What does it mean to be a Traditional Catholic?

[Jack007]

“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.”

I agree with you so far.

“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.”

Many traditional catholics are good catholics.

" We have to get through to them - ‘brick by brick’. "

What did you mean?

“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?”

…or give them madhabodhanam as in my syromalabar church. ask people to read apolegetics in this website and not fall prey to those who knock on the door,ive heard. they are not found in india.

 

[sw85]

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.

There’s really something to this, too. The Fourth Commandment obliges us not merely to “honor our father and mother” but to do so that we may live long in the land. It’s not merely about obedience, it is about rootedness. The traditions of the Roman rite furnish the reference points by which we live, and that lack of rootedness, that alienation from history, makes us slaves to the tyranny of the present moment.

 

[RomishAmbrosian]

NOW! Older generations are the ones to inspire the younger.

The Boomers? Not really. They’re the one’s responsible for clown masses, guitars, and all the other madness of the 70s.

I should have been a bit more clear. The problem IS the older generation. My experience has taught me that parishes that offer only the extraordinary form, or the extraordinary and ordinary form, have a healthier distribution of age.

 

[friardchips]

I think we misunderstood each other. The thread is about Traditional Catholics using that term to mean something other than present edicts in the Roman Catholic Church by the very use of a label. I don’t think this has anything to do with age. It comes down to openness to faith and growth for the sake of one’s loyalty to the Church as opposed to stubborn disagreement to anything new which may been seen as loyal but is in fact not so .

 

[michaelhagg]

I think we misunderstood each other. The thread is about Traditional Catholics using that term to mean something other than present edicts in the Roman Catholic Church by the very use of a label. I don’t think this has anything to do with age. It comes down to openness to faith and growth for the sake of one’s loyalty to the Church as opposed to stubborn disagreement to anything new which may been seen as loyal but is in fact not so .

I respectfully disagree with you. I consider myself loyal to the Church and also a traditional Catholic. Full assent of the intellect to the doctrinal Magisterium of the Church is not a question here, the question is the implementation of that Magisterium and whether the praxis of implementation matches historical precedent.

In summary, that which was holy and true for previous generations is holy and true for the present as well. There can be no hermeneutic of rupture. Where I disagree with some decisions of the heirarchy is in the area of pastoral practice - there is a difference between doctrinal assent (required) and assent to pastoral practice (not required).

 

[friardchips]

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.

I understand so far.

sw85:

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.

Sorry about the underlining. It is for me to remember what to refer back to you.

sw85:

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.

In reply to your first paragraph…

• yes, but if people are ‘attempting’ to make the term redundant, then maybe that is because the term is actually confusing and maybe shouldn’t be used in this way?
• what smaller traditions are traditional Catholics so worried about please - can you give me a couple of examples to go by please?

In reply to your second paragraph…

• yes, but doctrines are important mirrors to scriptural truths present in every culture and Pope JPII underlined their importance. And as far as I have read the reports so far, those who would not be named as ‘traditional Catholics’, in present Magisterium, are doing exactly what you said - they are taking into account the reality of Scripture in this present life. So no one is unpacking, as you put it, but rather picking the fruits from the JPII era. This is what Christianity needs to do - pick the fruit when it is ripe. How else is the Church supposed to respond to the needs of the day? By looking back to times when so many things are not relevant? The Church is like an ark, it moves around in its journey over tempestuous waters, but it doesn’t change its structure, rather, it fills in the holes along the way.

The **third paragraph **is reaffirming what is happening in the Church now by those in authority. Picking the fruit. In this sense, to name oneself as a ‘traditional Catholic’, as something set apart, is to let the fruit drop on the floor and decay.

 

[friardchips]

…and back it goes to old ground.

 

[ccmcmg]

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

I respectfully disagree with you. I consider myself loyal to the Church and also a traditional Catholic. Full assent of the intellect to the doctrinal Magisterium of the Church is not a question here, the question is the implementation of that Magisterium and whether the praxis of implementation matches historical precedent.

In summary, that which was holy and true for previous generations is holy and true for the present as well. There can be no hermeneutic of rupture. Where I disagree with some decisions of the heirarchy is in the area of pastoral practice - there is a difference between doctrinal assent (required) and assent to pastoral practice (not required).

I agree. I’m traditional and think of myself as that, because so many ‘Catholics’ have embraced the modern world, and with it, quite liberal views on homosexuality, morality and abortion. However, although I have attended the TLM, it’s not my preferred way of worship. The Church allows for both the TLM and NO; She does not allow for abortion and gay unions/practicing homosexuality/adultery. We need to remember that God is our sole focus at Mass, not each other or ourselves. I’m a sinner and eternally grateful to be Catholic, and for the love our Lord has for us, since the beginning, and at the end.

 

[friardchips]

I respectfully disagree with you. I consider myself loyal to the Church and also a traditional Catholic. Full assent of the intellect to the doctrinal Magisterium of the Church is not a question here, the question is the implementation of that Magisterium and whether the praxis of implementation matches historical precedent.

In summary, that which was holy and true for previous generations is holy and true for the present as well. There can be no hermeneutic of rupture. Where I disagree with some decisions of the heirarchy is in the area of pastoral practice - there is a difference between doctrinal assent (required) and assent to pastoral practice (not required).

Hi! Sorry I haven’t replied to your posts yet. I am intending to give them all thought and respond duly but I’ve had lots of posts to respond to here and in other threads; what with the noise from tapping away on the laptop for so long I could have auditioned for Riverdance - I think I could introduce a few new rhythms!

 

[friardchips]

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.

It is fine if they want to grumble and moan but do they have to give themselves titles at the same time and make a big show of it - the next thing they’ll have their own flag!

I don’t think ‘progressive’ means this so maybe these ‘traditional Catholics’ are purposefully misinterpreting this term to have a gripe. Progressive is a bad word in the NT and rightly so. The Magisterium are not full of progressives, they are merely up-to-date.

I would purposefully steer clear of groups of people who have to moan about itty bitty things because in one sense this is ‘taking a swipe’ and is not within the circumference of charity (for the greater good). The Latin Mass is wonderful but that is not an excuse to belittle the new Mass which is also holy worship; otherwise, these people are not really benefitting from Church at all.

 

[sw85]

• yes, but if people are ‘attempting’ to make the term redundant, then maybe that is because the term is actually confusing and maybe shouldn’t be used in this way?

I don’t see how the term is even remotely confusing. When ordinary people use the word “traditional,” virtually no one thinks “apostolic tradition” (and that includes, I’d wager, most Anglophone Catholics). They think “preferring things/habits of older provenance.” That is just the case with traditional Catholics, who prefer devotions/liturgies/habits/etc. of older provenance. By contrast, those who don’t thus identify may either prefer devotions/liturgies/habits/etc. of newer preference, or be indifferent to the distinction.

• what smaller traditions are traditional Catholics so worried about please - can you give me a couple of examples to go by please?

The old form of the Mass and attendant aesthetics (everything from Latin, chant/polyphony, Roman vestments, ad orientem, etc.) is the obvious focal point.

• yes, but doctrines are important mirrors to scriptural truths present in every culture and Pope JPII underlined their importance. And as far as I have read the reports so far, those who would not be named as ‘traditional Catholics’, in present Magisterium, are doing exactly what you said - they are taking into account the reality of Scripture in this present life. So no one is unpacking, as you put it, but rather picking the fruits from the JPII era. This is what Christianity needs to do - pick the fruit when it is ripe. How else is the Church supposed to respond to the needs of the day? By looking back to times when so many things are not relevant? The Church is like an ark, it moves around in its journey over tempestuous waters, but it doesn’t change its structure, rather, it fills in the holes along the way.

The **third paragraph **is reaffirming what is happening in the Church now by those in authority. Picking the fruit. In this sense, to name oneself as a ‘traditional Catholic’, as something set apart, is to let the fruit drop on the floor and decay.

I’m afraid I just don’t know what any of this means.

 

[friardchips]

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.

Maybe polemic could be replaced with utter frustration about people who constantly wish to rock the boat. The world at large does that enough without people inside the Church having to do it also. Consider this more of an objective defence.

michaelhagg:

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.

With all due respect, this doesn’t make sense, not to me anyway. This seems to be a completely upturned view from the reality. As human beings we have to look at reality from where we are. Not from 1940. Because we are not in 1940 or 1950 or 1890 and not in 100BC.

And as a Roman Catholic you know that world views do not enter the Church - this sentiment doesn’t exactly suggest a lot of trust in authority.

The problem is because ‘traditional Catholics’ do not see with eyes at all. They appear to need some contact lenses. They think that the Bible is a thing of the past. Which is what you said. Why are you speaking of the past? If anyone believes this then one is believing only in a book of rules that existed two thousand odd years ago. It is the eternal Holy Spirit in us who looks through our eyes into the present, healing our understanding, and helping himself to grow organically into our hearts in all environments. The Word of God is actually living. As you know. The flame of faith is ALIVE. There is no past. Everything is relationship. Even the thinking of past theologians and Doctors of the Church are here now as is Jesus. There is no past. There is no time in spiritual terms because God is timeless. Eternity entering the time of each present day. Scripture is only history in one sense but it is alive and active forever and must be treated reverently as such.

michaelhagg:

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.

As in another post: current magisterium and indeed including all the saintly Popes who have lived this and last century are picking the fruits from doctrines set by St.JPII. and before.

michaelhagg:

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.

This seems rather petty. If one wants a statue they can put one in their house. And there are normally statues built into Churches anyway. In fact, I have to say that one’s worship is indeed distracted by statues. In some countries they go way over the top - one in particular, from my experience. Prayer is transcendent. This is good practice not to over burden the mind with statues. I haven’t heard any complaints ever, what-so-ever from Roman Catholics, about this. It seems like a twisting of reality again on the part of ‘traditional Catholics’. I am not saying you are doing this but if you have heard this argument then I would have to believe that you are incorrect.

michaelhagg:

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

Not exactly demonstrated to positively prove your point in opposition to my argument but you were clear in terms of the individual things you stated and I will now look at your further posts. And I gratefully received your insights with interest! Thank you.

 

[friardchips]

Dear michaelhagg, I have a website link from you so will have to read this before responding to your last few posts. Many thanks for this!

 

[friardchips]

I agree. I’m traditional and think of myself as that, because so many ‘Catholics’ have embraced the modern world, and with it, quite liberal views on homosexuality, morality and abortion. However, although I have attended the TLM, it’s not my preferred way of worship. The Church allows for both the TLM and NO; She does not allow for abortion and gay unions/practicing homosexuality/adultery. We need to remember that God is our sole focus at Mass, not each other or ourselves. I’m a sinner and eternally grateful to be Catholic, and for the love our Lord has for us, since the beginning, and at the end.

Dear ccmcmg, what a sincere and lovely statement to make. - a breath of fresh air in a high temperature debate.

In terms of the rest of the post, these liberal views expressed by people you know, who are feeling the pressure of ‘the spirit of the world’, are people obviously needing some prayer-reinforcement. I assume that you are ‘traditional’ in the sense that all Roman Catholics are if they haven’t hunched over to worldly pressures. I would bear in mind that every generation and era of Christians are subjected to pressures from the world, and danger. This is what it means to be a Christian. Otherwise, it would not have been stated as such, in the Bible. This is why I don’t like the term ‘traditional Catholics’; because if people named themselves with different titles in every era, every time there was pressure from outside, then we would have a million splinter groups to contend with. The magisterium has no place for the ‘spirit of the world’. I know because I read a book with one of these holy people speaking out against it.

 

[friardchips]

There’s really something to this, too. The Fourth Commandment obliges us not merely to “honor our father and mother” but to do so that we may live long in the land. It’s not merely about obedience, it is about rootedness. The traditions of the Roman rite furnish the reference points by which we live, and that lack of rootedness, that alienation from history, makes us slaves to the tyranny of the present moment.

Obedience is entwined with rootedness and vice-versa. Both are complicit in the faith of the Church making strides on a narrow path through the 'tyranny of the present moment.’ (poetic words in italics noted and appreciated!).

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’ll join you.

 

[Jack007]

Friardchips,

I thank you for all the hospitality you have given me since I joined the forum.

Could you ask your question again,in light of anything friends here have convinced you, keeping them as specific as possible? I am feeling confused.

 

[friardchips]

To the two in the front row, I quite enjoy sweet popcorn and salt popcorn mixed together, have you tried it?!..Welcome to the thread.

 

[Jack007]

Friardchips,

I thank you for all the hospitality you have given me since I joined the forum.

Could you ask your question again,in light of anything friends here have convinced you, keeping them as specific as possible? I am feeling confused.

If you still have doubts, please respond. Otjerwise, ignore.

 

[friardchips]

If you still have doubts, please respond. Otjerwise, ignore.

I have other posters I have not replied to yet and I’m not on here 24/7. If you are supposed to be studying, which you just let all of us know on this thread, then how is it you find the time to be on here (rhetorical)?! God bless.