Please bear with me in asking this question.  My ignorance is getting the better of me and hope to present this well enough to convey the thought appropriately, and hope to get Christian Charitiable replies in return.
A family member of mine informed me of a 'school of thought' he has found worthy of following: Pope Benedict XV (15th) in the early 1900s promoted the thought that one must define themselves exclusively as Catholic. (To that point I would whole heartedly agree.) To define themselves as traditional vs liberal Catholic is wrong and is to be avoided at all cost.  At all cost being that to attend any traditional Catholic church (for example: locally my mother and I attend Mt. St. Michael's, known for its traditional Catholicism) is sinful and disobedient to Pope Benedict XV.  To attend the Modernist church of V-2 is also wrong, since they are the liberal side/watered down side of true Catholicism.  Without a doubt, they are to be avoided, as well...that, personally, that is not an option.  So the option for those following this theory is to not attend Mass or receive the sacraments, because, by definition most Catholic parishes define themselves as traditional or Catholic, in their opinion. To attend a SSPX or SSPV is also suspect as being wrong, because they are in line with a form of labeled traditionalism that is to be avoided.  
I want to understand this better, and feel I am missing something--can anyone (in Charity!) help me 'get this'?  To me this sounds  :shocked: like incorrect thinking, yet Iwant to be able to be more informed on it to understand it better!  Please help.

"..the term Traditional Catholic is for the purpose of telling the world we stay firm to the Traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic church." I agree with your entire post. Where I take exception to my sibling's theory, is by not defining self as a "traditional Catholic", merely as "Catholic" and basing their info exclusively on the teaching of Pope Benedict XV, gives credence to their theory that all traditional Masses/sacraments are now deemed invalid/illicit and should not be attended because of their defining themselves as such.  I am lacking a connection to Mass and sacrament attendence vs true Catholicism, which is what traditional Catholicism is.  Take away the label of 'traditional' are we not essentially the same? Or I could have totally missed a point, which is likely! :confused1:

So-called "Catholicism" as practiced and taught by the modern, mainstream Catholic Church, within the diocesan structure and with diocesan priorities, has little in common with the entire orientation of Tradition within Roman Catholicism.  In fact, modern Catholicism is largely unrecognizable as the same religion of my grandparents and is much closer to Protestantism than it is to Roman Catholicism.  This is why I unapologetically and accurately call myself a Traditional Catholic; i am within a minority.

I go further than Stubborn does, though.  I use the label when speaking to Catholics and non-Catholics alike, because it's a point of education.  For example, usually it's in response to a question, "Are you Catholic?"  The question is asked by other Catholics, by other believers, and by non-believers.  If I just answer, "Yes, I'm Catholic," that's actually rather misleading.  In addition, everyone who has ever asked me that question is actually quite interested in the answer.  I have yet to offend anyone by my answer.  I merely explain the difference, calmly, and people are grateful for the information.  Often, subsequent questions touch on just what Tradition is, on the Mass (of course), on the papacy, and on the Council.

Finally, such questions, from whatever the source, often result in an invitation from me to attend the Latin Mass, on a day convenient to them and with my accompaniment.  This is called evangelization.  

To be fair, which I did not make clear from the onset, (my apologies on that!  ) is that my information that I have shared with you, is essentially given to me from my brother, who is receiving this information from a couple of local nuns (who profess to be "Catholic") who are giving him this information through an unknown religious clerical source.  Granted, their ability to provide substantiated proof of information provides question to validity of their claim.  I did not want to appear judgemental if their claims were widely accepted and known, and my narrow minedness projected a judgment against them that was unneeded.

OP,

You have touched on a real landmine for Catholics in the 21st century. Namely, HOME ALONE-ISM.

There are various reasons which cause Catholics to stay home on Sundays, aloof from the Mass and the Sacraments. The devil wants this very badly -- he'll get us any way he can.

One way: those who are Sedevacantist, and who come to believe that attending Mass said by a non-Sedevacantist priest is sinful or odious to God. So they stay home on Sundays.

Another type is those you describe: who believe the whole Traditional movement is not legitimate. Often these Home Aloners dislike the Novus Ordo just as much, but they still stay aloof from Tradition and don't partake of Mass and the Sacraments.

There are many paths to keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. Each offers advantages and disadvantages. However, the path you speak of offers NO advantages. It's probably the devil's favorite. And it's so dangerous, I won't even allow proponents of it to post here on CathInfo. It's that bad.

Those clinging to Authority (Indult, Novus Ordo, etc.) at least have obedience and authority.
Those clinging to Doctrine (Sedevacantists, recognize and resist, pretty much any Traditional Catholic) have the safety that unchanging Doctrine provides -- and God does not change.
Those rejecting the Novus Ordo, but still staying aloof from the world of Tradition have left themselves with NOTHING.


I wouldn't bet my soul that the current Pope is a legitimate Pope.
I also wouldn't bet my soul that he is NOT a legitimate Pope.
I just DON'T KNOW with anything resembling certainty. And neither do any of you! Anyone who claims otherwise is simplistic, simple minded, and/or he has a shallow grasp of the facts and the situation.


I don't have the certainty of Faith either way. That's the point. So I'm not obligated to become a sedevacantist, OR join up with a group approved by Rome.

What I *am* obligated to do is extricate myself from the danger: namely, the Novus Ordo Mass and the Modernism that surrounds it. The fruits are clear: it is from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, not from God. It destroys 95% of souls that it touches. We have 45 years of proof.

Enter the Traditional movement.

What we DO know with the certainty of Faith: that God wants us to save our souls. And that the Mass and Sacraments are the means God Himself chose to give grace. And that the time we are to live is RIGHT NOW, where God placed us.

 We have to LIVE and keep our Catholic Faith. The Crisis has gone on for almost 50 years now. If the home-aloners you speak of were correct, then I wouldn't have been raised Catholic at all! Sure, my parents might have said some prayers with me, taught me a Catechism, or taught me how to make a spiritual communion. But it wouldn't have been the same. Instead, they raised me in one of the many TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC lifeboats, and the fruits are plain to see.

They may not be ideal, they may have flawed individuals, and you still have to be prudent and careful (there are predators -- con men -- wolves -- weirdos -- etc.) but the good FAR OUTWEIGHS the bad.

OP,

You have touched on a real landmine for Catholics in the 21st century. Namely, HOME ALONE-ISM.

There are various reasons which cause Catholics to stay home on Sundays, aloof from the Mass and the Sacraments. The devil wants this very badly -- he'll get us any way he can.

One way: those who are Sedevacantist, and who come to believe that attending Mass said by a non-Sedevacantist priest is sinful or odious to God. So they stay home on Sundays.

Another type is those you describe: who believe the whole Traditional movement is not legitimate. Often these Home Aloners dislike the Novus Ordo just as much, but they still stay aloof from Tradition and don't partake of Mass and the Sacraments.

There are many paths to keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. Each offers advantages and disadvantages. However, the path you speak of offers NO advantages. It's probably the devil's favorite. And it's so dangerous, I won't even allow proponents of it to post here on CathInfo. It's that bad.

Those clinging to Authority (Indult, Novus Ordo, etc.) at least have obedience and authority.
Those clinging to Doctrine (Sedevacantists, recognize and resist, pretty much any Traditional Catholic) have the safety that unchanging Doctrine provides -- and God does not change.
Those rejecting the Novus Ordo, but still staying aloof from the world of Tradition have left themselves with NOTHING.


I wouldn't bet my soul that the current Pope is a legitimate Pope.
I also wouldn't bet my soul that he is NOT a legitimate Pope.
I just DON'T KNOW with anything resembling certainty. And neither do any of you! Anyone who claims otherwise is simplistic, simple minded, and/or he has a shallow grasp of the facts and the situation.


I don't have the certainty of Faith either way. That's the point. So I'm not obligated to become a sedevacantist, OR join up with a group approved by Rome.

What I *am* obligated to do is extricate myself from the danger: namely, the Novus Ordo Mass and the Modernism that surrounds it. The fruits are clear: it is from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, not from God. It destroys 95% of souls that it touches. We have 45 years of proof.

Enter the Traditional movement.

What we DO know with the certainty of Faith: that God wants us to save our souls. And that the Mass and Sacraments are the means God Himself chose to give grace. And that the time we are to live is RIGHT NOW, where God placed us.

 We have to LIVE and keep our Catholic Faith. The Crisis has gone on for almost 50 years now. If the home-aloners you speak of were correct, then I wouldn't have been raised Catholic at all! Sure, my parents might have said some prayers with me, taught me a Catechism, or taught me how to make a spiritual communion. But it wouldn't have been the same. Instead, they raised me in one of the many TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC lifeboats, and the fruits are plain to see.

They may not be ideal, they may have flawed individuals, and you still have to be prudent and careful (there are predators -- con men -- wolves -- weirdos -- etc.) but the good FAR OUTWEIGHS the bad.

 :applause: :applause: :applause:

Just logged in to say Hear Hear and Well Spoken !

This is a post that deserves remembering .

Those now supporting the ' pure ' Resistence of the Pfeifferites against the ' false ' Resistence of the priests in union with their bishops, will most likely eventually end up in the diabolical trap and despair of home aloneism.

They would do well to reflect upon this post by mathew.

p.s.  just for the record,
I'm strictly Non Una cuм , but i don't insist it upon others.

I appreciate the responses. I too, I personally feel that Traditional Catholicism is the correct way.

Why? There are many errors elsewhere. For example, taking the Eucharist by hands, not the tongue, is wrong and an invention. This is also how the Eucharist is taken at the Vatican. (All Catholics should attend mass at the Vatican in their lives.)

Vatican 2 had a lot of errors and these errors have confused those of our faith who profess to be Catholic. The liberalism of parishes, notably the Jesuits (I believe the Jesuits mean well, I like many of them, but they tweak the mass where I have found myself standing where I should be kneeling, etc., so I have issues with the Jesuits as I have found myself upset during mass).

I am also a firm believer in wearing the mantilla, and I stand out like a sore thumb if I attend a folk mass where the majority, if any, women do not wear it.

I think most Catholics mean well, they just don't understand that some of the things happening are errors and, even outrages.

The best thing for a Catholic to do is to go to the Traditional Mass and find the way back to the correct form.

Just my opinion.

God Bless.

Granted, their ability to provide substantiated proof of information provides question to validity of their claim. Did you mean to say,
"Granted, their inability to provide substantiated proof of information provides question to validity of their claim?"

Yes--thank you for your correction to my earlier statement...


It seems to me that if Benedict XV ever said such a thing, he would not have had in mind what we see all around us today, namely people calling themselves "Catholic" but acting worse than Protestants when it comes to impurity and filthiness in their everyday language and attitude. Therefore, if someone had explained that to him he would certainly have said that when the changing times demand clarity of vocabulary, saying "Traditional Catholic" at least SOMETIMES is not a bad thing, but rather it is a tool that can lead wayward Christians back home to the true Church.
Remember, the cockle Our Lord spoke of in His parable referred to bad Catholics within the Church Militant.

Agreed--if Benedict 15th did say anything of the like, it would have been relevant in 1900 pre v2 and the modern way of life in these 'later times", etc...
Very good reminder of our Lord's parable of the cockle. I often forget the predictions of Our Lord regarding our current times.
God Bless!