The traditionalist and the modernist.

[ConstantineTG]

I feel that you are being unfair to traditional Catholics because you wrote “I must say that disobedience is solely the problem of traditionalist” and you are defining traditionalist so that it means disobedient. You have been participating here long enough that you must be aware that there are many who consider themselves traditional Catholics who greatly value being obedient. You are making up definitions that do not correspond to reality and are likely to be offensive. These thing would be true even if I were a Buddhist, so my personal views are irrelevant to the problems with your posts.

If you look closely, its actually more of a complement. Because at least these traditionalists recognize the authority of the Church. Whereas modernists don’t, they feel like they are in a democraticy society where they have a hand in the governance of the Church.

And for the second part of your statement, I already said that in the context of this thread I had to refer to extreme traditionalists as merele traditionalists. I already explained it and yet you keep pulling me back to that argument. I firmly believe that good and obedient Catholics need not add anything in describing their faith, “Catholic” is enough. Or at the most, they should add their sui juris. But other than that it is definitely divisive.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Trads and modernists both spread disobedience in the church. But must admit that the modernist is not just disobedient but also holds and teaches heretical views. Neither view is accepted by Rome.

Pax
Stephen

The Traditional view of the Church was held by Rome until the 1960’s.

Rome cannot decide whether or not to “accept” Catholic Tradition. It is part of the Faith that is unchangeable.

 

[stevusmagnus]

And traditionalism is an error.

If Traditional Catholicism is an error than the Church erred for 1960 years.

 

[stevusmagnus]

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

Yes, doctrine is more important than language, though keeping Latin is important.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Traditional view of the Church was held by Rome until the 1960’s.

Rome cannot decide whether or not to “accept” Catholic Tradition. It is part of the Faith that is unchangeable.

No. Rome has upheld Tradition until today. Some traditionalists want they’re kind of tradition, which is wrong. The one who dictates is the Church, not the laity. This is the same problem with the modernists, they think that they have a say in what the Church should do or don’t do.

 

[Stephentlig]

No. Rome has upheld Tradition until today. Some traditionalists want they’re kind of tradition, which is wrong. The one who dictates is the Church, not the laity. This is the same problem with the modernists, they think that they have a say in what the Church should do or don’t do.

constantinetg has a firm and simple grip on what it is we are discussing within this thread.

Pax
Stephen

 

[Stephentlig]

Donal Foley has an excellent book on Medj. He was on Catholic Answers recently:thumbsup:. You should listen to it .I believe the commission should answer on the subject soon. Then we can put this issue to bed once and for all

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. what is the content of his book upon medugorje like?

Hvala i Laku noc ( croat for ‘‘thank you and goodnight’’ )

 

[floresco]

And for the second part of your statement, I already said that in the context of this thread I had to refer to extreme traditionalists as merele traditionalists. I already explained it and yet you keep pulling me back to that argument. I firmly believe that good and obedient Catholics need not add anything in describing their faith, “Catholic” is enough. Or at the most, they should add their sui juris. But other than that it is definitely divisive.

There was no reason why you had to use the word in that offensive way. You chose to do it. This forum is called “Traditional Catholicism” because the term is meaningful. (hint: the meaning is not disobedient Catholics) Is Catholic Answers not being run by good and obedient Catholics? Is it divisive? Perhaps you should protest by refusing to post here.

 

[Student09]

So, to sum up the thread:

A: “Have you noticed how all French-speakers hate America?”

B: “Well, I speak French, and I don’t hate America.”

C,D,E: “Yeah, we speak French, too - we don’t hate American either. We’re Americans and we love living here and appreciate our government.”

A: “Then why don’t you just call yourself Americans? Why do you feel it necessary to identify as French-speakers?”

B: “Because we do speak French.”

A: “See! You’re sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism.”

B: “How?”

A: “That’s so un-American!”

B,C,D,E: “…”

Pretty pointless, if you ask me.

 

[Student09]

Not all traditionalists who would have crossed the line are sedevacantists. The SSPX for example have questioned the authenticity of the Post-Vatican II Church, but they are not sedevacantists.

Then say SSPX.

Your argument that you are being forced by linguistic necessity to demonize an entire group of people because some of them are disobedient to the Church is very unconvincing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There was no reason why you had to use the word in that offensive way. You chose to do it. This forum is called “Traditional Catholicism” because the term is meaningful. (hint: the meaning is not disobedient Catholics) Is Catholic Answers not being run by good and obedient Catholics? Is it divisive? Perhaps you should protest by refusing to post here.

I am following the flow of the conversation of the thread. I didn’t start the thread, I just participated in it. I even made sure that my comments are clear by stating my use of the terminologies. But I’m not going to offer the same explanation at every post I make

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then say SSPX.

Your argument that you are being forced by linguistic necessity to demonize an entire group of people because some of them are disobedient to the Church is very unconvincing.

Tell me, why the need for differentiation if you claim to be part of mainstream Catholicism? What’s so bad about referring to oneself as Roman Catholic, Latin-rite Catholic or just simply Catholic? Saying that one would prefer to attach “traditionalist” to stress the preference for traditional things stresses the points I have made. The Church herself promotes and lives tradition, so a mainstream Catholic should be living in that tradition. Claiming to be more traditional than the tradition of the mainstream Church is indicating an inclination to the extremity, if one is not already there. If you are where the Church is with her teaching, then why call oneself a name that the Church doesn’t call herself?

 

[TEPO]

I feel that you are being unfair to traditional Catholics because you wrote “I must say that disobedience is solely the problem of traditionalist” and you are defining traditionalist so that it means disobedient. You have been participating here long enough that you must be aware that there are many who consider themselves traditional Catholics who greatly value being obedient. You are making up definitions that do not correspond to reality and are likely to be offensive. These thing would be true even if I were a Buddhist, so my personal views are irrelevant to the problems with your posts.

I agree that Traditional Catholicism is not the same as sedavacantism, but I’m not sure how one can call oneself a “Traditional Catholic”. It’s not a category one can be in, is it?

After all, who actually considers themself a “Modernist Catholic”.? I havent seen anyone here on CAF use that term next to their religion… I have seen many who call themselves Traditional Catholics though.

I think I will change my religion to “modernist Catholic” now… Even though I prefer the Latin Mass. I think Latin Mass is becoming modern again.

 

[Layman]

If I wasn’t a Catholic it would be really funny how a simple desire for the old rite, catechism and devotions is upsetting for some Catholics.

Like, they’ll give a priest a hard time if he resolves to changing to saying the Mass ad-orientem or uses Latin.

All the modern alterations to our worship have to be justified by the most tenuous references (e.g. St. Cyril) but the Catholics who want an ancient rite of the Church said-as-written are … a problem.

Disobedient …
Pharasical …

Ha, ha, a bishop even complained about Latin being used by the Roman Pontiff in his Mass here in the UK.

I’ve heard demons don’t like Latin either.

 

[Student09]

Tell me, why the need for differentiation if you claim to be part of mainstream Catholicism? What’s so bad about referring to oneself as Roman Catholic, Latin-rite Catholic or just simply Catholic?

Because the term adequately expresses views shared by a large number of Catholics, therefore, it is a useful way to identify oneself as sharing those views. Just as it is useful to refer to oneself as a Thomist if one shares those theological views, but it doesn’t mean you are no longer identifying as Catholic.

In “real life” I generally just refer to myself as Catholic.

Some of my relatives who are familiar with the current liturgical landscape within the Catholic Church have referred to me in conversation as a “traditional Catholic.” I accept that label because it fits, and my relatives understand that I am faithful to the Church.

Sometimes Protestants will say, " ‘Catholics’ are not Christians and the evidence for that is that they identify themselves as ‘Catholic.’ But if they were Christian then they would just call themselves ‘Christian,’ not ‘Catholic.’" This is a common statement to hear from Protestants.

But when we call ourselves Catholic, we are not saying we are not Christian, we are being more specific about the nature of our Christian beliefs. It is not a perfectly analogous situation, but close enough.

 

[Student09]

Molinists and thomism although they disagreed with each others expression of theology, neither of both parties were disobedient to the Church and both eventually came to an agreement.

That is not true, the Molinists and Thomists still disagree and make arguments for their own view and Catholics are allowed to hold either view.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the term adequately expresses views shared by a large number of Catholics, therefore, it is a useful way to identify oneself as sharing those views. Just as it is useful to refer to oneself as a Thomist if one shares those theological views, but it doesn’t mean you are no longer identifying as Catholic.

In “real life” I generally just refer to myself as Catholic.

Some of my relatives who are familiar with the current liturgical landscape within the Catholic Church have referred to me in conversation as a “traditional Catholic.” I accept that label because it fits, and my relatives understand that I am faithful to the Church.

Sometimes Protestants will say, " ‘Catholics’ are not Christians and the evidence for that is that they identify themselves as ‘Catholic.’ But if they were Christian then they would just call themselves ‘Christian,’ not ‘Catholic.’" This is a common statement to hear from Protestants.

But when we call ourselves Catholic, we are not saying we are not Christian, we are being more specific about the nature of our Christian beliefs. It is not a perfectly analogous situation, but close enough.

I understand that many who claim a certain title may not always be the best representative of that group. But if you are obdient to the Church and to the Pope and accept all the teachings of the Church, then why create a new title? Why not claim the title “Catholic” as rightfuly yours as a true representative of what a real Catholic should be? See, the problem now is that those left claiming the title “Catholic” are the modernists who now make others who do not know any better think that they truly represent what a Catholic is. So other Catholics would follow suit thinking that is where mainstream Catholicism is.

 

[Student09]

I understand that many who claim a certain title may not always be the best representative of that group. But if you are obdient to the Church and to the Pope and accept all the teachings of the Church, then why create a new title? Why not claim the title “Catholic” as rightfuly yours as a true representative of what a real Catholic should be? See, the problem now is that those left claiming the title “Catholic” are the modernists who now make others who do not know any better think that they truly represent what a Catholic is. So other Catholics would follow suit thinking that is where mainstream Catholicism is.

I’m somewhat sympathetic to your argument. I do understand where you’re coming from and the concern about divisions in the Church. And as I said, I do identify as “Catholic.” I don’t think I have ever used the term “traditional Catholic” to describe myself when I was not on the internet. My profile simply says “Catholic” without other description.

But what is “mainstream Catholicism”? I mean, there are people with whom I attend OF Masses whom I believe to be good and faithful Catholics, probably better Catholics than myself, they are a good example to me in many ways, and yet I would not consider them to be ‘traditional Catholics’ and I doubt they would identify as such. I think and hope that we have more in common than not, but at the same time, I’m pretty sure they do not share certain views that I have on liturgical practices (and some other issues - but it’s harder to tell what others think about that without having a detailed conversation about it) that would be considered traditionalist views. Does that make sense?

 

[stevusmagnus]

If I wasn’t a Catholic it would be really funny how a simple desire for the old rite, catechism and devotions is upsetting for some Catholics.

Like, they’ll give a priest a hard time if he resolves to changing to saying the Mass ad-orientem or uses Latin.

All the modern alterations to our worship have to be justified by the most tenuous references (e.g. St. Cyril) but the Catholics who want an ancient rite of the Church said-as-written are … a problem.

Disobedient …
Pharasical …

Ha, ha, a bishop even complained about Latin being used by the Roman Pontiff in his Mass here in the UK.

I’ve heard demons don’t like Latin either.

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. There is an absolute animosity from some against this Holy Mass. You have to ask yourself why. Then you will start to get to the heart of the problem.

 

[stevusmagnus]

No. Rome has upheld Tradition until today. Some traditionalists want they’re kind of tradition, which is wrong. The one who dictates is the Church, not the laity. This is the same problem with the modernists, they think that they have a say in what the Church should do or don’t do.

We have 1960 years of Tradition, then optional novelty. The Church can’t be wrong for 1960 years. I’ll stick with that.