Rebutting the charge of 'the angry Catholic traditionalist'

[Boulder257]

If you take traditionalism to too great an extreme, it is no less a heresy than extremist modernism.

I, for one, would love to see the Church return to Latin-only, but the Church isn’t for me, it’s for the world. The world needs vernacular mass.

I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing the clapping and hand-holding and guitars taken out of Mass, but, again, this isn’t for me, it’s for the world. Who am I as an individual to dispute the Church’s wisdom that this is what the world needs right now?

A Catholics we have to trust that God has ensured Vatican II as free from any serious error. Even though the “traditionalist” impulse may seem laudable, it is, as a wise poster observed early, rooted in the sin of pride. We must be careful to guard against traditionalism as much as we guard against modernism.

:clapping:

That’s about as well as it can be said. Agree wholeheardtedly.

 

[Boulder257]

I am reminded of a quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said, “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

I wonder if the same quote could be used just replacing “Catholic Church” with “Vatican II.”

This support the quote from the current prelate of Opus Dei who said, “Traditionalism,” in its different forms, is a sickness based on a mistaken concept of Tradition. In its genuine meaning, “Tradition” plays an important role in the Church along with Sacred Scripture, from which it is inseparable."

I just don’t understand why we continue to divide ourselves into certain categories that really don’t even exist within our Church. We allow our personal preferences to divide us despite the fact that we are supposed to submitting to the Authority of Mother Church.

 

[marthaferretti]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

 

[Rascalking]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

Your right, we totally missed something. It’s all on us. Your not angry in the least.

 

[Melchior_1]

Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church?

Bad examples, because in both cases they would grit their teeth and say nothing, so we wouldn’t know their reactions. Both are run by Franciscans, and under the Rule of Francis they are to obey under severe punishments if otherwise.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

While I agree with your original post, it’s kind of hard to infer inflection and body language in text when there isn’t any.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I just rechecked the Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI and didn’t see a word in there about those desiring the EF being prideful! The fact is that both forms are to be respected as equal and advocates of each form are to be respected without resorting to attempts at denigrating either group. The Holy Father understood that the path to salvation is different for individuals and provided access to more than one Liturgical option. If we want to discuss likes and dislikes fine but please, no more references to pride or any other insinuated sinfulness based on our Liturgical preference.

 

[zab]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

I’m trying to figure out where I fit in with all of your labels. I’m traditional, but not in the sense that I prefer the EF. I’m conservative, but I do not follow Medjugorge,nor the charismatic phenomenon. I’m glad that we do not have altar girls. I would not mind the return of the altar rail. I wouldn’t be angry if the Holy See decided to do away with EMHC or other things you mentioned. I trust that the Church knows and does what is best. I’m certainly not a feminist liberal. I guess there is no label that suits me.

 

[TimothyH]

I used to be very angry—when I attended the NO! There were so many “masses” at which liberties were taken that at times, I didn’t believe the consecration had taken place! Abuses galore (even given the nuanced GIRM interpretations).

One fact: Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic council. It was a pastoral council—that means any and all of its writings are not binding. Therefore, nothing before was changed, especially dogmas and doctrines that had been established (such as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: outside the Church [Catholic] there is no salvation):

Defined by the Council of Florence and
Papal bull *Unam Sanctum *by Pope Boniface VIII

To be Catholic, one must accept the Church’s dogmas, period.

And being Catholic is great, as far as it goes. For me though, it doesn’t go far enough.

Catholicism for me is a means to an end; Catholicism is not an end in itself. I’m just speaking for myself here, but I want more. I want heaven. I love Jesus and I want eternity with Jesus, and Jesus lays out some pretty clear requirments about how one goes about that.

Loving one’s neighbor, putting one’s desires aside and doing the will of another AKA not fighting, straining forward in expectant hope but never presuming I am saved, feeding the poor, consoling the distressed, giving a cup of cold water to a stranger… Loving your neighbor as yourself.

Having my name in a book of sacraments in some Church near where I was born and believing in some 358 or so dogmas of the Church is wonderful if that is what it takes to be Catholic. The God I worship however, tells me that “Being Catholic” is not good enough to get into Heaven.

That’s what I want - Heaven. With Jesus.

-Tim-

 

[jam070406]

And being Catholic is great, as far as it goes. For me though, it doesn’t go far enough.

Catholicism for me is a means to an end; Catholicism is not an end in itself. I’m just speaking for myself here, but I want more. I want heaven. I love Jesus and I want eternity with Jesus, and Jesus lays out some pretty clear requirments about how one goes about that.

Loving one’s neighbor, putting one’s desires aside and doing the will of another AKA not fighting, straining forward in expectant hope but never presuming I am saved, feeding the poor, consoling the distressed, giving a cup of cold water to a stranger… Loving your neighbor as yourself.

Having my name in a book of sacraments in some Church near where I was born and believing in some 358 or so dogmas of the Church is wonderful if that is what it takes to be Catholic. The God I worship however, tells me that “Being Catholic” is not good enough to get into Heaven.

That’s what I want - Heaven. With Jesus.

-Tim-

Sweet! If we can get more and more people to put their own desires aside we could have a TLM in every Parish in America!

 

[JRKH]

I find it somewhat humorous that some on here accuse me of being ‘angry’ which I think is a result of not being able to discern the inflection/body language in which the original comments were made as well as revealing a certain defensiveness for their own ‘preferences’ when it comes to liturgical matters.

Of course the purpose of the post was to counter the charge of the ‘angry Catholic traditional’ with what would be the possible/probable reaction of many ‘conservative’ Catholics if some of their sacred cows in the Faith were banned. Can one imagine the reaction at Franciscan University if the charismatic phenomenon were supressed or EWTN devotees if Medjugorje were declaired a fraud by the Church? Look at the reaction of some Catholics when dioceses or individual priests made the decision to no longer train girls to serve as altar boys. The priest at the parish where I sometimes assist at Mass recently decided to no longer use laymen to distribute Holy Communion at Mass. There was weeping and knashing of teeth among those laymen who deemed it their right to distribute Holy Communion.

It appears that in their haste to respond to my ‘anger’, they missed the point of the OP.

It is certainly true that we can miss things like body language and inflection etc in the written word. That is why we must be even more careful to take this into account when writing a post.
I hope that you will be patient with those of us who have “missed the point” and will continue to clarify your point - as you seem to do above.

Peace
James

 

[TimothyH]

Sweet! If we can get more and more people to put their own desires aside we could have a TLM in every Parish in America!

My dear friend, it takes much more than Mass to get into heaven.

-Tim-

 

[maryjk]

I’m trying to figure out where I fit in with all of your labels. I’m traditional, but not in the sense that I prefer the EF. I’m conservative, but I do not follow Medjugorge,nor the charismatic phenomenon. I’m glad that we do not have altar girls. I would not mind the return of the altar rail. I wouldn’t be angry if the Holy See decided to do away with EMHC or other things you mentioned. I trust that the Church knows and does what is best. I’m certainly not a feminist liberal. I guess there is no label that suits me.

I’m there too.

I prefer the OF. But I also would prefer no altar girls. I wouldn’t mind an altar rail, although I wouldn’t use it. (bad knees) I do not follow Medjugorge,

I am a stay at home, home schooling Mom, so I am not a feminist either.

I used to think of myself as a traditionalist, but around here I am just this side of being a heretic.

 

[maryjk]

Sweet! If we can get more and more people to put their own desires aside we could have a TLM in every Parish in America!

Why? Since the Ordinary Form is already in every parish, why would we need to put the Extraordinary Form in? The reason it would be needed is because it would be wanted. Wanted indicates personal desire. If people put their own desires aside, there would not need to be an EF in every parish.

(See, it works both ways.)

 

[Boulder257]

Your right, we totally missed something. It’s all on us. Your not angry in the least.

I think I can discern the inflection and body language that went into this post!

Seriously though, when your closing argument is, “Seems to me that ‘traditional’ Catholics have some cause for being angry.” That just doesn’t help the argument that you are refuting their position. That sentence alone infers they not only have a right to e angry, but should be! Not exactly a strong rebuttal, especially as the closing argument in your post.

 

[Rascalking]

I think I can discern the inflection and body language that went into this post!

Seriously though, when your closing argument is, “Seems to me that ‘traditional’ Catholics have some cause for being angry.” That just doesn’t help the argument that you are refuting their position. That sentence alone infers they not only have a right to e angry, but should be! Not exactly a strong rebuttal, especially as the closing argument in your post.

Thanks, I was just trying to add some humor.

 

[Boulder257]

I just rechecked the Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI and didn’t see a word in there about those desiring the EF being prideful! The fact is that both forms are to be respected as equal and advocates of each form are to be respected without resorting to attempts at denigrating either group. The Holy Father understood that the path to salvation is different for individuals and provided access to more than one Liturgical option. If we want to discuss likes and dislikes fine but please, no more references to pride or any other insinuated sinfulness based on our Liturgical preference.

I don’t think that was the argument Bob. I don’t think anyone said supporting or liking the EF is prideful. What I think they were inferring was that anytime a person takes a personal preference and tries to force that preference on others despite Church Teaching, well, that is most certainly pride. When people begin to think they know better than the Church, that’s pride.

 

[jam070406]

Why? Since the Ordinary Form is already in every parish, why would we need to put the Extraordinary Form in? The reason it would be needed is because it would be wanted. Wanted indicates personal desire. If people put their own desires aside, there would not need to be an EF in every parish.

(See, it works both ways.)

I was kinda joking hence the Smiley. But thanks for showing that it goes both ways. That is exactly what I was attempting to show the poster I responded to.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Seems like you and I have had very difference experiences. Believe it or not, I have not experienced a single item of what you have described. I actually find it hard to discuss the issue with you given the sarcastic and angry way you make your argument. It doesn’t lend itself well to rational discussion.

Also seems you are blaming the council for the abuses that were caused by it’s implementation in certain places by specific people. I would hate to judge an entire council by a few bad apples just as you can’t judge an entire group of people by a few of it’s members. Heck, I wouldn’t be Catholic if I used many other Catholics as my measuring stick. Thank goodness I chose Truth despite some of those that “represent” it.

I’m not speaking about only my personal experience. I’m speaking about many others.

What you have said makes it sound like most parishes now have a solemn ad-orientem Novus Ordo mass with chant every Sunday, with just a few deviating from that norm. Whereas the majority now have most of the novelties Traditionalists detest.

Try this mental exercise:

Imagine a Sunday, sung Mass at your local parish Church in 1930. Then fast forward mentally to 2011.

Frankly, if a pious Catholic had such a vision in the 1930’s they’d have wondered if they were viewing the same religion!

If the ‘reforms’ were allowed to continue at the same rate, in another 40 years we would be Protestant: no belief in transubstantiation and each local church doing their own thing.

e.g. Why are people now allowed to touch the host if it’s so special?

What people don’t get is that this was coming for a long time before the Council; the Council just provided the excuse.

Also, I don’t see why Traditionalists have to apologise for being angry. Go to TLMs for three months, then go back to the N.O. Read up on what the purpose of a Mass is. See how calm you are then.

PS: What is the Truth, in the context of this argument?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I don’t think that was the argument Bob. I don’t think anyone said supporting or liking the EF is prideful. What I think they were inferring was that anytime a person takes a personal preference and tries to force that preference on others despite Church Teaching, well, that is most certainly pride. When people begin to think they know better than the Church, that’s pride.

My misunderstanding, thanks. Of course there is the little notion by maryjk that desiring the EF is prideful. So which is it, is the Pope off base or is there a bit of false accusation going on?