ON THE SO-CALLED TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC AND ON THE MASS TRADITIONAL

To want to stop at 1962 and want to block everything before the Council, as if it had not happened or had led the Church astray, not be a true traditional, is not consistent faithfulness and steadfastness in the truth, a freeze but a living organism, is to prevent the progress of the Church, backwardness is stubborn and arrogant disobedience to the Church advances in history, is a trick of the devil that leads to destruction.

 

 

With a note posthumous inserted down the author 27.03.2015

 

 

Is coming into use expression which on closer creates difficulties and appears equivocal, not to say that it is wrong and dangerous: Catholics “traditional”, expression seemingly harmless, perhaps even beautiful. It may seem too right, timely and appropriate, obviously equipped, for those who use it for themselves and spread, a positive sense, as if to say: Catholics faithful to Sacred Tradition.

An expression apparently clarifying but which in reality, I argue,, creates confusion and can, beyond good intentions, open a window to lefevrismo. Because of this, after all, I think it's better not to use it or not use it at least in the sense that I will explain.

In this regard, I propose the following observations.

Before. Being traditional, as already taught St. Pius X, is a feature of the Catholic as such, because the doctrine of faith arises from the confluence of the Holy Scripture with tradition. Enters the definition of being a Catholic. Because of this, the talk of the traditional Catholic is not that a tautology, say the same of the same, is like saying that the horse is the horse. Or at best is an enunciation of the principle of identity, also known children. Beautiful discovery!

Being traditional enters into the very essence of being a Catholic, as well as belonging to the race horse belongs to the essence of the horse. In this sense, a Catholic who is not traditional, not a Catholic. As well as a horse that is not equine is not a horse. Therefore, who qualifies as a traditional Catholic, seems to say: “We yes, that we are the true Catholics! We just we are!”. The Catholic nontraditional, so, can not be a good Catholic.

It does not make sense, then - I comment - add at the end “Catholic” the adjective “traditional”, because this attribute is already implicit in the concept of a Catholic, as well as would not make sense or would be an addition useless to talk of an equine.

So too: why call Mass “traditional” only the Mass the old order? [WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..] Even that new world order is the traditional Mass, and the “Mass of All Time”. The Council has not changed the substance of the Mass; but has only made changes accidental and contingent, and as a substitute modes before, so one day these will be substitutes by other, without this Mass is changed in its essence.

Can not tell these people myopic the substance give it damn it [cf. our previous articles WHO, WHO]? The liturgical reform has just introduced a new rite, a new contingent of celebrating the same and identical Mass instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist according to the … the old order?

Second. The talk of traditional Catholics seems to allude to the fact that there are no traditional Catholics, which then would be new or modern Catholicism. Ma, according to their reasoning, in which case this would be a false Catholic Catholic, because it is not “traditional”.

In reality, it is noted that there is prohibited the adjective “traditional” applied to the life of the spirit, going by analogy to how we express ourselves in material, as for example in the art or power. Like this, for instance, are appreciated some traditional songs or certain traditional foods, without implying contempt for the songs and modern foods. Everyone is free to choose.

No restaurateur who propaganda traditional foods calls not to buy modern foods. Yet these Catholics “traditional”, for a kind of indiscriminate contempt towards modernity, seem to have this contempt for Catholics who want to be modern [see WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..]; and be modern - mind you - not at all mean to be “modernists”, indeed quite the opposite.

In the Church there is nothing bad that some have more sympathy for tradition and others for the renewal and progress, provided that everyone is part of Orthodoxy. But then it is not convenient to use for those who love especially the tradition, the term “traditional”, which brings up the progressives, ie those who love progress, as false Catholics, contrary to tradition and modernist. Progress is a duty; be modernists is heresy.

Better would be to retain the term “traditionalist” long been widely used, giving it in a positive and legitimate as above. I myself have written a book about the Servant of God Tomas Tyn with subtitle “Traditionalist post-conciliar” [1], alluding to the fact that there is a healthy conservatism which contrary to traditionalism lefevriano, welcomes the development of Tradition operated by the Council and by the Popes of the post-conciliar, refusing to see clearly a contradiction of the teaching of the Council than that of the pre-council.

Third. But what is worrying is that those who have brought about this expression with pride and consider themselves traditional Catholics, express ideas in approaching dangerously lefevrismo, as they reject as anti-traditional doctrines of Vatican II and those of Popes following, believing that the true Catholicism, faithful to Tradition, it's just that kind of Catholicism, in those special forms – for example, the Tridentine rite of Mass -, that existed before the Council.

Fourth. The real traditional Catholic is that the post-conciliar. Every true Catholic, as I said, is certainly to traditional essence, but it is - and this does not seem contradictory - even the progressive, as it was for example the Maritain (not the modernist who is a heretic), but in the sense of the development work by the Council and the post-conciliar. In fact a healthy progress, such as that promoted by the Council, is nothing but a development and a better knowledge of the immutable Tradition.

 

This is the true respect of Tradition. To want to stop at 1962 and want to block everything before the Council, as if it had not happened or had led the Church astray, not be a true traditional, is not consistent faithfulness and steadfastness in the truth, a freeze but a living organism, is to prevent the progress of the Church, backwardness is stubborn and arrogant disobedience to the Church advances in history, is a trick of the devil that leads to destruction.

Varazze, 24 March 2015

[1] Tomas Tyn, a traditionalist post-conciliar, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2007.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE posthumous 27.03.2015 ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MASS

 

 

According to her, Rabbi Ariel, for a Catholic who wants to remain faithful to the line Doctrine you should stay to listen to the "mental ruminations" two [censored] Ariel&Cavalcoli that they start debating on nothing distinguishing, for instance substance e damn it Tradition and Sacred Liturgy nalla, or would not be much more uplifting understood with certainty faithful to Catholic Doctrine Sana read, for instance, a piece of a Monk and High Priest whom Don Divo Barsotti Church on the site&Postcouncil, which disavows the "mental ruminations" duo [censored] Ariel&Cavalcoli on what they call the "damn external"? I think that any Catholic who remained the light of reason would not doubt what to answer.

[Comment posted by Gianluigi Bazzorini the 25.03.2015]

 

 

The important thing is that we all feel a single thing around the mystery of the faith, whether you prefer Novus wordsO, whether you prefer old order posted.

Giovanni Cavalcoli, ON

Varazze, 27 March 2015