What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[eelpis]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

 

[buffalo]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religeous liberty?

What’s the difference between NO Catholics and TLM Catholics?

Yes - it requires a change. Many are not wanting to deal with it. It is easier to do what you want and believe what you want.

This is a tough proposition for us “spoiled” people.

 

[Cajetan]

The only thing about traditionalism in the Church which I (an N.O. Catholic) find threatening is the “governmental” disobedience of entities like the SSPX.

That said, I believe that the theological disobedience of countless N.O. Catholics and their movements and organizations is a far greater threat to the Church.

 

[eelpis]

The only thing about traditionalism in the Church which I (an N.O. Catholic) find threatening is the “governmental” disobedience of entities like the SSPX.

That said, I believe that the theological disobedience of countless N.O. Catholics and their movements and organizations is a far greater threat to the Church.

Then why is the disobedience of some NO Catholic organizations and movements not seen as a problem?

 

[Cajetan]

Then why is the disobedience of some NO Catholic organizations and movements not seen as a problem?

Is it not? It’s seen as a problem in the circles I run with (conservative N.O. Catholics). We rail against them on a daily basis.

 

[Timothysis]

I think you’ll find that there are very few people here who are actually threatened or opposed to what you call “traditionalism.” The arguments between what is generally, though erroneously called, the “modern” and “traditional” catholics usually has to do with one group presenting a point of view or position that one side is better or “more catholic” than the other.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which group holds which position.

For myself, I like mass in the vernacular, the prayers in english and even the Missal of Pope Paul VI (and am really looking forward to the new translation that should come out soon.) I do not, however, have a problem with some of the prayers in latin and certainly appreciate the older forms and devotions of days past. From what I’ve read here, I’m not the only one here, either.

I suppose you could start a thread titled “what’s so threatening about the current Ordinary Form” and get far less charitable responses.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

The argument …] usually has to do with one group presenting a point of view or position that one side is better or “more catholic” than the other.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which group holds which position.

I suppose you could start a thread titled “what’s so threatening about the current Ordinary Form” and get far less charitable responses.

And I suppose this is supposed to pass as charity? Because the anwers you might receive in such a thread would be pointed, succinct, far-reaching, and generally damning I guess some would consider this uncharitable, even if said posts would be the model of charity.

The thing that’s ‘threatening’ about traditionalism versus what’s going on in the post-concilliar church is the seriousness of it all. Traditional practices are very ordered and strict, whereas ‘modern’ practices are, from my experience, generally lax and a bit chaotic. I spent 23 years in one group, and the last 4 in the other.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which group is which.

 

[Timothysis]

And I suppose this is supposed to pass as charity? Because the anwers you might receive in such a thread would be pointed, succinct, far-reaching, and generally damning I guess some would consider this uncharitable, even if said posts would be the model of charity.

The thing that’s ‘threatening’ about traditionalism versus what’s going on in the post-concilliar church is the seriousness of it all. Traditional practices are very ordered and strict, whereas ‘modern’ practices are, from my experience, generally lax and a bit chaotic. I spent 23 years in one group, and the last 4 in the other.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which group is which.

Ok, buddy. But I’ll tell you this…the whole amount of time that I’ve been on this forum I can tell you that I’ve never seen threads with titles such as “Why the N.O. is better than TLM,” but I have seen the opposite, so take that for whatever it is worth.

If you like the latin mass, great; but I do think that it gets a little beyond the pale when there is thread after thread exposing, attacking, or whatever you want to call it, the so-called “architects” of the Missal of Pope Paul VI.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Ok, buddy. But I’ll tell you this…the whole amount of time that I’ve been on this forum I can tell you that I’ve never seen threads with titles such as “Why the N.O. is better than TLM,” but I have seen the opposite, so take that for whatever it is worth.

If you like the latin mass, great; but I do think that it gets a little beyond the pale when there is thread after thread exposing, attacking, or whatever you want to call it, the so-called “architects” of the Missal of Pope Paul VI.

Why don’t you start that thread, Tim, since I think you have made it clear you think the NO is superior to TLM?

As for the other threads - is it ‘exposing’ or ‘attacking’? If you don’t like the exposing (of the facts) - if it makes you uncomfortable - not coming to this forum to read would be an option.

I’m not saying I support or believe everything posted in this forum because, of course, I certainly don’t. But I believe the basic facts about the new Mass as stated by those who created it.

There probably wouldn’t be so many threads if the basic facts of the situation weren’t attacked via obfuscation and illogical arguments over and over (such as that it’s ‘uncharitable’ to ever criticize anything for any reason) by a few here.

The facts are that the new Mass was drawn up - at least in part - to be pleasing to Protestants. The sacrificial nature of the Mass was made less obvious and much of the reverence was done away with to placate those fond of more casual and more human-centered worship.

Some people think that was a bad idea. It’s not inaccurate to say our Pope is among them. I’m sorry if you don’t like that.

I’m also sorry (honestly) if that sounds uncharitable, but it does seem to bother you to no end that not everyone feels the way you do about the NO, to the extent that you put words in other peoples’ mouths regarding what they believe about it’s validity and their own obedience.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Forgive me, Timothysis, but you have been here 5 months and have what, 270 posts, and you are speaking from ‘your personal experience of viewing posts’.

It may indeed have’ been your experience that in the posts you have seen, you ‘saw attacks’ on the OF and nothing but ‘charity’ about the EF.

And then of course we don’t know exactly what you think ‘traditionalism’ is. . .except that in your first post on this thread you felt obligated to state that if this had been a post about ‘the N.O’ there would have been slavering attacks (and, by deduction, you implied that the attackers would be traditionalists.)

So apparently you do feel that ‘something’ is being ‘threatened’. . .that ‘something’ being at least the OF (in some way) and obviously, the ‘threatening ones’ being ‘traditionalists’ who, simply by being ‘traditionalists’ apparently in your view must hate and be threatened by the OF. . .because of all the posts you had seen ‘against’ the OF. . .

And here too, how many of those posts, Timothy, were not ‘against’ the OF itself, but against abuses, and ‘practices’ which are not mandated, and other such things?

What is your definition of traditionalism, Timothy–because until we know what you **think **it is, we’ll be talking past each other. If you ‘think’ traditionalists are ipso facto ‘against’ the OF (which as a matter of fact they are not), you’re already not even ‘arguing’ because the ‘traditionalist’ that you argue with. . .does not exist.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

What is your definition of traditionalism, Timothy–because until we know what you **think **it is, we’ll be talking past each other. If you ‘think’ traditionalists are ipso facto ‘against’ the OF (which as a matter of fact they are not), you’re already not even ‘arguing’ because the ‘traditionalist’ that you argue with. . .does not exist.

Not to pile too much on Tim here, but in another thread he participated in with me it seemed to me that he clung to the definition he created. I explained that not only do I consider the NO valid, I attend it more often than TLM (daily Mass). I stated this more than once, and it was repeated by others. But he continued to speak to me as if I were a schismatic, and warned me against the dangers of refusing to attend a NO Mass.

 

[GerardP]

Is it the teaching on hell and mortal sin?
Is it regular confession?
Is it the insistence on reverent liturgy?
Is it Ecumenism?
Is it Religious liberty?

If we share the same Catholic faith we share the same goal.

If so why the divisions?

I think it’s because we don’t believe in the same things.

The most divisive of those things is the fact that traditional Catholics believe that according to the words of Our Lord, the majority of people will not be saved and will let themselves go to Hell. So, you have to put the faith first and rail against the world, the flesh and the devil.

Our Lord says you have to agonize for your salvation.

It’s those sober teachings that get the liberals and the conservatives up in arms against traditonalism. It rains on the parade.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think it’s because we don’t believe in the same things.

The most divisive of those things is the fact that traditional Catholics believe that according to the words of Our Lord, the majority of people will not be saved and will let themselves go to Hell. So, you have to put the faith first and rail against the world, the flesh and the devil.

Our Lord says you have to agonize for your salvation.

It’s those sober teachings that get the liberals and the conservatives up in arms against traditonalism. It rains on the parade.

That’s not a “traditionalist” belief, though, it’s right there in Sacred Scripture. Anyone in denial of it isn’t just anti-traditional, you’d have to be denying the Word of the Lord.

 

[Timothysis]

Thank you all for your charity, though I find that I said nothing in my original post that should have created the replies it received.

In any event, I will now leave, as I find the atmosphere to be particularly ugly. It makes me forget, sometimes, that this is a catholic discussion page.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thank you all for your charity, though I find that I said nothing in my original post that should have created the replies it received.

In any event, I will now leave, as I find the atmosphere to be particularly ugly. It makes me forget, sometimes, that this is a catholic discussion page.

Adults need to take responsibility for the things they say. I think some of the responses were due to your comments in this thread and others. You made false assertions. You made direct accusations against people based on assumptions, more than once, such as myself and others rejecting the NO as invalid, and did not apologize in any way - or even indicate that you actually accept what we say about our own beliefs - after being corrected several times.

What, exactly, is the problem with rational, fact-based debate, for people honestly seeking truth? Mindless emotionalism is unbecoming of a serious Catholic; it is incompatible with the faith.

I always cringe over hurting someone’s feelings - if that’s what’s occurred here (sounds like it). Love is paramount, always, and I can love you, no problem, but love without Truth is incomplete; they cannot be separated.

 

[CradleCath]

I think you’ll find that there are very few people here who are actually threatened or opposed to what you call “traditionalism.” The arguments between what is generally, though erroneously called, the “modern” and “traditional” catholics usually has to do with one group presenting a point of view or position that one side is better or “more catholic” than the other.

I’ll leave it up to you to decide which group holds which position.

For myself, I like mass in the vernacular, the prayers in english and even the Missal of Pope Paul VI (and am really looking forward to the new translation that should come out soon.) I do not, however, have a problem with some of the prayers in latin and certainly appreciate the older forms and devotions of days past. From what I’ve read here, I’m not the only one here, either.

I suppose you could start a thread titled “what’s so threatening about the current Ordinary Form” and get far less charitable responses.

That’s quite a confrontational sentence for one who is worrying about the charitible repsonses of others.

 

[CradleCath]

Thank you all for your charity, though I find that I said nothing in my original post that should have created the replies it received.

In any event, I will now leave, as I find the atmosphere to be particularly ugly. It makes me forget, sometimes, that this is a catholic discussion page.

It amazes me that there is such an abundance of people…supposedly adult…who can subsist on a diet of pabluum & run away when the meat dishes arrive.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It depends on what you mean by “traditionalism.”

There is a site the claims to be traditionalist by its very name: traditio.com.

They talk about the “Protestantized Judeo-Masonic Pagan Vatican II Church” and refer to Pope Benedict XVI as “Rabbi Ratizinger.”

Since when is such disrespect and spleen traditional?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

It depends on what you mean by “traditionalism.”

There is a site the claims to be traditionalist by its very name: traditio.com.

They talk about the “Protestantized Judeo-Masonic Pagan Vatican II Church” and refer to Pope Benedict XVI as “Rabbi Ratizinger.”

Since when is such disrespect and spleen traditional?

Well, in a sense, they’re as “traditional” as the fundies who call the Pope the Antichrist are “Christian”.

 

[GerardP]

That’s not a “traditionalist” belief, though, it’s right there in Sacred Scripture. Anyone in denial of it isn’t just anti-traditional, you’d have to be denying the Word of the Lord.

That’s what makes them uncomfortable. They love the “God is all Love (and no Justice) type of God” ( with the exceptions of Hitler and Nero or something like that)

They are so puffed up with hearing “the dignity of man” ringing in their ears, they have to finesse those hard sayings and hard teachings until they “reformulate them positively” and rationalize them into utter meaninglessness.

I’ve had more than one priest (nice guys by the way) tell me, “I believe most people are saved.” Not even a thought about the necessity of belonging to the Church and holding the faith in its entirety.

They ignore the part of the Catholic Faith that professes “without which it is impossible to please God.”