Traditionalist criteria for Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans …

[GKC]

Personal opinion: when the style of Mass, or language used, seems to outsiders to take precedence over Jesus you have entered the realm of the “super-trad”.

Whatever that liturgical style might be.

One also has to consider doctrinal tradition.

 

[JustaServant]

Speaking of which, I’d like to throw out a corollary to my original question: How do you distinguish between “regular trads” and super (or hard-core or whatever other term) trads?

They wear capes with a giant “T” on them? Their nemesis is “Novus Ordo Man”?
I could really run with that, but back to the OP.

“Traditional” among regular pew-warming Catholics have many different definitions IMHO.
I would simply say it is someone who is not a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ or a twice-a-year Catholic. Someone who takes his or her faith seriously.Preference in the form of Mass are not top priorities. We love the Latin Mass, but fighting over it seems counter-productive.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ You all make good points. Putting it another way, I guess you could say that one is traditional-but-not-traditionalist if he/she prefers/loves the “traditional” but without *opposing *the rest.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

For those who are Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc, what would qualify someone as “traditionalist”?

Needless to say (or is it?) I’m not looking for some kind of absolute black-and-white definition. Just any sort of helpful criteria. By way of illustration, among Catholics answers to the same question would depend greatly upon whom you ask; but there would be some common agreement, e.g. a Catholic would generally not be considered “traditionalist” if he/she was not at least somewhat negative toward the state of the liturgy since the Second Vatican Council. (I say “at least” because often it would be a matter of strong objections or even flat-out rejection.)

High view of liturgy and the sacraments , the preaching of the Word , and a high view of tradition .

 

[Aslan10]

Traditional Anglicans tend to use the 1928 bcp. Can come in both high liturgy and low liturgy. High=incense, thurifer, deacons and subdeacons, as many vestments as the Priest can afford, Eucharist weekly and will often call the service a mass, have a tabernacle w/reserved Eucharist and often hold to 7 Sacraments and address the Priest as Father. Low=usually minimal vestments(cassock, surplice & tippet), often 2 candles but sometimes not, morning/evening prayer are the primary Sunday service, Holy Communion once a month and often adhere strongly to the 39 Articles (2 Sacraments) and often address the Minister by first name.

Wouldn’t disagree. The parish I attend is somewhere in the middle of this (like good Anglicans). We hold to 2 sacraments, but perform the Eucharist every Sunday.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

“Traditionalist” Orthodox favor the Old (Julian) Calendar, tend to receive communion less frequently (only after confession), view Roman Catholicism and “ecumenism” with extreme suspicion, and require that converts even from Trinitarian churches be rebaptized.

 

[Peter_J]

Wouldn’t disagree. The parish I attend is somewhere in the middle of this (like good Anglicans). We hold to 2 sacraments, but perform the Eucharist every Sunday.

As a Catholic, kind of hard for me to imagine that as “in the middle” … but then, I imagine it’s equally hard for you guys to comprehend some of the Catholic ideas about what makes someone “in the middle”.

 

[Padres1969]

For some concepts of Anglican, that would hold, as far as it went. But for a hard over Anglican on the reformed side, that isn’t traditional, that’s full of Romish innovations. For such, a traditional Anglican service is more likely from the 1552 Book (if possible), perhaps with a table and 2 candles, cassock, surplice, tippet, maybe preaching bands. And that’s only looking at traditional with respect to ritual, not considering doctrine, considered within the historic Anglican spectrum. Or late 20th century fun and games.

Too much to bother with in the subject.

Yeah I would go so far to say there is no real definition of a Traditionalist Anglican in the sense of what the OP is asking. Depending on if you’re high, broad, or low church traditionalist could mean completely different things.

 

[steido01]

Wouldn’t disagree. The parish I attend is somewhere in the middle of this (like good Anglicans). We hold to 2 sacraments, but perform the Eucharist every Sunday.

My Lutheran church is a little more Catholic. We’ve got at least 3 sacraments.

But Holy Communion is every other week…

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

“Traditionalist” Orthodox** favor the Old (Julian) Calendar**, tend to receive communion less frequently (only after confession), view Roman Catholicism and “ecumenism” with extreme suspicion, and require that** converts even from Trinitarian churches be rebaptized**.

Also:

• Insistent on women covering their heads in church
• Rejection of pews
• Insistent on clergy having beards and traditional clerical garb
• Lukewarmness or dislike of English services

Overall, though, most of these things can be advocated by non-Traditionalists too. The dividing line between a more conservative Orthodox Christian and a hardline Traditionalist are those portions of Expatreprocedit’s post that I bolded.

 

[LutheranScholar]

You know you’re a trad Lutheran when:

• You have a spare 1941 TLH tucked away in case your current one wears out. (guilty!)
• You have the “page 5” and “page 15” services completely memorized and can hum all the chants.

Sounds right to me! I would also add the criteria of accepting the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord ( Concordia, for LCMS ) as a correct extrapolation of the Holy Scriptures and who have a hard bound copy of CFW Walther’s " Law and Gospel" next to Concordia, which would of course be placed next to the Lutheran Study Bible. Also, not to forget praying the Lutheran Rosary during Lent and making the Sign of the Holy Cross before Service and after receiving Holy Communion.

 

[wynd]

Also:

• Insistent on women covering their heads in church
• Rejection of pews
• Insistent on clergy having beards and traditional clerical garb
• Lukewarmness or dislike of English services

Overall, though, most of these things can be advocated by non-Traditionalists too. The dividing line between a more conservative Orthodox Christian and a hardline Traditionalist are those portions of Expatreprocedit’s post that I bolded.

I would say the key is not just using the Old Calendar, but being suspicious of those who don’t.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I would say the key is not just using the Old Calendar, but being suspicious of those who don’t.

Yes, you are correct. Treating the calendar like it is dogma or something.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say the key is not just using the Old Calendar, but being suspicious of those who don’t.

I think this could be expanded into a larger principle: however one might define “traditionalist” (and I won’t try to count how many possible ways there are) it must be a question of insistences, so to speak.

So for example if I was to include “kneels for communion” in a definition of Catholic traditionalists, I think I would have to go further, I.e. “insists on the importance of kneeling for communion” to rule out someone who happens to kneel for communion but would be okay with not kneeling.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I think this could be expanded into a larger principle: however one might define “traditionalist” (and I won’t try to count how many possible ways there are) it must be a question of insistences, so to speak.

So for example if I was to include “kneels for communion” in a definition of Catholic traditionalists, I think I would have to go further, I.e. “insists on the importance of kneeling for communion” to rule out someone who happens to kneel for communion but would be okay with not kneeling.

I think insistence is still too weak. One can insist that kneeling is the ideal and advocate for its re-normalisation, without necessarily considering those persons who do not kneel as doing something inherently wrong or being deficient. Kneeling for traditionalists seems not just a matter of importance, it is also a matter of propriety, which if neglected will diminish the reverence/worship in a substantive and *fundamental *way.

 

[Peter_J]

Another thought (and I think this relates to my last post, along with wynd’s and Zabdi’s comments): one of the problems with using the word “traditionalist” – maybe the biggest problem – is that there always seems to be someone pushing for more and more restrictive definitions. To the point where someone wouldn’t be considered traditionalist unless they’re SSPX, or at least flirting with the SSPX.

 

[wynd]

Another thought (and I think this relates to my last post, along with wynd’s and Zabdi’s comments): one of the problems with using the word “traditionalist” – maybe the biggest problem – is that there always seems to be someone pushing for more and more restrictive definitions. To the point where someone wouldn’t be considered traditionalist unless they’re SSPX, or at least flirting with the SSPX.

And I’m sure some in the SSPX would say “We’re not traditionalist, we’re just faithful. The real traditionalists are the sedevacantists!” And so on and so on.

 

[Peter_J]

And I’m sure some in the SSPX would say “We’re not traditionalist, we’re just faithful. The real traditionalists are the sedevacantists!” And so on and so on.

Well, I’m not sure if it has gotten to that point yet; but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see that someday.

Also, it isn’t lost on me that you’re speaking of the group self-excluding from the “traditionalist” category. This is another interesting point. Already – and for some time now – it has been the case that many who have a negative opinion of traditionalists will inject said opinion into the word itself. What you mentioned above is perhaps an inevitable consequence.

 

[benjohnson]

And I’m sure some in the SSPX would say “We’re not traditionalist, we’re just faithful. The real traditionalists are the sedevacantists!” And so on and so on.

You know you’ve reached peak traditional when you start kissing each other mouth to mouth for the the sign of peace.

 

[Peter_J]

I realize this thread has been inactive for months. However, the following article is very good to have for reference (from a Catholic pov anyhow) and I apparently didn’t think to refer to it when this thread was active: A Brief Defense of Traditionalism. I’m very interested to hear opinions on it from those who have posted on this thread.

Now a disclaimer: I am by no means suggesting that I agree with the author on everything (obviously he is biased in favor of traditionalist Catholicism). For example, I’ve never cared for his used of conservative-in-quotes (see the definitions I’ve quoted below). The term neo-conservative, which is what some other traditionalists say, seems a lot better to me (although perhaps still showing traditionalist bias).

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

“CONSERVATIVE”: One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. A “conservative” extends the definitions of “infallibility” and “Magisterium” to include most every action and speech of the Pope and those Cardinals around him, but may exclude those Cardinals and bishops outside of Rome. A “conservative’s” opinion is also subject to change depending on the current actions of the Holy Father. “Conservative” will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. Also since there only exists a desire to “conserve” only those traditions and practices of the past deemed appropriate at any given time by the present Pope. The quotation marks will also ensure a proper dissociation between the actual conservatives active prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani, Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).