Thursday, May 3, 2007

Like I needed a quiz?

It was still fun and some of the questions threw me. "The Catholic Church is cool!" What the???? Anyway, a H/T to The Roving Medievalist for this quiz. I wonder if there becomes a crminal factor in one's trad rating? Go take this!
(btw, the answer to the last question is YES I WILL. My prayer is that the Tridentine Rite and it's use more widespread will effect the NO in a way that builds the Church and brings people closer to Christ. I don't reject V2, only the "spirit" of V2. Amen!)


You scored as Traditional Catholic. You look at the great piety and holiness of the Church before the Second Vatican Council and the decay of belief and practice since then, and see that much of the decline is due to failed reforms based on the "Spirit of the Council". You regret the loss of vast numbers of Religious and Ordained clergy and the widely diverging celebrations of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, which often don't even seem to be Catholic anymore. You are helping to rebuild this past culture in one of the many new Traditional Latin Mass communities or attend Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. You seek refuge from the world of pornography, recreational drugs, violence, and materialism. You are an articulate, confident, committed, and intelligent Catholic.

But do you support legitimate reform of the Church, and are you willing to submit to the directives of the Second Vatican Council? Will you cooperate responsibly with others who are not part of the Traditional community?

http://saint-louis.blogspot.com - Rome of the West

Traditional Catholic

98%

Radical Catholic

71%

New Catholic

57%

Neo-Conservative Catholic

36%

Evangelical Catholic

17%

Liberal Catholic

0%

Lukewarm Catholic

0%

What is your style of American Catholicism?
created with QuizFarm.com

11 comments:

Alexander said...

Scored as Traditional.
As to it's question:

But do you support legitimate reform of the Church, and are you willing to submit to the directives of the Second Vatican Council?

VII needs its ambiguity and wishy-washy language cleared up before it can be considered not a failure in my book.
Legitimate reform involves proper organic development in the liturgy and clear precise language in council texts; not compromises and vagueness as a result of the majority of the commissions being controlled by liberals (according to Fr. Ratzinger).

John Paul II should be made a Saint!

There has been little talk about this in Traditionalists circles (non-rad-trad). Without hesitation I voted no. Athanaius Contra Mundum has a good section about this.

Ma Beck said...

No one can 'make John Paul II a Saint'.
He either is, or isn't.
You may argue against his formal canonization, but you don't have a thing to do with his being a Saint.
Semantics, perhaps, but I get so sick of hearing people argue "for" or "against" his being "made a Saint."
This is so - secular mediaish.

a thorn in the pew said...

mediaish. You made up a word. ALthough, that is what I love about blogging, words can be made up if one does not fit.

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

Your result is almost exactly mine!

Are you a long-lost cousin or something?

a thorn in the pew said...

My father's family was from England. Maybe, spooky. What the heck is a new Catholic anyway? Like "just born" Catholic? That's odd. I need a definition of that.

Alexander said...

No one can 'make John Paul II a Saint'.
He either is, or isn't.
You may argue against his formal canonization, but you don't have a thing to do with his being a Saint.
Semantics, perhaps, but I get so sick of hearing people argue "for" or "against" his being "made a Saint."
This is so - secular mediaish.


Yes, that is very much semantics and we all know the true context.
The man should not be canonized ever. Happy now?

Ma Beck said...

And if the Church officially canonizes him...
then what, Alexander?

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

Well...I suggest we submit and seriously consider, that IF he made some grievous mistakes by act and omission, that his very real suffering in his terminal years somehow was sufficient.

Ma Beck said...

SPVB,
An excellent point -
and it's going to be hard to get past that whole "Parkinson's nun" business.

Alexander said...

And if the Church officially canonizes him...
then what, Alexander?


Then I am left concluding that canonization is only infallible in so far as to declare that he is in heaven but not into the areas of his life where actions or teachings are erroneous or scandalous (not employing papal infallibly of course).

If he is forgiven of such actions then many including myself will have a very hard time trying to figure out why he did such scandalous actions and never recanted them publicly; not letting the faithful know what you did wrong and try to correct the problem still leaves the situations scandalous.

Well...I suggest we submit and seriously consider, that IF he made some grievous mistakes by act and omission, that his very real suffering in his terminal years somehow was sufficient.

Even though he did suffer a lot and that could have been some sort of expiation for the sins he still should not be canonized because said grievous mistakes were not publicly admitted and corrected.
Note that I am not saying he is not in heaven nor will he eventually be there, just all the scandalous actions, the deterioration of the Church and liturgy, and the ambiguous language he employed are enough to show that he should not be canonized.

A venerable life to imitate? In some areas yes, in others most certainly not. He is a mixed bag.

Read more about it here:

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/

Scroll down and almost near the bottom on the right side is some information as to why he should not be canonized.

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

Yes...you see that IS an issue. Public scandal, private repentence? The problem is, if he is cannonized, then I fear (and have from the beginning) that all his errors are going to be "cannonized" too.

I really do not understand the obsession. I DO hope he is in heaven...I just don't want to know about it.