tradition

Thoughts of a Catholic Traditionalist

      Today, calling oneself a Catholic traditionalist can often cause you to be misunderstood. I consider myself a proudly traditional Catholic, yet there are others using the same title with whom I am not in complete agreement. So, some sort of detailed explanation is required. With some of these other so-called "traditionalists" I have much in common, yet with others I am in total disagreement and regret that they have come to be associated with the word 'traditional'.
       The Roman Catholic Church is, after all, based in large part on the power of tradition. Few people would honestly believe that the Gospels record every single thing done by the apostles and every important detail of the early Church. What was not written down, was therefore passed on from one generation to the next in the form of sacred tradition. Thus we can say that the heart of Christian worship, in the Catholic Church at least, has not changed since the time of the apostles. As they did, so also do we, and we know this because of the traditions handed down to us.
       This then brings us to the very heart of Christian worship: the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Holy Mass. Christ Himself laid out the basic foundation for this, and commanded His apostles to keep doing this same thing in His memory, for in that act is our salvation, and the keeping of the promise Jesus made,

through the miracle of the real presence, that He would be here with us until the end of time. It is safe to assume that, at the Lord's Supper, this first Holy Mass was probably not conducted in Latin. Yet, here lies

a sticking issue for many.
In my own opinion, the old Tridentine Latin Mass is the most beautiful form of worship I have ever known. I favor the higher degree of reverence that went with it,

the feeling of being connected with the traditions and language of our Christian ancestors all the way back to the martyrs of ancient Rome, and the sense of truly belonging to the "Kingdom of God" on earth, which is the Church, that a common, unique language provided for people all around the world.
However, as much as I favor the Tridentine Mass, I can see nothing inherently wrong or improper in the new Mass given in the common language of the people. This decision was made by Pope Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council, in keeping with the way the Church always addressed major problems or changes in the Christian community. Just as I trust in the Holy Spirit to have guided the pontiffs and councils of Nicea, Constantinople or Vatican I, and keep them all from error, so do

I trust the Second Vatican Council in the same way. I may not understand why certain changes were needed, or agree that everything which was done was for the best, but I do see it as free from error.
There are many things about the "pre-Vatican II Church" that I would still favor today. I miss the Latin Mass, I miss the Gregorian chant, I miss the Papal tiara and the pomp and ceremony which once surrounded the Chair of Peter. Yet, the heart of the Church, has not changed, there are not two different Churches, pre- and post-Vatican II, but one Church with one continuing tradition. The real presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, the authority and dignity of the Pope, and all the sacraments are still just as they

have always been, and always will be until the end of time.
I am a traditionalist, and part of being a traditionalist means keeping my eyes on what is substance rather than style, which has not changed, and remaining ever faithful to the teaching of the Pope, whether it be Pope St Pius V or Pope Paul VI.

I put my faith in the Holy Spirit to watch over all of the councils, when all of the bishops are assembled in full communion with the Holy Father that what they produce I can trust, knowing that Jesus promised that His Church would stand forever and sin would have no victory over it. To question Vatican II would also be to question countless other past controversial decisions.

Many of the most radical, so-called "traditionalists" seem to have forgotten some of the core beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the deep faith that God will never allow error to creep into the official

teaching of the Church founded by Christ. I have not agreed with everything the popes and the Church have done, post Vatican II, certainly. However, I view all of these things as being unfortunate rather than wrong or invalid.
The most extreme even go so far as to say that Bl. John XXIII Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II are all invalid. This cannot be traditional Catholicism, as the tradition of the Church has always stressed that it is absolutely essential, for the very salvation of souls, to be subject to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth and the Successor of St Peter.
I consider myself to be traditional, and I encourage others to be as intransigent as possible, but I subject my own will to the will of the Church and trust in the promise of Christ that, "the gates of the underworld will not prevail" against His Church.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws