or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Traditional Catholics...do you mostly agree or disagree with this ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Traditional Catholics...do you mostly agree or disagree with this ?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I was reading about the reinstatement of the four SSPX bishops and came across this quote:
Quote:
Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls
from Bishop Williamson
The whole letter is here.
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-...mber1-2001.htm
What do you think of this letter and the above quote? Is this a common view in Traditional Catholic circles?
post #2 of 27
Yikes. That is not at all the view of the Catholic Church. There have been some well publicized issues with the SSPX bishops that the Vatican has spoken out against. The Pope has been trying to heal this schism, but these bishops have not been part of the Church. I do trust it will be properly corrected. The Catholic Church has a long history of supporting, instituting and protecting university education -- even for women.
post #3 of 27
Are you asking this question of just people who go only to the Latin Mass? As in, "Traditional". I am (small "t") traditional and I think it sounds crazy. Most of the SSPX people I have met would agree with the quote.
post #4 of 27
Thread Starter 
I guess I didn't understand the difference. So, are small t traditional Catholics mainly faithful Catholics who just prefer the older mass, while "Traditional" Catholics are supporters of the SSPX?
post #5 of 27
Traditional (big T) Catholics, always attend Latin Mass and may or may not be SSPX. Only the SSPX people *I* know would agree with that statement you quoted.

(small t)traditional Catholics are like me, some go to the Latin Mass, but also find the NO acceptable. I go the NO, but am "traditional" in that I believe in *all* of the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church, am faithful to the Magesterium and the Pope.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peppermint View Post
(small t)traditional Catholics are like me, some go to the Latin Mass, but also find the NO acceptable. I go the NO, but am "traditional" in that I believe in *all* of the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church, am faithful to the Magesterium and the Pope.
And to further clarify, this is pretty much what the Traditional Catholics thread here means. I don't know of any SSPX on MDC and they would not be part of the Roman Catholic Church loyal to Rome/The Vatican. They are their own thing.
post #7 of 27
Thread Starter 
I thought, though, that the Pope was working to bring the SSPX back into the fold by his announcements regarding the four bishops. Do most small 't' traditionalist see this as a good thing, or do you feel that the views of SSPX and similar groups are too different to be considered the same faith as Catholicism?
post #8 of 27
I think it's a good thing to try and bring them back. I think we should always strive for unity. This is not meant to be insulting to anyone out there, but, my opinion is that there are wierdos everywhere, there are going to be places and people who don't believe in education for women and all kinds of other crazy things. At this point, a lot of those people have gravitated towards SSPX. I honestly don't know what they'll do if the SSPX clergy is part of the Catholic church again. They may just be wierd Catholics that I wouldn't associate with, or they may find somewhere else to go. I really have no idea. The Catholic Chuch is not about to adopt their stance or anything

I don't believe their actions were right, but I am sympathetic to the original disagreement that initiated the SSPX schism, so it would be nice to heal that wound, yk?
post #9 of 27
First, from what I understand, the SSPX bishops had their excommunications lifted, but that does not mean the group in its entirety is back in full communion with Rome. From what I understand, RC Catholics are still not able to fulfill their Mass obligation at a SSPX parish or have any Sacraments performed by their clergy and have them accepted by the Rome at this time. There are going to be more steps and concessions on their part to make that happen. I agree with the above posters, unity is a mission of the Church and I hope that the SSPX can be brought back into full communion with the Church. As for that particular Bishop, he seems pretty nutty to me based on other inflammatory and controversial comments that he has made in the last few weeks. His opinions are not representative of all SSPX followers and definitely not of the Roman Catholic Church.

I was also confused about Traditional and traditional Catholics. Trads with a capital T seem to dislike Vatican II changes (not necessarily the council but the implementation of it) and will try to only attend a Mass in the Latin or Extraordinary Form. For instance, Trad females will cover their hair at Mass, Trads only accept male altar servers, will not accept communion from anyone other than a priest (preferably kneeling and in their mouth), etc. The SSPX are a group of Trad Catholics in schism with Rome, and not because of their beliefs and practices but because their founder ordained four bishops without the permission of Rome (and was warned not to before he did it) a couple decades ago.

Then there are more orthodox Catholics, tradtionalists with a small "t" who seem to sympathize with Trads, though still accept VII changes. These Catholics accept full Church doctrine - support Rome's teachings on a male priesthood, are pro-life, do not use birth control, believe in celibacy for the priesthood, etc. I mention all these because they seem to be the current "hot-button" debated issues in the mainline Church at this time.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that you can be a traditional/Traditional Catholic, abide by Church teaching and still think that Bishop Williamson is wrong, wrong, wrong.
post #10 of 27
I have a relative who is SSPX.

1. He would definitely agree with the quote in OP's post
2. He would never join the Catholic Church, as he believes the Pope is the antichrist and all that "switcharoo" stuff (e.g. during Vatican II the real pope was killed and the antichrist took his place).

I would love to see unity and to bring more people back into the fold, but I honestly do not understand how this is even possible in terms of SSPX. Their beef is at the heart of our Faith: obedience.

It doesn't matter how Traditional the Mass is or what language is used, or if women wear pants. It matters that they have chosen not to follow and believe in the Pope and the teachings of the Church.

It's a fundamental discord that isn't going to be repaired by promoting the TLM.

A loose analogy would be if the Pope promoted NFP to bring all the birth control using Catholics back into full participation of their faith. Sure, some might hear this message and then learn more and be reunited. But for most, the basis for the difference is much, much larger than just a particular method.
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by xekomaya View Post
And to further clarify, this is pretty much what the Traditional Catholics thread here means. I don't know of any SSPX on MDC and they would not be part of the Roman Catholic Church loyal to Rome/The Vatican. They are their own thing.
Not to be too nit picky, but just wanted to clarify something. But those in the SSPX or who attend the masses of the SSPX do recognize the Pope and the head of the Catholic Church. Their masses are valid, but not licit, so you are aloud to go for your Sunday Obligation. Being part of the SSPX does not excommunicate you. There are groups who are totally outside of the Roman Catholic Church (as in not recognizing the Pope/Vatican), the SSPV comes to mind and I think it's CMRI (initials may be alittle off). There are other groups too. Those masses can not be used to fill your Sunday Obligation. I can find sources for this too, but may take a bit, as child is really, really wanting my attention right now! And it's about bed time

Julie
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
First, from what I understand, the SSPX bishops had their excommunications lifted, but that does not mean the group in its entirety is back in full communion with Rome. From what I understand, RC Catholics are still not able to fulfill their Mass obligation at a SSPX parish or have any Sacraments performed by their clergy and have them accepted by the Rome at this time.
A little clarifying. A Catholic can attend a SSPX mass for their Sunday Obligation. You are correct about the other sacraments, they can't not licitly be given by an SSPX priest. Again, I can get sources (tomorrow most likely) for this, just don't have them right now, and one handed typing.

Julie
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by claddaghmom View Post
I have a relative who is SSPX.

1. He would definitely agree with the quote in OP's post
2. He would never join the Catholic Church, as he believes the Pope is the antichrist and all that "switcharoo" stuff (e.g. during Vatican II the real pope was killed and the antichrist took his place).
Just addressing number 2. That would be called sedivacantism (I am sure I spelled that wrong). But it means 'vacant seat' as in the seat of Peter is vacant (or the Pope is not the Pope). This is not an 'official' teaching of the SSPX, as they do recognize the Pope as being the Pope. But some of people who belong to the SSPX/attend their masses, do adhere to this belief.

Julie (who really can't put off Paul any more, baby had no nap and is just at his wits end!)
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by simple life View Post
A little clarifying. A Catholic can attend a SSPX mass for their Sunday Obligation. You are correct about the other sacraments, they can't not licitly be given by an SSPX priest. Again, I can get sources (tomorrow most likely) for this, just don't have them right now, and one handed typing.

Julie
I guess I thought this was sort of a grey area, Catholics are strongly advised not to go to a SSPX parish for Mass, but if none other is available it is OK? Or something like that? I was reading over at Catholic Answers on their apologists forum and from what they are saying it doesn't seem like any participation with the SSPX is encouraged at this time, even with the excommunications of the bishops being lifted.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...ight=SSPX+Mass

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...ight=SSPX+Mass
post #15 of 27
Charbeau- That is my understanding as well, one can only go to Mass at an SSPX parish if they cannot reasonably get to a parish that is in Communion with Rome.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by simple life View Post
Just addressing number 2. That would be called sedivacantism (I am sure I spelled that wrong). But it means 'vacant seat' as in the seat of Peter is vacant (or the Pope is not the Pope). This is not an 'official' teaching of the SSPX, as they do recognize the Pope as being the Pope. But some of people who belong to the SSPX/attend their masses, do adhere to this belief.

Julie (who really can't put off Paul any more, baby had no nap and is just at his wits end!)
Yes, you are right! I notice there are a lot of degrees in the general SSPX community. (Which can probably be said for any belief group).
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by claddaghmom View Post
Yes, you are right! I notice there are a lot of degrees in the general SSPX community. (Which can probably be said for any belief group).
This is so true. Look at even Mothering, so many, many different views and degrees here! But yes, there is a HUGE variety in the SSPX, and in Catholics in general.

As for going to their Masses, I think you are right, it is not encouraged, but is allowed. I am often stuck in my own little Traditional Catholic world, and sometimes forget the larger view .

Julie
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
I guess I thought this was sort of a grey area, Catholics are strongly advised not to go to a SSPX parish for Mass, but if none other is available it is OK? Or something like that? I was reading over at Catholic Answers on their apologists forum and from what they are saying it doesn't seem like any participation with the SSPX is encouraged at this time, even with the excommunications of the bishops being lifted.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...ight=SSPX+Mass

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...ight=SSPX+Mass
This is all true. I don't think that someone can be told 'you can NOT go' because their masses are valid, just not licit (the two things needed for a Mass to be a Mass). The SSPX lacks jursidiction - or permission - to say Mass in whatever diosese they are in, which makes their Masses illicit, as well as the other Sacraments. But I know, or at least think I know, that it is not encouraged.

Julie
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peppermint
Traditional (big T) Catholics, always attend Latin Mass and may or may not be SSPX. (...) I go the NO, but am "traditional" in that I believe in *all* of the Dogma and Doctrine of the Church, am faithful to the Magesterium and the Pope.
Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I've never seen this particular distinction between "Traditional" and "traditional" Catholics anywhere but here on MDC. To be honest, I'm finding it quite strange and confusing. Please bear with me in my pregnancy-insomnia-fueled verbosity, as I feel the need to unburden myself on this matter.

Catholic tradition (with a small t) refers to everything that has been handed down to us (Latin root traditio) related to our faith. It's a term that covers an enormous range of beliefs, customs, and practices. These include mandatory and unchangeable beliefs -- such as the Bible and Catholic dogma -- as well as disciplines that are binding on the faithful but can be changed by Vatican decree, such as fast days and clerical celibacy. At the same time, our traditions also include practices that the Church strongly encourages, but doesn't mandate, e.g. Gregorian chant, the rosary, and the use of Latin in the liturgy; and many more things that are a matter of personal or local preference, e.g. devotion to approved apparitions, optional prayers, and specific feast dishes.

On the other hand, Tradition with a big T means something quite specific: Sacred Tradition. This is one of the two pillars of our faith, along with Sacred Scripture. All Catholics are obliged to follow this Tradition, as conveyed to us by the the living magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Church.

Given these meanings, the definitions mentioned above -- which I've seen used by several people on this forum -- seem, if anything, kind of backwards. After all, "big T" Tradition is shared by all Catholics who are faithful to the magisterium. At the same time, one of the defining features of self-described "traditional Catholics" has always been their concern for preserving and promoting the full range of "small t" traditions that have largely fallen by the wayside after Vatican II.

I happen to know many faithful, orthodox Catholics who have practically no affection for the Latin liturgy or traditional sacred music, haven't read much in the way of spiritual or theological works predating Fr. Groeschel and Scott Hahn (or papal documents predating John Paul II), and basically view their faith through a post-conciliar lens. I don't mean this as a put-down; I'm sure a lot of them are much holier than I am. But if they're now being labeled as traditional Catholics, it kind of takes the meaning out of the term. Of course, there's a need to come up with a shorthand for "Catholics faithful to the Pope and the magisterium." "Conservative Catholics" has too much of a political ring, and "orthodox Catholics" is just confusing. My favorite is "magisterial Catholics;" it's a bit awkward, but it gets the essential point across.


As for the OP's question, I do have some concerns about the way young people -- especially young women -- are railroaded into higher education. There needs to be a great deal of prayerful and thoughtful discernment as to how this will contribute to the fulfillment of each person's vocation. But I think college is a wonderful thing for some women. IMO, Bishop Williamson's blanket disapproval, and his belief that "ideas aren't for true girls," are just plain wrong, and kind of bizarre.

There's certainly traditional Catholic support for the opposing side of the issue. St. Thomas More, the great humanist and martyr of the 16th century, made sure that all his children, male and female, were given the same (first-rate) educational opportunities. In 1890, Pope Leo XIII is said to have to personally intervened so that Maria Montessori could become the first woman to attend medical school in Italy. St. Gianna Beretta Molla was also an Italian physician. And there were many Catholic women's colleges in the US before Vatican II, most of them started by religious orders.

BTW, Bishop Williamson has also frequently cautioned against watching "The Sound of Music," which he believes is a feminist manifesto that borders on pornography. I'm not sure why he has so many fans among SSPX members. I've never come across any traditionalists outside the Society who've thought highly of him. He's well spoken on some theological topics, but when it comes to pretty much anything else... um, no thanks.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingmom View Post
To be honest, I'm finding it quite strange and confusing. Please bear with me in my pregnancy-insomnia-fueled verbosity, as I feel the need to unburden myself on this matter.
Do you feel better now?

I appreciate your point in explaining all of that to the non-Catholics here, I am fairly confident that those of us using the terms the way we have been here (and fwiw- I have seen it on many websites) are just trying our best to explain who we are (we used to say orthodox with a small "o" but that ruffled feathers too). We do make a point to explain what we mean by it whenever asked, so I don't think we are leading anyone astray into incorrect definitions of Sacred Tradition vs. traditions in the the Church. There is a LONG MDC history of issues with the Catholic threads, and we sometimes try to separate ourselves out for the sake of peace.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Traditional Catholics...do you mostly agree or disagree with this ?