Traditional Catholics?


#1

What exactly is meant by being a “traditional Catholic?” Also, is that the same as pre-Vatican 2’s? What is it about Vatican 2 that some Catholics did not like?


#2

A Traditional Catholic is a Catholic in full union with the Holy See that prefers the Tridintine Mass over the new mass. They fully accept Vatican II.

Those that are not in full communion with the Holy See are Radical Traditionalists and are schismatic or heretical. Usually these people are not happy with Vatican II’s ecumenism and liturgical reforms. Some even elect their own Popes. However, these people are mostly angry with the liturgical changes, they are attached to the pre-Vatican II mass, and because of that they refuse to conform and even attack post-Vatican II beliefs and practices.


#3

Could you please explain more?


#4

Simply put, Traditional Catholics are those who still believe what the Church has always taught, and they still reject what the Church has always rejected

However, there are some who call themselves traditional Catholics, yet they have gone too far as a reaction to liberalism, and fallen into error in the other direction.

But, generally speaking, a Traditional Catholic is one who still believes and worships as all Catholics did before 1960. They prefer the Traditional Latin Mass with the beautiful music and majesty, as well as the solid traditional doctrines and moral teachings of the Church.

One way that Traditional Catholics differ from a “conservative Catholics” is that a Traditional Catholic is not scared to stand up to error - even when those in high places They detest error and heresy, and it is usually very evident.


#5

So who are the people who don’t reconize the Pope as …well…the Pope anymore? I thought pre-Vatican 2’s held this veiw but I know very little of this.


#6

[quote=J.W.B.]So who are the people who don’t reconize the Pope as …well…the Pope anymore? I thought pre-Vatican 2’s held this veiw but I know very little of this.
[/quote]

These are known as “sedevacantists”, which means “the see is vacant”. They are Traditional Catholics who believe that the last few Popes were not real Popes. They have various reasons for believing this.

Although the sedevacantista call themselves Traditional Catholics, most Traditional Catholics are not Sedevacantist.


#7

So it appears Christ words “The gates of hell shall not prevail” have failed according to them. But I’m sure they don’t see it that way.

By the way, How you doing Rs?


#8

[quote=J.W.B.]So it appears Christ words “The gates of hell shall not prevail” have failed according to them. But I’m sure they don’t see it that way.

By the way, How you doing Rs?
[/quote]

I’m doing well… But how are you? Did you meet with your Priest yet?


#9

Baloney! If I was born and raised a Catholic in Rome Italy, then there would be nothing wrong with having the mass in Latin. For it is natural for them to speak it over there. We live in America where we speak ENGLISH. So the mass should be given in english, so people can get more understanding of the mass. And who says the last four Popes don’t have a right to be the head of the church? They were voted in by the cardinals and if the cardinals wouldn’t have believed they were the right choice, then they wouldn’t have been elected to begin with. All this cry-babying is pure baloney I say.


#10

[quote=RSiscoe]These are known as “sedevacantists”, which means “the see is vacant”. They are Traditional Catholics who believe that the last few Popes were not real Popes. They have various reasons for believing this.
.
[/quote]

It kind of does away with the “always” part of “what the church always taught.” Always except for now, when I’m alive to choose my own version of truth?

Always includes, Vatican II, the papacy of John Paul II and most importantly, our current Benedict XVI.


#11

[quote=Roman_Army]A Traditional Catholic is a Catholic in full union with the Holy See that prefers the Tridintine Mass over the new mass. They fully accept Vatican II.
[/quote]

If they fully accept Vatican II why do they not accept the liturgical changes introduced by VaticanII?

According to an article in the Tablet (UK Catholic weekly magazine) which arrived today “In those days [Vatican II] the near unanimous view of the world’s bishops was that, while the Church could a number of different Latin Rites (the Ambrosian or Mozaravic Rites, for example) there could only be one Roman Rite. One replaced the other.” It notes that the final vote on the Council’s liturgical document was 2,147 in favour and four against.

This article also says that Vatican II did not invent liturgical reform, it was development which Pius XII in 1956 called a “movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church” and was well under way in the early 1900s in places like Begium, Germany and the United States.

According to this article Pope Pius paved the way for Vatican II by forming a commission in 1948 to lay the foundation for the for the general reform of the liturgy.

I think that for many the desire for the Latin Mass is a desire to roll back the Church to pre-vatican II rather than just nostalgia or a protest against some of the more extreme “innovations” that have ocurred. Lets not look back but work to improve the current Mass.

I think I’ll duck before the brickbats come flying!


#12

[quote=RSiscoe]These are known as “sedevacantists”, which means “the see is vacant”. They are Traditional Catholics who believe that the last few Popes were not real Popes. They have various reasons for believing this.

Although the sedevacantista call themselves Traditional Catholics, most Traditional Catholics are not Sedevacantist.
[/quote]

I understand sedevacantists think there hasn’t been a validly elected Pope since whenever but do they have any suggestion on how to validly elect a new one?
Or are the the Catholic equivalent of those militia types up in the mountains who think they’re the real gov’t of the US?


#13

[quote=J.W.B.]? What is it about Vatican 2 that some Catholics did not like?
[/quote]

It’s not Vat II that most people have a problem with, it’s the liberals and modernists who have hijacked Vat II for their own pet agenda’s like women’s ordination, abortion and etc etc. That’s my take on it anyway.


#14

[quote=didymus]I understand sedevacantists think there hasn’t been a validly elected Pope since whenever but do they have any suggestion on how to validly elect a new one?
Or are the the Catholic equivalent of those militia types up in the mountains who think they’re the real gov’t of the US?

[/quote]

Quote from “Brainy Encyclopedia” web site one group did it themselves

“Reverend Father Earl Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap (born April 20th 1918) was elected Pope Pius XIII of the ‘true Catholic Church’ in 1998. The “true Catholic Church” is a small sect based in Montana, which claims to be the “true” Catholic Church, as against all other groups or entities claiming that name. Pulvermacher technically could be considered an antiupope by other denominations, although he has far fewer followers than the historical antipopes.”

I read somehwhere that the sedevantists say that Vatican II invented a"new " Catholic Church different to one that was before and so John XXXIII and following popes excommunicated themselves. I shouldn’t bother about them.


#15

[quote=didymus]I understand sedevacantists think there hasn’t been a validly elected Pope since whenever but do they have any suggestion on how to validly elect a new one?
Or are the the Catholic equivalent of those militia types up in the mountains who think they’re the real gov’t of the US?

[/quote]

Some sedevacantists have sought to rectify the situation by deciding a certain number of their fellow kooks are now Cardinals (since they are the only real Catholics) and electing one of their number pope. This was the case of Michael I in Kansas, who is not a priest and is looking to be ordained and consecrated a bishop by someone whom he thinks has the ability to do so. Pius XIII in Washington State/Idaho (?) is a validly ordained Catholic priest, who ordained another man (married at the time) priest, then bishop. This man then ordained Pius XIII bishop! To read some of Pius XIII writings on the web < www.trucatholic.org >, they all have very elaborate and convoluted theological and canonical explanations for what they do. It is kinda funny to note that Pius XIII allegedly has admitted to some sort of divination practice. Yet it was the alleged heresy of John XXIII that supposedly invalidated his election; so it should for Fr. Pulvermacher.

I’ve heard that there are at present 10 pretenders to the papal chair, but I have only heard of 4: Pius XIII, Michael I, one in Canada and one in Spain (I don’t know their names). Does anyone have a complete list?

One wonders what they do all day on their papal thrones.


#16

There is an awful lot of bilge on this thread. If you really want to understand to understand the issues that most concern traditional catholics, especially regarding V2 and its aftermath, you should read “Iota Unum”, by Romano Amerio. Amerio was a peritus at V2, just like Ratzinger, and he makes a powerful traditionalist case against it. Personally, I am not a sedevacantist (neither is Amerio), but I am fed up with the party line intellectual contortions of so-called neo-conservative priests and apologists that V2 was wonderful but woefully misapplied.


#17

[quote=mrblue]There is an awful lot of bilge on this thread. .
[/quote]

“Bilge” is in the eye of the beholder. This is an awfully judgemental way to start the third post on this website. (unless you are another reincarnation of a banned poster). Vaitcan II was an ecumenical council. We do not get to pick the councils we like or dislike.


#18

[quote=steve99]If they fully accept Vatican II why do they not accept the liturgical changes introduced by VaticanII?
[/quote]

Why accept something not infallible? We accept the liturgical changes as being valid, but there’s no infallible teaching that: “This Mass is better than the old one,” or what-have-you.

[quote=steve99]According to an article in the Tablet (UK Catholic weekly magazine) which arrived today “In those days [Vatican II] the near unanimous view of the world’s bishops was that, while the Church could a number of different Latin Rites (the Ambrosian or Mozaravic Rites, for example) there could only be one Roman Rite. One replaced the other.” It notes that the final vote on the Council’s liturgical document was 2,147 in favour and four against.
[/quote]

And so…?

[quote=steve99]This article also says that Vatican II did not invent liturgical reform, it was development which Pius XII in 1956 called a “movement of the Holy Spirit in the Church” and was well under way in the early 1900s in places like Begium, Germany and the United States.
[/quote]

Yes, and the way it was carried out was not invented by Vatican II, strictly speaking, but Protestants.

According to this article Pope Pius paved the way for Vatican II by forming a commission in 1948 to lay the foundation for the for the general reform of the liturgy.

[quote=steve99]I think that for many the desire for the Latin Mass is a desire to roll back the Church to pre-vatican II rather than just nostalgia or a protest against some of the more extreme “innovations” that have ocurred. Lets not look back but work to improve the current Mass.
[/quote]

If we rolled back the CHurch to pre-Vatican II, I don’t think we’d have all the extreme “innovatoins,” I think we’d have more priests, more converts, and more Mass attendees. Vocations to the priesthood dropped drastically the year the NO started; ecumenism was accompanied by a decrease in converts.


#19

[quote=challenger]Why accept something not infallible? We accept the liturgical changes as being valid, but there’s no infallible teaching that: “This Mass is better than the old one,” or what-have-you.
[/quote]

Perhaps accept if because it is the teaching of the magisterium? Perhaps accept it because the vast majority of the world’s bishops voted for it?

[quote=challenger] If we rolled back the CHurch to pre-Vatican II, I don’t think we’d have all the extreme “innovatoins,” I think we’d have more priests, more converts, and more Mass attendees. Vocations to the priesthood dropped drastically the year the NO started; ecumenism was accompanied by a decrease in converts.
[/quote]

Well I completely disagree with this. The world has changed rapidy since the 1950’s and the way the Church interacted with the world, and with the laity who live in that world, needed to change. I believe that if the Church had not adressed the need to reform its ways it would only be a very small farction of the size it is now. Many vocations are coming from the “new communities” that have grown up since vatican II and embraced the changes. I’m told for example that half of all vocations in France come from the new communities.


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.