Traditional Catholics

[At_Trent]

Just to pick nits: why I believe parsing the phrase novus [Ordo Missae] as [Novus Ordo] missae is incorrect.

The pastor at the parish I’m registered at calls it the Novus Ordo. And it’s the Mass he prays. It’s not a derogatory term.

Cardinal Ottaviani even called it that in his letter to Pope Paul VI.
ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

 

[Vince1022]

There are those who claim to be Catholic and don’t.

I would suppose they are not Catholic, then. I don’t know…can anyone reject the validity of the Catholic Mass and still be Catholic? I don’t think so.

But given the recent trend these days, many claim to be Catholic when they are not. Some may be obvious as the Roman Catholic Women Priests, some may be subtle as sedevacantists who claim traditionalism while rejecting the current Pope.

Keeping on the OP’s question, are the groups you refer to rejecting the validity of the Catholic Mass?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Out of courtesy to your fellow posters, please do not post anything that does not directly address the subject line. I have deleted ten posts that were either argumentative or off-topic. If this trend continues, some members will receive infractions and may eventually be asked not to post on TC forum again. Additionally, it is unfair and unkind to make light at the expense of others’ beliefs.

Please read my thread on derailing and argumentative posting.

Thanks

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would suppose they are not Catholic, then. I don’t know…can anyone reject the validity of the Catholic Mass and still be Catholic? I don’t think so.

Yes they’re not, but that wouldn’t stop them to be claiming to be Catholic, including calling themselves some form of Catholic.

Keeping on the OP’s question, are the groups you refer to rejecting the validity of the Catholic Mass?

Sedevacantists definitely do, they refect the OF and everything in the Church post Vatican II. The Women Priests don’t, but given who they are you can’t have a more invalid Mass.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Out of courtesy to your fellow posters, please do not post anything that does not directly address the subject line. I have deleted ten posts that were either argumentative or off-topic. If this trend continues, some members will receive infractions and may eventually be asked not to post on TC forum again. Additionally, it is unfair and unkind to make light at the expense of others’ beliefs.

Please read my thread on derailing and argumentative posting.

Thanks

Thomas Casey
Moderator

I maintain that the original post was little but trollbait.

 

[BernadetteM]

The definition of a troll is someone who post once and then leaves.

I had a legitimate question as to what are considered Traditional Catholics and thank all who were kind of enough to give their opinions.

To be honest you appear to be the reason for the thread. It was due to some attitudes on a Tradiationalist website that the question was raised.

It is good to know that there are differences of opinions, but that most are charitable and accepting of their brothers and sisters who find more spiritual growth in either the EF or OF, but accept that each is valid.

You are new to CAF and I find that most on CAF are kind and show charity to others, it is a good lesson to learn.

Bernadette

 

[Vince1022]

Yes they’re not, but that wouldn’t stop them to be claiming to be Catholic, including calling themselves some form of Catholic.

Sedevacantists definitely do, they refect the OF and everything in the Church post Vatican II. The Women Priests don’t, but given who they are you can’t have a more invalid Mass.

If they reject the validity of the Mass, then they are not Catholic. Regardless of what they claim.

Those who claim teachings contrary to the Catholic faith, while accepting the validity of the Mass, are a separate question to this thread (read the OP).

 

[patrick457]

The pastor at the parish I’m registered at calls it the Novus Ordo. And it’s the Mass he prays. It’s not a derogatory term.

Cardinal Ottaviani even called it that in his letter to Pope Paul VI.
ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

I didn’t say that it’s derogatory: in the right hands the phrase is perfectly neutral. It is only in the hands of a few nutcases that Novus Ordo Missae takes on a wholly scary connotation.

But, I still stand to my point that using the macaronic phrase “Novus Ordo Mass” is a bad mangling of the Latin term, as the word Ordo is more correctly associated with Missae: Ordo Missae. Novus is an adjective: the “new Ordo Missae”. Retaining the whole phrase in Latin is the perfect course of action (as Cardinal Ottaviani does) or rendering it into English outright, but translating Missae into English while retaining the phrase Novus Ordo in Latin destroys the grammatical balance: Ordo is now associated with Novus (cue here a busload of conspiracy theories, most likely involving Freemasons/Illuminati/Novus Ordo Seclorum/Jews/the Great Seal of the US/Hitler).

Novus Ordo - which Cardinal Ottaviani uses - and your use of “new Order” in your former post is acceptable in my personal opinion (‘new Ordo’), but using “Novus Ordo Mass” or even “N.O. Mass” is just, well, bad (again, just my personal opinion).

I’m well aware that you didn’t use any of the above phrases in your post (good for you! ), but that’s just something that I needed to get off my chest.

Now back to regular programming.

 

[patrick457]

Out of courtesy to your fellow posters, please do not post anything that does not directly address the subject line. I have deleted ten posts that were either argumentative or off-topic. If this trend continues, some members will receive infractions and may eventually be asked not to post on TC forum again. Additionally, it is unfair and unkind to make light at the expense of others’ beliefs.

Please read my thread on derailing and argumentative posting.

Thanks

Thomas Casey
Moderator

Point taken. I’m very, very sorry for the off-topic posts.

 

[patrick457]

Sorry for posting three times in a row but I’m just worried that my posts may be off-topic. If it is, I leave judgment to the mods and let them take appropriate action.

Again, sorry folks.

 

[Pregustator]

So I have a question if “traditionalist” represent one side of the Church and according your argument most of them will not accept anything pass vatican 2, what do you call the other side of Catholics?

I do not see that there is one other “side” of Catholics; there are many different sorts of Catholics. I mentioned two loosely-defined categories: “traditional Catholics” and “Catholic traditionalists”, attempting to explain what I perceive to be the difference between the two, and also trying to demonstrate that there are different types of Catholic traditionalists.

If you mean “what sort of Catholic is the polar opposite of a traditionalist,” I suppose that would be a progressivist for whom the reforms of the Second Vatican Council did not go nearly far enough, and for whom “Vatican III” cannot happen quickly enough.

 

[Egoist]

Christ most assuredly understood Latin. If not, how could he have understood and responded to Pontius Pilate when Pilate confronted him?

Of course God understands all languages. But in his incarnate form as Christ, it is highly unlikely that he would have responded to Pilate in Aramaic. There is no evidence that Pilate spoke Aramaic, and as an administrator from Rome, he would have had no need to. He would have used interpreters. But if an interpreter was used with his conversations with Christ, why do none of the Gospel accounts state as such?

 

[MarkThompson]

Christ most assuredly understood Latin. If not, how could he have understood and responded to Pontius Pilate when Pilate confronted him?

Or turn it around: Pilate most assuredly understood Aramaic. If not, how could he have confronted Jesus and been understood?

 

[malphono]

Christ most assuredly understood Latin. If not, how could he have understood and responded to Pontius Pilate when Pilate confronted him?

Of course God understands all languages. But in his incarnate form as Christ, it is highly unlikely that he would have responded to Pilate in Aramaic. There is no evidence that Pilate spoke Aramaic, and as an administrator from Rome, he would have had no need to. He would have used interpreters. But if an interpreter was used with his conversations with Christ, why do none of the Gospel accounts state as such?

There’s no evidence that Jesus spoke Latin either. If anything, I would be more willing to believe that the interview with Pontius Pilate was in Greek (perhaps rudimentary Greek, but Greek nonetheless) than in any sort of Latin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If they reject the validity of the Mass, then they are not Catholic. Regardless of what they claim.

Those who claim teachings contrary to the Catholic faith, while accepting the validity of the Mass, are a separate question to this thread (read the OP).

Yes, I completely agree. But many who use the name “Catholic” still are able to fool many. And one of the crowds they prey on are traditionalists. In the name of traditionalism they reject the Church, so they cling to tradition only and not the Church herself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Or turn it around: Pilate most assuredly understood Aramaic. If not, how could he have confronted Jesus and been understood?

Wasn’t the proof that Jesus knew Greek was the fact that he quotes the LXX so therefore would have read scripture in Greek?

 

[MarkThompson]

Wasn’t the proof that Jesus knew Greek was the fact that he quotes the LXX so therefore would have read scripture in Greek?

Oh yes, Greek seems quite likely. I was just showing how the logic of the previous statement didn’t work.

 

[laszlo]

Christ most assuredly understood Latin. If not, how could he have understood and responded to Pontius Pilate when Pilate confronted him?

Greek, as almost certainly Pilate asked the question. In that time some culinary Latin was the language of the low level plebeians in Rome, may be for some members of the legions, and classical Latin was the Language of high level literature. Everyone else spoke Greek, that was the language of communication, like today the English in many places.

Mark, (aka John) who was the interpreter for Apostle Peter in Rome sometimes in the forties AD spoke and wrote koine Greek. St Paul’s letter to the Romans as well as other cities (except the one for the Hebrews originally) were written in Greek

If you check the Denzinger (the original Latin edition) everything until the 4th Century is translated from Coptic or other language, or it is in Greek printed in Greek.

 

[Warrenton]

I imigine Christ understood whatever language people used. He was, after all, watching when the Tower of Babel collapsed.

 

[Layman]

I wonder if he spoke it to the Centurion? Or at any time, to the occupiers of His country at the time, during the 33 years of His life.

I’m guessing yes. Being the Son Of God and all.

Israel: A handy place to incarnate. Roman civilization intersecting with monotheistic Judaism and Greeks, Arabs and other cultures no doubt. Nicely placed for the beginning of a worldwide religion.