"Traditionalists" and "KJV-Onlys"?

I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…
[/quote]

I’m getting out the popcorn and putting my feet up to watch this thread!

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…
[/quote]

You’re right! The church was wrong for so many years! Thank God for Archbishop Bugnini and everyone else.

Of coarse, the modernists (there’s a word you love) love everyone except the SSPX. Them nasty devils! Bring in the Lutherans to consecrate a bishop (without Papal approval…whoops!), get a Budha on a tabernacle, apologize to the Jews, hand over to the Islamists a church on the house, etc. But for the love of God – no traditionalists!

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…
[/quote]

I’ll agree with everything but #3. There are plenty of people who can eloquently state their positions and reasoning. The problem is, they take it too far when they begin to claim things such as “The Novus Ordo is invalid”, “Bishops who don’t allow the Tridentine are at odds with the Pope”, “Vatican II wasn’t infallible”, etc.

[quote=netmilsmom]I’m getting out the popcorn and putting my feet up to watch this thread!
[/quote]

Is there any reason you do not wish to challenge any of these statements?

[quote=Mysty101]Is there any reason you do not wish to challenge any of these statements?
[/quote]

I have no reason to.
I am not a Traditionalist. I do not attend a TLM Holy Mass. I will let those who do, defend themselves. However, it will be interesting to watch.

I have seen some very judgemental statements, and very little logic from the intolerant in both camps.

It is very sad to see. I personally cannot understand why someone feels they have a right to demand what has been changed. If it is allowed, you must go where there are provisions, not ridicule a Parish which does not taylor itself to your wishes.

I’d like to turn the table here.
What you have had basically said here, Pariah Piranna, is that you are so well trained in theology and philosophy that you can dismiss our perspective wholesale. Yet you are not ashamed to throw this emotional tantrum, which every serious scholar knows can play no part in philosophical/theological discussions.

If you want to sit down to the chess board, I am game. But don’t turn the table over when you realize you have been checkmated.

God Bless,
Usque.

And right after we started taking communion in the hand, we got a Buddha on our tabernacle too. SHEESH there’s the logic problem.

[quote=Dr. Colossus]I’ll agree with everything but #3. There are plenty of people who can eloquently state their positions and reasoning. The problem is, they take it too far when they begin to claim things such as “The Novus Ordo is invalid”, “Bishops who don’t allow the Tridentine are at odds with the Pope”, “Vatican II wasn’t infallible”, etc.
[/quote]

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…
[/quote]

This reeks of trolling.

You may be the only person in the world who would actually say traditionalists are not well catechized. “Compared to who?”, one wonders.

Anyway, if you’re going to attack someone’s intelligence and education level, you would do well to at least run your posts through spell-check first.

  1. Please explain your point…also, I am one of those people you would label a “traditionalist”…look back over my many post and please explain to me how I have “dumbed down” our Religion…

  2. I beg to differ…I know many people like me that are well versed on the history of our Church and have a good grasp on the totallity of our Faith…again, if you can prove otherwise that I do not know our history or have a grasp on the totallity of our faith, please do.

  3. This is plain asinine…I am smart, well educated, well catechized and I always use logic…please explain to me where I have not done so.

  4. It is not bunker mentallity…I just don’t see the need in stripping down our beautiful Cathedrals to nothing but pews, walls, and a plain Altar…I happen to believe the presence of the statues, mosaics, stained glass windows, and icons adds to the beauty and gives it a feeling of holiness. Also, I don’t like human inventions, not called for by a Council, to be forced into our liturgy at the hopes of attracting protestants…I can live with ANYTHING VII called for, but what I can’t live with is people changing things and blaming it on the “spirit of VII” when they know for a fact that it was not in the spirit or letter of VII to make such changes…most people have never taken the time to see what the second Vatican council actually called for, and if they did, then maybe they would question all the uneccessary changes too. At least the people in my bunker that you have placed me in acts reverently and dresses appropriately for Mass and all seem to be very orthodox people who do not like to eat at the cafeteria buffet.
    Furthermore, it is the modernist who feel the need to be different…the traditionalist are conservative by their very nature and they do not like to see the radical changes that are taking place…it is the progressives who want to be different…not traditionalist.

  5. THis is a PC statement…whatever happened to truth??? If someone is heterodox or orthodox…why is it a bad thing to call them such? If one is liberal or conservative…they are just that…why not call them such? Im sorry, but the ability to properly recognize people for who they are has nothing to do with extremism…it has to do with intelligence. If someone is morally bankrupt, it does not make me an extremist to tell them such…

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I have come to see similarites between those Catholics who describe themselfes as “traditionalists” and those Protestants who describe themselves as “KJV-onlys.”

More specifically I see similarities in the following areas:

1.) Dumbing-down of the faith. Both groups seem to want to base their entire faiths either on a specific type of Mass, or a specific version of the Bible. There is simply more to it.

2.) Lack of perspective. Members from both camps seem to be fairly ignorant about the history and totality of their faiths.

3.) Poor thought processing. I’m not sure that I have *ever *meet someone that is both smart, educated and well catechized from either camp. In a word, their use of logic is typically non-existant.

4.) The need to be different. A buker-mentality seems to actually appeal to thse individuals.

5.) Intolerance. Every time I hear the terms “liberal”, “modernist”, “apostate”, “heretic”, etc. etc. etc. thrown around, I think of both of these extrememist groups. I also marvel at how they typically misuse these very words…
[/quote]

[quote=Mysty101]I have seen some very judgemental statements, and very little logic from the intolerant in both camps.

It is very sad to see. I personally cannot understand why someone feels they have a right to demand what has been changed. If it is allowed, you must go where there are provisions, not ridicule a Parish which does not taylor itself to your wishes.
[/quote]

This coming from someone who wants everyone to receive Communion standing up, even though the GIRM permits communicants to receive kneeling.


You’re obviously not familiar with the apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II Ecclesia Dei which gives those who want the Tridentine Mass the right to have it. The bishops are to be generous in this application, but we know that is not the case. I’m still waiting for you criticize these bishops the way you criticize anyone who wants to adore our Lord and receive Holy Communion kneeling.


This is from Ecclesia Dei:

To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations.

In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.

…moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.
Pope John Paul II called for the bishops to support him in granting the Tridentine Mass to those who ask for it because it is their rightful aspiration. There is supposed to be a wide and generous application of the Tridentine Mass.


Those of us who want the Tridentine Mass have a right to it Mysty. Pope Benedict XVI was very much involved in promoting the Tridentine Mass as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith even though this wasn’t his responsibility.


It seems once again you are being judgmental about those who want the Tridentine Mass. You are the one who wants a parish to tailor itself to your wishes.


It’s precisely because of modernists who want to rid the Church of any semblance of tradition that John Paul II worded Ecclesia Dei in this manner.

Labels are usually never completely adequate in the describing the object they purport to describe, but shouldn’t we really use the term “rad trad” or something else? To be a Catholic is to be a traditionalist. Tradition is authoritative in our Church, with Holy Writ and the living Magisterium. Tradition is good! Like Scripture, it means what the Church says it means.

I don’t know that I would be as blunt as #3. I’ve met lots of smart, well-read rad trads on this site, but then I find the following somewhat bewildering:

  1. Buddha on tabernacle, Holy Father bows to tabernacle, ergo Holy Father bows to Buddha AND is responsible for placement of Buddha on tabernacle. I think someone should write a book a la Dr. Seuss, “WHO put the Buddha on the Tabernacle Roof?”

  2. Apology to Jews ***bad? ***This has no impact on the impeccability or spotlessness of the Church and the smoke of Satan has NOT thereby entered into Christ’s Church. The Holy Father was obviously talking about individual members of the Church. Does anyone other than anti-semites argue that there have not been Catholics, some powerful and some simply part of mobs, that have sinned against Jews or that the Jews deserved it?

  3. This is the one that I honestly laugh over: the Bugnini thingy!
    Archbishop Bugnini, a secret Mason, perverts the whole liturgy and the Holy Father is dupped into letting him…or IS HE DUPED??? Turns out that Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI may well themselves have been Masons!!! Not only that, Cardinal Ottovanni tried to warn the President not to go to Dallas, but the Jews had bribed Marilyn Monroe to immobilize Jackie Kennedy, and the woman sitting next to the President as the motorcade passed Dealy Plaza was in fact NOT a woman, but was really a 3rd Degree Mason named Earl “Booger” Bivens dressed in that pink suit to look like Jackie, and Archbishop Bugnini was the lone gunman in the school book depository! But I may have my conspiracies confused. Elvis lives!

[quote=EddieArent]You’re right! The church was wrong for so many years! Thank God for Archbishop Bugnini and everyone else.

Of coarse, the modernists (there’s a word you love) love everyone except the SSPX. Them nasty devils! Bring in the Lutherans to consecrate a bishop (without Papal approval…whoops!), get a Budha on a tabernacle, apologize to the Jews, hand over to the Islamists a church on the house, etc. But for the love of God – no traditionalists!
[/quote]

So you are questioning the actions of Pope JPII now?

Aside from that, just look at your comments. They do nothing but underscore the concerns I originally stated.

[quote=Dr. Colossus]I’ll agree with everything but #3. There are plenty of people who can eloquently state their positions and reasoning. The problem is, they take it too far when they begin to claim things such as “The Novus Ordo is invalid”, “Bishops who don’t allow the Tridentine are at odds with the Pope”, “Vatican II wasn’t infallible”, etc.
[/quote]

There might be a few self-proclaimed “traditionalists” who do not fit concern #3, but their numbers seem extremely limited.

As an example, simply by stating “The Novus Ordo is invalid” suggests one lacks all the qualities I mentioned…

[quote=netmilsmom]I have no reason to.
I am not a Traditionalist. I do not attend a TLM Holy Mass. I will let those who do, defend themselves. However, it will be interesting to watch.
[/quote]

I attend the Tridentine Mass on a regular basis and love it, but I would never want to be grouped with those who call themselves “traditionalists” or the latest, “Tridentine Catholics.”

[quote=usqueadmortem]I’d like to turn the table here.
What you have had basically said here, Pariah Piranna, is that you are so well trained in theology and philosophy that you can dismiss our perspective wholesale. Yet you are not ashamed to throw this emotional tantrum, which every serious scholar knows can play no part in philosophical/theological discussions.

If you want to sit down to the chess board, I am game. But don’t turn the table over when you realize you have been checkmated.

God Bless,
Usque.
[/quote]

I can produce a long list of extremely well respected Catholic philosphers and theologians. A list of names that are beyond reproach.

I can’t think of a single person on that list that refers to him/herself as a “traditionalist” (or “Tridentine Catholic” – that still cracks me up) with the same viewpoints expoused on many of these forums.

[quote=Scotty PGH]This reeks of trolling.

You may be the only person in the world who would actually say traditionalists are not well catechized. “Compared to who?”, one wonders.

Anyway, if you’re going to attack someone’s intelligence and education level, you would do well to at least run your posts through spell-check first.
[/quote]

So says you.

Both dilligence and good source materials are required to be well catechized. It would appear that many “traditionalists” suffer from the old adage “garbage in, garbage out.” Further, I would suggest that the more time some “traditonalists” prepare, the worse catechized they become. Ponder that one for a few minutes…

[quote=Pariah Pirana]I attend the Tridentine Mass on a regular basis and love it, but I would never want to be grouped with those who call themselves “traditionalists” or the latest, “Tridentine Catholics.”
[/quote]

And that my friend, is why I was asking what I should call myself on the other thread!
As I understood it, there is a difference between Traditionalist with a capital T and traditionalist, as in liking the old world traditions.

You and I are very much the same. I am proud to be a Papist!

Pariah,

I didn’t ask you to provide a long list of Catholic philosophers. Providing a list of names is totally different than being a philosopher yourself. I asked you to sit down to the table and actually discuss the issues, rather than throw slurs around.

Usque.

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.