How is traditional catholicism different from catholicism

[elts1956]

Okay, call me ignorant, but why is it that the problems within the Church seems to always come back to a difference in liturgy, especially the NO and the TLM Mass. I am a cradle Catholic, becoming aware of going to Mass, celebrating my First Communion, Confirmation in the 40s and 50s.

To be truthful and also sad to say, I wasn’t conscious of what the Chruch did and didn’t do during that time. I was told what to do, think and believe and I did. In other words my understanding of the Catholic Church and the root and reasons behind its teachings was zilch.

I have only recently begun reading and learning on my own. Although I am enjoying it and learning facts about the Church that are opening my eyes, I feel very cheated that I wasn’t taught my Faith more deeply.

Having experienced both the NO and TLM Masses and not ,until recently, understanding one whit of either of them, I would like to know how this particular liturgy has changed. It has been so long since I have attended a TLM Mass, I can no longer remember everything about this form.

I, truthfully, do not understand how the form of the Mass can change, or make a difference, in the depth of one’s Faith. I would think rather it is the quality of one’s catecheses that would make the difference in the quality of reverence one shows at Mass, or the understanding of one’s Faith and the developmnet of right conscience…

 

[ethelzguy]

Is it YOUR position that the VII was not a major change unlike any other in Church history? That is a wierd position to take. Discrediting someone by saying that the Church fluidly changed before VII so as to discount the masive changes of VII and thyose that may have a problem with them.

Yes, Vatican II was a big change. But how the Church changes is at the discretion of the Church, not it’s congregation.

If somebody has a “problem” with changes in the Church, it is their problem, not the problem of the Church.

 

[ethelzguy]

I, truthfully, do not understand how the form of the Mass can change, or make a difference, in the depth of one’s Faith. I would think rather it is the quality of one’s catecheses that would make the difference in the quality of reverence one shows at Mass, or the understanding of one’s Faith and the developmnet of right conscience…

Amen.

 

[Penitant]

I, truthfully, do not understand how the form of the Mass can change, or make a difference, in the depth of one’s Faith. I would think rather it is the quality of one’s catecheses that would make the difference in the quality of reverence one shows at Mass, or the understanding of one’s Faith and the developmnet of right conscience…

Lex orandi, Lex credendi

CCC 1124 The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Matt33]

Okay, call me ignorant, but why is it that the problems within the Church seems to always come back to a difference in liturgy, especially the NO and the TLM Mass. I am a cradle Catholic, becoming aware of going to Mass, celebrating my First Communion, Confirmation in the 40s and 50s.

To be truthful and also sad to say, I wasn’t conscious of what the Chruch did and didn’t do during that time. I was told what to do, think and believe and I did. In other words my understanding of the Catholic Church and the root and reasons behind its teachings was zilch.

I have only recently begun reading and learning on my own. Although I am enjoying it and learning facts about the Church that are opening my eyes, I feel very cheated that I wasn’t taught my Faith more deeply.

Having experienced both the NO and TLM Masses and not ,until recently, understanding one whit of either of them, I would like to know how this particular liturgy has changed. It has been so long since I have attended a TLM Mass, I can no longer remember everything about this form.

I, truthfully, do not understand how the form of the Mass can change, or make a difference, in the depth of one’s Faith. I would think rather it is the quality of one’s catecheses that would make the difference in the quality of reverence one shows at Mass, or the understanding of one’s Faith and the developmnet of right conscience…

You are correct on a normal and basic level, but there are abnormal and rare (thouhg not in my parish) instances where the form of the mass and how it is celebrated CAN enhance or detract from the faith. But I would think that it is more of a lack of a use of the church’s power to govern and police itself than the actual form being used.

 

[Matt33]

Yes, Vatican II was a big change. But how the Church changes is at the discretion of the Church, not it’s congregation.

If somebody has a “problem” with changes in the Church, it is their problem, not the problem of the Church.

Yes I agree I only with you stated this before rather than use innuendo to mistate a whole groups opinion. THe only thing I would add and hope you would recognize is that many do not see the church’s positions other than thier own interpertation. Bending the Church to thier own mind. This is true of those that exclusivly want the TLM and those that oppose it.

 

[brigid12]

You are correct on a normal and basic level, but there are abnormal and rare (thouhg not in my parish) instances where the form of the mass and how it is celebrated CAN enhance or detract from the faith. But I would think that it is more of a lack of a use of the church’s power to govern and police itself than the actual form being used.

I would agree, however I believe that catechesis (or lack thereof) was and is the biggest problem with either the NO or the TLM. I think one of the major reasons for the NO being abused so, is lack of adequate catechesis and apparently (I had not converted yet at the change of the liturgy) quite a few saw that many using the TLM weren’t truly worshipping God.
For many Traditionalists, they did (or do) not feel inadequately catechized.

Unfortunately, abuses are more the name of the game than not, on the West Coast, and certainly not rare - possibly the problem is so rampant here due to the priest shortage as our archdiocese is not one of the foremost in vocations. I have found only about 3 parishes that don’t have some kind of abuse, from southern CA to northern WA - and I’ve traveled a lot (not to say I visited every parish, at all, only that finding a parish without abuses is really hard - and probably contributes to the priest shortage, so it’s a Catch-22 situation). I haven’t travelled near as much since the MP, but it hasn’t been implemented (or spoken about by clergy) hardly at all in this archdiocese (the only TLM is at a chapel that was an indult chapel, anyway, however I’ve heard very recently that it is scheduled to become a TLM parish). Of course, there would certainly be problems and obstacles that I’m not aware of so I don’t want to seem to be attacking anyone! I’m definitely not!!!

 

[elts1956]

Lex orandi, Lex credendi

CCC 1124 The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46

Pax Tecum,
Zach

Yes, unless one was born after Vatican II, or came of age at that time. Then the traditions (small t) changed. Those post Vatican II have never been exposed to the traditions (again lower case, not upper case) of the Church before Vatican II. So say what you will, tradition is tradition and Tradition is Tradition (Upper case)

 

[elts1956]

Lex orandi, Lex credendi

CCC 1124 The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles - whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]).45 The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.46

Pax Tecum,
Zach

Hi I Believe,

I looked up call to action, here is a bit from their webpage -

…the assembly declared the church must stand up to the chronic racism, sexism, militarism and poverty in modern society. And to do so in a credible way the church must reevaluate its positions on issues like celibacy for priests, the male-only clergy, homosexuality, birth control, and the involvement of every level of the church in important decisions.



Thanks for the information.

Double check “Call to Action”. They are not a credible source, nor are they in agreement with Rome on several issues.

 

[jfoges]

I am the OP who started this thread. There have been so many responses that I have no way to respond to all of them. However, I want to say that I do not think that Traditionalist Catholics are any more true to the teachings of the Church then non-Traditionalists are. The Tridentine is not a more authentic mass then the Novus Ordo. Both masses are completly authentic. Both are a beautiful liturgy. Tridentine rites are not a more authentic version of Catholicism.

Having the mass said in the Latin language does not make it more Catholic. Nor does having the priest face the altar, or any of the other differences. These are customs, not essential elements.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Hey foges,
I have to heartily but kindly disagree with you when you say:

I do not think that Traditionalist Catholics are any more true to the teachings of the Church then non-Traditionalists are.

This may be true on the individual level, however, taken as two basically distinct groups, about 100% of trads practice their faith, whereas maybe only a quarter or less (at least here in this country) even go to Mass on Sundays, and heaven knows that there is more to practicing the Faith than simply attending Mass once a week.

As many have observed, it comes down to catechesis and the saying “lex orandi…”, but even these things start at the top and trickle down (or at least, they should).

 

[elts1956]

I am the OP who started this thread. There have been so many responses that I have no way to respond to all of them. However, I want to say that I do not think that Traditionalist Catholics are any more true to the teachings of the Church then non-Traditionalists are. The Tridentine is not a more authentic mass then the Novus Ordo. Both masses are completly authentic. Both are a beautiful liturgy. Tridentine rites are not a more authentic version of Catholicism.

Having the mass said in the Latin language does not make it more Catholic. Nor does having the priest face the altar, or any of the other differences. These are customs, not essential elements.

I personally don’t think we should judge anyone attending either the NO or the TLM. As the SHADOW always said ON THE RADIO WHEN I WAS 8 OR 9 "Who knows what lies in the hearts of wo/men? Reverence depends upon a person’s quality of catechesis they received and their fidelity to the TRUTHS of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Penitant]

Those post Vatican II have never been exposed to the traditions (again lower case, not upper case) of the Church before Vatican II.

I was born after Vatican II and faithfully attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass every Sunday. It is offered by a priest who was also born after Vatican II.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[CassiusLonginus]

penitent, you’re one of the lucky ones.

 

[Rawb]

Having the mass said in the Latin language does not make it more Catholic. Nor does having the priest face the altar, or any of the other differences. These are customs, not essential elements.

Does it not?

The priest facing the altar and the Mass in Latin were done for more than a thousand years in all Catholic Churches. These are parts of Catholic culture and identity.

It does not, as I think you meant to say, make them more TRUE. Each Mass is true. The fact that they are not essential doesn’t effect that.

So while having the priest face the altar and pray in Latin in no way makes the Mass more true or authentic, it does make it more Catholic, in that these are actions associated with the Catholic Church for a thousand years in the mind of Catholics and Non-Catholics. Praying in the vernacular and facing the people can be done by Catholics, but it’s also been done by protestants (and even non-Christians), so it is not as intrinsically Catholic. As such, I believe an argument could be made that the Tridentine has more Catholic trappings and culture (ie is 'more Catholic) than the Novus Ordo, without casting aspersions on either rite’s validity or core identity as a Catholic service.

 

[elts1956]

I was born after Vatican II and faithfully attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass every Sunday. It is offered by a priest who was also born after Vatican II.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

WONDERFUL!! I should have stated I speak only from personal experience and knowledge. I haven’t seen a Mass in the Extraordinary Form since 1963.

 

[pnewton]

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.

You weren’t the only one who fails to see the subtlety in this.

As to the original post, the label of “traditional catholic” is only useful as a broad description. In this forum it is used to describe a preference for a TLM:
[ **

**Traditional Catholicism - talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX,](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102)

The term is useless as an insult or a stereotype. It is better to stick to the simpler definition in which Traditional Catholics prefer a specific type of Mass and spirituality. Obviously those who are not Traditional Catholics still adhere to Catholic Tradition, or else they would not be Catholic.

Likewise “Modern Catholic” is useless as an insult and stereotype, do to the vagueness of the term. I want to laugh at the irony of “modern” being used as an insult on a computer and over the internet.

 

[Lisa44]

Does it not?

…

So while having the priest face the altar and pray in Latin in no way makes the Mass more true or authentic, it does make it more Catholic, in that these are actions associated with the Catholic Church for a thousand years in the mind of Catholics and Non-Catholics. Praying in the vernacular and facing the people can be done by Catholics, but it’s also been done by protestants (and even non-Christians), so it is not as intrinsically Catholic. As such, I believe an argument could be made that the Tridentine has more Catholic trappings and culture (ie is 'more Catholic) than the Novus Ordo, without casting aspersions on either rite’s validity or core identity as a Catholic service.

 

[ethelzguy]

Praying in the vernacular and facing the people can be done by Catholics, but it’s also been done by protestants (and even non-Christians), so it is not as intrinsically Catholic.

Perhaps the lines between non-Catholic and anti-Catholic have become blurred here?

Because a non-Catholic church does something, we are inherently excluded from doing it?

 

[Lisa44]

Perhaps the lines between non-Catholic and anti-Catholic have become blurred here?

Because a non-Catholic church does something, we are inherently excluded from doing it?

Uhh, if you want to immitate heretics then go for it:thumbsup: