Trads and neo-trads

[cathguy]

Ha ! you just brought back a flood of hysterical memories !

Back in the 70’s, a friend presented me with a gift of a framed poster of the Pope, pointing in the famed “Uncle Sam Wants YOU” pose…with the statement “The Pill is a NO NO”.

It hung in my office for years, and was quite the conversation piece.

Several years later, one of my daughters got married. One of the family members, spurred on by that poster, had convinced the groomsmen to paint those words on the bottom of their shoes at the wedding Mass.

As everyone knelt for the Consecration, snickers arose from the front pews, as everyone could read the bottoms of the shoes…THE PILL IS A NO NO…and the word “HELP” on the bottom of the groom’s shoe.

Thanks for the memories

Your welcome!

I hate to be a kill joy, BUT, I am not sure that story is that funny.

Every Mass in the Latin Rite (OF or EF) does the same thing. It transports us to the foot of the Cross. At the consecration, the once and perfect sacrifice at Calvary is represented.

Snickering at such a time and place?

Also, Humane Vitae is MUCH more than “the Pill? NO!”

 

[ethelzguy]

Your welcome!

I hate to be a kill joy, BUT, I am not sure that story is that funny.

Every Mass in the Latin Rite (OF or EF) does the same thing. It transports us to the foot of the Cross. At the consecration, the once and perfect sacrifice at Calvary is represented.

Snickering at such a time and place?

Also, Humane Vitae is MUCH more than “the Pill? NO!”

In this case, is was “much about the pill”. Conveying the faith doesn’t have to come from Sister Euthanasia and her ruler. I simply shared a personal experience that was triggered by your commentary.

The celebrant thought it was hilarious afterward. The phrase "The Pill is a No-No is rather old school, and he was surprised to see it was “still in use”.

 

[cathguy]

Does anyone know of a board where traditionalist Catholics who refuse to treat the Holy Father with disrespect and who do not reject the Vatican II council can discuss the faith free from the interference of those who simply want to insult us? I would appreciate any feedback.

The only boards I have found I those sympathetic to the SSPX, and they tend to allow too many criticisms of the Holy Father.

Any feedback would be great. I think it is pretty clear that traditionalist Catholics who are loyal to Pope Benedict XVI are not welcome here.

 

[GerardP]

The only boards I have found I those sympathetic to the SSPX, and they tend to allow **too many criticisms **of the Holy Father.

Any feedback would be great. I think it is pretty clear that traditionalist Catholics who are loyal to Pope Benedict XVI are not welcome here.

Let’s quantify this. How many criticisms of the Holy Father are allowed?

And how does criticism suddenly mean the same thing as disloyalty?

 

[lucybeebee]

Let’s quantify this. How many criticisms of the Holy Father are allowed?

And how does criticism suddenly mean the same thing as disloyalty?

This is interesting, because I’m pretty sure that for most of Catholic history, the average Catholic didn’t think about the pope at all. “The Church” was your local parish and whatever devotions or groups that happened to be attached to it. I would think that most people knew that a pope existed, but I doubt they knew what he looked like or how the current one differed from the last one. The situation might have been different for Catholics living in the Papal States, but I don’t think the pope was that important in the everyday life of the average Catholic. It’s only really been in the last 150 years that the popes really started to infiltrate the consciousness of the public. I think that the idea that laypeople would be fighting out the intricacies of document meant for bishops and the like during their spare time would have intrigued our ancestors. One could say that thinking about the pope isn’t very traditional.

 

[wina]

Divisions and sub-divisions. What’s next, a thread discussing the differences between Catholic “neo-trads” and “neo-neo-trads?”

Sorry, but I hate labels which divide. They serve little to no useful purpose.

One says, “I am of Apollos,” another “I am of Paul”. But they are both of Christ.

We are CATHOLIC. Within Catholicism are many different spiritualities and personalities. But they need not be separate and labelled, like canned soups in a market place. Personalities and spiritualities mix, and Catholics, though different in many ways, must unite.

We are Catholic. Let’s leave it at that.

Very good post:thumbsup:

 

[ethelzguy]

Let’s quantify this. How many criticisms of the Holy Father are allowed?

And how does criticism suddenly mean the same thing as disloyalty?

Great point

Another one for the diary. ethelzguy and GerardP agreed today!

 

[saint_rafael]

This is interesting, because I’m pretty sure that for most of Catholic history, the average Catholic didn’t think about the pope at all.
It’s only really been in the last 150 years that the popes really started to infiltrate the consciousness of the public.

Everything changed with Vatican I and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The Papacy reached glorious heights as never before in history. It was the natural development in doctrine. The Papacy developed to the point that even the prudential decisions of a Pope were given the highest esteem and respect. The non-infallible writings and opinions were given great respect.

The danger of this Ultramontanism was one that Catholics did not give enough thought because we had a succession of giants in Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

The Church and Catholic laymen were not prepared for the possibility of a bad Pope, a mediocre Pope, and a un-orthodox Pope.

In the centuries bnefore, these Popes were criticized and the Catholic faith defended from their unorthodoxy.
After the highs of Vatican I, Papal infallibility, and a string of orthodox giants, Catholics forgot how to defend doctrine, orthodoxy, and the Magisterium from bad Popes.

Catholics were not prepared to defend the faith from the Papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. They blindly followed their unorthodoxy like they had followed previous Popes since Vatican I without paying attention to the differences and distinguishing a good Pope from a bad Pope.

 

[pnewton]

If you find yourself using horizontal language, you’ll discover how affected you’ve been by liberalism.

Is that St. Paul’s problem when he wrote to the Corinthians? Those darn liberals.

 

[Image_of_God]

Everything changed with Vatican I and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The Papacy reached glorious heights as never before in history. It was the natural development in doctrine. The Papacy developed to the point that even the prudential decisions of a Pope were given the highest esteem and respect. The non-infallible writings and opinions were given great respect.

The danger of this Ultramontanism was one that Catholics did not give enough thought because we had a succession of giants in Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

The Church and Catholic laymen were not prepared for the possibility of a bad Pope, a mediocre Pope, and a un-orthodox Pope.

In the centuries bnefore, these Popes were criticized and the Catholic faith defended from their unorthodoxy.
After the highs of Vatican I, Papal infallibility, and a string of orthodox giants, Catholics forgot how to defend doctrine, orthodoxy, and the Magisterium from bad Popes.

Catholics were not prepared to defend the faith from the Papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. They blindly followed their unorthodoxy like they had followed previous Popes since Vatican I without paying attention to the differences and distinguishing a good Pope from a bad Pope.

Around the time that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was pronounced most people already believed that the Pope was infallible when he spoke in matters of faith. Even before then, St. Francis De Sales says this:

• When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form .

  We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

  But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church. (3)*

Blessed Pius IX did not just invent the doctrine. I had been believed before much earlier.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Catholics were not prepared to defend the faith from the Papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. They blindly followed their unorthodoxy like they had followed previous Popes since Vatican I without paying attention to the differences and distinguishing a good Pope from a bad Pope.

Defend the Church from the popes??? Rafael, do you really expect anyone but SSPXers to believe this. Why not join us all in prayer for unity.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[GerardP]

Is that St. Paul’s problem when he wrote to the Corinthians? Those darn liberals.

"According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. "–Nope. Looks like vertical language.

 

[pnewton]

"According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. "–Nope. Looks like vertical language.

That is because the two are not mutually exclusive. Complaining about horizontal language is using the logic fallacy of false dichotomy. This same Paul said:

so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.

Yep, looks horizontal.

 

[GerardP]

That is because the two are not mutually exclusive. Complaining about horizontal language is using the logic fallacy of false dichotomy. This same Paul said:
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.
Yep, looks horizontal.

That’s not horizontal language. That’s descriptive language about the structure and function of the Church.

He’s not getting into some bizaarre naval-gazing about how “the Church is revealing man to himself progressing into a new revelation of itself to itself and is just now flowering in the fullness of it’s new points of doctrine that the Church is constantly discovering it didn’t even teach overtly but rather had the seeds of truth in the beginning.”

Anything about the Church “moving forward” and not “going back” to the past is framed by progressive thinking.

It has nothing to do with forsaking the world or keeping our sights on “celestial” things. The Church is built on a Rock. Not a rolling stone.

 

[lucybeebee]

Everything changed with Vatican I and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The Papacy reached glorious heights as never before in history. It was the natural development in doctrine. The Papacy developed to the point that even the prudential decisions of a Pope were given the highest esteem and respect. The non-infallible writings and opinions were given great respect.

The danger of this Ultramontanism was one that Catholics did not give enough thought because we had a succession of giants in Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

The Church and Catholic laymen were not prepared for the possibility of a bad Pope, a mediocre Pope, and a un-orthodox Pope.

In the centuries bnefore, these Popes were criticized and the Catholic faith defended from their unorthodoxy.
After the highs of Vatican I, Papal infallibility, and a string of orthodox giants, Catholics forgot how to defend doctrine, orthodoxy, and the Magisterium from bad Popes.

Catholics were not prepared to defend the faith from the Papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. They blindly followed their unorthodoxy like they had followed previous Popes since Vatican I without paying attention to the differences and distinguishing a good Pope from a bad Pope.

I think that during the early Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance there were some pretty horrific popes (Stephen VI Alexander VI come to mind) that dwarf anything the 20th century saw. I don’t think the average Catholic thought too much about it though, because it didn’t affect them personally and there was no way of knowing what was going on hundreds or thousands of miles away before mass communication technology. It was only when the local clergy started to degenerate that people became concerned. There weren’t long arguments at the pub concerning the implications of the Fifth Council of the Lateran.

 

[consumedconvert]

That’s not horizontal language. That’s descriptive language about the structure and function of the Church.

He’s not getting into some bizaarre naval-gazing about how “the Church is revealing man to himself progressing into a new revelation of itself to itself and is just now flowering in the fullness of it’s new points of doctrine that the Church is constantly discovering it didn’t even teach overtly but rather had the seeds of truth in the beginning.”

Anything about the Church “moving forward” and not “going back” to the past is framed by progressive thinking.

It has nothing to do with forsaking the world or keeping our sights on “celestial” things. The Church is built on a Rock. Not a rolling stone.

Gerard, I think you’re getting hung up on a very limited analogy here. There is no diffinitive definition of “horizontal” or “vertical” language. There is really no such thing. That’s just an anology. All language is either audible (spoken) or pretty dang flat (written).

What you define as “vertical” another might define as “horizontal.” Such are the inherent limitations in analogies.

 

[consumedconvert]

**Anything about the Church “moving forward” and not “going back” to the past is framed by progressive thinking. **

I might add that such general sweeping statements about a particular English construction is worse than useless.

Perhaps you would agree with me that relatively recent proclamations of the Immaculate Conception and Miraculous Assumption, and a general understanding of the history of what Newman would call “the developement of Christian Doctrine,” prove that the Church is moving forward in her understanding of Dogmas and the Christian Faith, not backward toward a time before the Dogma of the Trinity had been defined. We now have more defined Dogmas than we ever have had; we shall never have less. Thus, the Church is moving forward in her understanding of the Christian faith.

Context is everything, and as I posted earlier, analogies are limited. To anathamize a general analogy–“vertical language, horizontal language, moving forward”–is as absurd as anathamizing a carinal direction–“North is of the devil!”

 

[consumedconvert]

Everything changed with Vatican I and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

The Papacy reached glorious heights as never before in history. It was the natural development in doctrine. The Papacy developed to the point that even the prudential decisions of a Pope were given the highest esteem and respect. The non-infallible writings and opinions were given great respect.

The danger of this Ultramontanism was one that Catholics did not give enough thought because we had a succession of giants in Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

The Church and Catholic laymen were not prepared for the possibility of a bad Pope, a mediocre Pope, and a un-orthodox Pope.

In the centuries bnefore, these Popes were criticized and the Catholic faith defended from their unorthodoxy.
After the highs of Vatican I, Papal infallibility, and a string of orthodox giants, Catholics forgot how to defend doctrine, orthodoxy, and the Magisterium from bad Popes.

Catholics were not prepared to defend the faith from the Papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. They blindly followed their unorthodoxy like they had followed previous Popes since Vatican I without paying attention to the differences and distinguishing a good Pope from a bad Pope.

Yipe.

In the Catholic Church, authority trickles down from above. It never arises from beneath. Authority comes from Christ, to the Pope, to the Hierarchy, to the Priests and Deacons, down to us, the laity.

It never boils up from the congregation. We aren’t congregationalists.

Alexander VI has been thrown around a lot lately. But can anyone point out where he erred in official public teaching on faith in morals?

So in his official capacity, even he was sufficiently orthodox.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the Holy Spirit ALWAYS protects Christ’s Church from error, even from the likes of Alexander VI.

Or else why wouldn’t he have declared himself to be a god?

God looks out for us. He has not abandoned us. He did not abandon his Church at any time throughout history; he has not done so today. By his grace he has continually made it clear where to find the Truth.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

 

[LilyM]

Yipe.

In the Catholic Church, authority trickles down from above. It never arises from beneath. Authority comes from Christ, to the Pope, to the Hierarchy, to the Priests and Deacons, down to us, the laity.

It never boils up from the congregation. We aren’t congregationalists.

Alexander VI has been thrown around a lot lately. But can anyone point out where he erred in official public teaching on faith in morals?

So in his official capacity, even he was sufficiently orthodox.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the Holy Spirit ALWAYS protects Christ’s Church from error, even from the likes of Alexander VI.

Or else why wouldn’t he have declared himself to be a god?

God looks out for us. He has not abandoned us. He did not abandon his Church at any time throughout history; he has not done so today. By his grace he has continually made it clear where to find the Truth.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

If not for the Holy Spirit uniquely guiding the Popes, Alexander would almost certainly have declared the fornication and (allegedly) incest of which he was so fond to no longer be sins. :yup:

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, I think you’re getting hung up on a very limited analogy here. There is no diffinitive definition of “horizontal” or “vertical” language. There is really no such thing. That’s just an anology. All language is either audible (spoken) or pretty dang flat (written).

What you define as “vertical” another might define as “horizontal.” Such are the inherent limitations in analogies.

I’m sure you know that there are aspects of spirituality described in terms of horizontal and vertical. Horizontal being an exercise of the active virtues and vertical the passive virtues. The heresy of Amercanism was placing the active virtues above the passive.