Is Your Kid On...

[KnightofChrist]

The gateway drug to atheism.

Thanks for dropping a big unneeded and most unwanted turd on this thread. Thanks a lot.

[KnightofChrist]

The comparison of the tradition of the Church or those connected to it to both drugs and atheism is insulting and cruel.

[Ice_nine]

the initial comparison to drugs was in the op, and done in jest.

 

I guess you're allowed to be sensitive KoC, but this is the internet. All content here is pretty tame considering. But it's your prerogative.

 

 

I'm just spectating. I disagree with Era a lot but at least he makes me think out of the box, even if I feel like it's over my head most of the time. Props dood.

[KnightofChrist]

the initial comparison to drugs was in the op, and done in jest.

 

I guess you're allowed to be sensitive KoC, but this is the internet. All content here is pretty tame considering. But it's your prerogative.

 

 

I'm just spectating. I disagree with Era a lot but at least he makes me think out of the box, even if I feel like it's over my head most of the time. Props dood.

 

Yes the OP did jest. But Era did not jest, he was serious as was shown by his later post explaining his original comment. Nothing he posted is over your head, as nothing he posted accurately describes the Traditional movement nor traditionaly minded Catholics. Hogwash the lot of it, absolute rubbish.

[Ice_nine]

I think what he describes is pretty accurate of a subset of traditionalists, not the entire movement, and he's made it clear he's not claiming to speak for the entire movement. Are you unwilling to acknowledge that there are SOME folks who fit his description of traditionalist? I would prefer traddies (I consider myself a quasi- or traditionalist-sympathizer) like you and nihil should try to engage him instead of being all "wah wah you're so insulting." That would be more fun, for me at least.

[Not The Philosopher]

Basically your knock against traditionalism is nothing more than rehashed Hegelianism. It is unoriginal and inaccurate.

 

I was wondering if you could expand on this a little. More out of curiosity than anything else.

[truthfinder]

I take what Era as a trad, but accept some of what he said does happen - either get more and more traditionalist (which at some point veers right into heresy and schism - the other end of the 'protestant' spectrum) or give up on church/God altogether.  But, we need to acknowledge that this happens in any group that has a high 'commitment' factor and seen outside of the main stream.  I think you'd find this just as much amongst Catholics in the charismatic movement. It's not just the domain of traditionalists - it happens when an individual is not thoroughly grounded in the faith and their responses are emotionally based (and as much as trads would love to believe this doesn't happen, it does.)

[KnightofChrist]

I think what he describes is pretty accurate of a subset of traditionalists, not the entire movement, and he's made it clear he's not claiming to speak for the entire movement. Are you unwilling to acknowledge that there are SOME folks who fit his description of traditionalist? I would prefer traddies (I consider myself a quasi- or traditionalist-sympathizer) like you and nihil should try to engage him instead of being all "wah wah you're so insulting." That would be more fun, for me at least.

 

I acknowledge it can be applied to traditional minded Catholic strawmen yes, "Catholics" who aren't really Catholic that actually reject the Pope as Pope yes, but not actual Catholics who are traditionally minded. Not to say we are prefect we are not, certainly not, on one is perfect all have fallen, but just because someone sounds intellegent about a subject doesn't mean they actually nor accurately know what they are talking about.

 

So I'm sorry my wah wah wah will have to do, lol I don't want to argue with a bunch of rubbish nonsense. Life is too short.

 

The purpose of this thread was meant to be lighthearted not one were traditional minded Catholics would have to defend themselves and their movement.

Edited December 31, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

But, we need to acknowledge that this happens in any group that has a high 'commitment' factor and seen outside of the main stream.  I think you'd find this just as much amongst Catholics in the charismatic movement. It's not just the domain of traditionalists - it happens when an individual is not thoroughly grounded in the faith and their responses are emotionally based (and as much as trads would love to believe this doesn't happen, it does.)

 

Yes! Completely agree. But I would extend that out a bit, that it happens not just because someone is not "grounded in the faith" but are not grounded in themselves (how could they be, in the context of the OP, they're sheltered suburbanites who are trying to adopt medieval religious traditions which is not a part of their "natural" home/social life). Being "grounded in the faith" is not about doctrine and rituals, that's just the surface. St. Paul says:

 

 

 

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.

 

--1Corinthians 3:1-2

 

And he says this in the context of ecclesial tribalism: 

 

 

 

For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given. I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

--1Corinthians 3:4-7

 

For someone who wants to be a priest, for example, they may be asked about their past romantic relationships and worldly experience. Why? Because having faith is not enough, they also need to be mature men, to have perspective, something young people sorely lack. Squabbles over whether you wear enough medals or wearing a mantilla take on less importance when you get into the world and have real life problems. There's a passage in "Diary of a Country Priest" (the novel I mentioned before) that I happened to read yesterday, which is illuminating about this subject. The priest gets a letter from another priest he went to Seminary with, and who has been in a sanatorium (and I think he's having a crisis of faith). Here's what he writes to his fellow-priest:

 

 

I am still very grateful to our teachers. The real trouble doesn't lie with what they taught so much as with the education they had been given and passed on simply because they knew no other way of thinking and feeling. That education made us isolated individualists. Really we never escaped from childhood, we were always playing at make-believe; we invented our troubles and joys, we invented life, instead of living it. So before daring to take one step out of our little world, you have to begin all over again from the beginning. It is very hard work and entails much sacrifice of pride; but then to be alone is harder still, as you'll realize someday.

 

That passage sums up everything I've been trying to say in this thread. The retreat into something like traditionalism can be a great world of "make-believe." I love that phrase "isolated individualists." That is exactly what I see in the young "traditionalist" I've been discussing in this thread. But of course, that's not unique to traditionalism. It happens to young people everywhere, in work, in marriage, in politics, in patriotism, etc. They will have no idea how make-believe their world is until they go through that "sacrifice of pride" that this priest refers to, if they ever do. Pride is hard to give up, especially when it's cloaked in the "True Faith."

Edited December 31, 2014 by Era Might

[ardillacid]

:coffee:

[Celeste Angelus]

When speaking about Traditionalists it's important to clarify who you're referring to - because the term "traditionalist" has a catch-all phrase. There's a world of difference between the FSSP-ICKSP, SSPX, and sedevacantist groups - they shouldn't be lumped together as one group.

[xSilverPhinx]

That would be the abandonment of reason or obstinacy in sin.  Usually it's obstinacy in sin. 

 

 

It's neither. It's simply a lack of belief in all gods. 

[Not A Real Name]

It's neither. It's simply a lack of belief in all gods. 

 

You are describing what atheism claims to be, not the motives which lead to atheism. 

[xSilverPhinx]

The motive that leads to atheism is the non acceptance of the 'evidence" put forward by believers. Putting it basically, they're worldviews in which no gods of any religion or even sins for that matter factor in. 

 

If, say, a Muslim told you that you were an obstinate sinner they would be right in their perspective, but not in yours. You're doing the same here, with atheists.  

[Ash Wednesday]

When speaking about Traditionalists it's important to clarify who you're referring to - because the term "traditionalist" has a catch-all phrase. There's a world of difference between the FSSP-ICKSP, SSPX, and sedevacantist groups - they shouldn't be lumped together as one group.

 

Thank you. I was just wondering this myself -- where does one draw the line? At what point is someone a "traditionalist" or "not traditionalist"? There's a whole lotta shades of grey between black and white.