The traditionalist and the modernist.

[Student09]

You started a thread using “childish and immature labels” as the subject line. You have defined traditionalist so that it is necessarily a bad thing, ignoring the way that people who identify themselves as traditionalists use it. There are many devout, loyal Catholics who find the word “traditionalist” a helpful way to sum up their views. I cannot see this thread leading to anything other than confusion and bad feeling.

Exactly.

 

[Stephentlig]

You started a thread using “childish and immature labels” as the subject line. You have defined traditionalist so that it is necessarily a bad thing, ignoring the way that people who identify themselves as traditionalists use it. There are many devout, loyal Catholics who find the word “traditionalist” a helpful way to sum up their views. I cannot see this thread leading to anything other than confusion and bad feeling.

Of course I did, as a means to expose the childish and immature labels for what they really are.

Just show me a document from rome proving that calling oneself traditional or modernist is acceptable and we will progress from there.

the only view we should have is ‘‘Catholic’’ end of story.

because so many people have different definitions of what it means to be traditionalist it can only be said that the confusion within this thread is on their part. calling oneself Catholic retains no confusion whatsoever. your either catholic or your not.

Pax
Stephen

 

[Stephentlig]

Exactly.

says a jesuit novice to his superior: ‘‘how did you manage to become such a great superior?’’ ‘‘I just agreed with everyone’’ said the superior.

‘‘what? how did you manage to become such a great superior by just agreeing with everyone?’’

said the superior in response: ‘’ yeah your right, how did I become such a great superior by just agreeing with everyone?’’

 

[floresco]

because so many people have different definitions of what it means to be traditionalist it can only be said that the confusion within this thread is on their part. calling oneself Catholic retains no confusion whatsoever. your either catholic or your not.

You started a thread using a term that you realize has many different definitions. It seems to me that you bear some responsibility for the confusion.

And the word “Catholic” can be anything from the pro-abortion “Catholics for Choice” to “Catholic Answers”. This situation can indeed lead to confusion.

 

[Stephentlig]

You started a thread using a term that you realize has many different definitions. It seems to me that you bear some responsibility for the confusion.

I started a thread quite clearly stating the confusion between the trads and modernists. your either a trad or a modernist, or your Catholic.

And the word “Catholic” can be anything from the pro-abortion “Catholics for Choice” to “Catholic Answers”. This situation can indeed lead to confusion.

Your either Catholic or your ‘‘pro choice Catholic’’ there is only one definition and that is ‘‘Catholic’’ and anyone who is ‘‘Catholic’’ does not promote pro choice or anything contrary to church doctrine for that matter.

 

[At_Trent]

I consider myself a traditionalist, but I don’t think the OF (new Mass), as introduced, is “the” problem. I don’t think the VII is a problem itself. But the liberties taken with the OF and the VII documents certainly have failed in preserving a strict adherence to Tradition.

Now, if no prominent clergy had never expressed the same thoughts as I just presented, then it could fairly be said that perhaps I’m a bit looney. But they have said similar things, and one of them is now Bishop of Rome.

H.H. BXVI speaking of/to ALL Bishops

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

The common denominator is orthodoxy. The more liberal of us need to accept some things and the more traditional need to do so as well. It’s the only way to erase the division. If everything we say, do, and work toward from here onward, looks to Tradition as the measuring stick, then the Church will be strengthened, not hindered by the distraction of division.

Tough wish to have come true though. The mainstream Catholic is content. The traditionalist just won’t accept what is seen as an about face. And, there is so much that appears to be an about face.

With all our(trads) warts and admittedly, hardened hearts, I think one of the most frustrating thing is the stigma. We keep hearing the word disobedience, but only when directed at us.

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/12/official-text-of-popes-letter-to-bishops-on-williamson-affair/

No one ever comments on the pope’s words there when I quote them. The traditionalists, nor the contemporary Catholic. I suppose no one wants to hear it

But it does point out that disobedience isn’t solely the traditionalists “problem”. It reveals just how deeply rooted the division is today. Perhaps I’ve just never found it, but I can’t find a single article or what have you commenting on those words of BXVI.

I’m beginning to think no one of influence really cares what he says in that letter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice post At Trent. But I must say that disobedience is solely the problem of traditionalist. Because they recognize the Church as the authority and willfully deny it. Modernists tend to make themselves the authority over the Church. Their problem isn’t disobedience but usurping Church authority. I think this misnomer stems from the notion of democracy today, that leaders are not rulers, but merely those who implement the will of the people. Unfortunately they fail to recognize that the Church is not a democratic institution.

 

[Stephentlig]

Nice post At Trent. But I must say that disobedience is solely the problem of traditionalist. Because they recognize the Church as the authority and willfully deny it. Modernists tend to make themselves the authority over the Church. Their problem isn’t disobedience but usurping Church authority. I think this misnomer stems from the notion of democracy today, that leaders are not rulers, but merely those who implement the will of the people. Unfortunately they fail to recognize that the Church is not a democratic institution.

constantine…lets face it, both are disobedient to the Church. the modernists unwillingness to comply with the dogmas of the faith is disobedience. However your idea that the modernist usurps authority over the church is a good one, but such usurping is also disobedience.

Pax
Stephen

 

[ConstantineTG]

constantine…lets face it, both are disobedient to the Church. the modernists unwillingness to comply with the dogmas of the faith is disobedience. However your idea that the modernist usurps authority over the church is a good one, but such usurping is also disobedience.

Pax
Stephen

I guess in a way, yes. That is why I clarified that the modernist view probably stems from the view of democracy. The difference being traditionalist know and understand that the Church is in charge, they just think they’re right and the Church is misguided since Vatican II. The modernist thinks that their opinion matters and thus should be heard and followed. They think they have a say in Church policy and governance. I don’t really see that as a disobedience because that is how a democratic society works. If we do that with our city or state/provincial officials its not disobedience, its practicing your right. Modernists have the wrong notion that the Church is setup the same way as a democratic government. For example they think they can do anything with Liturgy because thats what everyone else wants. Or that the Church should accept women priests because thats what society wants.

 

[At_Trent]

Nice post At Trent. But I must say that disobedience is solely the problem of traditionalist. Because they recognize the Church as the authority and willfully deny it. Modernists tend to make themselves the authority over the Church. Their problem isn’t disobedience but usurping Church authority. I think this misnomer stems from the notion of democracy today, that leaders are not rulers, but merely those who implement the will of the people. Unfortunately they fail to recognize that the Church is not a democratic institution.

Well, there is that word. Not sure it is “doctrine” as described here, but…

Collegiality in the Catholic Church

Collegiality also refers to the doctrine held in the Roman Catholic Church that the bishops of the world, collectively considered (the College of Bishops) share the responsibility for the governance and pastoral care of the Church with the Pope. This doctrine was explicitly taught by the Second Vatican Council, though it is grounded in earlier teaching. One of the major changes of the Second Vatican Council was to encourage episcopal conferences (bishops’ conferences).

Proponents emphasise that the doctrine does not attempt to diminish the role of the Pope.
[edit] Criticism of collegiality in the Catholic Church

Traditionalist critics claim that it is contrary to what they perceive to be the Catholic belief that only the Pope has authority over other bishops. Critics felt bishops’ conferences could potentially destroy the independence of each bishop (by de facto forcing individual bishops to go along with a majority vote of a conference), as well as undermine the authority of the Pope (by a conference, synod, or council claiming to have some authority over the Pope).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality#Roman_collegiality

Sorry it’s wiki, but it was convenient.

And, all trads are not disobedient. I think you have to get into independent chapel territory to find such as “the rule”. I mean, is the traditionalist who still attends the OF despite a desire to attend the EF guilty of disobedience ? Of course not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And, all trads are not disobedient.

Of course. In the context of this thread though we have to understand that when we say “traditionalist” we meant those who crossed the line. I sure don’t want to keep typing “traditionalists who crossed over the line” everytime I have to refer to them

 

[Seamus_L]

For a forum titled Traditional Catholicism, this sure seems to be the place to criticize Traditional Catholics.

 

[floresco]

Of course. In the context of this thread though we have to understand that when we say “traditionalist” we meant those who crossed the line. I sure don’t want to keep typing “traditionalists who crossed over the line” everytime I have to refer to them

When you say “traditionalist” it means those who have crossed the line, but you seem to be using “modernist” in a positive sense, such that you have claimed that only traditionalists are disobedient. I find this both unfair and unclear.

 

[notredame_999]

I believe Arch. Lefebvre said he would rather have the old mass in english than the new mass in latin. Interesting.

 

[floresco]

For a forum titled Traditional Catholicism, this sure seems to be the place to criticize Traditional Catholics.

That is my impression also. And in this thread it is not even reasonable criticism. It is a claim that traditional Catholics are by definition disobedient and then attacking the people who self-identify as traditional Catholics yet are obedient.

 

[Student09]

Ok, let’s use an analogy.

The Church has defined certain basics which one MUST believe about the doctrine of predestination in order to remain a faithful Catholic. There are two significantly different interpretations of these basics: Thomism and Molinism. The Thomists and the Molinists disagree with each other, each thinks the other group is mistaken, but they are all faithful Catholics, because the Church has not made a declaration that one must adhere to one or the other.

Now, there are other ideas about predestination - such as Calvinism - that the Church has declared to be wrong. A Catholic who willfully holds to Calvinist doctrine is dissenting from the Church, because they are contradicting what the Church has defined.

Likewise, some Catholics can hold what are considered “traditionalist views” on certain points and other Catholics can disagree and they can still all be faithful Catholics. Modernism is more like Calvinism in the sense that it has crossed the line to being unacceptable. It’s also possible for traditionalism to do this, for instance, in the form of sedevacantism - but you didn’t start a thread using the term “sedevacantism,” you used the term “traditionalism.”

I get the sense that you would like all Catholics to agree with each other and not have differing opinions about anything. You want all Catholics to accept all the apparitions. Well, that is not how the Church works. She defines some things that we have to believe, and she leaves others to individuals.

It makes the Church a messier place, to be sure … but don’t worry: when we get to Heaven and we all find out that the Thomists and the traditionalists were right, we’ll all get along perfectly.

 

[Student09]

Of course. In the context of this thread though we have to understand that when we say “traditionalist” we meant those who crossed the line. I sure don’t want to keep typing “traditionalists who crossed over the line” everytime I have to refer to them

Then use the term sedevacantist.

 

[floresco]

It makes the Church a messier place, to be sure … but don’t worry: when we get to Heaven and we all find out that the Thomists and the traditionalists were right, we’ll all get along perfectly.

At least some of us are off to a head start on figuring out which is right.

 

[Student09]

At least some of us are off to a head start on figuring out which is right.

Lol.

 

[archangel04]

just show me one trad or modernist that agrees with ecumenism and we shall progress from there. The sspx mass does not conform to the Vatican II Latin Mass they are both different.

Because the church has condemned neither. Whom are you to get on your high horse, take the chair of Peter and decide what is true and what is false? I simply accept the simple messages until my good conscience would force me otherwise. Anns bishop sees nothing wrong with the messages, neither do I. I listen to the Church.

If Medugorje was false and the Church thought disobedience was something to look at and thought disobedience rendered such apparitions as false, then the church would of condemed it a long time ago. notwithstanding, if the church thought the apparition to be false, they would not even break a sweat in sending a commission over there to make a final decision upon it.

Again I do not listen to rumours, I listen to the church.

Pax
Stephen

I think you REALLY need to chill out. It sounds to me like you have only come here to stir the hornets’ nest. You have started out by calling all traditionalist to be disobedient to the Church. You claim to be walking in the middle, yet you promote “apparitions” which have yet to be officially approved by the Vatican, and even then we are NOT obliged to agree to the apparitions. There are those who prefer to attend authorized EF masses and there is nothing wrong with that, if you think there is then I suggest you take it up to the Holy Father because he gave the permission for any priest to celebrate the EF. Most of us, including myself, have no problem with using vernacular language in some/most parts of the OF mass, but V2 also ENCOURAGED the use of Latin and Gregorian chant as much as possible, especially if there is no need for the vernacular . Most of us usually attend the EF not because we feel the OF is less or invalid, but because we find the reverence and respect for Christ that we have been looking for in such a long time at the EF, and we don’t have to worry every week wether the mass will be reverent or not. You claim to try to be humble and charitable, yet you tell one poster to “get of his high horse” when really he has said nothing against you.