What makes a Traditional Catholic?

[KatholikosMercy]

Personally I’d love to see some real Church leadership on these things (laws I guess ) but as it stands right now I think they are up to the individual persons.

I don’t like communion in the hand I think its irreverent and dangerous (falling crumbs). It there’s no tradition for it and really only practiced here in America. I also think it makes us to familiar and Familiarity breeds contempt.

A logical rational that I have heard is its a coming of age and as far as precedence in the hand is done everywhere (if you watch a televised Mass at the Vatican you will see it there as well) and I am sure communion intiated this way in the first century. There has been a desire to return to the simpicity of the early church in an ecumenical spirit. I think I heard somewhere that communion in the hand was actually practiced before it was approved. Initiating in Canada I believe if memory serves me correctly.

I’m also not a fan of communion under both species (for the congregation) because I feel it confuses people and again make people too familiar. Each crumb of the host or drop of wine fully contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Communion under both specie seem to send signals that you have that you have to receive both to get both. In fact I have run in to many Catholics that think this.

Anyway that’s my opinion

On the bright side it gets us thinking about the Eucharist and for those who may have become complacant or lukewarm I think this is a very good thing. I think people should be encouraged to be involved and to think a little for themselves. For to long to much emphasis has been placed in the wrong places.

 

[sparc]

Absolutely. A traditional Catholic has never heard of Vatican II. A Traditional Catholic has and isn’t too happy.

Would it be safe to say that a Traditional Catholic works within the framework of the Catholic Church while a traditional Catholic excludes himself with so much tradition but less substance?

I guess the same goes with the Liberal Catholic and liberal Catholic. A Liberal Catholic works within the framework of the Catholic Church and accepts the Tradition wholeheartedly. His methods might be a bit different but very well in tune with Tradition and faithful to Church’s teachings. He is no friend of the modernists. While a liberal catholic excludes himself from Tradition and Church teachings and aligns himself with modernist thoughts and philosophies.

Finally, I guess there is no distinction between Modernists and modernists. Either way they are the same.

 

[LJN21]

A logical rational that I have heard is its a coming of age and as far as precedence in the hand is done everywhere (if you watch a televised Mass at the Vatican you will see it there as well) and I am sure communion intiated this way in the first century. There has been a desire to return to the simpicity of the early church in an ecumenical spirit. I think I heard somewhere that communion in the hand was actually practiced before it was approved. Initiating in Canada I believe if memory serves me correctly.

There’s a lot of misinformation in the church these days in trying rationalize much of the changes in the NO as more traditional t than TLM. Most of which can be discredited very easily.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[LJN21]

Would it be safe to say that a Traditional Catholic works within the framework of the Catholic Church while a traditional Catholic excludes himself with so much tradition but less substance?.

I would not say that is safe at all.

 

[josethekke]

-]in my opinion a catholic is one who have faith to believe that god is with in you and strengthen /rekindle the holy spirit by constant prayer but but due to tradition we believe that we are cathollic spare little time to pray:

 

[seremina]

I have a similar question, since nobody brought it up…

Where does a Latin Rite Catholic stand? I thought they’re in the middle, between Novus Ordo and Tridentine Rite.

I’m asking because someone told me I could only find Latin Rite Churches through Ecclesia Dei website, and oddly recommended I check out the legitimate Tridentine Rite Churches. That’s got me confused, because EWTN does Latin Rite Masses and EWTN doesn’t even have a directory of Latin Rite Churches. You’d think they would!

I’m nervous now because I worry EWTN’s Masses are the only Latin Rite ones I can find.

Anybody that can clear me up? I’m drowning in my own confusion. :hypno:

 

[stmaria]

Dear KatholikosMercy,

And what if the Bishops are the ones dissentinting from sound doctrine? That’s the reality…you seem to be missing that little piece of information.

This is so wrong. A Good Catholic gives his assent to the teachings and disciplines of the Church. Holy Mother Church is indefectible and She cannot teach erroroneous doctrines nor establish evil nor even impious disciplines.

No one is doubting anything or prefering things the way they were…we see doctrinal conflicts along with the evil fruits.

Do you even know what this means?

So everybody has their own opinion…how nice.

The Code of Canon Law was modified in 1983. Many of these things were codified at that time. This has nothing directly to do with V2.

Those witholding their assent to the “flow of the Church” (whatever that might mean) are conservatives? Good Catholics give their assent to all the teachings and disciplines of the Church.

Communion in the hand was approved by Paul VI.

Communion in the hand **was not approved **of by Pope Paul
VI. Here is a portion of *Memoriale Domini *from 1969

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to March 12 the following responses had been received:
1. **Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted? **
Yes: 567
No: 1,233
Yes, with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20
2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?
Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes: 70
3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly?
Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128
From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the **present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.
After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” (11) the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. **

This was written in response to a group of priests that started Communion in the hand. But Pope Paul was very weak. In the next paragraph he gave permission to those, and only those, who had already started this practice. Everyone else must receive communion on the tongue. Once again Bishops, who were given great authority from Vatican II decided they knew better than the Pope and started communion in the hand. Pope Paul looked the other way and the rest is history.

 

[gorman64]

stmaria:

This was written in response to a group of priests that started Communion in the hand. But Pope Paul was very weak. In the next paragraph he gave permission to those, and only those, who had already started this practice. Everyone else must receive communion on the tongue. Once again Bishops, who were given great authority from Vatican II decided they knew better than the Pope and started communion in the hand. Pope Paul looked the other way and the rest is history.

Maybe I’m missing your point…but here’s the way I see it:

So he did give permission to some…after it was going on for some time…then looked the other way from then on. He never disciplined anyone with respect to this and it is now the standard. How many conciliar bishops today disapprove of communion in the hand? If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Cardinal Ratzinger give Br. Roger ( a non-catholic of the ecumenical Taize community) communion in the hand at John Paul II’s funeral?

Didn’t Paul VI also create a commission to study ABC…an issue of the natural law that was already settled by Pope Pius XI as well as other previous Popes and Councils. He allowed confusion to reign for years and then issued Humanae Vitae which is somewhat confusing as well…then he and (all the rest) looked the other way.

Is this the behavior typical of the Good Shepherd or the hireling?

 

[gorman64]

stmaria, you may also wish to consider again the following from Pope St. Pius X, from Pascendi:

1. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.

1. Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised.

4.** It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.** For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The topic is not communion in the hand–if you wish to discuss this issue start another thread. Please return to the original topic. Thank you.

 

[LJN21]

I have a similar question, since nobody brought it up…

Where does a Latin Rite Catholic stand? I thought they’re in the middle, between Novus Ordo and Tridentine Rite.

I’m asking because someone told me I could only find Latin Rite Churches through Ecclesia Dei website, and oddly recommended I check out the legitimate Tridentine Rite Churches. That’s got me confused, because EWTN does Latin Rite Masses and EWTN doesn’t even have a directory of Latin Rite Churches. You’d think they would!

I’m nervous now because I worry EWTN’s Masses are the only Latin Rite ones I can find.

Anybody that can clear me up? I’m drowning in my own confusion. :hypno:

As far as I know they are all the same Rite. The Mass on EWTN is just the NO with the Canon in Latin. Tridentine is the pre-VII Mass, I believe its still considered part of the Roman right as well.

 

[Cat]

I haven’t read this entire thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned.

What makes a Traditional Catholic? From what I have seen on this Forum, I would say close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity.

JMHO, and have a good’un.

 

[gorman64]

I haven’t read this entire thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned.

What makes a Traditional Catholic? From what I have seen on this Forum, I would say close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity.

JMHO, and have a good’un.

Dear Cat,

Do you think the above post is charitable?

Gorman

 

[LJN21]

I haven’t read this entire thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned.

What makes a Traditional Catholic? From what I have seen on this Forum, I would say close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity.

JMHO, and have a good’un.

Thats about the rudest most closed minded thing I’ve read this week.

 

[rlg94086]

I haven’t read this entire thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned.

What makes a Traditional Catholic? From what I have seen on this Forum, I would say close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity.

JMHO, and have a good’un.

“Just My Humble Opinion” doesn’t seem to be a proper description of what you wrote. In fact, you might want to re-read the attributes you gave to Traditional Catholics and pray about that. Reflecting on Mattew 7:1-5 may help.

 

[Cat]

In the last twelve weeks, I’ve been accused in posts by Traditionalist Catholics of practicing sacrilege and showing irreverence for the Lord simply because I do what my Bishop and the Vatican have said is OK, e.g., receiving the Holy Communion on the hand, not kneeling during the Consecration in a Children’s Mass held in a gymnasium (dispensation given by the Bishop).

I’ve been told in posts that my church’s music is trash, garbage, poorly-written, ugly, distracting, etc, even though it is OKed by the church liturgical committee, which is OKed by the Bishop.

I’ve been told that the Pope is in error, my Bishop is in error, my priests are in error, that instead, we should look at the teachings of “true” Catholics. In other words, I should know more than my priest, my Bishop, and the Pope, and if they are wrong, I should refuse to do what they say.

I’ve been told that women who don’t wear veils and do wear slacks are “immodest.”

I’ve been told that because of “modern-thinking” people like me, the Catholic Church has lost its power and focus and has become “Protestantized” and “liberal.”

And this is only 12 weeks!

Yes, I believe the above are examples of close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity, especially the accusation of “sacrilege.”

gorman64. if a child is acting like a brat, what is more charitable–to ignore the child, or to try to correct the child? I have been told over and over in this Traditional section that when we see ERROR we should try to correct it. Well, I’m seeing error, and I’m trying to correct it.

When I became Catholic, I was taught in RCIA that I could trust my Church, trust my priests and Bishop, trust my Holy Father. I was told that the Lord promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

From what I have seen of Traditionalists, I can’t trust the Church, my priests, my Bishop, or my Holy Father, and if I personally don’t do what I think is the correct thing, then the gates of Hades WILL prevail against the Church.

I trust the Church.

 

[LRThunder]

In the last twelve weeks, I’ve been accused in posts by Traditionalist Catholics of practicing sacrilege and showing irreverence for the Lord simply because I do what my Bishop and the Vatican have said is OK, e.g., receiving the Holy Communion on the hand, not kneeling during the Consecration in a Children’s Mass held in a gymnasium (dispensation given by the Bishop).

I’ve been told in posts that my church’s music is trash, garbage, poorly-written, ugly, distracting, etc, even though it is OKed by the church liturgical committee, which is OKed by the Bishop.

I’ve been told that the Pope is in error, my Bishop is in error, my priests are in error, that instead, we should look at the teachings of “true” Catholics. In other words, I should know more than my priest, my Bishop, and the Pope, and if they are wrong, I should refuse to do what they say.

I’ve been told that women who don’t wear veils and do wear slacks are “immodest.”

I’ve been told that because of “modern-thinking” people like me, the Catholic Church has lost its power and focus and has become “Protestantized” and “liberal.”

And this is only 12 weeks!

Yes, I believe the above are examples of close-mindedness, stubbornness, self-importance, a factious and critical spirit, and a decided lack of charity, especially the accusation of “sacrilege.”

gorman64. if a child is acting like a brat, what is more charitable–to ignore the child, or to try to correct the child? I have been told over and over in this Traditional section that when we see ERROR we should try to correct it. Well, I’m seeing error, and I’m trying to correct it.

When I became Catholic, I was taught in RCIA that I could trust my Church, trust my priests and Bishop, trust my Holy Father. I was told that the Lord promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church.

From what I have seen of Traditionalists, I can’t trust the Church, my priests, my Bishop, or my Holy Father, and if I personally don’t do what I think is the correct thing, then the gates of Hades WILL prevail against the Church.

I trust the Church.

The problem is you’re painting with a broad brush. Not all Traditional Catholics have said that, and vice versa, those who have need to realize that not all post Vatican II Masses are what they need to make it out to be.

 

[gorman64]

Cat:

gorman64. if a child is acting like a brat, what is more charitable–to ignore the child, or to try to correct the child? I have been told over and over in this Traditional section that when we see ERROR we should try to correct it. Well, I’m seeing error, and I’m trying to correct it.

That’s fine Cat…if you see that the Church is not in crisis…and there are no problems with the new doctrines…then your position is a correct one.

I trust the Church

So do I. And since I know I can’t trust the conciliar church…I know it’s not the Catholic Church.

The effects flowing from the promulgation of Vatican II and the introduction of the Novus Ordo were very significant and like any effects they demand a proportionate cause. If the doctrines of Vatican II were orthodox, and the Novus Ordo is per se good and conducive of good in souls, then what was the cause which was proportionate to the catastrophic effects we have witnessed? Everyone instinctively feels the force of this argument because of that it is implicit in all treatments of the crisis - the “liberals” deny the facts of the crisis (it’s a new springtime)… the “conservatives” deny the seriousness of the facts (it’s not as bad as you chicken-little traditionalists make out)…and the non-sedevacantist traditionalists tend to deny the teaching of the theologians regarding the infallibility of of the Church in her universal disciplinary provisions and her liturgy.

Gorman

 

[Cat]

Yes, LRThunder you are absolutley right and I apologize for generalizing and insulting all the good Traditionalists.

I’m using the term “Traditionalist” incorrectly when I should be using a different term. I’m not sure what term to use. Please correct me and give me the correct term.

I certainly have no objection to those who wish to practice
traditional Catholicism. We have Latin Masses, approved by the Bishop, in our city, and many attend.

But I do object to those who make statements implying that all other methods of practicing Catholicism, even those approved by the Church, are wrong.

I object strongly when practices that have been approved by my Bishop are called “sacrilegious” or “irreverent.”

I find these comments and accusations very hurtful and disturbing, and this attitude of error-finding to be self-important and divisive.

I believe we should trust our Church, not each other. If the Church makes proclamations that we don’t agree with, I believe we should seek to bring ourselves into line with these teachings, not rail against them and label them “Protestant.”

The main reason I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism is that I decided, based on the Bible and history, that the Catholic Church has been given authority by the Lord Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel and help us to follow Jesus perfectly and become saints fit for heaven.

I completely submit myself to the authority of my priests and Bishop. Only if they ask me to do something blatently sinful, e.g., have sex with them, or murder an innocent person, will I disobey them.

I have renounced any claim of personal authority. The only authority I have is the authority to decide to obey my Church and my Lord Jesus.

I am having a very difficult time understanding how people in this section can criticize the Church and claim that they know better than the Pope and the current Apostles.

A lot of these people CLAIM that they ARE obeying the Church, but then they turn around and accuse me of sacrilege for obeying my Bishop. As I see it, they are telling me that THEY know better than my Bishop. I don’t call that obedience to the Church.

I have no objection to someone reporting perceived liturgical abuses. I think this is proper and good. In my opinion, if someone feels that a practice, e.g., receiving the Lord on the hand, is a sacrilege, they should not be criticizing this practice on an online discussion board where there are many seekers who are investigating Catholicism, but rather, they should be corresponding with the bishops and the Vatican and seeking, in a proper way, to restore proper practice.

For one Catholic to tell another Catholic that their Bishop is wrong is inappropriate, IMO, unless, like I said, blatant sin has been committed, e.g., having sex with the Bishop or murdering an innocent person.

You say I sound rude. I’m sorry to sound rude, but I trying to answer the OP. I have not received a good impression of "certain traditionalists. Again, I apologize to the “good” traditionalists who do respect the Church’s proclamations even if they personally disagree with them.

 

[rlg94086]

I appreciate your sentiment…especially as someone who tries to apply St Benedict’s Rule to my life. However, priests and bishops don’t always agree, and they don’t always agree with the teaching of the Church. In that case, to whom do you submit? I have been given contradictory advice/guidance in the confessional. I have been given improper catechization on “conscience.” I have witnessed abuse of the GIRM…the list is long.

Anyway, I think Traditional Catholics (I probably wouldn’t be considered one of them btw) would agree with the idea of obedience, but obedience to whom?

I completely submit myself to the authority of my priests and Bishop. Only if they ask me to do something blatently sinful, e.g., have sex with them, or murder an innocent person, will I disobey them.

I have renounced any claim of personal authority. The only authority I have is the authority to decide to obey my Church and my Lord Jesus.