Who qualifes as traditional catholics?

[Corki]

I have sincerely never understood why the venerable Catholic traditions of, say, assisting widows and orphans (see naming of the first deacons), or feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the infirm, etc. (see Matthew 25) seems not to matter at all in terms of defining “Catholic tradition,” versus, say, veiling, incense, and fiddleback vestments.

That’s because the former evolved into defined doctrinal teaching while the latter remained in the realm of discipline. There is no need to include doctrine in a list of traditions.

So, someone who attends the most reverent and elaborate EF liturgy but ignores the needs of his fellow man, in my view, has no claim to the titles of either “Catholic” or “traditionalist.”

Such a person would still be a traditionalist but not one who is fully practicing his/her faith. It is like a person who spends many hours caring for the poor but who rejects other Church teachings. Would you say that person has no claim to the title of “Catholic”? I wouldn’t. I would just say he/she is not fully practicing the faith.

 

[Corki]

I personally don’t know anyone who is a regular Latin Mass attendee, who is not concerned with helping the needy.

For that matter, I have very rarely come across anyone who is a regular Mass attendee of any form that is not concerned with helping the needy.

 

[Seamus_L]

I think in the case of those who voted NO, it’s more about what they would want the term to mean than anything. For instance when someone is described as a liberal, I never consider that they might actually mean a Classical Liberal, just as I wouldn’t expect someone who attends an OF mass with electric guitars, congas and rythmic clapping, BUT who describes themself as totally loyal to the magisterium, a Traditional Catholic.

 

[ProVobis]

I see a lot of young people and kids attending the EF whom I wouldn’t classify as being traditionalists, not the pre-60 types anyway, so the question seems to be too one-sided and rather vague.

 

[Corki]

I think in the case of those who voted NO, it’s more about what they would want the term to mean than anything. For instance when someone is described as a liberal, I never consider that they might actually mean a Classical Liberal, just as I wouldn’t expect someone who attends an OF mass with electric guitars, congas and rythmic clapping, BUT who describes themself as totally loyal to the magisterium, a Traditional Catholic.

Ok, I’ll bite. I voted no and use myself as an example. I attend a regular OF Mass. Not a clappy guitar Mass but not a chanted Mass either. A mix of dreadful modern hymns and classics. But it’s my geographic parish. Going to one’s geographic parish is a traditional practice, too. I am totally loyal to the Magesterium and abide by a great many traditional spiritual practices such as the Rosary, novenas, dressing in what would be considered a traditional manner for Mass, wearing a scapular, adhering to Friday abstinence from meat year round, going to adoration, to name a few. I am a Catechist who uses both the CCC and the Baltimore Catechism as my main source documents. I love chant, incense and as much Latin as possible. (and long walks on the beach )

I have attended the EF Mass in the past but the only one near me was discontinued by our Cardinal AB. It was only once a month anyway. If there was one in reasonable distance, I would attend regularly but not every week. I don’t want to completely give up the parish community and the other activities.

I am a Traditional Catholic.

 

[Neofight]

here we go again…“traditional” is a meaningless prefix…are you, or are you not Catholic? That’s all that matters.

Since you,ve given yourself the label “traditional” , what are those who are not “traditional” to be called? “liberal”?..“modern”?..“nuevo”?

Which leads to the question "is traditional Catholic better than non-traditional, or visa versa? "

Even if you ask yourself, why do I consider myself a traditional Catholic, if your answer contains the phrase “because traditional Catholicism is ‘more’…” you’ll see how divisive the label is.

We profess to belief in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church, not One OF the varieties of catholicism.

Peace and all good!

 

[R_H_Benson]

in my opinion, a distinction can be made between “traditional Catholics” and “conservative Catholics”.

Here is my take, from personal experience:

A conservative Catholic is one who adheres faithfully to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church, embracing, for the most part, the attitudes and approaches adopted by the post-conciliar hierarchy. They desire a reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass, consider the papacy of St. John Paul II to be without flaw or deficiency of any kind, and generally identify New Evangelization endeavors such as World Youth Day as the antidote for the Church’s current problems. They do not deny the issues that face the Church, have a deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Eucharist, and while they look favorably upon the Church’s ancient liturgy, they deem that it has rightly been consigned to the past. Their prevailing attitude is that the proper implementation of the Second Vatican Council will revive the Church.

A traditional Catholic is also faithful to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church. However, they are critical of the attitudes and methods adopted by the post-conciliar heirarchy - particularly towards, but not limited to the liturgy, ecumenism, and religious liberty. They are attached to the pre-conciliar Mass and observe the fasts and feasts of the old calendar, and hope for a return of the Latin language to the daily life of the Church. They consider a widespread revival of the Traditional Latin Mass to be the remedy the Church needs. They look with suspicion on events such as World Youth Day that, while causing a temporary high, have few tangible lasting spiritual effects, instead embracing traditional methods of fostering vocations: a reverent liturgy, all male altar service, and a grounding in traditional catechism.

Traditionalists and conservatives find themselves on common ground regarding the need for strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary - particularly to the Holy Rosary - as well as to Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. A traditionalist and a conservative will find themselves in agreement in principle on virtually all moral issues, especially in the battle against moral relativism.

I would go on but I am posting from my phone. Too hard to type.

 

[JimmyG88]

in my opinion, a distinction can be made between “traditional Catholics” and “conservative Catholics”.

Here is my take, from personal experience:

A conservative Catholic is one who adheres faithfully to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church, embracing, for the most part, the attitudes and approaches adopted by the post-conciliar hierarchy. They desire a reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass, consider the papacy of St. John Paul II to be without flaw or deficiency of any kind, and generally identify New Evangelization endeavors such as World Youth Day as the antidote for the Church’s current problems. They do not deny the issues that face the Church, have a deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Eucharist, and while they look favorably upon the Church’s ancient liturgy, they deem that it has rightly been consigned to the past. Their prevailing attitude is that the proper implementation of the Second Vatican Council will revive the Church.

A traditional Catholic is also faithful to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church. However, they are critical of the attitudes and methods adopted by the post-conciliar heirarchy - particularly towards, but not limited to the liturgy, ecumenism, and religious liberty. They are attached to the pre-conciliar Mass and observe the fasts and feasts of the old calendar, and hope for a return of the Latin language to the daily life of the Church. They consider a widespread revival of the Traditional Latin Mass to be the remedy the Church needs. They look with suspicion on events such as World Youth Day that, while causing a temporary high, have few tangible lasting spiritual effects, instead embracing traditional methods of fostering vocations: a reverent liturgy, all male altar service, and a grounding in traditional catechism.

Traditionalists and conservatives find themselves on common ground regarding the need for strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary - particularly to the Holy Rosary - as well as to Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. A traditionalist and a conservative will find themselves in agreement in principle on virtually all moral issues, especially in the battle against moral relativism.

I would go on but I am posting from my phone. Too hard to type.

Very insightful. Why R H Benson BTW. As in the famous convert? Brother of E F with the scandalous mother

 

[Corki]

here we go again…“traditional” is a meaningless prefix…are you, or are you not Catholic? That’s all that matters.

Since you,ve given yourself the label “traditional” , what are those who are not “traditional” to be called? “liberal”?..“modern”?..“nuevo”?

Which leads to the question "is traditional Catholic better than non-traditional, or visa versa? "

Even if you ask yourself, why do I consider myself a traditional Catholic, if your answer contains the phrase “because traditional Catholicism is ‘more’…” you’ll see how divisive the label is.

We profess to belief in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church, not One OF the varieties of catholicism.

Peace and all good!

Is East better than West?

Can you not say that Eastern Catholicism is more (fill in the blank) and Latin Catholicism is more (different fill in the blank) without implying divisiveness? Same thing with Traditional and Modern affections, especially when it comes to liturgy. Diversity is a good thing. Embracing diversity doesn’t mean that one ignores all of the difference but rather embraces them.

R_H_Benson,

So, I guess by your definition, I am not a Traditional Catholic. I am just a Conservative Catholic who loves all of the traditional liturgical practices of the Church and wish they were more freely available.

I stand corrected.

 

[Seamus_L]

Forget right or wrong for a moment. What do you picture when you hear of someone described as a Traditional Catholic ?

 

[JimmyG88]

Forget right or wrong for a moment. What do you picture when you hear of someone described as a Traditional Catholic ?

Two pictures. My granny who walked 4 miles to mass said the rosary all the time and had a wicked sense of humour and drank whiskey punch. Secondly some one obsessed with ritual, over scrupulous, discusses the advantages of green vs brown scapular and would converse in medieval church Latin if they could. Not meant as an insult at all just my mind’s eye. I know I’m wrong

 

[R_H_Benson]

R_H_Benson,

So, I guess by your definition, I am not a Traditional Catholic. I am just a Conservative Catholic who loves all of the traditional liturgical practices of the Church and wish they were more freely available.

I stand corrected.

How do you figure?

 

[CB_Catholic]

I do not understand why we insist on labelling ourselves, when the Church does no such thing. The Church says anyone who is baptized into the Church is a Catholic. Whether they practice the faith or not, whether they practice the faith in a certain manner or in another manner does not affect the fact that the Church considers them a Catholic, and never calls anyone a “Traditionalist” or a “Liberal”.

It often becomes a matter of pride and division to attach labels, and God does not care. He does not judge as we do, or as we would like him to. And we are forbidden to judge others in His place. God looks on the heart and the soul of a person and ONLY His judgment is just and true. Even what appears to be good and holy can be deceptive and evil.

Just call yourself a Catholic and give the same courtesy to others. That is what the Church does.

 

[zab]

**I do not understand why we insist on labelling ourselves, when the Church does no such thing. ** The Church says anyone who is baptized into the Church is a Catholic. Whether they practice the faith or not, whether they practice the faith in a certain manner or in another manner does not affect the fact that the Church considers them a Catholic, and never calls anyone a “Traditionalist” or a “Liberal”.

It often becomes a matter of pride and division to attach labels, and God does not care. He does not judge as we do, or as we would like him to. And we are forbidden to judge others in His place. God looks on the heart and the soul of a person and ONLY His judgment is just and true. Even what appears to be good and holy can be deceptive and evil.

Just call yourself a Catholic and give the same courtesy to others. That is what the Church does.

It is not that I attach a label to myself but others have attempted to label me from time to time over the years. This usually happens at times with those who disagree with me. It is rather insulting when people have labeled me from “ultra concervative” to “feminist liberal” LOL I do not fit into either of those categories. But sometimes I’m asked how I would consider myself. And so I have to determine how to express where I fit in. I love the traditional art and architecture, and music. I love the traditional devotions especially Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the Rosary, and the St. Alphonsus Ligori version of the Stations of the Cross. I like some Latin , but I appreciate hearing the Mass offered in English and prefer the Mass in Ordinary Form. But I have occasionally attended the EF, too. Therefore I fit in more with the traditional liturgy and devotional practices rather than the contemporary music, art and architecture .

 

[Saints_Alive]

A true Traditional Catholic is simply an orthodox Catholic imo.

 

[bobballen_18]

… Secondly some one obsessed with ritual, over scrupulous, discusses the advantages of green vs brown scapular and would converse in medieval church Latin if they could. Not meant as an insult at all just my mind’s eye. I know I’m wrong

I’m honestly really curious about this “mind’s eye” of yours, what your mind thinks of when the term “traditional/traditionalist Catholic” is mentioned. I’m curious, because I think your “mind’s eye” is similar to the majority of Catholics when the term is mentioned, and I think it’s just interesting to reflect on why that is, so that is really the only reason I’m posting - to express my reflections on what you posted.

I suppose/hope you are being slightly facetious, and you did mention you don’t mean it as an insult, and I believe you when you say that. And I am probably just biased (I consider myself a “traditionalist” if we’re going by labels), but still, I get the impression from your post, though you mean no direct insult - that you are only seeing these sort of people in a negative light - or at best, not a positive light. Maybe there are negative aspects to each of those four things you mentioned in your mind’s eye of a traditional Catholic, especially when phrased as you have phrased them, but what if, while acknowledging that these could be real faults of traditional Catholics in some way, they could be phrased in a different way in which they would be very positive things? Positive things which would/could be good for all Catholics?

Another thing I think is interesting to reflect on is that, at least in my experience, the vast majority of traditional Catholics do not hold beliefs that are at odds with Catholic teaching or tradition, yet they are viewed in a more negative light than anything else, and with outright contempt by some, simply because they are attached to the Latin Mass. Yes yes, I realize the same could be said for some traditional Catholics vice-versa, so there’s that. And I know that there are legitimate claims against so-called “rad-trads” who take traditionalism too far. I just wish that these traditionalists who take it too far were not viewed as the representative traditionalists, because in my experience, almost literally EVERY traditional Catholic (specifically, Latin Mass going) I know is a charitable, faithful, Catholic who is loyal to Rome. They have their faults (as all people do), but like all Catholics faithful to the Church’s teachings, they have something very good to offer in the life of the Church, and it is not good that the majority of Catholics don’t even know traditionalists/traditional practices exist, and that a number of those that do, look at them with either skepticism or outright contempt. It just mystifies me.

All right, that is probably more than enough reflection for ya’ll from me.

 

[Mystrx]

I would say it’s a state of mind.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think that a traditional Catholic is someone who is:

1. faithful to the Magesterium
2. faithful to the scripture
3. respects the continuous tradition of the church in favor of more modern innovations.

I also think that 3 encompasses a number of aspects of our faith.

The most obvious aspect is our liturgy. For example, a traditional Catholic would probably favor an ad-orientem mass rather than a “facing the people” mass because, firstly, this is how mass has been historically celebrated since the early days of the Church, and secondly, mass has been celebrated this way because the focus is then on Christ and not on the priest. There is a reverence element and a theological significance to it. A traditional Catholic would probably also feel that it is important to incorporate Latin hymns into the liturgy, even in the Ordinary form, because these hymns, and the Latin language for that matter, are very much a deep part of our Catholic heritage, and to remove them from liturgy in favor of hymns inspired by modern music and protestantism would cause us in a very significant way to deprive future generations of Catholics of beautiful, authentically Catholic sacred music, much of which was written by saints and inspired the Catholic faithful to holiness and reverence for two millenia.

Another aspect is that of theology. For example, there are modern theological innovations or suggestions within the Catholic Church, such as the idea that we can reasonably hope that all people will eventually be saved and enter heaven. A traditional Catholic would more than likely reject this idea as it flies in the face of scripture (the very words of Our Lord, actually; see Matthew chapter 7) as well as centuries of Catholic teaching. Also there is a general softening of Church teaching in many parishes when it comes to issues of repentance, heaven and hell, which a traditionalist would more than likely be resistant to since this is also contrary to scripture and hinders true repentance, confuses the faithful and unbelieving alike, and thus does not do much to bring about the salvation of souls.

I think the desire for liturgical continuity would drive many traditional Catholics to attend the Latin Mass. But I do not think it is necessary. I am sure many Traditional Catholics would agree that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated in a way that is continuous with Catholic theology and liturgical practice. It is just somewhat rare to find a parish where this is fully realized, at least in America. Pray that one day the Ordinary Form of the mass will be reformed by holy Mother Church to this place of awe and reverence in parishes across the world.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I would think that a traditional Catholic is someone who is a practicing Catholic, who also follows the Church’s teachings, as well as participates in feeding the poor (whether financial or otherwise). Someone who is true to the Church in all aspects (goes to Confession, has made all their Sacraments, etc.).

 

[zab]

I think that a traditional Catholic is someone who is:

1. faithful to the Magesterium
2. faithful to the scripture
3. respects the continuous tradition of the church in favor of more modern innovations.

I also think that 3 encompasses a number of aspects of our faith.

The most obvious aspect is our liturgy. For example, a traditional Catholic would probably favor an ad-orientem mass rather than a “facing the people” mass because, firstly, this is how mass has been historically celebrated since the early days of the Church, and secondly, mass has been celebrated this way because the focus is then on Christ and not on the priest. There is a reverence element and a theological significance to it. A traditional Catholic would probably also feel that it is important to incorporate Latin hymns into the liturgy, even in the Ordinary form, because these hymns, and the Latin language for that matter, are very much a deep part of our Catholic heritage, and to remove them from liturgy in favor of hymns inspired by modern music and protestantism would cause us in a very significant way to deprive future generations of Catholics of beautiful, authentically Catholic sacred music, much of which was written by saints and inspired the Catholic faithful to holiness and reverence for two millenia.

Another aspect is that of theology. For example, there are modern theological innovations or suggestions within the Catholic Church, such as the idea that we can reasonably hope that all people will eventually be saved and enter heaven. A traditional Catholic would more than likely reject this idea as it flies in the face of scripture (the very words of Our Lord, actually; see Matthew chapter 7) as well as centuries of Catholic teaching. Also there is a general softening of Church teaching in many parishes when it comes to issues of repentance, heaven and hell, which a traditionalist would more than likely be resistant to since this is also contrary to scripture and hinders true repentance, confuses the faithful and unbelieving alike, and thus does not do much to bring about the salvation of souls.

I think the desire for liturgical continuity would drive many traditional Catholics to attend the Latin Mass. But I do not think it is necessary. I am sure many Traditional Catholics would agree that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated in a way that is continuous with Catholic theology and liturgical practice. It is just somewhat rare to find a parish where this is fully realized, at least in America. Pray that one day the Ordinary Form of the mass will be reformed by holy Mother Church to this place of awe and reverence in parishes across the world.

There is usually a difference between someone who identifies as being a “traditional Catholic” which is the topic of this thread, and a “traditionalist”. Your description of what you think a traditional Catholic is, is getting very close to describing “traditionalists” especially when you start off saying that* " a traditional Catholic would probably favor an ad-orientem mass rather than a “facing the people” mass "* Thank goodness you eventually acknowledged* “I am sure many Traditional Catholics would agree that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated in a way that is continuous with Catholic theology and liturgical practice.”*. Otherwise you would risk the breaking of a board rule here of pitting one form of the Mass against another. I have heard many times that our church and liturgies are beautiful. The visiting priests are amazed at our number of altar servers. (by the way, dressed in cassock and surplice). And we have been told that our parish is a rare thing to see. We are truly blessed. We have both forms of the Mass celebrated in our parish. And I happen to prefer the Ordinary Form.