Am I a non-traditional Catholic because I do not prefer the EF of the Mass?

[ProVobis]

Unfortunately in this age the singular word “Catholic” is insufficient, since public enemies of the Church think that word applies to themselves when they preach sin and heresy.

Good point. But most of the polls I’ve seen break Catholics down into “churchgoing,” “non-churchgoing” or some variation thereof.

 

[EphelDuath]

Good point. But most of the polls I’ve seen break Catholics down into “churchgoing,” “non-churchgoing” or some variation thereof.

I’m sure there’s plenty of abortionists and pagans that are regular church-goers.

During the time of Pope St. Pius X, one could say he was a “Catholic of Oath”, referring to the Oath against Modernism. Perhaps something similar should be penned for today’s politicians and theologians.

 

[OraLabora]

I have not heard that title applied judicously on or by a Catholic with Charismatic spirtuality though I must admit there would be some who do. What they like to consider themselves would be like something ‘I am being renewed’. Probably most Catholics in the Charismatic Renewal would oppose to labels perhaps because it is hinting of division which they greatly oppose. The Holy Spirit is a spirit of unity and not of confusion, so rightly or wrongly, they are not keen with labelings and more towards single entity - Catholic. This I admit as generalizing quite a bit except that the title charismatic Catholics is not appropriate and upbuilding.

Thank you. There is too much “thank God I’m not like that poor wretch over there” when labeling one “liberal” or “traditionalist” or “modernist” or whatever, regardless of which side of the divide one is. Too much pride in one’s position.

Of course the Church has many charisms, but identification to a charism usually involves some sort of formal process of attachment such as profession or oblation.

It is of course not wrong to have an attachment to traditions and traditional devotions; I’m very much involved with the preservation of Gregorian chant for instance, but it’s wrong to disparage legitimate choices allowed. There is room replace hubris with humble obedience. It’s what most Benedictines did with the liturgy post-Vatican II. They accepted the new liturgy and then went about making exactly what Sacrosanctum Concilium intended, chant and all. And in our abbey, the result is simply stunningly beautiful.

Instead of trying to out-guess the Vatican, we could take a page from the Benedictines of the Solesmes congregation (and many others; also a couple of abbeys of the congregation do use the EF) and make the liturgy what the Vatican actually intended.

For other more devotional practices, such as Lenten fasts or Rosaries etc, one is free as an individual to take them up again without labels or disparaging other licit choices such as replacing the Friday fast with a penitential act.

 

[clem456]

I am asking this in all seriousness and I ask you to please read this in its entirety before responding.
.

Your story mirrors mine almost exactly.
I am going to ask what may be an annoying question, my apologies in advance.

Why are you concerned about this question?

**Am I a non-traditional Catholic **because I personally do not prefer the EF of the Mass or Mass in Latin?

I ask this not to dismiss your spirituality or worship preferences, but wondering why you are concerned with the particular label that may be applied to you, or why you want to claim a certain label. I also have a deep appreciation of Church Tradition and traditions. According to some I am “liberal” (mostly on CAF). Amazingly, others think I am waaay off the deep end, “right wing”. I really don’t care how I’m classified, worrying about this leads me to irritability, being uncharitable to others, and anxiety. I know who I am and who God wants me to be, and that’s who I’m going to be. The rest of it, I leave to those who have the competence to deal with it.
I like Mother Teresa’s saying " I do what I can, where I am, with what I have." Hard to accept.

As an aside, In our adult education programs, RCIA etc, we give people lots of resources. We will not steer them to this forum. Not because great information can’t be found, but because we feel it is bad for their spirituality, especially at the beginning stages. For instance, we don’t want a candidate that begins to appreciate Church Tradition to feel they must fit into a particular agenda, or to begin comparing particular agendas. That’s not the point of Catholicism. Or to feel that their journey is one of tastes, preferences, and labels. We simply want them to become unified to the Body of Christ. Wrangling over these issues on the internet has it’s place I guess, if and when we find expertise in these areas.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Among many people the term “traditional Catholic” has a specific meaning and using it with a different meaning would cause confusion. Most of the people whom I know who self-identify as traditional Catholics include the idea of attachment to the traditional form of the Mass, the EF. So, in your position, I would avoid calling myself a traditional Catholic unless I accompanied it with a clear explanation of just what I meant by it. Even then, I would expect some confusion.

On the other hand, the term “non-traditional Catholic” does not make much sense. It conveys to me the idea of a person who is opposed to tradition, which you clearly are not. From what I can tell,** better terms for you might be orthodox or faithful or practicing Catholic**.

Surely those are the best terms for all of us - the labels we should strive for. I see no reason to divide orthodox, faithful Catholics into sub categories unless it is to identify rite (Dominican, etc.) or *sui iuris *church.

 

[Rich_C]

Rich C.,

Thanks for sharing that thread and its perspectives. As is probably expected, I can agree with some of those positions but do not agree with others. However, it is very helpful to see how other people define things or view the issue. Thanks again.

Personally, I would be very interested to read your annotated commentary on that article, to hear your take on its subpoints. I was surprised that you’d disagree with much of it.

I think the article nails it on one point: it’s a worldview, not simply a “Mass preference.”

It’s a worldview (best explained by the article in posts #24 & #25, for latecomers) that finds itself more at home with the most lackluster low Mass in the EF than with the most beautiful OF Mass, if for no other reason (and people do have other reasons) than that it has been passed down from the saints, through our ancestors for almost 40 generations, as opposed from liturgists for 2 generations. It isn’t primarily about taste, its about venerating what has been received, and not just in the Mass but in how we approach God and everything else.

 

[jwinch2]

Your story mirrors mine almost exactly.
I am going to ask what may be an annoying question, my apologies in advance.

Why are you concerned about this question?

I ask this not to dismiss your spirituality or worship preferences, but wondering why you are concerned with the particular label that may be applied to you, or why you want to claim a certain label.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10305379&postcount=9
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10308758&postcount=36
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10310947&postcount=49

Peace of Christ,

 

[jwinch2]

Personally, I would be very interested to read your annotated commentary on that article, to hear your take on its subpoints. I was surprised that you’d disagree with much of it.

I know, I am hard to pin down sometimes, even for myself. I will see if can’t put together some sort of brief breakdown on the article you posted and get back to you so that I can properly explain my reasonings.

Peace,

 

[Aran_Houlihan]

Sounds like you are a traditionalist Catholic in every sense of word. You are faithful to the Holy See to the best of your ability and you have profound respect and preference for reverential traditions over novelties which can be problematic.

Preference for Latin or vernacular is irrelevant on this issue, if you ask me. Before Vatican II, Latin-rite churches were permitted to celebrate Holy Mass in Slavonic languages. And Latin is still the official language of the Church and liturgy, despite the “Novus Ordo” being permitted to be celebrated in the vernacular.

people have different spirituality. I like the traditional mass with the Gregorian Chant with incense

: In nomine Patris, + et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Introibo ad altare Dei. R: Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.

 

[Rich_C]

I know, I am hard to pin down sometimes, even for myself. I will see if can’t put together some sort of brief breakdown on the article you posted and get back to you so that I can properly explain my reasonings.

Peace,

I look forward to it. Forcing myself to think hard about other people’s opinions has freed me from holding so many illogical beliefs and helped me to know myself and feel more sure of my faith. It’s a valuable exercise. Feel free to make it a PM if you think it isn’t good food for public discussion.

 

[floresco]

Surely those are the best terms for all of us - the labels we should strive for. I see no reason to divide orthodox, faithful Catholics into sub categories unless it is to identify rite (Dominican, etc.) or *sui iuris *church.

Labels do not, in themselves, cause divisions. When I call myself a Franciscan, I am not claiming that I am better than or in opposition to non-Franciscans. When I call myself a laywoman, it is not dividing me from all the Catholics who are not laywomen. Labels are descriptive terms that can be used for good or for bad.

Partisan spirit is what causes divisions - this drive to turn every situation into us vs. them. It is partisan spirit that we must reject, not labels.

Catholics with an attachment for the EF are sub-category in the Church who will share many needs and concerns. Recognizing their existence as a group makes it possible to better serve and help them. This is exactly what the Pope has done with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Putting a label on this group merely makes it easier to talk about them. We, each one of us, choose whether we will let divisions form over the existence of this group. The existence of a label does not decide it.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Labels do not, in themselves, cause divisions. When I call myself a Franciscan, I am not claiming that I am better than or in opposition to non-Franciscans. When I call myself a laywoman, it is not dividing me from all the Catholics who are not laywomen. Labels are descriptive terms that can be used for good or for bad.

Partisan spirit is what causes divisions - this drive to turn every situation into us vs. them. It is partisan spirit that we must reject, not labels.

Catholics with an attachment for the EF are sub-category in the Church who will share many needs and concerns. Recognizing their existence as a group makes it possible to better serve and help them. This is exactly what the Pope has done with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Putting a label on this group merely makes it easier to talk about them. We, each one of us, choose whether we will let divisions form over the existence of this group. The existence of a label does not decide it.

But the label under discussion doesn’t say that someone belongs to an Ecclesia Dei community. And it has been used to divide and degenerate by those claiming the label and those who do not.

Saying you are a Franciscan laywoman is precise and descriptive. Saying you are a traditionalist Catholic is not precise and can be used to describe a broad range of affliliations.

 

[floresco]

But the label under discussion doesn’t say that someone belongs to an Ecclesia Dei community. And it has been used to divide and degenerate by those claiming the label and those who do not.

Saying you are a Franciscan laywoman is precise and descriptive. Saying you are a traditionalist Catholic is not precise and can be used to describe a broad range of affliliations.

The Ecclesia Dei Commision has responsibility for all people who are attached to the EF (those whom I would call “traditional Catholics”), not just those in E.D. communities. They are also responsible for trying to bring those who are not in full communion with Rome back into communion.

It is an important part of who I am that I am a Catholic with an attachment to traditional devotions and liturgy, especially the EF of the Mass. It would be very convenient to have one word that sums that up rather than typing it out each time. Many people have been using the term “traditional Catholic” to mean that for some time. I like to use it.

Just because I use the label does not mean that I set myself against others or that I denigrate them. I am fully aware that my fellow Catholics are precisely that, whatever form of Mass they attend or prefer. I have never denigrated anyone based on his preferences concerning form of Mass and I never intend to. Labels do not make us form divisions. Sin does. We can fight the sin of partisan spirit while using labels in a good way.

 

[OraLabora]

Labels do not, in themselves, cause divisions. When I call myself a Franciscan, I am not claiming that I am better than or in opposition to non-Franciscans. When I call myself a laywoman, it is not dividing me from all the Catholics who are not laywomen. Labels are descriptive terms that can be used for good or for bad.

Partisan spirit is what causes divisions - this drive to turn every situation into us vs. them. It is partisan spirit that we must reject, not labels.

Catholics with an attachment for the EF are sub-category in the Church who will share many needs and concerns. Recognizing their existence as a group makes it possible to better serve and help them. This is exactly what the Pope has done with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Putting a label on this group merely makes it easier to talk about them. We, each one of us, choose whether we will let divisions form over the existence of this group. The existence of a label does not decide it.

We have to distinguish between labels and recognized attributes. In the case of being a Franciscan (or in my case Benedictine), there is a formal process of attachment to what is a recognized charism, and Order, in the Church. A signed oblation charter submitted to the abbot, along with a promise made in front of the community made me an Oblate. No one can claim to be an Oblate without going through the process.

By the same token, a layman is a state of being in the Church. The Church has a formal definition of what a layperson is, or rather isn’t (not ordained and not professed religious).

The problem with the “traditionalist” label (or “liberal”, or “modernist”) or whatever is that it is usually one of self identification or worse, being applied to another to essentially say “thank God I am not like them”. Yes partisan spirit is at the root. But alas, the label is the weapon. Labeling stigmatizes folks, particularly like in the case of “traditionalist” where there is no clear Church-approved definition. Proof of that is that it goes beyond just a preference for the EF Mass. Some extend it to rejecting all or part of Vatican II, to outright dissent and disobedience (SSPX), to schism (sedevacantists, etc.). Summorum Pontificum doesn’t use the term “traditionalist” to identify those preferring the EF Mass.

We really should refrain from any label not formally recognized by the Church. Human nature is such that labeling, no matter how well-intended, can end up being misused to exclude others who test our comfort zones. This is not just in religious circles.

 

[clem456]

We have to distinguish between labels and recognized attributes. In the case of being a Franciscan (or in my case Benedictine), there is a formal process of attachment to what is a recognized charism, and Order, in the Church. A signed oblation charter submitted to the abbot, along with a promise made in front of the community made me an Oblate. No one can claim to be an Oblate without going through the process.

By the same token, a layman is a state of being in the Church. The Church has a formal definition of what a layperson is, or rather isn’t (not ordained and not professed religious).

The problem with the “traditionalist” label (or “liberal”, or “modernist”) or whatever is that it is usually one of self identification or worse, being applied to another to essentially say “thank God I am not like them”. Yes partisan spirit is at the root. But alas, the label is the weapon. Labeling stigmatizes folks, particularly like in the case of “traditionalist” where there is no clear Church-approved definition. Proof of that is that it goes beyond just a preference for the EF Mass. Some extend it to rejecting all or part of Vatican II, to outright dissent and disobedience (SSPX), to schism (sedevacantists, etc.). Summorum Pontificum doesn’t use the term “traditionalist” to identify those preferring the EF Mass.

We really should refrain from any label not formally recognized by the Church. Human nature is such that labeling, no matter how well-intended, can end up being misused to exclude others who test our comfort zones. This is not just in religious circles.

 

[floresco]

We have to distinguish between labels and recognized attributes. In the case of being a Franciscan (or in my case Benedictine), there is a formal process of attachment to what is a recognized charism, and Order, in the Church. A signed oblation charter submitted to the abbot, along with a promise made in front of the community made me an Oblate. No one can claim to be an Oblate without going through the process.

By the same token, a layman is a state of being in the Church. The Church has a formal definition of what a layperson is, or rather isn’t (not ordained and not professed religious).

The problem with the “traditionalist” label (or “liberal”, or “modernist”) or whatever is that it is usually one of self identification or worse, being applied to another to essentially say “thank God I am not like them”. Yes partisan spirit is at the root. But alas, the label is the weapon. Labeling stigmatizes folks, particularly like in the case of “traditionalist” where there is no clear Church-approved definition. Proof of that is that it goes beyond just a preference for the EF Mass. Some extend it to rejecting all or part of Vatican II, to outright dissent and disobedience (SSPX), to schism (sedevacantists, etc.). Summorum Pontificum doesn’t use the term “traditionalist” to identify those preferring the EF Mass.

We really should refrain from any label not formally recognized by the Church. Human nature is such that labeling, no matter how well-intended, can end up being misused to exclude others who test our comfort zones. This is not just in religious circles.

It is human nature to abuse good things so that they become bad. The solution is not to get rid of good things but to avoid the abuse. It is not impossible to avoid the negative potential of labels. Nothing forces us to use labels as weapons.

For some people being a traditional Catholic means putting one’s understanding of Tradition over the authority of the Magisterium. While this is an unacceptable position, it is not the label that makes it unacceptable.

While we do not see the Church using the term “traditional Catholic” in any documents, we do have a functional definition. As I have said, those people assigned to the care of the Ecclesia Dei Commision correspond to what many call “traditional Catholics”. Instead of trying to get rid of the label, we should direct our attention to partisan spirit, the true evil.

 

[Rich_C]

It is human nature to abuse good things so that they become bad. The solution is not to get rid of good things but to avoid the abuse. It is not impossible to avoid the negative potential of labels. Nothing forces us to use labels as weapons.

For some people being a traditional Catholic means putting one’s understanding of Tradition over the authority of the Magisterium. While this is an unacceptable position, it is not the label that makes it unacceptable.

While we do not see the Church using the term “traditional Catholic” in any documents, we do have a functional definition. As I have said, those people assigned to the care of the Ecclesia Dei Commision correspond to what many call “traditional Catholics”. Instead of trying to get rid of the label, we should direct our attention to partisan spirit, the true evil.

 

[jwinch2]

I look forward to it. Forcing myself to think hard about other people’s opinions has freed me from holding so many illogical beliefs and helped me to know myself and feel more sure of my faith. It’s a valuable exercise. Feel free to make it a PM if you think it isn’t good food for public discussion.

I’ll probably go with the PM route so as not to ruffle any feathers and also drag the thread off topic. As for the rest, I go through a similar process from time to time myself, this thread could probably be viewed in that light.

 

[clem456]

It is human nature to abuse good things so that they become bad. The solution is not to get rid of good things but to avoid the abuse. It is not impossible to avoid the negative potential of labels. Nothing forces us to use labels as weapons.

For some people being a traditional Catholic means putting one’s understanding of Tradition over the authority of the Magisterium. While this is an unacceptable position, it is not the label that makes it unacceptable.

While we do not see the Church using the term “traditional Catholic” in any documents, we do have a functional definition. As I have said, those people assigned to the care of the Ecclesia Dei Commision correspond to what many call “traditional Catholics”. Instead of trying to get rid of the label, we should direct our attention to partisan spirit, the true evil.

Labels and categories appeal to individualism. (Just to be clear, individualism, different from indiviuality, or individual human dignity, or uniqueness.) Individualism. The setting apart of one’s self from the body. Useful in politics, not so much in Catholicism.

 

[floresco]

Labels and categories appeal to individualism. (Just to be clear, individualism, different from indiviuality, or individual human dignity, or uniqueness.) Individualism. The setting apart of one’s self from the body. Useful in politics, not so much in Catholicism.

In this case, my wish to have the label “traditional Catholic” is the opposite of individualism. Rather than considering myself as a unique individual within the Church, I want to focus on characteristics that I share in common with many other Catholics and to identify myself with them.