"traditional" Versus "orthodox" Roman Catholic

[Socrates]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='14 May 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1273888264' post='2110903']
Post Vatican II, 'traditional' has come to mean old-fashioned and throw-back. (To say the same thing as 'preferring the TLM' in a more negative way.) Meaning, the issues that traditional Catholics discuss are many that other Catholics don't even think about.

Your average Catholic under the age of 30 has never attended a traditional Latin mass and only knows about such things by reputation - regardless of how devout and/or orthodox this person might be. In the past few years, the Latin mass has become more available, so that may change, but it's still largely true.
[/quote]
If you're referring to people who actually remember going to mass pre-Vatican II, the age would be closer to "under 50."
However, my wife and I attend a (brand new) FSSP parish (we're in our 30s), and the general age of the parishioners is not any older than I've seen at "NO" parishes. In fact, I'd say if anything, it's younger, as "trad" families tend to have a lot of kids, so there's plenty of children and teenagers.
There tends to be a pretty wide spread of ages - from very young to old enough to be genuinely "pre-Vatican II." However, those oldsters are certainly not in the majority, and in fact most of the parishioners are, like me, born after Vatican II. The pastor is in his 30s, and the assistant pastor in his early 40s.

The "trad" crowd at my former parish also consisted largely of "gen-xers" and younger people. (I usually tended not to attend the TLM there because of the timing - they were the afternoon mass.)

The common idea that "trads" and those who attend the old Latin mass are mostly a bunch of old people nostalgic for the "good old days" is a misconception.

[quote name='MithLuin' date='14 May 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1273891250' post='2110936']
Oh, I know it's not rare. I happen to know some devout and knowledgeable Catholics . But I also know that there's about one mass offered in that style per city on any given Sunday, so the majority of Catholics (even the devout ones) are attending the NO regularly, and the TLM as a novelty or special occasion (if at all).[/quote]
Actually in my experience, most of the attendees are regular parishioners who attend every week, though there are people who pop in occasionally. The number is also growing, as the word spreads. Most people who attend are regular and loyal attendees, rather than those who just go for a "novelty" experience.

[quote] [b]Apo[/b]'s definition of traditional is much more all-encompassing and, er, more traditional. That's what I meant by niche - that the definition has been narrowed to one subset, not all Catholics who live out the inherited tradition of the Catholic church.

Which is fine. A group that has something in common is going to call themselves [i]something[/i], and 'traditional' is a good word to describe what is important to this (loosely-defined) group of Catholics. It's just important to understand that the definition of the group is a narrowing down of what the word means in general.[/quote]
As I've pointed out earlier, there's a wide diversity among "trads." There are many of us who are traditionalist or traditionalist leaning who do not share the "rad trad" viewpoint on many issues. The extreme "rad trads" tend to make a lot more noise, though.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 May 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1273895018' post='2110964']
The common idea that "trads" and those who attend the old Latin mass are mostly a bunch of old people nostalgic for the "good old days" is a misconception.
[/quote]
I can buy that.

It's cause of the people who are old fluffy air extractions now that we're in the mess we're in.

[Nihil Obstat]

The title of this thread implies to me that we have need of an Octagon and referee. Anyone agree?



[img]http://onthemarkb.com/uploads/ufc_octagon.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.mmaconvert.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/big_john_mccarthy.jpg[/img]

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='14 May 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1273895569' post='2110969']
The title of this thread implies to me that we have need of an Octagon and referee. Anyone agree?

[/quote]

I hadn't meant the title to sound that way--I "thought" was asking a simple question. I should know better by know. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif[/img]

But, what kind of outfits would each of these groups wear? For example, is it feasible to wrestle in a cassock and biretta?

Edited May 15, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Socrates' date='15 May 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1273895018' post='2110964']
Actually in my experience, most of the attendees are regular parishioners who attend every week, though there are people who pop in occasionally. The number is also growing, as the word spreads. Most people who attend are regular and loyal attendees, rather than those who just go for a "novelty" experience.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with you. What I was saying is that those regular parishioners account for a tiny percentage of the Catholics in the diocese. Even if you want to focus on the decently devout/orthodox Catholics, those attending the TLM parish are still a minority. Thus, the majority of devout Catholics are [i]not[/i] attending the traditional Latin mass regularly, but are attending the NO regularly. I'm not making a judgment call, just pointing out numbers.

Is that minority growing? Sure. But it's definitely a subset of orthodox. There are plenty of Catholics out there who have been attending mass their entire lives, are loyal to the Magisterium of the Church...and have never heard of the FSSP.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='15 May 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1273901680' post='2111014']
I hadn't meant the title to sound that way--I "thought" was asking a simple question. I should know better by know. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif[/img]

But, what kind of outfits would each of these groups wear? For example, is it feasible to wrestle in a cassock and biretta?
[/quote]
I don't know about feasible, but way cooler for sure.

[HisChildForever]

In general, I find Phatmass to be orthodox with leanings towards tradition. Like someone mentioned, traditional Catholics tend to be more external than the orthodox - like women wearing veils in Mass. I would not say that a traditional Catholic is more devout than an orthodox Catholic, but that they just focus on things an orthodox Catholic does not.

In fact, you can use "orthodox Catholic" as your baseline. What I mean is this: every person who says "I am a Catholic" should fit into that category. You can almost set it up the way political parties are set up. Just keep in mind that "moderate" here is not "between" or "either/or" but "In line with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church".

Cafeteria Catholics - Liberal
Lukewarm or Ignorant Catholics - Moderate with liberal tendencies
Orthodox Catholics - Moderate
Traditional Catholics - Moderate with conservative tendencies
Radical-Traditional Catholics - Conservative

Notice that Cafeteria Catholics and Rad-Trad Catholics are not described using the word "moderate" - because both are NOT in line with the Magisterium. Rad-Trad would include sedevacantists etc.

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='14 May 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1273872014' post='2110759']
I think that for most of us, "traditional" refers to those who prefer the pre-concillar Mass and traditions (i.e. calendar, etc). Some people call them "traddies" for short. In general, I think most of Phatmass would refer to themselves as "orthodox." Little "o" orthodox, generally, means that you are a devout, practicing Catholic faithful to the teachings of the Church.

It is possible to be both traditional and orthodox. On the other hand, it is possible to be orthodox and NOT traditional, like it is also possible to be traditional and NOT orthodox (like some of the schismatic groups).

Does any of that make sense?

Of course, in saying orthodox we aren't referring to the big "o" orthodox, like the Greek Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox, etc. That is a difference in rite.
[/quote]

This is my vote for the definitive answer. Nice job, Marie-Therese.

[jeffpugh]

I think Apo's words should be heeded more closely. Orthodoxy isn't a political leaning in the Church. It is the encounter with the truth of the apostolic faith. Orthodoxy in a sense--I would say--is "traditional"

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 May 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1273873662' post='2110777']
In ancient times the church was called [i]Catholic[/i] and the faith was called [i]Orthodox[/i]
[/quote]

In ancient times, both the Church and her faith were called "Catholic." The Apostles' Creed states "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam [b]Ecclesiam Catholicam[/b] . . ." and the Athanasian Creed states, "Quicumque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est ut teneat [b]Catholicam fidem.[/b]"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 May 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1273945792' post='2111123']
In ancient times, both the Church and her faith were called "Catholic." The Apostles' Creed states "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam [b]Ecclesiam Catholicam[/b] . . ." and the Athanasian Creed states, "Quicumque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est ut teneat [b]Catholicam fidem.[/b]"
[/quote]
A quotation from one 6th century creed (i.e., the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed) is hardly a proof that the term Catholic, which simply means "according to the whole," was commonly used as a descriptor for the faith by the Church Fathers. On the other hand, the word Orthodox was used by the Church Fathers to mean both "right glory" and "right belief," which is why it was always applied by the Holy Fathers to those who are true members of the Catholic Church, while heterodox was applied to those outside her canonical and mystical boundaries.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 May 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1273946292' post='2111126']
A quotation from one 6th century creed (i.e., the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed) is hardly a proof that the term Catholic, which simply means "according to the whole," was commonly used as a descriptor for the faith by the Church Fathers.[/quote]

Seeing as the text of the Athanasian Creed was written and used during the Patristic era, it seems quite reasonable to me that it used terminology frequent during that period.

I think one should also note that the Canon of the Mass, another text from the Patristic era, uses the term "Catholic faith": "Una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque [b]catholicae et apostolicae fidei[/b] cultoribus."

According to Lewis and Short, the word "catholicus" means "universal, relating to all," at least in Latin (the language in which the ancient writings I have been referencing were all written).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273947357' post='2111130']
Seeing as the text of the Athanasian Creed was written and used during the Patristic era, it seems quite reasonable to me that it used terminology frequent during that period. [/quote]
The text was unknown in the East until the latter part of the first millennium.

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273947357' post='2111130']I think one should also note that the Canon of the Mass, another text from the Patristic era, uses the term "Catholic faith": "Una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque [b]catholicae et apostolicae fidei[/b] cultoribus."[/quote]
Interesting that the word "orthodox" appears in the text of the Roman canon.

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273947357' post='2111130']According to Lewis and Short, the word "catholicus" means "universal, relating to all," at least in Latin (the language in which the ancient writings I have been referencing were all written).[/quote]
The etymology of the word supports the Patristic understanding of the word [i]catholic[/i] as "according to the whole" (i.e., that which is complete and indivisible, i.e., [i]kata[/i] = about, [i]holos[/i] = the whole). Universal is a poor attempt to translate the Greek into English, an attempt that weakens the true meaning of the word. Moreover, I do not think that anyone would want to accept "relating to all" as a translation of καθολικός since that would involve believing anything and everything (i.e., all) that has ever been believed (pagan polytheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al.).

[Bennn]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='15 May 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1273901712' post='2111015']
I don't disagree with you. What I was saying is that those regular parishioners account for a tiny percentage of the Catholics in the diocese. Even if you want to focus on the decently devout/orthodox Catholics, those attending the TLM parish are still a minority. Thus, the majority of devout Catholics are [i]not[/i] attending the traditional Latin mass regularly, but are attending the NO regularly. I'm not making a judgment call, just pointing out numbers.

Is that minority growing? Sure. But it's definitely a subset of orthodox. There are plenty of Catholics out there who have been attending mass their entire lives, are loyal to the Magisterium of the Church...and have never heard of the FSSP.
[/quote]


The only reason I go to an OF Mass is because there are no TLM's near to where I live. Today I went to a TLM with my dad, but we have to drive far to have one. So I think that if there would be more TLM's, more people would visit them.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1273948061' post='2111133']
The text was unknown in the East until the latter part of the first millennium.[/quote]

You say that as if usage of the phrase "Catholic faith" during the Patristic era in the West did not matter.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1273948061' post='2111133']
Interesting that the word "orthodox" appears in the text of the Roman canon.[/quote]

It is also interesting that St. Augustine used the term "Catholic faith" very frequently in his writings.


[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 May 2010 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1273948061' post='2111133']
The etymology of the word supports the Patristic understanding of the word [i]catholic[/i] as "according to the whole" (i.e., that which is complete and indivisible, i.e., [i]kata[/i] = about, [i]holos[/i] = the whole). Universal is a poor attempt to translate the Greek into English, an attempt that weakens the true meaning of the word. Moreover, I do not think that anyone would want to accept "relating to all" as a translation of καθολικός since that would involve believing anything and everything (i.e., all) that has ever been believed (pagan polytheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et al.).
[/quote]

It is an etymological fallacy to state that the meaning of a word depends completely upon its etymology. If etymology were the only thing that mattered in determining a word's meaning, our understanding of what a pineapple is would be very different.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Resurrexi