Ultra-orthodoxy and orthodoxy

The sociologist Steve Bruce, himself an atheist, is a keen observer of the religious scence.

He believes that religion is in long-term secular decline, and that ultra-orthodoxy functions as an escape hatch from orthodoxy. His scenario goes like this: the orthodox mainstream religion becomes narrow and constraining, and young people in particular need to get out the world of teas in paper cups in crumbling halls, sexual conservatism, and so forth. For the majority this simply means dropping out, but there is a minority who don’t want to take the step of betraying the old group. So ultra-orthodoxy is the answer, where the old lady count is lower, the small group has the commitment and resources to put on decent refreshments, the sexual ethics are no longer conservatives but consiously defying accepted norms.

He does not see ultra-orthodox groups as a sign of health. Instead he sees them as exactly the sort of phenomena you would expect to see in the terminal stages of a religious movement.

I think this is wishful thinking on his part. Being a student of sociology myself, I tend to view human history, and its many facets by extension, in terms of cyclical phenomenon. I personally believe that periods of extreme orthodoxy are corrective to the general malaise accompanying a decline in orthodoxy over time. While this correction can take both good and bad forms, it is just a natural function of the post-modern religious and sociopolitical environment.

A good example of this is the oscillation between liberal/progressives vs. conservatives, not just in politics, but in the papacy as well (the moderate Pius IX following the ultra-conservative Gregory XVI, though arguably Pius IX became much more conservative during the course of his reign).

The organic purpose of these corrective periods is to combat the seeming paradox of the anomie associated with long periods of prosperity, especially political, social or economic; this could just as easily be said of the religious as well.

:slight_smile: Yo, Malcolm and other friends!

Say, Malcolm, I’m sorry to say that while I’ve a boodle of life experiences more or less vaguely related to what I THINK your sociologist is trying to tell us, I am handicapped by only having five years of college.:smiley:

Seriously, if it was me, and not Professor Steve Bruce, I’d most likely define this “Ultra-orthodoxy and orthodoxy” business like this:

  1. Gnosticism has been around forever. Wikipedia is a good place to start learning about it, but don’t stop there.

  2. Our next stop (although he doesn’t seem to use the term himself) might be anything (in English) by the Argentinian-born evangelist (and most certainly non-Catholic) Luis Palau. Palau (or his excellent research staff) puts out superb little essays on such topics as Karl Marx, Feurbach, etc. Then:

  3. Our next stop might be: Ellis Sandoz’s The Voegelinian Revolution , detailing how a German non-Catholic scholar named Eric Voegelin learned a tremendous amount about how ancient gnostic fantasies have long since been resurrected and spread to the four winds: Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, you name it.

4)For the real historical lowdown (if you’re really fluent in French, I’m not) is to both read, underline, and study Emmanuelle Le Roy Ladurie’s classic study: Montaillou, Village Occitan de 1294 a 1324, or (like me) the English translation called Montaillous: The Promised Land of Error. It’s been like a study guide for me going on 26 years now re all things “Traditional Catholic,”

Even throughout the last 23 years (out of 28 total) that I still rode for their brand

BUT WHY THIS LAST ENTRY ON A FRENCH SOCIOLOGIST?

Because if we at least skim the first three items, it just might make Ladurie’s conclusions easier to stomach.

Especially his conclusion on page 324 of the English translation of his book, where we read:.

"But the hard core [in Southern France at that time] of religious deviation was the Albigensian heresy.

"The frontier between believers in Catharism [same as the “Albis”] and believers in the orthodx Roman dogma was vague and easily crossed in both directions, by the same people.

"[As the folk saying went] They did not hesitate to fish from both banks.

"Despite doctrinal differences, for example on the Incarnation, there was no absolute contradiction between the views of the Cathars and the almost equally radical views entertained by certain people who remained Christian in the orthodox sense of the word." [emphasis added]

Something to think about, no?

Anyone who has finally been faced with the choice between Jesus Christ and HIs Church and the so-called “Traditional Catholics,” (with a capital T) as I have, is going to know just what is at stake here.:wink:

A hint: “Just why were the so-called Tradiitonal Catholics originally sanctioned by Pope Pius IX around 1860 or so?” :smiley:

I’ll bet you if anyone checks with the Online Catholic Encyclopedia, the one that is basically a copy of what Rome put out between 1910 to 1914, the answer is going to be a real shocker.:o

Anyway, yes, I more or less understand what this sociologist is telling us, Malcolm.

But based on 2,000 years plus of history, Jesus Christ and His Church will win.

As for me, well, I’ve already switched from riding for the neo-gnostic brand and now I ride for that of the Catholic Church, period.

“Catholic Church.”

Without any qualifying adjectives.

See you all…

Thanks!

Aurelio:thumbsup:

Please, will you share the information with us?
I’m a HSing mom and don’t have the time for researching it but I’m dying to know!!!

:slight_smile: Hola (“Hello!”) Netmilsmom, Dr. Bombay, and all:

O.K. but “Guau!” Which is Spanish for “Wow in English.”

Anyway, I must tell you good people that anyone who can condense this Cathoic link on Traditionalism in 100 words or less is the genius I most certainly am not, so, here’s your link, Netmilsmom, et al:

newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm

Hope it goes through!

Hey, at least in preview post mode, it does!:wink:

see ya,

Aurelio:thumbsup:

It is evident, first of all, that authority, whatever be the way or agency in which it is presented to us, cannot of itself be the supreme criterion or rule of certitude. For, in order to be a rule of certitude, it must first be known as valid, competent, and legitimate, and reason must have ascertained this before it is entitled to our assent (cf. St. Thomas, I-II:2:1).

netmilsmom,

The above is from the CE section on Traditionalism. Can you explain this for us all…how traditional Catholics today are aligned with the errors of Lamennais?

Gorman

:slight_smile: Hello, Gorman64!

Say, I’m not sure if your post was for me or for netmilsmom, but to answer your question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997 ediiton) in both English and Spanish makes clear there is no problem with “traditional” using it the way you do, with a lower case letter “t.”

But in both catechisms there’s a lot to say about “Traditional” with a capital letter “T.”

So, no, there would be zero in common with a “traditional Catholic,” as is yours truly (finally) and tens of millions of others, with some individual like this Lammenais.

In fact, what would we have in common with any gnostic fantasy trip?

But!

If you were to have made your statement “Traditonal Catholic,” with a capital T, then watch out!

That would have another thing altogether!

Anyone, with true, matter of fact traditonal Catholic leanings, who goes on to say, no matter how sincerely, in effect that "I am a Traditional Catholic, with a capital** T **, is a person who is going to have some strange company throughout Catholic history.

Worse, he or she is going to be “aligned” with them, whether knowingly or unknowinngly.

Ellis Sandoz gives us this tidbit from Eric Voegelin, regarding gnostics in general, although Karl Marx is his target in this quote form page 28 of Sandoz’s book:

“Marx, like Compte, does not permit a rational discussion of his principles – you have to be a Marxist or shut up. … one cannot deny God and retain reason.”

Then, down on page 114 we read:

Dream and reality are identified as a matter of principle, and anyone who challenges official truth in the name of reason and truth meets viturperation or worse. Rational debate is impossible.”

Example of this last: A young man of legal age is tasked in a Society of St. Pius X school to be vigilant in snuffing out any questioning by faculty or staff of a new, supposedly authentic Mexican custom: placing a beautiful painting of the Guadalupana in a public toilet used by both sexes and openly facing the commode.

Thus, when an instructor gently hints in a high school class that any professional-level sociologist or anthropologist might have some pithy comments about this supposed custom, with their reservations derived from a working knowledge of Aztec myth history, the young man, as though on a talismanic cue, attacks the instructor, immediately.

So, shifting his approach, and with plenty of past experience in such challenges from university Marxist cadre, the instructor gently asks the young man: "**So how would you react, yourself, to going into a public rest room and seeing a picture of your own mother facing the open toilets?"

His reply: “Hellol, Mom!” His fellow Pius X classroom-cadre nodded his head sagely in agreement, “You bet!”

The younger fellas looked at each other uneasily, but here they, too, had had their signal.

And their signal was simply this:

You have to be a Marxist, or shut up.”

No, this is not an isolated example of a Marxist -or Gnostic mindset – the point I’m making is that such organizations as the Society of St.Pius X, my good friends, believe it or not as we like, can have have certain curiously similar perversities.:smiley:

See ya…

Aurelio:thumbsup:

I don’t think I’m that smart!
The whole thing looks to be well above my intelligence level.

Hey, I homeschool but I buy a curriculum :D!

I’m gonna give this a shot, my friend.
After the kiddies are in bed. Thanks!!!

Say, I’m not sure if your post was for me or for netmilsmom, but to answer your question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997 ediiton) in both English and Spanish makes clear there is no problem with “traditional” using it the way you do, with a lower case letter “t.”

But in both catechisms there’s a lot to say about “Traditional” with a capital letter “T.”

So, no, there would be zero in common with a “traditional Catholic,” as is yours truly (finally) and tens of millions of others, with some individual like this Lammenais.

In fact, what would we have in common with any gnostic fantasy trip?

But!

If you were to have made your statement “Traditonal Catholic,” with a capital T, then watch out!

That would have another thing altogether!

Aurelio,

It was addressed to netmilsmom…but I have no problem with you answering. Your answer is a bit off the topic and then becomes cryptic. Could you answer the question I asked?

So, if I spell traditional catholic as Traditional Catholic…then I am a different person with different beliefs? That seems a little silly don’t you think?

Gorman

I’m sorry, I think I understand your question now.
Yes, here on the forums Traditional is different from traditional.

The capital T means that a person wants to return to the TLM, Latin and all that goes with it.

The small t means an historic Catholic who likes a NO Holy Mass the way VII said it should be. No innovations, no abuses.

The small t means an historic Catholic who likes a NO Holy Mass the way VII said it should be. No innovations, no abuses.

OK, thanks for clearing that up. The council documents of Vatican II did not change the Mass, Paul VI did. The Bishops, the Teaching Apostolate, implemented it and kicked out anyone who disagreed with them.

How would you characterize these things you call “abuses”?

The prayers of the propers of the Mass were almost completely destroyed…do you consider that an abuse…or was it done by the authority of the Church?

Gorman

At this moment, I consider that Rome changed the rubics of the Holy Mass. Why? I have no clue. I will obey what Rome tells me, so the abuses I speak of as a traditionalist are those of the current rubics.

Now I am also a person who believes that the TLM should be celebrated freely for those who want it.

If Rome was not right in changing the rubics, the Holy Mother Church will right herself, but I was put into this time and therefore will obey for this time as well.

Does that make sense?

At this moment, I consider that Rome changed the rubics of the Holy Mass. Why? I have no clue. I will obey what Rome tells me, so the abuses I speak of as a traditionalist are those of the current rubics.

What you are saying here, maybe unintended, is that the Church issued a discipline that is an abuse of the sacred liturgy of the Church.

But the Church cannot do this. She cannot issue a discipline that is offensive to faith and morals.

Are you aware of the changes in the propers of the Mass…what prayers were deleted and what “negative concepts” were edited out of the others?

Gorman

Are you aware of the changes in the propers of the Mass…what prayers were deleted and what “negative concepts” were edited out of the others?

Gorman

This is too often completely overlooked because few get past the Ordinary variations, options & theatrics.
Thanks.

:slight_smile: Yo, Gorman64, Netmilsmom and all!

Listen you guys, I owe everyone an apology especially Gorman himself as – if even unintentionally – I was guilty of making him feel he was the target of a “pac attack” Marxist U. style.

And, you were right, again, Gorman: off-thread, I was indeed, and you were on target there, too.

Folks, this all translates into everyday Spanish as “Nos vemos cocodrilo – See ya later alligator!”

Thanks to everybody for the input; Malcolm your thread rocks!

See ya …

Aurelio:thumbsup:

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.