What makes a Traditional Catholic?

[KatholikosMercy]

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.

Again, I see no point in this post?

The council of bishops determines more than you know and influences how our dioceses are run. To say they have no power is to say that Jesus left no apostolic authority to the 12. Do I detect the voice of dissent in you?

Thanks for the grammar lesson and your unsolicited 2 cents but you can keep to yourself the lie that anyone defended molesting anyone.
Bringing it up is like rubbing salt on a festering wound. Shall we now rub grit into the molestations of evangelicals, protestants, teachers and married men? Its irrelevant to the OP.

What was your agenda, to call a council a synod, make mention that priests have had a scandal or just how unimportant the apostles are? If your looking for somewhere to sling mud at the priests and bishops about scandals then this is the wrong thread. Its about what makes a traditional catholic. See the header? Your off topic.

 

[gorman64]

KatholikosMercy:

Your questions and statements are irrelivant to the OP. I’m not missing anything from the answer I was giving to the OP.

That’s not much of an argument. I was responding to you, not 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.

Successful on his agreement? Assent is required…you seem to think it is optional.

Not all of Jesus and the Churches teachings are easy.

Are they too difficult for some? That’s what you are implying here.

I trust in Mercy, you sound as if you trust in law.

Justice and Mercy meet…they are both things we should trust in.

Would that be why you would suggest a bishop might depart from sound doctrine?

It is a fact that many have departed from sound doctrine.

You should watch a conferance of bishops sometime to see how they operate. Its a majority rule you know.

So the majority can decide whatever they want? Is it a democracy? Or is there a Pope as well.

[Edited by Moderator]

Gorman

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Successful on his agreement? Assent is required…you seem to think it is optional.

Oh no, by no means optional. I was trying to convey an understanding that the Lord judges us on our efforts and not our successes.

Are they too difficult for some? That’s what you are implying here.

I don’t think they are. Else the Lord wouldn’t have put them before us. That being said though we all have our own gifts. One person may assend to be a theologian whilst another struggles with doubts all their lives. Doubting Thomas was just as saved as denying Peter.

Justice and Mercy meet…they are both things we should trust in.

Understood and agreed. In fact in my own personal experiences, though hard as justice is to accept against my concupiscent nature sometimes and as chastising as it often seems I actually have come to see it AS Mercy.

It is a fact that many have departed from sound doctrine.

I agree, however its not my place as a lay person to OVERLY concern myself with it to the point where it may deprive me of the peace God graces me with. I trust that the church is and always will be protected from the gates of Hell by Jesus himself despite the faults and scandals of men within or the protests and attacks of those without.

So the majority can decide whatever they want? Is it a democracy? Or is there a Pope as well.

I’m not an authority on church politics. I am a layperson. I have however witnessed a couple councils in action and saw several forms of government in play that did include democracy. Exactly how the council of bishops is subject to the Holy See from there I am unsure. I am sure they are. In the post I was only concerned with how they effect the operation of the churches in interpretation of the Holy Sees direction. A good example would be that the canon allows that communion vessels be constructed of precious metal or the communion host in its form of bread is to be strictly adhered to. Liberal interpretations of Vatican II have been misconstrued to allow glass or earthen vessels and in some places raised bread to be consecrated. The Church is on a journey as well as its members and the Holy See can’t stand over every altar or bishop and his priests to make sure things are done properly but we trust the Holy Spirit prevails.

[Edited by Moderator]

Gorman

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Just a thought…

is there a distinction between a Traditional Catholic and a traditional Catholic?

Absolutely. A traditional Catholic has never heard of Vatican II. A Traditional Catholic has and isn’t too happy.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Absolutely. A traditional Catholic has never heard of Vatican II. A Traditional Catholic has and isn’t too happy.

Hehe. Well put. Its a shame too, don’t you think?

 

[LJN21]

Hehe. Well put. Its a shame too, don’t you think?

No not really. Traditional Catholics have no issues with Vatican II. There issue are with the liberties and abuses that happened after, that have been large crammed down there throats over the years as “in the Spirit of Vatican II”. Where none of these things are even remotely in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

Here’s a great article that explains that.

I read the article but all it was, was a piece defending traditionalist views. I still dont understand what the difference between a liberal, conservatice and neo-conservative are

 

[KatholikosMercy]

No not really. Traditional Catholics have no issues with Vatican II. There issue are with the liberties and abuses that happened after, that have been large crammed down there throats over the years as “in the Spirit of Vatican II”. Where none of these things are even remotely in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

You don’t think that is a shame to feel as though someone is having something crammed down their throats, especially if they are false interpretations? I most certainly do.

Or (by your opinion) that the current generation doesn’t know much about Vatican II or the older generation who are actually considered the traditional (not modern Catholics) by the way, have a hard time accepting the changes when they should be understanding and active in the process if they don’t like it. I call that a shame too.

Personally I am a post Vatican II Catholic being born in 1964 at the end of the baby boom. I have had issues with some Vatican II changes but in time have come to new understanding of some of those issues. Actually coming to a deer trust in Jesus in the process. I have seen the effects and misinterpretations but at the same time respect the discretion of my Pastors and Bishops. I have also listened to the claims of dissenters from outside of the church too. All spirits had to be tested.

Not all are driven to seek answers. Some go with the flow and accept while others don’t and divide. Others protest the changes and that is a trap rooted in disobedience. If someone feels the changes are as you say “crammed down” or canonically illegal then there are lots of options to express what you feel is the correct interpretation. Just as there is a process of hermeneutics to interpret scripture there is a process of interpretation of a council as well. Its not for us to “second guess” the work of the church but to work with her. I recall an instance when my home parish averted a change by what we felt was a false interpretation of the Vatican Council by one of our Franciscan Nuns who leaned to the left in many ways. Our Parish has a council too you know. And I have personally approached my Pastor on several issues and seen changes made by one Priest that the previous one could have cared less about. As Catholics are we to be sticklers for the laws? I think not.

If you’re going to insinuate changes are forced on people without example then your not providing context for what you mean.
Are you referring to Tabernacle placement, or altar rail removal, Hmmm?

To think some people wonder why the changes in the church take so long. I think its obvious why.

 

[BobP123]

Your off topic.

My what? I didn’t bring the bishops up. My point was that obedience to the bishops is required except when it can lead to sinful or scandalous actions, thoughts, temptations, etc. It’s written in the traditional catechism. Everyone should have a copy.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I didn’t bring the bishops up. My point was that obedience to the bishops is required except when it can lead to sinful or scandalous actions, thoughts, temptations, etc. It’s written in the traditional catechism.

I agree. I try never to obey an illegal order.

[SIGN]The root of virtue is humility[/SIGN]

 

[LJN21]

You don’t think that is a shame to feel as though someone is having something crammed down their throats, especially if they are false interpretations? I most certainly do.

Or (by your opinion) that the current generation doesn’t know much about Vatican II or the older generation who are actually considered the traditional (not modern Catholics) by the way, have a hard time accepting the changes when they should be understanding and active in the process if they don’t like it. I call that a shame too.

Wow that’s a lot of assumption of stuff I didn’t even say.

There were (and still are in places) flagrant abuses. (Liturgical dancing, buffet style communion, attempted consecration of invalid species). Which effect the licitness of the Mass. (Mass Confusion is a really good book.) People that have commented on these in the past have almost literally gotten there heads taken off for not being “In the Spirit of Vatican II”.

Personally I am a post Vatican II Catholic being born in 1964 at the end of the baby boom. I have had issues with some Vatican II changes but in time have come to new understanding of some of those issues. Actually coming to a deer trust in Jesus in the process. I have seen the effects and misinterpretations but at the same time respect the discretion of my Pastors and Bishops. I have also listened to the claims of dissenters from outside of the church too. All spirits had to be tested.

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. Remember not all diocese were effect by Vatican II the same way. Some stay closer to the true intent than others. If your priest walked in one Sunday and told you that belief in the true presents is no longer required or that form now on they where going to be consecrating Goldfish crackers and Gatorade would you just accept that as a trail?

Not all are driven to seek answers. Some go with the flow and accept while others don’t and divide. Others protest the changes and that is a trap rooted in disobedience. If someone feels the changes are as you say “crammed down” or canonically illegal then there are lots of options to express what you feel is the correct interpretation. Just as there is a process of hermeneutics to interpret scripture there is a process of interpretation of a council as well. Its not for us to “second guess” the work of the church but to work with her. I recall an instance when my home parish averted a change by what we felt was a false interpretation of the Vatican Council by one of our Franciscan Nuns who leaned to the left in many ways. Our Parish has a council too you know. And I have personally approached my Pastor on several issues and seen changes made by one Priest that the previous one could have cared less about. As Catholics are we to be sticklers for the laws? I think not.

I’m not talking about seeking illicit means. I’ve personally seen where that leads, its not pretty either.

The argument can be made tho that once the Mass is made illicit, are you not better off finding a “better” illicit Mass. (Note: this is NOT my opinion)

If you’re going to insinuate changes are forced on people without example then your not providing context for what you mean.
Are you referring to Tabernacle placement, or altar rail removal, Hmmm?

To think some people wonder why the changes in the church take so long. I think its obvious why.

More along the lines of Altar Removal and the stuff I mentioned above. Tabernacle removal would also be one.

 

[BobP123]

The argument can be made tho that once the Mass is made illicit, are you not better off finding a “better” illicit Mass. (Note: this is NOT my opinion)

LOL. Best line I’ve seen here.

 

[LJN21]

But remember what the road to Hell is lined with.

Oh I agree!

That was a vast over simplification but I’ve seen what that logic breeds.

I’m just thankful things have calmed down here and we do have good options for a licit Mass and don’t have to worry about it my self.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Wow that’s a lot of assumption of stuff I didn’t even say.

Not meaning to put words in your mouth. Only to clarify why I felt it was a shame, which I think there may have been some misunderstanding given this often-inadequate form of communication.

There were (and still are in places) flagrant abuses. (Liturgical dancing, buffet style communion, attempted consecration of invalid species). Which effect the licitness of the Mass. (Mass Confusion is a really good book.) People that have commented on these in the past have almost literally gotten there heads taken off for not being “In the Spirit of Vatican II”.

I haven’t personally witnessed those things and if I did I would deal with them appropriately through proper channels. I must tell you that I have attend parishes in 25 states and only once seen a risen bread consecrated. At that time we were all ignorant of what was going on. Those who encouraged this meant well. At other times I have seen minor errors from canons here and there but never once have I seen an invalid consecration.

Not sure what this has to do with the conversation. Remember not all diocese were effect by Vatican II the same way. Some stay closer to the true intent than others. If your priest walked in one Sunday and told you that belief in the true presents is no longer required or that form now on they where going to be consecrating Goldfish crackers and Gatorade would you just accept that as a trail?

Of course not. I would confront it. What I speak of are the spirits that aren’t obvious that need testing. Your statement of how different diocese react is a great indicator of the importance of the bishop though.

I’m not talking about seeking illicit means. I’ve personally seen where that leads, its not pretty either.

An example here would have been interesting if in deed you have seen such.

The argument can be made tho that once the Mass is made illicit, are you not better off finding a “better” illicit Mass. (Note: this is NOT my opinion)

Interesting. First thought that comes to mind is that a Mass is not illisit unless it is in direct obedience to norms that canon say CANNOT be indulged such as the method of consecration.

More along the lines of Altar Removal and the stuff I mentioned above. Tabernacle removal would also be one.

I agree. Personally I struggled with Chapel placement of the Tabernacle though it is perfectly allowed for. Fortunately it remains center stage in sanctuary of my childhood Parish but I understand and accept its reservation elsewhere also. Unless it concerns the ordinances of Jesus then should we be Pharisee like in its interpretation? I ask this because I think we have a duty to recognize everyone’s sensitivities regardless. Scripture gives us that example in Paul’s epistles. Let us not offend our brother because he eats unclean meats. In fact the scripture tells us to partake with him lest we do.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Absolutely. A traditional Catholic has never heard of Vatican II. A Traditional Catholic has and isn’t too happy.

I think sometimes we take problems too seriously. There is no ideal management structure for ACME corp. Too centralised and it is rigid, bureaucratic and wasting money on head office, too decentralised and its duplicating effort and not presenting a corporate identity, in the middle and its go the worst of bith worlds.

Similarly there is no one ideal response to Protestantism, or moral laxness in the modern world. Too strict and you scare people off, too lax and they don’t see the need to repent and reform. Saying that “there are problems with Vatican II” isn’t at all the same thing as saying that “there is this easy, perfect, drawback-free solution sitting on the shelf, and it is called the Tridentine Mass”. No. However a worse thing would be to delude ourselves about the real difficulties that have arisen since the 1960s.

 

[BobP123]

Similarly there is no one ideal response to Protestantism, or moral laxness in the modern world. Too strict and you scare people off, too lax and they don’t see the need to repent and reform. Saying that “there are problems with Vatican II” isn’t at all the same thing as saying that “there is this easy, perfect, drawback-free solution sitting on the shelf, and it is called the Tridentine Mass”. No. However a worse thing would be to delude ourselves about the real difficulties that have arisen since the 1960s.

You make a good point. However rotten things seemed to have become today since the 60’s, at least the TLM advocate can say with confidence that it wasn’t the fault of the old Mass. Yet he still has to defend the Church against attacks by the Protestants and other faithers, who probably aren’t aware of the internal bickering going on within the Church. It’s not easy being a Catholic these days.

 

[LJN21]

I haven’t personally witnessed those things and if I did I would deal with them appropriately through proper channels. I must tell you that I have attend parishes in 25 states and only once seen a risen bread consecrated. At that time we were all ignorant of what was going on. Those who encouraged this meant well. At other times I have seen minor errors from canons here and there but never once have I seen an invalid consecration.

Invalid matter would invalidate the consecration so if there was leavened that is not valid. Canons 924, 926 GRIM 282

Of course not. I would confront it. What I speak of are the spirits that aren’t obvious that need testing. Your statement of how different diocese react is a great indicator of the importance of the bishop though.

Not sure your meaning here. What if the Bishop is just ignoring it or worse promoting it?

An example here would have been interesting if in deed you have seen such.

After my parents converted there was a time of experimentation here locally. It was largely ignored by the bishop. There were varying degrees of abuses occurring. One parish played with buffet communion, an other removed the tabernacle completely. At the the local parish they were requiring people to stand a the concentration. After a while they felt they could no longer in good conscience attend those Masses. They (well we I was about 8 at this time) started attend Latin masses said by rogue priests. I’m not going to defend what they did. I honestly don’t know what I would have done in the same position tho. Fortunately it wasn’t very long until the FSSP started saying Mass and they were able to appease there conscience in full communion with Rome and the blessing of the Bishop. Now things have calmed down a lot and most Mass are fine. Altho it wasn’t that long ago I was at a friends wedding and they were using white and whole wheat leavened bread.

TLM church there tho had been founded in a spirit of disobedience. Even to this day it is very evident in the attitudes of some of the people that go there (wanna definition of Neo-con…).

Interesting. First thought that comes to mind is that a Mass is not illisit unless it is in direct obedience to norms that canon say CANNOT be indulged such as the method of consecration

There are a lot of things that can make a Mass illicit. Not having a Crucifix in the Sanctuary and not saying the Credo are two that come to might right off the top of my head.

Remember illicit and invalid are two different things.

 

[LJN21]

I read the article but all it was, was a piece defending traditionalist views. I still dont understand what the difference between a liberal, conservatice and neo-conservative are

These would be my definitions.

Liberal is someone who believes the Magisterium of the Church is wrong about something. (Women priests, artificial contraception)

Traditionalist believes what the Church teaches in light of the tradition of the Church. (hum… Not sure if I like that definition, going to have to think about that some more.)

NeoConservative believe the NO is completely invalided the and there is literal no salvation unless you are practicing the Catholic Faith (the way they interpret it ) IMO they aren’t that far off of Liberals.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Invalid matter would invalidate the consecration so if there was leavened that is not valid. Canons 924, 926 GRIM 282

Ah, yes I see. Was thinking more along the lines of the words.

Not sure your meaning here. What if the Bishop is just ignoring it or worse promoting it?

Just that each bishop has some wiggle room just like each pastor so things can be different from one diocese to another. I suppose there are other concerns too.

After my parents converted there was a time of experimentation here locally. It was largely ignored by the bishop. There were varying degrees of abuses occurring. One parish played with buffet communion, an other removed the tabernacle completely. At the the local parish they were requiring people to stand a the concentration. After a while they felt they could no longer in good conscience attend those Masses. They (well we I was about 8 at this time) started attend Latin masses said by rogue priests. I’m not going to defend what they did. I honestly don’t know what I would have done in the same position tho. Fortunately it wasn’t very long until the FSSP started saying Mass and they were able to appease there conscience in full communion with Rome and the blessing of the Bishop. Now things have calmed down a lot and most Mass are fine. Altho it wasn’t that long ago I was at a friends wedding and they were using white and whole wheat leavened bread.

Yup.

TLM church there tho had been founded in a spirit of disobedience. Even to this day it is very evident in the attitudes of some of the people that go there (wanna definition of Neo-con…).

I hear you. Disobedience is way different than discomfort with some not kneeling at the consecration, wearing headcoverings or not or communion in the hand or under both species.

There are a lot of things that can make a Mass illicit. Not having a Crucifix in the Sanctuary and not saying the Credo are two that come to might right off the top of my head.

Hmmm.

Remember illicit and invalid are two different things.

A delema I have encountered as an extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist (not supposed to say Eucharistic Minister) is how communion in the hand came about before it was official and if I should even be serving and also the means of showing reverance. A bow is recommended yet it isn’t taught much and is there such a thing as being too reverent to the Eucharist? Personally I feel everyone should recieve on their knees and on the tongue by consecrated hands only yet I feel humbled to serve and feel called to do it. Does one then kneel for the Host and bow for the Cup? Or should one just forego the cup or kneel for that too? However, on the other hand, since the cup is the real presance as well why would anyone want to pass that up. What do you think these options mean and if they should be between us and God or us and law?

 

[LJN21]

A delema I have encountered as an extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist (not supposed to say Eucharistic Minister) is how communion in the hand came about before it was official and if I should even be serving and also the means of showing reverance. A bow is recommended yet it isn’t taught much and is there such a thing as being too reverent to the Eucharist? Personally I feel everyone should recieve on their knees and on the tongue by consecrated hands only yet I feel humbled to serve and feel called to do it. Does one then kneel for the Host and bow for the Cup? Or should one just forego the cup or kneel for that too? However, on the other hand, since the cup is the real presance as well why would anyone want to pass that up. What do you think these options mean and if they should be between us and God or us and law?

Personally I’d love to see some real Church leadership on these things (laws I guess ) but as it stands right now I think they are up to the individual persons.

I don’t like communion in the hand I think its irreverent and dangerous (falling crumbs). It there’s no tradition for it and really only practiced here in America. I also think it makes us to familiar and Familiarity breeds contempt.

I’m also not a fan of communion under both species (for the congregation) because I feel it confuses people and again make people too familiar. Each crumb of the host or drop of wine fully contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Communion under both specie seem to send signals that you have that you have to receive both to get both. In fact I have run in to many Catholics that think this.

Anyway that’s my opinion