What does it mean to be a Traditional Catholic?

[friardchips]

“So Traditional Catholics are really Unorthodox Orthodox Christians?”

may I generalise

We have faith and practice
Faith cant be changed, eg trinity of god.
Practice can, eg liturgical vestments, mysteries of rosary.

All catholics have same faith.
Pre vatican II practice followers call themselves traditional because nothing else is good.
Orthodox :would suggest others are heretics.
Old catholics: there is another group with this name.
Non vatican twoers: this would suggest they belive new mass is blasphemous

So you are saying that the term is just a handy phrase because nothing else is available?

I love the Traditional Mass. Although I also love the new Mass with an open heart. But if I have my own preference I don’t give myself, what appears to be, a suggestively unique title. Why not just call themselves Roman Catholics like everyone else. To not do this is surely to suggest something ‘other’, something better?

 

[friardchips]

Does anyone, on this forum, argue the ordinary form is invalid?

No.

 

[friardchips]

I think I answered this question too in #12

Can you highlight the bit where you answered my question specifically please? I don’t feel you have answered the question in my thread which is asking for a suitable and valid reason as to why Traditional Catholics feel the need or even have the right to call themselves Traditional Catholics. (My reasons made in my posts).

 

[RomishAmbrosian]

No.

Good. I’ve noticed when preferences over liturgies are talked about, there’s a tendency assume bad motives.

“You don’t think the ordinary form of the Latin rite is the best liturgy of all time!? Baww you must think it’s invalid!!11! sedevacantist! SSPX! FSSPX! Arian!”

 

[Joe_5859]

I wouldn’t say the term is an oxymoron but more so that it is redundant. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together make up Divine Revelation. Part of being Catholic is holding fast to that Tradition that comes down to us from the Apostles. We should all be traditional.

As for what it means, that depends on the person using it. I often called myself a traditional Catholic until I came here to CAF and found that many used the term differently. I am passionate about following the Magisterium and I am very much in favor of following the liturgical rubrics. But I’ve never been to the Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form. So that somewhat precludes me from the definition according to some.

 

[Jack007]

Hi again. Thanks for joining my thread!

I would argue because: a house cannot stand when divided against itself; because all are to accept Papal decrees; because Roman Catholics are supposed to aim for unity not aim for comfort in private clubs.

Exactly my point : ONE! Not many different branches of, but ONE, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as handed down to us with authority from St. Peter onwards.

To be baptised is to accept all the teachings and decrees set by Rome in obedience, I thought? Not just to our spiritual fathers but also to our present Holy Father. I am not keen on people using Pope Emeritus in arguments for this because I do not think he would present himself from this angle in this way. He too is obedient to the Church and is open to growth.

Summorum pontificum was issued when Bendict was pope.
Pope Francis has not recalled or edited it.
For more info,go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificum

 

[friardchips]

Good. I’ve noticed when preferences over liturgies are talked about there’s a tendency assume bad motives.

"You don’t think the ordinary form of the Latin rite is the best liturgy of all time? Baww you must think it’s invalid!!11! sedevacantist! SSPX! FSSPX! Arian!

This is the point. Yes. I think as Roman Catholics we should just accept trustingly without prejudice that all is in God’s hands and pray for our Holy Father and Cardinals. And if people feel a need to challenge Rome for sensitive reasons then they should do it formally and openly using procedures in place, and in the meantime without segregating them or others by giving themselves special titles.

 

[Jack007]

Summorum pontificum was issued when Bendict was pope.
Pope Francis has not recalled or edited it.
For more info,go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summorum_Pontificum

Background:

i am a member of syromalabar church. bl. chavara, saint in november, declared that every church should have a school. this drastically improved education. while the rst of india has low literacy, kerala has 100percent.

on sabath, these schools would be used for madhabodhanam, or teaching of faith.
I am currently in grade VIII.(really, in school, too).

Event

last year we learnt that 23 rites of cc dont decrease unity but increases it.
so doesnt this apply for traditional catholicism?

 

[RomishAmbrosian]

This is the point. Yes. I think as Roman Catholics we should just accept trustingly without prejudice that all is in God’s hands and pray for our Holy Father and Cardinals. And if people feel a need to challenge Rome for sensitive reasons then they should do it formally and openly using procedures in place, and in the meantime without segregating them or others by giving themselves special titles.

I think the title of ‘traditionalist’ will phase out as the baby boomer generation thins out. If the changes had occurred a century beforehand, I don’t think the “segregation” would even exist.

Brick by brick. Coffin by coffin.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ll admit I get that vibe quite often, I’m not a Catholic but I attend the Latin Mass with my traditionalist husband. It’s not church teaching at all but some traditionalists (moreso the “split” Sedevacantist groups and the SSPX) believe that the Novus Ordo (vernacular post-Vatican II style mass) is protestant and somehow less pleasing to God than the Tridentine Mass.

Another mark of the traditionalist is the mantilla, the Catholic veil. Traditionalists will argue that it is in obedience with Pauls commandment for a woman not to pray with her head uncovered or a way of getting into the mood of prayer, “progressive” Catholics (if there is such a term) will argue it is oppressive and an attempt to be holier than thou.

It’s hookum, they’re both acceptable and equally “worthy” as far as the magesterium is concerned.

---

Just some clarification. A woman/women not covering – does not mean “progressive” – as some paint them to be. Below you will see the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. As you see – the Catholic Church – does not hold to a fundamentalist interpretation of St. Paul – and states that covering was a disciplinary practice of minor importance – and no longer has a normative value.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
INTER INSIGNIORES

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard.** But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. **

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

 

[friardchips]

I wouldn’t say the term is an oxymoron but more so that it is redundant. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together make up Divine Revelation. Part of being Catholic is holding fast to that Tradition that comes down to us from the Apostles. We should all be traditional.

Yes. Handed down. My point exactly. To be a Roman Catholic is to be traditional and my point is that this term used by ‘Traditional Catholicism’ is as you say redundant. Oxymoron is the wrong word indeed.

As for what it means, that depends on the person using it. I often called myself a traditional Catholic until I came here to CAF and found that many used the term differently. I am passionate about following the Magisterium and I am very much in favor of following the liturgical rubrics. But I’ve never been to the Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form. So that somewhat precludes me from the definition according to some.

It would be easier if people said I am a Catholic but prefer the Old Rite or I have a preference for this or that. Nothing wrong there. When someone says: I am a ‘Traditional Catholic’ I get concerned for reasons already stated. As you have experienced on this forum, it leans towards an active denial of up-to-date teaching, of the Magisterium.

 

[Jack007]

Can you highlight the bit where you answered my question specifically please? I don’t feel you have answered the question in my thread which is asking for a suitable and valid reason as to why Traditional Catholics feel the need or even have the right to call themselves Traditional Catholics. (My reasons made in my posts).

I reread all your posts. now, i truly understand your point.

Try to go this way:

rites were reformed in vatican 2

summorum pontificum states old rites can be used

some people want to use the old rites.

they must be called something specific, just as we say eagle, ostrich, hen and not just birds.

so they call themselves traditional catholics

this does not mean that they are superior to others. they are traditional in practice and fatih. others are tradional in faith. being traditional in practice is not so imortant or greater, as the changed forms are equally valid and licit.

hope this helped.

 

[Jack007]

PS. Could anyone give a photo highlighting the new thread rectangle? I am unable to find it. You see, I am new to the forums. i joined only today.

 

[friardchips]

I think the title of ‘traditionalist’ will phase out as the baby boomer generation thins out. If the changes had occurred a century beforehand, I don’t think the “segregation” would even exist.

Brick by brick. Coffin by coffin.

But the need for unity is so important, NOW! Older generations are the ones to inspire the younger. Their wisdom is needed. The generation in the middle can’t do it on their own - with lack of bums on pews, lack of religious! Not everyone is a Pope F or Pope B. We are not all geniuses of faith that can balance and defend and preserve in the correct reverent way to the depths that they do. We can’t send ‘Traditional Catholics’ off forever to a special island and tell them it is a nice long vocation under the guise of a bit of TLC for the TC, and leave them there. We have to get through to them - ‘brick by brick’. The younger generations of Catholics, the few there are, must inspire trust and preach the freedom that comes with obedience to authority. Maybe we could print t-shirts with pictures of Popes and distribute them, with ‘We are all one Holy Catholic Apostolic-Traditional Church.’ written on them?

 

[friardchips]

Background:

i am a member of syromalabar church. bl. chavara, saint in november, declared that every church should have a school. this drastically improved education. while the rst of india has low literacy, kerala has 100percent.

on sabath, these schools would be used for madhabodhanam, or teaching of faith.
I am currently in grade VIII.(really, in school, too).

Event

last year we learnt that 23 rites of cc dont decrease unity but increases it.
so doesnt this apply for traditional catholicism?

I’ll have to think more upon what you’re saying in your previous post and another of yours to respond. In the meantime, great to hear you’re studying! I hope it brings much fruit to your faith life and spiritual journey

There is nothing wrong with having a preference. But if I were you, I would check anything, as I said in another thread, that you hear from this forum with formal church teaching: Vatican website etc…and hold on with strength to the sentiments made by Pope F and Pope Benedict XVI too.

As to your question about a new thread: (I think?)…that you need to click on ‘Home’, read the subject link you are interested in (‘Scripture’ or ‘Apologetics’ or whatever), then it says ‘New Thread’, and you’re all good from there on in. God bless.

 

[friardchips]

If I support a football team (soccer team) then I’m not going to call myself a Traditional Liverpool fan because things are done in a slightly different way or have grown in some way. I would be a Liverpool supporter (or would be) with an evolved Liverpool team to support - I am not into football that much apart from the World Cup but it serves to make a point - because the very name of Liverpool contains within that name its history and players and growth and all ups and downs and all else. I wouldn’t need to call myself anything different other than a Liverpool supporter. So if I were to improve a team I’d support where it is not hark back to where it was - sorry for the football analogy!

 

[michaelhagg]

First of all, there seem to be some polemics in this thread about traditional Catholics. I consider myself a traditional Catholic (note the lower-case “t” in tradition, not “Tradition”) and I think it’s fair to say that you label yourself to distinguish from others within a larger group.

The easiest way for me to define traditional Catholicism is by world view: a traditional Catholic looks at the present through the eyes of the past - using what has been passed down to us as Divine revelation (i.e. Scripture and Tradition, note the capital “T”) to judge current events and attitudes. The opposite of this would be to view the past through the eyes of the present, which leads us to accept modern innovations and novelties which may not comport with what has been handed down to us throughout the centuries. That isn’t to say that the Church does not have authority to modify discipline throughout time - surely that is the case. What we mean here is that doctrinal integrity must be continuous and, in order to establish that, we must verify that modern practice meets the doctrinal continuity of the past.

A great example of this would be the placement of statues inside churches. Some more modern-minded Catholics would argue we should not have statues (or at least, have very few) inside a church because it distracts from what is happening on the altar. A traditional Catholic would argue that it has always been the constant practice of the Church to advocate statuary and iconography inside of churches to draw the minds of the faithful to those saints whom they represent, and indirectly, to Him Whom they are a mirror of.

My example may not be the best, but it demonstrates the difference in outlook between the two groups. So by introducing myself as a traditional Catholic, I indicate that I am fully obedient to the Magisterium of the Church - not only the present one, but also interpreting the actions and statements of the present one through the actions and statements of the past.

Hopefully this post was helpful.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[Jack007]

I’ll have to think more upon what you’re saying in your previous post and another of yours to respond. In the meantime, great to hear you’re studying! I hope it brings much fruit to your faith life and spiritual journey

There is nothing wrong with having a preference. But if I were you, I would check anything, as I said in another thread, that you hear from this forum with formal church teaching: Vatican website etc…and hold on with strength to the sentiments made by Pope F and Pope Benedict XVI too.

As to your question about a new thread: (I think?)…that you need to click on ‘Home’, read the subject link you are interested in (‘Scripture’ or ‘Apologetics’ or whatever), then it says ‘New Thread’, and you’re all good from there on in. God bless.

Almost every child from age 4 or so learns about the faith in syro malabar in kerala. (i am 14)So no. of vocations is high and desertions is low, not vice versa.

yes, there is nothing wrong with having a preference. i myself checked whether my content is correct, but feel free to confirm. Do you want any links?

The mistake i was making was that i clicked on the subject but not the sub section. Thank you for the advice. I have made the thread. see
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12305804

 

[sw85]

Dear sw85, thank you for this clear description. But can you reply to my second introduction message as this is the angle I am coming from, please? Apology for the confusion.

Although, I would like to pick up on what you mean by the word ‘attachment’?

There are some very clever people who want you to believe that “traditional Catholic” is a redundancy because we all, after all, believe in Tradition. No one disputes that (except of course that many do not believe in Tradition despite their claims to the contrary). Rather it is the case that the “traditional” in “traditional Catholic” is not about Apostolic Tradition but about other traditions which, while not as weighty, nevertheless command our deference.

The traditional Catholic is one who recognizes that the distinction between tradition and Tradition is not so cut-and-dry – that our ability to live out our “Catholicity” requires, not mere intellectual assent to a laundry list of doctrines (with everything else rendered negotiable), but a positive lived reality, an entire way of life. People do not, after all, live in some purely abstract, mental sphere of ideological correctness; they live in the real world, in cultures and institutions and symbols. And they would generally argue that the project to “unpack” Catholicism from its cultural/institutional/symbolic baggage is a dangerous one for precisely that reason.

In terms of attachment, I mean just what Pope Benedict XVI meant. They are attached to that patrimony in the sense that their spirituality is rooted in it, so that the effort to extract them from it would be to subject them to a ruinous spiritual uprooting (one far more damaging than any illusory “unity” created by doing so). As I said before, for the traditional Catholic, it is not so easy to separate faith from the reality in which they live it; so the traditional Catholic is not merely one that affirms doctrines but who also endeavors to live out their faith in a reality shaped by those doctrines in time.

 

[michaelhagg]

Here is the best description of what traditional Catholicism means that I am aware of, taken from his blog entry at: thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-traditional-catholicism.html

As I have pondered the difference between self-styled traditionalist Catholics and other orthodox Catholics I have concluded that the primary difference is in their respective attitude toward change. If one does any significant reading in the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Popes one consistently finds a truly conservative attitude. That is, one sees that the attitude of orthodox Catholics through the centuries has been to cling tenaciously to that which has been handed on, both in belief and observance. Change itself is looked upon with suspicion and change for the sake of change or even to “get with the times” is unthinkable. Now here I can sense anti-traditionalist apologists ready to pounce, so let me say up front that I don’t in the least deny that there has been lots of legitimate development in the Catholic Church over the centuries, both doctrinal and practical. The Catholic Church is a living organism, animated by the Holy Spirit, and she has certainly developed and changed over the centuries while retaining in its fullness the deposit of revelation handed on to her by our Lord Jesus. This I readily grant.

What I am talking about instead is one’s prevailing attitude toward change. The Fathers, Doctors, and Popes did not see themselves primarily as innovators, but as conservators. They saw the Faith and those practices by which it was expressed, passed on, and guarded as an inheritance to be passed on to the next generation intact and, indeed, inviolate. They were not anxious to update the Faith, or to change perennial and venerable practices. For the most part, they viewed change–whether doctrinal or practical–with grave suspicion. They knew both instinctively and often by hard experience that changes in religious matters–even if seemingly minor–frequently bring about considerable upheaval in the life of the Church. . . .

Put simply, a Catholic traditionalist wishes to believe as his fathers believed, to worship as his fathers worshipped, and to pass on this belief and worship intact to his children. He does not oppose legitimate and organic developments. But he sees what is perennial, venerable, and established as a treasury of godly and holy wisdom and he views attempts to change or “update” this treasury of belief and practice with guarded reserve, if not suspicion.

Emphasis mine.