How do you define "traditional Catholicism?"

[whatevergirl]

Hi everyone–I have been reading through a few threads that seem to show traditional Catholicism presented in different lights. I grew up during Vatican II…so for me, this is traditional. Yet, my MIL grew up during Vatican I, and misses some of the tenets of Vatican I. I have noticed people on here who seem to feel that Pope JP2 wasn’t ‘orthodox’ and ‘was liberal minded’ at times. I was wondering if there really is a difference of opinion within our Church of what constitutes traditional Catholicism? I have seen different threads ranging from salvation to girls serving as altar servers, and there are so many varying opinions. How can that be if we are all Catholic? Why are there so many debates amongst Catholics about Catholicism itself?

Look forward to your replies–thanks.

 

[kleary]

I would define it as a preference to the Mass and Sacraments as they were before 1965. After 1965 most “tradition” was abandoned for newer ways of doing things.

Ken

 

[jim28]

Hi everyone–I have been reading through a few threads that seem to show traditional Catholicism presented in different lights. I grew up during Vatican II…so for me, this is traditional. Yet, my MIL grew up during Vatican I, and misses some of the tenets of Vatican I. I have noticed people on here who seem to feel that Pope JP2 wasn’t ‘orthodox’ and ‘was liberal minded’ at times. I was wondering if there really is a difference of opinion within our Church of what constitutes traditional Catholicism? I have seen different threads ranging from salvation to girls serving as altar servers, and there are so many varying opinions. How can that be if we are all Catholic? Why are there so many debates amongst Catholics about Catholicism itself?

Look forward to your replies–thanks.

I would define it as the willingness to believe the doctrine of the Church as it has been defined throughout Church History.
To condemn all heresies and to never waver in your faith, even unto death.

 

[Genesis315]

Hi everyone–I have been reading through a few threads that seem to show traditional Catholicism presented in different lights. I grew up during Vatican II…so for me, this is traditional. Yet, my MIL grew up during Vatican I, and misses some of the tenets of Vatican I.

Your MIL grew up in 1870?!?!

Seriously though, I think you are mistaking terms. Vatican II is shorthand for the Second Vatican Council–the 21st ecumenical council which took place from 1962 to 1965. Vatican I is short for the First Vatican Council, the 20th ecumenical Council, which took place in 1870.

The tenets of Vatican I were strictly dogmatic and so they are all in force today. Other customs and whatnot that seem to have waned after Vatican II are not prohibited at all by either Council, nor are they mandated by either Council. The now ordinary form of the liturgy was introduced after Vatican II, not at it–but was based generally on certain things enunciated by the Council.

Likewise, certain penitential regulations were changed in some countries as local bishops conferences were given the authority to choose a particular penance other than abstaining from meat if they so chose–but again, this was after the Council.

Besides that and some other minor changes between the 1918 and 1983 codes of canon law (that tend not to affect everyday Catholic life), I’m not sure what you mean by previous tenets.

 

[GIMJ]

Your MIL grew up in 1870?!?!

Seriously though, I think you are mistaking terms. Vatican II is shorthand for the Second Vatican Council–the 21st ecumenical council which took place from 1962 to 1965. Vatican I is short for the First Vatican Council, the 20th ecumenical Council, which took place in 1870.

I thought it was pretty clear that the OP was saying that she grew up knowing nothing other than the post-Vatican II tradition, and that the mother-in-law grew up prior to Vatican II, but obviously after Vatican I. I find it annoying that you mock the OP when your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.

But as to the poster, I think that the confusion is legitimate. I’ve noticed quite a lot of people who think that so-called “traditional” Catholicism is somehow more valid than what might be deemed “modern” Catholicism. For those of us that are only now learning about the “traditional” ways, it can be confusing when people cast it as a debate between old and new, as though there have been major shifts in doctrine. But as Genesis315 points out, the Church is still the same Church, and no dogmas were eliminated in the Second Vatican Council.

 

[Genesis315]

I thought it was pretty clear that the OP was saying that s/he grew up knowing nothing other than the post-Vatican II tradition, and that the mother-in-law grew up prior to Vatican II, but obviously after Vatican I. I find it annoying that you mock the OP when your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.

Sheesh–it was just a little joke. As St.Teresa of Avila said, Lord deliver us from sour-faced saints!

(I am just kidding with you, but she really did say that!)

Anyway, maybe I did misread what she was saying, but I have come across multiple people who think “Vatican I” is the name of an era and Vatican II is the name of some second era–so maybe I read that into it. I apologize for my mistake and for causing undo annoyance.

 

[GIMJ]

Sheesh–it was just a little joke. As St.Teresa of Avila said, Lord deliver us from sour-faced saints!

(I am just kidding with you, but she really did say that!)

Anyway, maybe I did misread what she was saying, but I have come across multiple people who think “Vatican I” is the name of an era and Vatican II is the name of some second era–so maybe I read that into it. I apologize for my mistake and for causing undo annoyance.

And I realized that on second thought. Not that it would have mattered anyway because I shouldn’t be reacting that way. I’m supposed to be giving up petty annoyances for Lent Guess I’ll have to start over again tomorrow.

I don’t know about being a saint, but I confess to being a bit sour-faced sometimes.

 

[THurifer2]

I I entered Kidergarten in the early 70s…our small town parish had 3 nuns and a few women who attended at conferece in 1976 that was named Call to Action…those 7 women (who were enjoying the womens lib movement) came back from that conference they literally took over the parish…at the encouragement of an extremely liberal priest…followed by a few “weak” priests…three of those women are gone but the remainig women are around 70 years old and they are still there…the parish is still dramatically affected by their “control”. I grew up and was catechised during that time. It took 10-15 years for me to learn the true faith…(not the kumbaya secular humanism form the 70s-80s)…What happened to me was instead of picking up Kung or Raher or Schillebeex…I picked up Von Hildebrand, Von Balthasar Neumann.

The current Novus Ordo church (not all but most) is greatly influenced by Kung, Rahner and Schillebeex…and those three are abosolute POISON.

 

[catherineajt]

I think if one defines 'traditional Catholic" as one who is obedient to the Pope and the Church’s teachings, then one can be a traditional Catholic no matter what time frame they grew up!

However, customs and practices differ. My mother in law was born, obviously, between the two councils and one thing that irritates her about the churches built after Vatican II is the kneeling issue. Specifically, the churches without kneelers at all, since it was handed down that each parish/diocese may decide whether kneeling is customary or not. Used to be, everybody knelt.

But this is a custom, albeit one that has a prayer-based reason. In the Eastern church, standing is the customary prayer attitude (and to my mind, it’s harder to stand throughout liturgy than to alternate kneeling, standing and sitting!)

My mother in law will still attend a church without kneelers, because she knows that church is still in communion with Rome and it is perfectly proper for her to attend mass there. It doesn’t make her more traditional than I to prefer kneeling; what matters is in the heart.

Karen

 

[THurifer2]

I thought it was pretty clear that the OP was saying that she grew up knowing nothing other than the post-Vatican II tradition, and that the mother-in-law grew up prior to Vatican II, but obviously after Vatican I. I find it annoying that you mock the OP when your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.

.

Well,

There is some merit to the point…due to the fact that some people think Vatican I was a different church. The simple truth of the matter is the OP grew up in the Vatican I church just as much as they grew up in the Vatican II church.

SInce Vatican I was a doctrinal council and Vatican II was a pastoral council and both councils dealt with matters that all Catholics are bound to hold true to.

What drives me Bonkers is the whole mentality that the Church was born on December 8th 1965. NOW I am not accusing the OP of this mentality but the nature of the post indicates that the OP is under the impression that VII refromed things from VI which is not true. In fact everything discussed at VI is still current church teaching. Sooooo the OP is a VI Catholic like the rest of us.

My question is What tenents of VI were abrogated by VII?

 

[THurifer2]

have noticed people on here who seem to feel that Pope JP2 wasn’t ‘orthodox’ and ‘was liberal minded’ at times.
Look forward to your replies–thanks.

John Paul II was a great pope. Liberals disliked him be cause he wouldn’t let priests marry or ordain women. Tradionalists dislike him becuase he wasn’t conservative enough…and becuase of the few disasterous bishops (and cardinals ) that he appointed.

I personally think that if it were any other pope our church would have suffered greatly. JPII ascended the Chair of Peter during the absolute high point of Modernist power following VII. Kung and Raher were very popular and in many places in the USA LIberalism had its claws deeply buried into the church…ANy other person at the helm of the Barque of Peter could have ended it all for the Church.

 

[michaeldaniels]

LOL…you took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say the same thing.

Your MIL grew up in 1870?!?!

 

[Brother_John]

Hi everyone–I have been reading through a few threads that seem to show traditional Catholicism presented in different lights. I grew up during Vatican II…so for me, this is traditional. Yet, my MIL grew up during Vatican I, and misses some of the tenets of Vatican I. I have noticed people on here who seem to feel that Pope JP2 wasn’t ‘orthodox’ and ‘was liberal minded’ at times. I was wondering if there really is a difference of opinion within our Church of what constitutes traditional Catholicism? I have seen different threads ranging from salvation to girls serving as altar servers, and there are so many varying opinions. How can that be if we are all Catholic? Why are there so many debates amongst Catholics about Catholicism itself?

Look forward to your replies–thanks.

Like you, I grew up post Vatican II. With the exception of a few “Folk Masses”, I consider the Church I grew up in to be “traditional”.

I seem to have escaped most of the things that “tradtionalists” are ranting about. We still have the tabernacle behind the altar on the back wall. We still use the organ. All of the churches I have attended regularly have removed the communion rail long ago.

We all stand to receive communion, some by hand, others by mouth.

But, no Barney, Clown, or Gay Masses. The only time I saw our church used for something other than a Catholic service, was when Scott Hahn came for a two evening engagement about 12 years ago.

 

[pnewton]

Without putting the spin on the question as some have, I would define the term as having an affinity for the TLM Mass. This seems to be the single most common element.

 

[Brother_John]

Without putting the spin on the question as some have, I would define the term as having an affinity for the TLM Mass. This seems to be the single most common element.

I see that you live in Texas, as do I.

So, it’s your position that our churches should be “tri-lingual”?

 

[pnewton]

I see that you live in Texas, as do I.

So, it’s your position that our churches should be “tri-lingual”?

I have no position. Not my job. I was just giving a definition.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Yet, my MIL grew up during Vatican I, and misses some of the tenets of Vatican I.>>

As Vatician 1 as in 1871, your MIL must be VERY old indeed.

 

[whatevergirl]

I thought it was pretty clear that the OP was saying that she grew up knowing nothing other than the post-Vatican II tradition, and that the mother-in-law grew up prior to Vatican II, but obviously after Vatican I. I find it annoying that you mock the OP when your reading comprehension skills are so lacking.

But as to the poster, I think that the confusion is legitimate. I’ve noticed quite a lot of people who think that so-called “traditional” Catholicism is somehow more valid than what might be deemed “modern” Catholicism. For those of us that are only now learning about the “traditional” ways, it can be confusing when people cast it as a debate between old and new, as though there have been major shifts in doctrine. But as Genesis315 points out, the Church is still the same Church, and no dogmas were eliminated in the Second Vatican Council.

Thank you for clarifying what I meant…lol:blush:

 

[whatevergirl]

Sheesh–it was just a little joke. As St.Teresa of Avila said, Lord deliver us from sour-faced saints!

(I am just kidding with you, but she really did say that!)

Anyway, maybe I did misread what she was saying, but I have come across multiple people who think “Vatican I” is the name of an era and Vatican II is the name of some second era–so maybe I read that into it. I apologize for my mistake and for causing undo annoyance.

It’s okay -I was the one a bit confused:blush: …or perhaps not clear in what I was implying. I meant more that my MIL sees definite differences in how our faith has ‘evolved’ since pre Vatican II.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think if one defines 'traditional Catholic" as one who is obedient to the Pope and the Church’s teachings, then one can be a traditional Catholic no matter what time frame they grew up!

However, customs and practices differ. My mother in law was born, obviously, between the two councils and one thing that irritates her about the churches built after Vatican II is the kneeling issue. Specifically, the churches without kneelers at all, since it was handed down that each parish/diocese may decide whether kneeling is customary or not. Used to be, everybody knelt.

But this is a custom, albeit one that has a prayer-based reason. In the Eastern church, standing is the customary prayer attitude (and to my mind, it’s harder to stand throughout liturgy than to alternate kneeling, standing and sitting!)

My mother in law will still attend a church without kneelers, because she knows that church is still in communion with Rome and it is perfectly proper for her to attend mass there. It doesn’t make her more traditional than I to prefer kneeling; what matters is in the heart.

Karen

Thank you for your post–excellent thoughts!