Traditional Catholic Vs. Modern Catholic

[NLUVWITJC]

Greetings all,

I can not wait to see this movie. I watched the Mel Gibson movie on ABC and thought it was fantastic. I do hope someone can answer my question. The interview said the Mel is a tradional catholic and will only celebrate mass as it was prior to Vatican II. What is the difference between traditional and modern catholic? Is there a difference?

Thanks and God bless,

Erin

[Aloysius]

"trads" as we like to call it are schismatic, they are not in communion with the Pope and the Vatican, they broke away at about Vatican I. they believe the Magisterium started misinterpretting Catholic truth and somehow their little groups are the remnant of true Catholocism... i say you can't be true Catholocism without a Pope that's a successor to Peter in the city of the holy martyrs saints Peter and Paul.

[Aloysius]

notice that in the top corner? not only does that mean luke warm Catholics, but also Catholics who think they're too Catholic to be part of the Catholic Church anymore.. trads who want the old mass so much they won't stay in communion with the universal Church that still has Mass, just a lil dif than their preference. we need to convert these Catholics back to Catholocism as well. :cool:

[dUSt]

There are traditional Catholics that do conform to the authority of the Church and are completely loyal to the pope. It is unclear whether or not Mel Gibson recognizes our current pope, John Paul II, as a legitimate pope. It is entirely possible that he does recognize JP2 as pope, but disagrees with some of the reforms of Vatican II. Basically, the biggest thing that happened at Vatican II was that the mass was changed from Latin, to the vernacular--or language of the particular region.

The "new" mass is called the Novus Ordo mass, and the "old" mass is called the Tridentine mass. The "norm" is the Novus Ordo, but you can still be a completely faithful Catholic and only attend the Tridentine. Although not as common, it can still be celebrated, and I think it's been recommended that every diocese offer at least one Tridentine mass for the faithful.

For the record, I'm against using the word "trad", for the same reason I'm against calling the Church the "Catholic Church".

Aloysius is talking about schismatic traditionalists that have broken away from the Church by denying the authority of the pope. I think the jury is still out on whether or not Mel Gibson does that or not.

God bless.

[Aloysius]

yepp... thanx for the clarification dUST.. i knew i forgot something :blink:

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Thank you for axing the negative context of "trad". It's gotten way too much play here lately.

[Laudate_Dominum]

"trads" as we like to call it are schismatic, they are not in communion with the Pope and the Vatican, they broke away at about Vatican I. they believe the Magisterium started misinterpretting Catholic truth and somehow their little groups are the remnant of true Catholocism... i say you can't be true Catholocism without a Pope that's a successor to Peter in the city of the holy martyrs saints Peter and Paul.

Most "trads" that I know personally are far from schismatic Al. And while I go to the novus ordo and don't have a problem when it's done reverently and according to the Church, I do prefer the Tridentine so I guess I can be called a "trad" too.

And it's not merely a personal taste thing, I believe that the preservation of the Tridentine rite is essential for the resoration of Catholic culture.

[Laudate_Dominum]

There are traditional Catholics that do conform to the authority of the Church and are completely loyal to the pope. It is unclear whether or not Mel Gibson recognizes our current pope, John Paul II, as a legitimate pope. It is entirely possible that he does recognize JP2 as pope, but disagrees with some of the reforms of Vatican II. Basically, the biggest thing that happened at Vatican II was that the mass was changed from Latin, to the vernacular--or language of the particular region.

The "new" mass is called the Novus Ordo mass, and the "old" mass is called the Tridentine mass. The "norm" is the Novus Ordo, but you can still be a completely faithful Catholic and only attend the Tridentine. Although not as common, it can still be celebrated, and I think it's been recommended that every diocese offer at least one Tridentine mass for the faithful.

For the record, I'm against using the word "trad", for the same reason I'm against calling the Church the "Catholic Church".

Aloysius is talking about schismatic traditionalists that have broken away from the Church by denying the authority of the pope. I think the jury is still out on whether or not Mel Gibson does that or not.

God bless.

As an occassional reader of "trad" literature, I must point out that there is much more to it than the novus ordo. The new Mass is the expression of the "new faith" as some see it. More radical non-schismatic traditionalists believe that the ecumenical movement, trends in inculturation, inter-religious dialogue, the new rites (ie., of exorcism, priestly ordination, etc), priestly identity, the place of the laity, theological movements since the council, collegiality, and just about everything else that has changed since the council are problematic and inferior to the old ways. Basicly that the whole Church has been in a crisis in the last 40 years. They think things like an extreme drop in vocations, loss of faith among the laity, dissent, wide spread liberalism even among the clergy, etc. are the fruits of this crisis which began as a result of the Council.

I just wanted to point this out because the stereo type is that it's only about the Liturgy. The Liturgy is at the heart of the matter since it is the public expression of the faith and the changes and trends in the new Mass are seen as being linked with the other areas of crisis. If there is a crisis in faith (x% don't believe in Real Presence, bad catechesis, etc), crisis in obedience (x% dissent from Church teachings), crisis in Catholic education, crisis in the clergy (extreme decline in vocations, scandals, lack of priestly identity, etc), and numerous other problems, it seems safe to indicate also a crisis in worship which is in a sense the public expression of this diminished and corrupt Catholic ethos.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Amen Laudate_Dominum.

[Guest lfxgurl]

i respect everyone's preference for the "new Mass" or the tridentine Mass, but for someone to say that one is more historically correct or true than the other, i must disagree because Mass is Mass. in either situation, the body & blood of our Lord is still be shared among the faithful, the bread & wine still transubstantiates into the body, blood, soul, & divinity of our Lord. i dont' understand why language used or direction the priest faces would make one less of a Mass. if we go back to the Gospels, it is practical & natural that Jesus was facing his apostles when he broke the bread & shared the wine, they were sitting around a table, and i dont' think they were speaking Latin. also, i don't know when the early christians began facing the crucifix during their underground Masses, and I dont' know when they even began having a crucifix either.

i guess point is, Mass is Mass.

[Laudate_Dominum]

i respect everyone's preference for the "new Mass" or the tridentine Mass, but for someone to say that one is more historically correct or true than the other, i must disagree because Mass is Mass. in either situation, the body & blood of our Lord is still be shared among the faithful, the bread & wine still transubstantiates into the body, blood, soul, & divinity of our Lord. i dont' understand why language used or direction the priest faces would make one less of a Mass. if we go back to the Gospels, it is practical & natural that Jesus was facing his apostles when he broke the bread & shared the wine, they were sitting around a table, and i dont' think they were speaking Latin. also, i don't know when the early christians began facing the crucifix during their underground Masses, and I dont' know when they even began having a crucifix either.

i guess point is, Mass is Mass.

The question is not so much which one is more "historically" valid. It's more a matter of which one is a more authentic expression of the Church's Theology of the Litugy. I don't think you appreciate the true centrality and importance of the Divine Liturgy in the life of the Church. I would say this kind of attitude (which is a complete departure from Catholic tradition and the mind of the Church) is a perfect example of the kind of fruits todays liturgical climate bears.

[Hananiah]

Mass is Mass.

We're serving God the best wine in the universe regardless of how we celebrate the liturgy (so long as there is a validly ordained priest who pronounces the words of consecration). The question is, are we serving it to him in a dirty cup?

[Hananiah]

What is the difference between traditional and modern catholic?

"Traditional Catholic" is a broad term. It really encompases three different ideologies. I'll go through them here.

1. Sedevacantists - these are people who believe that JPII is an anti-pope, Vatican II was heretical, the church in Rome has apostacized, and that they have to re-form the true Church of Christ. Avoid!

2. People such as Mario Derksen (webmaster of www.cathinsight.com) and the Society of Saint Pius X - these people believe that Vatican II never "sounded the note of infallibility" and thus the documents of that council were not preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, and as such are filled with errors. They want to revoke the reforms of Vatican II, return to the Tridentine Mass, and leave the past 40 years to the dustbin of history. Read with caution!

3. People such as myself, who believe that Vatican II was infallible, but nonetheless have a generally negative view of the council and of the Novus Ordo Mass. We believe that the documents of Vatican II are unnecessarily ambiguous in key places, and as such lend themselves to misinterpretations which put them in opposition to the previous 1960 years of Catholic teaching (The part in Dei Verbum where it says the Bible teaches innerantly those things which God wanted us to know for the sake of our salvation is a good example of this). We believe that the documents of Vatican II must be harmonized with previous teaching, that previous teaching must be reemphasized (the infallible dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a prime example), and that the Catholic Church should return to the Tridentine Mass. We are also much more likely to be critical of John Paul II than other Catholics (kissing the Qur'an, praying with pagans, may John the Baptist protect Islam, etc.) However, this position does not mean that we are schismatic, anymore than St. Paul or St. Catherine of Sienna (both of whom rebuked the Pope of their day).

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Well said Hananiah! ^_^

[Hananiah]

Thanks.