How big is the traditionalist movement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeoJuventute
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DeoJuventute

Guest
I saw a poll where 14% of American Catholics considered themselves charismatic, which made me wonder: how big is the traditionalist movement? What percentage of American Catholics would be fairly considered traditionalists?

And here’s the big question: what percentage of traditionalists fully accept Vatican II in all of its infallibility and authority?
 
You’re going to have a hard time getting a real answer to this because the borders of “the traditionalist movement” are very hard to define. For example, is EWTN traditionalist or not? Different people will say different things, depending on how they view both “traditionalism” and, in this case, EWTN. I myself have been told I’m a traditionalist (actually, “trad”) by one self-proclaimed traditionalist, and called a “Neo-Catholic” by another (a sedevacantist in that case). I’ve never adopted the moniker for myself, partially because I don’t fit the stricter concepts of the traditionalist Catholic, but also because I don’t like any such division among Catholics besides things like “orthodox” or “faithful.” One of the recurring themes of 1 Corinthians is St. Paul’s warning against factions, but even he acknowledges “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine [the NAB says “approved”] among you may be recognized.” (1 Corinthians 11:19).
 
Can we get an operational definition of “traditionalism”? I call myself a “trad” just because I reject the current movement to modernize the RCC, but I have never been to a Latin Mass (not that I have anything against it, there just hasn’t been an opportunity).
 
I accept V II because the Pope say to. But lets understand that V II pronounce nothing infallible. Even Paul VI said so.
 
i think it would be a good idea to define traditionalist. Very confused.
 
corsair said:
I accept V II because the Pope say to. But lets understand that V II pronounce nothing infallible. Even Paul VI said so.
Click to expand...
Yep. I would say that true traditional Catholics (traditionalists) outnumber charismatics by 1 to 3, though as for traditionalists outside the Church, such as sede-vacantists, non-conformist traditionalist, or just anti-VII traditionalists, they’re numbers are steady. Some leave, and come home, and some join. I don’t think we can get an accurate number, because the lines are so hard to distinguish.
 
How big is the traditionalist movement?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
IT’S THIS BIG!!!
 
How big?

Probably as small as the number of those who will be saved.

‘The saved are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are: yet amongst those few I wish to be!’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

'Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved."

St. Jerome
 
At_Trent said:
How big?

Probably as small as the number of those who will be saved.

‘The saved are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are: yet amongst those few I wish to be!’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

'Out of one hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin until death, scarcely one will be saved."

St. Jerome
Click to expand...
So if:

size of traditionalist movement = size of those that will be saved

therefore:

only traditionalists will be saved

Is that the message here?
 
If traditional = orthodox, do you assert that heterodox/heretics will be saved?

Read the book “Liberalism is a Sin” written in the 19th century.

Those who die as heretics are damned.
 
Fide_Roma said:
If traditional = orthodox, do you assert that heterodox/heretics will be saved?

Read the book “Liberalism is a Sin” written in the 19th century.

Those who die as heretics are damned.
Click to expand...
Are those who have been excommunicated heretics?
 
My point is that only Catholics whoa re faithful to tradition have a chance.

There should really be no other definition of a Roman Catholic, but unfortunately, you have degrees and flavors of “communion” these days.
 
Fide_Roma said:
My point is that only Catholics whoa re faithful to tradition have a chance.

There should really be no other definition of a Roman Catholic, but unfortunately, you have degrees and flavors of “communion” these days.
Click to expand...
My question was are those who were/are excommunicated heretics? Don’t dodge it, please.
 
Fide_Roma said:
Which excommunications are you speaking of?
Click to expand...
Does it really matter? If heretics are heretics, then excommunications are excommunications.

What’s stopping you from making a definitive statement on it?
 
Melchior said:
Does it really matter? If heretics are heretics, then excommunications are excommunications.

What’s stopping you from making a definitive statement on it?
Click to expand...
No not really. You can be excoummincted for other things. Not just for heresey
 
Melchior said:
Does it really matter? If heretics are heretics, then excommunications are excommunications.

What’s stopping you from making a definitive statement on it?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but not all those who are excommunicated are heretics.
 
I believe we need to define our terms more specifically here.

Typically when people hear “Catholic Traditionalist,” they think of Mel Gibson and the people who believe that Vatican II was sinful, and any pope beyond a certain year is the follower of Satan:rolleyes: Ignore them.

However if you mean by traditional Catholic, we can work with that. A traditional Catholic followed the faith in an orthodox fashion. Meaning, they believe and practice what would be considered more “strict” beliefs such as no contraceptive use (or not wanting to personally use it), transubstantiation, the veneration of the Saints, headcovering as a custom for women, etc. Then there are the “tough issues,” such as abortion being wrong across the board, belief in subsidiarity, marriage only between a man and a woman, etc. But of course, it goes beyond that. I would say that a traditional Catholic is not a feminist by any means, and wants to do away with the feminization of the Church. RealCatholicTv did a clip on this a while back looking into this issue.

Traditional Catholics want to see a strong male leadership presence in the Church and want to do away with weak priests who cannot adequately defend the practices and beliefs of the Church.

I think in the next 5-10 years, heading back to the traditional roots of the Church will become a rising trend, especially considering the time we live in. I would also say that as a convert, this trend will have a stronger hold because converts tend to take the faith more seriously and have looked into the tough issues and “strict” beliefs more closely. As a convert, I do not care to be part of a Church that acts Protestant and promotes a lukewarm faith.
 
corsair said:
I accept V II because the Pope say to. But lets understand that V II pronounce nothing infallible. Even Paul VI said so.
Click to expand...
That’s just not true. The documents and pronouncements out of Vatican II were done so with the full magesterial strength of the Church. Any assertion that you can simply disregard Vatican II for whatever reasons is a break with the apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top