Tradition: What's the Point?
#11
StevusMagnus Wrote:In previous threads, I could get FishEaters to agree on only a few things that were essential to being a Traditional Catholic.

1.) Read VCII in continuity with Traditional teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty.

2.) Have a preference for TLM over the NO.

If this is it, could not any NeoCath call himself a Traditional Catholic? In which  case, what is really the point? If these are the only two qualifiers, couldn't a Charismatic Catholic and Traditional Catholic differ only in their Mass preferences? And if it's just personal preference, that's fine, but then why really be such a vehement "Trad"? If people can get just as much grace and be orthodox going to the Novus Ordo and they are comfortable doing so, why try to "bring them over" to Tradition? In that case it would be like we are trying to convert fellow Catholics to our personal tastes. What's the point? Thanks.

Define "NeoCath" first before attempting to define "traditional". There is only One Church.
Reply
#12
Stevus, I'm not sure what you're asking. The owner of the website has defined "traditional" quite nicely. I am convinced that you want some kind of Catholic Utopia modeled after the 1950s. ALL Catholics should be crusaders (in the spiritual sense) for the Faith and work for the restoration of creation and the social reign of Christ.  But we need to be realistic at the same time. We live in a world that constantly changes, and the Church has to (somewhat) adapt herself to a changing world if we're going to convert the world (which is the reason the Church exists). Methods of evangelization are going to change. Disciplines are going to change. Liturgy is going to be revised from time to time. DOGMA is the only thing that will never change and it needs to be taught clearly and thoroughly until Christ comes again. The Church is constantly preparing herself and the world for the Second Coming -- a FUTURE event -- and everything we do must keep that vision in mind. 
 
- Lisa
Reply
#13
 Steve and company,

   Here is the 83 Code of communion to non-Catholics: Canon 844,par 3: Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed.  this is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgement of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

 par 4: If the danger of death is present, or if in the judgement of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed. 

 The above canons state just the opposite of what the 1917 Code has in force. 
 Canon 731: It is forbidden that the sacraments of the Church be administed to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

  The new and old canons are opposed to each other.  The 1917 is the traditional teaching, obviously.  Just one of the many contradictions foisted on the faithful since Vatican II.  It must be rejected as not being Catholic.

  Joe
Reply
#14
There is no point.  You should attend the Novus Ordo.  Exclusively.
Reply
#15
QuisUtDeus Wrote:There is no point.  You should attend the Novus Ordo.  Exclusively.

I'm beginning to think so! Maybe not exclusively, but as being indifferent about which I attend. I'm simply not getting any meaningful answers and Aviano's position is actually starting to make sense.

Am I losing my mind?
Reply
#16
StevusMagnus Wrote:I'm beginning to think so! Maybe not exclusively, but as being indifferent about which I attend. I'm simply not getting any meaningful answers and Aviano's position is actually starting to make sense.

Am I losing my mind?

What "meaningful" answers are you looking for, Stevus? That all trad men should wear suits and ties and have short hair? That all trad women should wear long skirts and homeschool their children?
 
These are personal preferences, though I'm not denying they are deeply held convictions. But not all trads agree with that.
 
Now, if you're talking about the Latin Mass and sound doctrine, you'll find common ground.
 
- Lisa
Reply
#17
If you're a traditional Catholic, then you really want sound Catholic doctrine. Solid as the ground we stand on, you know? It's not about a certain style of dress per se. It's not about the arbitrary or cliche or peripheral preferences. The point is that a trad wants sound doctrine, because they know that the Faith is Truth and they prefer for people to not go to hell. Leastwise, that's how I see it.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#18
Jacafamala Wrote:If you're a traditional Catholic, then you really want sound Catholic doctrine. Solid as the ground we stand on, you know? It's not about a certain style of dress per se. It's not about the arbitrary or cliche or peripheral preferences. The point is that a trad wants sound doctrine, because they know that the Faith is Truth and they prefer for people to not go to hell. Leastwise, that's how I see it.

You can have sound doctrine with the NO Mass.
Reply
#19
StevusMagnus Wrote:You can have sound doctrine with the NO Mass.

Well then, I guess it all boils down to Latin.

- Lisa
Reply
#20
I think a distinction needs to be made between Sacred Tradition and human tradition. Some are too easily confused.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)