Why do extremist give the EF and traditionalist a bad name?


I like aspects of the EF and tradition, but I don’t push my views on others. I also think when one becomes pushy then the other person feels less inclined to learn about the tradition


Because it’s easier to focus on the bad than the good. The same thing can go for why Catholic priests have a reputation for being pedophiles despite that the vast majority are not.


Have you found Latinphiles to be pushy in real life? Of course, on the internet, everyone seems pushy.


An angel’s smile is what they sell. They promise us Heaven, but put us through Hell.


Excuse me? I love the poetry, but please explain.


It’s from the Bon Jovi song “You Give Love a Bad Name.”


Oh, very nice! Just to make sure, you don’t actually think traditionalists


I think it has something to do with people who are “rule-based” law and order type folks aren’t always good at persuasion. Same way with Republicans, who I believe are on the correct side of a lot of issues, are terrible at “selling” their position.


Actually the correct side is to be catholic( universal)… that’s a mark of the church. To love both novus ordo and EF…


A lot of traditionalist tend to say novus ordo is wrong, communion in hand is wrong, etc… this turns people off from authentic tradition such as learning about the EF


I used to love the OF, until I started reading about it, and Vatican II, and liturgy. And then once I went to an EF Mass, I realized how much the Church had lost in the 1960s and 1970s. :cry:


But at the same time, you can’t say a dogmatic constitution is wrong.
We pay taxes, under pain of sin, even if we disagree with a tax. Taxes are a much more trivial matter than disciplines of the church


What dogmatic constitution? Sorry, I don’t know what that is, so I am not saying that one is wrong. All I know is that centuries worth of tradition and meaning got lost (ruined on purpose, really) in the 60s and 70s.


Sacrosanctum concilium… from Vatican 2… I thought you read about it???


Okay I guess I don’t immediately recall the term “dogmatic constitution”.


That’s what the magesterium calls those documents


Traditionalists do have a lot of problems themselves:


Thank you… I like both EF and OF… but ultimately I crave true love(God)


If you read about Vatican II and not the actual documents, you will be getting someone else’s spin.

You really should read them, especially the Dogmatic Constitution of Sacred Liturgy before you can critique what happened.


Thank you for this comment. I agree that it is important to distinguish between what the documents of the Second Vatican Council actually said, and what happened during the implementation of the decrees. The abuses which followed the conclusion of the Council were never intended by the Council Fathers. However, it appears that simply saying “correlation does not equal causation” does not in fact get to the root of the problem. There was most certainly a spirit present during that time period which was leading to the anarchy of the 1960s and 70s. While most agree that the “spirit of Vatican II” is an inaccurate novelty and not a true representation of the Council’s decrees, the Council could have more strongly opposed this spirit which is in contradiction with the Catholic faith. This would have helped re-affirm more strongly the fact that the Church must be a sign of contradiction to the spirit of this world.

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.