yes thank you. some people are more descriptive.
Thanks for the info, but, could you provide specific links for further study?
Even if just a general website or something as opposed to spoon feeding me, I would very much appreciate it. The massive amount of misinformation on the internet regarding the issue makes total self-research a real bear sometimes.
And when one looks at this history, one finds that the transition from the EF to the current OF of the mass is not really that significant of a change, besides moving from the Latin to a vernacular text (remember, Latin WAS the vernacular at the time of St. Justin.) The vernacular has just made the understanding of what is going on more accessible to the laity.
I find the name to be rather a misnomer.
All Catholics are to receive and hand on “Tradition” as part of being Catholic (thus be “traditional” ).
I know the term is used by some…often to denote a preference for the a particular period in Church history but I would love if they found a different one.
Have you actually compared, say the Missal of 1962 side by side with the Missal of '69?
Very, very different.
Every Catholic considers them self traditional and they consider anyone that has different beliefs/thoughts/traditions/etc is nontraditional.
I don’t know about that.
I know people who readily admit that they are not “down” with all the church teachings even though they have their kids in Catholic School because it seems like the right thing to do. They also get ashes on Ash Wednesday.
I never use any qualifier for “Catholic” except Roman or Latin.
I am what people would call a “traditional” Catholic - I am 100% obedient to the Pope, I don’t think doctrine or morals ever change, I believe both personal piety, the rosary, etc. and charity and justice for the poor are important, I love the older forms of the mass and prayers but believe the newer ones are perfectly valid and legitimate.
Above all, I don’t say “traditional,” because I am unwilling to concede that my outlook described above is optional for Catholics. However, I am very careful to keep clear in my mind what are my own personal views and preferences, and those things that are obligatory for all Catholics. For example, I love the rosary and think it is highly, highly commendable for all Catholics - saints, popes have praised it to the skies - but if one chooses not to pray it, I have no right to say they are less of a Catholic.
I like to say that just because there are people out there whose Catholic identity is compromised by illegitimate compromises with non-Catholic ideologies (political, religious, behavioral, whatever), does not make me a “traditionalist” or “conservative” by default!
Hopefully in time a good term with come along that fits better their particular affinities…and that is thus clearer.
Nobody can presume to know whether anyone is in a state of mortal sin or not, given that we can all be in one state or the other at any given time, something only your own conscience, your confessor and God can know for sure.
Better said than I could, apparently.
I don’t understand what you mean.
Does traditionalist = one whose
"catholic identity is compromised by illegitimate compromises with non-Catholic ideologies (political, religious, behavioral, whatever?
Maybe I am misunderstanding.
Or we could all listen to the teachings of Benedict XV way back in 1914. They are as applicable today, as they were then. There are enough divisions in the Church, why do people keep trying to further divide it?
“Benedict opposes theological or political labelling of other views such as liberal or conservative as divisive. There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
Customs and traditions that enshrine our beliefs and concretize them are not essential to the doctrines themselves, but if you remove the customs and traditions, you start to erode away the beliefs.
Traditionalists realize that the stripping away of traditional devotions, prayers, ceremonies, and verbage that graced every parish a century ago has resulted in a whole new idea of what it means to live the Catholic life. If we were thrust back into the time of our ancestors, we’d be completely alienated. Now, some may say, “Well we’ve just grown more mature.” I’d respond by asking if the new approach to Catholicism concretizes dogmas like:
- Original Sin
- God’s omnipotence
- A hierarchical Church
- A ministerial priesthood that is different in essence from the priesthood of all believers
- The necessity of sacramental confession for sins committed after Baptism
Who among our young have ever heard of:
- Forty Hours Devotion
- Ember Days
- A priest wearing black at a funeral
- An introit
- Abstinence from meat every Friday
- “Introibo ad altare Dei…”
- High Mass, Low Mass
- The Last Gospel
- Communion at the Altar Rail, on your knees, on the Tongue by a priest only
the list goes on and on.
This was part of the lingo of Catholics for centuries. The dictionary has been thrown out and replaced with a whole new book. By doing that, many Catholics beliefs have changed.
Trads don’t want a whole new world. They ask, “If the way it was done helped sanctify the believer, then why did it need to be demolished?” Why are we calling into question things that our community of believers has cherished for centuries. By questioning that, we are destroying our identity.