Tradition in Action

[Mickey_Jackson]

Again I doubt Mikey that you could find someone to say EVERYTHING new is bad. Also the “traditionalists” you cite about arent traditionalists at all. They are erroneous in their views on the Church and the Papacy. If you stick to traditionalists within the Catholic church I think you will find a much different mindset than the “nuts” on the fringe. It is fairly obvious to all that these radicals are way overboard, so your point is so obvious. You really are better off just saying nothng. I guees that is a polite way of saying shut up!!! all of Christ’s love of course!!!

If we’re talking about traditionalists within the Church, I do not refer to them as traditionalists. I refer to them as “Catholics.” Pope Benedict, shortly after his election, was asked if he considered himself a traditionalist. He replied that the only label that mattered for him was “Catholic.” We all should hold the same view.

When I speak of Traditionalists, I speak of groups like the SSPX, TIA, etc., just like when I speak of Modernists, I speak of groups like Call to Action, FutureChurch, etc., not those Catholics who happen to prefer the post-Vatican II liturgy and theology. Because the Holy Father is right: if you are in communion with the Church and accept her Magesterium (the entire Magesterium), then the only “-ism” that matters is “Catholicism.”

 

[PatrickJT914]

If we’re talking about traditionalists within the Church, I do not refer to them as traditionalists. I refer to them as “Catholics.” Pope Benedict, shortly after his election, was asked if he considered himself a traditionalist. He replied that the only label that mattered for him was “Catholic.” We all should hold the same view.

When I speak of Traditionalists, I speak of groups like the SSPX, TIA, etc., just like when I speak of Modernists, I speak of groups like Call to Action, FutureChurch, etc., not those Catholics who happen to prefer the post-Vatican II liturgy and theology. Because the Holy Father is right: if you are in communion with the Church and accept her Magesterium (the entire Magesterium), then the only “-ism” that matters is “Catholicism.”

Hi Mickey Jackson,
I agree with your statement.

 

[consumedconvert]

If we’re talking about traditionalists within the Church, I do not refer to them as traditionalists. I refer to them as “Catholics.” Pope Benedict, shortly after his election, was asked if he considered himself a traditionalist. He replied that the only label that mattered for him was “Catholic.” We all should hold the same view.

When I speak of Traditionalists, I speak of groups like the SSPX, TIA, etc., just like when I speak of Modernists, I speak of groups like Call to Action, FutureChurch, etc., not those Catholics who happen to prefer the post-Vatican II liturgy and theology. Because the Holy Father is right: if you are in communion with the Church and accept her Magesterium (the entire Magesterium), then the only “-ism” that matters is “Catholicism.”

 

[FAB]

This is their motto on their website:

“Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances.”

They are a traditional Catholic organization. They are not Sedevacantists. They take the position of resistence when it comes to the liberalism in the Church.

They are devoted to Our Lady of Good Success.

Having taken a look at their web site, I would avoid them. It appears they have a very narrow view of the mission of the Church with critism of the clergy and Pope Benidict. Seams contrary to their mission statement, unless there only talking about the Magisterium before 1960. Which of course is their mission.

 

[JReducation]

If we’re talking about traditionalists within the Church, I do not refer to them as traditionalists. I refer to them as “Catholics.” Pope Benedict, shortly after his election, was asked if he considered himself a traditionalist. He replied that the only label that mattered for him was “Catholic.” We all should hold the same view.

When I speak of Traditionalists, I speak of groups like the SSPX, TIA, etc., just like when I speak of Modernists, I speak of groups like Call to Action, FutureChurch, etc., not those Catholics who happen to prefer the post-Vatican II liturgy and theology. Because the Holy Father is right: if you are in communion with the Church and accept her Magesterium (the entire Magesterium), then the only “-ism” that matters is “Catholicism.”

I agree with this. I would just add that the term Modernist sometimes is correctly used. There was a movement in the late 19th century that promoted modernism. Some of what they promoted was good: architecture, medicine, social reforms, the rights of children, the rights of science, the rights of women.

The part that the Chuch condemned was the atheism that modernism presented. I presented man as the focal point of everything and the source of all human thought and progress. In other words it left God out of the equation.

The other parts of modernism, especially human rights and the industrial revolution were never condemned by the Church.

We must separate the atheistic part from the practical, artistic, political, social and rational components. These were not what was condemned.

In addition, modern and modernism are not the same thing. A microwave is modern, but it is not modernism. The manner in which we are communicating right now is modern, but not modernism. Like this there are many other elements.

Sometimes we get all confused with terms that sound similar but mean different things. We do with modern and modernism as we do with traditional and Tradition.

JR

 

[charlesbarkley]

If we’re talking about traditionalists within the Church, I do not refer to them as traditionalists. I refer to them as “Catholics.” Pope Benedict, shortly after his election, was asked if he considered himself a traditionalist. He replied that the only label that mattered for him was “Catholic.” We all should hold the same view.

When I speak of Traditionalists, I speak of groups like the SSPX, TIA, etc., just like when I speak of Modernists, I speak of groups like Call to Action, FutureChurch, etc., not those Catholics who happen to prefer the post-Vatican II liturgy and theology. Because the Holy Father is right: if you are in communion with the Church and accept her Magesterium (the entire Magesterium), then the only “-ism” that matters is “Catholicism.”

Mickey if that is the case why do you, at least to me, seem surprised that these traditionalists hate anything new. I mean isnt it so obvious that these “traditionalists” are going to have crazy radical ideas. People like the Dimond Brothers, Society of St. Piux V, etc. I mean c’mon of course they are going to have crazy ideas. My point is your posts(some of them) make you the “master of the obvious.” It is like getting a post started about how terrrible “A Call to Action” is!!! NO KIDDING!!!

 

[Sarpedon]

Formality? It’s obvious we have different perceptions of that word. Formal is evening-appropriate attire - a gown for a lady and white tie at least for the man. Those people are wearing daytime attire.

Do you think that people ought to be dressed like that for normal attire?

For me, it’s cargo shorts and a T-shirt or jeans and a long-sleeve shirt or hoodie.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I agree with this. I would just add that the term Modernist sometimes is correctly used. There was a movement in the late 19th century that promoted modernism. Some of what they promoted was good: architecture, medicine, social reforms, the rights of children, the rights of science, the rights of women.

The part that the Chuch condemned was the atheism that modernism presented. I presented man as the focal point of everything and the source of all human thought and progress. In other words it left God out of the equation.

The other parts of modernism, especially human rights and the industrial revolution were never condemned by the Church.

We must separate the atheistic part from the practical, artistic, political, social and rational components. These were not what was condemned.

In addition, modern and modernism are not the same thing. A microwave is modern, but it is not modernism. The manner in which we are communicating right now is modern, but not modernism. Like this there are many other elements.

Sometimes we get all confused with terms that sound similar but mean different things. We do with modern and modernism as we do with traditional and Tradition.

JR

This is a good point. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article on Liberalism that says essentially the same thing. It always does annoy me when people (especially politicians) talk about going back to good “old-fashioned moral values.” I guess racism, slavery, and child labor are all moral…

As a previous poster mentioned, no one age of human history is better than another. Mankind has always been corrupt, since the dawn of time. This corruption just tends to manifest itself in different ways depending on the time period. If you’re in the Middle Ages, it’s the mentality that says it’s okay to kill Jewish and Muslim “infidels” and spread the Truth by the sword. If you’re in the eighteen hundreds, it’s slavery. If you’re in today’s era, it’s abortion. This, by the way, is another beef I have with TIA; they act is if all of the problems of the world would be solved if we returned to the Middle Ages. “Age of Faith,” my foot. They sure did a lot of fighting amongst themselves for people who supposedly were devoted to Christ.

 

[JReducation]

Mickey if that is the case why do you, at least to me, seem surprised that these traditionalists hate anything new. I mean isnt it so obvious that these “traditionalists” are going to have crazy radical ideas. People like the Dimond Brothers, Society of St. Piux V, etc. I mean c’mon of course they are going to have crazy ideas. My point is your posts(some of them) make you the “master of the obvious.” It is like getting a post started about how terrrible “A Call to Action” is!!! NO KIDDING!!!

I’m unsure why you’re getting on Mickey’s case, if that is what you’re doing. I believe that the issue is not one of surprise that some of these groups go to extremes. I don’t really see an issue as much as a surprise response as to why those who love the Church’s tradition with lower case “t” and believe in Sacred Tratition with upper case “T” would join these groups.

Every rational human being, no matter how much he or she loves Sacred Tradition and wants to preserve it, understands that human development is inevitable. As man develops, he looks for a deeper understanding of his beliefs, not to replace previous beliefs, but to improve one’s understanding.

It is astonishing when rational people do not see this as a leap in faith. Of course, all leaps have risks. The Church has taken some and landed on concrete, but she will recover, because Christ promised.

I guess to Mickey and many others it seems unreasnable not to believe that this will pass and we will continue. There is not suprise as to the behaviours of groups who are in precarous positions, but rather there is a sense of wonder. Why would a person subscribe to such pessimistic views of the Church, when it’s not the first time that the Church has been through turbulence and has come out of it stronger and holier? Shouldn’t our history have taught us this?

JR

 

[charlesbarkley]

I’m unsure why you’re getting on Mickey’s case, if that is what you’re doing. I believe that the issue is not one of surprise that some of these groups go to extremes. I don’t really see an issue as much as a surprise response as to why those who love the Church’s tradition with lower case “t” and believe in Sacred Tratition with upper case “T” would join these groups.

Every rational human being, no matter how much he or she loves Sacred Tradition and wants to preserve it, understands that human development is inevitable. As man develops, he looks for a deeper understanding of his beliefs, not to replace previous beliefs, but to improve one’s understanding.

It is astonishing when rational people do not see this as a leap in faith. Of course, all leaps have risks. The Church has taken some and landed on concrete, but she will recover, because Christ promised.

I guess to Mickey and many others it seems unreasnable not to believe that this will pass and we will continue. There is not suprise as to the behaviours of groups who are in precarous positions, but rather there is a sense of wonder. Why would a person subscribe to such pessimistic views of the Church, when it’s not the first time that the Church has been through turbulence and has come out of it stronger and holier? Shouldn’t our history have taught us this?

JR

I am not really getting on Mickey’s case I am just pointing out that his/her points are very very obvious. The radical traditionalists that he/she cites are “fringe groups.” Of course they are going to have “crazy traditional ideas.” Isn’t that obvious??? What is the point in even posting that? It is like saying, “OMG I CANT BELIEVE THE KKK ARE SAYING RACIALLY OFFENSIVE STATMENTS!!” There is no point to it.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I am not really getting on Mickey’s case I am just pointing out that his/her points are very very obvious. The radical traditionalists that he/she cites are “fringe groups.” Of course they are going to have “crazy traditional ideas.” Isn’t that obvious??? What is the point in even posting that? It is like saying, “OMG I CANT BELIEVE THE KKK ARE SAYING RACIALLY OFFENSIVE STATMENTS!!” There is no point to it.

Just FYI, I’m a guy. My real name is “Michael,” but I tend to get weird looks when I use that name

The reason that I think it is important to highlight the “crazy traditional ideas” of these groups is that all too often, they do not appear at first glance to be on the fringe. The SSPX looks very Catholic, and to orthodox Catholics who spend enough time listening to them, their arguments start to seem perfectly reasonable. In other words, I disagree with you when you say it is “obvious” that these groups have crazy ideas, because to all too many Catholics, they don’t look crazy. This is why I honestly have a bigger problem with traditionalist groups than I do with groups like Call to Action and FutureChurch, or Protestant fundamentalists for that matter. The latter usually do not appeal to orthodox Catholics who know their Faith well enough; the former, however, take advantage of that knowledge to completely pervert people’s understanding of the Church. While the Call to Action crowd usually attracts people who are already doubting their faith, the SSPX and TIA crowds attract those who are very strong in their faith, leading them away from the Church without them even knowing it.

To a certain extent, I know what I am talking about when it comes to these groups. I myself came very close to accepting their lies as truth, and thereby being separated from the mystical Body of Christ.

Finally, I would once again like to emphasize that when I posted the photo, I was not trying to be uncharitable. I did not do a very good job of explaining my point, assuming that it was obvious. Looking back at the post, I realize that this was a fairly stupid assumption. So once again, for coming off in a very uncharitable and un-Christian way, I sincerely apologize. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my point in some of my later posts, but quite honestly, I regret starting this thread in the first place. Through my own fault, I left too much room for misunderstanding.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

This is a good point. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a good article on Liberalism that says essentially the same thing. It always does annoy me when people (especially politicians) talk about going back to good “old-fashioned moral values.” I guess racism, slavery, and child labor are all moral…

As a previous poster mentioned, no one age of human history is better than another. Mankind has always been corrupt, since the dawn of time. This corruption just tends to manifest itself in different ways depending on the time period. If you’re in the Middle Ages, it’s the mentality that says it’s okay to kill Jewish and Muslim “infidels” and spread the Truth by the sword. If you’re in the eighteen hundreds, it’s slavery. If you’re in today’s era, it’s abortion. This, by the way, is another beef I have with TIA; they act is if all of the problems of the world would be solved if we returned to the Middle Ages. “Age of Faith,” my foot. They sure did a lot of fighting amongst themselves for people who supposedly were devoted to Christ.

It is important that we differentiate the liberalism of Voltaire, Rousseau, et al. from that of Leo XIII, Pius XII, John XXIII, and John Paul II, and even that of Protestants like William Wilberforce. The former is based around a man-centered conception of the universe; the latter stems from a very profound understanding of the role of the almighty and all-loving God in human affairs. Needless to say, there is a huge difference.

 

[KennethD]

While I most certainly disagree with their criticism of our current Pope, it has to be admitted that John Paul II, brilliant theologian he was, allowed the liturgy to become terribly denigrated during his pontificate. Now, I do not want to blame him because I do not know all the factors he had to deal with, but the facts have to be faced.

Personally, the part of Tradition in Action I agree with most is their teaching on manners and civility. I am a young person (18 years of age), and there is nothing I wish for more than a return to civility. For instance, I watch Pride and Prejudice and think to myself “This is how life ought to be.” The structure and courtesy are simply wonderful. I am an hypocrite however, and dress just as casually as anyone else, if only because I lack proper attire and I also do not want to endure the social alienation that would be inflicted upon me if I tried to dress that way as well as act with proper manners. However, I do try to be as courteous as possible, and do as much as I can with my present state of life in a similar manner to how lay people modify advice to those in the religious life to help them better.

As for liturgy, I would personally prefer the Novus Ordo to vanish from the face of the earth, but I do not think it is invalid. I think it is an inferior form of the liturgy, and I think its creation unwarranted, but I have no doubts as to its validity properly celebrated.

 

[charlesbarkley]

Just FYI, I’m a guy. My real name is “Michael,” but I tend to get weird looks when I use that name

The reason that I think it is important to highlight the “crazy traditional ideas” of these groups is that all too often, they do not appear at first glance to be on the fringe. The SSPX looks very Catholic, and to orthodox Catholics who spend enough time listening to them, their arguments start to seem perfectly reasonable. In other words, I disagree with you when you say it is “obvious” that these groups have crazy ideas, because to all too many Catholics, they don’t look crazy. This is why I honestly have a bigger problem with traditionalist groups than I do with groups like Call to Action and FutureChurch, or Protestant fundamentalists for that matter. The latter usually do not appeal to orthodox Catholics who know their Faith well enough; the former, however, take advantage of that knowledge to completely pervert people’s understanding of the Church. While the Call to Action crowd usually attracts people who are already doubting their faith, the SSPX and TIA crowds attract those who are very strong in their faith, leading them away from the Church without them even knowing it.

To a certain extent, I know what I am talking about when it comes to these groups. I myself came very close to accepting their lies as truth, and thereby being separated from the mystical Body of Christ.

Finally, I would once again like to emphasize that when I posted the photo, I was not trying to be uncharitable. I did not do a very good job of explaining my point, assuming that it was obvious. Looking back at the post, I realize that this was a fairly stupid assumption. So once again, for coming off in a very uncharitable and un-Christian way, I sincerely apologize. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my point in some of my later posts, but quite honestly, I regret starting this thread in the first place. Through my own fault, I left too much room for misunderstanding./QU

Mickey it would be much more helpful if you were more specific. Quote something directly from their web site(Society of Saint Pius X or other groups) and then state your counter argument. Be very specific and not so general. example: THIS IS GENERAL “THEY HATE EVERYTHING NEW” THIS IS GOOD: Mickey quotes : A PARTICULAR ITEM FROM THEIR WEB SITE-----Then Mickey—REFUTES WHAT HE DISAGREES WITH-------Presto!!! Keep it simple _ _ _ _ _ _ K.I.S.S. YOU FEEL IN THE LAST ONE!!! IT BEGINS WITH AN “S”.

 

[laudamus_te]

Do you think that people ought to be dressed like that for normal attire?

For me, it’s cargo shorts and a T-shirt or jeans and a long-sleeve shirt or hoodie.

Their attire looks normal to me, and normal for anyone who wants to be taken seriously. Your idea of normal attire is ok for a trip to the park or a baseball game, but not for professional life.

 

[JReducation]

As for liturgy, I would personally prefer the Novus Ordo to vanish from the face of the earth, but I do not think it is invalid. I think it is an inferior form of the liturgy, and I think its creation unwarranted, but I have no doubts as to its validity properly celebrated.

The laity or the clergy are no longer in a position to make this call. The holy father has already said

1. The Of is the ordinary form of the Roman mass
2. The OF is to be respected as it is equal to the EF
3. These are not two rites, but the same Roman mass with the same dignity and sanctity
4. The Of will remain in effect the official form for the Western Church
5. The creation of the OF was needed
6. All abuses are to be avoided in both the EF and the OF

To wish it off the face of the earth is to be in conflict with the wishes of the holy father.

Don’t make that mistake.

As St. Elizabeth Ann Seton said, “Be children of the Church.”

JR

 

[KennethD]

Please do not think that I am being entirely rational when I make such statements. I am merely expressing anguish at what I see as the Church trying to change tradition to suit an agenda rather than safeguarding it.

“Even in the earliest Christian times Basil the Great, one of the Eastern Church Fathers, taught that the liturgy was revelation, like Holy Scripture itself, and should never be interfered with. And so it was, until the pontificate of Paul VI. Naturally this attitude did not prevent essential modifications, but such changes as occurred took place organically, unconsciously, unintentionally, and without a theological plan. They grew out of the practice of the liturgy, just as a landscape is altered over centuries by wind and water. In the ancient world, if a ruler broke a tradition he was regarded as having committed an act of tyrannis. In this sense Paul VI, the modernizer with his eyes fixed on the future, acted as a tyrant in the Church. Maybe the anthropologists will say, one day, that he was right to wield power in the way he did, but that means nothing to me. I shut my eyes to this attack on the divine liturgy.” - Martin Mosebach (The Heresy of Formlessness)

 

[KennethD]

1. The Of is the ordinary form of the Roman mass
This is merely a matter of rule.
2. The OF is to be respected as it is equal to the EF
I cannot personally accept this having seen the criticisms I have. I defer to the Holy Father in all things, but I cannot simply act as if I see no deficiencies in a liturgy that I think cannot compare to the ancient use. Our Holy Father himself speaks of the hermeneutics of rupture and continuity, and to me it seems as if a liturgy created by a committee replacing a liturgy that came about organically through Catholic history is the very essence of rupture. To me, the Novus Ordo itself is a product of an hermeneutic of rupture. The Orthodox would never do what we Romans have done to our liturgy.
3. These are not two rites, but the same Roman mass with the same dignity and sanctity
I do not deny this.
*4. The Of will remain in effect the official form for the Western Church
*I think this is unfortunate, but I have no power to effect otherwise.
5. The creation of the OF was needed
I accept all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith, but I cannot believe this and there is no anathema that forces me to.
6. All abuses are to be avoided in both the EF and the OF
I heartily agree.

Also, while I desire to trust you in a charitable manner, I find it difficult to believe the same Ratzinger who said this
“After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
Would also claim what you have claimed.

 

[elts1956]

I think “Traditionalism,” in the negative sense, is best understood as the belief that all innovation is bad. You could use the St. Pius X quote to justify this viewpoint, except for the fact that several of his actions were extremely innovative. For example, he was greatly criticized by the self-styled “Traditionalists” of his day for introducing to the Latin Rite the practice of giving First Communion to young children, and for radically reforming the Roman Breviary that had been promulgated by St. Pius V.

We’re talking about two extremes here: the Modernists who say that anything old is bad, and the Traditionalists who say that anything new is bad. Both are equally harmful to the Church; neither can be justified by anyone with an understanding of what true Catholic Tradition really is.

What do you call a Middle of the Roader, a TradMod? Seriously what would one be called?

 

[elts1956]

That is because back when the culture was still sane and still Christian, people took life seriously.

Life is serious. It is not a game or joke.

The modern world tries to to turn everything into a joke because
the most important thing in life to today’s man is to have fun and live for pleasure.

To misuse God’s Earthly gifts to us is the greatest form of arrogance. Ignoring these Earthly gifts to us, His children, is one form of that arrogance. When we do not enjoy these in the proper way, we show disdain for our Creator. When we show disdain, we set ourselves above God’s generousity and love for us. When we set ourselves above Him, joy, love and tolerance cannot exist. Laughter is one of the best medicines God has given us. The greatest joke is for an individual not to be able to laugh at oneself.