"Traditionalist" versus "Fundamentalist"?

[Wolseley]

If there’s one thing that I have observed from reading through many, many threads on this and other forums on the Net, it’s that there is a decided “sea change” in the atmosphere of the Church—and the “progressives” and those who who favor the status quo don’t like it one bit.

There are signs all over the place that we are finally starting to shift back to what is termed “traditional” Catholicism; the younger laity and the new seminarians are all much more orthodox than what we saw between, say, 1970 and 2005; the “old” Mass is back at the Holy Father’s instruction and appears to be gaining strength in many areas; and the Vatican seems to have its sights set on wretched modern music next.

The days of “caferteria Catholicism”, dissent, rebellion, defiance, and the general god-awful state of the Church are rapidly coming to an end, and those who oppose that coming end are worried, angry, confounded, and discomfitted. They think that their St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis-style parishes with their liberal priests are going to be replaced with a parish that resembles something from the 1930’s and presided over by somebody like Fabian Bruskewitz (which, eventually, they probably will be), and the idea scares the hell out of them.

 

[piusphilistine]

If there’s one thing that I have observed from reading through many, many threads on this and other forums on the Net, it’s that there is a decided “sea change” in the atmosphere of the Church—and the “progressives” and those who who favor the status quo don’t like it one bit.

There are signs all over the place that we are finally starting to shift back to what is termed “traditional” Catholicism; the younger laity and the new seminarians are all much more orthodox than what we saw between, say, 1970 and 2005; the “old” Mass is back at the Holy Father’s instruction and appears to be gaining strength in many areas; and the Vatican seems to have its sights set on wretched modern music next.

The days of “caferteria Catholicism”, dissent, rebellion, defiance, and the general god-awful state of the Church are rapidly coming to an end, and those who oppose that coming end are worried, angry, confounded, and discomfitted. They think that their St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis-style parishes with their liberal priests are going to be replaced with a parish that resembles something from the 1930’s and presided over by somebody like Fabian Bruskewitz (which, eventually, they probably will be), and the idea scares the hell out of them.

I too like the direction of the Church. The road blazed by Pope JPII and now being finished and paved by Pope BXVI.

What I disagree about the the progressive vs. liberal stuff. I see the Church shifting back to orthodox Catholicism with plenty of room for liberals, conservatives and yes, even moderates like myself.

It is nice to see the doors closing to the cafeteria. What’s apalling is that there are still a lot of diners in line from both the progressive ranks and the traditional (actually fundamentalist) ranks which still exert a great deal of stress on the Church.

I think perhaps the greatest lie from the fundamentalist ranks is the belief that dissent only comes from liberal-minded Catholics and that is sadly far from the truth. There are many VERY orthodox Catholics out there that the fundamentalists would still attack – even though their victims are far more orthodox than they are.

It’s highly unlikely that future archbishops and cardinals will emulate Bp. Bruskewitz. There are FAR better models out there like. Men like ABp. Dolan, Cardinal George, Bp. Vigneron, etc. etc.

Regress back to the 1930’s? Naw, no way. That’s almost as laughable as suggesting Bp. Bruskewitz could be named to head the huge Archdiocese of Los Angeles AND actually improve things there.

 

[Wolseley]

I too like the direction of the Church. The road blazed by Pope JPII and now being finished and paved by Pope BXVI.

What I disagree about the the progressive vs. liberal stuff. I see the Church shifting back to orthodox Catholicism with plenty of room for liberals, conservatives and yes, even moderates like myself.

It is nice to see the doors closing to the cafeteria. What’s apalling is that there are still a lot of diners in line from both the progressive ranks and the traditional (actually fundamentalist) ranks which still exert a great deal of stress on the Church.

I think perhaps the greatest lie from the fundamentalist ranks is the belief that dissent only comes from liberal-minded Catholics and that is sadly far from the truth.

The radical sedevacantists and schismatics such as SSPX are just as much in rebellion against the Holy See as the *über-*progressives are, and you’ll get no argument from me there.

The only difference is that the sedes and the SSPX are in rebellion to preserve pre-Vatican II Catholicism, while the *über-*progressives are out to discard it for…something else. Exactly what, I’m not sure, but we can safely say that’s it’s certainly not Catholicism. Nobody can look at a parish like St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis and say that that is Catholicism. It’s highly doubtful that that is even Christianity.

 

[Wolseley]

Regress back to the 1930’s? Naw, no way. That’s almost as laughable as suggesting Bp. Bruskewitz could be named to head the huge Archdiocese of Los Angeles AND actually improve things there.

I didn’t say that the Church was going to regress back to the 1930’s; I said that the idea that it will is the fear of the progressives.

As for Los Angeles, I tend to agree with you—but take heart: there’s always earthquakes.

(And now I sit back and wait for my last facetious comment above to be taken seriously instead of in jest, for people to be offended, outraged, and indignant, for me to be accused of being uncharitable, un-Christian, and politically incorrect, and for the moderators to either delete or modify the post, wag their fingers at me, and to issue me stern warnings for being naughty, naughty, naughty.

Pass me the popcorn, willya?)

 

[piusphilistine]

The radical sedevacantists and schismatics such as SSPX are just as much in rebellion against the Holy See as the *über-*progressives are, and you’ll get no argument from me there.

The only difference is that the sedes and the SSPX are in rebellion to preserve pre-Vatican II Catholicism, while the *über-*progressives are out to discard it for…something else. Exactly what, I’m not sure, but we can safely say that’s it’s certainly not Catholicism. Nobody can look at a parish like St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis and say that that is Catholicism. It’s highly doubtful that that is even Christianity.

Oh, I agree. Perhapsa term needs to be coined for the “liberal” version of a fundamentalist Catholic? If we stop and think for a minute though, they are one in the same. Please ponder that for a moment.

I went camping last weekend and I therefore went to a Mass that I would normally never attend. It was very charismatic in nature, but it was also by the book. A right-leaning orthodox Catholic would have thought: “well this isn’t for me, but I appreciate the fact they are following the rules.” That was very much my take.

A fundy Catholic on the other hand would have bemoaned the choices in music (which were WELL within all the Church’s actual instructions), the sound of tongues here and there and other things as being “abusive” when they are not…

 

[piusphilistine]

As for Los Angeles, I tend to agree with you—but take heart: there’s always earthquakes.

As a displaced native Angeleno I find your comments more than just a little offensive.

That’s OK though.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I went camping last weekend and I therefore went to a Mass that I would normally never attend. It was very charismatic in nature, but it was also by the book. A right-leaning orthodox Catholic would have thought: “well this isn’t for me, but I appreciate the fact they are following the rules.” That was very much my take.

A fundy Catholic on the other hand would have bemoaned the choices in music (which were WELL within all the Church’s actual instructions), the sound of tongues here and there and other things as being “abusive” when they are not…

None of which would have occurred in 1965. So, given your interpretation, I have absolutely no right to criticize or be appalled by the choices in music much less the sound of tongues which was absolutely unknown in 1965. And exactly who is the fundamentalist here?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Oh, I agree. Perhapsa term needs to be coined for the “liberal” version of a fundamentalist Catholic? If we stop and think for a minute though, they are one in the same. Please ponder that for a moment.

I went camping last weekend and I therefore went to a Mass that I would normally never attend. It was very charismatic in nature, but it was also by the book. A right-leaning orthodox Catholic would have thought: “well this isn’t for me, but I appreciate the fact they are following the rules.” That was very much my take.

A fundy Catholic on the other hand would have bemoaned the choices in music (which were WELL within all the Church’s actual instructions), the sound of tongues here and there and other things as being “abusive” when they are not…

Your liberal usage of refering to traditional Catholics as “fundies” is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever seen on this forum. You clearly have no idea what a “fundie” even is.

 

[SemperFidelis]

As a displaced native Angeleno I find your comments more than just a little offensive.

Pot meet kettle…

P.S. The fact that you’re from Los Angeles actually explains a lot.

 

[anamchara]

Who’s using fundamentalist tactics? The actual problem here is people misunderstanding and misusing the term “fundamentalism.” I think it helps me more being a former fundamentalist, because I know the errors of fundamentalism and can see how they can not at ALL be used to describe traditional Catholics. Please, show me an explicit example of “fundamentalist” Catholic thinking, and how someone here has employed this line of thinking.

First of all, thank you for serving our country I have a great deal of respect for the Marines.

I guess I’ve been on these forums and other Catholic forums long enough to see what the OP is talking about. By definition it is “The tendency to reduce a religion to it’s most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts” I’ve seen this many times in here when traditionalists start having quoting wars with Church documents. It’s always about trying to find the most unbending rigid interpretation. I’ve so much knee-jerk reactions to anything that even smells a touch modern. How many times have I mentioned that I enjoy folk guitar in Mass and have been attacked for not being reverent enough or Catholic enough? Plenty. Belittling comments about the NO all over these forums, go spend some time in Liturgy.

An example that you asked for is fair enough. I was called a heretic once and that I should excommunicate myself because I believed that my mother would make it to heaven (she is a Methodist) this came from a pentecostal convert. It was on a different Catholic message board, one I’ll never go back to. It’s filled with converts from very strict/rigid backgrounds who in my opinion are a bunch of pharisees. You turn people away with that sort of tactic. I remember them swarming on people as if they were doing some sort of drug intervention.

Now, I do realize what the catechism says about salvation so I don’t want to debate that. I was giving you an example that you asked for.

This is an interesting topic.

 

[anamchara]

P.S. The fact that you’re from Los Angeles actually explains a lot.

You just gave me another example by your words of fundamentalists tactics.

 

[SemperFidelis]

First of all, thank you for serving our country I have a great deal of respect for the Marines.

Thank you very much.

I guess I’ve been on these forums and other Catholic forums long enough to see what the OP is talking about. By definition it is “The tendency to reduce a religion to it’s most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts” I’ve seen this many times in here when traditionalists start having quoting wars with Church documents. It’s always about trying to find the most unbending rigid interpretation. I’ve so much knee-jerk reactions to anything that even smells a touch modern. How many times have I mentioned that I enjoy folk guitar in Mass and have been attacked for not being reverent enough or Catholic enough? Plenty. Belittling comments about the NO all over these forums, go spend some time in Liturgy.

Well the fundamental tenets of Catholicism would look more like the Church in the year 33 A.D., not the 1950’s. Even traditional Catholics will admit that the Church has developed. But everytime it has, it has been very little, and after the devolopment the Church is still recognizably Catholic. Many of the things you see today would not at all be recognizable to any Catholic who has lived for the last 1900 years.If you’re going to call some people on here “fundamentalist Catholics,” according to the logic being displayed here, then you’re going to have to call several Popes such as St. Pius V, Gregory XVI, Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Ven. Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII, etc. etc. etc. all fundamentalists too. You wouldn’t do that would you?

An example that you asked for is fair enough. I was called a heretic once and that I should excommunicate myself because I believed that my mother would make it to heaven (she is a Methodist) this came from a pentecostal convert. It was on a different Catholic message board, one I’ll never go back to. It’s filled with converts from very strict/rigid backgrounds who in my opinion are a bunch of pharisees. You turn people away with that sort of tactic. I remember them swarming on people as if they were doing some sort of drug intervention.

That is not in the least fundamentalism. This is a feeneyite interpretation, something that wasn’t even taught until the 1940’s. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were both clearly taught by the Early Church Fathers, so this is not at all a fundamentalist interpretation of EENS. This in fact couldn’t be further from fundamentalism.

 

[SemperFidelis]

You just gave me another example by your words of fundamentalists tactics.

I’m just fighting fire with fire. In fact I don’t even believe this entirely. I’ve heard of some great parishes in the LA area, so things can’t be all bad, but they are bad, and piusphilistine is right in line with the bad. He’s right in line with the many in the LA area who so clearly and utterly have some kind of hateful grudge against traditional Catholics. It ain’t fundamentalist if it’s the truth.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is based on observing people in person, here and on other on-line forums who claim to be traditionalist Catholics. Often one’s actions differ from one’s advertised values and I am basing my comments on the former.

It is clear to me that many people who become interested in traditional Catholicism generally have some traits in common – not all of which are positive.

To point out the doings of individual Catholics is not dealing with traditionalism. You can argue with individuals all you want, fine by me. However, again, it’s not dealing with traditionalism as it is evinced in the literature traditionalists actually read. For instance, if one picks up the Latin Mass magazine or even the Remnant the issues they are dealing with are for more broad than what a certain Catholic is doing here or there.

And the intellectual heft of this literature, and even the arguments some posters make on this forum, are a far cry from fundamentalism.

And I’m pretty sure Bishop Bruskewitz could do quite a bit to improve the Los Angeles diocese (too bad he wasn’t in charge when they decided to build a new cathedral).

 

[brotherhrolf]

Brennan - I just read your remarkable link:

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

This article came out when I was a freshman in high school. By 1969 when I graduated, the Mass was completely in English (the NO in all but name) and we had my fellow seniors at our graduation Mass from a Catholic boys high school a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ away with their guitars. Can anyone tell me how or why I should not consider singing Simon and Garfunkle’s “Bridge over Troubled Waters” and “Sounds of Silence” for the Offertory and Communion hymns as anything but an abuse? Much less the saccharine “Sons of God” (now not PC) as the entrance hymn or “And They’ll Know We Are Christians” as the recessional…

Yet the year before (in 1968) I sang for the seniors’ graduation in a choir - traditional hymns and Latin plainsong. Everything chucked out the window in favor of (fill in your favorite, the list is quite long). And exactly why did the Holy Father publish the Motu Proprio?

 

[Wolseley]

As a displaced native Angeleno I find your comments more than just a little offensive.

That’s OK though.

Well, that’s good. I try very, very hard to make sure I am not aligned with any form of political correctness, so if you’re not offended, I’m not doing my job.

But if it’ll make you feel any better, I don’t wish for California to have earthquakes that’ll crash buildings and kill a lot of people. It’d be better for it to just break off and float away to…oh, I don’t know, New Zealand? Belgium? Antarctica?

Jeepers, somebody must want it…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan - I just read your remarkable link:

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

This article came out when I was a freshman in high school. By 1969 when I graduated, the Mass was completely in English (the NO in all but name) and we had my fellow seniors at our graduation Mass from a Catholic boys high school a’strummin’ and a’grinnin’ away with their guitars. Can anyone tell me how or why I should not consider singing Simon and Garfunkle’s “Bridge over Troubled Waters” and “Sounds of Silence” for the Offertory and Communion hymns as anything but an abuse? Much less the saccharine “Sons of God” (now not PC) as the entrance hymn or “And They’ll Know We Are Christians” as the recessional…

Yet the year before (in 1968) I sang for the seniors’ graduation in a choir - traditional hymns and Latin plainsong. Everything chucked out the window in favor of (fill in your favorite, the list is quite long). And exactly why did the Holy Father publish the Motu Proprio?

Hi Brotherholf,

Glad you read it. I’ve read it a number of times since there is so much depth to it one can learn more with each reading. I am quite fond of von Hildebrand’s writings, to say the least. And his wife Alice is quite good as well. The article is rather amazing in that it was written in 1966. But von Hildebrand seemed to be quite prescient. For instance, as I remember, he was warning about the dangers of Hitler and the Nazis in the early part of the 1930’s and was near or at the top of their hit list when they took over Austria (I hope I’m getting my history right, correct me if I am wrong). God bless.

 

[anamchara]

Anyway… back on topic.

The HarpersCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism by Richard P. McBrien goes into the Fundamental movement in Catholicism. Now I know he is not at all popular with certain Catholics but I just read the section on this topic and it was very interesting. I think there is call for further study on the subject. I feel the OP is not that far off the mark.

Here’s the link to the section: books.google.com/books?id=WlNfJC6RveAC&pg=PA548&dq=fundamentalism+in+the+Catholic+Church&sig=ZaVou6T1vjy3AqfjbKVvVGh70xI

 

[anamchara]

If you’re going to call some people on here “fundamentalist Catholics,” according to the logic being displayed here, then you’re going to have to call several Popes such as St. Pius V, Gregory XVI, Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Ven. Pius XII, Bl. John XXIII, etc. etc. etc. all fundamentalists too. **You wouldn’t do that would you?
**

 

[brotherhrolf]

I was struck by the date myself and yet, it reads a “fresh” today as it did then. Here we are 40 years later making the very same arguments…

It really saddens me to be labled a “fundamentalist” when this article so clearly articulates that many of us where not in favor with the massive sea change that came after Vatican II. I have to say that 45 years ago, I could go to any Catholic church all over the world and experience virtually the same Mass - not to mention being able to participate since Latin was the universal language of the Church.

All the Holy Father has done is to restore the ability to have what we had 45 years ago. He’s not mandating a return to Latin or the TLM, he is simply freeing it. I don’t see myself as a traditionalist or a fundamentalist - I just want to be able to go to a Mass (either NO or TLM) in which the focus is upon Our Lord and not the congregation.

Years ago, we were united in the Communion of Saints (Church miliant, Church suffering, and Church triumphant) at the Sacrifice on Calvary - it wasn’t about us, it was about Him. The article makes that quite clear.