So you think you're a Traditional Catholic?

[latinmass]

A Traditional Catholic would always choose the TLM over the N.O., and would not be involved in the “charismatic movement.” By definition, anything new over the last forty years is not part of the centuries of tradition. That is why the term Traditional Catholic came about, to identify those who keep the traditions of the 20 centuries of our church, not the novelties of the last forty years. It does not mean we are better, it is just what how we prefer to worship while keeping in line with Rome. We don’t have to go to the N.O. or participate in any of the novlties as of late to be in line with Rome. A Traditionalist is obedient to Rome, and worships in the traditions and practices that have lasted for over 1900 years. Does anyone disagree?

 

[peregrinator_it]

Does anyone disagree?

Well, in a word- Yes.

By definition, anything new over the last forty years is not part of the centuries of tradition.

I think this is an incomplete understanding of tradition (in any sense, not just in regards to Church practices.)

The word “tradition,” as I’m sure you know, comes from trado, tradere - to hand over, transmit (or even teach.)

Therefore, a tradition isn’t a tradition unless it “stays alive,” so to speak, by being practiced and handed on by people alive today.

But, because times change, nothing can be handed on without also being changed in the process. Not everything we try to transmit to those coming after us can be transmitted in the same way; hence, many human customs degenerate or mutate over time because it is impossible to preserve the mind-set and circumstances of the past.

On the other hand, when we try to transmit more valuable things, (not mere outward customs or appearances) we must try very hard to preserve their substance; however in order to do this, we sometimes have to change the way in which we communicate that substance so that it is effectively preserved. Hence when the Church passes on teachings, the language which She uses changes over time (rightly and necessarily so) while the substance of the teachings does not.

That is why the term Traditional Catholic came about, to identify those who keep the traditions of the 20 centuries of our church, not the novelties of the last forty years.

Not everything that has happened in the last forty years is a “novelty” (except in the strictly chronological sense.)

Those of us who wish to stay in the heart of the Church must (learn to) distinguish between substance and appearance. We should preserve all that fosters a truly Catholic culture and way of life, while discarding anything that is mere superficial or that is no longer of use in helping us to transmit the truths of the Faith.

 

[603304529]

Hi latinmass,

I don’t disagree at all. I think you’re spot-on.

A Traditionalist is a Traditionalist. A Traditionalist cannot be correctly defined as someone who goes along with whatever Rome says, with complete disregard for the traditions of the Church’s tradition.

A wise man once told me when I was a child: “obey your father”. Then, as I grew older and more mature, and able to understand what was meant by it, the same wise man told me: “obey your father. But, if he tells you to jump off a cliff, or to cut off your foot, you may disobey his order. But you must still obey him in other things.”.

I think you get the idea.

 

[Strawberriness]

Well, in a word- Yes.

I think this is an incomplete understanding of tradition (in any sense, not just in regards to Church practices.)

The word “tradition,” as I’m sure you know, comes from trado, tradere - to hand over, transmit (or even teach.)

Therefore, a tradition isn’t a tradition unless it “stays alive,” so to speak, by being practiced and handed on by people alive today.

But, because times change, nothing can be handed on without also being changed in the process. Not everything we try to transmit to those coming after us can be transmitted in the same way; hence, many human customs degenerate or mutate over time because it is impossible to preserve the mind-set and circumstances of the past.

On the other hand, when we try to transmit more valuable things, (not mere outward customs or appearances) we must try very hard to preserve their substance; however in order to do this, we sometimes have to change the way in which communicate that substance so that it is effectively preserved. Hence when the Church passes on teachings, the language which She uses changes over time (rightly and necessarily so) while the substance of the teachings does not.

Not everything that has happened in the last forty years is a “novelty” (except in the strictly chronological sense.)

Those of us who wish to stay in the heart of the Church must (learn to) distinguish between substance and appearance. We should preserve all that fosters a truly Catholic culture and way of life, while discarding anything that is mere superficial or that is no longer of use in helping us to transmit the truths of the Faith.

Well said. Ditto.

 

[tee_eff_em]

A Traditional Catholic would always choose the TLM over the N.O., and would not be involved in the “charismatic movement.” By definition, anything new over the last forty years is not part of the centuries of tradition. That is why the term Traditional Catholic came about, to identify those who keep the traditions of the 20 centuries of our church, not the novelties of the last forty years. It does not mean we are better, it is just what how we prefer to worship while keeping in line with Rome. We don’t have to go to the N.O. or participate in any of the novlties as of late to be in line with Rome. A Traditionalist is obedient to Rome, and worships in the traditions and practices that have lasted for over 1900 years. Does anyone disagree?

What is your point?

tee

 

[Strawberriness]

Hi latinmass,

I don’t disagree at all. I think you’re spot-on.

A Traditionalist is a Traditionalist. A Traditionalist cannot be correctly defined as someone who goes along with whatever Rome says, with complete disregard for the traditions of the Church’s tradition.

A wise man once told me when I was a child: “obey your father”. Then, as I grew older and more mature, and able to understand what was meant by it, the same wise man told me: “obey your father. But, if he tells you to jump off a cliff, or to cut off your foot, you may disobey his order. But you must still obey him in other things.”.

I think you get the idea.

If we all follow our own thoughts and not the magsrtium then we are no different than Protestantism. The core understanding that The Church is divine and speaks from authority is the foundation of truth and our faith.

With that said, your comments seem to touch close to arrogance for the Latin Rite only crowd. I hope we can come understand the need for both Rites and respect the purpose for each, just as we respect the vocations of both woman and man.

 

[Jennifer_J]

No, I think I’m an obedient Catholic who likes some traditional traditions (ha!) and some new traditions. What does that make me? hmmmm, a Catholic in the Latin Rite

Why be so divisive?

 

[603304529]

If we all follow our own thoughts and not the magsrtium then we are no different than Protestantism. The core understanding that The Church is divine and speaks from authority is the foundation of truth and our faith.

With that said, your comments seem to touch close to arrogance for the Latin Rite only crowd. I hope we can come understand the need for both Rites and respect the purpose for each, just as we respect the vocations of both woman and man.

Sorry, but isn’t calling me arrogant a bit harsh?

I never said anything about only following our own thoughts. Actually, I’m not sure why you said most of what you said: was it actually referring to my post? Did I question the vocations of man and woman?

Anyway, I never denied that one should follow the magisterium. My story was just to illustrate that if we are told to do something by someone, (even if that someone was Rome, or a bishop or whatever), that might actually be detrimental to our faith, then we should approach with caution. That is all. Baptism was never a brain removal procedure.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A Traditional Catholic would always choose the TLM over the N.O., and would not be involved in the “charismatic movement.” By definition, anything new over the last forty years is not part of the centuries of tradition. That is why the term Traditional Catholic came about, to identify those who keep the traditions of the 20 centuries of our church, not the novelties of the last forty years. It does not mean we are better, it is just what how we prefer to worship while keeping in line with Rome. We don’t have to go to the N.O. or participate in any of the novlties as of late to be in line with Rome. A Traditionalist is obedient to Rome, and worships in the traditions and practices that have lasted for over 1900 years. Does anyone disagree?

Yes, I do disagree. Your attitude to “anything new over the last forty years” is a fly-in-the-amber mentality that is hardly traditional. For instance, participating in the cult of St. Pio of Pietrelcina would be thoroughly traditional, yet an opportunity that has only come about in the last few decades. Taking up new devotions - my FSSP priest homilized on St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy this year - provided they have a solid grounding, is no less traditional than it was for Catholics to embrace the Sacred Heart of Jesus or Our Lady of Fatima (who, if you read traditionalist literature, seems to be the heart of many traditionalists’ spirituality, despite the fact that she only appeared in 1917). Employing a hermeneutic of rupture is not traditional and it is just a flawed if done to protect the past as when done to discard it.

Also, I don’t think it’s true that a traditional Catholic will always choose the TLM over the NO. When I am visiting my family over the holidays, I attend the NO with them out of love for them. Suggesting that I inform them that I will be driving an hour to attend the TLM instead of worshiping with them on the biggest feasts of the year is in my mind simply absurd. I make the sacrifice of missing out on the best liturgies of the year because love must take precedence. You don’t have to be cold and anti-social to be a traditionalist, and I don’t think there’s anything traditional about always putting yourself first.

 

[scylla]

There is good catholics and bad Catholics, a traditional Catholic would just be a good Catholic who prefers to be more faithful to the traditional understanding of the faith, which everyone should be. If you look, our Pope is a traditional Catholic also.

There are good Catholics who are ignorant of the traditions of the faith but just faithfully follow what is taught in their particular parishes. They are being faithful, and if they are being led astray that is on their pastors, up to a point. There really is not too much wrong with small adjustments to the liturgy, etc, and most Catholics see nothing wrong in them because they do not attribute the malice behind the actions to their own particular actions.

For example Altar Girls, most altar girls and their supporters participate in this way out of love of the Church and service, there is nothing wrong with that at all.
They do not know of the symbolism which dissident Catholics support of women priests, or of the disobedience that led to the allowance, or the desire for dissidents to change tradition to change God to their understanding. Which is born out of pure hatred for a male Priesthood, a hierarchical Church and ultimately a desire for obedience to self above God. The good Catholics following usually have no clue about this and follow along like good Catholics.
(we Catholics usually trust others very much, which unfortunately has led to many abuses)

The Traditional Catholic would look to see the meaning behind the actions and see if it really reflects what the Church has always taught.
Both are good Catholics, there really is not too much difference, except for the unfortunate disgust for traditions that has been ingrained into the thinking of many parishes these days. It makes regular Catholics distrustful of tradition since they hear so much bad about it.

Those Traditional Catholics just want to be so stuffy and mean, that is the image that is pushed on Traditional Catholics because dissident Catholics don’t like the beauty of the Catholic Church. They don’t like bells, kneeling, incense (unless it is in bowls carried by dancers),chant, art, prayers, etc. All traditional Catholics are, are good Catholics who have discovered more of the beauty of the Catholic Church and want to share it.
(this is the fault of some Traditional Catholic also because they see so much wrong and sometimes it makes them bitter, and grumpy) If you see your mother being insulted every day would you be grumpy too? But then, who wants to be around grumpy people? Heck I would prefer to be around a liturgical dancer, they are clueless and happy, much better company, except then I might get annoyed and grumpy and then they don’t want to be around me… what a mess!

I am a Traditional Catholic who goes to the NO Mass who loves to share the faith. I have never been to a TLM Mass there are only 2 parishes offering it in my diocese, yet I prefer to serve and share the faith with everyone close to me.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[latinmass]

Adoration of Saints is a continuation of the traditions of the past. Thus a devotion to St. Pio, or St. Faustina is not a novel way of the Church. When I say a traditionalist will always choose the TLM over the N.O., I mean given they are in the same town. Some say “labels” of what type of Catholic they are is divisive, I don’t know, but it is informative. If I met a someone and told them of Christ, and took them to mass, it would be a much different experience if a N.O., charismatic Catholic did the same. If you believe it or not, each category of Catholic, traditional or other, speaks volumes to how that person lives their life. Not better or worse, just different. My worship is the most important thing to me, thus the knowledge of knowing if someone is a Traditionalist or not lets me know where we differ. OF COURSE THE THING WE HAVE IN COMMON, JESUS, IS OF MOST IMPORTANCE. I guess you can say that about the protestants also, which is where most of the novelties in the Church come from.(I love all my Catholic brothers, we just have more to debate if they are not a Traditionalist.)

 

[Paladin_V]

No, I think I’m an obedient Catholic who likes some traditional traditions (ha!) and some new traditions. What does that make me? hmmmm, a Catholic in the Latin Rite

Why be so divisive?

I think this is the fundamental question here. The tradition of the Church can be summed up in (I think) one word: unity. Catholic literally means universal.

The Church’s doctrine has never changed over two thousand years. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, it is necessarily unified. The unity between Christ and the Church is analogical to the unity between husband from wife; both are inseparable. Divisions and schisms in the Church are simply unacceptable. There is no traditional Catholicism versus untraditional Catholicism. There is Catholicism or there is not. I may even be so bold as to say there is Christianity or there is not… the body of Christ, the Church, the Truth, cannot be divided.

I’m not faulting anyone for preferring the TLM over the NO or vice versa, nor do I think anyone else really was faulting either form (I hope). And yes, there are liturgical abuses in both forms. The point is that both are part of tradition, both are officially accepted by the Church and one is not “better” than the other.

We are all Christians, we are all Catholics… there is no need to label one group of us who prefers our newer versus another as if we are two different religions. This is divisive, it implies that I, as a “traditional Catholic” am better than someone who prefers newer traditions. I’m not accusing anyone, I’m just stating what I think it sounds like.

Yes, of course we can prefer our older traditions over some of the newer ones. But I think it would be very wise to examine our hearts when we call ourselves traditional Catholics and make sure that this isn’t rooted in pride. Let’s work to maintain our old and new traditions, to prevent liturgical abuses and to uphold the true teachings of the Church rather than try to find out who is most “traditional” among us. As long as we follow the official teachings of the Church, we are all traditional.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I am a trad wannabe

I am certainly traditional in regards to all the doctrine and dogmas of the Church. Absolutley. I follow the Holy Father and will never leave the barque of Peter.

I have no opportunity to attend the TLM, not even an indult has
been allowed in my diocese. But I pray with an old Latin/English missal because I love the prayers and wish to pray and enter into the Mass rather than be a spectator singing some song about how wonderful ‘we’ are. I have endured many novelties because there has been no choice.

But we are moving. And I should have a choice as to what Mass to attend and I will choose the TLM and can hardly wait! I have longed for something I have not been able to attend. I want the ‘whole meal deal’. I wish for reverence and holiness and wonderful prayers that are found in the TLM and I hope and pray it is coupled with true teachings. What we get is ‘God loves you, carry on’. People are left in their sins because it is never mentioned that we have any sin any more. There is no one to reach out to souls! The ‘nuns’ are busy with their new age junk and father is on vacation or involved in some ‘peace and justice’ effort that is not about the saving of souls. I can endure no more although I think there can be merit in suffering endurance. I hope to be able to go to totally licit Masses! Essentially all the Masses found in my town have abuses and something illicit even if valid.

I think ‘traditional’ is a misleading term. Faithful is a better one.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

A Traditional Catholic would always choose the TLM over the N.O., and would not be involved in the “charismatic movement.”

This is by whose alleged judgment. I consider myself traditional in that I look to Rome for my guidance as an ordained deacon. Oh yes, did I mention I am also Charismatic. You do not see me criticizing the mass, questioning the magisterium, I encourage and participate in Eucharistic adoration, do pray and am totally obedient to the Magisterium. If that does not make me traditional, than I don’t know what is. Certainly not someone who believes Vatican II was an error and misguided. Certainly not one who questions whether the Holy Father is a heretic. Certainly not one who calls the mass, in whatever form, ugly and an abomination. Do you want me to go on, or do you get the picture.

Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Adoration of Saints is a continuation of the traditions of the past. )

Watch out where you are going here. Adoration is for God alone. We venerate the saints and Mary. not adore them.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[catharina]

A Traditional Catholic would always choose the TLM over the N.O., and would not be involved in the “charismatic movement.” By definition, anything new over the last forty years is not part of the centuries of tradition. That is why the term Traditional Catholic came about, to identify those who keep the traditions of the 20 centuries of our church, not the novelties of the last forty years. It does not mean we are better, it is just what how we prefer to worship while keeping in line with Rome. We don’t have to go to the N.O. or participate in any of the novlties as of late to be in line with Rome. A Traditionalist is obedient to Rome, and worships in the traditions and practices that have lasted for over 1900 years. Does anyone disagree?

I disagree - for some reasons that Deacon Ed has stated and for others not yet mentioned.

A high-horse standard of divisiveness is outrageous in terms of Christian charity and Christian unity. Since our Holy Father has defined the Novus Ordo Mass as the oridnary form of the Mass for the UNIVERSAL Church, it is not for me to seek out the TLM that’s been defined as the extraordinary form of the Mass. To minimize the Sacrifice of the Mass in the form of Novus Ordo is to stand opposed to Rome. Who can’t grasp that fact?

 

[latinmass]

Watch out where you are going here. Adoration is for God alone. We venerate the saints and Mary. not adore them.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Pardon me, I meant to say Devotion, not Adoration.

 

[I_Believe]

I agree with the OP !

And I’ll add that it’s time everyone who doesn’t agree, shut up, listen, and learn !

Latin is the language of the angels for starters !

( running as fast as I can )

 

[latinmass]

This is by whose alleged judgment. I consider myself traditional in that I look to Rome for my guidance as an ordained deacon. Oh yes, did I mention I am also Charismatic. You do not see me criticizing the mass, questioning the magisterium, I encourage and participate in Eucharistic adoration, do pray and am totally obedient to the Magisterium. If that does not make me traditional, than I don’t know what is. Certainly not someone who believes Vatican II was an error and misguided. Certainly not one who questions whether the Holy Father is a heretic. Certainly not one who calls the mass, in whatever form, ugly and an abomination. Do you want me to go on, or do you get the picture.

Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

Post #1 answers most of what you state. Catholic or universal has lost its meaning since V2. This is why I think the term Traditionalist started. I don’t think I have ever beem to two parishes who have the same N.O. mass. Some do this, some do that, there is no unity in the post V2 N.O. Church. But, there is in the TLM. Like I said before, Jesus is what is most important that we have in common, just like with the protestants.

 

[I_Believe]

Oh, I forgot, the greatest three words ever spoken by a Pope were ** “Stop the Council !”**

(resuming flight )