Traditional = orthodox

[Aramis]

it means that they don’t think the Pope (successor of Peter) is in charge

More importantly, they do not recognize the definition of being in the church as being in union with the See of Peter.

(The Coptic Orthodox, however, seem to see the Petrine Ministry, but seem to attribute it to the Patriarchal see of Alexandria, also created by St. Peter.)

 

[Wesley7]

More importantly, they do not recognize the definition of being in the church as being in union with the See of Peter.

And where is the See of Peter? . .

 

[MrS]

And where is the See of Peter? . .

Whereever the Pope, the vicar of Christ, is

It is now in Rome, or more precisely, in the Vatican.

.

 

[Ace86]

There is no such thing as an “orthodox” non-Traditional Catholic. You have to be traditional as a Catholic because that’s part of what being Catholic entails. Sacred Tradition is as important as Sacred Scripture.

 

[btdn]

There is no such thing as an “orthodox” non-Traditional Catholic. You have to be traditional as a Catholic because that’s part of what being Catholic entails. Sacred Tradition is as important as Sacred Scripture.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get across.

 

[cathguy]

So called “Traditional Catholics” are like those in the post above, who think that every pope after Pope Pius XII is a “modernest,” “liberal,” or “neoCatholic,” and the standard Missal of Pope Paul VI catholic is the same or even more so.

In truth, all of these labels are pretty much meaningless. Tradition is not, like noted earlier, locked in the 1950s. We see the continuation of Tradition today in Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II who upheld many of the churches traditional teachings. Now, did the more recent popes do things that aren’t looked at favorably by the so called “traditionalists” catholics of today? Sure they did, but if you look into the history of the popes of the last 100-150 years ago you will find that they supported things that would now be looked upon as “liberal.”

As to your question as to whether traditional = orthodox…if you look at some of the “traditionalists” communities out there I think you’ll see that, though they may be traditional in thought, they aren’t exactly orthodox in practice.

This post is unfair. For instance, I am a traditionalist who does NOT reject Vatican II (the council is NOT heretical. It is fine… IF read in the context of the larger Church tradition to sort out ambiguities)

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is SUPERIOR to the OF. I believe the arguments for this have not been answered by anyone. I think the OF is VALID and LICIT. I think the way it is most commonly celebrated constitutes an abuse.

Most traditionalists would be on board with what I said. There are radical traditionalist Catholics who reject VII etc. etc., but, contrary to the above posters claim, I haven’t run into many “rad trads” here.

 

[cathguy]

Traditional Catholic = a Catholic who follows the perennial teachings of the Church, rather than novelties of the current pontificate.

For example: John Paul II allowed altar boys who are girls. This was a complete aberration and had been condemned as “evil” by popes in the past. NeoCatholics accepted it, since it came from Rome. Traditional Catholics recognized it as total novelty and therefore not binding in conscience, and continue to follow what the Church has always practiced.

This is just one example.

WOAH. This is off the mark.

Firstly, I bet you get beat up a lot around here, so first, thank you for your zeal. I have a couple of points I want to bring up that I think you have not considered.

First point: it is up to the pastor of the local parish to decide who is an altar server. Not the Pope. Remember subsidiarity!

The local Bishop has the power to decide this issue for his Diocese. However, EVEN IF the local Bishop allows altar girls, the parish priest CAN refuse them!

Having female altar servers (which is a practice I strongly disagree with) DOES NOT in ANY WAY effect the indefectibility of the Church.

As a member of the laity you are FREE to assist at the EF (no altar girls) or at an OF Mass with a priest who does not allow them. You are FREE to request your pastor cease the practice (respectfully!!)

BUT, you are NOT FREE to DEMAND an end to altar girls always and everywhere NOW, and to pretend that the Pope is some sort of heretic for promulgating the practice. Was he mistaken? Perhaps. I could construct a relatively strong argument to that effect. HOWEVER, the discipline is now in practice. Work to end the practice if you must with reasoned arguments and work WITHIN the Church by being loyal to the Holy Father. Remember, altar girls were allowed after MANY MANY requests by local Bishops. My advice is to drop the whole “Pope John Paul II was a heretic” thing. That argument is awfully thin.

(That said… I agree that the new Rosary and the new Stations are jarring, and I agree that Assisi was a MISTAKE)

God Bless.

 

[Timothysis]

This post is unfair. For instance, I am a traditionalist who does NOT reject Vatican II (the council is NOT heretical. It is fine… IF read in the context of the larger Church tradition to sort out ambiguities)

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is SUPERIOR to the OF. I believe the arguments for this have not been answered by anyone. I think the OF is VALID and LICIT. I think the way it is most commonly celebrated constitutes an abuse.

Most traditionalists would be on board with what I said. There are radical traditionalist Catholics who reject VII etc. etc., but, contrary to the above posters claim, I haven’t run into many “rad trads” here.

It doesn’t sound to me like you are a traditionalist or a liberal…it sounds to me like you are a catholic. Welcome to the club.

You are correct; “traditionalists” tend to believe that the EF IS superior to the OF but you forgot that they tend to have a latent hostility and even open defiance of what they call the Novus Ordo. They also tend to harbor a resentment towards all the popes since Pius XII. They call into question the actions and writings of the current popes and hold a position that one need not be completely obedient to the pope, having decided such by their own judgment and standards.

Oh…and just keep an eye out; there are a few “rad trads” here…

 

[btdn]

WOAH. This is off the mark.

Firstly, I bet you get beat up a lot around here, so first, thank you for your zeal. I have a couple of points I want to bring up that I think you have not considered.

First point: it is up to the pastor of the local parish to decide who is an altar server. Not the Pope. Remember subsidiarity!

The local Bishop has the power to decide this issue for his Diocese. However, EVEN IF the local Bishop allows altar girls, the parish priest CAN refuse them!

Having female altar servers (which is a practice I strongly disagree with) DOES NOT in ANY WAY effect the indefectibility of the Church.

As a member of the laity you are FREE to assist at the EF (no altar girls) or at an OF Mass with a priest who does not allow them. You are FREE to request your pastor cease the practice (respectfully!!)

BUT, you are NOT FREE to DEMAND an end to altar girls always and everywhere NOW, and to pretend that the Pope is some sort of heretic for promulgating the practice. Was he mistaken? Perhaps. I could construct a relatively strong argument to that effect. HOWEVER, the discipline is now in practice. Work to end the practice if you must with reasoned arguments and work WITHIN the Church by being loyal to the Holy Father. Remember, altar girls were allowed after MANY MANY requests by local Bishops. My advice is to drop the whole “Pope John Paul II was a heretic” thing. That argument is awfully thin.

(That said… I agree that the new Rosary and the new Stations are jarring, and I agree that Assisi was a MISTAKE)

God Bless.

From the Council of Florence (and the canons for both the east and west, but I like this expression of the idea):

We define that the Holy Apostolic See—and the Roman Pontiff—has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons

Subsidiarity is probably a good thing, but it is not a hard and fast rule.

In Servant of God Paul VI’s motu proprio Ministeria Quadam:

In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader and acolyte is reserved to men.

While he is specifically referring to what was then the sub-deaconate, I do see at least the potential for conflict for girl altar servers that should not be lightly dismissed. I question whether this is a matter of faith and morals, so it is possible that Servant of God John Paul II got it wrong, but that would hardly make him a heretic.

I like the Luminous Mysteries (though I do like the symbolism of one hundred fifty, ‘Mary’s Psalter’ for the laity) and I do not care for the Scriptural Way of the Cross, but what do you mean by Assisi?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’d say an orthodox Catholic is one who adheres to the Church’s official teachings on Faith and Morals, such as heaven, hell, purgatory, abortion, contraception, etc.

Now, an orthodox Catholic can absolutely love all the changes in the small t tradtions such as altar girls, the changes to the liturgy, communion in the hand, standing to receive communion, etc. He can even want dancing, and still be orthodox.

In the same way, a traditionalist is orthodox unless he denies some fundamental dogma of the faith like a belief in hell or the illicitness of contraception. If someone denies that there is a Pope on the throne of Peter instead of calling them a tradtionalist I would call him a sedevacantist as I think the more specific and accurate you can be, the better.

Thus a “liberal” or “progressive” can be orthodox. It’s only when they deny a fundamental dogma of the Faith that must be held by all the faithful that one would call them perhaps a dissenter, or heretic, or even a non-Catholic.

God bless.

 

[Wesley7]

You are correct; “traditionalists” tend to believe that the EF IS superior to the OF but you forgot that they tend to have a latent hostility and even open defiance of what they call the Novus Ordo. They also tend to harbor a resentment towards all the popes since Pius XII. They call into question the actions and writings of the current popes and hold a position that one need not be completely obedient to the pope, having decided such by their own judgment and standards.

Asking genuine questions.

What do the abbreviations EF and OF mean?

Why the -big- issue of Pius XII?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This post is unfair. For instance, I am a traditionalist who does NOT reject Vatican II (the council is NOT heretical. It is fine… IF read in the context of the larger Church tradition to sort out ambiguities)

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is SUPERIOR to the OF. I believe the arguments for this have not been answered by anyone. I think the OF is VALID and LICIT. I think the way it is most commonly celebrated constitutes an abuse.

Most traditionalists would be on board with what I said. There are radical traditionalist Catholics who reject VII etc. etc., but, contrary to the above posters claim, I haven’t run into many “rad trads” here.

Yes, this is the same position most of the traditionalists I read take. You do sound like a traditionalist.

 

[MrS]

It doesn’t sound to me like you are a traditionalist or a liberal…it sounds to me like you are a catholic. Welcome to the club.

You are correct; “traditionalists” tend to believe that the EF IS superior to the OF but you forgot that they tend to have a latent hostility and even open defiance of what they call the Novus Ordo. They also tend to harbor a resentment towards all the popes since Pius XII. They call into question the actions and writings of the current popes and hold a position that one need not be completely obedient to the pope, having decided such by their own judgment and standards.

Oh…and just keep an eye out; there are a few “rad trads” here…

Well, I guess I consider myself a traditionalist. I do have a preference for a proper NO, however.

But the “latent hostility” you mention is once again a goofy and erroneous comment often made by those who do not have the foggiest idea of what the NO is supposed to be.

Most, not just many, traditionalists recognize the BIG difference between what was intended to be a NO, and the many, many abuse-ladden NO liturgies we have seen over the years. I think many others have taken some time to research the problem, coming to the same conclusion.

So when I see a poster promoting an NO that is not the intended NO, I feel for them… “… for they know not what they do…”

They… they, they…

 

[cathguy]

Asking genuine questions.

What do the abbreviations EF and OF mean?

Why the -big- issue of Pius XII?

EF means Extraordinary Form. It refers to the Gregorian Mass. Some people call it the Traditional Latin Mass, others the Tridentine Mass. Commonly celebrated, it is the Mass according to the 1962 Missal (before the liturgical reforms associated with VII)

The OF means Ordinary Form. Some call it the Novus Ordo. Others the New Mass. It is the Mass that is reflective of the reforms put into place after VII.

The Pope coined the terms Extraordinary Form, and Ordinary Form in his Motu Proprio liberating the old Mass.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Wesley7]

We define that the Holy Apostolic See—and the Roman Pontiff—has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons

. . .

 

[belgianwaffles9]

The OF means Ordinary Form. Some call it the Novus Ordo. Others the New Mass. It is the Mass that is reflective of the reforms put into place after VII.

The Pope coined the terms Extraordinary Form, and Ordinary Form in his Motu Proprio liberating the old Mass.

Hope this answers your question.

The Ordinary Form is less reflective of the suggestions of Vatican II, and more reflective of the will of Anibali Bugnini, who almost single-handedly created it from scratch. Some seem to think he was an evil man who inflitrated the Church for that purpose (he went in and out of “promotions” and “demotions” within the heirarchy rather often, and was plagued by accusations of being a freemason) while others tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he thought what he was doing would really help. I’m still debating this one myself.

Either way, what we ended up with, According to the Holy Father, was a “banal, on-the-spot product.”

The Novus Ordo Missae, of 1970, is far less reflective of the Council’s desires than was the Missal of 1965, promulgated directly after the Council ended, which is unfortunately nearly forgotten today.

 

[cathguy]

The Ordinary Form is less reflective of the suggestions of Vatican II, and more reflective of the will of Anibali Bugnini, who almost single-handedly created it from scratch. Some seem to think he was an evil man who inflitrated the Church for that purpose (he went in and out of “promotions” and “demotions” within the heirarchy rather often, and was plagued by accusations of being a freemason) while others tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he thought what he was doing would really help. I’m still debating this one myself.

Either way, what we ended up with, According to the Holy Father, was a “banal, on-the-spot product.”

The Novus Ordo Missae, of 1970, is far less reflective of the Council’s desires than was the Missal of 1965, promulgated directly after the Council ended, which is unfortunately nearly forgotten today.

Very true. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Dempsey1919]

All these titles are pointless; in my view there are two kinds of Catholics: those who are faithful to the Church, and those who are not. There are “traditionalists” who are dissenters, and there are “liberals” who are dissenters; in truth, they are the same as each other; they are both dissenting Catholics.

 

[cathguy]

All these titles are pointless; in my view there are two kinds of Catholics: those who are faithful to the Church, and those who are not. There are “traditionalists” who are dissenters, and there are “liberals” who are dissenters; in truth, they are the same as each other; they are both dissenting Catholics.

Dude, we are talking about two forms of the Mass. That is all.

RELAX

 

[Dempsey1919]

Dude, we are talking about two forms of the Mass. That is all.

This thread isn’t just about the two Forms of the Roman Mass. It’s whole purpose is to discuss whether traditionalism is synonymous with orthodoxy.

Traditionalism means different things to many different people, and no definition will ever be accepted by all. Mass preference or spirituality type does not make a person orthodox; there are Charismatic Catholics who are very faithful, and there are Tradtional Catholics who are disobedient.

RELAX

What makes you think I’m unrelaxed? I simply expressed my opinion on whether “traditional = orthodox.” Show me how I came across as anything but relaxed?