FE labels for Catholics and "Non Catholics" err Protestants.
#31
I think I get it - it's all subjective!!!  ;D
Reply
#32
(06-06-2011, 04:10 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Cardinal de Lugo, Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp. xxv, sec. iii, nn. 35-8).

It's one thing to consider oneself a member of the same society as all other Catholics, but doubt or be wrong about who's the legitimate head--a lot of folks during the Great Western Schism (which notably has always still been called a schism) would fall into this category as well as those other various pope/antipope rivalries that had little effect on much other than imperial politics. It's another situation to consider the entire society subject to that purported Pope to be a different society altogether foreign from the Catholic Church and to think one's own little society is instead the Catholic Church. The Hippolytan schism is a good example of this, as was the Eastern Schism during certain periods**. I would say de Lugo's opinion seems reasonable for the former situation, but not the latter. It seems to me there are both categories of sedevacantists today and one couldn't accurately make a broad statement about all of them.

**At times, their attitude was more like this as expressed here by their saint Symeon of Thessalonica (the issue here is Filioque is being seen as heterodox):

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).


Reply
#33
1. Ultra Traditionalist= schismatic wannabees

2 Tradionalists= What most FE posters are. Believe in all Catholic teachings and don't believe V2 was a dogmatic council that was as great as Nicea and Trent. Believe that the Mass of Paul VI is legit but it was made up by Bugnini and the gang and they avoid it unless they must meet the obligation in a pinch.

3 Orthodox Catholics= This is a vague term. Neo-Caths and Traditionalists both believe in all the Church doctrine so lets scratch this term out of the equation.

4 Neo-Cath= aka modernists.The Catholic version of the term Neo-Conservative. They are the post-Vatican II conservatives but differ from the traditionalists before the council. Being true to the faith is following only what the current Magesterium and Pope say and ignoring what previous documents said. They have a certain "hero-worship" of the papacy and anything that the pontiff says is equal to an infallible statement. They will promote the reform of the reform but won't admit Vatican II failed. They encourage the Extraordinary form only because they like the smells and bells. They allow EF groups to exist to appease the factions that want them, but they don't want to go back to it, they just likes the bells and smells.

5. Liberal Catholic= Heterodox and usually promoting Heretical beliefs. They are fakes and the term should be abolished in favor of heterodoxy.

None of the terms really are perfect. Your either heterodox or orthodox to Church doctrines. Therefore your a Catholic or not. But because of these new conservatives in the last 50 years, you have to make a distinction between traditionalists and neo-caths. Although liberals are just heretical, trads and neo's really are following church doctrine but are clearly different in how they interpret  it.
Reply
#34
(06-06-2011, 03:03 PM)Gakmo Wrote: We would love to see the Church allow the TLM to be returned to its state PreVII but until then, we remain obedient to the Pope... SO WHAT AM I????????

Catholic

PS The Church does allow TLM, although it is not offered everywhere.
Reply
#35
(06-06-2011, 04:58 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: 3 Orthodox Catholics= This is a vague term. Neo-Caths and Traditionalists both believe in all the Church doctrine so lets scratch this term out of the equation.

If we are going to attempt this exercise, I think this third position is needed. I would guess I am in it and have even considered calling myself a "psuedo-trad" or "neo-trad", somewhat reticently ...

Why?

Basically I feel SO SO VERY with Traditionalists. I am thrilled for the work that is being done by ICK, FSSP Fisheaters, Charles A Coulombe or whoever ...

I do honour ABL deeply but pray the SSPX could be reconciled and am disturbed by rupture with obedience to Rome - though concede that it may have been tragically necessary.

The thing is I feel - rightly or wrongly - that many Trads would not accept me.

Why?

Different things are here. I go to the NO every single day if I can. I need the Grace. I am too broken to abstain from Mass and it is almost impossible to get to TLM's where I am presently.

Two I just have too much respect for the Papacy and particularly BXVI. Unlike the Neo-Caths so-called, I do think the documents of the council are flawed, but I would agree with the Pope that some aspects of VII represent a Hermeneutic of Reform that was valid.

(Yes - Hermeneutic of Reform = same thing as Hermeneutic of Continuity. Now everyone has picked up on the term "Hermeneutic of Continuity "- but if you look at the original address to the Curia although the Holy Father did say "Hermeneutic of Continuity" he said more often "Hermeneutic of Reform" - vs. the "Hermeneutic of Rupture)

So not without sadness actually I call myself ridiculously psuedo-trad or neo trad.

Why sadness?

Because basically I feel so much deep connexion with Traditionalists. I am fighting for nearly everything they are fighting for. I am fighting and praying for a Church that takes the Sacrifice of the Mass seriously. I am fighting - and praying for a Church that takes sin and evil and preternatural evil SERIOUSLY. I am fighting and praying for a Church that esteems Obedience, Poverty and Chastity. I cannot stand the typical NO though I go to it every day- I need the Grace. I believe the world is being deluged by dangerous liberalism and secularism etc etc etc ...

Hurrah for Trads! Hurrah for all they are doing ...

And I am sorry if I can only merit the title psuedo-Trad or neo-Trad.  :(

Any other Neo-Trads out there?
Reply
#36
(06-09-2011, 02:51 PM)Roger Buck Wrote: Any other Neo-Trads out there?

Your positions sound very much like mine, but I have no qualms about calling myself a trad.
Reply
#37
(06-09-2011, 02:55 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-09-2011, 02:51 PM)Roger Buck Wrote: Any other Neo-Trads out there?

Your positions sound very much like mine, but I have no qualms about calling myself a trad.

GOOD to hear! Thank you, JayneK!
Reply
#38
Roger Buck,

I a know a girl personally who is extremely Holy and I feel the devil is always trying to attack her because she receives Our Blessed Lord every single day on the tongue and says the Rosary in Latin..... She actually attends the NO every day, while attending the TLM on Sundays. Now, whether or not you can relate to her I don't know, but she is probably what you would consider a Orthodox or "Neo-Trad."

There are some amazing stories there!
Reply
#39
(06-06-2011, 07:23 AM)username123 Wrote: I'm a Roman Catholic. ie: I believe what the Church has always believed and worship the way the Church has always worshipped.

You're either Catholic or something else.

My sentiments exactly.
Reply
#40
(06-06-2011, 11:54 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-06-2011, 07:51 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Ultra-traditionalists: People who believe that the tridentine mass and Council of Trent are invalid.  They call for the return to mass of Saint Gregory Great without Gallican influences which they insist are abuses! NO MORE CANDLES AT MASS!!!

:-p

The Society of St. Pius I actually rejects the radical reforms of St. Gregory.  ;)

I'm not sure if the winking smiley is an indication that you are aware of this, but just in case you're not, I think this is meant as a joke:

Quote:DISCLAIMER: This website is provided for purposes of disinformation only. It does not represent the views of Latin Mass neotrads Claudio and Jamie Salvucci, although it darn well should. All Rites reserved.

From the comments:

Quote:In case you missed it--

A little sarcasm here and there...

Quote:OK, this is kind of funny. Except of course for Mediator Dei's condemnations of archeologism and of "leapfrogging organic development" to get to a more "pristine" era of the early Church.

With this understood, I can laugh at this a little bit.

Quote:Glad to hear that you understand satire when you read it.

Quote:This is too funny!

I actually thought about something like this a long while ago after discovering Catholic Trads here on FR. I never had the talent to do it.

Die-hard Vulgate Pope John VIII even allowed Cyril and Methodius to translate the liturgy for the Slavs into Old Church Slavonic!!

And he allowed them to do it for the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great (and Pre-Sanctified Gifts) to boot! I belong to a radical Church!

Quote:This,

Even the ecumaniacs at Assisi never did anything like this--put a false goddess’ name ON PAR with the Virgin Mary, Mother of God!!!!

and neotrad St. Jerome are my favorite parts.

et cetera . . .
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)