What in the world is a “traditional Catholic”?
September 27, 2007 in ANSWERING COMMENTS, THE SIMPSONS NEWS, Traditional Catholics
THE SIMPSONS NEWS
Under the gun again. We are really behind on the show and Act I has to be shipped by next Friday. Act II gets shipped the following Friday and Act III the Friday after that. Right now, it doesn’t look good. I’ve been working overtime this week just to try to get as much done as possible. Fixes that seemed simple at the time, have turned out to be really complicated and time consuming. It’s gonna be a difficult couple of weeks.
ANSWERING COMMENTS
Well, Bill asked me a really interesting question on the last post.
“I was talking with a co-worker who kept correcting me that he was a “traditional Catholic”, not a Catholic. That intrigued me, isn’t the Roman Catholic Church about as traditional as you can get in the world of Christianity? Are there distinct differences between Catholic and traditional Catholic?”
My advice to you Bill, in order to get the best answer, is to ask your co-worker what he means by “traditional Catholic.” Only by doing that will you get the clearest answer because, you are right, Roman Catholicism is about as traditional as you can get.
Having said this, I can’t help but speculate myself.
The first thing that comes to mind is that this person is actually not a Roman Catholic at all but belongs to the schismatic sect of the Society of Pius X. *<= I’ve crossed out the first sentence of this paragraph because it is in error. For the reasons why, please read my blog post: BattleLore, Harry Dresden, and Catholics.* This is the sect that Mel Gibson belongs to (I think). This sect rejects the changes brought about in the 1960s by the Vatican II council. As strange as this may seem, the Society of Pius X isn’t angry at the Church because it’s too Dogmatic, it’s angry because it’s not Dogmatic enough. (Although, as of the time of this writing, if you go to their website, their home page says that they “…profess filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI.” On further investigation I found that this just means that they are in dialog with the Pope and are actually hopeful that they are close to mending the shism).
The second thing that he may mean, might be that he just happens to like pre-Vatican II trappings. That is to say, he likes the aesthetics of how the Church used to do things and, without being schismatic, prefers pre-Vatican II things. I can sympathize with this view since I hold to some of these views myself. I find that I like to go to the occasional Tridentine Mass (pre-Vatican II Latin Mass), I like Latin as well and I study it when I get a chance, I also like reading Aquinas and books on the Trivium and logic, etc. Unfortunately some of the Catholics that think this way tend to be a bit “militant” and have gotten a reputation, even within the Church, of being Catholic Fundamentalists (yikes!).
Another thing he could mean is that he considers himself a Catholic who tries his hardest to live out his faith as a well informed obedient Catholic (like Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta). As opposed to many Catholics who are Catholic in name only but could care less about the Church and it’s precepts. These types of Catholics are such archetypes within the faith, that they’ve been given goofy nicknames like: “Cafeteria Catholics” (who get their name from the way they pick and choose what doctrines they will follow and which they won’t, as if they were picking food from a cafeteria) or “E.C. Catholics” (who get their name from the fact that they only go to church on Easter and Christmas). Of course, not all “uncommitted or semi-committed Catholics” fit within the confines of these two categories. Many, through no fault of their own, just don’t know any better or haven’t really given much thought to their faith and what it means, even though they sincerely think they have (like I once did). It might be that by calling himself “traditional” your co-worker might be trying to distinguish himself from these other types of Catholics.
Another thing he might mean, and the least likely, is that he considers himself a “catholic” (notice the lower case c.) The word catholic (katholikos from katholou in greek) means “throughout the whole, i.e., universal”. Your co-worker might be a “protestant” (non Catholic Christian) who has become aware that the early Church thought of itself as catholic and is not afraid to use the term. I have a protestant/Christian friend who does this very thing.
Or finally, as my friend Ely said after I showed him my blog drawing,
“Maybe he’s such a ‘traditional Catholic,’ he’s Jewish!” (Jerk, upstaged my joke. Wish I’d thought of that.)
Let me know what you find out Bill.
If you like what you read, please consider signing up to my rss feed.
Comments are appreciated as well.
I also have a store. Click Here and check it out.
If you would like to have a text ad on my site, click on the red BUY LINKS button under the Archives list.
And while you’re at it, please Digg me too.
Writing this blog is almost a part time job for me. Tips are most welcome.
A traditional Caholic is one who is horrified at the ezcesses of the Second Vactican Council,the liberalisation of the basic principles,with the subsequent excuses in sin,and claims that divorce,abortion,birth control,in fact the ten commandments,can be altered to suit the individual concience,
The Tridentine Mass is seen by yhe liberal left as a barrier to the swingeing reforms they wish to,and are imposing on the church.The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy for human kind to decide for themselves
Thanks Luis I will find out. I knew I didn’t have to look far in matters that are Catholic or Catholic-related when I had questions about this. In fact this takes me back at the time when we had lengthy discussions at Film Roman about the New Testament, interesting passages from the Bible, and audio lectures about the Apocalypse… But it was all a ploy…a front…to get my guard down…so you can get me hooked on to ALAN MOORE!!!! Now not just any comic is good enough to read anymore because it PALES IN COMPARISON to this awesome writer!!! YOU were pushing literature all this time and now and I get the shakes when I don’t get my Alan Moore fix! Sometimes Kurt Busiek is a good substitute but STILL IT’S NOT THE SAME!!!!!!
So- anyway what was I talking about?…..
Well I asked my co-worker what a traditional Catholic is and his answer matches with your first speculation. He believes that the Church has (and I’m only paraphrasing) has changed the dogma and that it no longer holds the true beliefs that it once has. Again I was curious…in what way has it changed where the meaning has been altered? It is true that mass is no longer conducted in Latin and the priest is not speaking with his back facing towards the people. And there are certain issues (which I can’t remember because I’m too tired and lazy) where the Church has redefined to reflect the changes of the times( or was it something else?).
Well he did answer my question regarding to that, but I forgot what it was…DUH! I’ll ask him again and bring a notepad…
I happened to come across your blog and the topic, “What in the World is a Traditional Catholic?” I am a traditional Catholic, and there are many more groups and views than the Society of St. Pius X. For me, the change in the Ordination Rite of Bishops which no longer gives them the power to ordain priests, the unscriptural change in the words of consecration, and the promotion of false ecumenism (JPII having worshipped with every religion on the face of the earth, which is forbidden by Church Law and Holy Scripture, making him an apostate from the Church founded by Jesus Christ) were the main clinchers.
T Melnick, I’ve answered your comment on my latest post. “Vatican the board game”.
Mel Gibson is affiliated with the “Society of Saint Peter”, a group that didn’t join the SSPX when the broke from Rome (or broke with them when broke from Rome).
The issue can never be about more or less dogmatic (unless it is liberally used as an insult). The SSPX complains that Vaticanum II and later developments has compromised earlier teachings. The anti-dogmatist is still dogmatic when he expounded that there shall be no dogma.
The SSPX by the way dispute that the events of 1988 constitute a schism and therefore claim to be loyal and subject to the Holy See. They certainly do not dispute that Benedict XVI is the Pope. Some traditionalists however do, either claiming that the Holy See is vacant or that someone else (usually the leader of their sect) is Pope.
Albert,
the first part of your posting is (apart from the spelling) a very onesided look at events and the second (“claims that divorce,abortion,birth control,in fact the ten commandments,can be altered to suit the individual concience”) is in no way traditionalist but simply orthodox catholic (actually it is orthoprax).
“The Tridentine Mass is seen by yhe liberal left as a barrier to the swingeing reforms they wish to,and are imposing on the church.The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy for human kind to decide for themselves”
Totally agree.
T Melnick,
with all due respect, when you write
“For me, the change in the Ordination Rite of Bishops which no longer gives them the power to ordain priests, the unscriptural change in the words of consecration”
you are illustrating the dangers of private judgement (a Protestant innovation). There has been no substantial change in the rite of consecrating bishops. In any case, do you think the ceremony as used in 1960 was used in this way by Saints Peter and Paul? If not, how did apostolic succession start in the first place. You are of course free to prefer any earlier ceremony but to claim that these bishops are not properly consecrated goes too far. As far as the “unscriptural change in the words of consecration” goes, was the earlier wording a quotation from scripture? And are you implying that the Eucharist is no longer valid?
“JPII having worshipped with every religion on the face of the earth, which is forbidden by Church Law and Holy Scripture, making him an apostate from the Church founded by Jesus Christ”
One can of course be concerned about this or that event but it simply isn’t true that John Paul worshipped “with every religion”. In fact he worshipped “with” none of them, he assembled various representatives that prayed at that assembly, one after the other.
as a traditional catholic I trust the teaching of the catholic church rather than the ambiguous and often heretical novelties of Vatican ii. I believe in the old dogmas that are denied by the apostate newchurch. I think the new mass is an inferior mass which was invented by protestants and is valid but illicit. I dont believe in ecumenism. I do believe in extra ecclesiam nulla sallus, and that the newchurch is a fraud.
You may want to see the ‘Passion of the Catholic Church’ videos on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZsOnkTk1RI&feature=PlayList&p=20CB42BC5391BA98&index=0
OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZsOnkTk1RI
Its sometimes better to see the false spirit of Vatican II at work, than to debate it. Although, we must nonetheless pray for Holy Mother the Church, Our Pope, and for the conversion of sinners especially those dwelling within the Church.
God bless you, and God love you.
I am a Traditional Catholic.
At the very least, your friend means s/he rejects the Novus Ordo as required under Vatican II.
Your friend may very well be celebrating under an approved indult (Fraternal Order of St. Peter and The Oratory), Under Pius X whose excommunications were over turned by Pope benedict XVI, or SedeVacante (Vacant Seat). Pius V and the CMRI. The Sedevacante orders not only reject Vatican II but also the current (Catholic) government. They have severed all relations with The Holy See.
I am also a “militant” Catholic
Dues Volt
Pax et caritas Christi, frater.