Who qualifes as traditional catholics?

[clem456]

Authentic Traditional Catholicism, while maintaining fidelity to the magisterium and the papacy, embodies a different philosophy and worldview than modern Catholicism. It is wrong to deny that such a distinction exists. The modern Church is highly influenced by the nouvelle théologie which arose in the years immediately preceding the Second Vatican Council. The “conservatives” of today’s Church are conservative only in relation to the spectrum of the ideas of the nouvelle théologie. Since the adoption of these ideas during the Council, many have come to erroneously believe that modern day “conservatism” in the Church is synonymous with “traditionalism”. This is simply incorrect. Traditional Catholicism seeks to distance itself from novelty and cling to that which is, you guessed it - traditional.

In reality, much of what is labeled “traditional” is flaming with modern individualism.
Preferring practices, observance, and styles, does not inoculate one from modernism.
Modernism and individualism are ways of thinking and believing, not merely certain types of practice or observance. Modern individualism crosses all boundaries and cultures and it is simply not correct to assign it to “modern Catholicism”, as if they invented it in 1962.

I hope everyone realizes that the outward expressions of the faith we love were “nouvelle” at one time. (I love me some French words). Maybe we are all nouvelle Catholics. terrifying…

 

[R_H_Benson]

In reality, much of what is labeled “traditional” is flaming with modern individualism.

Only because many traditionalists have been branded as pariahs by the mainstream Church. Many are accused unjustly of sedevacantism, others of schism, and still others of radicalism, when in fact the vast majority are simply trying to hold on to the traditions of the past (which include being in communion with the pope!). If one holds to the magisterium of the Church, even if he appears to be isolated or individualistic, he is not.

Preferring practices, observance, and styles, does not inoculate one from modernism.
Modernism and individualism are ways of thinking and believing, not merely certain types of practice or observance. Modern individualism crosses all boundaries and cultures and it is simply not correct to assign it to “modern Catholicism”, as if they invented it in 1962.

I never accused modern Catholics of the heresy of modernism. I was only using the term “modern” as an adjective.

Regardless, it is silly to accuse traditionalists of being “modern individualists”. As I noted above, they only appear to be “individualists” because they are so outnumbered and misunderstood by the majority of mainstream Catholics. But in reality traditionalists continue to hold the faith as it was held for centuries and vehemently oppose the heresy of modernism. There is nothing “modern” or “individualistic” about holding onto the faith as it has been passed down.

I hope everyone realizes that the outward expressions of the faith we love were “nouvelle” at one time. (I love me some French words). Maybe we are all nouvelle Catholics. terrifying…

Yes, but such expressions always developed organically. This time around, that wasn’t the case. The ideas of the “New Theology” were pushed through the council by the bishops of the Rhine countries, taking advantage of the voting mechanics of the council and the early on disorganization of the traditionalist party. The classic work on the inner workings of Vatican II “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” documents the entire process of how theologians such as Rahner, Ratzinger, etc. had their novel ideas adopted by the entire Council, simply by gaining the support of the French and German bishops. By the time the traditionalist bishops organized and reacted, it was too late.

 

[clem456]

Only because many traditionalists have been branded as pariahs by the mainstream Church. Many are accused unjustly of sedevacantism, others of schism, and still others of radicalism, when in fact the vast majority are simply trying to hold on to the traditions of the past (which include being in communion with the pope!). If one holds to the magisterium of the Church, even if he appears to be isolated or individualistic, he is not.

I never accused modern Catholics of the heresy of modernism. I was only using the term “modern” as an adjective.

Regardless, it is silly to accuse traditionalists of being “modern individualists”. As I noted above, they only appear to be “individualists” because they are so outnumbered and misunderstood by the majority of mainstream Catholics. But in reality traditionalists continue to hold the faith as it was held for centuries and vehemently oppose the heresy of modernism. There is nothing “modern” or “individualistic” about holding onto the faith as it has been passed down.

Yes, but such expressions always developed organically. This time around, that wasn’t the case. The ideas of the “New Theology” were pushed through the council by the bishops of the Rhine countries, taking advantage of the voting mechanics of the council and the early on disorganization of the traditionalist party. The classic work on the inner workings of Vatican II “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” documents the entire process of how theologians such as Rahner, Ratzinger, etc. had their novel ideas adopted by the entire Council, simply by gaining the support of the French and German bishops. By the time the traditionalist bishops organized and reacted, it was too late.

I’m not accusing.
Trying to point out that labels and assumptions based on those labels are really meaningless.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not accusing.
Trying to point out that labels and assumptions based on those labels are really meaningless.

Do you think it would be more meaningful if we were just refer to them as “those stuck in the 50’s” or “those stuck in the 70’s” or perhaps some other period? Just asking.

 

[zab]

Authentic Traditional Catholicism, while maintaining fidelity to the magisterium and the papacy, embodies a different philosophy and worldview than modern Catholicism. It is wrong to deny that such a distinction exists. The modern Church is highly influenced by the nouvelle théologie which arose in the years immediately preceding the Second Vatican Council. The “conservatives” of today’s Church are conservative only in relation to the spectrum of the ideas of the nouvelle théologie. Since the adoption of these ideas during the Council, many have come to erroneously believe that modern day “conservatism” in the Church is synonymous with “traditionalism”. This is simply incorrect. Traditional Catholicism seeks to distance itself from novelty and cling to that which is, you guessed it - traditional.

I don’t know if I am understanding you correctly. It sounds like you are referring to the Church today as “the modern Church” as if it has embraced “Modernism”. I don’t understand how you can maintain fidelity to the magisterium and the papacy and then claim that “Authentic Traditional Catholicism” embodies a different philosophy and worldview than the modern Church. And I don’t know what you mean by "modern day “conservatism” "

 

[clem456]

Do you think it would be more meaningful if we were just refer to them as “those stuck in the 50’s” or “those stuck in the 70’s” or perhaps some other period? Just asking.

I dunno. I don’t want to be the speech police,

 

[R_H_Benson]

I don’t know if I am understanding you correctly. It sounds like you are referring to the Church today as “the modern Church” as if it has embraced “Modernism”. I don’t understand how you can maintain fidelity to the magisterium and the papacy and then claim that “Authentic Traditional Catholicism” embodies a different philosophy and worldview than the modern Church. And I don’t know what you mean by "modern day “conservatism” "

No. I don’t believe that the Church herself has embraced Modernism. That is an impossibility as the Church is indefectible. However, some of the new theological concepts which were raised into mainstream Catholic thought on the wings of the Second Vatican Council have certainly open the doors to Modernism. As we have seen over the past 50 years, novel theological concepts introduced into the Church at the council, while not doctrinally at odds with the Magisterium, were not properly kept in check and led to large quantities of the faithful holding insufficient or downright erroneous beliefs about core Catholic teachings. Just take a look at a Dutch catechism produced in the early 1970s to see what I am speaking of.

When I speak of “modern conservatism”, I am speaking relatively. Because much of the Church’s post-conciliar thought has been influenced by the “New Theology” of the mid-twentieth century French and German theologians, when we speak of “conservative Catholics”, we mean “conservative” only in relation to that thought. For example, many today consider Pope Benedict XVI to be a “conservative”, and indeed he is according to the modern standard. But if you were to go back to 1960 and show someone Pope Benedict’s theological positions, he would be labeled a progressive or a liberal minded theologian. That is my whole point. Many Catholics don’t realize that the most “conservative” Catholic of today would have been considered a progressive on the eve of the council - indeed a young Josef Ratzinger himself was considered one such progressive. He played an influential role as a *periti *for the German bishops at Vatican II. That nowadays he is looked at by many as the standard for conservatism in the Church displays just how much the positions have shifted in a mere 50 years.

 

[Mystrx]

No. I don’t believe that the Church herself has embraced Modernism. That is an impossibility as the Church is indefectible. However, some of the new theological concepts which were raised into mainstream Catholic thought on the wings of the Second Vatican Council have certainly open the doors to Modernism. As we have seen over the past 50 years, novel theological concepts introduced into the Church at the council, while not doctrinally at odds with the Magisterium, were not properly kept in check and led to large quantities of the faithful holding insufficient or downright erroneous beliefs about core Catholic teachings. Just take a look at a Dutch catechism produced in the early 1970s to see what I am speaking of.

When I speak of “modern conservatism”, I am speaking relatively. Because much of the Church’s post-conciliar thought has been influenced by the “New Theology” of the mid-twentieth century French and German theologians, when we speak of “conservative Catholics”, we mean “conservative” only in relation to that thought. For example, many today consider Pope Benedict XVI to be a “conservative”, and indeed he is according to the modern standard. But if you were to go back to 1960 and show someone Pope Benedict’s theological positions, he would be labeled a progressive or a liberal minded theologian. That is my whole point. Many Catholics don’t realize that the most “conservative” Catholic of today would have been considered a progressive on the eve of the council - indeed a young Josef Ratzinger himself was considered one such progressive. He played an influential role as a *periti *for the German bishops at Vatican II. That nowadays he is looked at by many as the standard for conservatism in the Church displays just how much the positions have shifted in a mere 50 years.

 

[zab]

No. I don’t believe that the Church herself has embraced Modernism. That is an impossibility as the Church is indefectible. **However, some of the new theological concepts which were raised into mainstream Catholic thought on the wings of the Second Vatican Council have certainly open the doors to Modernism. ** As we have seen over the past 50 years, novel theological concepts introduced into the Church at the council, while not doctrinally at odds with the Magisterium, were not properly kept in check and led to large quantities of the faithful holding insufficient or downright erroneous beliefs about core Catholic teachings. Just take a look at a Dutch catechism produced in the early 1970s to see what I am speaking of.

When I speak of “modern conservatism”, I am speaking relatively. Because much of the Church’s post-conciliar thought has been influenced by the “New Theology” of the mid-twentieth century French and German theologians, when we speak of “conservative Catholics”, we mean “conservative” only in relation to that thought. For example, many today consider Pope Benedict XVI to be a “conservative”, and indeed he is according to the modern standard. But if you were to go back to 1960 and show someone Pope Benedict’s theological positions, he would be labeled a progressive or a liberal minded theologian. That is my whole point. Many Catholics don’t realize that the most “conservative” Catholic of today would have been considered a progressive on the eve of the council - indeed a young Josef Ratzinger himself was considered one such progressive. He played an influential role as a *periti *for the German bishops at Vatican II. That nowadays he is looked at by many as the standard for conservatism in the Church displays just how much the positions have shifted in a mere 50 years.

I hope you are not combining progressive, liberal ideas that conflict with Catholic dogma with the Church having to function in a modern world. I have never heard anything coming from Pope Benedict to cause me concern about distorting the dogma of our belief. And “Ratzinger” was said to be the “watch dog” of the Liturgy protecting it from liturgical abuse. It was under Pope Benedict XVI that the Sacred Congregation issued a document correcting liturgical abuses. What are some examples of “the new theological concepts which were raised into mainstream Catholic thought on the wings of the Second Vatican Council” that you mentioned that were supported by Benedict XVI?

 

[R_H_Benson]

I hope you are not combining progressive, liberal ideas that conflict with Catholic dogma with the Church having to function in a modern world.

I am not doing that.

I have never heard anything coming from Pope Benedict to cause me concern about distorting the dogma of our belief. And “Ratzinger” was said to be the “watch dog” of the Liturgy protecting it from liturgical abuse.It was under Pope Benedict XVI that the Sacred Congregation issued a document correcting liturgical abuses.

All of this is true, but must be understood in the post-conciliar paradigm. The point of this thread is to determine what qualifies as a “traditional Catholic”. I am trying make the point that if we take even the man who many today claim to be the epitome of “traditional and conservative Catholicism” and contrast his views with those of the vast majority of Catholics on the eve of the Council, he would be considered a progressive.

What are some examples of “the new theological concepts which were raised into mainstream Catholic thought on the wings of the Second Vatican Council” that you mentioned that were supported by Benedict XVI?

It is no secret that Father Josef Ratzinger as a young priest was a peritus to the German bishops and actively endorsed the progressive agenda at the Council. He is often pictured seated next to Father Karl Rahner, both of them electing to wear suits and ties instead of their clerical attire. One of the more famous examples of Fr. Ratzinger’s influence on the outcome of the Council was a speech he penned in November of 1963 that was delivered on the Council floor by Cardinal Frings. The speech lambasted the Holy Office to the point where it ceased to function with any efficacy for nearly two decades. The point is that Father Ratzinger was not a conservative, and clearly not a traditionalist, by any stretch of the imagination at the time of the Council.

 

[zab]

It is no secret that Father Josef Ratzinger as a young priest was a peritus to the German bishops and actively endorsed the progressive agenda at the Council. He is often pictured seated next to Father Karl Rahner, both of them electing to wear suits and ties instead of their clerical attire. One of the more famous examples of Fr. Ratzinger’s influence on the outcome of the Council was a speech he penned in November of 1963 that was delivered on the Council floor by Cardinal Frings. The speech lambasted the Holy Office to the point where it ceased to function with any efficacy for nearly two decades. The point is that Father Ratzinger was not a conservative, and clearly not a traditionalist, by any stretch of the imagination at the time of the Council.

So what did he say?

 

[CompSciGuy]

This discussion is bogus really you are a practicing Catholic or you aren’t the Mass is the Mass.

I assume you are meaning to say that you don’t think the music, the art, or the liturgy matter? I get where you are coming from, but there is something that I would like you to consider.

I remember reading an article a few years ago by a Latino writer talking about how young Latinos who are born in America are being assimilated and are losing their sense of cultural identity. Many of them no longer speak Spanish, there is less interest in cultural holidays and values, and there is a tendency to just leave these things in the past and pursue the “American way” so to speak. I can relate to this article in a spiritual sense. We have two thousand years of beauty in art, liturgy and music that is authentically Catholic, inspired by our theology and history, that is being more or less thrown away by modern parishes. And I don’t just mean replacing one or two things in favor of a newer, more “accessible” form of Catholicism, I mean a radical departure from that which is traditionally Catholic. The beautiful Latin chants that once defined our liturgy are almost nonexistent in parishes around the country, they have been replaced by the Gather hymns and protestant praise and worship music. And it seems that in the US and in Europe there is almost a deliberate rebellion against the classical architecture and decor of Catholic Churches. Parishes almost always choose exclusively modern, plain architecture and decor. There almost seems to be a deliberate rejection of classically Catholic art. The altar at my local parish looks like something made by fischer price, basically three blocks stacked together, big and plastic-looking. The steeple at my mother-in-law’s parish looks like an oil derrick and the crucifix positioned haphazardly in the courtyard has a modern-looking wireframe design. This isn’t a matter of budget, it’s a matter of someone’s taste. The only thing I wonder is why would they want to choose to build a Catholic parish that looks so little like a Catholic parish? I would think that if I were to build a Catholic parish, or coordinate a Catholic liturgy, I would want it to be influenced by other Catholic parishes and past Catholic liturgies, instead of Protestant worship services and modernist music and architecture. Sure, like people say, we still have the mass, but it doesn’t look or feel the way the mass used to. It looks and feels like a wannabe protestant worship service. Why are we trying so hard to make our mass look Protestant? Why are we ashamed of our Catholic heritage?

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

I am a convert and was also blown away by the beauty of the Catholic liturgy, which was being celebrated in the Ordinary Form where I first attended mass. Fortunately the parish I was attending had a great respect for the liturgy and did an excellent job of showing reverence to the mass. Many parishioners are not so lucky. I also prefer the Ordinary Form provided that it is done according to the GIRM. I find that the parishes who offer both forms of the liturgy also tend to have a more reverent ordinary form. This is probably the case for your parish.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I assume you are meaning to say that you don’t think the music, the art, or the liturgy matter? I get where you are coming from, but there is something that I would like you to consider.

…

I agree. The Catholic Mass and churches resemble the Protestant religions. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference. I could look at a picture of a Catholic church and not be sure if it is Catholic or Protestant.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Yes, I only used half your post, because it was that half of the post on which I wanted to reflect. Your comment regarding “external manifestations…” as well as below:

…leads me to say this: I can definitely see how someone with a different mindset can think that Traditional Catholics are overly concerned with, say, the Liturgy. However, I can’t for the life of me imagine how being concerned with the Liturgy, our supreme worship of God on earth, is a bad thing. And I guess you didn’t outright say it is a “bad thing”, though your view that it is an “over emphasis” certainly doesn’t seem to be a positive evaluation.

Certainly there are other important aspects of being Catholic other than going to Mass, obviously the Christian life consists of many other things. However, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Christian life - yes, “the Mass is the Mass”, in the sense that as long as we have the Eucharist, we will be okay - but I think people should at least consider the possibility that we should strive do our best with regards to the Liturgy, considering it is the context in which the Eucharist is confected and received. And considering the Mass is basically “Heaven on Earth.”

I’ll bow out of the conversation now - I have a feeling that if I keep on posting in this thread, I will only continue to sound “preachy” and whatnot, and I don’t want that. Just felt compelled to make these couple of reflections.

Has anyone considered that maybe the way we celebrate the mass reflects on people’s awareness of what happens in the mass? Like, maybe when we don’t take it that seriously and don’t kneel at the appropriate times and deliberately try not to make a big to-do of it, people will kind of get the idea that maybe it really is just a piece of bread…?

My wife helps out with youth group at a local parish where my mother-in-law attends. She asked me to help conduct exit interviews with teens who had gone through an entire year of religious education, along with several other youth leaders. Of the four kids I interviewed, not a single one of them knew that the Eucharist was the true body and blood of Christ. When I asked them, they said it was just a piece of bread, or that it represented Christ in some way. It never occurred to them that it actually was Jesus. In other words, after a year of religious education and a lifetime of attending mass, that which is supposedly the “source and summit” of our faith was somehow lost on them. Now this is probably in large part a failure of the religious education program, but I can’t help but wonder, if we were made to kneel for holy communion, or if we were made to receive it on tongue rather than in hand, rather than being made to haphazardly shuffle forward and grab-and-go, maybe it would have at least occurred to them that perhaps there was something at least a little bit special about the Eucharist…?

 

[CompSciGuy]

I agree. The Catholic Mass and churches resemble the Protestant religions. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference. I could look at a picture of a Catholic church and not be sure if it is Catholic or Protestant.

As a matter of fact, when I see a beautiful church with steeples and bells and stained glass, I immediately assume it is not a Catholic church, it looks too Catholic to really be Catholic. Lutherans often have very beautiful liturgy and architecture.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

As a matter of fact, when I see a beautiful church with steeples and bells and stained glass, I immediately assume it is not a Catholic church, it looks too Catholic to really be Catholic. Lutherans often have very beautiful liturgy and architecture.

That’s pretty sad that something can seem that way. The Lutherans around here are not traditional at all according to my friend, but their church is nicer from the outside than the Catholic church that is right across the street.

 

[zab]

All of this is true, but must be understood in the post-conciliar paradigm. The point of this thread is to determine what qualifies as a “traditional Catholic”. I am trying make the point that if we take even the man who many today claim to be the epitome of “traditional and conservative Catholicism” and contrast his views with those of the vast majority of Catholics on the eve of the Council, he would be considered a progressive.

"]“progressive” and “liberal” are not necessarily bad. For example, under Pope John Paul II the Tridentine Mass was allowed under strictly limited availability. But under Pope Benedict XVI the liberal celebration of The Latin Mass, Mass in the extraordinary form, became a reality. “Pope Benedict not only made it clear that any priest, anywhere, should be able to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form, he also said it ought to be made available for lay people who wish it.” themichigancatholic.com/2013/03/tridentine-mass-supporters-thankful-to-pope-benedict/

It is no secret that Father Josef Ratzinger as a young priest was a peritus to the German bishops and actively endorsed the progressive agenda at the Council. He is often pictured seated next to Father Karl Rahner, both of them electing to wear suits and ties instead of their clerical attire. One of the more famous examples of Fr. Ratzinger’s influence on the outcome of the Council was a speech he penned in November of 1963 that was delivered on the Council floor by Cardinal Frings. The speech lambasted the Holy Office to the point where it ceased to function with any efficacy for nearly two decades. The point is that Father Ratzinger was not a conservative, and clearly not a traditionalist, by any stretch of the imagination at the time of the Council.

I don’t know why Fr. Ratzinger and Fr. Rahner wore suits with tie. . That may be interesting to find out why. But I am not going to automatically assume the worst because of it. I think it is true though, that following the Vatican Council, Rhaner went on a different path than Ratzinger.

youtube.com/watch?v=CGjNLq4WjWE

youtube.com/watch?v=m00h44AkPzA

youtube.com/watch?v=cgxUgiDY8DA

 

[zab]

In response to some who portray the younger Fr. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) as a progressive, this is what was said about him:

“…One way to get a perspective on the split in the victorious party is to look to the beginnings of the theological journal “Communio.” In the wake of the council, the triumphant progressive party formed an international journal called “Concilium,” the stated purpose of which was to perpetuate the spirit of the great gathering that had prompted such positive change in the Church. On the board of “Concilium” were Rahner, Kung, Schillebeeckx, de Lubac, Congar, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Ratzinger and many others. But after only a few years, three figures – Balthasar, de Lubac, and Ratzinger – decided to break with “Concilium” and found their own journal and the reasons they gave to justify this decision are extremely illuminating. First, they said, the board of “Concilium” was claiming to act as a secondary magisterium, or official teaching authority, alongside the bishops. Theologians certainly have a key role to play in the understanding and development of doctrine, but they cannot supplant the bishops’ responsibility of holding and teaching the apostolic faith. Secondly, the “Concilium” board wanted to launch Vatican III when the ink on the documents of Vatican II was barely dry. That is to say, they wanted to ride the progressive momentum of Vatican II toward a whole series of reforms – women’s ordination, suspension of priestly celibacy, radical reform of the church’s sexual ethic, etc. – that were by no m…”

partial quote from a book review by Fr. (Bishop) Robert Barron: My Journal of the Council by Ives Congar
continue reading : catholicnewsagency.com/column/yves-congar-and-the-meaning-of-vatican-ii-2205/

 

[R_H_Benson]

In response to some who portray the younger Fr. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) as a progressive, this is what was said about him:

partial quote from a book review by Fr. (Bishop) Robert Barron: My Journal of the Council by Ives Congar
continue reading : catholicnewsagency.com/column/yves-congar-and-the-meaning-of-vatican-ii-2205/

Yes, Fr. Ratzinger did part ways with the radical progressives. However, my point remains the same as it has been throughout the thread: Pope Benedict is only conservative in relation to the new theology of the council. Even the positions he holds today are heavily influenced by that thought. As I said before, if you went back to the 1950s and showed any average Catholic the theological and liturgical ideas that Pope Bendict XVI currently holds, they would consider him to be a progressive. The terms are relative. He is a conservative in relation to the theology of the council. He is progressive in relation to the totality of tradition - in other words, he is not a traditionalist. I am not assigning any moral worth to these terms. That is a discussion for a different thread.

My overall point being: many today mistake post-conciliar conservatism as being synonymous with traditionalism. This is incorrect. They are distinct ideologies.