Author Topic: Traditional Catholics (Read 7084 times)

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #60 on:** July 04, 2014, 10:11:06 AM »

Quote from: trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 2:35 pm)

I do apologize to Alligator but I hope that there is also a bit of patience for me to learn the system. Matthew, would you consider putting some kind of training video for those old guys like me that grew up before the age of internet?

A "training video" for the syntax of a text-formatting (a.k.a. mark-up) language? Such dry material presented in a "video" playing at an unalterable pace that was chosen to be ~~slow~~ leisurely enough not to leave behind even the people least prepared for that type of subject? Bleccch!

Far better, I've long believed, to put it into written words

. So I have, in a new topic (General Discussion) bearing the exciting name "Formatting as Inferred for Postings on CathInfo": <http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Formatting-as-Inferred-for-Postings-on-CathInfo>. I advise readers that its 3 postings to date are not even close to being comprehensive.

I'm mystified that Matthew seems not to have made even a written summary conspicuously available. Maybe he lost it in a hard-disk crash early in CathInfo's history.

-------
Note *: There's a lot to recommend the low-tech simplicity of flipping backward through pages or consulting an index, as opposed to higher-tech fidgeting with a rewind button or icon, whenever something new is presented that's suddenly confusing by comparison to something else that was previously presented (and had seemed to make complete sense at the time).

trickster · « **Reply #61 on:** July 04, 2014, 10:54:19 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

You're getting a taste of 'absolute honesty' in AlligatorDicax's responses - right between the eyes (that's a compliment, AD). There are others just as direct. You have excellent instincts, in that you expressed an understanding of this style of address, as being 'very clear' vs. 'mean'. Actually it's one of the top reasons I like this forum, but there are some who take these kinds of responses personally and lash out in frustration, misundertanding the intent. That reaction shuts down civil discourse and most importantlly for this forum, edification / education aborted for argument. Pride afflicts us all.

The psychology of forums is very interesting!

Thank you so much....we really all are a work in progress,... I thiink that I have already proved that I am imperfect..:) thank you

Bruce

Lighthouse · « **Reply #62 on:** July 06, 2014, 02:54:10 PM »

Quote

Thank you so much....we really all are a work in progress,... I thiink that I have already proved that I am imperfect..:) thank you

Bruce

No, you really can't dodge the question that easily. You are speaking directly out of certainly modernist mindsets that say: I'm alright, you're alright--can't we all just get along?

A Catholic reaffirms that there is such a thing as right, and such a thing as wrong. God charges us all to find out as much as possible about the difference, to make a choice that has supernatural consequences, and to take action in our lives to reflect that choice. The lukewarm get spit out. Sure, human beings are imperfect, but the maps of the imperfections and the extent of the attempt to make the right choice are dire. It's not all just a shrug, and holding up your fingers in a "peace" sign.

trickster · « **Reply #63 on:** July 06, 2014, 04:28:38 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

Quote
Thank you so much....we really all are a work in progress,... I thiink that I have already proved that I am imperfect..:) thank you

Bruce

No, you really can't dodge the question that easily. You are speaking directly out of certainly modernist mindsets that say: I'm alright, you're alright--can't we all just get along?

A Catholic reaffirms that there is such a thing as right, and such a thing as wrong. God charges us all to find out as much as possible about the difference, to make a choice that has supernatural consequences, and to take action in our lives to reflect that choice. The lukewarm get spit out. Sure, human beings are imperfect, but the maps of the imperfections and the extent of the attempt to make the right choice are dire. It's not all just a shrug, and holding up your fingers in a "peace" sign.

Didn't realize that I was dodging the question...just trying to be polite and not escalate things unnecessarily...because as you know I am very focused on the issue of catholic spirituality and indigenous spirituality.

I said all of us have to get out of our comfort zone, didn't think that was all that controversial, all of us do this everyday. We work with people who don't agree with us, we watch tv and the news of a self-destructing economy, we see the continual exploitation of third world countries and so forth...that is recognizing a non-comfort zone...sometimes we have to engage in debate as human beings cannot all be robots and agree with each other.

I am not sure how my statement has been translated or manipulated into a relativist or luke warm statement. Even the bishops got out of their comfort zone when they left the Vatican to walk with Francis in the very poor streets of Brazil....that is what I am referring to. Seminarians move out of their comfort zone when they study the academic foundations of atheism...all I mean by the expression is that there is a divide and a mutual blaming dynamic between traditonal catholics and conservative catholics within the church after Vatican II. Each group advising me to have nothing to do with either. I am not like that, while I reject the idea of cutting myself off of potentially life changing information regardless ofthe source, I do not reject my brothers and sisters who have made a choice (conviction of conscience) not to follow us or be open to the changes since Vatican II. I also do not reject the movement within our church that allows catholics to finally exercise the olf formats of the mass, which is a good thing.

I am not afraid of debating, please don't misunderstand that.. I just don't want to be sidelined by subjects aroudn the relationship between the church and indigenous traditions. However, your views and interpreations of what you claim the church always teaches is valid in the context of my academic pursuit becasue it is that pre-Vatican II reality that should factor into any research into conversion of Indigenous peoples; were our people deadly scared of the fires of hell... I am not sure that is so true; I think conversion was also a political and economic decision as well ....in many cases.

Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #64 on:** July 06, 2014, 04:38:35 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

Quote
Thank you so much....we really all are a work in progress,... I thiink that I have already proved that I am imperfect..:) thank you

Bruce

No, you really can't dodge the question that easily. You are speaking directly out of certainly modernist mindsets that say: I'm alright, you're alright--can't we all just get along?

A Catholic reaffirms that there is such a thing as right, and such a thing as wrong. God charges us all to find out as much as possible about the difference, to make a choice that has supernatural consequences, and to take action in our lives to reflect that choice. The lukewarm get spit out. Sure, human beings are imperfect, but the maps of the imperfections and the extent of the attempt to make the right choice are dire. It's not all just a shrug, and holding up your fingers in a "peace" sign.

Lighhouse, I am Catholic in every way there is. I believe very firmly that the Holy Spirit has inspired the church to move into the 20th century. I believe we have made mistakes in the very liberating notion of experimenting about building community. JP II has done much to clarify those issues and unless you are up to date on the changes in our church it is not helpful to continually critisize something that might be an objectivication of the other.

I don't believe in the anti-pope sfuff or that our beloved Pius XII was the last post; I believe in taking communion by hand....like I said before I am very much a Vatican II generation guy, but I am old enough to remember what the traditional chruch looke liked.

I don't believe that God created a black and white world that is so tightly defined that it sparks fear and insecurity in our lives. I believe in hell; not buying the Dante concept of fire, but of eternal separation of our source which would be far more painful than a life of torment. I am a child and as a child don't let my life and relationship with Jesus Christ be one based on harrassement and a fear of hell.

I not only understand accept the reality of the seven cardinal sins, i believe we need to expand our meditation on these sins to reflect the social gospel (our brothers keeper) and the social cost of cardinal sins committed at the social level.

If there are any other questions; no to limbo but yes to purgatory...that you want to question me on please feel free ...but at some point I would like to move on from explaining myself to gettting into the substance and purpose of why I am on this site...

Bruce Ferguson

claudel · « **Reply #65 on:** July 06, 2014, 11:15:45 PM »

Quote from: trickster

… I believe very firmly that the Holy Spirit has inspired the church to move into the 20th century. … we have made mistakes … JP II has done much to clarify those issues and unless you are up to date on the changes in our church it is not helpful to continually criticize something that might be an objectification of the other.

Dr. Feelgood, please answer your page!

Quote from: trickster

… I believe in taking communion by hand … I am old enough to remember what the traditional church looked liked …

[[accidentally omitted by trickster Bruce: "and am delighted to see the back of it!"]]

Quote from: trickster

… I don't believe that God [means to spark] fear and insecurity in our lives. I believe in hell; not buying the Dante concept of fire, but of eternal separation [from] our source, which would be far more painful than a life of torment. …

The following somewhat different perspective comes from an NCO I met when I was in the army 45 years ago: "I've felt emotional pain and I've felt physical pain. Don't let anyone kid you, Mac: physical pain beats the crap out of emotional pain every f…ing time."

Quote from: trickster

… I believe we need to expand our meditation … to reflect the social gospel (our brother's keeper) and the social cost of cardinal sins committed at the social level.

"Bless me, Father, for I have sinned … I sold my children into slavery, I murdered three women after I raped them, and I threw coffee grounds into the paper waste to avoid recycling five times last month." "My son, the other stuff is no big deal, but forgiveness of your recycling sins is reserved to the pope's nuncio in the Obama White House. Meanwhile, bound as I am by the provisions of the recent papal bull Exceptio probat regulam, I'm reporting you to the Thought Police. Is an orange jumpsuit a good look for you?"

Quote from: trickster

… no to limbo but yes to purgatory … at some point I would like to move on from explaining myself to getting into the substance and purpose of why I am on this site.

You have reached 1-800-KUMBAYA. Thanks to our fourth-generation GPS technology, an armed rescue party of America's Finest "Persuaders through Love (and the Occasional Taser)" has already been dispatched to your location. Think warm thoughts while you wait.

crossbro · « **Reply #66 on:** July 06, 2014, 11:26:58 PM »

Catholic Radio is a joke. I cannot even listen to them anymore they make me want to puke.

The so-called theologians are too cowardly to stand behind what the Church teaches and what they were preaching over the air just two years ago.

I recall early last year a trad calling and calling francis out over his statement that a "good atheist" can go to heaven- as usual the theologian cut the mike and went on a tirade. He was ranting about what pope francis meant. But pope francis never elaborated anything this redheaded corndog was preaching over the air.

This theologian was yelling that francis meant that if the atheist was one because he believed in false perception of God then he could go to heaven,

I started laughing hysterically in my car- by definition an atheist does not believe in a "false God". This guy was just backed into a corner and making a fool out of himself. They know if they speak the truth about false preaching francis they will be fired.

And just for the record, by definition there is no such thing as a "good atheist"- that is an oxy-moron.

crossbro · « **Reply #67 on:** July 06, 2014, 11:32:17 PM »

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"trickster said:
… I don't believe that God [means to spark] fear and insecurity in our lives. I believe in hell; not buying the Dante concept of fire, but of eternal separation [from] our source, which would be far more painful than a life of torment. … "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have news for you trickster, you should read the Bible instead of Dante.

Dante got his concept of fire from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated that hell exists and it is a lake of fire.

I am sorry that you do not buy Jesus at His word, unfortunately in the end you will learn the truth for yourself firsthand if you do not change.

As for separation being far more painful, many people in the world, most in fact, are separated from God and seem to think little of it or anything at all.

trickster · « **Reply #68 on:** July 12, 2014, 12:09:45 AM »

Quote from: crossbro

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"trickster said:
… I don't believe that God [means to spark] fear and insecurity in our lives. I believe in hell; not buying the Dante concept of fire, but of eternal separation [from] our source, which would be far more painful than a life of torment. … "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have news for you trickster, you should read the Bible instead of Dante.

Dante got his concept of fire from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus stated that hell exists and it is a lake of fire.

I am sorry that you do not buy Jesus at His word, unfortunately in the end you will learn the truth for yourself firsthand if you do not change.

As for separation being far more painful, many people in the world, most in fact, are separated from God and seem to think little of it or anything at all.

Hello Crossbro. Your right Jesus does say "lake of fire". I am landing on the side in terms of the consensus in biblical scholarship that sees this as figurative. I don't pretend to be an expert on this.

I do know that the Jєωιѕн people in the Hebrew bible did not believe in a hell, they believed that they would just go to sleep until their souls arise (which I think may have happened when Jesus died.. I'm not sure on that point).

All I was saying is that the threat of hell doesn't do much for me because my preference is love of Jesus in my relationship, I know that if I make honest mistakes, i will be corrected and forgiven. If I repeat the problem, well that's another story. The "neither do i condemn you" also comes with "go and sin no more"...so the concept of hell does not factor in my relationship with God.

Dante, you might remember, created the imagery of hell which was very influencial in Christian thinking; and I might say used by people to spread fear and that is not necessary in the process of conversion and becoming Christ like.

I totally buy Jesus at his word, if I know what the word is :) I don't know if you have studied scripture but you must be aware of editions to the scriptures...and much work has been done in what Jesus is most likely to have said...remember the apostles and church leaders had to make sense of a death of the supposed Messiah..and much of the early teachings were borrowed teaching from the cultures of surrounding countries...the dualistic nature of Greek philosophy is an example, and then through prayer and the infallibility of the bishops and pope via the early councils, these were given form over the years..

to make our lives as catholics simple, we are only expected to do the best we can with what we know, what we understand and eternity challenges my little brain cells :)

trickster

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #69 on:** July 12, 2014, 12:28:15 AM »

.

Crossbro, you're doing just fine.

tickster is doing his part to help keep the viewing numbers up.

so together it all works out - except that quality viewers won't be interested

this thread could be deleted and nobody would miss it

.

trickster · « **Reply #70 on:** July 12, 2014, 12:40:38 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Crossbro, you're doing just fine.

tickster is doing his part to help keep the viewing numbers up.

so together it all works out - except that quality viewers won't be interested

this thread could be deleted and nobody would miss it

.

I would miss it Neil Obstat and that's important too. The word "quality" is a very subjective term and I know that you are not claiming monopoly on defining the quality status of posters, right :) ?

On another issue, I have made my way probably through half of 1025 and read reviews. My sense so far is that whether it is a great communist revelation or a good piece of fictional; I don't think it takes too much brains that it is to the communist interest to influence (and infiltrate) the church. That is a reasonable assumption that does not require a conspiracy element.

Having said that, communism won't prevail over the church and it cannot be feared. Now liberal ideas in my mind are not necessarily bad; the church had to open up the way it did since the early 60s. The church had never witness two world wars and the ability to destroy humanity and earth prior to any time in history...that is at least the sense of some of the Vatican Council fathers that based the idea that change of approach, style was necessary. I am not sure if communism alone can be given the credit on that alone.

I think the Soviet Union had a lot of good ideas around five year plans, and the role of central governance (to a great degree this is how Canada operates), the idea that every citizen - in theory at least - should have access to the basics is essentially good. It did not work at the state level, but it does work in every nation's military and in every monastery in existence.

The problem of course is that the communism of the early days was out to destroy people's relationship to God. I am not so sure if this remains the communist agenda, given the returned freedom in Russia and other former Soviet Union countries.

I'd be interested in your sense of the emerging presence of Christianity in formerly communist worlds. .... and how do you see JP II in relation to communism....

Bruce
Trickster

AlligatorDicax · « **Reply #71 on:** August 25, 2014, 03:00:24 PM »

The original posting by Bruce Ferguson, ironically as "Trickster" www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32502&f=4&min=45#p4 on Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm, was the result of his direct editing of text that was plainly identified via its CathInfo formatting as written by AlligatorDicax www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32502&min=45#p1 on Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am--i.e.: written by the latter only. The posted result completely failed to identify the numerous sentences actually written & inserted by "Trickster" (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm). Such a posting technique is strongly objectionable when, as in this case, the unidentified sentences that were inserted (by "Trickster") express beliefs & points-of-view that are opposed by the person under whose name (AlligatorDicax) they illegitimately appear. As a partial remedy, the CathInfo member whose reputation was potentially damaged (AlligatorDicax) has reviewed the sequence of relevant postings, and added additional formatting to clarify who wrote what. No text has been deleted or changed, except for 1 explicit strike-thru (ellipses that appear in the original are indicated by being underlined); all the sentences previously inserted objectionably are shown herein in a distinctive purple.

Quote from: Trickster (Jul 2, 2014, 1:13 pm)

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 pm)
I do support the dignity and quality of life for gαy people ... and that is consistent with post-Vatican II Catholic teaching ...

Teachings by whom, exactly? What's notably "consistent" with Vatican II is the ambiguity of your wording: "dignity and quality of life"? What would be the theological and practical consequences?

Well the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops has come out with statements (and I would have to go over their references) that while the church does not support same sex marriage, it supports the dignity of life for the GLBT community. This means that same sex couples should share the same benefits (i.e pensions, etc.) .... I don't know if the American Bishops conference has said the same thing. Also, like I said I am sure that Pope Paul VI wrote a paper on it, and that would also argue the point that we - as Catholics - still believe that God loves all people and the process of conversion is the same for all of us.

I can't pretend to answer any theological consequences other than to quote Mother Theresa who said that it was not her that converted people but the Holy Spirit ... I interpret that to mean that it is my job to show the gospel of Our Lord in showing love and let God do the rest. I need to be here and try and explain what it is that I believe in the original joy of the kerygma proclamation ... and I do believe it is my duty to pray for people that I meet. I do not believe it is my job to condemn or judge; rather discern and be very clear on where I stand ...

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, continued)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I believe Pope Paul VI set out the frameworks for our church to address the reality of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

What "reality" is that, and what "frameworks" would those be? I believe you'll find that the investigative authors Rose[1] and Engel[2] separately[0] identified Paul VI's time on the Throne of St. Peter as the flood tide of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity into seminaries--many more than just a handful confined to the most liberal countries or archdioceses. So many that a devout traditional Catholic heterosɛҳuąƖ male--if a man with such a combination of attributes would even be admitted nowadays to any Catholic seminary situated in a Western European culture--who believes he's called to the priesthood, must be extremely careful about choosing a seminary. Consider especially that almost every year's-worth of the U.S. Baby Boom generation (1945--1960) reached the age for choosing their initial institutions of higher learning--whether colleges or seminaries--while Paul VI was sitting as pope. And Paul VI himself openly lamented his belief that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Vatican, thus the Church, during that time.

While your above point is interesting and something I did not know ... I don't think it is relevant to my point or your question. You asked me what framework and I mentioned only that I know that Pope Paul VI wrote some form of paper that gave guidance to the clergy on how the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ should be treated within the church. I believe the Catholic Cathechism issued by JP II clarifies my points ... after all it is the catholic catechism of JP II that I am following.

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, continued)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, continued)
I do not believe in a hard line opposition to brothers, sisters
and transgendered people,

Among traditional Catholics, "brothers" and "sisters" refer only to one's own siblings and to members of religious orders--many of whom would've taken vows of chastity--and is never used as a deferential collective term for gαys, lesbians and the transgendered abominations.

So is James the brother of Jesus according to your definition? That is an interesting use of the term brother and sister and thank you for pointing that out to me. I guess I am more liberal in the term cause siblings are people I am connected to in creation. In an indigenous context we include our extended families, adopted families and so forth .. I also use it to describe people I love of Moslem background, Buddhist and even atheist background. In showing love by showing inclusion does not mean that I agree or believe in what they believe.

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, continued)
Your use of language is consistent with being a troll (as Neil Obstat alerted us early on), albeit unexpectedly for the Homintern[3], from 1 of your own Web page's listed "Communities", known as the "CS Queer Home". Thus it's not merely "a bit of an insinuation here"; it's at least a tentative conclusion.

Again, I am at a loss with the use of Troll. Neil Obstat has been awesome in pointing out some sources to me and I am working through AA 1025 right now ... Creation Spirituality is a gathering place for those who connect with the thinking of Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox and the notion of rebalancing Christianity in taking back its ecological roots .... there are also postmodern nuns, green nuns, earth literacy theologies, liberationist (note not necessarly liberation) theologies such as queer, green, feminist and so forth that those theologians are looking at as lenses to dig deeper into the message of our faith. I enjoy thinkers and ideas, so that is why I talk to everyone. I have a great deal to learn from you and from traditional catholics because after all traditional catholics in my family include my mother, grandmother and so forth. So there is a very authentic place in me for this discussion.

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, continued)
Quote from: trickster (Jul 1, 11:34 pm, concluded)
not loving them, denies the ability to build a trust and allow them to look from their hearts at the invitation of Our Lord, I do not believe that condemnation (of which I am not qualified to do) is not witihin my ability, my only ability is to love the least of my bretheren.

You must have written this last paragraph with intense feeling, because it's a confusing mess, ending as it does with a double negative that's inconsistent with what you obviously seem to believe.

:) Well I could of been on a roll! Double negatives, get used to it my friend, my grammar is autrocious! But my meaning is sincere. You know that you do have a chance to witness to share about Jesus when someone gets to the point of trusting you. I just don't see how taking on an anti-gαy stance will get one to the point of talking. Many gαy people know me and I love them very much. Many gαy people have a relationship with God and pray and struggle with their sɛҳuąƖity as it is not easy for them. The last thing people need is to be judged, no my choice is to build trust, find common ground, have a conversation and to share, correct and nourish in a good way. But that is just my own style, it is a style not everyone will feel comfortable with ... there are as many styles as people ...

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, continued)
As with other samples from your writing (above), "denies the ability to build a trust" reads like feelings-obsessed New-Agism, but that would probably be "consistent" with Vatican II. Sooo, should we just delete anything from the Old & New Testaments that would distress the GLBT infidels as being, um, unwelcoming to them? To put your beliefs into perspective, could you explain how it could be that you claim to be a "Catholic", but paradoxically "not qualified" to "condemn" a social behavior or practice that's "condemn[ed]" in the Bible?

Judge not that ye not be judged (Mt.7:1) . Look, there is nothing New Age about love. Jesus forgave but also said go and sin no more, did he not? Also what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven ... what about the Good Samaritan who stopped for an infidel in his own culture. What about Jesus and the apostles hanging out with some pretty interesting characters, what about the fact that the apostles included a tax collector ... We can all stand up on the pulpit and denounce each other and all that we do is create new lines of division. What my style is about is simply one of showing kindness, love, etc. and emotional support for people, waiting and following the Holy Spirit's lead on when to talk to someone and acknowledge and honor that person's free will to choose or not choose to be one with the Creator (thought you like that New Age jargon :) my job again is only to witness not to convert
as that is a personal thing for the person him or herself. We are all in a life long process of conversion ... ~~are~~ our conversation in many ways is a process of conversion.

Anyways, I hope those are a few thoughts that I hope you reflect upon and get back to me on. Remember you and i are equal in the eyes of our Lord, so I think we should show the respect that we must have for all of our brothers and sisters in the church.

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

Quote from: AlligatorDicax (Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 am, concluded)
-------
Note 0: Isn't it simply fascinating that neither "Michael_S._Rose" nor "Randy_Engel" are valid pages in Wikipedia, nor does the corresponding Wikipedia search option find pages for them (e.g.: under fuller or more formal names), to which they should be entitled as published authors of controversial books. Did Wikipedia purge them, e.g., on charges of being "purveyors of hate speech", hmmm?

Note 1: Michael S. Rose 2002: Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations from the Priesthood. (And scared away many of the rest, I suspect, once they figured out what was going on.)

Note 2: Randy Engel 2006: The Rite of Sodomy: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the Roman Catholic Church, vol. 1 of what seems now to be 5 vols.

Note 3: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homintern>. It's a word (following the model of "ComIntern") that, alas, is worth being revived--never mind Wikipedia's claim that it's obsolete.

Hi AlligatorDiCax. Maybe you can get me up to speed, what is a troll in the context of the CathInfo site ... to me it was a mythical character hanging out under neath bridges ...

I am not sure how to respond to the software on this site ... so I will try and address your statements in the body of your post. I hope that will work ... so let's give it a try. Scroll up :)

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 01, 2014, 12:10:30 PM »

POPE Leo the XIII already settled this question We are Catholic. Those who use the term "Traditional Catholic" today often times do so to distinguish themselves from modernists, many who for all intents and purposes do not believe or practice the same religion. The Catholic religion is nearly 2000 years old - has been established by GOD and cannot be changed by man no matter how well meaning their intentions. So if you believe in and worship Almighty GOD in the religion he established in the Seven Sacraments you are Catholic - if you want to call yourself Catholic and change all aspects of the religion established by GOD you disagree with so you can live the way you want to live in the modern world - chances are you are no longer really a Catholic. People who are do not want to be grouped with and categorized with you. So terms like this emerge so as not to offend you.