Author Topic: What is "Traditional Catholic" ? (Read 9391 times)

Orthodox Catholic · « **on:** March 18, 2016, 04:44:29 AM »

Just found this forum, and it looks very interesting. Some great posts and well, some not so great.

Before I launch into who I am (introduce yourself), I would like to get an idea what this forum is.

1. "Traditional Catholic" seems to be a mixed bag of various beliefs and faiths.

I thought Catholicism is one faith ... and anything outside that one faith is heretical. Comments ?

2. There are many posts against Modernism. Great. But there seems to be little understanding of what it is, what our beloved Popes warned us about and condemned (Bl Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XII).

3. With the latest papal antics, it seems that many Catholics (I think that means Novus Ordo here), as well as SSPXers/ex-SSPXers/Resisters/resister-resisters/FSSPers/etc, are seriously looking into the sedevacantist position. But I noticed a couple of people have been banned for "dogmatic sedevacantism".

Personally, if I were a sedevacantist, I would want to be a dogmatic one, yes ?, since a non-dogmatic sedevacantist (a non-dogmatic Catholic, for that matter) is a self-contradiction. So is this forum for the soft sedevacantists and non-orthodox Catholics ?

4. There is a lot of posts re SSPX (I did attend SSPX for a short while). Given
"CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance, which it officially supports"

Is this a Lefebvrist forum ? (Yes)

Are other Traditional Catholic" positions tolerated (other than sedevacantism, which I know is not tolerated) ?

+ Vincit veritas omnes +

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2016, 05:12:27 AM »

Traditional Catholics believe in all the declared dogmas of Holy Mother Church. We reject the Protetstantized liturgy as a legitimate Catholic form of worship, and we reject the errors of the Second Vatican Council: false ecuмenism, collegiality, and religious liberty.

Modernism as explained in Pascendi is understood by many. We reject vital immanence and the naturalism of the Modernists. The Syllabus of errors is not a forgotten docuмent on this forum.

The person of the Pope (his identity) is not a dogma. When you die you are not going to be asked by Our Lord "did you believe Beegoglio was a true pope". So, to condemn someone as non-Catholic for believing the pope is one whom the entire world sees as the pope is really off base.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2016, 05:15:56 AM »

No, sedevacantism is tolerated. Dogmatic sedevacantism is a heresy because it insists that non-sedevacantists are in error.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2016, 06:58:59 AM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

No, sedevacantism is tolerated. Dogmatic sedevacantism is a heresy because it insists that non-sedevacantists are in error.

No, this is incorrect. All sedevacantists believe non-sedevacantists are in error, just as all non-sedevacantists believe sedevacantists are in error.

What is commonly called "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not a heresy but schism as the dogmatic sedevacantist refuses communion with the non-sedevacantist. The same, however, can be said of the anti-sedevacantist (as opposed to simply the non-sedevacantist). The "anti-sedevacantist" also refuses communion with the sedevacantist.

The fact is that "sedevacantism" is not a doctrine in any way and anyone who refuses communion with Catholics on the basis of sedevacantism alone is schismatic whether he believes Bergoglio to be the pope or not. What is called "sedevacantism" is merely the recognition that the men who have claimed the papacy from Vatican 2 onward defected from the faith and, as manifest heretics, fell from office if, indeed, they ever attained the office in the first place.

On this forum, "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not permitted; however, "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism" is.

Although the nature of sedevacantism is frequently explained on the forum, there are a number of members who, for some reason, are incapable of understanding and frequently repeat idiotic comments such as seen above.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2016, 07:11:30 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: JezusDeKoning
No, sedevacantism is tolerated. Dogmatic sedevacantism is a heresy because it insists that non-sedevacantists are in error.

No, this is incorrect. All sedevacantists believe non-sedevacantists are in error, just as all non-sedevacantists believe sedevacantists are in error.

What is commonly called "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not a heresy but schism as the dogmatic sedevacantist refuses communion with the non-sedevacantist. The same, however, can be said of the anti-sedevacantist (as opposed to simply the non-sedevacantist). The "anti-sedevacantist" also refuses communion with the sedevacantist.

The fact is that "sedevacantism" is not a doctrine in any way and anyone who refuses communion with Catholics on the basis of sedevacantism alone is schismatic whether he believes Bergoglio to be the pope or not. What is called "sedevacantism" is merely the recognition that the men who have claimed the papacy from Vatican 2 onward defected from the faith and, as manifest heretics, fell from office if, indeed, they ever attained the office in the first place.

On this forum, "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not permitted; however, "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism" is.

Although the nature of sedevacantism is frequently explained on the forum, there are a number of members who, for some reason, are incapable of understanding and frequently repeat idiotic comments such as seen above.

I like this explanation and agree with it. The dogmatic sedeplenists and dogmatic sedevacantists turn the question of the identity and name of the Successor of St. Peter into a question of salvation.

I wouldn't say, however, that this is an "error" in the sense of matters of Faith, and I don't think that TKGS meant that either...just simply that one side's theory is correct and the other's theory is incorrect.

Orthodox Catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2016, 07:41:10 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Traditional Catholics believe in all the declared dogmas of Holy Mother Church. We reject the Protetstantized liturgy as a legitimate Catholic form of worship, and we reject the errors of the Second Vatican Council: false ecuмenism, collegiality, and religious liberty.

Modernism as explained in Pascendi is understood by many. We reject vital immanence and the naturalism of the Modernists. The Syllabus of errors is not a forgotten docuмent on this forum.

Thanks for your response. That part is clear. I am more than a little familiar with Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which is the basis of my statements.

Quote

The person of the Pope (his identity) is not a dogma. When you die you are not going to be asked by Our Lord "did you believe Beegoglio was a true pope". So, to condemn someone as non-Catholic for believing the pope is one whom the entire world sees as the pope is really off base.

That part is totally mixed up.

1. You are not a theologian, so re the person of the pope, that is simply lay opinion. Same as the Protestants forming their personal opinions about Scripture, or holding one article up, in isolation from the whole.

2. I am quite sanguine with the Vatican I Decrees/Session 8/Four Chapters re the person and position of the pope. To me it is not an arguable point (or, you can argue, I will not participate, I am Catholic and I don't have an opinion on doctrinal or dogmatic matters).

3. I do not have the power to condemn anyone. Posting an opinion is not a condemnation.

4. A post that I may make in response to one person's post, does not make it a blanket statement about all "Traditional Catholics" or about all Catholics. You (not I) would have to extend my statement past its actual boundary, which was a safe space for discussion, to a boundary which is completely outside the context of the post. It is a typical Jєωιѕн, pharisaic, Modernist device, which I certainly did not expect here (I am not saying you did that purposely, I grant it was unconscious ... but then that means you are imbibed in it, sorry).

(Or, does the site operate that way ? )

If I posted (eg. very, very eg.) "anyone who accepts Feeneyism is an heretic", then sure, that includes the whole world, it is a blanket statement, and it is reasonable to get banned on a site that consists of Feeneyites.

If I posted that Feeneyism is heretical according to our [pre-Vatican II] popes, notably without my opinion, but with links to the decrees, then I would expect to be agreed with if the site were Catholic, and banned if the site were Feeneyite. Each position of which is a mutually exclusive one.

In any case, open discussion re either Feeneyism or sedevacantism or natural birth control, etc, is not possible. Which is why I am trying to find out what is and is not, the required positions for discussion, and what positions will get banned.

Orthodox Catholic · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2016, 08:20:29 AM »

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

No, sedevacantism is tolerated. Dogmatic sedevacantism is a heresy because it insists that non-sedevacantists are in error.

1. My responses to Centroamerica above apply here as well.

The logic that you use to determine that sedevacantism is "heresy" is too funny to argue.

--

2. The fact is, from the evidence of Matthew's notifications of banishment, sedevacantists are not tolerated.

3. I have already stated:

Quote

Personally, if I were a sedevacantist, I would want to be a dogmatic one, yes ?, since a non-dogmatic sedevacantist (a non-dogmatic Catholic, for that matter) is a self-contradiction.

That means, if I were to be Catholic (I am , but that is not the point being discussed here), I would most definitely want to be a dogmatic one, not a lukewarm or modernist or laissez faire one, because those positions are specifically condemned (not by me, by God and the pre-Vatican II Popes). Likewise, if sedevancatism were a valid Catholic position, it would have to be valid on the basis of doctrine and dogma, not on any other basis. Because any other basis would be non-Catholic, heretical.

All Catholic doctrine and dogma "insists". I know of no Catholic doctrine or dogma that does not "insist".

So the fact is, from the evidence of non-banishment, and the endless arguments without resolution (starting yet again in this thread), soft sedes, pretend-sedes, and wannabe-sedes are tolerated.

3. In Matthew's notifications of banishment, he specifically stated "[that person] is banned for dogmatic sedevacantism". He did not state "for sedevacantism". He can't, because the semi-sede positions are tolerated. He did not state "for heresy".

4. I will take what is and is not heresy from Catholic theology, thank you, and not from lay opinions, and the endless arguments without resolution that ensue.

As a Catholic, my life is simple, all issues are totally resolved, I cannot tolerate arguments without resolution, it is such a waste of time. Which is why I am trying to resolve the issue of what this forum is, what positions are, and are not, tolerated.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2016, 08:54:01 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

The person of the Pope (his identity) is not a dogma. When you die you are not going to be asked by Our Lord "did you believe Beegoglio was a true pope". So, to condemn someone as non-Catholic for believing the pope is one whom the entire world sees as the pope is really off base.

Quote from: Orthodox Catholic

That part is totally mixed up.

1. You are not a theologian, so re the person of the pope, that is simply lay opinion. Same as the Protestants forming their personal opinions about Scripture, or holding one article up, in isolation from the whole.

2. I am quite sanguine with the Vatican I Decrees/Session 8/Four Chapters re the person and position of the pope. To me it is not an arguable point (or, you can argue, I will not participate, I am Catholic and I don't have an opinion on doctrinal or dogmatic matters).

3. I do not have the power to condemn anyone. Posting an opinion is not a condemnation.

4. A post that I may make in response to one person's post, does not make it a blanket statement about all "Traditional Catholics" or about all Catholics. You (not I) would have to extend my statement past its actual boundary, which was a safe space for discussion, to a boundary which is completely outside the context of the post. It is a typical Jєωιѕн, pharisaic, Modernist device, which I certainly did not expect here (I am not saying you did that purposely, I grant it was unconscious ... but then that means you are imbibed in it, sorry).

(Or, does the site operate that way ? )

If I posted (eg. very, very eg.) "anyone who accepts Feeneyism is an heretic", then sure, that includes the whole world, it is a blanket statement, and it is reasonable to get banned on a site that consists of Feeneyites.

If I posted that Feeneyism is heretical according to our [pre-Vatican II] popes, notably without my opinion, but with links to the decrees, then I would expect to be agreed with if the site were Catholic, and banned if the site were Feeneyite. Each position of which is a mutually exclusive one.

In any case, open discussion re either Feeneyism or sedevacantism or natural birth control, etc, is not possible. Which is why I am trying to find out what is and is not, the required positions for discussion, and what positions will get banned.

Mentioning the "F" word on this forum is like saying "Beetle juice". You just successfully caused what is now going to de-rail your own thread.

I never said that you condemned anyone, so you shouldn't take it so personally. I was referring to those who do condemn others based on if they believe there is or isn't a legitimate pope at this moment.

If a person forms an opinion about who the pope is, this has no correlation about the private interpretation of Scripture. This shows how truly ignorant you are to Catholic history, which has had canonized Catholic saints supporting different papacies. This is nothing even similar in a personal opinion of who one believes or doesn't believe is the pope and what Protestants heretically interpret from Scripture. Your comparison is completely off, as probably every single member of this forum will point out to you. To say this points you into the "dogmatic" category, because you mean to say that it is a matter of dogma to be accepted without dispute that such and such person is or isn't a legitimate pope. This has nothing in common with Protestant heresy.

I won't be able to see your comments because I will be offline, as I have an episcopal consecration to attend. Take care.

Orthodox Catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2016, 08:57:29 AM »

I will restructure your post, if that doesn't offend you, and it is only for my response to make sense.

Quote from: TKGS

On this forum, "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not permitted; however, "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism" is.

Thank you. That is precisely the sort of answer that I am seeking.

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: JezusDeKoning
No, sedevacantism is tolerated. Dogmatic sedevacantism is a heresy because it insists that non-sedevacantists are in error.

No, this is incorrect. All sedevacantists believe non-sedevacantists are in error, just as all non-sedevacantists believe sedevacantists are in error.

What is commonly called "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not a heresy but schism as the dogmatic sedevacantist refuses communion with the non-sedevacantist. The same, however, can be said of the anti-sedevacantist (as opposed to simply the non-sedevacantist). The "anti-sedevacantist" also refuses communion with the sedevacantist.

The fact is that "sedevacantism" is not a doctrine in any way and anyone who refuses communion with Catholics on the basis of sedevacantism alone is schismatic whether he believes Bergoglio to be the pope or not. What is called "sedevacantism" is merely the recognition that the men who have claimed the papacy from Vatican 2 onward defected from the faith and, as manifest heretics, fell from office if, indeed, they ever attained the office in the first place.

On this forum, "dogmatic sedevacantism" is not permitted; however, "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism" is.

Although the nature of sedevacantism is frequently explained on the forum, there are a number of members who, for some reason, are incapable of understanding and frequently repeat idiotic comments such as seen above.

That is precisely the sort of Protestant lay-interpretation-of-doctrine; endless argument; and inability to tolerate what you do not understand, that I am avoiding.

Suffice to say:

- there are two churches, the Catholic Church (the Mystical Body of Christ, has the Four Marks, never contradicts itself, etc) and the conciliar church (has 1.6 billion adherents and the non-stop contradictions since 1962). It is not clear which one you are talking about, which one sedevacantism is "in schism" with.

- the Catholic basis upon which you allege they are "in schism" is not explained. (Please don't, I will not enter into endless arguments of this sort.)

- I will take what sedevacantism is, and is not, from the sedevacantists. Not from the semi-sedes or the lukewarm sedes. Not from lay opinions posted on a "traditional" website. Not from people who are evidently scared witless of it.

- It is not possible to learn the "nature of sedevacantism" (or any Catholic doctrine or dogma or position) from a "traditional" website. This or Fish Eaters or other. One can (by virtue of the evidence) only remain in unresolved confusion, that is to say, not learn. So no, it is not "explained" here (what is feared and loathed is explained here).

MyrnaM · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2016, 09:03:52 AM »

Quote from: Orthodox Catholic

3. With the latest papal antics, it seems that many Catholics (I think that means Novus Ordo here), as well as SSPXers/ex-SSPXers/Resisters/resister-resisters/FSSPers/etc, are seriously looking into the sedevacantist position. But I noticed a couple of people have been banned for "dogmatic sedevacantism".

Personally, if I were a sedevacantist, I would want to be a dogmatic one, yes ?, since a non-dogmatic sedevacantist (a non-dogmatic Catholic, for that matter) is a self-contradiction. So is this forum for the soft sedevacantists and non-orthodox Catholics ?

The way I understand "dogmatic sedevacantist" would mean to be other than a sedevacantist means one is condemned to Hell, that would be against Traditional Catholic teaching since we are not allowed to judge who is condemned to Hell.

Open to correction on my understanding above.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2016, 09:23:18 AM »

I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. The CathInfo rules thread is still pinned near the top, the last time I checked. I explain the position very clearly.

This forum is for Traditional Catholics, period. If you are some kind of fringe, extremist, or malcontent, for whom VIRTUALLY ALL other "Traditional Catholics" are bad or anathema for some reason -- you won't last long on CathInfo.

For example, to be Traditional Catholic you have to believe the Crisis in the Church erupted after Vatican II. Not Vatican I, or the Council of Trent. If that is your "unique" opinion, you can go start your own Old Catholic forum or something.

If a CathInfo member woke up next Sunday morning and found himself in 1950, he would HAVE TO GO TO HIS LOCAL PARISH AND ATTEND MASS THERE. Anyone who says they wouldn't for some reason must leave CathInfo, because they're not really a Traditional Catholic.

Traditional Catholic is not a catch-all for every malcontent that opposes the mainstream Catholic Church! It's a very specific movement of those holding to the Tridentine Mass and Faith, which arose AFTER VATICAN II, specifically after the Novus Ordo Mass was implemented.

Everyone knows what a Traditional Catholic is. They attend the Tridentine Mass exclusively, and have left the Novus Ordo Mass behind them. Some are sedevacantist. Most are not. A few are Feeneyite. Most are not. Some believe the Conciliar Church is 100% evil, the Antichrist, while others believe there is some Catholicism left. They have varying political opinions. They have different weak spots, flaws and sins. Some send their children to public or private schools, while others homeschool. Some of the Trad women wear pants, but most prefer skirts/dresses, and some never wear pants.

My point is that there is a lot of variety among Traditional Catholics ("Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered."), but every last one of these Trads must be accepted as a fellow Catholic if you want to be a member of CathInfo.

We're not schismatic here, nor heretics, nor sectarian, nor some kind of cult.

I allow sedevacantists on CathInfo as a matter of principle, because in the history of the Catholic Church even saints have gotten the "pope question" wrong during grave times of papal confusion, such as the Great Schism. This PROVES that God won't hold it against us if we honestly get the Pope question wrong.

So I can confidently accept my sedevacantist fellow-Catholics as Catholics and not regret it at my Judgment.

However, anyone who refuses communion with other Catholics is a de-facto schismatic (schism means to Cut). We are NOT supposed to hold communion with schismatics. Nevertheless, I don't have to pass judgment on them "This man is not a Catholic." to simply ban him from CathInfo. I merely reject his verbal poison; I save the individual's judgment for God's tribunal.

Orthodox Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2016, 09:33:23 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

Zionism and Jєωry are also tolerated for that matter.

Funny you should say that. I did see some of it, but I did not make a determination. Good to have it confirmed.

I would say, Zionism is supported and employed, like Modernism, because it is unknown here, and thus people do not realise they are doing it, they think they are doing something else, anit-zionist, anti-modernist.

Quote

OP: Why call oneself "Orthodox" Catholic if unaware of what Traditionalism even is...?

"Traditionalism" is a new one for me.

I did not say that I was unaware of what "Traditional Catholic" is, I already stated that it is a mixed bag. Each "traditional" site employs a subset of that mixed bag. Neither the total mixed bag nor each specific subset has been determined, and since it keeps changing, it probably never will.

My Faith is not something that keeps changing all the time, so I do not feel that I am part of the mixed bag. Since I found this site interesting, I thought I'd take a closer look. Since there are warnings, as well as banishments, I thought it best to obtain a clear understanding re what will get me banned.

I don't know enough about "Traditional" yet, to determine whether I accept it or reject it, and I don't accept it enough to say that I identify with it (either generally or at this particular site, which has specific likes and dislikes that are unclear, hence the thread). So I chose a handle that identifies me in context the site, the mixed bag.

Eg. as per one of my specific questions, I do not understand why some "traditional" positions are accepted here but others (eg. sedevacantists) are banned.

That is orthodox with a simple 'o', not Greek or Russian Orthodox. It means the opposite of heterodox, I identify with the One True Faith, the Four Marks.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2016, 09:51:35 AM »

A side comment from the peanut gallery-

I've heard it said a few times by priests in the past that the term "traditional catholic" is not the best term. If they could go back in time to the 70s and hit 'reset' on the movement, they would try to get people to call themselves "orthodox" catholic, since this has a specific and historical meaning, whereas "traditional" is sorta generalized and non-descript, like when one calls themselves politically "conservative" instead of a "constitutionalist" which clearly defines your beliefs.

If I could define "traditional" catholicism, in a nutshell, I would say we believe in the everything the Catholic Church has always taught, with a special emphasis on the following 3 popes, since their times were a precursor to the evils of our day, both spiritually, politically and economically: Bl Pope Pius IX, Pope St Leo XIII, and Pope St Pius X.

Orthodox Catholic · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:10:40 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

To say this points you into the "dogmatic" category, because you mean to say that it is a matter of dogma to be accepted without dispute that such and such person is or isn't a legitimate pope.

I did not say that (you said that). I cannot defend what I did not say.

I am happy to defend, clarify or retract what I did say.

I did say that the Catholic position is dogmatic, and therefore (not the reversed sequence) the sedevacantist position is dogmatic. And therefore a non-dogmatic sedevacantist position, which would be a non-dogmatic Catholic position, is an absurdity (if I say it is heretical, I might get banned on my first day here!).

Whether the pope is a valid or legitimate Pope or whether he is Catholic or not is a separate matter (not divorced, not unrelated, but separate) which I did not post about, and I won't post about now, because I have seen endless arguments without resolution here on the subject, and I will not enter into them. I don't know enough about the sedevacantist position to say (and I did not previously say) that the pope issue is a dogmatic or indisputable one. You have read something into my words.

I may have a sharp intellect, which is a Grace, but when it comes to my beloved religion, which provisions and maintains that Grace, I am a very simple man. I don't have an opinion about abortions or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or natural birth control or Feeneyism or sedevacantism, because my religion tells me the truth, and I accept it without argument. Which is a second reason I will not participate in such arguments-without-resolution here, which I accept, you people evidently love.

By the Grace of God, I am already resolved. I have nothing to argue.

OHCA · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2016, 11:23:04 AM »

On one hand you are taking "non-dogmatic" sedevacantists to task for lukewarmness, yet it is quite evident that you are beating around the bush about something yourself. Beating around the bush is a form of timidity or lukewarmness. I initially thought you were simply a troll (you still may match that definition). But I think you want to assert a strong point (or points) but afraid to do so. There are nuggets in what you say that I agree with, so I am curious as to what you're trying to build up the courage to say. You have some axe to grind--quit being scared and lay it out.