"Traditional" Catholicism?

[Lev]

I’ve been wondering what is it that merits the term ‘traditional’ Catholicism in regards to the Church of the Middle Ages/ Renaissance eras?

It seems to me to be dismissive of the previous 1000 or more years of tradition. Because such a profound experience of our faith is based in an unbroken continuity of Christs Church, I would think that ‘Traditional Catholics’ were those who more attuned to the earliest days of the Church, the liturgy, the forms of Eucharist, the music and instruments etc.

What makes the particular period that Trent defined, ‘traditional’?

 

[Rob2]

What makes the particular period that Trent defined, ‘traditional’?

All the periods in the history of the Church are traditional .

The Church is of its very nature traditional .

All we receive comes by way of Tradition .

I object when the word “traditional” is used to label a particular part of the Church .

 

[Lev]

Lev:

What makes the particular period that Trent defined, ‘traditional’?

All the periods in the history of the Church are traditional .

The Church is of its very nature traditional .

All we receive comes by way of Tradition .

That is foremost in my reasoning also. In secular concepts, ‘tradition’ only means what is popular for a certain period of time. As Christians, ‘tradition’ is less related to time periods than to the once for all time sacrifice Christ made. I experience my traditional Catholicism each and every Sunday during the Eucharistic Prayers, when just as Jesus taught and the earliest Church followed, I am there in a timeless way in the Presence of the Savior. What happens around that miraculous moment, isn’t really ‘tradition’ in my view. The mystery of the Consecration in its pure form, is the definition of ‘traditional Catholicism’ to me.

 

[poche]

An important foundation in the tradition of the Catholic Church is communion with the Holy Father.

 

[commenter]

“Tradition” should be understood in constant relationship with the magisterium and Bible. It is a three leg stool.

Private interpretation of Tradition is not the Catholic Faith, any more than private interpretation of Bible.

 

[goout]

I’ve been wondering what is it that merits the term ‘traditional’ Catholicism in regards to the Church of the Middle Ages/ Renaissance eras?

It seems to me to be dismissive of the previous 1000 or more years of tradition. Because such a profound experience of our faith is based in an unbroken continuity of Christs Church, I would think that ‘Traditional Catholics’ were those who more attuned to the earliest days of the Church, the liturgy, the forms of Eucharist, the music and instruments etc.

What makes the particular period that Trent defined, ‘traditional’?

Cultural preference. In other words, a certain flavor of worship, language, and music that forms an ecclesial culture. Which is good, but not exclusively good.
The idea that this particular time frame is exclusively authentic is nonsense and ignores the whole of tradition, as you note. If we were to get really culturally authentic or restorationist, we would have Mass in Aramaic. At some point, exalting certain things that aren’t meant to be exalted becomes a protest against the Church as it is.

 

[OraLabora]

When speaking of “Tradition”, we should be using a capital “T” as this means the Traditions handed down from apostolic times, which are anchored in Truth. A “Traditionalist” then is simply someone who is an orthodox Catholic, who accepts the teachings of the Church and the authority of the Holy Father and the college of bishops.

Small “t” tradition can refer to liturgy, pious practices, etc. The problem is that most self-labeled “traditionalists” that I see on this forum, are in fact nostalgists. They seem to be pining for a specific period of time, roughly set between the Council of Trent to 1960, but usually closer to the latter. The problem is that “tradition” was not fixed in that era, and as noted it ignores liturgical traditions before Trent. A good example are troped Kyries that were banned at Trent, but for which some outstanding music exists.

Meanwhile, somewhere between Trent and the 19th century, Gregorian chant became corrupted and overly embellished, and IMHO this is a bit of a liturgical “dark age”. I would argue that Missa de Angelis is an example of this, though by no means the worst.

Gregorian chant was “revived” in the 19th century largely by the monks of Solesmes, leading to a new Roman Gradual in 1908. I would argue that those who claim to be “traditionalists” here, really are only going back to that Gradual. Curiously, they reject as “modernist” ancient pre-Trent traditions allegedly brought back by Vatican II, like communion in the hand or pre-Trent Eucharistic Prayers, but then they are actually doing exactly the same by supporting Gregorian chant which really, as practiced since the 19th century is a modern interpretation of what we think chant sounded like in the 9-12th centuries!

In brief, it is a minefield and there is no really definitive definition of “traditionalist”. I’ve been labelled as a “modernist” by self-described “traditionalists” because I prefer the Ordinary Form Mass and the current Liturgy of the Hours over the 1910-1970 Roman Breviary; and I’ve been labelled a “traditionalist” because I prefer Gregorian chant and Latin for the liturgy, both the Mass and the Divine Office. Go figure…

I like to think that because I please nobody, I must be in the right place

 

[dochawk]

In secular concepts, ‘tradition’ only means what is popular for a certain period of time. A

It the Eastern churches, Orthodox and Catholic, there is a common observation that “tradition means how it was done at the time of my grandfather’s Chrismation.” . . . and there’s a lot to be said for that observation. (It comes up, for example, when the “tradition” of First Communion gets displaced by the proper Eastern practice of full initiation of infants)

hawk

 

[commenter]

Trent seems to be the favorite Target of many today, because it documented, summarized, clarified, somewhat more defined, strengthened, but mostly just repeated a lot that had been common knowledge and practice for centuries earlier.

The fact that Trent taught the doctrine of the Trinity, and mandated better training for priests, doesn’t mean Trent INVENTED those things, or that people saying those things today can be labelled Tridentine Catholics; or that those who now believe in Arianism and support poorer priest training should be honored for trying to " restore authentic apostolic charisms".