When discovering the Faith

[toledo_jesus]

I have been ruminating on a theory that when a person first becomes serious about the Faith he is at risk to be seduced by the schismatic traditionalists. Admittedly, there are many problems that we see and to find a good N.O. you absolutely have to be selective...unfortunate but true. So, a young person gets all fired up and comes against a wall of fluff...naturally if this person is serious they will look for substance, and may make the connection that to find guaranteed substance a TLM is in order. If there is an indult, that's fine, but maybe that won't be enough. For, if the experience of the Catholic leads one to think that nothing of substance is in the N.O., perhaps the thought will enter that Rome is the one in schism.
It has a certain gnostic appeal to it, being the one who knows where to find the "true" Church.

I've been thinking about this because I went through my own semi-schism period. Granted, I grew up in Richmond Diocese and it has been especially hard to 'sift' through the fluff...but I have been wondering at the host of young men who come to the site and start expounding on the deficiencies of the N.O.

So, what do we think? Is there a relationship between the orthodoxy of a diocese and the propensity for serious Catholics in that diocese to fall into schism? Or, is it too early for me to be thinking?

[cmotherofpirl]

I think when people come from a disordered life and see a set of black and white rules, the appeal can be seductive. Fundamentalism has great appeal, and so does the us vs them mentality. Gnosticism always has a certain pull.

[photosynthesis]

I don't think I was tempted at all to join schismatic groups. I did go through a "fundamentalist phase" when I was still Catholic but had the evangelical mindset of trying to "save" everyone. I also wasn't very charitable towards people who didn't agree with me. I've never actually met a schismatic traditionalist person in my archdiocese (I came to faith in the archdiocese of Baltimore but I was raised in the archdiocese of Newark).

[thessalonian]

This is very true. My wife is a new convert and some of the abuses and dissention in the Church are dissilusioning to her at times. She has been exposed to my trad brother and he has confused her with it because it seems more of what the catholic faith should be because it appears at least from the outside more rigorus, yet at the expense of disobedience. I've had to work very hard to explain the errors of the trads to her and help her to understand the dissent in the Church.

[jezic]

someone who is truly interested in following Christ should realize that the only way to do this is to listen to him (i.e. follow the Chair of Peter) and they should understand that it is more important to follow Jesus than to have my own way.

Maybe the thinking enters about the Church being in schism, but to say this is to call Christ a liar. He said that he will send the Holy Spirit to be with us always. The gates of hell will not prevail against the throne of the Lamb and his vicar.

I think that some people (not necessarily in this case, but everyone) should focus more on living a fully Christian life as much as we can than specifically what kind of Mass they go to. Mass is huge, but it is only part of the Christian life.

I will be overjoyed with the release of the new Roman Missal and i love Latin, but i love Jesus more than the "rite" of the Mass that i attend.

[thessalonian]

I should add that one of the things that has bothered her is that she thought that she was leaving the divisioin behind when she left Protestantism. It has been difficult for her to see it in the Catholic Church as well, whether it be from the trads or the liberals or the priests who don't do things always as they are supposed to. The priest at our parish was doing general absolutions. I took it upon myself to oppose that and after three years the bishop finally put an end to it, after many letters. This disturbed her as she expected priests to be obedient and bishops to act with some authority, at least in a more immediate fashion.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Feb 14 2006, 02:15 PM']I don't think I was tempted at all to join schismatic groups.  I did go through a "fundamentalist phase" when I was still Catholic but had the evangelical mindset of trying to "save" everyone.  I also wasn't very charitable towards people who didn't agree with me.  I've never actually met a schismatic traditionalist person in my archdiocese (I came to faith in the archdiocese of Baltimore but I was raised in the archdiocese of Newark).
[right][snapback]886953[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh yeah I had convertitis too

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 14 2006, 10:56 AM']Oh yeah I had convertitis too 
[right][snapback]887000[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
lol... is that what they call it?

[qfnol31]

I've never had this problem myself, but I dreamt a few weeks ago that my mom wanted to. It was so strange! She knew all these facts and I argued with her, but she thought I was pretty much damned for not being in the SSPX. It was so weird because that is the opposite of my mom!

[OLAM Dad]

I think that when people first convert (from within or from without), just the thrill of finding Truth is sufficient. The funky NO abuses are annoying but you're willing to put up with them because the Truth is worth any price.

Once you get to the point at which you start to feel that you know the key doctines of the Church you start discovering all the wonderful history in the Church. The history leads people to the TLM where they realize that they don't HAVE to deal with all of the funkyness that is unfortunately so often accompanied with the NO.

None of the schmatic traditionalists that I know were new converts when they joined the groups they are in, they gravitated there over time.

YMMV.

[qfnol31]

Yeah, my current tendencies would not have been three years ago....they've grown tons over time.

Then again, I'm not really a convert..

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I became interested in Catholicism after accidentally accessing a schismatic, feeneyite, and possibly sedevacantist webstie when I was looking for stuff about Constantine. At the time, it was appealing but luckily I found good orthodox sources, including PM, before going off the deep end. It's one reason I am so interested in setting the record straight to any rad-trad I meet.

Edited February 14, 2006 by thedude

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 14 2006, 06:37 AM']I have been ruminating on a theory that when a person first becomes serious about the Faith he is at risk to be seduced by the schismatic traditionalists.  Admittedly, there are many problems that we see and to find a good N.O. you absolutely have to be selective...unfortunate but true.  So, a young person gets all fired up and comes against a wall of fluff...naturally if this person is serious they will look for substance, and may make the connection that to find guaranteed substance a TLM is in order.  If there is an indult, that's fine, but maybe that won't be enough.  For, if the experience of the Catholic leads one to think that nothing of substance is in the N.O., perhaps the thought will enter that Rome is the one in schism. 
It has a certain gnostic appeal to it, being the one who knows where to find the "true" Church.

I've been thinking about this because I went through my own semi-schism period.  Granted, I grew up in Richmond Diocese and it has been especially hard to 'sift' through the fluff...but I have been wondering at the host of young men who come to the site and start expounding on the deficiencies of the N.O. 

So, what do we think?  Is there a relationship between the orthodoxy of a diocese and the propensity for serious Catholics in that diocese to fall into schism?  Or, is it too early for me to be thinking?
[right][snapback]886912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I really don't know what the statistics are, but I'm not really sure if converts are more likely to become "rad-trad" schismatics than anyone else. However, I would say converts are less likely to be lukewarm "liberal Catholics." Sincere converts are usually quite fervent in their faith. Rad-trads, for all their problems, tend to be people who are serious about their religion, and therefore might attract converts more than luke-warm "cradle Catholics" but I've really seen no evidence that converts tend to take that particular route.

My parents are both converts, and tend to be "conservative," but are not at all "rad trads." Nor are most other converts I know.

The only case I'm really aware of this happening is Gerry Matatics. (Not to be gossipy here, but he is a well-known figure). He was a friend of Scott Hahn, a young minister who converted around the same time. Some years later, he became a hard-core trad, started going off the deep end, and is now a full-blown sedevacantist schismatic. However, his schism occured many years after his initial conversion.
Interestingly, in an interview, he complained that most converts in this country were not converting to the "true Church," but were "Hahn-verts" to "modernist Catholicism." (That was before he became an all-out schismatic).

[journeyman]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 14 2006, 06:37 AM']I have been ruminating on a theory that when a person first becomes serious about the Faith he is at risk to be seduced by the schismatic traditionalists.  Admittedly, there are many problems that we see and to find a good N.O. you absolutely have to be selective...unfortunate but true.  So, a young person gets all fired up and comes against a wall of fluff...naturally if this person is serious they will look for substance, and may make the connection that to find guaranteed substance a TLM is in order.  If there is an indult, that's fine, but maybe that won't be enough.  For, if the experience of the Catholic leads one to think that nothing of substance is in the N.O., perhaps the thought will enter that Rome is the one in schism. 
It has a certain gnostic appeal to it, being the one who knows where to find the "true" Church.

I've been thinking about this because I went through my own semi-schism period.  Granted, I grew up in Richmond Diocese and it has been especially hard to 'sift' through the fluff...but I have been wondering at the host of young men who come to the site and start expounding on the deficiencies of the N.O. 

So, what do we think?  Is there a relationship between the orthodoxy of a diocese and the propensity for serious Catholics in that diocese to fall into schism?  Or, is it too early for me to be thinking?
[right][snapback]886912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


keep ruminating . . . one nice thing about fluff . . . it cushions the falls and makes it easier to get back up . . . as I remember, it was the "big tent" that helped rope me in

Doesn't orthodoxy have to do with dogmas . . . core beliefs . . . with rubrics being externalities (is that a real word?)

[morostheos]

If I had encountered an rad-trads in the time I was searching for more than fluff, I could see possibly gravitating there eventually, but I don't think it happens often enough to be statistically significant.

As it was, I went through fluff-withdrawal for my first year at college before I really started to realize I was getting to the substance I was looking for all along. I think it's different for every person.