G
gracepoole
Guest
It’s actually what the poster I responded to noted, as I quoted earlier.
- Status
J
JackVk
Guest
Don’t forget that they also believe that the “post-conciliar Church” is a puppet of the Jews, Freemasons, Communists, Protestants, and Emmanuel Goldstein’s brain in a jar all at once!
Don’t forget geocentrism and Holocaust denial, either!
These types are mad because Vatican II took away their favorite loophole in the 5th Commandment, that we can’t go out and kill heretics in Jesus’ Name.
(Sorry, these extremist types have really been getting under my skin, lately, so I couldn’t resist
)
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The Tridentine Mass became the OF Mass in 1570. During the following centuries, there were five “typical” editions of the Roman Missal issued. Typical editions largely consisted of textual corrections, and the last two typical editions were issued in 1920 and 1962. There was no typical edition issued in 1955, and there is no 1955 Roman Missal.
However, in 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized the printing of texts concerning Holy Week that he had begun introducing in 1951 and that he had made compulsory in 1955. These changes, though limited to the the liturgy of only five days of the Church’s years, required modification of Cannon Law (e.g., only Midnight Christmas Mass had been permitted prior to one hour before dawn). Many believe these changes anticipated Vatican II.
But I had not once heard during the past forty-five years that traditional Catholics were prepared to man the barricades over this.
However, in 1955 Pope Pius XII authorized the printing of texts concerning Holy Week that he had begun introducing in 1951 and that he had made compulsory in 1955. These changes, though limited to the the liturgy of only five days of the Church’s years, required modification of Cannon Law (e.g., only Midnight Christmas Mass had been permitted prior to one hour before dawn). Many believe these changes anticipated Vatican II.
But I had not once heard during the past forty-five years that traditional Catholics were prepared to man the barricades over this.
Well, there are traditional Catholic, non-sedevacatist in good standing with the local bishop and worthy to receive Communion who are leery of the 1955 changes. The ten-foot-pole reference was an exaggerated over-the-top hyperbole.
I have met them. They regard the changes as “foreshadowing” the dreaded Novus Ordo not least because the changes were overseen by that awful, awful Freemason Annibale Bugnini. They will or may accept the Ordinary Form as valid, but will have nothing to do with it.
And, they’re there in your traditional community in union with the Holy See. They may not be sedevacantist or anything like that but at the same time, I know of people who would culpably miss Sunday Mass if they can’t attend the EF, even though there are tons of OF around.
Oh yes, there are trads who are, at the risk of sounding rude, “radder” than others, right in your FSSP community. I’m not afraid to use the term when it’s suitable.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Rude or otherwise, the term isn’t suitable. “Radical” by definition means favoring drastic change from accepted or traditional forms. I’ll refrain from taking a position on the matter, but by definition it was the Novis Ordo Mass that was radical. It’s a simple fact, as the word is commonly understood, and I guess the Southern Poverty Law Center will just have to get used to it.
G
gracepoole
Guest
If a Catholic rejects the validity of the Ordinary Form, she is no longer a Catholic. If one recognizes it as a valid form of the Mass but sees problems with how it’s carried out and prefers the Extraordinary Form, one might self-identify as a traditional Catholic. All of this is apart from whether she’s participating in valid Masses, like those said by the FSSP. In other words, if one interiorly rejects the OF or anything else that the Church holds to be valid, she isn’t a Catholic no matter what group she associates with or what she pretends to be on the outside. I think we agree on this point.
No doubt there are those who are more or less traditional than others, even within the traditional movement. But the term “radical traditionalist” was created by the SPLC to describe what it terms “hard-core anti-Semites,” white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers. The only positive thing the SPLC does in its description and coinage of this term is to separate what it calls “radical traditionalists” from traditional Catholics. I would suggest, then, that we can describe some traditionalists as more or less traditional than others. But none of them are “radical” unless they’ve broken away from Church teachings, rejected the OF, Nostra Aetate, etc. And we know this because the organization that’s created and defined the term “radical traditionalist” marks this distinction. This is why I say the term has no place in a discussion of a definition of traditional Catholicism.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I don’t mean to be critical, but this is entirely incorrect. Baptism is a sacrament. It cannot ever be undone. Even an excommunicated Catholic remains a Catholic.
I would say it is not for the SPLC to define what does or doe not make a traditional Catholic. The SPLC is a secular organization with its own ideological agenda, and what they might have to say about the Catholic Church is, in my opinion, irrelevant. The term “radical traditionalists” is an oxymoron and a revision of history. There are groups, such as the SSPX, that do not accept the teaching of Vatican II or the authority of the Pope and are consequently are not in communion with the Church. The correct term for such groups would be “reactionary” and not radical. But the members of these groups or societies are indeed Catholic, including those few who have been excommunicated.
But yes, I agree the term “radical traditionalist” has no proper place in this discussion.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Sorry – how about a Catholic in good standing or a fully adherent Catholic or…? I do know what you’re saying. I’ve often reminded others of the same point here on CAF and of course I fully agree.
Correct. Which is why I wrote of this group defining a term it created (radical traditionalist) instead.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Sure, I understand. My point was that “radical” and “traditionalist” have opposite meanings. The term “radical traditionalist” literally does not make any sense. I think I understand where the SPLC might be coming from, and it would have to do with the changes to the Easter Week liturgy. But as a secular and political organization, I just don’t think they are able to objectively evaluate the meaning of the traditional liturgy prior to 1955 and give due consideration to its historical context. Their viewpoint is certain to be only politically correct, and as such I for one really don’t care what they think.
It is a question for Roman Catholics. I was a teenager when the change occurred. It was a very minor change in the liturgy, occurred only during Holy Week, and it went largely unnoticed. We did discuss it in religion class at the time, and it is properly understood in the context of ecumenism. It did not have anything remotely like the weight and significance it seems the SPLC might prefer to give it. That is a revision of history. It was scarcely noticed at the time, and though I was an altar server I wasn’t even aware of the change before we discussed it in class.
F
friardchips
Guest
B
boar2roar
Guest
I think wikipedia sums it up nicely. “Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the customs, traditions, liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of teaching of the Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). They are commonly associated with an attachment to the Eucharistic liturgy often called the Tridentine, Traditional Latin or extraordinary form of the Mass.”
The SPLC itself is a left wing hate group, better to find a different source.
The SPLC itself is a left wing hate group, better to find a different source.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, and the discussion has been interesting. But the OP asks, “What exactly does Traditional Catholicism mean?” This is not the same thing as “Traditionalist Catholic”. It would seem the discussion got a bit sidetracked with this difference.
C
commenter
Guest
The problem with this definition is that it lumps together 2 very different groups:
- those who fully accept the current Magisterium, the teaching authority of Pope Francis, and their local Bishop-ordinary, but seek restoration and expansion of certain forms that were more available before Vatican II than they are now. They look to Tradition, but consider what the current pope teaches as part of “Tradition”.
- Those who may regard Francis as “pope” in a technical or administrative sense, but choose not to be influenced by his teachings as they are by statements of popes before 1958. They may agree with their local bishop-ordinary sometimes, but are not influenced by, or under his teaching authority as their Ordinary. They evaluate the pope and bishop by a standard set by websites; they don’t evaluate websites according to a standard set by Pope Francis and the bishop.
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Let me repeat your exact quote: “Ultimately, from what I gather, TCs view themselves as more pious…”
This is a stereotype and generalization of traditional Catholics. It is also slander because it demeans and portrays traditional Catholics as being pompous and arrogant.
Are the Hebrew Catholics somehow not virtuous or “putting themselves above others” because they identify with the Church differently than you do? How about Polish Catholics? How about Carthusians, who celebrate their own version of the Mass?
Traditional Catholics are still Catholic. They are permitted by the Pope to celebrate the Extraordinary form of the Mass. They are in full communion with Rome. Just because they prefer the Latin Rite doesn’t make them any more “pious” or “above others” as you suggest.
Catholic schools used to teach Latin. And, yes, Latin should still be taught as it is still the official language of the Church.
The Latin Mass was the Mass that was practiced for centuries before Vatican II was implemented. The changes brought about by Vatican II are still, historically speaking, a relatively new phenomenon.
The Pope has authorized the use of the Latin Mass. It is not forbidden. We have every right to celebrate the Latin Mass and full authority to do so.
The same way they did for centuries: Catholic education.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
There are also Catholics who regard the pope as pope, but are not in full communion since the Vatican I declaration of infallibility.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
We have always been allowed to celebrate the Mass in Latin. With the novus ordo, permission was also given to celebrate in the vernacular - but Latin has always remained the language of the Mass.
C
commenter
Guest
Those people must be really old now.
OK, I’m aware of the Old Catholic movement, with many spin offs, at least for the purpose of getting Apostolic Succession. But groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, I would not consider Traditional Catholic. They are separate denominations. They have their own traditionalists, with different kinds of priorities.
Some Old Catholic churches have their own “liberal” and “traditional” wings, where “traditional” means different things, within a given Old Catholic denomination, or between a conservative group like the PNCC and liberals associated with Utrecht. One could argue that Lutherans and Anglicans are “Old Catholics” in that they draw the line earlier than Vatican I. Perhaps all Protestants are “Old Catholics”, some would reject all innovations since, perhaps, 325 AD. Every new Old Catholic group insists we are not something new, we still are the ancient, continuing Catholic Church minus recent innovations. Many “traditional” Anglicans and Lutherans still identify themselves as Catholics.
Is the SSPX* now* gradually becoming an “Old Catholic” movement - i. e. a separate denomination like the PNCC - or is it still just a more conservative wing of the RCC? The answer might be different for different people, and may change over time.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I still think “Traditional Catholicism” is a benign term meaning “the traditions of the Church”. The faith is two-thousand years old, and many traditions are historical. Many things changed following Vatican II, but if it is thought that everything preceding these changes was “wrong” there is an enormous problem.
The Tridentine Mass was promulgated in 1570, was the OF Mass for nearly four centuries and has roots in earlier years of Christianity. How could it have become wrong to observe the Tridentine Mass? Something occurred during the implementation of Vatican II that disrupted the continuum of Catholicism. The transition was very quick in relative terms and occurred during a period of unforeseen general social upheaval. The result was a division that had not been there before, and I think the Church yet struggles with it. Don’t we see this on this very thread?
The Tridentine Mass was promulgated in 1570, was the OF Mass for nearly four centuries and has roots in earlier years of Christianity. How could it have become wrong to observe the Tridentine Mass? Something occurred during the implementation of Vatican II that disrupted the continuum of Catholicism. The transition was very quick in relative terms and occurred during a period of unforeseen general social upheaval. The result was a division that had not been there before, and I think the Church yet struggles with it. Don’t we see this on this very thread?
C
commenter
Guest
It never became wrong to observe the Tridentine Mass. It always was wrong to break with the Pope and the bishop of your diocese.
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Practically speaking, the Tridentine Mass was difficult to find prior to the changes implemented by Pope Benedict. Even today, there are still individuals that seek to suppress the Latin Mass for any of a number of reasons.
- Status