Can someone explain traditionalism to me?

[Sir_Alec]

Frankly, these arguments by traditionalists railing against the changes in the liturgy pale in comparison. If traditionalists invested 1/10th of their energy directed at changing the liturgy to eradicating poverty, the Church would be all the better.

How do you know that many Traditionalist Catholics don’t direct their energy to helping the poor, feeding the hungry, helping with pro life work, etc? Before VII, the Church didn’t talk about poverty and the third world yadda yadda yadda. They did something about it, with their good works.
The corporal works of mercy were never as widely practiced as they were in the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent. Missionary works, orphanages, hospitals-you name it, the Counter Reformation Church did it(in fact, in many cases, they invented it).But the Popes, Bishops and Priests talked about what was most important-faith in God, and salvation through Christ Jesus and His Holy Church. And when someone is convicted of the necessity of following Christ, they will do the corporal works of mercy, or give support to those who do.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all of the rest will be added unto you.

 

[Aramis]

StGerardMajella:

the problem is that many Sedevaticanists and Old Catholics consider themselves “traditional Catholics”, as do the SSPX and its adherents. As do a surprising number of “Independent Catholics”… who reject the papacy, and embrace the trent liturgy without the Church…

 

[Cat]

currently fashionable means of getting a nicotene buzz.

Some are actually quite tasty. Both to smoke and to simply chew upon.

I quit smoking just over a year ago.

I realize that many people (including my favorite actor) have given up nasty cigarettes and taken up sophisticated and aristocratic cigars.

I have a friend who lives in a shelter for the mentally-ill. She smokes cigars now because they’re a heck of lot cheaper than cigarettes.

But I still don’t get the connection between “nicotene buzz” and Traditionalist Catholics.

The need for a “nicotene buzz” is often (not always) an addiction, and addictions are a form of sin. Why on earth would any Catholic, traditionalist or flaming liberal, make the claim that a “sin” is part of their identity???

A tradition is fine, but if it is going to kill you, I really can’t see the point of clinging to it just because all Catholics that you grew up with did it.

Am I missing something here? I feel like I’ve stepped into a Godfather movie.

I have to admit, I do miss the abstemious ways of my evangelical Protestant friends. If I had to take one thing away from the Protestants and make it part of the Catholic identity, it would either be (1)the good gospel music or (2) complete abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs (including caffeine), and excess food. This won’t happen anytime soon, will it? Oh, well.

 

[StGerardMajella]

How do you know that many Traditionalist Catholics don’t direct their energy to helping the poor, feeding the hungry, helping with pro life work, etc?

Sir Alec - That’s not what I said. You are taking my quote completely out of context.

My point is that all of the useless drivel on and on about problems with the Novus Ordo liturgy is wasted energy that could be better directed elsewhere.

It does no good for anyone to attack the Pope and Vatican II in a public forum, when these liturgical concerns can best be addressed at the local level. Traditionalists that do attack the Pope, and spend countless hours attacking the liturgy of the Novus Ordo, would be better off spending some time volunteering at their local Catholic soup kitchen.

 

[Blessed_Karl]

I can agree with St.Gerard to an extent.
-I agree wtih you on the anti-semitism.
-also with the attacks on the NO (saying its not legitimate), VII, and the pope

Though I would like to point out some things:
-I don’t think the average trad is like that
-I also do believe that there is nothing wrong with point out flaws in VII docs and papal actions (for example the rather ambiguous nature of certain of the docs)
-when you say “attack” are you speaking about a disagreement or openly refusing to adhere to the popes instructions?

 

[FrancisFan516]

Sir Alec - That’s not what I said. You are taking my quote completely out of context.

My point is that all of the useless drivel on and on about problems with the Novus Ordo liturgy is wasted energy that could be better directed elsewhere.

It does no good for anyone to attack the Pope and Vatican II in a public forum, when these liturgical concerns can best be addressed at the local level. Traditionalists that do attack the Pope, and spend countless hours attacking the liturgy of the Novus Ordo, would be better off spending some time volunteering at their local Catholic soup kitchen.

edit: ahh skip it

I can’t believe I got sucked into almost posting something…what a dolt.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I can agree with St.Gerard to an extent.
-I agree wtih you on the anti-semitism.
-also with the attacks on the NO (saying its not legitimate), VII, and the pope

Thank you

Though I would like to point out some things:
-I don’t think the average trad is like that

I agree - It’s the (very) vocal minority within the traditionalist movement that voices these extremist views. It colors the whole community, unfortunately.

-I also do believe that there is nothing wrong with point out flaws in VII docs and papal actions (for example the rather ambiguous nature of certain of the docs)

Agreed - If done in the proper forum, and not in an inflammatory manner. These concerns are ideally addressed in a private setting in consultation with a local priest or spiritual advisor, and not in a public forum.

-when you say “attack” are you speaking about a disagreement or openly refusing to adhere to the popes instructions?

Openly refusing to adhere. Disagreement is, again, best done in a private forum whenever possible. Open, public rebukes do great harm to Catholicism and the traditionalist movement in general.

I can think of not a few sedevecantist web sites that publish an inordinate amount of hate speech against papal authority.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I suppose it’s possible. In perusing Butler’s Lives of the Saints, I don’t recall reading any saints that publicly or privately disagreed with the Pope. I am sure that at some point this happened, but I can’t cite a specific instance.

Most saints were in communion with the Pope, and did everything they could to support the Church - many by building hospitals, caring for the poor, building Catholic schools, spreading the Gospel to faraway lands, etc.

As far as the legitimacy of disagreeing with the Pope, I personally feel that these circumstances should generally be few and far between except in the most egregious and necessary of situations. The Pope needs our prayers and moral support. Criticism - especially open, public criticism - does not lend itself to moral support and degrades papal authority.

For example, is it legitimate for traditionalists to criticize the Church hierarchy over liturgical matters, such as “Communion in the hand” or “Mass in the vernacular”? To me, these issues should be addressed at the local level. Criticizing Vatican II or the Pope on these matters is unwarranted and ineffective. Changes in liturgy - especially now with the Motu Proprio in effect - can be effectively addressed within the local Archdiocese.

Most criticisms can and should be directed at the local level. If someone is dissatisfied with the liturgy in their local parish, they can take proactive steps with their local priest and Archdiocese to implement changes.

What would I consider an egregious situation warranting the Pope’s attention? Child abuse, for one. Poverty for another. There are far more serious matters than liturgical concerns - such as child abuse and poverty - that warrant the Pope’s attention.

Frankly, these arguments by traditionalists railing against the changes in the liturgy pale in comparison. If traditionalists invested 1/10th of their energy directed at changing the liturgy to eradicating poverty, the Church would be all the better.

As a Catholic, I find the arguments about the liturgical changes after Vatican II tiresome. And while some of the arguments may, in fact, be valid, the invective and virulence of the argument destroy its rationale. I would actually be more in agreement if the arguments weren’t so hostile towards the Pope, in general, and Vatican II.

I do, in fact, enjoy the Latin Mass, and even prefer it on occasion, but I also see the benefit in having the Mass available in the vernacular. I draw the line when I hear excessive criticism of Vatican II and the current Pope.

Again, I agree. I could post examples on the saints, but given your genial attitude, I do not think that is necessary. (Unless you want me to for curiousity’s sake!)

Also, if you get an opportunity, I would attend an Anglo-Catholic Mass, which is the Old Mass in old English. Incredible to see and beautiful to enjoy! They are not easy to find, but if you get the opportunity, I would strongly recommend the experience.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I have no interest in engaging in a debate on this subject. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at answering your question. I would state categorically that there are certainly much more important and pressing issues to discuss than questions about which traditions are relevant, and which ones are not.

I personally believe - as does the Catholic Church - that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. I have no problems with traditionalist Catholics practicing traditions that they find meaningful and relevant, provided they are in communion with the Holy See.

As I said earlier, you can do your own research to determine the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, and come to your own conclusions about which traditions are relevant or not.

I will say this: Clearly, traditionalists generally object to many, many changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of these changes were, in my opinion, warranted and necessary. I do feel that some of the traditionalist rhetoric about liturgical changes is a bit over the top and a bit excessive.

Some of these traditions have been dropped due to changes brought about by Vatican II. Some of the changes were brought about by what was earlier referred to as “novelty”.

Frankly, concerns about liturgical abuses should be directed towards the local parish priest, and/or addressed through the local Archdiocese. You now have more than enough ammunition to do so through the Motu Proprio.

As I mentioned earlier, the main issue that traditionalists need to come to terms with is their movement’s heightened criticism of the Pope, and their criticism of Vatican II. This is far more serious than addressing changes in the liturgy, and which “traditions” are relevant and which ones are not.

Does it matter whether one receives Communion in the hand versus Communion at the rail? To traditionalists, this is a major issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, this is not a relevant issue.

Does it matter whether the priest stands facing the altar during Mass or turns towards the congregation to speak during Mass? Again, to traditionalists, this is a major contentious issue. To most Catholics raised in the Novus Ordo, they much prefer the priest facing the congregation, and do not think that this is an important nor relevant matter. For traditionalists, however, this is a major source of vociferous debate.

I could continue, but you get the general drift. Just because traditionalists find certain parts of the Novus Ordo liturgy objectionable, does not mean that their opinion is aligned with the Holy See, or the rest of the Catholic Church for that matter.

Just because traditionalists consider some traditions relevant and important, doesn’t necessarily correlate that these traditions are, in fact, truly important and relevant to the large majority of Catholics worldwide. Traditionalists, by all estimates, comprise only a tiny percentage of the entire Catholic Church.

I would also argue - as I said earlier - that I find the whole discussion tiresome, as there are many, many more important issues for the Church to address than liturgical concerns. Child abuse, poverty, and many other social issues certainly take precedent.

It would be nice for once if traditionalists took aim at addressing pressing social issues, and redirect these liturgical discussions towards more meaningful ends.

In fairness though, surely you admit that for many traditionalists there are larger matters than the liturgy that weigh on our minds, even if they are the most visible aspect.

Personally, I always wished that the traditional movement had become a more cohesive and charismatic movement, like Chassidism in Judaism. I think StGerard is right, in that many New Mass Catholics do not understand traditionalism and the vehemence of many traditional Catholics make this lifestyle less attractive, both in its detail and its essentials. I think the idea of a vibrant, living movement of tradition, lived as a comprehensive lifestyle as well as a form of worship, would attract more people who are looking for a foundation of stone in an etheral world. We need our own Chabad Lubavitch!

 

[I_Believe]

I can’t believe I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading this argument.

I gotta go fix my lawnmower…

Welcome to the dark side

 

[Aramis]

I realize that many people (including my favorite actor) have given up nasty cigarettes and taken up sophisticated and aristocratic cigars.

I have a friend who lives in a shelter for the mentally-ill. She smokes cigars now because they’re a heck of lot cheaper than cigarettes.

But I still don’t get the connection between “nicotene buzz” and Traditionalist Catholics.

The need for a “nicotene buzz” is often (not always) an addiction, and addictions are a form of sin. Why on earth would any Catholic, traditionalist or flaming liberal, make the claim that a “sin” is part of their identity???

A tradition is fine, but if it is going to kill you, I really can’t see the point of clinging to it just because all Catholics that you grew up with did it.

Am I missing something here? I feel like I’ve stepped into a Godfather movie.

I have to admit, I do miss the abstemious ways of my evangelical Protestant friends. If I had to take one thing away from the Protestants and make it part of the Catholic identity, it would either be (1)the good gospel music or (2) complete abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs (including caffeine), and excess food. This won’t happen anytime soon, will it? Oh, well.

Most smokers are addicted to nicotine. Smoking itself is not considered a sin, per se, tho’ it is not a healthy practice. The occasional cigar, to one not addicted, is merely a pleasure or pain, depending upon the individual.

Cigars are a now-fading fad. I’ve met many smokers, from “Spirit of Vatican II” types through “I’d go SSPV if they had a mission up here”, and they fall into three broad groups: Those addicted, Those who don’t care, and those who reject all science that isn’t obvious to them. That third group tends to be more prevalent in the “traditionalist” crowd, but the Traditionalist crowd I’ve met, due to where I live, and the generally reverent and packed OF liturgies, and the growing parishes, tends to be only the more extreme crowd.

When you get into seriously fundamentalist mindsets, you also tend to get rejection not just of counter-to-biblical-literalism science, but rejection of all non-empirical sciences. Including the surgeon generals’ reports on smoking. They don’t believe it bad, and since it’s not explicitly declared a sin… they don’t see the act of smoking, even chain-smoking, as sinfully damaging themselves.

A parent of a fundamentalist stripe once came in to my room de jure and commented that the whole business of sperm and egg meeting was nothing but computer animation and wishful thinking. This person also rejected nuclear physics, germ theory, immunization*, smoking being bad for one**, and even hypersonic flight. This person was, I believe, Orthodox… having left the catholic church. (they told me that much. They hated VII.)

• Their kids were immunized, because “my priest said it would be all right to give in to the authorities on this one.”
  ** It came up because I had to ask them not to light up on school grounds.

 

[Cat]

Most smokers are addicted to nicotine. Smoking itself is not considered a sin, per se, tho’ it is not a healthy practice. The occasional cigar, to one not addicted, is merely a pleasure or pain, depending upon the individual.

Cigars are a now-fading fad. I’ve met many smokers, from “Spirit of Vatican II” types through “I’d go SSPV if they had a mission up here”, and they fall into three broad groups: Those addicted, Those who don’t care, and those who reject all science that isn’t obvious to them. That third group tends to be more prevalent in the “traditionalist” crowd, but the Traditionalist crowd I’ve met, due to where I live, and the generally reverent and packed OF liturgies, and the growing parishes, tends to be only the more extreme crowd.

When you get into seriously fundamentalist mindsets, you also tend to get rejection not just of counter-to-biblical-literalism science, but rejection of all non-empirical sciences. Including the surgeon generals’ reports on smoking. They don’t believe it bad, and since it’s not explicitly declared a sin… they don’t see the act of smoking, even chain-smoking, as sinfully damaging themselves.

A parent of a fundamentalist stripe once came in to my room de jure and commented that the whole business of sperm and egg meeting was nothing but computer animation and wishful thinking. This person also rejected nuclear physics, germ theory, immunization*, smoking being bad for one**, and even hypersonic flight. This person was, I believe, Orthodox… having left the catholic church. (they told me that much. They hated VII.)

• Their kids were immunized, because “my priest said it would be all right to give in to the authorities on this one.”
  ** It came up because I had to ask them not to light up on school grounds.

That’s just weird, that a Christian group would willingly admit to smoking cigars as part of their identity. :nope:

I would seriously try to shake that image. That image does not conjure up good juju about traditionalist Catholics. It makes me shiver.

Quite a few of the evangelical Protestant groups used to say, “No slacks, no tracks, no blacks.” They’re SERIOUSLY trying to shake that image, thank goodness!

I’d say that cigar smoking is probably not part of the “sacred tradition” that Traditionalist Catholics should fight to keep.

 

[StGerardMajella]

In fairness though, surely you admit that for many traditionalists there are larger matters than the liturgy that weigh on our minds, even if they are the most visible aspect.

While that may, in fact, be the case, to most outsiders not involved in the traditionalist movement, this is most emphatically **not **the message that is being communicated to the outside world. Perception is - rightly or wrongly - a reality.

I do agree - I am certain that there are many traditionalists with more important things on their mind than liturgical issues.

However, what the public reads online about traditionalism are long-winded liturgical debates, and – as I mentioned before – general anti-papal and anti-Vatican II rhetoric. This is the message being communicated to those Catholics that might have an interest in joining the traditionalist movement. Once they encounter these extremist views, they can become turned off by the movement and don’t want to associate with it. There are certain traditionalist web sites that do an enormous disservice to the movement in this regard.

Worse yet, when you step outside the realm of Catholicism, the secular world only hears about Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial debacle, and the fight with the SSPX.

Non-Catholics - if they know anything about traditional Catholics at all - only hear what’s in the news, and that message is simply atrocious. It makes all traditionalist Catholics look like racists stuck in time.

My point: The movement has a major, fundamental communication problem both within and without Catholicism. Until this is changed - and that requires leadership - the movement will continue to flounder, or grow only slowly, if at all.

The movement as a whole needs a major public relations overhaul. The people that are causing these problems need to be taken to task for their destructive actions.

Personally, I always wished that the traditional movement had become a more cohesive and charismatic movement, like Chassidism in Judaism. I think StGerard is right, in that many New Mass Catholics do not understand traditionalism and the vehemence of many traditional Catholics make this lifestyle less attractive, both in its detail and its essentials. I think the idea of a vibrant, living movement of tradition, lived as a comprehensive lifestyle as well as a form of worship, would attract more people who are looking for a foundation of stone in an etheral world. We need our own Chabad Lubavitch!

I would only mention that certain monasteries - for example, the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming, the Carthusians, etc. - all live a cohesive, traditional Catholic life within a closed community. If you haven’t watched the movie, Into Great Silence, or read the corresponding book, I recommend doing so.

I am unaware of a similar cohesive movement for the laity, although I have heard that in rural Canada there is a small group of families living in a devout, traditional Catholic community, though I can’t vouch for this group nor its aims.

That’s just weird, that a Christian group would willingly admit to smoking cigars as part of their identity.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Sir Alec - That’s not what I said. You are taking my quote completely out of context.

My point is that all of the useless drivel on and on about problems with the Novus Ordo liturgy is wasted energy that could be better directed elsewhere.

.

And I suppose that this could also apply to those who spend an inordinate amount of time on the Internet attacking Traditionalists.

 

[StGerardMajella]

And I suppose that this could also apply to those who spend an inordinate amount of time on the Internet attacking Traditionalists.

Of course. It’s good for the soul. Traditionalists can get a little high and mighty sometimes. Someone has to keep them on their toes.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Of course. It’s good for the soul. Traditionalists can get a little high and mighty sometimes. Someone has to keep them on their toes.

That’s good. After all of the cigars I smoked last night(not to mention the brandy), I need someone to keep me on my toes. I can barely walk.

 

[Aramis]

That’s just weird, that a Christian group would willingly admit to smoking cigars as part of their identity. :nope:

I would seriously try to shake that image. That image does not conjure up good juju about traditionalist Catholics. It makes me shiver.

Quite a few of the evangelical Protestant groups used to say, “No slacks, no tracks, no blacks.” They’re SERIOUSLY trying to shake that image, thank goodness!

I’d say that cigar smoking is probably not part of the “sacred tradition” that Traditionalist Catholics should fight to keep.

Smoking isn’t part of the traditionalist agenda.

It’s not a part of the image they try to put forward, either, but it’s one of the more obvious subgroups within the Traditionalist movement, because the psychology involved tends to be similar in both rejection of the surgeon general and rejection of the magisterium.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Smoking isn’t part of the traditionalist agenda.

It’s not a part of the image they try to put forward, either, but it’s one of the more obvious subgroups within the Traditionalist movement, because the psychology involved tends to be similar in both rejection of the surgeon general and rejection of the magisterium.

You’re kidding, right?

 

[aicirt]

There is no definition for it. The word itself merely means someone who adheres to tradition as opposed to modernization. Thats it in a nutshell.

In the Church the term is fraught with division and cannot even begin to explain or define those that call themselves traditionalists.

It can describe someone who is a raving sedevacantist or someone who prefers communion the hand as being a more ancient practice. It can describe the members of the SSPX or conversely the FSSP. It can and often is used as a perjorative to belittle those not comfortable with the changes that took place after Vatican II… It is also used as a label by those who feel they are following the true path. It is a complex issue and not easily defined.

I would offer the following. In the aftermath of Vatican II there was a general rush to strip Catholicism of everything and everything that was distinctly Catholic in nature. That included changes in the Mass and Liturgy to make it more accomodating and allegedly more relevent to the people and to other faiths, Churches were modernized, altars moved and changed, and religious art moved removed or in some cases destroyed. There was a change in the emphasis on personal sin. Sin became thought of as more societal than personal in nature and as a result the use of confession by the faithful plummeted. It just wasn’t your fault anymore.

Catechisis suffered as the old Baltimore Catechism used for many years was suddenly no longer good enough. But there was nothing to replace it, so anyone with any inclination to do so could publish their own catechisms and many did. There were some real beauties floating around.

Devotions practiced for years, Novenas, Rosaries, 40 Hours, First Fridays, First Saturdays, Expositions Benedictions, Corpus Christi Processions etc pretty much disappeared. You just didn’t need these things anymore. They were unnecessary and maybe even harmful. Devotion to the Blessed Mother in particular took a nose dive and has really only recently started to make a comeback.

Latin for years described as a unifying force within the Church was removed from the Mass and replaced with the vernacular’ But Latin was kept as the official language of the Church and was supposed to retain a place of prominence within the Church

The Mass itself came to be thought of as more of a communal meal than the Eternal Sacrifice and was treated accordingly. Since it was no longer primarily the re-presentation of Christs death at Calvary, why pay any particular reverence when attending?. It was primarily a social gathering and peoples attitudes reflected that understanding.

For some reason, not really well explained by anyone, Holy Communion came to be distributed with the faithful standing and received in the hand, rather than on the tongue.The standing allegedly was done to imitate the Eastern Churches manner of reception. Receiving in the hand has never been adequitely explained.

So I would say a Traditionalist is one who doesn’t agree with the above changes, none of which were mandated by Vatican II by the way and laments the passing of those traditions which clearly showed the world that we were Catholics and helped to solidify our identity. Traditionalists feel something unique has been lost and needs to be recovered.

I attended a Corpus Christi procession last year in New Orleans. It was very nice, slightly over a mile in length and went from the Immaculate Conception Church to the St Louis Cathedral and was led by the Archbishop. There were probably over 500 people in the procession. While walking I struck up a conversation with an African American woman who was walking also. She told me that she was so happy that there were Corpus Christ processions again and remarked that as a small girl she really enjoyed seeing them and participating in them. Then she floored me. She said that even though she wasn’t Catholic, she loved the way that Catholics had never been afraid to show what they were, were not afraid to proclaim their faith and belief in what the Church taught and were not ashamed to show it in such a fashion as the processions. She said that she was so glad that Catholics seemed to be re-discovering what they were and what made the Catholic faith so unique…

I have never heard it stated any better.

Totally correct…it was never well explained by ANYONE! The question became, “Well, who then is in charge?”

I asked why the Tabernacle was removed and the answer has always been…Vatican II.
Now we’re told Vatican II didn’t make these changes. The changes were all the responsibility of the Bishops. Odd that all the Bishops made the changes at the same time.

All we wanted prior to the 60s was one Sunday Mass said in English. That’s it. Instead, all Latin Masses were stopped with no consideration to the elderly who had grown up with the Latin Mass. Why change it all?

As Catholics, we believe in the Real Presence. Why genuflect when the Real Presence isn’t even on the altar but hidden somewhere else in the Church? I want to kneel when I receive because I’m receiving the Real Presence. If I’d curtsey to a Queen, why wouldn’t I kneel before God? Try and find a crucifix, confessionals, stations of the cross, a Catholic hymn or a statue of Mary. In my Church, she’s in the back in a wall opening.

 

[shuzo1189]

I have yet to run into a fellow traditionalist (In Real Life) who denies the Validity of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I mean he gave us the Summorum Pontificum and he celebrates the EF for his personal masses. He will only distribute communion to communicants kneeling and on the tongue. I know I wish him many many long years for his pontificate.

If this was how the OF was practiced (youtube.com/watch?v=9EQbnGi6NCI) do you really think we would have an SSPX? Instead we get something like this 99 percent of the time:youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcoQbCopuE

That being said, I Attend a Parish which has the EF (Dominican Rite) Once a Month and on most major feast days. The OF mass at 11AM always has its ordinary chanted and in Latin. I would say its about 60/40 English to Latin (The Propers are in English).

Also there is a rumor that the Concecration might be changed to Latin regardless of whether the Mass is in the Vernacular or Not.