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

[EphelDuath]

I wonder what Holy Mass celebrated in Esperanto would be like…

 

[ProVobis]

I wonder what Holy Mass celebrated in Esperanto would be like…

Patro nia
Patro nia, kiu estas en la ĉielo,
sankta estu Via nomo,
venu reĝeco Via,
estu volo Via,
kiel en la ĉielo, tiel ankaŭ sur la tero.
Panon nian ĉiutagan donu al ni hodiaŭ
kaj pardonu al ni ŝuldojn niajn
kiel ni ankaŭ pardonas al niaj ŝuldantoj;
ne konduku nin en tenton,
sed liberigu nin de la malvera,
ĉar Via estas la regado, la forto kaj la gloro eterne.

 

[GraceUnderFire]

I consider myself trad and do go to TLM sometimes, however, I prefer a reverent NO mass with chanting or other sacred music if possible. I’ve enjoyed some high reverent masses at the National Shrine in DC and try to visit every once in a while. I think it would be great to bring altar rails to the NO.

 

[Rich_C]

Best read on the subject I know, and actually a product of discussion here years ago:

I was on the Catholic Answers forum the other day doing some intellectual mortification when I came across the question of defining a “traditional Catholic”. The questioner writes:

Perhaps this has been covered somewhere else in this forum, but I couldn’t find anything that dircetly addressed it. What is the defintion of a “Traditonal Catholic”. Does this refer exclusively to practioners of a Latin Mass ,or does it encompass a set of values not believed to expressed in most of todays Catholic Churches?
It’s a very good question that is hard to answer. Broadly speaking, it’s a Catholic who goes to the Tridentine Latin Mass-- abbreviated here and elsewhere as the TLM. But it’s really more than that, it’s a cultural and theological point of view that goes hand-in-hand with the TLM but is not the same as a TLM-goer.

At this point, I’d like to make a note of capitalization: I refer here to traditional Catholics. It’s an adjective. Tradition with a “Capital-T” is the magesterial teaching of the Church and, though important, is not the subject of this post. If you use a Capital-T to write Traditional Catholics, you’ve created a whole new religion. Which does not apply to traditional Catholics. People who are are traditional Catholics are 100% Roman Catholics, just like any other Roman Catholics. These little things matter-- there’s a huge difference between being orthodox and Orthodox. Thankyouverymuch.

To that question, I gave a descriptive response that kind of skirted around the question:

A traditional Catholic is not a person who “prefers” the old Latin Mass. Neither are they people who simply passed Catechism class.

They are people who adhere to a type of spirituality that is largely lost in the 21st Century Catholic Church.

Truthfully, it’s easier to describe their outward signs than their character: the old Latin Mass is the biggest identifier… though there are certainly traditional Catholics who are marooned in Novus Ordoland; there are likewise non-traditional Catholics who go to the TLM.

Trads are people who listen to Catholic Radio… skeptically. They might have a blog. They can list their “top-five” favorite Ecumenical Councils… none of which will rhyme with “Attican Shoe”. Their friends think they’re fuddy-duddys. They’ve got Holy Water fonts in all the bedrooms and by the front door. They quote the Douay Rheims bible. They have an opinion on offering Mass in baroque vestments while in a gothic chapel. They’re tired of tinfoil hat jokes. They may not like Bishop Williamson, but concede that sometimes he’s right, and when he’s right, he’s really right. They can tell you about Assisi. When they’re at a Novus Ordo Mass, they’ve got their hands folded like a Catholic during the Our Father. The women have an extra mantilla in the van-- just in case. The men have an opinion on the best type of pipe tobacco for any occasion. The boys have their own cassock and surplice hanging in the closet. The girls know how to play Dies Irae on the organ. They wear a t-shirt while they go swimming so their brown scapular doesen’t float away. They’re willing to drive an hour to go to Mass… every Sunday. They know the confession times of at least 4 churches. They invite priests over to play cards and smoke cigars. They pray to saints that you think may not really exist. They ask you to finish the sentence when you say “John Paul the Great”… the great what? They might own a live chicken. When they’re at a Novus Ordo Mass, everyone watches them to figure out why they’re hitting themselves during the “Lamb of God”. They’re kneel after Mass to pray… and miss out on the fun gladhanding with Father by the parish gift shop. They scoff when they pass the Masonic Lodge. They cross themselves when they pass a Catholic church. They mutter something about the “poor souls” when they pass a cemetary. They mutter something about St. Michael when an ambulance passes them. Their girls’ first names are Mary. Their boys’ middle names are Mary. Cappa Magna doesn’t sound like a drink at Starbucks to them. They’ll tell you at length why being “charitable” isn’t always being nice and friendly.

It’s complicated. Trads are not easily defined. You just kind of know them when you see them.
I was trying to capture the asthetic of a stereotypical “trad” family-- kind of a conglomeration of a lot of trads that I know. But I didn’t feel like I really answered the question.

Others gave better and more concrete answers than I did. One of the more “usable” definitions offered was this one:

A traditional Catholic - in the post-conciliar sense - is a Catholic who wants the Mass, all sacraments and rites, and catechesis, restored to how they were before Vatican II.

It could entail more depending on the individual, but, generally speaking and in a nutshell, I’d say that’s it.
It’s a better definition. You could put that in a Catholic dictionary and it’d answer the question. But it still leaves something out. In my experience, traditional Catholics are not just restorationists-- it’s not like they are archeologists or re-enactors or something. Though my interest in traditional Catholicism was originally kind of an archeological one (as in: what did the Mass look like back then?), it kind of developed into a cultural interest and then a theological interest. I think it’s a pretty typical story for people of my generation who are discovering tradition 40 years after the changes of Vatican II.

 

[Rich_C]

part 2

The most complete answer came from a poster that uses the handle “Johndigger” (I don’t know if that’s his real name, or if he’s a latrine-builder. Wakka wakka wakka). He writes:

A traditional Catholic is someone that views the traditions of the Church not just as an optional extra to Catholicism but praciticing our faith and living our lives with the wisom passed on from our fathers in faith is a necessary and intrinsic part of Catholicism.

Of course, falling away from the infallible teachings of the Church is worse than falling away from the practices of the Church, but there is the idea that being a Catholic is not just about believing as the Church has believed but is also about worshipping God in the way the Church has passed down to us.

Tradition is a living thing that evoles, the way we practice our faith evolves but this evolution must take place with respect to what has gone before us and must build on it.
Yes!

Read it again:

There is the idea that being a Catholic is not just about believing as the Church has believed but is also about worshipping God in the way the Church has passed down to us.
That’s it. It’s a matter of responsibility-- we’re the guards of a certain tradition, a world-view, a philosophy and a culture that was given to us. In his blog “What Does the Prayer Really Say?”, the incomperable Fr. Z. has called this our Patrimony-- a kind of ancestral inheretance, a legacy given to each new generation to guard and hold.

That’s what a “traditional Catholic” does. It’s not just that they go to the TLM. It’s not just that they’ve got 8 children and a cargo van with a “I Love My German Shepherd” bumper sticker on the window. It’s that they see their part in this life as a piece of a long thread rather than something totally new and different.

Being trad is a world view. It’s about learning how to make your great-grandmother’s recipe for tomato sauce because the recipe is a family heirloom, the way of letting it simmer and how to stir it is something that has been practiced and honed over generations. It’s learning how to tell a old family story, learning how grandpa treated employees at the family store, how mom used to run the school bake sale, how the Irish learned to fight, why the Dutch actually “go Dutch” on their dates. They are family traditons. They are cultural traditions. It’s our patrimony, what has been handed down to us and what we will hand down to our kids. They are real heirlooms-- and in my opinion they are more valuable than any old pocketwatch or china plate will ever be.

Traditional Catholics think the same way about their relationship with the Almighty. They do things the way Catholics do things-- it’s not like they don’t do new things, it’s that new things don’t have value just because it’s new.

Another answerer excerpted his blog to give a long answer to the question of traditional Catholicism:

As I have pondered the difference between self-styled traditionalist Catholics and other orthodox Catholics I have concluded that the primary difference is in their respective attitude toward change. If one does any significant reading in the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Popes one consistently finds a truly conservative attitude. That is, one sees that the attitude of orthodox Catholics through the centuries has been to cling tenaciously to that which has been handed on, both in belief and observance. Change itself is looked upon with suspicion and change for the sake of change or even to “get with the times” is unthinkable. Now here I can sense anti-traditionalist apologists ready to pounce, so let me say up front that I don’t in the least deny that there has been lots of legitimate development in the Catholic Church over the centuries, both doctrinal and practical. The Catholic Church is a living organism, animated by the Holy Spirit, and she has certainly developed and changed over the centuries while retaining in its fullness the deposit of revelation handed on to her by our Lord Jesus. This I readily grant.

What I am talking about instead is one’s prevailing attitude toward change. The Fathers, Doctors, and Popes did not see themselves primarily as innovators, but as conservators. They saw the Faith and those practices by which it was expressed, passed on, and guarded as an inheritance to be passed on to the next generation intact and, indeed, inviolate. They were not anxious to update the Faith, or to change perennial and venerable practices. For the most part, they viewed change–whether doctrinal or practical–with grave suspicion. They knew both instinctively and often by hard experience that changes in religious matters–even if seemingly minor–frequently bring about considerable upheaval in the life of the Church. . . .

Put simply, a Catholic traditionalist wishes to believe as his fathers believed, to worship as his fathers worshipped, and to pass on this belief and worship intact to his children. He does not oppose legitimate and organic developments. But he sees what is perennial, venerable, and established as a treasury of godly and holy wisdom and he views attempts to change or “update” this treasury of belief and practice with guarded reserve, if not suspicion.
Yes! That’s it, that’s totally it!

My favorite line:

…the attitude of orthodox Catholics through the centuries has been to cling tenaciously to that which has been handed on, both in belief and observance.
We are the guards of the Faith. It’s a kind of conservatism that, contrary to what politicians and talk-radio pundits do, actually conserves something.

Patrimony. A philosophical, theological and cultural inheretance.

That’s tradition. Yes!

fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html

 

[YoungTradCath]

OP: I think the difficulty is that you are chasing something that is simply too difficult. You want things that have, up to this point, been very hard to reconcile and make work together.

I think it is simply easier logisitically and ecclesially right now to combine traditional devotions/whatever with the TLM. Not that it can’t be done with the OF, but it is just that much more difficult to do because you will have people heckling you that you are “making the English Mass less Vatican II-ish [ugh…]” and other such utter nonsense. It is just easier for the other traditional things to work within the framework and backbone of the TLM right now.

I personally don’t dislike the OF. I dislike the built-in optionitis, the fact that it is totally un-standardized even within the same locality. In the way that a charismatic priest can build a cult of personality around himself, I feel that the vast flavors in the celebration of the OF can build a “cult” of personality (perhaps “cult of celebration”?) around themselves. I see that as inherently bad. This isn’t some weird reckoning of mine, it’s observation. All the same, I believe this is not intrinsic to the Form itself and can be fixed.

 

[OraLabora]

I attend the ABE* Mass. What does that make me?

• Anything but English

I’m inclined to the same thing and I always attend the OF

I simply avoid Mass in English because French is my mother tongue, and I can recite all the prayers by hear in French. In English, I can’t even recite the Our Father by heart

I also can manage Latin quite well and can recite many prayers, including the Our Father, by heart. When I go to Mass at my abbey (most of the time), the Propers and Ordinary are in Gregorian chant (Latin & Greek), and the rest in French plainchant. When I go to the parish, I try to make it to a French Mass as I feel at home and at ease in French. When I do go to Mass in English on occasion, I feel like a fish out of water. Not to mention that Father’s English is very halting and listening to his homilies in English can be excruciatingly painful

 

[Melchior_1]

Not that it can’t be done with the OF, but it is just that much more difficult to do because you will have people heckling you that you are “making the English Mass less Vatican II-ish [ugh…]” and

I’ve been to several OF Masses, and I haven’t witnessed this at all. It’s quite easy to incorporate “traditionalist” practices in the OF, at least in my diocese.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve been to several OF Masses, and I haven’t witnessed this at all. It’s quite easy to incorporate “traditionalist” practices in the OF, at least in my diocese.

You mean like ad orientem and communion on the tongue only, for example? That’s what many assume you mean by “traditionalist” practices.

 

[Melchior_1]

You mean like ad orientem and communion on the tongue only, for example? That’s what many assume you mean by “traditionalist” practices.

Those are two examples, yes. There’s been a couple of parishes that have done A.O. and there wasn’t a fuss. At the Mass I go to 40%+ receive on the tongue, no one bats an eye.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’ve been to several OF Masses, and I haven’t witnessed this at all. It’s quite easy to incorporate “traditionalist” practices in the OF, at least in my diocese.

Yeah, message me with the name of that diocese and I’m packing my bags!

 

[Melchior_1]

Yeah, message me with the name of that diocese and I’m packing my bags!

We have some issues in these parts. Our seminarians go to another diocese’s school because, frankly, the one here isn’t orthodox. We have one or two “problem” parishes, which attract people with beliefs that fit outside of the Church. These parishes have Pontifical Right, so our Bishop can’t do much on his own to shut things down. There’s your “normal” parishes here, where you can do “traditonalist” practices. There’s others that actively encourage things.

Our Archbishop also does things like when he hears speakers that are coming into his diocese and they don’t sound acceptable, he personally investigates said problematic speakers, and cancels their engagements while refusing to give them faculties in the diocese.

The building the FSSP was in is falling apart, our Archbishop found a parish which was in a good location and had them take it over.

He belongs to a group who you may have heard of, so that would explain why I get annoyed when said group gets blasted. My shepherd is a good man, tends his flock very well.

The Companions of the Cross have their home base here. They’ve just taken over another two or three parishes in the last year, including one that had a scandal (they were basically sent to clean things up). Solid group of guys, I’ve known them and their Society since 2002. Knew their founder personally, a great man who will probably be investigated for Servant of God status eventually (at least). They did a A.O. chanted Mass last year, and encourage a lot of “traditionalist” practices.

It’s also the Nation’s Capital, so all of the political stuff makes it’s way here. There’s a lot of laypeople I would definitely call not practicing, or “cultural Catholics”. On the flip side, the young adult community here is vibrant and very, very open to life.

Over all, a lot of good in this diocese. I’m quite blessed. The Diocese of Hamilton, where my home town is, is also very, very good. Toronto ain’t that bad either, I’ve been told.

The reality is, in this day and age, things could always be worse.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

YoungTradCatch,

I understand where you are coming from on the combination of traditional practices with the OF of the Mass, but I disagree. I have seen it happen too many times to believe that it cannot or does not exist and work well. Its all too rare though, I’ll grant you that.

Peace of Christ,

 

[Lormar]

The reality is, in this day and age, things could always be worse.

That’s exactly what I tell myself all the time.

 

[floresco]

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.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

Thanks. Although I am not looking to self-identify or label myself but rather understand the perception of others when those terms are utilized, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

Peace of Christ,

 

[floresco]

Thanks. Although I am not looking to self-identify or label myself but rather understand the perception of others when those terms are utilized, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

I misunderstood. My own perception of the term “traditional Catholic” is that it includes the idea the person attends or would prefer to attend the EF. When I refer to myself that way, that is what I mean.

 

[jwinch2]

I misunderstood.

No worries at all. Thanks again,

Peace,

 

[freshwind]

The Diocese of Hamilton, where my home town is, is also very, very good.
The reality is, in this day and age, things could always be worse.

The two parishes I mentioned in my earlier post are in the Hammer (the Hammer is what Hamilton is referred to these days)

I think we have always been blessed with pretty solid Bishops…sure helps keep things in line.

 

[OraLabora]

The two parishes I mentioned in my earlier post are in the Hammer (the Hammer is what Hamilton is referred to these days)

I think we have always been blessed with pretty solid Bishops…sure helps keep things in line.

We here in Quebec have had to deal with very liberal clergy for quite some time. The neighbouring diocese has an new archbishop. While I don’t belong to that diocese, it borders on mine and the Gregorian schola I sing in, is based there. I’ve noticed he’s quietly trying to bring things around. An example, at Advent and Lent, he has asked our schola to publicly chant Vespers in Gregorian chant at the cathedral, followed by a Sunday evening Mass. We did so for Advent. Prior to opening the Office he underlined the importance of this public prayer of the Church. It was a success, and we’re thrilled he asked us back for Lent.

Quebec City of course had Cardinal Ouellet for a while until he was called back to Rome. The media hated him which means he must have been doing something right