www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How do you deal with Traditionalists?

I am trying to deal with some people who call themselves traditionalists. They reject Vatican II and the Catechism saying they are ambiguous and liberal.

My particular question is how to answer these folks when they declare that only the Roman Catholic church is the true church and that all others, Orthodox and Protestants are certainly doomed to hell.

Jason

Excuse us Orthodox and Catholic Traditionalist who dont want our faith deteriated and modernized to a form of liturgical Protestantism.

I my self am a Orthodox "traditionalist" what ever that is. Here is some good advice, learn why they are "traditionlist" before asking questions on how to deal with people who want to keep the original faith handed down by the Fathers.

In Christ
Nektarios

Nektarios

I am truly sorry that you have been offended. The information i am looking for is how to silence those who damn the Orthodox to hell because they are in schism.

I have 'traditionalists' friends who insist to me that ONLY Roman Catholics can be saved and if you accept Vatican II then you are also suspect for damnation.

I would have used a better term than traditionalist but that is the word they use to refer to themselves.

jason b

Dear Jason,

Part of being an Orthodox traditionalist includes reading the Church Fathers and trying to be obedient to the teachings Christ. You ask, How do you deal with traditionalist? Love them, as Christ loves us. Here are some good quotes from the fathers, whose words are written with love. I have about 30 thick volumes of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers to read and not to much time. Anyway, these quotes I found on Monachos.net

The man who has found love eats and drinks Christ every day and hour and so is made immortal. 'Whoever eats of this bread', He says, 'which I will give him, will never taste death.' Blessed is he who consumes the bread of love, which is Jesus! He who eats of love eats Christ, the God over all, as John bears witness, saying, 'God is love.'
�St Isaac of Syria

When Abba Antony thought about the depth of the judgments of God, he asked, 'Lord, how is it that some die when they are young, while others drag on to extreme old age? Why are there those who are poor and those who are rich? Why do wicked men prosper and why are the just in need?' He heard a voice answering him, 'Antony, keep your attention on yourself; these things are according to the judgment of God, and it is not to your advantage to know anything about them.'
�Saying of St Antony the Great

The heretics are proved to be disciples not of the Apostles, but of their own wicked notions. To this cause also are due the various opinions that exist among them, inasmuch as each one adopts error in whatever manner it presents itself to him. But the Church throughout all the world, having its origin firm from the Apostles, perseveres in one and the same opinion with regard to God and His Son.
�St Irenaeus of Lyons

Please note that St Irenaeus of Lyons uses the word Apostles and not Apostle, the exact time of his life is not real clear, somewhere around 120-190.

All who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; and all who repent [of schism] and come into the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may be living according to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, my brothers. If anyone follows a man who causes a schism, he 'does not inherit the Kingdom of God'. And any man who goes in for strange doctrine disassociates himself from the Passion.�St Ignatius of Antioch

Schisms are quite serious and can be healed through love in Christ and the return of those who are in schism to Holy Orthodoxy. The fullness of truth of the Orthodox faith is recognizable and can't be compromised and shouldn't be intellectually distorted.

I pray that God has mercy on us all.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Slava Isusu Christu!

Once upon a time a "traditionalist" was standard fare. In other words to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was to be a traditionalist: there was no other "type" of Christian except of course the heretic. Modern man in his arrogance has decided that a synthesis was needed in order not to be laughable to "progress." There were no gradations of Catholics or Orthodox Christians. Modern traditionalists are honest. On both sides of the Catholic and Orthodox spectrum they assert Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. How can one have integrity and deny the ancient canons they assert.

This is an issue of authority for those who have dug the deep wells of their traditions. Indeed, if we are to return to the "sources" as Vatican II mandated would it not truly be a return to the mindset of the earliest Christian community? This community of early Christians believed in *one* visible Ecclesia; there was no philosophical gradation of "Church" according to modern principles of ecumenism. Future generations will have to make a judgement on Vatican II. Since Tradition is the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church expressing the exemplar of the Heavenly Kingdom: this shall truly outlast any innovations in doctrine, polity, or praxis. That is the perspective of traditionalists: that avoiding all innovation and contraversy they stick whole-heartedly to the traditions "that have been handed down." Many ask everyday "which out of these thousands of churches is the *true* Church?" This is a pivotal question. The *true* Church is the Church that descended from the Apostles which has survived in a particular community, whether Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Armenia, Egypt et al. The politics and the pride of history mean nothing to Christ. When Rome and Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other: this was a matter of power and domination as was the misunderstanding between the Greeks and the Orientals over the Nature of Christ. We can critique Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus if the interpretation thereof is founded in politics and power. We cannot critique it if we want unity without true Faith and true Praxis. In other words: this Dogma must be looked at through the lense of the Spirit of Christ and not the sickness of history, and the selfishness and depravity of the historic human hierarchy that governed Christ's Church in time according to their passions and not His Passion.

So, I would not seek to know how to "handle" traditionalists, but rather to become what one is if one is a member of *the* Church: a traditionalist. Some have said there is a difference between one who follows Tradition and a traditionalist: this is a deceptive distinction. Many who claim to follow "Tradition" only seek to have Rite without Dogma. What is clear is that those who are traditionalists are at least honest about the Tradition: they take the WHOLE and not PARTS thereof. The issue is integrity. Compromise is the devils playground. Sound like a traditionalist? Amen.

In Christ and Mary,

Robert

But the documents of Vatican II and the Catechism are ambiguous. "Liberal" is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Anyways, I agree with what others have said already, especially Robert.

I would just ignore them.

Jason

Don't disparage all "Traditionalists" so easily.
I am a Roman "Traditionalist" who also considers
Vatican II to be ambiguous, liberal, and modernist.
What "Traditionalists" like me want is a return to
OUR Ancient Liturgical Traditions in the same way
that the Eastern Churches are being encouraged to
return to their Traditions. I wholeheartedly
support Eastern efforts towards such restoration,
and wish that we in the West could likewise restore
our Liturgy, rather than endure the "protestantized"
"Novus Ordo".

Pray for them.

I've met a broad spectrum of traditionalists.

I suspect the folks you are trying to come to grips with are the kind who have identified the twelve square inches of the universe that hold the Truth, have stuffed it into a box under lock and key, and everything outside that box is false (and probably evil.)

I repeat, pray for them. I think it would be really difficult to live with that level of stress and anxiety.

Sharon

Dear Sharon:

Why the condescension? Do you think that reducing traditional people to liturgical hicks and flat-earth types is a *honest* picture to portray (your post gives me visuals of this)? What kind/type/genre of Christian are you, may I ask? And where are you on the Traditional vs. Modernesque barometer? If you are not traditional than what are you? If you are not Orthodox then are you heterodox? Please, explain your construct regarding this matter.

Thanks.

In Our Lady of Mariapochs,

Robert Horvath

By their fruits you will know them. What is their true spirit? Do they sacrifice themselves for the poor, sick, suffering, do they rally to the defense of widows and orphans? Or do they sit in self-satisfied judgment on the rest of the world? I suspect we have some of both these general types in this "traditionalist" category. Let us listen to our Lord: By their fruits you will know them.

Slava Isusu Christu!

However, Truth is objective regardless of whether or not one has manifested the fruits of their Chrismation. Subjective religious experience is not a determiner of Orthodoxy, nor is it necessary to the Christian life, but is a gift of God's discretion. Good works are also not a determiner of those who hold the Sacredotal Tradition; many not of the Faith do good works. I think a better word for "traditionalist" is the common word for Eastern Christians: Orthodox. Words get bogged down with negative meanings. Let us hold to the One, Orthodox Faith of Jesus Christ and forget parties and factions.

In Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ!

Robert

Robert,

As I said, I've met all sorts of traditionalists.

By no means am I saying that all of them, or even most of them are fanatics. Some of 'em are well on their way toward heaven feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, loving neighbor, etc.

But I HAVE met folks who seem to match the description RomanRedneck gives - folks who believe that only in the Roman Catholic Church is any truth to be found, and only in the church prior to Vatican II. God simply isn't anywhere else, and unless you wear your mantilla just so, you are going to Hell. I repeat, pray for 'em.

Me, I'm a practicing Byzantine Catholic. Someday I hope to get it right. I love our traditions, but I don't deny the beauty, validity or grace present in Traditions not my own.


Sharon

those who prefer the 1960 (in other words, pre-Vatican II) Roman Liturgy should be and are permitted to have it - though I realize that some local authorities are reluctant to facilitate this.
Christ is Risen!
Incognitus

Actually what is allowed is the celebration of the Mass using the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

Most Traditionalists are nice people who happen to take their faith very seriously, but their is a small annoying percentage that believe they know who's in hell, and who will be going there.