Some Traditionalists also Jansenists?

[brigid12]

I don’t want to bring out any anger from other Traditionalists (I think of myself as having very strong Traditionalist leanings, too). I want to make sure I avoid this heresy as much as I can, tho’.
In reading some other postings (mostly not on this forum) I realized that one of the off-putting things about what the non-Trad world sees in the Traditionalist movement is what seems to me to be Jansenism. Does anyone here notice that, too - sometimes?

 

[EasterJoy]

I have not noticed that. Could you be more specific about what you mean?

 

[SFD]

I don’t want to bring out any anger from other Traditionalists (I think of myself as having very strong Traditionalist leanings, too). I want to make sure I avoid this heresy as much as I can, tho’.
In reading some other postings (mostly not on this forum) I realized that one of the off-putting things about what the non-Trad world sees in the Traditionalist movement is what seems to me to be Jansenism. Does anyone here notice that, too - sometimes?

Are you referring to the Heresy of Cornelius Janesen? Or are you speaking of a general “rigorism” that is difficult to define?

SFD

 

[brigid12]

Well, on one of the posts in the discussion on this site insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4306&Itemid=48
I read it (a complaint about Traditionalists and rigorous moralism with prudery) which made me suddenly think of this. Is this only a complaint, do you think, about taking Jesus words and the 10 Commandments seriously or is it truly Jansenism - pulling ourselves up, with rigorous morality, by our own bootstraps (so to speak)? I’ve heard this other times, by others, too.

 

[SFD]

Well, on one of the posts in the discussion on this site insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4306&Itemid=48
I read it (a complaint about Traditionalists and rigorous moralism with prudery) which made me suddenly think of this. Is this only a complaint, do you think, about taking Jesus words and the 10 Commandments seriously or is it truly Jansenism - pulling ourselves up, with rigorous morality, by our own bootstraps (so to speak)? I’ve heard this other times, by others, too.

You’re referring to latter then…I would suggest reading about Jansenism and what it really is…before you put any traditionalist in that camp. Would you consider someone overly scrupulous to be a jansenist? That would be quite a rash judgment, wouldn’t it?

newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm

SFD

 

[brigid12]

You’re referring to latter then…I would suggest reading about Jansenism and what it really is…before you put any traditionalist in that camp. Would you consider someone overly scrupulous to be a jansenist? That would be quite a rash judgment, wouldn’t it?

newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm

SFD

My OP was a question only. I did not mean to put anyone on the defensive. If I did I apologize. And I certainly wasn’t putting anyone in that camp.Actually, no, I would not even think of saying that an overscrupulous person was a Jansenist. The tone of your post sounded to me both defensive and accusatory. I hope I’m wrong about that, as I can certainly be. I believe this is a question that I will have to wonder about to myself only, rather than cause this apparent sort of ire.

Blessings and good-bye

 

[SFD]

My OP was a question only. I did not mean to put anyone on the defensive. If I did I apologize. And I certainly wasn’t putting anyone in that camp.Actually, no, I would not even think of saying that an overscrupulous person was a Jansenist. The tone of your post sounded to me both defensive and accusatory. I hope I’m wrong about that, as I can certainly be. I believe this is a question that I will have to wonder about to myself only, rather than cause this apparent sort of ire.

Blessings and good-bye

My apologies, I didn’t mean to sound that way. I am just familiar with the charge that traditionalists (and especially those who suffer from scrupulocity) are Jansenistic in nature. This may be true in some cases…but it would be rash to assume such a rigorism in those who are just trying to be good Catholics.

This is just a general comment, btw.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I don’t want to bring out any anger from other Traditionalists (I think of myself as having very strong Traditionalist leanings, too). I want to make sure I avoid this heresy as much as I can, tho’.
In reading some other postings (mostly not on this forum) I realized that one of the off-putting things about what the non-Trad world sees in the Traditionalist movement is what seems to me to be Jansenism. Does anyone here notice that, too - sometimes?

Traditionalists are sometimes accused of that, but my guess is that it is due to a general laxity among Catholics. Since so many Catholics are lax, those who are not appear to be too rigorous.

 

[Wonko_the_Sane]

My OF priest once accused me of Jansenism, because I have been (not at all overly) scrupulous when it comes to mortal sin and communion.
I read up, and found that scrupulosity has nothing to do with Jansenism. Jansenism professes needless turning down of recieving of communion, because we as humans can never be worthy.
Pius X taught frequent communion, I believe. I agree with him 100%. I am no Jansenist.

 

[PrayforMallory2]

Some trads do seem to be taking a fundamentalist/Jansenist approach to things.

It’s not good, but I see it as a reaction to the massive laxity and indifferentism in the Churches. As more and more priests start realizing their role as teacher and sacrificer, this type of scrupulosity will balance out.

This scrupulosity expresses itself in issues like homosexuality. So many people, especially young people, have never heard teaching on sexuality, that when they go to a trad Mass and actually hear these things taught from the pulpit, they kind of go nuts, and sometimes end up hating the sinner instead of just the sin.

The whole conflict between trads and conservatives is a conflict between truth and mercy. Once the Tridentine Mass is common again, I think things will normalize a bit.

 

[bruce_burnham]

Not to change horses in mid stream but I think that to say something to the effect “that as the Tridintine Mass becomes more common” shows an unawareness of which Latin Mass is allowed to be celebrated in the Church today. The Latin Mass that the Pope has asked to be celebrated more freely in the Church today is the Mass of the Council, You will not see the Tridintine Mass become more common, but you will see the Mass of the Council celebrated more frequently

 

[SFD]

Not to change horses in mid stream but I think that to say something to the effect “that as the Tridintine Mass becomes more common” shows an unawareness of which Latin Mass is allowed to be celebrated in the Church today. The Latin Mass that the Pope has asked to be celebrated more freely in the Church today is the Mass of the Council, You will not see the Tridintine Mass become more common, but you will see the Mass of the Council celebrated more frequently

This makes no sense. The Mass of Paul VI effectively became the only Mass for the Latin Rite. The 1962 Missal is not the Mass of the Council…nor is the Mass of Paul VI.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Some trads do seem to be taking a fundamentalist/Jansenist approach to things.

But the fundmental traditionalist position has nothing to do with rigorism. Much of the rigorism that truly does exist is a result of traditionalists being isolated and treated as less-than-Catholic by those in apparent positions of authority.

It’s not good, but I see it as a reaction to the massive laxity and indifferentism in the Churches.

You likely don’t realise the gravity of your words here. Read the encyclical Mortalium Animos for some context.

As more and more priests start realizing their role as teacher and sacrificer, this type of scrupulosity will balance out.

I’m not sure what this might mean…but again, look at the gravity of this comment. The majority of New Order priest do not consider themselves teachers and the certainly don’t see themselves as offering sacrifice. They are humanists.

This scrupulosity expresses itself in issues like homosexuality. So many people, especially young people, have never heard teaching on sexuality, that when they go to a trad Mass and actually hear these things taught from the pulpit, they kind of go nuts, and sometimes end up hating the sinner instead of just the sin.

I have never heard a sermon on homosexuality at a TLM any more than I’ve heard a sermon on murder.

The whole conflict between trads and conservatives is a conflict between truth and mercy.

No, it is over doctrine. Doctrinal truth is not sacrificed nor lessened for mercys sake.

Once the Tridentine Mass is common again, I think things will normalize a bit.

Again, until the doctrinal questions are addressed it will only get worse (meaning harder to discern). The chasm between traditionalists and “conservatives” is doctrinal…not strictly liturgical.

SFD

 

[TP2]

The answer is “NO”. They are just misguided.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, on one of the posts in the discussion on this site insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4306&Itemid=48
I read it (a complaint about Traditionalists and rigorous moralism with prudery) which made me suddenly think of this. Is this only a complaint, do you think, about taking Jesus words and the 10 Commandments seriously or is it truly Jansenism - pulling ourselves up, with rigorous morality, by our own bootstraps (so to speak)? I’ve heard this other times, by others, too.

A Jansenist who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps sounds like a contradiction in terms. ​

I do wonder at times whether there is a correlation between the sort of thing you’ve noticed, & the origin of whoever first evangelised the area from which the poster in question comes: I believe the 19th century French & Irish clergy had tendencies to rigorism.

 

[Claudius]

There is a big difference between being a traditionalist, a traditionally minded Catholic and one of the heretics from several houndred years ago in France. Heresy always has a way of going too far. They teach that you can be sinfull and recieve Christ. That is heresy. They teach that you shouldn’t reacieve Christ at all. Again heresy. Satan wants you to not do things the correct way and he doesn’t care which end of the spectrum you are on just as long as you do it wrong and he gets you. So, how do you avoid doing it wrong, simple, do it right, the way the Church teaches to do it.

Keep in mind, traditionalist are Catholics who like the older way of doing things. I don’t say that the newer way of doing things that is in full accordance with Cathoilc teaching is wrong. I don’t say that the way the Greeks do things, as long as they are in accord with what the Church teaches, is wrong. There is a lot of difference between different peoples, rites and taste. I have a preferance for Latin. I have a preferance for simple straight forward language and I believe in following the rules. The Catholic Church has rules and I want to follow them.

Recently I had a mortal sin on my conscience. I knew that if I went to recieve communion that I would be recieving my own damnation and I respect Jesus too much to do that. So I asked the priest to confess me. He said he was too busy but then gave me communion anyway. He walked right up to me during Mass and put the communion right in front of me and I was standing in the sactuary where everyone could see so I went ahead. I had a repentent heart and I fully intended to go to confession whenever I could get the priest to confess me.

All the next week the priest told me that he was too busy to confess me. I felt trapped in the stupid sin that I had committed and I even drove four hours to the next Catholic Church to see if they had confession. They were closed incidentily as they only have a priest on Sunday afternoon who drives from a town two hours further away.

Then I missed Mass because of travel. My conscience was eating away at me. Then I committed the SAME stupid sin again. I was living my life in fear of death because I was afraid that I had killed the life of God within me. I arrived two hours early for Mass on the next Sunday and found our priest and asked him to confess me and he was… you guessed it… too busy eating breakfast.

So at that Mass I did not go to help the priest as I normally do because I knew that if I did he would give me communion. I sat in a pew instead. I tried to pray my rosary in the hours before Mass but my sin just pushed down on me and I struggled to even get any of it said at all.

Later on my wife came with our son and Mass began and I felt like an oursider again. For the first time since I converted to Catholicism I was going to be at Mass but not take communion. Everyone noticed and people were asking me what was wrong. People were encouraging me to go and take communion but I just couldn’t.

Over the following week, I asked to be confessed and the answer was NO.

Now to be fair, I do ask to be confessed a lot I suppose. In America I went to confession every week. In Japan they go twice a year, if that. I was asking to be confessed every month to six weeks and the priest always made me feel like it was a great burden of his time. I suppose it is to be honest and I am gratefull to the time that he was willing to give me. Yet I also know what the Church teaches. I know what the rules are and I know that if you have a state of MORTAL sin on your soul, you should not take communion. Period. End of dicussion.

This is very far from what the Jansenist taught and if fully in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. I didn’t take communion at that Mass and that was the right thing to do. It would have been better if I had been confessed and was able to recieve communion but I was not. Better still to not committ the sin and go with joy to recieve God in the flesh but that was not how it was. I as in a state of sin and should not have taken communion and so I followed the rules and did not.

Oh and just in case you are curious, several days later the Bishop visited our parish and I relayed concerns about what I should to do be able to go to confession and the Bishop himself confessed me. Now I can happily recieve communion.

Some traditionalist go to far perhaps in insisting that their preferance be the rule for everyone. I consider myself in the traditionalist crowd but not a full traditionalist since I don’t really have contact with them in my actual life other than getting mail from the Priestly Fraternaty of St. Peter.

Traditionalist like me do not want to see the church do away with things that are good just because they are old. Old and bad do not mean the same thing. I would also abject to anyone who said that Latin should be the only way as there are still Catholic Churches where the language of Jesus “Syriac” is still the only language used in the Mass. I fear the day when people will say that the language that Jesus spoke, the language of the very first Mass and the only language of the Mass for the first 100 years should be done away with simply because it is old.

There should be no conflict between a traditionalist and the mainstream Catholic Church.

So that is what I think.

Pax vobiscum et Ave Maria

or as the angle probably actually said

Shlomlek Mariam