Is Your Kid On...

[Gabriela]

I could name a few on this phorum alone. Traditionalism is not a monolithic ghetto in Catholicism, but I'd say in general, it is a step toward fanaticism, or more benignly, toward a yearning for purity, perfection, an idealized past. Another, more positive, way to frame it, rather than "fanaticism" is "idealism." Young people are idealists, generally, and so "purer" movements like traditionalism are appealing, though can easily go off the rails and lead them from idealism to fanaticism.

 

What makes a religion "idealist" or "fanatical"?

[Era Might]

What makes a religion "idealist" or "fanatical"?

 

I was referring to youth as idealistic/fanatical (sometimes a thin line between the two). I think both (idealism/fanaticism) are driven by innocence and ignorance, both of which are virtues and vices that belong to youth. I thought the original post was funny because it does reflect the tensions/conflicts of parents and youth, tradition and modernity, etc. I think youth movements should be taken seriously, and I include traditionalism in that as much as Occupy Wall Street. Not because youth are particularly smart or interesting, which they aren't, but because their movements are an important window into the future that is unfolding, and all the tensions and difficulties it faces. The youth sense something, though their responses are often not very wise, and that's okay. That's why we also need the older generation to take them seriously and try to finish the "giving birth" they started.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Era Might

[Gabriela]

I was referring to youth as idealistic/fanatical (sometimes a thin line between the two). I think both (idealism/fanaticism) are driven by innocence and ignorance, both of which are virtues and vices that belong to youth. I thought the original post was funny because it does reflect the tensions/conflicts of parents and youth, tradition and modernity, etc. I think youth movements should be taken seriously, and I include traditionalism in that as much as Occupy Wall Street. Not because youth are particularly smart or interesting, which they aren't, but because their movements are an important window into the future that is unfolding, and all the tensions and difficulties it faces. The youth sense something, though their responses are often not very wise, and that's okay. That's why we also need the older generation to take them seriously and try to finish the "giving birth" they started.

 

So you're saying that idealism isn't necessarily a bad thing?

[Gabriela]

Nevermind my previous post. I saw your answer to that in a post I'd missed.

 

When it takes the form of a dualistic world that begins and ends in 1962, yes. Movements have their purpose, sometimes are overzealous, but can be positive if they operate in a real environment and evolve. The early fanaticism of the martyrs and ascetics was dynamic, but the church could hardly maintain that eschatological fanaticism, it had to adapt in real and changing environments. I think non-traditionalist contemporary movements face just the same problem as traditionalism, the world for them begins and ends in 1962, and whereas traditionalism loses the spirit, these liberal movements lost the body.

 

How could contemporary traditionalism possibly end in 1962? It exists NOW. The issues that we talk about are CURRENT issues. The people who attend the TLM are MODERN people. Yeah, they prefer a form of the Mass and of Catholicism that "went missing" for a few decades, but if the Catholicism that eclipsed "traditionalism" in those decades strayed from the True Faith, then it's hardly "idealistic" or "fanatical" or even "traditional" to try to restore the Faith as it originally was. C. S. Lewis said in one of his books that "turning back" to a fork in the road to take the other path is not a bad thing if you took the wrong one to begin with.

 

I think that calling people who love the TLM "traditionalists" is misleading when one considers it like this. Yeah, it's the term we got stuck with, and it makes sense when one considers our current context, but "trads" aren't trying to "go back in time". They're trying to bring more of our history into the present and future.

[Era Might]

So you're saying that idealism isn't necessarily a bad thing?

 

Not at all, I think it's a great thing, so long as it's a living thing. I think religious reform almost always begins out of idealism that has become dead, stuck in the past or in ritual, etc. Prophets come along with a new idealism that reinvigorates the spirit behind religious traditions. And I'd say that positive idealism rarely takes the form of "traditionalism." The strict traditionalists are usually the ones upended by the prophetic idealist (e.g., Christ and the pharisees). The problem youth face is that their idealism quickly faces the realities of the situation, and what began as a real living desire inside them becomes a new "-ism" that ceases to be a living thing. That's why I joked that traditionalism is the gateway drug to atheism, because it easily becomes a new conformity, or just a first stop on  a long, fanatical journey to keep the original enthusiasm alive in more extreme ideals; or, disillusionment at idealism at all, and thus atheism (either in a literal or figurative form). It removes them farther and farther from a living society, and a living conversation/participation in their wider community.

 

No man seweth a piece of raw cloth to an old garment: otherwise the new piecing taketh away from the old, and there is made a greater rent. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: otherwise the wine will burst the bottles, and both the wine will be spilled, and the bottles will be lost. But new wine must be put into new bottles. And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward, and to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need, and was hungry himself, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him? And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also

 

--Mark 2:21-28.

[Era Might]

Nevermind my previous post. I saw your answer to that in a post I'd missed.

 

 

How could contemporary traditionalism possibly end in 1962? It exists NOW. The issues that we talk about are CURRENT issues. The people who attend the Traditional Latin Mass are MODERN people. Yeah, they prefer a form of the Mass and of Catholicism that "went missing" for a few decades, but if the Catholicism that eclipsed "traditionalism" in those decades strayed from the True Faith, then it's hardly "idealistic" or "fanatical" or even "traditional" to try to restore the Faith as it originally was. C. S. Lewis said in one of his books that "turning back" to a fork in the road to take the other path is not a bad thing if you took the wrong one to begin with.

 

I think that calling people who love the Traditional Latin Mass "traditionalists" is misleading when one considers it like this. Yeah, it's the term we got stuck with, and it makes sense when one considers our current context, but "trads" aren't trying to "go back in time". They're trying to bring more of our history into the present and future.

 

Of course, what one considers "traditionalism" varies, everything from a person who happens to attend a Latin Mass, to an FSSP priest, to a sedevacantist Pope. But the broad ideology of traditionalism is historically-focused on a specific watershed (the 1960s), and thus it is entirely modern, because it is reacting against what it perceives as being lost. I don't see "traditionalism" as anything but a modern phenomenon, peculiar to a generation where the church has passed a specific historical moment (the 1960s). Catholic traditionalism reflects broader historical currents of thought and conflicts with modernity. I myself happen to lament much of the destruction modernity has wrought on traditional ways of being in the world, though I am not a "traditionalist" in an ecclesial sense, because my focus is not on the 1960s and the Second Vatican Council. "Traditionalism" as an ideology, as you hint as, sees itself as a remnant that survived the 1960s. That, among other things, gives it often a fanatical bent, in varying degrees (e.g., its sometimes association with right-wing politics or anti-semitism).

 

I think the idea of "restoring the faith" is a concept divorced from Catholicism as experienced historically. It is an ideological justification and a way to disassociate from the institutional church as experienced by the vast majority of Catholics.

 

Everyone loves a parade, and Catholicism has a lot of beautiful traditions that bring a lot of spiritual benefit. But I don't see that as the main substance of "traditionalism" as a movement.

[Nihil Obstat]

:rolleyes:

[Era Might]

:rolleyes:

 

Sorry for taking traditionalism seriously. I guess I should be a "cynic" and just dismiss it with a funny picture. No need for considering it as a real social experience.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[Nihil Obstat]

Your characterization of the traditionalist worldview is infantile and demeaning. It would be funny if not for the fact that some people actually believe it is true. I do not see how I can even engage with this without that basic level of respect which allows you to accept the actual values and beliefs of Catholic traditionalists.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Era Might]

Your characterization of the traditionalist worldview is infantile and demeaning. It would be funny if not for the fact that some people actually believe it is true. I do not see how I can even engage with this without that basic level of respect which allows you to accept the actual values and beliefs of Catholic traditionalists.

 

Questioning people's values and beliefs is not infantile and demeaning. I question everyone's beliefs, including my own. There is no "traditionalist worldview," there is a broad range of what people consider "traditionalist." For some people it is primarily liturgical, for others it is a political and ideological crusade. If we take, say, Bishop Fellay as a representative "traditionalist," I don't find him very bright or insightful. If that's what we're considering here, then my take on traditionalism will not be very positive. I don't view him through the lens of idealism (the OP was about teenagers, and was itself depicting an infantile relationship between parents and children). Anyway, my original point was about young people, traditionalism being only one arena in which their untested idealism gets exercised.

 

If you want to express what, for you, constitutes your traditionalist "values and beliefs" I would address them specifically, but that's not to say I wouldn't question them.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Era Might

[Basilisa Marie]

The idea that people get burned out on fanaticism is true, but more often than not the people I know who get burned out on traditionalism just become moderate Catholics. Because it's not the core beliefs that are in question, but how they are manifested (the issue isn't belief in God and the Church, it's believing in the Church in this particular way and these particular kinds of obedience, etc). When you take that away you've still got the core beliefs. Most of the time. 

 

People who get fanatical about those core beliefs, on the other hand, are likely to reject them all together. Like "Oh em gee the Bible is the sole source of divine knowledge!" or "God loves you and rewards people who love him with happy, successful lives!" When people get burned on those, stuff like the authenticity of the Bible or God's love gets doubted. 

 

All that being said, OP is funny. :) 

[totustuus20]

Of course, what one considers "traditionalism" varies, everything from a person who happens to attend a Latin Mass, to an FSSP priest, to a sedevacantist Pope. But the broad ideology of traditionalism is historically-focused on a specific watershed (the 1960s), and thus it is entirely modern, because it is reacting against what it perceives as being lost. I don't see "traditionalism" as anything but a modern phenomenon, peculiar to a generation where the church has passed a specific historical moment (the 1960s). Catholic traditionalism reflects broader historical currents of thought and conflicts with modernity. I myself happen to lament much of the destruction modernity has wrought on traditional ways of being in the world, though I am not a "traditionalist" in an ecclesial sense, because my focus is not on the 1960s and the Second Vatican Council. "Traditionalism" as an ideology, as you hint as, sees itself as a remnant that survived the 1960s. That, among other things, gives it often a fanatical bent, in varying degrees (e.g., its sometimes association with right-wing politics or anti-semitism).

 

I think the idea of "restoring the faith" is a concept divorced from Catholicism as experienced historically. It is an ideological justification and a way to disassociate from the institutional church as experienced by the vast majority of Catholics.

 

Everyone loves a parade, and Catholicism has a lot of beautiful traditions that bring a lot of spiritual benefit. But I don't see that as the main substance of "traditionalism" as a movement.

I am curious about your support behind the statement that traditionalism is entirely modern. Though the movement is modern, are most of the liturgical practices? Isn't today's traditionalism just the way it was done pre Vatican II?

[Era Might]

I am curious about your support behind the statement that traditionalism is entirely modern. Though the movement is modern, are most of the liturgical practices? Isn't today's traditionalism just the way it was done pre Vatican II?

 

Pre-Vatican II people just did whatever was current in the church. The idea of a remnant of Catholics preserving the "Truth Faith" would have been as marginal pre-Vatican II as it is today. The institutional church was the measuring stick of most people's Catholic experience, as it still is today. As far as the liturgy and the devotions, certainly those are all traditional practices (well, depending on how you define traditional, Fatima, etc. are relatively recent in history), but when I say that "traditionalism" is entirely modern I mean as a self-conscious expression, a movement, and an ideology of a sub-segment of Catholics.

 

This is kind of a little off-topic, but not really, I'm currently reading an amazing book called "Diary of a Country Priest" by Georges Bernanos, a pre-Vatican II Catholic writer. It's about a country priest in France, and it's an amazing meditation on the Gospel and the ways in which Catholics, and especially priests, completely miss the point of the Gospel. The premise is that the book is a private diary, so the priest sort of gives himself free reign to speak candidly about what he sees in his parish and among his fellow priests, the mediocrity couched in doctrinal exactitude, the easy poverty that knows nothing of the poor, the empty ritualism of priests and laity, etc. But it's also largely about the essential idealism of the Gospel, and how it has both set the world on fire and passed it by.

 

Anyway, highly recommended as a window into a pre-Vatican II world, albeit in fictional form. Hans Urs von Balthasar actually has a book about Bernanos, he's one of the great Catholic fiction writers of the 20th century.

 

http://www.ignatius.com/Products/BRN-P/bernanos.aspx

Edited December 29, 2014 by Era Might

[CountrySteve21]

I think there's a balance when it comes to Traditional practices and Liturgy. When one begins thinking that VII and the liturgical reforms led by Blessed Pope Paul VI are somehow wrong or in error (Radical Traditionalism) ; then theirs a problem. However, St. John Paul II called it a legitimate desire for those who wished for the EF Mass, so long as they accept VII. 

 

Pax