Why do Traditional Catholics defend "tradition" and not "Tradition"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kyrby_Caluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kyrby_Caluna

Guest
Holy Mother Church, in light of the Second Vatican Council, has always embraced Tradition and defended it from heresies. But instead of hearing what the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Second Vatican Council, some Catholics have became deaf to Tradition and has become stagnant to** t**radition.
 
What exactly are you talking about? It would be easier if you gave specific examples for us to discuss, instead of just making that provocative and over generalized statement.
 
Kyrby_Caluna said:
Holy Mother Church, in light of the Second Vatican Council, has always embraced Tradition and defended it from heresies. But instead of hearing what the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Second Vatican Council, some Catholics have became deaf to Tradition and has become stagnant to** t**radition.
Click to expand...
what do you mean please expand.

Do you mean the tradition of the church, that is introduced by the church fathers and such.

and little t is tradition when it comes to the latin mass, and kneeling when receiving Christ and such.
 
K_C,
I’ll echo and reiterate C_C’s and C_T’s requests.

Please provide a clear explanation, including a few examples, defending your assertion(s) which, by the way, have basis neither in my experience as a “Traditional” Roman Catholic nor in my understanding of the Church’s Tradition–pre- and post-Vatican II.

Thank you.

Cordially,
PAB
 
Kyrby_Caluna said:
But instead of hearing what the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Second Vatican Council…
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through the Second Vatican Council? And why do you never answer questions that people ask of you?
 
Traditions, one of the two pillars of the sacred deposit of faith, (the other one is the Scriptures) as handed down by the apostles to their successors, (i.e, that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharistic species); traditions, this is how the church has responded in a specific time in history (i.e, Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo).
 
give an example of traditional Catholics not defending Tradition.

i strongly disagree with your claim while I’m not the most traditional catholic I have some good very traditional friends and they defend Tradition better then most of my other Catholic friends.
 
Personally, I wish people would stop trying to “draw a distinction” between “capital T” and “lowercase T” and instead use accurate terms to describe “lowercase T”.

Many of us refer to most aspects of it as “Discipline”. This is easily distinguished from “Sacred Tradition.”

We don’t have to worry about using it at the beginning of a sentence. :cool:
 
part of the problems were that many Catholics misread what Vatican 2 was saying.And you’re right many traditional Catholics have always accepted tradition but when PJ23 made changes they they were viewed as heresy to many traditionalists.The Church does change over time with new scientific discoveries and new information.But some traditionalists refuse to.It really makes no sense except for the fact that traditionalists aren/t really traditionists but just follow the traditions which they are familiar with.My father thought OF was wrong and no longer the mass.He was stuck in a rut so to speak but died with the same thinking.
 
Sometimes I get the feeling that the Traditional Catholicism forum is really the I Hate Traditional Catholicism forum.
 
Kyrby_Caluna said:
Traditions, one of the two pillars of the sacred deposit of faith, (the other one is the Scriptures) as handed down by the apostles to their successors, (i.e, that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharistic species); traditions, this is how the church has responded in a specific time in history (i.e, Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo).
Click to expand...
So if I understand this correctly,

Tradition - tradition = antiquarianism?
 
Kyrby_Caluna said:
Holy Mother Church, in light of the Second Vatican Council, has always embraced Tradition and defended it from heresies. But instead of hearing what the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Second Vatican Council, some Catholics have became deaf to Tradition and has become stagnant to** t**radition.
Click to expand...
Glad to know you hear the Holy Ghost so clearly. Since you do, be so good as to explain why so many churches are empty, why we have had a crisis in vocations, why so many Catholic schools have closed, and why so many people do not understand what the Holy Eucharist is.

It is nonsensical to suggest that traditionally-minded Catholics are “deaf to tradition.” You seek to redefine tradition such that it has no meaning except what you choose to say it has.

“The tridentine rite? Oh, that’s not tradition, that changes.” A crucifix that actually depicts a human figure, or a Madonna that actually depicts a recognizable female? “Oh, that’s not tradition, either, since different artists paint or sculpt differently.”
A church that looks like a church instead of a Best Buy store in one of the more dismal suburbs? “That’s not tradition, since different places have different kinds of architecture.”

Traditional Catholics are not deaf to their traditions, any more than you are not deaf to the force of their message. You just don’t like what you are hearing (all caps, bold).
 
Seamus_L said:
Sometimes I get the feeling that the Traditional Catholicism forum is really the I Hate Traditional Catholicism forum.
Click to expand...
You know, I think people don’t know what the term Traditional Catholic means.

I know when I first started coming, I thought ithis forum was a catch-all for anything that was not “Liturgy and Sacraments.” I thought it was a general Catholicism forum.

For example, if I had a question about not swearing, or proper dress, or the Rosary, I would ask it here, because those topics don’t sound like Liturgy or Sacraments or Evangelization, or Apologetics, etc., etc.

So I think the first thing in order is to come up with a standard definition of “Traditional Catholicism”.
 
Warrenton said:
Glad to know you hear the Holy Ghost so clearly. Since you do, be so good as to explain why so many churches are empty, why we have had a crisis in vocations, why so many Catholic schools have closed, and why so many people do not understand what the Holy Eucharist is.

It is nonsensical to suggest that traditionally-minded Catholics are “deaf to tradition.” You seek to redefine tradition such that it has no meaning except what you choose to say it has.

“The tridentine rite? Oh, that’s not tradition, that changes.” A crucifix that actually depicts a human figure, or a Madonna that actually depicts a recognizable female? “Oh, that’s not tradition, either, since different artists paint or sculpt differently.”
A church that looks like a church instead of a Best Buy store in one of the more dismal suburbs? “That’s not tradition, since different places have different kinds of architecture.”

Traditional Catholics are not deaf to their traditions, any more than you are not deaf to the force of their message. You just don’t like what you are hearing (all caps, bold).
Click to expand...
I second that whole heartedly!

Kyrby Caluna, you need to come to understand this, while I have absolutely no idea how things are for the Church in the Philippines, in the Western World it is being decimated. From clergy sex scandals (which were in turn terribly handled by Bishops), to a complete change in the Liturgy, to Catholics not accepting/believing/ even knowing about basic dogma, do you think that’s a problem? The parishes are being cleared out across North America because so few young people are even the slightest bit interested, of course the exception to this are those which offer the Tridentine Mass. The seminaries are going empty… oh wait the Traditional ones are still full!

When you say that the Church has always defended Tradition from heresy, you are correct however you need more than Vatican II to this. Seriously when do you think the Church was founded, at Pentecost 36 AD, or 1962? Vatican II did not proclaim anything to either be believed or to be anathema, nothing it produced was infallible. Pope Benedict XVI said Vatican II had to be viewed through the traditional teachings of the Church, do you know why? Some of the (fallible) documents produced were so vaguely and poorly written, that taken by themselves could easily be seen as, or lead to heresy! Vatican II changed nothing. There is a real problem in the Roman Church, and screaming “Vatican II” every three seconds isn’t going to help fix it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top