How is traditional catholicism different from catholicism

[EasterJoy]

I see. I never count those. I have never seen a Church anywhere that didn’t have more nominal members than attendees. This even takes into account the fact that other denominations have members that join as adults instead of being baptised as infants. I do not know when this became the norm, but I know it was true throughout the sixties.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The contentions I sometimes hear that there were LOTS of “hatch-match-dispatch” Catholics well before Vatican II or the that there were more people who knew how to “parrot” the facts of the faith back then, but no greater fraction that actually believed it, begs the question of how to address the problem described.

That there are adults with no interest in the Church is a big problem. If they were baptized as infants, that is a problem. If they aren’t baptized and have no interest in becoming baptized, that is a problem. If they are baptized and suffer from misconceptions that keeps them from full communion with the Church, that is a problem.

I realize that God is fully capable of joining non-Catholics and even Catholics who would appear to have died in mortal sin to the Church and eternal life by ways known only to him, but that fact only gives us reason to hope for those we fail to evangelize. It doesn’t release us from the commandment to go forth and make disciples!

…I grew up in the 30s with the so-called “traditional” Mass and now I attend church with the NO Mass; I see no lack of reverence as mentioned on this forum and others dealing with the traditional Mass.

I see no drums, pop songs, dancing, guitars, etc. Not since the 60’s, anyway.

At any church I have attended with the NO Mass the people were just as reverent as I remember at the Mass when I was younger.

The choir at my church is exceptional, as is the cantor when she sings alone at some Masses. We do not hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer; we have no guitars, or any other form of accompaniment to the singers except the organ.

And I certainly do not believe that the majority of Catholics are so confused and disheartened by the changes that they no longer go to Confession - nor practice their religion in the “usual” way.

What are they confused and disheartened about? Perhaps they need to go to Confession and talk it over with the Priest.

Get over it, please; it is scandalous.

I’m sorry, but I know Catholics in your age group who, although they prefer the organ to the guitar and would walk out on a Mass that included a drum set, went to Catholic schools through high school, and all the rest, are still under the impression that “nobody goes to confession anymore” and that there is no need to do penance on Fridays anymore, or any other day except the few days were fasting and/or abstainence are still a required.

The fact is that, according to several polls, the majority of Catholics interviewed after leaving a Sunday Mass, held onto major misconceptions about what the Church currently teaches. It is a big problem. I don’t mean that there were not any misconceptions in the past, that there weren’t sermons that gave the impression that we should have some toxic fear of God that is totally contrary to the plain meaning of the Gospels. I do mean that there are other things in keeping with the plain meaning of the Gospels and the most elementary teachings of the Church that aren’t getting across. That there are some proposals for addressing these problesm that could be very counter-productive doesn’t mean that the problems aren’t real.

 

[pnewton]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The contentions I sometimes hear that there were LOTS of “hatch-match-dispatch” Catholics well before Vatican II or the that there were more people who knew how to “parrot” the facts of the faith back then, but no greater fraction that actually believed it, begs the question of how to address the problem described.

An this is one reason why statistics do not always tell the whole story, if they are any value at all. Here we can see one difference between traditional catholics and the rest. Since we define Traditional Catholics as those who are attending the TLM, then by default those that do not attend Mass fall in the category of all other Catholics. Of course Traditional Catholics will have better stats in almost every area.

FYI - I was born before Vatican II, but was not raised Catholic.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Just want you to know that I define “many” as, at least, half of those who are registered as Catholics. The group I speak of, who are so totally confused & disheartened that they’ll seldom be found at either Mass, are part of the 66% of Catholics who don’t attend any Mass weekly, who no longer go to confession or practice their faith in the usual way. I know several Catholics personally who fall into this category. They don’t formally renounce the faith**, v****ery** few join another Church, they are just “on the sidelines of the faith”.

I agree that things are improving…but for the past 20 years??..no. Things have been improving here for the past 3-5 years. As for “going to hell”, I think that we have a different view of that wording. The Catholic Church will never “go to hell”, we have Christ’s promise on that. However, unless liberal Catholics quit hiding their head in the sand, happy with the way things are:

**regional priest shortages
**low attendance for the Sacraments
**a reluctance to call the abuse crisis by it’s name…Pederasty.
**annulments granted for “iffy” reasons. (Unfortunately, the number of annulments of Catholic marriages rose from 1952, when the number was **359 worldwide ** to **to 73,000 by 1997. **
**Catholics living together without the benefits of marriage & receiving the Eucharist every Sunday while doing so.
**poorly Catechized Catholics
This list could continue for quite a while, but I think you have the picture.

There are many things that the Catholics in the Novus Ordo pews seem happy to overlook. I’m not. You seem to think that Traditional Catholics are pessimists. They aren’t. They’re just not willing to accept anything less than the Church founded by Christ. Since it’s made up of human beings, there were always be problems…but, not like this… liberalism that has made it impossible to differentiate between a Catholic & a non-Catholic.

Great post - nice summarization of the situation.

It’s nice to hear from those who lived through the Council, accept it as valid and orthodox, and are able to clearly see the unorthodox corruption carried out in its name for what it is.

 

[elts1956]

I just want to know the difference between TRADITIOINAL Catholics, as they are called, and the rest of the Catholics. Leave out Cafeteria Catholics please.

I am in jeopardy of becoming Traditiional, I think. Or maybe I have always been one??? HELP!!!:knight2: :crying: :crying:

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I just want to know the difference between TRADITIOINAL Catholics, as they are called, and the rest of the Catholics. Leave out Cafeteria Catholics please.

I am in jeopardy of becoming Traditiional, I think. Or maybe I have always been one??? HELP!!!:knight2: :crying: :crying:

I don’t know 'bout me either. I’m an orthodox Catholic (a minority at the current time!) who happens to attend at least one NO and one EF Mass every week (which would seem to break pnewton’s definition entirely, for one thing).

 

[elts1956]

not at all…because there is no implication other than there are, as Scripture tells us, the poor in every age, the false teacher in every age. The blind, in every age, will lead the blind into the pit.

It is the Rock of the Ages, and the Rock on which Jesus builds His Church with Him as the Cornerstone which remains steady, and to which we cling.

It is to the men to whom it has been entrusted to teach–those certain Priests and those certain Bishops–who fail at their calling, that we respond to.

So your statement fails in it’s refusal to grasp the fundamental difference between the Church which never changes, and certain Churchmen who do change the Church’s teachings.

What does one do about “churchmen” who water down the teachings of the Church? My biggest problem with some of the ministers of the chruch is their failure to speak up on the subject of abortion. The USCCB statement was muddled and muddied beyond most people’s ability to decipher it when it came to the priorities of fighting intrinsic evils, making all evil equal, thereby causing confusion. What next?

 

[elts1956]

Great post - nice summarization of the situation.

It’s nice to hear from those who lived through the Council, accept it as valid and orthodox, and are able to clearly see the unorthodox corruption carried out in its name for what it is.

Just want you to know that I define “many” as, at least, half of those who are registered as Catholics. The group I speak of, who are so totally confused & disheartened that they’ll seldom be found at either Mass, are part of the 66% of Catholics who don’t attend any Mass weekly, who no longer go to confession or practice their faith in the usual way. I know several Catholics personally who fall into this category. They don’t formally renounce the faith**, v****ery** few join another Church, they are just “on the sidelines of the faith”.

I agree that things are improving…but for the past 20 years??..no. Things have been improving here for the past 3-5 years. As for “going to hell”, I think that we have a different view of that wording. The Catholic Church will never “go to hell”, we have Christ’s promise on that. However, unless liberal Catholics quit hiding their head in the sand, happy with the way things are:

**regional priest shortages
**low attendance for the Sacraments
**a reluctance to call the abuse crisis by it’s name…Pederasty.
**annulments granted for “iffy” reasons. (Unfortunately, the number of annulments of Catholic marriages rose from 1952, when the number was **359 worldwide ** to **to 73,000 by 1997. **
**Catholics living together without the benefits of marriage & receiving the Eucharist every Sunday while doing so.
**poorly Catechized Catholics
This list could continue for quite a while, but I think you have the picture.

There are many things that the Catholics in the Novus Ordo pews seem happy to overlook. I’m not. You seem to think that Traditional Catholics are pessimists. They aren’t. They’re just not willing to accept anything less than the Church founded by Christ. Since it’s made up of human beings, there were always be problems…but, not like this… liberalism that has made it impossible to differentiate between a Catholic & a non-Catholic.

Hello Cradle. I have just been awakened out of a deep sleep that has lasted for almost thirty five years. I have been noticing more and more various happenings at the Masses I have attended and in my parish/diocese that are begnning to make me nervous.

For one thing, the clergy with whom I am familiar seems to have lost their old starch and backbone. I have noticed various instances of the clergy of my Catholic Church not being the same as those I knew in my childhood and young adulthood. From a change in the wording at the Consecration to non support regarding election candidates and their two takes on the abortion issue, I have a queasiness in my stomach that something is rotten in Denmark.

Please be assured I am not slamming the Church in general, but I am beginning to fear there is something eating at the ministers of the Church that is not in accord with the teachings of Christ. ie. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s.

I don’t believe the Novus Ordo is at fault, but the way priests have been taught in seminaries and religious in convents (if there are any left), and the catechesis of the laity. As a result, some NO Masses CAN be an amalgum of what the individual priest thinks should or can be done without following the liturgy laid down by the Holy Roman Church. There were renegades at Vatican II and I don’t believe they were chastized to the extent they should have been.

I don’t believe those who attend the NO are cheerfully ignoring, or overlooking what is happening in the Church. They don’t have a means of comparison.

 

[pnewton]

(which would seem to break pnewton’s definition entirely, for one thing).

That is not my definition, but rather the one that is used by CAF for the sake of narrowing the scope of this forum. I believe the label is tenuous, maybe useful and definitely changes.

 

[pnewton]

I just want to know the difference between TRADITIOINAL Catholics, as they are called, and the rest of the Catholics. Leave out Cafeteria Catholics please.

The Cafeteria Catholics and fallen away Catholics almost have to lumped with the rest of Catholics. There simply is no easy way to separate them. It is frustrating though when figures and examples are thrown out as representative of non-traditionalist catholicism.

 

[CradleCath]

An this is one reason why statistics do not always tell the whole story, if they are any value at all. Here we can see one difference between traditional catholics and the rest. **Since we define Traditional Catholics as those who are attending the TLM, then by default those that do not attend Mass fall in the category of all other Catholics. Of course Traditional Catholics will have better stats in almost every area. **

You’re really reaching here, pnewton

 

[ethelzguy]

The Cafeteria Catholics and fallen away Catholics almost have to lumped with the rest of Catholics. There simply is no easy way to separate them. It is frustrating though when figures and examples are thrown out as representative of non-traditionalist catholicism.

Especially when “traditionalist” Catholics partake of the cafeteria as much as any other Catholic…

 

[Walking_Home]

For the one making the false allegations of partaking of the “cafeteria”.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/communion-on-the-tongue-kneeling-benedict-xvis-good-example/

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

That is not my definition, but rather the one that is used by CAF for the sake of narrowing the scope of this forum. I believe the label is tenuous, maybe useful and definitely changes.

You’ve repeated it in a matter that suggests you accept it, but no matter - no big deal. There really isn’t a good, commonly accepted definition.

I’ve decided I really don’t care for the label anymore as, while I love TLM, I could be happy with nothing but an appropriately reverent NO, celebrated in a style that makes its nature (as the making present of Calvary) prominent, if I had to.

 

[maurin]

Especially when “traditionalist” Catholics partake of the cafeteria as much as any other Catholic…

Isn’t it a blasphemy to call the Rock of the Ages, the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, a cafeteria?

Traditional Catholics accept Vatican II as a legitimate Council of Holy Mother Church. It is the lukewarm and false interpretations of Her documents played out in too many Churches local we reject.

 

[peary]

I’ve been thinking lately about Traditionalist Catholicism.

Being a true Catholic means being faithful to all of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church remain the same through all time, and are continually taught by the infallible magisterium of the Church. The bishops and Holy Father have the authority to teach infallibly what has been true in every generation, and which has its source in the Apostles.

So how is being a Traditionalist Catholic any different from being a Catholic? It seems to me that being a Traditionalist Catholic means that you believe that true tradition has been abandoned and is only maintained by a small faithful remnant, while the rest of the Church has lost its way.

Isn’t this calling into question the teaching authority of the Church in an unfair and imprudent manner? Isn’t this also based on severe misunderstandings of the pre and post conciliar teachings of the Church on issues such as liturgy and religious liberty?

More and more I am starting to see Traditionalist Catholicism as a disobedient and unhealthy movement in the Church that has wrought a lot of bad fruit, such as schismatic groups, cult like groups, and confusion of the faithful.

A Catholic Christian is a Catholic Christian regardless. A Catholic is a Catholic, regardless. For a traditional Catholic, he or she is one who follows what the Church teaches and attempts to put the teachings in his or her life. A traditional Catholic Christian may be one who attends either the LM or NO. A ‘progressive’ Catholic is one who thinks he or she can ‘stretch’ the teachings of the Church to the point of rejecting those teachings or having some sort of interpretation that is different from what the Church maintains. Schismatics are not traditional Catholics. They are schismatics.

 

[CradleCath]

A Catholic Christian is a Catholic Christian regardless. A Catholic is a Catholic, regardless. For a traditional Catholic, he or she is one who follows what the Church teaches and attempts to put the teachings in his or her life. A traditional Catholic Christian may be one who attends either the LM or NO. ****A ‘progressive’ Catholic is one who thinks he or she can ‘stretch’ the teachings of the Church to the point of rejecting those teachings or having some sort of interpretation that is different from what the Church maintains. Schismatics are not traditional Catholics. They are schismatics.

This is a GREAT definition of Traditional Catholicism.