Is Your Kid On...

[Kateri89]

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.

 

I have two questions.  1) What is ICKSP? and 2) Isn't SSPX a sedevacantist group?  I'm genuinely asking these questions as I don't know the answers to either.

[puellapaschalis]

1) ICKSP is the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

2) The FSSPX is not sedevacantist. Whilst there are some priests in the Society who seem to lean (or more) that way, the Society per se is not.

 

Ash - good question. I think I called myself a trad/traddy/traditionalist/"One of those nasty old-fashioned people you have nightmares about" a while before I got a better handle on the problems.

[truthfinder]

The traditionalist movement certainly seems rather self-defined.  I resisted calling my self a trad even to myself for at least a year.  I've said here before I'd never introduce myself that way to someone who asked what my religion is, it's always "Catholic/Roman Catholic". However, I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves as a traditionalist/trad who is not attached in at least a major way to the EF (ie: it would be the Mass they would attend if there were no obstacles to accessing it or any other form).  This would mean that most trads prefer not only the Latin and the Chant, but the EF itself acknowledging the inherent differences in the ritual that do not come just from what language it is prayed in.  

[puellapaschalis]

[...]acknowledging the inherent differences in the ritual that do not come just from what language it is prayed in.  

 

I think in terms of liturgy - and the problems traditionalists see in the contemporary Church spring from but are certainly not limited to the liturgy (lex orandi lex credendi, after all) - this is a key and crucial point.

 

Yes, Latin is our language as Western Catholics and ought to be used in the liturgy, but even SSPX priests in some mission territories will instruct priests to celebrate Mass - the Tridentine/EF/usus antiquior/$name - in the vernacular.

 

Whilst the appalling state of the Novus Ordo [i]as oftentimes de facto celebrated[/i], with no liturgical sensibility or awareness of Catholicism, has increased interest in the Trid Mass, that can be only a minor reason for having a strong preference for the Trid. There are, as truthfinder says, inherent differences in the texts. Once you become familiar with these, you can see the paucity of the new Missal - and what was taken away from the Church.

 

Then you understand why various accounts of 'the changes' people talk of spiritual abuse, which is just as real and (dare I say it) more damaging than any other kind of abuse, and of its perpetrators being an almost immediate cause of people's loss of faith.
 

[truthfinder]

 

 

Yes, Latin is our language as Western Catholics and ought to be used in the liturgy, but even SSPX priests in some mission territories will instruct priests to celebrate Mass - the Tridentine/EF/usus antiquior/$name - in the vernacular.

 

 

 

Could you provide any sources illustrating this?  I know of instances where one community was instructed to use more vernacular and even say the OF and they pulled their presence.  But, this is also of academic interest to me, so if you could provide anything, and particularly any rationale from the SSPX, I'd be might grateful.

[Not A Real Name]

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. 

 

 

Please share the evidence which you did not accept and which motivated your choice to be an atheist.

 

 

 

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.  

 

While it appears to be the same, the reality is it is not.  One does not have to abandon reason in order to believe in Christianity.   Christianity is worthy of belief because it is reasonable.   Obviously if God was to come to earth he would announce it first. If He did not then anyone could claim they were God or from God and no one would be able to test it.  In this area only Christ prevails since He is the only religious figure to ever be pre-announced, so He scores top marks there.   Furthermore if God did come down to earth it would be an event which would impact our very existence to the point of splitting time in two parts; A: the time before His coming and B: the time after He had arrived.  Christ again is the only religious figure who prevails in this field as well, and interestingly enough on the Last Day this will be the very thing which proves Him again, since Christians pre-announce His return.  I also find it funny that those who reject Christ still have to date their attacks by His life. 

 

Now if the Muslims could provide these two things with Muhammad then I would be Muslim and I would take into consideration their accusation that I am an obstinate sinner.  The fact that Christians can provide these two things -and pass these two tests based on reason and history- makes their faith and claims worthy of investigation and belief.  

[xSilverPhinx]

 

 

Please share the evidence which you did not accept and which motivated your choice to be an atheist.

 

I never chose to be an atheist. I was born one and have remained so throughout my life, but I don't feel as if there's some hole in my life that I need to fill so I'm not looking to be converted. 

 

Hmm...where to start without posting a wall of text.

 

I'm mostly interested in the psychology of religious and magical thinking, superstitions an simulacrums. Based on these I've come to the conclusion that all gods are more likely fabrications. Humans do have the tendency for religious and magical thinking, but that doesn't automatically mean that their gods exist.

 

Secondly, I've routinely come into contact with young earth creationists and ill-informed science deniers, whose unwavering beliefs have solidified my own disbelief. Treating the Bible as a science book isn't a good idea, IMO.  

 

Thirdly, while not necessarily conducive to the conclusion that gods don't exist, many religious people claim moral superiority yet are usually the first to judge others and act immorally, all while knowing it's what their god wants and approves of.

 

Fourthly and more importantly, I've had a strictly scientific upbringing making me skeptical about all supernatural claims. My parents were atheists, although my mother converted to Christianity about a decade ago so although I went to Catholic and overtly religious schools I was never successfully indoctrinated into any faith while young.

 

 

While it appears to be the same, the reality is it is not.  One does not have to abandon reason in order to believe in Christianity.   Christianity is worthy of belief because it is reasonable.   Obviously if God was to come to earth he would announce it first. If He did not then anyone could claim they were God or from God and no one would be able to test it.  In this area only Christ prevails since He is the only religious figure to ever be pre-announced, so He scores top marks there.   Furthermore if God did come down to earth it would be an event which would impact our very existence to the point of splitting time in two parts; A: the time before His coming and B: the time after He had arrived.  Christ again is the only religious figure who prevails in this field as well, and interestingly enough on the Last Day this will be the very thing which proves Him again, since Christians pre-announce His return.  I also find it funny that those who reject Christ still have to date their attacks by His life. 

 

Now if the Muslims could provide these two things with Muhammad then I would be Muslim and I would take into consideration their accusation that I am an obstinate sinner.  The fact that Christians can provide these two things -and pass these two tests based on reason and history- makes their faith and claims worthy of investigation and belief.

   

Tell that to the Muslims who believe in their religion just as fervently as you and have their own justifications for doing so. 

[puellapaschalis]

Could you provide any sources illustrating this?  I know of instances where one community was instructed to use more vernacular and even say the OF and they pulled their presence.  But, this is also of academic interest to me, so if you could provide anything, and particularly any rationale from the SSPX, I'd be might grateful.

 

Ahhhh. I read it in, iirc, an interview with Bp. Fellay about Abp. Lefebvre. And I have a vauge, but less certain, memory of it being on the old sspx.org site - but it could equally have been on sspxasia.com, for reasons I'll explain.

 

The context was that in very remote parts of Asia, where priests are persecuted by their bishops for having 'traddy leanings' or by the locality for being Catholic, where those priests because of their cultural and linguistic background would not be able to learn sufficient Latin, the SSPX would help them to make a worthy and accurate translation of the Missal (the rubrics remaining unchanged). The point was made that whilst using Latin is hugely important, what's more important is that the correct Missal is used.

 

I tried some strategic googling just now, but no luck so far. I'll have another go once I've braved the cold of my flat and made myself some hot choc.
 

[truthfinder]

I'm wondering if that's an "old" approach.  The rhetoric I've heard since Summorum Pontificum, and particularly since Anglicanorum Coetibus is far more strident in regards to Latin being an intrinsic part of the rite itself (definitely an abuse according to De Defectibus in the Roman missal). 

[puellapaschalis]

You could be right. I know I was at least mildly surprised when I came across it.

[veritasluxmea]

I never chose to be an atheist. I was born one and have remained so throughout my life...

Fourthly and more importantly, I've had a strictly scientific upbringing making me skeptical about all supernatural claims. 

 

One does not have to abandon reason in order to believe in Christianity.   Christianity is worthy of belief because it is reasonable.   

Atheist guy- believes atheism is reasonable

Catholic guy- believes Catholicism is reasonable

 

 

Tell that to the Muslims who believe in their religion just as fervently as you and have their own justifications for doing so. 

 

whoa sike

[CountrySteve21]

 inherent differences in the texts. Once you become familiar with these, you can see the paucity of the new Missal - and what was taken away from the Church.

 

 

 

 

Expand on this. Would you hold that Blessed Pope Paul VI was wrong for introducing the new Missal? 

 

Pope Paul VI letter to Lefebvre make for an interesting read. 

 

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

 

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

POPE PAUL VI's letter to Lefebvre makes for an interesting read. 

 

Pax

[Nihil Obstat]

Steve, you probably do not intend it as such, but you make it sound as if it is necessarily impossible for some popes or some bishops or some councils to ever be at odds with Tradition. Both the Church Herself and even a cursory look at history show the opposite.

[Gabriela]

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.

 

You make it sound like it's impossible for someone who wasn't born in the Middle Ages to gain a true appreciation of and genuine connection with anything that comes out of the Middle Ages. If all of us could only honestly internalize and become a real part of what we were born into and raised with, we'd all be trapped in the past. In fact, though, people change, and oftentimes, joining a new community and way of life because one is drawn to it for "superficial" reasons leads to one staying for much deeper reasons.

 

In fact, I think that's probably the case for most "conversions": One feels an initial draw, and it's superficial, because one doesn't know what the religion/community is really about. How could one until one is inside of it, and for a long time? But joining that community for the "wrong" reasons can help one to find oneself, and when that happens, one has even MORE reason to stay in that community.

 

This, I think, is very often the case with those who join Tridentine Mass communities. We join because it's externally beautiful and we're disillusioned with other kinds of Catholicism. But once we're in, we feel something "more real" here than we did in other places, and we learn—about ourselves, about Christ, about Catholicism—and deepen our relationship with all of those at the same time. To leave that would take some pretty big event.

[Era Might]

You make it sound like it's impossible for someone who wasn't born in the Middle Ages to gain a true appreciation of and genuine connection with anything that comes out of the Middle Ages. If all of us could only honestly internalize and become a real part of what we were born into and raised with, we'd all be trapped in the past. In fact, though, people change, and oftentimes, joining a new community and way of life because one is drawn to it for "superficial" reasons leads to one staying for much deeper reasons.

 

In fact, I think that's probably the case for most "conversions": One feels an initial draw, and it's superficial, because one doesn't know what the religion/community is really about. How could one until one is inside of it, and for a long time? But joining that community for the "wrong" reasons can help one to find oneself, and when that happens, one has even MORE reason to stay in that community.

 

This, I think, is very often the case with those who join Tridentine Mass communities. We join because it's externally beautiful and we're disillusioned with other kinds of Catholicism. But once we're in, we feel something "more real" here than we did in other places, and we learn—about ourselves, about Christ, about Catholicism—and deepen our relationship with all of those at the same time. To leave that would take some pretty big event.

 

I agree human beings can adapt to all kinds of traditions. But it is not insignificant when someone has no natural community/culture in which to grow, and have to seek out something alien (e.g., a Westerner going to Tibet and becoming a Buddhist monk, an American leaving the country and living among the Eskimos, etc.). And there is also the fact that, as you say, traditionalism is often a refuge from disillusionment, so not only is it alien to their "native" environment, but it is alien to the religion itself, a conscious movement to be more truly or authentically Catholic from the institutional church and the vast majority of Catholics who experience the religion through it.

 

The world is a big place. Subjective experiences of community, belonging, authenticity, etc. are always personal and relative. I don't doubt many Jehovah's Witnesses find community, belonging, authenticity, etc. But at the same time, there are sociological experiences that should be considered in those experiences. A person in a charismatic prayer group or a social justice parish feels the same things you mention, and of course, why would they want to leave that?

 

It's great that young people find something they were missing in their native environments. But personally, I'm more interested in why our native environments are failing us, than in the many different "intentional communities" we create. Most people don't choose to retreat to an intentional community, so I think native environments have to be the starting point always. And even those who do retreat always carry within them their native environments; in the best cases, they gradually build a new way of life with new assumptions, but often, the new way of life becomes a mask that covers the failures of their native environment (escapist idealism, pious romanticism, lack of experience, etc.).

 

This is why movements should be taken seriously, not to validate everyone within them, but because they do not exist on their own. Traditionalism is a child of the modern world and contemporary Catholicism, and has a lot to teach us about all of our experiencs, the positive and the negative.