What defines a Traditional Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllSeasons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saintjohnxxiii said:
Doesn’t United Way contribute to Planned Parenthood?
Click to expand...
Yes. We don’t’ do the United Way campaign. We donate toys and clothing that go directly to families in need - no chance of anything being diverted to PP. UW does much good as well as some evil. Unfortunately, their financial practices make it difficult to participate in most of their efforts without inadvertently getting involved in the bad with the good. This is one instance, since no monetary contributions are made, where we can. Thank God for small favors.
 
JReducation said:
Three points.
  1. A very well reasoned post. Congrats.
  2. I don’t run a parish. If I did, my life with the Trads would be easy sailing since the laity in Franciscan parishes have no voice or vote. The condition when Franciscans take over a parish is that all voice and vote rests with the major superior of the region. He delegates to the pastor as much or as little as he wants who then delegates to the laity as much or as little as he wants to delegate.
My issue is that I am the director of a huge archdiocesan ministry with over 200 volunteers that covers 3 counties and a territory of over 2,000 sq miles. Every time the Trads and the MS (Mainstream) Catholics get into it, guess who is called to moderate.

Now, people outside of my ministry think that I’m the Trad guru, because my community is a Trad community and I get these emails and telephone calls about every little snowflake that falls yonder.
  1. Your post is well written, but maybe my question was not. Let try to state it again.
Why must one embrace the EF to be a Traditionalist?

Here is where I’m coming from. My community lives the Franciscan life (tries) to live it as it was lived in the 13th century, with the same disciplines, demand for absolute and unquestioning obedience to bishops and popes, penance, prayer, poverty, love of our brothers before all other men, life among the poor, not even having medical insurance or retirement insurance, unless you worked before you entered and have Social Security and Medicare benefits that you paid into. We even pray the LOTH in Latin, though we do not use the Breviary of 1962, because there is no Franciscan companion to it. We use the Breviary of 1970, which has a Franciscan version.

But as superior, I have said that

a) our one priest who knows how to celebrate the Ef and likes to do it, may never do it for the laity. He can only do it for his house, when his superior allows it. He cannot celebrate it privately, because the Rule of St. Francis does not allow private celebrations of the mass. So that part of SP does not apply to us. As SP says, the major superior and the law of the community make these internal decisions. My reason for not allowing an EF open to the laity is simple. Tradition is embracing the entire Church, not excluding what one does not like or what is new. At least that has never been a Franciscan tradition. Only the superior can decide what to exclude as long as he does not violate Canon Law.

b) I believe that tradition is bigger than the TLM. Our attempt to live the Franciscan life is as traditional as the TLM. I do not subscribe to the idea that tradition is limited to what existed before Vatican II. Because in the mind of St. Francis, we are never to stay stuck in one time zone, nor are we to jump forward into a black hole. We are to move along with the Holy See. That’s traditional Franciscan law.

However, many in this forum and in other places have scolded us for saying that we are a traditional religious community or that we are traditional individual Catholics.

My question is why doe we have to be a sola TLM and Pre Vatican II people to be Traditionalists?

That’s not how Francis envisioned tradition, nor any of our great Franciscan doctors or saints and by the way, we hold the record for the largest number of doctors, saints and scholars in the Church. But we’re still good friends with the Jesuits and Dominicans. 😃
Click to expand...
Thank you! I am glad if I could convey my thoughts clearly in that post! 🙂

I understand your question better now as well.

The answer I can think of is that perhaps it is due to the association with a break in Church attitude that is usually attributed to Vatican II.

As an example, prior to Vatican II, the Church never spoke of dialogue with the world. The world was seen as an enemy to be cautious against and most traditions of uncompromisingly standing up against the world had arisen.

But after Vatican II, most of these traditions had to be thrown out. The way of life of a Catholic became one of less caution. Sin was not dreaded as it was before. Salvation was not seen as difficult as before. Even doctrine became less important in the eyes of the faithful and perhaps even in the eyes of the Church. So there was no place for old traditions in the post Vatican II church for the most part.

In this sense, therefore it would seem that it is not be possible to call a post Vatican II Catholic a traditionalist. A post Vatican II Catholic is usually someone who has had to give up many of the older traditions for the sake of dialogue with the world.

I think it is this disconnect that leads to an invention of a “spirit of Vatican II”. Since Vatican II, there is a notion that we are not limited by any thing prior to us lest it be doctrine. Even this doctrinal constraint has weakened with many Theologians trying to promote the idea of evolution of doctrine (in the sense contrary to what the Church accepts as evolution of doctrine). But most certainly, traditions are considered as archaic and an obstacle to welcoming others in to the Church.

For many, the change of the liturgy itself was an acknowledgement of such a thought process. For most, one of the greatest traditions of the Church would have been the liturgy. There have been writings by Popes that condemned the idea of changing mass to the vernacular (the document condemning synod of Pistoia comes to mind) in very harsh terms. To then see what constitutes as such a core traditional entity be modernized does mean that nothing is safe from the touch of modernization. Therefore, it would seem there is no place to even be a traditionalist in the Post Vatican II church (in the sense that one cannot be constrained by any traditions as they seek dialogue with the world).
 
I could be wrong but having done some research on the subject, (out of curiosity), I gather that a true traditionalist Catholic has nothing to do with the ‘Vatican ll counterfeit church’ and all of its anti-Popes.:sad_yes:
 
Oranda said:
I could be wrong but having done some research on the subject, (out of curiosity), I gather that a true traditionalist Catholic has nothing to do with the ‘Vatican ll counterfeit church’ and all of its anti-Popes.:sad_yes:
Click to expand...
no, that would be a sedevacanist, not a traditional Catholic. :mad:
 
I consider myself a traditional Catholic because I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church: both Scripture and oral Tradition. Some may think that it means Catholics who prefer the pre Vatican II practices. I am open to what the Church practices whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo. I honor the Communion of Saints. Basically if it is in the Cathechism, I am for it.
 
One thing that keeps bothering me in a lot of peoples’ responses is the unintentional use of the word Traditional with a capital “T” versus traditional with a lower-case “t”.

Most websites I’ve seen that use the capital “T” actually do believe that Vatican II was an illegitimate council created by “anti-popes” (current popes are false to them) that the Tridentine is still the only legitimate Mass. SSPX are the most notorious of these groups, though at some point Pope Benedict XVI said that we could attend their Masses without it being considered a sin (not unlike Eastern Orthodox churches).

Most people who use lower-case “t” are simply orthodox Catholics (adhere to current teaching of the Church, etc.) that happen to have a personal preference for the pre-Vatican II customs, like the Mass of the Extraordinary Form, stricter fast days, women covering their head, altar girls only, etc. This preference is a personal one and that they usually recognize is in fact a matter of opinion (or at least should!). Micheal Voris is a fairly good example of a pretty well-known traditional Catholic. (Personally I’ve found that these Catholics are by and large far more devoted to their faith than modernist Catholics).

The line between these two groups is often blurred - some traditional Catholics seem to secretly hope that Vatican II was false in the end, though they profess to stay in line with current Church leadership. However, this distinction between “Traditional Catholics” and “traditional Catholics” is a theologically important one, from what I can tell.
 
I guess this is as good of a place as any to share a bit of humor from a traditional Catholic mom.
Catholic mom to 5 year old son: Ok, Luke, what is the third Joyful Mystery?

Luke: “The vegetation in the Temple!”
 
What is the point of all this? Either a Catholic believes, understands and follows what the Church teaches or not, or selectively. That’s it. Trying to come up with a definition of a Traditional Catholic informs no one. Just like using terms like Liberal Catholic or Cafeteria Catholic. How does that help anybody? Imperfect as we all are, we are one body. One Church.

Peace,
Ed
 
In common parlance in my circles, a Traditionalist, capital-T, is someone whose spirituality leads them to prefer the Extraordinary Form. They have a leigitimate part to play in the Church, if they truly believe in the validity of all the ecumenical councils, as most doubtless do.

I think the problem with these often pointless controversies is that many Catholics expect everything to be the same no matter where they go. But the Catholic Church has never been homogenous. She is more like a medieval kingdom, granting legitimacy to all sorts of approved practices.
 
ooh…i got one.

a traditional catholic is one who is currently/or will eventually be banned from CAF.
 
We had a discussion recently about placement of the tabernacle in our parish. It will soon be on the altar in the center of the church.

Some people believe tradition means “going back” and trying to live in the past, throwing out “the new”. Tradition takes on such a negative connotation with some people.
I made the point that reviving a tradition does not equate to going backwards. Only God lives in different time zones, we only live in the present. It is not possible to go back.

The Church is alive. We are taking one of the traditions of the Church and renewing it in our parish, making it alive again. It is a beautiful thing to live in the present. What’s important is how we present this to the parish and talk about it. We can gripe that the “traditionalists” are living in the past and are forcing us to live in the past. Or we can say that we are refreshing and renewing a tradition.

What never goes out of style is obedience. The bishop wants the tabernacle on the altar and so it will be. He is the living authority here… But some people believe that because Church documents allow for options and for the (name removed by moderator)ut of the laity, that we have a democracy here in our parish.

Authority and obedience are so misunderstood. They are almost dirty words in our culture.
 
ZxM said:
ooh…i got one.

a traditional catholic is one who is currently/or will eventually be banned from CAF.
Click to expand...
A traditional Catholic is a sinner like everyone else. If a traditional Catholic gets banned, then it just goes to show you that they do not have a free ticket to conduct unbecoming of a board member ;).
 
Cygnus2112 said:
One thing that keeps bothering me in a lot of peoples’ responses is the unintentional use of the word Traditional with a capital “T” versus traditional with a lower-case “t”.

Most websites I’ve seen that use the capital “T” actually do believe that Vatican II was an illegitimate council created by “anti-popes” (current popes are false to them) that the Tridentine is still the only legitimate Mass. SSPX are the most notorious of these groups, though at some point Pope Benedict XVI said that we could attend their Masses without it being considered a sin (not unlike Eastern Orthodox churches).

Most people who use lower-case “t” are simply orthodox Catholics (adhere to current teaching of the Church, etc.) that happen to have a personal preference for the pre-Vatican II customs, like the Mass of the Extraordinary Form, stricter fast days, women covering their head, altar girls only, etc. This preference is a personal one and that they usually recognize is in fact a matter of opinion (or at least should!). Micheal Voris is a fairly good example of a pretty well-known traditional Catholic. (Personally I’ve found that these Catholics are by and large far more devoted to their faith than modernist Catholics).

The line between these two groups is often blurred - some traditional Catholics seem to secretly hope that Vatican II was false in the end, though they profess to stay in line with current Church leadership. However, this distinction between “Traditional Catholics” and “traditional Catholics” is a theologically important one, from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
The SSPX do not believe that the post-Conciliar Popes have been anti-Popes. In fact, one can fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel.
Also, the SSPX recognize other forms of the Mass than the TLM (i.e. the various Eastern liturgies, the various Western rites, etc). They just strongly disapprove of the N.O.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top