M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
You completely missed my point. Please read my entire post again.
- Status
F
francisbruno
Guest
\Dear Claire,
If any questions arise pls go through Holy Bible and be with THE church Canon Laws you will have a solutions. Vatican II is a according to the changes of new world. Pls read Vatican II You will have all queris to be answered.
Francis Bruno+:newidea::newidea: I am an ordinery and simple in the Church.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I think what’s going on here is propaganda. A traditonal Catholic knows what a traditional Catholic is. A liberal Catholic thinks they know what a traditional Catholic is, doesn’t like the implications and then tries to debate the meaning of the word ‘traditional’. Kind of like what’s been happening for the past 40 years: debates about the meaning of words while we lose sight of Who our religion is directed towards and the proper worship owed Him.
Like, they’re using the Last, (sorry), Lord’s Supper to justify stripping the Mass? Really?
Meanwhile, tradition-minded Catholics are rediscovering the treasures of the Church and dusting them off.
Like, they’re using the Last, (sorry), Lord’s Supper to justify stripping the Mass? Really?
Meanwhile, tradition-minded Catholics are rediscovering the treasures of the Church and dusting them off.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
You specifically said “The people who adhere to that specific mentality attend the Traditional Latin Mass”. I presented a scenario where one could be a traditionalist Catholic without attending a Traditional Latin Mass.
Actually, anyone can fit any of the criteria that’s listed in the definition you provided. But I suppose they wouldn’t be a traditionalist because they’re Byzantine, Anglican Use parish, or any of the other Rites within the Church.
The definition that was posted is one from someone who has a bit of a bias in several respects. “they ask you to finish the sentence when you say “John Paul the Great”… the great what?” implies that anyone who thinks Blessed John Paul II is worthy to have the title of “Great” isn’t a traditionalist, which is categorically incorrect and almost seems like a backhanded insult. Not being able to call oneself a traditionalist because you acknowledge some good came out of Vatican is also incorrect. Saying something like “They’ll tell you at length why being “charitable” isn’t always being nice and friendly” seems like an excuse to not be charitable, which is something I’ve seen around here.
“The men have an opinion on the best type of pipe tobacco for any occasion” and “they invite priests over to play cards and smoke cigars”. I have a blood vessel disorder, so I guess this rules me out completely right there as I obviously can’t smoke.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I always say I’m a Latin Mass Catholic, and that eliminates any possibility of a misunderstanding.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
With the exception that both Forms can be said using Latin
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
But they aren’t.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
For goodness sake, am I not explaining it clear enough or something? If you are so offended by the definition of ‘traditionalist’, then why do you inquire further?
I said “The people who adhere to that specific mentality attend the Traditional Latin Mass”, because the mentality can only apply to Latin Rite Catholics. “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.” The liturgies of the Eastern Rites were not changed through Vatican II.
-http://www.fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html
You say that the source of the definition was ‘biased’. Well of course it is biased! It is a rough definition of a traditionalist Catholic by a traditionalist Catholic.
That is correct. Again, let me tell you that ‘traditionalist’ is a mentality, not just a Catholic who is traditional.
The traditionalists define themselves, you and I don’t. There probably are some traditionalists who think that there was some good that came out of Vatican II.
This really is irrelevant.
It is a rough definition, as it implies on the website: “It’s complicated. Trads are not easily defined. You just kind of know them when you see them.”.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
Let me just clarify myself on one point:
I answered earlier:
There are certainly traditionalists who think John Paul II was a great man.
I hope I am making sense.
God Bless.
I answered earlier:
There are a few definitions of a traditionalist, all from particular groups, e.g. The SSPX and the FSSP. They are similar but have some differences. I used the definition from Fisheaters because it is one of the largest ‘hubs’ of traditionalist Catholics on the web. SSPX traditionalists may not call Blessed John Paul II the ‘great’, while traditionalists of the FSSP might think he deserves the title. There are some differences between the various groups of traditionalists and the Fisheaters definition would probably be a compromise between them.
There are certainly traditionalists who think John Paul II was a great man.
I hope I am making sense.
God Bless.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I would say it makes you a traditional Catholic.
I think what needs to be remembered is that not every traditionalist identifies with that Fish Eaters list, but if you did a study of Catholics who regularly attend the traditional Latin mass, they will tend to identify with a lot of the list.
Why? Birds of a feather flock together.
If you are more open-minded about Vatican II and the OF mass, you may not be as comfortable within a trad parish. You may get tired of those judgmental, stoic (as I’ve heard described) TLM’ers.
Labels can be confusing. I have heard “Orthodox” used to refer to someone as yourself.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
To me, it goes to show how people (not you specifically, of course
) rely on signs and practices that to define things and others.I mean, they certainly are traditionalist type practices I listed above, aren’t they? I mean, those are some of the more ancient customs the Church has had. None of what I listed was made up, I legitimately engage on those practices and devotions, and encourage other Catholics to do so and discuss the merits of the actions. Most people would say the same thing you did; it makes me a traditional Catholic. By all appearances based on that, at the very least I’m a traditional Catholic, and some could say that outside of attending the Ordinary Form I could be a traditionalist. Definitely an orthodox one.
I’ve attended the FSSP parish in town a few times, great priests. For the most part, great laity too! A few hardline SSPX and SSPV types that I talked to, but I didn’t let that cloud my opinion of the parish. I recommend to several people I meet to visit there at least once.
So lets flip this around to another side; there’s something I’m about to post that once people are done reading this post, every post I make hereafter, will possibly be ignored or frowned upon:
I play a drum kit at Mass every week.
If I led off with the “I play drums at Mass” portion, several people here would write me off as a modernist or a liberal at best, a heretic and apostate at worse. They would say this without even bothering to look into the traditional practices and devotions that I do in my private life, and they wouldn’t seek my opinion on doctrinal and liturgical matters. They won’t see that I have no issues with the EF, that I like chant, plainsong, and silent Masses, and that I’m a fan of many traditionalist practices (as listed in a previous post). They won’t see my unquestioning fidelity to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church.
All people would see is “drums”, and that would close the book.
I’m in the minority in this section regarding music at Mass, which is why I don’t bring it up often. Not much of a point really, all what it will do is raise a firestorm for no good reason. But I bring it up in this thread because I’m mostly interested in seeing how many people will now lump me in with modernists and liberals, and cast me and my traditional devotions and practices off to the side simply due to a musical instrument I play during Mass.
That’s what I was getting at earlier with “how much of the criteria do you need to match?” And “what can invalidate you from being considered a traditionalist?” And if you deviate too much from traditionalist practices, are you less of a Catholic?
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
What I think confuses others is when people are offended at the definition of ‘traditionalist’, and then demand that the definition change to encompass them. It happens a lot on these forums. I think it all stems from the notion that ‘traditionalist’ is a rank you attain from practising your faith the most.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I think that plays a role with things. I also think it could be:
- Some people refer to themselves as a Traditionalist with the capital “T”, when they’re referring to practices and customs, not one of our two rules of faith. This is simply a grammatical thing though, and is more semantic.
- Some people act and speak as if Tradition and traditions are one and the same, and effectively claim that if you do not adopt traditional practices and customs then you are an inferior Catholic. These people either legitimately believe this, or they come across that they do,
T
TrueLight
Guest
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’ve literally have had people go from sending me PM’s saying they like my posts/opinions to calling me a heretic leading people towards Hell after they found out about the drums thing. It doesn’t bother me anymore, but the first couple of times it was a little bit disconcerting.
Anyway, to the topic at hand, the more that I think about it a combination of Marty’s last post along with what I mentioned in my last one is probably the case. People either want to be identified as one so they protest the definition, the people that define themselves that way do a terrible job of representing what they stand for, or people come up with a definition that’s simply off base and inaccurate.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
I don’t know how many times I have to say this. Practising traditions of the Church and attending the Tridentine Liturgy does not make one a traditionalist. Being a traditionalist is a specific mentality, probably best described with that Fisheaters definition. It can be somewhat subjective, many traditionalists disagree with each other on various issues. We also need to understand the terms, because it just leads to confusion. You are using ‘traditional Catholic’ and ‘traditionalist’ interchange-ably. A ‘traditional Catholic’ can mean a ‘traditionalist’, but it can also be a label to explain a Catholic who follows and practices traditions of the Church.To me, it goes to show how people (not you specifically, of course
I mean, they certainly are traditionalist type practices I listed above, aren’t they? I mean, those are some of the more ancient customs the Church has had. None of what I listed was made up, I legitimately engage on those practices and devotions, and encourage other Catholics to do so and discuss the merits of the actions. Most people would say the same thing you did; it makes me a traditional Catholic. By all appearances based on that, at the very least I’m a traditional Catholic, and some could say that outside of attending the Ordinary Form I could be a traditionalist. Definitely an orthodox one.
This is nice, but a traditionalist will always prefer the Traditional Latin Mass over the Ordinary Form.
Traditionalists would absolutely frown at the idea of a drum kit at Mass. It is a mentality remember, simply practising traditions of the Church does not make one a traditionalist. Think of it like this: It’s like calling yourself North Korean while loving South Korea. The mentality is just not there.
Well, probably. That practice is a flat out contradiction to the views of a traditionalist, and no I’m not trying to be offensive or uncharitable.
Well, those practices are incompatible with the mentality and views of a traditionalist.
Well, my answer would be anything that contradicts something on the list would invalidate you from being a traditionalist for starters. You could lack something on the list, but not contradict it. For example, someone might not have Holy Water at home, but fits the rest of the criteria. They are still a traditionalist. Someone who fits a lot of the criteria but plays in a rock band at Mass however, is not a traditionalist because that act in itself contradicts the views/mentality of a traditionalist.
P
pnewton
Guest
But they are. The OF is said in Latin every week at my parish.
I think the whole labeling issue is taken way too far anyway. If you use labels to be exclusive, you are not be “catholic” in the literal sense of the word. If you use labels to paint with a broad brush, you are being prejudicial. Labels serve only as generally descriptive terms and are fluid, with the meaning changing with context and most people possessing beliefs and preferences within multiple categories. I believe a traditional Catholic can even enjoy a guitar Mass. Opinions contrary to this matter little more to me than rather you prefer ketchup or mayo on your burger (mustard being too Protestant for a real Catholic).
M
Melchior_1
Guest
The long Fisheaters one that does a terrible job of representing traditionalists? The whole definition comes across as hostile, confrontational, and filled with statements that could be insulting. Which is probably why people objected to the definition in the first place.
Even if the Ordinary Form is in Latin, the traditional language of the Church?
Regarding the drum kit business, I’m well aware of your responses, but you might be missing the point behind why I posted it. It was regarding how people build up notions and assumptions based off of definitions, and will often allow that to impact how they view others.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Awesome!
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
You find it hostile and confrontational? Well, that is the viewpoint of traditionalists. Simply join that forum and ask some of them. I’ve talked to them before and I disagree with many things they say. I think it explains traditionalists very well myself. I don’t understand what is bad about it.
Yes, even if the Ordinary Form is in Latin. Traditionalists commonly say that they would rather attend a Traditional Latin Mass in English than an Ordinary Form in Latin. If you want their opinion on the Novus Ordo, I suggest you go and ask some of them. Some of them simply dislike it or prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, while some others (Luckily a minority) will say the most horrible and degrading things about the Novus Ordo that will make you nauseous. Trust me, I’ve read some of it.
Yes, because that assumption is justified. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying you’re Socialist and disregard the lower class, or saying you’re Communist but support a free-market economy. They really cannot be reconciled together.
- Status