What is a Traditionalist - A Well Written Blog Post

[TrueLight]

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

That’s not how I interpret this:

"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."

If someone doesn’t affirm the dogmatic truths, moral teachings etc, how are they Catholic?

I believe what he is saying that the traditionalist identity should not be based first and foremost on disagreements with others, or a persecution complex. The primary thing is that dogmatic truths, moral teachings etc.

and, then, this:

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

Not at all. Does the Credo have the Pope?

Unless someone is a sedevacantist, it is a given that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

 

[TrueLight]

Pride, IMHO, is what is killing the Church.

I agree that pride is one of the things killing the church. Pride is something we all struggle with even in our own personal lives, not only certain people or a group of people.

 

[TrueLight]

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. ***

Thanks for reposting this.

This is, of course, all good and something to strive for.

It still doesn’t change the fact that labels exist, so we can pretend they don’t exist, or we can agree that they do and look for ways to be inclusive.

Is it wrong to say Roman Catholic? How about Eastern Catholic?

Are those not labels as well?

Labeling is a way the mind makes sense of the world, so there will always be labeling of some sort. Of course we can speak against pejorative labeling.

 

[PhilOSophia]

The concern of Traditionalists is that Catholicism itself is being redefined.

See how many of the following the average Catholic today actually believes in:

• The final authority of the Pope;
• Transubstantiation;
• The necessity of the sacraments;
• The special nature of the ordained priest;
• That priests are to be men;
• Mortal sin and Hell;
• Chastity and virginity outside marriage;
• The grave sins of contraception and abortion and homosexual acts.

Protestants, on the other hand, don’t believe in any of these, I think. Or they pick and choose, dending on the denomination. We could be de-facto Protestants in another 50 years. And it will seem the most natural thing in the world.

Reading this list makes me think ecumenism at the price of doctrine is a waste of time. You would end up talking to phantoms; a body of people who don’t have a central authority that actually clamps down on error.

 

[TimothyH]

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. ***

This is indeed very interesting, and I had to look up the word “Appelation”

*Appelation:

1. A name, title, or designation.
2. The act of naming.*

I noticed that the Holy Father said that the Catholic Faith “Must be” held as a whole.

-Tim-

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thanks for reposting this.

This is, of course, all good and something to strive for.

It still doesn’t change the fact that labels exist, so we can pretend they don’t exist, or we can agree that they do and look for ways to be inclusive.

Is it wrong to say Roman Catholic? How about Eastern Catholic?

Are those not labels as well?

Labeling is a way the mind makes sense of the world, so there will always be labeling of some sort. Of course we can speak against pejorative labeling.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The concern of Traditionalists is that Catholicism itself is being redefined.

See how many of the following the average Catholic today actually believes in:

• The final authority of the Pope;
• Transubstantiation;
• The necessity of the sacraments;
• The special nature of the ordained priest;
• That priests are to be men;
• Mortal sin and Hell;
• Chastity and virginity outside marriage;
• The grave sins of contraception and abortion and homosexual acts.

Protestants, on the other hand, don’t believe in any of these, I think. Or they pick and choose, dending on the denomination. We could be de-facto Protestants in another 50 years. And it will seem the most natural thing in the world.

Reading this list makes me think ecumenism at the price of doctrine is a waste of time. You would end up talking to phantoms; a body of people who don’t have a central authority that actually clamps down on error.

Right. The problem with so-called “Catholic liberalism” is that it has to be made up. It has never existed, it has no basis, and it cannot exist. It is a manufactured scape-goat for generationally-attached old Catholics who are too afraid to let go of the radical 1960s. Sure, we’ve got some of the kiddos who say, “We’re returning to Early Christianity.” To that, I retort, “Why does that matter? Who cares? And can you prove it anyways besides some obscure painting on a cave wall?” I don’t understand that obsession. If the Early Christians could do a quarter of the things that we are so privileged to do now, I’m sure they would. They were practicing an illegal religion which forced them to have very simple celebrations and in very modest places. We are not constrained by that.

However, “Catholic traditionalism” is not a movement to manufacture anything. Everything that Catholic traditionalism favors: is rooted in history, already exists, is completely compatible with Church doctrine, is easily called beautiful without having to be explained to the uninitiated, has already proved itself over the course of history, etc. We already HAVE IT! We don’t have to “create” anything new. We don’t have to play with that fire. We don’t have to “create by committee.” It’s already there!

Now, I’m not a moron. I don’t think that everything was fine and dandy before Vatican II. That’s not me, no. So let’s get that out of the way. We certainly needed some of the changes that were called for in Vatican II. I agree with that, especially about evangelization and some other things. And it’s a massive cliche, but, I really think we threw the baby out with the bathwater. Benedetto clap clap clap clap clap

 

[TimothyH]

The concern of Traditionalists is that Catholicism itself is being redefined.

See how many of the following the average Catholic today actually believes in:

• The final authority of the Pope;
• Transubstantiation;
• The necessity of the sacraments;
• The special nature of the ordained priest;
• That priests are to be men;
• Mortal sin and Hell;
• Chastity and virginity outside marriage;
• The grave sins of contraception and abortion and homosexual acts.

Protestants, on the other hand, don’t believe in any of these, I think. Or they pick and choose, dending on the denomination. We could be de-facto Protestants in another 50 years. And it will seem the most natural thing in the world.

Reading this list makes me think ecumenism at the price of doctrine is a waste of time. You would end up talking to phantoms; a body of people who don’t have a central authority that actually clamps down on error.

I’ll ask it again, as I have on several threads, and not received an anwer except from one person; does the term “traditionalist” refer to the list above or is “traditionalist” about the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass?

I will be blunt and state that I believe that for most who identify themselves as such, attending the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass is a prerequisite for calling oneself a traditionalist, and as such, it is less about doctrine than it is about the form of the Mass.

So my question is, is attending the pre-1962 Tridentine form of the Mass a prerequisite for being a traditionalist?

It is my hope that I will be proved wrong.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

I’ll ask it again, as I have on several threads, and not received an anwer except from one person; does the term “traditionalist” refer to the list above or is “traditionalist” about the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass?

I will be blunt and state that I believe that for most who identify themselves as such, attending the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass is a prerequisite for calling oneself a traditionalist, and as such, it is less about doctrine than it is about the form of the Mass.

So my question is, is attending the pre-1962 Tridentine form of the Mass a prerequisite for being a traditionalist?

It is my hope that I will be proved wrong.

-Tim-

That is a good question and one I’m not sure I can accurately answer in my limited experience, correctly.

I would say most people who refer to themselves as “trads” either attend the EF primarily or wish they could attend the EF. However, there is nothing wrong with that. Traditional Catholics tend to like the old time religion so naturally, they will be drawn to things as they were before. That doesn’t mean some don’t attend the OF.

Those who are traditional but don’t attend the EF seem to call themselves Orthodox instead of Traditional or Traditionalist.

Again, this is what I’ve observed in my limited experience. I am not speaking for anyone else.

I would love to do a poll, but I fear a lot of the trads are no longer even on this forum.

 

[Melchior_1]

There was a discussion in another thread here awhile ago where someone categorically said to be a “traditionalist” one must attend the EF. If one doesn’t, it’s only because one isn’t available.

You could have several traditional devotionals, but you wouldn’t be a real traditionalist if you didn’t attend the EF.

 

[TrueLight]

There was a discussion in another thread here awhile ago where someone categorically said to be a “traditionalist” one must attend the EF. If one doesn’t, it’s only because one isn’t available.

You could have several traditional devotionals, but you wouldn’t be a real traditionalist if you didn’t attend the EF.

That might in fact be the definition of “traditionalist” versus traditional.

 

[OraLabora]

Is it wrong to say Roman Catholic? How about Eastern Catholic?

Are those not labels as well? .

Huge difference in context. Roman Catholic is a more or less official designation of one of the 23 sui juris Churches; Eastern Catholic is a wider term for most of the others. “Benedictine” or “Franciscan” also designate attachment to official communities in the Church.

Traditionalist is a self-designation that has no official recognition, and is born not of a desire to attach to a charism but as a defense against what one personally disagrees with in the modern Church. There are plenty of things in the modern Church to disagree with. Pride and divisiveness are not appropriate ways to deal with them, IMHO.

 

[TrueLight]

Huge difference in context. Roman Catholic is a more or less official designation of one of the 23 sui juris Churches; Eastern Catholic is a wider term for most of the others. “Benedictine” or “Franciscan” also designate attachment to official communities in the Church.

Traditionalist is a self-designation that has no official recognition, and is born not of a desire to attach to a charism but as a defense against what one personally disagrees with in the modern Church. There are plenty of things in the modern Church to disagree with. Pride and divisiveness are not appropriate ways to deal with them, IMHO.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you that just because someone calls themself a traditionalist so that they can identify commonality, it means they are suffering from pride. Some are proud and some are not.

I think the indignation at people daring to call themselves traditionalist is just as prideful.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Traditionalist is a self-designation that has no official recognition, and is born not of a desire to attach to a charism but as a defense against what one personally disagrees with in the modern Church.

More, I think, a defense against what other people personally want to turn the Church into. Most of what the “liberals” want has not been realized in actuality, and traditionalists try to stop it before it ever materializes.

 

[Timothysis]

The only words needed that have any meaning to Catholics are ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox.’ Anything else and we enter the world of subjectivity, where one word can mean ten different things to ten different people.

 

[OraLabora]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you that just because someone calls themself a traditionalist so that they can identify commonality, it means they are suffering from pride. Some are proud and some are not.

I think the indignation at people daring to call themselves traditionalist is just as prideful.

The problem is that some people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and some people do the wrong things for the right reasons, and fewer yet do the right things for the right reasons. I can hardly pretend to be in the latter category, and I myself rarely if ever go to a parish Mass when I can, with a 30 min. drive, attend a beautifully sung OF Mass in Gregorian chant at a local Benedictine abbey. So guilty as charged in my case. And yes it played a role in my becoming an oblate of said abbey. Strike two! And yes, I am hiding from awful liturgies that grate. Strike three, yer out!

The Benedictine worldview kind of grew on me though. There’s no “us and them”. Mass is attended by Catholics that I know to be very liberal, and others I know to be very conservative. The monks are welcoming to all.

The point I want to make though is that no matter how well-intentioned individual traditionalists may be, the notion of such a movement within the Church can and in fact does lead to spiritual pride. There is plenty of evidence of that on this very forum and there’s plenty of evidence that the accidentals of traditionalism often take precedence over the core essentials and depth of the faith. I am not accusing every single traditionalist of being guilty of spiritual pride. But sometimes, “love one another as I have loved you” does go missing in the “us” vs. “them” polarization.

More, I think, a defense against what other people personally want to turn the Church into. Most of what the “liberals” want has not been realized in actuality, and traditionalists try to stop it before it ever materializes.

So the answer to divisiveness is further divisiveness?

I’m pretty sure it won’t work. The same sort of polarization doesn’t seem to be too beneficial to US politics either.

What might work is joining a group like this to promote the preservation of Church patrimony and its return to liturgical life:

Gregorian Institute of Canada

Or one can encourage the Communauté St. Martin in France which has done a splendid job of making the current, much-maligned, 4-week LOTH be what it should have always been, by producing a very usable and high quality antiphonary noted for Gregorian chant; incidentally a second printing of it will soon be available:

Les Heures Grégoriennes (sorry page is in French only)

Or the Abbey of Solesmes which has put out in the past 30 years a huge amount of material for both the Mass and the Divine Office, for Gregorian chant of the OF Mass and current Monastic Office.

There are plenty of mainstream resources in the mainstream Church which are faithful to the Magisterium and Tradition (with a capital “T”) for issues other than liturgy. The orders and congregations are a good place to start looking.

And surely when you say “Most of what the “liberals” want has not been realized in actuality, and traditionalists try to stop it before it ever materializes.”… are you not betraying a complete lack of trust in the Magisterium and the Holy Father’s ability to preserve the Deposit of Faith in the future? Is that not in fact a statement of hubris, that only the traditionalists stand as a fortress against the Deposit of Faith being lost to so-called “liberals” within the Church? Has the Church not successfully preserved the Deposit of faith through 2000 years of schisms, heresies, Henry the VIIIth and Martin Luther, attacks on her, immorality, wars, dark ages, renaissance, “age of enlightenment”, etc? Yet today only traditionalists can save her from “liberals”? Please… that’s stretching it more than just a wee bit.

The bottom line is… does this labeling of people as “traditionalist” or “liberal” really have a positive impact on our salvation? Is that what makes us a more loving or charitable neighbour?

The only words needed that have any meaning to Catholics are ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox.’ Anything else and we enter the world of subjectivity, where one word can mean ten different things to ten different people.

Indeed!

 

[YoungTradCath]

So the answer to divisiveness is further divisiveness?

I’m pretty sure it won’t work. The same sort of polarization doesn’t seem to be too beneficial to US politics either.

What might work is joining a group like this to promote the preservation of Church patrimony and its return to liturgical life:

Gregorian Institute of Canada

Or one can encourage the Communauté St. Martin in France which has done a splendid job of making the current, much-maligned, 4-week LOTH be what it should have always been, by producing a very usable and high quality antiphonary noted for Gregorian chant; incidentally a second printing of it will soon be available:

Les Heures Grégoriennes (sorry page is in French only)

Or the Abbey of Solesmes which has put out in the past 30 years a huge amount of material for both the Mass and the Divine Office, for Gregorian chant of the OF Mass and current Monastic Office.

There are plenty of mainstream resources in the mainstream Church which are faithful to the Magisterium and Tradition (with a capital “T”) for issues other than liturgy. The orders and congregations are a good place to start looking.

And surely when you say “Most of what the “liberals” want has not been realized in actuality, and traditionalists try to stop it before it ever materializes.”… are you not betraying a complete lack of trust in the Magisterium and the Holy Father’s ability to preserve the Deposit of Faith in the future? Is that not in fact a statement of hubris, that only the traditionalists stand as a fortress against the Deposit of Faith being lost to so-called “liberals” within the Church? Has the Church not successfully preserved the Deposit of faith through 2000 years of schisms, heresies, Henry the VIIIth and Martin Luther, attacks on her, immorality, wars, dark ages, renaissance, “age of enlightenment”, etc? Yet today only traditionalists can save her from “liberals”? Please… that’s stretching it more than just a wee bit.

The bottom line is… does this labeling of people as “traditionalist” or “liberal” really have a positive impact on our salvation? Is that what makes us a more loving or charitable neighbour?

No, I didn’t say that. You can’t be divisive against something that doesn’t yet exist.

Plenty of “traditionalists” have started groups just like that, like the Musica Sacra website, the Chant Cafe, etc. I don’t think that solves much by itself.

Now you’re implying that somehow these people aren’t the mainstream Church. I don’t get what that means, or why it matters.

No, I’m not betraying trust in the Magisterium and the Pope. ???

Discerning and discriminating is how we humans think, and it has a positive impact on our salvation inasmuch as it helps us to determine the prudence of liturgical and other practices. If you have a better system of collecting and analyzing information, please let me know, because honestly, I’ve never heard of one.

 

[OraLabora]

Now you’re implying that somehow these people aren’t the mainstream Church. I don’t get what that means, or why it matters.

No, I’m not betraying trust in the Magisterium and the Pope?

If traditionalists are part of the Church, so too are the liberals. We are all in perfect communion, liberal or otherwise.

However we all have roles and responsibilities and saying that traditionalists are the main defense against “modernism” (as defined by traditionalists) still strikes me as hubris.

 

[TrueLight]

If traditionalists are part of the Church, so too are the liberals. We are all in perfect communion, liberal or otherwise.

However we all have roles and responsibilities and saying that traditionalists are the main defense against “modernism” (as defined by traditionalists) still strikes me as hubris.

Might not traditionalists have a role to play in the Church? For example, the increasing usage of the Extraordinary Form is helping the OF to become more reverent. People, are saying to themselves, “We can have incense and Gregorian Chant too, and maybe even some Latin.” And I’m referring to those who didn’t know this was possible in the OF. Is that not a good thing? Can we not look at the positive things in a group?

Case in point: I maintain that the way Protestants are more likely to embrace its members through fellowship, hospitality and church activities is something Catholics can emulate.

I also admire how some OF masses include hymns because I love hymns.

Do you think it might be possible that throughout the history of the church, God allows a movement or raises a group of people to help highlight a situation that is in the Church? Does that mean that same group might not have issues? Of course not. But we have to be able to see the positive as well.

Is it hubris to believe traditionalists have a role in the Church, or are we limiting God?

One more thing. I’ve learned that when a fault of someone’s really annoys me, it means I have the same fault. So if I am really annoyed or angered by someone’s pride/ego/hubris, it might mean I have the same traits.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Is it hubris to believe traditionalists have a role in the Church, or are we limiting God?

I believe it is if one also thinks that “liberals” (progressives, what ever label you want to put on them) ***do not ***have a place in the Church, and sadly that is my experience with most self-described “traditionalists” in my area.

I was not very fond of this article as I think it serves more to divide than to unite.

I have to agree with Tim- the only 2 labels we need are “orthodox” & 'heterodox"