Traditional Catholic

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I think it’s just that the word “traditionalist” has become loaded in the Catholic context. There are those who use the label in a derisory way to denigrate those with attachment to some older forms of piety, and there are those who impose it on themselves to “circle the wagons” and keep out people who don’t think the way they do (trust me the latter exists). Part of the problem too is that “traditions” of the Church is a moving target. The Church continues to evolve, as does her liturgy. So yes, often “traditionalist” becomes a snapshot in time (in the Catholic usage). There are some, for instance, who can’t brook the 1955 Holy Week changes. So you have pre-55 and post-55 “traditionalists”! You have “traditionalist” laity attached to the 1960 Breviary that in the first place isn’t “traditional” and in the second, that was almost never prayed by the Laity except in the public celebration of Vespers from time to time or when visiting religious communities. Hardly a “tradition”!

It just all makes little sense to me.

Thus I say labeling is not Catholic.

Dialogue is Catholic.

Maybe people just feel like they want to “belong” to something. Funny me for thinking that belonging to the Church, or one of her recognized lay movements (oblates, third orders, whatever) was sufficient

Liked your post. In my reading I’ve come across so many shades of “traditionalists:” people who regard Pius XII as unforgivable for the Holy Week changes; people who regard St. Pius X as unforgivable for the Breviary changes of 1911, and thereby paving the way (in their minds) for the “Novus Ordo;” people who reject the 1962 Missal because of the inclusion of St. Joseph. People who regard the last “sound” papacy as that of Pius IX. And I’ve even seen one writer claim that the last truly unimpeachable papacy took place sometime in the 12th Century. All this is terribly sad.

 

[angeltime]

Liked your post. In my reading I’ve come across so many shades of “traditionalists:” people who regard Pius XII as unforgivable for the Holy Week changes; people who regard St. Pius X as unforgivable for the Breviary changes of 1911, and thereby paving the way (in their minds) for the “Novus Ordo;” people who reject the 1962 Missal because of the inclusion of St. Joseph. People who regard the last “sound” papacy as that of Pius IX. And I’ve even seen one writer claim that the last truly unimpeachable papacy took place sometime in the 12th Century. All this is terribly sad.

Pax et Bonum! It sounds like toooo many changes all rejecting each other in some way more or less. Yes, sad when we are Catholic - meaning - universal - need more unity. hmmm…angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[LiamQ]

How would you all define Traditional Catholic?

I would consider a traditional Catholic to be one whose devotional and prayer life is influenced by both the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and in the various folk customs which Latin Catholicism utilized so heavily in past generations. I would also consider such a Catholic to be one that has a preference for older works of theology and philosophy and catechesis, and who has a soft-spot for the writings of certain Saints. In these senses, some Catholics are more or less traditional than others. A great example of this type of Catholic might be Mother Angelica.

A traditionalist Catholic, on the other hand, I would consider to be one who does the above, but who is also influenced by the ideas of Archbishop Lefebvre and who consciously is part of a movement which tries to return the Church to a Pre-Vatican II mindset in almost every respect.

Many persons in both of these groups might not necessarily consider their devotional life to simply be a “preference,” but indeed a purer, richer form of Latin Christianity, which they believe has been consistently watered-down now for decades, leading to great damage to souls.

 

[angeltime]

I would consider a traditional Catholic to be one whose devotional and prayer life is influenced by both the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and in the various folk customs which Latin Catholicism utilized so heavily in past generations. I would also consider such a Catholic to be one that has a preference for older works of theology and philosophy and catechesis, and who has a soft-spot for the writings of certain Saints. In these senses, some Catholics are more or less traditional than others.

A traditionalist Catholic, on the other hand, I would consider to be one who does the above, but who is also influenced by the ideas of Archbishop Lefevbre and who consciously is part of a movement which tries to return the Church to a Pre-Vatican II mindset in almost every respect.

Many persons in both of these groups might not necessarily consider their devotional life to simply be a “preference,” but indeed a purer, richer form of Latin Christianity, which they believe has been consistently watered-down now for decades, leading to great damage to souls.

Pax et Bonum! Well written and for those reasons - is why it is a preference…angeltime

 

[PRmerger]

I would consider a traditional Catholic to be one whose devotional and prayer life is influenced by both the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and in the various folk customs which Latin Catholicism utilized so heavily in past generations. I would also consider such a Catholic to be one that has a preference for older works of theology and philosophy and catechesis, and who has a soft-spot for the writings of certain Saints. In these senses, some Catholics are more or less traditional than others.

A traditionalist Catholic, on the other hand, I would consider to be one who does the above, but who is also influenced by the ideas of Archbishop Lefevbre and who consciously is part of a movement which tries to return the Church to a Pre-Vatican II mindset in almost every respect. Traditionalists would not consider their devotional life to simply be a “preference,” but indeed a purer form of Latin Christianity, which they believe has been consistently watered-down now for decades, leading to great damage to souls.

Yes.

I think the distinction comes when one of the above creates an “ONLY” rather than a “BOTH/AND”.

It is the close minded rigorist who says that the Latin mass is the ONLY valid mass. Or that communion in the hand is the ONLY way to receive. Or that ONLY boys can be altar servers.

 

[LiamQ]

It is the close minded rigorist who says that the Latin mass is the ONLY valid mass. Or that communion in the hand is the ONLY way to receive. Or that ONLY boys can be altar servers.

There’s an entirely different group of folks who simply think that those things are BETTER than the alternative, and they base this in what they believe to be objective theology about how God is to be worshiped as rooted in the Latin tradition.

I’m not a scholar, and I don’t know their arguments very well, and these sorts of things, frankly, bore me to tears. I attend my OF Mass and am grateful our priests aren’t nuts.

But to be fair to that group, I don’t think they’re at all like the one you’re alluding to.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t intend this in a mean way, but really, y’all are just proving my point.

The answer I get is basically, "well, the label ‘Traditionalist’ is simply too well entrenched in people’s minds to mean the ‘nostalgia-fettered, sedevacantist, rigid, dictatorial, critical’ person.’

Then, “and shouldn’t we all be in union, why not just call yourself Catholic”
And finally, "Yes, oh and by the way, in my personal experience all the people who identified as traditional are in fact exactly like the stereotype anyway.

OK. Point taken. Probably this thread will be closed soon because the original question has been pretty well answered.

It’s been. . .illuminating. And mostly, I think, loving and well-intentioned. Even when people disagree on these fora, the charity level here is outstanding. That does make it easier, for which I’m sure we are all thankful.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t intend this in a mean way, but really, y’all are just proving my point.

The answer I get is basically, "well, the label ‘Traditionalist’ is simply too well entrenched in people’s minds to mean the ‘nostalgia-fettered, sedevacantist, rigid, dictatorial, critical’ person.’

Then, “and shouldn’t we all be in union, why not just call yourself Catholic”
And finally, "Yes, oh and by the way, in my personal experience all the people who identified as traditional are in fact exactly like the stereotype anyway.

OK. Point taken. Probably this thread will be closed soon because the original question has been pretty well answered.

It’s been. . .illuminating. And mostly, I think, loving and well-intentioned. Even when people disagree on these fora, the charity level here is outstanding. That does make it easier, for which I’m sure we are all thankful.

I’m not really understanding your point?

What is it you’re objecting to in this thread?

I understand that you wish to take back the label Traditionalist to mean something other than what knee-jerk reaction it engenders…

but what is it that posters here are stating that you’re agreeing (or disagreeing?) with?

 

[angeltime]

Pax et Bonum! For what it’s worth, I have been in conversations where the reference is made to Traditionalists or Modernists. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

What’s wrong with Fisheaters?

 

[alphomega]

Sorry, to have to disagree with “THIS WOULD BE THE MATURE DECISION”

Dear friend the meaasge you shared is not the official teaching of the RCC.
:

I didn’t say it was.

 

[OraLabora]

I take great umbrage with this statement and have asked the moderators to intervene. Besides being flat out wrong, it is against forum rules to paint such a negative picture or the OF Mass and worse, to compare it unfavourably against the EF.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by moderator Thomas Casey.