"Traditional Catholicism"...problematic?

[EnglishTeacher]

Yeah… the more I research Catholicism the more I realize just how much disunity there is. It’s off-putting, but I think it’s a feature of all organized religion.

I actually think we are much more unified than we might appear online. Most of the disagreements are just family quarrels over the non-essential stuff.

There are some splinter groups like the SSPX and others, but those are very small groups, and I daresay the majority of Catholics have never even heard of them. In the world of the internet, they probably appear to be a much bigger voice or issue than they really are. So-called “progressive Catholicism” that dissents from the teachings of the Church is a much more pressing problem, at least in the West. But even there, the teaching of the Church is clear for all who care to find it, even if they don’t like it.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Traditional catholics could be defined along a spectrum. The most far right, I would suppose, being those who have rejected papal authority as no longer being valid and completely rejecting Vatican II and on the other end, simply those Catholics who lean more towards the old than the new in terms of though and worship, generally pre-Vatican II in their preferences

The number that rejects papal authority is of course very, very tiny, but could those people even be considered Catholic anymore? Those would be schismatic groups.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Well, they consider themselves to be very Catholic, truly Catholic.

 

[tad]

I don’t know how one could be Catholic and not be a traditionalist. It’s a living part of our faith.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Yes, it depends on how the word is being defined.

That is the problem with words. It’s not like mathematics where “1” is just “1” and that’s pretty clear.

 

[gracepoole]

I see no problem with “traditional Catholicism” unless it manifests as an interest in schism. Groups like SSPX, while they are traditional, they are also schismatic, and that’s a no-go.

The SSPX are not in schism.

 

[gracepoole]

CAF helps foster the division by allowing a so-called “traditionalists” forum.

Jim

At least in its old version, CAF’s traditional Catholic subforum wasn’t about “traditionalist Catholicism.” It was a place to discuss the traditions of the Church.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I don’t want this topic going too far afield with this question of SSPX, interesting though it may be.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I’ll delete my response. The whole thing is just confusing to me.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Good material for another topic, though likely to get quite contentious.

 

[PetraG]

Traditionalist should no more have their own place on the forum than posters who are all about the CFR’s Lifeteen, Catholic Underground, Steubenville and the like. They, too, are fervent.

I think if Lifeteen adherents or Stuebenville alumni generated the number of threads that the Traditional adherents did, they’d split off a forum for them. That is how they decide: volume. It is an organizational thing.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Traditionalist should no more have their own place on the forum than posters who are all about the CFR’s Lifeteen, Catholic Underground, Steubenville and the like. They, too, are fervent.

I think if Lifeteen adherents or Stuebenville alumni generated the number of threads that the Traditional adherents did, they’d split off a forum for them. That is how they decide: volume. It is an organizational thing.

One might argue chicken or egg. CAF decided many of these things 10-13 years ago with a fraction of the participants…and most haven’t changed.

 

[gracepoole]

If that’s the case, then volume had nothing to do with it and that subforum isn’t for “traditionalist Catholics” at all.

 

[PetraG]

I had an account about 100 years ago (when I came back, I didn’t remember my account information) and it seems to me that they split off a new forum for the Traditional posters. There were enough adherents for it and it gave the advantage that there was less re-explaining the same basics over and over, too.

 

[gracepoole]

That wasn’t the written explanation of that subforum that used to be provided on CAF. ???

 

[PetraG]

That wasn’t the written explanation of that subforum that used to be provided on CAF. ???

I am an old lady, so my memory could be faulty. It does seem as if that particular forum was added later, though.

I don’t mean it was for those posters, but rather that there were lots of active threads started that fit that category, so a category was added. (I think the parenting forum was a later subforum added to the family forum, too?)

 

[gracepoole]

Years ago, I asked why there isn’t a progressive Catholic subforum if a traditional Catholic subforum exists. A mod explained that the traditional Catholic subforum is really for discussion of Catholic traditions. This was in addition to the old written explanations of the different subforums, which seem to have been scrubbed along with my thread asking about a progressive Catholic subforum. Mind you, this was how it was at one time – no clue if CAF still views that subforum the same way. And I do agree that however it was conceived, that subforum has become a haven for “traditionalist Catholics” these days.

 

[AdamP88]

My concern is when people, (including many of my “traditionalist” friends) start thinking of themselves as a special, separate group with in Catholicism. I see that attitude as problematic and also a potential turn-off to people who might otherwise be more interested in the older traditions of the Church, including the Latin Mass.

I don’t think the “traditional” Catholics care too much whether you attend Latin Mass or the Ordinary form. I’m pretty sure if I went to Latin mass and told someone I met there that I suppport abortion and gay marriage, but I love the Latin mass, they’d not be too pleased.

It’s less about what form of mass you attend and more about whether you accept Church teaching or not.

I think there is a discomfort from many about the Latin Mass because they don’t want to think that maybe there is something to be learned from it in terms of how the Liturgy is celebrated.
I attended the Easter Vigil extraordinary form mass on Saturday and I have to say, there is a sense that the Liturgy is less a show for the people and more of a sacrifice to the Lord. I can understand what people see in it.

 

[PetraG]

Years ago, I asked why there isn’t a progressive Catholic subforum if a traditional Catholic subforum exists. A mod explained that the traditional Catholic subforum is really for discussion of Catholic traditions. This was in addition to the old written explanations of the different subforums, which seem to have been scrubbed along with my thread asking about a progressive Catholic subforum. Mind you, this was how it was at one time – no clue if CAF still views that subforum the same way. And I do agree that however it was conceived, that subforum has become a haven for “traditionalist Catholics” these days.

Yes, that’s right. There were threads about where to find a veil of a certain kind and practical matters having to do with finding a Latin Mass in one’s area, whether the dress code was different for that kind of Mass, how to translate the collect for the day from Latin or the training of altar servers for the Latin Mass, that kind of thing. It was not to split off for a particular political persuasion, even though there tends to be that kind of difference in demographic.
I think, however, there were posters who posted threads that could have gone into a more general forum into that one because they were looking for opinons from “Catholics of a certain kind.” It is also common for people to post to the thread they hang out in the most: you’ll remember how many Liturgy and Sacraments questions showed up in the Family forum. That split is not how I remember the subforum starting, though, so I’m not surprised there wasn’t a “progressive” forum. I would imagine there are more progressives in the Social Justice forum, but I couldn’t say because I don’t keep track of what people post elsewhere.

 

[Fauken]

I think it’s more like:

Sedevacantist:
SSPV: Society of St. Pius V

In Good Standing:
FSSP: Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
ICKSP: Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest

Not in Good Standing (AKA: ???):
SSPX: Society of St. Pius X