What exactly does "Traditional Catholicism" mean?

[friardchips]

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

More to the point, what was not changed? Papal infallibility. That’s what.

 

[gracepoole]

With what Catholicism means.

And how are they not “on board” with what Catholicism means? Do they not profess belief in the Creed? Do they not believe in transubstantiation? Do they not agree with Papal authority?

More to the point, what was not changed? Papal infallibility. That’s what.

Are you speaking of sedevacantists, then?

 

[friardchips]

And how are they not “on board” with what Catholicism means? Do they not profess belief in the Creed? Do they not believe in transubstantiation? Do they not agree with Papal authority?

From what I’ve read, no, they don’t (generally speaking).

Are you speaking of sedevacantists, then?

I think the term, a bit like ‘Traditional Catholicism’, is unnecessary, because the two very often blend or one is normally a bad fruit of the other - the offspring (catchy title for a horror film).

 

[gracepoole]

From what I’ve read, no, they don’t (generally speaking).

I think the term, a bit like ‘Traditional Catholicism’, is unnecessary, because the two very often blend or one is normally a bad fruit of the other - the offspring (catchy title for a horror film).

Ah – this, then, is the crux of the issue. There are plenty of traditional Catholics who don’t believe the chair of St. Peter is vacant. I linked earlier to an article written by one such traditionalist for a traditional Catholic publication that does not subscribe to sedevacantism. These people would most definitely disagree with your claim that sedevacantists are a “bad fruit” of traditional Catholicism or that the “two very often blend.” The author of the article I linked to is on record as claiming that the sedevacantist position is unbalanced, to say the least.

 

[friardchips]

And how are they not “on board”

Swimming with sharks. Off the Ark. Splashing around making lots of noise.

What came first: the Creed or the content in the Creed; the Last Supper or the Latin celebration of the Mass; the conversion or the personal preferences?

The above question can be phrased in another way. What came first: the Roman Catholic Church or Traditional Catholicism?

 

[friardchips]

Ah – this, then, is the crux of the issue. There are plenty of traditional Catholics who don’t believe the chair of St. Peter is vacant. I linked earlier to an article written by one such traditionalist for a traditional Catholic publication that does not subscribe to sedevacantism. These people would most definitely disagree with your claim that sedevacantists are a “bad fruit” of traditional Catholicism or that the “two very often blend.” The author of the article I linked to is on record as claiming that the sedevacantist position is unbalanced, to say the least.

I went through this thread but can’t find the link.

 

[gracepoole]

Sorry – here.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Swimming with sharks. Off the Ark. Splashing around making lots of noise.

What came first: the Creed or the content in the Creed; the Last Supper or the Latin celebration of the Mass; the conversion or the personal preferences?

The above question can be phrased in another way. What came first: the Roman Catholic Church or Traditional Catholicism?

Well, tell me please, if those you label as Traditional Catholics are doing the above, what then of those who claim to be, say, “Catholics for Choice”? They are a small, but vocal group, who don’t call themselves “Modern” or 'Traditional" or anything but Catholic, but their positions are hardly in line with Church teaching. They would identify themselves as being ‘just Catholic’ but they are also off the Ark, ignoring Humanae Vitae, supporting ‘gay marriage’, supporting abortion ‘rights’. . .

Just because that small group self-labels “Catholic”, you don’t go around claiming that all "Catholics’ think that way, do you?

So why would you assign to an entire group which self-identifies as Traditional the kind of attitudes and actions that only a few practice, when you don’t do the same thing by saying that because a small group of Catholics identifies itself as supporting non-Catholic teachings, that means that all who call themselves Catholic support those nonCatholic teachings too?

 

[friardchips]

Well, tell me please, if those you label as Traditional Catholics are doing the above, what then of those who claim to be, say, “Catholics for Choice”? They are a small, but vocal group, who don’t call themselves “Modern” or 'Traditional" or anything but Catholic, but their positions are hardly in line with Church teaching. They would identify themselves as being ‘just Catholic’ but they are also off the Ark, ignoring Humanae Vitae, supporting ‘gay marriage’, supporting abortion ‘rights’. . .

Just because that small group self-labels “Catholic”, you don’t go around claiming that all "Catholics’ think that way, do you?

So why would you assign to an entire group which self-identifies as Traditional the kind of attitudes and actions that only a few practice, when you don’t do the same thing by saying that because a small group of Catholics identifies itself as supporting non-Catholic teachings, that means that all who call themselves Catholic support those nonCatholic teachings too?

If people support gay marriage, abortion or any other controversial process not in line with Catholic teaching then they can call themselves Catholic but they are not, they are not even Christian. Similarly, if people go around calling themselves Traditional Catholics, they may be Christian, but they are not Catholic, because, beyond the extra title, the details don’t matter: you are either Catholic, or nonCatholic, and if you call yourself Traditional Catholic, then this is not Catholic, so it has to be nonCatholic.

 

[edwest2]

If people support gay marriage, abortion or any other controversial process not in line with Catholic teaching then they can call themselves Catholic but they are not, they are not even Christian. Similarly, if people go around calling themselves Traditional Catholics, they may be Christian, but they are not Catholic, because, beyond the extra title, the details don’t matter: you are either Catholic, or nonCatholic, and if you call yourself Traditional Catholic, then this is not Catholic, so it has to be nonCatholic.

No need to go around in circles here. If anyone cares enough, or is annoyed by, those who claim to be “Traditional” Catholics - a totally useless term, then they should kindly ask them about their “version” of Catholicism or ignore their lack of Orthodoxy altogether.

Bickering solves nothing. Division creates division. Holy Mother Church is to be obeyed, period. And if this is another Vatican II argument, let’s not go there. It was a valid Council and we are required to assent to it - not some wildly corrupted stories about it that circulate here a bit too often.

If, in brotherly love, we can provide correction to any Catholics who are mistaken about anything the Church teaches then let us do that. All I’m getting is this “those pesky Traditionalist Catholics” vibe.

And finger pointing is not productive unless someone is willing to do something aside from complain. Those contracepting Catholics, those cohabitating Catholics, those “living like Vatican II didn’t happen Catholics” and so on.

Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If people support gay marriage, abortion or any other controversial process not in line with Catholic teaching then they can call themselves Catholic but they are not, they are not even Christian. Similarly, if people go around calling themselves Traditional Catholics, they may be Christian, but they are not Catholic, because, beyond the extra title, the details don’t matter: you are either Catholic, or nonCatholic, and if you call yourself Traditional Catholic, then this is not Catholic, so it has to be nonCatholic.

I’m sorry, you’ve lost me here. I can’t follow your attempted reasoning; it does not make sense to me.

Now, let me ask you. . .supposing I call myself simply Catholic, support all the teachings of the Church, but I have a personal preference, out of all the many riches and legitimate options the faith offers us, for things which might be old-fashioned in AD 2015. I might, simply as a personal preference, like the EF. I might have an old fashioned Mary Garden, I might have a home altar with statues, I might even volunteer to help embroider altar linens.

All of those things would be things that many, if not most, “Traditional Catholics” like.

So long as I just ‘drop’ the word ‘traditional’ and only call myself “Catholic”, you’re OK with my preferences and even my making those preferences public?

Or are there some things which are permitted and have been permitted by the Church but which aren’t so widely known or used today which any 'Catholic" is just expected to ignore or not do because, “the times are different today?” If so, where is the authoritative Church statement/encyclical/teaching which tells us all the things that a Catholic in AD 2015 is supposed to do, and what he/she is supposed to stop doing, with regard to personal piety, devotions, liturgy, etc?

Because a lot of what you’ve said seems to reflect your personal opinion of what you think is ‘right’ (i.e. No EF, no statues, emphasis on the poor, keeping things ‘plain’,) but which aren’t really specified by the Church as being necessary for all, desirable for all, or (in the case of ‘no EF’) are flat out denied (Pope Benedict made it quite clear that the EF is not something that is dragged out only for a few cranks, but part of the tradition of the Church that now INCLUDES the OF as well.)

 

[eamonnroma]

.

And finger pointing is not productive unless someone is willing to do something aside from complain. Those contracepting Catholics, those cohabitating Catholics, those “living like Vatican II didn’t happen Catholics” and so on.
Ed

Are those contracepting Catholics not the majority of Catholics. So maybe then we could consider the non-contracepting Catholics to be outside of the norm.

 

[eamonnroma]

‘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.

It is so simple to understand. Tradition and Traditionalist are not the same thing. Simple.

 

[eamonnroma]

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.

I have to disagree. In the Nicene creed affirm the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We do not state the one holy (Roman) Catholic and apostolic church. We affirm the catholic ie universal church, this is why the Orthodox (right thinking) churches affirm the same creed (with the exception of the bit added on by the Roman church). So certainly the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches make part of the universal church as understood in the Nicene creed.

The Roman church has added quite a lot to the original catholic faith of the New Testament and the first 7 Councils of the catholic church. These changes are what we call tradition. As catholic we accept the additions as part of tradition. If we refused to accept the add-ons, we would probably refer to ourselves as traditionalists, preferring something that is older, as the new makes us feel uncomfortable.

Protestantism is different. This is an offshoot of the Roman church. Orthodoxy has had no reformation.

Henry VIII did not found Anglicanism. It is a lot more complex than that. After all, England became (Roman) catholic again after the death of Henry’s son, Edward VI Queen Mary, very bloodily and forced England into becoming Roman again. If anyone could claim in England (not the rest of what is now the UK) to have been the instigator of protestantism it would be Elizabeth I.

Also the term ‘Anglican’ is somewhat complicated. In England, Anglicanism is a part of the Church of England, which was founded by St Augustine of Canterbury. The Church of England has quite a wide spread of practices. From Anglicans (high church) to Evangelicals who tend to be very low church. This is just England, as in Ireland there is the Church of Ireland and in Scotland the Church of Scotland; neither of which is Anglican.

Then there is the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is made of local national churches under the umbrella of Anglicanism.

 

[friardchips]

It is so simple to understand. Tradition and Traditionalist are not the same thing. Simple.

It can get confused and probably understood by those who wish to make the division only.

Needless to say, the title doesn’t mean anything.

 

[friardchips]

I have to disagree. In the Nicene creed affirm the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We do not state the one holy (Roman) Catholic and apostolic church. We affirm the catholic ie universal church, this is why the Orthodox (right thinking) churches affirm the same creed (with the exception of the bit added on by the Roman church). So certainly the Orthodox churches and the Catholic churches make
part of the universal church as understood in the Nicene creed.

Roman Catholics understand the Pope to be the Holy Father which is why we still use the word ‘Roman’ when announcing our religion. Not because Rome in itself is important but because of the authority which is handed down through the succession of Popes from the first. We don’t always include the word ‘Roman’ because it can get (sometimes purposefully) misconstrued.

The Roman church has added quite a lot to the original catholic faith of the New Testament and the first 7 Councils of the catholic church. These changes are what we call tradition. As catholic we accept the additions as part of tradition. If we refused to accept the add-ons, we would probably refer to ourselves as traditionalists, preferring something that is older, as the new makes us feel uncomfortable.

Not sure about “added quite a lot to”, and I find the word “add on” , also, a superficial word. This does not accurately reflect the meaning behind the councils. Although I see how you were using the words to make a truth easier to understand.

Protestantism is different. This is an offshoot of the Roman church. Orthodoxy has had no reformation.

Not quite true. Protestanism is an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church, sure. But Eastern Orthodoxy is an early offshoot from the Catholic Church because of the line of St. Peter carrying through to our present Pope. If we believe in Scripture then we believe the true path to righteousness, to carry through this line. The keys to the Kingdom are in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. In terms of orthodox Catholics - I am not sure what that means. All Catholics are orthodox due to their baptism. It is the word being misused again which is the issue.

Henry VIII did not found Anglicanism.

He broke with Rome. Yes, he did.

It is a lot more complex than that. After all, England became (Roman) catholic again after the death of Henry’s son, Edward VI Queen Mary, very bloodily and forced England into becoming Roman again. If anyone could claim in England (not the rest of what is now the UK) to have been the instigator of protestantism it would be Elizabeth I.

It was far earlier than that.

Also the term ‘Anglican’ is somewhat complicated. In England, Anglicanism is a part of the Church of England, which was founded by St Augustine of Canterbury. The Church of England has quite a wide spread of practices. From Anglicans (high church) to Evangelicals who tend to be very low church. This is just England, as in Ireland there is the Church of Ireland and in Scotland the Church of Scotland; neither of which is Anglican.

The Anglican Church was not formed by St. Augustine, because if so, he would not have been heralded a saint.

St. Augustine was a Roman Catholic, or Catholic (for argument’s sake), not an Anglican. There is a Church however called The Angican Church of St. Augustine. This was called as such, later on. You are forgetting that during the Reformation, many monasteries (all Roman Catholic) and Churches were stolen from the RCC, and yet to be given back. But being Catholics, we don’t ask for them to be returned.

Then there is the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is made of local national churches under the umbrella of Anglicanism.

Yes.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Indeed, tradition is not just about the liturgy. That’s a big part of what is important for traditional Catholics (like myself), but it means more than that, of course.

Tradition means having processions after Mass on the feast of Corpus Christi, so that our faith in the Real Presence can be made public. It means that we prefer traditional hymns at Mass, rather than Protestant songs like…“Gather us in.” It means that we should strive to stay in a state of grace with regular confession. It means not presenting ourselves for communion if we are aware of being in a state of mortal sin. It means believing that virtues are to be developed, and that it should not be assumed that we are going to Heaven. It means that we forgive those who are less than perfect, or who do not agree with our views.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

And yet the Ordinary Form of the Mass was not designed to be celebrated in Latin. It was designed to be said in the vernacular, so that the faithful could hear and understand every word. It depends solely on understanding everything the priest says, and understanding what responses are to be said by the laity.

The TLM, on the other hand, relies on some verbal cues, but also on non-verbal cues.

After all, how does God communicate with us? Does He speak to us directly, in our language? This is one of the reasons why I like the EF. The Mass is the sensible bond between Heaven and earth. Between God and us. Since God speaks to us in a non-verbal form, usually, I like that the EF also communicates non–verbally at times. There’s a sense of mystery to the Old Mass that is not present in the New Mass. It was not intended to be present in the New Mass, since it’s all about understanding and participation by the laity. That’s fine, as far as it goes. I like the New Mass well enough, but I absolutely love the Old Mass, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[friardchips]

Indeed, tradition is not just about the liturgy. That’s a big part of what is important for traditional Catholics (like myself), but it means more than that, of course.

Thanks for sharing.

Tradition means having processions after Mass on the feast of Corpus Christi, so that our faith in the Real Presence can be made public.

Many Churches can’t cater for the procession which is why it is more likely that processions happen at friaries and monasteries. Nothing to do with ‘Traditional Catholicism’.

It means that we prefer traditional hymns at Mass, rather than Protestant songs like…“Gather us in.”

This is personal preference more along the lines of older members of any congregation preferring songs they grew up with. Again, a very thin argument for a divisive label.

It means that we should strive to stay in a state of grace with regular confession. It means not presenting ourselves for communion if we are aware of being in a state of mortal sin.

This is Roman Catholic teaching. All Catholics believe this.

The reason less people go to confession and less often has more to do with not enough priests being available to commit. In all Churches, if one saw fit to go to confession every week, they would not be stopped. The only thing that grates is that if one feels the need to go often, priests sometimes churn up the word ‘scruples’, but they never turn people away unless their sins are not mortal or grave. Maybe it used to be the case that one’s confessor could also be their spiritual director, but priests are overworked now and this is probably why confessor-spiritual directors are not so easy to be found. This is a problem but nothing to do with Tradtional Catholicism. It is simply the case that there are not enough holy people willing to take the role of ‘spiritual director’.

It means believing that virtues are to be developed, and that it should not be assumed that we are going to Heaven. It means that we forgive those who are less than perfect, or who do not agree with our views.

This is also normal Catholic understanding.

The word ‘piety’ or ‘pious’ is overused and misunderstood a lot. This word is not concerning our external actions only, although they play a part, but the openness to the Spirit of Truth internally, and this ‘piety’, first and foremost, is recognisable when the love of our Holy Church and respect for the line of St. Peter is not cast into question by our own doubts. We look beyond our doubts for the love of the Church. Piety for the Catholic Church and love for our Holy Father is a basic yet strong requisite of ‘piety’ - pious love.

 

[Denise1957]

The word ‘piety’ or ‘pious’ is overused and misunderstood a lot. These words are not concerning our external actions only, although they play a part, but the openness to the Spirit of Truth internally, and this ‘piety’, first and foremost, is recognisable when the love of our Holy Church and respect for the line of St. Peter is not cast into question by our own doubts. We look beyond that for the love of the Church. Piety for the Catholic Church and love for our Holy Father is a basic yet strong requisite of ‘piety’.

Actually, I think that piety has more to do with our love for God. Because of our love for God, we also love His Church and His vicar on earth. But love for God comes first.