"Traditionalist" versus "Fundamentalist"?

[piusphilistine]

You really hate traditional Catholicism don’t you? Why does it bother you so much? Hey lets be honest about things. If the progressives in the Church hadn’t started pushing for female ordinations, corn tortillas for the hosts, encircling the altar by the congregation, flooding the sanctuary with acrobats, clowns jugglers and God knows what else, nuns giving homilies, refusing Holy Communion to those who knelt, that my friend was in direct defiance of the Vatican by the way, having the priests dress up in costumes, remember Barney? making up Eucharistic prayers and inventing new liturgies on almost a daily basis, maybe, just maybe the Traditionalists among us wouldn’t have dug in their heels the way they did. Hey, I took it in the shorts until the Indult came out and I saw plenty of what the modern progressive types did to the Church. OK?

So lets be honest. Yeah some Traditionalists went to far, no doubt. But having Extraordinary Ministers of Communion dress up like the Devil to hand out Communion or having the Priest offer prayers to the four cardinal winds or the earth mother is going too far as well.

Sorry, I’m not going to bite. You don’t have any answers so you start asking loaded rhetorical questions. Sorry. You are aware that your response is completely transparent though, aren’t you?

I know a great many Catholics who could be considered “conservative or liberal” with regard to their spritual lives and that’s fine. It’s actually none of my business.

But when I see so-called “liberal Catholics” being attacked by self-described “Traditional Catholics” (sic) for what they do (or do not do) WHILE they themselves dissent in the same manner is beyond bad.

It’s hypocritical…

I wonder if there are any forums on the web where “liberals” berate “Traditional Catholics?” My guess is there aren’t many…

 

[anamchara]

I see MANY similarities between many who post here and our Protestant breathern who proudly define themselves as “fundamentalists.”

:yup: well put. I agree fully. I’ll add that many posters are starting to point this out to said “fundamentalists”

 

[piusphilistine]

Hi piusphilistine,

I will try to make this brief. What this comes down to in my mind is a phrase once used by Dietrich von Hildebrand, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

There is no requirement for Catholics to believe that standing for Holy Communion is just as good as kneeling at an altar rail. Catholics can certainly argue against prudential decisions by the Vatican such as communion in the hand.

I do not agree with, or refer people to authors who argue that the New Mass is invalid. Yet there is nothing wrong with arguing that one rite is better than another, and this argument has been going on for decades now. There is no infallibility attached to prudential decisions of the Church. Yet we do have to obey. So I cannot go form my own church if I don’t like the New Mass, nor can I physically stop someone from receiving communion in the hand.

OK, fair enough. But what really sticks in my craw is the utter hypocracy I see on some of these forums from some fundamentalist Catholics.

I think I have a good idea what it is…now at least.

I don’t see a problem with traditional-minded Catholics. I see a big problem with fundamentalist Catholics however.

 

[SemperFidelis]

:yup: well put. I agree fully. I’ll add that many posters are starting to point this out to said “fundamentalists”

Well said my backside. I was a fundamentalist once so I know exactly what one is, and a traditional Catholic ain’t even close.

 

[Patrick2340]

I suppose that no matter what is said certain people have an anti-Traditionalist agenda. Its obvious from this thread and others that are current on these forums that certain Catholics cannot be charitable towards Traditionalist Catholics all the while accusing Traditionalists of the same behavior.

Once again in this thread stereotypes have been applied to Traditionalists. I can do that too.

**Some **Novus Ordo Catholics believe in the ordination of women.

Many Novus Ordo Catholics support a married priesthood.

Groups of Novus Ordo Catholics are in favor of open Communion, abortion rights, ordination of homosexuals, and popular election of Bishops.

Some Novus Ordo Catholics engage in occult practices.

Of course, such assertions DO NOT describe the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics who are faithful to Mother Church. The very title of the thread is uncharitable and meant to be an assault on Traditionalist Catholics. If calling any Catholic a fundamentalist is not uncharitable and a violation of the forum rules against baiting, I don’t know what is. Frankly, I’m surprised the moderators have allowed and continue to allow such attacks to occur in this forum.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I suppose that no matter what is said certain people have an anti-Traditionalist agenda. Its obvious from this thread and others that are current on these forums that certain Catholics cannot be charitable towards Traditionalist Catholics all the while accusing Traditionalists of the same behavior.

Once again in this thread stereotypes have been applied to Traditionalists. I can do that too.

Some Novus Ordo Catholics believe in the ordination of women.

Many Novus Ordo Catholics support a married priesthood.

Groups of Novus Ordo Catholics are in favor of open Communion, abortion rights, ordination of homosexuals, and popular election of Bishops.

Some Novus Ordo Catholics engage in occult practices.

Of course, such assertions DO NOT describe the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics who are faithful to Mother Church. The very title of the thread is uncharitable and meant to be an assault on Traditionalist Catholics. If calling any Catholic a fundamentalist is not uncharitable and a violation of the forum rules against baiting, I don’t know what is. Frankly, I’m surprised the moderators have allowed and continue to allow such attacks to occur in this forum.

Now this is a post that is well put.

 

[anamchara]

Sorry, I’m not going to bite. You don’t have any answers so you start asking loaded rhetorical questions. Sorry. You are aware that your response is completely transparent though, aren’t you?

I know a great many Catholics who could be considered “conservative or liberal” with regard to their spritual lives and that’s fine. It’s actually none of my business.

** But when I see so-called “liberal Catholics” being attacked by self-described “Traditional Catholics” (sic) for what they do (or do not do) WHILE** they themselves dissent in the same manner is beyond bad.

It’s hypocritical…

I wonder if there are any forums on the web where “liberals” berate “Traditional Catholics?” My guess is there aren’t many…

That is the biggest problem that I’ve run across.

 

[anamchara]

Well said my backside. I was a fundamentalist once so I know exactly what one is, and a traditional Catholic ain’t even close.

And that is the part of the problem that I’ve seen on here. Many of the converts/traditionalists on here are from evangelical backgrounds and often fall back on the old fundamentalist tactics when preaching about the faith.

 

[SemperFidelis]

And that is the part of the problem that I’ve seen on here. Many of the converts/traditionalists on here are from evangelical backgrounds and often fall back on the old fundamentalist tactics when preaching about the faith.

Who’s using fundamentalist tactics? The actual problem here is people misunderstanding and misusing the term “fundamentalism.” I think it helps me more being a former fundamentalist, because I know the errors of fundamentalism and can see how they can not at ALL be used to describe traditional Catholics. Please, show me an explicit example of “fundamentalist” Catholic thinking, and how someone here has employed this line of thinking.

 

[piusphilistine]

I think in general, anyone using labels like “Liberal Catholic”; “Traditional Catholic”; “Novus Ordo Catholic”, etc. etc. are already showing signs of a certain level of Catholic fundamentalism.

I don’t know if it’s a product of poor or not enough catechesis, one’s environment or what, but it’s a difficult yet fascinating thing.

 

[piusphilistine]

I suppose that no matter what is said certain people have an anti-Traditionalist agenda. **Its obvious from this thread and others that are current on these forums **that certain Catholics cannot be charitable towards Traditionalist Catholics all the while accusing Traditionalists of the same behavior…

You’re exhibiting another quality to seems to be common with fundamentalist Catholics – you offer your personal opinions as fact when they are not. There seems to be a GREAT dearth of critical thinking in many of the fundamentalist Catholic posts I read on these forums.

The also seems to be a propensity to attack those with different viewpoints and a willingness to play the martyr.

 

[piusphilistine]

Who’s using fundamentalist tactics? The actual problem here is people misunderstanding and misusing the term “fundamentalism.” I think it helps me more being a former fundamentalist, because I know the errors of fundamentalism and can see how they can not at ALL be used to describe traditional Catholics. Please, show me an explicit example of “fundamentalist” Catholic thinking, and how someone here has employed this line of thinking.

Hold the phone one moment. I think people have LONG misused terms like “Traditional”, “Conservative”, “Progressive” and “Liberal” on these and other forums on the web.

Talk to different self-described fundamentalist Protestants and you will get VASTLY different definitions of what a fundamentalist Protestant is.

The linkage I see is not in the purity of the definition, but in the similar traits some Catholics share with our fundamentalist Protestant breathern.

No, no, I am not suggesting the same views are held – but many of the traits are IDENTICAL.

Traits like a practical love for reductionist thinking. An propensity to attack things not understood. A growing evidence of relativism coupled with hypocracy.

Again a perfect example of fundamentalist thinking is the person that genuflects during the Creed when the Church instructs us to bow and kneels during the Agnus Dei when our local bishop tells us to stand (based on their own personal conscience) WHILE attacking the same sort of behavior in what they label “liberal Catholics.”

 

[piusphilistine]

Fundamentalists have many of the same instincts as Traditional Catholics. However because, often through no fault of their own, they are deprived of the fullness of the truth, their movements lead to the intellectual dead ends of creationism and miracle chasing, or the spirtual dead ends of enthusiasm and the “health and wealth” gospel.

They are right that modern society has become very self-indulgent and corrupt. They are not wrong to reject the popular culture of consumerism, casual sex, and drug-taking. They are right to say that religion should involve more serious commitment than just showing up for an hour every Sunday. They are right to say that a lot of liberal exegis is baswed on very flimsy, even spurious, scholarly foundations.

Bascially the diagnosis is the same, the cure rather different.

Thank you for some interesting (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[DustinsDad]

…Of course, such assertions DO NOT describe the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics who are faithful to Mother Church…

But are the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics actually faithful to Holy Mother Church???

(Ducking and running for cover now…http://bestsmileys.com/eek/3.gif)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hold the phone one moment. I think people have LONG misused terms like “Traditional”, “Conservative”, “Progressive” and “Liberal” on these and other forums on the web.

Talk to different self-described fundamentalist Protestants and you will get VASTLY different definitions of what a fundamentalist Protestant is.

The linkage I see is not in the purity of the definition, but in the similar traits some Catholics share with our fundamentalist Protestant breathern.

No, no, I am not suggesting the same views are held – but many of the traits are IDENTICAL.

Traits like a practical love for reductionist thinking. An propensity to attack things not understood. A growing evidence of relativism coupled with hypocracy.

Again a perfect example of fundamentalist thinking is the person that genuflects during the Creed when the Church instructs us to bow and kneels during the Agnus Dei when our local bishop tells us to stand (based on their own personal conscience) WHILE attacking the same sort of behavior in what they label “liberal Catholics.”

Okay, piusphilistine,

Does “reductionist thinking” equate to taking a stand on an issue you don’t think a Catholic has a right to take a stand on?

How about if you deal with some actual traditional literature like the article in my signature line or issues traditionalists grapple with like the liturgy or communion in the hand? And then maybe you can demonstrate that people like Fr. John Parsons, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Cardinal Ottaviani and others really are attacking things they don’t understand.

Because if you’re going to point out where a Catholic disobeys a Church directive there really isn’t much of an argument, (unless you want to debate the fruitfulness of the directives themselves). There are much broader issues traditionalists deal with.

 

[piusphilistine]

Okay, piusphilistine,

Does “reductionist thinking” equate to taking a stand on an issue you don’t think a Catholic has a right to take a stand on?

How about if you deal with some actual traditional literature like the article in my signature line or issues traditionalists grapple with like the liturgy or communion in the hand? And then maybe you can demonstrate that people like Fr. John Parsons, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Cardinal Ottaviani and others really are attacking things they don’t understand.

Because if you’re going to point out where a Catholic disobeys a Church directive there really isn’t much of an argument, (unless you want to debate the fruitfulness of the directives themselves). There are much broader issues traditionalists deal with.

This is based on observing people in person, here and on other on-line forums who claim to be traditionalist Catholics. Often one’s actions differ from one’s advertised values and I am basing my comments on the former.

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.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I’m not willing to accept either the “traditional” or “fundamental” designation. I didn’t become interested in “traditional” Catholicism, I was baptized; made my First Communion; and was confirmed in it before the second Vatican Council even convened. My faith was formed before the NO was initiated. As I keep pointing out, for some of us, what is now called “traditional” Catholicism is all we ever knew until the late 60s. There are more than a few of us who simply “remember”.

I do not attend a TLM but if my parish were to offer one, I could serve on the altar, sing in the choir, or participate in the congregation without any special preparation on my part. What does that make me?

 

[ncjohn]

I do not attend a TLM but if my parish were to offer one, I could serve on the altar, sing in the choir, or participate in the congregation without any special preparation on my part. What does that make me?

A blessed son of the Church.

I could do those things also, with just a little brushing up. I don’t think anyone would want me in the choir though, except maybe to turn pages for someone who can sing.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Why, thank you brother John! :tiphat: I am no soloist but I can hold my own in the choir (I think it’s the Irish genes ).

 

[SemperFidelis]

piusphilistine. Your posts are purely hypocritical. Perhaps maybe you need to look in the mirror. You call anyone who uses labels as a fundamentalist, but then you apparantely don’t even realize that you have used these same labels describing others on this thread, especially labeling folks on here “fundamentalist Catholics;” a term which is derogatory at best. You label those who choose to kneel during the Agnus Dei as fundamentalists, because they go beyond what the GIRM requires, but you don’t even realize that in your vengeful quest to berate those traditional Catholics on here, you are verging on becoming a “fundamentalist” according to your own definition. You wouldn’t call Mother Teresa (who said communion in the hand was the worst thing in the world) or Pope Benedict XVI for prefering communion on the tongue fundamentalists would you? God forbid they go beyond what is allowed. In case you haven’t realized you are in the Traditional Catholicism forum. If you don’t like the posts here, then maybe you should find somewhere else to direct your hateful and childish rantings.