Speaking of "traditional," "progressive," "liberal," "conservative" labels

[Callixtus]

This is from an encyclical of Pope Benedict XV in 1914. Long before Vatican II, may I note:

"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.

1. Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: “having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men."

 

[Dtmccameron]

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.

And there lies the rub (whatever that means!) for far too many, I think, call themselves Christian yet fail to truly strive to be Christ-like.

Oh, for sure, it is impossible to know the soul, or intentions, so perhaps we can just say “Stupid are those self-proclaimed “Christians” who murder, steal, lie, and live lives full of sin, live lives of hatred and not Love”

I can’t see how one could rationally know Christ yet live a life in direct oppositon to everything He is!

Oh, no! I’m not saying all that sin proclaim their Christianity falsely! Indeed, temptation is strong, and we fall, but a true Christian will at least admit he’s fallen, admit he’s sinned, instead of justifying, rationalizing, and accepting his sin. Our war isn’t with division and labels, it’s with Heresy.

Do you know there are some “Christians” who don’t believe even in the divinity of Christ? They’re not just wrong, by their own doctrine, they’re not Christian! Not every prophet or teacher is true.

Indeed, it would be would be wonderful if Christian could be my name, and Catholic my surname (Nowadays, though, the Surname has closer ties to Truth than the first name!) but there seems to be allot of identity theft going on these days…

 

[Shin]

… they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men."

 

[Ockham]

Let’s say you go to your first liturgical committee meeting (wondering why your parish even has such a thing in the first place). Quickly you see two distinct groups at the table. On one side are those who wish the liturgy to follow the GIRM, sacrred tradition, and maintain the reverence our Mass has been known for. On the other are those who want more EMHCs, greeters, and liturgical dance while taking out the kneelers and moving the tabernacle to the back of the church. How would you describe these two distinct groups?

 

[brigid12]

Let’s say you go to your first liturgical committee meeting (wondering why your parish even has such a thing in the first place). Quickly you see two distinct groups at the table. On one side are those who wish the liturgy to follow the GIRM, sacrred tradition, and maintain the reverence our Mass has been known for. On the other are those who want more EMHCs, greeters, and liturgical dance while taking out the kneelers and moving the tabernacle to the back of the church. How would you describe these two distinct groups?

It seems to me that those labels are helpful in specific circumstances to provide a short-hand, if you will, to describe those groups within Catholicism. Although I have my own personal preferences, they are most probably not the preferences of Christ (unfortunately), so no judgement can happen.

 

[Callixtus]

Let’s say you go to your first liturgical committee meeting (wondering why your parish even has such a thing in the first place). Quickly you see two distinct groups at the table. On one side are those who wish the liturgy to follow the GIRM, sacrred tradition, and maintain the reverence our Mass has been known for. On the other are those who want more EMHCs, greeters, and liturgical dance while taking out the kneelers and moving the tabernacle to the back of the church. How would you describe these two distinct groups?

That is really a very good question. I think that by using these stupid labels that have become so common, one implicitly validates that there can legitimately be “kinds” of Catholics. Our Church does not now and has never recognized (at least in the last five hundred years, certainly) that one can disregard things like the GIRM, papal statements, etc., and be a faithful Catholic. So - I propose that all those in communion with the papacy who wish to follow the legimimate directives be called “Catholic,” and anybody else be called “disobedient,” “ill-informed,” etc.

 

[adowcday]

And there lies the rub (whatever that means!) for far too many, I think, call themselves Christian yet fail to truly strive to be Christ-like.

I agree – if all of the traditionalist, liberal, and other labels are dropped, the next line of attack is to simply define those we disagree with as “not Catholic.” That’s certainly happened to me. For example, if you think that it was acceptable for Notre Dame to grant an honorary degree to Obama and let him speak at commencement – you’re not a Catholic. Apparently, you’re also uninformed, ignorant, stupid, unfaithful, etc. Uggggghh…

I agree with the Pope’s sentiment, however: can’t we love one another? Apparently, Truth (note the capital letter!) demands that we hate, oppose and try to cast out of the Church those that we are supposed to love.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I agree with the Pope’s sentiment, however: can’t we love one another? Apparently, Truth (note the capital letter!) demands that we hate, oppose and try to cast out of the Church those that we are supposed to love.

Well, uh, don’t cast out, so much the people, but at very least purge the Heresy they might be preaching. Remember, the problem isn’t the person, it’s the wrongful idea they’re carrying.

…Sometimes though I wonder the point of people calling themselves Catholic if they don’t wish to be in line with the Church’s teachings…

…And then I wonder if a person could be a Papist yet not a Catholic?

 

[adowcday]

Well, uh, don’t cast out, so much the people, but at very least purge the Heresy they might be preaching. Remember, the problem isn’t the person, it’s the wrongful idea they’re carrying.

…Sometimes though I wonder the point of people calling themselves Catholic if they don’t wish to be in line with the Church’s teachings…

…And then I wonder if a person could be a Papist yet not a Catholic?

I’ve seen a picking-and-choosing of church teaching on the part of both traditionalist and progressive Catholics. Traditionalists don’t like church teaching on war, capital punishment, social justice, etc.; liberals don’t like church teaching on reproduction, liturgical abuses, etc. If the church rejected as heretics everyone who has trouble with at least one aspect of church teaching, there’d be no one left to turn out the lights.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I’ve seen a picking-and-choosing of church teaching on the part of both traditionalist and progressive Catholics. Traditionalists don’t like church teaching on war, capital punishment, social justice, etc.; liberals don’t like church teaching on reproduction, liturgical abuses, etc. If the church rejected as heretics everyone who has trouble with at least one aspect of church teaching, there’d be no one left to turn out the lights.

Candles were better anyhow. And it’s probably wrong headed of me, but I feel like saying, “Get in line or get out!”

And, y’know, I’m no perfectly orthodox Catholic myself, but I’d leap at the chance to take the first option. I mean, it’s the Catholic Church! It’s not like we desperately need everyone and their grandmothers in the pews on Sundays! I’d just as soon have the Church empty than see another, “Oh, I’m Catholic…Jesus? Divine? Hah! Mary? Virgin? Hah! Condoms? Go ahead! Abortion? Go ahead!”

The Church reaches out to the world, but it’s up to the world to gasp her saving hands! We can’t be forcing Holy Mother Church to drag about her children by the wrists kicking and screaming!

 

[Ockham]

How should we describe the Catholics who pushed for and got Communion in the hand as standard?

Or Mass in the venacular?

Ad populus?

Folk Choirs?

Clamshells?

EMHCs?

Clowns?

Etc?

 

[pnewton]

How should we describe the Catholics who pushed for and got Communion in the hand as standard?

Or Mass in the venacular?

Ad populus?

Folk Choirs?

Clamshells?

EMHCs?

Clowns?

Etc?

I thing the better question in light of Pope Benedict XV is “why”?

Any term is going to lump people like they are some monolithic groups. Each issue should be considered on its own and not based on what label one wears. However, there are practical considerations for labels in providing a short hand in communication. But the label itself should bear no weight.

 

[Silas_Barnabas]

I’ve noticed that “traditionalist” and “progressive” and such almost always refer to either people who think that Vatican II was a big mistake or people who think that the Church was worthless before Vatican II. What about people who think that Vatican II was an ecumenical council like any other and it’s still the same, great, Catholic Church as it’s always been? It seems like everyone wants to see a “crisis in the Church” right now: but what about the crisis outside the Church? There’s no time for infighting.

Also, there is a big difference between dogma and doctrine. Someone who denies the Immaculate Conception is a heretic; someone who disagrees with the Church’s position on contraception is an obstinate sinner, a lapsed Catholic. Denial of doctrine is not grounds for excommunication: it never has been.

Overall, it seems to me that all these labels, even the label “traditionalist,” are just expressions of an heretical individualism: because anyone who wants to divide the Church into cliques is already asserting their authority over that of Christ and his Church.

 

[Shin]

Also, there is a big difference between dogma and doctrine. Someone who denies the Immaculate Conception is a heretic; someone who disagrees with the Church’s position on contraception is an obstinate sinner, a lapsed Catholic. Denial of doctrine is not grounds for excommunication: it never has been.

Interesting…

Yes, someone who disagrees with the Church’s position on contraception, that is the Lord God’s position, is a heretic.

Certainly however some people engage in it, knowing it is a sin, and therefor are not heretics merely mortal sinners, though the difference is practically little.

“and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17)

“If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9)

“receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you” (2 John 10)

 

[Ockham]

Overall, it seems to me that all these labels, even the label “traditionalist,” are just expressions of an heretical individualism: because anyone who wants to divide the Church into cliques is already asserting their authority over that of Christ and his Church.

Perhaps the next time suggests liturgical dance or the need to introduce ourselves to each other before Mass begins I will just call them a heretic.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps the next time suggests liturgical dance or the need to introduce ourselves to each other before Mass begins I will just call them a heretic.

As tempting as that may be, misusing** that **word and slandering someone is scarcely better.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i agree with the holy father. is he going to do anything about what is going in the CC?

i ask this because i see the divisions getting bigger and bigger. and if the Church continue to teach different things, Catholics will not have one mind any longer. i will be left with progressive teachings while others will be left with the Traditionals teachings. how progressive will we get, if this continues and it is accepted?
i desire a more Reverent Mass, but i am stocked with a protestant like Church, shouldnt we all have the same Mass everywhere we go? very sad indeed.

Lord have Mercy.

 

[GodIsGracious]

For those of you who are quick to condemn as heretics those who disagree with a particular church teaching, what about those who disagree yet submit to the church’s teachings? i.e. They simply obey even though they disagree? That can happen yanno.

BTW, I wince when I see someone with the “Catholic Christian” or “Christian Catholic” as their religion or in their signature or when they introduce themselves that way. We’re Catholic, period. That means we are Christian by default. It should go without saying. However, I understand why they say that. Protestants have stolen “christian” to mean they are “better than” us “heretical-going-to-hell” Catholics so I can understand why people do that. Infact, I rather insist on calling protestants what they are, protestant. They are protesting the Catholic church and Her teachings. THEY broke away from the Catholic church. THEY don’t get to use the title “christian.”

adowcday, I agree with you. Since I don’t disaprove of Obama having spoken at Notre Dame and other political beliefs that I have I have been asked, “How can you call yourself a Catholic?”

Well, for one, I was baptised Catholic. No one can take away me being Catholic. No one. They can try. They can try and question and try and claim I am not Catholic, but they’re wrong. I am Catholic.

 

[adowcday]

How should we describe the Catholics who pushed for and got Communion in the hand as standard?

Or Mass in the venacular?

Ad populus?

Folk Choirs?

Clamshells?

EMHCs?

Clowns?

Etc?

How about: “Catholic”?

 

[Silas_Barnabas]

—Quote—
Yes, someone who disagrees with the Church’s position on contraception, that is the Lord God’s position, is a heretic.
—End Quote—

No, no, no! Heresy is rejection or obstinate doubt regarding an article of faith, and rejection of contraception is not an article of faith. It is directly derived from doctrine, and thus its denial may be styled “sententia haeresi proxima,” or “an opinion approaching heresy.” But it is NOT heresy, and does NOT warrant excommunication.