"Traditionalist" versus "Fundamentalist"?

[piusphilistine]

I have been reading these forums for quite some time and only this morning I decided to opine.

I see the moniker “Traditional Catholic” used here in a manner most might use “Roman Catholic” or Byzantine Catholic or “Maronite Catholic”, etc. as if it was a separate rite in the Church and it is not, to my knowledge.

I’m wondering if “fundamentalist Catholic” (not “Fundamentalist Catholic”) might be a more accurate definition of many who post on these forums?

I see MANY similarities between many who post here and our Protestant breathern who proudly define themselves as “fundamentalists.”

No, no, I’m not suggesting their views are similar! Not in the least. But their reductionist mindsets seem to be very similar. So does their apparent intolerance of other peoples’ views. Or their own personal feeling of what is “best” even when it does not agree with the Church’s teachings.

Anyway, I thought this might just remove some confusion is all. In the Church we have Sacred Tradition. We also have a great deal of tradition. We even have traditionally-minded Catholics who prefer to attend the Pauline Mass. I think the misuse of “Traditional Catholic” might be confusing and yes, even insulting to many.

 

[dbacks5439]

Hi everyone, I’m a traddy, proud to be a traddy, hope you are proud to be traddies.

           Don't be such a trad.


   Here's to traddies everywhere.






 Actually, the difference between our Protestant brothers and sisters and Traditional Catholics is that we adhere very much to the Magisterial teachings of the Church. We are Traditionalists because we love the EF. So it boils down to: Protestants differ from Catholics doctrinally, Traditional Catholics differ from Liberal Catholics in how we pray as a community. Note that Traditional and Liberal Catholics are not divided. We believe in the same things, we simply wish to express those beliefs in a time-honored way rather than something that has been (and continues to be) abused beyond measure in the past 40 years.

 

[Formosus]

Traditional Catholic can apply to any Catholic (Latin, Maronite, Byzantine) you generally don’t see easterns use the term because they have done far far better job perserving their traditions then the latins have ( though I have met an eastern who described himself as a Traditional Catholic before).

Fundementalist is not applicible because a fundementalist would desire to bring the Church back to the basics. Such as toning down liturgical ceremonies, simplier or no music, less cannon law etc etc. A bare bones sort of view of the Church (perhaps akin to what some think today in the more liberal sectors). Traditionalists desire to retain all sorts of traditions that have built up over the centuries and allow them to organically develop over time.

 

[piusphilistine]

 Actually, the difference between our Protestant brothers and sisters and Traditional Catholics is that we adhere very much to the Magisterial teachings of the Church. We are Traditionalists because we love the EF. So it boils down to: Protestants differ from Catholics doctrinally, Traditional Catholics differ from Liberal Catholics in how we pray as a community. Note that Traditional and Liberal Catholics are not divided. We believe in the same things, we simply wish to express those beliefs in a time-honored way rather than something that has been (and continues to be) abused beyond measure in the past 40 years.

You must no have understood what I typed. Once again (and I quote):

“No, no, I’m not suggesting their views are similar! Not in the least. But their reductionist mindsets seem to be very similar. So does their apparent intolerance of other peoples’ views. Or their own personal feeling of what is “best” even when it does not agree with the Church’s teachings.”

I see MANY situations were traditionally-minded Catholics eschew what the Church actually instructs in favor of what they personally feel is better.

In addition your use (and I quote again) of “Traditional and Liberal Catholics” is chilling to me. You suggest they are not divided (AS IF there are two groups) yet your language says quite the opposite.

I love the Pauline Mass, the Tridentine Mass, the different Divine Liturgies, the Holy Qurbono, etc. and I attend all on a regular basis. I also do my level best to do what the Church directs in each liturgy and not what my ego might tempt to do – and in my case that is saying something.

Finally you infer that all Pauline Masses are abusive and they are not.

 

[piusphilistine]

Traditional Catholic can apply to any Catholic (Latin, Maronite, Byzantine) you generally don’t see easterns use the term because they have done far far better job perserving their traditions then the latins have ( though I have met an eastern who described himself as a Traditional Catholic before).

Fundementalist is not applicible because a fundementalist would desire to bring the Church back to the basics. Such as toning down liturgical ceremonies, simplier or no music, less cannon law etc etc. A bare bones sort of view of the Church (perhaps akin to what some think today in the more liberal sectors). Traditionalists desire to retain all sorts of traditions that have built up over the centuries and allow them to organically develop over time.

The label “Traditional Catholic” would be laughed (or cried) at in the Eastern churches – and it is in most of the Latin Rite.

“Fundamentalism” does not necessarily mean “going back to the basics” in an eccelsiastical sense. Within Protestantism if often means picking and choosing what a certain group feels is fundamental or required for the faith.

I honestly don’t believe that “Traditional Catholics” “desire to retain all sorts of traditions that have built up over the centuries” as they clearly reject practitices common in the early church that have been reinstituted in the normative rite of the Mass.

I also think that fundamentalists (Protestant or Catholic) often reject clear improvements when it does not suit their tastes.

 

[adamsaj]

The label “Traditional Catholic” would be laughed (or cried) at in the Eastern churches – and it is in most of the Latin Rite.

“Fundamentalism” does not necessarily mean “going back to the basics” in an eccelsiastical sense. Within Protestantism if often means picking and choosing what a certain group feels is fundamental or required for the faith.

I honestly don’t believe that “Traditional Catholics” “desire to retain all sorts of traditions that have built up over the centuries” as they clearly reject practitices common in the early church that have been reinstituted in the normative rite of the Mass.

I also think that fundamentalists (Protestant or Catholic) often reject clear improvements when it does not suit their tastes.

Three things:

1. “going back to the basics” is exactly what fundamentalism means. True, in practice fundamentalists just accept or reject whatever they want, but the idea is still “back to the basics”
2. By traditions that have have developed over the centuries we dont mean the way it was in the firs few centuries of the church, we meantie full development of these traditions over the centuries. You see, practices like communion in the hand were repressed for legitimate theological reasons, and to say forget all that lets do it anyway is really mre fundamentalist than the traditionalists who want to leave it the way it is.
3. I dont know if you realize it or not, but you are being really condescending. Dont ever compare traditionalists to protastents. Just dont. Also, if you think it is as cut and dry as rejecting “clear improvements” you clearly dont know anything about Catholic tradition and the reasons it exists

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

II’m wondering if “fundamentalist Catholic” (not “Fundamentalist Catholic”) might be a more accurate definition of many who post on these forums?

I see MANY similarities between many who post here and our Protestant breathern who proudly define themselves as “fundamentalists.”

Fundamentalists have many of the same instincts as Traditional Catholics. However because, often through no fault of their own, they are deprived of the fullness of the truth, their movements lead to the intellectual dead ends of creationism and miracle chasing, or the spirtual dead ends of enthusiasm and the “health and wealth” gospel.

They are right that modern society has become very self-indulgent and corrupt. They are not wrong to reject the popular culture of consumerism, casual sex, and drug-taking. They are right to say that religion should involve more serious commitment than just showing up for an hour every Sunday. They are right to say that a lot of liberal exegis is baswed on very flimsy, even spurious, scholarly foundations.

Bascially the diagnosis is the same, the cure rather different.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have been reading these forums for quite some time and only this morning I decided to opine.

I see the moniker “Traditional Catholic” used here in a manner most might use “Roman Catholic” or Byzantine Catholic or “Maronite Catholic”, etc. as if it was a separate rite in the Church and it is not, to my knowledge.

I’m wondering if “fundamentalist Catholic” (not “Fundamentalist Catholic”) might be a more accurate definition of many who post on these forums?

I see MANY similarities between many who post here and our Protestant breathern who proudly define themselves as “fundamentalists.”

No, no, I’m not suggesting their views are similar! Not in the least. But their reductionist mindsets seem to be very similar. So does their apparent intolerance of other peoples’ views. Or their own personal feeling of what is “best” even when it does not agree with the Church’s teachings.

Anyway, I thought this might just remove some confusion is all. In the Church we have Sacred Tradition. We also have a great deal of tradition. We even have traditionally-minded Catholics who prefer to attend the Pauline Mass. I think the misuse of “Traditional Catholic” might be confusing and yes, even insulting to many.

Hi piusphilistine,

This is an interesting topic you bring up. I am speaking as one who for years was a fundamentalist Protestant (attending denominations such as the Foursquare church).

To my mind, it’s actually the conservative Catholics who are closer to the fundamentalist mindset in regards to certain areas rather than the traditionalists. Now, fundamentalists have certain dogmas in common with all Catholics such as the belief in the physical resurrection of Christ and that the miracles recorded in the Bible are real. So I’m not talking about that. One thing I have noticed in fundamentalism is a certain anti-intellectual strain when it touches on certain areas. Thus, when I was converting to Catholicism, my fundamentalist friends were eager for me to read anti-Catholic books, which I did, but if I turned around and wanted them to read something pro-Catholic by a Catholic author too often they would just refuse because it was “tainted.” They did not seem particularly desirous to give Catholicism a fair shake or even be open to the possibility that it might be true. If you don’t believe me, go find a fundamentalist and try to talk about Catholicism with them (you might get a different experience with evangelicals, however).

I look at traditionalists or traditional Catholics as those who are willing to admit that certain prudential decisions of the Vatican in the past 40 years have not been good, to say the least. Thus they will consider the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, although valid, as a bad idea and consider the TLM to be better as it portrays the faith more solidly and better depicts the mystery and solemnity of what is taking place at the Mass. Also, they will consider other decisions, such as communion in the hand and the allowance of altar girls, to be poor decisions and will hope and pray those decisions are reversed in the future.

Now, in general, my impression of conservative Catholics is that as long as a practice or liturgy is allowed or promulgated by the Vatican it cannot be gainsayed. Thus when a traditionalist says that the TLM is better than the Novus Ordo, the reaction of a conservative Catholic might very well be that we should not even be engaging in such a discussion and that the idea that one rite is better than another is ridiculous from the get go. Thus any intellectual discussion of why one rite is better than another is pretty much a non-starter. To me this stance is much closer to the fundamentalist mindset that won’t even entertain certain ideas they consider anathema to start with.

Further, with some conservative Catholics, since they hold to this notion that certain ideas should not be entertained they don’t seem to be particularly aware of or to have read similar literature as traditionalists regarding issues like the liturgy (and I’m not talking about literature written by sedevacantists or those who consider the Novus Ordo as invalid).

Thus I would say by this stance it seems as if some conservative Catholics have, albeit unwittingly, aided and abetted the reductionism which has taken place in the past 40 years in the Church’s liturgy, art, and architecture, where the mindset seems to be as long as the Mass is valid and there aren’t abuses we really shouldn’t be saying anything.

God bless and thanks for your post.

 

[Pious_Mat]

So does their apparent intolerance of other peoples’ views. Or their own personal feeling of what is “best” even when it does not agree with the Church’s teachings.

Piusphilistine, I’m sorry you think that way. Believe it or not, if you tally up all the “Traditional” Catholics in the world, you will probably find that the majority of them are loyal to the Magisterium, and aren’t against Vatican 2 in the least. Believe it or not, all the schismatic talk and “conservative radicalism” can be traced back to a core group of probably less than a thousand (ball park number) who are the Most Holy Family Monastery, the Followers of anti-Pope Pius XIII, the SSPV, and the SSPX Bishops and Superiors.

Unforunately, because of a lack of positive representation of the TLM and traditional practises in general in Catholic media until very recently, some good, loyal believers get dragged into certain beliefs of schismatic origins.

 

[lak611]

Why should there be any labels at all? We are all Catholic. That is the only label necessary.

 

[Patrick2340]

Here’s my two cents. The traditional Mass, now termed the Extraordinary Form, is not a Rite, but rather more properly a Use. Since it is a Use, its adherents are correct in assigning themselves a label to describe their affinity for this use, just as those who live in Milan would describe themselves as Ambrosian Rite Catholics, or those in Portugal who might be attached to the Bragan Rite might call themselves Bragan Rite Catholics. This is simply a way of expressing a liturgical preference. Are Ambrosian Rite or Bragan Rite Catholics somehow disobedient to the Pope by preferring their venerable Rites to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

The Catholic Church recognizes over nine Rites and Uses in the Western Church and over twenty-two Rites and Uses in the Eastern Church. There are also some Rites and Uses that have, in the past, been recognized but have fallen into complete disuse, e.g. the Sarum use, the Lyonnaise Use, etc. Liturgical diversity is part of being a Catholic. Roman Catholics have, unfortunately, been rather arrogant in their presumption that their liturgical practices are somehow superior. Ask any Eastern Catholic about the history of Eastern Catholicism in the United States.

I would not divide the Roman Catholic church into Traditionalists and Liberals. There are certainly many Ordinary Form Catholics who are far from liberal. This is a false dichotomy.

It is a poor debating tactic to make an assertion such as: *I see MANY situations were traditionally-minded Catholics eschew what the Church actually instructs in favor of what they personally feel is better. *without actually citing those situations. How is one to rebut such an assertion?

Traditionalists reject practices that existed in the early Church in favor of practices that have developed organically over time for a particular reason. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical *Mediator Dei *condemned what he termed archaeologism:

*The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity…The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy… It would be wrong, example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colours, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer (66, p. 30))…this attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it, and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardian of “the deposit of faith” entrusted to her by her divine Founder has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father (paragraphs 65-68). *

How do Fundamentalists have the same instincts as Traditionalists? The one common denominator among Fundamentalists is the rejection of Sacred Tradition, rejected of the Pope, and near fanatical reliance upon Scripture Alone. Traditionalists accept everything that any orthodox Catholic would accept. Indeed, we even accept the documents of the Second Vatican Council as long as they are interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition. We reject the notion that the only Church council that has any relevance to Catholics today is Vatican II. Any orthodox Catholic should. Does that make us fundamentalist? We desire with every fiber of our being to be in communion with Rome. We hold the Holy Father dear to our hearts. Pope John Paul loosened restrictions on the Latin Mass, Pope Benedict freed it. How could we not love such holy men? Is it so much to ask to be allowed to worship in the way that our forefathers in the Church worshipped for centuries?

Certainly there are Traditional Catholics who are dissenters and are quite vocal about it. Don’t lump the rest of us in with them, and I won’t lump Ordinary Catholics in with the Sr. Joan Chittesters of the world. I could make the charge that all the leftist dissenters in the church are Ordinary Form Catholics. It would be true, but it would improperly characterize the vast majority of Catholics who hold the Ordinary Form dear.

To conclude, labels are proper when applied properly. Stereotypes are improper no matter how they are applied. The two are distinct from each other.

 

[lak611]

Here’s my two cents. The traditional Mass, now termed the Extraordinary Form, is not a Rite, but rather more properly a Use. Since it is a Use, its adherents are correct in assigning themselves a label to describe their affinity for this use, just as those who live in Milan would describe themselves as Ambrosian Rite Catholics, or those in Portugal who might be attached to the Bragan Rite might call themselves Bragan Rite Catholics. This is simply a way of expressing a liturgical preference. Are Ambrosian Rite or Bragan Rite Catholics somehow disobedient to the Pope by preferring their venerable Rites to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

The Catholic Church recognizes over nine Rites and Uses in the Western Church and over twenty-two Rites and Uses in the Eastern Church. There are also some Rites and Uses that have, in the past, been recognized but have fallen into complete disuse, e.g. the Sarum use, the Lyonnaise Use, etc. Liturgical diversity is part of being a Catholic. Roman Catholics have, unfortunately, been rather arrogant in their presumption that their liturgical practices are somehow superior. Ask any Eastern Catholic about the history of Eastern Catholicism in the United States.

I would not divide the Roman Catholic church into Traditionalists and Liberals. There are certainly many Ordinary Form Catholics who are far from liberal. This is a false dichotomy.

It is a poor debating tactic to make an assertion such as: *I see MANY situations were traditionally-minded Catholics eschew what the Church actually instructs in favor of what they personally feel is better. *without actually citing those situations. How is one to rebut such an assertion?

Traditionalists reject practices that existed in the early Church in favor of practices that have developed organically over time for a particular reason. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical *Mediator Dei *condemned what he termed archaeologism:

The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity…The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy… It would be wrong, example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colours, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer (66, p. 30))…this attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it, and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardian of “the deposit of faith” entrusted to her by her divine Founder has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyse the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father (paragraphs 65-68).

How do Fundamentalists have the same instincts as Traditionalists? The one common denominator among Fundamentalists is the rejection of Sacred Tradition, rejected of the Pope, and near fanatical reliance upon Scripture Alone. Traditionalists accept everything that any orthodox Catholic would accept. Indeed, we even accept the documents of the Second Vatican Council as long as they are interpreted in the light of Sacred Tradition. We reject the notion that the only Church council that has any relevance to Catholics today is Vatican II. Any orthodox Catholic should. Does that make us fundamentalist? We desire with every fiber of our being to be in communion with Rome. We hold the Holy Father dear to our hearts. Pope John Paul loosened restrictions on the Latin Mass, Pope Benedict freed it. How could we not love such holy men? Is it so much to ask to be allowed to worship in the way that our forefathers in the Church worshipped for centuries?

Certainly there are Traditional Catholics who are dissenters and are quite vocal about it. Don’t lump the rest of us in with them, and I won’t lump Ordinary Catholics in with the Sr. Joan Chittesters of the world. I could make the charge that all the leftist dissenters in the church are Ordinary Form Catholics. It would be true, but it would improperly characterize the vast majority of Catholics who hold the Ordinary Form dear.

To conclude, labels are proper when applied properly. Stereotypes are improper no matter how they are applied. The two are distinct from each other.

Excellent post!

 

[piusphilistine]

I think many who label themselves as “traditional Catholics” are in actuality “fundamentalist Catholics.” Certainly not all, but a great many.

That dosen’t mean their faith or style of worship is stripped to the bones. It means that is is concocted to match what THEY feel is best.

While beliefs obviously differ (strongly in some cases) there are some STRONG similarities between fundamentalist Protestants and what I term fundamentalist Catholics.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I think many who label themselves as “traditional Catholics” are in actuality “fundamentalist Catholics.” Certainly not all, but a great many.

That dosen’t mean their faith or style of worship is stripped to the bones. It means that is is concocted to match what THEY feel is best.

While beliefs obviously differ (strongly in some cases) there are some STRONG similarities between fundamentalist Protestants and what I term fundamentalist Catholics.

First off, if you read any traditionalist literature, you’ll find the arguments are not based on feelings. Secondly, their arguments are for precisely what has not been concocted, but has been part of the patrimony of the Church for centuries.

You stated in your first post:

Or their own personal feeling of what is “best” even when it does not agree with the Church’s teachings.

Maybe you can give some examples of what it is traditionalists promote that does not agree with Church teachings (I’d particularly like to see this in regards to the liturgy).

 

[piusphilistine]

Maybe you can give some examples of what it is traditionalists promote that does not agree with Church teachings (I’d particularly like to see this in regards to the liturgy).

Certainly – although they will not be uniform for each “traditionalist” because once we begin following our egos we begin to treat the Church like a cafeteria – replete with all the “options.”

I’ll limit my comments to the Pauline Mass and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as they are the two liturgies I most often attend,

On another thread today a person mentioned that they kneel during the Agnus Dei (even though the bishop directs them to stand) and genuflect rather than bow during the mention of the Incarnation per the GIRM.

Same with communion posture – the traditionalists ignored the Church and screamed bloody murder when the normative posture was defined as standing. Did they listen to the counseling they were supposed to receive after Mass? Heck no, as they KNEW better.

I regularly hear the “traditionalists” rants about the use of the orans position by the laity or the holding of hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I eschew both practices, but no where are they forbidden by the Church.

How about the legitimate use of EMsHC? Some “traditionalists” attack ALL uses of EMsHC as being abusive.

How about the rejection of women as readers and cantors even though it is allowed by the Church?

Oh! I have a brand new one that I just learned this weekend! A group of local “traditionalists” take their infants to Mexico for baptism/first communion and confirmation. They preach how the licit practice in the USA of waiting is an “abuse.” Oh?

Some “traditionalists” suggest the Pauline Mass itself is somehow “invalid” or “not as good” as the Tridentine Mass.

How about the disgruntled “traditionalists” who attend the Divine Liturgy and demand to kneel when the Church says to stand, despite on-going gentle yet thorough catechesis by our wonderul priest?

How about the traditionalists who hand chapel doilies to women as if they were some sort of requirement at the Divine Liturgy?

Let me know if you need more…

 

[rwoehmke]

piusphilistine , I suggest that you read the article on fundamentalism found on the web site at catholicanswers.com I think you will find that the term is a lot more limited in scope than you seem to imply. Philistine? That is an interesting Nom de Plume. Is it significant?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Certainly – although they will not be uniform for each “traditionalist” because once we begin following our egos we begin to treat the Church like a cafeteria – replete with all the “options.”

I’ll limit my comments to the Pauline Mass and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as they are the two liturgies I most often attend,

On another thread today a person mentioned that they kneel during the Agnus Dei (even though the bishop directs them to stand) and genuflect rather than bow during the mention of the Incarnation per the GIRM.

Same with communion posture – the traditionalists ignored the Church and screamed bloody murder when the normative posture was defined as standing. Did they listen to the counseling they were supposed to receive after Mass? Heck no, as they KNEW better.

I regularly hear the “traditionalists” rants about the use of the orans position by the laity or the holding of hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I eschew both practices, but no where are they forbidden by the Church.

How about the legitimate use of EMsHC? Some “traditionalists” attack ALL uses of EMsHC as being abusive.

How about the rejection of women as readers and cantors even though it is allowed by the Church?

Oh! I have a brand new one that I just learned this weekend! A group of local “traditionalists” take their infants to Mexico for baptism/first communion and confirmation. They preach how the licit practice in the USA of waiting is an “abuse.” Oh?

Some “traditionalists” suggest the Pauline Mass itself is somehow “invalid” or “not as good” as the Tridentine Mass.

How about the disgruntled “traditionalists” who attend the Divine Liturgy and demand to kneel when the Church says to stand, despite on-going gentle yet thorough catechesis by our wonderul priest?

How about the traditionalists who hand chapel doilies to women as if they were some sort of requirement at the Divine Liturgy?

Let me know if you need more…

Hi piusphilistine,

I will try to make this brief. What this comes down to in my mind is a phrase once used by Dietrich von Hildebrand, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

There is no requirement for Catholics to believe that standing for Holy Communion is just as good as kneeling at an altar rail. Catholics can certainly argue against prudential decisions by the Vatican such as communion in the hand.

I do not agree with, or refer people to authors who argue that the New Mass is invalid. Yet there is nothing wrong with arguing that one rite is better than another, and this argument has been going on for decades now. There is no infallibility attached to prudential decisions of the Church. Yet we do have to obey. So I cannot go form my own church if I don’t like the New Mass, nor can I physically stop someone from receiving communion in the hand.

 

[brotherhrolf]

And some of us are old enough to remember the Mass and practices of our childhood and what we have observed in the last 40+ years. Some of us are old enough to remember that our parents and grandparents 40+ years ago submitted to the magesterium of HMC because it would have been inconceivable not to. I am neither a “traditionalist” nor a “fundamentalist”. I simply have this whole boatload of concrete memories from my childhood to 1969 to compare to that which I have experienced in the last 40+ years.

Just like back then, we are the 'chopped liver" of the Church except that now one of our number just happens to be the Holy Father. The shoe is not quite on the other foot, yet. But I don’t see much evidence of submitting to the HF in my diocese where the MP was merely “acknowledged”. Fair is fair.

 

[SemperFidelis]

piusphilistine, you sound an awful lot like a poster I’ve met on here before. You don’t happen to know him do you?

 

[palmas85]

Certainly – although they will not be uniform for each “traditionalist” because once we begin following our egos we begin to treat the Church like a cafeteria – replete with all the “options.”

I’ll limit my comments to the Pauline Mass and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as they are the two liturgies I most often attend,

On another thread today a person mentioned that they kneel during the Agnus Dei (even though the bishop directs them to stand) and genuflect rather than bow during the mention of the Incarnation per the GIRM.

Same with communion posture – the traditionalists ignored the Church and screamed bloody murder when the normative posture was defined as standing. Did they listen to the counseling they were supposed to receive after Mass? Heck no, as they KNEW better.

I regularly hear the “traditionalists” rants about the use of the orans position by the laity or the holding of hands during the Lord’s Prayer. I eschew both practices, but no where are they forbidden by the Church.

How about the legitimate use of EMsHC? Some “traditionalists” attack ALL uses of EMsHC as being abusive.

How about the rejection of women as readers and cantors even though it is allowed by the Church?

Oh! I have a brand new one that I just learned this weekend! A group of local “traditionalists” take their infants to Mexico for baptism/first communion and confirmation. They preach how the licit practice in the USA of waiting is an “abuse.” Oh?

Some “traditionalists” suggest the Pauline Mass itself is somehow “invalid” or “not as good” as the Tridentine Mass.

How about the disgruntled “traditionalists” who attend the Divine Liturgy and demand to kneel when the Church says to stand, despite on-going gentle yet thorough catechesis by our wonderul priest?

How about the traditionalists who hand chapel doilies to women as if they were some sort of requirement at the Divine Liturgy?

Let me know if you need more…

You really hate traditional Catholicism don’t you? Why does it bother you so much? Hey lets be honest about things. If the progressives in the Church hadn’t started pushing for female ordinations, corn tortillas for the hosts, encircling the altar by the congregation, flooding the sanctuary with acrobats, clowns jugglers and God knows what else, nuns giving homilies, refusing Holy Communion to those who knelt, that my friend was in direct defiance of the Vatican by the way, having the priests dress up in costumes, remember Barney? making up Eucharistic prayers and inventing new liturgies on almost a daily basis, maybe, just maybe the Traditionalists among us wouldn’t have dug in their heels the way they did. Hey, I took it in the shorts until the Indult came out and I saw plenty of what the modern progressive types did to the Church. OK?

So lets be honest. Yeah some Traditionalists went to far, no doubt. But having Extraordinary Ministers of Communion dress up like the Devil to hand out Communion or having the Priest offer prayers to the four cardinal winds or the earth mother is going too far as well.