Main reasons you are Traditional and not Modern (conservative) Catholics:

[TheReturnofLive]

Except Pope Paul VI, in that context, was explicitly rejecting Gregorian Chant. He believed that greater lay participation was of infinitesimal more importance than Gregorian Chant.

He says this immediately after that quote.

“10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.”

For Pope Paul VI, Protestant style participation by the lay people was of way more significant value than liturgical plainchant.

I’m glad he’s equivalent to such great teachers like John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximos the Confessor, Athanasius, who all confronted the public and corrected people’s sinful ways, with their lives threatened or even taken away. What a great and fantastic role model, beatified by the Traditional Pope himself, Benedict XVI.

After all, it’s clearly the case that Rome has the True Faith by her solemn wisdom in canonizing such a flawless leader, leading us towards Heaven.

Suck it in.

[Miriam_M]

I "am" because I was born into it. 
Sealed with it, confirmed within it, educated and formed by it.   
I had crack catechists and formators.

Once you have experienced that, you see modernism clearly for the fraud that it is and was, because you have the certitude of faith and experience that Tradition alone conveys.  Against Tradition, modernism is undeniably illegitimate and surely incompatible.

There's no need to engage in hand-wringing over V2 -- the dominating icon of modernism.  It was somewhere between these two extremes of the spectrum:  a diabolical attempt to destroy the Church, especially by creating disunity and confusion; and on the other side, a worthless, time-wasting experiment by effete men bored with their vocations, frightened of the world, and motivated by human respect.

It's not a matter of "reasoning," i.m.o., but a matter of sight and recognition.

One could "argue" or "reason," but since the true Church was founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the more accurately a member of the faithful knows Him as He presented Himself and as the ancient Church taught Him, transcendent and majestic (not in the diluted, populist depiction of the modernists), the clearer one's sight becomes as to which of the two churches is the true one -- ancient Church, or NewChurch.  The distinctions are that simple, and that is a spiritual understanding and experience more than an intellectual one.

"Reasons" imply that something is up for discussion.  And what is up for discussion, exactly?  Because if something is, the person believing that is a modernist.  Tradition is based on absolute precepts passed on reliably by those charged with preserving that tradition, not inventing something different as a replacement.

We are supposed to believe based on faith and obedience to unchanged truth, not based on reasoning.  An explanation for a truth is not the same thing as a reason to believe it.

Any other questions?
 

[TheReturnofLive]

It's not a matter of "reasoning," i.m.o., but a matter of sight and recognition.

One could "argue" or "reason," but since the true Church was founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the more accurately a member of the faithful knows Him as He presented Himself and as the ancient Church taught Him, transcendent and majestic (not in the diluted, populist depiction of the modernists), the clearer one's sight becomes as to which of the two churches is the true one -- ancient Church, or NewChurch.  The distinctions are that simple, and that is a spiritual understanding and experience more than an intellectual one.

"Reasons" imply that something is up for discussion.  And what is up for discussion, exactly?  Because if something is, the person believing that is a modernist.  Tradition is based on absolute precepts passed on reliably by those charged with preserving that tradition, not inventing something different as a replacement.

So if you have to completely dismiss reason and only go off sight and sound, and “just knowing”, how do you plan to evangelize and not die off as a religion? How do you know the devil isn’t deceiving you by tickling your passions and emotional attachments to things less important than Christ Himself - like visuals, sounds, art, etc.?

I hate to break it to you, but the days of Catholic Colonialism and threatening by the sword are over.

You know, Saint Justin Martyr actually had to argue with his Pagan friends about Christianity, and the Apostles went into Jewish and Pagan temples to preach the Gospel. You can’t just subjugate populations with ignorance and threaten dissidents with violence.

My grandparents on my dad’s side were (May God forgive them for their sins, culpable or not) Evangelical Christians who were given the ideas that Catholics were idolaters, that Catholics were pagans, that there is continuity between the Roman Church and the Roman Empire - pretty much whatever Jack Chick comics would say. No matter what I said, even if I pointed out the contradictions of iconoclasm in Scripture, even if I pointed out that the Greek word for wine which Lot got drunk off of is the same as the wine at Canna, even if I pointed out the fact that incense and prayers of the Saints appear in Revelation, even if I pointed out the paintings in the Catacombs - even the painting of the Virgin Mary and Child in the Catacombs - it was always fingers in the ears and ignoring what I would sat.

They made the exact same argument you did - they were the Church of Christ, and they had the Truth. They died as Sola Scriptura iconoclasts.

Have you ever considered the possibility of denying intellectualism within Christianity and just accepting whatever is given is how Pope Francis hasn’t been kicked out and why Paul VI was canonized? And why people are so poorly Catechized to the point that Vatican II was allowed to happen with little outcry?

[Miriam_M]

Working, OP.  I interrupted my work to answer, but I cannot continue the discussion and answer your questions this evening.

Later.

Again, I evangelize all the time.  Follow my posting history on SD and you will see evidence of that.  But I don't do it by formal argumentation -- certainly not initially.  That's the way that modernist Catholics "evangelize" evangelical Protestants, with an incredibly poor success rate, but it fools the modernists into thinking they are actually doing something.

[Xavier]

Agreed, Miriam. For ourselves, we are certain because we know Christ, and we know we experience Him in His Traditional Sacraments.

But for others to come to Tradition, one or more reasons can be helpful. Thus St. Peter says, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you."

And as for you, Live, if you're going to troll and swear, I'm not going to engage you in conversation. The canonization thing has been brought up elsewhere and you can discuss it there if you want. Suffice to say the (1) the CE itself says the only thing decided in a canonization is that the person is now in heaven (2) you yourself believe Pope Liberius was a Saint, despite Catholics believing he is the first Pope not to be a Saint, and made some mistakes, unlike his Predecessors and Successors (3) the modern concept of "sainthood" has been changed so much that some believe any one who was finally saved is a saint, or even that every baptized person is a saint; thus, we have an approach that guarantees the security of traditional canonizations, while allowing the possibility that the modern concept of "sanctity" has been so much changed and watered down - beside the changes in the modern process without DA - that modern saints are just ordinary baptized persons, although in heaven.

But, it is not necessary so much as to understand the mystery of these times fully (in fact, Cardinal Manning, says, in the last days "Rome will lose the Faith, will drive away the Vicar of Christ, and return to her ancient paganism", the grounds for which is arguably being prepared) for serious Catholics to know that now is the time for Catholic Action. Protestants wrongly thought the Catholic Church was dead after their deformation, but Mother Church rose again, and before they knew it, Our Lady of Guadalupe had evangelized Mexico in North America, and Christ through St. Francis Xavier had evangelized millions of souls in India for the Church. "The evangelism of the nations" says Fr. Butler justly, "is the prerogative of the Catholic Church, in which She has never had any rival". And even today, there has been an increase of vocations in Africa and Asia, to make up partially for the loss in America and Europe. With proper steps taken now, the Catholic Church will rise again. As for the Greek Church, a separated church that needs to rediscover the path back to Catholic communion, is it interested in fulfilling the Great Commission? If so, it must first of all see that lack of Christian unity is the greatest obstacle there is to world evangelism, and quickly return to Catholic unity. And secondly, the Greek Church remains very ethno-centric, little interested in evangelism, does not fulfil the prophesy of Malachi about the universal Church, that both St. Augustine and St. Optatus point out to the donatists, and manifestly is only at most a separated Church, not the universal or Catholic Church.

[TheReturnofLive]

I’m trolling? Whose the guy on that other forum that starts threads with “gotcha” Catholic points than refuses to actually discuss any of the content of the responses on that forum?

But I guess you’re right, it’s kind of pointless to argue. I’ll shut up.

[Xavier]

"Suck it in", "threatening by the sword" is not trolling? The purpose of this thread is reasons in favor of Traditional Catholicism.

This is what the CE says about canonizations, "my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven ... There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint." Please discuss that on the appropriate thread for that if you want to.

[TheReturnofLive]

"Suck it in", "threatening by the sword" is not trolling? The purpose of this thread is reasons in favor of Traditional Catholicism.

This is what the CE says about canonizations, "my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven ... There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint." Please discuss that on the appropriate thread for that if you want to.

I’m in the wrong, I apologize

[TheReturnofLive]

It’s easy to forget what website I’m on

[Davis Blank - EG]

I’m glad he’s equivalent to such great teachers like John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximos the Confessor, Athanasius, who all confronted the public and corrected people’s sinful ways, with their lives threatened or even taken away. What a great and fantastic role model, beatified by the Traditional Pope himself, Benedict XVI.

After all, it’s clearly the case that Rome has the True Faith by her solemn wisdom in canonizing such a flawless leader, leading us towards Heaven.

That a person is in Heaven does not make him equal to another person in Heaven.

That a person is in Heaven does not mean every aspect of his life is to be followed.  Or should we live as Augustine the youth, Peter the denier of Christ, or the thieving Good Thief?

You are bitterly angry and it shows in nearly every post you make.  You discovered years ago that the Church has warts and are repulsed - but that was to be expected, given that she's loaded with sinners.

[Xavier]

"Suck it in", "threatening by the sword" is not trolling? The purpose of this thread is reasons in favor of Traditional Catholicism.

This is what the CE says about canonizations, "my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven ... There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint." Please discuss that on the appropriate thread for that if you want to.

I’m in the wrong, I apologize

No need. But thank you. Your apology shows sincerity and humility. I apologize too for any time I've been uncharitable to you or others.

I really long for the day, TheReturnofLive, when all Western and Eastern Christians, all Catholics and Orthodox, will be re-united in Truth and Love in One Universal Church, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. God grant we both and all of us here live to see such a wonderful event!

[christulsa]

1.  After going regularly, long enough to the TLM to really get why the NO is an illegitimate novelty.

2.  Reading the Great Facade’s crystal clear refutation of the sophisms in the anti-Traditionalist book Pope, Council, and the Mass, which I had read first.

3. SSPX articles, but especially Iota Unum, opened up my eyes to the problems of Vatican II, and not just its post-conciliar interpretation.

4. The personal testimony, teaching, and preaching of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Crisis.

5. Also, chasing modest trad girls in skirts all over Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas.

[Quaremerepulisti]

This whole statement is a paradox.

Lots of things in life are paradoxical.

But neither the invective poured out by you, Kreuzritter, or anyone else will change the fact the Western pre-Vatican II edifice was a house built on sand, leading to its collapse (as clearly shown by Vatican II and its aftermath), and attempts to replicate it (even it goes by the name of "Restoration of Tradition") can only end in the same outcome, making it a total waste of time.

And, I am sorry to say, but like many trads, you are quite a shallow and non-critical thinker (e.g. ideologue), which leads you to make the exact same "gotcha"-type arguments with grandiose rhetoric and triumphalism and personal attacks, ignoring any and all nuance and distinction but replete with straw men and exaggerations; in short, no appreciation for intellectual honesty, which obviously has no place in religious discussions if it could hamper us, the holy ones favored by God, from doing battle with the spawn of Satan.

Your entire legitimization of your own identity as an Eastern Catholic is the fact that you are in communion with the "Sola Cathedra Petri", Rome herself, the preserver of orthodoxy and all that is holy, where Peter's burial and where he himself sanctified it with his own martyrdom, the "preserver of sanctity" when Constantinople was a whirlpool of heresies....

...Yet you firmly believe that Rome has caused her own self-destruction promoting ideas harmful to one's own soul, that the scholasticism from Rome has only led to horrendous consequences for people spiritually, that Vatican I was a result of narcissistic submission to authority, that Rome arrogantly creates more and more outlandish doctrines in order to maintain it's own infrastructure and claims, that Vatican II is the result of Rome's selfishness and powerlust, etc.

This is not an intellectually honest argument.  It is cheap polemic just a step above Jack Chick.

[Frank]

My wife.

[Xavier]

Thanks, Chris and Frank,

I want to clarify one thing that may have been unclear (and my apologies for that), in the OP etc, I am saying there are doctrinal reasons of principle (like the Kingship of Christ), why we are Traditional Catholics. Not just the Beauty and Majesty of Tradition. But I am not saying that our faith is based on any human reasons. Our faith is based on the authority of God revealing, as the Oath against Modernism teaches us. That is why, as the Holy Spirit makes possible for us by His Grace, we believe all that God has revealed.

the Western pre-Vatican II edifice

You seem to be neglecting the statistics cited earlier. Shall we take just Priests and Nuns in the US to begin with?

The number of Priests skyrocketed from 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965 - a more than 100% increase in 35 years - as documented earlier. As for Nuns, there were 50,000 Nuns in 1900, which remarkably increased to 180,000 in 1965 - a 260% increase in 65 years - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sisters_and_nuns_in_the_United_States After that, it declined to about 50,000 again by around 2015. It doesn't take much to see that the 30-40 years after the Council were dreadful for both Nuns and for many religious orders of Monks. Some orders improved, many did not and closed down. Look at Nuns who were Sisters teaching in schools also.

There were some 50,000 odd seminarians as well, which also drastically decreased for many decades, before improving somewhat.

Roughly, without any Council at all, and allowing for other decreases over time, there may well have been over 150,000 Priests, some 400,000 Nuns, and perhaps 100,000 seminarians by now in the US if the Church had just continued as earlier. Are you sure this had nothing to do with Vatican II, the sixties and its aftermath? And if we have to go back to "western whatever", how do you explain 1900 to 1965?

Want another example? A nice Catholic country in Europe, perhaps? Let's take Catholic Ireland. We have statistics for 1958 https://lxoa.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/the-irish-catholic-church-in-1958-a-statistical-overview/

A. Priests and People in Ireland (Statistics from Irish Catholic Directory).

1. Total Catholic population of all Ireland: 3,257,400.

2. Total number of priests in Ireland (1956): 5,489.

3. Proportion of priests to people: 1 priest for every 593 Catholics ...

3. Departures (for the first time) of Irish priests to territories under Propaganda (Statistics from Pagan Missions):

                                 1935                  1950               1956
Total                          66                      185                   161

4. Total number of ordinations to the priesthood in Ireland during the year 1957 (Statistics from Irish Catholic Directory): 334.

5. Number of seminarians per 100,000 Catholics (Statistics from Herder Korrespondenz, May 1955):

Germany – 14

Holland – 18

Italy – 20

France – 22

U.S.A. – 26

Ireland – 75

Today, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/number-of-new-trainee-priests-at-maynooth-hits-record-low-1.3233625 "Just six men have begun training for the Catholic priesthood at St Patrick’s College Maynooth this autumn, believed to be the lowest number since its foundation in 1795."

So, then, to the Church in Catholic Ireland that was simply booming in 1958, why has this happened? It's clear that (as even Pope Benedict XVI admitted) that the Council did not produce the results that were expected. Archbishop Lefebvre prophetically saw in 1966 (without the benefit of hindsight we have in which we can compare like above) that things were going terribly wrong. In particular, these warnings have proved prescient,

The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:

Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations;
Doubts on the necessity for and nature of the “conversion” of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions;
Doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family;

Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce ... "This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church .. Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered."

https://fsspx.news/en/news/exchange-letters-between-cardinal-ottaviani-and-archbishop-lefebvre-1966-38507

As discussed elsewhere, given that there was a Council, this was what should have been done or reiterated, as Archbishop +Lefebvre and other traditional Fathers wanted (1) Canonize the Traditional Latin Mass, without change, as the only Mass of the Latin rite; (2) A dogmatic definition that Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces (3) A dogmatic definition of the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation (not leaving it open like now) (4) A dogmatic condemnation of Communism and anathematization of all its sympathizers (5) A dogmatic condemnation of the so-called "free love" movement that was beginning, as well as abortion, sodomy, contraception and the like; (6) A declaration of the Kingship of Christ and the Queenship of Mary and the obligation of all Catholic states to recognize it in their constitution (7) A Papal and Episcopal consecration of Russia to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart, as Mary requested, to obtain the defeat of Communism, the return of the Orthodox, and the Triumph of the Church, as She promised. This remains to be done.