"Traditionalist" versus "Fundamentalist"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter piusphilistine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anamchara said:
You just gave me another example by your words of fundamentalists tactics.
Click to expand...
So very true. One definite constant on the forums are fundamentalists use of ad hominem attacks and emotional outbursts.

When the discussion becomes even the least bit deep, quite a few here will become personally offensive or they will mention something totally outrageous and inflammatory in an attempt to derail the conversation.

Again, not at all unlike my experiences with our fundamentalist Catholic breathern – on-line ans in person…
 
piusphilistine said:
It is clear to me that many people who become interested in traditional Catholicism generally have some traits in common – not all of which are positive.
Click to expand...
To be sure, I have observed that those who oppose these traditional Catholics have traits in common.
 
Oh the gift to gie us, to see us as others see us!

2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. 3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
Matthew, Chapter 7.

.
 
piusphilistine said:
So very true. One definite constant on the forums are fundamentalists use of ad hominem attacks and emotional outbursts.

When the discussion becomes even the least bit deep, quite a few here will become personally offensive or they will mention something totally outrageous and inflammatory in an attempt to derail the conversation.

Again, not at all unlike my experiences with our fundamentalist Catholic breathern – on-line ans in person…
Click to expand...
and writing someone off as fundamentalist and only interested in their own opinions is not an ad hominem attack?

the problem here is that this conversation is Not deep in any way. so far all it has been is people being labeled and judged. many people have posted pointing out the actual arguments and reasons why traditionalists feal the way they do, and so far you have completely ignored them and continued your labeling and judging.

now your accusing people of being personally offensive while i have allready pointed out that you started out being condescending and offensive a full 5 pages ago!
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
To point out the doings of individual Catholics is not dealing with traditionalism. You can argue with individuals all you want, fine by me. However, again, it’s not dealing with traditionalism as it is evinced in the literature traditionalists actually read. For instance, if one picks up the Latin Mass magazine or even the Remnant the issues they are dealing with are for more broad than what a certain Catholic is doing here or there.

And the intellectual heft of this literature, and even the arguments some posters make on this forum, are a far cry from fundamentalism.

And I’m pretty sure Bishop Bruskewitz could do quite a bit to improve the Los Angeles diocese (too bad he wasn’t in charge when they decided to build a new cathedral).
Click to expand...
Much of the comments I see herein are those of fundamentalist Catholics. I can go over to Beliefnet and read comments from other fundamentalist Catholics – of the more liberal persuasion.

As for Bp. Bruskewitz transitioning from the head of a diocese of 89,000 Catholics in 136 parishes to an archdiocese of 4,500,000 Catholics and over 300 large and diverse parishes? My strong suspicion is that he would fail unless he quickly adapted to meet the far greater responsibility – and I seriously doubt he could adapt that fast and that much. Lincoln ain’t Los Angeles and his current style would not be effective in LA. Then again this is all academic as the good bishop would never be given that level of responsibility within the Church.

Unless one has visited and spent time in prayer at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, one would would have to be truly ignorant as well as arrogant to judge it – which I would suggest is true of just about any church or cathedral.
 
adamsaj said:
and writing someone off as fundamentalist and only interested in their own opinions is not an ad hominem attack?

the problem here is that this conversation is Not deep in any way. so far all it has been is people being labeled and judged. many people have posted pointing out the actual arguments and reasons why traditionalists feal the way they do, and so far you have completely ignored them and continued your labeling and judging.

now your accusing people of being personally offensive while i have allready pointed out that you started out being condescending and offensive a full 5 pages ago!
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily think I am “writing-off” anyone by using the phrase fundamentalist Catholic. What I do feel is important is to bring to light those beliefs and qualities that are in no way traditional or conservative – particularly the hypocrisies.
 
fix said:
To be sure, I have observed that those who oppose these traditional Catholics have traits in common.
Click to expand...
I don’t oppose traditionally-minded Catholics. I oppose fundamentalist Catholics who pose as traditionally-minded Catholics.
 
:newidea: Could it be that he finds it offensive that some of his generation have discovered and embraced that which has gone before? Inquiring minds want to know!
 
piusphilistine said:
I don’t necessarily think I am “writing-off” anyone by using the phrase fundamentalist Catholic. What I do feel is important is to bring to light those beliefs and qualities that are in no way traditional or conservative – particularly the hypocrisies.
Click to expand...
my point is that you are not engaging in any deep philosophical or theological arguments; all you have been doing since the very first post is classifying people into steriotypes and using them to attack their positions, and that is a form of ad hominim.

Whether or not you think you are being offensive or not, it has been pointed out by several people that you do in fact sound offensive.
 
I just really don’t get this need–from either “side”–to engage in this labeling stuff. I’ve encountered it more often from those who want to start labeling anyone who struggles with a teaching, whether major or minor, as a “cafeteria Catholic”, but I’m seeing more and more of this striking at those who have a preference for the traditional.

Yes, many of the “traditional” stripe can be quite inflamatory. But then so can those on the other end of the spectrum. And for that matter so can all the rest of us in between. When someone “pushes our buttons” it is natural to strike back.

To be fair, “traditionalists” (and I hate even using the term in this way but it is descriptive only of the preference as I’m using it here) have been marginalized to a great extent, largely because of the suppression of the TLM. It would not be unexpected that any of us, if our liturgical preference was taken away for no good reason, would become defensive and perhaps offensive. And much of the inflamatory rhetoric that goes on here is nothing more than “Hatfield-McCoy” feuding over things that started years ago and we can’t put behind us.

In the end this isn’t a whole lot different than the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. It’s no longer about seeking peace and unity; it’s about “getting even”. So we constantly dredge up the slights of the past and make them our own to justify pushing the other “side” out of the picture and showing that God loves our side better. And unfortunately there are those in “leadership” positions that are more than happy to fan the flames for their own benefit. 😦

What a crock! We are Catholics. Period. No modifiers. We are at different places in our journey. We may prefer to worship in different ways. We may struggle with different teachings. But we are followers of the One True God and His Son who died for each and every one of us. And each and every one of us is totally and eternally dependent on His mercy for on our own we can do nothing.

Can we not stop this carnage? Christ cannot be divided, so either we’re all beloved by him or none of us are. And either way we’re all in the same boat. I’ll close with one of my favorite poems:

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout
But love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle that took him in.
Edwin Markham

Father forgive us for far too often we know not what we do.
 
piusphilistine said:
…Unless one has visited and spent time in prayer at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, one would would have to be truly ignorant as well as arrogant to judge it – which I would suggest is true of just about any church or cathedral.
Click to expand...
Okay, I know this is off topic (and I’m the one that brought it up) but why on earth do I have to actually visit the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels to actually make a judgment about it? I’ve seen the pictures inside and out. It is obviously of modern architectural design. One can even judge it as quite unattractive (at least the outside) without actually visiting it.

Conversely, I don’t need to visit the Lourdes Basilica to judge it as rather magnificent and in line with traditional church architecture.
 
piusphilistine said:
One definite constant on the forums are fundamentalists use of ad hominem attacks and emotional outbursts.
Click to expand...
Well then I guess you’re a “fundamentalist Catholic” too! Welcome to the club. At least my posts don’t wreak of hypocrisy though.

Pot meet kettle…again…
 
anamchara said:
another example of the typical tactic 😃 I haven’t read enough to really make a decision. Can you tell me which Pope in past history was more liberal in your eyes? 🙂
Click to expand...
If my tactic was fundamentalist, then we are just two sides of the same coin.
My point was that this poster was using Protestant fundamentalist tactics (scream in your face "your going to burn in hell’) sort of thing. They hide behind the banner of the Church but still use the same old uncharitable approach. And if you question them on it they are always quick to say “But God is not all about being warm and fuzzy” :rolleyes: It’s done on here but not to that degree because thank goodness, we have forum rules which are strictly followed. I’ve seen people banned for the sort of thing I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
I’m glad Pope Eugene IV isn’t around today, because he would surely be labeled a fundamentalist for saying this:

“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.” (Cantate Domino)
 
piusphilistine said:
As for Bp. Bruskewitz transitioning from the head of a diocese of 89,000 Catholics in 136 parishes to an archdiocese of 4,500,000 Catholics and over 300 large and diverse parishes? My strong suspicion is that he would fail unless he quickly adapted to meet the far greater responsibility – and I seriously doubt he could adapt that fast and that much. Lincoln ain’t Los Angeles and his current style would not be effective in LA. Then again this is all academic as the good bishop would never be given that level of responsibility within the Church.
Click to expand...
I’m glad piusphilistine has set himself up as Pope and has judged for everybody here the capabilities of one of the greatest Bishops we have here in the US.

By the way, Bishop Bruskewitz has a very similiar “style” to the that of Archbishop Burke, and he seems to be doing quite well in the large Archdiocese of St. Louis.
Unless one has visited and spent time in prayer at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, one would would have to be truly ignorant as well as arrogant to judge it – which I would suggest is true of just about any church or cathedral.
Click to expand...
If ignorant is knowing when a Catholic Cathedral looks more protestant than Catholic, than call me ignorant any day.
 
piusphilistine said:
What I do feel is important is to bring to light those beliefs and qualities that are in no way traditional or conservative --particularly the hypocrisies.
Click to expand...
This flys in the face of almost everything you have said here in this thread so far. You have CONSTANTLY (that’s an understatement if every there was one, even after the bolding, underlining, and italicizing) labeled traditional Catholics as “fundamentalist Catholics.” You wouldn’t know hypocrisy if it hit you in the face and said, “hey, look at me, I’m hypocrisy.”
 
ncjohn said:
I just really don’t get this need–from either “side”–to engage in this labeling stuff. I’ve encountered it more often from those who want to start labeling anyone who struggles with a teaching, whether major or minor, as a “cafeteria Catholic”, but I’m seeing more and more of this striking at those who have a preference for the traditional.

As always John, great words. I agree. It comes from both sides and it needs to stop. This thread stuck out for me because I think it holds some truth. I’ve always said that there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum who seriously polarize the Church. We need to focus on just being Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top