What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

.

Yes, I would agree that what has stood the test of time is a much better indicator of true worth rather than what someone happens to like best. Shakespeare has stood the test of time and is of greater literary quality than Danielle Steele, even if a majority of American preferred Danielle Steele.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That’s PRECISELY what you are trying to do!

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

No, I am defining traditionalist from my experience with what traditionalists actually say and write.

So, you haven’t read either publication and yet somehow you know they are too inbred, bigoted and myopic?!

And I never claimed they were authoritative by the way, just that they are traditionalist publications and are thus an indicator of what traditionalists actually believe.

 

[Spiller]

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.

Around here I think it all depends on the person and their personal preference. The Tridentine Mass dates from the Middle Ages yet quite a few around here will claim it’s 1900 years old…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Around here I think it all depends on the person and their personal preference. The Tridentine Mass dates from the Middle Ages yet quite a few around here will claim it’s 1900 years old…

No, the Tridentine Mass does not date from the Middle Ages as if a New Order of Mass was drawn up by a committee at Trent:

"The essence of the reform of St. Pius V was, like that of St. Gregory the Great, respect for tradition; there was no question of any “rude handling” of what had been handed down. In a letter to The Tablet, published on 24 July 1971, Father David Knowles, who was Britain’s most distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974, pointed out that:

• The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites. (latin-mass-society.org/msshst10.htm)
  And this is why people say the Tridentine Mass ultimately derives from the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 7th Century.

 

[Spiller]

No, I am defining traditionalist from my experience with what traditionalists actually say and write.

So, you haven’t read either publication and yet somehow you know they are too inbred, bigoted and myopic?!

And I never claimed they were authoritative by the way, just that they are traditionalist publications and are thus an indicator of what traditionalists actually believe.

As I said, I wouldn’t lend any credence to the periodicals you listed. I would actually consider them bigoted publications, but that’s just me.

 

[Spiller]

No, the Tridentine Mass does not date from the Middle Ages as if a New Order of Mass was drawn up by a committee at Trent:

"The essence of the reform of St. Pius V was, like that of St. Gregory the Great, respect for tradition; there was no question of any “rude handling” of what had been handed down. In a letter to The Tablet, published on 24 July 1971, Father David Knowles, who was Britain’s most distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974, pointed out that:

• The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites. (latin-mass-society.org/msshst10.htm)
  And this is why people say the Tridentine Mass ultimately derives from the time of St. Gregory the Great in the 7th Century.

Yeah, that really sold me…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

After your post I am being attacked by others.

I would like to say that you are in good company. But there are many who will vociferously dispute that.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[PatrickJT914]

I would like to say that you are in good company. But there are many who will vociferously dispute that.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Then maybe I should feel honored and blessed. (Blest are you when you are persecuted for righteous sake.)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

As I said, I wouldn’t lend any credence to the periodicals you listed. I would actually consider them bigoted publications, but that’s just me.

Spiller, it might behoove you to refrain from calling publications bigoted and unbelievable until you’ve actually read them.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Yeah, that really sold me…

Yea, what does a man once called Britain’s most distinguished scholar really know about the liturgy anyway? You’ve completely convinced me by your pointed and devastating arguments.

I don’t even know why I quote men like Fr. David Knowles when in light of your searing attacks all his research goes up in smoke.

 

[ethelzguy]

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.

With the traditionalist crowd, it’s a moving target to fit whatever suits their agenda. Then if they get caught up in it, they break out the “your confusing archaelogy with tradition” card.

 

[SJP]

Yeah, that really sold me…

OK Spiller, you tell us when the EF was “created.” Please provide sources as well. We’ll be waiting…

 

[cothrige]

Well, it is obvious we have all been wrong about what a tradition is, and what traditional is. It occurred to me yesterday that since tradition cannot be what we have thought it is, and embracing change is what a real traditional person would do, we should all just start supporting homosexual marriage now. I mean, how can we possibly accept all this crud about “traditional marriage”? What does that mean anyway? And didn’t the ancient Greeks like to mess about with little boys? There you go, paedophilia is actually traditional!

But, why stop there? I notice that this website is called “Catholic Answers,” but who decides what ‘Catholic’ is? Why are you people posting here, and what are you trying to discuss? Are you this “catholic” thing? I just can’t be sure about it. And people keep talking about “christianity” around here, but they don’t seem to define it. What could it be? It is obvious that this has a different meaning for everyone, so why use these terms. You may all be Jehovah’s Witnesses for all I know, though now that I think about it, what does ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ mean? And what does ‘mean’ even mean? What are these things I am typing? ‘Words’ you say? I could believe that, but can I be sure what ‘believe’ is? I think in the end it may all actually depend on what the definition of ‘is’ is.

Well, none of it matters. It is clear now what the truth is (assuming ‘is’ means what I think it means). Reading the posts here has set me straight. As a ‘traditionally minded Catholic’ the only option I have is to embrace neo-pagan homsexual alien worshipping agnosticism. Boy, does it feel good to finally figure out what I have believed all these years. Thanks guys for clearing it all up for me.

 

[BrendanD]

Yeah, that really sold me…

Did he say something that was incorrect, or are you ignoring it because you don’t like it? I doubt if there’s one historian, theologian, or scholar that will argue that the traditional Mass was invented at Trent.

Wikipedia has a table of the developments in it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass
The real sources are at the bottom of the article.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Good point.

 

[BrendanD]

OK Spiller, you tell us when the EF was “created.” Please provide sources as well. We’ll be waiting…

“Extraordinary Form” was made up last year. If only it were as common as Extraordinary Ministers, right?

 

[BrendanD]

With the traditionalist crowd, it’s a moving target to fit whatever suits their agenda. Then if they get caught up in it, they break out the “your confusing archaelogy with tradition” card.

Archaeologism (not archaeology) really isn’t tradition. Why not present an actual argument for your positions, instead of just talking about the people you’re “debating”?

 

[SJP]

“Extraordinary Form” was made up last year. If only it were as common as Extraordinary Ministers, right?

I was hoping that Spiller could give us a little history lesson on EF (beyond July 7 of last year) I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

 

[BrendanD]

I was hoping that Spiller could give us a little history lesson on EF (beyond July 7 of last year) I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

Hey, today is it’s one-year anniversary, isn’t it? Clearly, it should be considered traditional now.

 

[SJP]

Hey, today is it’s one-year anniversary, isn’t it? Clearly, it should be considered traditional now.

HA HA That actually made me laugh out loud! Any celebrations planned for the anniversary?