What is meant by "traditional Catholic"?

[~Boudicca~]

And I don't mean this to be snarky in any way at all...what makes one a traditional Catholic?

I grew up Catholic, left it ages ago, and realized this past year that I would like to find out what exactly it was I left (we were not a Catholic household by any means, and rarely went to church after I was pulled out of Catholic school in 4th grade, so I don't really have a good grasp on the faith). So I see threads and tribes around regarding "traditional Catholics" but I'm am not sure what exactly distinguishes a traditional Catholic from any other Catholic.

Can someone help me out?

[lolar2]

I think traditional Catholics follow the pre-Vatican II teachings and rites.

[momo7]

I am a Traditional Catholic so I might be able to help you.

It means that we try to adhere to the "rules" of The Faith that were in order BEFORE Vatican II. Liturgy and rubrics are all pre-Vatican II. What does that mean? Well, the Mass is in Latin (I use a Latin-English missal to follow along), We use a confessional, the Holy Eucharist is taken in one species only (no communal wine cup) and only on the tongue, not in the hand. The tabernacle in Traditional churches is always front and center, on the Altar, not off to the side or in a separate location. We use Gregorian chant for our music in the services. The altars in church will face AWAY from the congregation and mass is said the same way as well.

These are just some of the details that are different, there are a lot more than this.

Oh yeah.....lots of mainstream Catholics still do things this way as well...so it's not just the "kooky" ones.

I hope I've helped.

[Arduinna]

momo7 explained but I also like this from Fisheaters.

[~Boudicca~]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

momo7 explained but I also like this from Fisheaters.

Oh WOW. That was a good resource. Thanks!

So that explains why so many of the Catholic churches in my area, seem, well, so cheesy and watered-down compared to what I remember from my childhood. Huh.

[KempsMama]

Originally Posted by ~Boudicca~

Oh WOW. That was a good resource. Thanks!

So that explains why so many of the Catholic churches in my area, seem, well, so cheesy and watered-down compared to what I remember from my childhood. Huh.

This made me giggle. I've been to many a mass that has felt that way to me.

One of the "little" things that I think sets us apart from more mainstream Catholics is most of us still have altars in the home, and when you walk into our homes you know right away we are Catholic. There's no question.

[momo7]

That's a great resource! I have heard of it but never seen it and frankly forgotten all about it. It's a great site.

[Bluegoat]

Sometimes Fisheaters can border on sedevacantism though, you have to be careful.

[CherryBomb]

momo7 is pretty spot on, though for the purposes of our MDC thread, we basically mean "moms who are faithful to the Magiesterium." That may or may not mean we attend TLM, etc, but we do our best to adhere to the "rules" of the Church.

I love fish eaters.

[Arduinna]

I love fisheaters too.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by CherryBomb

momo7 is pretty spot on, though for the purposes of our MDC thread, we basically mean "moms who are faithful to the Magiesterium." That may or may not mean we attend TLM, etc, but we do our best to adhere to the "rules" of the Church.

That's what I was thinking. Personally, I would consider anyone who tries their best to follow the Magisterium and isn't a "cafeteria Catholic" who picks and chooses which doctrines to believe to be a traditional Catholic.

[PatienceAndLove]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

That's what I was thinking. Personally, I would consider anyone who tries their best to follow the Magisterium and isn't a "cafeteria Catholic" who picks and chooses which doctrines to believe to be a traditional Catholic.

I concur. I do my best to follow the Bible and Tradition, as God and the Holy Spirit have given it to us.
Do I struggle? Of course I do. But I love my Lord and His Bride, so I work and pray toward my will changing, not me making the Church to my will

[cagnew]

I don't think there is an official definition. Different people think it means different things. When I say someone is a traditional Catholic, I mean they adhere to pre-V II teachings and tend to reject V II. However, because of the current state of mainstream Catholics, many people call themselves traditional if they follow the teachings of church as they are today (esp regarding birth control and gay marriage and abortion). The trad catholic mamas thread here uses the second definition.

[Arduinna]

I keep trying to post this but the words don't come out right, so I'm just going to stumble through it and hope it makes sense.

I think that if one identifies oneself as Catholic that should automatically mean that they adhear to the teachings of the Church. No additional qualifier needed. Traditional Catholic means a wholly other thing to me, like cagnew said. Although I do understand that it's generally used differently here than at Fisheaters for instance.

[Shantimama]

I have to admit that I am curious about why Catholics who consider themselves 'traditional' reject the Second Vatican Council.

Any conciliar document like what came from Vatican 2 is part of the Magisterium of the Church just as earlier conciliar documents were, and it is important to remember that there has always been conflict and disagreement during Church councils throughout history.

Church teaching tells is that the influence of the Holy Spirit is guaranteed when a document is approved by the bishops and promulgated by the Pope and it becomes part of the official teaching of the Church. Do not all Catholics have a duty to accept the teaching of a council because the documents have been approved by the bishops and the Pope? How is it being faithful to Church tradition and authority to decide to accept all Church teaching and past councils and reject this one?

The teachings of the Second Vatican Council are the official teachings of the Church. How can rejecting the council even be an option for Catholics? By choosing to reject this one Council of the Church, are not the people who do so being "cafeteria Catholics" themselves?

I am not asking this in a snarky tone at all - my questions and curiosity are genuine.

[Arduinna]

Vatican 2 declared no dogmas, it was pastoral in nature only. There aren't any ex cathedra declarations from V2 that Catholics are required to believe. The Holy Spirit isn't guaranteed for every single document that comes from the Church.

What "teachings" from Vatican 2 do you believe that Catholics are required to believe?

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

I keep trying to post this but the words don't come out right, so I'm just going to stumble through it and hope it makes sense.

I think that if one identifies oneself as Catholic that should automatically mean that they adhear to the teachings of the Church. No additional qualifier needed. Traditional Catholic means a wholly other thing to me, like cagnew said. Although I do understand that it's generally used differently here than at Fisheaters for instance.

I agree that it should, but sadly these days you can't assume a Catholic is faithful to the Magisterium. When I'm in a group of people I know are faithful the the Magisterium (like my homeschool group) there's no need for the distinction, and if someone says they're a traditional Catholic, we understand they mean in the sense that cagnew and momo7 explained.

[cagnew]

Arduinna: Great answer! Nice and concise.

I cannot give an answer because the answer is too big and involved. For me, I eventually began to question VII because of the current state of the Church. There are NO good fruits that have come out of VII. Plus, there are certain statements and "themes" in the documents of VII that go directly against 1000+ yrs of Holy Tradition... some of it seems to border on heresy....

It's so hard to explain why my husband and I believe that way we do because so much research and reading has gone into it. We take our faith very seriously and, like most people, resisted very strongly any notion V II was wrong. The last couple years have led us down this road practically kicking and screaming... but through our own research and much prayer, the facts and Holy Tradition are too strong to deny. No one has been "working" on us or brainwashing us... this has been something God has presented to us time and again and we finally had to take a look.

The information is readily avaliable and kind of shocking. If anyone wants to research on their own, I would be happy to recommend a few books.

[nova22]

Originally Posted by Shantimama

I have to admit that I am curious about why Catholics who consider themselves 'traditional' reject the Second Vatican Council.

I humbly admit that I am not nearly knowledgeable enough about this to answer this question, but I feel compelled to address it anyway.

Vatican II didn't change as many things as some people seem to think. (I'm not calling out anyone in this thread, btw, just "people" in general.) A lot of things in the document were taken advantage of and some saw it as a great opportunity to make some unauthorized changes in the church. Because of that, I wouldn't say that traditional Catholics reject Vatican II, but they (we) do reject the abusive changes that were resultant of it and went against the intentions of Pope Paul VI.

No teachings are rejected; sacraments are simply celebrated in a more traditional manner. With some exceptions, traditional Catholics are in line with Catholic orthodoxy. The important thing is not that some Catholics wear chapel veils and go to the Latin Mass versus other Catholics who go to more modern churches or have a guitar Mass, the important thing is that they all follow the Church's teachings, and that is usually the case. There are abuses on either side but the abuses do not cancel out those who are orthodox. I hope that answers your question.

[Bluegoat]

To give some examples, you can look at the removal of altar rails, or recieving standing, in the hand, or some of the music found commonly in Catholic Churches - or not found. Many people think these were changed because Vat II somehow decreed it, but that isn't so. In fact, Rome never really wanted communion in the hand, and would like every Latin congregation to be able to do simple plainchant, at least sometimes - and some of the music one finds is clearly inappropriate. So many Catholic traditionalists who do not dispute the authority of the magisterium would like a closer look at what was really called for, and feel some of the changes made have been very bad for Catholicism in general.

OTOH, sometimes I think Catholic traditionalists can gloss over some of the unfortunate things that went on before the changes, both liturgically and in other aspects of Catholic life.