Am I a traditionalist Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paxvobis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paxvobis

Guest
I took the quiz “What kind of a Catholic are you?” on BeliefNet and my result said I was a “Very Traditional Catholic.” I’m not sure though if I would qualify. So would you, traditionalist Catholics, consider me a traditionalist Catholic?

I love the Mass and am faithful to the magisterium of the Church;
I happily attend an OF Mass (I’ve never been to the EF although I’m planning to go when one comes to the Diocesan Cathedral in May. I’ve seen about three EF Masses on Youtube and they look amazing, and I’ve also studied and read the text of the EF Mass in an old prayer book my grandparents gave me), but receive communion kneeling and on the tongue (I don’t think receiving in the hand is illicit, but receiving kneeling and on the tongue always seemed more appropriate and reverent to me.);
I wish my parish had Incense and some Latin in the Mass, such as when they sing or say the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus, and the Angus Dei;
I fast three hours before communion;
I follow the pre-1983 Code of Cannon Law fasting/abstinence days, except Lenten weekdays and the Ember Days;
I go to confession about once every two months;
I spend a lot of time on Fisheaters (understanding that they’re wrong about the OF not being valid, but loving their series on traditions for certain feast days);
I never pray the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary (not out of spite, but because the Creed only mentions Christ’s birth and the Paschal mystery);
I read scripture daily (Douay-Confraternity Bible);
I don’t see a problem with applauding in the Church, or with the priest making the congregation feel welcome during the Mass (but I understand the concerns of those who do);
I used to love Michael Voris, but now I feel he doesn’t spend time talking about what the solution is to the crisis of faith in the Church. Fr. Robert Barron, on the other hand, does talk about these things and how we need to transmit the intelligent tradition of Catholicism to the next generation. (Sorry if this is a little off topic)

To reidorate my opening question, would I be considered a traditionalist Catholic or a conservative OF Catholic?
 
I got the same thing but I don’t see myself as that…

I think it was because

I attend daily Mass
Believe in the teachings of the church
See the Pope as the head of the church
See abortion as morally wrong
like the traditional hymns

But
I attend the OF…and like it that way
I think that we needed Vatican II although I think some people took too much license with it…but it’s correcting itself
take CITH and am fine with it…

But that still would make me a moderate traditionalist…according to the quiz…🤷
 
Paxvobis said:
To reidorate my opening question, would I be considered a traditionalist Catholic or a conservative OF Catholic?
Click to expand...
Haha you kinda have a mix of things going on. It’s good to hear that you have an EF liturgy starting up though - I’m sure you’ll understand why so many people still love it. And for the record, it’s a small minority of people at FE think the OF is invalid so…I’m not sure how much time you’re spending there!

Although you might want to reread Pope Benedict’s statement on applause in the liturgy 😉

“Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.”
 
Let’s see… Latin username! You’re Traditionalist! 😛
 
Paxvobis said:
I spend a lot of time on Fisheaters (understanding that they’re wrong about the OF not being valid, but loving their series on traditions for certain feast days);
Click to expand...
SV – pretty much the only people who say that the NO is always invalid or that the New Rite of Ordination is invalid – is a forbidden topic on Fisheaters and certainly not condoned by the mods or expressed on the website. I do not know where you got that idea.
 
Catholic means Universal: for everyone, and to comprehend the fullness as much as possible.

This fulness comes as composite of the old (tradition) and new.

We all had to work to find what is worthy from the past, and how to adapt our faith to the changing world.
 
Well, I have to wonder about this quiz, because it says that I am a very Traditional Catholic.😛
 
Paxvobis,
Your personal practices are highly commendable, but it does seem a little odd that you would ask people here whether you count as a traditional Catholic. With all due respect to this forum, “Traditional Catholicism” here doesn’t have the same meaning as that used by actual traditional Catholic message boards. Why? Because here, discussion is limited to the “EF vs. OF” and traditional prayers and devotions, all of which is fine. But the heart of traditional Catholicism lies with doctrine, and that’s where things go wrong around here. We’re not allowed to discuss whether Vatican II was actually a good council, nor can we respectfully criticize the post-conciliar Magisterium (Assisi, anyone?). No, we’re all supposed to believe that Vatican II was the greatest council in Church history, except that a few renegade bishops prevented it from being gloriously implemented as it should have been. We cannot discuss whether Vatican II introduced (non-infallible) novelties which contradict the pre-conciliar Magisterium. More specifically, there are the issues of religious liberty, Church and State, ecumenism, collegiality (how often do we hear that the Pope is a prisoner in the Vatican?), the inversion of the ends of marriage, the redefinition of the Church, etc.

The practical effects are that the Eastern Orthodox need not convert to be saved (contrary to EENS), the Church doesn’t pray for the Jews’ conversion on Good Friday, heretics and schismatics need not abjure their errors before receiving Holy Communion (contrary to the Holy Office), Protestants – without any qualifications – are members of Christ’s body by virtue of their baptism (what about faith and submission to the Roman Pontiff?), Catholics can worship with non-Catholics (i.e. indifferentism), all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy (condemned by Pius XI), people have a right to perform their false worship in public (condemned many times over), and a healthy laicism is now a good thing (contrary to Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI).

So, yeah, traditional Catholicism is much, much more than praying the Holy Rosary and attending the Mass of All Ages. I humbly suggest you invest in several pre-conciliar catechisms if you want to know and hold the Faith whole and inviolate. The junk that goes on today and which passes for “Catholicism” would have been condemned ten times over by Pope St. Pius X.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
I got the same thing but I don’t see myself as that…

I think it was because

I attend daily Mass
Believe in the teachings of the church
See the Pope as the head of the church
See abortion as morally wrong
like the traditional hymns

But
I attend the OF…and like it that way
I think that we needed Vatican II although I think some people took too much license with it…but it’s correcting itself
take CITH and am fine with it…

But that still would make me a moderate traditionalist…according to the quiz…🤷
Click to expand...
Isn’t this being just a Catholic? Should not all Catholics do/believe/espouse these things. There’s no need for the traditional prefix IMHO. But what does that make the wymynpriests, pro-choice, same sex marriage, anti-Magisterium(sp?) “camp”? Heretics? Antithetical small c Catholics?
 
SouthpawLink said:
Paxvobis,

So, yeah, traditional Catholicism is much, much more than praying the Holy Rosary and attending the Mass of All Ages. I humbly suggest you invest in several pre-conciliar catechisms if you want to know and hold the Faith whole and inviolate. The junk that goes on today and which passes for “Catholicism” would have been condemned ten times over by Pope St. Pius X.
Click to expand...
Your post is a tour de force, amice!
 
valoriuslobo said:
Isn’t this being just a Catholic? Should not all Catholics do/believe/espouse these things. There’s no need for the traditional prefix IMHO. But what does that make the wymynpriests, pro-choice, same sex marriage, anti-Magisterium(sp?) “camp”? Heretics? Antithetical small c Catholics?
Click to expand...
Well thats what I thought…just makes me solid Catholic…but the other would make you progressive or liberal Catholic…according to that quiz…no hidden agenda there:rolleyes:

I think as long as you respond that you are against women priests, married clergy, abortion, same sex marriage…and believe that the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ…it’s going to throw you in the traditional camp. If that’s the case then yes I’m a traditionalist because I’m not changing on any of those!
 
Forget the labels. You are a faithful Catholic. That is all you really need to identify yourself as.
 
SouthpawLink,

To me, it seems that you are saying that the Catholic Church is promulgating erroneous doctrine which does not fit with the doctrine promulgated before Vatican II. If the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ on Peter’s faith, protected by the Holy Ghost (which I believe it is) than it cannot due this due this by virtue of the fact that it is “the pillar and the ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:5) and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (St. Matthew 16:18)

So the only possibility is that you are in error by thinking pre-Vatican II doctrine and post-Vatican II doctrine are incompatible. Vatican II abrogated no pre-existing dogma, but pre-existing dogma should be read in light of Vatican II (just as sacred scripture should be read in light of sacred tradition and the Church fathers). When this does not happen, confusion results.
 
You can be a Traditional Catholic without being a traditional Catholic.

Traditional; holds true to Sacred Tradition.

traditional; prefers some of the older practices and customs of the Church.

Perhaps the quiz correctly identified you as a Traditional Catholic.
 
You sound pretty much like what used to (preconcillar) be called a “practical Catholic,” I think it loosely transcribes to a practicing Catholic, or a devout Catholic.
 
Paxvobis said:
To reidorate my opening question, would I be considered a traditionalist Catholic or a conservative OF Catholic?
Click to expand...
I’d say you are a mostly conservative Catholic with some traditionalist sympathies.
Paxvobis said:
Vatican II abrogated no pre-existing dogma, but pre-existing dogma should be read in light of Vatican II (just as sacred scripture should be read in light of sacred tradition and the Church fathers).
Click to expand...
I think SouthpawLink’s suggestion to invest in pre-conciliar catechisms is a good one, not motivated by a desire to find contradictions, but simply to know the truth more fully and to try to rise a little above the biases of our particular age. Vatican II documents can be read in the light of the long tradition that preceded them, as well as vice versa.
 
Paxvobis said:
SouthpawLink,

To me, it seems that you are saying that the Catholic Church is promulgating erroneous doctrine which does not fit with the doctrine promulgated before Vatican II. If the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ on Peter’s faith, protected by the Holy Ghost (which I believe it is) than it cannot due this due this by virtue of the fact that it is “the pillar and the ground of truth” (I Timothy 3:5) and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (St. Matthew 16:18)

So the only possibility is that you are in error by thinking pre-Vatican II doctrine and post-Vatican II doctrine are incompatible. Vatican II abrogated no pre-existing dogma, but pre-existing dogma should be read in light of Vatican II (just as sacred scripture should be read in light of sacred tradition and the Church fathers). When this does not happen, confusion results.
Click to expand...
Paxvobis,
Given that there are different levels of the Church’s Magisterium, not every statement nor even every theological thesis is infallible. Some are infallible (e.g., de fide), some are certain (theo. cert.), some are highly probable, and some are merely tolerated. Please see, for example: ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

See also: trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm and newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm

Regarding what I said about Vatican II, especially its practical effects, I can cite specific Magisterial documents to support what I alleged. In my humble opinion, the Church is going through a rough patch right now, but it’s not something she can’t recover from. It’s okay* for the Church to make non-infallible statements, statements which appear to – and in some cases, do – contradict previous teaching. This doesn’t destroy the Church nor make her defectable. Our personal responsibility is to hold the Faith whole and inviolate - that is, in part, what makes one a traditional Catholic.
  • Okay only in a restricted sense, but certainly not okay when considered from the perspective of the roles of our priests and bishops, one of which is to teach the flock (the other two are “to sanctify us” by means of the sacraments and to “rule us” by means of Canon Law and by both good pastoral advice and spiritual direction).
 
It was a quiz. I took it, and got “very traditional Catholic,” because of the same reasons the original poster cited. There were only four choices.

The funny thing is, I looked at the other choices, and one of them was identified as “Ignatian Exercises Catholic,” referring to a moderately progressive bent. That’s odd. I’ve been doing the Spiritual Exercises annually since I attended Fordham, and do the Examen twice a day. It’s really one of my favorite spiritual disciplines, next to frequent Mass and communion. And here’s the really weird thing, none of the questions even mentioned the Spiritual Exercises as an answer option!

I wonder how St. Ignatius of Loyola would feel about it if he knew he was linked in a media quiz with progressiveness? Hmm. The Exercises have been around for about five hundred years, and if you decide to read the book without having a bent toward interior prayer, I’m warning you: It’s about as dry as a car owner’s manual!

I think you can file the quiz results along with other types of media quizzes, like the ones women’s magazines have about your marriage, since I don’t think it really identified much of anything. Spirituality is too big to put into four neat little statistical boxes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top