Why do extremist give the EF and traditionalist a bad name?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnjacob2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think because people like to believe they are “right”. Often, they achieve this not because of what they believe, but because they convince themselves other people are “wrong”. They latch on to something, in this case their extreme beliefs and convince themselves everyone else is “wrong”, making themselves feel so much better about being “right”.

It really is pretty twisted, in my opinion (especially when religion is used this way). I just try to ignore people who are like that. You an’t fix or change them or convince them of anything. Better to direct your energy towards something more positive.
 
Last edited:
I would just like to make another note. I think one of the beautiful things of the Catholic church is that, while the core teachings of the Church remain the same for all, members do have a lot of flexibility in the way they practice their faith. So you can have traditionalists, and you can have those who aren’t so traditional. But they are still both Catholics and no one is “more Catholic” than the other. It isn’t as though there are “sects” which can be quite divisive in other religions.

Anyhow, as most people know I am agnostic but i just wanted to let you all know it is something I admire about your religion. Embrace it and don’t be mad over it. It really is a beautiful aspect of the faith.
 
You might like the Church Music Association of America. Lots of documents on musicasacra.com. lots of fun learning to be done on their forum as well!
 
Last edited:
semper_catholicus said:
Traditionalists do have a lot of problems themselves:

Click to expand...
This is interesting and reflects my initial experience with traditionalists very well. I have nothing but good things to say about the traditional priests that I have known, though and I am happy to say that the situation is slowly changing at the parish that I know.
 
Yes. Many traditionalists aren’t aware of their problems. And I’m not excluding myself.
 
I refer you to the video posted earlier in the thread by @semper_catholicus.

I have found that traditionalists can be very dogmatic about things that are not dogma and quite judgemental when others (outsiders) do not adhere to their standards.
 
johnjacob2004 said:
I like aspects of the EF and tradition, but I don’t push my views on others. I also think when one becomes pushy then the other person feels less inclined to learn about the tradition
Click to expand...
I feel your pain.

The EF/TC people in my personal life are fond of pointing at other Catholics and shouting, “Yer doin’ it wrong!!”

I’ve met actually met some cool ones on CAF, though, so it gives me hope.
 
Last edited:
What many people fail to understand is that the official documents of VII were meant to be a beginning, not a means to an end.
After the council, each Bishop’s Conference met and there were subcommittees and all sorts of goings on that produced many more documents, procedures and recommendations, that ultimately were approved or disapproved by Rome and then implimented.
One really cannot get a true sense of how we got to where we are now, without looking at the Council as a whole, which can take a lifetime.

For example, one of the big complaints I hear is about ad orientum worship and how “no where in VII did it say to abolish it…”

If you read inter oeumenici specifically paragraph 91, you will find a direction that says altars should be built so that the priest may face the people.

It was/is a complex issue and one that will take much more than the 50 years to bear only good fruit.
 
Last edited:
johnjacob2004 said:
I like aspects of the EF and tradition, but I don’t push my views on others. I also think when one becomes pushy then the other person feels less inclined to learn about the tradition
Click to expand...
All sorts of people push their views. Catholics at the other end of the spectrum can do the same. Moderately conservative parishioners can also end up feeling pushed out of their parishes as a result.
 
I didn’t say it mandated anything.
I said that many people complain that VII never called for things but
they have no clue about all the documents. The one I shared showed that, yes it was part of the vision of VII for Mass being celebrated facing the people.

Thank you for proving the OP’s point. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Extremists give everything a bad name.
Written word usually seems more severe than the spoken word.
Internet emboldens people and prompts worse rhetoric.
 
If you read what I wrote, and took it at face value, there would have been no need to contradict me. I simply linked a document that proves that VII did indeed address the topic.
I find this to be a common tactic in the circles the OP is referring to.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
What dogmatic constitution? Sorry, I don’t know what that is, so I am not saying that one is wrong. All I know is that centuries worth of tradition and meaning got lost (ruined on purpose, really) in the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
Just to correct you Sacrosanctum Concilium is not a dogmatic constitution. It was merely a constitution of the church. Dei Verbum was a dogmatic constitution.
 
Although to be fair it says altars should be built to allow walking around it (for incensing) and to also to allow versus populism masses. However it is not mandating this (versus populism) as the norm . What is being mandate is freestanding altars. As has been noted many times the GIRM is written with the presuppotion of the mass being said ad orientem.
 
No where did I say it mandated anything!
I used this as an example of how misunderstood VII really was and that not only is it necessary to read the original documents, but that one must go deeper into post-conciliar documents.

To all of you who keep trying to say “Well, ok the document says that, but…” this is exactly the type of attitude that the OP is talking about. Never did I say anything about mandates or that something “must be done”. I used a common example to show the that the documents and the council and it’s aftermath are often very misunderstood. I guess I proved that point too.
 
At this point in history, the Catholic Church is bleeding members. The sex scandals have done horrific damage–I would say a direct hit with many casualties and a seriously wounded C.O. I think we will see a much smaller, scaled-down, and less-elaborate Church in the years to come. The money will go fast as more lawsuits are filed and less people are in the Church giving tithes and offerings.

It seems to me that this kind of in-fighting (and no matter what anyone says, that what it looks like to me and many others–FIGHTING) is not helping one bit.

Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

He also prayed that we would be ONE.

That doesn’t mean all practicing our faith the same way, but it means respecting what our God-appointed leaders have pronounced as “good” and rejoicing with each other, not picking at each other, over liturgical matters like music and the position of the priest that have been given much freedom by the various Church documents.

Loud-living dogma, on the “what would you change about the OF Mass” thread, you made some pretty sarcastic comments about some of my posts about the pipe organ–I’m not sure what you are trying to say, since you didn’t come right out and say it, but relied on sarcasm, and I’m not very good at sarcasm. I think you were saying that I am working against what the Catholic Church says is appropriate for liturgical music–and that’s just not true, and I am having a hard time loving someone who would say something like this about me!

And the same thing is happening on this thread–you who are traditionalists seem to be putting words into CilladeRoma’s post that they did not write, and the more CilladeRoma tries to defend their words, the more you all surround CilladeRoma and dig in for the attack! It’s like watching a pack of coyotes surround a victim.

I admit that I say and write some snarky things here on CAF more often than I wish, and it’s WRONG of me to do that. It hurts others and it doesn’t help. I’m trying very hard to be kinder in my words, but I’m not always faithful to this resolution.

When we say things to each other that are intended to knock the other person down so that we can claim the win 🏆–it does NOT matter anymore whether the Mass music is chant, or whether the priest faces front or back. By our unloving words and attitudes, we have made it very hard, maybe even impossible, for people to KNOW that we are Jesus’ disciples. People will not recognize our Church as His Church because we have stopped loving one another. And remember, love is not a feeling–it is an action, and words, including written words, are actions.

:cry:
 
Last edited:
johnjacob2004 said:
I like aspects of the EF and tradition, but I don’t push my views on others. I also think when one becomes pushy then the other person feels less inclined to learn about the tradition
Click to expand...
Interesting generalization…could easily and errantly be stated, “why do extremists give the OF and those accepting Vatican 2 a bad name?”

Just sayin’!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top