identify as “traditionalists.” If they came on here recommending informational sources for neophytes, conscientious Catholics would be obligated, for the sake of their own souls, to point out error. That’s all I did with Fisheaters (who I do not accuse of either sedevacantism or being SSPX) and whose name is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. **

**A neophyte coming to the “Traditionalist” forum asking about the Friday discipline of abstinence MIGHT be told we MUST abstain from flesh food on every Friday of the year. “Traditionalists” like that (and I attempt to adhere to that myself). The full truth of the matter, however, is that the Holy See gave to (at least) the USCCB the authority to dispense the faithful from that, as long as the faithful substituted another penance or act of charity in it’s place. Now, I acknowledge that, by and large, Catholics in the US fail to observe the caveat and just go ahead and eat a cheeseburger, but the fact is that the authority to dispense from the discipline exists legitimately, the dispensation itself exists, and the neophyte needs to know that (and that those who elect to observe another penance are not lacking in “Sacred Traition”). It is “traditional” to acknowledge truth and authority, no? Yet some “traditionalist” sources do not give a full disclosure of information on that. They merely say “Don’t eat flesh food,” or criticize the Church for “abandoning tradition.” Some even try to equate this “tradition” of the Church (a mutable discipline) with “Sacred Tradition” (that which is handed down from the Apostles and which I believe the Church would say Pope St. Pius X was talking about anyway). So Catholics owe it to the neophyte to steer him toward the truth. **

Have your say in reply if you like, but if we continue this discussion, we will wind up hijacking the thread. Let’s just agree to disagree.

**It was not my intent to hijack the thread. It was my intent to point out some of the stuff that is problematic with Fisheaters. I stand by that. **

pax

et cum spirito tuo.
Click to expand...
 
Very good idea Mcklintock82. Being prepared is not only great if you come under fire from friends and family, but it will also help you personally. The Catholic faith is a rich and a bit complicated, so we could all use help—even those, like myself, who come from a predominantly Catholic family. To help you lay the groundwork; I’d recommend reading the catechism of the Catholic Church. You might also want to consider reading Catholic Apologetics books. These can be really helpful in describing and defending your Catholic faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top