D
- Status
C
catharina
Guest
Hmmm - mighty strange response since the OP seems to be asking for responses from those who DISAGREE. Nonetheless, look to your own advice: " … shut up, listen, and learn!"I agree with the OP !
And I’ll add that it’s time everyone who doesn’t agree, shut up, listen, and learn !
Latin is the language of the angels for starters !
( running as fast as I can)
How’s that?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Only in the minds of those who do not like or accept the Novus Ordo. The mass is the mass is the mass. When will people recognize that. It is not Latin that makes us Catholic and Universal, it is Jesus who comes to us in the mass.
Prayers & blessings.
Deacon Ed B
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
What did the angels speak before Remus and Romulus?I agree with the OP !
And I’ll add that it’s time everyone who doesn’t agree, shut up, listen, and learn !
Latin is the language of the angels for starters !
( running as fast as I can
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
AngeleseWhat did the angels speak before Remus and Romulus?
Prayer & blessings
Deacon Ed B
I
I_Believe
Guest
Latin of course ! They invented it !What did the angels speak before Remus and Romulus?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I would say that the extent to which someone is “traditional” describes the extent to which a Catholic has a totally legitimate preference for the liturgies and other licitly available usages that are most like those in use before the Second Vatican Council.
I would suggest this change to the definition because I think that the introduction of something like the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy would not be something that a traditional Catholic would consider an “innovation.”
I like the part of your definition that stressed the duty to maintain appropriate obedience to Rome: This is what distinguishes a traditional Catholic from a traditional apostate.
Also, I don’t think it necessary to include in the definition any sense of whether the person has either a humble or arrogant disposition towards the newer forms. There is an entire range of dispostions in all of us. Our humility and arrogance vary only in their total extent and in their peculiar objects. In this, traditional Catholics are no different than any other Catholics. As with all Catholics, it is the loudly arrogant ones who might give the wrong impression about all the rest. I don’t think that the traditional forms necessarily pose a particular temptation towards arrogance or spiritual pride that other forms do not. The evil one tempts all, on that account.
I understand traditional, progressive, and moderate as being on a continuum. The sins to which we might be tempted and the degree of sanctity open to us probably vary depending on where we are on the continuum, and whether we have chosen a place that best suits our own spiritual needs and vulnerabilities, but not in any absolute sense.
By this, I am saying that a person who loves the TLM or the NO, but finds themselves feeling smug for preferring it and distaining the idea that the other form has any value, might find that cultivating an appreciation for the other form turns out to be a useful spiritual demand to place on themselves…kind of like forcing yourself to eat broccoli once in awhile, when spinach is the dark green vegetable that you really love. I don’t mean you’d expect yourself to ever like both equally, but that it would be a worthwhile exercise in gratitude and humility, for all valid forms of the Mass deserve to be recognized, as the Catechism teaches, as being of that One Sacrifice which is alone "the source and summit of the Christian life."
I would suggest this change to the definition because I think that the introduction of something like the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy would not be something that a traditional Catholic would consider an “innovation.”
I like the part of your definition that stressed the duty to maintain appropriate obedience to Rome: This is what distinguishes a traditional Catholic from a traditional apostate.
Also, I don’t think it necessary to include in the definition any sense of whether the person has either a humble or arrogant disposition towards the newer forms. There is an entire range of dispostions in all of us. Our humility and arrogance vary only in their total extent and in their peculiar objects. In this, traditional Catholics are no different than any other Catholics. As with all Catholics, it is the loudly arrogant ones who might give the wrong impression about all the rest. I don’t think that the traditional forms necessarily pose a particular temptation towards arrogance or spiritual pride that other forms do not. The evil one tempts all, on that account.
I understand traditional, progressive, and moderate as being on a continuum. The sins to which we might be tempted and the degree of sanctity open to us probably vary depending on where we are on the continuum, and whether we have chosen a place that best suits our own spiritual needs and vulnerabilities, but not in any absolute sense.
By this, I am saying that a person who loves the TLM or the NO, but finds themselves feeling smug for preferring it and distaining the idea that the other form has any value, might find that cultivating an appreciation for the other form turns out to be a useful spiritual demand to place on themselves…kind of like forcing yourself to eat broccoli once in awhile, when spinach is the dark green vegetable that you really love. I don’t mean you’d expect yourself to ever like both equally, but that it would be a worthwhile exercise in gratitude and humility, for all valid forms of the Mass deserve to be recognized, as the Catechism teaches, as being of that One Sacrifice which is alone "the source and summit of the Christian life."
S
Spiller
Guest
Just what is a “Traditional Catholic?” You spell it as if it was a proper noun, e.g. Byzantine or Roman Catholics yet I cannot find it defined anywhere by the Church. Now I have an idea of what a traditionally-minded Catholic is – of any rite or tradition. Is that the same thing?
While I am extremely traditionally-minded, I prefer the Pauline Mass and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom to the Tridentine Mass. Does that make me less “traditional?” – no way. While I certainly like the Tridentine Mass, I am simply more nourished by the Pauline Mass and the Divine Liturgy. Nothin non-traditional about that.
Being traditional also doesn’t make me ignorant of history – quite the opposite. I have studied enough Church history to be well aware that the Mass of the early church had little resemblance to the Mass defined in the Missale Romano of 1962. One could easily argue the Pauline Mass is more reminiscent of how the Eucharist was celebrated in the first century AD but they would then be engaging in the same sort conjecture that you are.
I’m not sure what you have against the “charismatic movement” – it really doesn’t appeal to me but I’m traditional enough to follow the Church when She recognizes the charism – and with Pentecost coming up I can see why She does.
Quite a few people who label themselves as “traditional Catholics” also seem quick to dissent from the Church when what the Church teaches/instructs or allows goes against their personal opinions of what is “good or better.” The last paragraph just provided a perfect example.
No, being a traditionally-minded Catholic is a heckuva lot more than just trying to follow our own opinion of what is “traditional” as many of these opinions are formed not by faith and reason, but by ignorance and pride.
S
Spiller
Guest
It’s pretty scary that some people do not grasp that.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I would prefer to attend the most “charismatic” Mass celebrated by a good Catholic priest according to the current Missal, than go to a Mass according to the 1962 Missal celebrated by a schismatic priest.
Just call me “Catholic” thanks,
:twocents:
tee
I
I_Believe
Guest
Gee, tha_ks Cathri_a. _ow I have to go buy a ew keyboard. My _ key wo’t work _ow.
I spewed soda all over my keyboard whe_ I read your reply
(Ru_ Forrest, Ru_ !
)
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I
I_Believe
Guest
Oh no, no. I heard it from this traditionalist friend of mine, and he’s very smart when it comes to these things !
(How am I supposed to get far enough ahead of the posse if you folks keep replying ?
)
C
catharina
Guest
Perhaps it will dry off with no permanent damage -Gee, tha_ks Cathri_a. _ow I have to go buy a ew keyboard. My _ key wo’t work _ow.
I spewed soda all over my keyboard whe_ I read your reply
(Ru_ Forrest, Ru_ !
ya’ know - if you give it a good long rest?
C
catharina
Guest
Am fairly certain the posse has gone out for lunch.Oh no, no. I heard it from this traditionalist friend of mine, and he’s very smart when it comes to these things !
(How am I supposed to get far enough ahead of the posse if you folks keep replying ?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
You mean they too were not happy with what God gave them, i.e., Angelese.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
I
I_Believe
Guest
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
ok ok, I think I got it. But since we are not in heaven, can we have a language of our own that we can all understand.No, I mean that Latin is the language of the Angels !
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
S
Spiller
Guest
I
I_Believe
Guest
Now you are coming around ! That’s it. The Mass in Latin, so no matter where we are, we have a Liturgy in a common language !
- Status