A 'Traditional' Catholic? Yes and No

Every once in a while, I run into someone online who writes something like "I'm a traditional Catholic." Sometimes what they mean is that they go to Mass regularly, accept the teaching authority of the Holy See, and try to live in fidelity to what's taught.

By those standards, I'm a "traditional Catholic."

But I'm not likely to identify myself that way: not without an explanation.

Holier Than the Pope

There's a place, not all that far from my town here in Minnesota, that's marked as a Catholic church. My family and I noticed it one day: as I recall, we were looking for a place where we could celebrate Mass.

The setting was quite pleasant: a side road leading down through woods to a graveled parking area.

Surrounded by very plain white buildings. Some of them resembled barracks, one of them was a very plain white church: apparently. The place had been used, quite recently, judging by the mowed grass and well-worn footpaths. But we didn't see anybody. At all.

I turned the van around and left.

We may have missed an opportunity to meet some nice - and possibly rather colorful - people, but I think I made the right decision.

There were, and probably still are, some groups in America who are convinced that:

• They're Catholics
  • The only 'real' Catholics left
• The Holy See isn't Catholic
  • Vatican II proved that
  • Their priest says so

A fair number of them would have described themselves as "traditional Catholics." Who were, as I've heard it put, "holier than the Pope."

Quite a few were also convinced that the Mass must always be celebrated in Latin.

Latin, Mass, Getting a Grip

There's nothing wrong - at all - with using Latin when celebrating the Mass.

I've been to a Latin Mass - in St. Mary's Cathedral in Fargo, North Dakota. Which is the seat of the Diocese of Fargo. Definitely in communion with Rome.

One of my daughters speaks and reads Latin.

Latin is a lovely language, and the universal language of the Church. It's the language our official documents are written in - and then translated into local languages, like English.

We've got lots of rules about the Mass, but there's no rule from the Holy See that says that everybody must celebrate the Mass in Latin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1322-1419: and that's just the basics)

Which apparently upset some folks in America who were Catholic, and liked their Latin Mass.

So they decided that Rome was wrong, that this priest they knew who agreed with them was right - and they set up their own little churches.

Which, according to them, were the only 'real' Catholic Churches in the world.

I don't see it that way: but then I think that the Pope is the person who currently has the authority that my Lord gave Peter, about 2,000 years back. (Catechism, 551-553, 880-887, for starters)

I've discussed why I converted to Catholicism before.

About leaving the Catholic Church because I don't like something I've heard or felt? The answer to that is in the Q & A in John 6:67-69. I'm with Simon Peter: There isn't a second option.

But Vatican II Ruined Everything?!

There's more to it than a preference for Latin during Mass.

Back in the sixties, the Holy See published the documents of Vatican II. In Latin, and in English translation. Today they're available online, including the English translation.

Back in the sixties, quite a few American priests could have gotten English translations of the Vatican II documents in print format.

But apparently it was easier to read what Newsweek, or Time, or The Atlantic, had to say about Vatican II. I'll admit that the English translations of Vatican II documents tend to be a bit on the dry, academic side, in terms of style.

Here in America, in quite a few churches, altar rails were taken down, the Tabernacle hidden, and weirdly screwball versions of the Mass were presented - "in the spirit of Vatican II."

Was that liturgical two-step mandated by Vatican II? No: but that's not what many folks at the grassroots level heard.

Little wonder that some of them panicked and ran.

That was then, this is now: and I like to think that the damage done by those hotshot wannabe 'reformers' is being repaired.

"Traditional?" Yes and No

Back to being a "traditional" Catholic: I

• Am a convert to Catholicism
• Accept the authority of the Pope
  • It's the authority given by the Son of God to Peter
    • Handed down through the ages as empires rose and fell
• Accept my duty to know and love God

I am a Catholic. How "traditional" I am - that depends on what's meant by "traditional."

Almost-related posts:

• "Caritas in Veritate: Time, Change, and the Church"
  (July 18, 2010)
• "Roman Missal, Third Edition: I've got Hopes, and Fears"
  (June 2, 2010)
• "A Young Man With 'Old' Ideas, Vatican II, and the AmChurch"
  (April 25, 2010)
• "'Cafeteria Catholics' and a Diverse Church"
  (June 8, 2009)
  Particularly
  • "Cafeteria Catholics:" Not Necessarily Liberal
• "Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic"
  (November 3, 2008)