'traditionalist' Catholics

[annie]

Can anyone tell me what 'Traditionalist' Catholics are? They apparantly think I am an 'apostate' because I am faithful to our Pope and the present day Church..

[BLAZEr]

The word "Traditionalist" can be used in a variety of ways. I'll give you the most common. Please realize that none of these are hard and fast rules. And some catholics who would not consider themselves "Traditionalists" might do these things.

1. A traditionalist could just be a person who prefers a more traditional approach to the Church. They tend to prefer Latin the Liturgy. The women cover their heads in a church. They receive the Eucharist on the tongue, and sometimes on their knees. They tend to read books published by TAN and they subscribe to the Wanderer and Latin Mass magazine. They like groups like Tradition, Family, Property and the Fraternity of Saint Peter. They are fully Catholic and respect the Pope, even if they have some complaints about him.

2. Some traditionalists are more extreme. They will ONLY attend a Latin Mass. They don't read any books on Catholic theology published in the last 50 years. The think the Pope is misguided and in too liberal. They feel the Church is abandoning its patrimony and tradition. They frequent the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius the X. They read the Remnant and Latin Mass Magazine.

3. Some traditionalists are the most extreme and they are better classified as "Sede Vacantists" They believe that the last valid Pope was Pius XII. They attend mass at the Chapels of the Society of St. Pius the X, or Society of St. Pius V. They believe John Paul II is an anti-pope humanist who is actively destroying the Church. They feel that the Second Vatican Council was invalid and not a true Council of the Church. They think the Remnant and Latin Mass are liberal publications with an accomodationist position toward the Pope and the "New Mass."


The Third Group seems to be the group you have encountered. Stay away from them, they'll drive you nuts.

[Carson Weber]

BLAZEr,

A couple of comments on my part to your response.

[b]They tend to prefer Latin the Liturgy.[/b]

The Church's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ([i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i]), speaks on this in paragraph 36:

"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

"But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."

I would propose to you that retaining the use of Latin in the liturgy isn't a feature pertaining to those with a [i]traditionalist[/i] perspective, but rather that the transformation of the entire liturgy into the vernacular is not what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had in mind.

[b]They receive the Eucharist on the tongue[/b]

Reception of Communion on the tongue is still the universal practice among the 21 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

Reception in the hand is an optional allowance granted to those bishops in the Latin Rite of the Church who have requested that the faithful in their dioceses have this particular option, and most countries in the world do not permit reception of communion in the hand.

In fact, our Holy Father speaks of the practice of communion in the hand as an allowance approved by the Apostolic See, which is specifically addressed in his letter of February 24, 1980, [i]Dominicae Cenae[/i] in paragraph 11, mentioning the lack of reverence and the abuses that have followed this allowance without failing to mention the fact that reception in the hand may be and has been accomplished without these problems.

The US adaptation for paragraph 160 in the IGMR (the [i]Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani[/i]) reads:

"When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant," and so I am not saying that it is illicit to receive communion in the hand - of course.

My purpose is to show that reception on the tongue isn't a traditionalist mark, but rather that reception of communion in the hand is a liberal allowance that is permitted in limited regions of the Church and that - looking through the lens of the Church Universal at the present time - communion on the tongue is currently the most common form of reception of the Eucharist.

[BLAZEr]

Carson I agree 100%. I was trying to explain that "traditionalist" is used in a variety of ways.

I receive the Eucharist on my tongue and I like Latin in the Liturgy too. I wouldn't call myself a traditionalist though. So I agree that althoug these traits are not just common among traditionalists, I would say that most traditionalists exhibit these traits.

So, all A do B and C but not all who do B and C are A. Or something like that!

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
3/17 - St. Patrick

You crazy Thomists and your crazy syllogisms! Oh..wait...[i]I'm[/i] a Thomist.....

Yours,
Pio Nono

[Carson Weber]

BLAZEr, from the inherent logic of your rational syllogism, your conclusion fits the premises..