What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Auntie_M]

Hi Auntie M,

First off, I don’t talk about the “disposition” of anyone, whether pre or post Vatican II. By disposition I mean what is going on with them interiorly, as when you said,

So I would be suspicious of any blanket statement about people’s dispositions regardless of the time period.

And by the way, unless someone is mentally defective (as you are not), one can learn enough Latin to follow along with the Mass and thus not have to read (and nothing wrong with reading anyway).

Schools may not have “required” Latin to graduate, but I think it’s a safe bet to say that many Catholic schools would have taught Latin to students prior to Vatican II, and even some public schools.
Dear Brennan, you really should have quit talking right here, you just did EXACTLY what you said you didn’t…“YOU DON’T TALK ABOUT THE DISPOSITION OF ANYONE” “?”

I think it is fairly common knowledge (and not just among traditionalists) that catechesis, for the most part, has been awful for the past forty years. ****Thus many Catholics don’t know the “whats” of their faith, much less the whys, because it was never taught to them. Or if they are aware of some of the “whats” many just ignore them and do what they want (i.e. contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, etc.). ****:tsktsk:

It’s pretty much a given nowadays that if you want to learn the Catholic Faith you can’t necessarily rely on homilies or Catholic schools or colleges. You have to learn it on your own. That is why places like Catholic Answers exist. I dare say that such wasn’t the norm prior to Vatican II where people could at least learn the whats and also some of the whys through things like the Baltimore Catechism.

God bless.

Gosh, I guess my parish was the Rolls Royces of Catholic Churches, cause when I first started attending mass, during the Easter Season, a very busy time, the DRE took time out to find videos/ books and gave me as much of his time as he could spare. I, an excited pre-convert, read everything I could. Then, when attending RCIA classes, any other questions were answered then. My “training” was very informative and the DRE very helpful.

So your assumption that “Many Catholics don’t know the whys or whats so many of them just ignore and do what they want to” is
just that… One’s person opinion of another’s disposition.

I could not have asked for a better start.:extrahappy:

 

[Auntie_M]

[SIGN]
Freshman88;3965368:

Ugh, don’t put too much faith in our Catholic school system. I graduated from high school two years ago, and had the full 14 years of Catholic education. I graduated an agnostic, despite my parents taking me to mass every sunday of my life. **My parent’s didn’t discuss religion at home however, and largely trusted the school system to do that. **

[/SIGN]

My point exactly. To just “learn” about the faith is NOT living the faith.
Never trust your children’s minds to someone else. Training begins at home. The old saying of “monkey see, monkey do” is so true of alot of things. It is a scientic fact, (studies have been made), that IF a child sees his paents reading alot of books, then that child will also have a love of reading. If the child sees his parents watching tv and becoming a couch potato, then the child puts very little emphasis on anything but the tv.
But, “in the old days”, there wasn’t alot of emphasis placed on learning the “whys” of Catholism (or learning Latin for that matter)
People just sat in mass, some saying the Rosary, some “trying” to follow along with the priest, some not even paying attention,
and some just being there because that was what was expected of them to do.
The Catholic faith IS EXCITING. And IF you show that excitement, others will get excited too. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiam.

Let’s regroup and go back to MY original post. I was talking with freshman88. He had gone to a Catholic School and graduated an agnostic! Yes that is terrible. I was pointing out that our Church emphasizes PARENTS TEACHING their children. Not to rely on anyone else.

How on earth did all this Other stuff come out of that?

But IF you talk to alot of the OLDEST Catholics, you will see too, that emphasis was NOT much on education. And yes, alot of people back then DID sit and say their Rosary. Investigate and you’ll find this to be true.

 

[Auntie_M]

So, there are no traditionalists? With all they have suffered we can now just dismiss that they are even there? How considerate is that, given all the massive overwhelming benefits we have everyday and how little they have in comparison? We have hundreds of Masses in any town at our choosing. They drive sometimes hundreds of miles for one per month. I read here that they seek to end the OF and make only their Mass available, and how bad that is. Of course this ignores that it was the traditionalists who actually had their Mass banned, and not us. They have been marginalized for years, and now we can just wave them away with our hand.

I feel this above post reflects just what traditionalists have heard for years. Go away, you don’t even exist. And if you do then you are a divider and not worthy of consideration.

I really don’t know where you get your opinions. I NEVER said anything about anyone going away. I DO believe we, as Catholics, DO NOT NEED LABELS that DIVIDE. And you will have to admit the “Traditionalist” and the “Modernist” labels are a division that NEEDS TO STOP.

Oh, I am sorry for making the assumption that you were a Cradle Catholic. Have you been a Catholic very long? What, may I ask, do you consider yourself…a Traditionalist, a Modernist or just a Catholic? I do hope it is the later, Does anyone realize what these labels are doing to our Church…

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **Auntie M **
But, “in the old days”, there wasn’t alot of emphasis placed on learning the “whys” of Catholism (or learning Latin for that matter)

**I guess you never heard of the Baltimore Catechism or used it in school. **

People just sat in mass, some saying the Rosary, some “trying” to follow along with the priest, some not even paying attention,
and some just being there because that was what was expected of them to do.

That is SO UNTRUE. The VAST MAJORITY of the faithful used THEIR MISSALS to follow along, which had Latin on one side and the English translation on the other, along with the Readings. Some missals even had hymns. So, I don’t know where you’re coming from in that regard. There weren’t very many people reciting the Rosary during Mass, at least when I was growing up.

The Catholic faith IS EXCITING. And IF you show that excitement, others will get excited too. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiam.

And misperception breeds contempt.

 

[cothrige]

I really don’t know where you get your opinions. I NEVER said anything about anyone going away. I DO believe we, as Catholics, DO NOT NEED LABELS that DIVIDE. And you will have to admit the “Traditionalist” and the “Modernist” labels are a division that NEEDS TO STOP.

I admit no such thing, and neither does the Church. These labels do not divide, but correctly identify who and what you are talking about. Modernism is a heresy condemned by the Church and a modernist is a person attached to that heresy. A traditionalist is one who worships using the older traditions and calls to the Church from within to recognize and free these which were lost to many in previous years. If these labels divide then so do Latin and Byzantine, and lay and cleric. Labels are not a bad thing if they are accurate.

Oh, I am sorry for making the assumption that you were a Cradle Catholic.

No need to apologise. I took no offense. Though I can’t see why you asked me about which I am.

Have you been a Catholic very long? What, may I ask, do you consider yourself…a Traditionalist, a Modernist or just a Catholic?

Well, I wouldn’t say I am “just” a Catholic. Specifically, I am a Catholic layman of the Latin Rite. Am I a modernist? Certainly not, as that would be to embrace heresy. Am I a traditionalist? No, I can’t say that I am, but I could be given the chance. I respect them and think they serve the will of God in keeping before us, and alive for us, the traditions of the faith that would otherwise have been lost in the great cultural upheavals of the last century. They have suffered great loss and have been marginalized by their very fellow believers, and have continued to hold true to what they saw as God’s will. That is admirable, and should not be dismissed as if divisive. It is not nearly as divisive as the actions taken against them by many throughout the past and which has made their existence necessary.

But, God has not called me to be a traditionalist, anymore than he has called me to the diaconate or to be a Benedictine. I am a Catholic who hopes all who are Catholic will be heard and able to make their contribution. It is my belief that traditionalists within the Church will bear wonderful fruit in the next generations and we will all benefit from their efforts and fortitude. I will gladly embrace any of that fruit as it becomes available and will try to live, as I always have, the fullness of the tradition of the Church in my life.

I do hope it is the later, Does anyone realize what these labels are doing to our Church…

Really? What about the label “cradle Catholic” which you used earlier? How does that further the life of the Church? How is my being a convert and somebody else having been raised in the Church make us different now? I believe everything that the Church teaches and I presume they do as well, so why the distinction? You asked earlier which I was, as if it would tell you anything about me, and I say it doesn’t. Knowing doesn’t help you understand me at all. And yet you asked about that without any qualification at all, but when you ask about whether I am a traditionalist you then feel compelled to explain how much damage you feel that label then does. What a complete reversal of reality and I think it is a reflection of not how you view labels, but how you view the idea of being a traditiniolast as contrasted with how you feel about being crade or not.

Returning to your previous post I say that your statement that basically traditionalists don’t exist could be compared to saying something like Jews don’t exist, or Blacks don’t exist, when they are in the middle of being persecuted. Sure, you may object that this is not persecution, but I say that in many places it is. It also would be to you if it were reversed. Can you imagine the number of times people on this forum argue that so-called traditionalists seek to ban the OF? They go on and on about how mean and awful that would be. But, they ignore that the EF was banned, and continues to effectively be so in many places, and there are people suffering under that. But, then they object, you cannot suffer if you have the Mass, and the OF is the Mass just as is the EF. But, then, how can banning the OF be bad, since the EF is also the Mass and you cannot suffer then either. But, somehow it is bad to wish to ban the OF (which traditionalists aren’t even advocating) and not bad to have banned the EF. One group is able to suffer (because it is us) and the other is just complaining needlessly (because it is them.)

Your post above played right into this. Hush traditionalists, because you don’t even exist. If you do, then you divide. So, hush, bad traditionalists, hush. I am sorry but your post, IMHO, reflected just why there is division, and that is because for you and many others unity can only exist by adhering to what you prefer and believe, and there is simply a red-headed stepchild status given to traditionalists. I simply reject that as unchristian. They do nothing other than live out their faith as they received it, and in the same manner in which hundreds and hundreds of saints did as well. They do exist, they have suffered, and they should be heard.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Gosh, I guess my parish was the Rolls Royces of Catholic Churches, cause when I first started attending mass, during the Easter Season, a very busy time, the DRE took time out to find videos/ books and gave me as much of his time as he could spare. I, an excited pre-convert, read everything I could. Then, when attending RCIA classes, any other questions were answered then. My “training” was very informative and the DRE very helpful.

So your assumption that “Many Catholics don’t know the whys or whats so many of them just ignore and do what they want to” is
just that… One’s person opinion of another’s disposition.

I could not have asked for a better start.:extrahappy:

I think we are stumbling over the word disposition. If I see someone at Mass and decide they are not paying attention, I am saying something about their disposition or what is going on with them interiorly. Talking about whether or not Latin was offered in schools or whether Catholics know the whys or whats of their faith is not discussing their disposition or what is going on with them interiorly.

Yes, perhaps you did attend RCIA at a very good parish. And certainly I don’t think you can extrapolate what you experienced to make a general statement that Catholics today know more about what is going on at Mass than previous generations or know the whys of their Faith better.

And if that is the case, I wonder why, percentagewise, fewer Catholics attend Mass, get baptized or married in the Church, go to confession, etc.? I mean if they are so much better educated and know the whys of the faith more one would think this would result in an even greater practice of the faith than prior to Vatican II. And this is not even mentioning the larger percentage of Catholics who contracept, divorce and remarry, among other things.

I know that when I was converting, I made it a point to call around to different parishes and try to find one that would actually teach me the faith. Fortunately I found one. I also recall attending a few confirmation classes (I was a sponsor) at a local church and realizing that if what they were getting there was all they were going to learn about Catholicism they would not be in good shape at all as they were not learning much of the whats, let alone the whys. I’m not saying all parishes are like that, but again, I will reiterate that the poor catechesis of the past forty years has been noted numerous times by Catholics whether they are traditionalists or conservatives.

I’m pretty certain Catholic Answers is aware of the problem which is why their entire apostalate revolves around getting Catholics better educated about their faith (along with educating non-Catholics).

So, yes, if a DRE happens to hand you good, solid, orthodox Catholic materials then you are fortunate. One can get educated about the faith nowadays, but quite often it has to be done on one’s own or by making sure you find a parish that actually teaches the Faith.

 

[ethelzguy]

Originally Posted by **Auntie M **
But, “in the old days”, there wasn’t alot of emphasis placed on learning the “whys” of Catholism (or learning Latin for that matter)

**I guess you never heard of the Baltimore Catechism or used it in school. **

People just sat in mass, some saying the Rosary, some “trying” to follow along with the priest, some not even paying attention,
and some just being there because that was what was expected of them to do.

***I’ve attended thousands of Masses just like the one mentioned above. ***

That is SO UNTRUE. The VAST MAJORITY of the faithful used THEIR MISSALS to follow along, which had Latin on one side and the English translation on the other, along with the Readings. Some missals even had hymns. So, I don’t know where you’re coming from in that regard. There weren’t very many people reciting the Rosary during Mass, at least when I was growing up.

The Catholic faith IS EXCITING. And IF you show that excitement, others will get excited too. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiam.

And misperception breeds contempt.

Not contempt, just observation of a very large sample

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by ethelzguy
Originally Posted by **peary **
Originally Posted by **Auntie M **But, “in the old days”, there wasn’t alot of emphasis placed on learning the “whys” of Catholism (or learning Latin for that matter)

I guess you never heard of the Baltimore Catechism or used it in school.

People just sat in mass, some saying the Rosary, some “trying” to follow along with the priest, some not even paying attention,
and some just being there because that was what was expected of them to do.

I’ve attended thousands of Masses just like the one mentioned above.

That is SO UNTRUE. The VAST MAJORITY of the faithful used THEIR MISSALS to follow along, which had Latin on one side and the English translation on the other, along with the Readings. Some missals even had hymns. So, I don’t know where you’re coming from in that regard. There weren’t very many people reciting the Rosary during Mass, at least when I was growing up.

The Catholic faith IS EXCITING. And IF you show that excitement, others will get excited too. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiam.

And misperception breeds contempt.

Not contempt, just observation of a very large sample

I guess the Chicago archdiocese was way ahead of other parts of the country when it came to Mass participation of the faithful in the pre-Vatican II days. Again, the whole notion of little old ladies pumpin’ their rosary beads in the back of the Church and nobody knowing or having a clue as to what was going on is an urban myth, believe me.

 

[RoxieB]

All of you use too many acronyms!
For me.

 

[PatrickJT914]

All of you use too many acronyms!
For me.

Hi roxieB,

Welcome to CAF (Catholic Answers Forum). Yes you are right there is a tendency to use too much acronyms. Do you know they mean? If, not would like some help from me and/or the other posters?

Patrick

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

All of you use too many acronyms!
For me.

Roxie,

That’s a rockin’ first post.

Let’s see if I can help a little bit.

DRE - Director of Religious Education
EF - Extraordinary Form - TLM
TLM - The Latin Mass
OF - Ordinary Form - the NO
NO - Novos Ordo (“New Mass”) - the Pauline/Vatican II Mass
IAP - Instrument Approach Procedure (oops… wrong forum)