Traditional and Progressive Catholic Labels

[Ockham]

Here’s an interesting blog entry from a very well written and thought out source. I want to share it with you as we’ve gotten hung up on labels and semantics before. The problem seems to be how to describe the “spirit of Vatican II”, Novus Ordo, “change is good” crowd and those opposed are clearly happy with the label “Traditional”. “Modernist” is a taboo and “Liberal” brings modern politics into the debate which never ends well. “Progressive” seems to accurately reflect those who favour the new Mass and many of the changes since Vatican II. What do you all think?

“I maintain that the labels “traditionalist” and “progressive” are helpful and necessary. If they weren’t we wouldn’t have them. I may be misunderstanding Mr. Kendall, since he does not elaborate on his above quote and simply goes on to another topic. If I have miscontrued him I apologize in advance, but everything I said here holds true nonetheless. Perhaps someday we can have a Catholicism that is so universally in line with its own tradition that the labels are no longer necessary. But that time has not yet come.”

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

 

[Eucharisted]

“Progressive” seems to accurately reflect those who favour the new Mass and many of the changes since Vatican II. What do you all think?

I pray and I hope this is not your opinion.

To term those who love the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the deepening of Christian Faith after the Second Vatican Council as “progressive” is unChristian in every sense of the word. The Church cannot help but love the Eucharist and continue onwards toward Calvary.

 

[Ockham]

Progress doesn’t necessarily mean a good thing.

We need a proper term to distinguish between those who have been changing our liturgy and those who wish it to remain as it should be.

 

[FickleFreckled]

There are two groups of people to whom labels are important: those on the outside who wish to divide and those on the inside who by nature need a label to define their identity or sense of “rightness”. Unity in Catholicism, or anywhere else, doesn’t mean seeing things in exactly the same way. Even the saints didn’t agree with each other. We will not have unity until we no longer need labels, we no longer judge ourselves against anyone else, and we simply follow behind the banner of Christ, looking neither right nor left to see what the “other side” is doing. It’s Christ’s Church, for heaven’s sake. It’s no less than that to a guitar-playing liturgist or a charismatic raising their hands in praise during the Consecration than it is to a person whose devotion calls for kneeling to receive Communion on the tongue and who thrives spiritually with the Latin Mass. If "labelists " spent more time trying to reduce their own judgementalism and pride, they might find that the ‘Catholic’ church is already universal and differences in opinion or preference on anything that’s not specifically against Church doctrine is rhetoric and politicism.

 

[IrishAm]

There are two groups of people to whom labels are important: those on the outside who wish to divide and those on the inside who by nature need a label to define their identity or sense of “rightness”. Unity in Catholicism, or anywhere else, doesn’t mean seeing things in exactly the same way. Even the saints didn’t agree with each other. We will not have unity until we no longer need labels, we no longer judge ourselves against anyone else, and we simply follow behind the banner of Christ, looking neither right nor left to see what the “other side” is doing. It’s Christ’s Church, for heaven’s sake. It’s no less than that to a guitar-playing liturgist or a charismatic raising their hands in praise during the Consecration than it is to a person whose devotion calls for kneeling to receive Communion on the tongue and who thrives spiritually with the Latin Mass. If "labelists " spent more time trying to reduce their own judgementalism and pride, they might find that the ‘Catholic’ church is already universal and differences in opinion or preference on anything that’s not specifically against Church doctrine is rhetoric and politicism.

Amen, friend, Amen.

 

[rciadan]

“progressive” is the new word that Communists use because “Communists” has such a stgma attached to it! Nanct Polosi considers herself “progressive”, as does Sabellius!

 

[Callixtus]

Frankly, I absolutely cannot bear the term “progressive” as usually used. It clearly implies an assumed meaning about what “progress” means. So - if you believe that the world would be a better place - that progress would be achieved - if certain races were exterminated, then you would find Hitler “progressive.” The other implication is that people who disagree with “progressive” politicians are therefore backward or against change.

Catholics believe that truth is timeless and needs to be brought to bear on contemporary circumstances always. This sometimes involves changing the way we do things, and sometimes not. There are things that we do as Catholics that are essential and timeless - having an ordained priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc. - and other things that are not (like what particular hymns we might sing at church).

I cringe whenever I hear “progressive” used the way you describe it.

 

[Eucharisted]

Why don’t we take back the term “orthodox” for faithful Christians? It belongs to us, after all.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

I pray and I hope this is not your opinion.

To term those who love the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the deepening of Christian Faith after the Second Vatican Council as “progressive” is unChristian in every sense of the word. The Church cannot help but love the Eucharist and continue onwards toward Calvary.

What in the Christian Faith has been deepened in the 40 years since the Second Vatican Council?

 

[Ockham]

There are two groups of people to whom labels are important: those on the outside who wish to divide and those on the inside who by nature need a label to define their identity or sense of “rightness”. Unity in Catholicism, or anywhere else, doesn’t mean seeing things in exactly the same way. Even the saints didn’t agree with each other. We will not have unity until we no longer need labels, we no longer judge ourselves against anyone else, and we simply follow behind the banner of Christ, looking neither right nor left to see what the “other side” is doing.

Why does everything have to be about judgement to some people? Who’s judging? All I’m trying to do is find a description of those who have been changing the Church for the past forty years.

 

[FickleFreckled]

That’s the point, Ockam - why does it? Why does there need to be an attitude of “We’re right and they’re not.” and “We’re real Catholics and they’re not.”??

OraProNobisIHM,
I don’t know how old you are or whether you actually remember the time prior to Vatican II, but there seems to be a romanticizing of the pre-Vatican II Church in a lot of people’s perceptions. The churches weren’t full, by any means, nor was the average Catholic devout in the way it seems to be envisioned. Catholicism was a culture as well as a religion back then. It is no longer a culture; now, you’re Catholic because you want to be, not because it’s part of your social or religious environment. People were leaving long before Vatican II and if it hadn’t been for the council, many wouldn’t have returned. Whatever you may say about liturgical abuses or confusion that have resulted since then, what Vatican II did was to extend a kindly hand of welcome to those wanting to come home and a less rigid environment in which to do it. Yes, it has resulted in a deepening of faith for those who returned and for others who have become Catholic since.

 

[FickleFreckled]

Oh, and I also meant to add, if faith isn’t being deepened, it’s not the fault of the Church, liturgical abuses or confusion, laxity or anything else; it’s the fault of the individual. Under any circumstances, the Church and the sacraments are still a wellspring of opportunity for deepening faith and spirituality, and so is individual prayer and Scripture. There are always people who are never happy with the way things are now, whenever “now” is, and who think nothing can be right unless something changes. Now is all we have; now, under these conditions, is where your spirituality is deepened, or not, as you choose.

 

[thunderballs75]

I accept all the teachings of the Church and Vatican II. By this statement, do you consider me progressive?

Now, I feel that Vatican II has been misinterpreted, and that Latin and Gregorian Chant should still retain a dominant place in the liturgy and Latin Rite (as the council itself said). I also don’t approve (not that I have authority) of any of these “vibrant” Masses, with the dancing and clapping and innovations, which has no mention in the GIRM. By this statement, do you consider me traditionalist?

See how it’s hard to use these labels? If I say I’m a traditionalist, everyone assumes I want only the EF and that I think Vatican II was modernist heresy. But if I say I’m progressive, everybody assumes I want loud Protestant Masses and that I love clowns.

 

[OraProNobisIHM]

That’s the point, Ockam - why does it? Why does there need to be an attitude of “We’re right and they’re not.” and “We’re real Catholics and they’re not.”??

OraProNobisIHM,
I don’t know how old you are or whether you actually remember the time prior to Vatican II, but there seems to be a romanticizing of the pre-Vatican II Church in a lot of people’s perceptions. The churches weren’t full, by any means, nor was the average Catholic devout in the way it seems to be envisioned. Catholicism was a culture as well as a religion back then. It is no longer a culture; now, you’re Catholic because you want to be, not because it’s part of your social or religious environment. People were leaving long before Vatican II and if it hadn’t been for the council, many wouldn’t have returned. Whatever you may say about liturgical abuses or confusion that have resulted since then, what Vatican II did was to extend a kindly hand of welcome to those wanting to come home and a less rigid environment in which to do it. Yes, it has resulted in a deepening of faith for those who returned and for others who have become Catholic since.

That was a way of answering a question without answering a question.

Consider a career in politics ever?

 

[FickleFreckled]

Re your question, the ‘Christian Faith’ doesn’t need to be deepened. The Christian Faith is the fullness of Truth; everything we need is already there. The faith of individuals is subject to deepening, or other change, and that’s what I addressed.

No; no interest in politics. Only voting against Obama brought me out of my apolitical hidey-hole.

 

[Rose_Maniple]

I tend to find labels like “progressive” and “traditional” of limited helpfulness. When I was a Roman Catholic, I belonged to both Dignity and Una Voce. Would that make me “progressive” or “traditional”?

 

[Ockham]

I’m not suggesting we label everyone in sight nor force everyone into a predetermined pigeon hole. In politics for example I consider myself a Classical Liberal and fiscal conservative. There has also been too much focus on the polemics and not enough on the principles of modern political parties. However, language has it’s purpose and regarding this issue in the Church I don’t see harm in having words to describe the two camps.

 

[pnewton]

We need a proper term to distinguish between those who have been changing our liturgy and those who wish it to remain as it should be.

Then the question would always arise, changed how much? After all the Mass has changed constantly to some degree or another over the last 2000 years. Even an organic growth is a change and a progression.

 

[pnewton]

What in the Christian Faith has been deepened in the 40 years since the Second Vatican Council?

For one thing, the understanding of the language of the Mass. I think it is strange to have to say this, but not everyone understands Latin as well as they do their native tongue.

For another thing, the availablity of Church documents, theological discussion and participation by the laity in this age of easy access to information. This thread, like most others, links a site where information can be obtained and opinions exchanged with a large number of diverse people. With a click, one can research many topics of Catholic theoloogy in order to deepen one’s understanding of our Faith.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I pray and I hope this is not your opinion.

the deepening of Christian Faith after the Second Vatican Council as “progressive” is unChristian in every sense of the word.

We are living through one of the worst periods in the Church’s history. If anything the glory of Christian civilisation has been destroyed, even Ireland is losing the Faith.

I would label those who think that assisi is good, that communion in the hand is fine, and support things like altar girls as progressives.

Paul