Replies

The "Trads" oppose Rome, The Pope, The Curia. They pride themselves on fighting modernism when in reality they are nettlesome busybodies whose speciality is private judgement, carping, caviling, criticising and opposition to divinely-constituted authority.

Your statements are false.

I am copying freeper livius with this, since I want to quote what he typed on another thread (post 254), he typed:

I do wish, however, that traditionalists would stop going for the jugular on other traditionalists, and would focus their attention on those people in the Church who really are evil (yes, I think there are some) and are out to destroy the Church.

The situation with SSPX and others will be worked out in good time. It would probably be worked out faster if everybody would lower the rhetoric level a bit. Why shed the blood of people who are basically on the same side?

Substitute whatever is appropriate, for livius' use of 'the traditionalists'.

Bl John XXIII's first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram, nos. 71 and 72, says:

"71. The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. (25)

"72. But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."

(Emphasis supplied.) Folks on all sides are bitter. All the more reason to speak to one another in a civil manner.

Your statements are false.

My statements are dead on accurate. I used to be a soi disant "trad." I KNOW the mindest. I used to subscribe to The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Catholic Reformation in the XXTh Century, Fatima Crusader, Latin Mass magazine. I have heard the arguements for YEARS. I had one foot in schism.It is all Barbara Streisand, as Limbaugh would say.

The folks who describe themselves as "Trads" do exactly what I describe them as doing. I know. My letters used to be published in some of those magazines. They are in opposition to the Pope and the Magisterium. They do not accept Vatican Two - expect as they have redefined it - and it is silly to pretend they do.

Several of these folk have signed a letter saying they oppose the Pope. This is not something a Catholic does. No, these self-designated, self-important folks give themselves a designation that sets themselves apart from the ordinary Catholic. Even worse, they denigrate those that ARE Catholic as Neo-Catholics. To be Catholic, one must be Baptised and be in UNITY in worship, doctrine and authority.

The VAST majority of those who describe themselves as "Trads" are NOT in Unity re authority and, in many cases, Doctrine (they reject D.H., for instance).

One doesn't "debate" or argue about or undermine Documents and decisions issuing from an Ecuemnical Council and call themselves "Traditionalists or Traditional Catholic" because one sign of a real Catholic is to ACCEPT, not oppose, Ecumenical councils. Good grief. Does this really need to be said?

Name a SINGLE SAINT who EVER opposed an Ecumenical council or the Documents from that Council.

ALL Catholics, by virtue of their being in UNION with the Pope and accepting of the Magisterium, are "traditionalists" but that is a tautology. The Magisterium decides what is and isn't Tradition. What is new (and "trads" are into many novelties, including the neologism "neo-catholic")is for those opposing the authority of the Pope to Baptise themselves with a qualifying adjective suggesting THEY, and not Rome, are the authority as to what is and isn't Traditional.

If it were not so twisted it would be laughable

Totally in agreement, MikeF. We've got to discuss these things and work them out - in all charity.

Many years ago, I lived and worked at the Catholic Worker, on the Bowery first and then at the farm in Tivoli. Dorothy Day was still alive and (sort of) in charge of things, although I must admit that administration was never her stong point.

Dorothy was often criticized by left and right alike for meeting with people with whom she did not agree 100%. One time, as we were driving around (I served as her driver for a while), she told me that one must always look for the things upon which one can agree, and stick to those. While perhaps a little "saintly" sounding, this was actually very practical, and I wish we'd bear it in mind.

This doesn't mean compromising on other things, it simply means that on the points that you agree on, you work together and leave the other issues until the appropriate time to discuss them. That may never arise, but in the meantime, you have at least accomplished the thing that was important to both sides. (Saintly Dorothy was actually sort of Machiavellian in her approach.)

BTW, Dorothy - who was a pacifist and a Chesterton-style distributist - was also an extremely orthodox Catholic and was very grieved by many things that were happening in the Church at that time (1970's). She was particularly upset by the behavior of the clergy, since she, as a convert, had great respect for priests. I'm glad she didn't live to see our our times.

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark

Thanks for posting this. I'm going to use it in an article regarding prudential decisions of discipline in liturgy and the legitimacy of debating the merits of same.

Bl John XXIII's first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram, nos. 71 and 72, says: "71. The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. (25)

"72. But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."

Mike, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the soi disant "Trads" as they destroy Unity. They are NOT in Union with the Pope. They refuse to be obedient. They do NOT accept one or more Documents of an Ecumenical Council, so , these words do NOT apply to soi disant "Trads."

To think it does apply, try and imagine Newman opposing Vatican One AFTER it had taken its decisions and those decisons/documents had been accepted by the Pope. It would never have happened and you and I know that.

These words cannot be used to excuse rejection of Divinely-constituted authority nor can they be used to countenance rejection of an Ecumenical Council or repeated attacks upon the normative Mass.

You know, some of these "Trads," the ones that signed the "We Resist you to the Face" proclamation (in reality it's an "I'm a Protestant" confession)actually believe it possible a future Ecumenical Council can decide that Vatican Two was not an Ecumenical Council and its decisions/documents/authority will be overturned. That shows NO understanding of Catholicism at all - yet, look at how many here are rushing to defend such "Trads" and tell others they must play the Rodney King Catholic to such anomie.

Do you think one Ecumenical Council can overturn a previous one?