In order for something to a be a part of "traditional" Catholicism

[hs_hopeful]

…how old must the practice be? I know answers will probably vary, but as someone who is not Catholic, I’m curious as to what different people’s opinions are.

 

[FightingFat]

…how old must the practice be? I know answers will probably vary, but as someone who is not Catholic, I’m curious as to what different people’s opinions are.

I don’t think it’s about being old, it’s more about loving the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and having an appreciation for the less progressive side of the Church, you know, if you prefer smells and bells to tambourines, if you wear a mantilla, stuff like that. I’m a child of Vatican II, but I would like to think of myself as a traditionalist, in the sense of the hermeneutic of continuity!

 

[jonpd]

I don’t think it’s about being old, it’s more about loving the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and having an appreciation for the less progressive side of the Church, you know, if you prefer smells and bells to tambourines, if you wear a mantilla, stuff like that. I’m a child of Vatican II, but I would like to think of myself as a traditionalist, in the sense of the hermeneutic of continuity!

I think that it is more than the EF although that is important because of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. It is the fact that traditionalists also generally follow beliefs that were mainstream before VII and the subsequent erroneous interpretations watered down the beliefs. These include for example the reality of Hell, the need for Confession, etc.

If I had a choice between an EF with a priest who taught that most everyone was saved and confession was optional, vs. an OF Mass with a priest that followed the traditional teachings, I would go for the OF.

So to answer the OP’s question I would say the traditional beliefs that go back to the Bible and the Church Fathers rather than modern interpretations from post VII. Beliefs that have withstood the test of time and have not been influenced by Modernism.

 

[FightingFat]

I think that it is more than the EF although that is important because of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. It is the fact that traditionalists also generally follow beliefs that were mainstream before VII and the subsequent erroneous interpretations watered down the beliefs. These include for example the reality of Hell, the need for Confession, etc.

If I had a choice between an EF with a priest who taught that most everyone was saved and confession was optional, vs. an OF Mass with a priest that followed the traditional teachings, I would go for the OF.

So to answer the OP’s question I would say the traditional beliefs that go back to the Bible and the Church Fathers rather than modern interpretations from post VII. Beliefs that have withstood the test of time and have not been influenced by Modernism.

Great post, I agree!

 

[hs_hopeful]

I thought this was probably the basic premise of traditional Catholicism, but having been born after John Paul II became pope, and much of what is considered traditional catholicism was no longer the norm, so to speak, I didn’t trust my inferences.

 

[FightingFat]

I thought this was probably the basic premise of traditional Catholicism, but having been born after John Paul II became pope, and much of what is considered traditional catholicism was no longer the norm, so to speak, I didn’t trust my inferences.

I think it was (is) but some people took off at full pelt in the wrong direction. You know; the 60’s and 70’s were a period of great change everywhere and that naturally filtered through to the Church. JP II’s philosophy was sound and he worked hard on those foundations. Now we have Benedict XVI who is working on the liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

vs. an OF Mass with a priest that followed the traditional teachings.

Isn’t this a contradiction?

 

[ChurchTorch]

…how old must the practice be? I know answers will probably vary, but as someone who is not Catholic, I’m curious as to what different people’s opinions are.

NO ONE knows! “Traditional Catholicism” is not and probably cannot really be defined unless the Church did so. So all we really have are (wo)man-made notions of what is “traditional” and what is not.

 

[ChurchTorch]

I think that it is more than the EF although that is important because of Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. It is the fact that traditionalists also generally follow beliefs that were mainstream before VII and the subsequent erroneous interpretations watered down the beliefs. These include for example the reality of Hell, the need for Confession, etc.

If I had a choice between an EF with a priest who taught that most everyone was saved and confession was optional, vs. an OF Mass with a priest that followed the traditional teachings, I would go for the OF.

So to answer the OP’s question I would say the traditional beliefs that go back to the Bible and the Church Fathers rather than modern interpretations from post VII. Beliefs that have withstood the test of time and have not been influenced by Modernism.

Or even (relatively) modern interpretations that are pre-VC2.

If you wanted traditions that have no been influenced by “Modernism” you’d have to go back to the early church. Even then…

 

[ProVobis]

If this can be of any help, from 1983 Canon Law:

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Does this mean established prior to 1953?

 

[Joe_5859]

Isn’t this a contradiction?

Hey now, play nice!