First, a rant ...

It seems lately that I can't make it through many of the threads around here without a translation service.

I don't know what ED III and CINC mean. I have no idea what significance community buildings hold in the discussions on this board. And, I can't figure out why we suddenly care so much about what the Protestants living in Rome are up to.

The point of language is to convey a message, right?

Perhaps it's just me, but in the few minutes I have each day to catch up on things around here, I completely skip over any post using phrases foreign to me as if I should know exactly what they're talking about. If this describes you, sorry, but your ability to communicate is apparently insufficient as your point is lost with me.

Now, on to the question ...

I just read around here somewhere that perhaps the term Novus Ordo Catholic was more than simply a way to distinguish a Catholic who attends their local parish from one who does not. I've also read that several of those I would consider to be Sedevacantists don't prefer to be called by that term.

Can someone give me a list of the various types of Catholics (at least the major groups) using terms which are neither offensive nor unusable in a routine attempt to communicate with other Catholics? Perhaps this can be extended to cover other areas of conversation such as references to specific individuals, groups with Catholicism, elements of the Mass, and so on.

We would have to start with the word schismatic.

That is what Catholics whom Traditionalists call Novus Ordoites call Traditionalists. Either that, or "reactionary wackos." Or "schismatic reactionary wackos." Whether they are correct or not is another matter. We were speaking of communication. The Novus Ordoites whom I have known all think that the word "schismatic" communicates the reality of Traditionalism very nicely indeed.

That's funny. I've only been a Traditionalist for about 3 years and schismatic wasn't really a part of my vocabulary before I left the NO. Now, of course, I hear/read it all the time.

But, you are correct. I have yet to find a simple way of communicating to my family the difference between the sort of Catholic I am and the sort which they are. Any of them interested enough to do a little reading generally comes back with, "don't you know they're schismatic?"

It doesn't happen often, though, as I'd rather discuss with them how they should be living out their Faith rather than get into why they should stop attending their local parish.

Well, we must have run in different Novus Ordo circles. EVERYONE who was any kind of involved Catholic at all knew the word "schismatic" back in '76 and '77 when the case of Archbishop "Lefebruh" was all the rage in the Catholic papers and in sermons and at choir rehearsals and Holy Name meetings. I was thinking of people I know who are from my generation (boomer) and older.

I recall this "schismatic" stuff most vividly because of the amusing way in which those who threw around the term were uncertain about how to pronounce it. Skizzmatic? Shizzmatic? Shkizzmatic? Sizzmatic?

But my main point is that from the point of view of the normal Catholic who is AS Catholic as the pope (and is free to regret his Motu Proprio for Vatican II-type reasons that are as Catholic as at least one pope, Paul VI) Traditionalists are not the ones who are in any position to be finding offensive or inoffensive ways to describe them. They don't see how THEY need to be "described." THEY are the Catholics pure and simple. THEY are simply going along as good Catholics with His Holiness and their local ordinaries and the pastors of their souls, whatever qualms they might have now and then about liturgical changes or Catholic Ed trends.

So, then, perhaps we can't get away with calling the NO sort anything but simply Catholic in conversation with them.

But if they aren't Catholic, why would you do that? I understand the unique problem. These are not Lutherans, nor let's say Anglicans, claiming to be Catholic. They know the term, Anglican, or Episcopalean. They may try to use, Catholic, but they understand, perhaps, the history of the Church of England.

What you have, here, is an apostate Church. When that occurs, the Church becomes something else. Even as an heretical Church, Catholics never historically had a problem identifying those who WISHED to be called Roman Catholic, as something else - such as Arian.

You can examine the writings of Athanasius, for example. His complaint is not with Roman Catholics. His complaint is with Arians. But who were these Arians? Where were the found? And so on for various heresies.

Consider the history, here.

I don't like bringing these questions down to the level of a 'practical matter'. But you'd be surprised, as a 'practical matter', how dissatisfied some of the most supportitive parishioners of these Roman Protestant parishes are. If you say to them, this is Roman Protestantism, and do it face to face, you might discover surprising agreement. Even without prompting, they themselves may begin to describe the latest songs, the ad hoc innovations, the utter irreverence with the word - Protestant. I've seen this, myself. And I just can't see how truth is served, or how others are served who need to be, by a political correctness that is a great distance from any legitimate concerns for simple courtesy. People very much appreciate honesty. You have to give these folks some credit for being able to appreciate their situation, and how messed up it is. They see all this stuff, too. I think Catholics, perhaps some, tend to forget that.