Please define "Traditional Catholic"

[Aelred_Minor]

I suspect this forum is in response to demand for something like it. Personally I would be content if they replaced it with something like a Church History forum and divided the subjects that currently fall under this forum between that, the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, the Spirituality forum, etc.

 

[TrueLight]

I suspect this forum is in response to demand for something like it. Personally I would be content if they replaced it with something like a Church History forum and divided the subjects that currently fall under this forum between that, the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, the Spirituality forum, etc.

That would be ignoring that there is an actual group of people who call themselves traditionalists who are a minority in the Church.

Our Holy Father is aware of that group of people and that is why we have Universae Ecclesiae. These traditionalists include groups like the FSSP, ICCRS and other societies of Apostolic life.

This group of folks love discussing saying the Rosary in Latin and the traditional breviary, and the rubrics of the EF, and gregorian chant etc.

Are you saying there should not be a subforum where these things can be discussed?

I just don’t get what the obsession with changing the name of this forum is.

This topic has come up before.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think some who favor the EF Mass incorrectly believe they belong to a different rite of the Church and they are wrong.

What’s the first thing those attending talked about? Creating their “own church” because they didn’t want to attend a “NO parish.” How utterly repugnant.

Your comment is offensive on several levels. Repugnant even.

 

[adstrinity]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4659441&postcount=38

From a thread here from 2009: "A traditional Catholic is someone that views the traditions of the Church not just as an optional extra to Catholicism but praciticing our faith and living our lives with the wisom passed on from our fathers in faith is a necessary and intrinsic part of Catholicism.

Of course, falling away from the infallible teachings of the Church is worse than falling away from the practices of the Church, but there is the idea that being a Catholic is not just about believing as the Church has believed but is also about worshipping God in the way the Church has passed down to us.

Tradition is a living thing that evoles, the way we practice our faith evolves but this evolution must take place with respect to what has gone before us and must build on it."

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I am only trying to understand this forum.

It is quite simple really. There are Catholic who are attached to the traditional rite/EF mass and traditional practices for a number of reasons. We call ourselves ‘traditional’. This seriously upsets some people who don’t understand what the fuss is about, don’t like it because we talk in absolutes rather than preference and choice, and label us as stuck in the old days, oldfashioned, elistist, or even borderline heretical. Repugnant has also been used to describe this phenomenon. But the point is that ‘traditional’ Catholics tend to be a bit cautious when it comes to novelty. Not everything that is new and funky is good, I’m sure we can all agree on that. We go for the tried and tested and believe that tradition is important and not something that can be thrown out of the window. Again, that upsets some people who love new and funky stuff, so the discussion often gets heated, sometimes even by resulting in members leaving the CAF, or worse.

 

[I_Thirst]

This seriously upsets some people who don’t understand what the fuss is about, don’t like it because we talk in absolutes rather than preference and choice

Isn’t this what traditional Catholics do by going to a Mass that corresponds with their preferences and choices? When the Tridentine Mass was the norm, did those Catholics select forms of the Mass by personal preference or choice? Or did they just attend whatever was offered at their local parish?

Isn’t the EF, by and large, a novelty (maybe an old-fashioned historically-supported one) in a Vat II Roman Catholic culture?

I don’t think it’s a problem, personally. I like having options (OF, EF, Divine Liturgy), though I prefer traditional forms of worship like Divine Liturgy. I’m hoping that an Anglican Use parish opens nearby next year.

 

[TrueLight]

Isn’t the EF, by and large, a novelty (maybe an old-fashioned historically-supported one) in a Vat II Roman Catholic culture?

No.

And this is why these threads are not fair. Because then if I say I pray that the Church will go back slowly but surely to it’s original liturgy or something like it, then I will be pitting one form against the other.

Yet people who don’t particularly care for the EF can say it’s a novelty.

Not fair.

 

[TimothyH]

I consider a traditional Catholic anyone who is interested in not only being faithful to the magisterium, but also someone who really values the richness of Church tradition including prayers, feasts, novenas, the Saints. One does not have the desire to break with the past, but tends to be extremely interested in the old traditions.

It just so happens that a lot of traditional Catholics are interested in the older form of the mass as well as in Latin.

This may be your consideration of what a “Trad” is but I’m not too sure that such is the case in practice.

The question posed by the OP is something I have wondered about as well.

Based on my exposure to the Traditional Catholicism forum here on CAF, I would say that for most, to be traditional is to be concerned with the liturgy of the pre-1962 Roman Missal. My observation of most who label themselves as “Traditional” is that faithfulness to the magesterium, ancient prayers, observance of feast days, practices such as fasting, saying novenas, and veneration of the saints, in the absence of the Tridentine Mass, is not considered “Traditional.” My comment is not meant as a challenge, only as an observation, which I will grant is from a position of limited visiblity. I welcome correction in charity, and to better understand, would simply pose the following question…

Would you be comfortable with a parish which does not provide the pre-1962 liturgy if the parish had all the attributes described by True Light above? What if perpetual adoration, habited Dominican Sisters, visiting Franciscan priests, and frequent use of incense were provided? Chant instead of hymns? Latin? Or is the Tridentine Mass a prerequisite for being a Traditional Catholic?

Again, not meant as a challenge. I would sincerly like to hear what Trads have to say.

-Tim-

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by Thomas Casey.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The thread will remain closed, because it seems that we can’t have a polite discussion on this subject.

However, let me clarify some things.

1. Unless my superiors direct me to do so, the name of the sub-forum will remain Traditional Catholicism.
2. The TC sub-forum is not to be taken as a forum just for Catholics who call themselves Traditionalists. It is for anyone who wants to discuss Catholic Tradition.
3. Catholic Tradition is very broad. You cannot reduce it to one form of the Latin Rite mass.
4. There is a comprehensive list of subjects that can be discussed under the heading, Catholic Tradition or Traditional Catholicism. Please read it and use it. That would help keep conflicts to a minimum.
5. Posters may ask as many questions as they want about the two forms of the mass in the Latin Rite. However, pitting one form of the Holy Mass against another is offensive to the mass itself.
6. The Holy Mass is not an object that we compare and contrast against a similar one to see which we purchase and which we discard. If anyone engages in such behavior, he will receive an infraction and can be permanently banned.
7. Remember, we’re not always going to agree, but we can agreeably disagree.

If you have questions or comments, feel free to send me a PM. I try to answer all PMs as quickly as possible.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Forum Moderator