What is the difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ALLFORHIM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only difference is that the Traditionalist has a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, otherwise known as the Tridentine Mass.

You have to remember that everyone is different. It is impossible to say what all traditionalists are like, and what all “normal” Catholics are like.

Try to think of it in terms of spirituality. The traditionalist has a preference for the traditional practices of the Roman rite, and non-traditionalists may prefer other Christian practices. For example, a traditionalist may prefer the Rosary, and a non-traditionalist may prefer non-scripted, personal prayers from the heart.
 
Dempsey1919 said:
The only difference is that the Traditionalist has a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, otherwise known as the Tridentine Mass.

You have to remember that everyone is different. It is impossible to say what all traditionalists are like, and what all “normal” Catholics are like.

Try to think of it in terms of spirituality. The traditionalist has a preference for the traditional practices of the Roman rite, and non-traditionalists may prefer other Christian practices. For example, a traditionalist may prefer the Rosary, and a non-traditionalist may prefer non-scripted, personal prayers from the heart.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Dempsey1919 said:
Try to think of it in terms of spirituality. The traditionalist has a preference for the traditional practices of the Roman rite, and non-traditionalists may prefer other Christian practices. For example, a traditionalist may prefer the Rosary, and a non-traditionalist may prefer non-scripted, personal prayers from the heart.
Click to expand...
If you would have said “The Traditionalist prefers Catholic prayer, and non-traditionalist prefer Protestant styles of prayer”, it would have said almost exactly the same thing. 🙂

[Of course, either is a rather gross oversimplification; personal prayers are not un-Catholic and all ‘traditional’ Catholics use them. How could one not?!]
 
Don’t oversimplify. Even assuming unity in the essential of faith, traditionalists and nontraditionalists tend to differ in opinion about things besides liturgy. That’s just the one front on which traditionalists are generally pretty unified.

Other differences that I can think of are dress and sacred science. Traditionalists tend to be more conservative and Thomist.
 
Sedevacantists consider themselves to be guardians of tradition, but since when was sedevacantism traditional?

Something to consider.

We should avoid errors on the left and on the right, but stick to the Royal Path.

Or as another said, “If the river of God’s truth were 100 yards wide, we should wade out 50 yards and float downstream.”
 
Miles_Mariae said:
Don’t oversimplify. Even assuming unity in the essential of faith, traditionalists and nontraditionalists tend to differ in opinion about things besides liturgy. That’s just the one front on which traditionalists are generally pretty unified.

Other differences that I can think of are dress and sacred science. Traditionalists tend to be more conservative and Thomist.
Click to expand...
Hi and thank you

Do they differ in their belief of what the RCC teaches from the Magesterium–or do they teach identical beliefs? If they do teach identical–then the differences are just personal preferences on style of worship?
 
Do they differ in their belief of what the RCC teaches from the Magesterium–or do they teach identical beliefs? If they do teach identical–then the differences are just personal preferences on style of worship?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, traditionalist Catholics are very orthodox and faithful Catholics. They profess absolute fidelity to the Catholic faith as taught from the beginning. They hold to the faith as expressed in the documents of the Church, and the vast majority of traditionalists are staunch defenders of the Papacy.

Traditionalists are faithful Catholics who prefer the ancient spirituality of the Roman rite. They attend the ancient Latin Mass, pray the Rosary, have a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother, and strive to practice the faith as it has been practiced throughout the centuries.

In my opinion, traditionalist Catholics are among the most faithful Catholics; they defend the doctrines of the faith, and do not dessent from the teachings of the Church.
 
It is impossible to describe what every traditionalist Catholic is like. There are thousands of traditionalist Catholics and many traditionalist Catholic groups.

The best way I can describe a traditionalist is like this:
  • They receive the Sacraments according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite.
  • Most are very orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the Church.
  • They prefer traditional prayers and customs.
  • They regularly pray to the Saints.
  • Most have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
  • They are extremely loyal to the Pope.
  • They promote reverence in worship, and fidelity to the doctrines of the faith.
They are faithful Catholics who prefer the traditional modes of worship. They also defend the doctrines of the faith, and are against heresy and irreverent worship.
 
I consider myself to be a Traditional Catholic in that I was baptized, made my First Communion, and was confirmed before Vatican II. I was an altar boy both before and after Vatican II. It took me till 1983 to find a NO parish which celebrates a reverent NO Mass and I have been perfectly happy even though it means driving 25 miles one way for more than 25 years…

I would also be perfectly happy attending the Mass of my childhood. I understood it then. I understand it now. It does not frighten me. It is not something “extraordinary”. There are many of us who are “not dead yet”.

I have never received Communion in the hand and do not intend to do so in the future. I would far prefer to kneel and hope and pray that one day it may be so.

Not all of my generation embraced what happened after 1965. I was a freshman in a Catholic boys’ high school in 1965. I would agree with Dempsey1919 in all things but would differ with him in that I would exchange “loyalty” to " obedience" to the Pope.

Make no mistake. I and many of my contemporaries and certainly those of my parent’s and grandparent’s generation did not embrace what happened in 1965. We submitted to the magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father - precisely because we are/were Traditonal Catholics. We have prayed for these long forty years for a return to the HMC we knew in 1965. I repeat. We submitted to the Magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father.

My conscience was formed before Vatican II and it is still my moral compass. I don’t need the TLM to be a Traditional Catholic since for me being a Traditional Catholic is far more than EF or OF. There is a distinction.

I am a Traditional Catholic because that is how I was raised.
 
brotherhrolf said:
I consider myself to be a Traditional Catholic in that I was baptized, made my First Communion, and was confirmed before Vatican II. I was an altar boy both before and after Vatican II. It took me till 1983 to find a NO parish which celebrates a reverent NO Mass and I have been perfectly happy even though it means driving 25 miles one way for more than 25 years…

I would also be perfectly happy attending the Mass of my childhood. I understood it then. I understand it now. It does not frighten me. It is not something “extraordinary”. There are many of us who are “not dead yet”.

I have never received Communion in the hand and do not intend to do so in the future. I would far prefer to kneel and hope and pray that one day it may be so.

Not all of my generation embraced what happened after 1965. I was a freshman in a Catholic boys’ high school in 1965. I would agree with Dempsey1919 in all things but would differ with him in that I would exchange “loyalty” to " obedience" to the Pope.

Make no mistake. I and many of my contemporaries and certainly those of my parent’s and grandparent’s generation did not embrace what happened in 1965. We submitted to the magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father - precisely because we are/were Traditonal Catholics. We have prayed for these long forty years for a return to the HMC we knew in 1965. I repeat. We submitted to the Magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father.

My conscience was formed before Vatican II and it is still my moral compass. I don’t need the TLM to be a Traditional Catholic since for me being a Traditional Catholic is far more than EF or OF. There is a distinction.

I am a Traditional Catholic because that is how I was raised.
Click to expand...
Forgive me but I do not know all the abbreviations you are using.:o
What isHMC
EF
OF

heh–I do know tlm=-the latin mass:thumbsup:

Thank you BTW:D
 
Dempsey1919 said:
It is impossible to describe what every traditionalist Catholic is like. There are thousands of traditionalist Catholics and many traditionalist Catholic groups.

The best way I can describe a traditionalist is like this:
  • They receive the Sacraments according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite.
  • Most are very orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the Church.
  • They prefer traditional prayers and customs.
  • They regularly pray to the Saints.
  • Most have a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
  • They are extremely loyal to the Pope.
  • They promote reverence in worship, and fidelity to the doctrines of the faith.
They are faithful Catholics who prefer the traditional modes of worship. They also defend the doctrines of the faith, and are against heresy and irreverent worship.
Click to expand...
Thank you:D
 
Make no mistake. I and many of my contemporaries and certainly those of my parent’s and grandparent’s generation did not embrace what happened in 1965. We submitted to the magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father - precisely because we are/were Traditonal Catholics. We have prayed for these long forty years for a return to the HMC we knew in 1965. I repeat. We submitted to the Magesterium and the authority of the Holy Father.

My conscience was formed before Vatican II and it is still my moral compass. I don’t need the TLM to be a Traditional Catholic since for me being a Traditional Catholic is far more than EF or OF. There is a distinction.
Click to expand...
I have another question because of what you stated above:D
Because of your loyalty to the Papacy–how do you or any other pre-Vatican II catholics reconcile the CC once saying no one can be saved outside the CC to they can but under certain circumstances?
Thanks:D
 
From HH Pope Benedict XV’s Beatissimi Apostolorum:

“24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
 
ALLFORHIM said:
I have another question because of what you stated above:D
Because of your loyalty to the Papacy–how do you or any other pre-Vatican II catholics reconcile the CC once saying no one can be saved outside the CC to they can but under certain circumstances?
Thanks:D
Click to expand...
The teaching didn’t change; it’s understanding did.

The statements of V2 can be reconciled with previous Church teaching on the matter without too much difficulty, actually. If you do some googling I bet you’ll find some good documents. (And, yes, you’ll find some stuff from sedes claiming that V2 changed Church teaching and is therefore not a valid council. They’re wrong.)
 
JKirkLVNV said:
From HH Pope Benedict XV’s Beatissimi Apostolorum:

“24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
Click to expand...
Thank you-- Is this document saying that one MUSt accept in whole the CC or not be saved?:confused:
OR
Is it saying that one needs to accept faithfully christianity?:confused:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,”
Click to expand...
Sorry this phrase confuses me a little:o
 
=Paul Folbrecht;4811417]The teaching didn’t change; it’s understanding did.
Click to expand...
I have to say some of those documents (cant remember)I have seen in the past seem pretty darn clear about having to be subjected to the Pope and having to be catholic.:confused: I mean it seems(to me anyway) that in this time of ecumenicalism(is that a word-hehe)that the CC may be trying to redefine this so as to look like it is trying to reach out to NC’s. Backpedaling --if you will----or can I say being politically correct(which Im persoanlly sick of–from every angle not just religion;) )
The statements of V2 can be reconciled with previous Church teaching on the matter without too much difficulty, actually. If you do some googling I bet you’ll find some good documents. (And, yes, you’ll find some stuff from sedes claiming that V2 changed Church teaching and is therefore not a valid council. They’re wrong.)
Click to expand...
Do you have any suggestions on what to google to get me started?😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top