The traditionalist and the modernist.

[At_Trent]

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

Christ told us there would be days like these

 

[Student09]

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 .

Indeed. Personally, while I love Latin and the use of Latin in Mass and would like to see more of it, the use of Latin or the vernacular is actually less important to me than such things as ad orientem/versus populum, the manner of receiving Communion, and there are certain aspects of the EF liturgy that I think are better than that of the OF and which have nothing to do with what language it’s in.

That said, I fully accept the validity of the OF Mass, I attend it, and I accept the authority of the Church in all of these matters.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Probably because you would consider yourself a traditionalist that you feel that I favor modernists. If you look at my posts on this thread I have spoken more against the modernists than I did traditionalists. I explained my terminologies, I have nothing more to add to what I said.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then use the term sedevacantist.

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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

I wonder why my earlier post got buried and ignored. It was a great speech by a Ukrainian Catholic priest about why they are accepting English into their Church and Liturgy. Here’s my earlier post with the link to the video:

Yesterday I was watching a video of a Ukrainian Catholic Priest making a speech about “Why English?” I wanted to share it here but I’m sure some people won’t even bother with the message and just dismiss it as, “its Eastern Catholic, its not Roman Catholic.” But I think what he said is wonderful, and this is coming from a priest of a Byzantine Parish who by standards here is very traditional. They’ve gotten rid of all Latinizations (no pews in the parish), the architecture of the entire parish is 100% Byzantine, everything conforms to Byzantine Tradition. But they are welcoming of English. In fact, the priest even mentions he’s not 100% in agreement with it but does so out of obedience of their bishops. But then he proceeds to explain why there is a need for English and how it actually upholds tradition instead of breaking it. Here’s the video:

youtube.com/watch?v=qzp_XbFRhd0

The vernacular is not a deterrent to tradition. Its was a great point. However, do you think today’s traditionalists would have been contented with a vernacular Tridentine Mass over the OF? I get the feeling that more traditionalists today would rather have a Latin-only OF than a TLM in the vernacular.

 

[Seamus_L]

It’s a moot point for me, because I’d want neither.

 

[Stephentlig]

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.

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. also neithers veiws contradicted the Church.

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

 

[Stephentlig]

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.

As Archbishop fulton said once that the church is meek with those who are erring but vicious with the error. And traditionalism is an error.

I never told him to ‘‘get of his high horse’’ I said ‘’ wh are you to get on your high horse, take the chair of Peter and decide which apparition is true or false’’

Although I claim to be in the middle I make it known on my blog post also that its a road I struggle to stay on.

I make no attempt to claim that I am humble, I am the most unhumble irishman in this thread. You have also just made crazy assumptions about a lot of things I said. so much so that I’ve other things be doing with my day than responding to a heated post.

It has been a good discussion. And your right, I did come to stir the hornets nest…of error… because thats exactly what it is, a nest of error and many catholics worldwide are suffering from its sting.

END

Pax
Stephen

 

[Seamus_L]

Let’s hear examples of how Traditionalists are spreading disobedience in the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s a moot point for me, because I’d want neither.

So you can’t accept the vernacular as part of organic development?

 

[Seamus_L]

I rarely attend an OF mass, but I don’t condemn others that do. I try to promote the EF as best I can, and will try to get people to attend it instead, but ultimately that’s there decision.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice non-answer. I was talking about the vernacular being part of keeping the tradition, and notredame was saying that Arch. Lefebvre would rather have the EF in English than the OF. I was asking for you to comment on that. I’m not asking if you think the OF is valid or not.

 

[Seamus_L]

Not being evasive, I really don’t have anything to do with OF masses, and as I said I don’t condemn those who do. Yes, I have a 100 pct preference for the TLM and I pray for it’s continued growth. Now where is the disobedience ?

 

[OraLabora]

Nice non-answer. I was talking about the vernacular being part of keeping the tradition, and notredame was saying that Arch. Lefebvre would rather have the EF in English than the OF. I was asking for you to comment on that. I’m not asking if you think the OF is valid or not.

I’m the opposite, I have no desire to see the EF prevail (but don’t begrudge anyone their preference to attend the EF), I’d just like to see better attention to the rubrics in the OF, and increased use of Latin in the OF particularly for our traditions in sacred music and Gregorian chant.

But on the other hand I don’t want to exclude the vernacular either. Whether traditionalists like it or not the Church is for everyone. For folks of Western European descent, Latin is fairly easy to learn and assimilate but for Asian countries and other parts of the world, Latin can be a major obstacle. We are Catholic, that is, universal, for everyone.

 

[floresco]

Probably because you would consider yourself a traditionalist that you feel that I favor modernists. If you look at my posts on this thread I have spoken more against the modernists than I did traditionalists. I explained my terminologies, I have nothing more to add to what I said.

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.

 

[Seamus_L]

This thread appears to me to be nothing more than the latest “Why I don’t like Traditional Catholicism” vent, directed at Traditional Catholics. And Constantine TG, I’m sorry to be so blunt, but when your signature reads Not a Traditionalist or a Modernist, I just want to be a GOOD Catholic. it seems to me that you’re attempting to be provacative.

 

[floresco]

Trads and modernists both spread disobedience in the church.

If I wanted to define “Catholic” as synonymous with serial killer, would you be ok with that? I’m guessing you would object and you would be right do so because people cannot just make up any old definition they feel like. You cannot say that all trads are disobedient just because you have defined trad to mean one who is disobedient. Most people use “trad” to mean people who prefer traditional Catholic practices, especially the extraordinary form of the Mass. That preference has nothing to do with obedience or disobedience to the Magisterium. Some people with that preference are obedient while others are not.

 

[John_of_Woking]

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

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

 

[archangel04]

As Archbishop fulton said once that the church is meek with those who are erring but vicious with the error. And traditionalism is an error.

I never told him to ‘‘get of his high horse’’ I said ‘’ wh are you to get on your high horse, take the chair of Peter and decide which apparition is true or false’’

Although I claim to be in the middle I make it known on my blog post also that its a road I struggle to stay on.

I make no attempt to claim that I am humble, I am the most unhumble irishman in this thread. You have also just made crazy assumptions about a lot of things I said. so much so that I’ve other things be doing with my day than responding to a heated post.

It has been a good discussion. And your right, I did come to stir the hornets nest…of error… because thats exactly what it is, a nest of error and many catholics worldwide are suffering from its sting.

END

Pax
Stephen

Yes your holiness please come and teach us how our preference on traditional devotions, those that are over 1500 years old, are in err. Please teach us how to be saintly like you because we are so stuck in the middle ages. Those traditionalist have ruined everything, I guess that’s why people like me (i am 25) and never experience a TLM look for those traditional devotion and have “switched” sides because those darn traditionalist.
Notice how you didn’t even respond to my claim that you have promoted unofficial Marian apparitions.

 

[archangel04]

Just amazes me how many people just come to this section of the site to start something, if anyone would do the same in the Liturgical forum we would get banned. I say we do this, next time we have Trolls yes OP thats what you are a Troll, lets just ignore them and not even repond to their POV.