Trads and neo-trads

[moderate_trad]

Hi! I have a question. I work at a wonderful Catholic school, a bastion of EWTN-style Catholicism (sort of neo-trad). Very orthodox with a decidedly high church approach to liturgy. Although the school is sympathetic towards the cause of Catholic tradition, and we have some students whose families attend the traditional Latin Mass, the culture of the school is different than what I find at the EF. Not better or worse, just different. In many ways the two “styles” of Catholicism are so similar that one would be hard-pressed to see the difference, and yet it’s there… something intangible (I’m not talking about the obvious differences between the EF and OF… something more subtle and psychological). Anyone have any ideas as to where the difference lies?

 

[ethelzguy]

Hi! I have a question. I work at a wonderful Catholic school, a bastion of EWTN-style Catholicism (sort of neo-trad). Very orthodox with a decidedly high church approach to liturgy. Although the school is sympathetic towards the cause of Catholic tradition, and we have some students whose families attend the traditional Latin Mass, the culture of the school is different than what I find at the EF. Not better or worse, just different. In many ways the two “styles” of Catholicism are so similar that one would be hard-pressed to see the difference, and yet it’s there… something intangible (I’m not talking about the obvious differences between the EF and OF… something more subtle and psychological). Anyone have any ideas as to where the difference lies?

One can be a traditional Catholic without having an intense affection for the Latin Mass. There is much more to Catholicism than Mass form, especially where traditions are concerned.

It’s not an “either/or” situation.

 

[Ohwesty]

Good question. As one who lived before Vatican II (when there were no labels like neo-con and neo-trad and everyone was just plain Catholic), I have noticed some cultural differences between Catholics of the past and those who claim to be the torchbearers of traditional Catholicism today (at least in some who post on discussion forums).

For starters, there were no long skirts debates. People didn’t come to Mass looking like they stepped off the cast of Little House on the Prairie. They wore what was in style, as long as it was modest. They did, however, wear their Sunday best, and women always had their heads covered.

There was no aversion to modern technology back in the good old days. Among those first in line to buy their first television sets were many faithful Catholics. Granted, we have become a materialistic society, and there is much on television today that is a near occasion of sin. But the television set is not intrinsically evil. It just takes a little self-control on the viewer’s part.

While the topic of sin and hell were included in more sermons yesterday than today, there was definitely NOT what I would call a “doom and gloom” spirituality. Vatican II brought confusion and many were left scratching their heads and wringing their hands in the aftermath. But the Church has had crisis before. We who have the Holy Spirit should never be filled with a sense of dread and bitterness.

Finally, being a traditional Catholic meant following the Pope: obeying him, supporting him, praying for him. We respected the office of the papacy. It is frightening that a whole generation of neo-traditionalists have grown up without feeling any filial love for the Holy Father. Instead, many of them see Rome as the enemy.

In their favor, you rarely find “Christmas and Easter Only Catholics” among today’s traditionalists. The same cannot be said of diocesan Catholics. But the sheep and the goats have always rubbed shoulders in the pews. Jesus told us that the kingdom of heaven would collect both the fervant and the indifferent, and they would not be separated until the end of time. Traditional chapels today don’t have this… and thus there is both a strong devotion to the faith and a certain elitism.

Well, that’s my two cents. There are quite a few items in neo-traditionalism today that does not gel with the tradition of my past.

 

[consumedconvert]

Divisions and sub-divisions. What’s next, a thread discussing the differences between Catholic “neo-trads” and “neo-neo-trads?”

Sorry, but I hate labels which divide. They serve little to no useful purpose.

One says, “I am of Apollos,” another “I am of Paul”. But they are both of Christ.

We are CATHOLIC. Within Catholicism are many different spiritualities and personalities. But they need not be separate and labelled, like canned soups in a market place. Personalities and spiritualities mix, and Catholics, though different in many ways, must unite.

We are Catholic. Let’s leave it at that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Consumed Convert, that was a good response. Labels do nothing but divide. Our true catholicism comes from within. Not from our mass preference, or what anyone else calls us.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[moderate_trad]

Good question. As one who lived before Vatican II (when there were no labels like neo-con and neo-trad and everyone was just plain Catholic), I have noticed some cultural differences between Catholics of the past and those who claim to be the torchbearers of traditional Catholicism today (at least in some who post on discussion forums).

For starters, there were no long skirts debates. People didn’t come to Mass looking like they stepped off the cast of Little House on the Prairie. They wore what was in style, as long as it was modest. They did, however, wear their Sunday best, and women always had their heads covered.

There was no aversion to modern technology back in the good old days. Among those first in line to buy their first television sets were many faithful Catholics. Granted, we have become a materialistic society, and there is much on television today that is a near occasion of sin. But the television set is not intrinsically evil. It just takes a little self-control on the viewer’s part.

While the topic of sin and hell were included in more sermons yesterday than today, there was definitely NOT what I would call a “doom and gloom” spirituality. Vatican II brought confusion and many were left scratching their heads and wringing their hands in the aftermath. But the Church has had crisis before. We who have the Holy Spirit should never be filled with a sense of dread and bitterness.

Finally, being a traditional Catholic meant following the Pope: obeying him, supporting him, praying for him. We respected the office of the papacy. It is frightening that a whole generation of neo-traditionalists have grown up without feeling any filial love for the Holy Father. Instead, many of them see Rome as the enemy.

In their favor, you rarely find “Christmas and Easter Only Catholics” among today’s traditionalists. The same cannot be said of diocesan Catholics. But the sheep and the goats have always rubbed shoulders in the pews. Jesus told us that the kingdom of heaven would collect both the fervant and the indifferent, and they would not be separated until the end of time. Traditional chapels today don’t have this… and thus there is both a strong devotion to the faith and a certain elitism.

Well, that’s my two cents. There are quite a few items in neo-traditionalism today that does not gel with the tradition of my past.

Interesting and perceptive post. Perhaps I should have been a bit more precise in my terminology. I consider traditional Catholics to be those who have an “intense affection” for the OF. I consider neo-trads to be those Catholics who are doctrinally orthodox and liturgically conservative but prefer the OF to the EF.

With any movement that is inherently reactionary, there’s a natural inclination to become even more “traditional” than the group originally was before it changed (in this case, traditional Catholics becoming even more conservative than 1950s Catholics were). I think many trads aren’t caught up in the holier-than-thou, legalistic aspects of the traditional movement, but there’s enough of them to make the stereotype plausible. The traditions of the past are in danger of being forgotten and some people cling to them with a fervor bordering on fanaticism to ensure that they aren’t lost.

However, many neo-trads that I’ve come across also have an aversion to technology and a modesty in feminine dress that borders on the scrupulous just as much as trads do. It also seems that their attachment to the Pope at times can border on a cult-like mentality in which every public statement or decision of the Pope is beyond reproach and to even suggest that a certain prudential papal decision might not have been the wisest one is tantamount to heresy.

I think that the differences between the two groups lie much deeper than meets the eye and helps explain why both groups sometimes look upon each other with a certain suspicion. I’m just at a loss to verbalize exactly what the REAL differences are.

 

[moderate_trad]

Divisions and sub-divisions. What’s next, a thread discussing the differences between Catholic “neo-trads” and “neo-neo-trads?”

Sorry, but I hate labels which divide. They serve little to no useful purpose.

One says, “I am of Apollos,” another “I am of Paul”. But they are both of Christ.

We are CATHOLIC. Within Catholicism are many different spiritualities and personalities. But they need not be separate and labelled, like canned soups in a market place. Personalities and spiritualities mix, and Catholics, though different in many ways, must unite.

We are Catholic. Let’s leave it at that.

I agree with you in theory, but, let’s face it, the spirituality of trads and neo-trads of the Roman rite – while very similar – has certain subtle but important differences. I consider myself a Catholic first and a traditionalist second and, when I’m not able to attend the EF, have no problems at all attending the OF. But I still prefer to attend the EF and love it greatly. I see no reason why Catholics who do so should be ashamed of identifying themselves as traditional Catholics. It’s a bit of an artificial construct, I admit, and there have been too many divisions amongst Catholics over liturgical matters in the past 40 years, but to deny that there aren’t differences between trads and neo-trads or to refuse to courteously discuss those differences is rather naive. Diversity in spirituality and liturgy can peacefully coexist with uniformity in doctrine.

 

[GerardP]

Traditionalism is not equivalent to 1950’s Catholicism which is regarded by traditionalists as part of the problem.

The fact is the liberals of the 60’s and 70’s were in the Church of the 50’s and chomping at the bit to get out of the “constraints” that the Church held them with.

Prior to Vatican II the “softening” up of the Catholic populace was already going on.

Television was not so manifestly perverse, though the gender wars were foreshadowed in the comedies. (Comedies and comedians always are the first participants in social engineering. They acclimate people to whatever taboo they are pushing by making it a laughing matter. eg. Jokes alluding to homosexuality leads to jokes about homosexuality leads to jokes caricaturizing homosexuality and that leads to jokes by homosexual characters about the joys of homosexuality. After that the dramas and the news begin to brainwash the populace about civil rights etc. )

Traditionalists are not looking at the Americanism prevalent prior to the Council as the ideal, they are looking at Christendom as the model. They are trying not to be cultural Catholics who look respectable on Sunday and blend in with the culture the rest of the week, they are attempting first with their own lives to build up a society that is on a downward spiral of decay.

Unconditional support of the Pope is simply not Catholic, it is an outgrowth of the Protestant reformation. In order to keep the faithful on the road of salvation, obedience without question was requested particularly in rural communities where advanced apologetics was not practical when the fields needed tending.

Prior to the reformation, there was vigorous “expressions of dissatisfaction” if the Pope were to stray from tried and true roads.

On the subject of Doom and Gloom, aside from Despair which is a sin, there is nothing wrong and something actually right about the suffering souls who hunger and thirst for justice in the Church and in the world. A person can be joyful in the spirit and still be lamenting the sad state of the world and the unknown loss of souls that are victims of the culture that is an enemy of Christ. Blessed are they who mourn.

If I had to guess the major difference between the trad and the neo-trad is in the area of ideals. The neo-trads make their ideal the best that can be obtained in the current circumstances. The trad also does the best they can in today’s circumstances yet holds the ideal as something that has not yet been acheived or rather restored.

Another quick term of language you can use to make the distinction is in the horizontal language of the liberal “We need to move forward, get past that, not go back!” With the vertical language of the Traditionalist “We need to build up the Church of Christ, build up society, tear down liberalism, beat down sin,” etc.

If you find yourself using horizontal language, you’ll discover how affected you’ve been by liberalism.

 

[GerardP]

Diversity in spirituality and liturgy can peacefully coexist with uniformity in doctrine.

That’s an interesting thought and I’m wondering about “HOW” that is actually acheived.

There has always been “variety” (as opposed to diversity) in the Church, yet the Church has always I think wisely separated the varieties into rites and actually separate Churches. Byzantine rite Catholics are every bit as Catholic as Latin rite Catholics.

They have the same faith, different spirituality in a number of areas and they coexist with us with very little intermixing. Only at special events like papal funerals and coronations are we really at the family reunion.

While that has problems, it may be the best solution available.

In the Latin rite since the council we have numerous “spiritualities” some of them are incomplete and some are even possibly heretical. Yet everyone is fighting for the same identity of Roman Catholic.

Perhaps it would be best for the Pope to subdivide the Latin Church into various churches, the Traditional Latin Church, the Novus Ordo Church, the Progressive-Heretics Church (I’m kidding about that last one)

I doubt anything like that would happen but i think it is an interesting speculation.

 

[moderate_trad]

That’s an interesting thought and I’m wondering about “HOW” that is actually acheived.

There has always been “variety” (as opposed to diversity) in the Church, yet the Church has always I think wisely separated the varieties into rites and actually separate Churches. Byzantine rite Catholics are every bit as Catholic as Latin rite Catholics.

They have the same faith, different spirituality in a number of areas and they coexist with us with very little intermixing. Only at special events like papal funerals and coronations are we really at the family reunion.

While that has problems, it may be the best solution available.

In the Latin rite since the council we have numerous “spiritualities” some of them are incomplete and some are even possibly heretical. Yet everyone is fighting for the same identity of Roman Catholic.

Perhaps it would be best for the Pope to subdivide the Latin Church into various churches, the Traditional Latin Church, the Novus Ordo Church, the Progressive-Heretics Church (I’m kidding about that last one)

I doubt anything like that would happen but i think it is an interesting speculation.

I think it could be partly achieved by trads and neo-trads working with each other instead of bickering about who is more Catholic. There’s too much of a ghetto mentality amongst the hierarchy with traditional Catholics. Let’s relegate them to their own parish and pretend that they don’t exist. Traditional Catholicism and neo-traditional Catholicism complement one another and, if they ever united, would be a force to reckon with in the Church.

 

[GerardP]

I think it could be partly achieved by trads and neo-trads working with each other instead of bickering about who is more Catholic. There’s too much of a ghetto mentality amongst the hierarchy with traditional Catholics. Let’s relegate them to their own parish and pretend that they don’t exist. Traditional Catholicism and neo-traditional Catholicism complement one another and, if they ever united, would be a force to reckon with in the Church.

They aren’t bickering about who is more Catholic they are bickering about what is more Catholic (or not more Catholic) and why it is more or less Catholic.

Here’s an example, the great pianist Stephen Hough is a convert from Anglicanism. He’s a supporter of the restoration of the TLM. He’s also a fan of John Paul II’s book, Love and Responsibility, because he took the concepts expressed by the Pope and came to the conclusion that they apply to homosexual relationships as well. He abandoned his life of chastity and the call to celibacy and now has rationalized that the Church will eventually change it’s position. This is based on an idea that doctrine evolves, the historical critical method of biblical exegesis and JPII’s phenomenology.

When it comes to Liturgy he’s with the trads and the neo-trads all the way. But he’s in complete error when it comes to understanding the broad doctrinal concepts underlying the traditions.

The moderate trads and the trads that want Vatican II to be overturned completely, the Novus Ordo abrogated have an equal gulf between them, though liturgically they may share some preferences.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Interesting and perceptive post. Perhaps I should have been a bit more precise in my terminology. I consider traditional Catholics to be those who have an “intense affection” for the OF. I consider neo-trads to be those Catholics who are doctrinally orthodox and liturgically conservative but prefer the OF to the EF.

I think of traditional/neo-traditional Catholics as those who have an intense affection for the TLM and prefer communion on the tongue. Some are concerned with modesty in dress and older practices such are wearing mantillas. When they think of Mass, they think of reverence.

I think of conservative Catholics as those who are doctrinally orthodox and liturgically proper and who usually prefer a Novus Ordo mass said according to the rubrics. They prefer silence in church and modest clothing. They try to balance reverence and community fellowship. I’d put myself there.

I think of unconcerned but faithful Catholics as those who accept what the church says, go to whatever the parish mass is and don’t notice liturgical anomalies. May have some preferences as to behavior or dress but just go with the flow or ***** about what they don’t like but don’t think about it much. Think married priests might be a nice idea. This would be my
roommate who thinks I’m obsessed and insane for spending any time on these forums.

To me, liberal Catholics are those who like innovations in the Novus Ordo mass to make it more personal. They admit women can’t be ordained, yet, but they’re not happy about it. They wouldn’t usually consider voting a purely pro-life ticket. They don’t approve of Bishop Bruskowitz.

With any movement that is inherently reactionary, there’s a natural inclination to become even more “traditional” than the group originally was before it changed (in this case, traditional Catholics becoming even more conservative than 1950s Catholics were). I think many trads aren’t caught up in the holier-than-thou, legalistic aspects of the traditional movement, but there’s enough of them to make the stereotype plausible. The traditions of the past are in danger of being forgotten and some people cling to them with a fervor bordering on fanaticism to ensure that they aren’t lost.

However, many neo-trads that I’ve come across also have an aversion to technology and a modesty in feminine dress that borders on the scrupulous just as much as trads do. It also seems that their attachment to the Pope at times can border on a cult-like mentality in which every public statement or decision of the Pope is beyond reproach and to even suggest that a certain prudential papal decision might not have been the wisest one is tantamount to heresy.

I think that the differences between the two groups lie much deeper than meets the eye and helps explain why both groups sometimes look upon each other with a certain suspicion. I’m just at a loss to verbalize exactly what the REAL differences are.

 

[GerardP]

I think many trads aren’t caught up in the holier-than-thou, legalistic aspects of the traditional movement, but there’s enough of them to make the stereotype plausible. The traditions of the past are in danger of being forgotten and some people cling to them with a fervor bordering on fanaticism to ensure that they aren’t lost.

This is probably more due to the more liberal person of the two not understanding what is wrong. It’s like when I’ve gone to Novus Ordo parishes and while I’m standing in line (thank God there’s a line in some) people want to make small talk. They think that I’m being unfriendly or snooty when I smile politely and don’t respond.

How would they feel if they were in a traditional chapel and Father would “shush” them?

They don’t think there’s anything wrong with chatting in Church, or else why would they do it? If you tell them, they state it’s old-fashioned or silly etc. Particularly you are not going to get anywhere when the priests are doing the same thing.

 

[GerardP]

I think of traditional/neo-traditional Catholics as those who have an intense affection for the TLM and prefer communion on the tongue.

I would say the neo-trad thinks it’s a preference, the trad thinks it’s a matter of right and wrong. A trad’s preference is whether to take the Blessed Sacrament via a priest directly placing it on the tongue or the Byzantine intinction and spoon method. Both are equally reverent. And that is a difference in Church traditions and preferences. Communion in the hand is more controversial.

 

[Ohwesty]

Interesting and perceptive post. Perhaps I should have been a bit more precise in my terminology. I consider traditional Catholics to be those who have an “intense affection” for the OF. I consider neo-trads to be those Catholics who are doctrinally orthodox and liturgically conservative but prefer the OF to the EF.

My apologies. I need to brush up on my terms. I don’t really like labels and rarely use them, at least on people who don’t invite them. But as you pointed out, traditionalists have chosen to pin that label on themselves, and even among them there is disagreement as to what is truly “traditional.”

When I used the term “neo-traditional” I meant it as a blanket term for all Post Vatican II traditionalists, from those who simply prefer the TLM to those who want to eradicate Vatican II. My bad. And to be honest, my perceptions are based on my experience of interacting with them on discussion forums. To be sure the most disgruntled (and radical) are always the loudest.

But as you said you noticed a difference in attitude, culture, psychology, that you really couldn’t put your finger on. . . I think it’s a kind of elitism, a heightened sense of scruples, and definitely legalism.

 

[ethelzguy]

But as you said you noticed a difference in attitude, culture, psychology, that you really couldn’t put your finger on. . . I think it’s a kind of elitism, a heightened sense of scruples, and definitely legalism.

Yup :yup:

 

[Ohwesty]

Traditionalists are not looking at the Americanism prevalent prior to the Council as the ideal, they are looking at Christendom as the model. They are trying not to be cultural Catholics who look respectable on Sunday and blend in with the culture the rest of the week, they are attempting first with their own lives to build up a society that is on a downward spiral of decay.

I couldn’t agree more. The Catholic standard should always be the Gospel. Well, there was much in our past that did not live up to that standard, just as there is much today that doesn’t live up to that standard.

Another quick term of language you can use to make the distinction is in the horizontal language of the liberal “We need to move forward, get past that, not go back!” With the vertical language of the Traditionalist “We need to build up the Church of Christ, build up society, tear down liberalism, beat down sin,” etc.

If you find yourself using horizontal language, you’ll discover how affected you’ve been by liberalism.

Restoring all things in Christ is our mission… but I have to watch my horizontal language. Recently I got into a debate with someone, again, about the usage of terms. I used the word “reform” instead of “restore” and that was taboo!

But it was the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who said that the Church must constantly move forward while clinging fast to holy tradition. We do not move backwards. What does that mean? It means that our goal is to meet Christ at the end of human history. To become the “bride made ready” for His arrival.

Upholding tradition does not mean a wholesale return to old rites and doing everything the way it was done before Vatican II. It does not mean having a mentality of the 1950s or the 1550s or the 550s. Sadly, for some traditionalists, old = right and new = wrong. It’s tradition for the sake of tradition, which is just as bad as change for the sake of change.

 

[cathguy]

Interesting thread.

I see differences between traditional Catholics and more Novus Ordo oriented Catholics.

Of course, all of this is based entirely on generalizations. There are always exceptions.

In my experience, those who attend the EF tend to be more doctrinally orthodox as a group. In other words, in my home diocese, it is VERY common to find those at the OF Mass who disagree with or have never heard about Humanae Vitae for example.

On the other hand, at the EF Masses, there seems to be a competition going on about who brings the largest family, and whose HUGE brood is the most well behaved and reverent. (One rarely sees discipline “problems”)

There are spiritual differences. The more orthodox strongly attached to the NO often enjoy a more “wet” spirituality. They often rock back and forth at Mass to the music. Or they are involved in more charismatic huggy feely stuff like Cursillo. (I am NOT saying that this is a bad thing necessarily.)

However, the less orthodox among them get all teary and huggy and think the spirit is moving them, even while they say things like women should be priests etc. etc.

On the other hand, EF goers tend to a more introverted spirituality that is more contemplative and meditative (and some of them would argue… more Catholic) than what I described before.

Of course, because many trads are intensely intellectual, they run the risk of getting so much into their heads that they can lose sight of a real and personal experience with Christ. (At least… I know I am prone to this danger, I am a traditionalist)

I think the reality is there are good Catholics who attend the NO and good Catholics who attend the EF. I think in general the EF goers tend to be more doctrinally orthodox and less prone to modernist errors. I think some of the good insights derived from the OF get ignored by many traditionalists because of this fact. (guilt by association?)

 

[ethelzguy]

in my home diocese, it is VERY common to find those at the OF Mass who disagree with or have never heard about Humanae Vitae for example.

Ha ! you just brought back a flood of hysterical memories !

Back in the 70’s, a friend presented me with a gift of a framed poster of the Pope, pointing in the famed “Uncle Sam Wants YOU” pose…with the statement “The Pill is a NO NO”.

It hung in my office for years, and was quite the conversation piece.

Several years later, one of my daughters got married. One of the family members, spurred on by that poster, had convinced the groomsmen to paint those words on the bottom of their shoes at the wedding Mass.

As everyone knelt for the Consecration, snickers arose from the front pews, as everyone could read the bottoms of the shoes…THE PILL IS A NO NO…and the word “HELP” on the bottom of the groom’s shoe.

Thanks for the memories

 

[Tommy_Joe]

Until just now I felt pretty stupid for not knowing the exact definition of all the labels that todays "know-it-all"s toss around,…but not any longer,… apparently nobody has a clue!!!

ROTFL!!!

Thank-you!