Questions for Trads

[Desert Walker]

Well, sometimes a sacrament IS invalid if it is not performed according to the ritual as it has been formulated by the authority.

It would be far less confusing if we just stuck with the terms "Catholic" and "non-Catholic."

Anyone who thinks that Pope Pius XII was the last true successor to Peter is not a Roman Catholic. Such a person falls under the EXTREMELY BROAD category of "Non-Catholic."

As far as Catholics who think the Church is great but want things more traditional:

Such Catholics are concerned about the preservation of traditions in the Church that they feel (rightfully so) have been unjustly suppressed by other people in the name of "updating the Church."

What MOST people fail to realize is that Vatican II and every pope has stated beyond questioning that ALL Catholic traditions are to be kept and given a place in the life of the Church. The trouble is, there are some people who claim to be Catholic but are ANTI TRADITION.

[prose]

Okay, so would I be considered a "trad" because I like things to be more traditional? Although I guess if I [i]had[/i] to refer to myself as something, I would say I was a conservative Catholic.

Is the term "trad" reserved for extremes?

I guess what I am struggling with is how come we use this word to describe such a wide range of people. It is confusing, and not only that, but it doesn't even make sense.

Like for instance (I hate to pick on him, but he is the one that sticks out to me), EENS wants to go to the SSPX to get his confirmation b/c he believes the others are invalid. He claims to be a trad.

Others who believe that other confirmations are valid, they claim to be trads just because they like the older traditions.

And yet still, others claim that nothing done after Vatican II is valid b/c of the changes, and they call themselves trads too.

I have never even [i]heard[/i] this terminology outside of PhatMass. It is very confusing.

Maybe we need to refer to these things as different group names?

[Desert Walker]

Often the label "trad" is applied in the extreme case of FALSE sedevacantism.

It must be emphatically noted in passing, however, that the possibility that an anti-Pope could be elected by the Roman Cardinals is very real. This is why Catholics must be ever vigilant about the statements of Church leaders. The true pope never teaches false doctrines, but an anti-pope would do so by definition. But the last four popes were, without, question, true popes.

Pope John Paul II excommunicated the leader of the SSPX. The SSPX is an extreme form of conservatism which called the "traditionality" of the Second Vatican Council into question. One of the main reasons they did this was that an extreme form of liberalism did the exact same thing and interpreted the Council in such a way that they made it sound as though what was once considered apostasy was now officially sanctioned by the Magisterium.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 12 2006, 09:06 AM']Prayers

Don't worry, God will provide, in his providence, the way to the truth.
[right][snapback]944698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks. That's a fact. As long as I(and anybody else) doesn't give in to the sin of despair - both about ourselves and about the Church - then God will show the way. For me, it just might take some time to come back(if indeed I am leaving the truth, which I cannot see right now otherwise I wouldn't leave! )

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='prose' date='Apr 12 2006, 11:29 AM']Okay, so here is what I am understanding.

There are trads that believe the Church is great they just like things more traditional.

Then there are trads who think that the Pope and everything is right, but that the sacraments may not be valid b/c of the translations.

Then there are trads who don't think the Pope is valid.

Any others?

I am so confused.
[right][snapback]944867[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In brief the main groups are those like the FSSP which are fully in communion with the Vatican, but do the Tridentine Mass and as an order don't have any problems with anything that has occurred.

A bit further are those that are still in communion with Rome, and usually go to the FSSP Mass, but have some concerns about things occurring in the last 40 years or so. They see some difficulties with things like the Mass, certain papal statements, the new Catechism, etc. and believe they should be either re-defined so as to become more holy or be done away with entirely, but still believe they are entirely valid, but only less good in a sense.

Then are those normally associated with the SSPX. These are not in communion with the Vatican, but who(officially as an order) accept all the recent men as popes(JPII, B16 etc.). They believe they have the right to the Tridentine Mass and do all the sacraments and rites according to the earlier formats(FSSP as far as I know does other sacraments such as holy orders by the new rites). They are trying to come back into communion with Rome, and see serious problems with things like Vatican II, the Novus Ordo etc. but still believe this is not enough to invalidate the current leaders as real popes, and wish to be in full communion with these men.

Then there are Sedevacantists. And they come in different flavors as well. Some groups believe the last few guys were not pope because of things they said that some believe were heretical statements. Some believe the Popes and the many cardinals and bishops that adhere to them are all heretics. Some believe the church that the popes(Paul VI and beyond) head is in actuality no longer the Catholic Church, by it's own admission. I will admit I am currently very intrigued and for the moment in this particular camp. Some sede's have gone so far as to invalidly elect their own popes. These groups are definitely on the fringe and I'm not sure of anyone who takes them seriously except themselves. However such groups as these are often used as the general description of a traditional Catholic. Some groups of sede's believe that since Vatican II and it's church is invalid, that the true bishops and priests that remain validly ordained and consecrated religious(those from the SSPX, independent, CMRI, and SSPV to name a couple) have the right and duty to come together as one and officially denounce the church from Vatican II and it's popes and to validly elect from among those legally able to become pope, true leadership back to Rome. There are different ways different people say this can be done from a legal ecclesiastical means. Others say it will take a direct act of God to bring the Pope back through a direct miracle(a past saint has actually said this would probably happen). I haven't come to a conclusion yet as to what seems to be the right answer in this specific regard. I see legal ways in which the Church can be restored to it's rightful place, but I also can accept God's direct intervention. There are some sede's who believe we are directly in the end-times, literally. Others, where I currently am, believe the Church will be restored, either through a miracle or by legal means, and there will be many more years of the Church on earth under of the reign of peace under Mary.



I end this by stating, that my position currently does not reflect the title I have been by Phatmass, so for those who may be confused, do not take this as a belief represented by the "Church Faithful" Or "Militant" of Phatmass.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Apr 12 2006, 11:52 AM']Sam is not a sede. lol sedevecantists are a group who believe there was not a valid pope since before Vatican II Council.

Sam is a trad, like me I guess.
[right][snapback]944826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
looks like you'll be getting the "Hello I dont rep the Church" tag

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 10 2006, 11:14 PM']Nope, not mine.  I have never once wondered what it would like to be Pope.  I don't have that kind of spiritual fortitude, nor am I even remotely holy or smart enough to be able to accomplish that.

I have never wanted to be Pope.  I have only wanted to fulfill my vocation.  That is up to God, not me.
[right][snapback]942972[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Camster would however like to be the Holy Father's personal caddy.

[Donna]

Era, I knew that from you ("cup") and the context you were talking about (STthomasmore the PM-er expressing desire to be pope, etc;). I just saw an instance, the difference of the words cup or chalice, hoping to shed some light for Prose.

Goldenchild...I would not want to be where you have been researching these past 9 months. God be with you, may He show you the truth.

Prose...I think one difference, maybe the main difference between a Trad and a conservative is the way that Vatican II AND post conciliar reforms are perceived. Very important, that "and". For the record, it wasn't just "liberal" or ignorant bishops who voted on the Council documents; OTOH, that novelties exist in them is unarguable. That ambiguous terms have been used and exploited for unholy aims, unarguable.

Dig it: over 40 years later and people still cannot (refuse not?) to agree the Council was NOT a dogmatic one, but a pastoral one. (You naysayers, blame the Pope - HE said it, not I).

I would add, that a Trad doesn't buy into the "it's my PREFERENCE to like the old Mass". Most people get to that Mass because of real pain, intolerable abuses, having done a lot of painful research and often suffer some kind of distancing at least, ridicule and persecution at worst, from family members, friends and/or parishoners, possibly clergy in avoiding the non-traditional as regards the life of the Church.

[prose]

I am glad I posted this. It sure cleared a lot of things up for me.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Maria' date='Apr 9 2006, 07:57 PM']Thanks 
I started writing it before anyone else had replied. I wonder what the trads here think of it. I'm not a trad specialist or anything: I've just been on a board that had Catholics and protestants of every stripe. It was... interesting. As well (as it isn't a board that shies away from debates and arguments) I made a few observations. They've been confirmed from what I've seen elsewhere on the net.
[right][snapback]941410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So...I'm confused on what you said. Do you not like trads then?? Sorry...I'm slow.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Maria' date='Apr 9 2006, 07:47 PM']I'm not a trad, but I can tell you that there are lots of different kinds of trads. Asking what the trads believe is kind of like asking what the protestants believe. Some merely believe that the T rite is far superior and should not have been replaced; some believe that VII was a wholly legitimate council that brought about a time of great disaster, through the documents did not call for the changes that followed it; some believe that VII was invalid or at least has no authority (since it was a pastoral council and did not make any infallible decisions). These trads are not schismatic and they accept the pope, they just think that things have gone horribly wrong and the Church is in a period of great darkness (or something).
Then there are trads who say that either John XXIII or Paul VI (but usually John XXIII) was heretical and therefore not really pope, so there is no pope. Some of the really weird sede-vacantists have elected popes in various strange fashions. There's also a theory that some other cardinal (I forget who) was legitimately elected instead of John XXIII and Paul VI (etc, until that cardinal died), and so he was the real, non-heretical pope, but of course it was all hushed up.
Most of the trads I've met heartily disapprove of the post-Puis XII popes, VII, and the pauline mass, but accept their legitimacy. Often they go to SSPX masses not because they are in schism, but because they feel that at a NO mass they'd face spiritual dangers they'd rather avoid, as well as not receiving adequate spiritual guidance (they often talk of a diminished sense of sin among non-SSPX priests).
Sometimes you meet a really weird 'trad' who is more in reaction than anything else. The person's faith is immature, and he will often hold positions incompatible with Catholism. Other trads won't know whether to disown him or embrace him as one of their own.

Anyway, that's from what I've seen of trads on the net. One last (very subjective) observation is that they tend to be focussed more on negatives, as though their religion is one of saying 'no' to evil and abuses, rather than saying 'yes' to God (which implies saying 'no' to evil, but it's a different mentality).
[right][snapback]941404[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So, does this mean, I, who loves the TLM better then any mass and think it is the most beautiful am not a Trad? See, I've always thought "Trads" were different then "Traditional Catholics." lol!

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Apr 9 2006, 09:07 PM']Most of your questions are non-applicable to me, though I consider myself a traditionalist.

What do I mean by that?

First the non-negotiables: a) We participate in a "communion of saints" that exists throughout, and outside of, time through the eternal life given by Christ. B) We are a Church which acknowledges the development of doctrine out of the "depositum fidei." C) Scripture has equal strength with Sacred Tradition (although in fact dependent- since the Scriptural canon derived itself from tradition). D) The Church in Jesus Christ is the only means by which man may be saved.

Now here is why I consider myself a "traditionalist." 1) I believe that to cultivate a healthy knowledge of the saints which comprise our Western tradition, we must speak, to the greatest extent possible, the same liturgical and spiritual "language" referring especially to the liturgy.  I believe that this is part of developing a "communion" faith. 2.) I believe that the Tridentine is the most poignant reminder, and living reality of the Roman Rite as it has been received, whereas I think the Novus Ordo is of a character which demands more careful attention in order to manifest that same reality.  To be more concrete, the Novus Ordo is not a "received" rite at all, but a fabrication, at times sublime, and always important as the Roman liturgy, but imperfect in this respect. 3) I believe that the way in which we present the Gospel should not leave us uprooted from the past.  There has always been room for Hellfire and Brimstone, and even for a sacred exclusivism that emphasizes we are a "mystery" religion.  4) I think that vestments, architecture, and the whole range of Catholic expressions of faith, should at all costs be preserved, so that our religion may not be said to be only "of the times" but, rather "timeless."

So, this is my reason for naming myself a "traditionalist."
[right][snapback]941604[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Other then number 2...which I really dont understand...? It sounds right! lol

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 10 2006, 09:21 PM']I think that StThomasMoore is a troll that is purposely making both traditional Catholics  and even sedevacents look bad.
[right][snapback]942979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what do you mean "even sedevecantists"...? Sedevecantists are confused and Tyler has everyright to have them "look bad."

I tell people why sedes are mixed up all the time! lol And Tyler also does not make Traditional Catholics look bad. I know that for certain.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 12 2006, 09:06 AM']Prayers

Don't worry, God will provide, in his providence, the way to the truth.
[right][snapback]944698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto. Prayers for you.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Donna' date='Apr 13 2006, 12:06 AM']Goldenchild...I would not want to be where you have been researching these past 9 months. God be with you, may He show you the truth
[right][snapback]945801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It hasn't been easy. I've never been good at admitting I'm wrong(still trying so durn hard to prove the whole idea wrong haha), but no success with that so far.