J
JuanCarlos
Guest
The idea of what constitutes a Traditionalist Catholic has come up in debate numerous times in this forum- so I ask, what is a Traditionalist Catholic?
- Status
W
wina
Guest
Yes, I’m waiting for the answer too.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
From wikipedia:
Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics, or people who identify as Roman Catholics, who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentation of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).[1]
I think I can agree to that
Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics, or people who identify as Roman Catholics, who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentation of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).[1]
I think I can agree to that
W
wina
Guest
If it’s only those things, why people should argue about it?? we may use both liturgical forms, and about the devotions, I do believe that people still do it too (privately), and what kind of catholic teachings that we can argue about?? why don’t we just agree that there’re some disagreement but still we have the same true Vine which is Jesus Chirst. And we all remain in HIM??
C
Cat
Guest
I’m looking forward to more definitions, but I think that the CAF moderators ought to state what THEY mean by “Traditional Catholicism” so that when people post in this Section of the Forum, they will know what they are supposed to be posting about.
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.
I’ve gotten the impression from CAF that those two definitions are more correctly the definitions of “conservative” vs. “liberal” Catholic. Is that right?
I realize it’s all semantics,but it is really helpful in a discussion when everyone is using the semantics the same way.
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.
I’ve gotten the impression from CAF that those two definitions are more correctly the definitions of “conservative” vs. “liberal” Catholic. Is that right?
I realize it’s all semantics,but it is really helpful in a discussion when everyone is using the semantics the same way.
I
IneedPrayers
Guest
Traditionalist, Orthodox, liberal, and modern! So many titles one can’t help but wonder if this is the reason for why our Church is stuck in its current state. I think many forgot that we are all CATHOLICS and that we should focus on what being a CATHOLIC means! We are in luck because I have what it means right here =)
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.*
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.*
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
While the whole creed is important I just want to point out something which I believe gets lost. I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!! If I believe in the Church then I believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. This means I believe in EVERY doctrine the Church has because it has been given to us by the Holy Spirit (God)! I believe in the authority the Church has because it to was given to us by God Himself! If I don’t believe these but call myself Catholic then I should compare myself to Judas who betrayed our Lord with a kiss while holding the title of Apostle! If you don’t believe in The Church the very thing which is guided by God, and even houses our Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament then you betray our Lord by not having faith in his promises. You are the worst enemy the Church could have.
To be Catholic we must believe in God, His promises, and in the holy Catholic Church!
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.*
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.*
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
While the whole creed is important I just want to point out something which I believe gets lost. I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!! If I believe in the Church then I believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. This means I believe in EVERY doctrine the Church has because it has been given to us by the Holy Spirit (God)! I believe in the authority the Church has because it to was given to us by God Himself! If I don’t believe these but call myself Catholic then I should compare myself to Judas who betrayed our Lord with a kiss while holding the title of Apostle! If you don’t believe in The Church the very thing which is guided by God, and even houses our Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament then you betray our Lord by not having faith in his promises. You are the worst enemy the Church could have.
To be Catholic we must believe in God, His promises, and in the holy Catholic Church!
O
Ohwesty
Guest
It depends on who’s defining it: An SSPXer, an FSSPer, and a sede vacantist will each have different answers to that question. All of the above consider themselves to be traditional Catholics. Others, who simply want a reverent Latin Mass to attend, consider themselves to be traditional Catholics too.
It’s confusing, and very frustrating. If everyone agreed on what a “traditional Catholic” was we wouldn’t have to define it, right? 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.
It’s confusing, and very frustrating. If everyone agreed on what a “traditional Catholic” was we wouldn’t have to define it, right? 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.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
I have posted and deleted several posts. I am not sure of the answer.
I grew up and my faith was formed in HMC prior to Vatican II. Vatican II came and was completed when I was in high school. I was an altar boy and a chorister. I have no problems with Latin, Gregorian Chant, or sacred motets. I am a firm believer in reverence in the liturgy.
I consider myself a traditional Catholic. My sons were both educated by HMC as well as getting their parents view of things too. They do not have the same view of things as their mother and I do.
Can you imagine having to ask your local parish priest to attend your Protestant grandmother’s funeral service at her church? We did. How about the joy one felt when one’s father began attending Mass with the four of us in 1969 because the Mass was in English? Or the joy that your father was received into the church?
My conscience (Latin for with knowledge) was formed before Vatican II. I have a real tendency towards scrupulosity as do many of my age. It’s the way we were raised and it was not just in my family, it was in my community…another factor - growing up Catholic in New Orleans and south Louisiana. HMC was a huge factor in our daily lives.
Forty years after Vatican II, all I want is a reverent Mass and that we not forget our deep and profound musical heritage. I am not going to go to a Mass (if I can help it) with OCP music and guitars. Sorry, Cat, I know you and I disagree on this but I just can’t do guitars (Simon and Garfunkle at one’s graduation Mass from a Catholic high school will do that to you).
I’ve sung in a cathedral choir for 25 years. Many of those years we were banned from singing in Latin. While there are some really, really excellent English compositions from the late Renaissance on, I am a Catholic - more importantly an Irish American Catholic and we remember that Mass had to be said out amongst those hedge rows - because of the English.
In the final analysis, I’m just me - warts and all. I remember what it was like before Vatican II. I don’t want to go back to having to believe that your father was damned to hell because he was not Catholic. Some on these forums still advocate this.
There is a lot of water under the bridge in the last 40 years.
I grew up and my faith was formed in HMC prior to Vatican II. Vatican II came and was completed when I was in high school. I was an altar boy and a chorister. I have no problems with Latin, Gregorian Chant, or sacred motets. I am a firm believer in reverence in the liturgy.
I consider myself a traditional Catholic. My sons were both educated by HMC as well as getting their parents view of things too. They do not have the same view of things as their mother and I do.
Can you imagine having to ask your local parish priest to attend your Protestant grandmother’s funeral service at her church? We did. How about the joy one felt when one’s father began attending Mass with the four of us in 1969 because the Mass was in English? Or the joy that your father was received into the church?
My conscience (Latin for with knowledge) was formed before Vatican II. I have a real tendency towards scrupulosity as do many of my age. It’s the way we were raised and it was not just in my family, it was in my community…another factor - growing up Catholic in New Orleans and south Louisiana. HMC was a huge factor in our daily lives.
Forty years after Vatican II, all I want is a reverent Mass and that we not forget our deep and profound musical heritage. I am not going to go to a Mass (if I can help it) with OCP music and guitars. Sorry, Cat, I know you and I disagree on this but I just can’t do guitars (Simon and Garfunkle at one’s graduation Mass from a Catholic high school will do that to you).
I’ve sung in a cathedral choir for 25 years. Many of those years we were banned from singing in Latin. While there are some really, really excellent English compositions from the late Renaissance on, I am a Catholic - more importantly an Irish American Catholic and we remember that Mass had to be said out amongst those hedge rows - because of the English.
In the final analysis, I’m just me - warts and all. I remember what it was like before Vatican II. I don’t want to go back to having to believe that your father was damned to hell because he was not Catholic. Some on these forums still advocate this.
There is a lot of water under the bridge in the last 40 years.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
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)
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)
C
cothrige
Guest
All Catholics do that, don’t they? Surely you do believe that there are people who favor and follow a more traditional form of Catholicism, and surely there should be a way to refer to them simply?
Wouldn’t this kind of approach be like saying “I think a conservative is a person who thinks politics are important and votes.” How does that help anybody? People with what used to be called conservative views still exist, only now you don’t know what to call them.
I disagree. From my frequenting these fora it seems to me that most traditionalists don’t desire any such thing. Rather, they wish to be able to be traditional, and for many years this was virtually forbidden to them. The system in place was the Paul VI Missal as not only the Ordinary form, but the only form for any Mass anywhere and anytime. This is still true for the vast majority of us. Traditionalists have sought to be able to attend Catholic Masses which suit their needs spiritually. I have seen nothing suggesting that they desired that you be prevented from doing the same.
The traditionalists applauded and cheered the release of Summorum Pontificum. Did this document restrict the OF? No, not at all. But, what was said when the traditionalists cheered? That they were celebrating the loss of the OF. Really? It isn’t possible that they were celebrating the gain of the EF which they had been denied in every real conceivable way for forty odd years? I find that kind of thing striking. When people here have spoken of hoping for even one EF Mass to be available to them they have been attacked for hating the OF. How is wanting one EF Mass an attack when there are upwards of a hundred of the OF available in any given area? If asking for only one out of a hundred is an attack on the hundred, just what can we say of those who seek to deny even that lonely, single one?
Just ask yourself honestly, who has really sought to make all Masses in only one form? Has it been the traditionalists? I can’t see how.
S
Spiller
Guest
Traditionalist Catholic? That actually sounds like a Protestant sect to me. Worlds apart from a “traditionally-minded Catholic.”
And no, it’s not just semantics…
F
Formosus
Guest
This is my problem with this label. I would say Eastern Catholics that are dedicated to their own respective traditions against modernizing tendancies (and latinizing ones at that) who uphold the Church teachings and the Faith are just as much Traditional Catholics as any traditionalist Roman Catholic.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I don’t think any Latin Rite traditionalist would disagree with you. In fact, I think among traditionalists there is a healthy respect for Eastern rites and the Orthodox because they have kept many of their traditions and didn’t completely alter their liturgy in the 1960’s.
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
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.
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.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Patrick, I like your definition. go to the head of the class and teach a while.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
C
Cat
Guest
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.
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.
- Status