Why I am not a radical traditionalist

[theculturewarrior]

I agree.

We cannot be hypocrites and love the Lord for long.

Jesus, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

why I am a rad trad

some many reasons so little time...........

[Noel's angel]

don't say 'this is why i am something' and then not state the reasons

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I like traditon

the old mass

Truth

i don't like

false ecumenicism

dancing popes

popes kissing the Koran

Popes praying with Apostates heretics and schismatics

[Noel's angel]

I'm afraid it doesn't matter what any of us 'like' because faith is not where we choose things that we like and disregard the rest.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

this is true

i have no faith for those protestant things.

[Noel's angel]

ok, so now you are calling the Pope a Protestant??? Yet you are also calling yourself a faithful Catholic? The word 'confusion' springs to mind

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 24 2005, 04:25 PM']I like traditon

the old mass

Truth

i don't like

false ecumenicism
[/quote]
The Pope likes these things too.

[quote]dancing popes

popes kissing the Koran

Popes praying with Apostates heretics and schismatics[/quote]
Gee, that's a good reason to become schismatic.. Sheesh.
Imagine if the Pope was a warmonger, a murderer and a fornicator! We would still owe the Church our absolute fidelity. Many saints will testify to that fact.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i owe the church fidelity. but i owe no fidelity to Vatican II

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i didn't call him a protestant

i think in somethings he does he acts like one.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 24 2005, 04:58 PM']i owe the church fidelity. but i owe no fidelity to Vatican II
[right][snapback]697583[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Church. Your statement doesn't make sense.
To deny the validity of an ecumenical council, ratified by the Pope, is the classic example of schism.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i didn't deny the validity...

its fallibile

and it contains open error...........

[popestpiusx]

EENS,

Please choose your wording carefully. You and I probably agree on many things, but your presentation of these things dispays a certain haughtiness that does little for the traditionalist cause. Be precise. Bare polemic is inaccurate, misleading, and often causes scandal. Just a thought.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 24 2005, 05:08 PM']i didn't deny the validity...

its fallibile

and it contains open error...........
[right][snapback]697595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually it is infallible. It's an ecumenical council for crying out loud. I suppose there are elements of it that are not of a strictly doctrinal nature which are fallible. but you can't write off Vatican II as a "pastoral council", there is doctrinal stuff too. And what open error? That's messed up and I disagree. It seems much more likely that you are in error. The Holy Spirit protects ecumenical councils from teaching open error so either you have some clarifying to do or you are a heretic.

God bless.

[Cam42]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 23 2005, 02:48 PM']The keyword is "radical."
[right][snapback]695812[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly.....there are those of us, myself included, who are traditionalist in the sense that we are to uphold Sacred Tradition within the Church. This is done in a myriad of ways. But holding an extreme or radical view is not one of them.

Knowing that the Roman rite has an indult, is a way for CERTAIN Catholics who feel called to such to find a more complete fulfillment for a particular feeling they have. It is not the norm. Being a traditionalist is quite simply holding to Sacred Tradition.

This means joining the Pope, bishops and the Church herself and promoting those things which she teaches.....ALL OF IT!!!! There was an ecumenical Council in the 1960's convened by all the bishops of the world. Last time I checked (yesterday), they were all validly ordained (even in the eyes of the sedevacantist) and they were all validly ordained (consecrated) bishops. This would by it's very nature, make the council valid, by the rules laid forth by the Church herself. They came together and they engaged in the promotion of the development of doctrine. This is very much in keeping with being a traditionalist.

A traditionalist is not necessarily a conservative, although the terminology has become almost synonomous. As a traditionalist, one must look for the defition of dogma (new) and the clarification and development of doctrine (both old and new)......for that is part of Sacred Tradition.

If one claims to be traditionalist and does not recognize these things then that person is less a traditionalist and more a reactionary. For those who are "radical traditionalist" are reacting to something they don't like. Notice the what......That is very prideful and that is very uneducated.....incidentally, if one reads Newman's work on the Development of Doctrine (which I recently paroused again, thanks for the reminder of that book JPIIIloveyou), one will see that this is precisely what is discussed. This book was written well before the 1960's.

So, I am a traditionalist.....I am not "radical." I accept what the Church teaches, I accept what the Church mandates and I accept what the Magisterial authority says....THAT is also being authentically traditionalist. If one doesn't do that.....one separates oneself from the Church to a greater or lesser degree.