What makes a Traditional Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rawb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paramedicgirl said:
If there is only one kind of Catholic, and that is a traditional Catholic if I’m reading you right, what do you call Catholics who subscribe to the “Spirit of Vatican II?”
Click to expand...
Paramedicgirl,

Good Catholics hear the preaching of the Church, which is our proximate rule of faith. The problem is that those who subscribe to “the spirit of Vatican II” are merely following the “preaching of the Conciliar Church” through it’s Teaching Apostolate…the Bishops. In their view, Traditional Catholics are wrong.

Again, the problem is that those who subscribe to “the spirit of Vatican II” are merely following their official Teaching Apostolate. How can this be? That is the question.

There is an ecclesiological problem here that cannot be ignored.

Gorman
 
BobP123 said:
If Traditional Catholics are wrong, so is everything that has happened before VII, including Christ. And we know this would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Bob,

That’s fine…and I agree. That doesn’t solve the problem though…it doesn’t even recognise the problem.

Gorman
 
Maybe I am not communicating right, what I mean is a catholic is a catholic is a catholic, I don’t believe in labels like “liberal” and “traditional” and “conservative”.

The second part of that post was to provide a definition to settle someone else’s question, not in context to the point of labels. Nowhere did I say that the only Catholics were traditionals. :rolleyes:

I simply said that the old mass was not abrogated, and that it was never done away with.
 
Carlus_Magnus said:
Maybe I am not communicating right, what I mean is a catholic is a catholic is a catholic, I don’t believe in labels like “liberal” and “traditional” and “conservative”.
Click to expand...
Well, should we call whoever calls himself a Catholic a Catholic? Are there any objective criteria that one can follow to determine this?
 
gorman64 said:
Paramedicgirl,

Good Catholics hear the preaching of the Church, which is our proximate rule of faith. The problem is that those who subscribe to “the spirit of Vatican II” are merely following the “preaching of the Conciliar Church” through it’s Teaching Apostolate…the Bishops. In their view, Traditional Catholics are wrong.

Again, the problem is that those who subscribe to “the spirit of Vatican II” are merely following their official Teaching Apostolate. How can this be? That is the question.

There is an ecclesiological problem here that cannot be ignored.

Gorman
Click to expand...
And in the view of the traditional Catholic, the “Spirit of Vatican II” Catholics are wrong. So what’s the solution?
 
Rawb said:
Are Traditional Catholics only those who attend the TLM, or does it also cover those who would like to attend the TLM but can’t? Do the practices of abstaining from meat on Fridays, covering (for women), or learning Latin prayers come into it at all? What about positions on the celibacy of priests or the attitudes towards the Pope?

For that last one, what I mean is that I was talking with someone and they said “Well, I’m a Traditional Catholic, and so I recognize that the Pope can make mistakes.” and I asked her what she meant and she said “I know he’s infallible in matters of faith and morals and all that, and I recognize Benedict as the legitimate pope, but like, when Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran, I’ve seen Neo-Cons bend over backwards to try and show how this was perfectly OK and stuff. I just say ‘He made a mistake’.”

(I don’t want to debate that issue, I’m just using that as an example).
Click to expand...
A true traditional Catholic is one who strives to adhere to and ascend to the teachings of the magisterium of Church as they are currently presented and interpreted by the bishops to the best of their ability. To do otherwise is to disent from sound doctrine.

However, I have heard the term “traditional” applied to those who doubt the second Vatican council and prefer things the way they were before or that the interpretations of the coucil have been cannonically illegal. We are seeing some adjustment on those interpretations presently but the ecumenical intent of the council and the Holy See has not changed. Some feel that intent was subversive to the Church while others feel it was liberating. Personally I see all the coucils as the workings of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church infallibly.

Prime examples would be modern interpretations to exclude things from tradition that were previously in cannon law but not mentioned in Vatican 2 other than being said if no mention was made then no change should be made. Some of these were head coverings, bells at mass when the venacular wasn’t common, communion vessels, tabernacle placement or communion in the hand.

A better discription of those unwilling to ascent to the flow of the Church could be considered conservative while those wanting to and working to institute changes not defined by the magisterium as liberal.

The CCCB is an example of some liberal attempts to force to changes as they did with communion in the hand are have been trying to do with inclusive language for some time.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
A true traditional Catholic is one who strives to adhere to and ascend to the teachings of the magisterium of Church as they are currently presented and interpreted by the bishops to the best of their ability. To do otherwise is to disent from sound doctrine.
Click to expand...
Dear KatholikosMercy,

And what if the Bishops are the ones dissentinting from sound doctrine? That’s the reality…you seem to be missing that little piece of information.
A true traditional Catholic is one who strives to adhere to and ascend to the teachings of the magisterium of Church as they are currently presented and interpreted by the bishops to the best of their ability.
Click to expand...
This is so wrong. A Good Catholic gives his assent to the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Holy Mother Church is indefectible and She cannot teach erroroneous doctrines nor establish evil nor even impious disciplines.
However, I have heard the term “traditional” applied to those who doubt the second Vatican council and prefer things the way they were before or that the interpretations of the coucil have been cannonically illegal.
Click to expand...
No one is doubting anything or prefering things the way they were…we see doctrinal conflicts along with the evil fruits.
We are seeing some adjustment on those interpretations presently but the ecumenical intent of the council and the Holy See has not changed.
Click to expand...
Do you even know what this means?
Some feel that intent was subversive to the Church while others feel it was liberating. Personally I see all the coucils as the workings of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church infallibly.
Click to expand...
So everybody has their own opinion…how nice.
Prime examples would be modern interpretations to exclude things from tradition that were previously in cannon law but not mentioned in Vatican 2 other than being said if no mention was made then no change should be made. Some of these were head coverings, bells at mass when the venacular wasn’t common, communion vessels, tabernacle placement or communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
The Code of Canon Law was modified in 1983. Many of these things were codified at that time. This has nothing directly to do with V2.
A better discription of those unwilling to ascent to the flow of the Church could be considered conservative while those wanting to and working to institute changes not defined by the magisterium as liberal.
Click to expand...
Those witholding their assent to the “flow of the Church” (whatever that might mean) are conservatives? Good Catholics give their assent to all the teachings and disciplines of the Church.
The CCCB is an example of some liberal attempts to force to changes as they did with communion in the hand are have been trying to do with inclusive language for some time.
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand was approved by Paul VI.

Gorman
 
Just a thought…

is there a distinction between a Traditional Catholic and a traditional Catholic?
 
gorman64 said:
Dear KatholikosMercy,

And what if the Bishops are the ones dissentinting from sound doctrine? That’s the reality…you seem to be missing that little piece of information.

This is so wrong. A Good Catholic gives his assent to the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Holy Mother Church is indefectible and She cannot teach erroroneous doctrines nor establish evil nor even impious disciplines.
Click to expand...
Your questions and statements are irrelivant to the OP. I’m not missing anything from the answer I was giving to the OP.

Because I make no judgement on how successful a Catholic is on his agreement with Gods Church doesn’t make one word of what I said wrong.

Not all of Jesus and the Churches teachings are easy. I trust in Mercy, you sound as if you trust in law. Would that be why you would suggest a bishop might depart from sound doctrine? You should watch a conferance of bishops sometime to see how they operate. Its a majority rule you know.

Do you have a point for the OP at all or just an agenda towards my method of answering?
 
sparc said:
Just a thought…

is there a distinction between a Traditional Catholic and a traditional Catholic?
Click to expand...
No, nor should there be between Catholic and catholic. The word means universal and thats it. What others construe it to mean by dreaming up such an emphasis is rediculous.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
Not all of Jesus and the Churches teachings are easy. I trust in Mercy, you sound as if you trust in law. Would that be why you would suggest a bishop might depart from sound doctrine? You should watch a conferance of bishops sometime to see how they operate. Its a majority rule you know.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s a synod of bishops that’s involved now whereas before the council bishops did not have even that much power. It’s majority and politics as you would expect but obedience to the synod is based on whether you see what they agree upon is moral or otherwise. For example, do you see their defense of priests in child molestation situations to be morally sound? I bet not. This synod is not infallible.
 
sparc said:
Just a thought…

is there a distinction between a Traditional Catholic and a traditional Catholic?
Click to expand...
Well I hope there’s not as much difference between Traditional and traditional as there is between Orthodox and orthodox. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top