traditonal with a small "t"

[netmilsmom]

Elzee:

Okay, bear with me. I’m sorry for one more question and for getting off the topic of your thread…if I enable private messaging, does that make my email known to everyone on the forum (which I don’t want) or does the Forum act as the go-between for these messages and my email address is still unknown to members (even the sender - that sounds like what you’re saying above). If that’s the case, where do I view the private messages sent to me? Does the ‘Forum’ send them on to my ************* keeping it secret from the sender and other members? Thank you for your patience and help!

No, the forum is a go between for you and e-mail at home if that’s what you like.
Or you can just read them here. Either enable the alert box on that same page or just look on the main page of the forum and you will see “messages”. (I’m sure that happens once you are enabled) Click the number and it will take you there.
Hope this helps!

 

[rcn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

On another thread, it was discussed that those of us who dislike the modern innovations in our liturgy have no name.

This question has been asked and answered many times over, in many threads but for example here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=664750

You obviously choose to disregard the advice and continue with your effort to create yet another divisive, arbitrary and completely meaningless “class” of people. It has been shown over and over again that terms like conservative, liberal, traditional, Traditional, etc. have a different connotation to every one of us. They accomplish nothing. But yet you persist. Why?

 

[netmilsmom]

rcn:

This question has been asked and answered many times over, in many threads but for example here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=664750

You obviously choose to disregard the advice and continue with your effort to create yet another divisive, arbitrary and completely meaningless “class” of people. It has been shown over and over again that terms like conservative, liberal, traditional, Traditional, etc. have a different connotation to every one of us. They accomplish nothing. But yet you persist. Why?

Because no one will give me a Definitive answer.
Your advice on that thread was don’t call yourself anything.
That didn’t work for me. And to be quite honest with you, all of the terms you use above are not defining, they are classifying.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

There is something basically wrong with anyone who feels the need to use words like “modernist”, “traditionalist”, “deep”, “tlm”, “liberal”, etc. to define what sort of Catholic they feel they are, or the kind of Catholic they feel others are. Not only is the labeling often offensive and devisive, it’s also typically very inaccurate. It also marginalizes the person doing the labeling.

What do I mean by that? The few people that I have ever heard label themselves as “traditonalist” Catholics were nothing more than bitter isolationists who projected some very unenviable personal charateristics.

I’m not talking about Catholics who claim to hold traditional views – I’m talking about labelers who refer to themselves as one thing, and other Catholics as other things.

On the other hand, their very nemesis – those they labeled as “liberals” typically made no such mistakes. They didn’t paint themselves into a corner with self-contrived labels. They work to push their views throughout the mainstream of Catholicism – which the labelers had already conceeded when they headed for the fringes of the faith.

The more isolated the labelers become, the more power they provide for the very people they so distrust. I now know why some (arch)bishops fail to allow the Tridentine indult…

 

[FrmrTrad]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

On another thread, it was discussed that those of us who dislike the modern innovations in our liturgy have no name. … o like minded people [may] know us, what is your suggestion?

“An endangered species”? Or, they may know us by the fruit?

 

[Fogny]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

On another thread, it was discussed that those of us who dislike the modern innovations in our liturgy have no name.
When we call ourselves conservative, we are told that the name is too political and besides some of the modernists think they are conservative.
When we call ourselves orthodox, we are told we are confusing the name with the Eastern Rite. (and some of the modernist believe they are orthodox)
Even stating an EWTN type Mass has run into problems because a poster had never seen their mass and another brought up Mother Angelica’s history of being Charismatic.
I have been saying “Deep Catholic” because those in my parish chose this for discussion. Deep, meaning that the Catholic traditions run deep through our parish and our parishioners.
One of the posters called that divisive.

On another board, I noticed the traditional Anglicans call themselves “High Anglicans”. Like a High Mass, with all the extras.

To those of us who need to clarify who we are. For those who want something short and sweet to say so like minded people know us, what is your suggestion?

Well all the above names don’t fit. Pre Vatican II you were a Catholic, the only difference was how bad a sinner you were.
Now take your pick: Catholic, conserative,liberal,cafeteria,traditional,sspx’er,charasmatic, and more or a combo of 2 or more, or something. You feel frustrated, like there is constant change and all you want is consistency.
Well that warm fuzzy feeling is gone, The new generation (Vat II) loves change even if it is destructive. Just like the corporate world (Leadership training)constant change has infected religion and everybody thinks change is better.
Remember keep your eye on the prize and meet St Peter thats all that matters.

Fogny

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Fogny:

Well all the above names don’t fit. Pre Vatican II you were a Catholic, the only difference was how bad a sinner you were.
Now take your pick: Catholic, conserative,liberal,cafeteria,traditional,sspx’er,charasmatic, and more or a combo of 2 or more, or something. You feel frustrated, like there is constant change and all you want is consistency.
Well that warm fuzzy feeling is gone, The new generation (Vat II) loves change even if it is destructive. Just like the corporate world (Leadership training)constant change has infected religion and everybody thinks change is better.
Remember keep your eye on the prize and meet St Peter thats all that matters.

Fogny

Indeed…

 

[netmilsmom]

Pariah Pirana:

Not only is the labeling often offensive and devisive, it’s also typically very inaccurate. It also marginalizes the person doing the labeling.

Not a label, a catagory.
Charismatic Catholics have no problem with a catagory.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Not a label, a catagory.
Charismatic Catholics have no problem with a catagory.

I have never seen a Catholic envolved in charismatic renewal ever use the terms “modernist”, “liberal”, etc. Nor have I ever seen them try to distance themselves from others whom they have judged as you have done.

What you are so desperately trying to define is a devisive label.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

On another thread, it was discussed that those of us who dislike the modern innovations in our liturgy have no name.
When we call ourselves conservative, we are told that the name is too political and besides some of the modernists think they are conservative.
When we call ourselves orthodox, we are told we are confusing the name with the Eastern Rite. (and some of the modernist believe they are orthodox)
Even stating an EWTN type Mass has run into problems because a poster had never seen their mass and another brought up Mother Angelica’s history of being Charismatic.
I have been saying “Deep Catholic” because those in my parish chose this for discussion. Deep, meaning that the Catholic traditions run deep through our parish and our parishioners.
One of the posters called that divisive.
On another board, I noticed the traditional Anglicans call themselves “High Anglicans”. Like a High Mass, with all the extras.

To those of us who need to clarify who we are. For those who want something short and sweet to say so like minded people know us, what is your suggestion?

And I’m sure many are indeed every bit as orthodox as you are.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

SnorterLuster:

I likewise am sticking with conservative. I like to think of myself as conservative in all things, from politics to my attire. Sometimes I may go wild, like wear a tie that is not stripped.

A stripped tie (even a regimental rep tie) isn’t all that “conservative.”

 

[otm]

There are several difficulties in looking for a name or definition.

The first is the question of who it is that is doing the defining. To wit: I have Catholic friends who think I am really conservative; I have other Catholic friends who think I am a liberal, bordering on heresy.

I could call myself conservative, but those who are more conservative than I (and call themselves conservative) would dispute that - at least one of them somewhat vehemently.

I could call myself a moderate, but both groups have a significant problem with that, in large part because they tend not to see any continuum possible; both tend to insist that either I agree with them, or I am “other”, and that is not moderate. They (both groups) tend to see themselves as right and others as wrong; sometimes they will concede that legally I may be justified in my position, but barely. I am seen by both groups as “just not understanding it”.

Both goups have a tendency toward a superiority complex, which is really a polite term for judgementalism.

Both groups also have a tendency toward an intollerance for complex answers to complex questions; they want justiffication for their position, and do not deal well with tension between their position and other legitimate positions.

Because of our Western mindset, which tends to see things in opppostion to, as opposed to an Eastern mentality which tends to see one thing with different views, we tend to define ourselves by means of differences as if they were black and white, rather than shades of grey.

The difficulty, perhaps, is that it is too easy to slip into a judgemental mode when discussing things which may be permitted postions on issues of faith and praxis, when either doing something, or not doing that same thing, makes one uncomfortable.

An example: altar girls are permitted. Some people are very uncomfortable with the permission; others are very uncomfotable with those who will not exercise that permission. Both groups have a tendency to judge the other’s position as “just not getting it”.

The Pharisees were fairly vocal about Christ spending time with tax collectors and prostitutes. Christ was very forthright about telling sinners to “sin no more”; and I suspect that the tax collectors and prostitutes tried not to; but if they were no more nor less human than we are, some of them sinned again. By separating themselve off from prostitutes and tax collectors, the Pharisees were categorizing people, and they were also avoiding the"near occasion of sin". Christ was trying to teach something, and the Pharisees just didn’t get it.

Perhaps when we seek so much to categorize ourselves (and we do that by setting ourselves off against the “others”), we are missing what Christ tried to teach?

 

[netmilsmom]

Pariah Pirana:

I have never seen a Catholic envolved in charismatic renewal ever use the terms “modernist”, “liberal”, etc. Nor have I ever seen them try to distance themselves from others whom they have judged as you have done.

What you are so desperately trying to define is a devisive label.

No, they use Charismatic. You are classifying them as such. You may have not seen them distance themselves, I have seen them dismiss anyone like me and so have many others on this board.
We are expected to type many words to explain who we are. It makes for tired fingers.
I am Polish/American, I am white, I have a sister, four nieces and two great nephews who are African/American, I have a SIL who is Korean/American and three nephews who are the same. It’s classifying, not labeling.
You may not like it and that’s why we live in America. We have lots of freedoms. I have the freedom to ask like minded persons what we would like to call ourselves for the sake of time savings.

 

[rcn]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

ask like minded persons what we would like to call ourselves for the sake of time savings.

Why do you assume that anyone is “like minded” to you? It is not as if there is a linear spectrum, with all issues and preferences magically combined into a single line along which one takes up a position on the right or the left or the center.

By seeking to reduce everything to a label, you are trying to stifle discussion by painting everyone into a corner. Don’t do it!!

 

[msproule]

rcn:

Why do you assume that anyone is “like minded” to you? It is not as if there is a linear spectrum, with all issues and preferences magically combined into a single line along which one takes up a position on the right or the left or the center.

By seeking to reduce everything to a label, you are trying to stifle discussion by painting everyone into a corner. Don’t do it!!

I am left-handed. By your definition, I must not be able to do anything with my right hand because I have classified myself as such.

 

[netmilsmom]

rcn:

Why do you assume that anyone is “like minded” to you? It is not as if there is a linear spectrum, with all issues and preferences magically combined into a single line along which one takes up a position on the right or the left or the center.

By seeking to reduce everything to a label, you are trying to stifle discussion by painting everyone into a corner. Don’t do it!!

I don’t know, I thought the first post pretty well described who I was talking to. If one sees himself there, then we are like minded. If one does not, then he is not.
But I guess that’s why we have discussion groups. If everyone just said, “Yes, I agree.” it wouldn’t really be a discussion.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

No, they use Charismatic. You are classifying them as such. You may have not seen them distance themselves, I have seen them dismiss anyone like me and so have many others on this board.
We are expected to type many words to explain who we are. It makes for tired fingers.
I am Polish/American, I am white, I have a sister, four nieces and two great nephews who are African/American, I have a SIL who is Korean/American and three nephews who are the same. It’s classifying, not labeling.
You may not like it and that’s why we live in America. We have lots of freedoms. I have the freedom to ask like minded persons what we would like to call ourselves for the sake of time savings.

Your thread didn’t gain the traction you hoped for and now you are suggesting this? How about one word? Catholic.

 

[netmilsmom]

Pariah Pirana:

Your thread didn’t gain the traction you hoped for and now you are suggesting this? How about one word? Catholic.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t looking for traction.
I was asking a question. The amount of responses given are those who I wanted to answer.
I’ve asked you before on other threads and you gave me the same answer. I wanted other’s opinions. Isn’t that what the forums are all about?
Catholic is great as compared to Protestant. Catholic is not enough as compared to Charismatic Catholic.
I’m not trying to schew the poll, and I don’t even know where you are seeing this. I put the poll in to answer the question and save my fingers. Perhaps non-Charistmatic Catholic would be an option.
I’m seeing someone with authority in this subject this weekend. I’ll ask him and get back to you.

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry, I wasn’t looking for traction.
I was asking a question. The amount of responses given are those who I wanted to answer.
I’ve asked you before on other threads and you gave me the same answer. I wanted other’s opinions. Isn’t that what the forums are all about?
Catholic is great as compared to Protestant. Catholic is not enough as compared to Charismatic Catholic.
I’m not trying to schew the poll, and I don’t even know where you are seeing this. I put the poll in to answer the question and save my fingers. Perhaps non-Charistmatic Catholic would be an option.
I’m seeing someone with authority in this subject this weekend. I’ll ask him and get back to you.

The charismatic renewal is a recognized charism within the Church, by the Holy See. “Traditionalism” is not.

 

[netmilsmom]

Pariah Pirana:

The charismatic renewal is a recognized charism within the Church, by the Holy See. “Traditionalism” is not.

Wow! I am so glad you stated that!
I did a Google search on “Charism Vatican Charismatic”
I came to an EWTN site staing this…
“Participation in the life of the Church should lead any Catholic (Charismatic, traditional, or ordinary) into a deeper relationship with the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother and the Pope.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/charismatic_renewal.htm

So apparently, it is not just me that recognizes that there are differences in Catholics. EWTN has no problem with catagories either.