Define Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality

[I_Believe]

What is Traditional Roman Catholic Spirituality ? The description of this forum says this is the place to discuss such.

Some examples of various topics that would be appropriate is what I’m asking for. Or a definition.

There must certainly be a difference since there is a forum titled Spirituality.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s characterized by uncompromising adherence to tradition - those practices, rituals, and devotions which we have received from those who came before us.

Other Catholic ‘spiritualities’ are characterized by innovation and novelty, to varying degrees.

 

[eelpis]

Everything written on mystical and ascetical theology by canonized saints up until 1960.

That is almost all of the Church’s heritage.

St John of the Cross.
St Teresa of Avila
St Therese of the Child Jesus
St Thomas Aquinas
St Alfonso Maria Liguori
All the doctors of the church.
St Francis
St Dominic
St Francis of Sales
St Benedict
St Catherine of Siena
St Bridget of Sweden
etc…

( I would even include the teachings of later canonized saints, St Josemaria Escriva, St Maximiliam Kolbe, St Faustina, Blessed Mother Teresa.)

(Centering prayer, Enneagrams and that stuff is not traditional Catholic spirituality)

 

[palmas85]

I think it would be adhering to the beliefs of the Church totally. It also means rejecting out of hand certain practices that have developed in the Church that have no historical base within the Church and that do not in any way represent the Catholic faith as it has been practiced over the centuries.

Political correctness, tolerance for other beliefs and inclusiveness may be fine for a society but when you come down to it the Catholic faith is concerned with two major things. Giving worship, honor and Glory to God and achieving your salvation.

When any innovation detracts from those things it should be viewed as suspect.

 

[Stewmont]

It’s characterized by uncompromising adherence to tradition - those practices, rituals, and devotions which we have received from those who came before us.

Other Catholic ‘spiritualities’ are characterized by innovation and novelty, to varying degrees.

I don’t know if your definition is accurate. I rather doubt it is, but I certainly couldn’t offer a better one. I do know people that attempt to adhere to their personal interpretation of “practices, rituals, and devotions which we have received from those who came before” them even when doing so is heterodox or dissenting in nature.

 

[Stewmont]

I think it would be adhering to the beliefs of the Church totally. It also means rejecting out of hand certain practices that have developed in the Church that have no historical base within the Church and that do not in any way represent the Catholic faith as it has been practiced over the centuries.

Political correctness, tolerance for other beliefs and inclusiveness may be fine for a society but when you come down to it the Catholic faith is concerned with two major things. Giving worship, honor and Glory to God and achieving your salvation.

When any innovation detracts from those things it should be viewed as suspect.

You comments are contradictory. One cannot totally adhere to the “beliefs” of the Church WHILE while rejecting some licit practices. That would be impossible.

I think what you first described is that of orthodoxy. Based on what I have read on these forums and what I have experienced in real life there is often (but not always) a fairly wide chasm between orthodoxy and “traditionalism.”

Self-professed “traditionalists” often denigrate what they personally dislike, even if it’s completely orthodox. But each “traditionalist” is different, hence the difficulty in brewing-up a universal definition.

The second thing you described is often known as “cafeteria Catholicism” which in no way is orthodox. I think part of the problem is people make themselves arbiters of what is right or wrong, or “better” even when it runs contrary to what the Church instructs and that turns some people off.

 

[palmas85]

You comments are contradictory. One cannot totally adhere to the “beliefs” of the Church WHILE while rejecting some licit practices. That would be impossible.

I think what you first described is that of orthodoxy. Based on what I have read on these forums and what I have experienced in real life there is often (but not always) a fairly wide chasm between orthodoxy and “traditionalism.”

Self-professed “traditionalists” often denigrate what they personally dislike, even if it’s completely orthodox. But each “traditionalist” is different, hence the difficulty in brewing-up a universal definition.

The second thing you described is often known as “cafeteria Catholicism” which in no way is orthodox.

I never said anything about licit practices. If I did please point them out.

What exactly did I put down that you view as cafeteria Catholicism?

 

[Stewmont]

I never said anything about licit practices. If I did please point them out.

What exactly did I put down that you view as cafeteria Catholicism?

You earlier said:

…It also means rejecting out of hand certain practices that have developed in the Church that have no historical base within the Church and that do not in any way represent the Catholic faith as it has been practiced over the centuries…

A lot of people I have come in contact with who would identify with being traditionalists. They also feel they have they right/power/grace/whatever to reject those things they personally find unacceptable, even when the Church accepts them. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. If you want to change your definition to read rejecting “illicit practices per the Church” then it wouldn’t of course be cafeteria Catholicism.

You want an example? A couple who attend my parish have a kid who attends Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH. Another parishioner (who definitely relates to being “traditionalist”) immediately started attacking the strong charismatic renewal presence at that university (as if it was automatically a bad thing), that there were only 3-4 “true” Catholic universities left in the USA and the one being discussed certainly was not.

Now the charismatic renewal may not be for everyone but it is a recognized charism within the Church. To reject it “out of hand” because one personally does not like it is hardly orthodox – it’s an example of cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[palmas85]

You earlier said:

A lot of people I have come in contact with who would identify with being traditionalists. They also feel they have they right/power/grace/whatever to reject those things they personally find unacceptable, even when the Church accepts them. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. If you want to change your definition to read rejecting “illicit practices per the Church” then it wouldn’t of course be cafeteria Catholicism.

Again, what licit practices did I speak of?

 

[Dauphin]

A lot of people I have come in contact with who would identify with being traditionalists. They also feel they have they right/power/grace/whatever to reject those things they personally find unacceptable, even when the Church accepts them. That’s cafeteria Catholicism. If you want to change your definition to read rejecting “illicit practices per the Church” then it wouldn’t of course be cafeteria Catholicism.

That simply isn’t the case. It’s perfectly acceptable and within the faith to oppose practices which are licit in the Church. For example, several Bishops, including some of great importance such as Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, have publicly and forcefully attacked the practice of receiving Holy Communion on the hand, and called for indults to be rescinded.

Unless you want to begin accusing senior Bishops and priests of “Cafeteria Catholicism”, I would recommend dropping your ridiculous allegation.

 

[una_fides]

You comments are contradictory. One cannot totally adhere to the “beliefs” of the Church WHILE while rejecting some licit practices. That would be impossible.

What if the “licit practices” of which you are referring were illicit for the entire Church’s history up until the present day, such as some modern forms of ecumenism that have manifested themselves in the Church. The prayer meeting at Assisi is a good example of an action that if it had been done a century before or even fifteen or seventeen centuries before would have been condemned for permitting and encouraging a violation of God’s law, specifically the first commandment.

 

[una_fides]

I think now-a-days Traditional Catholicism and Traditional Spirituality consists of a steadfast clinging to the Church’s traditional practices and traditional forms of worship. For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” Traditional Catholics seek the most solemn and reverent ways to worship God in the way he has proscribed he wants to be worshiped. They keep the focus on God and pleasing him rather than on man and entertainment. And they practice traditional devotions and meditations, such as praying the rosary (in Latin! ) in a candle lit room while meditating deeply on the mysteries our Lady left us. They also make due use of available indulgences for themselves and their departed loved ones and engage in fastings and other penances. But again, the thing that sets traditional Catholic spirituality most apart from the rest is a steadfast adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church understanding them in the same sense as they have always been taught.

 

[una_fides]

That simply isn’t the case. It’s perfectly acceptable and within the faith to oppose practices which are licit in the Church. For example, several Bishops, including some of great importance such as Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, have publicly and forcefully attacked the practice of receiving Holy Communion on the hand, and called for indults to be rescinded.

Unless you want to begin accusing senior Bishops and priests of “Cafeteria Catholicism”, I would recommend dropping your ridiculous allegation.

excellent point. even John Paul II was opposed to Communion in the hand, though he unfortunately did not rescind the indult. Let’s pray for Benedict XVI that God would give him strength to stand up for truth and that he would order that all Catholics only offer God our best, most excellent forms of worship and reverence.

 

[I_Believe]

It’s characterized by uncompromising adherence to tradition - those practices, rituals, and devotions which we have received from those who came before us.

Other Catholic ‘spiritualities’ are characterized by innovation and novelty, to varying degrees.

Everything written on mystical and ascetical theology by canonized saints up until 1960.

That is almost all of the Church’s heritage.

St John of the Cross.
St Teresa of Avila
St Therese of the Child Jesus
St Thomas Aquinas
St Alfonso Maria Liguori
All the doctors of the church.
St Francis
St Dominic
St Francis of Sales
St Benedict
St Catherine of Siena
St Bridget of Sweden
etc…

( I would even include the teachings of later canonized saints, St Josemaria Escriva, St Maximiliam Kolbe, St Faustina, Blessed Mother Teresa.)

(Centering prayer, Enneagrams and that stuff is not traditional Catholic spirituality)

I think it would be adhering to the beliefs of the Church totally. It also means rejecting out of hand certain practices that have developed in the Church that have no historical base within the Church and that do not in any way represent the Catholic faith as it has been practiced over the centuries.

Political correctness, tolerance for other beliefs and inclusiveness may be fine for a society but when you come down to it the Catholic faith is concerned with two major things. Giving worship, honor and Glory to God and achieving your salvation.

When any innovation detracts from those things it should be viewed as suspect.

I think now-a-days Traditional Catholicism and Traditional Spirituality consists of a steadfast clinging to the Church’s traditional practices and traditional forms of worship. For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” Traditional Catholics seek the most solemn and reverent ways to worship God in the way he has proscribed he wants to be worshiped. They keep the focus on God and pleasing him rather than on man and entertainment. And they practice traditional devotions and meditations, such as praying the rosary (in Latin! ) in a candle lit room while meditating deeply on the mysteries our Lady left us. They also make due use of available indulgences for themselves and their departed loved ones and engage in fastings and other penances. But again, the thing that sets traditional Catholic spirituality most apart from the rest is a steadfast adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church understanding them in the same sense as they have always been taught.

Thank you all for your take on it. It’s hard for me to define, and must be for others as well, since there are only 4 who have offered a reply. I find nothing to disagree about in any of your replys.

Perhaps a few more will offer their definition.

J+M+J

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I think now-a-days Traditional Catholicism and Traditional Spirituality consists of a steadfast clinging to the Church’s traditional practices and traditional forms of worship. For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” Traditional Catholics seek the most solemn and reverent ways to worship God in the way he has proscribed he wants to be worshiped. They keep the focus on God and pleasing him rather than on man and entertainment. And they practice traditional devotions and meditations, such as praying the rosary (in Latin! ) in a candle lit room while meditating deeply on the mysteries our Lady left us. They also make due use of available indulgences for themselves and their departed loved ones and engage in fastings and other penances. But again, the thing that sets traditional Catholic spirituality most apart from the rest is a steadfast adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church understanding them in the same sense as they have always been taught.

Excellent definition.

 

[Stewmont]

That simply isn’t the case. It’s perfectly acceptable and within the faith to oppose practices which are licit in the Church. For example, several Bishops, including some of great importance such as Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, have publicly and forcefully attacked the practice of receiving Holy Communion on the hand, and called for indults to be rescinded.

Unless you want to begin accusing senior Bishops and priests of “Cafeteria Catholicism”, I would recommend dropping your ridiculous allegation.

Actually that’s not true. While there is nothing wrong with saying “I prefer to receive Holy Communion in hand where allowed” there is a great deal wrong with suggesting it’s “heterodox to receive in hand throughout the world” and the like.

Nothing wrong with expressing one’s preference. Huge problem with denigrating a licit practice. Even bigger problem with suggesting a licit practice is illicit.

 

[Stewmont]

excellent point. even John Paul II was opposed to Communion in the hand, though he unfortunately did not rescind the indult. Let’s pray for Benedict XVI that God would give him strength to stand up for truth and that he would order that all Catholics only offer God our best, most excellent forms of worship and reverence.

Perfect example. What gives you the confidence to infer that communion on tongue is indicative of “our best, most excellent forms of worship and reverence”? You’re putting yourself in the seat of the grand arbiter and you simply lack the qualifications.

Heck what even gives you the confidence to suggest “John Paul II was opposed to Communion in the hand” or that it was necessarily bad for him not to have rescinded the indult?

I think there might well have been a legitimate reason(s) for both popes not to have rescinded the indult. Either way I’m CERTAIN they know more about it then I do.

 

[Stewmont]

I think now-a-days Traditional Catholicism and Traditional Spirituality consists of a steadfast clinging to the Church’s traditional practices and traditional forms of worship. For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” Traditional Catholics seek the most solemn and reverent ways to worship God in the way he has proscribed he wants to be worshiped. They keep the focus on God and pleasing him rather than on man and entertainment. And they practice traditional devotions and meditations, such as praying the rosary (in Latin! ) in a candle lit room while meditating deeply on the mysteries our Lady left us. They also make due use of available indulgences for themselves and their departed loved ones and engage in fastings and other penances. But again, the thing that sets traditional Catholic spirituality most apart from the rest is a steadfast adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church understanding them in the same sense as they have always been taught.

Postings like yours are sad – because largely they lack believability. From your posting:

*"For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” *

I have been attending the Mass of Pope Paul IV since its inception. Not one time have I been witness to ANYTHING you describe. Not once. Before you offer one of the time-worn Youtube URLs for a clown Mass, take a moment to reflect on just how inflammatory your posting is. To be candid it doesn’t sound honest.

It would be like me focusing on people praying the rosary during the Mass because they had no clue what was going on. People choosing Masses by length – the shorter the better. Masses burned through so quickly that the celebrant sounded more like an auctioneer than a priest. People trying to prostrate themselves because somehow it was better than kneeling. People worrying more about wearing mantillas and neckties more then reading the daily readings before Mass.

I’m beginning to think that “traditonalists” are a tiny group who feel they somehow have the truth and everyone else is wrong…

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Postings like yours are sad – because largely they lack believability. From your posting:

*"For example, rather than go to a church with woman dancing down the aisles with tambourines while listening to the electric guitar and drums in the backround and while having people blurt out gibberish nonsense (aka speaking in tongues) and falling on the floor in acts of “worship,” *

I have been attending the Mass of Pope Paul IV since its inception. Not one time have I been witness to ANYTHING you describe. Not once.

Well, I’ve never personally seen/heard the gibberish, but I’ve experienced the rest of it. At my old NO growing up the dancing was reserved for what ought to have been the most solemn day of the year: Easter.

Before you offer one of the time-worn Youtube URLs for a clown Mass, take a moment to reflect on just how inflammatory your posting is. To be candid it doesn’t sound honest.

It’s not that it doesn’t happen. Even if it is rare it begs the question(s): Why is this happening? What does this have to do with the Mass? Why is this allowed in the novus ordo? And having happened every year why aren’t priests and bishops (and the cardinal of LA, where it was) doing anything about it??? What’s wrong with the OF that all this junk can happen and people are supposed to blindly go along with it. I thought Mass was the one hour a week to get away from the world, and sin, and hell…right??? Why do we have to put up with garbage, sanctioned garbage in our liturgies???

It would be like me focusing on people praying the rosary during the Mass because they had no clue what was going on.

The what? Oh yeah, the rosary, people still pray that thing, how archaic (let’s see if we can think of a way to update it).

People choosing Masses by length – the shorter the better.

You’re telling me…and on Saturday afternoon to boot, instead of Sunday

Masses burned through so quickly that the celebrant sounded more like an auctioneer than a priest.

or a comedian, or an improvisational creative literature teacher.

People trying to prostrate themselves because somehow it was better than kneeling.

uh…you lost me with that one. I’ve never seen or heard of that except in the Nervous Ordo

People worrying more about wearing mantillas and neckties more then reading the daily readings before Mass.

It’s called a missal, and you read it during the Mass. And yes, mantillas rather than miniskirts, neckties rather than birkenstocks etc.

I’m beginning to think that “traditonalists” are a tiny group who feel they somehow have the truth and everyone else is wrong…

Yes, the truth has been handed down for a couple millenia now…just thought I’d share.

 

[Dauphin]

Actually that’s not true. While there is nothing wrong with saying “I prefer to receive Holy Communion in hand where allowed” there is a great deal wrong with suggesting it’s “heterodox to receive in hand throughout the world” and the like.

Nothing wrong with expressing one’s preference. Huge problem with denigrating a licit practice. Even bigger problem with suggesting a licit practice is illicit.

This is incorrect. The term “heterodox” simply doesn’t apply - things like the reception of Communion on the hand aren’t doctrines. They are practices which can be rejected, and are rejected, by many in the Church.

It’s not a very difficult concept to understand. The fact that they’re permitted does not prevent one from criticizing them.