Self-refutation

[Didacus]

Yes, but a Catholic really can't. Ah, never mind. I believe the Lord guides the Church, regardless of the impending doom feared by naysayers of any era.

/thread

 

If one had but an ounce of faith, one would not fear the fate of the Church.

[Anastasia13]

Completely agree sir.

Unfortunately those who use the <I'm Catholic but...> catch all phrase are justified in their own opinion and nothing much can be said to show their errors.  They know their errors but don't consider them as such because they are allowed their opinion and that suffices them.

 

 

The CCC does say the conscience is a person's highest authority, however, the CCC immediately afterwards says that one must exercise their conscience in order to keep it as morally good as possible.

Afterwards, the CCC says that <il ne convient pas d'oppose sa conscience a la loi naturelle et universelle ni au magistere> (sorry, I know the CCC in French far more than in English, but the English paraphrase would be to the effect of <it is not convenient to oppose one's conscience to the natural and universal law nor to the magisterium>.

 

I'm certain you can look these up for yourself.  It would be a good exercise to do so!

 

What does the bolded part mean?

[Didacus]

The natural law and universal law = the laws of nature, ingrained in everyone such as 'murder is wrong' or 'do not steal' (you can fit the ten commandments in here pretty easily. 

 

The magisterium is the authority of the Church and assembles all bishops with the pope as their leader.

 

 

And it says that it is not convenient - hence, it is not necessarily wrong that you have a conscience which opposes the laws of nature of the magisterium, however, it will be inconvenient, that is to say, you will attract to yourself grief should you oppose these authorities.  Thus, one should resolve to exert effort to align their respective consciences with these authorities as much as possible.

[fons_vitae]

Sorry, but that is a load of American centric bull.

 

Aw, and I've always been called an Anglocentrist. Good to hear. ;)

[Anastasia13]

Aw, and I've always been called an Anglocentrist. Good to hear. ;)

 

Tuhk Amerigatsi ek.

[fons_vitae]

Tuhk Amerigatsi ek.

 

Ayo, amerigatsi em. And, regrettably, from "the America of America" itself, Texas. This no doubt colored my answer, sorry. :)

[Anastasia13]

Ayo, amerigatsi em. And, regrettably, from "the America of America" itself, Texas. This no doubt colored my answer, sorry. :)

 

I'm impressed.

[fons_vitae]

I'm impressed.

 

(Lol, I admit I just googled the phrase... I assumed "amerigatsi" = American though.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Traditionalist Catholics having a fondness for 1950s America, while sometimes true, does not by a long shot represent traditional Catholicism as a whole. For one thing it completely ignores the fact that many, perhaps even most well known traditionalists are (or were) not American (Lefebvre, Fellay, Bisig, Ranjith, Davies, Waugh, Tolkien, de Castro Mayer, Rifan, Rangel, etc., etc., etc.). 

It also ignores the very specific traditionalist theology that holds Catholic traditionalism to completely transcend any particular temporal instance.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Yes, but a Catholic really can't. Ah, never mind. I believe the Lord guides the Church, regardless of the impending doom feared by naysayers of any era.

/thread

 

 

Jesus " there will be many false prophets after me." Our Lord doesn't say all though, but many.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

It also ignores the very specific traditionalist theology that holds Catholic traditionalism to completely transcend any particular temporal instance.

I should have gone into more detail here, but essentially it is in opposition to Catholic modernists who, explicitly or implicitly, make their Catholicism a product of modern time, throwing out inconvenient doctrines or practices when they conflict with their culture. The modernist Catholic cannot stand when their faith makes them uncomfortable.

[Era Might]

It also ignores the very specific traditionalist theology that holds Catholic traditionalism to completely transcend any particular temporal instance.

 

I don't know about that, I'd say what is called Traditionalism is very much a modern creature. I don't think "Traditionalists" of the modern sort would have been much at home in Chaucer's or Michelangelo's Europe, even Aquinas's Europe. Modernity has set the terms for self-conscious Traditionalism because it is a mentality completely in retreat from the course of history, whereas people like Chaucer, Aquinas, Michelangelo, Bartolome de las Casas, were very much engaged in the world they actually inhabited, not in a retreat. It's no surprise that Traditionalists glorify the Council of Trent as they do, that was the period when the West really set its modern course, and Trent was a reaction to that. And modern Traditionalism is also a bookish kind of religion, very much rooted in the free dissemination and engagement of texts, rather than in the popular pieties, ecclesial structures, etc. that would have defined religion for people in the first Millennium. I'd say Traditionalism is attractive to people who think or read too much, and are somewhat alienated from their world...of course, that's a generalization, but I think it's true in a general sense. In general, people look for a refuge in their circumstances, but Traditionalism provides an idealized refuge, something set apart from the world, and it also provides a useful integration for those who are intellectually inclined.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Era Might

[fons_vitae]

Traditionalist Catholics having a fondness for 1950s America, while sometimes true, does not by a long shot represent traditional Catholicism as a whole. For one thing it completely ignores the fact that many, perhaps even most well known traditionalists are (or were) not American (Lefebvre, Fellay, Bisig, Ranjith, Davies, Waugh, Tolkien, de Castro Mayer, Rifan, Rangel, etc., etc., etc.).
It also ignores the very specific traditionalist theology that holds Catholic traditionalism to completely transcend any particular temporal instance.

Good point... I like the Waugh and Tolkien traditionalism (also known as Catholicism), not the denim jumper-wearing variety (more of a simple reaction to modernity) :).

[Nihil Obstat]

Good point... I like the Waugh and Tolkien traditionalism (also known as Catholicism), not the denim jumper-wearing variety (more of a simple reaction to modernity) :).

Take care not to generalize an entire group based on one small subset you do not like.

I have gone to a traditional Mass community more or less exclusively for several years now, and I have yet to meet that particular stereotype.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't know about that, I'd say what is called Traditionalism is very much a modern creature. I don't think "Traditionalists" of the modern sort would have been much at home in Chaucer's or Michelangelo's Europe, even Aquinas's Europe. Modernity has set the terms for self-conscious Traditionalism because it is a mentality completely in retreat from the course of history, whereas people like Chaucer, Aquinas, Michelangelo, Bartolome de las Casas, were very much engaged in the world they actually inhabited, not in a retreat. It's no surprise that Traditionalists glorify the Council of Trent as they do, that was the period when the West really set its modern course, and Trent was a reaction to that. And modern Traditionalism is also a bookish kind of religion, very much rooted in the free dissemination and engagement of texts, rather than in the popular pieties, ecclesial structures, etc. that would have defined religion for people in the first Millennium. I'd say Traditionalism is attractive to people who think or read too much, and are somewhat alienated from their world...of course, that's a generalization, but I think it's true in a general sense. In general, people look for a refuge in their circumstances, but Traditionalism provides an idealized refuge, something set apart from the world, and it also provides a useful integration for those who are intellectually inclined.

Legitimate traditionalism of today used to simply be called "Catholicism", and it is unfortunate that the people of the Roman Church have forgotten their patrimony to such an extent that we need a separate term to refer to it. 

I very much disagree with your assessment of modern traditionalism. You, like the previous poster, are referring to a particular subset which does not represent the whole.