What constitutes a traditional Catholic?

[Annabelle_Marie]

So are you saying many, if not most, who identify themselves as Traditional Catholics, are claiming that the Church has ‘erred in its disciplines’ and that they are thus implying the Church teaches error?

First of all, the Church cannot teach error on dogmatic or doctrinal points of faith and morals. But disciplines themselves ‘change’.

Second, what exactly do you mean by ‘disciplines’ that the Church say has taught since Vatican II? CITH, perhaps? As a Traditionalist I prefer COTT but since the Church has said CITH is legitimately received in whatever place has an indult for it, I can prefer COTT and even advance good reason for it, but I am NOT saying the Church is ‘teaching error’ by permitting CITH. To prefer a traditional devotion to a ‘contemporary’ one does NOT mean that I impugning the ‘contemporary’ as an error.

Maybe not you…but there are those that say that Rome only allowed it because they were unable to stop everyone that was disobedient to it…so they allowed it. Now that is a discipline. But it seems if that were the case…there are plenty of Catholics that are disobedient and use contraception…but I sure don’t see Rome coming out any time soon and saying that is ok…

 

[SouthpawLink]

I never made the claim that they reject Dogma or Doctrine.

All faithful Catholics are bound to follow all the Church Teaches, even in Disciplines. It is also wrong to claim that the Church has erred in its Disciplines as the Church, by definition, can never Teach error.

How about this discipline:

“Whether when material schismatics at the point of death, in good faith seek either absolution or extreme unction, these sacraments can be conferred on them without their renouncing errors? – Reply: In the negative, but that it be required that they reject errors as best they can, and make a profession of faith” (Holy Office, On Dead and Dying Schismatics, 17 May 1916: Denz. 2181a).

“It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church” (1917 CIC, can. 731 §2).

Contrast with:

“If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed” (1983 CIC, can. 844 §4).

You don’t see a contradiction?

 

[Zacdecat]

My understanding as a layperson who attends exclusively the Tridentine Mass is that there was so much confusion and ambiguity surrounding the pastoral council of Vatican 2 that it is better not to espouse any of the changes whilst the fog of uncertainity clouds the whole.

This may be simplistic but it certainly makes sense to me…someone totally unversed in canon law but simply wishes to be a good Catholic lay person.

 

[Paxvobis]

I’m new to the forum. What constitutes a traditional Catholic? It is just someone who accepts all Church teaching without question because we know it comes from God? Or is it someone who goes to the Latin Mass and follows all the extra pre-Vatican-II rules such as avoiding meat on Fridays?

First of all, welcome to the forums!

All Catholics are supposed to accept all of the Church’s dogmatic teachings. Not doing this is the mortal sin of heresy.

A traditionalist Catholic is one who does this in addition too assisting at the old Mass (which on the forum is generally called the TLM - Traditional Latin Mass, or the EF - Extraordinary Form Mass), interpreting the documents of Vatican II and of the Catechism in light of tradition (i.e. not in the revolutionary way that we’ve unfortunately seen too many people do), and keeping many traditions and devotions popular in the Church until about 1965 (abstaining meat on all Fridays, wearing hats or mantillas in Church if a woman, maybe having a home altar and utilizing holy water, blessed salt, and incense in the home, praying the Rosary without the Luminous Mysteries, and fasting from three hours or from midnight before receiving Holy Communion among other things).

Other than these points, traditionalist Catholics can be very different. Some worship within diocesan structures (FSSP, for example) and others think the Church has been pervaded with so much modernism they’ve decided to leave the diocesan structure (and go to SSPX or SSPV chapels).

Personally, I identify as a traditionalist Catholic. I prefer the old Mass. I love its reverence, its mystery, and its antiquity. It’s an experience hard to describe without actually being part of it and I strongly recommend you go to a TLM at least once if it’s available in your diocese.

Here’s a list of parishes that offer the TLM within the diocesan structure: web2.airmail.net/carlsch/MaterDei/churches.htm

Absent this, you can watch a TLM on Youtube: youtube.com/watch?v=tnnc5RgsWFs

That said, I do enjoy the new Mass, otherwise called the Ordinary Form or the Novus Ordo.

If you want to see a pretty good aesthetic definition of a traditionalist Catholic go here: fisheaters.com/ontraditionalcatholics.html

Again, welcome to the forums.

 

[laszlo]

My understanding as a layperson who attends exclusively the Tridentine Mass is that there was so much confusion and ambiguity surrounding the pastoral council of Vatican 2 that it is better not to espouse any of the changes whilst the fog of uncertainity clouds the whole.

Please enlighten us with details about the confusion and uncertainty.

The truth is always in details.