What's so threatening about traditionalism?

[michelle_p]

You just never quit. This statement is completely preposterous and I have to conclude you know next to nothing about Church history to have made it. Your extremely simplistic outlook seems to be the root of the problem.

So, nobody suffered at all under the Arian bishops? Nobody suffered in the least in any of the major heretical waves that overtook the Church at any time?

(Note, of course, the Church Herself has never buckled under heresy, as she has never taught error, but individual clerics have erred. You have either not the ability to tell the difference between The Church and The People in the Church or your animosity for the causes you rave against induces myopia. This is a very basic distinction!)

And, for one more, nobody at all suffered under the mass altar-crushing and tabernacle-breakings that occurred when many uninformed or heretical bishops went forth to implement a “requirement” of the Council that never existed?

I’m sorry, E, but you have become little more than a troll here.

Wow. I don’t understand why you take such offense to name calling when you do so much of it yourself?

Why can’t traditionalists be happy with their tradition? Why do they constantly have to belittle everyone that doesn’t ascribe to their brand of Catholicism?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Wow. I don’t understand why you take such offense to name calling when you do so much of it yourself?

Why can’t traditionalists be happy with their tradition? Why do they constantly have to belittle everyone that doesn’t ascribe to their brand of Catholicism?

Your post is without context and therefore basically a non-statement.

Am I a traditionalist? I attend a daily NO and a weekly TLM. I find a reverent and abuse-free NO completely acceptable.

So, what is it, specifically, that you wish trads would shut up about? The myriad of liturgical abuses propagated under the NO? The fact that the Mass was intentionally made to look more like a Protestant meal and less like what it is, the making present of the Calvary Sacrifice? The desire for greater reverence and for orthodoxy?

Mr. Ethel hates all things traditional and all things to do with TLM. He’s made that clear. He talks very, very little about his own beliefs and spirituality, but there does appear to be very little he will not tolerate.

And he does not “debate” in any sense - he makes emotional arguments, non-sequitors, and pulls from the same very small stack of material ad infinitum.

Why don’t you stick around for the thread I will post shortly (1-2 days) describing in detail what it is I like about TLM in comparison to the NO?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Wow. I don’t understand why you take such offense to name calling when you do so much of it yourself?

Why can’t traditionalists be happy with their tradition? Why do they constantly have to belittle everyone that doesn’t ascribe to their brand of Catholicism?

I don’t think that was belittlement. Ethelzguy really does seem to be taking an extremely simplistic view of the situation, and to possess an inherent bias against any traditionalist.

For instance, when a traditionalist says that we are persecuted much as Christ was persecuted, he is “equating ourselves” with Christ in an intolerably arrogant fashion. Come on. Really?

 

[eelpis]

Becasue of the self-proclaimed “superiority” that tends to come with it.

In this thread, there have been posts that link “traditionalism” to suffering and persecution. To claim that someone has suffered persecution at the hands of the Church over matters of Liturgy defies faith and obedience to the Church.

Yes to make it all clear I regard the EF as superior to the NO and I share that sentiment with other Catholics, it seems even the pope thinks somewhat in this way.

Do I think myself superior to those who attend the OF. On the contrary. I may be worse than all of you put together. Traditionalists have suffered abuse from people in authority, detraction, calumny etc. Not from the Church but from some of her members.

 

[michelle_p]

I don’t think that was belittlement. Ethelzguy really does seem to be taking an extremely simplistic view of the situation, and to possess an inherent bias against any traditionalist.

For instance, when a traditionalist says that we are persecuted much as Christ was persecuted, he is “equating ourselves” with Christ in an intolerably arrogant fashion. Come on. Really?

To claim persecution or suffering does seem a little extreme to me. I mean c’mon, watch Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” and come back and say that not having a TLM handy for the last 40 years equates?

Perhaps traditional minded Catholics have missed some things since vatican 2, but saying that it is persecution is a bit much.

The apostles were persecuted. The Jews were persecuted by Hitler. Persecutions litter the history of man. I don’t think changing the Mass is the same thing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How many times must we repeat that nobody here blames THE CHURCH for the events of the last 40 years, but only notes–as a matter of FACT–that there were some in the U.S. who misunderstood the Council and thought that either the EF was ‘suppressed’ or that it would just ‘fade away’ and for many reasons (as individuals) ‘kept away’ from offering it even though it had never been abrogated and throughout the 40 years it was requested, in legitimate requests, yet denied. . .and that Pope Benedict himself says that this should not have been the case?

I do not blame THE CHURCH because some priests teach from the pulpit that women should be ordained, that contraception is all right, etc. Because that is not THE CHURCH speaking. . .it is individuals who themselves have either misunderstood the Church teaching or (for whatever reason) understand but have chosen to defy that teaching in favor of their own ‘better understanding.’

And I would LOVE to see the posts of mine that belittled others for their practice. Please show them to me, Michelle. I have written a LOT on this thread as a traditionalist, and you said, “traditionalists”. Please show me my words that belittle others for their practice.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I do not find traditionalism threatening. What I find offensive is the condemnation of SOME of the Novus Ordo mass.Notice, I said some, not all. Most traditionalist, (at least by the definition I learned after coming on the forum and finding out that I am not considered a traditional Catholic, even though I assiduously try to follow Rome in all things,) prefer the Latin Mass and all things pre Vatican. That is their right to do so, as Holy Mother Church gives us that option. Because my option is that I prefer the Novus Ordo, that does not make me any less Catholic, nor any more Catholic, just Roman Catholic.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

To claim persecution or suffering does seem a little extreme to me. I mean c’mon, watch Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” and come back and say that not having a TLM handy for the last 40 years equates?

Perhaps traditional minded Catholics have missed some things since vatican 2, but saying that it is persecution is a bit much.

The apostles were persecuted. The Jews were persecuted by Hitler. Persecutions litter the history of man. I don’t think changing the Mass is the same thing.

I think you know that that’s not what we’re talking about.

Sheesh, a traditionalist can’t say a perfectly Christian thing without getting trounced upon.

When someone says something like “Christ was persecuted, and so too are we,” that doesn’t mean that they’re saying that they’re on par with Christ. It means that Christ could be persecuted for our sake, then we can certainly take far smaller persecutions for His.

I can’t believe I have to explain that. If it was coming from the mouth of any other Christian, that’s how you would have taken it to begin with! But michelle, I think the problem is that you and ethel and others begin with the assumption that we’re all self-righteous and intolerably arrogant, and as such anything we say can be interpreted as such!

We’re not saying we’re persecuted because of the scarcity of EF Masses, we’re saying that often we have to put up with a lot of hostility both on these forums and in life for our preference for it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We weren’t persecuted in the denial of the EF for the last 40 years, Michelle.

We are persecuted today by those who see the word “traditionalist” and assume that any who identify themselves as such are ‘belittlers’ of others’ practices. Are whiny extremists. Are ‘detractors of The Church’.

I myself have just moved and have no EF available in my diocese except in a parish 120 miles away (and I have no car). So I go to the OF. I do not feel ‘deprived’ though because I love the OF, and in the last year I have seen more and more dioceses and parishes begin to offer the EF. Rome was not built in a day. In time, either the EF will be available where I am, or I might wind up moving again (not just for that reason, of course) and have it available.

And yet, because I would prefer the EF, even though I cannot attend it, joyfully and obediently attend the OF and perform all my other responsibilities and try to be a good Catholic–if I say I like Catholic traditionalism, there will still be some whose first instinct is to judge me as a snob, a schismatic, a holier-than-thou, a disruptor, a bigot, a regressive, etc.

They don’t know one thing about me other than that I say, “I like Catholic tradition”. . .and they are totally wrong in all their assumptions. . . but in their mind, “Traditionalist” means all the above. They are totally biased against the word and their **interpretation **of that word.

Isn’t that a type of persecution? You appear to claim that ‘traditionalists’ think that those who are not traditionalists are ‘lesser’. . .so you appear to believe that traditionalists ‘persecute’ non traditionalists, don’t you? Or if not persecute, that they judge them, mock them, insult them --and that you nontraditionalists therefore ‘suffer’ under **traditionalist **buffetings. Now you haven’t posted much on this thread, though I am sure you have read all the posts.

So I’m going to ask you again, please point out all my posts where I have belitted others who do not practice traditionalism.

 

[Brenda_V]

eelpis - do you think you got your original question answered? Because really, as a person who does indeed prefer the OF I feel no threat at all by those who prefer the EF.

I agree with some of the people who do prefer the EF that they have indeed suffered under some of our misguided hierarchy - by their own Bishops who are supposed to be Shepherds and allowed Sister “I am with the times” to guide the liturgy and catechesis of the young. Some of them have allowed their positions to “go to their heads” so to speak, others are truly misguided.

My true problem though with some here on the CAF (and the few in person I have come in contact with) who prefer the EF is their arrogance, not stating it is their opinion that the EF is better but that it is better - some of us find truth and love in simplicity - if you ever saw any of my craft (scrapbooking and cake decorating and other food art) you will find more people attracted to my simple designs over the very elaborate ones and yes, I have to encourage them to dig in to the food ones because it is for presentation and gastronomic enjoyment, not for us to just look at it forever and ever .

Now that I have said the above paragraph, I also see many more here on the CAF and in real life who prefer the EF over the OF who are not arrogant! There are just a few here and in real life who are the loudest, those who aren’t loud tend to “blend into the background” if you will, The same is true of the people who prefer the OF - I haven’t met the arrogant ones in real life but here on the CAF, boy howdy, watch out, they seem to come out of the woodworks! This really makes it hard for people like me who really do want to learn more about the Traditional practices and not debate about how EF is better/more reverent/(fill in the blank) than the OF (or the reverse). I don’t want to know that, I want to hear more about the practices that some have had like Brotherrholf(sp?), he always puts things into perspective for me, he is just a bit older than I am who suffered under the changes from the TLM to the Pauline Mass as a child so my memory is not the same as his and I truly value his opinions.

Just so you know, I would indeed attend an EF if one were at a good time for me, I see the Mass as the Mass whether it is EF or OF - I am also very blessed to have very Orthodox, Truth teaching Priests! You will not come to my Parish or Mission and hear a pablum homily, the Consecration as far as I can tell is the same whether it is in the OF or the EF, the only difference is the words are in the language of the people vs. in Latin.

Brenda V.

 

[ethelzguy]

Mr. Ethel hates all things traditional and all things to do with TLM. He’s made that clear. He talks very, very little about his own beliefs and spirituality, but there does appear to be very little he will not tolerate.

Thank you again for so beautifully answering the OP.

Another example of how so many in the traditionalist camp make broad brushed accusations against those that don’t fully share their views…implying that they are some form of anti-Catholic.

Where have I ever said that I hate all things traditional? Where have I ever said that I hate all things to do with the TLM?

And you wonder why some Catholics feel “threatened” by traditionalism?

I simply have no tolerance for the superioristic attitudes of some in the traditionalist crowd. I have no tolerance for those who bash and denigrate the Church or it’s clergy in the name of “traditionalism”.

 

[MrS]

So, what is it, specifically, that you wish trads would shut up about? The myriad of liturgical abuses propagated under the NO? The fact that the Mass was intentionally made to look more like a Protestant meal and less like what it is, the making present of the Calvary Sacrifice? The desire for greater reverence and for orthodoxy?

Mr. Ethel hates all things traditional and all things to do with TLM. He’s made that clear. He talks very, very little about his own beliefs and spirituality, but there does appear to be very little he will not tolerate.

And he does not “debate” in any sense - he makes emotional arguments, non-sequitors, and pulls from the same very small stack of material ad infinitum.

Why don’t you stick around for the thread I will post shortly (1-2 days) describing in detail what it is I like about TLM in comparison to the NO?

It is sad to say that there are many of those who even agree with Mr. Ethel ( ) and apparently have either no concept of what is “traditional”, or simply have no desire to change the status quo.

Kinda reminds me of the political candidate who just said “…this is no longer a christian country…” with a smile as he tried to appeal to all possible voters by saying nothing that made sense. He apparently does not know what the word means… yet tries to define it and those who adhere to it under his own misconceptions.

 

[Frosty]

.

Am I a traditionalist? I attend a daily NO and a weekly TLM. **I find a reverent and abuse-free NO completely acceptable. **

The arrogance and condescending tone of a great many of your posts has been off-putting enough but this really takes the cake! YOU find a Mass acceptable? I don’t care one whit about whether or not a NO is, what you consider from your self-perceived lofty height, reverent and abuse free. This one statement is enough to let everyone here see where you are coming from. And I mean everyone! At Mass, whether it be an EF or an OF, at the Offertory, we pray that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God. That’s what it is all about, What is acceptable to God, not what you deem to be acceptable to yourself!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Mr. Ethel hates all things traditional and all things to do with TLM. He’s made that clear. He talks very, very little about his own beliefs and spirituality, but there does appear to be very little he will not tolerate.

I don’t think that was belittlement. Ethelzguy really does seem to be taking an extremely simplistic view of the situation, and to possess an inherent bias against any traditionalist.

For instance, when a traditionalist says that we are persecuted much as Christ was persecuted, he is “equating ourselves” with Christ in an intolerably arrogant fashion. Come on. Really?

I think each of you is judging someone you do not know and ascribing your opinions which are not fact. Read my post, I think its post 107, and I feel safe saying that I believe Ethelsguy feels the same way.
No, we will not debate which mass is better. That in itself is an oxymoron. A mass in either form is infinite in merit and infinity has no degrees. So long as Rome says either form is OK and acceptable, that is the position we hold. We do not think we are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium. We follow it without argument.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

The arrogance and condescending tone of a great many of your posts has been off-putting enough but this really takes the cake! YOU find a Mass acceptable?

Do YOU find a Mass with abuses acceptable? Once again I think people are taking things that Paul says and, because he’s a traditionalist, assuming they’re arrogant or condescending.

Liturgical abuses shouldn’t be considered acceptable by anyone, so why are you getting angry because he said that he doesn’t find them acceptable?

 

[Walking_Home]

**I think each of you is judging someone you do not know and ascribing your opinions which are not fact. Read my post, I think its post 107, and I feel safe saying that I believe Ethelsguy feels the same way. **
No, we will not debate which mass is better. That in itself is an oxymoron. A mass in either form is infinite in merit and infinity has no degrees. So long as Rome says either form is OK and acceptable, that is the position we hold. We do not think we are more knowledgeable than the Magisterium. We follow it without argument.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

---

How about when the head of the Magisterium --the Pope–does something like teach by example that kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue is also proper form of receiving communion—and those of us who expressed support for the Pope’s actions —are (as per ethelzguy) likened to a “pack of panting dogs”. Does this reflect the position that Rome holds.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

I agree & like you, had the need to know…precipitated by the crisis of faith within the Church not occured…I doubt I’d have delved into the documents of the Church like I have. This was my point in the post that was used to “prove that I am holier than thou, an intellectual snob, a better than the Pope, Catholic”.

I said very clearly that the Traditionalists on this board HAD to be informed in order to understand & stay with the Church. The average Catholic in the pew, who was satisfied with the Novus Ordo…often because that’s all they knew, did not have this need.

However, I would expect that ANY Catholic who came to these forums does so too learn. Further, I would expect that any Catholic who posts on this subforum would be here to learn more about Traditional Catholicism. Yet, I hear screams of SSPX, “YOU” MAKE ME FEEL LIKE AN INFERIOR CATHOLIC & YOU SHOULD NEVER SPEAK AGAINST “THE CHURCH”.

There is no substance, no attempt at calm, rational discussion…emotional raving. I have yet to see a Novus Ordo Catholic explain what it is in the rubrics, the prayers, the ambiance found in the Novus Ordo that attracts them. All they complain about are the “Latin”, the old rosary during Mass falsehood, the priest has his back to us (no thought given to the fact that the priest has his “front” toward God. Oh well…I should be used to it by now.

 

[MrS]

Ah yes, once again a thread offers the chance for some to claim a defense against attacks on the NO… when the attacks are actually on the abuses found in many of the NO liturgies.

It is laudable to defend the Mass. The Mass, from the Introit to the final blessing is one prayer. And it is the highest form of worship we have.

But to defend the obvious - minor or major abuses - under the guise of defending the Mass itself… that is just weird.

.

 

[Frosty]

Do YOU find a Mass with abuses acceptable? Once again I think people are taking things that Paul says and, because he’s a traditionalist, assuming they’re arrogant or condescending.

Liturgical abuses shouldn’t be considered acceptable by anyone, so why are you getting angry because he said that he doesn’t find them acceptable?

No, I do not find abuses in the Mass acceptable.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I simply have no tolerance for the superioristic attitudes of some in the traditionalist crowd. I have no tolerance for those who bash and denigrate the Church or it’s clergy in the name of “traditionalism”.

If that is the case, then please show me (whom you have specifically accused of such on this thead) the exact quotes, in context, which specifically 'bash and denigrate the Church or it’s clergy in the name of ‘traditionalism’.

I fear I will have a long wait as no such ‘quotes’ of mine exist.

Let me give you some examples of what I really did say.

Post 10: 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.

IOW–I am not ‘against’ the OF.

Post 34:

You know, we have moved on from the past. We are delighted both that Rome (and** mostly the U.S., really, Rome was with us from the start, God bless Pope John Paul 2 and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Paul VI–who never sanctioned the dismissal of the EF himself** --and we have nothing against the OF anyway). . has finally acknowledged that we were right.

We are delighted that the same cavalier (and wrong) attitude that ‘whisked away’ the EF for 40 years isn’t going to be done to those of you who love the OF. We suffered --why would we want others to suffer?

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. **

Shows that not only was it not “THE CHURCH” which erred, but individuals. . but that I personally, and traditionalists as a whole not only ‘accept’ the validity of the OF but would not want it to be taken away as the EF was. The use of ‘many’ indicates, especially, that it was not the ‘official Church teaching’ which denied the EF, but the actions of members, who could err.

Post 39:

the last 40 years, the EF should have been ‘available’ to Catholics along with the OF, instead of falsely ‘denied’.

That the people who were denied were not only ‘right then’ to ask, but are right 'now-as is shown by the fact that not only Pope John Paul 2 but Pope Benedict went out of their way to state, categorically, that the EF had ‘never been abrogated’ and should be made widely available, as the OF had never been meant to ‘replace’ the EF.

That is all.

It really does not seem like much to have a plain fact acknowledged, without being called, ranters, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, etc.

**Nobody is trying to claim that all you who love the OF (which I reiterate has as it was intended by the Council to be promulgated is a perfectly valid Mass. I am not and never have been claiming that it is not) were responsible for the denial and the deceit involved in the unlawful suppression of the EF (at its worst) or the ignorance (at its best) of those who were. There simply is no other way to put it, they were quite wrong in the denial–no matter how ‘right’ they may have thought they were. **

Again showing that I did not, ever, claim that it was THE CHURCH responsible for the incorrect assumptions of SOME which kept the EF from being celebrated as it should.

Also post 39:

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? **

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?

Why are you so vested in continuing to deride and mock your fellow Catholics who happen to prefer an equally valid Mass to your own? Why is it so important that you continue to make us feel like ‘second-class’ citizens, or to minimize the last 40 years as though the whole thing ‘never happened’?

Again giving my position, and responding to continued mockery and insults with asking why such insults are made when I have never ever made the false claims attributed to ‘traditionalists’ and in fact, the ones undergoing the insults are the traditionalists in the posts to which I am responding.

Post 40:

First, I never attacked you. I simply said that your experiences are your experiences. . .that there are, and were, others whose experiences differ.

And no, I am not claiming I knew ‘better than church authorities’. . .because the Church Authorities say exactly what I have said. It was never the Church who said, “There will be no more EF in this parish/diocese”. That there were some in authority who made mistakes (all of us being human) does not mean I place myself ‘over them’. I have made plenty of errors in my time. **However, when it comes to this particular Church teaching, the Church taught that the EF was never abrogated. I believe that–I did then and I do now. So I agree with the Church’s teaching. . .which doesn’t make me ‘better’, just obedient. Some others made a mistake. . .which doesn’t make them ‘worse’, it makes them simply wrong on a particular subject. I’m not ‘better’ than they are. I simply was ‘right’ in following the Church on this subject. **

It appears that either I haven’t been clear, or that for some other reason, people just don’t get that an acknowledgement that some people made a mistake (not the Church and its teachings, but some people in it, and most likely not deliberately) is not tantamount to proclaiming me better than the Pope. Sheesh!!

Come on, now. If I went around and proclaimed that the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women (Because that is the truth, it does not) are you going to accuse me of thinking myself better than church authorities, because there are some priests who say that it should ordain women???

Can anybody show me the errors in my posts above that show that I am judgmental, against the OF, disobedient to The Church, or expressing falsehoods?