What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Or it might be called wisdom not to throw the entire liturgy into the vernacular where the translations can be toyed with by progressives.

And where and how does your author draw the conclusion that the Bishops at the Council of Trent concluded that replacing the Latin with the vernacular was desirable?

I found this:

“It also called for the continued use of Latin in liturgy, although there was no specific condemnation of the use of vernacular. In fact, the council fathers decreed that vernacular explanations of some of the liturgical texts had to be given in the context of liturgy on every Sunday and holy day.”

liturgica.com/html/litWLTrent.jsp

Having vernacular explanations is not the same thing as translating the actual liturgy into the vernacular.

So I suppose the Catholic Church has been instilled with a false pride, defensiveness, and stubornness for at least 1,600 years with its stubborn and shortsighted use of Latin. And of course now that we are using the vernacular we’ve ushered in an era of docile, humble, obedient Catholics.

And what churches, besides the Protestant revolters, went for the vernacular? The Orthodox?!

 

[PatrickJT914]

Another excellent posting!

Thank you. But this should be common knowledge to all Catholics that we are changing and unchangeless Church. As long as we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide us we will be all right. The Devil will not prevail not even if when he pits Catholics against Catholics, willingly or unwillingly. If we were to get a look at Satan what kind of an expression would he have?

If we were to get a look at Jesus, what kind of an expression would he have?

I’m thinking, Satan a very big and evil smile. (A house divided against itself)

Jesus very sad maybe to point of crying, but still with love. (My people pay me lip service, but their hearts are far from me. Father you and I are one, I pray that they may be one just as you and I are one.)

Sorry Spiller I was going to write a quick thank you.

 

[MrS]

Thank you. But this should be common knowledge to all Catholics that we are changing and unchangeless Church. As long as we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide us we will be all right. The Devil will not prevail not even if when he pits Catholics against Catholics, willingly or unwillingly. If we were to get a look at Satan what kind of an expression would he have?

If we were to get a look at Jesus, what kind of an expression would he have?

I’m thinking, Satan a very big and evil smile. (A house divided against itself)

Jesus very sad maybe to point of crying, but still with love. (My people pay me lip service, but their hearts are far from me. Father you and I are one, I pray that they may be one just as you and I are one.)

Sorry Spiller I was going to write a quick thank you.

So quit feeding him. As to your efforts with youth… well, my opinion remains the same… and is verified when I see who it is who agrees with you

 

[MrS]

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.

Perhaps a bit simplistic. But I have done the same myself.

Personally I prefer that which has withstood the test of time (hence the word traditional), as opposed to “what I like best”.

Although I love the properly celebrated NO (which has no way withstood the test of time), I also love the peace, the smells/bells and the abundance of “traditional” reverence in the more vertical liturgy.

And yes, I would agree with Cardinal Arinze who refers to the horizontal liturgy as heretical. He also is able to inject a bit of humor when discribing many of the abuse-turned-norm events in the Church of today.

.

 

[ethelzguy]

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.

Sounds a little “cafeteria-style” to me…

 

[ethelzguy]

So quit feeding him. As to your efforts with youth… well, my opinion remains the same… and is verified when I see who it is who agrees with you

ooooooooooooh, MrS, and I thought getting personal was NOT your style

 

[BrendanD]

Sounds a little “cafeteria-style” to me…

To everyone else, Cafeteria Catholic means someone that rejects a teaching of the Church.

 

[ethelzguy]

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.

Bravo !

 

[ethelzguy]

To everyone else, Cafeteria Catholic means someone that rejects a teaching of the Church.

Well, when I first came to CAF, “cafeteria Catholic” was defined as one who picked and chose what parts of the Church and the Faith they wanted to adhere to.

Reading the positions of the self-named traditionalists, it strikes me that, that is exactly what they do.

 

[BrendanD]

Well, when I first came to CAF, “cafeteria Catholic” was defined as one who picked and chose what parts of the Church and the Faith they wanted to adhere to.

Reading the positions of the self-named traditionalists, it strikes me that, that is exactly what they do.

The belief that prudential decisions of the Pope are always correct is not a teaching of the Church. Rejecting that belief is not rejecting any teaching of the Church. Hence, it’s not Cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[cothrige]

This thread was dubious at the start, and has gone downhill from there. Are we really supposed to believe that people around here don’t know what a tradition is? They don’t know what a traditional person is? I find that very hard to believe. I think I saw a post up the thread a bit where somebody was arguing that it is traditionalism to embrace change. Really? I wonder what Christmas is like in that house?

Obviously there is an objective and definable thing called a tradition. One who feels drawn to and is more comfortable engaging in and practicing those things which are traditions is by their very preference a traditional person. And what is a tradition, like we really have to ask? It is a practice or form which has been passed down and practiced through generations. And If a person rejects things which are traditions in favor of new forms created by their contemporaries, then they are untraditional. And that is that.

And of course, it is obvious that a tradition is different than something old. Why? Because old things are dead, and traditions are still in practice. Consider this. At one time in the Church it is thought that people received communion reclining on pillows. But, this is not traditional. Why not? Because it was in fact not passed down to later generations. People who think that the older thing is traditional are failing in every way to know what a tradition is. Fifty or so years ago the Church had a Mass now called the EF, and that had been passed down for many generations and had been received by the then current one. It was traditional. Any suggestion that resurrecting ancient, and abandoned, practices is more traditional is absolutely false and shows a complete ignorance of what the word means.

 

[Spiller]

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).

That’s PRECISELY what you are trying to do!

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.

I wouldn’t read either periodical (too inbred/bigoted/myopic) – not that they are authoritative in any manner anyway.

 

[Spiller]

The belief that prudential decisions of the Pope are always correct is not a teaching of the Church. Rejecting that belief is not rejecting any teaching of the Church. Hence, it’s not Cafeteria Catholicism.

Neither is trying to second-guess the Pope on matters we might find personaly troubling to our own agendas…

 

[Spiller]

Well, when I first came to CAF, “cafeteria Catholic” was defined as one who picked and chose what parts of the Church and the Faith they wanted to adhere to.

**Reading the positions of the self-named traditionalists, it strikes me that, that is exactly what they do. **

Precisely…

 

[Spiller]

Thank you. But this should be common knowledge to all Catholics that we are changing and unchangeless Church. As long as we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide us we will be all right. The Devil will not prevail not even if when he pits Catholics against Catholics, willingly or unwillingly. If we were to get a look at Satan what kind of an expression would he have?

If we were to get a look at Jesus, what kind of an expression would he have?

I’m thinking, Satan a very big and evil smile. (A house divided against itself)

Jesus very sad maybe to point of crying, but still with love. (My people pay me lip service, but their hearts are far from me. Father you and I are one, I pray that they may be one just as you and I are one.)

Sorry Spiller I was going to write a quick thank you.

So very true, yet far too many are focused on the wonders of “a maniple sighting at a NO mass” or the notion that the SSPX are in perfect communion with the Pope of Rome…

 

[Spiller]

This thread was dubious at the start, and has gone downhill from there. Are we really supposed to believe that people around here don’t know what a tradition is? They don’t know what a traditional person is? I find that very hard to believe. I think I saw a post up the thread a bit where somebody was arguing that it is traditionalism to embrace change. Really? I wonder what Christmas is like in that house?

Far too many “Traditional Catholics” on this forum are really nothing more than “Commissary Catholics” (a sort of super-Cafeteria Catholic.) They accept what they want even when it contravenes what the Church actually teaches, directs and/or allows.

Obviously there is an objective and definable thing called a tradition. One who feels drawn to and is more comfortable engaging in and practicing those things which are traditions is by their very preference a traditional person. And what is a tradition, like we really have to ask? It is a practice or form which has been passed down and practiced through generations. And If a person rejects things which are traditions in favor of new forms created by their contemporaries, then they are untraditional. And that is that.

Poppycock. Some of the traditions that are so vilified here by some such as communion-in-hand actually pre-date later traditions such as communion-on-tongue.

And of course, it is obvious that a tradition is different than something old. Why? Because old things are dead, and traditions are still in practice. Consider this. At one time in the Church it is thought that people received communion reclining on pillows. But, this is not traditional. Why not? Because it was in fact not passed down to later generations. People who think that the older thing is traditional are failing in every way to know what a tradition is. Fifty or so years ago the Church had a Mass now called the EF, and that had been passed down for many generations and had been received by the then current one. It was traditional. Any suggestion that resurrecting ancient, and abandoned, practices is more traditional is absolutely false and shows a complete ignorance of what the word means.

I guess the OF is “traditional” now that it is what, 40+ years old?

 

[BrendanD]

Neither is trying to second-guess the Pope on matters we might find personaly troubling to our own agendas…

It is perfectly permissible for Catholics to disagree with the Pope or the Church in their prudential decisions. To say otherwise is a false extension of papal infallibility.

 

[BrendanD]

Far too many “Traditional Catholics” on this forum are really nothing more than “Commissary Catholics” (a sort of super-Cafeteria Catholic.) They accept what they want even when it contravenes what the Church actually teaches, directs and/or allows.

Exactly which “teachings” are you talking about?

Poppycock. Some of the traditions that are so vilified here by some such as communion-in-hand actually pre-date later traditions such as communion-on-tongue.

You’re confusing archaeologism with tradition. If “tradition” were just doing the oldest practices possible, we would receive Communion sitting around a table. But that’s not traditional, even though it’s old.

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi Spiller,

In your last post you brought up an interesting question and idea. It had to with the OF,tradition, and 40 years. But it’s not really about that. I was just thinking what is the measuring stick of a new tradition becoming a time honored tradition. A year? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen years? Twenty-five years? Fifty years? One hundred years? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years?

I know this sounds funny. But I was wondering.

 

[cothrige]

Far too many “Traditional Catholics” on this forum are really nothing more than “Commissary Catholics” (a sort of super-Cafeteria Catholic.) They accept what they want even when it contravenes what the Church actually teaches, directs and/or allows.

But, this thread is not about your judgment of traditionalists, is it? Rather it is about some claim that either people don’t know what a tradition or traditional is, or that being traditional means rejecting tradition. In either case it is silly and/or disingenuous.

Poppycock. Some of the traditions that are so vilified here by some such as communion-in-hand actually pre-date later traditions such as communion-on-tongue.

And again tradition is not just a practice that was done many years ago, but rather something that was done continuously through successive generations and passed down to the current generation. Communion in the hand may have been done many, many generations ago, but it is not a Catholic tradition. It is an ancient Catholic practice which was abandoned. Those are two totally different things. The traditional way to receive communion is on the tongue.

I guess the OF is “traditional” now that it is what, 40+ years old?

And how many successive generations has it been passed through? I have a very hard time accepting that you really believe any of this. Tradition means today what it always has, and your ideas are not what it means. The same is so for traditional or traditionalist. You and everyone else knows what it means, but you just don’t like it.