O
Our_Refuge
Guest
I think you know the answer to that. If you “CAN’T” kneel because of a disability then you “can’t” kneel. This is for those that CAN and refuse.
- Status
J
jeanannemarie
Guest
Regardless of what the TIA is or what the people in the photograph represent, it is immature and unkind to ridicule them based on what they look like. This thread started a lame argument in my opinion. We already know that these divisions are hot topics among us. Reducing the forum to childish insults isn’t worth our time.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Hi JR, I agree a sense of humor is fine, as is an outpouring of joy for knowing Christ.Come on, you know better than that. The greatest saints of the Church have been the most humble and the most joyful. Some have had a wondeful sense of humour…
JR
I was just saying that to judge someone because of their facial expression is a poor way to judge them. Not that we should judge each other anyhow
Perhaps the folks in the photo are humble, perhaps they are bitter, or whatnot, but we can’t know from a photo.
It’s a goofy OP. (and yes I’ve posted a few goofy ones myself. Mea culpa.)
God Bless you JR. I enjoy your posts, and the one where you explained the Hierarchy over on another thread was excellent. I can’t remember which thread, but your post was about knowing our place as laity. Might have been the one about writing the Bishop about some concern. Again, not sure.
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hi jeanannemarie,
You are absolutely correct! I’ve been thinking about that myself, I was even thinking about posting a reply, similar to yours. You beat me to it. But thats okay, the important thing is the message got sent.
But if I may degress for a moment. This group displays a few photos with only their own personal opinion. There isn’t any explanation, defense, reasoning as what really went on. They sensationalize and make scandal based on a few photos.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
Mikey I really dont mean to be offensive, but isnt this extremely obvious. I dont know any traditionalist that says EVERYTHING new is bad. I mean c’mon. It seems like you create straw man arguments and argue against them. You grossely exaggerate a certain position, and then create an argument against it (I’ve checked some of your other posts). Again no offense, but I dont believe this is helpful.
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
I suppose I’d better explain myself on a couple of things. First off, I perhaps should have included a more detailed explanation in my original post. Here’s my issue with TIA: more than once, I have come close to buying the errors that they spread, and thereby being separated from the Catholic Church. What ultimately saved me was the realization that their essentially joyless, legalistic, and slightly Jansenist version of Catholicism simply could not represent what the Church truly is (or ever was, even in those supposed “dark days” before Vatican II). That’s where the picture comes in: I was absolutely not making fun of any of their appearances. I do now see how I could have given that impression, and I sincerely apologize. I was looking more at their facial expressions; if you’re read any of their articles, you know that they can’t seem to find anything good in today’s Church, but are always complaining. Put in this context, the picture (which is of the signers of We Resist You to the Face) seemed a perfect expression of the kind of Catholicism that we should not strive to present to the world, one populated solely with “sour-faced [self-proclaimed] saints.”
Now addressing the previous post: I’d like for you to PM me and show me exactly which of my posts have relied on straw-man arguments, and I’ll try to clarify them for you. But if you don’t think that there are any Traditionalists who think that anything new (i.e. anything post-1960) is bad, then you obviously haven’t been to TIA’s website. They attack the 1962 Missal because Bl. John XXIII committed the abomination of inserting St. Joseph’s name into the Canon! And to give an even more flagrant example, there are even certain priests in the SSPX who won’t use the version of the Breviary promulgated by their very own patron, because they consider it a “novelty”!
But, above all else, I want to re-emphasize that I was not by any means attempting a personal attack. My original post was not very well thought-out, and for that I apologize. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
I’ve never heard that story about John XXIII. I have heard the one from when he was Nuncio to France: he was at a state dinner and was seated next to a woman wearing a crucifix and a very low-cut dress, to whom he gently remarked, “What a Calvary!”Come on, you know better than that. The greatest saints of the Church have been the most humble and the most joyful. Some have had a wondeful sense of humour.
Remember St. Francis dancing and playing a tamborine in front of the Blessed Sacrament when it was exposed. He sang for joy and laughed. That’s how joyful he was to be in the presence of his Lord.
Remember St. Teresa of Avila’s sense of humour and how she teased the Lord. Everytime she had a grave difficulty she looked at the Blessed Sacrament and said, “Don’t complain if you have few friends.”
Remember Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta who wrote in her rule that the sisters must always smile and if they were not in the mood for smiling they should remain in their rooms until they recovered their smile. The only time that we ever saw Mother not smiling was when she was praying or when she was delivering a lecture.
Remember Bl. John XXII who was seated next to the French President’s wife and offered her an apple three time. Apparently she was wearing a rather revealing dress. When she asked him why he insisted that she eat the apple he responded, “Madam, it was not until Eve ate the apple that she realized that she was naked.”
Rememer St. Vincent de Paul, when his Daughters of Charity went out to serve the poor they wore nun’s habits. He walked into a hospital and took a pair of scissors and cut their veils and scapulars. When Louise de Marillac asked him why he had done this, he smiled and said, those things are getting in the way of charity, get them off and he made them wear the secular dress of the common French nurse. He left the hospital feeling very proud of his own mischief. That’s why the daughters of chrity wore coronets and a white collar to the waist. It used to be a white veil and a white scapular to the floor.
Read the letters between Francis de Sales and Jane de Chantal. They are full of teasing back and forth.
When Francis of Assisi was near death he asked to be made more like Christ. Christ granted his prayer by imprinting his body with the Stigmata. St. Clare came to bring him soup. When she saw the stigmata, she looked at Francis and said, “Have you had enough?” She wasn’t talking about the soup. Her biographers say that she said it with a smile in her voice.
So the greatest of saints had a wondeful sense of humor and humility.
JR
And of course, we’ve all seen this picture of JPII:
http://ict.tippinst.ie/~bgoldbach/images/features/00_pope_john_paul_eyes.jpg
I much prefer this one to the one of the TIA folks.
C
charlesbarkley
Guest
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!!!
J
JReducation
Guest
Can someone explain to me where this thread is headed, because I’m lost? Is it to explore the TLA organization, present a critique of them or learn something from them? I cannot tell.
That being said, I would like to share my own insights into tradition with lower case “t” and upper case “T”. I am a big advocate of both. From a purely secular perspective traditions tell us something about who we are, where we came from, what we value and the common denominators that we share as families, communities, nations and people of faith. Traditions are the unwritten history books of life. They are probably more reliable than history books. I for one believe that history books are the writer’s perspective of the events and not necessarily an unbiased account of the events and those who were involved. Traditions take away the middle man, the writer historian. They immerse us into history and allow us to do history by reflecting for ourselves on the shared meaning of events and realities.
At to Sacred Tradition, there is not much difference, from the human perspective. Sacred Tradition serves to incorporate us into the workings of God through human history. Just as God becomes incarnate and breaks into human history, Sacred Tradition allows us to become incarnate in the history of Redemption creating a reciprocal alignment between the God who saves and the people he saves.
Sacred Tradition reveals to us the saving work of God. Our participation in Sacred Tradition allows us to be active participants in our own salvation. In this sense, participation in Sacred Tradition is reciprocal. God provides the means for salvation and we cooperate with God.
The ugliness in our times is that we have created political parties around salvation history. I use political as Plato used it. The discussion on Sacred Tradition has become deformed. From an attempt to preserve Sacred Tradition and at the same time move forward in history as a Church, we have turned it into a campaign.
On the one side we have a group who believes that they are the arbiters of what leads men to God and what does not. They have made it their mission to condemn and negate anything with which they disagree or that sounds different from what they have always believed.
Then there is the second group that feels the need to defend every change in the Church and justify the Church’s actions as if the Church were to lose ground. This group has become the resistance movement against those traditionalists who have become self-appointed arbiters of orthodoxy. These are self-appointed apologists of the Post Vatican II Church.
In the end, this has turned from a search for God into a campaign to win a debate and establish some kind of control. This is what Plato describes as the political republic. Both groups are playing into the hands of sin. If sin is that which divides and separates man from God and man from man, then this battle is a sinful one. It is dividing us, rather than building up the Mystical Body.
It is our duty to work toward unity, not to polarize. We are setting a very poor example for those who are looking at the Catholic Church. There is great value in Sacred Tradition and it should be studied and preserved. There is also great value in uncovering that part of revelation that still remains to be uncovered.
While it is true that everything that was to be revealed has been revealed. It is also true that everything that has been revealed still has to be understood. There are layers of meaning in revelation. As we go through these layers we will find that we reword things. Rewording is not the same as changing. There are times when we speak in broader language, because it is necessary to do so, even when we prefer specific language. There are times when our language will be very precise. Both are important.
As Monty Python once said, “Stop it!” Let us work to discover the wealth in tradition and mover forward into exploring the truths that still remain covert in what has been revealed to us. But let us do it as one community, not two competing parties.
JR
That being said, I would like to share my own insights into tradition with lower case “t” and upper case “T”. I am a big advocate of both. From a purely secular perspective traditions tell us something about who we are, where we came from, what we value and the common denominators that we share as families, communities, nations and people of faith. Traditions are the unwritten history books of life. They are probably more reliable than history books. I for one believe that history books are the writer’s perspective of the events and not necessarily an unbiased account of the events and those who were involved. Traditions take away the middle man, the writer historian. They immerse us into history and allow us to do history by reflecting for ourselves on the shared meaning of events and realities.
At to Sacred Tradition, there is not much difference, from the human perspective. Sacred Tradition serves to incorporate us into the workings of God through human history. Just as God becomes incarnate and breaks into human history, Sacred Tradition allows us to become incarnate in the history of Redemption creating a reciprocal alignment between the God who saves and the people he saves.
Sacred Tradition reveals to us the saving work of God. Our participation in Sacred Tradition allows us to be active participants in our own salvation. In this sense, participation in Sacred Tradition is reciprocal. God provides the means for salvation and we cooperate with God.
The ugliness in our times is that we have created political parties around salvation history. I use political as Plato used it. The discussion on Sacred Tradition has become deformed. From an attempt to preserve Sacred Tradition and at the same time move forward in history as a Church, we have turned it into a campaign.
On the one side we have a group who believes that they are the arbiters of what leads men to God and what does not. They have made it their mission to condemn and negate anything with which they disagree or that sounds different from what they have always believed.
Then there is the second group that feels the need to defend every change in the Church and justify the Church’s actions as if the Church were to lose ground. This group has become the resistance movement against those traditionalists who have become self-appointed arbiters of orthodoxy. These are self-appointed apologists of the Post Vatican II Church.
In the end, this has turned from a search for God into a campaign to win a debate and establish some kind of control. This is what Plato describes as the political republic. Both groups are playing into the hands of sin. If sin is that which divides and separates man from God and man from man, then this battle is a sinful one. It is dividing us, rather than building up the Mystical Body.
It is our duty to work toward unity, not to polarize. We are setting a very poor example for those who are looking at the Catholic Church. There is great value in Sacred Tradition and it should be studied and preserved. There is also great value in uncovering that part of revelation that still remains to be uncovered.
While it is true that everything that was to be revealed has been revealed. It is also true that everything that has been revealed still has to be understood. There are layers of meaning in revelation. As we go through these layers we will find that we reword things. Rewording is not the same as changing. There are times when we speak in broader language, because it is necessary to do so, even when we prefer specific language. There are times when our language will be very precise. Both are important.
As Monty Python once said, “Stop it!” Let us work to discover the wealth in tradition and mover forward into exploring the truths that still remain covert in what has been revealed to us. But let us do it as one community, not two competing parties.
JR
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I just hope that one day no matter where you are in America, you are within a 30 minute driving distance of a parish that celebrates both Sunday and daily TLMs.
It’s not like all traditionalists follow the same apostolates, etc. Just like there are some folks in Opus Dei, some in Neocatechumenate Way, etc., there are different traditional groups.
The ICKSP people are the ones I really fall behind. They have a particular charism of preserving and restoring the artistic tradition of Catholicism, the classical works, beautiful Churches, etc. I’m sure if an SSPX person went to their Churches, they would find it at least a little bit different. While they do have a traditionalist perspective, they are completely faithful their bishops and to the Holy Father, so its not like when you go in one you are going to hear a whole lot said about Vatican II. Obviously, they love the traditional Mass, but it’s different.
It’s good that the polemics now are between trads and conservatives, cause both are faithful to the morality and faith of the Church. That means that the liberals (the real heretics) are routinely ignored.
It’s not like all traditionalists follow the same apostolates, etc. Just like there are some folks in Opus Dei, some in Neocatechumenate Way, etc., there are different traditional groups.
The ICKSP people are the ones I really fall behind. They have a particular charism of preserving and restoring the artistic tradition of Catholicism, the classical works, beautiful Churches, etc. I’m sure if an SSPX person went to their Churches, they would find it at least a little bit different. While they do have a traditionalist perspective, they are completely faithful their bishops and to the Holy Father, so its not like when you go in one you are going to hear a whole lot said about Vatican II. Obviously, they love the traditional Mass, but it’s different.
It’s good that the polemics now are between trads and conservatives, cause both are faithful to the morality and faith of the Church. That means that the liberals (the real heretics) are routinely ignored.
J
JReducation
Guest
I have nothing against the EF. I’m against politizising the issue into two factions and even going as far as labeling each as Traditional and Conservative or liberal or whatever other name.
Excluding the SSPX, who are in a precarious position, there is nothing wrong with Catholics who want to celebrate mass in the EF. Obviously there is nothing wrong with the EF.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the OF either.
In our parish there were only four requests for the EF. The pastor politely explained that he could not do it, because the superior of the house would not agree to sending a friar to train for it unless the chapter of the house voted on it. The chapter postponed the vote, because there were only four requests in a parish of 2600 families. There was no need for the religioius to even discuss it.
But the pastor was very helpful. He pointed the four individuals who requested it to the nearest Fraternity of St. Peter who are in communion with Rome and have a beautiful EF mass. I’ve been to it. It is truly very beautiful.
I also find the OF at my parish very beautiful. So maybe we’re very lucky, because we can go back forth if we want to.
Anyway, my point was that our parishioners did not want the EF, becasue they are very happy with the OF as it is celebrated in our parish. We have 7 masses every Sunday, with standing room only and our church holds almost a little less than 1000 people. We have a long line for confessions every Saturday and confessions by appointment, more than 100 ministries in which the parishioners are invovled. We have religious education every night of the week and on Sunday mornings and we have a pastor and religioius superior who are dearly loved by the parishoners for their great spirit of contemplation.
We also have a religious community that is very contemplative, three are priests and four are lay brothers.
You can’t get it better than that. Most people in our parish feel, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
It is not the EF that is the problem. It’s the polarizing that people are getting into that is disturbing. We should have both the EF and the OF available and let parishes choose what meets their needs. Again, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.
JR
L
Like
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
I realize this is silly, but that certainly would not be my choice in dress. I live in South Florida. It’s tooooooooooooo hot for a suit and tie or long sleeves.YEAH Right!!!:yawn:
But let them dress as they wish.
Only one question, how does one extrapolate humility from this picture? I would extrapolae formality, because it’s pretty obvious.
JR
L
Like
Guest
Yep! I live in Hawaii, so know what your saying. I wasn’t really referring to the picture, but to deeper message in praise given to the TIA folks as being faithful to HMC. I mean how can one claim to be faithful to the Church and yet speak evil of the popes from John XXIII to present.I realize this is silly, but that certainly would not be my choice in dress. I live in South Florida. It’s tooooooooooooo hot for a suit and tie or long sleeves.
But let them dress as they wish.
Only one question, how does one extrapolate humility from this picture? I would extrapolae formality, because it’s pretty obvious.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that the answer to your question has several parts to it.Yep! I live in Hawaii, so know what your saying. I wasn’t really referring to the picture, but to deeper message in praise given to the TIA folks as being faithful to HMC. I mean how can one claim to be faithful to the Church and yet speak evil of the popes from John XXIII to present.
- It is true that not everything that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. But nonetheless there is a respect that is due to the office. So that even when one disagrees with the statements made by the person in the office, one should maintain a certain decorum in disagreeing.
- I have lived in Europe, the USA and Latin America and I find that Latin Americans generally do not abuse their freedom of speech, because it’s not alway a given. So when they speak, they are very careful in what they say. Americans and Europeans take freedom of speech for granted. When you do that you often end up putting your foot in your mouth.
- The tone with which Americans and Europeans speak about the Pope is very similar to the tone they use when speaking about their political leaders. In other words, even those who claim to be traditionalists are really very liberal with their tone. They have little reserve when it comes to speaking about weaknesses in the Church. I sometimes wonder if they would be as liberal with their comments about the President of the USA as they are about the Church, Pope and bishops.
- There is such a thing as an abuse of freedom. Just because we live in a free society and the Church has been a protector and promoter of religious freedom since Vatican II, she has not been a protector and promoter of verbal abuse against anyone. We have taken this religious freedom and turned into into a license to abuse our own Church.
- I know many members of the clergy who are very good people, feel they can’t deal with the traditionalist, becaue they find them to be unforgiving. There is something to be said for doing things correctly and with reverence, but there is also something to be said for interpersonal charity and fraternal respect. I am reminded of Jesus sitting at the well with the Samaritan woman. His demeaner was very gentle. He listened and when she had finished, he calmly told her what she needed to fix in her life and how to do it. The only time that we see Jesus losing his temper is with those who are stubborn, not with good priests, bishops and popes. Short fuses run high among some traditionalist circles. This is not healthy.
JR
L
LilyM
Guest
Can’t help but think of poor old Balaam and his A*s - that is a really funny story somehow, just thinking of that poor donkey!Even God apparently knows how to break a leg every now and then. Why else would the Bible (in the original language, at least) have wordplay, for example?
And Elijah using a bit of crude humour against the prophets of Baal.
But above all - God made the duck-billed platypus. That alone has to be evidence that He has a sense of humour, because it has to be the most bizarre creature on the face of the planet.
When Europeans saw their first platypi (killed and stuffed, they couldn’t send live ones back to Europe) they thought it was a joke and someone had sewn bits of other animals together.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
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. I see humility in their postures. I believe the uncharitable comments which were posted with the picture in the OP, and some of the uncharitable comments afterwards, tend to influence how the picture is viewed.I realize this is silly, but that certainly would not be my choice in dress. I live in South Florida. It’s tooooooooooooo hot for a suit and tie or long sleeves.
But let them dress as they wish.
Only one question, how does one extrapolate humility from this picture? I would extrapolae formality, because it’s pretty obvious.
JR
Also, my original post was simply about the highly uncharitable comments about the appearances of some people, and not about TIA. I actually had no idea who those people were at first glance. If the OP wished to start a discussion about the TIA, it should have been done responsibly. As it was done - posting a photo, calling them sour-faced, and asking who would want to visit their website - was juvenile.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Hey, I have no conflict with the classical Roman Rite for those who prefer it, nor would I be devastated if eventually the EF became the only Rite. I just prefer the OF.
Matt and his cohorts go far beyond agitating for the restoration of the EF. Vatican II in their estimate was a terrible mistake and if my memory serves, development in the understanding of doctrine should have been frozen in place by the Council of Trent.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
Well, I’ve experienced some of these folks first hand and they are everything Mickey says they are. Before the ICKSP took over our Chapel, we had a large group of these sour, judgmental and holier than the Pope folks. If they spent even half the time praying that they did criticizing everyone from the Pastor to the smallest child perhaps they wouldn’t be so miserable.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!!!
The Pastor finally had to meet with them and talk to them about the dissention they were sowing in the Chapel. Before they left, they used to come to Mass and then catch people outside as we left to tell us about all the “errors” Father made that day. It was disgraceful, but Father finally got them to leave.
I agree that they’re on the fringe and they are radicals, but they’re out there and I hope that people looking for real tradition don’t run into them!
B
Brenda_V
Guest
The idea of not smiling for a photo came from the fact that it took longer for a picture to get taken in the “olden” days so sitting still was of the utmost importance and they thought it was too hard to keep a smile for that long - imagine sitting still for 5 minutesThis reminds me of old family photos when my parents and grandparents were young and people thought that it was silly to smile for photos. Where did they get that idea?
JR
.As for the picture in the OP, it just looks like one taken in about the 1950’s and one that is not posed at that.
Brenda V.
- Status