Phora Catholics: Traditional or Novus Ordo?

[Eisenhans]

Just curious as to the thoughts of contemporary Catholics and the role of traditionalism and the stretch of modernism in the Church.

Throughout my spiritual journeys, I have concluded that the modernism plaguing the Church has turned Her into another protestant sect and that the true Church still resides within the quiet and precious walls of her tradition. I'll elaborate more on this when I have the time.

[Eisenhans]

If you select "other," please elaborate.

This is taken from an Orthodox Christian pamphlet I have in my library, but I found it extremely relevant and applicable to Catholicism. The pamphlet is titled "Orthodox Tradition and Modernism" by Constantine Cavarnos, as translated by Patrick G. Barker, published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Copyright 1992.

From “What Sacred Tradition Is” P. 8-9

In order to understand what Sacred Tradition is, right from the beginning we must distinguish it from the various kinds of human traditions. Sacred tradition originates from God, it is a divine revelation, whereas human traditions originate from mankind, are products of the human mind. Christ Himself explicitly distinguishes these two kinds of tradition, the Divine and the human, when He disapproves of the Scribes and Pharisees, because they disregard the Divine Tradition, the Divine Teaching, while they observe human traditions, saying: “Ye leave the commandments of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8. And the Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes these two kinds of tradition when he advises the Colossians saying: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8; also when he says to the Thessalonians: “Now we command you, brethren…that ye keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that ye received from us.” 2. Thessalonians 3:6. From these passages, as also from others, the distinction between Sacred Tradition and human tradition is clear, as is the placing of Sacred Tradition on an incomparably higher level than human tradition. They put forward Sacred Tradition as a Divine and consequently sure guide to our life, while on the contrary, they demote human tradition. They proclaim that we should always observe Sacred Tradition, whereas we should break human tradition, which is composed of human teachings and customs, whenever it is opposed to Sacred Tradition. … It was given to men by God, whether directly, by the God-man, or indirectly, through the Prophets and the Apostles. The Incomparable superiority of Sacred Tradition is due to its revelatory character.

Also see:

“Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15

From “About Modernism” P. 15-16

…This demonstrates the ignorance which the heterodox [modernist, in this regard] customarily have about the true essence of Christianity, and shows to what degree they confuse the revealed faith with the different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the crafts and the sciences there is a continuous development and perfection, they think that the same thing ought to happen in the Christian religion, that here, too, should there be a continuous revision, change, and replacement of the old by the new – in a word, “modernization.” Look at Christianity rationalistically, they misunderstand its revelatory character and demote it to the level of the systems which the mind of man has formed on the basis of reason and the observations of the five senses.

…

If Strict perseverance in Tradition does not entail the deadening of the Church, but on the contrary is absolutely necessary for the preservation and fruitfulness of the life of the Church, as much again the disregard for and [B]even partial abandonment of Tradition entails the slackening of her life and her gradual decomposition.[/B]

…

Protestantism, having denied the unwritten Tradition, was quickly divided into different confessions, and they again into others, and so on, so that there exist today countless [25,000+] Protestant confessional groups, called “Churches,” a result of the different innovations and adaptations to each “contemporary spirit.”

Also worth reading is:

[CENTER][SIZE="4"][B]THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM[/B][/SIZE]

[I]Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.[/I]

[I][SIZE="2"]To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.[/SIZE][/I]

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .[/CENTER]

[Józef Piłsudski]

Roman Rite Traditionalist but I also like to go to Eastern rite liturgies with some room for a proper N.O.

Who in their right mind would agree to labelling themselves a modernist? I think you should redo the poll.

[Eisenhans]

I don't know what other term there would be for a modernist that would be better suited. I suppose I could dodge around the term and say "Culturally Aware 21st Century Tolerant Catholic." As far as I see it, it is what it is.

[Warka]

Poll is already flawed with nearly half the voters being non-Catholics.