F
floresco
Guest
This seems to be addressing a specific problem in a specific historical context. Our current pope recognizes groups within Catholicism. That is what should guide our words and actions.
- Status
F
floresco
Guest
Sirach2 cites a post from Thomas Casey that I found very interesting. It begins:
**My reason for keeping the name of the forum is because we want to welcome the Traditionalist Catholic. **
I would like to point out that people are not going to feel welcome if they are told that they are divisive whenever they call themselves “traditional Catholics” or “traditionalist Catholics”. While I have seen unpleasant or unacceptable tendencies among traditional Catholics, wanting to see ourselves as a legitimate movement within the Church is not one of them.
Rebuke us for things that deserve rebuke. Wanting a name and wanting a voice, those are not things that deserve rebuke.
**My reason for keeping the name of the forum is because we want to welcome the Traditionalist Catholic. **
I would like to point out that people are not going to feel welcome if they are told that they are divisive whenever they call themselves “traditional Catholics” or “traditionalist Catholics”. While I have seen unpleasant or unacceptable tendencies among traditional Catholics, wanting to see ourselves as a legitimate movement within the Church is not one of them.
Rebuke us for things that deserve rebuke. Wanting a name and wanting a voice, those are not things that deserve rebuke.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I believe OraLabora made a wise comment in post #4 that addresses these concerns, as well as embraces the thought of Mr. Casey.
If the OP’s idea, in requoting Mr. Casey’s words, is to restrict those who are not traditionalists from posting here, it is not going to be helpful in keeping the lines of communication open, and that includes sharing discussions with “other legitimate movements in the Church.” Mr. Casey set the tone in his desires to welcome the Traditionalist Catholic, but I doubt that he meant to restrict the forum to them alone.
He stated this more clearly a bit later in the link I provided.
As was observed, whenever Charismatics might desire to keep a thread all to themselves, there was a lot of controversy when others were found to be “butting in” where they weren’t welcome. It did not work. Hopefully, history will be instructive.
S
Sirach2
Guest
By way of illustration, a lovely lady in the CCR movement wanted to share her spirituality with like-minded people here in Spirituality. By the 8th post, the anti-CCR people entered for purposes – not of learning or sharing – but to disrupt and cast aspersions and negativity.
Oddly enough, when Ohana stood her ground and weeded out the antagonists, not even those who are interested in the CCR wanted to enter the discussion, as evident in Post #47, and by #55, the thread died for lack of interest.
What is that saying? That some people enter a thread only to debate, argue, and disrupt?
What can we learn? Does it work when we try to confine a thread only to those who embrace a particular spirituality?
I give much credit to Ohana who maintained her quiet witness without fighting back or taking the naysayers’ bait. Maybe that’s also a lesson. If traditionalists hope to end the terrible prejudices or biases against their form of worship, the witness of who they really are will some day bear fruit. I don’t see any other way.
Oddly enough, when Ohana stood her ground and weeded out the antagonists, not even those who are interested in the CCR wanted to enter the discussion, as evident in Post #47, and by #55, the thread died for lack of interest.
What is that saying? That some people enter a thread only to debate, argue, and disrupt?
What can we learn? Does it work when we try to confine a thread only to those who embrace a particular spirituality?
I give much credit to Ohana who maintained her quiet witness without fighting back or taking the naysayers’ bait. Maybe that’s also a lesson. If traditionalists hope to end the terrible prejudices or biases against their form of worship, the witness of who they really are will some day bear fruit. I don’t see any other way.
F
floresco
Guest
Allow me to restate the positions that I have been putting forward in this thread:
Those who are attached to the EF and are obedient to the Magisterium are a legitimate movement within the Catholic Church.
As such, it is useful for us to have an identifying name. It is not inherently divisive for a legitimate movement with the Church to have a name.
“Traditional Catholic” is a good name for us because it already is being used by Catholics who are attached to the EF.
Arguments about this terminology are sometimes used to interfere with those who are attached to the EF voicing their opinions.
Telling people who self-identify as “traditional (or traditionalist) Catholic” that they are being divisive by using this name is not conducive to these people feeling welcome on this sub-forum. That they should be welcome is one of its stated goals.
This forum can be shared by people who are attached to the EF and those attached to other traditions of the Church.
Those who are attached to the EF and are obedient to the Magisterium are a legitimate movement within the Catholic Church.
As such, it is useful for us to have an identifying name. It is not inherently divisive for a legitimate movement with the Church to have a name.
“Traditional Catholic” is a good name for us because it already is being used by Catholics who are attached to the EF.
Arguments about this terminology are sometimes used to interfere with those who are attached to the EF voicing their opinions.
Telling people who self-identify as “traditional (or traditionalist) Catholic” that they are being divisive by using this name is not conducive to these people feeling welcome on this sub-forum. That they should be welcome is one of its stated goals.
This forum can be shared by people who are attached to the EF and those attached to other traditions of the Church.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I don’t think there’s a problem with anyone understanding who “traditionalists” are whenever the identifier is used. If some are noticing divisiveness, well wouldn’t that be true in some instances? Haven’t we both seen that, not only here, but in other forums? In my last post, I proposed a way to overcome is not to feed the stereotype by one’s actions, but overcome it with steady witness borne of deep prayer and spirituality. Eventually, everyone will see that beautiful light. You are doing a very good job in dispelling a lot of the angst.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Thanks for pointing out Mr. Casey’s post. I think he made it quite clear that there are many “traditions” in the Church that can quite legitimately post to the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. He even mentions the one I am aligned with, Benedictine.
It happens that this is a 1500 year old religious order. Certainly it has its own (very ancient) traditions. One of which is a liturgy for the Divine Office that is 1500 years old and still licit today.
One of the “traditions” of this order is 100% faithfulness to the Holy Father, coupled with a tradition of obedience. You can see then why they immediately strove to reform their Divine Office after Vatican II, and adopt the new Mass, while staying true to their own liturgical traditions.
Among the things that this resulted in:
-Adaption of the Benedictine breviary to the new liturgical year, collects, etc.;
-Adaption and eventually re-issuing the Monastic Antiphonary to the new liturgical year and order of memorials, feasts and solemnities, so that the tradition of Gregorian chant would continue in the Divine Office;
-Issuing a new Graduale Romanum adapted to the new liturgical year and calendar so that the tradition of Gregorian chant could be continued in the Mass, as it says in Sacrosanctum Concilium that Gregorian chant should maintain pride of place in the new liturgy; obedient, and faithful to tradition simultaneously.
The Benedictine “tradition” in fact illustrates how it is possible to maintain continuity in tradition in spite of a substantial reform of the Mass and liturgy. Attend a Mass at our abbey, or at Solesmes or St. Wandrille in France, and it will be easy to see what I’m talking about. The Benedictines maintained ancient traditions while at the same time being faithful to Paul VI and his desire to reform the liturgical year.
In most monasteries the Mass is OF. But in the case of our abbey, it is part of a very orthodox and conservative branch of the order, it celebrates the OF (as does Solesmes, which BTW is charged by the Vatican with research and maintenance of Gregorian chant).
I would be mightily miffed if I and other Benedictines could not post in the Traditional Catholicism forum, and I think those who self-define as “traditionalist” by attachment to the EF Mass and “traditional” devotions only, would themselves also be impoverished as a result, and less well connected to Tradition (with a capital T) which has a place for many orders and charisms under the same broad tent.
Fortunately Mr. Casey explicitly mentioned Benedictine traditions (among others) that are not necessarily coupled to the EF, but are very much part of the fabric of Catholic Tradition. Narrowing the definition of “traditionalism” to those who are attached to the EF Mass is, IMHO, giving short shrift to the very deep and ancient traditions brought to us by the religious orders like the Benedictines (1500 y.o.) or Franciscans (800 y.o.), or Dominicans (also about 800 y.o.). Note that all of these pre-date the EF Mass and the Council of Trent by quite a margin. Just because they sought to obey and adapt to what is now known as the OF liturgy, does not make them any less “traditionalist”, because “tradition” and “Tradition” is and should be about more than just the Mass. Moreover these traditions have always cross-fertilized with the secular Church so that their charisms could thrive outside the cloister or convent walls. It would be a shame if a narrow definition of “traditionalism” prevented this from continuing.
F
floresco
Guest
Unfortunately Sirach2 also suggested that I am trying to restrict this sub-forum to only those attached to the EF. This is not true. I have explicitly stated otherwise. Personally, I have appreciated seeing the discussions here concerning various monastic traditions.
I wish to point out that these traditions have names and I rarely see anyone accused of being divisive when he or she uses that name. I would like to have a name that I can use to refer to the tradition to which I am attached. I would like to use this name without being accused of divisiveness. I think that this is a rightful aspiration.
O
OraLabora
Guest
They have names but they also have well-defined parameters, that are in fact defined by Canon Law, which defines who can identify themselves as belonging to that tradition. Only a fully professed Benedictine monk or nun can add the initials OSB after his or her name (or OCSO for Trappists, etc.). Even as an oblate, even though I don’t have any canonical status, to rightfully call myself oblate I have had to sign a charter and make a promise in front of the abbot and the community. Once in the year of formation as an oblate I mentioned the term “oblate novice” to my oblate master and he said “please don’t use that term because novice and novitiate have canonical meaning whereas the oblate formation program does not”.
That’s clearly leaps and bounds away from saying "I am a Traditionalist Catholic because “”.
Note that I am not saying that all persons labeling themselves as “traditionalist Catholics” are divisive and am certainly not accusing you of that. However, enough are to make the term problematic on many levels, and many in fact liberally throw the term “modernist” around on this forum (one poster in particular whom I shall not name) with abandon, probably not realizing that in many cases he’s simply accusing people who like modern liturgy or church architecture or whatever, of being material heretics. Such people are certainly saying that there’s a correct Church, and an incorrect Church, and thank God they are in the one they perceive to be “correct”.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Dear Floresco,
I’m still trying to discern your meaning. I did not suggest that you are trying to restrict the sub-forum, so if you would read my post again, I used the word “IF” and added that “if” that is true, it would not be helpful.
However, OTOH, you have alleged in at least three posts in this thread that you would appreciate the use of an identifier without being accused of divisiveness. WHO is calling you or any other traditionalists “divisive?” I haven’t seen a lot of this type of name-calling, but I say, if the shoe fits … change the stereotype, by your meekness and christian witness. It will be a difficult obstacle to overcome, just as those who are charismatics face all the time. Do not react to overt criticisms of this type, should they appear – and they most certainly will, because the internet is rampant with people who are not very kind.
The pendulum swings both ways in this forum. I have seen traditionalists lambast non EF worshippers as modernists who haven’t the slightest notion of true worship. I could easily rewrite your thread from that standpoint, but it would accomplish little.
We really need to love and respect the form of worship that Almighty God has called us to, without using any labels whatsoever. The tiniest violet in the field is just as perfect in its identity as the mighty sunflower - neither are dismissed by God as unimportant, since they each fill their own role of beauty. Can all of us learn to live in mutual acceptance, I ask?
F
floresco
Guest
I missed addressing this point when I responded earlier. I would like a narrow definition of “traditional Catholic” so that it corresponds to the people for whom the PCED was created, those attached to the EF. This is a group that needs a name. I am not saying that this sub-forum should have such a narrow definition. I willingly accept the direction in which Thomas Casey has led the sub-forum.
F
floresco
Guest
I admit that some people who call themselves traditional Catholics have been divisive. I have probably done so myself. For any acts or words of mine that have harmed the Church by divisiveness, I am very sorry.
But it isn`t the name “traditional Catholic” that caused the division. It has been sinful people like me.
But it isn`t the name “traditional Catholic” that caused the division. It has been sinful people like me.
M
moon1234
Guest
You will never “win” an discussion on the definition of what a “traditional” Catholic is supposed to encompass. If you are attached the EF and wish to discuss the benefits that you receive or are available from it along with the disciplinary customs that were the norm before VII, then it is best to associate with a society or institute that is dedicated to these areas.
The FSSP, ICRSS, Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, SJCP, etc. all are dedicated to the EF to differing degrees. The FSSP and ICRSS are EF only, the do not say the NO Mass. They are in 100% communion with Rome. If you feel called to the EF only and would prefer to avoid the NO for your own personal reasons, then it is best to join discussions geared towards these societies.
What term you use to describe yourself will just cause problems when you try to compare yourself to other Catholics. It is best to just call yourself a Catholic with a charism for the EF and the disciplinary practices that existed before VII. Everyone that knows a little about Church history will know where you stand and you will avoid labeling yourself or making others feel like you are labeling them.
CAF has rules about how you can discuss certain topics. There are other forums that you can join where the rules are not so strict. If you feel the need to stray outside of what CAF considers tolerable, then do some reading/posting at other sites. CAF is attractive because of the size and breadth of the forums and the number of members, but that also means some topics cause unnecessary consternation.
The FSSP, ICRSS, Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, SJCP, etc. all are dedicated to the EF to differing degrees. The FSSP and ICRSS are EF only, the do not say the NO Mass. They are in 100% communion with Rome. If you feel called to the EF only and would prefer to avoid the NO for your own personal reasons, then it is best to join discussions geared towards these societies.
What term you use to describe yourself will just cause problems when you try to compare yourself to other Catholics. It is best to just call yourself a Catholic with a charism for the EF and the disciplinary practices that existed before VII. Everyone that knows a little about Church history will know where you stand and you will avoid labeling yourself or making others feel like you are labeling them.
CAF has rules about how you can discuss certain topics. There are other forums that you can join where the rules are not so strict. If you feel the need to stray outside of what CAF considers tolerable, then do some reading/posting at other sites. CAF is attractive because of the size and breadth of the forums and the number of members, but that also means some topics cause unnecessary consternation.
F
floresco
Guest
CAF does not have a rule that those who are attached to the EF may not call ourselves “traditional Catholics” or “traditionalist Catholics.” It has people who act like it`s a rule and go around rebuking people for doing it. The actual moderator, Thomas Casey, as was quoted earlier in the thread, has used such a label.
I am just fine with following the actual rules of CAF. There is no rule that says “no labelling.”
P
pnewton
Guest
What you are expressing is not the right to speak, but the right to post here? The staff sets the ground rules and the definitions. They have not chosen to have either a strict definition confined to the EF, or to limit discussion to only those who promote this form.
What you can do is start a group that is more narrowly defined, or a thread with those parameters. You can also attempt to form your own term and see if it catches. It need not be totally accurate, if it is catchy. Tridentine Catholics? Trent Catholic? TLM’er?
I would not worry about the accusation of being divisive. That is overblown. The Church is divided into several rites, numerous religious, a myriad of apostolates and movements, none of which has anything to do with our basic unity as Catholics. While language can be divisive, it is also useful to have such terms for ease of communication. Good luck and I am willing to jump on your bandwagon if you can get it out of the garage.
F
floresco
Guest
I am about to take a Lenten break from forums so I am not going to launch any campaigns to introduce a new word. I do not think that is what I really want anyhow. I just want those who are attached to the EF to be able to call ourselves traditional Catholics without getting rebuked for it. It is not against the rules of the forum and it is not against the teaching of the Church. People should not be told they are divisive just because they want to use a label for a group that they are part of.
I have seen traditional Catholics who are divisive. It is a bad thing and I am all for calling us on it. But be reasonable about it. We aren`t being divisive simply because we have named ourselves.
P
pnewton
Guest
Then have a blessed Lent and maybe we can re-visit this in a couple of months.
J
JReducation
Guest
If I may use an example of something that I saw on EWTN, I think that it may help.
Raymond Arroyo was interviewing someone whose name escapes me. He asked about the possibility of an American being elected to the papacy. The other person responded by saying that the College of Cardinals makes a distinction between American (USA) and American (from the Americas). The possibility of a pope from the USA is remote. The possibility of one from the Americas is plausible.
We in the USA never think of anyone else except ourselves as American. We never think of the other folks on the American continents. Ask anyone.
I believe this is the issue here with the term “Traditional Catholic.” I can be applied to those who are attached to the EF, but it can also be applied to those who are very orthodox Catholics and never set foot in a Tridentine Mass.
If we were to use the term Traditionalist, that seems more clear to me. For example, among clergy and religious, we speak about the Traditionalists, not the Traditional institutes. FSSP would be a Traditionalist institute. Observe the use of the upper case. It’s being used as a proper modifier, just as one would say American. Whereas traditional is not a proper modifier. It’s more global.
We often use the term traditional to refer to those things, practices and people who are part of a culture, in this case Catholicism. I see Traditionalist referring to a very specific group within Catholic tradition. I can’t compare Traditionalist to any other existing group, because this is very new. The movement doesn’t really have a counterpart. It’s very young.
It would be inappropriate to say that Traditionalist carries the same meaning as Benedictine. It does not. One can be both, Benedictine and Traditionalist. Therefore, they can’t be in the same subset, anymore than you can be Franciscan and Benedictine. It’s either F or B. Whereas one can be a traditional Catholic without being a Traditionalist.
A Traditionalist is always going to be traditional, but not the other way around. Just as an American is always going to be North American, but not the other way around.
Raymond Arroyo was interviewing someone whose name escapes me. He asked about the possibility of an American being elected to the papacy. The other person responded by saying that the College of Cardinals makes a distinction between American (USA) and American (from the Americas). The possibility of a pope from the USA is remote. The possibility of one from the Americas is plausible.
We in the USA never think of anyone else except ourselves as American. We never think of the other folks on the American continents. Ask anyone.
I believe this is the issue here with the term “Traditional Catholic.” I can be applied to those who are attached to the EF, but it can also be applied to those who are very orthodox Catholics and never set foot in a Tridentine Mass.
If we were to use the term Traditionalist, that seems more clear to me. For example, among clergy and religious, we speak about the Traditionalists, not the Traditional institutes. FSSP would be a Traditionalist institute. Observe the use of the upper case. It’s being used as a proper modifier, just as one would say American. Whereas traditional is not a proper modifier. It’s more global.
We often use the term traditional to refer to those things, practices and people who are part of a culture, in this case Catholicism. I see Traditionalist referring to a very specific group within Catholic tradition. I can’t compare Traditionalist to any other existing group, because this is very new. The movement doesn’t really have a counterpart. It’s very young.
It would be inappropriate to say that Traditionalist carries the same meaning as Benedictine. It does not. One can be both, Benedictine and Traditionalist. Therefore, they can’t be in the same subset, anymore than you can be Franciscan and Benedictine. It’s either F or B. Whereas one can be a traditional Catholic without being a Traditionalist.
A Traditionalist is always going to be traditional, but not the other way around. Just as an American is always going to be North American, but not the other way around.
J
jwinch2
Guest
There is a bit of an issue that I see in that you are equating a preference for a particular form of the liturgy with the various expressions of spirituality within the Church. For example, there are Benedictines who use the EF and those who use the OF. They practice the same spirituality regardless. The same could be said for Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.
I posted this thread for this very reason: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=750195
Some of the Traditions practiced by those attracted to Benedictine Spirituality or those monks, sisters, and nuns in the Order pre-date the Tridentine Rite of the Mass by a thousand years. Yet, per your standard, they are not “traditional” Catholics.
Its a tough situation to get my head around and I don’t see an easy answer on how to address it.
M
maryjk
Guest
The problem comes from redefining the word. You want “Traditional Catholic” to mean Catholics that attend the EF. But many people believe the words “Traditional Catholic” references people that adhere to traditional practices.
So essentially, you are co-opting a word.
- Status