There is a whole section in this forum for “Traditional Catholicism”. I didn’t think about it much at first and figured it was a forum to discuss general catholic issues. I just noticed that some individuals referred to themselves as “traditional” catholics. What is the difference between “regular”(?) catholics and traditional catholics? Do traditional catholics feel that something important has been lost from the church? Is there any conflict between the two groups? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to stir up up trouble. Just curious.
You’ll find a wide variety of “definitions” of traditional Catholicism. Most of us have our own ideas as to what this means. That does not make anyone right or wrong.
To me it means one who attends the EF Mass as opposed to one who attends the OF Mass. Having said that there will now be a flood of contradictory definitions.
And that’s OK with me. I don’t disparage the OF Mass. I just prefer the EF and I try to follow the church laws in place during 1962. (including the 3 hour Fast prior to receiving
There are many threads about this.
Instead of rehashing the same assertions, maybe use the search function.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but these discussions always end up with one “side” annoying the other.
It’s kind of like the Mayonnaise VS Miracle Whip argument.
Beyond favoring a different form of the Liturgy, there is (or should not be) any difference between Catholics.
Will this help? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic
I only identify myself as a Catholic though I feel if one is not a “Traditional Catholic” they are not really a Catholic at all. This does not have anything to do with whether they attend the Extraordinary Form or Ordinary Form Masses; it’s more to do with their thinking. Those who want to see all sorts of radical and impossible changes within the Church are neither Traditional nor Catholic.
When the forum was set up, this was the statement of its purpose:
Traditional Catholicism - talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism
That was almost 10 years ago. The Indult has been replaced by Summorum Pontificum and Sedevacanism is routinely placed on the “banned topic” list. But this is still the place to discuss the Mass in Latin.
How they error…when faithful both groups are basically the same. The differences are shown when they sin.
One is quicker to have the sinful elitist, intellectual, pharisee mindset.
Another side is quicker to the liberal, modernist heresies.
So really, not many differences until they error or argue…
Wow. Way to draw a line in the sand. You gonna referee this little shindig? :slapfight:
Honestly, this is why I loathe these types of discussions.
People are so quick to encourage the stereotypes.
I prefer the label: CATHOLIC.
I get it. Thank you all.
You’re SO right!
(And on that note, Miracle Whip is NOT Mayo, but they’re both dressing!!! )
You make me feel old. Fasting from midnight was the rule when I was young.
Obviously you missed when I said “When faithful they are the same”. That is where we can be catholic. But as Francis said in the closing of the synod, there are two main errors in the Church-elitism and modernism. SO I am just saying what the pope said…
I found one interesting quote from Pope Pius X(who is a saint by the way):
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists." -Pope Pius X
@ialsop, how do you respond to this quote in regards to your post about elitism and modernism?
To the OP:
Popes are not called to ‘play’ or pander to either or any extreme.
All Catholics are called to follow suit.
Re: Traditional vs Contemporary Catholicism
Take the misconception about what ‘Traditional’ is supposed to mean out of the equation.
Take popular expressions that the Church is Contemporary/modern out of the equation.
Take the vs out of the equation.
And we are left with what the Church is supposed to be:
Simple and straight-forward.
Im not sure how it contradicts my point. A “traditionalist” should neither be a revolutionary nor an innovator, whether it be a modernist or a pharisee…so I would say it supports my point. I am not sure how it contradicts. Are you meaning to say that elitism is never an issue? I do not understand.
It doesn’t contradict, you are right. I was wondering if you thought that there should be a middle ground that we should take between traditional Catholism and modernism because some people refer to traditionalists as elitists or Pharisee-like