W
Walking_Home
Guest
Don’t forget “trad bashing”, also a favored sport 'round these parts.
Yup —seems to have become a favorite.
- Status
Yup —seems to have become a favorite.
E
Extempore
Guest
From the short time I have been here, I can say that various posts I have seen have been uncharitable. However, this forum has a greater mix of people on either side of the debate than a lot of the traditional forums I usually browse. For that reason I expect things to get a bit more heated.
Finally, for those who say that there is too much whining on the part of the traditionalists I ask: what would you do if you believed that the Church was truly in the midst of a serious crisis from within? Most traditionalists don’t think that everything in the church is “peachy” right now and this is definitely a contra-mainstream position. While it would be necessary to air these concerns in a charitable manner, don’t you believe that you would want them aired?
Finally, for those who say that there is too much whining on the part of the traditionalists I ask: what would you do if you believed that the Church was truly in the midst of a serious crisis from within? Most traditionalists don’t think that everything in the church is “peachy” right now and this is definitely a contra-mainstream position. While it would be necessary to air these concerns in a charitable manner, don’t you believe that you would want them aired?
C
cathguy
Guest
ditto:thumbsup:Don’t forget “trad bashing”, also a favored sport 'round these parts.
J
JReducation
Guest
Bashing anyone on either side of the aisle is uncharitable and useless. You don’t persuade by bashing. Even teachers know that you don’t teach by bashing the student.
Teaching is a marketing job. You make the subject palatable and attractive. You present it in a way that moves the other person to want to know more. The problem that we have on both sides of the aisle, left and right, is that we do not present topics and ideas in a way that makes people want to know more. We present them in a manner that makes people react. Once people react, things seem to go downhill from there.
As to bringing up mistakes or even errors on the part of specific individuals, this is not the forum to do that. The individual has a right to his good name. This is not a place where that person can defend his name. Most of the time, the person has no idea that his name is being invoked and associated with something that is wrong.
We may never, under any circumstances, attack someone’s good name without the benefit of a defense. Moral theology is very clear that there are two ways that one bears false witness against one’s neighbor. 1) to say something that is not true and 2) to say something about the person without giving the person the benefit of knowledge. Everyone has a right to know what is said about them in public.
If you mention Bishop Smith and I go to Google and type in his name, what you said about him on CAF will come up. Does Bishop Smith know this? Probably not. Is his name now linked to something that does damage to his reputation? Yes. Who is responsible? The person who put his name on the internet.
There are other means within the Church and the legal system to deal with these issues regarding specific individuals where it does not blindside them or an innocent onlooker. That’s all that I’m saying.
Fraternally,
JR
Teaching is a marketing job. You make the subject palatable and attractive. You present it in a way that moves the other person to want to know more. The problem that we have on both sides of the aisle, left and right, is that we do not present topics and ideas in a way that makes people want to know more. We present them in a manner that makes people react. Once people react, things seem to go downhill from there.
As to bringing up mistakes or even errors on the part of specific individuals, this is not the forum to do that. The individual has a right to his good name. This is not a place where that person can defend his name. Most of the time, the person has no idea that his name is being invoked and associated with something that is wrong.
We may never, under any circumstances, attack someone’s good name without the benefit of a defense. Moral theology is very clear that there are two ways that one bears false witness against one’s neighbor. 1) to say something that is not true and 2) to say something about the person without giving the person the benefit of knowledge. Everyone has a right to know what is said about them in public.
If you mention Bishop Smith and I go to Google and type in his name, what you said about him on CAF will come up. Does Bishop Smith know this? Probably not. Is his name now linked to something that does damage to his reputation? Yes. Who is responsible? The person who put his name on the internet.
There are other means within the Church and the legal system to deal with these issues regarding specific individuals where it does not blindside them or an innocent onlooker. That’s all that I’m saying.
Fraternally,
JR
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
What do you do if you are concerned? The appropriate action, if one is convinced that things are not as they should be, or someone was teaching or acting in grave error? Pray first, asking for guidance and peace, to put one in the appropriate frame of mind. Then appeal to the proper authority, with concern, but always with humility and respect. Then leave it in God’s hands.
Prayer, appeal to proper authority, then trust God.
Airing ones gripes and complaints in a public forum does not resolve any issues, it just breeds more contempt and spreads disease, of the soul.
P
palmas85
Guest
I guess thats the difference, most of us did stick around. We didn’t pull up stakes and leave We put up with all the abuses, all the nonsense in the name of inclusiveness and ecumenism and took it literally in the shorts. We heard the Priests, many of the the same one that you defend, tell us the Old Mass was dead and good riddance, we listened as they mocked the old devotions and claimed they not only were unscriptural but unnecessary baggage and should be rightfully dumped. We saw Bishops Priests and Nuns do their level best to destroy devotion to the Blessed Mother and they did a real good job until Pope John Paul II stood up and put them in their place.I came here, albeit a bit naive, looking for chatter about “old-school” Catholicism.
What I found, was priest bashing, bishop bashing, pope bashing, music bashing, altar girl bashing, EMHC bashing, vestment bashing, bashing of COTH, OF Mass bashing, bash, bash, bash…
So, here I am, almost 1600 posts later, defending daily, the Church and her clergy against those who so strongly feel the need to bash.
And, what would a day be, without a quote from Cardinal Arinze or Dietrich von Hildenbrand?
It is truly amazing to me that people can find so much WRONG with their Church. Why some of them stay around is beyond me.
Hard to believe that someone would subject themselves to a faith that made them so angry, frustrated, and discontented. Masochism in it’s worst form.
We listened to the homilies that extolled man and all his glory and diminished Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. We sat in the pews and saw the Mass turned from a solemn reverent re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary into a glittery showpiece for bands and Priests who styled themselves as rockstars or comedians. We listened horrified as the Priests told us that committed homosexual relationships were OK and understandable and that God loved all sexuality and why not, he gave it to us to enjoy? We suffered through the Masses where laymen and women not only gave the homilies, but read the Gospels and confected the Eucharist.
Yeah we stuck around in spite of all that, every last bit of while the progressives and therefore right thinkers had their way and openly mocked everything that was even remotely traditional. We stayed. A few gave up and drifted off in the sede camps but most of us are still here. We stayed, we suffered and we obeyed.
And now the tide has started to change, now more and more and more people see just how destructive the last forty years have been, now that traditional devotions are actually being practiced again now that so many young people are seeing for the first time what great treasures almost got swept away, you ask why we stayed?.
I’ll tell you why, because if we hadn’t stayed the progressives would have had their way. They almost did, almost. But not quite:thumbsup: .And with Pope Benedict XVI steering the ship, I don’t really think they ever will
I wonder, just how many progressive right thinking people would have stuck around had the situations been reversed.
Actually, I think I’m going to rather enjoy the next couple of years. Maybe I’ll get a chance to find out.
E
Extempore
Guest
Wonderfully stated!I guess thats the difference, most of us did stick around. We didn’t pull up stakes and leave We put up with all the abuses, all the nonsense in the name of inclusiveness and ecumenism and took it literally in the shorts. We heard the Priests, many of the the same one that you defend, tell us the Old Mass was dead and good riddance, we listened as they mocked the old devotions and claimed they not only were unscriptural but unnecessary baggage and should be rightfully dumped. We saw Bishops Priests and Nuns do their level best to destroy devotion to the Blessed Mother and they did a real good job until Pope John Paul II stood up and put them in their place.
We listened to the homilies that extolled man and all his glory and diminished Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. We sat in the pews and saw the Mass turned from a solemn reverent re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary into a glittery showpiece for bands and Priests who styled themselves as rockstars or comedians. We listened horrified as the Priests told us that committed homosexual relationships were OK and understandable and that God loved all sexuality and why not, he gave it to us to enjoy? We suffered through the Masses where laymen and women not only gave the homilies, but read the Gospels and confected the Eucharist.
Yeah we stuck around in spite of all that, every last bit of while the progressives and therefore right thinkers had their way and openly mocked everything that was even remotely traditional. We stayed. A few gave up and drifted off in the sede camps but most of us are still here. We stayed, we suffered and we obeyed.
And now the tide has started to change, now more and more and more people see just how destructive the last forty years have been, now that traditional devotions are actually being practiced again now that so many young people are seeing for the first time what great treasures almost got swept away, you ask why we stayed?.
I’ll tell you why, because if we hadn’t stayed the progressives would have had their way. They almost did, almost. But not quite:thumbsup: .And with Pope Benedict XVI steering the ship, I don’t really think they ever will
I wonder, just how many progressive right thinking people would have stuck around had the situations been reversed.
J
jam070406
Guest
I guess thats the difference, most of us did stick around. We didn’t pull up stakes and leave We put up with all the abuses, all the nonsense in the name of inclusiveness and ecumenism and took it literally in the shorts. We heard the Priests, many of the the same one that you defend, tell us the Old Mass was dead and good riddance, we listened as they mocked the old devotions and claimed they not only were unscriptural but unnecessary baggage and should be rightfully dumped. We saw Bishops Priests and Nuns do their level best to destroy devotion to the Blessed Mother and they did a real good job until Pope John Paul II stood up and put them in their place.
We listened to the homilies that extolled man and all his glory and diminished Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. We sat in the pews and saw the Mass turned from a solemn reverent re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary into a glittery showpiece for bands and Priests who styled themselves as rockstars or comedians. We listened horrified as the Priests told us that committed homosexual relationships were OK and understandable and that God loved all sexuality and why not, he gave it to us to enjoy? We suffered through the Masses where laymen and women not only gave the homilies, but read the Gospels and confected the Eucharist.
Yeah we stuck around in spite of all that, every last bit of while the progressives and therefore right thinkers had their way and openly mocked everything that was even remotely traditional. We stayed. A few gave up and drifted off in the sede camps but most of us are still here. We stayed, we suffered and we obeyed.
And now the tide has started to change, now more and more and more people see just how destructive the last forty years have been, now that traditional devotions are actually being practiced again now that so many young people are seeing for the first time what great treasures almost got swept away, you ask why we stayed?.
I’ll tell you why, because if we hadn’t stayed the progressives would have had their way. They almost did, almost. But not quite:thumbsup: .And with Pope Benedict XVI steering the ship, I don’t really think they ever will
I wonder, just how many progressive right thinking people would have stuck around had the situations been reversed.
:clapping:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I guess thats the difference, most of us did stick around. We didn’t pull up stakes and leave We put up with all the abuses, all the nonsense in the name of inclusiveness and ecumenism and took it literally in the shorts. We heard the Priests, many of the the same one that you defend, tell us the Old Mass was dead and good riddance, we listened as they mocked the old devotions and claimed they not only were unscriptural but unnecessary baggage and should be rightfully dumped. We saw Bishops Priests and Nuns do their level best to destroy devotion to the Blessed Mother and they did a real good job until Pope John Paul II stood up and put them in their place.
We listened to the homilies that extolled man and all his glory and diminished Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. We sat in the pews and saw the Mass turned from a solemn reverent re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary into a glittery showpiece for bands and Priests who styled themselves as rockstars or comedians. We listened horrified as the Priests told us that committed homosexual relationships were OK and understandable and that God loved all sexuality and why not, he gave it to us to enjoy? We suffered through the Masses where laymen and women not only gave the homilies, but read the Gospels and confected the Eucharist.
Yeah we stuck around in spite of all that, every last bit of while the progressives and therefore right thinkers had their way and openly mocked everything that was even remotely traditional. We stayed. A few gave up and drifted off in the sede camps but most of us are still here. We stayed, we suffered and we obeyed.
And now the tide has started to change, now more and more and more people see just how destructive the last forty years have been, now that traditional devotions are actually being practiced again now that so many young people are seeing for the first time what great treasures almost got swept away, you ask why we stayed?.
I’ll tell you why, because if we hadn’t stayed the progressives would have had their way. They almost did, almost. But not quite:thumbsup: .And with Pope Benedict XVI steering the ship, I don’t really think they ever will
I wonder, just how many progressive right thinking people would have stuck around had the situations been reversed.
I’ve been thinking about that palmas85. I have been wondering if what we are experiencing in this forum – the trad bashing and so forth —is backlash to what they see as a threat to the “Spirit of Vat II”. The more our Pope steers the Church away from the “Spirit” --the more backlash will be seen against traditionalists.
J
Jenny_Z
Guest
I’m curious… are you seeing my original post as Trad Bashing?
P
preV2tradcath
Guest
You have a point. It probably isn’t true for everyone, but I am sure there are some where this is exactly the case.
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
It’s a fall back phrase. You didn’t bash. You asked a question.
It’s a psychological strategy meant to shut you down.
C
cathguy
Guest
no.
C
cathguy
Guest
Jeanette, this is not a war.It’s a fall back phrase. You didn’t bash. You asked a question.
God Bless!
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
Don’t you mean the sin of detraction?
C
cathguy
Guest
In reading through these various posts a trend emerges.
The traditionalists feel they are being bashed and hit relatively hard in the forums.
The… I don’t know what to call them… otherwise orthodox Catholics who don’t like tradition?.. like to label any remotely traditionalist position (even if it is responsible and not schismatic) as dissent.
For instance: today I have been called a dissenter several times.
Not only that but Eaamon Duffy (whom we were discussing) has been called a dissenter.
Not only that, David Carlin (author of “Can a Catholic be a Democrat?” (his answer is no because he is pro-life) and author "The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America) has been called a dissenter. For the record “has published more than a hundred articles on social, political, cultural, and religious topics, including articles for the New York Times, America, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Commonweal, First Things, and other journals, secular and religious.”
So folks who publish at Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things are HERETICS now HUH?
Someone attacked his book for arguing that the Church had fallen.
These people are either a) totally unread, or b) so hostile to anything REMOTELY traditional that they will seek to assault ANYONE with even a RESPONSIBLE position!
In another thread, Michael Davies was called a dissenter.
Perhaps it is insulting to say people are poorly read, but there is a SERIOUS problem here.
Faithful Catholics are being called dissenters and WORSE. I mean COME ON. No wonder traditionalists are short and defensive. If Michael Davies, whom the Pope recently eulogized, is a DISSENTER then NO ONE is loyal.
The next time some one calls me a dissenter for believing what the Church teaches and believing the liturgical changes post Vatican II to be a mistake, I will report the person as being inappropriate. However, I don’t believe that will change things.
The REALITY is that there is a DEEP SEATED and ILLOGICAL bias against those orthodox Catholics, who do NOT reject the Second Vatican Council, but DO reject the liturgical changes.
I am NO heretic. Neither is David Carlin. Neither is Michael Davies.
This insanity either stops now, or I stop posting to this forum.
The traditionalists feel they are being bashed and hit relatively hard in the forums.
The… I don’t know what to call them… otherwise orthodox Catholics who don’t like tradition?.. like to label any remotely traditionalist position (even if it is responsible and not schismatic) as dissent.
For instance: today I have been called a dissenter several times.
Not only that but Eaamon Duffy (whom we were discussing) has been called a dissenter.
Not only that, David Carlin (author of “Can a Catholic be a Democrat?” (his answer is no because he is pro-life) and author "The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America) has been called a dissenter. For the record “has published more than a hundred articles on social, political, cultural, and religious topics, including articles for the New York Times, America, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Commonweal, First Things, and other journals, secular and religious.”
So folks who publish at Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things are HERETICS now HUH?
Someone attacked his book for arguing that the Church had fallen.
These people are either a) totally unread, or b) so hostile to anything REMOTELY traditional that they will seek to assault ANYONE with even a RESPONSIBLE position!
In another thread, Michael Davies was called a dissenter.
Perhaps it is insulting to say people are poorly read, but there is a SERIOUS problem here.
Faithful Catholics are being called dissenters and WORSE. I mean COME ON. No wonder traditionalists are short and defensive. If Michael Davies, whom the Pope recently eulogized, is a DISSENTER then NO ONE is loyal.
The next time some one calls me a dissenter for believing what the Church teaches and believing the liturgical changes post Vatican II to be a mistake, I will report the person as being inappropriate. However, I don’t believe that will change things.
The REALITY is that there is a DEEP SEATED and ILLOGICAL bias against those orthodox Catholics, who do NOT reject the Second Vatican Council, but DO reject the liturgical changes.
I am NO heretic. Neither is David Carlin. Neither is Michael Davies.
This insanity either stops now, or I stop posting to this forum.
C
CassiusLonginus
Guest
Just a quick question: I’ve heard a lot of you say “I’m trad, but I’m not schismatic”. What does that mean? Can you give examples of trads who are? Does this mean SSPX-goers? Thanks
P
pnewton
Guest
There is a war going on. We just always get confused that we are supposed to be on the same time. Our enemy is wiley and sows dissension from both sides to divide us. We are always taking the bait and fighting among ourselves. Wolves in sheep clothing come in from both directions; in the form of Catholics that see themselves as so much more holier than the Pope that they “holy” themselves out the door, and Catholics that pop in to stir the pot under the guise of obedience to pluck the mote out of other’s eyes, while leaving a beam in their own.Jeanette, this is not a war.
God Bless!
My solution? Let’s sing Kum Ba Yah.
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
No it’s not, I honestly agree with you. But at times it takes on that tone, don’t you think? It’s sad.Jeanette, this is not a war.
God Bless!
It seems that anytime someone would like to suggest that people take a step back before they speak in negative ways, on public forums, concerning the faith, so as not to cause scandal to the unbelievers, we are told we are bashing Traditionalists. This is not the case. We would say the same to anyone from either side. The Church is to be loved and protected. Not disparaged in public.
God bless you too.
C
cathguy
Guest
NO NO NO NO NO.
I am not an SSPX goer.
If I was I would not be recommending books by Eaamon Duffy and Fr. Michael Ewe Lang.
Being a traditionalist who is NOT a schismatic (or not in an irregular canonical relationship with Rome to use the current jargon vis a vis the SSPX, who are technically not in schism) means (in my case) that 1) I believe the E.F. of the Mass to be superior to the O.F. and that 2) Many of the liturgical changes made since the Second Vatican Council are seriously problematic.
I would NEVER endorse assisting at the Mass at SSPX chapels or do so myself. If every time I identify myself as a traditionalist people are assuming I am an SSPXer (without reading what I actually write first) that would explain a lot.
Reading this over I feel I may have been a bit harsh to those in the SSPX, who are decent and good people.
I truly desire reunion with the SSPX, but feel the need to point out that I do not count myself among their supporters given all the attacks around here.
- Status