Too traditional?

[AnneTeresa]

I understand what you are saying Monica. I live in a liberal city, I’ve been a “liberal” catholic myself, I work at a very liberal University, and I am surrounded by people who are liberal in their catholicism. To me liberal means not orthodox. That means you follow the main parts of catholicism but reserve the right to disagree with some practices, such as birth control or homosexuality (both big issues in the city I live in) because you believe they just don’t fit today’s world.

For me, it’s been a source of great confusion as I’ve become more orthodox and obedient in my catholic faith. I not only had to explore what the church really said about things and why, but also fight against years of entrenched liberalism that was in my mind. But I am becoming stronger in believing that the Church is the authority, not me and not my friends and not even some of the priests and churches here.

It is hard when you are surrounded by people who think less orthodox-like (is that even a word?) but you are a strong Christian and you should just stand true to what you know is true.

Being married to someone like this (less orthodox) and having friends who are all like this, I know there is not really anything you can say to them to change their minds. I was the same way for a long time. I called myself a “more liberal catholic” and was proud of it. So, I’d say just keep true to what you know is the truth and try not to let them sway you from that or make you feel bad.

I’m sort of embarrassed at things I said to orthodox catholics (probably just like the new friends you have-I talked about how black/white thinking was so very wrong even as recently as a few months ago. )

 

[AnneTeresa]

I might have completely misunderstood this thread because I don’t understand the whole SSPX or FSSP issue (or whatever that is) or the Latin Mass issue, so if that’s the case, just ignore what I said above. I’m still trying to figure out what “Traditional” is.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Monica,

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

C’mon now. We all know here that the SSPX have had a difficult relationship with the Church and that the process of repairing past damage has not yet been finished. Eastern Catholic curches have a completely different status to SSPX and you know that. You are picking on the OP now and not helping with her initial question.

 

[Timothysis]

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.

Your whole post, but this quote in particular, is nothing but you personal opinion and really has no meaning to anyone except yourself. Conservatism is a reaction to liberalism? The classic definition of conservatism is to maintain the status quo. The Czars of Russia are the best example of horrible conservatism; they allowed the millions who were their responsibility to exist in the most wretched conditions as long as they preserved the wealth and lifestyle for themselves and their children. Would you not say that that type of “conservatism” is a sin?

There are many who would say that Jesus was a “liberal” in that he did things that were outside of the status quo of His time and culture. Is it a “liberal” notion to think that all people are equal in that they possess certain God-given rights that other peoples and governments cannot take them away? Is a ruler a “liberal” because he let’s Jews or others of different faiths practice their religion unmolested?

Brother JR is absolutely right; when one starts branding people with labels such as “liberal” or “conservative” then the issue simply becomes muddled and loses any real meaning. For myself, over the past few years here I have been labeled a “traditionalists,” a "liberal" and even a "Southern Baptist" in my practicing of the Catholic faith and I’m still not sure which one offends me the most!

 

[maurin]

C’mon now. We all know here that the SSPX have had a difficult relationship with the Church and that the process of repairing past damage has not yet been finished. Eastern Catholic curches have a completely different status to SSPX and you know that. You are picking on the OP now and not helping with her initial question.

“C’mon now”, no, I’m not picking on the OP, and I offer a sincere apology if it seems that way.

The problem that exists is one of vocabulary. When one chooses words such as “schismatic”, and phrases which qualify that adjective such " because they don’t accept the /ovus Ordo", then we have a problem, not only with precision when we choose our words, but also with rhe general meaning of what we are trying to convey. And the damage this does to the truth is quite obvious on these boards.

The Society is not schismatic. Rejecting the Novus Ordo certainly does not make them so. It is a problem of vocabulary. Certainly our Priests have been suspended; facts such as this are not disputed, at least I don’t dispute them. Monica equated the rejection of the NO as the basis for her use of the term schismatic. I merely–respectfully and pleasantly-- questioned this. You say I’m picking on her. I say I’m entering into dialogue with her, and am doing so politely and non-judgmentally. That is my only intention. Take me at word, or don’t. You choose.

This may not be important to you, Against the World, but it is important to me. I care everybit as much about being labeled schismatic and outside Communion with the Church as do those who complain that they are made to feel less than Catholic for preferring the Novus Ordo.

Sincerely,

maurin

 

[JReducation]

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

Whoah!! You’re reading more into what I wrote than what was intended. My response is meant for a young person speaking to other young people.

You’re response is for a much more sophisticated audience that is using these terms in a different way.

When these young folks use the term “too traditional” they really mean “too consevative”. It begs the question, “Compared to what or whom?”

That’s all that I’m trying to advise the OP. I agree with what you posted. But I don’t think that it applies to what I understand to be exchanges between college age students. They’re not doing all of this analyzing that we do here on CAF. They’re most likely comparing each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The problem that exists is one of vocabulary. When one chooses words such as “schismatic”, and phrases which qualify that adjective such " because they don’t accept the /ovus Ordo", then we have a problem, not only with precision when we choose our words, but also with rhe general meaning of what we are trying to convey. The Society is not schismatic. Rejecting the Novus Ordo certainly does not make them so. Sincerely,

maurin

No, the schism was not caused just by the rejection of the NO but the preservation of traditional liturgy was crucial to the society. I know things were a bit more complicated. But the society was in schism for good 20 years, up until 2 years ago. I suspect most Catholics don’t have clue about what the SSPX is and what the big deal with them was but in this part of the forum most people know the story. So I don’t understand your point. You want to stress that the rejection of the NO doesn’t make them schismatic? Is that it?

 

[Elena_Wayne]

Here is the most important question of all what does Jesus say? Just make sure the traditions you follow line up with the words of God. The Bible does say He alone is judge.

 

[Timothy17]

Your whole post, but this quote in particular, is nothing but you personal opinion and really has no meaning to anyone except yourself. Conservatism is a reaction to liberalism? The classic definition of conservatism is to maintain the status quo.

No, I assure you, this is not my personal opinion. I was very liberal and quite anti-conservative (“reactionaries”) before entering the Church. I assure you, Liberalism is the creed of anti-Catholicism in theory and practice, and has been for a long time. I did not know Liberalism was a sin until fairly recently. I did learn, well before entering the Church, that Liberalism was a fairly modern phenomenon that is the product of certain philosophies and their (erroneous) principles and precepts. Basing yourself off one error causes the whole superstructure to be out of place.

To this day it is a supposed insult to call conservatives “reactionaries,” or label anyone who reacts to some Liberal outrage as “reactionaries,” as if this means they are devoid of reasoning. Watch the news and you will see opponents sneered as “reactionaries” who oppose “progressive” or “modern” legislation, agendas, etc. Conservativism is (still) a reaction to liberalism.

You can read Liberalism Is a Sin if you like. It’s a tough pill to swallow but it is perfectly logical.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

The Czars of Russia are the best example of horrible conservatism; they allowed the millions who were their responsibility to exist in the most wretched conditions as long as they preserved the wealth and lifestyle for themselves and their children. Would you not say that that type of “conservatism” is a sin?

Timothy,

You just copied verbatim a piece of liberal propaganda. If you like, read War and Peace for a better description of Czarist Russia. Read Russian history, hopefully from a version of history that is not too bent to fit the liberal worldview, though comparing versions is often very revealing. You will find that not a few of the Czars were jello to the liberal ideals of their times, and tried to apply them ; furthermore, the last of those Czars were murdered along with their family by a death squad spewing the same nonsense you are now, because they were afraid that family would be a rallying point and flag around which the peasants and lower classes in general would organize their opposition.

One of the biggest sumbling blocks in Czarist Russia to implementing liberal reforms intended to alleviate the economic and political condition of serfs or peasants was the fact that these reforms often did more harm than good. This revealing problem slowed “progress” on the issue, and also hastened the desire to implement revolution as the more hollow the reforms proved to be, the less credible reform and revolutionary theories were shown to be.

The Czars did implement “liberal reforms,” intended to alleviate the conditions of the serfs. What often happened is that even freed serfs remained where they were and continued working with and for their previous masters.

Again, I insist you read War and Peace, written by a famous Russian author during the time of the U.S Civil War, and before the fall of the Czars for a sample of what Russia was like and Russian thinkers were like before the revolution that ultimately and aribtrarily murdered and slaughtered tens of millions of those same innocent persons you imagine were so horribly treated under the Czarist regime. In this epoch you will notice the emergence of Freemasonry, for example, in Russia and the rise of enlightenment thinkers who all espoused the same notions and maxims that their counterparts all over the world did, and all carried with them that same general anti-Christian, revolutionary animus.

The victors write the histories, my friend, and it should be revealing that our histories all tend to cast reform and revolution in a positive light, regardless of the realities or evidence quite to the contrary.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[maurin]

No, the schism was not caused just by the rejection of the NO but the preservation of traditional liturgy was crucial to the society. I know things were a bit more complicated. But the society was in schism for good 20 years, up until 2 years ago. I suspect most Catholics don’t have clue about what the SSPX is and what the big deal with them was but in this part of the forum most people know the story. So I don’t understand your point. You want to stress that the rejection of the NO doesn’t make them schismatic? Is that it?

I do not wish to argue with you, Against the World. There is no point in that. My point in my previous 2 posts above were explicated, if not quite clearly, then clearly enough. If you would put aside your bias and reread especially my last post above, you would see that your last two sentences here miissed the boat entirely.

No schism exists. In 2006 Cardinal Castrillon declared the Society Masses to fulfill the Sunday obligation. In 2007 His Holiness wrote of the situation of the Society as an internal matter within the Church. Checking my calendar, both years passed more than 2 years ago.

Ah, yes, and now we’ve returned to my point which you missed: precision of vocabulary, and the truthful presentation of ideas, which inform rather than mislead. Which build, rather than tear down, to borrow the contemporary jargon.

Let us dialogue with good will and friendship. If this is not possible, let us do so at least civilly and respectfully. If even this is not possible, perhaps it is best not to dialogue at all.

 

[ProVobis]

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 …

Didn’t Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia effectively do this?

 

[Jehoshua]

You are a faithful catholic and should definitely not be swayed by heterodoxy and error.
To my mind “traditional” and 'liberal" are for the most part misnomers of the state in the Church. I think the reality is more that there are those who are orthodox and faithful and there are those who are heterodox and unfaithfulwithin the Church.

Now as to the term ‘traditional’ most often its associated with attendees of the latin mass. Now I was extraordinarily fortunate in my city and university to find that all the catholics (practising) are orthodox (that is to say traditional) which was a great relief to my fears of being shoved into a liberal kumbaya-circle when I was wanting to join the catholic society at my university. But returning to the point they, and other faithful catholic I know don;t neccessarily go to the latin mass (although many do) and you cannot seperate catholics into those who attend the differing forms. I think that the concentration of orthodox catholics where the latin mass is conducted is primarily do to the insanity that goes on in some parishes in the OF, and due to the problems in that form even when conducted according to norms because it simply doesn;t say ‘catholicism’ as loudly as the EF does. (It also to my mind is quite monotonous and boring in most parishes ive been too which could also be a factor)

---

Now just to make a point here, I went to two masses on Sunday an OF and EF in the same parishes one after the other. At the OF mass the Church was about 1/4 - 1/3 full and was almost exclusively elderly (one family and me being the only younger people) and the people after the mass simply walked out, or talked in the church for a bit before leaving.

Now soon after this the people for the EF came (I and another person had come early and attended the OF presumably in the other persons case for the same reason I did which was travel difficulties (train timetable)) . The difference was astounding, not only was the congregation mostly young, with many, many teenagers and young adults, as well as families, But before mass for half an hour we prayed the rosary, and everyone was reverent. The mass in and of itself was more reverent, and engaging and in addition to that the homily was also better (different priest and he directly adressed issues the previous priest in the OF skirted around). After the mass everyone prayed the leonine prayers and after that quietly and reverently departed the church with the priest talking to everyone outside the Church in the vestibule. But the congregation after this didn;t just run off like the previous congregation, everyone gathered in a house next to the church and had something to eat and talked to eachover as a community including the priest. (the previous priest dissapeared somewhere)

Need I point out the differences between the ‘traditional’ community and the those who attended the OF.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Didn’t Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia effectively do this?

Couldn’t tell you, it was way before my time.

 

[JReducation]

No, I assure you, this is not my personal opinion. I was very liberal and quite anti-conservative (“reactionaries”) before entering the Church. I assure you, Liberalism is the creed of anti-Catholicism in theory and practice, and has been for a long time. I did not know Liberalism was a sin until fairly recently. I did learn, well before entering the Church, that Liberalism was a fairly modern phenomenon that is the product of certain philosophies and their (erroneous) principles and precepts. Basing yourself off one error causes the whole superstructure to be out of place.

To this day it is a supposed insult to call conservatives “reactionaries,” or label anyone who reacts to some Liberal outrage as “reactionaries,” as if this means they are devoid of reasoning. Watch the news and you will see opponents sneered as “reactionaries” who oppose “progressive” or “modern” legislation, agendas, etc. Conservativism is (still) a reaction to liberalism.

You can read Liberalism Is a Sin if you like. It’s a tough pill to swallow but it is perfectly logical.

Pax Christi,
Tim

Let’s slow down here. I believe there are some confusions that need clarification. First of all, I’m not sure where you read or saw that “liberalism” is a sin. Are you sure that you’re not confusing Pope Pius X’s teaching agaist Modernism? Even that, it was not the entire Modernist Movement that he condemned, but the immoral beliefs held by members of the movement. Though the movement itself was as abstract as Communism. In other words, they did not go out and enroll people.

Today, liberal and conservative are political labels. They usually misapplied. They have been carried over into religion, not just Catholicism. I’ll give you a simple example of how inaccurate they are. When speaking about human reproduction, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews are considered conservatives, because we oppose contraception and abortion, while Episcopalian are considered “liberal” along with a few other Reformation Communities.

However, when it comes to social justice issues, Catholics have always been considered “liberals”. Catholic social teaching supports the underdog: the poor, the worker, the immigrant, and oppressed minorities. The Catholic Church has always defended the rights of all people to have healthcare long before the UK, Canada and President Obama came up with socialized healthcare. Catholics have provided education to the poor, the minority and even to people of other faiths as far back as the 13th century. Today’s public school system is modeled on the Catholic school system created in France by St. John Baptist de La Salle and the Brothers of Christian Schools that he founded. Racial integration was accepted by Catholics long before any other religious or political group. That is how most of Latin America came to be Mestizos. They were Catholic. They didn’t adhere to racial segregatioin as did Protestants. The first saint of the Americas was Martin the Porres, born in Peru, son of a black Panamanian woman and a white Spanish father and later became a Dominican Friar, which was a predominantly white order. All of this is considered to be “liberal”, even “radical”.

I wonder if you’re confusing terms here. Which is why I say that one has to be very careful using such terms and avoid them as much as possible. I prefer to say that abortion is immoral and those who support it are embracing something immoral. I also say that execution of criminals (capital punishment) is often immoral. Just look at those who nations where it’s a capital offense to disagree with the government. However, the alleged conservatives embrace capital punishment, often without the restraints of moral criteria.

There is a confusion of terms in today’s world and people are using them to ther convenience. If we read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, especially Veritas in Caritate, the Holy Father speaks about issues, actions, events, goals and ideologies as right and wrong. He avoids such language as liberal and conservative. He uses the word Tradition, not traditionalist and so forth.

The “values” that some people embrace are right or wrong. Those are what we must address. You mention some of these non-values and explain it well. But I think that you’re going further than the Church when you say that “liberalism is a sin”. Liberalism is not a term that exists in moral theology or Canon Law. It may have been used in a specific piece of writing to refer to a specific ideology, action or other. That’s not the same as using it across the board.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[philipmarie]

Everybody thinks I’m crazy because I’m so ‘conservative’ or too devout yet, who cares for what they say? Hold on to your views: you can never be too traditional, you can though be too scrupulous. And when I say scrupulous, I mean that you could avoid doing actions which are legitimate out of fear of sinning (like avoiding to laugh and to joke because you think that it is a sin).

JR, Pope pius condemned the whole modernist movement. Not one modernist was right and not one of them was a saint. They all held views which not only contradicted what the Church thaught but they even contradicted themselves. They had no fixed opinion on how things had to be percieved.

 

[JReducation]

Everybody thinks I’m crazy because I’m so ‘conservative’ or too devout yet, who cares for what they say? Hold on to your views: you can never be too traditional, you can though be too scrupulous. And when I say scrupulous, I mean that you could avoid doing actions which are legitimate out of fear of sinning (like avoiding to laugh and to joke because you think that it is a sin).

JR, Pope pius condemned the whole modernist movement. Not one modernist was right and not one of them was a saint. They all held views which not only contradicted what the Church thaught but they even contradicted themselves. They had no fixed opinion on how things had to be percieved.

I’m thinking of other parts of the modernist movement that did not conflict with faith: art, science, certain legal reforms, literature. The Movement is very wide. The Holy Father was addressing the parts of the movement that were in conflict with faith. He was no more interested in what Sigmund Freud was dong than he was on traveling to the moon. I’m not joking about the moon part. That was one of the ideas the came from the Modernist movement. These were not things that were in conflict with the faith, because they did not deny the existence of absolute Divine Truth. They did not espouse it, but they simply did not speak to it.

That’s what I’m thinking about when I remember the Modernist Movement as we studied it in history. It had many aspects to it.

I hope that’s a little clearer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Liberalism Is a Sin is the name of a book written by a Spanish Priest in roughly 1886. It can be read on line at the following link.

liberalismisasin.com/

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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!

There seem to be a whole lot of “wishy-washy” Catholics - too liberal - not understanding our faith - a lot of guilt about our Church - too much listening to the criticism of Protestants - a loss of pride in our sacraments, rituals, prayers, traditions. The Catholics I see who are trying to urge us not to be too traditional are the ones who voted for a man who was at the time, the most pro-abortion US Senator EVER. And probably felt pretty darn good about it!

I have a friend who believes in horoscopes, even reincarnation. Yet she calls herself Catholic and does a lot around the church. I think there are a lot of these kinds of Catholics, they are like a snowball rolling downhill, picking up every little piece of dirt and trash as they go along, getting dirtier and dirtier. They don’t care much for confession and they look at me cross-eyed if I talk about the rosary or Adoration.

I think these Catholics have a weak faith and an even weaker catechism. I’m not where I need to be in my own catechism but I do know right from wrong and the basics of what our faith teaches. I know the reasons why I’m Catholic and I’ve never been happier about it.

No you are not too traditional. Ignore those people who would say that you are. Our faith is a hard faith, like Jesus told us it would be.

 

[bearer]

Monica4316, it seems that you are simply trying to obey the Word of God and respect the teachings of the apostles. When it comes the salvation of your soul, it’s better to try too much than not enough, within reason. Perhaps you could tell the liberal parishioners that you’re humbly going out of your way to show the Lord how much you want to live as He did…as He commanded us to do.

Good luck, and God bless.