argent_paladin Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 25 2005, 04:30 PM']Oftentimes, though this is disregarded, "Traditionalist Catholic" actually defines the outlook towards the Church. To say it is not to say other Catholics are not such or that they are not Catholic, but just the different approach, that does fall within teachings. Just as the Holy Father calls himself an Augustinian and I call myself a Thomist, this does not negate our Catholicism but defines our approach. Likewise, to call oneself a Traditionalist Catholic is to define that person as someone who prefers the more traditional disciplines and practices of the Church. I use the phrase "traditionalist" here so as not to create confusion after argent's post. [right][snapback]800230[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually, I rather like these terms: [b]traditional Catholic: one who knows/revers the traditions but doesn't necessarily wear a mantilla, go to pre-1962 masses, etc traditionalist Catholic: one who goes to Latin (non-NO) masses, wants to learn latin, prays the pre-Vat II liturgy of the hours, etc, etc. But still in union with Rome ultra-traditionalist Catholic- not in union with Rome, doesn't recognize the validity of Vatican II[/b] I am definitely a traditional Catholic, with some leanings toward Traditionalist (especially in music). One thing that gets me about Catholics who don't know or disdain their tradition is the arrogance. Traditional Catholicism has proven that it can survive and thrive for generation after generation. Modernity cannot sustain itself even one, but must be a parasite on tradition. Modern society will contracept/abort itself out of existence. It would have happened already except they are particularly good at stealing traditional children becuase they run the schools, universities, media, etc. For example, the Amish could exist by themselves for another 100 years, easily. But could the Manhattan/Hollywood elites? Of course not because their birthrate is virtually 0% They have to convert others to their worldview to sustain themselves. And that will change at some point.
argent_paladin Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Yes, I agree that technically there is only Catholic, heretical/apostate Catholic, Christian and non-Catholic. However, it is far easier to refer to yourself as a traditional Catholic, than to refer to someone else as a heretical Catholic. Just as it is far easier to call someone a separated brother or child of Abraham than a schismatic or non-believer.
brendan1104 Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 ok the Pope St. Pius X catechism then...
Socrates Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 "Traditional Catholic" is another one of those "labels" which does not really have a well-defined meaning, and is used to mean different things by different people. Most people calling themselves "Traditionalist Catholics" are those that attend the old Tridentine Mass, or believe it objectively superior to the post-Vatican II "Novus Ordo" mass. They usually have similar preferences concerning other forms of worship. Some of these "Traditionalists" accept the authority of the Pope in Rome, others are schismatics who do not, and beleive there has been no legitimate Pope in Rome since before Vatican II. These "Rad Trads" hold a variety of different beliefs concerning the papacy and Vatican II. Some dissenting "liberal" Catholics consider any Catholics who are loyal to the teaching of the Church to be "tradional Catholics." Othertimes this term is used to refer to anyone who holds to any forms of tradtional piety and worship. Extreme Traditionalists would probably consider me a liberal, while liberals would consider me a Traditionalist.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 Labels can tell more about the labeler than the one being labeled.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 [quote]Extreme Traditionalists would probably consider me a liberal, while liberals would consider me a Traditionalist.[/quote] I guess that would make you an orthodox catholic.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 I try to stick to the word faithful, it covers everyone who follows the Magisterium, not just their personal preferences.
tojo Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 What's really interesting, as one can see from this thread alone, most practicing Catholics (except perhaps those who PMers would call liberal) seem to desire to call themselves traditional. When I was Pentecostal and when I was evangelical, I did not notice any desire to be called traditional, except perhaps if one was speaking of "traditional moral values."
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 from what ive noticed protestants do not really desire tradition. many accuse Catholics of "holding to the traditions of men." where in Galatians it says hold fast your traditons! one of my protestant friends told me that their is no desire to be traditonal because some people just don't really like it. I think its a reactionary thing to Catholics and our tradition and the fact that protestants do not believe in sacred tradition.
tojo Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 I think you're right. As for that verse in Galatians, I certainly had never noticed it, and I imgaine most Prots don't.
Anastasia13 Posted November 27, 2005 Author Posted November 27, 2005 Tradition is in scripture. If you have and follow scripture and nothing else, you will still have tradition.
zunshynn Posted November 27, 2005 Posted November 27, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Nov 25 2005, 05:50 PM']ok the Pope St. Pius X catechism then... [right][snapback]800375[/snapback][/right] [/quote] is that another name for the baltimore catechism? or is something else?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted November 27, 2005 Posted November 27, 2005 no its a catechism that St.Pius X wrote.
photosynthesis Posted November 27, 2005 Posted November 27, 2005 I've been called a Trditionalist because I think that having gregorian chant at a Mass on a liberal college campus is not a crazy idea. I would consider myself a traditional Catholic because I prefer a more traditional style of liturgy (organ music, traditional hymns, Latin, traditional Catholic style prayer and devotions) to modernist music and warm fuzzies. but I'm not one of those weirdos that doesn't accept Vatican II, I just don't accept bad music. [quote name='Light and Truth' date='Nov 26 2005, 09:40 PM']Tradition is in scripture. If you have and follow scripture and nothing else, you will still have tradition. [right][snapback]801220[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Scripture is a product of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. It didn't just fall out of the sky, the Church authorized what is and is not Scripture and the Church has the authority to proclaim the truth and to denounce what is false.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 [quote name='Light and Truth' date='Nov 26 2005, 10:40 PM']Tradition is in scripture. If you have and follow scripture and nothing else, you will still have tradition. [right][snapback]801220[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is a protestant fallacy.
Era Might Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Light and Truth' date='Nov 26 2005, 10:40 PM']Tradition is in scripture. If you have and follow scripture and nothing else, you will still have tradition. [right][snapback]801220[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes and no. The word "Tradition" comes from the Latin "Tradere", "to hand on". Scripture is a "handing on" of Christian revelation. It is written tradition. Oral tradition, however, is just as important (see 2Thess 2:15). We would not know, for example, that the books of Scripture were Scripture, if it weren't for oral Tradition. How do we know Matthew wrote his Gospel? It doesn't say so in the text. Without oral Tradition, the Gospel of Matthew would just be another Gospel among many others that aren't in the Canon. Edited November 28, 2005 by Era Might
argent_paladin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 27 2005, 08:28 PM']That is a protestant fallacy. [right][snapback]801987[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think L&T was simply pointing out the fact that even protestants who claim to have no tradition have Sacred Scripture which is a type of tradition (written tradition).
cmotherofpirl Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Nov 27 2005, 10:02 PM']I think L&T was simply pointing out the fact that even protestants who claim to have no tradition have Sacred Scripture which is a type of tradition (written tradition). [right][snapback]802014[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes but it sounded like she was saying that written tradition was enough.
argent_paladin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 When someone asks me what kind of Catholic I am, I always say "I am faithful to the Magisterium." Orthodox Catholics understand what I mean right away and know what I am about. Heretical Catholics look at me funny and ask "What's the magisterium?" Then we get into a fun conversation... :
cmotherofpirl Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 [quote name='argent_paladin' date='Nov 28 2005, 06:53 AM']When someone asks me what kind of Catholic I am, I always say "I am faithful to the Magisterium." Orthodox Catholics understand what I mean right away and know what I am about. Heretical Catholics look at me funny and ask "What's the magisterium?" Then we get into a fun conversation... : [right][snapback]802407[/snapback][/right] [/quote]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now