Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

It’s amazing to see the arrogance and hypocrisy of self-described “traditionalists” on these threads. Many of them rail-away at liturgical irregularities and abuses – often rightly so. Yet at the same time they concoct and support other irregularities and abuses because they fit their prideful notion of what is “better”, versus what the Church actually directs.

No wonder the celebration of the Mass is in such disarray in so many locations. The “traditionalists” whine about those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” while they continue with their own brand of irregularities and abuses. The resulting hypocrisy makes them effete and this is certainly not lost on the “liberals” or “modernists.” All it really does is empower them.

One thing is clear. To be a “traditionalist” is certainly no guarantee that one is an orthodox Catholic Christian. Traditionalists need to come to grips with how similar they are to those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” – particularly when it comes to the negative impact they have on the Church, and more specifically, the Mass.

Perhaps you could list some examples to clarify your position?

As one who considers himself to be a “traditionalist,” could you clarify exactly what “abuses” and “irregularities” you claim we are promoting?

[quote=theMutant]As one who considers himself to be a “traditionalist,” could you clarify exactly what “abuses” and “irregularities” you claim we are promoting?
[/quote]

One of them is attendance and support of schismatic “Trad” Masses.

There is one post where someone is proclaiming the reverence experienced at an SSPX Mass. One can not forget that the SSPX is in schism so any percieved “reverence” must be taken with that in mind.

How is it reverent to be schismatic?

Read the different threads. It’s quite clear. Sometimes I think the "liberals and “modernists” (AKA anyone who disagrees with “traditonalists”) quietly visit forums like this to gather ammo for the next fight.

Unfortunately there is no “good side” to that war – only differing degrees of heterodoxy. No, it’s not OK if it contravenes what the Church directs just because someone belives it’s “conservative” and because they believe they know better than the Church what is “best.”

Sadly, it’s orthodox Catholic Christians (of moderate, liberal and conservative tendancies) that pay the price of the abuses and irregularities pushed by both groups of extremists…

[quote=Nota Bene]It’s amazing to see the arrogance and hypocrisy of self-described “traditionalists” on these threads. Many of them rail-away at liturgical irregularities and abuses – often rightly so. Yet at the same time they concoct and support other irregularities and abuses because they fit their prideful notion of what is “better”, versus what the Church actually directs.

No wonder the celebration of the Mass is in such disarray in so many locations. The “traditionalists” whine about those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” while they continue with their own brand of irregularities and abuses. The resulting hypocrisy makes them effete and this is certainly not lost on the “liberals” or “modernists.” All it really does is empower them.

One thing is clear. To be a “traditionalist” is certainly no guarantee that one is an orthodox Catholic Christian. Traditionalists need to come to grips with how similar they are to those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” – particularly when it comes to the negative impact they have on the Church, and more specifically, the Mass.

[/quote]

You make some decent points. Am I arrogant though, to say that I have cynicism about the reasons given for standing?? Hypocritical, in that I criticize liberalism within the chuch in regards to litugical abuses, including flatening the Mass, and making the altar and pews nearly inseperable??

You are correct on several observations. Yet my beef is with the reasons given for standing, not so much standing itself. The reasons have nothing to do with CHRIST. They have to do with “assembly line” mass production (if you’ll forgive the pun). The focus seems to be on us, and not Him.

What is a Catholic Christian? Isn’t it good enough to call us Catholics without the Christian part?

[quote=jlw]You make some decent points. Am I arrogant though, to say that I have cynicism about the reasons given for standing?? Hypocritical, in that I criticize liberalism within the chuch in regards to litugical abuses, including flatening the Mass, and making the altar and pews nearly inseperable??

You are correct on several observations. Yet my beef is with the reasons given for standing, not so much standing itself. The reasons have nothing to do with CHRIST. They have to do with “assembly line” mass production (if you’ll forgive the pun). The focus seems to be on us, and not Him.
[/quote]

Beyond the reasons for kneeling it appears that some who want to call “trads” on the carpet for being disobedient are disobedient themselves for denying the authority of the Vatican to interpert the GIRM as they see fit.

I am no expert on everything every self described “trad” says or does, but I can’t get past this notion that some want to classify as disobedient those who kneel. Does the Pope have to come to each house and privately instruct them that kneelers are not disobedient?

[quote=buffalo]What is a Catholic Christian? Isn’t it good enough to call us Catholics without the Christian part?
[/quote]

What do you mean, buffalo? We *are *Catholic Christians. :slight_smile: The primary reason why we use the term Catholic (Universal) is to differentiate ourselves from unorthodox Christian sects and denominations. But we are essentially Christians–Catholic Christians.

Jamie

This is a ridiculous and divisive thread.

Jamie

[quote=nohself]What do you mean, buffalo? We *are *Catholic Christians. :slight_smile: The primary reason why we use the term Catholic (Universal) is to differentiate ourselves from unorthodox Christian sects and denominations. But we are essentially Christians–Catholic Christians.

Jamie
[/quote]

I think his point was that, in a way, when one is compelled to call himself a Catholic Christian, it is almost from a defensive posture, saying to the listener that “just so you know, I’m Christian too”. It implies he is not so secure with his Catholic identity (Christ’s Church!) and feels the need to explain himself???

Or so I assume. :o

[quote=ByzCath]One of them is attendance and support of schismatic “Trad” Masses.

There is one post where someone is proclaiming the reverence experienced at an SSPX Mass. One can not forget that the SSPX is in schism so any percieved “reverence” must be taken with that in mind.

How is it reverent to be schismatic?
[/quote]

Our past bishop, Bishop Dorsey allowed Lutherans to ordain their bishop at our shrine. Who is the schismatic bishop here? Levefbrve and/or Dorsey?

The Vatican says the Tabernacle has to be in the center/a place where everyone can see it. I went to St. James Cathedral today with Bishop Wenski celebrating Mass and guess what? No tabernacle (reckoration at it’s finest). But I’d be damned if 90% of the church were holding hands during the Our Father and some would extend their hands after the Bishop would say “The Lord Be With You” and they with their hands out they responded “And Also With You.” Once again, is this following Rome, or are they doing things they way they want? The Pope says something, cardinals/bishops/priests don’t listen, and we folks then do as we please.

[quote=jlw]I think his point was that, in a way, when one is compelled to call himself a Catholic Christian, it is almost from a defensive posture, saying to the listener that “just so you know, I’m Christian too”. It implies he is not so secure with his Catholic identity (Christ’s Church!) and feels the need to explain himself???

Or so I assume. :o
[/quote]

Oh, OK. I see

[quote=EddieArent]But I’d be damned if 90% of the church were holding hands during the Our Father and some would extend their hands after the Bishop would say “The Lord Be With You” and they with their hands out they responded “And Also With You.” Once again, is this following Rome, or are they doing things they way they want? The Pope says something, cardinals/bishops/priests don’t listen, and we folks then do as we please.
[/quote]

I’m confused. Is the “and also with you…” not a part of the standard liturgy??.. Or the extending of the hands?..

BTW, I agree that self-proclaimed traditionalists tend to be self-righteous in that they believe they are right and the Church is wrong. However, I have no problem with correcting errors that are going AGAINST the Church.

-Michael

[quote=buffalo]What is a Catholic Christian? Isn’t it good enough to call us Catholics without the Christian part?
[/quote]

Why do you object to the term Christian? We were called that before we were called Catholic, if memory serves.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Why do you object to the term Christian? We were called that before we were called Catholic, if memory serves.
[/quote]

It’s superfluous. Catholic is enough to describe us.

[quote=EddieArent]Our past bishop, Bishop Dorsey allowed Lutherans to ordain their bishop at our shrine. Who is the schismatic bishop here? Levefbrve and/or Dorsey?

The Vatican says the Tabernacle has to be in the center/a place where everyone can see it. I went to St. James Cathedral today with Bishop Wenski celebrating Mass and guess what? No tabernacle (reckoration at it’s finest). But I’d be damned if 90% of the church were holding hands during the Our Father and some would extend their hands after the Bishop would say “The Lord Be With You” and they with their hands out they responded “And Also With You.” Once again, is this following Rome, or are they doing things they way they want? The Pope says something, cardinals/bishops/priests don’t listen, and we folks then do as we please.
[/quote]

But there is a long standing tradition, if I’m not mistaken, all the way back to the Middle Ages, that cathedral churches have a sep. chapel for the Holy Eucharist.

[quote=buffalo]It’s superfluous. Catholic is enough to describe us.
[/quote]

I disagree. The term Christian is earlier, from the time of the Apostles (this is stated in the New Testament, I think), refering to the undivided body of believers, the unity of which is still contained in its fullness only in the Catholic Church. We need to take it back from smug (some of them) Protestants who like to say, “Oh, you’re Catholic? I’m a CHRISTIAN!” or, as one fellow teacher who knew full well that I was a Catholic convert said to me, “I was raised Catholic, but then I became a Christian!”

[quote=SouthCoast]I’m confused. Is the “and also with you…” not a part of the standard liturgy??.. Or the extending of the hands?..

BTW, I agree that self-proclaimed traditionalists tend to be self-righteous in that they believe they are right and the Church is wrong. However, I have no problem with correcting errors that are going AGAINST the Church.

-Michael
[/quote]

People are extending their hands when they say “And also with you.” Mimicking the priest when he extends his hands and says “The Lord Be With You.” A Cathedral, with a Bishop presiding a might add.

I think the odd thing for me in the battle of “trad” vs. “mod” vs.“liberal” vs. “conservative,” is that I, a fairly conservative person in terms of “churchmanship”/liturgy, etc., find myself called a liberal on these boards. I don’t like the orans position in public prayer, I don’t like the making of a daisy chain by holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer, I loathe and despise virtually every bit of music I’m asked to sing at Mass (today at Mass, we sang “Ashes.” The person who wrote this should have to listen to it and only it for the entire time they are in Purgatory), I despair of ever hearing a passionate sermon about anything, Heaven, Hell, sin, even love, if it’s founded on the Passion and Death of Our Lord and not on some touchy, feely psychobabble notion of love (so far, our new, young parochial vicar has chosen to base his homilies on a ski trip on which he broke his clavicle and the Beatles, who, according to him, will certainly be reunited in Heaven). I stand for the reception of Communion because we were asked to do so. I’ve never asked for a reason why, because frankly, I didn’t think to do so. I’ll kneel when they get a communion rail in. I stand until everyone has rec. Communion because I sing in the choir. What about any of this makes me a liberal? I think some people use the label liberal because they can then easily dismiss the person to whom they apply the label.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.