J
jas84173
Guest
Maybe I am not reading it correct but is this saying anyone who prefers the EF of Mass is in a Hate Group?
- Status
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I’m no fan of the splc but you read it wrong.
“Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” — people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the mass now typically said in vernacular languages — although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin
“Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” — people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the mass now typically said in vernacular languages — although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
I believe they’re referring to SSPX, Sedevacantism, and anyone who’s radical enough to reject Vatican II. That’s just what I gleaned though…
K
Kei
Guest
Radical traditionalists are not the same as Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” — people who prefer the old Latin Mass to the mass now typically said in vernacular languages — although the radicals, as well, like their liturgy in Latin. They also embrace extremely conservative social ideals with respect to women.
Is what it says.
But the SPLC shouldn’t be taken too seriously anyway
Is what it says.
But the SPLC shouldn’t be taken too seriously anyway
J
jas84173
Guest
I go to SSPX service sometimes and I don’t reject the Second Vatican Council. I don’t particularly like everything about it but the Holy Spirit never left the Church. I believe SSPX believe the Second Vatican Council was legal and all Popes are valid Popes but have fallen into heresy. This is different than some groups who straight up reject it and say there is now no Pope.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
J
jas84173
Guest
So is the ICKSP. I just happen to live near an SSPX chapel. Pope Francis made their Sacraments valid last year. A lot of their concerns are actually very legit if you read into it. It isn’t just a rejection because they want to be tough and not conform to something. A lot of their concerns have very educated basis and legality concerns especially in regards to many binding laws proclaimed at the Council of Trent.
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
The SPLC would brand the entire Catholic Church a “hate group” if they thought they could get away with it. Their issues are “abortion rights,” same-sex “marriage,” and a definition of “equal rights” that brooks no legitimate distinction between genders even in the name of religious belief.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Wow, the SPLC has a list below the few paragraphs in the article that lists Rad Trad hate groups. There are a few schismatic groups in there, but they also listed The Remnant. Say what you like about the The Remnant but it being a hate group? Sheesh.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
What’s the remnant
E
Entwhistler
Guest
It’s a Catholic newspaper. Pretty Right Wing but hardly a hate group.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
The only concrete, universal thing I think could be the root of this is the mention of “perfidious Jews” in one of the Holy Week liturgies before v2 that the trads have kept… Which honestly makes sense- it’s not a false accusation, and I think it was a good idea to remove it in the name of ecumenism. My .02$
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Didn’t Pope Benedict take that out of the EF liturgy?
M
Maximilian75
Guest
I havent heard as such, no… I could be wrong
J
jas84173
Guest
No actually Pope St. John XXlll did in the 1962 typical edition. Actually on Good Friday, the older way was read and Pope St. John XXlll stopped the service and made them re-read it in the new form. Benedict did change one prayer I believe but that wasn’t it.
No one says the Missal or Pius V needs to be stuck in 1962 either. If everyone could get along maybe the Vatican would allow a new typical edition to be released with recent saints etc. However unfortunately many of the new saints traditionalists don’t like so are opposed.
No one says the Missal or Pius V needs to be stuck in 1962 either. If everyone could get along maybe the Vatican would allow a new typical edition to be released with recent saints etc. However unfortunately many of the new saints traditionalists don’t like so are opposed.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict.
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
E
edwest211
Guest
Where are these “traditionalists”? Who identified them? Are there secret meetings?
Sheeesh,
Ed
Sheeesh,
Ed
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind a few minor changes for the inclusion of new saints. Although, I’m not aware of saints that trads are opposed to. I’m pretty sure proclamations of saints are infallible.
P
pnewton
Guest
SPLC, perhaps the most intolerant group in the country. I never like misuse of the word “hate,” but they raise misused to a whole new level. I remember back when they only identified what everyone agreed were hate groups, gangs and the like. Their political work has really water-downed the good work they used to do.
I have seen a lot of radical traditionalists here over the years. I can count on half a hand the number who have supported anti-Semetism or been anti-Semetic.
I have seen a lot of radical traditionalists here over the years. I can count on half a hand the number who have supported anti-Semetism or been anti-Semetic.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
be careful! They might mark you down as a “Hater”…Seriously, nowadays if you disagree with someone you’re “hating “. It’s thrown around way too much in order to stifle conversation and debate.
Last edited:
- Status