So you think you're a Traditional Catholic?

[EasterJoy]

Well! In that case it logically follows that said Traditionalists must follow their “consciences” even when they are malformed enough to go against what the Church actually teaches/directs/allows. Further while they detest the same activity in “liberals” it must be somehow different for they are of course, Traditionalists!

I’m sure happy the Holy Father is an orthodox and traditionally-minded Catholic Christian and not a Traditionalist.

Jokes aside…although I am obviously under the impression that the capital “T” is practically a necessity to those who choose to act as if their preferences make them into superior disciples, that DOES NOT IMPLY that I think capitalization is itself evidence that the person in any way lacks humility or obedience.

Some people have other reasons for capitalizing nouns that refer to groups.
I can live with that.

Oh, and by the way: this is not about whether the TLM or the NO is the best. That is almost besides the point. You can like the best thing without presuming that it is a reflection on you that you like it. Even a dog might prefer freshly-baked bread to day-old, and even a saint might not have a preference.

 

[catharina]

Oh, and by the way: this is not about whether the TLM or the NO is the best. That is almost besides the point. You can like the best thing without presuming that it is a reflection on you that you like it. Even a dog can/might prefer freshly-baked bread to day-old, and even a saint might not have a preference.

Gotta love your metaphor, you wild thing!

 

[Spiller]

I am a traditional Catholic- but I don’t demand that everyone be as traditional as I think they should be before I will have anything to do with them. Often, I’m just happy to see people my age in church. Of course, I want them to grow in holiness, and in their love for the Church, but we all have to start somewhere.

Yeah, but what do you mean by “traditional”?

 

[ethelzguy]

Isn’t the greatest Catholic Tradition, that we follow the church and her teachings whether we personally like it or not? So, if things change, we are to follow, yes?

It is not for the congregation to decide what form of Communion is appropriate, what kind of music is proper, or what language the Mass is to be said in where you live.

Our hierarchy and tradition are what defines us, compared to our protestant brothers and sisters.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Isn’t the greatest Catholic Tradition, that we follow the church and her teachings whether we personally like it or not? So, if things change, we are to follow, yes?

It is not for the congregation to decide what form of Communion is appropriate, what kind of music is proper, or what language the Mass is to be said in where you live.

Our hierarchy and tradition are what defines us, compared to our protestant brothers and sisters.

Thank you. This is very well said and to the point.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[catharina]

Isn’t the greatest Catholic Tradition, that we follow the church and her teachings whether we personally like it or not? So, if things change, we are to follow, yes?

It is not for the congregation to decide what form of Communion is appropriate, what kind of music is proper, or what language the Mass is to be said in where you live.

Our hierarchy and tradition are what defines us, compared to our protestant brothers and sisters.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Extremely well-stated - and welcome to the site.

 

[drafdog]

Well, let’s see… Traditionalists would presumably want to follow the practice of the faith and ritual as established in the beginning. So, let’s have Mass in Koine Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean basin for the first couple of centuries of Christianity. Charismatic prayer was typical of the communities that St. Paul visited or established. Charismatic utterances broke out among congregations listening to St. Peter preach the good news. So our traditionalists would whole heartedly accept and promote this aspect of Christian spirituality. The election of a bishop would entail polling the local church elders rather than dragging men in from thousands of miles away or having a committee half a world away select someone. After all, this is the head of a local community, what do these strangers know of our local problems and concerns? Mass would be celebrated in private homes.
No, I don’t think that any of us here is truly a traditionalist. Jesus wants us to take from what is new as well as from what is old. The church struggles with the new and sets aside very reluctantly what is old even when it doesn’t work for the people any more. It’s a balancing act and we have only survived this long by working at it. Anchoring oneself in the past and refusing to move forward is the surest way to destroy the church. We don’t do it; we shouldn’t do it; we ought not to want to do it.

Matthew

 

[buc_fan33]

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, very, VERY well said!!! I could not have said it better myself and this more or less sums up my thought on the matter.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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

Following your line of reasoning, a true traditionalist would worship according to one of the Eastern liturgies, any one of which is hundreds of years older than the Tridentine Mass.

Contrary to popular opinion, though, most of the Eastern liturgies didn’t arrive at their full form until the Middle Ages, either. The East just doesn’t like to admit the amount of development that occurred over the centuries.

But we cant all understand that one.
Prayers & Blessings
deacon Ed B

Oh, you must not have implemented Vatican II, yet.

For all that I appreciate the point that carving out labels is not always helpful, I do think there is utility in the term traditional that can help us identify a certain sort of spirituality - but only if everyone is willing to “play by the rules” and allow it to mean something. If we elevate “traditional” to some sort of “only possible way to hold the orthodox faith,” then certainly we’re stepping out of bounds, but if we use it in the sense of “I am greatly influenced by Jesuit spirituality” or “I think the Carmelites have really got it,” then I don’t think we’re doing anything illegitimate. It’s possible to think that someone is outright wrong in a particular theological opinion without questioning his orthodoxy, and of course then when you get to discipline that should be even more obvious. If people want to use traditional in that weaker (but more acceptable) sense of identifying a spirituality (whose points we might identify as preferring traditional expressions of faith and practice, more strictly demanding continuity with earlier liturgical forms, less willing to adapt along with the culture, etc.), then isn’t it only fair to let that term be meaningful? By saying “I’m traditional because I hold the orthodox faith, even though in every single other respect I differ from what we all know to be the ‘traditionalist’ spirituality,” you throw out the baby (the legitimate use of the term that allows folks to identify like-minded people) with the bathwater because you don’t like its illegitimate use (whereby you feel your Catholicity is being impugned).

 

[catharina]

For all that I appreciate the point that carving out labels is not always helpful, I do think there is utility in the term traditional that can help us identify a certain sort of spirituality - but only if everyone is willing to “play by the rules” and allow it to mean something. If we elevate “traditional” to some sort of “only possible way to hold the orthodox faith,” then certainly we’re stepping out of bounds, but if we use it in the sense of “I am greatly influenced by Jesuit spirituality” or “I think the Carmelites have really got it,” then I don’t think we’re doing anything illegitimate. It’s possible to think that someone is outright wrong in a particular theological opinion without questioning his orthodoxy, and of course then when you get to discipline that should be even more obvious. If people want to use traditional in that weaker (but more acceptable) sense of identifying a spirituality (whose points we might identify as preferring traditional expressions of faith and practice, more strictly demanding continuity with earlier liturgical forms, less willing to adapt along with the culture, etc.), then isn’t it only fair to let that term be meaningful? By saying “I’m traditional because I hold the orthodox faith, even though in every single other respect I differ from what we all know to be the ‘traditionalist’ spirituality,” you throw out the baby (the legitimate use of the term that allows folks to identify like-minded people) with the bathwater because you don’t like its illegitimate use (whereby you feel your Catholicity is being impugned).

Perhaps like others, I’m reluctant to self-identify as traditionalist - because it so clearly means something else (radical, extreme and often opposed to Rome) in the sense that the term is used by many on THIS site. I do think the term as it is used most often in THIS site is generally divisive. (My Catholic faith is supported by a number of traditions: Vincentian, Carmelite, Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan … so yes, in that sense, I see your point and agree with it.)

 

[buc_fan33]

Last year at my seminary, I had the opportunity to meet Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press. He is a wonderful priest who I consider to be very orthodox, obedient to Rome, etc, etc,. A point he made, that I think is quite relevant, is, what about those of us who simply want the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated properly? I think a large reason why so many Catholics seek out TLM parishes is because of abuses to the NO Mass.

This was something I struggled with for a long time, in that every time I went to Mass, I was more concerned with whether or not people were holding hands at the Our Father or not than actually praying. It was really a sin of pride in myself. And, frankly, I live in a very orthodox diocese and parish. I’ve never been exposed to liturgical dance, priests reading a poem in place of the daily readings, rampant dissidents in the Church, or any other blatant abuse. Here it’s more a case of a priest wearing his stole outside of his chasuble.

In any event, I have never been to a Tridentine Mass because I don’t have access to one. However, I really don’t desire to go to one either. I’m not opposed to it in any way; I recognize that the Holy Father has allowed for its use. It just seems to me though that sometimes we try to “out Catholic” each other. Case in point is the charismatic renewal movement. I love the charismatic movement, when it is done correctly and not exulting the gifts above the giver of the gifts (the Holy Spirit) and when it is obedient to the magisterium. Charismatic gifts are in the Bible for Heaven’s sake! If they were OK for St. Paul, they are OK for us. Furthermore, you know a tree by its fruit our Lord tells us. There is a parish in Michigan called Christ the King which is known to be a charismatic parish. This one parish has produced more seminarians over the last few years (upwards of 20) than some dioceses.

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Please don’t disparage the NO because of a few dissidents. Just like the vast majority of Roman Catholic priests have been faithful to their vows of celibacy, and thus do not deserve to be lumped in with those who have not, the vast majority of Catholics who go to the NO are obedient and desire to have the Mass celebrated according to the rubrics the Church has given us.

 

[catharina]

buc_fan33, lovely post. Prayers for you.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Last year at my seminary, I had the opportunity to meet Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press. He is a wonderful priest who I consider to be very orthodox, obedient to Rome, etc, etc,. A point he made, that I think is quite relevant, is, what about those of us who simply want the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated properly? I think a large reason why so many Catholics seek out TLM parishes is because of abuses to the NO Mass.

This was something I struggled with for a long time, in that every time I went to Mass, I was more concerned with whether or not people were holding hands at the Our Father or not than actually praying. It was really a sin of pride in myself. And, frankly, I live in a very orthodox diocese and parish. I’ve never been exposed to liturgical dance, priests reading a poem in place of the daily readings, rampant dissidents in the Church, or any other blatant abuse. Here it’s more a case of a priest wearing his stole outside of his chasuble.

In any event, I have never been to a Tridentine Mass because I don’t have access to one. However, I really don’t desire to go to one either. I’m not opposed to it in any way; I recognize that the Holy Father has allowed for its use. It just seems to me though that sometimes we try to “out Catholic” each other. Case in point is the charismatic renewal movement. I love the charismatic movement, when it is done correctly and not exulting the gifts above the giver of the gifts (the Holy Spirit) and when it is obedient to the magisterium. Charismatic gifts are in the Bible for Heaven’s sake! If they were OK for St. Paul, they are OK for us. Furthermore, you know a tree by its fruit our Lord tells us. There is a parish in Michigan called Christ the King which is known to be a charismatic parish. This one parish has produced more seminarians over the last few years (upwards of 20) than some dioceses.

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Please don’t disparage the NO because of a few dissidents. Just like the vast majority of Roman Catholic priests have been faithful to their vows of celibacy, and thus do not deserve to be lumped in with those who have not, the vast majority of Catholics who go to the NO are obedient and desire to have the Mass celebrated according to the rubrics the Church has given us.

Thank you for this post. I totally agree with what you have said and how you said it. Unfortunately there are some in this forum who, for lack of a better word, despise the Novus Ordo and almost anything resulting vrom Vatican II., I personally love the Novus Ordo and and believe it has done much good in the Church. As you go through the threads, believe me, they will stand out and will be easy to identify. Welcome to the forum. We look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[MrS]

Last year at my seminary, I had the opportunity to meet Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press. He is a wonderful priest who I consider to be very orthodox, obedient to Rome, etc, etc,. A point he made, that I think is quite relevant, is, what about those of us who simply want the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated properly? I think a large reason why so many Catholics seek out TLM parishes is because of abuses to the NO Mass.
…

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Please don’t disparage the NO because of a few dissidents. Just like the vast majority of Roman Catholic priests have been faithful to their vows of celibacy, and thus do not deserve to be lumped in with those who have not, the vast majority of Catholics who go to the NO are obedient and desire to have the Mass celebrated according to the rubrics the Church has given us.

Thanks for restating that observation. It is right on the money. I am amazed that there are so many Catholics, lay and clergy alike, who do not know that there is such a thing as a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated properly, because what they attend and have attended for years is a NO with innovations.

Hence when a poster prefers the TLM, or EF to the NO - proper or not -, they get defensive and think the “traditionalist” is demeaning the NO.

Not so. I, however, will continue to object to an improper NO.

I think my preference is actually the NO…said properly… and the numerous threads here at CAF on the topic could inform a lot of viewers if they were less biased to the NO, or against the EF.

Strange huh…

• I like the NO, and I think I recognize what the NO was intended to be… and
• I recognize the abuses-made-norms found in many many NO liturgies everywhere… and
• I feel the Church (B16 like the many popes before him) will lead us in both forms to Him, and away from us…

golly, I am a traditionalist.

.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

golly, I am a traditionalist…

Just like I have been saying all along. I am a traditionalist, Charismatic deacon who loves the Novus Ordo and is faithful in all ways to Rome. Do ya think we have finally arrived???
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

So many good posts in a row! I think that it is perfectly fine to prefer tradition, as long as one is more interested in being obedient to Tradition, and above all pursues the virtues. That a person has a strong taste with regards to which valid liturgy is their favorite does not make them better or worse.

I don’t hear it admitted very often that the innovators would not have been buried in a hole somewhere, had the NO had not been introduced. I cannot imagine that they wouldn’t have plied their same trade on the TLM, even if not to the same degree.

In other words, because the TLM was kept removed from the most innovative decades in Church history, the NO may have been the best thing that ever happened to the TLM!

Just a thought.

 

[EasterJoy]

So many good posts in a row! I think that it is perfectly fine to prefer tradition, as long as one is more interested in being obedient to Tradition, and above all pursues the virtues. That a person has a strong taste with regards to which valid liturgy is their favorite does not make them better or worse.

I don’t hear it admitted very often that the innovators would not have been buried in a hole somewhere, had the NO had not been introduced. I cannot imagine that they wouldn’t have plied their same trade on the TLM, even if not to the same degree.

In other words, because the TLM was kept removed from the most innovative decades in Church history, the NO may have been the best thing that ever happened to the TLM!

Just a thought.

 

[catharina]

Just like I have been saying all along. I am a traditionalist, Charismatic deacon who loves the Novus Ordo and is faithful in all ways to Rome. Do ya think we have finally arrived???
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

I think you’re correct. Many, many, many have arrived.
See brief news story:

"Pope says it was ‘joy’ to witness faith of U.S. Catholics

By Benedicta Cipolla
Catholic News Service

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) – Thanking Americans for their hospitality, Pope Benedict XVI departed the United States amid a cheering crowd of 4,000 people who had come to see him off.

“It has been a joy for me to witness the faith and devotion of the Catholic community here,” the pope said April 20 in brief remarks to those gathered in hangar 19 at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

“It was heartwarming to spend time with leaders and representatives of other Christian communities and other religions,” Pope Benedict added.

… . "

 

[MrS]

Just like I have been saying all along. I am a traditionalist, Charismatic deacon who loves the Novus Ordo and is faithful in all ways to Rome. Do ya think we have finally arrived???
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

nope… unless we might also agree with the assesment of Dr. Hahn…

Some Catholics believe there is a place in the Church for those who are comfortable with the Charismatic Movement

Some Charismatics believe there is a place in the Charismatic movement for the Catholic Church



Both the acceptance of, and the rejection of the movement is traditional.

(just teasing you Deacon)

 

[pnewton]

I am still trying to which 1900 years is being referred to. That period is too great for the Latin Mass and the Church has been around closer to 2000. The one tradition that I know that has been around that long and is exclusive to Catholicism is obedience to the Vicar of Christ, from Peter to Benedict XVI.

It is a good thing the original poster is not allowed to define the term for anyone bu himself.