Tradition: What's the Point?
#31
Whitey Wrote:Well, I'd like to discuss it. And sincerly discuss, not argue about it, but we simply can't do it here. The rules is the rules.

We can discuss protestantism can't we? Most of the schisms in history and heretics start out quite orthodox and use the trials of the Church to justify their tearing away instead of praying for the Church. But when they leave for a "good" reason, they lose the protection of God and are just another human organisation and eventually mutate into something else, while the Church remains the same.
Reply
#32
Whitey Wrote:One person here went as far as saying luigi is trying to start his own religion.

That was me, and I stand firmly by that statement.  He ignores the Church herself, and uses only certain writings of certain Saints (ignoring other Saints who gave advice to the faithful) to form his beliefs.  He's as much of a "cafeteria Catholic" than those who show up for Mass on Christmas and Easter.

Anyway, back to the question of what's the point of tradition---  The traditional rites and rituals of the Church are uplifting and inspiring.  They give people a desire to grow spiritually, they give people the goal of true holiness, not just good feelings.  As an example, a friend of mine took her three little nieces to the TLM recently and was amazed that these girls who usually misbehaved sat quietly.  The traditional Mass inspires reverence for holy things!  This is why bringing back our Church traditions is important, in my opinion, not so people can waste their time complaining about stupid crap like jeans and haircuts.

Reply
#33
ErinIsNice Wrote:
Whitey Wrote:One person here went as far as saying luigi is trying to start his own religion.

That was me, and I stand firmly by that statement.  He ignores the Church herself, and uses only certain writings of certain Saints (ignoring other Saints who gave advice to the faithful) to form his beliefs.  He's as much of a "cafeteria Catholic" than those who show up for Mass on Christmas and Easter.

Anyway, back to the question of what's the point of tradition---  The traditional rites and rituals of the Church are uplifting and inspiring.  They give people a desire to grow spiritually, they give people the goal of true holiness, not just good feelings.  As an example, a friend of mine took her three little nieces to the TLM recently and was amazed that these girls who usually misbehaved sat quietly.  The traditional Mass inspires reverence for holy things!  This is why bringing back our Church traditions is important, in my opinion, not so people can waste their time complaining about stupid crap like jeans and haircuts.

Missed you, Erin!!! ;) :D
Reply
#34
StevusMagnus Wrote:
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?


Stevus, you appear to be having a crisis and are reminding me of your posts when you first started looking at tradition.  This is a bit upsetting.  It may be that your domestic situation is causing problems since it is my understanding from previous posts of yours that your family still all go NO.

Now the problem is, and you already know this, that any NO service may be valid.  But that there is a chance that it is not due to at least one of three missing but required elements (form, intent, matter).  As time passes, and we are now 40 years into this darkness, there is more and more a likelihood that a NO service is invalid and thus not Catholic.  Why would you take the chance to walk through that mine field?  Remember there are going to be fewer true priests since during an ordination ceremony the three things still apply.  I suspect the are almost no true priests in the NO, this is why the SSPX conditionally ordains NO priests.

And I do not agree with your "what a trad is consensus" bit.

Someone that attends the TLM solely out of preference for form is not a trad.  They are an NO that likes forms.  Trads have problems with some elements of the NO.  These could range from simple scandal to doctrinal issues eminating therefrom.

Just because you cannot convert those you love to the Truth does not mean you should revert.

Let us take Mel Gibson as an example, I hope he does not mind since he is the one who made this public.  Mel's wife is not Catholic!  Not even NO!  Mel has said he loves his wife more than anyone, which can well be believed since they have been married forever and have so many children.  Mel is distressed that he knows his wife is going to Hell! but he will not relinquish his faith for her comfort.  Hopefully by his example she will finally convert!

That is your job.

I argue incessantly with my dad about this, I love him dearly.  But he insists on taking his counterfeit family to NO service.  It is a scandal and will not do well for his daughter who will already be disposed to the NO since she is of a mother that is not really his wife.  My parents were never annulled.  In like manner my mother attends Angilcan service.  The same applies.  Foolish they, but I will not give up my birthright to Catholicism because it would make domestic affairs easier.

You need to reread "Against the Heresies", "Open Letter", "They have Uncrowned Him", and ABL's biography.

I hope this helps.  I had been enjoying reading you recently. 
Reply
#35
Scipio_a Wrote:I suspect the are almost no true priests in the NO,

I suspect that there is absolutely no quantifiable evidence for this (rather absurd in its scope) assertion.


Quote:this is why the SSPX conditionally ordains NO priests.

But they don't conditionally ordain ALL NO priests. Its a case by case basis. In fact, I've heard it said that one of the primary reasons that the SSPX does this is to "shut up" some of the really hard-line laity that would start throwing fits because they misunderstand sacramental theology.
Reply
#36
I put this into the "introduce yourself" forum, but a lot of what I said came out from reading everything on this blog thus far.

Hello,

My name is Manuel. I am totally new to this website. I have been reading from all sections, from being catholic, for catholics and for protestants.

I am prayerfully looking to get baptized into the Catholic Church. I have an eclectic religious/spiritual history which started with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. I have praciced and or studied paganism, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism, shinto and the LDS church. I have been all over the place and never thought I would be open to studying the Catholic Church and actually looking to get baptized. Name because of the about 5 years I was faithfully studying and practicing in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church which teaches that the Catholic Church is the beas in revelations that comes out of the water, the whore of babylon, etc.

I look at these past other 5 years of learning and practicing these other faiths no as how God deprogramed me from that doctrine so I may open heartedly and open mindedly learn about His true Church. And yes, there many parts and facets from all these faiths (namely the ones I actually praciced which are paganism, islam and mormonism. Although hinduism has helped in comprehending with a bit more understanding certain theological dificulties since I am coming out of the LDS church.).

I love what I have been learning about the traditional latin mass and feel concerned about what happned at II Vatican. I am confused about what exactly changed and what happened. I have a certain amount of understanding since I can assimilate information easily, but this is decdes worth of angst of what happened since the II Vttican and how things used to be before. I know from a different blog on a different site with statistics that it looks very grim for the Church and that a lot has happened and a lot left because of II Vatican. But I guess I cannot imagine how terrible what came out of II Vatican could of been to have so many fall away.

I had no idea the Church was in such a mess and seems like on the verge of another schism. Also, what do they mean when it is said that the II Vatican was a pastoral meeting ? From what I havegathered whatever came out of II Vatican seems like it should be taken as a suggestion rather then law since nothing in there was deemed as infallible.

Sorry, I just fel a bit overwhelmed. A lot of info, sides, thoughts and controversies to consider. I am not one who can just go blindly on "faith" alone but coulple my faith with research, reson and prayer. I am starting to get an idea about what a non traditionalist is and it just seems like they want to have it as easy as possible and seem almost protestant like. Because the greatest arguement the Catholic Church has and claim that no other church can hold is that Her traditions come from the times of the Apostles and t. Peter the first Pope and first Vicar of Christ. Yes, certain things have been re-edited, but not to go against what has been declared and rvealed in the past. To go against what ancient tradition and sound doctrine and against the good and Holy Popes and the wisdom of ALL the Holy Saints is to be a protestant and stand on unproven ground.

LOL, never thought I would be so passionate and I am not even baptised yet.

Gos Bless,

Manuel

Reply
#37
Manuel... Welcome! Your story is inspiring. Keep reading and researching.. and mostly, keep praying! God bless you on your journey.
 
- Lisa
Reply
#38
neel Wrote:
Scipio_a Wrote:I suspect the are almost no true priests in the NO,

I suspect that there is absolutely no quantifiable evidence for this (rather absurd in its scope) assertion.


Quote:this is why the SSPX conditionally ordains NO priests.

But they don't conditionally ordain ALL NO priests. Its a case by case basis. In fact, I've heard it said that one of the primary reasons that the SSPX does this is to "shut up" some of the really hard-line laity that would start throwing fits because they misunderstand sacramental theology.

Just following ABL's line of reason on this one.  Not tough logic!  And you're right, no quantifiable evidence.  Go ahead and step field we have not quantified the number of land mines.

Your second part is funny.If the got a guy ordained in 1968 who has been doing the Mess ever since then they probably would not conditionally ordain him, your right!  Because once a priest always a priest.  Forward to the new rite and its changes and the obvious theological changes that practitioners such as cardinal mahoney and co..  It is not likely that Mahoney has ever ordained a priest, possible, just not probable.

Once again we hit the three required elements (form, intent, matter) you can't be sure the guys in the NO have all or any of them.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)