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

[ProVobis]

(as well as the Mons. Klaus Gamber book the name of which I have forgotten)

That would be The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Its Problems and Background.

 

[James924]

Out of Cranmer’s Godly Order, Pope John’s Council, and Pope Paul’s New Mass, which one would you say was the most interesting read?

Ooh, that’s tough. I like that #3 jumps right into the current issues, and #1 is eye opening because of the degree to which everything done during the English reformation is incredibly similar to the things done in the conciliar and post-conciliar reforms and that the whole point behind these changes in the English reformation was to peacefully change what England’s Catholics believed by changing how they worshiped (lex orandi lex credendi) and it worked over the course of just a couple generations (with similar results today). Considering how many protestant heretics were invited to participate in the council deliberations (not the big ones in the main chamber, though) it becomes even more eye opening (though less surprising). But in order to fully see that parallel you have to read #2 which goes into extreme detail on the happenings of the council, and so in the end its impossible for me to pick which one’s most interesting!

I love the fact that such an awesome traditionalist was so liked and highly praised by our Holy Father:

***“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 9 November 2004***

 

[Lamafacaja]

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.

I don’t think so. Because when no EF’s available, most traditional Catholics I know would prefer a Byzantine Mass over the OF. Although I’ve never been, I understand it’s a very reverent Mass.

 

[James924]

I don’t think so. Because when no EF’s available, most traditional Catholics I know would prefer a Byzantine Mass over the OF. Although I’ve never been, I understand it’s a very reverent Mass.

This is true, and if I didn’t have an EF around, I’d take my family to an eastern rite rather than a novus ordo.

 

[xzereus]

Please, everybody read this post…

My reason for this post is not at all to discuss whether or not Traditional Catholicism includes those who participate in the OF of the mass. My point in making this thread was to evaluate the term “Traditional Catholicism” as being exclusive to Western Catholicism considering that Eastern Catholicism is just as traditional as the EF in the West. I obviously understand Traditional Catholicism also separates “OF Catholics” from “EF Catholics” in some instances, but I mean to point out how this term also (unfairly) separates Eastern Catholics from Western Catholics.

God Bless, and please continue to derail this thread and talk about books and the EF vs. OF as much as you desire. And, even if my title is ambiguous, my first post certainly makes the topic clear.

 

[mattkubes]

Your definition of traditional Catholicism is, as far as I can tell, only used by yourself. If thats what you want to limit things to, then there’s nothing to discuss. It doesn’t include any of the Eastern Rites because they have no cause to make that distinction. They weren’t nearly destroyed in the last few decades.

 

[xzereus]

Your definition of traditional Catholicism is, as far as I can tell, only used by yourself. If thats what you want to limit things to, then there’s nothing to discuss. It doesn’t include any of the Eastern Rites because they have no cause to make that distinction. They weren’t nearly destroyed in the last few decades.

Mattkubes,

I’m simply acknowledging that “Traditional Catholicism” does not include Eastern Catholic Rites, yet they have just as much right to call themselves “Traditional” as any group within the Roman Rite. Can you clarify exactly what part of this you disagree with?

Thanks.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Mattkubes,

I’m simply acknowledging that “Traditional Catholicism” does not include Eastern Catholic Rites, yet they have just as much right to call themselves “Traditional” as any group within the Roman Rite. Can you clarify exactly what part of this you disagree with?

Thanks.

I don’t know of any Eastern Catholics who actually feel a need to call themselves traditional Catholics. As far as I know, there is no movement within the Eastern Churches analogous to the traditional movement in the Latin Church, because there was not really much radical liturgical and catechetical rupture after Vatican II.

This isn’t about “rights” and being mean to Eastern Catholics. If an Eastern Catholic wants to call himself a traditional Eastern Catholic, well, go ahead. But as far as I know there is no movement to that effect.

This isn’t about self-righteousness in any way towards the Eastern Catholics. I think you just see an injustice or something where there isn’t one, that’s all.

 

[mattkubes]

It’s how the term is used. No one else can account for your feelings when you hear it. Now you know it’s used to distinguish between different mindsets within the Latin Rite. Try not to be so shocked when you hear it.

 

[corsair]

I’m rather proud that I can claim to be a Traditionalist. Its my choice!

 

[Bookcat]

I find the name “traditional Catholic” as it often gets used — to be rather a misnomer.

All Catholics are to receive and hand on “Tradition” as part of being Catholic (thus be “traditional” ).

I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.

 

[xzereus]

I don’t know of any Eastern Catholics who actually feel a need to call themselves traditional Catholics. As far as I know, there is no movement within the Eastern Churches analogous to the traditional movement in the Latin Church, because there was not really much radical liturgical and catechetical rupture after Vatican II.

This isn’t about “rights” and being mean to Eastern Catholics. If an Eastern Catholic wants to call himself a traditional Eastern Catholic, well, go ahead. But as far as I know there is no movement to that effect.

This isn’t about self-righteousness in any way towards the Eastern Catholics. I think you just see an injustice or something where there isn’t one, that’s all.

I certainly don’t mean to say it’s an intentional dis, but fair enough. I do understand that this term is used for Roman Catholics, I just don’t particularly think this is a good thing. I suppose that I am alone in my feelings, at least as far as Roman Catholics go.

Thanks again everyone for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

EDIT:

I find the name “traditional Catholic” as it often gets used — to be rather a misnomer.

All Catholics are to receive and hand on “Tradition” as part of being Catholic (thus be “traditional” ).

I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.

This about sums it up for me. Exactly my feelings

 

[LilyM]

The difference is, many Catholics believe nowadays you can do these things and still be Catholic. And they are not contradicted from the pulpit or sobered by the mass.

Why?

Because it’s Pentecost 365 in the Roman Catholic Church. Everything is celebrated. I’ve heard the language of celebration is even put into funeral masses. So if it’s Gaudete all the time, where do I, as an N.O. mass goer, get any idea that God must also be propitiated? That I am a sinner and could go to Hell? Nowhere.

The experiment has failed. It’s time for change. A change we can believe in. A change back.

Ok, so the Protestants and Catholic post-V2 advocates of change were wrong and mistaken in trying to (so they seem to have thought) ‘turn the clock back’ to a better and purer Apostolic faith.

So trying to return the Church to the praxis and disciplines of 1962 - or 1562 - or whenever the V2 bashers think was the Golden Age of Catholicism - is so obviously different to turning it back to, say, 362 or 162 … how exactly?

And why is any attempt to go back to 1962 or 1562 or whenever not every bit as doomed to failure as to 362 or 162?

I think you’ll find that this is one proverbial genie that probably can’t be put back in it’s bottle. Rather like all those men coming back from military service after WW2 thought their womenfolk, who had taken on all sorts of new and important jobs while they were away, would just meekly and quietly go back to the kitchen and happily stay there forevermore :nope:

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think you’ll find that this is one proverbial genie that probably can’t be put back in it’s bottle. Rather like all those men coming back from military service after WW2 thought their womenfolk, who had taken on all sorts of new and important jobs while they were away, would just meekly and quietly go back to the kitchen and happily stay there forevermore :nope:

What do you mean?

 

[BlindManWalking]

I think you’ll find that this is one proverbial genie that probably can’t be put back in it’s bottle. Rather like all those men coming back from military service after WW2 thought their womenfolk, who had taken on all sorts of new and important jobs while they were away, would just meekly and quietly go back to the kitchen and happily stay there forevermore :nope:

And look what happened when they didn’t do that.

Thanks for the set up, Lily. Couldn’t have hit that one without the pitch.

 

[James924]

What do you mean?

She means that the mindset and worldview has changed and that that change has settled and made itself permanent to such a degree that it would be difficult and unlikely for it to simply be reversed at this time. Sadly, a valid point I think. But we’ll see what the next couple generations bring

 

[patrick457]

The nitpicking is fair but at least their various liturgies were more unified than the single liturgy of the Ordinary Form. I mean, they all used the Canon didn’t they?

Not counting ‘Uses’ (local variants of the Roman Rite), those which were heavily influenced by the Roman liturgy did, at least, and even then they could contain some variance with the standard version.

For the record, the Mozarabic Rite is the one surviving liturgy which does not use the Roman Canon. (It did use the Roman Words of Institution for a time, but the recent revision of the liturgy made it unnecessary.) In fact, it’s a rather interesting specimen: despite medieval Romanizations (removed during the 1980s-90s revision) it still retained enough of a distinctive character to distinguish it, whereas other surviving Western liturgies have been so Romanized that significant differences are relatively few.

 

[LilyM]

And look what happened when they didn’t do that.

Thanks for the set up, Lily. Couldn’t have hit that one without the pitch.

A lot of great things, some awful ones … exactly the same as with any significant social shift

Sorry mate, think you struck out.

 

[James924]

A lot of great things, some awful ones … exactly the same as with any significant social shift

Sorry mate, think you struck out.

Nope, I don’t think he struck out. Mothers aren’t the heart of the home anymore. Home is a place for everyone to come sleep before they all head back to their real homes, which are Dad’s office, Mom’s office, public schools, and daycare the next morning.

People are barely having kids anymore. Children are viewed as burdens more than blessings. Women, rather than liberated, are sexual objects more today than ever before. The virtue of sexual chastity and virginity until marriage has almost disappeared. Divorce is the norm, staying married is the exception. The majority of women in places of political power are the ones with the evil anti-life, anti-Christ world views.

Most importantly, 50 million murdered infants later (US alone), I think we can say the seismic social shift did far more harm than good.

 

[Mike30]

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.

If you read the description of the thread it states specifically that it is for discussions of Roman Catholicism or the Latin Rite and it’s customs as practiced prior to the reforms that followed Vatican II. It does not concern the Eastern Churches, although for a while several of them tried to virtually take over the forum until the moderators put an end to it.