What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[CradleCath]

Let me tell you why you sometimes see, what you refer to as, “chest-beating”.

For years those Catholics who held to Tradition and resisted the errors that envade the Church after Vatican II (errors which had been explicitly condemned by the Pope), were labeled as schimatics, heretics, and anything else that came to mind. They were the only group that was ridiculed, calumniated, and held in scorn, yet their “crime” was resisting the novelties and errors of the time. The Protestants, who hate the Catholic Church, were treated with great affection, and the schismatic and heretical Orthodox were embraced as a “sister Church”. The only group that was hated were those who continued to resist the errors that had been condemned by the Popes prior to the Council.

While I think that everything you said is the truth, I don’t think that your reasons are the** only** reasons that people accuse us of attitudes of “superiority”. I think that most traditionalists who have survived the “Vatican II faith”,… & kept attending Mass, kept on keepin’ on…are more informed than the “regular mainstream Catholics” of the Novus Ordo mentality. We’ve had to be, we’ve known for decades that “something” was wrong & we searched for the reasons. I know I have… Those traditional Catholics who didn’t, are long gone.

Instead of listening to the results of the actual scholarship we show & our personal experiences, these people who accuse us of “chest-beating”, who post in this forum…following us from thread to thread…ranting & raving & calling us names, just deny. They are actually jealous of our knowledge, yet won’t learn anything new. It’s a shame. We Trads have much to offer.

 

[GerardP]

Feel better now? I just LOVE these “I was right, and the Church was wrong” rants.

What do you mean “the Church”? I think you are misusing the word. Probably to give your position weight that it is not entitled to. The word you’re looking for is Churchmen.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

While I think that everything you said is the truth, I don’t think that your reasons are the** only** reasons that people accuse us of attitudes of “superiority”. I think that most traditionalists who have survived the “Vatican II faith”,… & kept attending Mass, kept on keepin’ on…are more informed than the “regular mainstream Catholics” of the Novus Ordo mentality. **We’ve had to be, we’ve known for decades that “something” was wrong & we searched for the reasons. I know I have… Those traditional Catholics who didn’t, are long gone. **
Instead of listening to the results of the actual scholarship we show & our personal experiences, these people who accuse us of “chest-beating”, who post in this forum…following us from thread to thread…ranting & raving & calling us names, just deny. They are actually jealous of our knowledge, yet won’t learn anything new. It’s a shame. We Trads have much to offer.

Yes, I completely agree with you.

From the time I was in my early 20’s I aquired the habit of always trying to see the positive side of things. I’m not referring to the false optimism of today where we pretend that everything is wonderful and will alwasy work perfectly, but instead, trying to look at things in a postiive light.

There are many positive things about being a Traditionalist today. Even though it can be frustrating and difficult at times, there are, nevertheless, many positives. One is what you alluded to above.

If it wasn’t for the crisis, I would never have learned as much as I have about the faith. In normal times, the laity will not have to study the Summa and Papal Encyclicals to preseve the faith. In this day, however, it is almost impossible not to be led astray without putting a lot of effort into keeping the faith.

Today’s errors are very sublte. It requires a lot of study, mediation, and prayer to discern and resist them. The positive side is that we end by knowing the faith very well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Today’s errors are very sublte. It requires a lot of study, mediation, and prayer to discern and resist them. The positive side is that we end by knowing the faith very well.

We certainly try our best. . .even if it means getting accused of thinking ourselves as ’ knowing better than the Church authorities.’

Now I suppose that there are some who genuinely think that it wasn’t just ‘individuals’ in the Church who went off the rails–usually without malice and ‘honestly’ thinking, or accepting the word of others, that the EF was ‘gone for good—GOOD.’–but the entire Church itself, usually dated from 1958. But I don’t think that this is the position of the majority of people who identify themselves as traditionalists here. So can we please stop making the ‘judgment’ that the majority of traditionalists are S–V??

The majority of the people here who prefer the EF prefer it not because they necessarily think it is ‘better’ than the OF–though even if they did, isn’t that exactly what those who prefer the OF over the EF do? Come on now. How often have I heard, “I prefer the OF because it’s in my language.” What does that mean? It means, “I DON’T prefer the EF because it’s in Latin, not my language.” Doesn’t it? So isn’t this saying that “I prefer the OF–in my language–it is better for me???” Fine. Well and good. It’s your preference. You’re entitled.

But **so am I **entitled to prefer what I prefer–even if my reason is different from yours.

My differing preference isn’t ‘disrespecting you’ and my preference doesn’t mean that I’m a bad Catholic out with an agenda to do you down!!!

And it gets extremely annoying when the ‘majority’ vision which has been clearly explained, over and over --and was apparently well received enough in these forums to warrant its own subforum --and NOT in the ‘nonCatholic religions’ part, either --to have people just stubbornly attempt to tar us all with the S—V brush. We have as legitimate a reason to ‘prefer’ one form of the Mass as you do to prefer yours. So please, stop with the
Rad brush. Or the ‘wailing martyrs’ brush. Or the ‘holier than thou’ brush. Or the ‘elitist’ brush, the ‘regressive’ brush, the ‘ranting’ brush, you name it.

I, for one, do not attempt to label anyone who expresses a preference for the OF as 'having to fit into a box which says that such a person MUST automatically be this, this, and this. I find it pretty easy to accept that a person with a preference for the OF --a valid Mass–is a person with a preference for the OF. Maybe because he or she is familiar with it, and comforted. Maybe it is the language --some people are just more comfortable with ‘what they speak’. Maybe it is because they like certain practices. Maybe it’s all of these and more–maybe it’s something else I haven’t yet seen. . .it doesn’t matter to me, I don’t insist that:
So and so likes the OF better. . .therefore so and so is a liberal, a progressive, a relativist, a modernist, etc.

Does it happen that maybe others do make that judgment --and if they do, does it perhaps happen that it is because of other things the poster says which have nothing to do with his ‘preference’ for the OF but from statements he or she has made on other threads in which he or she has expressed beliefs which are ‘liberal’ or modern? Do two wrongs, if you will, make a right? Is it ‘acceptable’, because a given person has felt ‘judged’ or attacked, that the person then turn around and do the same thing right back at somebody else, purely on the basis of that person expressing a preference for the EF? I think not.

But if we cannot accept that we may be as guilty of the bias etc. that we have no hesitation in ascribing to another, we’ll just be content to sit in our citadel and yell, “You’re wrong, you’re wrong” or go on ‘blaming’ the other person and never attempting to answer their questions.

I understand that indeed in prefering the EF I may find a tendency, by prefering it, to ‘think less of’ the OF (and of course this works the other way–those who prefer the OF need to guard against a possible tendency to thus think LESS OF THE EF)–and so I strive very carefully to be aware of the fact that this COULD happen if I don’t make the effort to give the OF its PROPER DUE. Which I think I have done. Over and over.

All I ask is that the same courtesy and respect be extended to those with whom we ‘disagree’ --whatever the disagreement is about. Surely as Christians this should not be as hard as it is appearing to be on this subject???

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

What movements? Abuses in the Mass are done by the individual clergy. Abuses in the congregation I believe are done out of ignorance and not knowing your own faith. I don’t see a movement.

 

[BSHoop96]

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

I don’t think he said he thought the NO was suprior at all!

A poster comes on and puts a perfectly legitimate post (#6). Then comes post #7. Then in post #8 the guy feels a little put upon and tries to defend himself and then comes post #9. And we’re off and running once again. This is so sad.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Maybe he means movements like Catholics for Free Choice, or Voice of the Faithful. Not that I would consider that members of those groups are members of the group because they happen to attend the OF. But I do think that pretty overwhelmingly, members of those groups who do attend Mass do not attend the EF.

Again, it is a tough call. I do not think that people become members of the kind of groups like the above because they prefer a particular Mass form, or that people who prefer the OF are ‘inclined’ to link up with that type of movement; it is just that for some reason (and there may be many, not the least of them being that there are more Catholics who do attend the OF than attend the EF) the people who do join those groups happen to ALSO attend the OF pretty exclusively.

But I won’t do an ex hoc here. I do not think those who join that type of group do so because of the Mass form they prefer.

 

[BSHoop96]

I don’t know, for sure, why so many find the Traditional arm of the Roman Catholic Church threatening, but I do want to share an odd experience that I participated in today.

I went back to my old Novus Ordo parish to help the woman who is assuming my duties of decorating the sanctuary. This responsibility is not at all complicated or hard…there are no staues or side altars left & the modernistic architecture of the Church calls for nothing more than a large floral & the changing of scarf colors for the Liturgical seasons. It’s quite barren & cold. Still this lady called me, so I went.

A little background. This woman is one of the parish “busybodies”. She tends to take over anything she’s involved in, thus has a hard time getting anyone to help her. She is also a gossip & seems to need constant attention. You know the kind I mean…every parish has one or two or a dozen. I do not know her well, but have observed her for years as she’s “everywhere” that the pastor will allow her to be. (Which is pretty much EVERYWHERE!!

Anyway, today seemed to be more about the fact that I had “deserted” my parish. What a surprise that was, as I tend to keep a pretty low profile & I doubted that many had even noticed that I left. After listening to her talk for almost 45 minutes, it came down to this:

She is an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister & is terribly afraid that the Novus Ordo will decline so badly that “she’ll lose her important job”.
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when she told me this. IMO., it is so against everything that Christ preached to use an “upfront position” at the Mass, to build one’s own self-esteem. It is so like the “look-at-me” pharisees. Yet part of me was appalled that this poor woman needed so much attention. Could this be the reason that so many fear the TLM? Have any of you dealt with anything like this?

To answer the original poster. No, I don’t fear the TLM.

And it sounds like the woman has a problem that goes far beyond what kind of Mass she attends. And I think you are right. There are some strange people at every parish, every workplace, every school, whatever. Pathethic.

 

[BSHoop96]

Speaking from my personal experiences, it is far less about the traditional issues themselves, than it is about the attitudes of those pushing for them…the “We’re more Catholic than you liberals or the post Vatican II Church are…” mentality.

I know I will probably get jumped for this but…I tend to agree.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As one priest formerly associated with SSPX who became a Tridentine rite congregationalist (well–he’s under NO bishop) put it, “Charity, forbearance, humility, and not judging others are traditional, too.”

 

[BSHoop96]

All we want is simple justice. . .which is an acknowledgement on the part of some here that, guess what, we were right in saying all along that we had a right to a Mass which was never abrogated but which was unfairly denied to many by many, with no right.

I will say it…and I’m not being sarcastic…I’m being sincere. The Mass was never abrogated and you had a right to it.

 

[ethelzguy]

–but gee, I guess that isn’t really suffering, you know.

After all, all that time they had the OF. So if they were ‘wailing’ over having the EF (Latin Mass), hey, tough toenails. How dare they equate their suffering with that of Christ’s? **You **don’t think they suffered, I suppose.

Good Grief.

I am supposed to believe that you “suffered like Christ” for 40+ years, at the hand of Christ’s Church on Earth.

Give me a break.

You’re actually going to stand by that ridiculous notion? 40 years of “Christ-like suffering”, because you didn’t have the Mass form that suited YOU?

When I read stuff like this, as Irma Bombeck would say, “I frow up”. :hypno:

 

[BSHoop96]

While I think that everything you said is the truth, I don’t think that your reasons are the** only** reasons that people accuse us of attitudes of “superiority”. I think that most traditionalists who have survived the “Vatican II faith”,… & kept attending Mass, kept on keepin’ on…are more informed than the “regular mainstream Catholics” of the Novus Ordo mentality.

CradleCath, I show this to explain that this type of comment is what hurts and offends people that prefer the NO Mass. Now maybe you didn’t mean it that way but sometimes things come across different when you are just reading them.

I respect your preference for the EF Mass. I would hope that I am due the same respect for my preference for the NO. I have no doubt that you are much more knowledgeable than I on church history, liturgy, etc. but believe me, **I want my NO Mass to be done without abuses. **I also want my Church to look like a Catholic Church and sound like one.

 

[BSHoop96]

Maybe he means movements like Catholics for Free Choice, or Voice of the Faithful. Not that I would consider that members of those groups are members of the group because they happen to attend the OF. But I do think that pretty overwhelmingly, members of those groups who do attend Mass do not attend the EF.

Again, it is a tough call. I do not think that people become members of the kind of groups like the above because they prefer a particular Mass form, or that people who prefer the OF are ‘inclined’ to link up with that type of movement; it is just that for some reason (and there may be many, not the least of them being that there are more Catholics who do attend the OF than attend the EF) the people who do join those groups happen to ALSO attend the OF pretty exclusively.

But I won’t do an ex hoc here. I do not think those who join that type of group do so because of the Mass form they prefer.

Thank you for that.

 

[ethelzguy]

So please do. Please give me the official Church documentation that suppressed the EF.

Please give me the official Church documentation that stated that you had “the right” to the EF for the last 40 years? Not that is wasn’t abrogated, etc…but, that you had the RIGHT to it.

I don’t know why this is so threatening a concept to you–to acknowledge that some people ‘made mistakes’ years ago in falsely assuming the EF was ‘gone for good’. It wasn’t you who made the decision (none of you being priests and bishops), right? It wasn’t you who called us names and mocked us, was it? And even if it was, don’t you think that if you just said, “Sorry. . .we didn’t realize, we didn’t mean it’, that we wouldn’t accept the apology?”

**Why should I apologize for something I did not do, or have anything to do with? Sounds a bit like social “political correctness to me”.

And, further, with regard to liturgy (as opposed to sex scandals), the Church doesn’t owe me or anybody else “an apology”. To claim such, is ludicrous.**

What is the huge problem with accepting that a great number of Catholics in the U.S. had something terrible done to them, which should not have been done–that the wrong is now being redressed (thank God) but that for some reason, it threatens some people to admit that wrong was done?

There you go again, unilaterally determining that you have been “wronged” by the Church, and that you are somehow “entitled” to something.

I’m not attacking the Catholic Church. I’m not saying it taught anything wrong. I have a fairly good understanding that if some priests and bishops misunderstood church teaching and made some wrong decisions, it doesn’t mean the Church ITSELF taught the wrong teaching.

Why can’t you simply admit that there was a wrong done?

Because I’m not in the habit of running around, declaring that the Catholic Church is “wrong”. I’m not quite that arrogant.

 

[SanJudas]

A thousand kudos to CradleCath, Pax et Caritas, Tantum Ergo, and Gerard P for some of the best posts I have read here in a long time, especially to Tantum for Post #34, which one of the members of the Red Herring Society was quick to classify as a “rant.” Even if I had not previously been devoted to tradition, I think that just by seeing the quality of these posts by traditionalists versus the sniveling sarcasm of the anti-Trad crowd, I would have been propelled in that direction.

I myself am not always able to control my temper in these situations, so I take my hat off to those of you who can. You are performing a valuable service to those of us who have not been on this forum for long and who would otherwise be disheartened by the seeming lack of respect for tradition by these self-styled “traditionalists” who only come here to attack.

I compare the return to traditionalism to a ten-trumpet Reville, waking up many who had drifted away from Catholicism during its liberal years and calling them back to the Glory and Majesty of the Church Triumphant. To those same liberals who love the Protestantized church much better, however, that same Reville sounds like a battle call from an opposing army.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Ethelzguy, you said:

Not that is wasn’t abrogated, etc…but, that you had the RIGHT to it.

This has been covered before. TLM-preffering people have always had the same “right” to the TLM that NO-preferring people have had to the NO.

Also…Catholics not only have the “right” but the “duty” to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days etc. Now, If we are obliged to go, and the TLM was never abrogated, why wouldn’t we have the “right”/“duty” to attend one for the last 40 years, even though churchmen have made it all but impossible to have?

So basically, YES, we have had the right to it (same as the NO people have had to the NO) even when thwarted by ultra-liberal tradition-hating priests and bishops. And yes, they exist in abundance, unfortunately.

 

[BSHoop96]

A thousand kudos to CradleCath, Pax et Caritas, Tantum Ergo, and Gerard P for some of the best posts I have read here in a long time, especially to Tantum for Post #34, which one of the members of the Red Herring Society was quick to classify as a “rant.” Even if I had not previously been devoted to tradition, I think that just by seeing the quality of these posts by traditionalists **versus the sniveling sarcasm of the anti-Trad crowd, I would have been propelled in that direction. **

I myself am not always able to control my temper in these situations, so I take my hat off to those of you who can. You are performing a valuable service to those of us who have not been on this forum for long and who would otherwise be disheartened by the seeming lack of respect for tradition by these self-styled “traditionalists” who only come here to attack.

I compare the return to traditionalism to a ten-trumpet Reville, waking up many who had drifted away from Catholicism during its liberal years and calling them back to the Glory and Majesty of the Church Triumphant. **To those same liberals who love the Protestantized church much better, ** however, that same Reville sounds like a battle call from an opposing army.

sigh…I’m really trying here but I keep seeing statements like this and wonder why I even bother trying to find common ground.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Ethelzguy, you said:

This has been covered before. TLM-preffering people have always had the same “right” to the TLM that NO-preferring people have had to the NO.

Also…Catholics not only have the “right” but the “duty” to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days etc. Now, If we are obliged to go, and the TLM was never abrogated, why wouldn’t we have the “right”/“duty” to attend one for the last 40 years, even though churchmen have made it all but impossible to have?

Exactly, our rights are associated with our duties. Since we have a duty to attend Mass, we have the corresponding right to the Mass, while the Church has the **obligation **of providing the Mass (unless, of course, extraordinary circumstances, such as war, would prevent the Church from providing the Mass).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

A thousand kudos to CradleCath, Pax et Caritas, Tantum Ergo, and Gerard P for some of the best posts I have read here in a long time, especially to Tantum for Post #34, which one of the members of the Red Herring Society was quick to classify as a “rant.” Even if I had not previously been devoted to tradition, I think that just by seeing the quality of these posts by traditionalists versus the sniveling sarcasm of the anti-Trad crowd, I would have been propelled in that direction.

I myself am not always able to control my temper in these situations, so I take my hat off to those of you who can. You are performing a valuable service to those of us who have not been on this forum for long and who would otherwise be disheartened by the seeming lack of respect for tradition by these self-styled “traditionalists” who only come here to attack.

I compare the return to traditionalism to a ten-trumpet Reville, waking up many who had drifted away from Catholicism during its liberal years and calling them back to the Glory and Majesty of the Church Triumphant. To those same liberals who love the Protestantized church much better, however, that same Reville sounds like a battle call from an opposing army.

Thank you for that great and insightful post.

I notice that you are from Houston, TX. That is my home town