How is traditional catholicism different from catholicism

[jfoges]

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.

 

[SFD]

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.

Would you have followed the Arian Bishops or sided with them like the semi-Arians?

How should one call into question members of the hierarchy … in other words, how would you suggest dealing with an Arian Bishop (and this is prior to any condemnation)? What is the prudent way to do it?

SFD

BTW, I an NOT comparing the current situation to the Arian Heresy. So please do not respond as if I have.

 

[jfoges]

Would you have followed the Arian Bishops or sided with them like the semi-Arians?

How should one call into question members of the hierarchy … in other words, how would you suggest dealing with an Arian Bishop (and this is prior to any condemnation)? What is the prudent way to do it?

SFD

BTW, I an NOT comparing the current situation to the Arian Heresy. So please do not respond as if I have.

That would certainly be difficult, dealing with a heretical bishop. In such a situation I think one would have to rely on theologians to guide one through the troubled period until the Church hierarchy itself resolves the matter, as it did with the council of Nicea I.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Being a true Catholic means being faithful to all of Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

In which case, there’s not such a big difference between being a ‘traditional Catholic’ and just simply ‘a Catholic’. The main difference is in practice (which rite and the old ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ thing).

The teachings of the Catholic Church remain the same through all time, and are continually taught by the infallible magisterium of the Church.

Truth cannot change, but that doesn’t mean that members of the hierarchy do not twist it until it no longer resembles itself.

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.

Naturally! (or maybe I should say ‘supernaturally’…lol)

So how is being a Traditionalist Catholic any different from being a Catholic?

It’s all in how one worships and practices the Faith.

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.

When you said you had been ‘thinking lately about traditional Catholicism’ I assumed you meant ‘thinking about what it is’ rather than ‘thinking about the lies told about it’.

‘Traditional’ Catholicism does NOT mean that you believe that true tradition has been abandoned, if you’re talking about “Tradition” with a capital “T”. However, it is plain to see that certain traditions (lower-case ‘t’) have been abondoned in the OF that are still practiced in the EF. That is different than ‘Tradition’ though. Also, being ‘traditional’ doesn’t mean you believe that only ‘traditional’ Catholics are a ‘small faithful remnant’. Who told you this? Why believe such a dirty, inane lie? Who makes this stuff up???

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?

This point is now moot given that you’d heard some confusing inaccuracies that I hope you are now willing, in charity, to put to rest.

More and more I am starting to see Traditionalist Catholicism as a disobedient and unhealthy movement in the Church

If it were, do you think HH BXVI would have reintroduced the TLM? I’d say the powers that supposedly abrogated the TLM (whoever those clergy and lay people are/were) are more unhealthy and dangerous to Catholicism than the folks who simply continue worshipping in the old way. After all, isn’t it the ‘trads’, rather than the liars mentioned above, that have been vindicated by the current pope? The trads have always (and correctly) stated that the TLM was never abrogated. What’s so disobedient and unhealthy about people who, in a time of necessity, must act as mavericks and be reviled by the majority of the Catholics out there for simply holding onto a simple truth? The answer is “nothing”. These folks, in spite of being the tiny minority, were, of course, right.

that has wrought a lot of bad fruit, such as schismatic groups, cult like groups, and confusion of the faithful.

Wait a second…If these things have happened as you say, you still must grant these people the benefit of the doubt in their motive, which was based on a zeal for the faith. Compare that with the bad fruit produced by the churchmen since Vatican II. There are no schismatic groups in the OF because there is little zeal for the faith compared with ‘trads’. Instead of schism for noble reasons, today we have wholesale heresy practiced and believed for selfish reasons. What about the confusion of the faithful? Who’s more confused about the actual details of the faith, OF-goers, or EF-goers? I’ll tell you what…I have belonged to five OF parishes in my life and to three EF parishes. If you want to talk about the confusion of the faithful, you have to take the plank out of your own eye first because ‘traditional’ families, parishes, and schools know about the faith where OF families, parishes, and schools by and large, do not.

And what’s all this about cults? I’d say the largest ‘cult’ in the church begins with an “M” and the place is in eastern europe. That, or the folks who babble in ‘tongues’ and writhe on the floor etc. What traditional ‘cults’ are you referring to anyway? Also, can you define ‘cult’???

In other words, your bias is largely false and has been fabricated by people who have a particular axe to grind. I welcome you away from that. God bless!

 

[SFD]

That would certainly be difficult, dealing with a heretical bishop. In such a situation I think one would have to rely on theologians to guide one through the troubled period until the Church hierarchy itself resolves the matter, as it did with the council of Nicea I.

Theologians? Really?

Wouldn’t the man in the pew just avoid them and hold fast to the traditions he had learned?

And maybe seek out the still faithful clergy for the sacraments?

SFD

 

[reggieM]

Wouldn’t the man in the pew just avoid them and hold fast to the traditions he had learned?

If the traditions he learned came from Arian bishops, then the man in the pew would be wrong to hold fast to those.

 

[SFD]

If the traditions he learned came from Arian bishops, then the man in the pew would be wrong to hold fast to those.

You’re lost reggieM. Do you know what a tradition is?

SFD

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Well…thanks anyway for playing, reggie. Better luck next time.

 

[I_Believe]

Hmm.

I assisted at a Gregorian Rite today.

All prayers, devotions, writings of saints… everything in my “Spritual arsenal” is pre VII.

The only Catholic music in my cd collection is Gregorian chant and Sacred Polyphony.

I attend Mass almost daily, and will attend the OF if I can’t make an EF.

Though I don’t own any yet, I do want to read a couple of BXVI’s books.

I don’t care for Altar girls, Communion in the hand, or EMHC’s, but don’t tend to rant about them, and don’t let them distract me.

I love BXV very much and get fighting mad when someone calls him a heretic.

I am of the opinion that there are good catholics sitting in the pews of OF parishes, as well as non-diocean parishes.

Am I a traditionalist ?

(brb, I’m going to need a snack. Popcorn will work )

 

[SFD]

I am of the opinion that there are good catholics sitting in the pews of OF parishes, as well as non-diocean parishes.

Then you agree that there is a serious problem. An it is an ecclesiological problem.

Enjoy your popcorn.

SFD

 

[alih]

from the wanderer 5/8/97, quoted from article by cardinal ratzinger (la mia vita) "the unprecedented manner in which pope paul vi imposed the novus ordo of the mass created tragic consequences for the roman catholic church.
not only did banning of the old mass represent a sever departure from ‘tradition’ but the revolutionary manner in which the new mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own.
rather than being a force for unity in the church, the new mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing catholics ‘into opposing party positions’ and creating a situation in which the church is ‘lacerating itself.’’
from a personal point of view, it think less rhectoric and more attention given to church tradition and history.
have a good year. (alih)

 

[I_Believe]

Then you agree that there is a serious problem. An it is an ecclesiological problem.

Enjoy your popcorn.

SFD

lol. I knew I was too brief. I believe there are good catholics in the pews at any parish, be it diocean, SSPX, or independent. But I also believe there are cafeteria catholics in each parish as well. I’ve seen just as many folks, percentage-wise, hightail it out of SSPX Masses and a local independent Chapel Mass as fast as they could, as I’ve seen at OF Masses. I’ve met snobs at every Mass I’ve attended, EF or OF, as well as wonderful people at each.

My point is, being a traditional catholic to me is a choice, not a stance. Nowadays anyway. And I suppose it will remain that way. If you look at my posts the first year I was here, you may think I was a SSPX apologist. But I had never been to a non-diocean Mass in my life back then. Now that I’ve been to a few, I see that a diocean EF is just as moving and faith building as a non-diocean one. There is more to it than the Mass.

As far as what I’ve heard from the pulpit, frankly, the priest I’m most eager to hear is a Dominican fresh out of the seminary. The young man is on fire. Nothing at all is about him, it’s all about the Gospel and the souls of those he speaks to. One would think his faith was formed in the early part of the 1900’s.

And now I must clean the butter off my keyboard

 

[I_Believe]

from the wanderer 5/8/97, quoted from article by cardinal ratzinger (la mia vita) "the unprecedented manner in which pope paul vi imposed the novus ordo of the mass created tragic consequences for the roman catholic church.
not only did banning of the old mass represent a sever departure from ‘tradition’ but the revolutionary manner in which the new mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own.
rather than being a force for unity in the church, the new mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing catholics ‘into opposing party positions’ and creating a situation in which the church is ‘lacerating itself.’’
from a personal point of view, it think less rhectoric and more attention given to church tradition and history.
have a good year. (alih)

I agree with most of what you say here, but just as it seems harmful to have imposed revolutionary change in the Liturgy, and yank the Gregorian Rite away from those who knew nothing else, it would also be quite a shock to take the OF away from those who have only known that form of the Liturgy.

The fact is, it happened, and we can’t change that. We can only put our faith in BXVI to begin the healing. My switch from radical traditionalist ( I was never a “vacant chair” catholic) to one of calling myself traditional because of what I embrace, is what I feel BXVI wants me to do. I can only hope it pleases Our Lord. No Mass, no matter how liberal the priest, flock, or sermons are, can hurt my faith. No amount of Liturgical abuse can shake it. And frankly, I seldom encounter such.

 

[alih]

when posting, i try not to offer my opinion…please read carefully as my posts generally quote the author of the post. one cannot make a value judgement without knowing whom and by what authority they speak. these are not my opinions but mostly from those connected with the heirarchy of the church. remember, according to canon 6 the canon law of 1983, the 1917 code was in full for and affect. which means the rules of the church and if violated for whatever reason, by who-so-ever are subject to the disciplines of the time. they may conflict with what has been taught in recent years but we are seeking truth, are we not?
therefore, arguments are not with this poster but with those whom i quoted. have a good year. (alih)

 

[ethelzguy]

you still must grant these people the benefit of the doubt in their motive, which was based on a zeal for the faith.

Compare that with the bad fruit produced by the churchmen since Vatican II. There are no schismatic groups in the OF because there is little zeal for the faith compared with ‘trads’.

I should grant those who disrupt the Church by clinging to the past “the benefit of the doubt in their motive”? Clearly they are refusing to accept the Church as it progresses in time…choosing a small window of time that suits them.

Your claim that OF Catholics have “little zeal for the faith compared with trads” is utterly ludicrous and judgemental.

 

[ethelzguy]

Well…thanks anyway for playing, reggie. Better luck next time.

It is examples like this, that turn many people away from tradtional Catholicism.

 

[richard_wang]

Clearly they are refusing to accept the Church as it progresses in time…choosing a small window of time that suits them.

I pray that you meditate upon the statement you made.

There is a danger, a grave danger, in saying the one should accept the Church as it “progresses in time”.

God is immutable and by extension the Church, which is The Body of Christ is immutable.

For God there is nothing past, nothing future, there just is a constant present.

Ethelguyz,

This notion of Progress is very appealing to the modern mind because it feeds upon our pride.

It creates in us a sense that we possess greater knowledge, greater understanding, that we are better than what has passed before.

This is mere illusion.

Is our understanding of internal struggles greater that St. Augustine?

Is our understanding of truth greater that St. Thomas Aquinas?

Is our understanding of the care of the soul greater that St. Francis De Sales?

Is our understand of prayer greater that St. Teresa of Avila?

“Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.”

(Saint) Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.

The reason why I am a Catholic, a “Traditional Catholic”, is not some attachment of chant, Latin, vestments, architecture - all these are just externalities.

I am Catholic, a “Traditional Catholic”, because I believe that The Body of Christ is not changed by whims and fashions.

That Truth is not conditioned on majority consent.

That we truly are dwarfs on the shoulder of giants.

That God is immutable.

 

[Lisa44]

…
This notion of Progress is very appealing to the modern mind because it feeds upon our pride.

It creates in us a sense that we possess greater knowledge, greater understanding, that we are better than what has passed before.

This is mere illusion.

Is our understanding of internal struggles greater that St. Augustine?

Is our understanding of truth greater that St. Thomas Aquinas?

Is our understanding of the care of the soul greater that St. Francis De Sales?

Is our understand of prayer greater that St. Teresa of Avila?

…

I like you. Humans, were, are, and will be, the same creatures.

 

[Lisa44]

…
If it were, do you think HH BXVI would have reintroduced the TLM? I’d say the powers that supposedly abrogated the TLM (whoever those clergy and lay people are/were) are more unhealthy and dangerous to Catholicism than the folks who simply continue worshipping in the old way. After all, isn’t it the ‘trads’, rather than the liars mentioned above, that have been vindicated by the current pope? The trads have always (and correctly) stated that the TLM was never abrogated. What’s so disobedient and unhealthy about people who, in a time of necessity, must act as mavericks and be reviled by the majority of the Catholics out there for simply holding onto a simple truth? The answer is “nothing”. These folks, in spite of being the tiny minority, were, of course, right.

Wait a second…If these things have happened as you say, you still must grant these people the benefit of the doubt in their motive, which was based on a zeal for the faith. Compare that with the bad fruit produced by the churchmen since Vatican II. There are no schismatic groups in the OF because there is little zeal for the faith compared with ‘trads’. Instead of schism for noble reasons, today we have wholesale heresy practiced and believed for selfish reasons. What about the confusion of the faithful? Who’s more confused about the actual details of the faith, OF-goers, or EF-goers? I’ll tell you what…I have belonged to five OF parishes in my life and to three EF parishes. If you want to talk about the confusion of the faithful, you have to take the plank out of your own eye first because ‘traditional’ families, parishes, and schools know about the faith where OF families, parishes, and schools by and large, do not.

And what’s all this about cults? I’d say the largest ‘cult’ in the church begins with an “M” and the place is in eastern europe. That, or the folks who babble in ‘tongues’ and writhe on the floor etc. What traditional ‘cults’ are you referring to anyway? Also, can you define ‘cult’???

In other words, your bias is largely false and has been fabricated by people who have a particular axe to grind. I welcome you away from that. God bless!

Hi CassiusLonginus,
I agree with you. I don’t blame the OF Catholics for being ignorant because most of them grew up with it. They don’t know anything different. But they are still being robbed of a much richer tradition. If you consider all the silliness of the 20th century in terms of culture, and you mix that in with the Mass, it ends up being a product of the 20th century, instead of a product of the 1st century.

from the wanderer 5/8/97, quoted from article by cardinal ratzinger (la mia vita) "the unprecedented manner in which pope paul vi imposed the novus ordo of the mass created tragic consequences for the roman catholic church.
not only did banning of the old mass represent a sever departure from ‘tradition’ but the revolutionary manner in which the new mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own.
rather than being a force for unity in the church, the new mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing catholics ‘into opposing party positions’ and creating a situation in which the church is ‘lacerating itself.’’
from a personal point of view, it think less rhectoric and more attention given to church tradition and history.
have a good year. (alih)

Hi Alih, exactly. People are creating their own liturgies in parishes and adding in whatever they want like clapping of hands…bands…holding hands…etc. talking in tongues… You name it! Pretty soon the Catholic Mass will not differ from the Protestant ones at all.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would you have followed the Arian Bishops or sided with them like the semi-Arians?
…
BTW, I an NOT comparing the current situation to the Arian Heresy. So please do not respond as if I have.

That’s EXACTLY what you’re doing.