Traditional and Progressive Catholic Labels

[Ockham]

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.

Oh, come on now…the Tridentine Mass evolved slowly over centuries. Bugnini’s new order was thrust upon us suddenly and without cause.

If Thomas Aquinas walked into a clamshell style Novus Ordo folk choir Mass would he know he was in a Catholic church or some deviation?

Speaking of Aquinas … during the last Novus Ordo homily I heard, the priest cited a passage from Dostoyevsky’s Brother’s Karamov as an example of love. I thought that was interesting seeing as though many think of Dostoyevsky as one of the founders of Existentialism. Two hours later in the Tridentine Mass homily, the priest cited Thomas Aquinas in teaching us how to pray. I thought the two authors cited presented an accurate reflection in the differences between the two liturgical forms today.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, come on now…the Tridentine Mass evolved slowly over centuries.

Exactly! Evolution is still progression (I refer to the specific topic of this thread). Therefore the terms are still problematic, at least as absolutes. Like all terms they have a place as long as they are not taken too far.

 

[Ockham]

Evolution is something that takes a long time. What most people I would describe as “progressive” want drastic change now.

I agree that labels can be misapplied. Actually I’m usually very opposed to their use as it’s often excessive. I started this thread because some description is required and I don’t want to insult anyone with “modernist” nor start political fights with “liberal”.

 

[Tartini]

Labels that are self-imposed imply the position of an individual in order to establish a common ground for discussion or consideration. These are necessary in today’s confused society.
Labels that are established by other to others is simply another form of bigotry and prejudiced social terms. This is a social reality that has existed since long before the Church was present.
Blogs are opinions, and opinions are not truth. If the blogger is using certain labels, than it is very likely they are addressing a certain audience and, although worthy of a reading, must be considered as bias unless they are utilizing a scientific method of writing and presentation style.
People will always label. It is a reality that will always exist. It is a human personality and psychology trait. The psychological factor plays a great role in the use of labels.
For an example, one may either prefer whole milk or 2% or skim or goat’s milk or orange juice. The label helps one to know what they are getting into and find what they are seeking. Although a label is often present, it does not always guarantee that what is inside is what one expects it to be. Many times we have probably bought milk, all in good faith as to what the label stated, only to find it was spoiled. This too is often the case with humans who use certain labels that denote or impart negative connotations towards other persons, social, religious or political ideals.

 

[pnewton]

Evolution is something that takes a long time. What most people I would describe as “progressive” want drastic change now.

I agree that labels can be misapplied. Actually I’m usually very opposed to their use as it’s often excessive. I started this thread because some description is required and I don’t want to insult anyone with “modernist” nor start political fights with “liberal”.

Understood and well put. I know that both modernist and liberal are often misapplied.

 

[otjm]

I would not use the term “progressive” to indicate those who despise and ignore the Magisterium and attempt to set themselves up as the counter magisterium, if for no other reason than that both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 were progressives at the time of the Council, and given that they both have emphatically promoted the documents and continue(d) to work on their implementation, they both could be considered progressives yet. I do not think that using a lable for them and for the likes of Father Curran and Father McBrien does anything to further intelligent discourse.

For those who reject the Magisterium in part, parts, or almost the whole, I would use the term “cafeteria” Catholic, as they pick and choose what they want to hear and accept, and pass by/reject that which they don’t approve.

And for the rest, the term “Catholic” seems to work generally reasonably well, as one can accept the fact that within the teachings of the Magisterium and within other areas, such as liturgical rules and regulations, there is a good deal of latitude. There may be, within the group that accepts the Magisterium, both progressives and what - non progressives? Traditionalists? - and there is room for both ends of that range of attitudes and practices.

Part of the problem also is that within those who accept the Magisterium re: doctrines and dogma, there is a range of latitude in non-doctrinal matters, and there is a tendency within that whole group to set themselves off from others within the group, as if there were no latitude. In other words, one can be authentically Catholic and end up picking at and denigrating another who is also authentically Catholic, but has differing likes and dislikes about non-doctrinal matters. Re-read the above threads with an open mind; there is a tad bit of snot blown on those who are not traditionalist in liturgical choices in one or more posts.

For example, within this thread we have one individual who is aghast at Communion in the hand, and would appear to be one who might hold that those who accept that are somehow not Catholic enough. And I am sure that we could search through those who receive in the hand and find more than one who would be disparaging of those who receive on the tongue. There is too much a tendency to see Catholicism through our own set of glasses, rose colored or blue or green or whatever, and decide that our opinion of what is acceptible and what isn’t is in line with the “true” Church, never mind that it is not in line with what Rome actually says. There are those who prefer Gregorian chant and those who prefer hymns written within the last 10 years, and both sides are altogether too capable of judging the other as not authentic. The Church doesn’t make such a judgement, but that doesn’t stop them from casting aspersions on those who differ about style.

I don’t need to go around and label certain people heretics, and interestingly, neither does Rome. Rome has pointed out where they have strayed from the Magisterium, and has censured some; for example, Hans Kung may no longer hold himself out as a theology teacher. If Rome has seen fit to handle the matters in this fashion, perhaps instead of trying to hang labels that Rome does not use on these folks, we can manage to do likewise. Labels lead to balck and white thinking, and too often that which we want to perceive in black and white is not so. People have a great difficulty in dealing with uncertainty, but the conversation is not more intelligent by dumbing it down.

 

[Angela11]

Bravo FickleFreckled and otjm for posting on this topic! You’ve said things way better than I could hope to, but I’m gonna add my two cents anyway.

As far as the label “progressive,” I believe it is quite distasteful and it seems clear that it is used in this case with a superior attitude against others who are being accused of “rejecting and changing the church.” (That paraphrased quote appears to be oozing of self pride, by the way) It comes across sounding like everyone who doesn’t hold the exact same opinion as you must therefore be rejecting the Church. Did someone make you the ultimate authority of truth? Might I suggest you step down, open your mind a bit, disagree if you like, but try to do it without seeming to condemn others. The world isn’t “black and white” as much as people want it to be. A person can truly enjoy the beauty of the pre-Vatican II celebrations as well as find the beauty in a charismatic celebration, or the typical celebration you’ll find at 90% of parishes on a Sunday. The Latin Masses are exquisite and have such a sense of reverence that cannot always be found elsewhere. The charismatic bring into light the awe and joy and pure praise. All styles have their fans, and I believe all have their places in the Church.

But, I’ve seen this conversation with too many “traditionalists” to have much hope left for an open minded discussion. I fear I’m throwing my thoughts at a brick wall. It seems there are two extremes, both thinking the other is completely wrong and that everybody in the middle is “lukewarm” for not choosing sides. As if this is some kind of battle… It’s the CHURCH people! Catholics are Catholics. They come in all different shapes and sizes. They come in different traditions. This adds so much to the beauty of our Church, and I thank God for all those who practice an authentic Catholic faith, regardless of what it looks like to others.

 

[Ockham]

Ok Angela, what term do you suggest we use to describe those other than “traditionalists”?

 

[Angela11]

I like “Catholic” personally. The label “Traditionalist” seems to have come from within the group. Or at least it’s how I was made aware that there was a group that considered themselves so much different than the majority of Catholic parishes. It’s kind of the same way with the “charismatic” Catholics. It seems like a self-imposed label. But I don’t think just because a group has donned a label for themselves that everyone else needs one as well. If I had to be forced into a corner and select a label other than “Catholic,” I’d choose “Non-traditionalists.” At least at this point in time. Modern, Progressive…they both can have extremely negative connotations and thus cause confusion as to how they actually apply to those practicing their faith. I don’t think “main-stream” Catholic would be too offensive either. But I think we can use words to describe the differences when necessary without attaching labels to those groups who haven’t already labeled themselves as different and unique.

 

[Ockham]

Would you consider yourself a “non-traditional” Catholic and if so by what specific criteria?

 

[Angela11]

Would you consider yourself a “non-traditional” Catholic and if so by what specific criteria?

I don’t consider myself a “traditionalist,” thus leaving the classification of “non-traditionalist.” That’s me trying to put things into black and white (even though I think there are plenty of shades within both “categories.”) Heck, there aren’t even parishes within a 200 mile radius where I can attend a Latin Mass. So, I would consider myself a “non-traditionalist” because I don’t go to Latin/Tridentine Masses. However, I don’t consider myself “non-traditional.” I still whole-heartedly try to follow all the teaches of the Church. To me, “non-traditional” and “non-traditionalist” are two very different things. To say non-traditional implies I don’t believe in or appreciate Tradition (heck, I might as well be Protestant if I don’t believe Tradition plays a key role in defining the Catholic faith…) So yet again, we’re back to a label that doesn’t adequately describe people. And as I see now, the “label” of “non-traditionalist” can just stir up more confusion about the meaning behind it, especially if shortened to traditional, leaving off the “ist”. Same as all the other terms mentioned. I still feel that we don’t and shouldn’t need to label those of us who, either by choice, or by limited location, go to Sunday Masses celebrated in the vernacular.

Catholics are Catholics, despite the size, shape, or language. I was thinking about it today while I was driving around in the country; this analogy came to mind…A rainbow isn’t beautiful only because it has the color blue in it…A rainbow is beautiful because of the combination of all the colors, together they exist, complimenting each other. Individually each color has a beauty or uniqueness to it, but it’s not until they all combine that you see the magnificence of the whole rainbow. We may not like some of the colors in the rainbow, like orange, I’m not the biggest fan of orange, but obviously, the rainbow wouldn’t really be a rainbow unless all the colors were there. Just because I like the color blue best, doesn’t mean I can kick orange out of the rainbow. I think the Church is a bit like this. The diversity of the people and traditions within make up the different colors. We all still believe in the same Faith. We are all obedient to the Pope. We may not like the way another group is doing something, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them wrong. (I’m not saying that it automatically makes them right either, there are abuses in the church, but I don’t believe they’re as rampant as some would have us believe.)

Catholics are Catholics. Assigning labels to “those other Catholics over there” does nothing to unify, only divide. And I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to be shooting towards unity…

 

[jmtowle]

This is a wonderful subject to consider. Our Lord was a traditionalist in some Jewish regards but a progressive out of necessity. It was necessary to go beyond the Commandments handed down to Moses to teach a new and more perfect way to love.

The early Church could only have progressives, everything was new and a work in progress. All excepted traditions sprang from the practices of the early progressives.

Some very wise and devout progressives laid the foundation for traditions, that to this day are worthy of carrying on. Without tradition, there is the disharmony of never ending change, often only for sake of change, regardless of it’s merits.

If a certain practice is found acceptable for more than a thousand years, it couldn’t have been a fluke it must have had a great deal of merit. But all good things come to an end and something new is born. On the grand scale of all of salvation history, post Vatican ll is far from being a finished work. 100 or even 1,200 years from now it’s possible that today’s progressives will be given credit for the best NO traditions and another Council, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will give birth to yet another new beginning.

I tend to think of myself as placing a higher regard on tradition and much less on progress. I see the wisdom and beauty and reverence that twelve plus centuries of Catholic Christians made manifest in the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet I prefer the NO done with reverence. If the teaching authority of the Catholic Church were to make the TLM the only acceptable form of public worship I would be perfectly content and would be at peace at each Eucharistic celebration.

I hold good solid tradition in high esteem but do not condemn progressive thinking, but I do keep a watchful and cautious eye on such doings.

Maybe someone more informed or brighter than me knows of a specific time when there was no tension between those who held traditions sacred and those who were in search of something better. I suspect that this tension may have existed from the first Pentecost Sunday.

I have been following the thread on why people belong to the parish they attend, and what occurs to me is that while there most certainly is a great deal of tension between the conflicting ideals of how to worship properly, there seems to still be room for everyone, albeit sometimes involving inconvenience.

I myself travel an additional 12 miles to attend a parish that nourishes my faith sensibilities. I don’t begrudge the parishioners at the local parish their enjoyment of a liturgy I find unacceptable. God bless them and their beloved pastor.

I’m presently reading a book written by a Poor Clare cloistered nun named Sr. Patricia Proctor out of Seattle, Wa. I think. The book is titled " 201 stories of the Eucharist " and just this morning I read an excerpt by a priest on the Good Friday, Holy Thursday and Easter Sunday aspects of the Eucharist. His thinking was that the pre vatican ll TLM had it’s main focus on Good Friday and our Lord’s crucifixion and that the post Vll NO added to that focus the nourishment of the Holy Thursday meal and the joy of the risen lord on Easter Sunday. His thoughts tie in well with this discussion. It’s a wonderful book compiled by a holy woman and her fellow Sisters in faith. Many of the stories are uplifting and likely to mirror many of our faith journey experiences. ( google " joy notes " )

All baptized Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, even the ones God chose not to give good sense to.

May the Peace of Christ be with us all, always.

JT

 

[Ockham]

Catholics are Catholics. Assigning labels to “those other Catholics over there” does nothing to unify, only divide. And I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to be shooting towards unity…

If that’s how you choose to view the subject then great. I like more clarity and so will continue to apply a label where appropriate. You may have heard the term “Roman Catholic” for example.

Perhaps you are not aware of this but there are Catholics among us seeking to change the Church. In the past forty years there have been several significant changes to our liturgy and teachings. The “spirit of Vatican II” is used to justify most of them.

Those people are centering themselves out and deserved to be labeled. As Catholics we have a duty to protect our faith, teach it to our children so the forces of change should be known to us.