Traditional Catholicism

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Hello all, so I was trying to find out more about the Traditionalist movement. I’d appreciate it if you could help me out with these questions.

1. 
   *]What is that makes you a traditional Catholic? What sets you apart from those Catholics who aren’t traditionalists?
   
   *]What does a traditional Catholic do when there is no Tridentine rite at a reasonable distance?
   
   *]What do traditionalists think about collegiality?
   
   *]Do Traditionalists think private revelation is (very) important or can it be safely ignored?
   
   Thank you for anwering

 

[ImmaculataFides]

1. Traditional Catholics, in a nut shell, acknowledge a massive crisis in the Church and question the legitimacy of the changes during and after the Second Vatican Council, whether that be liturgical or doctrinal. They are difficult to define.

There is pretty much three different groups of traditional Catholics:

A) Those that believe that the Church is the same as it was before the Second Vatican Council, holding that the differences are just accidental. (Ecclesia Dei trads)
B) Those that believe that there has been a fundamental change through the Second Vatican Council, but the Church’s and the Pope’s infallibility were not exercised, so they can be sorted out in the future. (SSPX trads)
C) Those that believe that there has been a fundamental change, so the chair must be vacant. (Sedevacantists)

1. It varies. Traditionalists that belong to group A will generally go to the Novus Ordo if there are no Traditional Latin Masses available. Traditionalists from group B will usually avoid the Novus Ordo, believing there is no obligation to attend it. Traditionalists from group C will never attend a Novus Ordo.
2. Traditionalists who belong to group A will usually try to view collegiality in the light of tradition. Those who belong to group B will contend that this is not possible, and that collegiality effectively undermines the authority of the Papacy. Those from group C will generally be the same as those from group B on this point.
3. It varies. Generally however, Fatima is very very popular in the traditional movement.

Hope I helped. I borrowed some information from other trads on other forums.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

That’s informative, thank you for sharing your knowledge

But how does group B fulfil their sunday obligation? Or do they think the obligation is only there if you can go to a TLM.

And what if the OF is done in Latin and very reverent?

 

[ImmaculataFides]

That’s informative, thank you for sharing your knowledge

But how does group B fulfil their sunday obligation? Or do they think the obligation is only there if you can go to a TLM.

And what if the OF is done in Latin and very reverent?

Group B believe that you would be dispensed from Sunday obligation if the only Mass nearby was a Novus Ordo. They would stay home and pray their missal and rosary. If there was an Eastern Catholic liturgy nearby that hasn’t been effected by the Novus Ordo reforms, they would go to that.

Concerning the Novus Ordo: those from group B, unlike group A, believe the form itself to be problematic even if done in a “reverent” manner. Group A only objects to abuses in a Novus Ordo offering, not the form itself.

 

[curlycool89]

1. What is that makes you a traditional Catholic? What sets you apart from those Catholics who aren’t traditionalists?

I’ve always put “traditional Catholics” as those who are attracted to a more traditional spirituality. This may include the Mass in latin (OF or EF), the Office in latin, and older lay devotions (especially the rosary).

1. What does a traditional Catholic do when there is no Tridentine rite at a reasonable distance?

A Catholic who is in communion with the See of Rome would attend Mass at another Catholic church (that really applies to any Catholic).

Do Traditionalists think private revelation is (very) important or can it be safely ignored?

I don’t know if you’ll find a consensus among any group on this. Private revelation is always non-binding, so it will be a subjective thing.

If you mean really private revelation (like visions, dreams), I would think that would be more common to Protestants then to Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

What does a traditional Catholic do when there is no Tridentine rite at a reasonable distance?

Having been here for years, I would say it is rare to find a traditional Catholic that would forgo their Mass obligation over the form. To so reject the Holy Sacrament, one pretty much has to believe the Mass to be invalid. Only the smallest percentage believe this, and most of these end up in some sectarian splinter.

The vast majority of traditional Catholics are supportive of the Holy Father and the Church. They are no different than other good Catholics except for their affection of things traditional, and sometimes distaste for newer changes in the Church.

 

[Stylites]

“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female: there is no group A nor group B nor group C nor group D. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” -Galatians 3:28

 

[TrueLight]

I noticed you are using “traditional” and “traditionalists” interchangeably. Although traditionalists do use the terms interchangeably, on CAF, great pains are taking to differentiate the two. My answers are in regards to traditionalists.

What is that makes you a traditional Catholic? What sets you apart from those Catholics who aren’t traditionalists?

What makes me a traditionalist is 1) I only attend the EF unless I have no choice, for various reasons, which I am not at liberty to say on this forum; I tend to adhere to Pre-Vatican II teachings, practices and devotions.

For example, if I go out to eat with 15 traditionalists on a Friday, there is no question that everyone will abstain from meat.

What does a traditional Catholic do when there is no Tridentine rite at a reasonable distance?

Attend the OF. As others have said, only a very small minority believe it is not mortal sin to miss Mass.

What do traditionalists think about collegiality?

For the most part, traditionalists are not wild about it. Same goes for ecumenism.

Do Traditionalists think private revelation is (very) important or can it be safely ignored?

In my experience traditionalists very much follow private revelations and quote frequently from them.

It’s important to point out that although traditionalists tend to believe similar things when it comes to Catholicism, not everyone necessarily believes exactly the same things.

 

[YoungTradCath]

1. Traditional Catholics, in a nut shell, acknowledge a massive crisis in the Church and question the -]legitimacy/-] of the changes during and after the Second Vatican Council, -]whether that be/-] liturgical -]or doctrinal/-]. They are difficult to define.

I would generally agree with Immaculata’s post. However, I would perhaps reword the above quote to say something like this:

“Traditional Catholics, in a nut shell, acknowledge a massive crisis in the Church and question the pastoral prudence of the changes during and after the Second Vatican Council, liturgical or otherwise. They are difficult to find.”

Of course we have nuttier groups like the Sedevacantists, but I generally consider these people in a different category altogether, and I think the Church does too.

The Catholic traditionalist, unless he is on the verge of apostasy or something, acknowledges the fact that the Council had the authority to request what it did, and that Pope Paul VI had the authority to implement the Council in one way or another. So authority is not the issue for the Catholic traditionalist, but prudence is. This is because the Catholic traditionalist sees, as in Immaculata’s quote, a massive crisis in the Church, a massive crisis hard to deny by anyone. The Catholic traditionalist views this “new Springtime” business as basically a poetic joke so far in practice.

Ultimately, I think, the Catholic traditionalist’s argument rests on identity. Change a rubric of the Mass now and then, tweak a vestment, slightly modify the way popular devotions are handled, emphasize this or that theological point if belief is faltering and considering the context of the situation, and there will be no big deal. But change a bunch of stuff in a major way over an extremely short period of time, and even if this massive change is only perceived and isn’t real, and the whole structure of the Church will collapse. Even now we feel huge aftershocks of the 60s and 70s, even though no young Catholic has a lived and real experience of this time period.

The Catholic traditionalist’s opinion really comes down to, “Look here, look there, this is true and fine, but it was not a good idea.”

 

[CaptCrunch73]

I like the A, B and C response.

Cardinal Burke recently put out an interview, The call of beauty, that pretty much sums up the differences in the Mass.

If you follow the EF form of the Mass that means you’d also follow the EF calendar at which time you’d notice more changes such as (but not limited to)

• the octave of Pentecost
• moving Ascension to a Sunday
• Ember Days
• Rogation Days
• Septuagesima

I could go on and on about the changes as, I’m sure, others could as well, but the changes to the practices and emphasis in the Church that occurred after Vatican II are substantial. Many people, like myself, after discovering these changes want them back and feel they are part of the Catholic identity which has been lost. That DOESN’T MAKE THEM WRONG OR INVALID but the changes are substantial. Traditionalists tend to prefer the things that have been changed in the post Vatican II Church. I think the difference between the B and C fall into the area of whether these changes are valid or not.

 

[thistle]

I noticed you are using “traditional” and “traditionalists” interchangeably. Although traditionalists do use the terms interchangeably, on CAF, great pains are taking to differentiate the two. My answers are in regards to traditionalists.

What makes me a traditionalist is 1) I only attend the EF unless I have no choice, for various reasons, which I am not at liberty to say on this forum; I tend to adhere to Pre-Vatican II teachings, practices and devotions.

For example, if I go out to eat with 15 traditionalists on a Friday, there is no question that everyone will abstain from meat.

Attend the OF. As others have said, only a very small minority believe it is not mortal sin to miss Mass.

For the most part, traditionalists are not wild about it. Same goes for ecumenism.

In my experience traditionalists very much follow private revelations and quote frequently from them.

It’s important to point out that although traditionalists tend to believe similar things when it comes to Catholicism, not everyone necessarily believes exactly the same things.

All Catholics are obliged to accept ALL Church teachings. They cannot pick and choose which to believe or not believe. Any denial/rejection of a teaching is a sin of grave matter.

 

[TrueLight]

All Catholics are obliged to accept ALL Church teachings. They cannot pick and choose which to believe or not believe. Any denial/rejection of a teaching is a sin of grave matter.

Umm. I’m not debating anything on this thread. In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve pretty much stopped debating on this subforum. I’m answering the OP’s question in my opinion.

 

[thewanderer]

All Catholics are obliged to accept ALL Church teachings. They cannot pick and choose which to believe or not believe. Any denial/rejection of a teaching is a sin of grave matter.

Differences in belief don’t have to be related specifically to Church Doctrine that must be accepted. It can refer to theological differences not related to the essentials of dogma, private revelations and prayers, or even the importance placed on different practices.

 

[curlycool89]

All Catholics are obliged to accept ALL Church teachings. They cannot pick and choose which to believe or not believe. Any denial/rejection of a teaching is a sin of grave matter.

I think he was referring more to the “optional things” (like private revelations) or on issues where there is an allowable orthodox range of beliefs.

 

[clem456]

Hello all, so I was trying to find out more about the Traditionalist movement. I’d appreciate it if you could help me out with these questions.

 

[edwest2]

Hello all, so I was trying to find out more about the Traditionalist movement. I’d appreciate it if you could help me out with these questions.

1. 
   *]What is that makes you a traditional Catholic? What sets you apart from those Catholics who aren’t traditionalists?
   
   *]What does a traditional Catholic do when there is no Tridentine rite at a reasonable distance?
   
   *]What do traditionalists think about collegiality?
   
   *]Do Traditionalists think private revelation is (very) important or can it be safely ignored?
   
   Thank you for anwering

1. 
   First, there is no such thing as a this or that Catholic. There is obedience and disobedience.
   
   Second, having been there before and after Vatican II, I did not love God less after.
   
   The lie needs to be put to rest that Vatican II even suggested any of the changes that happened after.
   
   catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145
   
   There were dissidents active in the Church during the 1960s and 1970s.
   
   online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html
   
   This will provide many answers to related questions.
   
   Finally, Pope Benedict on the Mass and the 1962 missal.
   
   "LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS
   BENEDICT XVI
   TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION
   OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA”
   SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
   ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
   PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970
   
   "My dear Brother Bishops,
   
   "With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
   
   "News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
   
   "This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
   
   "In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
   
   “This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”
   
   Peace,
   Ed

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

There were dissidents active in the Church during the 1960s and 1970s.

So that’s the reason a lot of very liberal catholics are 60 to 70 years old?

 

[Marocchino]

When reading Church history, one sees that labels are necessary when dealing with periods of rampant heresy. Thus, when many of the Jews rejected the Messiah to differentiate the true Israel from te false the label Christian was used. When the infant Church was plagued by the early heresies, the label Catholic was used to differentiate between true and false Christians. Likewise, when speaking of the period of the Arian heresy we can describe the true Carholics as the Trinitarians. Centuries later, when the papacy was attacked those who remained faithful were called Ultramontanes. A little one later, during the time Modernism the true Catholics were called Integrists because they preserved that integrity of the faith that the Modernists undermined. In our day, Traditionalism is a reaction against the new heresy that despises the ancient liturgical and and theological traditions – tht heresy is Progressivism, the deadly offspring of Modernism.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

When reading Church history, one sees that labels are necessary when dealing with periods of rampant heresy. Thus, when many of the Jews rejected the Messiah to differentiate the true Israel from te false the label Christian was used. When the infant Church was plagued by the early heresies, the label Catholic was used to differentiate between true and false Christians. Likewise, when speaking of the period of the Arian heresy we can describe the true Carholics as the Trinitarians. Centuries later, when the papacy was attacked those who remained faithful were called Ultramontanes. A little one later, during the time Modernism the true Catholics were called Integrists because they preserved that integrity of the faith that the Modernists undermined. In our day, Traditionalism is a reaction against the new heresy that despises the ancient liturgical and and theological traditions – tht heresy is Progressivism, the deadly offspring of Modernism.

I understand you. Modernism is indeed a disease.

Thank you all for participating in this thread and help me understand traditionalism better :tiphat: