What does "Traditional" even mean?

[John_Monaco]

Hello,

Before I begin, I would like to mention that I am not here to instigate any arguments, or propel this thread into a firestorm of insults. I am merely seeking an answer.

Now, I am curious to what “traditional” means, in reference to someone calling themselves “Traditional Catholic”. If we all believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, then how can we have divisions within the Church; e.g. “traditionalists”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, and so on. I observe the frustrations of many “traditionalists” in regards to the liturgy, modern practices of worship, and issues of doctrine, and it makes me wonder, who is anyone to tell the Church what is right, and what is wrong?

It seems to me that “traditionalists” do not approve of the way the Church functions today, because of minor and minute details. In this way, it would seem that “traditionalists” disregard what the Vicar of Christ has to say on issues, for they favor their own personal heritage and tradition with the faith. Who is more Catholic than the pope? I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

When you look at it, (especially in my personal experiences, which don’t mean everything), “traditionalists” are usually the Catholics who are often unhappy, and don’t share in the joy of the faith that Vatican II brought to the corners of the world. They are the ones who would rather dissect and criticize, rather than enjoy the Church which Christ founded. I understand that there are certain issues that face the Church, however, it appears that many “traditionalists” hold the view that if Vatican II never happened, none of the scandals, from sex-abuse to liturgical abuse would ever happen.

I do not say this to ignite an argument, so to speak. I am just truly curious why anyone would consider themselves “traditionalists”, and not just the “regular Roman Catholic”. Is there something wrong with us that do not call ourselves “traditionalists”, that we are not good enough to all be “Roman Catholic”? I also would prefer not to be labeled as “liberal”, for my curiosity. Such words are so subjective, that they do not offer a clear definition of the views.

I understand that aspects of the liturgy, issues concerning ecclesiology and ecumenism, among other things bother “traditionalists”, however, I do not understand why what went on, particularly at Vatican II, can ever be called invalid. Judging a Church council by using previous papal encyclicals doesn’t seem logical; that’s like claiming that the earth is flat, because that’s what the previous theories were, before the new, modern theory developed.

Anyhow, I’m just curious. I would appreciate answers that did not include invective language, as some of the previous posts concerning the same topic received. I just leave with one question: Who is more Catholic than the pope?

Peace and Love,

John

 

[VetA]

Hello,

Before I begin, I would like to mention that I am not here to instigate any arguments, or propel this thread into a firestorm of insults. I am merely seeking an answer.

Now, I am curious to what “traditional” means, in reference to someone calling themselves “Traditional Catholic”. If we all believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, then how can we have divisions within the Church; e.g. “traditionalists”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, and so on. I observe the frustrations of many “traditionalists” in regards to the liturgy, modern practices of worship, and issues of doctrine, and it makes me wonder, who is anyone to tell the Church what is right, and what is wrong?

It seems to me that “traditionalists” do not approve of the way the Church functions today, because of minor and minute details. In this way, it would seem that “traditionalists” disregard what the Vicar of Christ has to say on issues, for they favor their own personal heritage and tradition with the faith. Who is more Catholic than the pope? I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

When you look at it, (especially in my personal experiences, which don’t mean everything), “traditionalists” are usually the Catholics who are often unhappy, and don’t share in the joy of the faith that Vatican II brought to the corners of the world. They are the ones who would rather dissect and criticize, rather than enjoy the Church which Christ founded. I understand that there are certain issues that face the Church, however, it appears that many “traditionalists” hold the view that if Vatican II never happened, none of the scandals, from sex-abuse to liturgical abuse would ever happen.

I do not say this to ignite an argument, so to speak. I am just truly curious why anyone would consider themselves “traditionalists”, and not just the “regular Roman Catholic”. Is there something wrong with us that do not call ourselves “traditionalists”, that we are not good enough to all be “Roman Catholic”? I also would prefer not to be labeled as “liberal”, for my curiosity. Such words are so subjective, that they do not offer a clear definition of the views.

I understand that aspects of the liturgy, issues concerning ecclesiology and ecumenism, among other things bother “traditionalists”, however, I do not understand why what went on, particularly at Vatican II, can ever be called invalid. Judging a Church council by using previous papal encyclicals doesn’t seem logical; that’s like claiming that the earth is flat, because that’s what the previous theories were, before the new, modern theory developed.

Anyhow, I’m just curious. I would appreciate answers that did not include invective language, as some of the previous posts concerning the same topic received. I just leave with one question: Who is more Catholic than the pope?

Peace and Love,

John

for me it means that i like to assist at TLMs, pray in Latin, and follow the teachings of the pope and magisterium

 

[John_Monaco]

for me it means that i like to assist at TLMs, pray in Latin, and follow the teachings of the pope and magisterium

But can you not pray in Latin, and not need the title of “traditional”? I know at the seminary, I will experience both prayers in Latin, and in the vernacular. Is there anything wrong with doing it in the vernacular, as opposed to Latin? Both are very solemn and intimate, depending on the situation. And I am not a “traditionalist”, but I do follow the teachings of the pope and Magisterium. What I’m trying to get at from this post is, aren’t we all one and the same, if we abide by the teachings of our faith, as Roman Catholics? Is there a need for the label of “traditional”, “liberal”, “moderate”, and such?

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Main Entry: tra·di·tion
Pronunciation: rə-ˈdi-shən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradicion, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition — more at treason
Date: 14th century
1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style

Citing #1 through #3 it appears that to be defined as traditional something must have been around relatively unchanged for a considerable period of time, the TLM for example. I submit anything less than than that should be called a habit, the VII Mass for example; initiated in the 1960 time period and under revision, official or otherwise, ever since. Perhaps I can concede #4 might define the “Tradition” of VII, provided it ever stabilizes.

 

[VetA]

But can you not pray in Latin, and not need the title of “traditional”? I know at the seminary, I will experience both prayers in Latin, and in the vernacular. Is there anything wrong with doing it in the vernacular, as opposed to Latin? Both are very solemn and intimate, depending on the situation. And I am not a “traditionalist”, but I do follow the teachings of the pope and Magisterium. What I’m trying to get at from this post is, aren’t we all one and the same, if we abide by the teachings of our faith, as Roman Catholics? Is there a need for the label of “traditional”, “liberal”, “moderate”, and such?

that is what it means for me. idk how other people choose to define it. thats how i define it thats all i can vouch for…

 

[ljubim]

Hello,

Before I begin, I would like to mention that I am not here to instigate any arguments, or propel this thread into a firestorm of insults. I am merely seeking an answer.

Now, I am curious to what “traditional” means, in reference to someone calling themselves “Traditional Catholic”. If we all believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, then how can we have divisions within the Church; e.g. “traditionalists”, “liberals”, “conservatives”, and so on. I observe the frustrations of many “traditionalists” in regards to the liturgy, modern practices of worship, and issues of doctrine, and it makes me wonder, who is anyone to tell the Church what is right, and what is wrong?

It seems to me that “traditionalists” do not approve of the way the Church functions today, because of minor and minute details. In this way, it would seem that “traditionalists” disregard what the Vicar of Christ has to say on issues, for they favor their own personal heritage and tradition with the faith. Who is more Catholic than the pope? I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

When you look at it, (especially in my personal experiences, which don’t mean everything), “traditionalists” are usually the Catholics who are often unhappy, and don’t share in the joy of the faith that Vatican II brought to the corners of the world. They are the ones who would rather dissect and criticize, rather than enjoy the Church which Christ founded. I understand that there are certain issues that face the Church, however, it appears that many “traditionalists” hold the view that if Vatican II never happened, none of the scandals, from sex-abuse to liturgical abuse would ever happen.

I do not say this to ignite an argument, so to speak. I am just truly curious why anyone would consider themselves “traditionalists”, and not just the “regular Roman Catholic”. Is there something wrong with us that do not call ourselves “traditionalists”, that we are not good enough to all be “Roman Catholic”? I also would prefer not to be labeled as “liberal”, for my curiosity. Such words are so subjective, that they do not offer a clear definition of the views.

I understand that aspects of the liturgy, issues concerning ecclesiology and ecumenism, among other things bother “traditionalists”, however, I do not understand why what went on, particularly at Vatican II, can ever be called invalid. Judging a Church council by using previous papal encyclicals doesn’t seem logical; that’s like claiming that the earth is flat, because that’s what the previous theories were, before the new, modern theory developed.

Anyhow, I’m just curious. I would appreciate answers that did not include invective language, as some of the previous posts concerning the same topic received. I just leave with one question: Who is more Catholic than the pope?

Peace and Love,

John

Well, why do charismatics, progressives and ‘liberals’ do the same thing? You cannot single out traditional-minded Catholics on this one.

You are confusing schismatics with good, regular Catholics who prefer the TLM. I am “traditional” because I have come to love Latin, quiet reverent Masses, the different prayers that we don’t have in the Novus Ordo, and especially the method of receiving the Eucharist!!, and of course music, I prefer the Missa Orbis Factor to the St. Louis Jesuits Mass any day

What is the norm now used to be the fringe, coming from people who didn’t like the liturgy and wanted to change it. Just because that’s the norm now doesn’t mean it always was. Things change like crazy in the Church, when it comes to the liturgy, and while it’s still all valid (with the exception of serious abuses), some of us like to have something steady, dependable and reverent to rely on, something all of our ancestors were also familiar with.

 

[adstrinity]

John Monoco, you said, “minor and minute details”. Which ones do you mean?

 

[James924]

“Traditional” in my experience generally means that, when available, you tend to choose the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (i.e. The Tridentine) as well as, if available, the Sacraments in the Tridentine form.
It also tends to mean your worldview is (or at least you try to keep it) in conformity with traditional Catholic Worldview Theology, untouched by the popular culture (i.e. you prefer to hear Priests preach the truths about “politically incorrect” things like they are supposed to rather than stories about puppies like I had to listen to the last time I had to attend a Novus Ordo parish mass a couple weeks ago.)
It also tends to mean you think it is appropriate to wear your Sunday best on the Lord’s day and you won’t allow your daughters to go to mass dressed like porn-stars or even like their on their way to volleyball practice.
It also tends to mean a thousand other things that these days you tend to see more of among “Traditionals” than Novus Ordo goers. That does not mean that all of these things are exclusive to Traditionalists as I’m sure some Novus Ordo goers share some combination of some of those thousands of things, but these days you’ll tend to see Traditionalists doing the traditional things more often.

Also, as another poster pointed out, the meaning of the word traditional can be much more appropriately applied to the Tridentine Mass and sacraments than a half century old thing that hasn’t stopped being revised since it was first brought into existence by a man who believed we should strip everything Catholic from our worship so that protestants would like it more.

As a result of the “not-so-traditional” mindset and mass, Church attendance, belief in Transubstantiation, vocations to the Priesthood and religious life, general adherence to (or at least acknowledgment of) Catholic teaching are at an all time low.

It is simply a statistical fact that if you line up 10 Tridentine Mass goers and 10 Novus Ordo Mass goers and ask them if they believe in Transubstantiation or accept the Church’s teaching on Contraception or pre-marital sex…the 10 “Tridentines” will usually all answer yes while many if not most of the “Novus Ordos” will say “whats transpansionism?”
To be more accurate and serious: You won’t find many if any contraception users or transubstantiation deniers in a Tridentine Parish such as an FSSP parish…Novus Ordo parishes are full of them. In fact, on the two issues of Transubstantiation and Contraception, I can guarantee the deniers of Church teaching are in the majority in the average Novus Ordo parish.

Respectfully,
James

 

[James924]

some of us like to have something steady, dependable and reverent to rely on, something all of our ancestors were also familiar with.

If available, I’ll take Saint Therese’s Mass anytime!

 

[floresco]

It seems to me that “traditionalists” do not approve of the way the Church functions today, because of minor and minute details. In this way, it would seem that “traditionalists” disregard what the Vicar of Christ has to say on issues, for they favor their own personal heritage and tradition with the faith. Who is more Catholic than the pope? I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

You seem to be putting a lot of things together that don’t necessarily go together. I am Roman Catholic. I accept the authority of the Pope. I also recognize that some abuses and problems affect the OF liturgy (and the Pope himself does as much). I prefer the EF, and traditional practices and devotions in general. I base my understanding of what is right and wrong on the teaching of the Church.

I accept the authority of Vatican II documents while considering them ambiguous at points and often misinterpreted (and again, the Pope says this too). I do not call it invalid, nor do I call the OF invalid.

 

[James924]

It seems to me that “traditionalists” do not approve of the way the Church functions today, because of minor and minute details. In this way, it would seem that “traditionalists” disregard what the Vicar of Christ has to say on issues, for they favor their own personal heritage and tradition with the faith. Who is more Catholic than the pope? I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

You’re either mistakenly thinking about SSPX or purposely trying to lump all traditionalists in the SSPX category. SSPX are schismatics, Tridentine Traditionalists (i.e. FSSP or just people who prefer to attend the Tridentine) are not Schismatics and do not reject the Infallible Authority of any Church Teachings or Councils.

You should read more of Pope Benedict’s writings and you’ll find he fits into the category that you seem to dislike so much.

 

[Monty61]

Hello,

who is anyone to tell the Church what is right, and what is wrong?

Many people in the U.S. have the attitude that the Pope has no right to tell local churches what is wrong. This is is a “non” traditional attitude.

I am confused on why anyone would oppose Vatican II, and disagree with what authority says.

Most “tradtionalists” are not opposed to Vatican II. Personally I am not, but I do say that I am a traditionalist. We are opposed to the false implementation of Vatican II. For example, no Vatican II document required destruction of communion rails, standing for Communion, Communion in the hand, or the priest facing the people. These came later, from “expert” panels which included Protestant advisors.

traditionalists" are usually the Catholics who are often unhappy, and don’t share in the joy of the faith that Vatican II brought to the corners of the world.

A non traditionalist places “joy” in this life above everything else. Joy can be a transient thing. Church teaching should not be transient. Different things give different people joy, and even the same person will have less or more joy at different times in their lives. A lesbian wedding would make some people joyful, as would female ordination, married priests, liturgical dance, etc. But these are not part of the Church’s teaching.

A traditionalist would tell you that joy in this life is less important than joy in the next life. Sometimes we endure un joyful times or experiences, but as long as we are in a state of grace, it’s ok and we consider it an offering for our own sins and those of others, here or in purgatory.

And, as you may have noticed, Vatican II hasn’t exactly brought joy to all corners of the world. People who it tried to appease (Protestants) still disagree with the Church.

John

 

[At_Trent]

Anyhow, I’m just curious. I would appreciate answers that did not include invective language, as some of the previous posts concerning the same topic received. I just leave with one question: Who is more Catholic than the pope?

Peace and Love,

John

Hi John, first thank you for discerning a vocation.Hat’s off.

The labels are sometimes appropriate. For example, if a Roman Catholic votes for a candidate that is pro-choice, that is taking liberty to dismiss Church teaching is it not ? Thus he is seen as a liberal.

And, after VII, revolutionary changes were implemented. Whether we like it or not, this caused division. The Church has been fighting revolutionary changes, both in Her teachings and Liturgy for a very long time. But all of the sudden, sweeping changes were made, not due to organic growth or development, but again, due to a revolution of sorts.

Those powers that were at the Council, all took the Oath Against Modernism. And those calling the shots broke it. Pure and simple.

Those who style themselves trads, don’t understand how this can happen. The changes were revolutionary. Men of the Hierarchy coined the term traditionalist as it applie to the Church long before VII.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?”
Pope Pius XII

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.”
St. Vincent of Lerins († 445)

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before she returns to the catacombs.”
Pope Pius XII

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius, AD 373

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

You see, it’s the teachings throughout the Church’s history the traditionalists embrace. Look at ecumenism. The term used to mean ecumenism of return, that is, return to the Catholic Church. Today, ecumenism has come to mean “it’s all good, we are all Christians”. It’s not all good. Our Lord said Church to Peter, not Churches.

It is so hard for one who has been raised in the post VII Church to understand why trads feel as they do. Very understandable to me as a trad that these folks group think we are kooks. But we just reject what the Church has always rejected.

Have you ever read The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita ? And the resulting Oath Against Modernism ?