VERY heterodox position! Just doesn’t match what the Church actually teaches…You can be Faithful to the Magisterium and think the TLM is better than the NO. In fact I’m willing to bet that’s why most people go to the TLM in the first place. However you must accept the NO as at least valid. There’s a big difference.
Actually, it’s you who doesn’t ~ read below.You really don’t seem to grasp the truth –
Not possible. To be a “progressive Catholic” requires one to want to change something that is immutable ie: Dogma. Therefore they are heterodox, all of them.That a VERY progressive Catholic could be VERY orthodox,
I have never met a Traditional Catholic who is heterodox. Any Traditional Catholic I’ve ever come across has agreed that one must adhere to all the teachings of the Church. In fact the very basics of “Traditional” Catholicism requires that one be completely orthodox. You’re messing up your terms here. Even a sedevacantist (which I’m most definitely not) is not heterodox. Heterodoxy requires one to reject an already defined Dogma of the Church, or hold to a theology that has been explicitly condemned by the Church. Even sedevacantists hold every Dogma of the Church. You failed to show me any Traditional Catholic (either person or Society, group, etc.) who is heterodox.What’s “totally absurd” is to suggest that self-labeled “Traditional Catholics” (sic) are somehow automatically orthodox.
Show me one document by a Church official (anybody) that says I can’t hold the opinion that the TLM is somehow better than the NO. If this is heterodox, than every person, Priest, Deacon, etc. who attends the TLM only, is heterodox. This is a completely ridiculous assertation. I recognize the NO as valid, but it is hardly required that I go to it. The reason I dont need to: because I personally don’t like it as much, for the same reasons some like “folk masses” over the TLM.VERY heterodox position! Just doesn’t match what the Church actually teaches…
When I was speaking of Tradition earlier, I meant Sacred Tradition. I was referring to the fact that even sedevacantists hold to all the aspects of Sacred Tradition, and there is no such thing as a “progressive Catholic” who does.BTW, what do you mean by “Tradition?” Are you speaking of Sacred Tradition – the Church’s Deposit of faith or some other type of “Tradition” that you feel a need to capitalize?
Ah, wise words from the only Pope in the last 435 years to be canonized. (Last Pope before him to be canonized was St. Pius V, who passed away in 1572)…the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.
St. Pius X, Notre charge apostolique, 1910.
WHOA! At first I suspected parody but now – wow! Not only are you wrong, you clearly don’t pack the gear for this discussion. My apologies.…Not possible. To be a **“progressive Catholic” requires one to want to change something that is immutable ie: Dogma. ** Therefore they are heterodox, all of them…
Please don’t lie. No where in my postings did I voice or infer a dislike for the Tridentine Mass. In fact I mentioned attending one last Sunday which I enjoyed – save for the weird chatter outside afterwards.An also interesting note Daprato, since you so apparantely have a disdain for the TLM, is that the TLM is much closer than the NO in terms of the Mass envisioned by the Second Vatican Council.
To suggest one form of the Mass is “better” than the other is truly sad. To infer the Church would make normative a Mass that is in any way inferior to another Mass is beyond sad.Show me one document by a Church official (anybody) that says I can’t hold the opinion that the TLM is somehow better than the NO. If this is heterodox, than every person, Priest, Deacon, etc. who attends the TLM only, is heterodox. This is a completely ridiculous assertation. I recognize the NO as valid, but it is hardly required that I go to it. The reason I dont need to: because I personally don’t like it as much, for the same reasons some like “folk masses” over the TLM.
The Pauline Mass in no way contravenes Sacred Tradition. To even hint that the Tridentine Mass is in some way more true to Sacred Tradition is simply silly – and it runs contrary to what the Church teaches.When I was speaking of Tradition earlier, I meant Sacred Tradition. I was referring to the fact that even sedevacantists hold to all the aspects of Sacred Tradition, and there is no such thing as a “progressive Catholic” who does.
Then what, in your opinion do “progressive Catholics” want to change, since you are so much more enlightened then I? To make a blanket statement “progressive Catholics,” would like to see Humanae Vitate overturned (heretical), the recognition that homosexual activity is not sinful (heretical), etc. What else do you wan’t me to spell out for you. Progressive = change. And I’m not just talking about changes in the liturgy. What Church Dogma would Traditional Catholics like changed?WHOA! At first I suspected parody but now – wow! Not only are you wrong, you clearly don’t pack the gear for this discussion. My apologies.
Apparently you misread me. When I say better, I mean I like it better, ie: I prefer it. Quit reading so much into my posts. I said the NO was valid, just as valid as the TLM. What more do you want?To suggest one form of the Mass is “better” than the other is truly sad. To infer the Church would make normative a Mass that is in any way inferior to another Mass is beyond sad.
You may well prefer the Tridentine Mass – that’s fine. But in no way is the Tridentine Mass “better” than the Pauline Mass in the eyes of the Church.
To be candid, you need to start thinking in a logical manner.
Sacred Tradition? No. Liturgical tradition? Yes. Maybe you’ve never heard of the “Ottaviani Intervention.” Try reading it. Our current Pope has also made several statements speaking out about some parts of the NO. To say there are no problems with the NO, which is what you seem to imply, is blind.The Pauline Mass in no way contravenes Sacred Tradition. To even hint that the Tridentine Mass is in some way more true to Sacred Tradition is simply silly – and it runs contrary to what the Church teaches.
I never said I was more “enlightened” than you. But I am able to think in a clear and cogent manner without jumping from one topic to another.Then what, in your opinion do “progressive Catholics” want to change, since you are so much more enlightened then I?
That’s just your own personal (and inflammatory) conjecture, and it’s out of left field to boot. Please don’t try to use unrelated emotional matters to try and make your point. It just doesn’t work.To make a blanket statement “progressive Catholics,” would like to see Humanae Vitate overturned (heretical), the recognition that homosexual activity is not sinful (heretical), etc. What else do you wan’t me to spell out for you.
And there has been very positive changes to the Church even in my lifetime. Just look at how much more exposure Catholics get to the Bible in the new rite than they did in the old rite.Progressive = change. And I’m not just talking about changes in the liturgy. What Church Dogma would Traditional Catholics like changed?
I have asked before. Just what is a “Traditional Catholic?” You capitalize it as if it’s some sort of separate rite within the Church.You also said that Traditional Catholics are just as heterodox as “progressive Catholics.” You still haven’t shown me a Traditional Catholic who is. I can show you many “progressive Catholics” who are however.
Oh good grief. Cue the Twilight Zone music…Apparently you misread me. When I say better, I mean I like it better, ie: I prefer it. Quit reading so much into my posts. I said the NO was valid, just as valid as the TLM. What more do you want?
Sacred Tradition? No. Liturgical tradition? Yes. Maybe you’ve never heard of the “Ottaviani Intervention.” Try reading it. Our current Pope has also made several statements speaking out about some parts of the NO. To say there are no problems with the NO, which is what you seem to imply, is blind.
Daprato,To suggest one form of the Mass is “better” than the other is truly sad. To infer the Church would make normative a Mass that is in any way inferior to another Mass is beyond sad.
You may well prefer the Tridentine Mass – that’s fine. But in no way is the Tridentine Mass “better” than the Pauline Mass in the eyes of the Church.
To be candid, you need to start thinking in a logical manner.
The Pauline Mass in no way contravenes Sacred Tradition. To even hint that the Tridentine Mass is in some way more true to Sacred Tradition is simply silly – and it runs contrary to what the Church teaches.
You certaintly implied it post #27…I never said I was more “enlightened” than you.
That’s nice. So am I. Show me one post in this thread where I jumped from one topic to another.But I am able to think in a clear and cogent manner without jumping from one topic to another.
See, this is where your entire thread fails. You fail to define your terms such as “progressive Catholic.” A Catholic you describe above, I would just term liberal. I see a “progressive Catholic” as someone who wants say the ordination of women. Maybe YOU should define your terms, since YOU are the starter of this thread. I thought you could think in a clear and cognent manner…I think there are many progressive Catholics that want to see many customs and disciplines changed. Things that are not dogmatic, including white-hot items like the celibate-only priesthood in the Latin Rite.
See that’s also your problem. The above is YOUR personal opinion. There is no set definition of a “liberal” Catholic and a “progressive Catholic.” I defined my terms, but you as the starter of this thread failed to, and you should have defined them before anyone.That’s just your own personal (and inflammatory) conjecture, and it’s out of left field to boot. Please don’t try to use unrelated emotional matters to try and make your point. It just doesn’t work.
What? The positive changes where most Catholics do not believe in the real presence, where a lot fewer Catholics go to Mass today, where there are far fewer vocations? I’ll give you the fact that their is more exposure to Sacred Scripture today, but that’s about the only positive I can think of, and I sure wouldn’t trade it for all the negative changes I listed above.And there has been very positive changes to the Church even in my lifetime. Just look at how much more exposure Catholics get to the Bible in the new rite than they did in the old rite.
I have asked before. Just what is a “Traditional Catholic?” You capitalize it as if it’s some sort of separate rite within the Church.(Traditional Catholic is of Course Catholic)
As I said earlier, I talked with some people (key words) after a Tridentine Mass last Sunday. They no doubt considered themselves to be ultra-traditional Catholics. TLM-only for sure. Yet as a group, they were questioning if those people who received the Blessed Sacrament out of the tabernacle had indeed received the Eucharist – because the Hosts has been consecrated during a Pauline Mass!! **(They probably said this since Christ’s words were changed for the Consecration, i.e. from ‘many’ to ‘all’,laity touching the most Holy Eucharist, etc. This is another debate altogether and should not be rehashed here since it can be viewed on older threads via Search)
**
That’s hardcore heterodoxy mixed with abject stupidity and sadly, it’s not a unique occurrence.(**Not a Christian demeanor here, this is AntiChristian)
You have succeeded, whether intentional or not, in taking a stereotyping attitude here and this is not warranted. By your own words you only spoke to some people. To criticize all other Traditional Catholics is well, illogical and derogatory.
**
Actually you asked me what my definition was, when I used the word “Tradition.” Whether I meant Sacred Tradition or not. I told you my defintion there. You said nothing about defining Traditional Catholic. I can show you the post if you want. Once again, as the starter of this thread, it is YOUR responsibility to define your terms. I’ve defined mine. For the record again, a Traditional Catholic is first and foremost an orthodox Catholic, but is an orthodox Catholic who prefers or assits only at TLM’s.I have asked before. Just what is a “Traditional Catholic?” You capitalize it as if it’s some sort of separate rite within the Church.
As I said earlier, I talked with some people after a Tridentine Mass last Sunday. They no doubt considered themselves to be ultra-traditional Catholics. TLM-only for sure. Yet as a group, they were questioning if those people who received the Blessed Sacrament out of the tabernacle had indeed received the Eucharist – because the Hosts has been consecrated during a Pauline Mass!!
They might be wrong in their opinions, but that is hardly heterodoxy. FOR THE LAST TIME: HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE DENIAL OF AN ALREADY DEFINED DOGMA, OR THE HOLDING OF A THEOLOGY THAT IS CONTRARY TO AN ALREADY DEFINED DOGMA. What Dogma have these people denied? What theology do they hold that is contrary to an already defined Dogma? The fact that they might regard the NO as invalid, is hardly a rejection of Church Dogma, or a theology contrary to Church Dogma. That is exactly why the SSPX, and even sedevacantists such as the SSPV, or CMRI are NOT heterodox. You apparantly need to brush up on the differences between schismatic and heretical. There is a MAJOR difference. One can be schismatic and not be heterodox, and one can be heterodox and not be schismatic. ONCE AGAIN: YOU HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ME WHY ANY OF THESE SOCIETIES ARE HETERODOX!!! I thought you could think in a clear and cognent manner…That’s hardcore heterodoxy mixed with abject stupidity and sadly, it’s not a unique occurrence.