What is Traditional Catholicism?

[CappaMagna]

The Catholic Church clearly does not identify “Traditional Catholicism.”

There are Catholics who may be “traditionally-minded” but the practical definitiosn of even that is all over the place. It seems to range from those who outright reject the OF Mass and the reforms of VC2 all the way to those who simply prefer Gregorian Chant and the pipe organ. Even some sedevacantists claim to be “Traditional Catholics” when they are hardly Catholic at all.

If you read different peoples’ ideas of what it means to be a “Traditional Catholic” you will get a true smorgasbord of offerings. Each individual picking and choosing what they feel equates to “Traditional Catholicism.”

And that causes problems. Particularly when some try to equate “Traditional Catholicism” to orthodox Catholicism (two very different things) or when they try to suggest that their definition of “Traditional Catholicism” is somehow better than the Catholicism practiced and loved by others.

 

[CappaMagna]

Well you can put it in two definitions:
tradiontal Catholics, are ones who follow the Mass before Vatican 2. They attent the TLM and perform traditional customs.

Tradional Catholic can be someone who attends the OF or EF and follows the teachings of the Church, takes communion, has reverence, prays, and then some. This is the category I fall into and I consider myself traditionalist (even tough I attend the OF) because I follow teachings that are 2000 years old.

There are literally hundreds of millions of Catholics who do just that and who in no way are “Traditional Catholics.”

 

[CappaMagna]

Yes, they follow the magisterium and are under the pope as any other roman catholic. A traditional catholic is a roman catholic.

We just are the more reverent ones you see at Mass, the ones who would generally wear head coverings(if you’re female ), go to daily Mass, say the rosary daily, join in processions, go to confession often, etc. We like to hold God to the highest reverence, which means not putting people first in Mass, but God.

That’s simply untrue. I think that’s a problem too. That some “Traditional Catholics” feel they are more reverent than others when in fact they are just different.

We don’t like the irreverent kumbaya “let’s hold hands” practices of liberal cafeteria catholics.

It seems to me that self-labeled “Traditional Catholics” are among the worst of the cafeteria Catholics. They pick and choose what they will accept (which is fine) and then condemn what they personally do not like even if it’s approved by the Church. They tend to lose a great deal of credibility when they do this too.

Your judging of other Catholics using tired (very tired) stereotypes screams loudly about who you are. It’s also fairly embarrassing.

 

[brotherhrolf]

The Catholic Church clearly does not identify “Traditional Catholicism.”

There are Catholics who may be “traditionally-minded” but the practical definitiosn of even that is all over the place. It seems to range from those who outright reject the OF Mass and the reforms of VC2 all the way to those who simply prefer Gregorian Chant and the pipe organ. Even some sedevacantists claim to be “Traditional Catholics” when they are hardly Catholic at all.

If you read different peoples’ ideas of what it means to be a “Traditional Catholic” you will get a true smorgasbord of offerings. Each individual picking and choosing what they feel equates to “Traditional Catholicism.”

And that causes problems. Particularly when some try to equate “Traditional Catholicism” to orthodox Catholicism (two very different things) or when they try to suggest that their definition of “Traditional Catholicism” is somehow better than the Catholicism practiced and loved by others.

Oh? And what about us who were born, raised and educated in HMC before Vatican II and who submitted to the magesterium and still hold the traditions and practices that we knew to be of value? What are we? Chopped liver? If we were simply picking and choosing, would the Holy Father have issued the Motu Proprio?

I have found that for every “traditional Catholic” who fits your description of “traditional Catholics”, there are Catholics who look down their noses at those of us who were perfectly happy with HMC as it existed before Vatican II. Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[CappaMagna]

I agree, and I know I fall into the second category. Sadly, the EF isn’t offered locally where I live, so it’s incumbent on me to bring that same sense of reverence to the OF Masses I and my wife attend each week. If the most beautiful form of the Mass isn’t offered, then at least the same reverence can be brought into an OF Mass. I make an effort to always genuflect when I cross the Tabernacle, pray the Rosary before Mass if I have the time, kneel at all times when the Tabernacle is open, and otherwise keep alive those traditional practices that help to foster a deeper sense of reverence and love for the Lord. Until the EF is restored in every parish, it’s the least I can do.

Good for you. A great many parishes today would be far better off if some hung in there and provided a good example rather than fleeing.

I have no doubt that a great many parishes in the USA could be “re-claimed” by traditionally-minded Catholics if they were willing to organize and truly invest their time, treasures, blood, sweat and tears necessary to change a parish.

No, I really don’t care how bad the bishop/pastor/administrator/pastoral associate/DRE is. With God’s grace anything is possible yet it seems like few are willing to really do what it takes to re-claim parishes. It’s just terribly difficult work that seems to go on forever and I don’t think very many are willing to really step-up. It’s easier to become bitter and flee.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Good for you. A great many parishes today would be far better off if some hung in there and provided a good example rather than fleeing.

I have no doubt that a great many parishes in the USA could be “re-claimed” by traditionally-minded Catholics if they were willing to organize and truly invest their time, treasures, blood, sweat and tears necessary to change a parish.

No, I really don’t care how bad the bishop/pastor/administrator/pastoral associate/DRE is. With God’s grace anything is possible yet it seems like few are willing to really do what it takes to re-claim parishes. It’s just terribly difficult work that seems to go on forever and I don’t think very many are willing to really step-up. It’s easier to become bitter and flee.

I am a member of such a parish. In 1983 we had 200 parishoners. We have well over 2,000 families today precisely because we are “traditional”. My kids grew up hearing chant and sacred motets. During Lent, we chant the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. My oldest son (28) took it upon himself to learn the Pater Noster and floored me when he recited it. We don’t have the EF because we are a cathedral parish but as Father Z says - “one brick at a time”.

I have seen a lot in the last 45 years since Vatican II from liturgical dancers to Catholics acting as if they were pentecostal Protestants. I am not a sedevecantist nor am I willing to be exiled to my diocese’s indult parish. I am working and praying as I have since 1983 to retain that which I grew up with.

 

[Lycorth]

I am a member of such a parish. In 1983 we had 200 parishoners. We have well over 2,000 families today precisely because we are “traditional”. My kids grew up hearing chant and sacred motets. During Lent, we chant the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. My oldest son (28) took it upon himself to learn the Pater Noster and floored me when he recited it. We don’t have the EF because we are a cathedral parish but as Father Z says - “one brick at a time”.

I have seen a lot in the last 45 years since Vatican II from liturgical dancers to Catholics acting as if they were pentecostal Protestants. I am not a sedevecantist nor am I willing to be exiled to my diocese’s indult parish. I am working and praying as I have since 1983 to retain that which I grew up with.

It’s stories like this that give me hope that the ancient vigor of the Faith can be restored to the current Church. God be praised!

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

This is what I dislike about non-Traditional Catholic parishes. People playing loud distorted electric guitars makes it sound like I’m at a rock concert instead of a church. I’m just not into all the singing that we have.

How is the religious education in Traditional Catholic parishes? Do you guys learn Latin in your CCD programs?

Oh, I agree! Rock music has no place in Mass, neither does contemporary christian music.
It is much better. I had a couple religious sisters teach a couple of my CCD classes. It was fantastic! One of them was very strict. She would make us genuflect properly with great reverence, which, by the way, is rare today. She would make us pray the rosary kneeling. It was beautiful in a traditional CCD program, because we learned what catholics are always supposed to know, as opposed to watered down liberal information. Even RCIA catechumens end up knowing more than many who come out of liberal CCD, which is shameful to us who went through CCD.

I went to a non-Traditional parish and the CCD program there was horrible. Most of the kids there didn’t care about theology at all (I should add that they were really rude too) and the program failed to educate us about Catholicism.

We did do community service and it’s nice to be involved in good actions but the fact remains that I was still pretty ignorant about my faith after I was confirmed. They also used liberal methods of trying to teach us things and that’s something I disliked too and it made me feel uncomfortable. A lot of times they would invite guests that talked about things completely unrelated to Catholicism. One time they brought in a guy who talked to us about online crimes and sexual predators. That’s something that should be taught in school, not in CCD where I want to learn about Christianity. They brought in so many musicians who would sing to us and tell us very basic moral concepts that we already knew. It was a joke and a waste of time.

One of the important things they failed to explain to us was the Trinity. I guarantee you that if I talked to any of those people that I went to CCD with, they wouldn’t be able to explain to me the Triune concept of Catholicism.

I know! It just sickens you, doesn’t it? It’s like they think kids can’t grasp tough concepts. I’ll tell you what, young children are more knowledgeable about the mystery of the Holy Trinity than most adults I know. Watering it down and “offering candy” does not interest kids. They know when they are being baited. They want the real thing.

The final exam before confirmation was an insult to human intelligence. It was extremely basic stuff like how to locate a verse in the Bible. You didn’t even need to go to the CCD program to be able to pass that exam. The funny thing is that I don’t even recall them ever teaching those basic stuff.

I’m learning about my Christian faith on my own because that’s something that my CCD program didn’t teach me. I’ve been studying Biblical Hebrew on my own. Do they teach that at Traditional Catholic parishes?

Sadly, the diocese I got confirmed in gave us a fluff sort of verbal exam, ONLY when the bishop was there for the actual confirmation. He just randomly called on people, and then confirmed us all. That was one thing I wish was different.

They teach some latin, some greek, and some hebrew. I ended up having to do a lot of self study, because there is only so much they can teach young kids in CCD. I got the basics there and moved on to the higher up stuff on my own.

Good for you for persevering with that! You probably know more than most mainline catholics know. How is that coming?

I agree, but it is something we have to lead by example so that people can start to catch on. Alot of people are comming back to the Church or are curious about it, we can’t expect them all to be at “our level”, it takes time.

I agree also. I think it needs to start with good, solid teaching at CCD level and at home. I find that many who graduate RCIA know more than cradle catholics today, which is shameful for us. A little extra explanation and schooling on catholicism would be good. It seems the fluff that was taught for a few decades has left a mark on the cradle catholics. Just a little bit of study should remedy most of it. The lack of knowledge of the faith on the part of parents who were taught the fluff may be what is causing continuation of issues with understanding.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

That’s simply untrue. I think that’s a problem too. That some “Traditional Catholics” feel they are more reverent than others when in fact they are just different.

We are the genuine, love the Church catholics. We just don’t water down our reverence. We are faithful to the catechism 100%, which is more than I can say for liberal catholics.

It seems to me that self-labeled “Traditional Catholics” are among the worst of the cafeteria Catholics. They pick and choose what they will accept (which is fine) and then condemn what they personally do not like even if it’s approved by the Church.

They tend to lose a great deal of credibility when they do this too.

Your judging of other Catholics using tired (very tired) stereotypes screams loudly about who you are. It’s also fairly embarrassing.

Picking and choosing what is acceptable is not catholic. IT IS NOT FINE. We accept the teachings of the magisterium as they are,thank you. Your reply makes me wonder if you are a cafe catholic. Most things we dislike were never okayed by Vat II. Certain priests or bishops just decided to add them, or more often than not-take them out. You are the one stereotyping. Would you say that about the sweet, quiet old lady at the back of the church at daily Mass who still wears a mantilla? What’s wrong with tradition. It’s scripture AND tradition.

I’m saddened that so many 60s, 70s, and 80s catechized catholics were given about as much of a lesson on the teachings of the Church as most protestants are given to skew their understanding of the Church. No wonder so many left. And that’s coming from a 24 year old, mind you. I’m ashamed that most of that generation skipped out on their faith.

I don’t care that you’re embarrassed. If you are embarrassed by your own faith, that’s your issue.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

So according to you, Traditonal Catholics accept all of the mandates of Vatican II and accept Vatican II completely and fully as a valid ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church? And Traditonal Catholics accept all of the changes mandated by Vatican II and accept all of the marriage annulments granted since Vatican II ?

Hi sid.

I chose my words carefully. I don’t think they necessarily implied everything you said. But I am willing to take your questions about the implications one at a time and outline my own opinion. I am so liberal that I think there is room for disagreement on some of these things by those who are Traditional Catholics.

Ques: Do Traditonal Catholics accept all of the mandates of Vatican II?

Ans: Traditional Catholics are much more inclined to accept the mandates of Vatican II than are the liberals who invoke not the mandates, but rather, the “spirit” of Vatican II. There are some great disciplinary mandates including a demand to maintain the primacy of schoalastic theology in our seminaries that leaves few diocesan seminaries qualifying as accepting of Vatican II mandates.

Ques: Do Traditional Catholics accept Vatican II completely and fully as a valid ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?

Ans: I do. Absolutely. The Church has every authority to promulgate every pastoral reform of the Council. Some are pretty good; most are not that bad. There is a reason why so called “ultra-traditionalist bishops” like Abp. Marcel Lefebvre signed off on most of them. The disciplinary reforms are compatible with Tradition.

I can reconcile most of the doctrine with Tradition, given that it is written in such an ambiguous and wordy way, unlike any previous Council. But, for those who can’t find a reconciliation, we have the blessing of both popes of the Council, Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI, who unequivocally declare that the council promulgates no doctrinal definitions, being exclusively pastoral. The default position, if there is any doubt, is the tradional teaching.

I would approach any council from Nicea to Vatican I the same way, if by the providence of God, the promulgating pope said of the Council over which he presided:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

—Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

I am not saying there are errors in Vatican II. But the Church has the authority to promugate a completely vaild, fallible ecumenical council, if such is the will of the pope. And such was the will of Pope Paul VI.

Ques: And Traditonal Catholics accept all of the changes mandated by Vatican II and accept all of the marriage annulments granted since Vatican II ?

Ans: Speaking for myself, I find it difficult to argue that the “marriages” contracted by people who subsequently seek annulments were sacramental. Who, understanding and believing in the permanent, true sacramental nature of Holy Matrimony, having enjoyed the graces derived therefrom, would turn around and claim they weren’t really married? I not only accept the validity of the annulments based on the authority of the Church to grant, but I also think that the faithful are poorly catechized these days. Where divorce is rampant among Catholics, that is the evidence itself that they are not receiving the grace of the sacrament. Would they be asking for annulments if the marriage was efficaciously sacramental? It seems unlikely to me.

 

[Lycorth]

Excellent answer, Rory!

 

[Melek]

They teach some latin, some greek, and some hebrew. I ended up having to do a lot of self study, because there is only so much they can teach young kids in CCD. I got the basics there and moved on to the higher up stuff on my own.

Good for you for persevering with that! You probably know more than most mainline catholics know. How is that coming?

That’s pretty neat that you learned a little bit of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The biblical languages are so fascinating and I wish Christian churches all around the world would encourage Christians to learn them.

My Hebrew vocabulary isn’t really built up yet but that’s because I’ve been focusing on learning the Hebrew alphabet (or alefbet) and reading. Learning to read Hebrew really wasn’t as hard as I thought it would have been. My reading is starting to become really smooth. I can’t wait until I’m ready to start reading the Old Testament in Hebrew.

I also plan on learning Koine Greek to read the New Testament.

 

[rickyvogas]

I found some very good discussion taking place here on the topic “Traditional Catholicism”. I think these discussions would be very good and in-fact would help youngsters like me know Catholicism in a much better way with more deeper understanding.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

That’s pretty neat that you learned a little bit of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The biblical languages are so fascinating and I wish Christian churches all around the world would encourage Christians to learn them.

My Hebrew vocabulary isn’t really built up yet but that’s because I’ve been focusing on learning the Hebrew alphabet (or alefbet) and reading. Learning to read Hebrew really wasn’t as hard as I thought it would have been. My reading is starting to become really smooth. I can’t wait until I’m ready to start reading the Old Testament in Hebrew.

I also plan on learning Koine Greek to read the New Testament.

I agree. It’s a history that should be studied, the history of language in the Church.

You’ve beaten most people to the punch on that. Many never learn it, much less learning it with a fluency to read the old testament and comprehend it. It takes determination. Good job!

I found some very good discussion taking place here on the topic “Traditional Catholicism”. I think these discussions would be very good and in-fact would help youngsters like me know Catholicism in a much better way with more deeper understanding.

I’m glad you like it. Join us in our chats.

 

[JustaServant]

There is a section here on CAF on Traditional Catholicism. How does Traditional Catholicism differ from Roman Catholicism or from Catholicism? Is it a separate religion or is it the same religion as Catholicism?

Traditional Catholicism is discovering the unending richness that is the Church Christ founded. Not limited to time or space, but existing in His eternity.

 

[sidbrown]

Traditional Catholicism is discovering the unending richness that is the Church Christ founded. Not limited to time or space, but existing in His eternity.

Si it doens’t have anything to do with Vatican II or with the Tridentine Mass?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Si it doens’t have anything to do with Vatican II or with the Tridentine Mass?

It has to do with anything that touches Catholic doctrine, morality, or discipline. The above would be included of course.

To be attached to Tradition means to believe in and embrace, with a desire to continue to practice the faith of your father’s father’s father’s father…back to the Apostles. To be cut loose from this Tradition, to lose continuity with our Fathers in the Faith, through a disdain for people who did not have electricity or spaceships is an easy trap for modern Catholics to find themselves in.

Some may take exception to my personal observation upon why modern man seems to be uninterested in emulating the past in general. Knowledge can make one haughty. And this is an age of exponential growth in knowledge of the natural universe. I fear there is an assumption that all things old have to be reevaluated and updated like we update our kitchens and bathrooms. Catholic Tradition says that we can willy nilly remodel our houses to our heart’s content, but we must be more careful with our churches. Catholic Tradition says we can advance in science with the blessings and spirit of St. Albert the Great. Catholic Tradition warns that we must be very wary in how we would advance with regard to the revelation once given to us by the Apostles. Revelation was ended 2,000 years ago, and we are not asked to change it in any essential way, but rather to maintain it stedfastly, developing it, clarifying, using very precise principles that in no way change the original meanings.

Rory

 

[sidbrown]

It has to do with anything that touches Catholic doctrine, morality, or discipline. The above would be included of course.

To be attached to Tradition means to believe in and embrace, with a desire to continue to practice the faith of your father’s father’s father’s father…back to the Apostles. To be cut loose from this Tradition, to lose continuity with our Fathers in the Faith, through a disdain for people who did not have electricity or spaceships is an easy trap for modern Catholics to find themselves in.

Some may take exception to my personal observation upon why modern man seems to be uninterested in emulating the past in general. Knowledge can make one haughty. And this is an age of exponential growth in knowledge of the natural universe. I fear there is an assumption that all things old have to be reevaluated and updated like we update our kitchens and bathrooms. Catholic Tradition says that we can willy nilly remodel our houses to our heart’s content, but we must be more careful with our churches. Catholic Tradition says we can advance in science with the blessings and spirit of St. Albert the Great. Catholic Tradition warns that we must be very wary in how we would advance with regard to the revelation once given to us by the Apostles. Revelation was ended 2,000 years ago, and we are not asked to change it in any essential way, but rather to maintain it stedfastly, developing it, clarifying, using very precise principles that in no way change the original meanings.

Rory

It is not clear because some Traditional Catholics reject Vatican II and the aftermath of Vatican II, whereas it looks like you are saying that since Vatican II is part of Catholic tradition, a Traditionalist will accept Vatican II and its aftermath.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

It is not clear because some Traditional Catholics reject Vatican II and the aftermath of Vatican II, whereas it looks like you are saying that since Vatican II is part of Catholic tradition, a Traditionalist will accept Vatican II and its aftermath.

There is no reasonable definition of Traditional Catholicism so narrow that it excludes anyone who shares the views I expressed in my last post. This permits differences of opinion among Traditional Catholics which is why we have debates over here about the interpretations of Vatican II, the status of the Society of St. Pius X, the Mass of Paul VI, and other matters.

But I have a filial attachment to anyone, however much he might disagree with my personal views on those matters if they sincerely desire to embrace the faith of our Fathers as I explained above. The questions with which we Traditionalists wrestle over here are not necessarily decided in a day. Some of us have pondered these matters for years, taken a position, only to reverse it. When this happens, we are not changing our minds about whether we want to do as our Fathers would have. We are changing our minds about how best to go about it.

Tradionalist Catholics are those who are convinced that we were the Past, we are the Present, and we will be the Future of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, founded upon the Apostles, with Christ as our Head, who has promised to preserve His Mystical Body by the grace of the Holy Ghost, until He comes again in glory. In my opinion, the good God always leaves good Catholics things to disagree about fraternally, not so that the Dominicans can prove the Franciscans wrong, but to make champions of charity. A little competition between siblings is not always a bad thing.

Rory

 

[ravenonthecross]

Vatican II was a purely pastoral council; though, “Oecumenical,” it issused nothing “De Fide.” And such in its character is NOT binding of any teaching, etc. The only thing it does is ***prescribe pastorally ***. And as such there’s nothing that a Catholic is required to believe from Vatican II. Most can go about their daily lives without being very much concerned about it.

It’d be best to pray for Vatican II’s suppression and the full re-institution of the Tridentine Mass [whether in the Vernacular or Latin].