What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[MrS]

I’ve noticed that “TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS” aren’t really what they say they are. They basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned. They want to see the Church return to practices, rites, and beliefs of the defensive, scared, reactionary Council of Trent. The Catholic ecumencial council that was formed after the Protestant Reformation. They also want to use the Missal of Pope Puis V as the Ordinary for the Mass,no more OF only one form the EF all the time.

. One of Martin Luther’s complaints is that Mass should be back in the vernacular, so the peolpe would understand. Instead the Church reacted and labeled it as Protestant. It didn’t matter that there was a precedent already established for over 300 years as vernacular was already being used by the Church (From Jesus time and the early disciples to Pope Leo the Great reign)

Didn’t get your coffee this morning… or did you drink way too much of it?

And to think you are actually in a position to give those opinions of yours to our young… sad… very sad.

My preference is for a correctly celebrated OF… there just are not that many of them to be found. If I am a traditionalist, let me define it for me…

I abhor and reject innovations in liturgy, in history, in interpretations that come from the disgruntled in the pew, or the disgruntled with a collar. Without the support and direction of the Pope and Bishops in union with him, changes are not necessary.
I accept and respect the efforts of Benedict XVI to correct this mess, and beleive the Church will be stronger (and perhaps smaller) because of him.

You have stated that Traditionalists basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned.

That ranks among the most idiotic and unsupportable comment in quite a while. I expect you will be called on quite often… and you will not be able to defend your remark with ANY evidence.

.

 

[ethelzguy]

The definition of Traditionalist Catholic that I was taught in RCIA is a Catholic who submits to the Pope, the Magisterim, and the Bishops in all things, and doesn’t try to pick and choose which dogmas of Catholicism to support and which to reject.

A “non-Traditionalist Catholic” is one who does not submit to the Pope, the Magisteriusm, and the Bishops in all things, but instead, chooses those dogmas that he/she believes are correct, and opposes those dogmas that he/she disagrees with.

Sounds like the same thing I was taught, and what my kids were taught.

When I first came to CAF, the term “Cafeteria Catholic” was the big buzz-phrase, and was generally applied to those who fell under “non-traditionalist Catholic” as defined above.

But the longer I am here, the more it seems that it is the traditionalist crowd that espouses Cafeteria Cathoicism, picking and choosing, though they would never admit it.

 

[ethelzguy]

With so many voices talking at once, it is best to listen to the Pope. This is why Jesus gave the keys to Peter. He is our compass. He is our captain.

But of course, if you stand behind the Pope today you might be accused of Papalotry (pope worship), and this by fellow Catholics who claim to be torchbearers of tradition. The best analogy I read was by Dr. Jeff Mirus who said that no matter which side of the barque of Peter we fall off of, we’ll drown. Port or starboard, left or right: the result is the same. That’s why both ultra traditionalists and modernists are drowning in the same sea.

Christ has promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail. That doesn’t mean the devil won’t rock the boat. Oh, he’s rocking the boat alright! That’s why it’s best to stand in the middle, behind the Captain. I absolutely believe you can be a traditional Catholic and stay far away from the edge.

A-men !

 

[ethelzguy]

To me it means believing and following the Pope, Magisterium, Bishops, Nicene Creed, Holy Scriptures, Real Presence, Saints, praying and others. I too find it difficult to really explain in the light of so many labels and definitions.

I’ve noticed that “TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS” aren’t really what they say they are. They basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned. They want to see the Church return to practices, rites, and beliefs of the defensive, scared, reactionary Council of Trent. The Catholic ecumencial council that was formed after the Protestant Reformation. They also want to use the Missal of Pope Puis V as the Ordinary for the Mass,no more OF only one form the EF all the time.

Cafeteria Catholicism ??

 

[BrendanD]

I’ve noticed that “TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS” aren’t really what they say they are. They basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned. They want to see the Church return to practices, rites, and beliefs of the defensive, scared, reactionary Council of Trent.

Ah, so it is “traditional” to insult the ecumenical council that you personally don’t like, but the rest are to be accepted without criticism.

 

[MrS]

Ah, so it is “traditional” to insult the ecumenical council that you personally don’t like, but the rest are to be accepted without criticism.

Brendan… what is NOT in your favor is experience in interacting with all kinds of Catholics. But as you spend time here you will learn, perhaps in months, what it used to take older Catholics years and decades to realize. We are all certainly differerent.

We come with baggage based on our upbringing and our day to day social encounters. When those things are very horizontal, we should not find it strange that there is a carry-over to things religious - like our liturgy and tranditions.

You will meet some who are very intellectual. And some who, as Fr Corapi says, have educated themselves into imbecility.

You will meet some who define a word today quite different from yesterday. And often, both definitions are lacking.

Even the title of this thread leads to ambiguity. Could there be perceived differences between Traditional Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics, and traditional Catholics? Yep, depending on the eye of the beholder.

Is it any wonder that most of the posts here don’t even answer the question?

Time has clouded the meaning of Christian, Catholic, Church, Salvation, … and now Tradition. So this thread will continue on without resolve, and the question will not be answered.

Be patient young man. Learn tolerance… it will help you through future posts by … (whatever one might "label: them)

 

[PatrickJT914]

Patrick, I like your definition. go to the head of the class and teach a while.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you Deacon Ed B.

I don’t know if you are aware but I currently a Catechist w/ Youth Ministry and Confirmation Specializations. Since the mid 80’s.

After your post I am being attacked by others. But I guess that’s part of the risk of posting. Although, hopefully only on ones ideas and NOT of a personal nature.

 

[BrendanD]

Brendan… what is NOT in your favor is experience in interacting with all kinds of Catholics. But as you spend time here you will learn, perhaps in months, what it used to take older Catholics years and decades to realize. We are all certainly differerent.

We come with baggage based on our upbringing and our day to day social encounters. When those things are very horizontal, we should not find it strange that there is a carry-over to things religious - like our liturgy and tranditions.

You will meet some who are very intellectual. And some who, as Fr Corapi says, have educated themselves into imbecility.

You will meet some who define a word today quite different from yesterday. And often, both definitions are lacking.

Even the title of this thread leads to ambiguity. Could there be perceived differences between Traditional Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics, and traditional Catholics? Yep, depending on the eye of the beholder.

Is it any wonder that most of the posts here don’t even answer the question?

Time has clouded the meaning of Christian, Catholic, Church, Salvation, … and now Tradition. So this thread will continue on without resolve, and the question will not be answered.

Be patient young man. Learn tolerance… it will help you through future posts by … (whatever one might "label: them)

I see what you’re saying, sort of. My comment was just a reaction to labeling an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church defensive, scared, and reactionary.

Nobody will ever agree on a definition of traditional/Traditionalist/whatever, but they do have some general meaning at least.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I see what you’re saying, sort of. My comment was just a reaction to labeling an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church defensive, scared, and reactionary.

Nobody will ever agree on a definition of traditional/Traditionalist/whatever, but they do have some general meaning at least.

I agree with you BrendanD; labeling the Council of Trent as scared and defensive is a complete joke. Particularly when the Council of Trent helped usher in the Catholic Reformation (or Counter-Reformation) which saw tremendous reform in religious orders like the Carmelites, some of the greatest Saints in the Church’s history, and the production of some of the best art and architecture the Church has ever produced.

I’d call that good fruit.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I don’t think it’s that difficult to define a traditionalist. It would be someone who prefers the TLM over the NO and thinks it is objectively better (there’s more to it than that, but I think that is primary).

Also, it is someone who believes that it is possible for prudential decisions of a Pope or the Vatican to be unwise or imprudent, such as allowing altar girls or communion in the hand (not to mention the new liturgy). And thus they won’t look at these sorts of decisions as necessarily being guided by the Holy Spirit or if they disagree with them they won’t believe they are disagreeing with God.

Conservatives do want a reverent Mass without abuses and want Priests to follow the GIRM (which is well and good, of course).

Yet one difference between traditionalists and conservatives is that conservatives will not criticize or oppose prudential decisions of the Pope or Vatican. Thus they will defend altar girls and communion in the hand because it has been approved by the Vatican.

 

[BrendanD]

It would be someone who prefers the TLM over the NO and thinks it is objectively better
…]
it is someone who believes that it is possible for prudential decisions of a Pope or the Vatican to be unwise or imprudent

And we come to the issue…some people consider those two things to be totally untraditional, and possibly bordering on heretical.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

And we come to the issue…some people consider those two things to be totally untraditional, and possibly bordering on heretical.

Yes, some people would consider these two things to be untraditional and bordering on heretical. Nevertheless I do maintain that these two things are primary when it comes to the differences between a traditionalist and a conservative.

And of course I’d disagree that disagreeing with a prudential decision of the Pope or Vatican or considering the TLM objectively better is either untraditional or borderline heretical–but you are correct in that that is often the conservative response to traditionalist views.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Didn’t get your coffee this morning… or did you drink way too much of it?

Before I start. I like to say,I WILL NOT engagae in petty tit for tat pointless debates with others over personal issues. Everybody stay on the thread’s main topic or at the threads related topics. Otherwise, See ya! I NOT Going to waste my time. On any one thread.

No I don’t drink coffee.

And to think you are actually in a position to give those opinions of yours to our young… sad… very sad.

How many people actually make the time to help out with a parish group? According to a very recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey only 31% of Catholics say they participate MONTHLY in at least one of selected activities through their parishes, including the church choir,community, or volunteer work, work with children and parish social activities. The survey does not break down into the sub-catergories of volunteering weekly or teaching, or youth ministry work. However, how many people make the time to work and teach with teenagers? Not very few. Since a lot of Catholics have the feeling that is somebodies else’s job. Your lack of thanks and appreciation I’ve come to expect. For one reason it’s not my ministry, but Jesus’. Another reason I enjoy it. I don’t get paid, okay by me.Somebody has to do it. Furthermore, Do you know me? How can you make a statement like that? Since you don’t know, let me tell you a little something about myself, related to youth work. I became a certified basic Catechist w/ both a Youth Ministry (1986) and Confirmation (1988) Specializations. I been involved with my parish for about the same amount of time. I have always taught what the Church teaches. ALL 2000 years of it’s tradition and history. In the time I’ve taught I have not heard one word of complaint (directly or indirectly) from anybody. That includes priests (past or present), DREs,parents (past or present), teenagers (past or present), Youth Ministers (past or present), Director of Initiation, other parish staff. So, I would say unless you have actually lived in my parish and had one of your children or maybe one of your grandchildren in Confirmation that I may have helped to teach. Please DO NOT make such a statement like that again. Thank you.

My preference is for a correctly celebrated OF… there just are not that many of them to be found. If I am a traditionalist, let me define it for me…

My preference is also the OF.

I abhor and reject innovations in liturgy, in history, in interpretations that come from the disgruntled in the pew, or the disgruntled with a collar. Without the support and direction of the Pope and Bishops in union with him, changes are not necessary.
I accept and respect the efforts of Benedict XVI to correct this mess, and beleive the Church will be stronger (and perhaps smaller) because of him.

Do you want me to give you a short history of some of the changes? Does that include Archbishop Leferve, his successors, and his followers?
The changes in liturgy throughout our 2000 year history have not been due to a disgruntled in the pew, or disgruntled with a collar. Even if this was true, this is our church. Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath. He also said that the Sabbath was made for man. So, the liturgy is not set in stone. It’s meant to be alive. It can change the prayers, the order, etc.
You have stated that Traditionalists basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned.

Yes that’s true.

That ranks among the most idiotic and unsupportable comment in quite a while. I expect you will be called on quite often… and you will not be able to defend your remark with ANY evidence.

I’m surprised you said that. Since you’ve been a member longer and posted many more posts than me. You mean to tell me that in all that experience you have not found posters that want to return to pre-Vatican II ? In the brief time I’ve been here at CAF, I seen posts, who if I saw them in person. They would jump up and down, in glee and joy at everything that comes out legitimately from Rome and even rumors that have not yet verified, that overturns Vatican II. You say I can’t defend my remark? You right. I can’t entirely. I don’t need evidence when it’s right here already on CAF. That would mean I would have to do research on all the threads and the posts. However, can defend your contention that my remark is unsupportable?
.

 

[Spiller]

What is a Traditionalist Catholic?

Someone who reads ALL of church history and not just one who is stuck in a particular time period.

Accepts Vatican II and the other church councils

Accepts OF & EF

Allows freedom of worship according to the Rite they like best or feel most comfortable without trying to deprive others from their choice of said rite. That also includes Eastern Catholics.

Acknowledges that the changes from Vatican II are not new,
Modernist teachings, but in reality are restorations from the early church.(Before Council of Trent). Which are adapted to modern times. Example: RCIA is a restored practice, but the name is more modern.

Accepts, follows and believes in the Pope and the whole teaching authority of the Bishops.

Accepts bible teachings as understood by the church

Follows good moral values

et al.

In other words accepts and embraces ALL 2000 years of church tradition & history. And not stuck in a time warp.

Absolutely! :clapping:

 

[Spiller]

To me it means believing and following the Pope, Magisterium, Bishops, Nicene Creed, Holy Scriptures, Real Presence, Saints, praying and others. I too find it difficult to really explain in the light of so many labels and definitions.

I’ve noticed that “TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS” aren’t really what they say they are. They basically want all of Vatican II to be overturned. They want to see the Church return to practices, rites, and beliefs of the defensive, scared, reactionary Council of Trent. The Catholic ecumencial council that was formed after the Protestant Reformation. They also want to use the Missal of Pope Puis V as the Ordinary for the Mass,no more OF only one form the EF all the time.

Another thing I’ve noticed about these “TRADITIONALISTS” is for most of them (not all of them, must show some charity) is they either haven’t read, read but didn’t care, read it didn’t understand it,
have some read it and interpeted by others with a misunderstanding or an agena. What I primarily talking about is the early church history that existed before 1570. The one that Vatican II RESTORED the ancient Rites, beliefs, practices,
vestments etc. to the Church. For example: Vernacular in Mass. There wasn’t any universal church language. Jewish Christians conduct the Liturgy in Aramaic, and the Greek Christians said it in Greek. In circa 230 the community of Rome begins using Latin in place of Greek (wasn,t Latin the vernacular of Rome anyway?) The Edict of Milan in part sets the stage for Latin to eventually replace Greek in the Liturgy. Between 366-384, the changeover from Greek to Latin in the Liturgy is completed during the Leo the Great’s reign. Christians begin to forge a Latin language proper to the teachings of the Church. One of Martin Luther’s complaints is that Mass should be back in the vernacular, so the peolpe would understand. Instead the Church reacted and labeled it as Protestant. It didn’t matter that there was a precedent already established for over 300 years as vernacular was already being used by the Church (From Jesus time and the early disciples to Pope Leo the Great reign)

Another excellent posting!

 

[Spiller]

A “non-Traditionalist Catholic” is one who does not submit to the Pope, the Magisteriusm, and the Bishops in all things, but instead, chooses those dogmas that he/she believes are correct, and opposes those dogmas that he/she disagrees with."

So, Spiller, if this is “poppycock,” what is the correct term for the definition above? Thank you.

I wasn’t trying to present a definitive definition of anything in my post. As far as I’m concerned, it’s meaningless for any of us to present a definition of “Traditional Catholicism.” None of us have any authority and it’s strictly our opinion, gleaned from our personal catechesis and experiences. The two definitions I gave were what I was taught in RCIA. I don’t consider my RCIA class teachers purveyors of “poppycock.” Their definitions are just as valid as anyone else’s unless the Pope has actually published HIS definition.

CAF’s definition is what matters on this forum.

Here is what they say that this section of the Board is supposed to be:

“…talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism”

(I coped this off the sticky at the beginning of the section.)

I find this description rather sparse.

I’d call that a cafeteria Catholic. In other words a dissenting Catholic.

 

[Spiller]

Much truth can be found in the vaunted Catholic Liturgical Spreadsheet

liturgicalspreadsheet.tripod.com/catholicspreadsheet.pdf

 

[Spiller]

I don’t think it’s that difficult to define a traditionalist. **It would be someone who prefers the TLM over the NO and thinks it is objectively better (there’s more to it than that, but I think that is primary). **

Also, it is someone who believes that it is possible for prudential decisions of a Pope or the Vatican to be unwise or imprudent, such as allowing altar girls or communion in the hand (not to mention the new liturgy). And thus they won’t look at these sorts of decisions as necessarily being guided by the Holy Spirit or if they disagree with them they won’t believe they are disagreeing with God.

Conservatives do want a reverent Mass without abuses and want Priests to follow the GIRM (which is well and good, of course).

Yet one difference between traditionalists and conservatives is that conservatives will not criticize or oppose prudential decisions of the Pope or Vatican. Thus they will defend altar girls and communion in the hand because it has been approved by the Vatican.

Balderdash. I am a traditionally-minded Catholic and I much prefer the OF and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Your comparison of “traditionalists” and “conservatives” is Twilight Zone material…

 

[PatrickJT914]

Ah, so it is “traditional” to insult the ecumenical council that you personally don’t like, but the rest are to be accepted without criticism.

Yes, it is being a beliver is to question and doubt without those how can you learn. Besides disagreeing does not automatically throw out the potential good that may have come out of it.

Let me relay something that I recently learned about the Council of Trent that I did not know. During the Council, bishops recognized that replacing the Latin with the vernacular was desirable, and therefore did not condemn the vernacular as such. At that particular moment in history they decided that it was not expedient to introduce the vernacular. (Thank you Dictionary of the Liturgy- Rev. Jovian P.Lang,OFM- Catholic Book Publishing)

So, can you see why maybe the Council reacted the way it did, it found nothing really wrong with vernacular. But because the Protestant Reformation was still underway, the Catholic Church went to Latin, while everybody else basically went for the vernacular. Wouldn’t that install a false pride, defensiveness and stubborness that prevented the Catholic faithful from hearing the Mass in their own languages, because it might be a Protestant thing. The Council already happened it’s part of our faith. And accept it.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Balderdash. I am a traditionally-minded Catholic and I much prefer the OF and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Your comparison of “traditionalists” and “conservatives” is Twilight Zone material…

No, it’s not. You can’t just define “traditinalist” according to whatever you want it to be (although any traditionalist would also greatly appreciate the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as well).

If one reads traditionalist publications such as Latin Mass Magazine (latinmassmagazine.com/) or The Remnant or is acquainted with the articles and books traditionlists read you’ll discover that there isn’t a traditionalist who exists who prefers the NO over the TLM.