Why I am not a radical traditionalist

[theculturewarrior]

I flirted with radical traditionalism for a while. One reason I am not still, is because I find that many of them lack charity, in a problematic way. In such a way, that I think it is beyond mere human nature, and it is something cultural. Maybe that's just my personal experience. I also find that there is a culture of despair. "Scandal!" is on the lips of so many traditionalists, and it seems as though many of them look for scandal, hunt it out, and then scandalize others by crying "scandal!" There seems to be very little hope for the future, for the Church, for mankind, for Christianity, etc., among those circles. Again, this may just be my personal experience.

I find that traditionalists exalt the form of the liturgy over the intention. Both are foundational. The Eucharist is unitive, it restores us to grace, it is the source of charity on earth and the foundation of our fraternal communion.

I find that many radical traditionalists throw the baby out with the bathwater, just as they claim Vatican II has done.

[Fidei Defensor]

You are very much correct.

[Noel's angel]

[Era Might]

One thing I've learned since I became Catholic is that, as individual Catholics, we will grow a lot throughout the years. I have been in the Church 4 years, and I'm amazed at how much my faith and my approach in general has changed. As a baby Catholic, the appeal of radical groups is always present, because you have a genuine desire to live out your faith to the fullest. Looking back, I've said a lot of dumb things, given some scandal here and there, etc. And, 5 years from now, I know I'll look back and cringe at things I say today.

Certainly without ridding of fraternal correction, I've come to appreciate a certain patience with Catholics who may not fully grasp certain things, and act rigidly because they haven't learned any better yet. They'll come around. The Lord works wonders.

[popestpiusx]

TCW,
I find your comments to be overgeneralized and ambiguous in that the terms you are using are unclear or imprecise. Be that as it may, I am quite sorry that you have had such negative experience with traditionalists.

Edited August 23, 2005 by popestpiusx

[peach_cube]

tcw :applause:

I find this too

Edited August 23, 2005 by peach_cube

[theculturewarrior]

The keyword is "radical."

[Fidei Defensor]

I must say that this perfectly describes, though, certain persons who have recently joined or returned to Phatmass.

[Sojourner]

There's much about traditionalism that appeals to me. I live almost within walking distance of the parish with a tridentine Mass in Indianapolis, and I've attended a handful of times. I enjoy the beauty of the service -- aesthetically I like it much better than many renditions of Novus Ordo I've attended.

I have found, however, that I like to be able to understand the service better than I can at this point in a Latin Mass. And, I decided my motivations for going to Latin Mass weren't right ... I wanted to do it because I was dissolusioned with the implementation in my local parish of the Catholic faith I'd fallen in love with.

Perhaps someday I'll find my way back there. At this point in my walk, I'm doing well just to be at church period, much less in a service I don't fully understand.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 23 2005, 01:41 PM']I flirted with radical traditionalism for a while. One reason I am not still, is because I find that many of them lack charity, in a problematic way. In such a way, that I think it is beyond mere human nature, and it is something cultural. Maybe that's just my personal experience. I also find that there is a culture of despair. "Scandal!" is on the lips of so many traditionalists, and it seems as though many of them look for scandal, hunt it out, and then scandalize others by crying "scandal!" There seems to be very little hope for the future, for the Church, for mankind, for Christianity, etc., among those circles. Again, this may just be my personal experience.

I find that traditionalists exalt the form of the liturgy over the intention. Both are foundational. The Eucharist is unitive, it restores us to grace, it is the source of charity on earth and the foundation of our fraternal communion.

I find that many radical traditionalists throw the baby out with the bathwater, just as they claim Vatican II has done.
[right][snapback]695798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Bullseye

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've had the same experience, but on the other hand many of the most prayerful, joyful, hopeful, knowledgeable, and charitable Catholics I've ever met were radical traditionalists.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but sometimes people try to blow off the concerns and opinions of radical traditionism by saying stuff like that.
I think they have a lot of good points and to a large extent the common sentiments and concerns of radical traditionalism are valid and understandable (I'm not talking about Sede Vacantist extremism). There are many things that have been done by the Church since the Council, or allowed to go on by the Church which have never really been explained. And I'm not talking about things like Communion on the hand, the destruction of countless venerable and pious traditions or the priest facing the people. I'm thinking more in terms of Theological error and pasoral practices.

I'm not saying that I'm a radical traditionalist (far from it). I'm just saying that the concerns of radical traditionalism ought not simply be written off. The movement is not just a bunch of ticked off grumpy old people as the stereotype goes. I have read books by some of the most Orthodox scholars in the Church who are not ashamed to be critical of many things that happened during and since Vatican II.

I was tempted to boycott the Novus Ordo some years back after reading a book documenting the post conciliar liturgical revolution. This book was written by Aidan Nichols O.P., one of the top Theologians in the Church. Fortunately I was able to get over the initial impact of learning of what went down.

The person who goes by the name "traditional" on phatmass mentioned a book the other day, "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber", which documents some of the very bizzare and disturbing antics that went on during the Second Vatican Council. I can understand why many people react the way they do..
I would certainly never advocate leaving communion with the Church to be in a schismatic sect, this would be sheer madness, but I do think the radical traditionalist perspective is worthy of discussion and clarification, rather than being blown off. Oh, and I agree that it can be easy to become morbidly preoccupied with the problems in the Church and miss the joy of being a member of so holy a thing as Mother Church.

[crusader1234]

Like others have said, the keyword is radical. Traditionalists are great Catholics. For me, when a person crosses over into 'Radical Traditionalist' territory, it basically means they've forgotten about being charitable.

[theculturewarrior]

I really wasn't presenting an argument. This was a policy statement.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 23 2005, 03:50 PM']I really wasn't presenting an argument. This was a policy statement.
[right][snapback]696052[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not to be rude ... but you did post it in the debate table.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Aug 23 2005, 03:36 PM']Like others have said, the keyword is radical.  Traditionalists are great Catholics.  For me, when a person crosses over into 'Radical Traditionalist' territory, it basically means they've forgotten about being charitable.
[right][snapback]696029[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I disagree.. One can be a charitable schismatic. And there is a difference between being uncharitable and just being extremely passionate or zealous, or perhaps even grumpy. I've encountered the latter far more than I can say I've encountered pure lack of charity. And it can be easy to get that way when you are confronting the abuses and problems in the Church.
I've had a great many experiences with uncharitable liberals. But I wouldn't claim that liberalism makes one uncharitable.

My understanding of radical traditionalist has nothing to do with being charitable or not, it has to do with fidelity to the Church. A radical traditionalist is one who is in some way distanced from the Church (not necessarily schismatic), because of the extent to which they believe the Church is "corrupt".