What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[Jenny_Z]

I don’t think we’re divided. We’re a bit diversified, in the sense that some prefer a more traditional approach to celebrating our faith. There are traditionalists in every walk of life.

Agreed.

It seems that some people are more “happy” thinking that they’re being attacked…

Groups like Catholics for Choice and Roman Catholic Womanpriests aren’t attacking traditional Catholicism… they’re attacking ALL of Catholicism. There’s no reason to make any more divisions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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.

Please see the following, from zenit: zenit.org/article-20070?l=english

It makes it quite clear that it was the assumption of some (not all) that the EF would ‘die out’. . .but that it was never the intent of the Church that this would be the case and that, indeed, not only were the ‘older generation’ but the ‘younger’ as well who loved it. Further, Pope Benedict is clear that, despite the validity of the OF, among the reasons for the continued ‘popularity’ of the EF is that there was a great deal of ‘experimentation’ and abuse that occurred with the OF.

Naturally, as Catholics have a ‘duty’ to attend Mass, Pope Benedict specifically informs us that the Church neither abrogated nor itself intended for the Mass to ‘go away’. . .we were thus as ‘entitled’ to that Mass as we were ‘entitled’ to the OF. Or are you arguing that somehow we were only ‘entitled’ to one?

*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”.

**First, the ‘you’ is not directed specifically to you PERSONALLY, sir. And as a matter of fact, as far as your claim for not being insulting to those of us who prefer the EF. . . I believe the words you used regarding one of my posts was. . .“ranting”? I suppose you don’t find that insulting. . .but I do, sir. It is not politically correct, I suppose, to expect some common courtesy and a bit of acknowledging the bias on your side which you are all too eager to accuse others of. My claims are, according to you, ludicrous, and I am, according to you, falsely trumpeting my ‘entitlement’ to something–yet apparently you don’t feel you are personally insulting??? **

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.

And is that what I actually said? I do not believe it is. And I believe I made it QUITE CLEAR that I did not, do not, and never have blamed “THE CHURCH.” Can you kindly specifically respond to what I ACTUALLY SAY and not your assumptions thereof?

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.

*Your words again, not mine. And you have not addressed my question. *

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

Once again, I have not declared the Catholic Church to be wrong in ANY WAY and I highly resent your ‘assertion’ that I have. And your judgment in implying that I have done this and that I am arrogant. And you don’t think you have personally insulted me, sir?

---

<<I hate to see this thread either derailed or locked due to a lack of charity, and I have tried desperately to maintain that charity even under provocation–to the point that even now, the words I will use only are that I personally ‘resent’ the (I hope unintentional) misreading and misunderstanding of my posts when it comes to being accused unfairly of actions or words I have not done or said . .I will not personally attack a person, I will not stoop to accusations. I will ask questions only and above all, I will say only to all on these forums: May God bless you. That’s all. >>

 

[SanJudas]

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

We do have common ground! Go over to some of the other subforums and read the posts defending abortion, gay marriage, population control, Communism, ordination of women, inclusive language, etc., and you would quickly see that we are mostly on the same side.

This subforum, however, is about traditional practices and liturgy, especially a preference for the Tridentine Mass. If you don’t agree with those things, fine. But why bother to come here to this subforum? Do you think you’re going to convert a bunch of sedevacantists? You could do a lot more good applying your time and talents to explaining the Catholic position on moral issues over on those other subforums. I’m sure your ideas on those matters are quite orthodox, and orthodox thinking on some of those threads is sadly lacking.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

But the heirarchy hasn’t been loyal to the perennial Magisterium of the Church and her traditions.

That would be a bad attitude, unless you are a person that doggedly refuses to look into the arguments for the traditional resistance to the post conciliar policies that are disguised as Catholic teachings.

What’s up with that? The illegal suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. It’s the bishops fault that that guy and his family can’t get a Liturgy that is the central part of the patrimony of the Latin Rite.

The Magisterium has stated that the N.O. Mass is a valid Mass. As such, it is the Mass I prefer to attend. If you wish to attend the TLM which is also a valid Mass, feel free, but please respect my wish to attend an equally vaild Mass as I respect your right to attend the TLM.

And just because there may not be a TLM close to you does not relieve you of the obligation to attend a Mass. Just as I would attend a TLM if there was not a N.O. Mass close to me.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

God Bless You, SanJudas, Our prayers have been answered & I suppose we thought that people would be happy for us.

I love your comparison of the return of traditionalism to a “ten-trumpet reville”!!!

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

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.

The issues have been beaten to death. The attitudes remain.

Mainstream Catholics don’t appear to be interested in a bunch or arrogant, self-righteous, chest-beating…much of which occurs any time Rome gives the slightest nod toward traditionalism.

Re: “We’re more Catholic than you liberals…”. What’s your point there? That orthodoxy is not a measuring stick of ‘Catholicism’? In other words, that the very concept of relative ‘Catholicism’ - being true to the Church in Her Tradition and history - cannot exist? That every baptized Catholic is equally Catholic in every way? That is, of course, ludicrous, but that assumption underlies your post, because you are not addressing at all the charge that traditionalists could be better Catholics than liberals, in general. In other words, it isn’t a logical argument, unless you really believe that every baptized Catholic is equally Catholic.

The “mainstream Catholics” you refer to - these would be the ones who, statistically, believe in abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior to the same extent as the average American? What’s your point there?

Moderators - why is our friend Ethel allowed to get away with the constant name-calling and berating of members here? I personally don’t mind it - let him abuse as he wishes - yet others are called out for making less inflammatory and directly insulting statements.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

“Trying to imitate Christ”, is a long way from “equating yourself with Christ”.

I was commenting on this quote:

Christ Himself was ridiculed and calumniated for speaking the truth, and so too are the Traditionalists.

If you can’t see the self-righteous arrogance in such a comment, there is nothing further for us to discuss.

On the contrary - there’s your own dripping arrogance, for one thing.

You are here determining on your own that nobody ever suffered substantially by being denied the Mass they loved - you are making that determination, or else you are noting that you simply have no concern at all for their suffering.

As for the analogy with Christ’s suffering, basic Catholic theology tells us that offering up one’s sufferings in union with Christ’s is a holy and spiritually productive thing to do. Beyond that - it was obviously an analogy. Your reaction to insult by claiming that the poster was equating himself with Christ seems to be low-brow, emotion-based, nonsensical ‘argument’ that simply seeks to do as much ‘damage’ as possible with the folks who are eager for blood.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

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

Ethel,

Two days ago you sent me a private message in which you stated that you had some connection to one of the individuals responsible for the new Mass.

I then asked you a very simple, very direct question that I actually thought I would get some answer to: Why were almost all of the prayers that made the sacrificial nature of the obvious Mass removed? Why was it made to look, on the exterior, less like the making present of Calvary and more like a meal? (It’s NOT, of course a meal, and is a valid sacrifice, but certainly it looks more like a meal.)

(I pointed out how I’ve known several Catholics to proclaim, after attending a Lutheran or other Protestant service, “Hey - it’s just like our church!”. And vice-versa.)

You made no response to this question whatsoever. I actually and honestly hoped there was something other than the obvious - that these things were done intentionally. But I got nothing at all from you, the anti-traditionalist forum crusader.

Anyway, at this point, I have to believe you really do have no substantial argument to present here. You go from thread to thread insulting traditionalists with the same tired rhetoric and the same illogical and empty “argument”. This argument is that they are ‘disobedient’ - even though that is not the case technically or practically - and that it’s ‘wrong’ to ever criticize anything anyone in the Church has ever done.

(You’re never specific - you simply ridicule and dismiss individuals for criticizing the actions of some Churchmen, so logic dictates that your assertion be interpreted broadly.)

In short, you offer empty, insulting, repetitive rhetoric and simply disengage (or offer more of the same) whenever you’re presented with logical debate.

 

[CradleCath]

=ethelzguy;4039589

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.

You might just have to read a book to find the answer. It was written by a canon lawyer & is entitled:

The Rights of Catholics in the Church

by James A. Coriden

Paulist Press

One of the jacket blurbs says the following:
Professor of Catholic church law Reverend James A. Coriden presents The Rights of Catholics in the Church, a straightforward basic reference for those seeking to know their rights as Catholics under canon law. Chapters offer an overview of the rights of Catholics in the church, including rights to pastoral care, rights to initiatives and activities, rights connected to one’s state in life, rights to formation and education, and rights to due process. A final section outlining the limitations on and defenses of one’s rights in the church rounds out this solid, easy-to-follow primer.

Why do you post on this sub-forum? It seems to upset you terribly.

 

[CradleCath]

On the contrary - there’s your own dripping arrogance, for one thing.

You are here determining on your own that nobody ever suffered substantially by being denied the Mass they loved - you are making that determination, or else you are noting that you simply have no concern at all for their suffering.

As for the analogy with Christ’s suffering, basic Catholic theology tells us that offering up one’s sufferings in union with Christ’s is a holy and spiritually productive thing to do. Beyond that - it was obviously an analogy. Your reaction to insult by claiming that the poster was equating himself with Christ seems to be low-brow, emotion-based, nonsensical ‘argument’ that simply seeks to do as much ‘damage’ as possible with the folks who are eager for blood.

 

[ethelzguy]

Re: “We’re more Catholic than you liberals…”. What’s your point there? That orthodoxy is not a measuring stick of ‘Catholicism’? In other words, that the very concept of relative ‘Catholicism’ - being true to the Church in Her Tradition and history - cannot exist? That every baptized Catholic is equally Catholic in every way? That is, of course, ludicrous, but that assumption underlies your post, because you are not addressing at all the charge that traditionalists could be better Catholics than liberals, in general. In other words, it isn’t a logical argument, unless you really believe that every baptized Catholic is equally Catholic.

So, you’re saying that we have “levels” of Catholicism? I’d love to see a Church document that verifies this. So, you’re a black-belt, and I’m a green-belt, or something to that effect? I think you just made my point for me, thanks.

The “mainstream Catholics” you refer to - these would be the ones who, statistically, believe in abortion, contraception, and homosexual behavior to the same extent as the average American? What’s your point there?

Again, you make my point for me. As a self-proclaimed “traditionalist”, you lump everyone else into a group that holds beliefs that are against the Church.

Moderators - why is our friend Ethel allowed to get away with the constant name-calling and berating of members here? I personally don’t mind it - let him abuse as he wishes - yet others are called out for making less inflammatory and directly insulting statements.

Perhaps for the same reasons that the constant denigration of Mass form, Popes, Bishops, and Priests are allowed to continue. I have been “called out” as well. So, fair is fair.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I pointed out how I’ve known several Catholics to proclaim, after attending a Lutheran or other Protestant service, “Hey - it’s just like our church!”. And vice -versa.)

I gew up as an Episcopal. After my sister attended her first Novus Ordo Mass, she called me and said “that was just like Church when we were kids. I followed right along”.

The new Mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal church we attended when I was growing up. The only difference is that the Episcopal service didn’t have any liturgical abuses.

 

[BSHoop96]

We do have common ground! Go over to some of the other subforums and read the posts defending abortion, gay marriage, population control, Communism, ordination of women, inclusive language, etc., and you would quickly see that we are mostly on the same side.

This subforum, however, is about traditional practices and liturgy, especially a preference for the Tridentine Mass. If you don’t agree with those things, fine. But why bother to come here to this subforum? **Do you think you’re going to convert a bunch of sedevacantists? **You could do a lot more good applying your time and talents to explaining the Catholic position on moral issues over on those other subforums. I’m sure your ideas on those matters are quite orthodox, and orthodox thinking on some of those threads is sadly lacking.

Here again, a totally uncalled for sarcastic remark.

San Judas, I’ll tell you why I’m on here. I came on the thread titled “Traditional” innocently enough because I thought it would be educational. I had been away many, many years and finally came home. Now my husband is getting ready to start RCIA. and I thought it might be interesting for him.

It was a mistake. I was shocked. I finally jumped into the fray because I felt the NO and people who attend it were being attacked. I have absolutely no problem with those who prefer the TLM, but I personally felt after reading a lot of posts that many of you who prefer the TLM look down on those who prefer the NO. And it seemed when NO people tried to say that yes, there were abuses, but the NO itself was not the problem, they were dogpiled. This forum doesn’t seem to be as much about the preference for the TLM as it is a condemnation of the NO.

Granted, there are abuses. Apparently in some parts of the country “many abuses”. But that is not the fault of the NO. That is the fault of “people.”

I apologize to the few people on here who seem to have a respect for both forms.

I prefer the NO. That does not make me a second-class Catholic and that’s what I have been made to feel.

I have never, ever implied that I thought anyone on here was a sedevacantist.

Perhaps an NO person came on here to learn something about the TLM because they are interested in it. It wouldn’t be a welcome introduction. It would be almost the same as if my husband had gone to the “Inquiry” class and they had dumped all over him for his “inadequate” protestant background and told him he was a “second-class” Christian and how wrong he had been. You might think that but why on God’s earth would you say that? That is not the way Catholics welcome people into the Church.

You say this is a subforum about traditional practices and liturgy. No…it isn’t. It’s just a place for TLM and NO people to hurt each other. I tried to reach out tonight. I will no longer participate in this. It’s an embarrasment. I will tell my husband to look elsewhere for additional information.

 

[ethelzguy]

On the contrary - there’s your own dripping arrogance, for one thing.

You are here determining on your own that nobody ever suffered substantially by being denied the Mass they loved - you are making that determination, or else you are noting that you simply have no concern at all for their suffering.

For someone to claim that they have endured “Christ-like suffering”, over changes in the Liturgy is utterly ridiculous, and I stand by that. The changes in the Liturgy were made by the Church. To claim “Christ-like suffering” is an insult to the HMC.

As for the analogy with Christ’s suffering, basic Catholic theology tells us that offering up one’s sufferings in union with Christ’s is a holy and spiritually productive thing to do. Beyond that - it was obviously an analogy. Your reaction to insult by claiming that the poster was equating himself with Christ seems to be low-brow, emotion-based, nonsensical ‘argument’ that simply seeks to do as much ‘damage’ as possible with the folks who are eager for blood.

I don’t see any mainstream Catholics to be “eager for blood”. The posts on this forum make it pretty clear that it’s the other way around.

 

[ethelzguy]

Anyway, at this point, I have to believe you really do have no substantial argument to present here. You go from thread to thread insulting traditionalists with the same tired rhetoric and the same illogical and empty “argument”. This argument is that they are ‘disobedient’ - even though that is not the case technically or practically - and that it’s ‘wrong’ to ever criticize anything anyone in the Church has ever done.

My rhetoric isn’t any more “tired” or irrelevant, than the endless threads and posts denigrating the Church.

 

[ibkc]

I gew up as an Episcopal. After my sister attended her first Novus Ordo Mass, she called me and said “that was just like Church when we were kids. I followed right along”.

The new Mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal church we attended when I was growing up. The only difference is that the Episcopal service didn’t have any liturgical abuses.

I grew up Episcopalian, too, and the church I attended had services that were closer to a traditional Catholic mass, except in English. Very “high church”, incense, lavish vestments on the clergy, traditional music (NEVER anything that could even be vaguely construed as ‘contemporary’), communion kneeling at the altar rail, kneelers in the pews, reverence before and after the service (no chatting and socializing right up and through the processional) and all that. When I attended my first OF mass last year, I was stunned at how casual and Protestant-y it was. I wasn’t expecting a Latin mass, but I also wasn’t quite expecting what I found.

Not that I am “bashing” the OF mass. Reverently done, it is beautiful, and my home parish is an OF-only parish. I think the next time we move, though, we’ll try to move closer to the FSSP parish and become parishioners there.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have had just about enough of this.

I totally, categorically, and emphatically deny any accusations whatsoever that I, for one, have ever denigrated the OF, insulted the Church, or denigrated the Church, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[ethelzguy]

I have had just about enough of this.

Join the club.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I repeat,

I totally, categorically, and emphatically deny any accusations whatsoever that I, for one, have ever denigrated the OF, insulted the Church, or denigrated the Church, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I repeat,

I totally, categorically, and emphatically deny any accusations whatsoever that I, for one, have ever denigrated the OF, insulted the Church, or denigrated the Church, in any way, shape, or form.

Nor I. In about my first post in this forum, a few days ago, I noted that I attend the NO more often than TLM (I attend a daily NO 2-3 times/week).

E. and a couple others are clearly on a ‘mission’. If it were one based on substance, that would be one thing, as it could be countered, but there is no real ‘counter’ to emotion-based arguments and insults.