If you can find a funny punch line go ahead


#1

What is the difference between a conservative Catholic, a traditional Catholic, and an orthodox Catholic? I know this sounds like a joke, so, if you can find a funny punch line go ahead. However, for those of you who know a straight answer, I’d appreciate a definition.

Thanks!


#2

I’ll walk the minefield:

A conservative Catholic is happy with the new pope.

An orthodox Catholic would be happy with any new pope.

A traditional Catholic would not be happy unless he was pope.


#3

Dear pnewton,

:clapping: :tiphat: :smiley: ,

reen12


#4

Hello

That is a good reply Pnewton.

God Bless
Saint Andrew.


#5

[quote=AServantofGod]What is the difference between a conservative Catholic, a traditional Catholic, and an orthodox Catholic? I know this sounds like a joke, so, if you can find a funny punch line go ahead. However, for those of you who know a straight answer, I’d appreciate a definition.

Thanks!
[/quote]

None. I am all three.

  1. Conservative - believes in the teachings of the Church to the Nth degree.
  2. Traditional - Ditto above.
  3. Orthdox - Ditto times 3.

All three are different ways of saying you are following ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church - thus you are truly
C A T H O L I C.

God Bless,
Donna


#6

[quote=pnewton]I’ll walk the minefield:

A conservative Catholic is happy with the new pope.

An orthodox Catholic would be happy with any new pope.

A traditional Catholic would not be happy unless he was pope.
[/quote]

It’s not often you meet somebody full of witt and wisdom at the same time.


#7

So here is my next question. Can you be all 3? I know according to pnewton the answer would be, “no”. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree right Newton?

However, could you not be a conservative Catholic who seeks out traditional aspects of the church (i.e. attending Tridentine masses) and still be faithful to the pope and magisterium? Is all of this possible without actually wanting to be pope yourself?


#8

[quote=AServantofGod]So here is my next question. Can you be all 3? I know according to pnewton the answer would be, “no”. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree right Newton?

[/quote]

I couldn’t pass on the chance for a punch line. I think you could be all three, because they address different aspects of the faith.

“Orthodox” refers to adherence to the Church in matters of faith in morals.

“Traditional” can refer to a preference for the Tridentine Mass, other older devotions, or a return to Latin in the Mass.

“Conservative” is more of how one views change. In the Church change takes the form of doctrinal development. I heard Cardinal Arinze remark once that liberal, in it’s proper context, is not a bad thing. It is the interaction between the theologians who push for quicker development and those who are slow to accept any doctrinal development that has allowed the Church to grow in her understanding of God and at the same time to steer free of heresy.

But if I think of another humorous comparison, I will post that, too.


#9

[quote=AServantofGod]What is the difference between a conservative Catholic, a traditional Catholic, and an orthodox Catholic? I know this sounds like a joke, so, if you can find a funny punch line go ahead. However, for those of you who know a straight answer, I’d appreciate a definition.

Thanks!
[/quote]

I’ll give you my “long answer” to the question. To do this, I will need to also add the “liberal” to my response.

The devil has been very successful in our day in dividing society into liberal, or “progressive” and conservative. The liberal movements seeks to “liberate” man from God’s rule. He has does this by emphaszing man’s “rights”, and "dignity, to such an extent that he eventually claims that man has a “right”, based on his “dignity” to act contrary to God’s law. When you really examine liberalism, it is simply an attempt to liberate man from the authority of God. Liberals are also called “progresives” since their manner of behavior continually “progresses” in that direction.

The is a counter movement to the “progressives”. These are known as “conservatives”. Conservatives do what the name says: they seek to “conserve” what has been; whereas the progresseves seek to “progress” away from what has been.

We sometime hear the term “new world order” (you will find this term on the back of the dollar bill, in Latin). The liberals seek to bring about a new ordering of the world. And it is this new ordering which they “progress” towards. The “old world order” (which the new world order seeks to replace) is the Catholics Church with the state united to it, so that both Church, state, and individuals are ordered towards God as their center and summit. The “new order” (Novus Ordo) seeks to replace that, by ordering everything to man as its center and summit. The following quote would describe the mentality of this “new order”: “Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit” (Vatican II).

So, in society we have the two “forces” the progressives (or “liberals”), and the "conservatives. And we also have what is known as the “center”. The conservatives are those on the political “right” of center, while the liberals are those on the “left”.

But what happens over the years is that the “center” moves further and further “left” with each passing year, so that eventually the liberal thinking of yesterday becomes the “conservative” thinking of today. For example in the 1930’s it was only the extreme liberals in society who believed in birth control. Today, it is accepted by even the conservatives, while those who rejecte birth control are looked at as “out of the main stream of society”. We see the same today with abortion, which at first was promoted only by the extreme liberal, yet today is accepted by many “conservatives” in society.

Dennis Prager, the “conservative” radio show host said a few years ago: “I am a Kennedy liberal. I have not changed any of my beliefs. Yet today these same beliefs are considered conservative”. He is right. Because the liberal ideas of yesterday become mainstream and then accepted by the “conservatives” tomorrow.

So, we have the liberals, the conservatives, and the center. With each passing year the center gradually moves left, as the “progressives” progress in their error and the “conservatives” trail behind. The conservatives are like an anchor that slows the progress of the “progressives”, yet it never stops, nor reverses the trend.

A conservative and a liberal are required, by society, to remain within a certain distance from the “center”. If one becomes too progressive, they are considered “extreme” (at least until the center catches up with them a few years later). In the same way, if a conservative does not remain within the “allowed” distance from the center (if he does not progress in his thinking), he too becomes an “extremist” even though his views were mainstream only 20 or 30 years ago.

Next we have another group: These are known (at least within Catholicism) as “traditionalist”. This group is considered very “extreme” since they still believe what the Church has always taught, and still reject what the Church has always rejected. This group is “politically incorrect and socially unacceptable”, since they are not within the politically correct bounds of the center, which is necessary remain within the “main stream”.

These “radical traditionalists” still believe, for example, that “there is only one true Church outside of which there is no salvation” (ex-cathedra dogma of the faith). They don’t praise heretics (Martin Luther for example) but detest them; you will never find a traditionalist kissing the Koran, but you may find them burning one. They will never invite pagans to their Church and ask them perform a pagan ritual (Assisi), since they know that a pagan ritual is a mortal sin against the first commandment. And you can be certain that no “traditionalist” will be time magazines “man of the year”. These “radical traditionalists” are way too far from the center to be “ploitically correct”; and with each passing year, as the “center” gradually drifts left, their views seem more and more “extreme”.


#10

[quote=pnewton]I’ll walk the minefield:

A conservative Catholic is happy with the new pope.

An orthodox Catholic would be happy with any new pope.

A traditional Catholic would not be happy unless he was pope.
[/quote]

:rotfl: WINNER! :clapping:


#11

[quote=RSiscoe]I’ll give you my “long answer” to the question. To do this, I will need to also add the “liberal” to my response.

The devil has been very successful in our day in dividing society into liberal, or “progressive” and conservative. The liberal movements seeks to “liberate” man from God’s rule. He has does this by emphaszing man’s “rights”, and "dignity, to such an extent that he eventually claims that man has a “right”, based on his “dignity” to act contrary to God’s law. When you really examine liberalism, it is simply an attempt to liberate man from the authority of God. Liberals are also called “progresives” since their manner of behavior continually “progresses” in that direction.

The is a counter movement to the “progressives”. These are known as “conservatives”. Conservatives do what the name says: they seek to “conserve” what has been; whereas the progresseves seek to “progress” away from what has been.

We sometime hear the term “new world order” (you will find this term on the back of the dollar bill, in Latin). The liberals seek to bring about a new ordering of the world. And it is this new ordering which they “progress” towards. The “old world order” (which the new world order seeks to replace) is the Catholics Church with the state united to it, so that both Church, state, and individuals are ordered towards God as their center and summit. The “new order” (Novus Ordo) seeks to replace that, by ordering everything to man as its center and summit. The following quote would describe the mentality of this “new order”: “Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit” (Vatican II).

So, in society we have the two “forces” the progressives (or “liberals”), and the "conservatives. And we also have what is known as the “center”. The conservatives are those on the political “right” of center, while the liberals are those on the “left”.

But what happens over the years is that the “center” moves further and further “left” with each passing year, so that eventually the liberal thinking of yesterday becomes the “conservative” thinking of today. For example in the 1930’s it was only the extreme liberals in society who believed in birth control. Today, it is accepted by even the conservatives, while those who rejecte birth control are looked at as “out of the main stream of society”. We see the same today with abortion, which at first was promoted only by the extreme liberal, yet today is accepted by many “conservatives” in society.

Dennis Prager, the “conservative” radio show host said a few years ago: “I am a Kennedy liberal. I have not changed any of my beliefs. Yet today these same beliefs are considered conservative”. He is right. Because the liberal ideas of yesterday become mainstream and then accepted by the “conservatives” tomorrow.

So, we have the liberals, the conservatives, and the center. With each passing year the center gradually moves left, as the “progressives” progress in their error and the “conservatives” trail behind. The conservatives are like an anchor that slows the progress of the “progressives”, yet it never stops, nor reverses the trend.

A conservative and a liberal are required, by society, to remain within a certain distance from the “center”. If one becomes too progressive, they are considered “extreme” (at least until the center catches up with them a few years later). In the same way, if a conservative does not remain within the “allowed” distance from the center (if he does not progress in his thinking), he too becomes an “extremist” even though his views were mainstream only 20 or 30 years ago.

Next we have another group: These are known (at least within Catholicism) as “traditionalist”. This group is considered very “extreme” since they still believe what the Church has always taught, and still reject what the Church has always rejected. This group is “politically incorrect and socially unacceptable”, since they are not within the politically correct bounds of the center, which is necessary remain within the “main stream”.

These “radical traditionalists” still believe, for example, that “there is only one true Church outside of which there is no salvation” (ex-cathedra dogma of the faith). They don’t praise heretics (Martin Luther for example) but detest them; you will never find a traditionalist kissing the Koran, but you may find them burning one. They will never invite pagans to their Church and ask them perform a pagan ritual (Assisi), since they know that a pagan ritual is a mortal sin against the first commandment. And you can be certain that no “traditionalist” will be time magazines “man of the year”. These “radical traditionalists” are way too far from the center to be “ploitically correct”; and with each passing year, as the “center” gradually drifts left, their views seem more and more “extreme”.
[/quote]

You’ve expressed yourself quite well. Your thoughts are those which I’ve entertained as well.

Here is a question that I’ve asked myself, and now I’ll ask you. Where my thoughts are often muddled and confusing to me, yours seem to be quite clear. Maybe you can give me your opinion on this. Some times it seems impossible to reign in the stampeding herd of liberalism. Do you believe it is possible for the center to move more to the right? What would it take to do that?


#12

[quote=RSiscoe]I’llWe sometime hear the term “new world order” (you will find this term on the back of the dollar bill, in Latin). The liberals seek to bring about a new ordering of the world. And it is this new ordering which they “progress” towards. The “old world order” (which the new world order seeks to replace) is the Catholics Church with the state united to it, so that both Church, state, and individuals are ordered towards God as their center and summit. The “new order” (Novus Ordo) seeks to replace that, by ordering everything to man as its center and summit. ).

[/quote]

A clarification. You have thrown out the term “Novus Ordo” in the same paragraph as “new world order.” The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The “order” in Novus Ordo is the order in which things are done in Mass, e.g. the offering, reception of gifts, location of the creed, etc. It has nothing to do with the centering of the Mass on man.The Eucharist is and always has been our source, center and summit.


#13

[quote=AServantofGod]You’ve expressed yourself quite well. Your thoughts are those which I’ve entertained as well.

Here is a question that I’ve asked myself, and now I’ll ask you. Where my thoughts are often muddled and confusing to me, yours seem to be quite clear. Maybe you can give me your opinion on this. Some times it seems impossible to reign in the stampeding herd of liberalism. Do you believe it is possible for the center to move more to the right? What would it take to do that?
[/quote]

Pnewton,

I started to respond to you, but it will take me too long.

AServantofGod,

I have thought about your question. This is my answer:

There is a law of nature called the second law of thermodynamics, which shows that things naturally tend to deteriorate over time. (This is one of the proofs against macroevolution, which claims that that lower species evolve into higher forms of life).

We see this “law” throughout nature: a house, over time, eventually begins to deteriorate; an old automobile, over time, begins to rust and fall apart. The same is true with society.

From the time of Adam and Eve to Noah, society had so deteriorated that God eventually had to destory everyone and begin again with Noah. Then we have the Jewish religion which was established by God, but eventually deteriorated and became corrupt. By the time Jesus arrived it was totally corrupted and became, according to the Bible, “a harolot” (Isaiah).

All of this is evidence of the second law of thermodynamics, which shows that “things”, as well as society, when left to themselves will deteriorate over time.

The solution to the natural tendency toward deterioration is the true Catholic faith and supernatural grace, which transforms both individuals and society, and causes that which is naturally tending to corruption, to be transformed:

Pope Leo XIII: “Just as Christianity cannot penetrate in the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter public life without establishing order… If it has transformed pagan society -–and that transformation was a veritable resurrection – for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” (Leo XIII Review of His Pontificate pg. 566-567)

So, the true faith and supernatural grace can indeed correct the mess we are in. The problem is that, for the past 40 years, instead of the the Church “penetrating society”, society has penetrated the Church. We now have a Church that is taking on the “spirit of the world” rather than the world being influences (penetrated) by the spirit of the Church.

So, the only hope for any true restoration of society lies squarely with the Church (since society left to itself will deteriorate, and only grace will transform it). But if our Church leaders continue on the current path of “worldliness”, false eccumensims, and compromise, there is no hope for society. It will continue on its current path of deterioration.

But, we have to remember that our real hope is not in this world. We must always maintain the theological virtue of supernatural hope, which is that God will help us to attain heaven: that is our true hope.

However, I personally believe that there will be a supernatural intervention of God, which will restore the Church as well as society. I base this belief on MANY prophecies of saints. These prophecies have predected our day exactly as it is (a state of total apostasy), and also a “great miraculous restoration”, which will take place when everything looks hopeless.

So, do I think there is any hope for the center to move back to the right? Humanly speaking, no. But I do believe that the center will not only gradually move back to the right, but the Church and society will be miraculously transformed. But first we will have to get through the mess we are in. I believe the “transformation” will be through a direct intervention of God, and not through merely human efforts.

Maybe I will post some of the prophecies of the “miraculous resurrection” of the Church that so many saints have spoke of.


#14

[quote=pnewton]A conservative Catholic is happy with the new pope.

An orthodox Catholic would be happy with any new pope.

A traditional Catholic would not be happy unless he was pope.
[/quote]

I know I would be happy if I were pope instead of Stephen VII, or any number of the flubs. Such a generality is hardly “wit and wisdom,” as ServantofGod called it.

[quote=AServantofGod]However, could you not be a conservative Catholic who seeks out traditional aspects of the church (i.e. attending Tridentine masses) and still be faithful to the pope and magisterium? Is all of this possible without actually wanting to be pope yourself?
[/quote]

Yes, of course you can. There are many Traditionalists like that- what you might call the “extreme” Traditionalists are people like sedevacantists.

[quote=RSiscoe]Next we have another group: These are known (at least within Catholicism) as “traditionalist”. This group is considered very “extreme” since they still believe what the Church has always taught, and still reject what the Church has always rejected. This group is “politically incorrect and socially unacceptable”, since they are not within the politically correct bounds of the center, which is necessary remain within the “main stream”.

These “radical traditionalists” still believe, for example, that “there is only one true Church outside of which there is no salvation” (ex-cathedra dogma of the faith). They don’t praise heretics (Martin Luther for example) but detest them; you will never find a traditionalist kissing the Koran, but you may find them burning one. They will never invite pagans to their Church and ask them perform a pagan ritual (Assisi), since they know that a pagan ritual is a mortal sin against the first commandment. And you can be certain that no “traditionalist” will be time magazines “man of the year”. These “radical traditionalists” are way too far from the center to be “ploitically correct”; and with each passing year, as the “center” gradually drifts left, their views seem more and more “extreme”.
[/quote]

:clapping:

[quote=pnewton]A clarification. You have thrown out the term “Novus Ordo” in the same paragraph as “new world order.” The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The “order” in Novus Ordo is the order in which things are done in Mass, e.g. the offering, reception of gifts, location of the creed, etc. It has nothing to do with the centering of the Mass on man.The Eucharist is and always has been our source, center and summit.
[/quote]

Novus Ordo Seclorum (alt. saeculorum) is translated “The new order of ages.” Aleister Crowley, idol of rock musicians, spoke of the “new age.” “New order of ages,” I believe, can validly be called “new world order” in the variety in meaning of Latin saeculum.


#15

OK, I guess I’ll volunteer for the job of Pope since it seems to me that everyone is clamoring for me to be. People bowing down before me, get to live in a nice house, and when I say “sit” or “stand” a billion people obey. Plus I can fly anywhere I want, yes I think I can accept that. Tough job, but someone has to do it.

Just make sure I have several body doubles so when the going gets tough, I can go hide somewhere and not be disturbed.

Alan


#16

[quote=AServantofGod]What is the difference between a conservative Catholic, a traditional Catholic, and an orthodox Catholic?
[/quote]

I see it like this:

[list]
*]A Conservative Catholic emphasizes the Church’s moral and social doctrine in his/her own life. They’ve probably read (or would enjoy reading) Humane Vite and The Theology of the Body.
*]A Traditional Catholic is someone who prefers many customs which are usually associated with pre-Vatican II worship. For example, these Catholics (rightly) receive on the tongue. They do a full genuflection. They are more likely to publically pray the Rosary or attend a Benediction.
*]An Orthodox Catholic is one who faithfully believes all that the Church teaches and participates in the Sacramental life of the Church in the manner that the Magesterium proscribes (ie, they don’t advocate their own versions of Mass, etc). However, an Orthodox Catholic may prefer very “modern” forms of worship (banjo folk Masses, etc), as long as they don’t deviate from the basic requirements of proper form.
[/list]


#17

[quote=DavidFilmer]I see it like this:

[list]
*]A Conservative Catholic emphasizes the Church’s moral and social doctrine in his/her own life. They’ve probably read (or would enjoy reading) Humane Vite and The Theology of the Body.
*]A Traditional Catholic is someone who prefers many customs which are usually associated with pre-Vatican II worship. For example, these Catholics (rightly) receive on the tongue. They do a full genuflection. They are more likely to publically pray the Rosary or attend a Benediction.
*]An Orthodox Catholic is one who faithfully believes all that the Church teaches and participates in the Sacramental life of the Church in the manner that the Magesterium proscribes (ie, they don’t advocate their own versions of Mass, etc). However, an Orthodox Catholic may prefer very “modern” forms of worship (banjo folk Masses, etc), as long as they don’t deviate from the basic requirements of proper form.
[/list]
[/quote]

I
Dont recieve on the tongue
Do a full genuflection
Pray the rosary publicly
Attend church where we have a kid on the drums( who is REALLY loud)
And try and emphasize moral attitudes that i should be emphasizing.

What does that make me?!?!?!?!?!?!? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


#18

[quote=Magicsilence]I
Dont recieve on the tongue
Do a full genuflection
Pray the rosary publicly
Attend church where we have a kid on the drums( who is REALLY loud)
And try and emphasize moral attitudes that i should be emphasizing.

What does that make me?!?!?!?!?!?!? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
[/quote]

I’m guessing it makes you a precious child of God. :slight_smile:


#19

I think the labels are intellectually interesting because I enjoy talking about people’s behavior, so they can give some basis into differences between people.

The labels are also potentially very dangerous because the labels themselves set the groundwork for division, if not the underlying truth of the differences themselves. When people start assigning “quality levels” of the various characteristics of particular groups of sinners, then we have problems.

It reminds me of a Dr. Seuss video about “Star-Bellied Sneetches” where one group alienates another because they have obvious differences; when the “underdog” group achieves the same markings as the “elite” group so you can’t tell them apart, that doesn’t set well with the previously elite group.

Here in U.S.A. we conservatives (a label of course) hate hyphenated Americans because we say the liberals try to divide us into group they can pit against each other. We love hyphenated Catholics, though, when we are in a group whose label is one we are “proud” of having…

Alan


#20

[quote=challenger]Novus Ordo Seclorum (alt. saeculorum) is translated “The new order of ages.” Aleister Crowley, idol of rock musicians, spoke of the “new age.” “New order of ages,” I believe, can validly be called “new world order” in the variety in meaning of Latin saeculum.
[/quote]

In case you are not familiar with the discussions in the liturgy forum, “Novus Ordo” has been used extensively (and inaccurately) to refer to the current Mass. My point is that it has no entymological ties to the New World Order or New Age.

I have only heard one person here that actually believed that the Church has played the dupe of the new age movement, through the Masons, Illuminati or some such nutty conspiracy theory, and is now been changed into a New Age entity. I find such heresy appalling, both for it’s lack of evidence and lack of faith in God.

If you found my first attempt unhumorous, all I can say is,

BOOM!!


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.