Saturday, September 3, 2016

Don Nicola Bux: "The Church isn't Separated Between Traditionalists and Progressives, But..."



The Church is not split between traditionalists and progressives, but between Catholics and modernists.

Nicola Bux, a renowned liturgist of the Catholic Church, Consultor of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith and the Congregation of Saints. Under Pope Benedict XVI., he was also Consultor of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Pope. Pope Francis has replaced all Consultors of this office.

Image: Messa tridentina Perugia Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...

Don't forget to donate to katholisches through Paypal.

 AMDG

18 comments:

  1. I still like the designation of traditionalist which has taken on a fuller meaning for me on reading Fr Serafino Lanzetti's book on Vatican II. I found his account of the disputes around the drafting of Dei Verbum particularly relevant. There were those like Karl Rahner SJ who was so keen on oecumenism that he wanted to assert that all teaching could be found in the Bible i.e. a solo scriptura recipe to please Protestants and therefore Tradition and the Magisterium could be demoted if not ignored. A traditionalist is therefore someone who opposes that line. Rahner and others do not seem to have realised that Protestantism was already suffering from terminal sickness - a sickness that over-enthusiastic oecumenists have allowed to infect the Roman Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe the words of Don Nicola Bux, that the Church is not so much as Traditionalists vs Progressives as Catholics vs Modernists. It is true, it is we Catholics against the modernist heretics. But I also believe we must label ourselves Traditionalists in order for modernists to know who they are dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting. Labels matter and help us sort things out. Yesterday, after Confession, I had a moment of doubt. Thinking about our church and it's condition, I asked Jesus if we are after all, wrong. Did we get it wrong for 2000 years, and is this NewChurch a correction to the path He wants. I don't think so, and am going to proceed as part of the "underground church", but this mess makes things much more difficult. Our family just lost the local EF Mass, the priest must say Mass 30 more miles to the north. Maybe I'm just feeling the effects of that disappointment. Our spiritual food must now return to bread and water.
    Are we the Catholics. I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Kathleen. The "real" Church wasn't invented in the 1960's. Remove that doubt from your mind. God bless.

      Delete
  4. May I have the grace to remain a faithful Catholic all the days of my life, no matter the cost. Ave Maria!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems to me it all boils down to the same thing! Is there any other way to be a true Catholic other than a "traditionalist" one? Our Catholic Church is built on Sacred Scripture and TRADITION.
    And anyone shunning Tradition is a "Progressive", also known as a "Modernist". I can't really see any difference in these two types of heretics.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We also have a few Communists these days.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So is a "traditionalist" a person who only accepts the extraordinary form, and a "modernist" a person who, like Pope Emeritus, accepts both the ordinary and extraordinary forms.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with the distinction. The problem with "Traditionalist" is that many people, in the US certainly, get the theological and even liturgical matters confused with what they think is 1950s American Catholicism. Let us not forget that one of the things that gave us the Modernist (probably, referring to a an officially declared heresy as it does, it should be capitalized) heresy that blossomed and took over at Vatican II - was 1950s American Catholicism. Among the more conservative, there was the tendency to obsess on externals and propriety, while the liberals were busy extending their Modernist tentacles through seminaries and dioceses. Naturally, after Vatican II, all bets were off and Modernism simply took over.

    The impulses that gave rise to Vatican II were probably not all bad - there were some changes that did need to be made to the Latin Rite, but these things could have been done the way they were done over the centuries between Trent and VII - by the Vatican offices in charge of these matters. A full council wasn't necessary for that. One of the problems with John XXIII was that aside from being leftwing himself, he was not an enormously cultivated or scholarly man and possibly a little more learning would have dissuaded him. But even so, I doubt that he would have wanted it to turn out as it did.

    However, one thing we have to acknowledge is that Modernism was never entirely defeated or eliminated from the Church, oaths or no, and that there were many people who by then had filled the clergy with supporters, even those who didn't understand what they were supporting, and had very well-entrenched support among Catholic lay intellectuals. They simply saw their opportunity and grabbed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What needed changing in the Roman Rite?
      John 23rd was actually very intelligent and cultured.
      He liked to give the impression that he was an old simple country boy.

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth, I don't believe any changes were needed in the Latin Rite, nothing was broke so why did they have to fix it? The intention of John XXlll for the Council was the reform of the faithful because the faith had greatly weakened. After the first session he did not sign the final document and he tried to end the Council because he saw trouble ahead. It is recorded that his last words were to "End the Council". He was in fact a great historian on the Catholic Church and with that knowledge he was well able to see something was wrong. The Modernist have long claimed Pope John as their own but there are Traditionalists who are discovering who Pope John XXlll really was and he was no modernists but a hard line Traditionalist. He called for the Council for the reform of the people as there was already a great loss of faith. He wanted the faith of the people reformed, one can see his true intentions for the Council in the 9 schemas he and Cardinal Ottaviani wrote for the council. He lived to see the first session and wanted the Council ended immediately. 5 of the 9 schemas have been translated into English and one can find them on the Internet. When one reads them one can see a Council in direct continuation with the Council of Trent.

      Delete
    3. A good point to start is an article at Roratecaeli.blog titled "50 years on: "Good Pope John" was also "Traditional Pope John" June 03, 2013.

      Delete
  9. But Traditionalists are Catholic. Why do we have to apply an either/or dualism, why not both and?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because no man can serve two Masters. You either serve the Lord or you serve man. Modernists serve man, you can see the destruction from that all around.

      Delete
    2. Given the state of catechetics today, a lot of people are sincere Catholics yet not aware of the Catechism an the EF. In a way, it is like Protestantism, where people want to serve the Lord, they know something is missing, but they can't tell what. Try evangelizing through one of the Marian organizations. And it is hard.

      Delete
    3. Dispense with objective reality, and you're always caught between arbitrary dichotomies. Hegel devised the dialectic as a mental Chinese finger trap -- a perfect tool of social engineers. The modernist is perpetually caught in a maze of theses and antitheses. Only the Truth of the Catholic Faith can set you free.

      Delete
  10. " The Church is not split between traditionalists and progressives, but between Catholics and modernists."

    While it may appear as if The Church is split, it is due to those who are anti Christ; there is no division in The Body of Christ. One cannot be for Christ if one opposes The Word of God.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...