What exactly does "Traditional Catholicism" mean?

[StGerardMajella]

This is not slander.

Traditional Catholics are no different from any other Catholic.

Virtue is not putting oneself above others.

Traditional Catholics simply adhere to a valid form of the Mass that is in full communion with Rome. We are all part of a universal Church regardless of our differences in preference for liturgical style.

Who said it was forbidden?!

Fortunately, the tide is turning as the Tridentine Mass is exceptionally popular and adherents are growing in number at all age brackets.

Good luck with implementing this.

If we do survive the current crisis in modernism, when the next generation takes the reigns of temporal and religious authority, we will see a swing back towards more conservative values alongside a continued growth of traditional Catholicism.

 

[Megan7]

Statistical evidence differs from your own personal experience. It is not possible to make such sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about a whole faction of the Church worldwide with any degree of accuracy or credibility. In some circles, this would be called slander, which is hardly a Catholic virtue.

That depends on the parents. My children are attending a traditional Catholic school where they will learn Latin from a very young age. This past year, for example, my son attended the Latin Mass weekly at his school, with daily visits to the chapel as well.

Unfortunately, most Catholic schools in the Western world no longer teach Latin. This transpired post-Vatican II, which is rather strange considering Latin is the official language of the Church. Historically, Catholic schools did teach Latin.

For those unfamiliar with Latin, you’d be amazed how much of the language you can learn just from regular Latin Mass attendance. Most Roman Missals for the Latin Mass have the Latin right alongside the English translation. Following along with the liturgy utilizing the English translation is never a problem for those individuals that are less inclined to learn a foreign language.

Nationally, the traditional Catholic seminaries that espouse the Latin Mass are busting at the seams with applicants for the priesthood. Every year, we see rapid growth in the Latin Mass ever since Pope Benedict liberalized its use just a few years ago.

When I am talking about families, I am talking about parents with up to ten children or more all attending Latin Mass. These are very large Catholic families with many children. Generally speaking, you won’t find this same phenomenon as common in other churches.

Hello

Thanks for the lovely post

If I may ask, what state, town are you in? Or what is the school your children are attending? You mentioned that they are learning Latin. Do they have Latin classes daily? I think that this is what my sister & her family are looking for. If you would like, you could send me a private message with the details.

Thanks in advance

God bless you & yours.

+Pax

Megan​

StGerardMajella,

** I would love to hear about the traditional Catholic school you mentioned in your

post. Could you please post it here or send me a private message with the information.

Thank you! God bless you! **

 

[Thomas_White]

‘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.

So, then, “traditional Catholics” are not Roman Catholics, right? And this outlook is “all embracing”?

 

[Denise1957]

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

I don’t really understand your comment above. Could you explain it further?

 

[R_H_Benson]

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.

Have you not read Summorum Pontificum? The Extraordinary Form has been affirmed as a different expression of the one same Roman Rite.

You mention “modern traditions”. Do you not see the absurdity of such a concept? The very definition of tradition is that it has been handed down organically from generations through the ages. Please elaborate, then, on what these “modern traditions” are, and how did they become “traditions” if they are “modern”? Sounds more like innovation to me.

Remember this of your Catholic brothers and sisters attached (while remaining in full communion with the Holy Father, Pope Francis) to the Tridentine Mass, devotions, and rites:

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

 

[Brendan_64]

‘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.

So you haven’t seen what’s just happened in Ireland then?

Nor have you ever had the misfortune to hear indifferentism preached from the pulpit under the guise of ecumenism? You’ve never heard it preached that all Christians are part of one separated Church (an over-arching invisible Church over and above the visible Church) You’ve never heard ‘Catholic’ lay organisations and individuals (or even clergy) speak in favour of women priests? Arguing that doctrine should evolve over time to represent the spirit of the times, that we are now more ‘grown up’ in our faith these days (unlike in the past when we were presumably ignorant, unevolved barbarians).

If you have never experienced this then I envy you, you must live in a very orthodox parish and diocese.

 

[Megan7]

Have you not read Summorum Pontificum? The Extraordinary Form has been affirmed as a different expression of the one same Roman Rite.

You mention “modern traditions”. Do you not see the absurdity of such a concept? The very definition of tradition is that it has been handed down organically from generations through the ages. Please elaborate, then, on what these “modern traditions” are, and how did they become “traditions” if they are “modern”? Sounds more like innovation to me.

Remember this of your Catholic brothers and sisters attached (while remaining in full communion with the Holy Father, Pope Francis) to the Tridentine Mass, devotions, and rites:

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

:clapping:

Great post:thumbsup: Thank you! & God bless you, R H Benson!

“Modern traditions” I do not get it as well…

 

[friardchips]

So you haven’t seen what’s just happened in Ireland then?

So this is down to modernity in the Church? Widening one’s thinking might be the next step. If holes are made in the Church it is because there are those who don’t get on with it.

Nor have you ever had the misfortune to hear indifferentism preached from the pulpit under the guise of ecumenism?

No. And doubt I ever will. This sounds like a concocted attack against the Church if ever I heard one. Maybe there is the odd minister who gets a bit confused but to put that down to the Church as a whole rather than individuals is a little sulky to say the least.

You’ve never heard it preached that all Christians are part of one separated Church (an over-arching invisible Church over and above the visible Church).

Uh? We are! Did you not know that all Christians were at one point Catholics. Lutherans and Anglicans split later on. All they need to do is jump back on the Ark. But at heart they are on the same side.

You’ve never heard ‘Catholic’ lay organisations and individuals (or even clergy) speak in favour of women priests?

Only if they have been over-exposed to protestant influence. And the spirit of the world is always a danger in every era. Ill-thinking is in the individual not to be found in Church-speak as a whole.

Arguing that doctrine should evolve over time to represent the spirit of the times, that we are now more ‘grown up’ in our faith these days (unlike in the past when we were presumably ignorant, unevolved barbarians).

No one argues that doctrine should evolve over time and no one reckons past saints to be barbarians?!

It is true, however, that understanding of Scripture deepens through the witness in each era. Nothing else makes sense unless you want to have a Church who behaves in medieval fashion in a contemporary world. Needs in different times must be met at the same time as measuring up those needs to the doctrines and dogmas of the faith. In fact, fruit can grow from sacred truths, when recognised and lived in this way.

If you have never experienced this then I envy you, you must live in a very orthodox parish and diocese.

I attend a normal parish which appreciates everything that the Church is rather than one that thinks it knows better.

And it is holy and it is righteous and it is a blessing.

How about being grateful for what we do have rather than playing the blame game. If we all did that then we are by our very action and words doing what the worldly do.

Militant athiests, TCs and progressives - none of which represent the Church - are all very similar in the role of anti which they play, and also downplay when it suits them, for effect.

 

[friardchips]

Traditional Catholics are no different from any other Catholic.

Then why not just call yourselves Catholics?

 

[Thomas_White]

Militant athiests, TCs and progressives - none of which represent the Church - are all very similar in the role of anti which they play, and also downplay when it suits them, for effect.

What you don’t seem to get is that by asserting this dichotomy where you have traditional Catholics in opposition to the Church (i.e., as anti-) you are doing the very thing to which you say you are opposed. You keep saying that the problem is with those who don’t get on with it. What does this mean? The Tridentine Mass remains a valid form of the Mass.

In this instance, you have put militant atheists and those you dismiss as “TC’s” in the same category and assert that neither represents the Church. This is a pretty extreme view of traditional Catholics who for the most part have a preference for the traditional Tridentine Mass. There is just no way that preference is logically equivalent to militant atheism.

 

[friardchips]

**What you don’t seem to get is that by asserting this dichotomy where you have traditional Catholics in opposition to the Church (i.e., as anti-) you are doing the very thing to which you say you are opposed. **You keep saying that the problem is with those who don’t get on with it. What does this mean? The Tridentine Mass remains a valid form of the Mass.

I’ve thought a lot about this. Which is why I hold back a bit on most Trad. Cath. threads. And also Yoga ones too now. Otherwise we end up doing exactly what we set out to oppose - causing division and further argument. Now and again I put across a view I believe is true though because there is a lot of rubbish out there on the net which gets said that does have the effect of steering people away from what is a healthy perception, and so, one has to be stern to be kind. It is important to be straight with people but with tact. This can be hard. Equally, ‘kindness’ can be used in a very flimsy way, to mean ‘anything goes’. Now, me being an imperfect being in many ways is one thing, but to make excuses for myself and proceed to advocate less than inspired understanding from certain imperfections not healed out, could be considered unkind, because it would not be helpful for others in the long-run i.e:- am I choosing to oppose because of my own preferences or because I know what I understand to be the truth (discernment). There are plenty of people who are “yes” people. We all have to be gentle. But this does not mean being lax with the truth.

In this instance, you have put militant atheists and those you dismiss as “TC’s” in the same category and assert that neither represents the Church. This is a pretty extreme view of traditional Catholics who for the most part have a preference for the traditional Tridentine Mass. There is just no way that preference is logically equivalent to militant atheism.

True. In the heart, of course not. Militant atheists have an excuse. They don’t have faith. Maybe they were not taught how to pray. They don’t know about piety and how to increase in it. To atheists, the notion of a supreme being is madness.

The similarity: to them, the Pope and Magisterium represents a brain-washing institution, which doesn’t need to be listened to or respected, and the fruits from which are there to be ridiculed, or opposed. It is their right, as they see it, to attack the Pope and the Magisterium, and therefore the whole Church, with propaganda. They believe they know best.

You see, your premise, from which was posed at me a counter-argument, warning about the likelihood of ending up doing what we set out to oppose, works both ways. I can see this. Can TCs? Proof will be in the pudding when they stop giving themselves the unnecessary title of ‘Trad. Cath’ and start getting on board properly and opening their eyes to possibilities rather than problems.

 

[gracepoole]

You see, your premise, from which was posed at me a counter-argument, warning about the likelihood of ending up doing what we set out to oppose, works both ways. I can see this. Can TCs? Proof will be in the pudding when they stop giving themselves the unnecessary title of ‘Trad. Cath’ and start getting on board properly and opening their eyes to possibilities rather than problems.

You keep talking about traditional Catholics “getting on board.” I don’t know what this means. As I mentioned earlier, traditional Catholics see themselves as practicing the faith as it’s been practiced for over 2000 years. With what, exactly, do they need to “get on board”? None of what they believe and practice is doctrine that’s been changed, since that’s an impossibility.

 

[edwest2]

“Traditional Catholic” is a needless and divisive label. We’re not supposed to be liberal, conservative or other political type label. As one priest said on Catholic Radio: “Too many Catholics are living like pagans.”

The same lies that were spread by dissidents inside and outside the Church in the late 1960s till today, still need to be rooted out. Pope Benedict spoke about being indifferent. We are to be the salt of the earth. But those internal and external dissidents have spent decades in order to create the following:

Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

Our voices need to be heard. There is truth, right and wrong, guilt, shame and sin. We need to understand those words and do right.

Catholic. No other labels required.

Ed

 

[Brendan_64]

Uh? We are! Did you not know that all Christians were at one point Catholics. Lutherans and Anglicans split later on. All they need to do is jump back on the Ark. But at heart they are on the same side.

No, we are not all part of one Church. There is no wider Church over and beyond the one trur Church, the Catholic Church. To hold that all Christians are somehow part of a wider Christian Church is contrary to Catholic teachings. Christ formed one Church, the Anglican communion was founded by Henry VIII, and martin Luther founded the Lutherans. There is no wider ‘Church’ made up of all Christian denominations.

 

[friardchips]

You keep talking about traditional Catholics “getting on board.” I don’t know what this means. As I mentioned earlier, traditional Catholics see themselves as practicing the faith as it’s been practiced for over 2000 years. With what, exactly, do they need to “get on board”? None of what they believe and practice is doctrine that’s been changed, since that’s an impossibility.

I like your silhouetted graphic image.

Back on topic:

Do all Roman Catholics practice the same faith and have they practiced the same faith for 2000 years?

And if so, then there is no need for the title. The title, a bit like your graphic image, represents something.

So if we take into account all of Christianity throughout the ages and we state emphatically that Roman Catholicism, because of St. Peter being the beginning of the Church, is the original line of Christianity due to Papal succession, then we have every right to say that Roman Catholicism is all embracing. Roman Catholicism encompasses all the doctrines and dogmas, and all the wisdom we need.

And if so, Roman Catholicism also embraces tradition.

Tradition is not just about the liturgy, tradition is about everything that has been handed down. So when I meet new people who are introduced to the traditions of the Church, I don’t want them to hear the term ‘tradition’ and associate this fine word with folks who are not ‘all embracing’ and prefer to segregate themselves off in some special branch; no. New people who come to the Church or think about the Church need to link this term with a sense of being handed a Heavenly gift, which is everyone’s right to have, that embraces all people of all times…

…with wide open arms.

 

[friardchips]

No, we are not all part of one Church. There is no wider Church over and beyond the one trur Church, the Catholic Church. To hold that all Christians are somehow part of a wider Christian Church is contrary to Catholic teachings. Christ formed one Church, the Anglican communion was founded by Henry VIII, and martin Luther founded the Lutherans. There is no wider ‘Church’ made up of all Christian denominations.

All Christians, before Luther and Henry, were Catholics. Sure, they are not Catholics after doing the splits, but are still Christians.

Taking into consideration your latest comment, I am surprised you contradict yourself arguing for TCs; after all, if they don’t accept Vat II, then aren’t they equally as heretical as past excommunicates.

 

[friardchips]

Pope Benedict:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added

Wish I’d found this arguing against ‘Christian’ Yoga. Oh well.

Commentary from the Practical Catholic:

We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks…

."

This says it. Because, we all have the Spirit of fervour in us, in every age. This action must not be stifled.
[/quote]

 

[gracepoole]

I like your silhouetted graphic image.

Back on topic:

Do all Roman Catholics practice the same faith and have they practiced the same faith for 2000 years?

And if so, then there is no need for the title. The title, a bit like your graphic image, represents something.

So if we take into account all of Christianity throughout the ages and we state emphatically that Roman Catholicism, because of St. Peter being the beginning of the Church, is the original line of Christianity due to Papal succession, then we have every right to say that Roman Catholicism is all embracing. Roman Catholicism encompasses all the doctrines and dogmas, and all the wisdom we need.

And if so, Roman Catholicism also embraces tradition.

Tradition is not just about the liturgy, tradition is about everything that has been handed down. So when I meet new people who are introduced to the traditions of the Church, I don’t want them to hear the term ‘tradition’ and associate this fine word with folks who are not ‘all embracing’ and prefer to segregate themselves off in some special branch; no. New people who come to the Church or think about the Church need to link this term with a sense of being handed a Heavenly gift, which is everyone’s right to have, that embraces all people of all times…

…with wide open arms.

But this doesn’t answer the question. If we’re all Catholics, then what do those calling themselves traditionalists have to get on board with?

(And thanks – my avatar is a nod to my screen name…or rather the author who created my screen name…)

 

[gracepoole]

All Christians, before Luther and Henry, were Catholics. Sure, they are not Catholics after doing the splits, but are still Christians.

Taking into consideration your latest comment, I am surprised you contradict yourself arguing for TCs; after all, if they don’t accept Vat II, then aren’t they equally as heretical as past excommunicates.

What specific doctrine was created/changed via Vatican II that requires acceptance in order not to be a heretic?

 

[friardchips]

But this doesn’t answer the question. If we’re all Catholics, then what do those calling themselves traditionalists have to get on board with?

(And thanks – my avatar is a nod to my screen name…or rather the author who created my screen name…)

With what Catholicism means.