What makes somebody a "Traditional" Catholic

[Jegudiel]

What is it that makes someone a “Traditional Catholic”. Please don’t give the answer that it is just someone who follows the ancient traditions of the Church. There are many people who follow ancient traditions of the Church and still attend the OF mass, they just don’t follow all of the traditions followed by “Traditional” Catholics. “Traditional” Catholics prefer the EF of the mass. What else seperates “Traditional” Catholics from from other Catholics?

I am inclined to think that the differences stem from a different spirituality, and so a slightly different preference in the actual traditions followed… does anyone else have any (name removed by moderator)ut on this?

Ego. A willingness to pick and choose what one will accept from the Church. Making oneself the arbiter of what is good, bad, better and worse.

 

[floresco]

Ego. A willingness to pick and choose what one will accept from the Church. Making oneself the arbiter of what is good, bad, better and worse.

This is not a characteristic of all self-described traditional Catholics. It seems to occur in all flavours of Catholicism.

 

[thewanderer]

So would it be fair to say that a traditional catholic is one who sees the importance of tradition? And the reason the name gets applied to people with such different beliefs is because people understand ‘the importance of traditions’ differently and so act on it in a different way?

Can this be linked back to a different spirituality as I suggested in the beginning? Or is there a better way to explain these differing opinions?

( I would appreciate I if people woul refrain from making derogatory remarks about other Catholics while posting in this thread)

 

[Bookcat]

So would it be fair to say that a traditional catholic is one who sees the importance of tradition? And the reason the name gets applied to people with such different beliefs is because people understand ‘the importance of traditions’ differently and so act on it in a different way?

Can this be linked back to a different spirituality as I suggested in the beginning? Or is there a better way to explain these differing opinions?

It is all going to depend on** who you ask* …

Various differing persons and groups have used the term to describe themselves…and mean various things…

And being Catholic by nature is going to involve the importance of “Tradition” as well as recognizing the importance of “traditions” (though the ones one may particular enjoy can differ from another).

Hence one reason I do not use the term…even though I find all sorts of traditions from all sorts of periods in the Church to be of importance and interest…such as those of the earliest centuries for example (taking your proposed definition above).

Pope Benedict XVI has a very wonderful way of drawing on so many treasures from so many differing periods…from the earliest …down through the centuries…

 

[thewanderer]

I realize the term is used differently by different people, right now I’m trying to determine whether or not there is a unifying principle behind its use, such as my suggestion above. The idea that traditions are important can lead to very different ideas about the way one ought to act with respect to various traditions, which will in turn depend very much so on what you’re understanding of what a tradition is, what the purpose of a tradition is, and the place of continuity in tradition.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

It is all going to depend on** who* you ask …

Various differing persons and groups have used the term to describe themselves…and mean various things…

And being Catholic by nature is going to involve the importance of “Tradition” as well as recognizing the importance of “traditions” (though the ones one may particular enjoy can differ from another).

Hence one reason I do not use the term…even though I find all sorts of traditions from all sorts of periods in the Church to be of importance and interest…such as those of the earliest centuries for example (taking your proposed definition above).

Pope Benedict XVI has a very wonderful way of drawing on so many treasures from so many differing periods…from the earliest …down through the centuries…

This!!

Just because it’s ***old ***doesn’t mean it is always good,
and just because it’s new doesn’t mean it is always bad.

 

[Jegudiel]

This is not a characteristic of all self-described traditional Catholics. It seems to occur in all flavours of Catholicism.

I think you’re partially right. Those qualities are common amongst all Catholic sub-groups with extremist positions. In other words typically those that feel a need to put an adjective before the word “Catholic.”

 

[floresco]

So would it be fair to say that a traditional catholic is one who sees the importance of tradition? And the reason the name gets applied to people with such different beliefs is because people understand ‘the importance of traditions’ differently and so act on it in a different way?

Can this be linked back to a different spirituality as I suggested in the beginning? Or is there a better way to explain these differing opinions?

Did you read the blog article that David Palm linked to in post #106? I highly recommend it.

I think it is fair to say that, in general, traditional Catholics see the importance of tradition. I have also noticed that our understanding of tradition tends to include the concept of organic development. We are not going to focus on some custom from the fourth century and say it is an important tradition unless it has been handed on from generation to generation.

What I see as the major source of disagreement among trads is differences over what to do when present teaching and practice seem to contradict tradition. There is an extreme “tradition overrides everything” position held by some.

 

[floresco]

I think you’re partially right. Those qualities are common amongst all Catholic sub-groups with extremist positions. In other words typically those that feel a need to put an adjective before the word “Catholic.”

You are portraying the “Catholics without adjectives” as the true Catholics who are superior to all the others. This makes them into just the kind of group you disapprove of.

 

[Cathryn]

Anyhow, rather than going on about the term, I would like to discuss the actual topic of this thread.

For me, being a traditional Catholic is more than attending the EF Mass. I have a sense of belonging among trads. These people have similar expectations and assumptions to my own. We have similar ideas about how people ought to behave. We understand the Church and world in similar ways.

When I am at an OF Mass, the experience is more like culture shock than anything else. I am not talking about the Mass itself, but the people who are there. The way they dress and act is so jarring to me that I feel out of place. It’s not that I think they are bad people; it is just foreign to me.

I have a similar “culture shock” when reading CAF, as opposed to a traditional Catholic forum. There is a constant sense of “these people just don’t see the world the same way that I do.” I do not feel like I am among my own people here. I feel toward other trads here as one might feel toward one’s fellow countrymen when visiting a foreign land.

I believe a traditional Catholic is one who respects and honors highly the traditions of the Church from the time of the birth of the Church to the present day. They also respect and honor and obey their pastors and priests, regardless of whether that priest says the EF or OF of the Mass. They have a love and respect for the whole Church even those who seem different than themselves. A traditional Catholic believes in the authority of the Church in all matters of faith, not just the ones that make them feel good. A traditional Catholic is an orthodox Catholic. If the Church, in its authority, decides something is allowed, than that decision should be respected.

I wish the people who prefer the EF were not so divisive and exclusive. The Catholic Church is One. Both forms of the Mass are equally and profoundly Sacred and brings us all together in the Body of Christ. Both forms of the Mass are the one Sacrifice of Calvary.

Jesus prayed:
“And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.”
John 17:22

I love both forms of the Mass because both are instituted by Christ with the authority of His Church. Both have a profound beauty, and an inexhaustible supply of Grace, only limited for us by our own dispositions.

 

[floresco]

I believe a traditional Catholic is one who respects and honors highly the traditions of the Church from the time of the birth of the Church to the present day. They also respect and honor and obey their pastors and priests, regardless of whether that priest says the EF or OF of the Mass. They have a love and respect for the whole Church even those who seem different than themselves. A traditional Catholic believes in the authority of the Church in all matters of faith, not just the ones that make them feel good. A traditional Catholic is an orthodox Catholic. If the Church, in its authority, decides something is allowed, than that decision should be respected.

I love the Church very much. I respect and obey the Magisterium of the Church. I have never denied that the OF is a valid, Catholic Mass. But I have concerns about it. I speak of the concerns respectfully, but I am not silent about them. I think this is consistent with accepting the authority of the Church.

 

[thewanderer]

Did you read the blog article that David Palm linked to in post #106? I highly recommend it.

I think it is fair to say that, in general, traditional Catholics see the importance of tradition. I have also noticed that our understanding of tradition tends to include the concept of organic development. We are not going to focus on some custom from the fourth century and say it is an important tradition unless it has been handed on from generation to generation.

What I see as the major source of disagreement among trads is differences over what to do when present teaching and practice seem to contradict tradition. There is an extreme “tradition overrides everything” position held by some.

Yes, I did read it, and found it interesting. Here’s part of the reason I started this thread in the first place, I consider myself quite traditional, although I dedinately do not fit into the ‘traditionalist’ group, I do not attend the EF regularly, and tend to prefer the OF. However, I am aware of many of the problems that have occured in the church since vaticnan II. I believe that it is very important that the church re-unite many of it’s traditions to the current practices, for instance, I think it would be a very good thing if more Latin was brought into the OF when said in the vernacular. I believe traditions, the organic growth of such, and continuity with the past are all extremely important. I am very far from an advocate of change for the sake of change. Despite all of this, which, from what has been said so far would seem to put me in line with other ‘traditional’ Catholics, I know for a fact I would seem a little out of place among them. Is it the case that I don’t actually see the importance of tradition etc, or is it the case that those who call themselves ‘traditional’ have some other defining characteristic which I lack? I am also not the only catholic I know with similar opinions.

 

[floresco]

Yes, I did read it, and found it interesting. Here’s part of the reason I started this thread in the first place, I consider myself quite traditional, although I dedinately do not fit into the ‘traditionalist’ group, I do not attend the EF regularly, and tend to prefer the OF. However, I am aware of many of the problems that have occured in the church since vaticnan II. I believe that it is very important that the church re-unite many of it’s traditions to the current practices, for instance, I think it would be a very good thing if more Latin was brought into the OF when said in the vernacular. I believe traditions, the organic growth of such, and continuity with the past are all extremely important. I am very far from an advocate of change for the sake of change. Despite all of this, which, from what has been said so far would seem to put me in line with other ‘traditional’ Catholics, I know for a fact I would seem a little out of place among them. Is it the case that I don’t actually see the importance of tradition etc, or is it the case that those who call themselves ‘traditional’ have some other defining characteristic which I lack? I am also not the only catholic I know with similar opinions.

You seem to have many of the qualities that I associate with being a traditional Catholic, but you prefer to attend the OF. In my understanding, preferring the EF (or thinking it is objectively better) is the most visible characteristic of traditional Catholics, so I would not apply the term to you.

Possibly you are in transition to preferring the EF. At one point, I was as you describe yourself above. Over time, my attachment to the EF grew as did my misgivings about the OF.

 

[TimothyH]

My own view of what differentiates a “traditional” Catholic or “traditionalist” has to do with one’s attitude toward change itself. It seems to me that in our modern era, change has come to have an almost completely positive connotation. That wasn’t the attitude of our fathers in the Faith and so, to me, it is this attitude toward change that really defines the the truly traditional outlook from the modern. I’ve written this up in an article here:

What is Traditional Catholicism?

What about St. Francis?

His was an authentic and organic change to the way consecrated religious life was lived in the Church, formerly in cloistered monasteries but now in active engagement with the world. This was a tremendous change, and it brought with it no small upheavel, but it was seen almost immediately by the Holy Father as not only authentic, but necissary, and not only that, but as coming directly from God. The introduction of the Dominicans was the same - a huge innovation.

Scholastic theology was another huge change.

Prior to the twelfth century, theology was Monastic. Theology was Bible based, manly through meditation on the Sacred Scriptures. With the rise of the great universities in the west came an integration of reason with theology. The application of aristotelian philosophy to theology was a major innovation. Up until this time, the majory commentators on aristotelian philosophy were Arab Muslims! The introduction of a systematic application of reason and logic to theology was so controversial and cuased such divisions that some clergy and even the excommunication of a bishop. Now we venerate St. Thomas Aquainas and the Summa more at the same level as the work of St. Augusine but we fail to understand that the introduction of scholasic theology was a huge innovation.

We can quote any number of people who warned against change, but it does not change the fact that there have been many changes to the way our faith has been expressed which ripped at the very heart of the Church, yet which were recognized as organically Catholic, necissary for renewal, and even ordained by God.

If we did not have change, we would not have the rosary, or Cistercian monks. Even printed bibles in the hands of individual Christians was a huge change.

People complain about Vatican II and change, but who could forsee members of the laity who know more about theology than the priests who were celebrating the Mass?

-Tim-

 

[floresco]

We can quote any number of people who warned against change, but it does not change the fact that there have been many changes to the way our faith has been expressed which ripped at the very heart of the Church, yet which were recognized as organically Catholic, necissary for renewal, and even ordained by God.

If you read the article, you will see that he is not saying there never has been change or never should be change.

“Change itself is looked upon with suspicion and change for the sake of change or even to “get with the times” is unthinkable. Now here I can sense anti-traditionalist apologists ready to pounce, so let me say up front that I don’t in the least deny that there has been lots of legitimate development in the Catholic Church over the centuries, both doctrinal and practical. The Catholic Church is a living organism, animated by the Holy Spirit, and she has certainly developed and changed over the centuries while retaining in its fullness the deposit of revelation handed on to her by our Lord Jesus. This I readily grant.”

One can reject a completely positive view of change while still acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary.

 

[thewanderer]

You seem to have many of the qualities that I associate with being a traditional Catholic, but you prefer to attend the OF. In my understanding, preferring the EF (or thinking it is objectively better) is the most visible characteristic of traditional Catholics, so I would not apply the term to you.

Possibly you are in transition to preferring the EF. At one point, I was as you describe yourself above. Over time, my attachment to the EF grew as did my misgivings about the OF.

To be honest, I doubt it. I have already been exposed to the EF, at one point in my life I almost followed some very traditional-minded friends of mine into sspx. By the Grace of God, however, that did not happen, I was removed from their influence, though I still had access to the EF. I attended a school for a year at which all the students participated in an EF mass once a week, saying the responses out loud and singing. Two years later i attended a college at which both the EF and the OF in Latin were available. Despite all the beauty and symbolism I recognize to exist in the EF, I prefer the OF as I find it easier for me to get more out of mass andgrow closer to Christ through this form of the mass. In fact, I recently attended the Byzantine Rite and discovered that I just might prefer this liturgy over either of those of the Latin Rite, however, I believe I am too much of a Latin rite catholic to actually change rites, I’m not sure I could give up exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, or silent prayer kneeling before the tabernacle…

The reason I bring this all up is because the general principles I have so far gotten out of this thread as to what makes a ‘traditional’ catholic to be ‘traditional’ all apply to me, so far as I can tell, yet I would certainly stand out in a group of these ‘traditional’ Catholics. And no, the answer is not that I have just beun to enter thei understanding of things, I really just have different viewpoints on certain things, based on my own experience. So, either the general principles that have so far come ou of this thread are not really what distinguish ‘traditional’ Catholics from other catholics, or many more people must be admitted to the group o ‘traditional’ Catholics.

 

[floresco]

The reason I bring this all up is because the general principles I have so far gotten out of this thread as to what makes a ‘traditional’ catholic to be ‘traditional’ all apply to me, so far as I can tell, yet I would certainly stand out in a group of these ‘traditional’ Catholics. And no, the answer is not that I have just beun to enter thei understanding of things, I really just have different viewpoints on certain things, based on my own experience. So, either the general principles that have so far come ou of this thread are not really what distinguish ‘traditional’ Catholics from other catholics, or many more people must be admitted to the group o ‘traditional’ Catholics.

In the OP you said "“Traditional” Catholics prefer the EF of the mass. What else seperates “Traditional” Catholics from from other Catholics?

While you seem to share much of the “what else” with traditional Catholics, you do not prefer the EF. You are not a traditional Catholic in the sense that you used the term in the OP.

 

[thewanderer]

In the OP you said "“Traditional” Catholics prefer the EF of the mass. What else seperates “Traditional” Catholics from from other Catholics?

While you seem to share much of the “what else” with traditional Catholics, you do not prefer the EF. You are not a traditional Catholic in the sense that you used the term in the OP.

I realize that, which is why I’m trying to understand what it really is that seperates ‘traditional’ Catholics from other Catholics who believe in the importance of traditions. If the name really means one thing, and so applies to one group, it seems as though there must be some one unifying principle, I hoped that some of those who are members of this group would be able to help me figure out what it is, because the best that I can come up with, if traditional can’t be applied to those who have a love of tradition is those that adhere to all of the pre-vatican II practices. Is this the best way to put it? or is there some other unifying principle?

[EDIT: I guess the reason this answer does not satisfy me is that it does not seem to get at the heart of things as yet… it seems as though there must be some unifying principle that causes people to seek out all of the pre-vatican II practices… Thats partially why I wondered in the OP if it ultimately comes down to a different spirituality???]

 

[TimothyH]

If you read the article, you will see that he is not saying there never has been change or never should be change.

“Change itself is looked upon with suspicion and change for the sake of change or even to “get with the times” is unthinkable. Now here I can sense anti-traditionalist apologists ready to pounce, so let me say up front that I don’t in the least deny that there has been lots of legitimate development in the Catholic Church over the centuries, both doctrinal and practical. The Catholic Church is a living organism, animated by the Holy Spirit, and she has certainly developed and changed over the centuries while retaining in its fullness the deposit of revelation handed on to her by our Lord Jesus. This I readily grant.”

One can reject a completely positive view of change while still acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary.

The problem is that traditionallists want to define what changes are legitimate and what changes are illegitimate.

Many tried to do that throughout the history of the Church.

Peter Abelard was the man who invented the word theology, and who introduced aristotelian philosophy to theology. His ideas were so radical that he underwent ecclisastical condemnation but died in full communion with the Church. Now we venerate the fruit of his work. Trads are the first one’s to bring up the Summa, and rightly so, as the epitome of traditional theology, but that was not always the case.

Many in the Church saw this type of scholastic theology as a radical innovation, illegitimate, and a threat to the very inspiration of the Holy Spirit itself. But the Church, ultimately, saw othewise, and Peter Abelard laid the groundwork for the great scholastic theologians such as St. Thomas.

Change is not the problem, or even willingness to change or resistance to change. People wanting to determine for themselves what changes are good and what are not, that’s the problem. I God too much for that.

-Tim-

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Anyhow, rather than going on about the term, I would like to discuss the actual topic of this thread.

For me, being a traditional Catholic is more than attending the EF Mass. I have a sense of belonging among trads. These people have similar expectations and assumptions to my own. We have similar ideas about how people ought to behave. We understand the Church and world in similar ways.

When I am at an OF Mass, the experience is more like culture shock than anything else. I am not talking about the Mass itself, but the people who are there. The way they dress and act is so jarring to me that I feel out of place. It’s not that I think they are bad people; it is just foreign to me.

I have a similar “culture shock” when reading CAF, as opposed to a traditional Catholic forum. There is a constant sense of “these people just don’t see the world the same way that I do.” I do not feel like I am among my own people here. I feel toward other trads here as one might feel toward one’s fellow countrymen when visiting a foreign land.

There is always a part of us that longs to be with people with similar likes and dislikes and viewpoints as our own. I understand exactly what you are saying. I feel the same way. It’s not that I don’t enjoy the people here because I do. I enjoy CAF very much but I usually turn to the traditional forum because that is where I find others who see the world and the Church the same as I.

I guess the way I see a traditional Catholic, or what I have come to think others mean when talking about a traditional Catholic, is one who does not follow the move of the culture but prefers the constancy of the Church and is bothered by the turning away of so much of the richness of the Catholic faith just because the culture complains about or those of other denominations don’t understand it and thus interpret it wrongly and spread false accusations about it. I think a traditional Catholic is one who wants themselves and the Church to remain faithful to the traditions past on to us and not move with the world.