What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[cothrige]

We were taught that it is an “unworthy conversation” in his temples to give the sign of peace. I instead, bow my head and say a short prayer. There is one church here that doesn’t even offer that part of the mass.

Interesting. I don’t guess I have ever thought that much about it. It has never bothered me, though I suppose it can be overdone as in some cases I have heard about.

A space walk is one of those blow up jumping things the kids usually rent for birthdays and such.

Well, I guess it might make for an interesting communion line.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi motherofsix,

You said you don’t give the Sign of Peace. You don’t have to do that part of the Mass. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to show you through Church history the meaning and reason behind the Sign of Peace. I not here to change your mind, but to give another side, other than what you learned.

Jesus gave his Apostles the power and authority to loose or bind. Since today’s Pope and Bishops are the successors, they still have that ability. So, whenever something is changed through them it becomes approved and binding.

Jesus often said peace to his disciples. Not the world’s but his. St. Paul wrote, " Greet one another with a holy kiss" The early Christians the kiss was a natural way of greeting and friendship. The reign of Pope Innocent I (401-417) he decided this exchange would take place after the Eucharistic Prayer.(Note: Previous placement of the Sign of Peace was following the Liturgy of the Word,associated with the Preparation of the Gifts.) By the 10th century, the Church and public behavior became more formal, and the Kiss of Peace was no longer a natural, comfortable way of greeting. In the 13th century, a substitution for the Kiss of Peace emerged. The people instead would kiss- a crucifix,cross,or some other holy item. As the centuries passed the Sign of Peace was only reserved for the clergy mostly on Solemn Feasts. The Vatican II Council restored this practice of extending peace to others. It is meant to be a token of our love for our neighbor. To show we are at peace. A symbol of our union and love. Jesus said before you go to altar and offer your gift, and you remember someone who you are not at peace with, go be reconciliated with your brother, then you may come and offer your gift. Jesus also said how can you say you love God who you have not seen,but still not love your brother who you have seen.

The Liturgical action of the Sign of Peace is to be considered a prayer. It is meant to be a genuine,reverent form of worship, a true pledge and sign of reconciliation,peace and unity. The Roman Missal “Before they share in the same bread, the people express their love for one another and beg for peace and unity in the Church and with all mankind.”

 

[brigid12]

I consider myself to be a faithful Catholic with Traditional leanings. It seems to me that in order to be a fully Traditional Catholic one would need to not only prefer the TLM but also agree with only the pre-VII interpretations of the dogmas/doctrines.
Maybe, then, we need another term/label for those like me who agree with VII but prefer the TLM.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Maybe, then, we need another term/label for those like me who agree with VII but prefer the TLM.

And it would be ______________?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe, then, we need another term/label for those like me who agree with VII but prefer the TLM.

From the encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, by Pope Benedict XV:

1. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi motherofsix,

You said you don’t give the Sign of Peace. You don’t have to do that part of the Mass. If you don’t mind, I’d like to try to show you through Church history the meaning and reason behind the Sign of Peace. I not here to change your mind, but to give another side, other than what you learned.

Jesus gave his Apostles the power and authority to loose or bind. Since today’s Pope and Bishops are the successors, they still have that ability. So, whenever something is changed through them it becomes approved and binding.

Jesus often said peace to his disciples. Not the world’s but his. St. Paul wrote, " Greet one another with a holy kiss" The early Christians the kiss was a natural way of greeting and friendship. The reign of Pope Innocent I (401-417) he decided this exchange would take place after the Eucharistic Prayer.(Note: Previous placement of the Sign of Peace was following the Liturgy of the Word,associated with the Preparation of the Gifts.) By the 10th century, the Church and public behavior became more formal, and the Kiss of Peace was no longer a natural, comfortable way of greeting. In the 13th century, a substitution for the Kiss of Peace emerged. The people instead would kiss- a crucifix,cross,or some other holy item. As the centuries passed the Sign of Peace was only reserved for the clergy mostly on Solemn Feasts. The Vatican II Council restored this practice of extending peace to others. It is meant to be a token of our love for our neighbor. To show we are at peace. A symbol of our union and love. Jesus said before you go to altar and offer your gift, and you remember someone who you are not at peace with, go be reconciliated with your brother, then you may come and offer your gift. Jesus also said how can you say you love God who you have not seen,but still not love your brother who you have seen.

The Liturgical action of the Sign of Peace is to be considered a prayer. It is meant to be a genuine,reverent form of worship, a true pledge and sign of reconciliation,peace and unity. The Roman Missal “Before they share in the same bread, the people express their love for one another and beg for peace and unity in the Church and with all mankind.”

 

[KingAlfred]

I like a tasteful, efficient Mass. The best Masses I’ve seen were given by a priest who had once been a Protestant minister. He gave powerful, heavy-hitting sermons on major Christian themes that never exceeded ten minutes. I left inspired, every Sunday. He was very popular. The music was done by a chorus with an organ, and was beautiful. Those were the days.

I consider it disrespectful of the Mass itself for the priest to allow it to become a wild affair, seemingly out-of-control, rambling, faddish, and disorganized. I’m critical of priests who lack any understanding of public speaking. When they drone on and on, in a muffled tone of voice, showing no dynamism, completely losing their audience, I wonder why they don’t care, why they’re not any more professional than that. Don’t they want to inspire and evangelize and persuade?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

From the encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, by Pope Benedict XV:

1. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Thank you ever so much for this. I just wish all would have the opportunity to read it, understand it and live it. This is the source of the saying that for one to be truly Catholic, he/she must believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

I honestly was not aware of this encyclical. It is now at the top of my “to acquire” list for my collection of documents and for reading. I wish you would surf around the forum and where people are attacking the Church and the Holy Father and Magisterium, enter your post just as it is above. Nothing else would have to be said. The responses would be most telling.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[CradleCath]

Thank you ever so much for this. I just wish all would have the opportunity to read it, understand it and live it. This is the source of the saying that for one to be truly Catholic, he/she must believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

I honestly was not aware of this encyclical. It is now at the top of my “to acquire” list for my collection of documents and for reading. I wish you would surf around the forum and where people are attacking the Church and the Holy Father and Magisterium, enter your post just as it is above. Nothing else would have to be said. The responses would be most telling.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

There is much more to this encyclical, written in 1914 by another Pope Benedict…the year WWI began. The whole world was gearing up for the killing of their fellowman.:

---

." As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- ]there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion,

• but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline". **

In this case,. we have had “authoritative intervention” & many are not following the words &, more importantly, the intent of our Pope Benedict XVI. He has declared that the Mass of the Ages is (& always was) valid & the Catholic populace are to embrace it as genuine & to treat it’s followers “as loyal to the faith.”

Yet, I don’t see this happening, nor do I see, in these forums, a genuine desire to **know **the Mass that he has freed… Instead I see fear & anger amongst those who would hold to the status quo…no matter what.

I don’t see people who are happy for us, who’ve been deprived for 40+ years of the Mass that spoke to us of God, the Communion of Saints, the Sacrifice made by Christ. No person who regularly attends the Novus Ordo on this forum, at least no one that I’ve read, has said that they are happy that we now have the cholice of which Mass to attend. When we try to explain WHY we prefer the Tridentine Mass, we are literally shoulted down by volumes of posts…within the Traditional Catholic forum…repeating stories they’ve heard about the shortcomings of the Tridentine Mass.

“The priest faces the wall”?
Actually the priest faces east wheneve possible & faces what used to be the place of the Crucifix & the Tabernacle & he becomes one with us. He is praying **with us, not to **us

.“People prayed their rosary during Mass”,
that happened so rarely. In actuality, more Catholics attending the Novus Ordo stand unthinkingly by while the Mass unfolds before them…never picking up the missals, provided for them by the Church. Never **reading **the epistle & the gospel, the creed, the gloria…even though it’s been proven time & time again that we retain best…that which we read.

The words of Pope Benedict from the Motu Proprio:

"The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’** and must be given due honour **

for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents ‘Quattuor abhinc annis’ and ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ are substituted as follows:

As for this part of your post:

I wish you would surf around the forum and where people are attacking the Church and the Holy Father

The above statement is so like something the Pharisees would have said. "Go look at all of the bad people. I, myself am sinless.

However, If you’ll give me the names of threads to check, I’ll gladly do so. Then I’ll report back, on this thread. I do know this, one person has been accused of calling the Novus Ordo Mass a pig. He/she did not do that. When another poster, in the midst of a discussion, said that “if the Novus Ordo was ‘cleaned up’ & the abuses removed”, etc., etc. The other then quoted an old idiom, “You can put a ribbon on a pig, but it’s still a pig”. Now, perhaps this poster should have been more gentle, I don’t know. lPerhaps he/she used poor judgment in word usage & perhaps the poster did not speak with " due moderation",i,However, his point was made that the NO itself, is lacking & “dressing it up is not enough” & I agree. We have that right, you know…given to us by the Holy Father. I DO know that you took it wrong. He did not call the Novus Ordo “piglike”.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The above statement is so like something the Pharisees would have said. "Go look at all of the bad people. I, myself am sinless.

However, If you’ll give me the names of threads to check, I’ll gladly do so. Then I’ll report back, on this thread. I do know this, one person has been accused of calling the Novus Ordo Mass a pig. He/she did not do that. When another poster, in the midst of a discussion, said that “if the Novus Ordo was ‘cleaned up’ & the abuses removed”, etc., etc. The other then quoted an old idiom, “You can put a ribbon on a pig, but it’s still a pig”. Now, perhaps this poster should have been more gentle, I don’t know. lPerhaps he/she used poor judgment in word usage & perhaps the poster did not speak with " due moderation",i,However, his point was made that the NO itself, is lacking & “dressing it up is not enough” & I agree. We have that right, you know…given to us by the Holy Father. I DO know that you took it wrong. He did not call the Novus Ordo “piglike”.

Go back and read the other encyclical you refer to. Look at the time in which it was written and the looming wars that were being referred to. The opinions spoken about by "the other Pope Benedict had to do with political expression, not in criticism of things Catholic. To denigrate the Novus Ordo Mass in any form is unacceptable. To call it bordering on the heretical, is unacceptable. To say that of any form of the mass, which is infinite in merit and a reenactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary, is unacceptable.

As far as giving you names of threadss to read, this has been going on since last October when i first joined the forum. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back in a search of all these, which by now, I sincerely hope have been put to rest.

I would certainly hope you do not think I am "like one of the Pharisees as the only thing I have ever condemned is people condemning or wishing to condemn the pope, the mass, the magisterium or Vatican II. If you will carefully read my posts, you will see that I have always said each form of the mass is acceptable and each is infinite. If that is what would make me a pharisee, than so be it. Again, I state proudly and with conviction, that I follow only the Magisterium and not those who believe the Church has gone astray. Please show me where I have ever done otherwise. I will again say and do believe, that in order to be truly Catholic, one must believe and practice all that that the Catholic Church believes and teaches. That is what Pope Benedict XVII said in his encyclical. Not is those exact words, but the meaning was there. You will remain in my prayers. Please have me in yours also
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yet, I don’t see this happening, nor do I see, in these forums, a genuine desire to **know **the Mass that he has freed… Instead I see fear & anger amongst those who would hold to the status quo…no matter what.

I don’t see people who are happy for us, who’ve been deprived for 40+ years of the Mass that spoke to us of God, the Communion of Saints, the Sacrifice made by Christ. No person who regularly attends the Novus Ordo on this forum, at least no one that I’ve read, has said that they are happy that we now have the cholice of which Mass to attend.

You really should go back further in the threads. I and many others congratulated the “traditionalists” when the MP was promulgated. And you’re simply also inaccurate. Compared to the bashing of the OF, the EF gets a relative walk. You quoted Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict XVI. The same document had positive things to say about the OF, yet we still get the “ribbon on a pig” type of remark (thank you for pointing it out, it goes to illustrate many peoples’ points about “traditionalists”), which is just as bad as “the OF IS a pig” for those who prefer the OF.

This thread, at any rate, has in some small part to do with the false dichotomy that some (note, I said “some,” but a great number seem to flock to this forum) “traditionalists” have delineated in the Church, as well as their superior and arrogant attitude. Do you want to promote devotion to the EF? The best thing you could do would be to dissuade some of your fellow “traditionalists” from making any reference to it whatsoever.

 

[CradleCath]

Deacon Ed B;3921222]Go back and read the other encyclical you refer to. Look at the time in which it was written and the looming wars that were being referred to. The opinions spoken about by "the other Pope Benedict had to do with political expression, not in criticism of things Catholic.

I think that maybe it’s you who should go back & read the encylical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum written by Pope Benedict XV. (I DID know the name of the pope who wrote it, I just found it interesting that he also chose the name of our present Pope, who is also finding it necessary to legislate against experimentation & modernistic views of the faith.)

Ad Beatissimi Apostolourm speaks of the impending war, greed, the media & true Catholicsim vs.Modernistic Catholicism.

Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God’s good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of “Modernism,” which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be “the synthesis of all heresies,” and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: “It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring” (Job 31:12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: **in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” **

]
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B15ADBEA.HTM

To denigrate the Novus Ordo Mass in any form is unacceptable. To call it bordering on the heretical, is unacceptable. To say that of any form of the mass, which is infinite in merit and a reenactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary, is unacceptable.

I think that if you will look through my posts, you’ll find that I have not done any of these things. It seems you are punishing all Traditional Catholics for something someone supposedly said to you some time ago. I’ve been posting on this forum since last Nov., & I have never seen anyone call the Novus Ordo Mass a heresy. I certainly don’t see it as heretical. I believe that it is a valid Mass.

I do find it inferior to the Tridentine Mass** in conveying the fullness of the Truth of Catholicism before the Son of God Who created this Church. **I also find it mundane & ordinary. I can say that, & my view deserves respect. .

Now, if the Novus Ordo were celebrated in this country the way it’s celebrated in Rome…the way that it was supposed to be celebrated according to Sacrosanctum Concilium from Vatican II:
with **Latin, Gregorian chant and ad orientem posture **
I would like the Novus Ordo more. However, you & I both know that it not the way that this Mass is usually celebrated in the
U.S.

I also agree with Pope Benedict XVI that this Mass is a “manufactured” Mass which didn’t & doesn’t flow naturally, is not organic & , IMO., the Council threw the "hermeneutics of continuity” practiced throughout the centuries of Catholicism…right out the window.

However, what matters is not what I think of the Novus Ordo & not what you think of it. What matters is what God thinks of it. Is the Novus Ordo the best forum for Christ, through the ministry of the Priest, to offer Himself to God once again, but in an unbloody manner? Does it present the whole of Catholic belief & practice in a superior way?

Does it underscore our belief in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord:
Does it give honor to His Mother Mary, for honoring Mary & asking for her intercession is part of our faith?
Does it reiterate the fact that we believe in a Triune God.
& that Christ made this Sacrifice out of love for you & me AND to satisfy the Justice that is God.
Does it mention God’s Judgment or
The Communion of Saints to which we belong:

**The Church Triumphant **who sit at the feet of Christ & pray for US, the Church Suffering…for whom we pray & the Church militant, still fighting & struggling against temptation & sin.

Does it present all of these Catholic beliefs & more, that are listed in our Creed…in the BEST way, a way that is **most **pleasing to God??

I don’t think so. While no Mass is good enough for God, I think we present our gifts to Him, our gifts of humilty & faith & worhsip & gratitude & a deep-felt sorrow for our sins…in the Gregorian Mass, in a more suiting way.

would certainly hope you do not think I am "like one of the Pharisees as the only thing I have ever condemned is people condemning or wishing to condemn the pope, the mass, the magisterium or Vatican II.

As I said, I’ve never seen anyone on this forum CONDEMN any of the above & you have no right to “condemn” anyone, anyway…nor do I. when you tell people to search for those “bad people”, it makes you **sound **like a Pharisee…even if you aren’t.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I’m truly tired of the denigration I see on these boards toward people who value the Tridentine Mass. As you said, they are both valid.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Sorry for the length of this post, but I’m truly tired of the denigration I see on these boards toward people who value the Tridentine Mass. As you said, they are both valid.

My sentiments exactly. So please also do not degenerate the Novus Ordo.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

As I said, I’ve never seen anyone on this forum CONDEMN any of the above …

Sorry for the length of this post, but I’m truly tired of the denigration I see on these boards toward people who value the Tridentine Mass. As you said, they are both valid.

Oh, puhleeze. Traditionalists condemning post Vatican II Mass forms, Communion reception, music, etc., et al., is the order of the day around here…

 

[CradleCath]

Didn’t get your coffee this morning… or did you drink way too much of it?

And to think you are actually in a position to give those opinions of yours to our young… sad… very sad.

My preference is for a correctly celebrated OF… there just are not that many of them to be found. If I am a traditionalist, let me define it for me…

I abhor and reject innovations in liturgy, in history, in interpretations that come from the disgruntled in the pew, or the disgruntled with a collar. Without the support and direction of the Pope and Bishops in union with him, changes are not necessary.
I accept and respect the efforts of Benedict XVI to correct this mess, and beleive the Church will be stronger (and perhaps smaller) because of him.

You have stated that Traditionalists basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned.

That ranks among the most idiotic and unsupportable comment in quite a while. I expect you will be called on quite often… and you will not be able to defend your remark with ANY evidence.

.

Now Mrs. S. Why don’t you tell us how you REALLY feel???
BTW. I agree with you.

 

[Tee_See]

I think many traditionalist Catholics (myself included) use the term because they miss much of the reverence associated with the Church and rituals they remember as kids, often referred to as the “smells and bells.” But it’s much more than that; there isn’t a lot of reverence shown anymore, a sense of holiness. When I was in the Legion of Mary, for instance, we visited one young man who had converted to the Anglican faith from evangelical because he was seeking reverence, that sense of holiness. As he explained to us, he was now thinking about the Catholic church because the reverence he had sought in the Anglican church was being “torn asunder” by all the controversies going on. And I think, in my own humble opinion, that it’s that way with many – they’re seeking holiness. With that said, I believe many of the changes from Vatican II have brought much holiness into the Church, and it wasn’t all rosy pre-Vatican II, either. We can certainly keep our traditional values without wiping out all that Vatican II has accomplished. I would love to attend a Latin Mass again, it’s a holy and beautiful tradition. But I rarely, if ever, wear a hat although I truly respect women who do out of reverence. I can just never remember to wear a veil! One thing I do though is to receive the eucharist on the tongue. I didn’t always, though. As a kid, I never got over the embarrassment of having to stick my tongue out at the priest, and it still is uncomfortable for me now. So I had gladly embraced the new practice of receiving in the hand; but several years ago I had a spiritual experience (it had to do with pride) and I began to receive on the tongue again. I love the traditions of the Faith but I also love many of the contributions since Vatican II. As one book’s title proclaimed: “The Catholic Church: Changing and Changeless.”

God bless all!

 

[Auntie_M]

All Catholics do that, don’t they? Surely you do believe that there are people who favor and follow a more traditional form of Catholicism, and surely there should be a way to refer to them simply?

Wouldn’t this kind of approach be like saying “I think a conservative is a person who thinks politics are important and votes.” How does that help anybody? People with what used to be called conservative views still exist, only now you don’t know what to call them.

I disagree. From my frequenting these fora it seems to me that most traditionalists don’t desire any such thing. Rather, they wish to be able to be traditional, and for many years this was virtually forbidden to them. The system in place was the Paul VI Missal as not only the Ordinary form, but the only form for any Mass anywhere and anytime. This is still true for the vast majority of us. Traditionalists have sought to be able to attend Catholic Masses which suit their needs spiritually. I have seen nothing suggesting that they desired that you be prevented from doing the same.

The traditionalists applauded and cheered the release of Summorum Pontificum. Did this document restrict the OF? No, not at all. But, what was said when the traditionalists cheered? That they were celebrating the loss of the OF. Really? It isn’t possible that they were celebrating the gain of the EF which they had been denied in every real conceivable way for forty odd years? I find that kind of thing striking. When people here have spoken of hoping for even one EF Mass to be available to them they have been attacked for hating the OF. How is wanting one EF Mass an attack when there are upwards of a hundred of the OF available in any given area? If asking for only one out of a hundred is an attack on the hundred, just what can we say of those who seek to deny even that lonely, single one?

Just ask yourself honestly, who has really sought to make all Masses in only one form? Has it been the traditionalists? I can’t see how.

Refer to what I bolded…

IF a traditionalist CAN NOT HONESTLY SEE that THEY are the ones who are refusing the NO and only wanting the “ONE TRUE FORM” as they call it, then what are all the rest of us to think?

The NO (as they call it) can be said in ENGLISH, LATiN, FRENCH, GERMAN, SPANISH…etc.

(And the Pope speaks HOW many different languages so he can say mass in WHICH one of them, depending on where he is.

The Traditionalist, however, want only ONE…LATIN

Can you see HOW , NOW???

 

[Auntie_M]

I don’t think it’s that difficult to define a traditionalist. It would be someone who prefers the TLM over the NO and thinks it is objectively better (there’s more to it than that, but I think that is primary).

Also, it is someone who believes that it is possible for prudential decisions of a Pope or the Vatican to be unwise or imprudent, such as allowing altar girls or communion in the hand (not to mention the new liturgy). And thus they won’t look at these sorts of decisions as necessarily being guided by the Holy Spirit or if they disagree with them they won’t believe they are disagreeing with God.

Conservatives do want a reverent Mass without abuses and want Priests to follow the GIRM (which is well and good, of course).

Yet one difference between traditionalists and conservatives is that conservatives will not criticize or oppose prudential decisions of the Pope or Vatican. Thus they will defend altar girls and communion in the hand because it has been approved by the Vatican.

I think that describes Martin Luther as a Traditionalist.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I think that describes Martin Luther as a Traditionalist.

Martin Luther attacked dogma of the Catholic Church. That makes him a heretic. There’s a difference between dogma and prudential decisions, as I’m sure you know.

 

[Auntie_M]

Ad Beatissimi Apostolourm speaks of the impending war, greed, the media & true Catholicsim vs.Modernistic Catholicism.

I find it so fascinating that sooo many people have learned Latin so thoroughly that they can not only repeat it in mass but actually READ it. I’m impressed. Maybe you could translate the entire
Ad Beatissimi Apostolourm. I would be greatly appreciative it.

I would really love to know what it all says. Please?