What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[TrueLight]

I would love to know everyone’s thoughts.

Which points do you agree with?

Which points do you not agree with?

Written by Brother Andre on Rorate Caeli

One of the most important things for a person to have is an identity. This is why names are so important to us. Adam was given power to name things in the Garden of Eden, showing that he had dominion over the rest of creation, including Eve, whom he named. When a child finds out that a large, strange-looking animal has a name, he finds comfort in the fact, knowing that, if it has a name, and if Daddy can identify it, the thing must not be all that terrifying. It is known.

Traditional Catholics, or traditionalists, name themselves thus because of their embrace of the traditions of the Church. That they do so in the face of large-scale abandonment of those traditions by hierarchy, clergy, and faithful alike is why the name “Catholic” is not always adequate, though it should be. Beyond that very generic concept of what traditionalism is, there are manifold and disparate understandings of what exactly defines the identity of the traditionalist. Avoiding a rigid dogmatism where the Church has given us no dogmatic definition — we must be willing to die for Catholic dogma, but not for our own opinions — I would like to consider what traditionalism is in its essence.

Contrast clarifies the mind, so I will begin with what traditionalism is not. Traditionalism is not a negation. It is not a denial. It is not a finger-pointing followed by a “you’re wrong!” There is a name for that ideology: Protestantism. Protestantism is not a content, but an anti-content. It is not an affirmation, but a negation.

Certainly, the Catholic must assent to the Church’s condemnations as well as to her definitions, but a condemnation’s existence is contingent on two things: the truth that came first, and an error that denies truth. In other words, a condemnation, though good and necessary, only arises because some villain (perhaps Satan himself) concocted a denial of God’s truth. But God’s truth came first.

The texts of the Council of Trent provide us with an illustration of this. Trent affirms Catholic truth in its decrees, which are comparatively lengthy texts that explain Catholic doctrine in detail. At the end of those content-rich decrees, the Council then condemns various errors in its brief canons.

Read more…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Thank you, Br. Andre. That short essay was action-packed.

 

[Warrenton]

 

[TrueLight]

I really like this part.

…we must resist the temptation to make traditionalism into an ideology, a reaction, or a negation of what other people do. Traditionalism is what we are, what we know, and what we do.

…There is much that is dark and evil in life, but if we choose to allow ourselves to be consumed by it, then shame on us.

The part about traditionalism being a reaction or a negation. It’s better to speak and move in the affirmative.

The devil is clever and he can easily take something that starts out as good and turn it into evil. The temptation is to get into the habit of criticizing, reading provocative books/blogs, while not spending enough time with the Lord. We don’t want to experience the humiliation and horror of Jesus telling any of us, “I never knew you.”

Speaking for myself, sometimes I have to take a step back and regroup so to speak. Spend time in prayer first and then evangelize.

 

[TimothyH]

Saying…

It is not a finger-pointing followed by a “you’re wrong!”

…and then saying…

It is wrong to cast off these treasures of centuries of careful development under the protection of the Holy Ghost.

…seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

The earlier statement about Church affirmations being a requirement because of some villanous, even satanic contradiction of Church beliefs makes the statement even less pallatable for me.

I do like the part about “Mary, Cause of all our Joys” though.

-Tim-

 

[asia53]

Two points stayed with me:

Traditionalism is not a negation. It is not a denial. It is not a finger-pointing followed by a “you’re wrong!”

Don’t we see a lot of this on this Forum?

If, with all that, we need to go in search of an identity, or define it in purely negative terms against some other class of people, then we really have no clue what tradition is.

Amen!

 

[OraLabora]

I think it’s a load of hooey.

Our only identity should be “Catholic” (or, perhaps as a member of one of the 23 sui juris Churches, or as attached to a recognized charism in the Church such as one of its apostolates, congregations or religious orders). If we perceive things wrong in the Church, it isn’t by barricading ourselves into an exclusive movement that we will solve problems. We will likely only worsen them. We should work in the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fix the problems, through dialogue and active participation (e.g. in my case I believe the rich patrimony of Gregorian chant should be preserved and I am very active in that field). The instant you start affixing labels to people, you’re in deep trouble.

And yes we do see a lot of that here. Because even if “traditionalists” start with the best of intentions, human nature gets in the way, and the label starts to become an “us vs. them” thing. Our Church is supposed to be universal and a home to all who are baptized, no matter where they are on their faith journey.

That’s all I’ll say on the issue. I’d say more but likely be banned. I’ve already been labeled a “modernist” for supporting things like the OF Mass, inter-religious dialogue, etc., by so-called “traditionalists”, and anything more I have to say will likely get me banned. On the other hand I’m open to private discussion.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Saying…

It is not a finger-pointing followed by a “you’re wrong!”

…and then saying…

It is wrong to cast off these treasures of centuries of careful development under the protection of the Holy Ghost.

…seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

The earlier statement about Church affirmations being a requirement because of some villanous, even satanic contradiction of Church beliefs makes the statement even less pallatable for me.

I do like the part about “Mary, Cause of all our Joys” though.

-Tim-

Contradiction? The subject of the first sentence is “you”. The subject of the second sentence is “it”. Totally different things.

I am of course joking. Contradictory as it may seem, I don’t know a single person who would say “it is RIGHT to cast off…Holy Ghost” (in the sense of banning the old rite, not making a new one).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I think it’s a load of hooey.

Our only identity should be “Catholic” (or, perhaps as a member of one of the 23 sui juris Churches, or as attached to a recognized charism in the Church such as one of its apostolates, congregations or religious orders). If we perceive things wrong in the Church, it isn’t by barricading ourselves into an exclusive movement that we will solve problems. We will likely only worsen them. We should work in the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fix the problems, through dialogue and active participation (e.g. in my case I believe the rich patrimony of Gregorian chant should be preserved and I am very active in that field). The instant you start affixing labels to people, you’re in deep trouble.

And yes we do see a lot of that here. Because even if “traditionalists” start with the best of intentions, human nature gets in the way, and the label starts to become an “us vs. them” thing. Our Church is supposed to be universal and a home to all who are baptized, no matter where they are on their faith journey.

That’s all I’ll say on the issue. I’d say more but likely be banned. I’ve already been labeled a “modernist” for supporting things like the OF Mass, inter-religious dialogue, etc., by so-called “traditionalists”, and anything more I have to say will likely get me banned. On the other hand I’m open to private discussion.

I had pretty much the same reaction when I read the article. I thought the other article posted earlier this week or last week (testing whether or not SSPX were basically crypto-Protestants) was a good counter-balance to this article.

 

[TrueLight]

I think it’s a load of hooey.

Our only identity should be “Catholic” (or, perhaps as a member of one of the 23 sui juris Churches, or as attached to a recognized charism in the Church such as one of its apostolates, congregations or religious orders). If we perceive things wrong in the Church, it isn’t by barricading ourselves into an exclusive movement that we will solve problems. We will likely only worsen them. We should work in the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fix the problems, through dialogue and active participation (e.g. in my case I believe the rich patrimony of Gregorian chant should be preserved and I am very active in that field). The instant you start affixing labels to people, you’re in deep trouble.

And yes we do see a lot of that here. Because even if “traditionalists” start with the best of intentions, human nature gets in the way, and the label starts to become an “us vs. them” thing. Our Church is supposed to be universal and a home to all who are baptized, no matter where they are on their faith journey.

That’s all I’ll say on the issue. I’d say more but likely be banned. I’ve already been labeled a “modernist” for supporting things like the OF Mass, inter-religious dialogue, etc., by so-called “traditionalists”, and anything more I have to say will likely get me banned. On the other hand I’m open to private discussion.

Whoa there.

If you look at the article without bringing in the baggage of everything that occurs on this forum, you will find that the article has lot of admonitions for traditionalists.

I understand that you hate the labeling, but it does exist.

And yes we do see a lot of that here. Because even if “traditionalists” start with the best of intentions, human nature gets in the way, and the label starts to become an “us vs. them” thing.

I think you make a fair point there. I would also say that goes on for both traditionalists and those who don’t call themselves traditionalists. It’s not that one set of Catholics are good and one set of Catholics are bad.

Our Church is supposed to be universal and a home to all who are baptized, no matter where they are on their faith journey.

Absolutely. And that will involve dialogue. Which is what I’m trying to encourage here.

You won’t be banned as I’m sure you’ll keep your conversation quite charitable.

 

[TrueLight]

I had pretty much the same reaction when I read the article. I thought the other article posted earlier this week or last week (testing whether or not SSPX were basically crypto-Protestants) was a good counter-balance to this article.

Or one can say this article is a good counter-balance as this article was posted after the “crypto-Protestant” article.

 

[septimine]

I’m sympathetic to the trads, but I see it as an approach to Catholicism, not a “movement”. If it was a movement, it would be a schism, and therefore a group of people trying to be so catholic that they turn protestant. A bit odd, don’t you think.

 

[OraLabora]

Whoa there.

If you look at the article without bringing in the baggage of everything that occurs on this forum, you will find that the article has lot of admonitions for traditionalists.

I understand that you hate the labeling, but it does exist.

The thing is that the article missed the obvious: spiritual pride. It’s been my experience with not just traditionalists, but the liberal end of the Church too. “We are right, they are wrong”. And not just on this forum.

No matter how much you try to channel any polarizing movement in the Church into “affirmation” rather than “negation”, it’s still just trying to put a positive spin on pride. Both sides are trying to force the Church to conform to their worldview. Both think they are spirit-driven and hold a purer form of the Truth. Both are asking for things from the Church rather than offering themselves to God, pestering bishops for more of this or less of that. I mentioned religious orders or congregations as a source of legitimate identity. Belong to an order is a gift of self, an abnegation of self, and submission to a the highest Authority, as imperfect as a gift of self can be.

I recognize we can all have preferences. I have them too; I sing in a Gregorian schola and am a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada; I give of my time to promote chant in Canada and in particular to promote it in the Ordinary Form and current Roman Liturgy of the Hours. I get angry at ****** music in Church and wince when I see people misinterpret the true spirit of Vatican II that never intended that we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But I refuse to be pigeonholed into a label, and I ache at seeing the divisiveness that both the traditionalist and liberal movements can bring to the Church. Nobody can deny it exists. No matter how much spin traditionalists and liberals put on it, both appear to me to be guilty of spiritual pride and often, focused on the accidentals rather than the core of the faith.

We live in a broken world, in a culture of death, and in a society rapidly becoming un-churched. Instead we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than focusing on our own faith, our own ability to love our neighbour even when they disagree with us and even when they are of totally different religious beliefs, and especially our own transformation into a deeper union with God. That is what will strengthen the Church. The Church is not about regulation, it’s about transformation, transforming hearts and souls into Christians who walk the talk and stand up for life in a world of death. It doesn’t matter whether you show up at an EF Mass in veil or 3-piece suit or show up at a happy-clappy OF Mass as a homeless person in rags. It’s what’s inside that matters.

Pride, IMHO, is what is killing the Church.

 

[Melchior_1]

Pride, IMHO, is what is killing the Church.

I liked all of your post, but this specific line stands out; pride is what caused the fall of the Devil, and the original sin. It’s no coincidence it’s attacks on the Church is so fierce.

 

[figs]

I liked all of your post, but this specific line stands out; pride is what caused the fall of the Devil, and the original sin. It’s no coincidence it’s attacks on the Church is so fierce.

I very much agree with both posts, yours and OraLabora’s

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Or one can say this article is a good counter-balance as this article was posted after the “crypto-Protestant” article.

One could say that, yes. I did like the way the article distinguishes between “Traditional” and “traditionalist.” I don’t know if such a distinction was intentional, but it’s there.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The thing is that the article missed the obvious: spiritual pride. It’s been my experience with not just traditionalists, but the liberal end of the Church too. “We are right, they are wrong”. And not just on this forum.

No matter how much you try to channel any polarizing movement in the Church into “affirmation” rather than “negation”, it’s still just trying to put a positive spin on pride. Both sides are trying to force the Church to conform to their worldview. Both think they are spirit-driven and hold a purer form of the Truth. Both are asking for things from the Church rather than offering themselves to God, pestering bishops for more of this or less of that. I mentioned religious orders or congregations as a source of legitimate identity. Belong to an order is a gift of self, an abnegation of self, and submission to a the highest Authority, as imperfect as a gift of self can be.

I recognize we can all have preferences. I have them too; I sing in a Gregorian schola and am a director of the Gregorian Institute of Canada; I give of my time to promote chant in Canada and in particular to promote it in the Ordinary Form and current Roman Liturgy of the Hours. I get angry at ****** music in Church and wince when I see people misinterpret the true spirit of Vatican II that never intended that we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But I refuse to be pigeonholed into a label, and I ache at seeing the divisiveness that both the traditionalist and liberal movements can bring to the Church. Nobody can deny it exists. No matter how much spin traditionalists and liberals put on it, both appear to me to be guilty of spiritual pride and often, focused on the accidentals rather than the core of the faith.

We live in a broken world, in a culture of death, and in a society rapidly becoming un-churched. Instead we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than focusing on our own faith, our own ability to love our neighbour even when they disagree with us and even when they are of totally different religious beliefs, and especially our own transformation into a deeper union with God. That is what will strengthen the Church. The Church is not about regulation, it’s about transformation, transforming hearts and souls into Christians who walk the talk and stand up for life in a world of death. It doesn’t matter whether you show up at an EF Mass in veil or 3-piece suit or show up at a happy-clappy OF Mass as a homeless person in rags. It’s what’s inside that matters.

Pride, IMHO, is what is killing the Church.

:clapping:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve posted this numerous times, but because I believe it to be a “traditional” truth (and the reason that I see no need and, indeed, much harm, in distinguishing monikers, esp. as regards the the Church). Why it isn’t embraced by “traditionalists,” I can’t say (it’s from a pre-Vatican II Pope ). From HH Pope Benedict XV’s Beatissimi Apostolorum:

1. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
2. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). ***There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. ***

 

[Ohana]

Saying…

It is not a finger-pointing followed by a “you’re wrong!”

…and then saying…

It is wrong to cast off these treasures of centuries of careful development under the protection of the Holy Ghost.

…seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

The earlier statement about Church affirmations being a requirement because of some villanous, even satanic contradiction of Church beliefs makes the statement even less pallatable for me.

I do like the part about “Mary, Cause of all our Joys” though.

TIM

---

NOT QUOTE - can’t get the grey out of this, Ho Hum, I don’t have a geek gene in my body!

Me Too!!!

I have difficulty with the traditionalist section. When I first joined, I gravitated to that because I consider myself a traditionalist in many ways. I attend Mass, receive the sacraments, especially reconciliation and Eucharist often, while not a daily mass attendee, I go more frequently that some, I say an occasional Rosary. I am not so much on rote prayers except the ones in the Rosary, but certainly pray. Over a lifetime, my faith life has grown as has my relationship with Christ.

Yet I get in the traditionalist section and feel put down because I prefer the NO and not the EF. I do not want the Mass to return to Latin for several reasons I have stated in the past. I have a problem with letting the rules get in the way of relationship, which it often seems to here. So, I guess I cannot identify myself as a traditionalist, even though I revere our tradition, one of the tripods of our faith story.

I feel sad that this division has happened, and I think it is a real division. We are not just diverse Catholics, we have to fit the square pegs in the round holes. Even God wouldn’t do that.

 

[JM3]

It’s not that one set of Catholics are good and one set of Catholics are bad.

The article says that Catholics who are not ‘traditionalists’ are not Catholics and are the enemy.

So, the short answer to the question concerning a traditionalist’s identity is that he is a Catholic who affirms the dogmatic truths, moral teachings, and liturgical traditions of the Church. This is substantial and primary. That he does so in the face of opposition, not only from the world, but from others calling themselves Catholic, is secondary and accidental. Let us not invert that order, lest we allow the enemy to dictate our identity to us.

and, then, this:

Here, then, I will catalogue some of the things traditionalists affirm, or ought to affirm:

We affirm the Catholic Credo in all its integrity.

We affirm that the Catholic Church is the one bride of Christ, and that its Faith and its religion are the only divinely revealed ways to believe in and serve the living God. Consequently, the Catholic Church is the only path to salvation.

We affirm that divine truth is assailed by enemies of God’s Church, and that the faithful must “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

We affirm the supernatural constitution of the Church, the natural hierarchy of the family, and the rule of Christ the King in society. To what degree we can, we will work to preserve or restore these things in our own families and communities; for the the world, the flesh, and the devil are undermining this order established by God…

Do you not find it odd that there is no mention of the Pope?