What exactly is Traditional Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter js_cat3391
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Traditional Catholicism is Roman Catholicism I believe, correct me if I am wrong someone.
 
For once, the Wiki article is actually not a bad summary.

The entry has improved greatly over the last few years.
 
There’s a catch with this; to some they are being traditional Catholics, yet they will not match the definition outlined in the Wiki article. Traditional Eastern Catholics are traditional Catholics, but they will not be the same as the Wiki article.
 
I see it as a “cultural movement.” It is a reaction to a more “Progressive” tone the church has taken since Vatican II. Liturgical abuses and other problems in the church is seen by “Traditional Catholics” as proof that this “Progressive” tone has been bad for Christianity. The Church responds by saying that these issues are isolated and not representative of the Church as a whole. It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.
 
Thanks for the replies. I really need to get around to reading Vatican II.
 
LINVS said:
I see it as a “cultural movement.” It is a reaction to a more “Progressive” tone the church has taken since Vatican II. Liturgical abuses and other problems in the church is seen by “Traditional Catholics” as proof that this “Progressive” tone has been bad for Christianity. The Church responds by saying that these issues are isolated and not representative of the Church as a whole. ** It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.**
Click to expand...
I find that if I am docile to the working of the Holy Spirit, things are much clearer.
IOW, if I get my self out of the way, things that are hard to accept become accessible for me.
 
Here is my take on Traditional Catholicism at my blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/04/traditional-catholicism.html

I’ll quote some of it here:
…in general, I think it would be right to say that traditionalists have a very great respect for Catholic Tradition in its many forms. There is the Divine Tradition, intrinsic to the Deposit of Faith, a means of transmitting Divine Revelation itself, and therefore unchangeable. There are the traditional teachings of the Church which, though not part of the Deposit, nonetheless constitute an important part of her teaching heritage - some are changeable, some are not. There are the many other lesser, but still very important, traditions of theology and spirituality, passed down to us by the saints, fathers, doctors, and theologians of the Church, constituting another very large and important part of her heritage and patrimony (in particular, the theology of St. Thomas and the scholastics is immensely important to the Church). There are also the traditional customs, practices, and disciplines in the Church by which the faithful have lived and practiced their faith - Lenten practices, for example; or the abstinence from meat on all Fridays; and many other such things. And of course, very importantly, there is the Traditional liturgy of the Church, especially the Traditional Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine mass, or the Extraordinary Form (I will speak about this below). Etc…Basically, [traditionalists] have a very great respect for all of these traditions, adhering strictly to the Divine Tradition and striving to incorporate the smaller traditions into their lives as Catholics.
Click to expand...
2…for the traditionalist, whenever change does occur, it ought only to occur when it would really be conducive to the common good of the faithful. This is in accordance with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the changeability of human laws (I-II, q.97-a.2) Thus, traditionalists acknowledge that there can be good and legitimate developments within tradition. Otherwise, change is of itself most likely to be quite detrimental, rather than beneficial. Furthermore, quite rarely should it be brought about suddenly, but should have rather the character of gradual, organic development. Novelty is disruptive; but organic growth and development is healthy. This is how traditionalists look at everything they have received from the Church: they seek to adhere, in general, to the traditions, guarding against novelty, admitting only gradual changes and developments when they are really beneficial. Whereas today there is an overly strong tendency to change what has been passed down to us. There is an almost obsessive fascination for change, as if just for its own sake, and a desire to “adapt” the Church to the ever evolving life and history of man. But traditionalists hold this to be a very serious mistake. The Church is stable before she is changeable; she is first the Church of God, Who is immutable, and secondly the Church of man, who can change. Her divine element is primary to her human element. Hence it is a mistake to hold as a matter of principle that the Church must adapt to the times, to the changes in human life and history; and this seems to be very much the mindset of mainstream Catholicism today. It is an effect of the heresy of Modernism…
Click to expand...
3…Traditionalists favor the Tridentine over the Novus ordo missae for several reasons. First, I should note that I do not approach the extreme of some traditionalists who deny that the Novus ordo is even a valid mass; on the contrary I hold it to be perfectly valid, promulgated by the disciplinary infallibility of the Church (big topic). Thus, I do not believe that it contains any doctrinal errors within itself. Nonetheless, I think it contains many weaknesses, both in the way it is typically celebrated and even in the text itself. Traditionalists oppose the practices of the priest facing the people, having mass completely in the vernacular, receiving communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, lay readers, altar girls, general feminization of the liturgy, secular styles of music, liturgical dancing, clapping, holding hands, embracing at the kiss of peace, the endless noise and activity, and so on and so forth. These things constitute a break from tradition. Now although it can be argued that these are accidental to the the Novus ordo form of the mass itself, nonetheless I think it must be admitted that the Novus ordo seems to open the door for all these things, because of the fact that it allows for much personal interpretation of the liturgy. What’s more, the text of the mass itself contains many ambiguities and omits many important things relating to doctrine, thereby allowing for wrong theological interpretations, potentially leading minds away from the truth, and from the traditional understanding of Church teaching, etc. And quite unsurprisingly, this is all the product of the Modernist mentality of change which I just described in the last paragraph. The Novus ordo is a fabrication, a novelty, a kind of break from tradition, and not an organic development of the mass…[Traditionalists] prefer to stick with the Tridentine Mass, in which the text is much more doctrinally solid; the music consists of Gregorian chant, polyphony, and the organ; all the servers are male; there are many periods of silence; the mass is said completely in Latin (minus the Kyrie, in Greek); there is less room for personalization of the liturgy; and so on. This is the mass of the ages, the mass of tradition, the heritage of all Catholics.
Click to expand...
 
js_cat3391 said:
Hi,
I am new here. Can some tell me what exactly is Traditional Catholicism.

Is this article on wiki what this thread is about?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic

Thank you
JS
Click to expand...
Many people use the term “traditional Catholicism” in a way that corresponds to that article. For example, Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic forum fisheaters.com/ does so. However, on this forum, I have found that many people prefer to use “traditional Catholicism” with a broader meaning and reserve the term “traditionalist Catholic” for the narrower meaning. When posting here, I try to follow the lead set by moderator in this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=579186
 
This is part of a discussion on the subject I saw on another website which seems to sum things up fairly well.
On Traditional Catholics by "WhollyRoamin'Catholic":
As I have pondered the difference between self-styled traditionalist Catholics and other orthodox Catholics I have concluded that the primary difference is in their respective attitude toward change. If one does any significant reading in the Church Fathers, Doctors, and Popes one consistently finds a truly conservative attitude. That is, one sees that the attitude of orthodox Catholics through the centuries has been to cling tenaciously to that which has been handed on, both in belief and observance. Change itself is looked upon with suspicion and change for the sake of change or even to “get with the times” is unthinkable. Now here I can sense anti-traditionalist apologists ready to pounce, so let me say up front that I don’t in the least deny that there has been lots of legitimate development in the Catholic Church over the centuries, both doctrinal and practical. The Catholic Church is a living organism, animated by the Holy Spirit, and she has certainly developed and changed over the centuries while retaining in its fullness the deposit of revelation handed on to her by our Lord Jesus. This I readily grant.

What I am talking about instead is one’s prevailing attitude toward change. The Fathers, Doctors, and Popes did not see themselves primarily as innovators, but as conservators. They saw the Faith and those practices by which it was expressed, passed on, and guarded as an inheritance to be passed on to the next generation intact and, indeed, inviolate. They were not anxious to update the Faith, or to change perennial and venerable practices. For the most part, they viewed change–whether doctrinal or practical–with grave suspicion. They knew both instinctively and often by hard experience that changes in religious matters–even if seemingly minor–frequently bring about considerable upheaval in the life of the Church. . . .

Put simply, a Catholic traditionalist wishes to believe as his fathers believed, to worship as his fathers worshiped, and to pass on this belief and worship intact to his children. He does not oppose legitimate and organic developments. But he sees what is perennial, venerable, and established as a treasury of godly and holy wisdom and he views attempts to change or “update” this treasury of belief and practice with guarded reserve, if not suspicion.
Click to expand...
To the OP, I hope you find it helpful. I asked this very question not too long ago in another thread here on CAF. Perhaps that discussion would be interesting for you as well. Then again, perhaps not! 😃 Either way, here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=750195&highlight=traditional+catholic

Peace of Christ,
 
Here is a interesting, albeit long, article on the subject. latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

Here is an excerpt:
In classical theological manuals, textbooks and catechisms, the word “tradition” was given a twofold meaning. The first meaning of the term “tradition” was taken from its Latin root – tradere – meaning “to pass on.” In this sense, the word tradition refers to all of those things that are passed on from one generation to the next. This would include all of the divine truths that the Church passes on to subsequent generations, including the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
The second, or more restrictive sense of tradition, refers to a twofold division within what is passed on and not written down. In this case, Scripture is distinguished from tradition as Scripture is written, whereas tradition, in the stricter sense, refers to those unwritten things that were passed down. Tradition in the stricter sense, then, is divided into divine tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. Divine tradition is further divided according to dominical tradition (that which was given directly by Our Lord while on earth) and apostolic tradition (that which the apostles passed on under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost).1
Click to expand...
Divine tradition is that tradition which constitutes one of the sources of revelation, i.e., a source of our knowledge about those things that were revealed to man by God. This means that divine tradition is intrinsic to the Deposit of Faith, which constitutes all of the divinely revealed truths necessary for salvation and passed on by the Church in an uninterrupted tradition. Since it is intrinsic to the Deposit of Faith, this form of tradition is sometimes called intrinsic tradition, prime examples of which are the Magisterium of the Church and the sacraments, since they were established by Jesus Christ and passed on and will be passed on until the end of time.2
Click to expand...
Ecclesiastical tradition comprises all of those things that are not intrinsic to the Deposit of Faith but which form the heritage and patrimony of the work of previous generations graciously passed on by the Church to subsequent generations for their benefit.
Click to expand...
 
LINVS said:
It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.
Click to expand...
Consider what Pope Benedict said about V2: [T]here was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media.

It is not at all surprising that we see widespread misunderstanding of the Council in this situation.
 
LINVS said:
I see it as a “cultural movement.” It is a reaction to a more “Progressive” tone the church has taken since Vatican II. Liturgical abuses and other problems in the church is seen by “Traditional Catholics” as proof that this “Progressive” tone has been bad for Christianity. The Church responds by saying that these issues are isolated and not representative of the Church as a whole. It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=765832
 
LINVS said:
I see it as a “cultural movement.” It is a reaction to a more “Progressive” tone the church has taken since Vatican II. Liturgical abuses and other problems in the church is seen by “Traditional Catholics” as proof that this “Progressive” tone has been bad for Christianity. The Church responds by saying that these issues are isolated and not representative of the Church as a whole. It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=765832

You raise some fair points. I read somewhere that today’s tradionalists are simply those who were considered conservative Catholics 50 years ago. Since I wasn’t there, I cannot speak for the truth of that analysis, but it does strike me as being somewhat accurate. Please understand, I am not talking about those who have set themselves against the Church in that statement.
 
Traditional Catholics are a group of Catholics who, because of an attachment to certain traditions of the church, circle their wagons and open fire on each other when disagreements over nuances arise: how we receive communion, what hymns we sing, what clothing we wear, which pope is better than the other, etc…

😃
 
LINVS said:
I see it as a “cultural movement.” It is a reaction to a more “Progressive” tone the church has taken since Vatican II. Liturgical abuses and other problems in the church is seen by “Traditional Catholics” as proof that this “Progressive” tone has been bad for Christianity. The Church responds by saying that these issues are isolated and not representative of the Church as a whole. It’s amazing that there is so much argument over what Vatican II teaches; you’d think it’s message was clearer.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with all said here. I have come to the realization that I don’t know exactly what the solution is, but I am convinced that what has been done in the recent past does not work. I can’t enthusiastically jump for joy every time someone says “new Springtime” or whatever, which, as far as lived actuality is concerned, often seems wishful nonsense to me in my part of the world. I’m not down in the dumps, I’m not depressed, but neither can I jump for joy and quiver in ecstasy, as it seems we’re expected to. I hate to be so cynical.
 
floresco said:
Consider what Pope Benedict said about V2: [T]here was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media.

It is not at all surprising that we see widespread misunderstanding of the Council in this situation.
Click to expand...
I’ve begun referring to “the Council of the Fathers” in order to distinguish it, not just from the “Council of the media” but also from the agenda that was projected onto the Council by the most active anti-Catholic bishops, priests, and laity, who wanted to completely laicize the Church, to do away with the sacramental theology entirely, reducing priesthood to a purely ministerial or presiding function, reducing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to a purely communal meal expressing the faith of the community rather than an offering & oblation to God in which we receive Christ’s Body to effectively unify us as His Body. They were very effective, especially in minimizing the need for confession, making the sacrament almost impossible to receive on the most minimal basis. The worst result, apart from immense sacrileges at mass, has been the distortion of the impulse to meet other religious believers into a practice of ecumenism which is extremely difficult to distinguish from universalism and indifferentism. This is what bewilders & estranges many traditionalists from the recent popes, who have laid such an emphasis on good relations with representatives of mis-belief on the basis that they have not abandoned themselves to godlessness.

But I no longer allow those to distance me from the Holy Fathers, from Bl. John XXIII through Benedict & Francis – because they make it abundantly clear by every way that they do affirm the necessity of the Church, and that Christ is the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top