What makes a good traditional catholic?

[therese14]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The term “traditional Catholic” is somewhat redundant as Catholicism is all about Sacred Tradition. A Catholic is, of course, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome as well as accepting of the Church Councils. It goes without saying.

Someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic but is not accepting of communion with the Pope or the Church Councils is either fooling you or himself or both. No Catholic puts his own judgement above that of Christ’s Church.

 

[kdfphd]

Your question implies that there is a difference between a traditional Catholic and a modern Catholic. It also seems to imply that there is something good about being traditional and bad about not being traditional. If by traditional you mean a Catholic who believes that it wrong to eat meat on Friday, the Mass should be in Latin, and other ‘traditional’ practices, I would suggest that these are ‘bad’ Catholics because they do not have the beliefs that are consistent with the traditional Church. Jesus promised us that He would send the Spirit and that our knowledge would be dynamic which would make us more Godlike. Thus we are encouraged to grow in our knowledge which, in turn, increases our love for God. This must be a dynamic process. It seems to me that anybody who resists this is not Catholic in the traditional sense since the whole message of the Last Supper was that Jesus would send the Spirit to guide us so that we would be where He is. Catholic writers have emphasized this presence of the Holy Spirit from the very beginnings of the Church. This is, then, the traditional Church. Someone besides me said: “there is a difference between the dead traditions of the living and the livings traditions of the dead”.

 

[pianistclare]

The term “traditional Catholic” is somewhat redundant as Catholicism is all about Sacred Tradition. A Catholic is, of course, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome as well as accepting of the Church Councils. It goes without saying.

Someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic but is not accepting of communion with the Pope or the Church Councils is either fooling you or himself or both. No Catholic puts his own judgement above that of Christ’s Church.

Well stated.

 

[JRKH]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

The simplest answer is this.
If one is loyal to the the Holy See then one is a “good traditional Catholic” in the best sense of the word.
I am one who holds many traditional views. I love the EF and many of the old prayers the old architecture, and other symbols of the Church.
But more importantly I am traditional in my loyalty to Christ, my King and He has told me to “listen to the Church” and this I will do. So I happily accept Vatican II without reservation.

Peace
James

 

[Denise1957]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

There are quite a few different interpretations of what makes a traditional Catholic. Some traditionalists take the issues of the Council seriously, and some don’t.

We can look to the saints for an example of how to grow in virtue, and to be righteous in the faith, in that we speak truth with zeal, but also with patience toward those who don’t practice their faith as they should. Being patient also means, IMO, in trying to understand those who think differently than we do (especially those Catholics whom are not considered to be in “full communion”).

 

[agnes_therese]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

Being in communion with Rome and the Holy Father is VERY traditional.

 

[Magdalena59]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

It kind of sounds like you are wondering if a traditional Catholic is in communion with Rome and are wondering if a traditional Catholic can be one who accepts the second Vatican council.

There are Catholics who are in communion with Rome and those who are not, traditional Catholic or not. There are many liberal Catholics who are not in communion with Rome also.

There are those Catholics who do not accept the second Vatican, council and there are those who accept the second Vatican council but are very disturbed by what happened afterward. (Things people did in the "spirit of Vatican II, that had nothing to do with the council.)

IMHO a traditional Catholic is one who knows and accepts the traditions of the Church given throughout the ages, including Vatican II but do not accept things that creep in that are not Catholic. They are those who want to keep and follow those traditions and not see them lost. Those who know the Catholic church did not begin or end with Vatican II.

The Catholic church is a rich treasure of traditions that many people do not know about because the conditions of the last 40 - 50 years being a very poor catechesis.

Probably most traditional Catholics are in communion with Rome and hold on to the traditions given to us through the ages, but reject modernist views that are not of the Catholic church.

 

[tawny]

The term “traditional Catholic” is somewhat redundant as Catholicism is all about Sacred Tradition. A Catholic is, of course, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome as well as accepting of the Church Councils. It goes without saying.

Someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic but is not accepting of communion with the Pope or the Church Councils is either fooling you or himself or both. No Catholic puts his own judgement above that of Christ’s Church.

 

[St_Francis]

Your question implies that there is a difference between a traditional Catholic and a modern Catholic. It also seems to imply that there is something good about being traditional and bad about not being traditional. ** If by traditional you mean a Catholic who believes that it wrong to eat meat on Friday, the Mass should be in Latin, and other ‘traditional’ practices, **I would suggest that these are ‘bad’ Catholics because they do not have the beliefs that are consistent with the traditional Church. Jesus promised us that He would send the Spirit and that our knowledge would be dynamic which would make us more Godlike. Thus we are encouraged to grow in our knowledge which, in turn, increases our love for God. This must be a dynamic process. It seems to me that anybody who resists this is not Catholic in the traditional sense since the whole message of the Last Supper was that Jesus would send the Spirit to guide us so that we would be where He is. Catholic writers have emphasized this presence of the Holy Spirit from the very beginnings of the Church. This is, then, the traditional Church. Someone besides me said: “there is a difference between the dead traditions of the living and the livings traditions of the dead”.

Overall I agree with your general take, but I would like to point out that the things you mentioned (which I bolded), are matters of discipline, and also not the main problem (considering the vernacular Mass as more of a symptom than a problem in itself).

We do not really consider Church teaching to be “dynamic.” Our understanding of truth is said to develop. The difference is that using the term “dynamic” implies that Catholic teaching itself changes, which cannot be the case as truth does not change; the development of our understanding of the truth puts the emphasis on the change where it belongs, on us.

Additionally, the reason that the rejection of the changes in discipline by very strong traditionalists exists is due to their belief that the changes stem from the V2 documents, which they accept in the modernist interpretation. So the essential aspect of the rejection of the Church or changes in discipline by these VS Traditionalists is their belief that changes *in doctrine *occurred.

When Pope Paul VI signed the V2 documents, he said they must be interpreted in light of Tradition–the traditional teaching of the Church. Neither the modernists nor the VS traditionalists do so–ironically, they both accept the modernist interpretation.

Many Catholic might have opinions on the eating of meat on Fridays, etc., and yet not have a problem overall with V2 or be overly traditionalistic.

 

[St_Francis]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Does it have to do with being in communion with Rome?

How can a person be a traditional catholic and hold traditional views yet still accepts the second Vatican council and be in communion with Rome?
Thanks

Why are you concerned about this?

There are Catholic churches which celebrate the EF (Latin Mass), and many members adhere to traditional disciplines, and this is one good path for Catholics. There are other paths, for example, we have 23 Churches in communion with the Pope, including the Ruthenian, the Maronite, the Coptic, etc. In addition, there are in the West many different spiritualities: Franciscan, Benedictine, Dominican, Servite, etc.

Extreme traditionalists, those who separate from the Pope, tend to focus on what they perceive as the problems. I investigated all this for a while, and what I found is that there is too much focus on the problems and justifications for their actions, and too little focus on Catholic spiritual development! As a result of this empahsis, what actually develops is an almost paranoid suspicion of everything that happens in the Church, and a rigidity which does not allow for any but a fear-induced interpretation to be made.

So my suggestion to you is to read books by the saints and to relax about being a “traditional” Catholic and to just work on being a “good Catholic,” a lover and obedient servant of God. Pray for the Pope and all in the hierarchy, and keep your holiness more in your eye than the holiness of others.

 

[Magdalena59]

. If by traditional you mean a Catholic who believes that it wrong to eat meat on Friday, the Mass should be in Latin, and other ‘traditional’ practices, I would suggest that these are ‘bad’ Catholics because they do not have the beliefs that are consistent with the traditional Church. ".

Just a note. It is still wrong to eat meat on Fridays unless you replace it with some other type of penance, which most people forget about and those other “traditional practices” is a pretty vague thought. Just what traditional practices are you referring to because the traditions given to us are given to us by our Lord and he told us that if we love him we will obey.

 

[therese14]

I think I was better not to know about traditional catholics neither the second Vatican council though… It’s confusing

Traditional practices such as nun wearing a veil, baptism required for salvation (no salvation outside the catholic church), rather than tolerating all religion

Followers of mohhamet was called infidel, protestant was heresy, Hindu were pagan. They are called to convert to catholicism.
And we were told to avoid them as bad companion. It was in the previous councils.

I think the best result of second Vatican council though… Is somehow world peace… It’s very scary how bad people are in past ages there are so many wars… So I don’t know.

 

[Magdalena59]

I think I was better not to know about traditional catholics neither the second Vatican council though… It’s confusing

Traditional practices such as nun wearing a veil, baptism required for salvation (no salvation outside the catholic church), rather than tolerating all religion

Followers of mohhamet was called infidel, protestant was heresy, Hindu were pagan. They are called to convert to catholicism.
And we were told to avoid them as bad companion. It was in the previous councils.

I think the best result of second Vatican council though… Is somehow world peace… It’s very scary how bad people are in past ages there are so many wars… So I don’t know.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying but Vatican II didn’t change the Church’s beliefs about baptism, salvation found in the Catholic church and it’s teachings on other religions. It is still crucial to evangelize and bring people into the Catholic faith.

I haven’t seen world peace yet and Pope Francis said more Christians have been persecuted in the 21st century than ever before.

 

[TimothyH]

Hello, what makes a good traditional Catholic?

Feed the poor.
Bury the dead.
Visit prisoners.
Care for the sick.
Go to confession.
Go to Mass.
Pray.
Pray some more.
Pass through life unnoticed by the world but with a burning fire for Jesus and his mother on your inside.
No matter how much they annoy you, treat every person you meet as if they are Christ.
Put yourself last in all things.

-Tim-

 

[St_Francis]

I think I was better not to know about traditional catholics neither the second Vatican council though… It’s confusing

Traditional practices such as nun wearing a veil, baptism required for salvation (no salvation outside the catholic church), rather than tolerating all religion

Followers of mohhamet was called infidel, protestant was heresy, Hindu were pagan. They are called to convert to catholicism.
And we were told to avoid them as bad companion. It was in the previous councils.

I think the best result of second Vatican council though… Is somehow world peace… It’s very scary how bad people are in past ages there are so many wars… So I don’t know.

The Vatican 2 documents did not change what the church teaches but were an attempt to use more up-to-date everyday and philosophical language to explain Church teachings.

Some of what people were taught was Church teaching was not–sometimes it was directed to a certain time and/or place, sometimes it is just plain wrong. Sometimes an emphasis was placed on one part of a teaching because that was what was needed as a corrective at that time, bit now the need is different.

How can we evangelize if we do not have personal relationships with others? How can we get people to listen to us if we willy-nilly call them names they do not understand?

Toleration is allowing something to exist, it actually implies a *lack *of acceptance. It means we are not prohibiting it, not that we think it’s a good idea. Parents, for example, may tolerate a level of noise from their children which they might think rude in adults, no? We do not have laws against every single lie, because that would mean police would have to follow us around all the time, bit that does not mean we think lying is all right.

For the questions you will have about these issues, there are answers. The answer is not a retreat into a set of standards suitable for a different time, but in learning about where the balance is.

 

[littlestsouls2]

I think I was better not to know about traditional catholics neither the second Vatican council though… It’s confusing

Traditional practices such as nun wearing a veil, baptism required for salvation (no salvation outside the catholic church), rather than tolerating all religion

Followers of mohhamet was called infidel, protestant was heresy, Hindu were pagan. They are called to convert to catholicism.
And we were told to avoid them as bad companion. It was in the previous councils.

Hey Therese14, firstly, nice username

If you are having any doubts about apparent changes in Church teaching, you might like to read some of Fr. William G. Most’s writings. He writes about “no salvation outside the Church,” ecumenism and a host of other important issues. He is generally considered to be a first-rate scholar, and he was obedient to the Church.

Here are some links to writings of his that you might find helpful:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=212&ChapNum=25 (Particularly the following sections: “(4) No salvation outside the Church”, “(f) Did Vatican II undermine teaching authority?”, “(g) Did Vatican II revolutionize all theology?”, “(h) Vatican II vs. Pius IX, Gregory XVI, and Leo XIII on religious freedom”)

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/browse.cfm (A link to most of his writings)

 

[Seamus_L]

See if there’s a parish in your Diocese that offers the EF and begin attending it. If there isn’t try and find out if there are any groups of people petitioning for one. If you’re lucky enough to have one, you should notice the difference right away.

 

[eightydeuce82]

Your question implies that there is a difference between a traditional Catholic and a modern Catholic. It also seems to imply that there is something good about being traditional and bad about not being traditional. If by traditional you mean a Catholic who believes that it wrong to eat meat on Friday, the Mass should be in Latin, and other ‘traditional’ practices, I would suggest that these are ‘bad’ Catholics because they do not have the beliefs that are consistent with the traditional Church. Jesus promised us that He would send the Spirit and that our knowledge would be dynamic which would make us more Godlike. Thus we are encouraged to grow in our knowledge which, in turn, increases our love for God. This must be a dynamic process. It seems to me that anybody who resists this is not Catholic in the traditional sense since the whole message of the Last Supper was that Jesus would send the Spirit to guide us so that we would be where He is. Catholic writers have emphasized this presence of the Holy Spirit from the very beginnings of the Church. This is, then, the traditional Church. Someone besides me said: “there is a difference between the dead traditions of the living and the livings traditions of the dead”.

There is a huge difference!