What exactly does "Traditional Catholicism" mean?

[gracepoole]

The problem with this definition is that it lumps together 2 very different groups:

1. 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”.

and

1. 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.

2 very different groups!

Websites? :ehh: And what standard for the evaluation of websites was established by Pope Francis and bishops?

I still think “Traditional Catholicism” is a benign term meaning “the traditions of the Church”.

Around these parts, yes. But outside the world of CAF, this is not how others define traditional Catholicism. They’re more likely to define the term as Catholicism that has been practiced for the past 2000+ years free of the modernism they believe has entered the Church within the past fifty years.

 

[Denise1957]

W
They’re more likely to define the term as Catholicism that has been practiced for the past 2000+ years free of the modernism they believe has entered the Church within the past fifty years.

If by modernism entering the Church in the last fifty years, you mean to say that the effects of modernism has entered the Church, then yes, I would agree that this is the traditionalist view in general, outside of CAF. However, most traditionalists believe that modernism entered the Church long before fifty years ago. Pope St. Pius X battled the modernists and modernism in the church, and he died about a hundred years ago - in 1914. There have been other heresies which the Church has had to deal with, but the latest problem is that of modernism - or at least that’s my understanding of the situation. Others may have a different opinion.

 

[gracepoole]

If by modernism entering the Church in the last fifty years, you mean to say that the effects of modernism has entered the Church, then yes, I would agree that this is the traditionalist view in general, outside of CAF. However, most traditionalists believe that modernism entered the Church long before fifty years ago. Pope St. Pius X battled the modernists and modernism in the church, and he died about a hundred years ago - in 1914. There have been other heresies which the Church has had to deal with, but the latest problem is that of modernism - or at least that’s my understanding of the situation. Others may have a different opinion.

I would only caution against describing “most” traditional Catholics this way. For example:

Edited by moderator.

 

[Denise1957]

I would only caution against describing “most” traditional Catholics this way. For example: remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/601-what-exactly-is-a-traditionalist

Thanks, but I’m not interested in the article you linked to. It’s fine if you have an opinion that differs from that of most traditionalists.

 

[gracepoole]

Thanks, but I’m not interested in the article you linked to. It’s fine if you have an opinion that differs from that of most traditionalists.

What evidence do you have for your claim that “most traditionalists” believe x, y, or z? I’m fine with having differing opinions, of course – just curious as to why you’d dismiss mine without having read the article to which I linked.

 

[Denise1957]

What evidence do you have for your claim that “most traditionalists” believe x, y, or z? I’m fine with having differing opinions, of course – just curious as to why you’d dismiss mine without having read the article to which I linked.

If you would like to respond to what my post was actually addressing, rather than my use of the term, “most,” then I’ll respond. Otherwise, your argument can lead to being contentious, and I’d rather not respond to it.

 

[gracepoole]

If you would like to respond to what my post was actually addressing, rather than my use of the term, “most,” then I’ll respond. Otherwise, your argument can lead to being contentious, and I’d rather not respond to it.

Wow, that honestly wasn’t my intention at all. I don’t disagree with your comments about traditionalists who have complaints that extend back before VII. They do indeed exist. That’s why I said that I would **only **caution about the use of the word “most.” My experience with traditionalists is more akin to that described in the article to which I linked and for the most part, its description seems to focus on VII-induced changes (or at least from the author’s perspective, I should say). I’m happy to be wrong – I have no dog in the fight other than a general respect for those who identify as either traditional or modern Catholics. I’m just curious about why you believe differently regarding most traditional Catholics’ beliefs.

 

[Thomas_White]

Around these parts, yes. But outside the world of CAF, this is not how others define traditional Catholicism. They’re more likely to define the term as Catholicism that has been practiced for the past 2000+ years free of the modernism they believe has entered the Church within the past fifty years.

That is fine as a definition. But the distinction I was trying to make is the difference between traditional Catholic practices (Traditional Catholicism) and those who favor those practices (Traditional Catholics) over more recent ones–primarily those of post-Vatican II.

The reason I wanted to point out this difference is that, for example, the Tridentine Mass is the traditional Catholic Mass, and its many virtues can be described and discussed as part of “Traditional Catholicism” without introducing the issue of favoring the OF Mass over the Tridentine Mass, and vice versa. This invariably results in a difference of opinion with subsequent disagreement. This isn’t necessary when discussing Traditional Catholicism, which does not need to be in contradiction to anything.

 

[eamonnroma]

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.

My original point was lost. The Latin Mass has never been forbidden, the novus ordo, is the Mass in Latin, and can be translated to the vernacular. I think if anyone intends the Tridentine Mass they should state such.

As stated in this post it is the Tridentine Mass which leads to discussion.

When I hear the term ‘Latin Mass’, I immediately think of the novus ordo in Latin. That for me is a mark of my being a traditional Catholic - I follow the teachings of the Church. The Church clearly does not want the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated. It allows it or tolerates it.

 

[R_H_Benson]

My original point was lost. The Latin Mass has never been forbidden, the novus ordo, is the Mass in Latin, and can be translated to the vernacular. I think if anyone intends the Tridentine Mass they should state such.

As stated in this post it is the Tridentine Mass which leads to discussion.

When I hear the term ‘Latin Mass’, I immediately think of the novus ordo in Latin. That for me is a mark of my being a traditional Catholic - I follow the teachings of the Church. The Church clearly does not want the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated. It allows it or tolerates it.

The Mass of Bl. Paul VI and the Tridentine Mass are both expressions of one and the same Roman Rite.

The idea that the Church “cleary does not want the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated” is false. This is made evident by Pope Benedict’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Far more than simply “allowing or tolerating” the Traditional Latin Mass (the Mass which so many great saints assisted at, celebrated, etc.), Pope Benedict affirmed it as the “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite”.

The Church will never abrogate the Tridentine Mass (even if for a few decades in the wake of Vatican II that seemed to be the case, it never was so officially by any decree of the Church). I suggest you read Pope St. Pius V’s bull Quo primum.

On a side note, I am overjoyed that devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (I am not required to refer to this Mass by the term “Extraordinary Form”, although I do recognize it as such) seems to be flourishing, with many newly ordained priests discovering the lost treasures of Catholic tradition. It seems a new Traditional Latin Mass community or news of a Traditional Latin Mass being offered at a parish on Sundays is occurring every week.

 

[Thomas_White]

I would only caution against describing “most” traditional Catholics this way. For example:

I read the article and thought it excellent. Thanks for the link.

 

[boar2roar]

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.

PNCC is not traditionalist catholic. They are very similar to regular Catholicism just with an independent administration and married priests . They are an outlier among old Catholics though.

The main body of old catholics as far as I’m aware is overall very liberal. They’re very similar to Episcopalians, Anglicans, and high church protestants. If anything they are even more liberal then these groups which is why their “old” monicker is one of the most deceptive titles among any group considering they make it sound like they are ancient christians not the modernists they are. PNCC is a conservative outlier and isn’t even in communion anymore.

I don’t think so. The Old catholic church though now looked on as a minuscule curiosity was a dangerous attempt and conglomeration by liberals , progressives and enlightenment types, combined with secular/government forces (and certain anti catholic groups like COE and ROC) that wanted to nationalize the church and control it. It failed of curse but it could have done great damage in the german influenced areas. It didn’t care about preserving anything it was both an attempted power grab and partly an attempted make over of beliefs. The SSPX is on the opposite side of the spectrum and they don’t have secular support. They are mearly retuning to what was, not going off the wall like old catholics. That they fractured into groups like SSPV indicates that they aren’t willing to throw away Rome and are conscience of not becoming a protestant like group.

 

[StGerardMajella]

My original point was lost. The Latin Mass has never been forbidden, the novus ordo, is the Mass in Latin, and can be translated to the vernacular. I think if anyone intends the Tridentine Mass they should state such.

…or you should ask for clarification should you fail to grasp others’ terminology. For traditional Catholics, the usage of the terms “Latin Mass” and “Tridentine Mass” are interchangeable.

Hence, we have the terms, “Latin Mass Society of …” (Ireland, Scotland, etc.), which refers exclusively to organized groups that advocate for the Tridentine Mass.

The Church clearly does not want the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated. It allows it or tolerates it.

Doubtful.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

“…Eminent among the Popes who showed such proper concern was Saint Gregory the Great, who sought to hand on to the new peoples of Europe both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture amassed by the Romans in preceding centuries. He ordered that the form of the sacred liturgy, both of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Divine Office, as celebrated in Rome, should be defined and preserved. He greatly encouraged those monks and nuns who, following the Rule of Saint Benedict, everywhere proclaimed the Gospel and illustrated by their lives the salutary provision of the Rule that “nothing is to be preferred to the work of God.” In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman usage, enriched the faith and piety, as well as the culture, of numerous peoples. It is well known that in every century of the Christian era the Church’s Latin liturgy in its various forms has inspired countless saints in their spiritual life, confirmed many peoples in the virtue of religion and enriched their devotion…”

Hardly sounds like papal authority “tolerates” the Tridentine Mass. Instead, the Church formally and officially recognizes its inherent value.

No doubt that there are detractors, mostly from the more politically liberal side of the faithful.

 

[boar2roar]

The problem with this definition is that it lumps together 2 very different groups:

1. 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”.

and

1. 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.

2 very different groups!

Sure you could subdivide traditional catholics into good standing, complicated standing (SSPX), and sedevacantists (SSPV CMRI). Broadly they represent the set of people considered traditionalist catholics because of their views and practices.

 

[eamonnroma]

I am personally in favour of a plurality or rites. The Roman rite, the Tridentine rite, the Carmelite rite, the Celtic rite, the use of Eastern rites in the Roman Church and so on.

The fact is that the Church, in its wisdom, has decided, or decided long ago, to suppress expressions of local faith and liturgy, and requires us to follow a standard form of liturgical prayer, the Roman rite, in Latin or the vernacular. So if we follow church tradition, ie obey the church, we should embrace the Roman rite.

Even the term ‘extraordinary’ (which of course means ‘not usual’) form of the Mass, shows that it is not part of the regular modern tradition of the Church.

I sometimes watch Tridentine rite Masses on the internet, there is no possibility of attending one where I live. It is inherently beautiful, devotional and prayerful. It fills me with nostalgia, I was born in 1956, so I am still young enough to remember, just. I was an altar boy from as soon as it was possible for me to be so.

So, therefore I am not ‘against’ this older form of the Mass - older because there are many others, even older- I would love to attend one, one day. My point however remains, that being a Roman catholic, the tradition of being a Roman catholic, demands that we follow the will of the Church. The will of the Church is the ‘new way’, with everything it entails - the Novus Ordo, EMHCs, female altar servers and so on.

One characteristic of the Roman church is obedience - you want to be in the club, you obey the rules.

I am saying that the Church asks for unity, but also uniformity.

 

[Denise1957]

The will of the Church is the ‘new way’, with everything it entails - the Novus Ordo, EMHCs, female altar servers and so on.

One characteristic of the Roman church is obedience - you want to be in the club, you obey the rules.

How exactly did the Church legislate for the ‘New Way,’ and everything it entails? After all, female altar servers, the OF Mass, and EMHC’s aren’t mentioned in the Vatican ll documents, as far as I know.

Another question: Communion in the hand isn’t mentioned in the Vll documents, either. In fact, Pope Paul Vl didn’t want communion in the hand, but he gave in to the pressure to have it allowed, but he stressed that it wasn’t a good idea, and strongly urged bishops to comply with the old law of communion on the tongue, but his wishes weren’t obeyed by bishops, and after awhile, the new norm became communion in the hand, which was not supposed to be universally allowed. How’s that for obedience?

 

[commenter]

Sure you could subdivide traditional catholics into good standing, complicated standing (SSPX), and sedevacantists (SSPV CMRI). Broadly they represent the set of people considered traditionalist catholics because of their views and practices.

The SSPV regards the papal chair as vacant; they also regard as vacant the chair of the bishop-ordinary, at the local cathedral. They may accept the local bishops who happen to live in my city as “bishops”, but only in the sense of sacramental ministers, no one has authority of the Diocesan Ordinary.

With regard to the local diocese, where 99% of Catholic life takes place, the position of the SSPX is the same as the SSPV. All 3 of my local bishops can confirm; none is the bishop-ordinary of that diocese, in the view of SSPX, and SSPV. They regard the chair in my, and your cathedral, as vacant.

 

[Brendan_64]

However, most traditionalists believe that modernism entered the Church long before fifty years ago. Pope St. Pius X battled the modernists and modernism in the church, and he died about a hundred years ago - in 1914. There have been other heresies which the Church has had to deal with, but the latest problem is that of modernism

There have always been heresies, but the issue now is that modernism seems to have taken hold, not just amongst a radical, liberal fringe, but it now seems to have become almost ‘mainstream’ in certain sections of our Church. It has gotten to the point now that many ordinary Catholics might almost think that modernist views are now part of accepted Church doctrine. Catechesis is so bad now, and that also includes many clergy.

 

[friardchips]

Let me repeat your exact quote: “Ultimately, from what I gather, TCs view themselves as more pious…”

This is not slander.

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.

This is not slander.

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?

Virtue is not putting oneself above others.

This is not slander.

Having differences of opinion or preference in a matter is not the issue.

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.

I know it doesn’t.

There is no such thing as ‘Traditional Catholic’ unless of course TCs have broken with Rome.

Catholic schools used to teach Latin. And, yes, Latin should still be taught as it is still the official language of the Church.

Good luck with implementing this.

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.

Not that new in down-to-earth everyday real terms.

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.

Who said it was forbidden?!

The same way they did for centuries: Catholic education.

Ah. Well again, good luck with implementing this.

 

[friardchips]

There have always been heresies, but the issue now is that modernism seems to have taken hold, not just amongst a radical, liberal fringe, but it now seems to have become almost ‘mainstream’ in certain sections of our Church. It has gotten to the point now that many ordinary Catholics might almost think that modernist views are now part of accepted Church doctrine. Catechesis is so bad now, and that also includes many clergy.

‘Modernism’ is a strawman argument for ‘TCs’ who don’t wish to get with the program hidden amongst a feigned act of piety.

The only time I have had the unfortunate experience of witnessing progressive ideas were from ‘TCs’ who had very strange interpretations of Scripture.

Piety is not opinion-deep only and neither does it shine through attention to external intricacies only.

‘Tradition’ is a word ‘TCs’ have tried to make their own but in actual fact ‘tradition’ is a foundation, a gift, for all Catholics.

‘Catholic’ means ‘all embracing’. ‘Roman Catholic’ means those who are docile to the work of the Holy Spirit under the guidance of the magisterium (and a host of other sacred details). Those who class themselves with a special title are not ‘all embracing’. It is so simple to understand that it makes my eyes water having to explain.