Traditional vs Contemporary Catholicism

[pianistclare]

Yeah, it’s called “no labels.”

 

[theoda]

Im not sure how it contradicts my point. A “traditionalist” should neither be a revolutionary nor an innovator, whether it be a modernist or a pharisee…so I would say it supports my point. I am not sure how it contradicts. Are you meaning to say that elitism is never an issue? I do not understand.

It doesn’t contradict, you are right. I was wondering if you thought that there should be a middle ground that we should take between traditional catholism(some people who dislike traditionalists wrongly use the term elitism and Phariseanism to refer to them), and contemporary catholism.

 

[theoda]

Yeah, it’s called “no labels.”

It doesn’t exactly mean no labels. I think it means no different labels. We can of course refer to ourselves as followers of Christ. However, we can’t refer to ourselves as followers of someone else. In the same way, we can refer to ourselves as traditionalists(Pope Pius X said so), but we can’t as modernists.

 

[ialsop]

It doesn’t contradict, you are right. I was wondering if you thought that there should be a middle ground that we should take between traditional Catholism and modernism because some people refer to traditionalists as elitists or Pharisee-like

We SHOULD be more traditional, I think. And is there a difference between “traditionalists” and “traditional catholics” in the world? I think calling yourself traditional is good, but calling yourself traditionalist is sort of isolating.
And it really depends on the heart, but yes there is middle ground between elitism and modernism. but it is a traditional middle. Very traditional. The middle is not less traditional it is just not prideful. Humble traditional Catholicism is the middle. (I attend OF cuz EF is not available, I see nothing wrong with this. Traditional in this sense refers not only to external tradition but also internally traditional)

 

[Corki]

Beyond favoring a different form of the Liturgy, there is (or should not be) any difference between Catholics.

I think it’s a little broader than just liturgy. Most people who would call themselves “traditional” have a fondness for older spiritual practices and devotions as well - scapulars, for example or the Little Office. But none of these are the essentials of the faith.

 

[pianistclare]

It doesn’t exactly mean no labels. I think it means no different labels. We can of course refer to ourselves as followers of Christ. However, we can’t refer to ourselves as followers of someone else. In the same way, we can refer to ourselves as traditionalists(Pope Pius X said so), but we can’t as modernists.

sigh. OK, no “superior” labels. That’s what it boils down to. *“My version of Catholicism is more correct than yours”. *That drives me nuts.

 

[ialsop]

sigh. OK, no “superior” labels. That’s what it boils down to. *“My version of Catholicism is more correct than yours”. *That drives me nuts.

So it would be ood to label, but the label should say “We are expressions of the authentic Catholic spirituality and we compliment each other, and that is cool”
So basically, just say Catholic.

DONT PUT ANYTHING BEFORE IT…Charismatic catholic, traditional catholic, lutheran catholic, sspx catholic,
AND DONT FOLLOW IT WITH ANYTHING…Im catholic BUT…

 

[theoda]

sigh. OK, no “superior” labels. That’s what it boils down to. *“My version of Catholicism is more correct than yours”. *That drives me nuts.

Agree.

 

[theoda]

So it would be ood to label, but the label should say “We are expressions of the authentic Catholic spirituality and we compliment each other, and that is cool”
So basically, just say Catholic.

DONT PUT ANYTHING BEFORE IT…Charismatic catholic, traditional catholic, lutheran catholic, sspx catholic,
AND DONT FOLLOW IT WITH ANYTHING…Im catholic BUT…

Also agree.

 

[edwest2]

There is a whole section in this forum for “Traditional Catholicism”. I didn’t think about it much at first and figured it was a forum to discuss general catholic issues. I just noticed that some individuals referred to themselves as “traditional” catholics. What is the difference between “regular”(?) catholics and traditional catholics? Do traditional catholics feel that something important has been lost from the church? Is there any conflict between the two groups? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to stir up up trouble. Just curious.

Traditional Catholics represent a distinct era.
Regular, or current, Catholics represent another era.

In both cases, age plays a role but both groups have the same goals. Any ‘conflicts’ that may occur are over real or rumored distortions regarding events that have occurred within the Church over the last 45 years. I would confine the primary time period as between 1965 and 1973.

To summarize, I think Traditional and Contemporary Catholics should not be looked at as anything other than Catholics. Any differences I see brought up are usually on a case by case basis, and person to person level.

Peace,
Ed