Traditional Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter BernadetteM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your characterization of so-called “traditionalists” is interesting, but I find that it is highly repetitive and centers primarily on matters liturgical. The bulk of that characterization can easily and equally apply to those who are simply lovers of liturgical tradition, many of whom cannot be classified as even “conservative” in anything beyond that.

Anyway, while religious observance does play a part, there are other factors which are far more defining. Those who consider themselves “traditionalists” have a tendency to espouse a particular brand of politics under the guise of religion. They tend to weave them together into some sort of patchwork quilt, where removing one element unravels the whole. One can see very clear examples of that when looking at certain personages, both living and deceased, involved with the SSPX.
That’s certainly true and, while not wanting to be too directly confrontational on that front, I attempted to allude to as much with my observations on the rejection of contemporary culture and technology by some traditionalists:
Traditionalists of this variety are likely to be torn with respect to what they will accept or reject about the “modern world,” culturally-speaking. Most accept much of mainstream culture, rejecting only those things which are manifestly immoral. Others will go a step further, rejecting things such as television and the internet. They will insist that women wear veils in church, that women never wear pants under any circumstances, that men not have piercings or tatoos or long hair, and so forth. Some go even further, insisting that women not permit themselves careers, and that men should never do “women’s work” at home. Some traditionalists of this variety will insist upon moving to “Mass Centers”: communities with a large traditionalist presence, usually rural and away from the dreaded “modern world”. Some refer to these types as “Catholic Amish”.
In separating themselves from the mainstream of society, many very hard-core traditionalists, necessarily, embrace a political agenda that can perhaps best be described as “reactionary”. In some cases, their political leanings can be rather disturbingly far to the right, or even just plain far out. “Centrist” is not a word that would comfortably appear in their political lexicon. But that isn’t necessarily the case of what I will call “mainstream” traditionalists, just the quite radical ones. I think that there are many Catholics who I would describe as “traditionalists” who are completely unacquainted with the more radical politics of the hard core traditionalists. Many traditionalists are only so in the sense that they are “high church”, and that’s the end of it.

But, like I say, mere “high church” Catholics would not be regarded as authentic traditionalists by dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists. Hard core “trads” tend to label those sorts of traditionalist as “conservative Catholics” (sometimes with no small measure of disdain).
 
40.png
HCC:
I agree with you totally, HCC!

I consider myself ‘a Traditional Catholic who is also a Papist’.

I go to the TLM exclusively. But the chapel that I attend is rather ambivalent about the post-V II Popes, up to and including Benedict XVI. It’s sad, because the EF Mass is done with reverence and care, and the priests preach very well.

When I’m with most of the people who attend this chapel, I have to be very prudent as to what I can say and to whom I can say it.

I go for the Mass, and not for the ‘politics’.

I pray for and support our Holy Father in what he is doing to restore our Catholic identity. He ‘freed’ the TLM with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
 
If you consider yourself a traditional Catholic in the most extreme sense, does that mean that you don’t consider the OF valid? Do you still feel that Pope Benedict is the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church?

I was wondering as on a Traditional Catholic website almost all the posters seem to find fault with everything that is not pre VII.

If a Catholic rejects the Holy Father’s decision on allowing certain liturgies or devotions and almost everything else that comes from Rome do they still consider themselves part of the Catholic Church under the Papacy or do they consider themselves the True Catholics and everyone else are not fully Catholic.

I feel sad when reading these types of posts, as it seems they have set themselves apart from the whole Church.

From the posts here on CAF I don’t find that the traditionalists in general think that way, but was wondering if there is a line that one crosses where you only attend the EF and if one is not available would miss Mass.

I see the Church as welcoming and pastoral. Of course there are individual priests and Bishops who are less pastoral, but this is true on both the more traditional side and the less traditional side. Hopefully they are the exceptions, not the rule.

Although the site does not claim to be SSPX, there are members who are. The bottom line is can you be a traditional Catholic without this narrow mindset?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
After meeting with my Spiritual Director several weeks back, I was shocked to find out that the message of Vatican II was NOT doctrinal, but pastoral. This means that Catholics are not bound to accept the pronoucements of that Council as authoritative.

I do not attend a SSPX church, but one that does use the traditional liturgy (SSJC), They seem to be far more in tune with doctrine than the Vatican II followers are.

I suspect that the Vatican II liberals despise Traditionalism because it eschews their relativist version of reality, morality and Church teaching, not to mention pandering to illegal aliens. No wonder that they voted for the Pelosi/Biden bunch.

I cannot tell you how fulfilling it is to be a Traditionalist, and how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!)

Dominus tecum.
 
A true traditional Catholic doesn’t reject the Pope or attack clergy they disagree with (exposing error when it needs to be is one thing- attacking the clergy is another- some don’t know the difference). A true traditional Catholic loves the priest because of what God has done through him- even if that priest cannot recognize that in himself. A true traditional Catholic will strive above all for his own holiness, and will work to make sure that they are not a stumbling block for others’ salvation.
Spot on! A true traditional Catholic usually follow what the church teaches, accepts the authority of the Holy Father, is loyal and obedient to Holy Mother Church, and attends the Extraordinary Form, but you can also be a traditional Catholic and attend the OF! Being a traditional and orthodox Catholic is obeying what the church teaches, keeping the traditions of the church, and submitting and accepting the authority of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!
 
I cannot tell you…how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!)
So, Christ does not hear prayers prayed in anything other than latin? Why does the Church not tell us???
 
I cannot tell you how fulfilling it is to be a Traditionalist, and how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!)
If thats the case then you have nothing on Maronites who use Aramaic as their liturgical language, or Chaldeans who use a modern Aramaic, but Aramaic nonetheless.
 
I cannot tell you how fulfilling it is to be a Traditionalist, and how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!)
.
Christ as human definitely spoke Aramaic, probably Hebrew, and also probably at least some Greek. He did not spoke or understood Latin.

Christ as God scrutinizes the hearts and kidneys, and not the words.

Latin became the official language of the Church in the end of the 4th century, and it ceased to be the official language during the the Council of Vatican II, when it turned over that well educated bishops and their experts are unable to communicate in Latin with each other.

The dead language has an advantage: it saves the uniformity. It has also a disadvantage: it is the obstacle of the understanding. God wants as to understand and think.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by** Egoist:**
I cannot tell you…how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!)
I can speak five languages. I am quite positive that no matter in which language I pray to Him that He will understand me. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Christ as human definitely spoke Aramaic, probably Hebrew, and also probably at least some Greek. He did not spoke or understood Latin.
Its probable that Christ knows Latin but in a very limited way. Unless of course he invokes His divinity. But there is no clear record in Scripture that Christ spoke languages outside the norm with great fluency. It would have to be a big deal, as big as when it was reported right after Pentecost.
Christ as God scrutinizes the hearts and kidneys, and not the words.

Latin became the official language of the Church in the end of the 4th century, and it ceased to be the official language during the the Council of Vatican II, when it turned over that well educated bishops and their experts are unable to communicate in Latin with each other.
Its still the official language of the Church, even though its not widely used a sa Liturgical Language. Official documents are still in Latin (even if its not written in Latin to begin with, its eventually translated to Latin).
The dead language has an advantage: it saves the uniformity. It has also a disadvantage: it is the obstacle of the understanding. God wants as to understand and think.
I agree on both counts.
 
Christ as God scrutinizes the hearts and kidneys, and not the words.
So funny you should say that. I was just – like literally five minutes ago – reading something that said “quia tu es Deus qui scrutaris renes et corda” – and had to puzzle over renes for a minute before I made the connection to “renal” and the old suppositions about the importance of the kidneys. I don’t know that I’d ever seen the expression “God scrutinizes the kidneys” before in my life, and now twice in five minutes. How’s that for strange?
 
So funny you should say that. I was just – like literally five minutes ago – reading something that said “quia tu es Deus qui scrutaris renes et corda” – and had to puzzle over renes for a minute before I made the connection to “renal” and the old suppositions about the importance of the kidneys. I don’t know that I’d ever seen the expression “God scrutinizes the kidneys” before in my life, and now twice in five minutes. How’s that for strange?
That’s strange, but I came across 4 Monty Python references today. That was even stranger.
 
Spot on! A true traditional Catholic usually follow what the church teaches, accepts the authority of the Holy Father, is loyal and obedient to Holy Mother Church, and attends the Extraordinary Form, but you can also be a traditional Catholic and attend the OF! Being a traditional and orthodox Catholic is obeying what the church teaches, keeping the traditions of the church, and submitting and accepting the authority of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!
This is simply the BEST description of a traditional Catholic I’ve come across. 👍
 
If thats the case then you have nothing on Maronites who use Aramaic as their liturgical language, or Chaldeans who use a modern Aramaic, but Aramaic nonetheless.
To be more accurate, Jesus probably spoke the now-extinct Galilean dialect of Late Old Western Aramaic. Then again, most Western Aramaic dialects are presently extinct. The only one surviving is Western Neo-Aramaic, the surviving remnant of a Western Middle Aramaic dialect which was spoken throughout the Orontes Valley area and into the Anti-Lebanon in the 6th century and nowadays spoken only in three villages in the Anti-Lebanon mountains of western Syria, being the only modern living Aramaic language drawn from it; the rest (say, Chaldean, Assyrian, or Syriac) belong to the Eastern Aramaic group of languages.
 
There is a difference between “Traditional Catholicism” and “Catholic Traditionalism” and it is all too easy to confuse the two and to reach misunderstandings through use of this sort of terminology. I often wonder whether this forum is actually meant to appeal to Traditional Catholics or to Catholic Traditionalists.

A “traditional” Catholic would be any Catholic who accepts and embraces the Church’s two millenia of tradition, with respect to doctrine, liturgy, sacraments, customs and so forth. A faithful Catholic, in other words, who hears and completely accepts the magisterium, who is obedient to the hierarchy, and who participates appropriately in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. My late grandmother, who went to Mass every day and said her Rosary every night, “offering up” her sufferings, was the epitome of a “traditional Catholic”.

A Catholic “traditionalist”, however, means something else, entirely. A “traditionalist” will probably first and foremost insist upon public worship in Latin, and almost always in the context of the pre-Vatican II form of the Mass. In addition, a “traditionalist” will probably insist that such a celebration be rendered using all the external trappings that he imagines were universally and exclusively in vogue before Vatican II: fiddleback chasubles, lacey albs and surplices, cassocks, birettas, tabernacle veils, white (not wheat) hosts, altar boys with patens, sanctus bells, sanctus candles, &c. This insistance upon pre-Vatican II liturgy and external trappings is what all “traditionalists” will tend to have in common, although some “traditionalists” whose traditionalism stops there are regarded by other “traditionalists” as merely “conservatives”.

Many “traditionalists” go beyond just attendance at the Latin Mass, having not much use for most anything that arrives in the Catholic world from about the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII (1958), onward. A typical “hard core” traditionalist will eschew the contemporary Catechism in favor of older catechisms (the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” and the school-age “Baltimore Catechism” seem popular amongst many “traditionalists”), new translations of Scripture in favour of the Douay-Rheims (the only translation many traditionalists will accept at all, in fact), the new Enchiridion in favor of the old, and some even the new Code of Canon Law for the old (no matter, apparently, that the old Enchiridion and the old Code are quite null and void). “Traditionalist” priests, beyond using the 1962 Missal, use pre-Vatican II forms of the ritual. Nuns belonging to “traditionalist” groups will typically wear the complete habit, and priests will typically wear the cassock everywhere (even though that was not the custom before Vatican II).

Some “traditionalists” go so far as to completely reject, outright, without any apology, everything that happened in the Catholic Church after Vatican II. For some, it becomes a bit of a time warp, because they reject not only liturgical changes, but cultural changes, too, sometimes forbidding themselves “modern” things like televisions, the internet, fast food, and contemporary fashions.

On the outermost extreme end of Catholic traditionalism, there are those who so completely reject Vatican II that they deny the validity of everything concluded after the death of Pope Pius XII, including all papal conclaves. They deny the legitimacy of Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, regarding all of them as modernists and heretics, and therefore as “antipopes”. These extreme traditionalists have an additional label: “sedevacantist” (the Chair of Peter, they say, is vacant). Some of these have even gone so far as to elect “popes” of their own.

Some “traditionalists”, such as those forming or adhering to the Society of St. Pius X, fall somewhere between the mainstream traditionalists and the sedevacantists. They believe that the current pope is legitimate and they acknowldege his reign, but they do not obey his commands, believing them to be harmful to the Faith. Traditionalists falling into this category tend to walk the cusp of outright denial of the validity of the reformed Catholic liturgy and certainly regard those reforms as dangerous. They will not, under any circumstances, celebrate or attend a Mass celebrated using the current Missal, not even if it is celebrated in Latin, using all the “traditionalist” external trappings. Neither will they administer or receive any of the Sacraments according to the modern forms and texts, as they question their validity.

Traditionalists of this variety are likely to be torn with respect to what they will accept or reject about the “modern world,” culturally-speaking. Most accept much of mainstream culture, rejecting only those things which are manifestly immoral. Others will go a step further, rejecting things such as television and the internet. They will insist that women wear veils in church, that women never wear pants under any circumstances, that men not have piercings or tatoos or long hair, and so forth. Some go even further, insisting that women not permit themselves careers, and that men should never do “women’s work” at home. Some traditionalists of this variety will insist upon moving to “Mass Centers”: communities with a large traditionalist presence, usually rural and away from the dreaded “modern world”. Some refer to these types as “Catholic Amish”.
So I have a question if “traditionalist” represent one side of the Church and according your argument most of them will not accept anything pass vatican 2, what do you call the other side of Catholics?
 
After meeting with my Spiritual Director several weeks back, I was shocked to find out that the message of Vatican II was NOT doctrinal, but pastoral. This means that Catholics are not bound to accept the pronoucements of that Council as authoritative.

I do not attend a SSPX church, but one that does use the traditional liturgy (SSJC), They seem to be far more in tune with doctrine than the Vatican II followers are.

I suspect that the Vatican II liberals despise Traditionalism because it eschews their relativist version of reality, morality and Church teaching, not to mention pandering to illegal aliens. No wonder that they voted for the Pelosi/Biden bunch.

**I cannot tell you how fulfilling it is to be a Traditionalist, and how much more efficacious Latin prayers are (I finally speak a language that Christ understands, apparently!) **Dominus tecum.
I think you are just a troll!!!
It’s ignorant comments like that that make traditionalist, those who follow the pope and preffer EF or reveren OF (my definition), look bad! First by saying such a comment you make our Lord seem as if He is not God, He understands what you think and know what you said before you even spoke it! I have to agree with some of those people who do not like traditionalist, some are just plain ignorant, but luckily B16 if showing the younger traditionalist, like me, how to continue in line with the Church.
 
He did not spoke or understood Latin.
That’s difficult to believe.
from John 19:
19 ἔγραψεν δὲ καὶ τίτλον ὁ Πιλᾶτος καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ: ἦν δὲ γεγραμμένον, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 20 τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον πολλοὶ ἀνέγνωσαν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς: καὶ ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαϊστί, Ἑλληνιστί.
19 Scripsit autem et titulum Pilatus, et posuit super crucem. Erat autem scriptum : Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum. 20 Hunc ergo titulum multi Judæorum legerunt : quia prope civitatem erat locus, ubi crucifixus est Jesus, et erat scriptum hebraice, græce, et latine.
19 And Pilate wrote a title also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city. And it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.
Christ as God scrutinizes the hearts and kidneys, and not the words.
Maybe it doesn’t count as much but language does matter. But then language isn’t always about words. Just don’t use the wrong ones.😉
 
I can speak five languages. I am quite positive that no matter in which language I pray to Him that He will understand me.
Do computer languages count? :D:D:D

While we’re on the subject, here’s an interesting piece of trivia:
Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.
According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.
wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm

A good reason for banning English? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top