Tradition: What's the Point?
#1
In previous threads, I could get FishEaters to agree on only a few things that were essential to being a Traditional Catholic.

1.) Read VCII in continuity with Traditional teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty.

2.) Have a preference for TLM over the NO.

If this is it, could not any NeoCath call himself a Traditional Catholic? In which  case, what is really the point? If these are the only two qualifiers, couldn't a Charismatic Catholic and Traditional Catholic differ only in their Mass preferences? And if it's just personal preference, that's fine, but then why really be such a vehement "Trad"? If people can get just as much grace and be orthodox going to the Novus Ordo and they are comfortable doing so, why try to "bring them over" to Tradition? In that case it would be like we are trying to convert fellow Catholics to our personal tastes. What's the point? Thanks.

Reply
#2
 Steve,

     What is the point?  I think claiming to accept everything as taught by the Church before Vatican II is the benchmark of what is a trad.  Obviously, the NO wasn't, and I think, if one concedes that the NO is relevant in any manner or okay at all, than one will, by just accepting that premise, that many other aspects of the faith can end up being a personal preference. 
   For instance, if you accept the 1983 Code of Canon law, you must accept the permission for non-Catholics to be eligible to receive what is said to be Holy Communion at their service.  If one disputes that, and calls oneself a trad non-the-less, well, it seems to make the term traditional meaningless, in my opinion. 
   Since we can't(and I wouldn't want to even start to try)read hearts, we can only go by objective evidence and truths/teachings that we know come from the Church of the true Popes.  If one notices novelty coming from where truth once eminated, than one should avoid it like the plague to be able to consistently say they are traditional.

  Joe 
Reply
#3
Stevus, I'm sure this has been thrown down your throat, but this is what the site defines as a trad:

A "traditional Catholic" (or "traditionalist Catholic") is a Catholic who recognizes the above errors in the presentation of Catholic teaching, who sees unwise pastoral decisions for what they are, and who does all in his power to preserve the Holy Faith in a manner consistent with how it has always been understood, and to preserve all of the liturgical rites and customs of the Church as they were before the "spirit of Vatican II" revolution.


Complete orthodoxy is number 1. Full preservation of all liturgical rites and customs is number 2. Catholics disagree about other things, which is why Vox follows up the article with this description of trads:

Traditional Catholics fall into three main categories:


The first and by far the largest group consists of those Catholics who accept the acclaimed Pope and his recent predecessors as true Popes and who believe that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, albeit problematic, Council. In this group are included:

those who attend parishes where Masses are offered in accordance with Pope Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", most often celebrated by priests of the Fraternal Society of St Peter (F.S.S.P.) or the Institute of Christ the King (I.C.K), and

those who attend chapels or oratories where Masses are offered by priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (S.S.P.X.) 4 and other such priestly fraternities outside of ordinary diocesan structures.

The second group consists of those who are unsure about the status of the acclaimed Pope. Many such Catholics worship at Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius V (S.S.P.V.).

The third group consisists of "sedevacantist" Catholics, that is Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has not had a true Pope for some time (most consider Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope) and who, depending on the time they see as the moment the "Chair of Peter" (sede) became empty (vacante), may or may not see Vatican II as a valid Council. Many sedevacantists attend Masses offered by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.). 5
Though there is certain level of dispute among these various groups at the priestly level, traditional Catholic laypeople amongst them generally tend to have good relations with each other, though often with some very strong tension between sedevacantists and those who accept the acclaimed Pope.

Depending on how he understands the nature of Christian obedience, schism, and the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, a given traditional Catholic layman might have firm opinions for or against the advisability of worshiping outside of diocesan structures, or, conversely, he might worship at more than one of the above Mass settings without qualm.

A given traditional Catholic might equally like both the F.S.S.P. and the S.S.P.X., thinking it good that there are those fighting for (at least) some level of Tradition both inside and outside of ordinary diocesan structures, while another may think one group superior to the other or even that one group is unacceptable for some reason.

Some refuse to attend Novus Ordo Masses (except for funerals and weddings of family and friends), thinking it invalid or believing it "morally impossible" to do so because they see it -- not because of what it is, inherently, but because of what it isn't, what it lacks -- as too dangerous to the Faith to support, even if valid. If they have no access to the traditional Mass, some of these traditional Catholics become "home-aloners" making do like our forbears during various persecutions. Other traditionalists may attend Novus Ordo Masses out of their understanding of the requirements of obedience if the traditional Mass is unavailable in their area, while doing all in their power to find a traditional Mass.

Despite these varying opinions on the requirements of obedience, what all traditional Catholics who fit the label have in common -- whether they are sedevacantist, whether they worship inside or outside of diocesan structures -- are:


the dogmas of the Faith understood in a manner consistent with the way Catholics had always understood them -- i.e., they reject the errors outlined above

a desire to preserve and restore all of the ancient liturgical rites, and to do so not because these are "preferred," but because they are objectively superior to the new rites and should once again become normative

a deep understanding of or intuition about the importance of preserving not only instrinsic tradition (the unwritten Deposit of the Faith handed down by Christ and His Apostles), but also the ecclesiastical tradition (extrinsic tradition) which has served to preserve intrinsic tradition and allows parents and priests to pass it down in an effective way 6

a strong sensus Catholicus (Catholic "sense" or "instinct"), including a cautious, Catholic approach to novelty
Reply
#4
So for you, in order to be a Trad one cannot accept that the NO is ok to attend at all?
Also one cannot be Trad and accept the '83 Code of Canon Law?

I'm not certain what you mean by "permission for non-Catholics to be eligible to receive what is said to be Holy Communion at their service"?

I don't think the '83 Code anywhere says that non-Catholics can receive communion at the NO Mass. If so please state where. Thanks.

Reply
#5
StevusMagnus Wrote:I don't think the '83 Code anywhere says that non-Catholics can receive communion at the NO Mass. 

I didn't think so either.
Reply
#6
neel,

Quote:the dogmas of the Faith understood in a manner consistent with the way Catholics had always understood them -- i.e., they reject the errors outlined above

Neo-Caths can do this as well.
Quote: a desire to preserve and restore all of the ancient liturgical rites,

All ancient liturgical rites? Even those that were abrogated by later editions? For instance the '62 TLM replaced the '58 Missal. Must Trads want to restore the '58 Missal, and previous TLM editions? The Ambrosian Rite? The Serum Mass? What if you only care about restoring the '62 Missal? Are you still a Trad?

Quote: and to do so not because these are "preferred," but because they are objectively superior to the new rites and should once again become normative

So to be a Trad you must wish and work towards some particular ancient liturgical rite, or all of them, replacing the Novus Ordo as the "ordinary form"?

And how does one define "objectively superior"? Can one approved rite of mass be "objectively superior" to another? If so how and who is to judge
Reply
#7
Pardon my acknowledged ignorance, but could someone tell me what a NeoCath is, just so I can understand the discussion better?  [Image: huh.gif]
Reply
#8
NeoCaths = those who support whatever the current Pope supports. Pope Benedict XVI supports a hermeneutic of continuity, thus current Neo-Caths could easily support reading VCII in a Trad light and thus, in this respect, be no different than Trads.
Reply
#9
I'll respond in a a few min (I have to make dinner), but I'd like to go on record as saying you're reading way too much into what Vox wrote (being overly nit-picky) and kind of acting like an ass. Settle down man, we're in this together.
Reply
#10
Neel,

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it is not my intent to be a jerk by asking these questions. I'm looking to define exactly what makes one a Traditional Catholic. I'm asking questions to clarify and get down to the essentials. Please read my words with this in mind. Being nit-picky helps to tease out distinctions.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)