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

[YoungTradCath]

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,

I’m not saying that it can’t work, I’m just saying that, if it were easy to do, it would have been done by now in a widespread fashion. Well, it hasn’t, which leads me to ask why not. I can’t wrap my head around it.

The OF as commonly celebrated is, in aura and feel, almost an antithesis to traditional practices. They just don’t work right together, unless the OF is celebrated in a manner in continuity with the past. This is because these practices grew up in the pre-Conciliar liturgical situation. It follows that, if you change the liturgy dramatically, everything else will change, even if only indirectly. So, in my opinion, the dropping off of traditional practices and devotions (and not really much good replacing them), while tragic, was only natural and should’ve been foreseen. But maybe hindsight is on my side. =/

 

[freshwind]

The OF as commonly celebrated is, in aura and feel, almost an antithesis to traditional practices. =/

i find it is almost generational…and I suppose that is a credit to the folks running the seminaries in this area currently.

As I mentioned earlier, the younger priests in this area are subtly making some changes…they are adding traditional practices to the OF, and they quite clearly state they have studied Ratzinger/Benedict theology.
They get it it seems, and they understand where the Holy Father is coming from…they listen and they learn…in turn they are able to set an example for us…and to teach us…and sometimes it is the little things.

I think this is the practical application of “tradition”, it should not pigeon hole us, nor stop the organic growth of the faith…life is a journey, and we will not get it perfectly right until we attend “The Supper of the Lamb” in the next life.

why, when I say that why do I see myself (God willing) arriving at The Supper and slapping my forehead and saying “now I get it”

 

[YoungTradCath]

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

That’s always a wonderful sign for bishops and politicians today.

 

[jwinch2]

I’m not saying that it can’t work, I’m just saying that, if it were easy to do, it would have been done by now in a widespread fashion. Well, it hasn’t, which leads me to ask why not. I can’t wrap my head around it.

We are drifting a bit here which I suppose is natural for any thread, but I will address part of your post by saying that I actually do believe it is easy to do. There are so many liturgical resources now to make this process easy that there is almost no excuse not to do it, with the exception of a lack of will.

 

[OraLabora]

We are drifting a bit here which I suppose is natural for any thread, but I will address part of your post by saying that I actually do believe it is easy to do. There are so many liturgical resources now to make this process easy that there is almost no excuse not to do it, with the exception of a lack of will.

Agreed. It is easy. I’ve seen it too often to think otherwise. It’s either laziness or an “agenda” that makes it seem otherwise.

 

[jwinch2]

Agreed. It is easy. I’ve seen it too often to think otherwise.

Same here. I wish it was more often, but I have certainly seen it often enough to know it can be done.

 

[MarkHilston25]

I don’t believe you are a non-traditional Catholic because you don’t prefer the EF. If that was true then that would mean someone who goes to the EF only but disregards the Rosary,Stations of the Cross,Abstaining from meat on Fridays,the 3 hour eucharistic fast and so on is still a traditional Catholic by most traditionalist views that I have come across.Yet he very well could be, depending on who’s opinion is. So my opinion is yes you can be traditional Catholic even though you prefer the Novus Ordo. Most so called traditionalists do attend the EF. Some exclusively. I attend both but I still consider myself a traditional Catholic.It is a matter of opinion and who you are asking. I don’t believe there is a church approved definition. What matters is not what mass you assist at, but you fidelity to the magisterium and acceptance of their teaching and direction and practicing what they say is necessary,such as confession, Sunday mass,etc… I wouldn’t worry so much about what title I am. What matters to me is I am a devout Catholic loyal to the magisterium.

 

[ProVobis]

Most so called traditionalists do attend the EF. Some exclusively. I attend both but I still consider myself a traditional Catholic.

By the same token, it’s not criminal not to be a traditional Catholic either. Or any form of a traditionalist, for that matter. What one calls himself is what one calls himself. If it expresses a certain philosophy or spirituality, I’d like to hear that; the label means nothing to me.

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t believe you are a non-traditional Catholic because you don’t prefer the EF. If that was true then that would mean someone who goes to the EF only but disregards the Rosary,Stations of the Cross,Abstaining from meat on Fridays,the 3 hour eucharistic fast and so on is still a traditional Catholic by most traditionalist views that I have come across.Yet he very well could be, depending on who’s opinion is. So my opinion is yes you can be traditional Catholic even though you prefer the Novus Ordo. Most so called traditionalists do attend the EF. Some exclusively. I attend both but I still consider myself a traditional Catholic.It is a matter of opinion and who you are asking. I don’t believe there is a church approved definition. What matters is not what mass you assist at, but you fidelity to the magisterium and acceptance of their teaching and direction and practicing what they say is necessary,such as confession, Sunday mass,etc… I wouldn’t worry so much about what title I am. What matters to me is I am a devout Catholic loyal to the magisterium.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time.

For purposes of clarification, I am not looking for a way to label myself, nor do I desire to be viewed in a specific way. This thread is about trying to understand the situation that exists vis-a-vie traditional, traditionalist, etc. Catholics.

Thanks again,

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

Oddly enough, my RCIA director from when my wife and I came into the Church just posted an article on her Facebook page regarding the difference between a “traditional” and conservative" Catholic. I have not given this article the level of thought needed to decide if I agree with what is in it or not. Also, please be warned that the author, while presenting his case well, does take the argument in the direction of our bishops towards the end of the article.

ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/jan/31/conservatism-and-traditionalism/
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski:

…Ever since I first heard someone explain the distinction, I have been repeatedly impressed by the real difference between conservative and traditional. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve the good at hand, which means maintaining the status quo while correcting notorious deviations. The conservative, however, has no principled motivation to return to and recover what has been lost, for he has no compelling reason to see it as more precious, more valuable, than what happens to exist right now. The lover of Tradition, on the other hand, has the mind of Saint Vincent of Lerin, author of the celebrated Commonitorium in defense of the stable content of the Faith. For Vincent, as for countless Fathers, Doctors, and Popes, Tradition as such is superior to novelty; novelty is to be distrusted, resisted with all one’s might. Therefore, wherever things traditional have been lost, the traditionalist strives to restore them, precisely to safeguard Tradition with a capital T, whereas the conservative contents himself with preserving what is at hand, even if it may be mediocre or tainted with modernism.

This is why conservatism, to the surprise of many, proves itself to be a slower, less self-conscious form of liberalism. Liberalism takes as its principle that change is inherently good, and thus, that faster change is even better―as long as the change is in any direction away from tradition. Conservatism has as its principle that it is better to hold on to what one has than to give it up without a fight, but it does not recognize that due to the prevailing liberalism, more and more of the good is being surrendered, undermined, and habitually ignored with each passing day, such that it will become more and more difficult to preserve it. Conservatism is liberalism in slow motion: what is preserved is preserved by force of will, not by the firmness of an unassailable principle. As the truth fades away and people grow accustomed to its loss, the conservative has no ground to stand on; he wrings his hands while he watches beautiful things get dismantled and sent away. In contrast, adherence to Tradition goes beyond mere conservation of the good at hand, for it demands the love and honorable defense of an inheritance that is received in its integrity and must not be squandered. And if part of this inheritance has been lost, the traditionalist knows it must be restored with unstinting effort and in the face of all opposition…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Oddly enough, my RCIA director from when my wife and I came into the Church just posted an article on her Facebook page regarding the difference between a “traditional” and conservative" Catholic. I have not given this article the level of thought needed to decide if I agree with what is in it or not. Also, please be warned that the author, while presenting his case well, does take the argument in the direction of our bishops towards the end of the article.

ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/jan/31/conservatism-and-traditionalism/

This is a wonderful little quote you have here. I do tend to have a suspicion towards “conservatism without traditionalism” because, I guess, I see it as basically ecclesiastical neocon-ism. “Conservatism,” as such, can’t really conserve anything. Bits will be chipped away continually and the “conservative” will say, “Well, at least we’ve still got ___.” Frankly I think that is a bit unrealistic because, eventually, you will have nothing. It is a very defeatist attitude.

I think the good niche of traditionalism is traditionalism without the acerbic hatefulness. Take the FSSP priests. They are very good, holy men, and are very charitable (in the genuine sense) and many of them have a good sense of humor. At the same time, they hold to the secular priests’ traditions and reject any innovation unless said innovation can prove itself to be good in itself and in relation to that which came before it; it has to not only be good, it has to complement those things which came before it.

 

[QuestingKnight]

Traditionalist Catholics know what they mean by traditionalism and the term “traditionalist Catholic”. Liberal/Progressive or mainstream Catholics know what traditionalist Catholics mean by these terms but they don’t like the implications.

So they argue with traditionalists over the meaning of words.

They are saying:* “Are you saying that I am not a tradtional Catholic because I like x, y or z novelty?”* (said novelty, which traditionalists can show to be injurious),

It’s really quite simple.

 

[OraLabora]

Traditionalist Catholics know what they mean by traditionalism and the term “traditionalist Catholic”. Liberal/Progressive or mainstream Catholics know what traditionalist Catholics mean by these terms but they don’t like the implications.

So they argue with traditionalists over the meaning of words.

They are saying:* “Are you saying that I am not a tradtional* Catholic because I like x, y or z novelty?” (said novelty, which traditionalists can show to be injurious),

It’s really quite simple.

This sounds unnecessarily confrontational. Perhaps I am reading it wrong. Perhaps it would help if you expanded on what you mean by “novelty”. ISTM that for some it can mean anything from illicit liturgical abuses to the post-Vatican II official liturgy of the Church.

 

[floresco]

Traditionalist Catholics know what they mean by traditionalism and the term “traditionalist Catholic”. Liberal/Progressive or mainstream Catholics know what traditionalist Catholics mean by these terms but they don’t like the implications.

So they argue with traditionalists over the meaning of words.

They are saying:* “Are you saying that I am not a tradtional* Catholic because I like x, y or z novelty?” (said novelty, which traditionalists can show to be injurious),

It’s really quite simple.

I agree with this to a large extent. There does seem to be a tendency to push the definition of the term “traditional Catholic” beyond anything useful. If anyone can call himself a traditional Catholic then the term means nothing.

I think that a good definition for the term “traditional Catholic” can be based on Church structure. Traditional Catholics are those Catholics who fall under the care of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. That is Catholics who are attached to traditional devotions and liturgy, especially the EF. It includes both those separated from Rome and those in full communion, now acknowledged to have just aspirations for the EF.

I do not think the term “non-traditional Catholic” should be used at all.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree with this to a large extent. There does seem to be a tendency to push the definition of the term “traditional Catholic” beyond anything useful. If anyone can call himself a traditional Catholic then the term means nothing.

I think that a good definition for the term “traditional Catholic” can be based on Church structure. Traditional Catholics are those Catholics who fall under the care of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. That is Catholics who are attached to traditional devotions and liturgy, especially the EF. It includes both those separated from Rome and those in full communion, now acknowledged to have just aspirations for the EF.

I do not think the term “non-traditional Catholic” should be used at all.

I think we should be striving for a Catholicism without labels. The Church needs more unity. not less, and labels work against that.

 

[floresco]

I think we should be striving for a Catholicism without labels. The Church needs more unity. not less, and labels work against that.

First and foremost, I am a Catholic. That is the most important part of my identity. However, under some circumstances, labels can be helpful.

 

[Esrb99]

I think we should be striving for a Catholicism without labels. The Church needs more unity. not less, and labels work against that.

Should we rid the title ‘charismatic Catholics’ then?

 

[floresco]

I think we should be striving for a Catholicism without labels. The Church needs more unity. not less, and labels work against that.

I already responded to this, but I thought of another point to make.

Recent popes have created and developed the Ecclesia Dei Commission because there is a distinct category of Catholics with common concerns and pastoral needs. They did not cause disunity by recognizing the distinctiveness of this group, so how do we create disunity by following their lead in acknowledging its existence? All the label does is identifies the existence of a sub-category of Catholics. We choose whether or not to use this category in terms of “us vs.them.” It is that choice that determines the impact on unity, not the existence of the label.

 

[Reuben_J]

Should we rid the title ‘charismatic Catholics’ then?

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.

 

[EphelDuath]

I think we should be striving for a Catholicism without labels. The Church needs more unity. not less, and labels work against that.

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.