FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What qualifies as a trad?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
So on another catholic forum I came across this question and poll. The question was who qualifies as a trad? It had a poll and I was surprised to see only around 20% of people said you should attend the TLM. Now for the sake of the poll lets also take into consideration other traditional liturgies such eastern ones. What do the fishes think? (for argument sake lets pretend that everyone has access to a traditional liturgy, does one have to attend it to be considered a true traditionalist?)

I think many people on the other forum seemed to be confusing orthodoxy and traditionalism. I think orthodoxy can still be achieved in the NO mass but to call yourself a trad you should attend the latin mass or at least prefer it.

It just doesn't seem to make much sense to be to be calling yourself a trad but choosing, deliberately, not to attend a trad liturgy. I can understand that some people may adhere to more trad catholic views and therefore consider themselves a trad but one would think that would lead them to attend the TLM. I know personally that as my views became more traditional my desire of the TLM increased. It just seems to follow.
I voted "no" because I think it's possible to be more or less a traditional Catholic, but for reasons outside of themselves not attend the TLM. It might be to appease a spouse for example, a "happy medium" so to speak. Being a Trad is as much cultural as any of the other peripheries. Whether there's a preference or no is besides the point in those cases, IMO.

Also, I think even though you specify that for the sake of argument everyone has access to it, the reality is that most people don't. I think that makes a huge difference of how we perceive and define a Trad in the modern era, and it's virtually impossible to tease apart the having to go/wants to go/needs to go/what's available arguments.

Just to two cents.
I voted "No - But You Should Prefer It."  My wife and I consider ourselves traditional Catholics, but occasionally have to go to Novus Ordo liturgies instead of our regular Tradional Latin Mass or Divine Liturgy options (we have one of each near our home, and one of each near our most common travel spots (my parents' house and a coastal town nearby).

However, often enough something will come up where it is inconvenient to go, and we end up at a Novus Ordo. We usually avoid that (especially since the local DL started in the morning...now we go to that if someone has an afternoon party that makes us miss the TLM), but it is sometimes unavoidable that my wife's family will want to have "(Novus Ordo) Mass as a family, then a (birthday, Christmas, Easter, whatever) party."  But we would always prefer a traditional liturgy if we could realistically make it to one. I have some friends who won't attend family events if it means missing the TLM...while I sympathize with them, I have enough ability to attend traditional liturgies most Sundays that it isn't worth missing, for instance, an elderly relative's birthday over it on one Sunday.
YES!!!!!1

I have good friends who simply don't understand my fixation with the TLM. I, on the other hand, am absolutely flabbergasted why people who otherwise would be very traditional (that is, holding to what was always, everywhere and by everyone believed) prefer the NOM.  :shrug:
I said No- but you should prefer it.

The traditional liturgies are undisputably better than the Novus Ordo but some "traditionalists" would rather not go to mass at all than go to a Novus Ordo mass which I find to be somewhat arrogant and damaging to the faith. It's that kind of attitude that waters down the mass and turns it into some kind of performance. The liturgy may be repulsive and full of abuses but that does not make it a bad mass, the only truly bad mass is an invalid one. The mass is not about the liturgy, that's just "decoration" (for lack of a better word), the mass can be complete without it. The mass is about the Eternal Sacrifice, the Eucharist, which is the same at every true mass whether NO, TML, or any other Catholic or Orthodox liturgy. I hate the NO but I'm not less of a Catholic for attending one.
There are several aspects of traditional Catholic piety, the divine office, Gregorian chant, the fasting days, etc... One could have a focus on those things. I've met plenty Catholics like that, who quote liberally from the old councils and the Church Fathers.

Their liturgical preference is usually for an NO form mass celebrated Ad Orientam, with Gregorian chant, the Roman Canon, kneeling for communion. They pray rosaries and do the stations of the cross.

Their relationship to the old form of the mass is usually admiration without deciding to make an effort of it. They do tend to come anyway.

I think people line that are also worthy of being calles traditionally Catholic.
The original trads wanted nothing to do with the new rites, and so in the spirit of those original hardcore types I'll say that one is not a trad if one attends the new rite for any reason, especially if there are other options. When i think if trad i think of Father Cekada, the SSPV, CMRI, Patrick Henry Omlor and some of the more hardline members of the SSPX throughout the years. Of course things have changed with Summorum Pontificum, Romes warming up to the SSPX and the mainstreaming of traditionalism, but back in the old days "trad" meant drawing a line in the sand and flat out refusing anything whatsoever to do what original trad Father Walthen called "The Great Sacrilege", i.e. the new Mass, Vatican II, the modern papacy etc.

That being said i identify with some trad causes and prefer the old rites but because I'm more Eastern and occasionally attend the new rite it's not fair to the real trads to say I'm one of them.

Many of todays trads are what I'd call "neo trads", those who prefer the old but don't totally reject the new. I think most people on this forum are more like this.

When i think of the spirit if the original trads i think of something like True Restoration Radio or the SSPV apostolate.
I consider myself a trad, but I don't attend the Tridentine Mass very often. In my town, the Tridentine Mass is very sparsely attended, and I find I become too isolated if I go to it exclusively.  If I ever have the opportunity to attend a church that exclusively offers the Tridentine Mass, and which has a congregation that is stable and active, I'll be there.
Thanks for the participation so far everyone. I like getting everyones perspective on this. I can tell its definitely a topic that has varying opinions and so far I can understand everyones point.
(11-22-2015, 10:46 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]The original trads wanted nothing to do with the new rites, and so in the spirit of those original hardcore types I'll say that one is not a trad if one attends the new rite for any reason, especially if there are other options. When i think if trad i think of Father Cekada, the SSPV, CMRI, Patrick Henry Omlor and some of the more hardline members of the SSPX throughout the years. Of course things have changed with Summorum Pontificum, Romes warming up to the SSPX and the mainstreaming of traditionalism, but back in the old days "trad" meant drawing a line in the sand and flat out refusing anything whatsoever to do what original trad Father Walthen called "The Great Sacrilege", i.e. the new Mass, Vatican II, the modern papacy etc.

That being said i identify with some trad causes and prefer the old rites but because I'm more Eastern and occasionally attend the new rite it's not fair to the real trads to say I'm one of them.

Many of todays trads are what I'd call "neo trads", those who prefer the old but don't totally reject the new. I think most people on this forum are more like this.

When i think of the spirit if the original trads i think of something like True Restoration Radio or the SSPV apostolate.

Neo-trads, now we're getting into nomenclature here! Soon we'll have to hire a Botanist to sort out all the species and subspecies of internet Catholicism!  :LOL:

If to be a trad is to be sedevacantist, then I'm not a trad. Also, that would almost make the definition of a trad obsolete, since sedevacantism isn't really a big thing--a couple of chapels in rural USA, some random guy in Germany and that's it. Its like having the trouble to define something subtle over a set of measure zero.

I used to go to the NOM, but I rarely go now. I will not miss Sunday Mass if its not a TLM or a DL. I'm not there yet, but I'm drifting into a life of exclusive old rites, though I don't reject (in some sense) the new rites or Vatican II (and I don't think all the Council was a monstrosity some trads say it is, cf. von Hildebrand's Trojan Horse)  or “the new papacy” (whatever that means).
I also don't think this position is new. The FSSP et al. were created the same year Fellay was consecrated, and this kinda shows people gathering around Lefebvre formed a rather diverse group of people, united more or less on the Old Rite thing.
I suppose this is what is sorely lacking in “trad movements”: sticking with the basic. Everything now is “a matter of salvation”.

Pages: 1 2 3