Too traditional?

[Monica4316]

Hi,

here’s a question that’s been bothering me…

I’m not a strict traditionalist. I am not schismatic, I don’t even attend an SSPX parish… I do go to Latin Mass but it’s FSSP. I am fine with Novus Ordo if it’s done reverently and I’m glad the Bishops are coming up with a new and improved translation. I take what the Pope says seriously and try to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Clearly that doesn’t make me a great Catholic cause I’m still a sinner and need God’s mercy every day. But agreeing with the Church is something that is important to me because I believe that God leads the Church, and I value the virtue of obedience.

Many of my Catholic friends are very faithful Catholics and I’ve never felt that I was too traditional or conservative or anything… however now I’m in a different city and away from my group of friends, and many Catholics I meet are much more liberal than me. There’s a view that it really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the Church on some issues as long as you’re a “good Christian” and that not all Church teachings might be right, anyways. Whenever I imply that there’s an objective right and wrong and that part of being a good Christian is obedience to the Church, people say I’m being judgemental. I don’t feel I’m being judgemental because I recognize that there are people who don’t KNOW or understand the Church teaching and I’m not commenting on their souls, and as for people who knowingly dissent, - well I’m probaby a worse sinner than them anyways so I’m not talking about their eternal destiny. However, if someone knowingly disregards the Church’s teaching, yes I would say that this is a dangerous thing to do, and I also believe that if someone’s view is different than the Church’s doctrines, - it’s the doctrines that are correct.

My friends and others have commented that my view is too black and white, too strict and conservative, and that not everyone is like that. I know not everyone is like that but I think my view is consistent with Church Tradition.

How do I even respond to comments like this?? am I too traditional? I’ve always felt, I’m just Catholic, and this is what the Church teaches. Maybe my view is kind of black and white but that’s because I believe in objective truth. Maybe I’m not used to speaking with more liberal Catholics… and the books i read are also very traditional. But i never felt like there’s anything wrong with that, I am trying to work out my salvation and I find these things help me and give me guidance in my life. I’m happy to know that I don’t have to rely on myself for the truth, but could rely on the Church as my guide and come closer to God through obedience.

any thoughts??

thank you!

 

[Warrenton]

Don’t change your views. Being judgmental is not the same thing as making judgments. People have reason for the purpose of making proper judgments, and the most important judgments we make concern what is right or wrong. The Church helps us in this - like a mother, she educates and guides us, but we must make the final decision.

In my experience, people usually critisize making any judgments because they have arrived at a different judgment! Logically, if someone really did not want to judge, they would not even judge the act of judging. The true non-judger shrugs his or her shoulders and says, “whatever.”

As to being a “good Christian,” if you are a good Catholic, you will be a good Christian. In my judgment, it is impossible to be otherwise.

 

[laszlo]

How do I even respond to comments like this?? am I too traditional? I’ve always felt, I’m just Catholic, and this is what the Church teaches. Maybe my view is kind of black and white but that’s because I believe in objective truth. Maybe I’m not used to speaking with more liberal Catholics… and the books i read are also very traditional. But i never felt like there’s anything wrong with that, I am trying to work out my salvation and I find these things help me and give me guidance in my life. I’m happy to know that I don’t have to rely on myself for the truth, but could rely on the Church as my guide and come closer to God through obedience.

any thoughts??

thank you!

I would answer them that the Dignitatis Humanae, the last document of the XXI Ecumenical council defined the religious freedom

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

and that they are judgmental if they judge you as too traditional

 

[Timothy17]

Obedience is not a virtue, it is a fruit or consequence of virtue.

Faith, Hope, and Charity.
Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance are the virtues enumerated and expounded by the Church, as in the CCC. These things are the necessary virtues that inform obedience. We are obedient for the sake of something ; usually love, but we are never obedient for obedience’s sake. That is a dangerous fallacy, for it could be abused to cause people to be complicit with evil or become neglectful or forgetful of their duty (justice). Wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands, but husbands are commanded to love their wives. That is the godly ordering of things. Love begets obedience, and vice-versa. All Christian authority is established in such a relationship, where love is due in return for obedience. It is the condition for obedience, and love properly understood, applied and practiced can never be unjust.

Now, even if we are not properly loved, sometimes we must still be obedient ; however, this obedience ends whenever it is abused ; that is, used to cause evil, do wrong, etc. “We ought to obey God rather than men,” that is, when or if there is a conflict. Obedience can cause love, so if the fire of love, as it were, dies out for those who are supposed to love, obedience can re-kindle that love ; likewise, love can rekindle just obedience. Obedience is subject to the virtue of Justice ; otherwise, for example, pagan husbands could have commanded their Christian wives to abandon or denounce Christ, as likely they were wont to do, and the Apostles would have permitted this. That is just unthinkable ; however, the obedience of their wives, being such a boon and naturally kindling love, desire, and affection would work to make the husband amendable to his wife, not desiring to lose her, and thus tolerating her religion, likely recognizing it to be the source of her fidelity.

Anytime we are commanded to be obedient to authority, it is for the sake of love, and that love is the just due for obedience. Christ’s filial obedience to His Father is a model for the structure of His Church. We are obedient to our fathers on/in earth, but first and foremost it is our duty to be obedient to God our Father, Who loves us with perfect love.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

I would answer them that the Dignitatis Humanae, the last document of the XXI Ecumenical council defined the religious freedom

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

and that they are judgmental if they judge you as too traditional

Laszlo brings up an excellent point here : If people are trying to coerce you out of following your religious beliefs, then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate the justification. You don’t even have to defend your own actions. It’s their responsibility to demonstrate why you must stop what you are doing or change any particular religious practice of yours. “Due limits” is perhaps a very poor choice of terms, as it necessarily requires definition, best as I can understand it, it would mean the limits prescribed by justice (rendering to God and man their due) ; therefore, they (those who might be giving you troubles) must demonstrate exactly what is unjust about your actions. If you are doing nothing contrary to justice, then they have no right whatsoever to interfere with your religious practice.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[kitkatty]

Monica, you seem to be a very orthodox Catholic, stay that way and don`t let these people get to you.

 

[Padraig1972]

Monica, keep on going like you have so far. Let me tell you something, my cousin is also a catholic (the more liberal kind of) and sometimes i have been attending masses with him (the next thing i know is, that my family keep talking between themselves how “extremist” i am).

But i stick to my routines, pray for them, love them and leave them do what they do. As someday they will realize themselves that unfairness and hostility does and no one else no good at all.

So, you are in my prayers and i wish you all best of luck.

 

[maurin]

Dear Monica,

I’m not a schismatic either, and I do only assist at an SSPX Chapel. What was your point with that first sentence, may I ask?

Regarding the rest of your post, the “meat and potatoes” if you will: I assume that you have a good prayer life? You read the Scriptures? I assume you do because the way you present your point of view seems to come from a well-formed conscience and sensus fidei. I’ve never really put much credence in what “the many” think, except for “the many” Saints that came before us, and those saints which God graces me to come into contact with in my life. If only those saints comprised “the many” people I come in contact with on a daily basis. If only I could include myself among those saints…! But I’m trying…

My advice is prayer, good reading, and try not lose your self in the opinions of others.

 

[melchesidechpio]

Hi,

here’s a question that’s been bothering me…

I’m not a strict traditionalist. I am not schismatic, I don’t even attend an SSPX parish… I do go to Latin Mass but it’s FSSP. I am fine with Novus Ordo if it’s done reverently and I’m glad the Bishops are coming up with a new and improved translation. I take what the Pope says seriously and try to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Clearly that doesn’t make me a great Catholic cause I’m still a sinner and need God’s mercy every day. But agreeing with the Church is something that is important to me because I believe that God leads the Church, and I value the virtue of obedience.

Many of my Catholic friends are very faithful Catholics and I’ve never felt that I was too traditional or conservative or anything… however now I’m in a different city and away from my group of friends, and many Catholics I meet are much more liberal than me. There’s a view that it really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the Church on some issues as long as you’re a “good Christian” and that not all Church teachings might be right, anyways. Whenever I imply that there’s an objective right and wrong and that part of being a good Christian is obedience to the Church, people say I’m being judgemental. I don’t feel I’m being judgemental because I recognize that there are people who don’t KNOW or understand the Church teaching and I’m not commenting on their souls, and as for people who knowingly dissent, - well I’m probaby a worse sinner than them anyways so I’m not talking about their eternal destiny. However, if someone knowingly disregards the Church’s teaching, yes I would say that this is a dangerous thing to do, and I also believe that if someone’s view is different than the Church’s doctrines, - it’s the doctrines that are correct.

My friends and others have commented that my view is too black and white, too strict and conservative, and that not everyone is like that. I know not everyone is like that but I think my view is consistent with Church Tradition.

How do I even respond to comments like this?? am I too traditional? I’ve always felt, I’m just Catholic, and this is what the Church teaches. Maybe my view is kind of black and white but that’s because I believe in objective truth. Maybe I’m not used to speaking with more liberal Catholics… and the books i read are also very traditional. But i never felt like there’s anything wrong with that, I am trying to work out my salvation and I find these things help me and give me guidance in my life. I’m happy to know that I don’t have to rely on myself for the truth, but could rely on the Church as my guide and come closer to God through obedience.

any thoughts??

thank you!

You are not too traditional. Hold on to your views. I like you feel sometimes feel that people think I am too conservative and too traditional. My real friends understand my deep appreciation for the faith, the Church and the Secular Franciscan Order. I have lived in 2 diocese and the former diocese is liberal and the one I live in now is much more conservative and the Bishop has an active role in the diocese. I too agree that prayer and spiritual reading can be of some comfort.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Most towns of any size have more than one Catholic Church in them. Some towns have NO Catholic Church, but you said you were in a different “city” so I’m going to be optimistic and assume that you have a choice of parishes open to you. Often you will find this church more liberal and that church more conservative and if you are willing to drive a ways maybe even a latin Mass might be available.

I think you need to do some parish shopping and find a Church where just being an obedient Catholic is not considered out of the ordinary.

 

[thomas_jd]

Hi,

here’s a question that’s been bothering me…

I’m not a strict traditionalist. I am not schismatic, I don’t even attend an SSPX parish… I do go to Latin Mass but it’s FSSP. I am fine with Novus Ordo if it’s done reverently and I’m glad the Bishops are coming up with a new and improved translation. I take what the Pope says seriously and try to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Clearly that doesn’t make me a great Catholic cause I’m still a sinner and need God’s mercy every day. But agreeing with the Church is something that is important to me because I believe that God leads the Church, and I value the virtue of obedience.

Many of my Catholic friends are very faithful Catholics and I’ve never felt that I was too traditional or conservative or anything… however now I’m in a different city and away from my group of friends, and many Catholics I meet are much more liberal than me. There’s a view that it really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the Church on some issues as long as you’re a “good Christian” and that not all Church teachings might be right, anyways. Whenever I imply that there’s an objective right and wrong and that part of being a good Christian is obedience to the Church, people say I’m being judgemental. I don’t feel I’m being judgemental because I recognize that there are people who don’t KNOW or understand the Church teaching and I’m not commenting on their souls, and as for people who knowingly dissent, - well I’m probaby a worse sinner than them anyways so I’m not talking about their eternal destiny. However, if someone knowingly disregards the Church’s teaching, yes I would say that this is a dangerous thing to do, and I also believe that if someone’s view is different than the Church’s doctrines, - it’s the doctrines that are correct.

My friends and others have commented that my view is too black and white, too strict and conservative, and that not everyone is like that. I know not everyone is like that but I think my view is consistent with Church Tradition.

How do I even respond to comments like this?? am I too traditional? I’ve always felt, I’m just Catholic, and this is what the Church teaches. Maybe my view is kind of black and white but that’s because I believe in objective truth. Maybe I’m not used to speaking with more liberal Catholics… and the books i read are also very traditional. But i never felt like there’s anything wrong with that, I am trying to work out my salvation and I find these things help me and give me guidance in my life. I’m happy to know that I don’t have to rely on myself for the truth, but could rely on the Church as my guide and come closer to God through obedience.

any thoughts??

thank you!

" I believe in objective truth’ is a pretty good response!

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for the encouraging responses everyone

Maurin, what I meant about SSPX is that while it appears that they are not completely schismatic, they do not accept the validity of the Novus Ordo, but I do. So I see them as being more “traditionalist” than I am, but I am pretty traditional and attend the Latin Mass also, only in FSSP.

Marsha Adams, I do attend such a parish, it is very orthodox and traditional I feel at home there, but I meant that among other Catholics or in my university, it does often seem that I am more traditional than mostly anyone else.

 

[JReducation]

Hi,

here’s a question that’s been bothering me…

I’m not a strict traditionalist. I am not schismatic, I don’t even attend an SSPX parish… I do go to Latin Mass but it’s FSSP. I am fine with Novus Ordo if it’s done reverently and I’m glad the Bishops are coming up with a new and improved translation. I take what the Pope says seriously and try to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Clearly that doesn’t make me a great Catholic cause I’m still a sinner and need God’s mercy every day. But agreeing with the Church is something that is important to me because I believe that God leads the Church, and I value the virtue of obedience.

Many of my Catholic friends are very faithful Catholics and I’ve never felt that I was too traditional or conservative or anything… however now I’m in a different city and away from my group of friends, and many Catholics I meet are much more liberal than me. There’s a view that it really doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the Church on some issues as long as you’re a “good Christian” and that not all Church teachings might be right, anyways. Whenever I imply that there’s an objective right and wrong and that part of being a good Christian is obedience to the Church, people say I’m being judgemental. I don’t feel I’m being judgemental because I recognize that there are people who don’t KNOW or understand the Church teaching and I’m not commenting on their souls, and as for people who knowingly dissent, - well I’m probaby a worse sinner than them anyways so I’m not talking about their eternal destiny. However, if someone knowingly disregards the Church’s teaching, yes I would say that this is a dangerous thing to do, and I also believe that if someone’s view is different than the Church’s doctrines, - it’s the doctrines that are correct.

My friends and others have commented that my view is too black and white, too strict and conservative, and that not everyone is like that. I know not everyone is like that but I think my view is consistent with Church Tradition.

How do I even respond to comments like this?? am I too traditional? I’ve always felt, I’m just Catholic, and this is what the Church teaches. Maybe my view is kind of black and white but that’s because I believe in objective truth. Maybe I’m not used to speaking with more liberal Catholics… and the books i read are also very traditional. But i never felt like there’s anything wrong with that, I am trying to work out my salvation and I find these things help me and give me guidance in my life. I’m happy to know that I don’t have to rely on myself for the truth, but could rely on the Church as my guide and come closer to God through obedience.

any thoughts??

thank you!

My immediate reaction is to suggest that you not buy into the use of terms such as “traditional” and “liberal” to describe Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Hindus or what have you. When people use these labels, they usually use their personal beliefs as the point of reference. Anything that is to their left is liberal and anything to their right is conservative and they believe that they are in the middle, therefore, traditional. In other words, the terms can be very fluid. I always like to think of people as orthodox and faithful. Certain behaviors and actions are faithful; therefore, they are orthodox. Other behaviors are unfaithful; therefore, they are unorthodox. There is such a thing as tradition. There is Sacred Tradition, which is revealed truth and there are traditions that are part of the Catholic faith, which are not part of public revelation, but are gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as when we, in my religious family, speak of the Franciscan tradition. Then there are traditions as in customs. These are practices that help bring people together.

You are right about the existence of absolutes. The very statement, “There are no absolutes,” is an absolute. If one wants proof of the existence of absolutes, just look at mathematics. There are absolutes that cannot be proven through empirical science, but can be believed, because they are reasonable. The same happens with doctrine and morals. Not everything in life can be examined quantitatively. Many things have qualitative value. Right and wrong is one of those things. The same is true about such concepts as the Eucharist and other sacraments. We cannot prove it quantitatively, but we can prove it through reason, just as you would prove a theorem in geometry. You use reason. Hold on to your absolutes, because they do exist.

Finally, you may want to ask those who call you too traditional or too conservative to name their point of reference. You will find that they don’t have one. The common answer is “everyone, no one, or I think”. All of these are invalid points of reference, because none of them is static. Each is fluid. People change. In philosophy, we were taught that a point of reference is thus called, because it’s fixed. It cannot change, because it’s not in its nature to change. If they cannot give you a fixed point of reference against which they are comparing you, then the comparison is an invalid conclusion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spunjalebi]

Imagine being married to a cradle Catholic who tells you that you’re too traditional when you are the one who is the convert

 

[Timothy17]

My immediate reaction is to suggest that you not buy into the use of terms such as “traditional” and “liberal” to describe Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Hindus or what have you.

But liberalism is a sin, JR, and this is very much fixed.

Humans need labels to organize themselves and the world around them. We cannot know each and every thing in and of itself. This would require divine characteristics, such as omnipresence and omnipotence.

There is a line between labelling others as they label themselves, and labelling others for the purpose of attacking them. The latter is a strawman and the former is an observation that can be justified by evidence.

You mention a false dichotomy that is actually a consequence of liberalism ; namely, that liberalism is “to the left,” and conservativism is “to the right” of some imaginary scale. I agree most people buy this ; however, that does not make it true. It gives a false rendition of reality, and a rendition quite expedient and convenient for liberalism. Conservativism is different from liberalism because, unlike liberalism, conservativism is a reaction to liberalism. Liberalism is an offensive militancy ; conservativism, defensive. If there was no liberalism there would be no need of conservativism. Those who bark like a rabid dog at convervativism do not understand that their very irrational barking is the cause and justification for it. Conservativism preserves what is already there, whereas liberalism seeks to change (from one thing to antoher) or remove (destroy) that deposit outright.

Accepting or tolerating liberalism is like accepting or tolerating an hostile occuptation of your country or an aggressive army invading it. Of course the occupiers are going to tell you to accept it ; nonetheless, the root desire for the justice and dignity that has been deprived of you has its own rationale, and a far superior one.

If we look to history, as we ought, we find liberalism to be a product - an ideological construction - that appears in the 16th century basing itself off of principles that are far from impeccable, and steadily increasing to our present day ; in fact, its principle animus is in errors and only makes use of truths to advance errors. We find its roots in Protestantism, or rather in Protestantism’s frailties, which opened the door to it. Liberalism is very similar to the paganism of old, and consequently often looks fondly upon it, as a child does his mother.

I agree with most everything you wrote ; nonetheless, I would ask you not to portray liberalism and conservativism in an almost dualistic fashion. We do have a fixed point of reference, and that reference is the Church. That Church uses Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as her rule of Faith.

There is no reason to accept an hostile force. No one invites a robber into their house. Error has no rights. Humans do, as God does, and from Whom humans draw theirs, but error does not.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[GloriousOrder]

I love you, Tim! A blessed Sunday to you, terms-defender.

There is such a thing as “too traditional”, it must be said. Mere reaction and unchanging stoicism do not really lead the faith anywhere. If we were reactionaries in our Lord’s time, we’d probably have been Pharisees, because that was what it meant to be ‘traditional’. Our worst sin as traditional people is often pride, manifest in a certain priggishness. We refuse to have anything but Latin in our Mass, and feel slightly odd when a piano is used instead of the perfectly good organ in the choir loft.

Guards must be posted in the mind so the traditionalist ideal does not become ridiculous. Traditional innovation and conservative novelty are perfectly Catholic. Balking at everything that seems newish is not only non-Catholic, it is a closing of the heart to things God wants to do in the world. He does change things by His Providence, after all.

 

[maurin]

Thanks for the encouraging responses everyone

Maurin, what I meant about SSPX is that while it appears that they are not completely schismatic, they do not accept the validity of the Novus Ordo, but I do. So I see them as being more “traditionalist” than I am, but I am pretty traditional and attend the Latin Mass also, only in FSSP.

Marsha Adams, I do attend such a parish, it is very orthodox and traditional I feel at home there, but I meant that among other Catholics or in my university, it does often seem that I am more traditional than mostly anyone else.

Monica,

There are a couple of Eastern Catholic Churches that do not accept the NO. Are not completely schismatic too?

 

[Stitchwort]

Monica,

There are a couple of Eastern Catholic Churches that do not accept the NO. Are not completely schismatic too?

As I understand it, the NO is is the “ordinary” form for the Latin Rite only. Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome use other rites, so this is not really applicable.

 

[testamentum]

Monica4316, Too Traditional?
I have every sympathy with you on this issue for I have had very similar experiences myself,however it remains a fact that division is not of God and division has been a hallmark of Christianity ever since the Protestant revolution,and now again since Vatican ll.
We need to be aware of such division and through it remain and obedience to and in union with the Pope for this is what Jesus expects of us.
It is true to say that even in traditional attitudes there are those who view others as too traditional or indeed not traditional enough,in the end we have to try and balance our faith and obedience as best as we can in the times in which we live, from what you have said I do believe that you are doing just that, so be at peace always, remembering that persecution comes from all directions today and must be expected.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

:Liberal /vs Conservative and Traditional /vs Modern are two completely different spectrums and both have their problems. Liberalism is a sin. So is modernism. But traditionalism and conservatism if they reject the teachings of the Church, are also sins.

The best terms are probably obedient and disobedient. We are entitled to our preferences as long as we are obedient. This one prefers only the Tridentine Mass that one prefers the all English Novus Ordo both are in keeping with the Teachings of the Church. So the response to the accusation of “you are too traditional” or “you are too modern” is “I am obedient to the Church and entitled to my preferences. So what’s your problem?”

Now just for the sake of discussion, what if tomorrow the Church commanded that all Masses be offered in Latin only and banned all vernacular Masses or vice versa completely banned the use of Latin in any Mass, The only response possible would be obedience.

That is always the test of a true Catholic. Obedience.