Author Topic: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic  (Read 878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23004
  • Reputation: +20146/-243
  • Gender: Male
An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
« on: March 27, 2017, 08:12:09 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
  • A Traditional Catholic is defined as: a person who deals with the Crisis in the Church by leaving the Conciliar Church and seeking out true (valid, properly formed) priests and true Sacraments/Mass (the Tridentine Mass) and not asking anyone's permission to do so.

    This is my honest attempt at an accurate, objective definition of what a Traditional Catholic is. The definition is as inclusive as possible, yet captures the essence of Traditional Catholicism. Whatever the best definition is, it would have to apply to Catholics from 1970 to the present, since the Traditional Movement has been around that long.

    For example, in the earliest days, Traditional Catholics existed all over the world, but none of them were concerned with permission from Rome. The first step was people walking out of the Novus Ordo, never to return. They instinctively gathered (like eagles) around any priest who wanted to stay Catholic (Traditional) and offer the Tridentine Mass. They knew that the salvation of souls came first, and that the Catholic Church herself supplied any jurisdiction that was needed for things like confession, marriage, etc.

    Furthermore, Traditional Catholics all believed that the Mass was important. That is why they drove long distances to be where the Tridentine Mass was. They knew that the Catholic Faith was a habit of life, and that raising children Catholic meant having a place to attend Mass on a regular basis, even if it was not in an ornate cathedral building.

    Therefore, I don't think I'm being too mean or sectarian by excluding Home-Aloners and attendees of the Indult (including Diocesan and any Roman-approved group).

    In this context, by "Home Aloners" I mean those who hate the Novus Ordo and Conciliar religion, and have nothing to do with it, but they also believe that the Traditional Movement is not legitimate. So they fail to "seek out true Mass and Sacraments".  They ignore all the valid, Traditional priests and Masses available. They are aloof from the world of Tradition, even if they seem to oppose the Novus Ordo with all the Traditional Catholics.

    Indult-attendees should be excluded because they believe that permission from Rome is useful or even required, in order to resort to the Tridentine Mass and pre-Vatican II Catholic Faith. This also goes against the basic tenets of the Traditional Movement as it has always existed. Any real Traditional Catholic knows that we have a right by our Baptism to sacraments/Mass which are 100% sure and priests that are 100% sure. The sheep of the flock have a right to be fed good nutritious food, not dung.

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline FlatEarthInquisitor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 73
    • Reputation: +38/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #1 on: March 29, 2017, 10:34:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • thank you for making this clear. This should be put up as the first thing people see when they join the forum.
    There are many lurking in the forum who do not fit this definition.

    The SSPX cannot really be considered part of that definition though, given the fact that three of their sacraments are approved and that Bishop Faure himself has taken the red-light position. They are part of the Novus Ordo Church, though perhaps not with all the sacraments. But even in part means that they cannot be counted as fully OUTSIDE the conciliar Church.

    I'm sure this comes as bitter news to those still attending the SSPX Masses. I'm sorry but it is the truth. You really have to stop going. (I am not a Pfeifferite by any means, but we always knew this day would come.)

    Sedevacantists can probably be considered part of your definition too, though it really depends on the person.


    Online Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5648
    • Reputation: +3074/-142
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #2 on: March 29, 2017, 10:39:37 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • My definition for traditional Catholics is wider. I consider it anyone who believes what was taught before Vatican II and goes to the Latin Mass or one of the eastern rites to get away from the Novus Ordo. So if one rejects the Vatican II errors and goes to the indult because it is approved and he doesn't want to be "excommunicated", then I would consider him to be a traditional Catholic also.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1495/-2317
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #3 on: March 29, 2017, 11:47:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My definition for traditional Catholics is wider. I consider it anyone who believes what was taught before Vatican II and goes to the Latin Mass or one of the eastern rites to get away from the Novus Ordo. So if one rejects the Vatican II errors and goes to the indult because it is approved and he doesn't want to be "excommunicated", then I would consider him to be a traditional Catholic also.

    I agree, though I think I understand the reasoning behind why those who attend indults wouldn't be considered trads.  And....some of us who attend an indult don't actually want to do so, but sometimes it's the only option if one doesn't want to be 'home alone.'

    There are problems, to be sure, with attending an indult, but there are many there who do strive to live a traditional Catholic life. Sadly, many of them don't seem to understand that they owe the existence of the indult to Archbishop Lefebvre. IMO, B16 would not have allowed the indult or Summorum Pontificum if not for the existence of the SSPX. Same with JPll's allowance for the indult.

    I have to wonder...will the SSPX be considered indult when they reconcile? Probably so.

    If traditional Catholics are only allowed to attend Resistance or independent chapels, then that leaves very few options to being 'home alone.'

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23004
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #4 on: March 29, 2017, 02:48:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One point you're missing though --

    It's about your PRINCIPLES, not where you end up driving to Mass. Someone could be a real Traditional Catholic, avoiding the Novus Ordo and seeking out a Tridentine Mass without permission of the Conciliar Church, but out of prudence/fear/necessity they might go somewhere far from ideal, like an Indult, neo-SSPX, or Eastern Rite.

    Or they might stay home alone -- not out of choice, but because there are no options available to them locally.

    A man who attempts to cheat on his wife, but is rejected by his would-be paramour, is still an adulterer. Likewise a Traditional Catholic who has been placed in a location with no options is still a Traditional Catholic.

    But if he stays home alone because he believes "Trad Chapels are not legit", because they have no jurisdiction from Rome -- then he's not a Trad Catholic.

    I'm going to have to insist on that clause about "without permission", though, because it's true. Even if it cuts off a bunch of people from the designation "Traditional Catholic".

    A shorter definition of Trad Catholic would be: "Those who deal with the Crisis in the Church by siding with Truth rather than Authority." Anyone who says we need permission from Conciliar Church officials (bishop, Pope, etc.) is siding with authority over truth. They are conservative Catholics, not Traditional Catholics.

    Let's look at it from another angle: to be a Traditional Catholic, you have to recognize the Traditional Catholic movement, and the multitude of Trad Catholic chapels out there, as legitimate. Some Indult attendees really do think they need permission. They would consider SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantist and Independent chapels as illegitimate, non-options for them. So even though you only want to be nice, it really isn't fair to call those who require permission from Rome "Traditional Catholic". 
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline countrychurch

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 580
    • Reputation: +34/-44
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #5 on: March 29, 2017, 02:59:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • A Traditional Catholic is defined as: a person who deals with the Crisis in the Church by leaving the Conciliar Church and seeking out true (valid, properly formed) priests and true Sacraments/Mass (the Tridentine Mass) and not asking anyone's permission to do so.
    I feel sorry for those who are too economically disadvantaged to go to the traditional Mass, even assuming they know where one is. But I guess someone who has a minimal level of knowledge vis a vis Catholicism would therefore have sufficient knowledge to know that he has to go looking for one

    The thought occurs to me:

    If the Novus ordo is so awful (and i am not saying it is but some say that) then why do those who attend the novus ordo never hear from the traditionalists? I mean, i ignorantly attended the NO for yrs and yrs, still do at this time. For years and years I have attended and no one ever told me about the traditionalist Mass, even though I knew vaguely about the topic.. 

    I mean, it doesn't look like traditionlists are any more evangelical than NO people

    and that is on them

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1495/-2317
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #6 on: March 29, 2017, 03:24:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One point you're missing though --

    It's about your PRINCIPLES, not where you end up driving to Mass. Someone could be a real Traditional Catholic, avoiding the Novus Ordo and seeking out a Tridentine Mass without permission of the Conciliar Church, but out of prudence/fear/necessity they might go somewhere far from ideal, like an Indult, neo-SSPX, or Eastern Rite.

    Or they might stay home alone -- not out of choice, but because there are no options available to them locally.

    A man who attempts to cheat on his wife, but is rejected by his would-be paramour, is still an adulterer. Likewise a Traditional Catholic who has been placed in a location with no options is still a Traditional Catholic.

    But if he stays home alone because he believes "Trad Chapels are not legit", because they have no jurisdiction from Rome -- then he's not a Trad Catholic.

    I'm going to have to insist on that clause about "without permission", though, because it's true. Even if it cuts off a bunch of people from the designation "Traditional Catholic".

    A shorter definition of Trad Catholic would be: "Those who deal with the Crisis in the Church by siding with Truth rather than Authority." Anyone who says we need permission from Conciliar Church officials (bishop, Pope, etc.) is siding with authority over truth. They are conservative Catholics, not Traditional Catholics.

    Let's look at it from another angle: to be a Traditional Catholic, you have to recognize the Traditional Catholic movement, and the multitude of Trad Catholic chapels out there, as legitimate. Some Indult attendees really do think they need permission. They would consider SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantist and Independent chapels as illegitimate, non-options for them. So even though you only want to be nice, it really isn't fair to call those who require permission from Rome "Traditional Catholic".

    Okay, thanks, I have a better understanding of what you're saying. I do agree, for the most part. It just doesn't seem like such a black-and-white situation. I'm probably wrong about that. There was a time when I thought I needed permission, too. I was wrong, but only realized it after studying the Resistance, through this forum.

    It does seem like the SSPX reconciliation thing has gained momentum because there are so many Catholics (including Bp. Fellay) who believe that the SSPX has to be reconciled to Rome before they're really considered legitimate. Bp. Fellay has himself said that he's worried that the SSPX will go into schism if they don't reconcile, or words to that effect. Of course he also believes that the SSPX will help save the church. There seems  to be a false sense or understanding about why trad chapels have to exist in the first place, among mainstream trads, be they NO or indult.

    This is a really good subject to bring up, btw.




    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1495/-2317
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #7 on: March 29, 2017, 03:35:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I feel sorry for those who are too economically disadvantaged to go to the traditional Mass, even assuming they know where one is. But I guess someone who has a minimal level of knowledge vis a vis Catholicism would therefore have sufficient knowledge to know that he has to go looking for one

    The thought occurs to me:

    If the Novus ordo is so awful (and i am not saying it is but some say that) then why do those who attend the novus ordo never hear from the traditionalists? I mean, i ignorantly attended the NO for yrs and yrs, still do at this time. For years and years I have attended and no one ever told me about the traditionalist Mass, even though I knew vaguely about the topic..

    I mean, it doesn't look like traditionlists are any more evangelical than NO people

    and that is on them

    It can indeed be difficult to get NO folks to know that there's such thing as tradition and the TLM. Even if they do hear of it, though, many don't seem interested in pursuing it further, since it's so very different from what they know. For several years, I posted on the Catholic Answers forum, in an attempt, for the most part, to educate the NO'ers about Tradition and the TLM. Most of them were not interested, and the progressives were against me. It seems to take a certain predisposition, maybe, to look further into Tradition and the TLM. I mean, to be able and willing to look beyond what the conciliar church has been teaching all these years, since the Council.


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3013
    • Reputation: +1495/-2317
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #8 on: March 29, 2017, 03:56:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Countrychurch,

    One other thing I should have mentioned is that you are talking about something different than what Matthew is, I think. You seem to be referring to Tradition in general, but Matthew is describing the situation which is specific to traditional chapels that are not in communion with Modernist Rome. Hope that makes sense.

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6007
    • Reputation: +3305/-194
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #9 on: March 29, 2017, 04:03:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see this question of Authority as crucial It seems that conservative, would-be-if-they-could-be Traditional Catholics have a childish dependence on what they see as reasonable authority. I don't want to change the topic, but it's a bit like parents who ask the State for permission to educate their own children. The right to do that comes direct from God and I could never agree to ask permission for that from an false authority.

    Quote
    The thought occurs to me: If the Novus ordo is so awful ... then why do those who attend the novus ordo never hear from the traditionalists? I mean, i ignorantly attended the NO for yrs and yrs, still do at this time. For years and years I have attended and no one ever told me about the traditionalist Mass, even though I knew vaguely about the topic.. 

    I mean, it doesn't look like traditionlists are any more evangelical than NO people and that is on them
    The Novus Ordo is not only "awful", it is simply not a Catholic form of worship. It is an aberration. But that is not the subject here. We are only considering the principles involved for Traditional Catholics in attending a Traditional Mass either at a traditional chapel or an indult Mass offered in a diocesan church. The Novus Ordo is a subject of many threads here for which you can search.
    If you went to say, an Baptist Church, would you expect to find there Traditional Catholics trying to drag you away? And if there is no traditional chapel near you where are these traditionalists to come from that you infer should be dragging you out of the Novus Ordo? It is your responsibility to find Truth and you are here on this board so you have access to it.
    May God bless your search :pray:

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1368
    • Reputation: +1322/-128
    • Gender: Female
    Re: An objective definition of Traditional Catholic
    « Reply #10 on: March 30, 2017, 03:13:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • FWIW. This 2001 open letter reply to a conservative canon lawyer, IMO is worth the read. It goes into the differences between liberal, conservative and traditional Catholics.

    http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/reply_to_a_conservative_canon_lawyer.htm




    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16