Does anybody else find the title "Traditional Catholicism" a bit offensive?

[xzereus]

I’m a Roman Catholic convert. As an outsider, I fell in love not only with the Roman Catholic Rite but the Catholic Church as a whole. Doesn’t it seem a bit unfair to refer to the Roman Rite as “Traditional Catholicism” and exclude Eastern Catholic Rites to their own forum simply titled “Eastern Catholicism”? This seems to create a false dichotomy between “Traditional” and “Eastern” Catholicism, at least in my opinion. Thoughts?

God Bless.

 

[YoungTradCath]

No. There are two legitimate Forms of the Roman Rite, the Ordinary and the Extraordinary. The Extraordinary Form is commonly known as the “traditional” Mass. This has nothing to do with disparaging the Eastern Rites, and the Eastern Rites don’t really have an analogous situation.

 

[the_phoenix]

I find the title “Traditional Catholicism” to be a little confusing, personally.
I believe what I am considered is a “traditional Catholic,” little “t”
to indicate that I follow the Pope,
and also an “orthodox Catholic,” little “o”
to indicate that I follow the Magisterium.
It would be nice if simply saying “Catholic”
were enough to make yourself understood …
maybe I simply should say “Catholic” anyways
and leave it to everybody else to figure out
what it means.

Intriguing thread topic, thanks.

 

[mattkubes]

The East didn’t experience the rupture with tradition that we did in the 1960s. That’s part of the reason why the whole traditional Catholicism movement was started - it basically refers to those in the Latin Rite who hold fast to pre-VII practices, customs, and theology. Although the definition is slightly more murky on CAF.

 

[Marie5890]

I dont find it offensive, but I can see where it causes confusion and perhaps, unintentionally, misleading.

But in the context of CAF forums, it more often than not is taken to mean those who have a leaning towards the pre-Vatican II era and Latin form of the Mass, or as YoungTradCath said, the Extraordinary form.

As time has gone by, I have taken it to mean something even more than that. The traditions of the Church over history etc.

Both big “T” and little “t”…

 

[trickster]

I don’t necessarily find the idea of a “traditional catholicism” as offensive, but what I find bothersome is the duality and divisive factor that the two forms introduce as if we are this way or that way. Catholic is Catholic whether we express it in the ways more familiar before Vatican II or after Vatican II.

I question whether the pre-vatican church would of been able to maintain its effectiveness in a world that was decolonizing in the 60’s…and these constant appeals to “its’ right because we always did it this way” is lame and doesn’t work for me.

Yet, the pre-vatican II church also brings a spirituality that is very nourishing to people and people relate to the sacredness of it…so it must not be set aside again, that was our only and biggest mistake of Vatican II…

But yeah…I find the idea of traditional catholicism as a bit divisive…when we should just be catholics…

Bruce

 

[mattkubes]

I question whether the pre-vatican church would of been able to maintain its effectiveness in a world that was decolonizing in the 60’s…and these constant appeals to “its’ right because we always did it this way” is lame and doesn’t work for me.

Pretty sure it was the pedestrian atmosphere that started to prevail in the Mass after VII that didn’t “work.” Guitars and bongo drums make it difficult to take the majesty of that great sacrifice seriously. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Meanwhile, traditional parishes are growing strong as the NO hemorrhages parishioners in the West. It seems to be maintaining its effectiveness in the face of far greater societal pressures today than it would have faced then.

And I’m sorry to hear that the wisdom of nearly two millennia doesn’t work for you.

 

[odile53]

I don’t know: I gave up taking offense at a lot of stuff quite some time ago. I was expending way too much energy in concerning myself with what a label, any kind of label, meant. In any case, I’ve been called a lot worse at one time or another than a “traditional” (whatever that means!) Catholic.

I’m not sure if I’ve developed more magnamity, more serenity, or just have gotten lazier. But quite frankly, no one can offend me if I don’t take offense.

When asked my faith tradition, I say, “Roman Catholic,” and leave it at that. If people decide to pursue it further, I tell them that I believe in the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed, apostolic succession, the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, Mary, the saints, etc, etc, and if they try to shoot holes in any of those things, I don’t engage them. If they’re seriously questioning, I refer them to the catechism, and offer to take them to Mass if they are honestly interested.

But that’s just me. As I said, I don’t know if I’ve grown spiritually or just have gotten old and lazy. I did a lot of work to further my faith, and if someone really wants what I’ve found, they will be willing to do the same kind of work themselves. I don’t believe in spoon-feeding anyone over the age of two years!

 

[Marie5890]

If my understanding is correct, the Church is experiencing the major part of her growth right now in African countries. And they tend to use the NO form if my understanding is correct.

 

[TimothyH]

The problem is when some begin to suggest that the presence of the Latin Mass is somehow an indication of a greater personal faithfulness to the magesterium, a more faithful obedience to the Pope, and in some extreme cases even suggesting that attending the Tridentine Mass leads to greater personal holiness.

-Tim-

 

[Sherry_G]

I don’t know: I gave up taking offense at a lot of stuff quite some time ago. I was expending way too much energy in concerning myself with what a label, any kind of label, meant. In any case, I’ve been called a lot worse at one time or another than a “traditional” (whatever that means!) Catholic.

I’m not sure if I’ve developed more magnamity, more serenity, or just have gotten lazier. But quite frankly, no one can offend me if I don’t take offense.

When asked my faith tradition, I say, “Roman Catholic,” and leave it at that. If people decide to pursue it further, I tell them that I believe in the tenets of the Apostles’ Creed, apostolic succession, the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, Mary, the saints, etc, etc, and if they try to shoot holes in any of those things, I don’t engage them. If they’re seriously questioning, I refer them to the catechism, and offer to take them to Mass if they are honestly interested.

But that’s just me. As I said, I don’t know if I’ve grown spiritually or just have gotten old and lazy. I did a lot of work to further my faith, and if someone really wants what I’ve found, they will be willing to do the same kind of work themselves. I don’t believe in spoon-feeding anyone over the age of two years!

Ditto. I couldn’t say it any better.:yeah_me:

 

[James924]

I don’t necessarily find the idea of a “traditional catholicism” as offensive, but what I find bothersome is the duality and divisive factor that the two forms introduce as if we are this way or that way. Catholic is Catholic whether we express it in the ways more familiar before Vatican II or after Vatican II.

I question whether the pre-vatican church would of been able to maintain its effectiveness in a world that was decolonizing in the 60’s…and these constant appeals to “its’ right because we always did it this way” is lame and doesn’t work for me.

Yet, the pre-vatican II church also brings a spirituality that is very nourishing to people and people relate to the sacredness of it…so it must not be set aside again, that was our only and biggest mistake of Vatican II…

But yeah…I find the idea of traditional catholicism as a bit divisive…when we should just be catholics…

Bruce

In what way exactly has the church maintained its effectiveness in the world since V2?

 

[James924]

The problem is when some begin to suggest that the presence of the Latin Mass is somehow an indication of a greater personal faithfulness to the magesterium, a more faithful obedience to the Pope, and in some extreme cases even suggesting that attending the Tridentine Mass leads to greater personal holiness.

-Tim-

With regard to faithfulness and such, I think you’ve got it backwards… nobody is saying the Traditional Latin Mass is an indicator of those things, rather if you judge the parishes by their fruits (faithfulness etc) it is the fruits that indicate that the mass is a good tree.

In other words, the fact is that if you walk into a Trad parish today, you don’t have the 70% don’t go to mass problem or the 70% don’t believe or don’t know what to believe about the eucharist problem, or the 90-97% using contraception problem, or the “hmmm…I think I’ll give a homily about my puppy today” (if not heresy) problem, or the immodesty in dress problem, or the “hey lets all sing protestant hymns” problem, or the “i haven’t been to confession in 90 years” problem, or the “this is a time for fellowship, a meal, teaching, oh and [low voice] cough yes a sacrifice too” problem, or the “i think I’ll yap my head off right in the sanctuary as soon as mass lets out along with 90% of the others in here even though that lady in front of me is trying to pray like we all should be doing” problem, or the “oops I dropped the God of the Universe on the floor… which is almost as bad as putting Him in the mouth of the guy who hasn’t confessed in 90 years” problem, or the “well I know that according to the church’s guidelines we don’t need to use extraordinary ministers for this 30-50 person congregation, but hey, who cares about the rules” problem, or the “hey, is it a bad thing that our parish hasn’t produced a single vocation to the priesthood in a whole decade” problem, or the “oh you need confession…our confession times are from 5:12 to 5:15 on saturdays, but only saturdays on which there is a full moon and only during a leap year” problem, or the “thats funny, I didn’t see any signs at the entrance saying max 2.5 kids per couple” problem, or the “oh our parish school is teaching heresy 101 during 5th period now instead of just 1st - 4th” problem, or the “almost all of our children are leaving the faith when they grow up” problem, and on and on and on.

Now are there a few generalizations in there, perhaps a few over-simplifications and maybe an exageration or two? Sure, but by and large, you don’t see this at Trad parishes but you do see it to varying degrees in the novus ordo world of the wonderful new spring time. Now do I think any of this is going to stop me from getting a thousand responses from people in denial, claiming that these things aren’t common or that the church is in great shape? No. But my point is simply that you think that we think the tree indicates the fruits (i.e. we think that b/c we go to latin mass we’re automatically better off (or free of the above problems). We don’t. The tree doesn’t indicate the fruits, the fruits indicate the tree. And because we see the fruits there, we’ve decided to go hang out under that tree.

After seeing basically what I described above at Novus Ordos all over the U.S. and overseas throughout my life, and seeing almost none of it at Traditional Parishes, I’ll stick to the Trad parishes. No matter how many arbitrary labels are hurled at me and the family that I’m trying to lead through this world and to heaven, no matter how many times we’re called “ultra-traditionalists” or “more catholic than the pope” or any other meaning less combination of nonsense, I’ll stick with the Trad parish, thanks.

DISCLAIMER: I affirm that the Novus Ordo mass is a sacramentally valid mass and that Vatican II was a fully valid and legitimate council and that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ on Earth (just in case I scared anyone with my rant.)

 

[Tridentinum]

With regard to faithfulness and such, I think you’ve got it backwards… nobody is saying the Traditional Latin Mass is an indicator of those things, rather if you judge the parishes by their fruits (faithfulness etc) it is the fruits that indicate that the mass is a good tree.

In other words, the fact is that if you walk into a Trad parish today, you don’t have the 70% don’t go to mass problem or the 70% don’t believe or don’t know what to believe about the eucharist problem, or the 90-97% using contraception problem, or the “hmmm…I think I’ll give a homily about my puppy today” (if not heresy) problem, or the immodesty in dress problem, or the “hey lets all sing protestant hymns” problem, or the “i haven’t been to confession in 90 years” problem, or the “this is a time for fellowship, a meal, teaching, oh and [low voice] cough yes a sacrifice too” problem, or the “i think I’ll yap my head off right in the sanctuary as soon as mass lets out along with 90% of the others in here even though that lady in front of me is trying to pray like we all should be doing” problem, or the “oops I dropped the God of the Universe on the floor… which is almost as bad as putting Him in the mouth of the guy who hasn’t confessed in 90 years” problem, or the “well I know that according to the church’s guidelines we don’t need to use extraordinary ministers for this 30-50 person congregation, but hey, who cares about the rules” problem, or the “hey, is it a bad thing that our parish hasn’t produced a single vocation to the priesthood in a whole decade” problem, or the “oh you need confession…our confession times are from 5:12 to 5:15 on saturdays, but only saturdays on which there is a full moon and only during a leap year” problem, or the “thats funny, I didn’t see any signs at the entrance saying max 2.5 kids per couple” problem, or the “oh our parish school is teaching heresy 101 during 5th period now instead of just 1st - 4th” problem, or the “almost all of our children are leaving the faith when they grow up” problem, and on and on and on.

Now are there a few generalizations in there, perhaps a few over-simplifications and maybe an exageration or two? Sure, but by and large, you don’t see this at Trad parishes but you do see it to varying degrees in the novus ordo world of the wonderful new spring time. Now do I think any of this is going to stop me from getting a thousand responses from people in denial, claiming that these things aren’t common or that the church is in great shape? No. But my point is simply that you think that we think the tree indicates the fruits (i.e. we think that b/c we go to latin mass we’re automatically better off (or free of the above problems). We don’t. The tree doesn’t indicate the fruits, the fruits indicate the tree. And because we see the fruits there, we’ve decided to go hang out under that tree.

After seeing basically what I described above at Novus Ordos all over the U.S. and overseas throughout my life, and seeing almost none of it at Traditional Parishes, I’ll stick to the Trad parishes. No matter how many arbitrary labels are hurled at me and the family that I’m trying to lead through this world and to heaven, no matter how many times we’re called “ultra-traditionalists” or “more catholic than the pope” or any other meaning less combination of nonsense, I’ll stick with the Trad parish, thanks.

DISCLAIMER: I affirm that the Novus Ordo mass is a sacramentally valid mass and that Vatican II was a fully valid and legitimate council and that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ on Earth (just in case I scared anyone with my rant.)

Hear, Hear!

 

[James924]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_khqAOpZqHEI/TS8RqGKfurI/AAAAAAAAEX8/DZQhJXX4aVY/applause_thumb[2].gif

You’re too kind, sir. And if I may say, that is an exquisite “.gif”; its so good I’ll have to post it again:

Edit: on second thought, lets add a bit of variety. After all, Tradition deserves no less… than this!:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LilyM]

Your analogy is somewhat flawed. There have always been, to whatever extent, Catholics who used contraception, didn’t make use of Confession, abandoned the Church in adulthood and priests who delivered uninspiring sermons. Before 1969 all alike were attending the TLM, so the form of Mass doesn’t seem to be a guarantee against anything.

Even the fruit of a good tree can be attacked by bugs or disease and turn bad. This is not an indicator that the tree itself is bad by any means - certainly not a reason to chop down or abandon the tree - simply find a way to get rid of the bugs and disease!

With regard to faithfulness and such, I think you’ve got it backwards… nobody is saying the Traditional Latin Mass is an indicator of those things, rather if you judge the parishes by their fruits (faithfulness etc) it is the fruits that indicate that the mass is a good tree.

In other words, the fact is that if you walk into a Trad parish today, you don’t have the 70% don’t go to mass problem or the 70% don’t believe or don’t know what to believe about the eucharist problem, or the 90-97% using contraception problem, or the “hmmm…I think I’ll give a homily about my puppy today” (if not heresy) problem, or the immodesty in dress problem, or the “hey lets all sing protestant hymns” problem, or the “i haven’t been to confession in 90 years” problem, or the “this is a time for fellowship, a meal, teaching, oh and [low voice] cough yes a sacrifice too” problem, or the “i think I’ll yap my head off right in the sanctuary as soon as mass lets out along with 90% of the others in here even though that lady in front of me is trying to pray like we all should be doing” problem, or the “oops I dropped the God of the Universe on the floor… which is almost as bad as putting Him in the mouth of the guy who hasn’t confessed in 90 years” problem, or the “well I know that according to the church’s guidelines we don’t need to use extraordinary ministers for this 30-50 person congregation, but hey, who cares about the rules” problem, or the “hey, is it a bad thing that our parish hasn’t produced a single vocation to the priesthood in a whole decade” problem, or the “oh you need confession…our confession times are from 5:12 to 5:15 on saturdays, but only saturdays on which there is a full moon and only during a leap year” problem, or the “thats funny, I didn’t see any signs at the entrance saying max 2.5 kids per couple” problem, or the “oh our parish school is teaching heresy 101 during 5th period now instead of just 1st - 4th” problem, or the “almost all of our children are leaving the faith when they grow up” problem, and on and on and on.

Now are there a few generalizations in there, perhaps a few over-simplifications and maybe an exageration or two? Sure, but by and large, you don’t see this at Trad parishes but you do see it to varying degrees in the novus ordo world of the wonderful new spring time. Now do I think any of this is going to stop me from getting a thousand responses from people in denial, claiming that these things aren’t common or that the church is in great shape? No. But my point is simply that you think that we think the tree indicates the fruits (i.e. we think that b/c we go to latin mass we’re automatically better off (or free of the above problems). We don’t. The tree doesn’t indicate the fruits, the fruits indicate the tree. And because we see the fruits there, we’ve decided to go hang out under that tree.

After seeing basically what I described above at Novus Ordos all over the U.S. and overseas throughout my life, and seeing almost none of it at Traditional Parishes, I’ll stick to the Trad parishes. No matter how many arbitrary labels are hurled at me and the family that I’m trying to lead through this world and to heaven, no matter how many times we’re called “ultra-traditionalists” or “more catholic than the pope” or any other meaning less combination of nonsense, I’ll stick with the Trad parish, thanks.

DISCLAIMER: I affirm that the Novus Ordo mass is a sacramentally valid mass and that Vatican II was a fully valid and legitimate council and that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ on Earth (just in case I scared anyone with my rant.)

 

[James924]

There have always been, to whatever extent, Catholics who used contraception, didn’t make use of Confession, abandoned the Church in adulthood and priests who delivered uninspiring sermons. Before 1969 all alike were attending the TLM, so the form of Mass doesn’t seem to be a guarantee against anything.
!

I’m afraid the numbers don’t support you here. To imply that figures today are anywhere near what they were prior to 1969 is just denial. I think in my reading the lowest mass attendance got in the pre-conciliar age was around 75%. That would be a miracle today. Also, your logic is a bit flawed, if I may point that out, in that if the TLM and the vastly different seminary formation of tradtional priests (FSSP, ICK, etc) didn’t make a difference, then the TLM communities that still exist today would have the same problems that NO communities do. But they don’t. We’re all living in the same world. Both communities lived through the sexual revolution. The only difference between the two is the liturgy and the formation of the priests. If anything, that proves that there is something special about the TLM and traditional priestly formation and traditionalism as a whole that significantly protects (I never claimed “guarantees” as you said) against the trends that the rest of the church is facing today.

EDIT: Some numbers. These are a decade old and things generally have continued getting worse (Note: credit to an article by Pat Buchanan):

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven.

The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.

We can’t patch up the hull of this ship if we keep pretending there are no holes in it…

If you have an hour to kill, Michael Vorris and RealcatholicTV put together a good documentary covering a lot of this stuff. Its at Catholic Investigative Agency – Real Catholic TV and the video is called "weapons of MASS destrution, or confusion or something.

 

[LilyM]

These statistics by themselves say absolutely nothing about the causes of these problems - or the remedies - or whether (as should be the case if you are correct) there has been a statistically significant reversal of these trends following Ecclesia Dei (which somewhat led to an increase in the availability of the TLM) or particularly after Summorum Pontificum which dramatically increased it.

I’m not denying that traditional religious orders and parishes that offer the TLM are doing well. But have the others taken a sudden and dramatic corresponding nosedive at the same time, as they should if your logic is correct? I don’t see it - I see them very much holding their own, and jn fact vastly improving in a lot of cases. How can this be if they still offer the root-of-all-evil Novus Ordo?

Isn’t it at least a little possible that a lot of people on BOTH sides are rediscovering and re-embracing the bedrock of their faith?

Just like interest in 1950s style clothing, decoration and music are booming.

Like Renaissance Fairs, ballroom dancing, crafts of our grandparent’s generation such as crocheting and woodturning.

Just like the History Channel, just like tv shows based wholly or partly on history from The Tudors and The Borgias to Band of Brothers.

Just like the movies - the big hit at the Oscars was silent and black and white and set in the 20s! Just like a blossoming of interest in food as it used to be - unprocessed, home-cooked, organic, even home-grown.

Everything old is new again, in music, art, politics and most every other sphere of life. Why not religion as well? A lot of Protestants are rediscovering the historical roots of Christianity and getting more into smells and bells and Apostolic teaching as well - and trust me, they didn’t get inspired to do so by the TLM. Most of them wouldn’t know a TLM
if it bit them.

Let me make clear I’m not saying it’s a bad thing at all. Tradition has a huge role to play, and a lot of babies were thrown out with the bathwater. Just remember that as Jesus was not afraid to critically examine the practices of His forebears and even ruthlessly discard those which were a hindrance rather than a help to people’s faith, we also cannot allow
ourselves to be guilty of excessive nostalgia or antiquarianism (the idea that all old things are automatically good).

 

[Rich_C]

Let me make clear I’m not saying it’s a bad thing at all. Tradition has a huge role to play, and a lot of babies were thrown out with the bathwater. Just remember that as Jesus was not afraid to critically examine the practices of His forebears and even ruthlessly discard those which were a hindrance rather than a help to people’s faith, we also cannot allow
ourselves to be guilty of excessive nostalgia or antiquarianism (the idea that all old things are automatically good).

Actually, put reasonably and not as a straw-man, that idea is exactly what Catholics have held since the time just after the Apostles. To be Catholic is to revere the things handed down to us, to be loathe to disturb them, and to be wary of any novelty.

 

[xzereus]

Congratulation to all of the thread derailers! You have successfully made this a debate between the TLM Catholics and the NOM Catholics! Unfortunately, that’s not the purpose of this thread. You may each have your own axe to grind, but my purpose for greating this thread was not to debate TLM vs. NOM. Please create your own threads.

Obviously, the “Traditional Catholicism” represents all Latin Catholics, TLM or NOM, at least on the CAF. I believe that this implies that Western/Latin Catholicism is indeed more “Traditional” than Eastern Catholicism. Does anybody have any thoughts on that?