This is wonderful news for anyone who has actually studied Newman with any seriousness. He defended the Faith against Protestant error and has been a big part of many conversions.

St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!

So, Newman's idea of "defend[ing] the Faith against Protestant error" was to water down the Catholic faith in many areas Prots found objectionable in order to make it more palatable to Prots.  That's one of the reasons he violently opposed Vatican I.

When you misrepresent the Catholic Faith in order to win "converts", you're only converting them to that misrepresentation of Catholicism and not to objective Catholicism.

Modernist:  "Let's get rid of any mention of Sacrifice in the Mass."
Protestant:  "OK, now that you did that, I could use that Mass also." (actually said by one Prot who helped write NOM)

Did this Prot "convert" now if he says this same Mass as Catholics?  No, he's converted to nothing, and still maintains his heretical view of the "Mass" or whatever he calls it.

1. Yes
2. A Traditional Catholic is one who attends the TLM and is orthodox doctrinally
3. I attend an FSSP parish every Sunday
4. No
5. Yes, but I don't see why that matters

Hi Boru

So, FSSP ... not Traditional Catholic, but traditional Catholic (just liturgical preference, smells and bells)

As for having been on the forum under a previous name, the question becomes why you didn't come back under that old account?  Was it banned?  Were you trolling and wanted a fresh start?  That's why it "matters".

Traditional Catholics hold that there's a substantive rupture between the Conciliar Church and the Traditional Catholic Church, that the two are different in kind, not just different in some accidents.  "traditional" (lower-case) Trads don't think there's any kind of rupture with Tradition, but just some general veering off too far to the left, that it's more about implementation than about substance, and ya like dem smelz and belz (and aren't a fan of clown Masses and guitar music).

The fact that you can say such a thing about the FSSP shows how little you know about our priests. 

I created a new account because there was an issue with my email address and I couldn't log in to the old one. Unimportant. 

I don't agree with the way you define Traditional Catholicism, but that's fine. Most folks on here don't seem to be interested in dialogue with Traditionalists of different persuasions, so arguing doesn't do any of us any good. 

Traditional catholicism has been around since V2.  It means one who rejects V2 (i.e. heresy) and rejects the new mass (i.e. new liturgy).  You can't re-define this term.

You are not a Traditional Catholic.  You are not concerned with doctrine but only the liturgy.  You are a Trad-liturgist.  But you're not a Traditional Catholic.

Doctrine is more important than liturgy, because Doctrine concerns the Faith.  One can die a good catholic without access to the sacraments (i.e. see Japan's mass-less catholics for 100+ years).  Doctrine > liturgy.

Yes, I distinguish by using capital T for Traditionalist, where it's about the Church's Tradition, the Deposit of Revelation, etc. ... vs. traditionalist (lower case t), referring to just stuff people used to do, like traditionally people have cranberry sauce for Thanksgiving, or traditionally decorate trees for Christmas.  Tradition with the capital T refers to theology and not just practices.

The fact that you can say such a thing about the FSSP shows how little you know about our priests.

I created a new account because there was an issue with my email address and I couldn't log in to the old one. Unimportant.

I don't agree with the way you define Traditional Catholicism, but that's fine. Most folks on here don't seem to be interested in dialogue with Traditionalists of different persuasions, so arguing doesn't do any of us any good.

I'm interested in dialogue. I attend an SSPX chapel, started out with the Fraternity, and have friends in the Resistance. I also was on here recently defending Cardinal Newman. At least, until I started doing exactly what you have just suggested - I started reading his work and began to detect a rather unsettling nuance; one that started with a Catholic truth only to end with a seeded doubt. This made me take a step back and reevaluate my understanding of Newman as a whole; his family background, his methods, his interactions with fellow clerics. What interests me most, is his method. That rambling, rhetoric style of his is cleverly deliberate. It allows him the room to first disarm you with a truth so that while your guard is down, he can follow with suggestions that offer a counter view. This smacks of Protestantism; the truth according to our own reasoning.

Anyway, do not be put off by Cathinfo's two Sede terriers. There are a number of us here who do enjoy an exchange of views so you are very welcome :)