What is "Traditional Catholicism"

[Mary_Henley]

As Yaroslav Pelikan wrote, “Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

All orthodox Catholicism is traditional Catholicism, technically, so (hearkening to my thread about unhelpful misnomers in current popular use) I avoid “traditional Catholicism” as a descriptor those who seek to worship in the Tridentine rite, whether inside or outside of the Church.

Those who have gone outside, i.e., have chosen an external ritual over and against the saving grace of Holy Mother Church, I call traditionalists. Just like the Judaizers did with the Law, the Orthodox did with the original Nicene Creed, and the Protestants did with the Bible, so the traditionalists do with the Tridentine Rite of the Mass: make of it an idol that they prefer to Communion with the Bride of Christ, as if the Holy Spirit vacated his human agents and took up residence in objects or codes.

Those who have remained inside the Church, whether they be FSSP or not, I simply call Catholics.

AMEN!

 

[gospel_life]

I freely admit that I am an anachronist, John. It permeates my blood. I loved serving the Mass in Latin. I love singing Latin motets and Gregorian Chants. And I think these things have a place in HMC of today. I am not advocating a return to the past. I am advocating that the past be given a place in the future.

I think here Brother that you and I are in total agreement, even if our perspectives on the past and our preferences may vary.

Where I take issue is with those–who seem to occupy the greater percentage of those using the “traditionalist” label–who exalt their preference as the “one correct way” and decry those of us who feel differently as being misguided at best, and ignorant fools at worst.

I have no desire to see the Church lose her rich history. And I strongly support having the TLM available to any and all who might prefer it. To me, whatever brings one to a greater understanding and love of God is the way that God is speaking to that person.

But while the Latin may be beautiful to some, it is a huge impediment to others. Attitudes that we’ll “grow to love it if we just give it a chance” just don’t wash. We don’t need to learn to love Latin, we need to learn to love God. We need greatly to remember why we have Latin. First we have it because in the 300’s the Church changed to Latin because it was the vernacular of the times and the Church wanted people to be able to understand the liturgy. Vatican II re-expressed that desire, and I think that the bulk of people greatly prefer that.

The second reason however–why Latin continued after it was no longer the vernacular–has mostly to do with the tremendous rise of clericalism, and the desire to set the clergy apart. Use of the language that people did not any longer understand was a very effective way to do that. And of course at that time they didn’t have their “missalettes” to follow along in resulting in other devotions taking place during the celebration of Mass, a practice still found to this day in many places.

Yes, there is a value to learning at least enough Latin to connect us to our history, but at least for me it is a great distraction to being able to focus on the mystery of God during Mass–and that is from one who does understand a large portion of it and can still recite a lot of the prayers, including the priest’s parts.

Finally, I don’t deny that there were works of mercy and justice occuring before Vatican II. But the mindset was primarily one of personal piety, with “missionary” work being delegated to the clergy and religious orders. To me, that was a major fruit of Vatican II, that spreading and living the gospel became the responsibility of* all *believers. I believe that emphasis is why we see so many Catholics of today involved in so many social causes, from relief efforts in Darfur, to peacekeeping efforts in the middle east, to right-to-life efforts around the world. While there might have been isolated incidents of that pre V II, I don’t recall ever seeing the kind of lay participation in these things that we have had since.

And how better ultimately to live our great commission than to know that when we are feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless, or visiting the imprisoned, that we are doing it for Jesus himself. That to me is what our Catholic tradition is really all about–not whether we prefer Latin or English, or whether or not women are wearing mantillas.

Peace to you Brother,

 

[ncjohn]

I freely admit that I am an anachronist, John. It permeates my blood. I loved serving the Mass in Latin. I love singing Latin motets and Gregorian Chants. And I think these things have a place in HMC of today. I am not advocating a return to the past. I am advocating that the past be given a place in the future.

I think here Brother that you and I are in total agreement, even if our perspectives on the past and our preferences may vary.

Where I take issue is with those–who seem to occupy the greater percentage of those using the “traditionalist” label–who exalt their preference as the “one correct way” and decry those of us who feel differently as being misguided at best, and ignorant fools at worst.

I have no desire to see the Church lose her rich history. And I strongly support having the TLM available to any and all who might prefer it. To me, whatever brings one to a greater understanding and love of God is the way that God is speaking to that person.

But while the Latin may be beautiful to some, it is a huge impediment to others. Attitudes that we’ll “grow to love it if we just give it a chance” just don’t wash. We don’t need to learn to love Latin, we need to learn to love God. We need greatly to remember why we have Latin. First we have it because in the 300’s the Church changed to Latin because it was the vernacular of the times and the Church wanted people to be able to understand the liturgy. Vatican II re-expressed that desire, and I think that the bulk of people greatly prefer that.

The second reason however–why Latin continued after it was no longer the vernacular–has mostly to do with the tremendous rise of clericalism, and the desire to set the clergy apart. Use of the language that people did not any longer understand was a very effective way to do that. And of course at that time they didn’t have their “missalettes” to follow along in resulting in other devotions taking place during the celebration of Mass, a practice still found to this day in many places.

Yes, there is a value to learning at least enough Latin to connect us to our history, but at least for me it is a great distraction to being able to focus on the mystery of God during Mass–and that is from one who does understand a large portion of it and can still recite a lot of the prayers, including the priest’s parts.

Finally, I don’t deny that there were works of mercy and justice occuring before Vatican II. But the mindset was primarily one of personal piety, with “missionary” work being delegated to the clergy and religious orders. To me, that was a major fruit of Vatican II, that spreading and living the gospel became the responsibility of* all *believers. I believe that emphasis is why we see so many Catholics of today involved in so many social causes, from relief efforts in Darfur, to peacekeeping efforts in the middle east, to right-to-life efforts around the world. While there might have been isolated incidents of that pre V II, I don’t recall ever seeing the kind of lay participation in these things that we have had since.

And how better ultimately to live our great commission than to know that when we are feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless, or visiting the imprisoned, that we are doing it for Jesus himself. That to me is what our Catholic tradition is really all about–not whether we prefer Latin or English, or whether or not women are wearing mantillas.

Peace to you Brother,

 

[kell0618]

I think it is a Protestant mindset. One of the last NO Masses I attended sounded like Santana…I said you have to be kidding. I

This is My Favorite

Holy God, We Praise Your Name

Holy God, we praise Thy name; Lord of all, we bow before Thee.
All on earth Thy scepter claim, All in heav’n above adore Thee.
Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy reign.

Hark! The glad celestial hymn, Angel choirs above are raising;
Cherubim and seraphim, In unceasing chorus praising,
Fill the heav’ns with sweet accord: “Holy, holy, holy Lord!”

Holy Father, holy Son, Holy Spirit, Three we name Thee,
Though in essence only one; Undivided God we claim Thee
And, adoring, bend the knee, While we own the mystery.

This can be heard at our Church every Thursday following adoration, evening prayers and benediction. Nice!

 

[SnorterLuster]

NC John,

Just a couple of questions for you. You said:

First we have it because in the 300’s the Church changed to Latin because it was the vernacular of the times and the Church wanted people to be able to understand the liturgy.

Are you sure that this is the reason the Church changed to Latin? I don’t know the answer and this is just speculation, it just seems odd that the Church would abandon the vernacular in the Middle East & Greece. I would have thought that the Church was searching for a single language that would unify the different areas into a common worship. Since Rome was the dominant power at the time, Latin would seem the logical choice. If the Church was faced with the same conditions today, it would probably choose English.

You also said:

But the mindset was primarily one of personal piety, with “missionary” work being delegated to the clergy and religious orders. To me, that was a major fruit of Vatican II, that spreading and living the gospel became the responsibility of* all *believers. I believe that emphasis is why we see so many Catholics of today involved in so many social causes, from relief efforts in Darfur, to peacekeeping efforts in the middle east, to right-to-life efforts around the world. While there might have been isolated incidents of that pre V II, I don’t recall ever seeing the kind of lay participation in these things that we have had since.

And how better ultimately to live our great commission than to know that when we are feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless, or visiting the imprisoned, that we are doing it for Jesus himself. That to me is what our Catholic tradition is really all about–not whether we prefer Latin or English, or whether or not women are wearing mantillas.

I have to admit, I just don’t understand this reasoning. When I die, I will be judged for the state of my soul. I will be judged for my sins which I assume will be weighed against my virtues. I will be judged on whether I have mortal sin on my soul. If I do have mortal sin, it matters not how wonderful I am to my fellow man since I have offended God. I just don’t see anyway around the fact that the judgment will be on me as an individual. I guess the question is, if I feed the hungry, house the homeless and visit the imprisoned, does that get me to heaven in spite of offending God? Conversely, If I practice personal piety, honoring God and living the best life I can in prayer, am I denied heaven because I didn’t do anything to relieve the material poverty of mankind, but prayed to relieve the spiritual poverty of mankind?

 

[ncjohn]

Are you sure that this is the reason the Church changed to Latin? I don’t know the answer and this is just speculation, it just seems odd that the Church would abandon the vernacular in the Middle East & Greece.

From my study, I’m 99.9% sure that this is true. Keep in mind that during the late 300’s and into the 400’s the capital of the Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople, but the Bishop of Rome was still given primacy, with Constantinople at least theoretically a “second” behind Rome–to with great consternation of the other 3 major centers. I would have to go back and recheck whether it changed across the empire in total, but my recollection is that the eastern Church kept its own vernacular. The Roman Church changed to Latin to accomodate the needs of its constituents.

I have to admit, I just don’t understand this reasoning. When I die, I will be judged for the state of my soul. I will be judged for my sins which I assume will be weighed against my virtues. I will be judged on whether I have mortal sin on my soul. If I do have mortal sin, it matters not how wonderful I am to my fellow man since I have offended God. I just don’t see anyway around the fact that the judgment will be on me as an individual. I guess the question is, if I feed the hungry, house the homeless and visit the imprisoned, does that get me to heaven in spite of offending God? Conversely, If I practice personal piety, honoring God and living the best life I can in prayer, am I denied heaven because I didn’t do anything to relieve the material poverty of mankind, but prayed to relieve the spiritual poverty of mankind?

I would have a few comments on that. First is that in Matthew 25, Jesus makes it very clear what the “final exam” is. The fruits of truly loving God are that we treat His people as we would Him. It is not the actions themselves that save us but our faith as manifested in how we live that faith out.

It comes down to St James question about faith and works.

14
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
15
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
16
and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I think the teaching of the Bible and the Church is pretty consitent across the board that, as James says, if our faith doesn’t manifest itself in “loving our neighbor as ourselves” that we have missed the boat. John puts it as “You cannot love the God you can’t see if you don’t love the neighbor you can see”.

Personal piety is a necessary and wonderful thing, for it is here that we attempt to put ourselves into the presence of God to learn His will. But while there are those who are indeed called to be “prayer warriors” as their primary function, for the overwhelming majority of us who aren’t living in cloisters, that personal piety is only to get our “marching orders” and learn how it is we are to spread the love of God.

As the great St Augustine said (paraphrased to the best of my recollection), “Love God and do as you please.” For if you truly love God your actions will manifest that and mortal sin will not be an issue as you will immediately seek forgiveness when you do fail.

Works won’t get you to heaven of themselves if you’re offending God. But if that’s the case you probably wouldn’t be performing the works to begin with, and probably wouldn’t much care about spending eterninty with God.

Peace,

 

[Orionthehunter]

The Catholic faith revolves around the Deposit of Faith and Truth entrusted to the Magisterium. Catholic and Catholicism can have to modifier as it implies there are variations that are equal or equivalent. The Truth is the truth. There is no appropriate modifier of Catholic or Catholicism. It is what it is. Period. End of Discussion.

There can be modifiers as it relates to different manners of worship. One can prefer a particular Rites (ala Roman or Marianite) and even “flavors” within Rites. I have no problem if someone says I prefer to worship at a TLM Mass or the Novus Order Mass. Or even a differentiation between a “traditional” or “contemporary” Mass where the main difference is style of Music and the melodies of sung prayers such as the Gloria. They are all endorsed and acceptable for Catholics. None is inherently superior to the other except in the eyes of the beholder. I respect others preference and I expect my preference to be equally respected.

What I react adversely to is the attitude that NCJohn is addressing- an attitude that one’s personal preference is superior and those who feel otherwise are some way inferior. When I was a teen my preference is different from what it is now for me and I expect it to change as I grow older. No problem. My sins and spiritual needs were different thirty years ago and I assume they will be different thirty years from now.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Works won’t get you to heaven of themselves if you’re offending God. But if that’s the case you probably wouldn’t be performing the works to begin with, and probably wouldn’t much care about spending eterninty with God.

Peace,

Here’s where you lose me. Just as a speculation, I would guess that there are many Catholics who are great believers in the “social ministry”. They donate food and clothing to the parish pantry. They volunteer at Habitat for Humanity. They’re in the streets marching for gay rights and marriage. They openly admit they practice artificial birth control and speak up for the schools to distribute condoms. They go to Mass every Sunday and participate in as much of the parish activity as they can. In other words, they are a mixed bag as far as being Catholic goes. In my mind, all their good works are nice, but absolutely do nothing to get themselves to Heaven as their stands on gay issues and birth control are explicitly against both Church teaching and natural law.

On the other hand, you have many Catholics who are not believers of the “social ministry” as it is practiced in many parishes. They may contribute to the parish pantry, but the bulk of their time, money and energy for good works is spent spiritual activities such as Ådoration, praying for the souls of their family, friends, and even strangers. They give to the missions so the pagans and heathens may find the true path. If they march or demonstrate at all, it would be at and abortion clinic. Their belief is that what happens in this life, if you are poor or rich, smart or stupid, is of little importance. Since they love God, they will treat their fellow humans with compassion and tenderness. If someone is hungry, they will buy them a meal, but they will not rob them of their dignity by feeding them forever.

Anyway, I remain unconvinced that the emphasis on good works leads individual souls to Heaven. And I know too many people that do good works because it makes them feel better, rather than doing it because God wants them to. Listen to someone talk after they have volunteered at a soup kitchen. They will tell you how wonderful it makes them feel. How they get a whole lot more out of it than the recipients get out of it. How it is the obligation of those better off to help those who are worse off. And if you are bold enough to ask, “How did you help their souls?”, you get either a strange look or a reply that runs along the lines of, “Well, we don’t want to push religion at them because it would just make them not come in to get a meal.” These are the people that aren’t doing good work for the love of God, they are wallowing in their own enjoyment.

 

[ncjohn]

Here’s where you lose me.

I guess that’s where you lost me.

The things you bring up are answered in the very statement of mine that you quoted. If your works are opposing God, they are of no value. It is only those works that spring from the love of God and are a manifestation of that love, and then it is not the works that save us, but the faith in, and love of God.

As to those “mixed bags”, we are all mixed bags. I don’t know about you, but I know I can’t always separate my motivations into what is truly for God and what is at least partly because it makes me feel good. And in the end, we have to admit that every motivation is selfish. Every deed is motivated by our desire to accomplish whatever it is we are trying to accomplish, so no human motivation, no matter how rightly-directed, can be called pure.

Do some people have more less well-developed senses of the rightness or wrongness of what they are trying to accomplish? Of course they do, as each of us are at different places on our journeys. But to be fair, my journey today looks far different than my journey did 5 years ago, or even 5 months ago, and I have to give others the benefit of the doubt, as the catechism commands us, that if they are trying their best to find and follow God’s will, that He will reveal that will as they are able and willing to grasp it. That doesn’t mean they won’t sin, but it doesn’t mean that I won’t sin either, even when I think I know what God is calling me to. If one has to be perfect in order for one’s works born of love to be meaningful then we are all in very deep trouble.

“Mortal sin” does require both knowledge and consent, and often one or both of those are lacking in some of those people you reference, which then puts a requirement on me. For to paraphrase James, if you see a brother drowning in sin and you offer to pray for him and wish him a good day rather than lovingly helping him overcome his sin, then your faith is not alive. The question of how that loving help comes about can certainly be a tricky one, and I’ve heard many views on what constitutes a loving response, but there is no question that if we’re going to deal with God’s wounded sheep that it better be with the same loving concern that He feels.

This has kind of gotten off-topic here, so I’ll close by reiterating that the Catholic tradition is living the example of Jesus in loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. Everything else is a vehicle to accomplish that, of which there are many.

Peace.

 

[leonie]

I think some of us nontraditionalists would be more open to the Traditionalists movement if it wasn’t so Prideful.

Though, most traditionalists I know are wonderful, humble Catholics who love beautiful liturgy. They treat me as a sister in Christ and in the Church. They attract me to the learning more of the history, prayers and music of the Church deep into history.

But, there is a small number that are very condescending, roll their eyes at this or that in conversation, use perjorative terms like “neoconservative Catholic.” They would never go to a Novus Ordo Mass. Even to go to a Pauline Mass for a wedding, Baptism, or First Communion is a great trial for them.

It is this latter group that repels me from the movement to renew the TLM and old traditions.

We have a strong TLM community in a particular parish of our diocese. I agree with John. Everyone who goes there makes a special effort to be there. They are on fire Catholics. There aren’t any “cultural” Catholics going there out of habit. Perhaps in another generation, they will have to fight the apathy that we do in our parishes.

Though, I think Latin is the best language for Mass because it is perfected in that it doesn’t not change meaning. I love to hear Latin in the Mass!