Tradition as an option

[lucybeebee]

In the post-Vatican II era, the Latin Rite has essentially fractured into different cliques and these cliques don’t really seem to interact (I can’t speak for other rites). You have your charismatics, Gospel-music type Catholics, “regular” NOs, TLMs, “progressive Catholic faith communities,” etc. with little overlap. Many of the aspects of the Church that were a given (e.g., ) have now become one option of many on a “Catholic buffet.” It seems that if given a choice between tradition and starting over, most people will choose the latter rather than the former. Thus even for us who aren’t cafeteria Catholics seem to find ourselves at the buffet, since we’re just one group out of many who claim to be “orthodox” and few people at the top are willing to state or enforce which practices are and are not acceptable.

 

[Dempsey1919]

There are only two types of Catholics, those faithful to the Magisterium that those who are not.

I don’t like any other adjectives other than faithful.

Many of the things that you have described are liturgical prefernces. There is nothing wrong with having different Mass types to suit the spirituality of certain people. Liturgical traditions are traditions with a small “t” and are subject to change.

Sacred Tradition is part of revelation and is not subject to change.

The so-called Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Church are disobedient. They are wrong. They shouldn’t label themselves as a … Catholic. They should be known as disobedient Catholics.

 

[markadm]

Though it sounds like a harsh thing, I agree with what Dempsey1919.

A friend of mine, whose opinion I trust greatly, once took this a step further. He said, “no, they’re not ‘lapsed Catholics’, or anyother such thing. If they don’t believe in certain things, then they are not Catholics”.

True, it does give you pause; but at the same time it makes me truly consider how properly I respect or live out my faith in my life.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

In the post-Vatican II era, the Latin Rite has essentially fractured into different cliques and these cliques don’t really seem to interact (I can’t speak for other rites). You have your charismatics, Gospel-music type Catholics, “regular” NOs, TLMs, “progressive Catholic faith communities,” etc. with little overlap. Many of the aspects of the Church that were a given (e.g., ) have now become one option of many on a “Catholic buffet.” It seems that if given a choice between tradition and starting over, most people will choose the latter rather than the former. Thus even for us who aren’t cafeteria Catholics seem to find ourselves at the buffet, since we’re just one group out of many who claim to be “orthodox” and few people at the top are willing to state or enforce which practices are and are not acceptable.

I once asked a nun if she had ever been on an Ignatian retreat. She snorted. “You don’t ask that of a Salesian”.

What has happened is that divisions which have always been there have been driven into the laity. That was an inevitable, even forseen, consequence of the Second Vatican Council. It is a bit like a modular course at a university. Instinctively I oppose it, but it does have some good consequences.

 

[Caesar]

Anyone who claims to be Catholic yet is disloyal to the Magisterium ceases to be a member of the Church. They are separated from the Church and from God unless thet should repent. Either you are Catholic or you are not.

 

[lucybeebee]

I was not trying to cast aspersions on the faith of other orthodox Catholics. The point I was trying to make is that there is a huge varience of practices among those who call themselves orthodox Catholics in the Latin Rite. Or to put it another way, the concept of what Catholic identity is has become more blurred. It seems like Catholic education prior to Vatican II emphasized the importance of knowing why Tradition and tradition were so important. Now the tradition is sort of seen as interesting, but non-essential. A good example are the confraternities, sodalities, and processions that were once quite prolific at the parish level. To some theologians ()Karl Adam, Josef Jungmann, Karl Rahner, these groups were considered rather embarrassing and superstitious, the sign of poorly formed Christology. Thus, the “Spirit of Vatican II” said that all these groups along with popular devotions had to go. The result was that the emphasize on Christ’s divinity was gone and “Buddy Christ” filled the void. While tradition and Tradition are not the same in any sense, the former is extremely important in resisting the temptations of Protestantism and secularism.