Upset and confused by Catholic traditionalists

[Graceful_Lamb]

Not Catholic, but I believe there is a “middle of the road,” between those who are strict Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. I’m not suggesting that any Catholic go against the any of the Canons or the teachings of the Church. However, it does seem that lots of times that there is not a gray area in the Canons or the teachings. I have to say that, personally, it keeps me from converting.

Honestly, I don’t believe that God wants all of these Canons, etc. and I don’t think He wants us to act in a militant fashion. I think he wants us to love Him and love our neighbors, as well as follow the Ten Commandments. Everything else is secondary, IMO.

Those who may have a “hard line” approach towards Catholicism (or anything for that matter) may run off others who may be interested in what they are talking about.

 

[Dorothy]

Not Catholic, but I believe there is a “middle of the road,” between those who are strict Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. I’m not suggesting that any Catholic go against the any of the Canons or the teachings of the Church. However, it does seem that lots of times that there is not a gray area in the Canons or the teachings. I have to say that, personally, it keeps me from converting.

Honestly, I don’t believe that God wants all of these Canons, etc. and I don’t think He wants us to act in a militant fashion. I think he wants us to love Him and love our neighbors, as well as follow the Ten Commandments. Everything else is secondary, IMO.

Those who may have a “hard line” approach towards Catholicism (or anything for that matter) may run off others who may be interested in what they are talking about.

I do believe that the canons help keep people from the weakness of leaning this way or that way. Boundaries are spelled out for better understanding.

Patience and prayer keeps others from running us off.

 

[JackVk]

Not Catholic, but I believe there is a “middle of the road,” between those who are strict Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. I’m not suggesting that any Catholic go against the any of the Canons or the teachings of the Church. However, it does seem that lots of times that there is not a gray area in the Canons or the teachings. I have to say that, personally, it keeps me from converting.

Honestly, I don’t believe that God wants all of these Canons, etc. and I don’t think He wants us to act in a militant fashion. I think he wants us to love Him and love our neighbors, as well as follow the Ten Commandments. Everything else is secondary, IMO.

Those who may have a “hard line” approach towards Catholicism (or anything for that matter) may run off others who may be interested in what they are talking about.

This is one way I think of the “narrow way” that Jesus talks about. It’s like walking a tightrope between two chasms; the chasm on the left goes into indifferentism and relativism, while the one on the right goes to fundamentalism and Pharisaism.

 

[R_H_Benson]

In direct response to the OP, I can see where you are coming from. After my initial exposure to the TLM a few years back (which I fell in love with), naturally, I began to gravitate towards pre-conciliar books, ideologies, etc. I have come to the conclusion (which I believe to be reasonable), that we as Catholics must view the Second Vatican Council as part of the Tradition of the Church, insofar as it is interpreted through the lens of the previous Councils and the entirety of Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition. So, when we come across seemingly problematic documents like “Dignitatis Humanae”, we can be assured that such a document, in principle, can indeed be reconciled with the Tradition of the Church regarding religious liberty. Has this been the case in practice since Vatican II? Personally, I don’t believe so. But that isn’t the focal point. The focal point is whether or not the documents of Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition, and I believe the answer is yes they can be. Much of the rhetoric used by “ultra-traditionalists” implicitly denies the authenticity/binding character of the Second Vatican Council (this denial solves nothing. a Catholic must recognize Vatican II as a valid ecumenical council and, therefore, not dismiss it lightly). This approach creates a truly irreparable rift between what such people will believe about the Catholic approach to religious liberty (among other important issues) and what a truly “conciliar” Catholic will believe. On the other hand, those who embrace the “spirit of Vatican II” along with the false ecumenism it has championed also commit an error because they fail to view Vatican II through the prism of Tradition. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have found relative peace of mind in the conclusion that the Second Vatican Council’s documents do indeed have a place in the Church’s Sacred Tradition, even if that place has not yet been firmly established. Therefore, we can hope that the future generation of theologians and bishops will calm the storm of the “spirit of Vatican II” and interpret said documents the way that the Church has always done in the past - in light of Tradition. In summation: In principle there is no contradiction between Vatican II and Tradition, while in practice there certainly has been. But the principle is what is important and is what will always prevail.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not Catholic, but I believe there is a “middle of the road,” between those who are strict Catholics and the more liberal Catholics. I’m not suggesting that any Catholic go against the any of the Canons or the teachings of the Church. However, it does seem that lots of times that there is not a gray area in the Canons or the teachings. I have to say that, personally, it keeps me from converting.

Honestly, I don’t believe that God wants all of these Canons, etc. and I don’t think He wants us to act in a militant fashion. I think he wants us to love Him and love our neighbors, as well as follow the Ten Commandments. Everything else is secondary, IMO.

Those who may have a “hard line” approach towards Catholicism (or anything for that matter) may run off others who may be interested in what they are talking about.

This reminds me just a bit of the demand for “plain language” a few years back in insurance policies and other things. The “legalese”, you see, defied ordinary understanding. And so, there was a big effort to develop “plain language” this and that.

And then, of course, this required the courts to construe and interpret the meaning of the “plain language” documents. The old “legalese” documents had long been construed and interpreted and the many cases construing them were known. When one starts over with the language, one doesn’t solve anything, one merely starts the whole process over again.

To add to it, i recall reading how the Torah and Talumud are constructed. As a whole, it is an immense work, contributed to by many erudite Jewish scholars through the ages. There might be one of the Ten Commandments stated in large letters . Surrounding it are the interpretations and examples accreted over the millenia, saying “in such a situation, this would be the case”, etc. Opposing views and the reconcilations would appear around those. The views of the most highly regarded scholars might end right there, with no further elaborations around them.

Many of the canons of the Church are the same way. They are accretions of millenia of opinions and interpretations. Some are the product of intellectual exercises only. Some are responses to issues and/or heresies of the time. Some are responses to theological or moral issues we no longer think about very much, but which were a big deal at some point in history. Some are as relevant as this morning.

If, say, one reads St. Thomas Aquinas’ works, one sees something very much like that. An issue is posed, usually one that represents an actual issue of the time. St. Thomas draws on the bible, on earlier Church writings, and on logic to resolve them. Some we are no longer curious about or feel the need to know. But some are quite relevant to today, and people resort to his writings still when it comes to things like Just War or Capital Punishment, and so on.

That’s not to say one is excused from love of God or one’s neighbor, but one shouldn’t disdain the writings of the Church any more than one should disdain basic health knowledge or at least a bowing acquaintence with math or general principles of physics.

 

[Landon_Caeli]

This reminds me just a bit of the demand for “plain language” a few years back in insurance policies and other things. The “legalese”, you see, defied ordinary understanding. And so, there was a big effort to develop “plain language” this and that.

And then, of course, this required the courts to construe and interpret the meaning of the “plain language” documents. The old “legalese” documents had long been construed and interpreted and the many cases construing them were known. When one starts over with the language, one doesn’t solve anything, one merely starts the whole process over again.

To add to it, i recall reading how the Torah and Talumud are constructed. As a whole, it is an immense work, contributed to by many erudite Jewish scholars through the ages. There might be one of the Ten Commandments stated in large letters . Surrounding it are the interpretations and examples accreted over the millenia, saying “in such a situation, this would be the case”, etc. Opposing views and the reconcilations would appear around those. The views of the most highly regarded scholars might end right there, with no further elaborations around them.

Many of the canons of the Church are the same way. They are accretions of millenia of opinions and interpretations. Some are the product of intellectual exercises only. Some are responses to issues and/or heresies of the time. Some are responses to theological or moral issues we no longer think about very much, but which were a big deal at some point in history. Some are as relevant as this morning.

If, say, one reads St. Thomas Aquinas’ works, one sees something very much like that. An issue is posed, usually one that represents an actual issue of the time. St. Thomas draws on the bible, on earlier Church writings, and on logic to resolve them. Some we are no longer curious about or feel the need to know. But some are quite relevant to today, and people resort to his writings still when it comes to things like Just War or Capital Punishment, and so on.

That’s not to say one is excused from love of God or one’s neighbor, but one shouldn’t disdain the writings of the Church any more than one should disdain basic health knowledge or at least a bowing acquaintence with math or general principles of physics.

Hello Ridgerunner.

Your post is really on spot.

 

[victrolatim]

I’ve found it best to actually go to the source and read the actual council documents as opposed to listen to those who think they know what they say. No doubt some abuses and misinterpretations crept in during the 1970s, which is what made some of these “traditionalists” hostile to the post-conciliar Mass. The hard part is trying to convince those folks that those abuses were not the intent of the council and get them to actually read the council documents themselves instead of listening to folks like Matt, Vennari, Ferrara, etc. We are coming into an age now where we are looking back with an examining eye on the council itself and what went right and wrong and evaluating it’s effect.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m reminded just a bit of something that happened when my son was in college. I don’t remember what kind of course it was in, but he wrote a very well-researched paper on the tacit adoption by protestants of Catholic beliefs and doctrines. It was his proposition that much of what protestants believe is actually Catholic in origin, derived by the former from a sort of “cultural religious background” that was Catholic by default because so many denominations had little in the way of doctrinal development.

He had lots of examples, using the doctrinal statements of various protestant denominations and comparing them with the writings of some of those same denominations’ major theologians. Much of what they propounded in their writings wasn’t in their doctrinal statements or even in the bible, but had clearly traceable roots in Catholic doctrine.

I loved his closing sentence. It went something like this. “The Catholic Church is, to many denominations, like a pole star at sea. The sailors might not steer toward it, but they nevertheless steer by reference to it.”

The professor was a Southern Baptist minister as well as a professor. He gave my son an “A+” and wrote on his paper that it gave him a great deal to think about.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. At a point, purely subjective and individual moral systems fall into disarray. And then where does one go?

 

[Dorothy]

I’m reminded just a bit of something that happened when my son was in college. I don’t remember what kind of course it was in, but he wrote a very well-researched paper on the tacit adoption by protestants of Catholic beliefs and doctrines. It was his proposition that much of what protestants believe is actually Catholic in origin, derived by the former from a sort of “cultural religious background” that was Catholic by default because so many denominations had little in the way of doctrinal development.

He had lots of examples, using the doctrinal statements of various protestant denominations and comparing them with the writings of some of those same denominations’ major theologians. Much of what they propounded in their writings wasn’t in their doctrinal statements or even in the bible, but had clearly traceable roots in Catholic doctrine.

I loved his closing sentence. It went something like this. “The Catholic Church is, to many denominations, like a pole star at sea. The sailors might not steer toward it, but they nevertheless steer by reference to it.”

The professor was a Southern Baptist minister as well as a professor. He gave my son an “A+” and wrote on his paper that it gave him a great deal to think about.

I think there is a lot of truth to that. At a point, purely subjective and individual moral systems fall into disarray. And then where does one go?

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing that.

 

[commenter]

I’ve found it best to actually go to the source and read the actual council documents as opposed to listen to those who think they know what they say. No doubt some abuses and misinterpretations crept in during the 1970s, which is what made some of these “traditionalists” hostile to the post-conciliar Mass. The hard part is trying to convince those folks that those abuses were not the intent of the council and get them to actually read the council documents themselves instead of listening to folks like** Matt, Vennari, Ferrara,** etc. We are coming into an age now where we are looking back with an examining eye on the council itself and what went right and wrong and evaluating it’s effect.

In my diocese the Traditionalist movement really got organized in the 1970s when Vatican II was used to justify almost any kind of abuse, and the diocese seemed to be part of the problem. Today the diocese is much better, but the traditionalists’
organizational machinery is still going on, as if we were still in the 1970s.

Today it is not the occasional diocesan or Vatican issue that keeps the traditionalists going, not the TLM anymore, but websites like the ones you refer to. A movement that was set up for certain purposes has taken on its own momentum, so maintaining “the movement” as such, as if it was still 1975, becomes a goal in itself, more important than Catholic tradition. The tragedy is how much they distract people from 2015 concerns, such as Religious Liberty and Marriage.

 

[edwest2]

In my diocese the Traditionalist movement really got organized in the 1970s when Vatican II was used to justify almost any kind of abuse, and the diocese seemed to be part of the problem. Today the diocese is much better, but the traditionalists’
organizational machinery is still going on, as if we were still in the 1970s.

Today it is not the occasional diocesan or Vatican issue that keeps the traditionalists going, not the TLM anymore, but websites like the ones you refer to. A movement that was set up for certain purposes has taken on its own momentum, so maintaining “the movement” as such, as if it was still 1975, becomes a goal in itself, more important than Catholic tradition. The tragedy is how much they distract people from 2015 concerns, such as Religious Liberty and Marriage.

A common misconception nurtured by dissidents. Shortly before stepping down as Pope, Pope Emeritus Benedict addressed the issue twice. Since the media became part of the 5 year plan which opened the attack on the Church between 1968 through 1973, it is easy to see how propaganda was employed regarding Vatican II. I lived through this time period and people were still quite trusting of the media. They did not realize what was going on until it was a bit late.

ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/

And an earlier article:

ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-opens-year-of-faith-calls-for-return-to-vatican-ii-documents

We were lied to. And not by the Church.

Ed

 

[Richca]

(Please don’t report/delete this. I’m not trying to start anything, I am asking a serious question).

It seems that certain traditionalist groups have left me feeling confused and ambivalent about my faith. One thing that traditionalists doggedly talk about it how religious liberty and, by extension, all forms of classical liberalism, are heretical and modernist, since they are an affront to the social Kingship of Christ.

Now, I’ve pored over and read reconciliations between Vatican II documents and the works of Pope’s Pius IX and X, Leo XIII, among others. I understand the difference in what they are talking about, respectively. The pre-V2 crowd is condemning religious indifferentism, while On Human Dignity is speaking about freedom from coercion. Error does not have rights, but those in error do.

Still, the traditionalist rhetoric often leaves me unsettled. It makes me question my own orthodoxy, and whether the average Catholic parish is truly faithful. It’s comparable to gaslighting.

What’s more, it has caused me to distrust both regular, faithful Catholics and self-proclaimed Traditionalists. The former because they may be hoodwinked by the “Spirit of Vatican II”, and the latter because they give me the impression that I’m a heretic unless I advocate a Catholic police state that beats up nonbelievers and heretics.

There was also a case of an SSPX school in Kansas that would play in a basketball game because one referee was a woman, and that “women should not have authority over men”.

Now I have been staying away from Catholic websites for months now, but I am unable to completely banish these doubts and worries. It’s getting to the point where I assume the worst of traditionalists, that they’re all fascists whose pores emit pure malice at the mention of Jews or Protestants (okay, this is mostly me exaggerating to entertain myself). But what can I do about this? How can I be more charitable and have peace of mind?

I think you ought to just keep with what the Catholic Church officially teaches such as what is expounded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You need not let yourself be troubled by someone’s personal interpretation of what the Church should teach or what it does teach which may not be in conformity with what the Church actually teaches or practices.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

question answered

closed