Arrogance & Intolerance of Nontraditionalists

There is a thread that asks about the Arrogance & Intolerance of “Traditional Catholics”.

I believe that the traditional Catholic is no more arrogant nor intolerant than any other Catholic group.

I ask, IF the Nontraditional Catholic, the Modernists, the Liberals, the ones who want to change the Mass and the ones who want to change the role of women in the Church ARE NOT EVEN MORE INTOLERANT while walking an ARROGANT walk, don’t you agree.

There are at least two threads on this Forum on which a traditional or conservative statement is met with intolerance and harsh words.

This poster says the nontraditionalists are arrogant and lack tolerance. Any comments?

It is indeed arrogant to attempt to change the struture of the Church that Jesus set up in the first place.It is intollerant and judgemental for them to attack people who want to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.God Bless

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]It is indeed arrogant to attempt to change the struture of the Church that Jesus set up in the first place.It is intollerant and judgemental for them to attack people who want to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.God Bless
[/quote]


BIG DOUBLE DITTO !:bowdown:

Bah, hah, hah! :rotfl: While I disagreed with the original poster on the original thread in posting the thread at all, I believe you’ve just proven his point!

[quote=bear06]Bah, hah, hah! :rotfl: While I disagreed with the original poster on the original thread in posting the thread at all, I believe you’ve just proven his point!
[/quote]

Catholics are taught obedience and Jesus taught obedience,why would it not be arrogant to try to change what Jesus set up?Why is it not considred intollerant to attack those who want to be faithful to Jesus and His Church?God Bless

The Lenten Season has begun. Let’s use this as a special period of repentance and come to know Jesus Christ and his Church more fully and faithfully. Grow in faith, hope and charity.

Defining traditionalism these days is like trying to nail jello to the wall. It kind of reminds me of watching protestants scramble to define sola scriptura. :smiley:

-Ted

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]It is indeed arrogant to attempt to change the struture of the Church that Jesus set up in the first place.It is intollerant and judgemental for them to attack people who want to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.God Bless
[/quote]

As someone who has studied the early Church, who is writing a book about the Eastern Catholic Churches so that Latin Rite Catholics can have an understanding of this great part of our Church, I find comments like this quite amusing (and I don’t mean to be intolerant or arrogant). It’s just that when people grow up with something they tend to think that what they have is what always was.

Note that not a single change from the Second Vatican Council changed “the structure of the Church” – it changed some disciplines including the format of the Mass without affecting the underlying valaidity of the Mass.

For people who cling to the format instead of the content, yes, that is very threatening. There is a scene in, of all places, an Elvis Presley movie called “Change of Habit” in which elderly women are seen in some wierd rendition of the Mass objecting (and rightly so) and wishing they could go back to the good old days when they could go to Mass and not think about anything. For too many people that was precisely the mode they were in. They’d go, read the bulletin (or the newspaper) and then leave presuming they’d been good Catholics.

This is not a universal condemnation because there were people there who prayed the Mass (my own parents made sure their four boys knew how to follow the Mass in our missals).

The other problem with the claim above is that it denies to Rome the right (divinely given!) to regulate the liturgy and the Church itself. Now that is, IMNSHO, arrogant!

Deacon Ed

I know the other thread to which you refer and:

A) No one who argued for obedience to the Church on that thread is a “Nontraditional Catholic, the Modernists, the Liberals.” We’re just called that by Rad Trads.

B) No one in that thread desired either of the following: “the ones who want to change the Mass and the ones who want to change the role of women in the Church.” To say this is an inflammatory type of argument, like saying:

 Catholic 1:  "I rather like the Mass in English."

 Catholic 2:  "Well, then you're a tree-hugging, child-molesting, 
 Satan worshipping abortionist, as any other right-thinking 
 Catholic will be able to see."

C) No one supports the abuses, which are evidently particularly rank in the American Church. We just point out the inconsistencies, slanted quotes, and outright lies of Rad Trads that sometimes post here. They sometimes slander the Mass of Paul VI, sometimes they deny the authority of the Council (VII), and of the Pope. Those who defend those things are not nontraditional, modernist, or liberal. They’re just loyal Catholics trying to defend their Faith from being undermined.

[quote=Deacon Ed]As someone who has studied the early Church, who is writing a book about the Eastern Catholic Churches so that Latin Rite Catholics can have an understanding of this great part of our Church, I find comments like this quite amusing (and I don’t mean to be intolerant or arrogant). It’s just that when people grow up with something they tend to think that what they have is what always was.

Note that not a single change from the Second Vatican Council changed “the structure of the Church” – it changed some disciplines including the format of the Mass without affecting the underlying valaidity of the Mass.

For people who cling to the format instead of the content, yes, that is very threatening. There is a scene in, of all places, an Elvis Presley movie called “Change of Habit” in which elderly women are seen in some wierd rendition of the Mass objecting (and rightly so) and wishing they could go back to the good old days when they could go to Mass and not think about anything. For too many people that was precisely the mode they were in. They’d go, read the bulletin (or the newspaper) and then leave presuming they’d been good Catholics.

This is not a universal condemnation because there were people there who prayed the Mass (my own parents made sure their four boys knew how to follow the Mass in our missals).

The other problem with the claim above is that it denies to Rome the right (divinely given!) to regulate the liturgy and the Church itself. Now that is, IMNSHO, arrogant!

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

The Mass wasn’t the problem…the heresy of contraception and secularism had grown without abatement. That’s was and IS the problem.

So it’s intolerant and arrogant to express your views in no uncertain terms? And to claim that it is the truth? Why else would you believe something if you didn’t think it was the truth?

That’s what I don’t understand. To me the Internet is the perfect place to tell the truth, since opinions in everyday personal discourse are not tolerated. It’s all slush, gush and mush out there, all in the name of “tolerance,” but it to me it’s just mental flaccidity.

[quote=Agomemnon]The Mass wasn’t the problem…the heresy of contraception and secularism had grown without abatement. That’s was and IS the problem.
[/quote]

And when were either of these permitted by the Church? BTW, contraception isn’t a “heresy” – it’s a sin.

Deacon Ed

[quote=JKirkLVNV]I know the other thread to which you refer and:

A) No one who argued for obedience to the Church on that thread is a “Nontraditional Catholic, the Modernists, the Liberals.” We’re just called that by Rad Trads.

B) No one in that thread desired either of the following: “the ones who want to change the Mass and the ones who want to change the role of women in the Church.” To say this is an inflammatory type of argument, like saying:

 Catholic 1:  "I rather like the Mass in English."

 Catholic 2:  "Well, then you're a tree-hugging, child-molesting, 
 Satan worshipping abortionist, as any other right-thinking 
 Catholic will be able to see."

C) No one supports the abuses, which are evidently particularly rank in the American Church. We just point out the inconsistencies, slanted quotes, and outright lies of Rad Trads that sometimes post here. They sometimes slander the Mass of Paul VI, sometimes they deny the authority of the Council (VII), and of the Pope. Those who defend those things are not nontraditional, modernist, or liberal. They’re just loyal Catholics trying to defend their Faith from being undermined.
[/quote]

:amen:

[quote=Deacon Ed] BTW, contraception isn’t a “heresy” – it’s a sin.

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Then all the liberal Catholics out there need to stop sinning!:smiley:

I know that writen communication is not usually precise. I am guilty of imprecisness in most posts. Long ago I was told to keep the sentances short, succinct and distinct in order to be understood.( Yes I know succinct means short!) I said that was what I was taught.)

Some facts:

  1. On another thread people who identify with the Liberal wing of the R. Catholic Church indicated that those who were thought of as “traditionalists” were arrogant and intolerant.
  2. On this thread I proposed that the very ones calling traditionalists “Rad Trads” ( a deprecating term") are also ehibiting arrogance and intolerance.

And some comments:
Where did this term “rad trad” come from. I have been an active Catholic for 50 years, read The St. Anthony Messenger & The New Oxford Review. I have not seen the term “rad trad” in any literature at all. I have seen that term here on CA Forum in the past month. Now just who was it that coined that term? Obviously it wasn’t a “Traditionalist”. So it must have been an opponent of the Traditionalists.

[quote=Exporter]There is a thread that asks about the Arrogance & Intolerance of “Traditional Catholics”.

I believe that the traditional Catholic is no more arrogant nor intolerant than any other Catholic group.

I ask, IF the Nontraditional Catholic, the Modernists, the Liberals, the ones who want to change the Mass and the ones who want to change the role of women in the Church ARE NOT EVEN MORE INTOLERANT while walking an ARROGANT walk, don’t you agree.

There are at least two threads on this Forum on which a traditional or conservative statement is met with intolerance and harsh words.

This poster says the nontraditionalists are arrogant and lack tolerance. Any comments?
[/quote]

Please do not mislabel my thread. It says “Traditionalists” not “Traditional Catholics.” There is no such thing as a “Traditional Catholic.” A traditional Catholic perhaps, but not a “Traditional Catholic.” Yikes, it’s almost as some are beginning to believe that there is a separate rite called a “Traditional Rite.” Scary

I don’t think this CA website attracts many of whom you label as “Nontraditional Catholic, the Modernists, the Liberals”, but it certainly attracts a decent number of dissenters who label themselves as “traditonalists.”

Personally, I consider myself an orthodox Catholic who is intolerant of dissent from both “traditionalists” and “liberals/modernists.”

Keep in mind that being a “traditonalist” in no way guarantees that one is orthodox in their beliefs, and being a progressive in no way guarantees that one will be heterodox in their beliefs…

I am not a liberal Catholic by (almost) anyones definition, but I posted on the other thread about specific things that come across as arrogant.

If posting lengthy posts is discouraged, the name calling you describe is blatently contrary to the rules. I cringed everytime I saw that sort of disrespect. As much as I may not agree with the lack of support for the Pope and bishops a few traditional types exhibit, they are still brothers and sisters of the same body.

[quote]Some facts:

  1. On another thread people who identify with the Liberal wing of the R. Catholic Church indicated that those who were thought of as “traditionalists” were arrogant and intolerant.
  2. On this thread I proposed that the very ones calling traditionalists “Rad Trads” ( a deprecating term") are also ehibiting arrogance and intolerance.

And some comments:
Where did this term “rad trad” come from. I have been an active Catholic for 50 years, read The St. Anthony Messenger & The New Oxford Review

.

Obviously it wasn’t a “Traditionalist”. So it must have been an opponent of the Traditionalists.

[/quote]

]

I use the term rad-Trads all of the time and the first time I actually heard it, it was out of the mouth of a “traditionalist”! I’ve encouraged people on this forum to use this term vs. traditionalist because I think that all too often people who simply have an attachment or attraction to the TLM are automatically lumped in with those who attack the Pope and Vatican II at every turn with a private jurisdiction that is contrary to Church teachings. It’s an effort to protect the “traditionalists” and I am in certainly no way against them. I’d love to see the TLM spread but unfortunately I believe it’s the rad-Trads that are hampering the efforts of the “traditionalist” to have this done!

If you look at the plethera of posts on the subject you will find an overwhelming amount of people attacking the Pauline Mass and by my score, the only person I’ve ever seen say they wish the TLM would fall off the face of the earth has been suspended. It is very hypocritical to see so many rad-Trads complaining about how their faith, mass, etc. gets picked on when the TLM isn’t what’s being picked on at all - it’s constantly the Pauline Mass. What I do “pick on” is their general rejection of Pastor Aeternus.

I also have serious problems with site like traditio.com that blatently tell lies on their sites. I was perusing through their “Novus Ordo” picture gallery and many of those pics are falsely portrayed. 3 of the pics from my diocese alone were put into false context or lies altogether! How about the “cheesehead mass”? I just found out that wasn’t a mass at all, it was a commencement speech at a college in Wisconsin, of course. And some of these supposedly Catholic Churches aren’t even Catholic Churches?! I’m sure that many more can be discredited. We had to endure years of hearing how the Pope said Mass with a Buddha on the tabernacle, how the Pope allowed the Mark of Shiva to be placed on his forhead, etc. from “Remnant” groups. So yes, I see where the arrogance lies. This is simply an attempt at brainwashing. I think they believe if they say it enough, it will be true. I, for the life of me, don’t see why anyone would ally himself/herself with groups like these that have to lie to promote their agenda. This is a little more hypocrisy.

Let’s just look at the hypocrisy in this thread alone. It’s wrong for someone to start a thread entitled "The Arrongance and Hypocrisy of “Traditionalists” and yet it’s just fine to start a thread with this title? They’re both wrong! If you believe the first is wrong, why play the tit for tat game? Sadly I see this rational used quite often. How many times have I heard rad-Trads say “It’s not fair that Lefebrve and Gruner get censored but the liberals never do (which isn’t true!).” They all should be taken out! They’re two sides to one disobedient coin!

Catholics are taught obedience and Jesus taught obedience,why would it not be arrogant to try to change what Jesus set up?Why is it not considred intollerant to attack those who want to be faithful to Jesus and His Church?

This sounds like the “We’re more Catholic than the Pope” or at best “We’re more Catholic than you” Do you honestly think that the rest of us don’t want to be faithful to Jesus and His Church? On the last thread was there one person who was for women’s ordination, dancing in the aisles, etc.? I love the way liberals, non-traditionalists, etc. get thrown out there so often. It’s just the “if we say it enough maybe it’ll be true” tactic again.

I’ve asked time and again that we spend time doing something a little more constructive like share ways we’ve gotten our indults or to throw out some new ideas on how to get indults and yet this has been constantly ignored by those who prefer to rant! :mad:

Deacon

This is the first time that I must diasagree with you, Vatican II changed everything, possibly illegally as it changed doctrine and worship codified by previous councils and infallible Popes, It was and is still revolutionary and will never die down, as it has more interest today among the 15% of Catholics that actually still go to mass as compared to the 75% before the council than it did 30 years ago. The more you dig-the more bodies get overturned with regard to this council.

[quote=Deacon Ed]As someone who has studied the early Church, who is writing a book about the Eastern Catholic Churches so that Latin Rite Catholics can have an understanding of this great part of our Church, I find comments like this quite amusing (and I don’t mean to be intolerant or arrogant). It’s just that when people grow up with something they tend to think that what they have is what always was.

Note that not a single change from the Second Vatican Council changed “the structure of the Church” – it changed some disciplines including the format of the Mass without affecting the underlying valaidity of the Mass.

For people who cling to the format instead of the content, yes, that is very threatening. There is a scene in, of all places, an Elvis Presley movie called “Change of Habit” in which elderly women are seen in some wierd rendition of the Mass objecting (and rightly so) and wishing they could go back to the good old days when they could go to Mass and not think about anything. For too many people that was precisely the mode they were in. They’d go, read the bulletin (or the newspaper) and then leave presuming they’d been good Catholics.

This is not a universal condemnation because there were people there who prayed the Mass (my own parents made sure their four boys knew how to follow the Mass in our missals).

The other problem with the claim above is that it denies to Rome the right (divinely given!) to regulate the liturgy and the Church itself. Now that is, IMNSHO, arrogant!

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Deacon

This is the first time that I must diasagree with you, Vatican II changed everything, possibly illegally as it changed doctrine and worship codified by previous councils and infallible Popes, It was and is still revolutionary and will never die down, as it has more interest today among the 15% of Catholics that actually still go to mass as compared to the 75% before the council than it did 30 years ago. The more you dig

[quote=Deacon Ed]As someone who has studied the early Church, who is writing a book about the Eastern Catholic Churches so that Latin Rite Catholics can have an understanding of this great part of our Church, I find comments like this quite amusing (and I don’t mean to be intolerant or arrogant). It’s just that when people grow up with something they tend to think that what they have is what always was.

Note that not a single change from the Second Vatican Council changed “the structure of the Church” – it changed some disciplines including the format of the Mass without affecting the underlying valaidity of the Mass.

For people who cling to the format instead of the content, yes, that is very threatening. There is a scene in, of all places, an Elvis Presley movie called “Change of Habit” in which elderly women are seen in some wierd rendition of the Mass objecting (and rightly so) and wishing they could go back to the good old days when they could go to Mass and not think about anything. For too many people that was precisely the mode they were in. They’d go, read the bulletin (or the newspaper) and then leave presuming they’d been good Catholics.

This is not a universal condemnation because there were people there who prayed the Mass (my own parents made sure their four boys knew how to follow the Mass in our missals).

The other problem with the claim above is that it denies to Rome the right (divinely given!) to regulate the liturgy and the Church itself. Now that is, IMNSHO, arrogant!

Deacon Ed
[/quote]

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.