Defintion of Traditonal Catholic

[tvdxer]

Definition is a very inexact science when it comes to people, but I think perhaps you’ve come the closest to an identifiable picture of Traditionalists* than anyone so far-- because you’ve included more than liturgical preferences (or convictions.)

(*And I say “Traditionalists” because, while I have no preference for the TLM and would not identify myself as a “Traditional Catholic,” I would consider myself a traditional Catholic, as it were.)

Many of the things you list are a part of a culture that continues to value any sort of past tradition and thus I know plenty of Catholics who wouldn’t identify as “Traditional Catholics” who have holy water fonts in every room etc., (and blessed salt in their cupboards) attend weekly confession, still use liturgical gestures that have been abandoned, own live chickens (yes, really!! )

Heck, I even know a Charismatic-type to whom much of the above applies and who has very definite opinions on pipe-tobacco!

Value of pious traditions is not a trait exclusive to Traditionalists.

Rather, I would say that Traditionalists are those who are more comfortable in and promote a spirituality (or maybe an amalgam of spiritualities and customs) that flourished in the beginning of the 20th century.

From an outsider’s perspective (which of course is very incomplete and perhaps mistaken) Traditionalists, in addition to their liturgical preferences; find ceremony and outward expressions in general beneficial in the spiritual life; are attached to some of the more outward public expressions of piety (special vestments, processions, etc.); tend (in my experience) to have a spirituality largely informed by certain saints from the years between 1700-1900-- St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Louis de Montfort, Pope St. Pius X, spring to mind (but not so much Therese of Liseaux.)

I have rarely met anyone who identifies with a monastic spirituality (Carmelite, Dominican, Franciscan, Benedictine) and identifies himself as a “Traditional Catholic.”

Of course, some of what I have listed will also apply to those who do not consider themselves Traditionalists…

(Edit: I want to add that I speak of non-Traditionalist Catholics, I mean believing, practicing, obedient Catholic who are striving for holiness. Lapsed and dissenting Catholics are another topic all together.)

This seems like a really good characterization of “Traditionalist” Catholics.

Some other things that seem correlated with “Traditional” Catholic blogs / bookstores / individuals in my experience. Not all “Trads” believe or exhibit these, but as a group (including “Radtrads” - members of the SSPX, etc. - and perhaps sedevacantists) they sure seem to do so more than other practicing Catholics:

• Criticism of women wearing pants. This actually seems to be one of the biggest correlates with self-identification as a “Traditionalist”.
• Fervent opposition to communion in the hand
• Reference to the 1917 Code of Canon Law
• Wearing of chapel veils, mantillas, etc.
• Belief or circulation of conspiracy theories involving Freemasons and Communists
• Strict adherence to Thomistic and Platonic - Aristotlean reasoning
• Belief in a coming “chastisement”
• Belief in an angry God
• Preference for a monarchical style of government, as opposed to democracy
• Skepticism or rigorism in regard to NFP; tendency to have large families (the latter could also be said about Catholics who practice their faith and observe church teachings on contraception)
• Homeschooling
• Skepticism in regard to evolution (Young Earth Creationism seems exceptionally rare even among the strictest Trads, however)
• Geocentrism (idea that the earth is at the center of the universe; espoused by some but not most Trads. However, this idea seems to be virtually exclusive to them)
• Rigorist interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Salus” a la Feeney
• Opposition to rock music

There are probably others, too.

Again, most who identify as “Traditionalist” Catholics will not identify with all of the above. Only it seems that they are recurring themes in Traditionalist blogs, bookstores, etc.

 

[Agripa]

In looking at other threads on this website, I think you might have to include at least hints and whispers of anti-semitism as well to that list of definitions.

 

[ncjohn]

Hence, I am convinced that there is such a thing as a traditional, not Traditionalist, Catholic.

Absolutely. And I, for one, strongly object to the term “traditional” being appropriated beyond its true meaning, with the implication then being that others of us are then NOT traditional just because we prefer the Pauline Mass. To me it smacks of the kind of things that politicians do to demonize their “opposition” and is very damaging to the unity of the Church.

Peace,

 

[malphono]

Just a couple of observations, if I may:

Seems to me there are three groupings:

(1) those who prefer the EF yet accept the fact that other aspects of the Faith have, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, evolved to a certain degree. Not changed. Simply evolved. Big difference there.

(2) those who prefer the OF. Now, the OF is not quite 40 years old, so it’s not “traditional” or even “a tradition” by any stretch. Using the OF as a baseline, then, really means that liturgy is stripped out of the equation: in other words, “Traditional Catholic” would take on a totally non-liturgical connotation. This yields two sub-groups:

(a) those who accept the fact that other aspects of the Faith have evolved to a certain degree. (see above)
(b) those who hold that all other aspects of the Faith cannot evolve at all. (see below)

(3) The expression “Traditionalist Catholic” does, of course, include the liturgical element but has, most unfortunately, been co-opted by the ultra-right wing rad-trads for these past 40-some years. The mantra there is the denial that any aspect of the Faith has evolved (or even that any evolution is possible, irrespective of the promise and guidance of the Holy Spirit). :bigyikes:

My :twocents: worth.

 

[DavidPalm]

(2) those who prefer the OF. Now, the OF is not quite 40 years old, so it’s not “traditional” or even “a tradition” by any stretch. Using the OF as a baseline, then, really means that liturgy is stripped out of the equation: in other words, “Traditional Catholic” would take on a totally non-liturgical connotation.

This is a very fine observation. The question arises, of course, whether, traditionally speaking, it can make any sense to describe a Catholic as “traditional” if liturgy has to be completely factored out of the equation. I would argue not.

This yields two sub-groups: (a) those who accept the fact that other aspects of the Faith have evolved to a certain degree. (see above)
(b) those who hold that all other aspects of the Faith cannot evolve at all. (see below)

To me this division does not follow logically from your second point. Could you clarify this?

(3) The expression “Traditionalist Catholic” does, of course, include the liturgical element but has, most unfortunately, been co-opted by the ultra-right wing rad-trads for these past 40-some years. The mantra there is the denial that any aspect of the Faith has evolved (or even that any evolution is possible, irrespective of the promise and guidance of the Holy Spirit). :bigyikes:

I can’t agree with this assertion. Almost all self-styled traditionalists agree that there is such a thing as organic doctrinal and liturgical development. Rather than that no such change can take place, the argument is that at least in certain instances what has happened since Vatican II has not been organic doctrinal and liturgical development but the embracing and implementation of harmful novelties.

 

[malphono]

This is a very fine observation. The question arises, of course, whether, traditionally speaking, it can make any sense to describe a Catholic as “traditional” if liturgy has to be completely factored out of the equation. I would argue not.

Thanks. I would argue the same. That was really my point, although I refrained from stating it directly. To strip-off the liturgical element is rather to denature the whole concept of tradition, since liturgy is the expression of belief (good old lex orandi, lex credendi.)

To me this division does not follow logically from your second point. Could you clarify this?

The thought was simply to include both non-liturgical options for the devotees of the OF who use the expression “Traditional” to describe themselves. No doubt there are folks among them who would identify with one or the other (more likely (a) but I suppose there may be some who would hold to (b), although I wouldn’t even begin to guess at a number.

I can’t agree with this assertion. Almost all self-styled traditionalists agree that there is such a thing as organic doctrinal and liturgical development. Rather than that no such change can take place, the argument is that at least in certain instances what has happened since Vatican II has not been organic doctrinal and liturgical development but the embracing and implementation of harmful novelties.

I think the keyword in what you said above is “almost” and those are not the extreme right-wing “rad-trads” that have co-opted the expression “Traditionalist.” The folks you speak of seem to be those who come under item 1 of my musings. For me, though, those that come to my mind with the words “Traditionalist Catholic”) are what I’ll call the lunatic fringe. A good portion of them (although not all by any means) are sedes, and insist that they, and they alone, are the real “Traditionalists” and nothing else will do. They (whether sedes or otherwise) are the ones who reject anything and everything (liturgical and otherwise) that isn’t (a) Trent or (b) “infallible” teaching. In other words, the “my way or the highway” people. I’m sure you know the drill.

I don’t disagree with your last sentence at all. Actually, I’m one who holds that position quite strongly. To me, what transpired in the post-conciliar era was most definitely not “organic development” of anything, but rather mis-interpretation to further a particular agenda. (I liked “harmful novelties” as a euphemism. What a nice way to put it: I would probably have used somewhat stronger terms …)