Traditional vs Vatican II Catholicism


#1

Can anyone help me here? Someone asked the difference between “traditional” Catholicism and “Vatican II” Catholicism. I’m thinking that the person who told her that he is “traditional” and not “Vatican II” belongs to one of the churches that have separated from Rome, but still call themselves Catholic. I do not have the “smart words” to explain this to a non-Catholic Christian who is a very, very good Christian. She just doesn’t understand Catholicism, and I don’t want to confuse her.

Can someone tell me the “Why” of the separation, and the actual differences?

All I really know about it is that some don’t go along with Church Teaching anymore. Some are ultra-conservative, and some are ultra-liberal. Neither actually answer to the Pope. Am I right, at least in this much?

Thanks to any and all who can answer this.


#2

[quote=Baptista]Can anyone help me here? Someone asked the difference between “traditional” Catholicism and “Vatican II” Catholicism. I’m thinking that the person who told her that he is “traditional” and not “Vatican II” belongs to one of the churches that have separated from Rome, but still call themselves Catholic. I do not have the “smart words” to explain this to a non-Catholic Christian who is a very, very good Christian. She just doesn’t understand Catholicism, and I don’t want to confuse her.
[/quote]

Hi Baptista -

Vatican II brought the church into the modern era. The beliefs and doctrines didn’t change so much. It is how Catholocism is practiced that changed.

A new mass, fresh concepts about priests, nuns, and laymen were all a part of it. Also, the doors opened to bringing other christian groups together with the Church. Protestants participated. As far as the new mass is concerned, the latin mass has had a bit of resurrection lately. members.cox.net/holynamechurch/latinmass.htm

Can someone tell me the “Why” of the separation, and the actual differences?

Seperation? Could you be clearer on that statement?

All I really know about it is that some don’t go along with Church Teaching anymore. Some are ultra-conservative, and some are ultra-liberal. Neither actually answer to the Pope. Am I right, at least in this much?

The Second Vatican Council’s outcome did cause discomfort. Groups such as SSPX splintered off, prefering to hold onto the older traditions. However, dogma did not change, just the practice.

Thanks to any and all who can answer this.

Sure, anytime. Here are some links…

catholicnews.com/data/vat2/vat2.htm
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM
sspx.org/ - A splinter group who disagree with VII decrees.

Subrosa


#3

[quote=Subrosa]Hi Baptista -

Vatican II brought the church into the modern era. The beliefs and doctrines didn’t change so much. It is how Catholocism is practiced that changed.

A new mass, fresh concepts about priests, nuns, and laymen were all a part of it. Also, the doors opened to bringing other christian groups together with the Church. Protestants participated. As far as the new mass is concerned, the latin mass has had a bit of resurrection lately. members.cox.net/holynamechurch/latinmass.htm

Seperation? Could you be clearer on that statement?
[/quote]

I think you helped me to be clearer on that with what you said next about SSPX “splintering off”. I’m sure I have read/heard of other groups who call themselves “Catholic” but do not put themselves under the Pope. In other words, they have changed things, such as allowing priests to marry. In others where they are very ultra-conservative, they do not allow things such as girl altar servers or Eucharistic Ministers.

The Second Vatican Council’s outcome did cause discomfort. Groups such as SSPX splintered off, prefering to hold onto the older traditions. However, dogma did not change, just the practice.
Sure, anytime. Here are some links…

catholicnews.com/data/vat2/vat2.htm
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM
sspx.org/ - A splinter group who disagree with VII decrees.

Subrosa

Thanks for responding, and for the links. I’m going to go check them out. I don’t want to answer this person in the “wrong way”, you know?


#4

[quote=Baptista]Can anyone help me here? Someone asked the difference between “traditional” Catholicism and “Vatican II” Catholicism. I’m thinking that the person who told her that he is “traditional” and not “Vatican II” belongs to one of the churches that have separated from Rome, but still call themselves Catholic. I do not have the “smart words” to explain this to a non-Catholic Christian who is a very, very good Christian. She just doesn’t understand Catholicism, and I don’t want to confuse her.

Can someone tell me the “Why” of the separation, and the actual differences?

All I really know about it is that some don’t go along with Church Teaching anymore. Some are ultra-conservative, and some are ultra-liberal. Neither actually answer to the Pope. Am I right, at least in this much?

Thanks to any and all who can answer this.
[/quote]

The short answer, I believe, is that radical traditionalist Catholics don’t believe any of the post-Vatican II Popes were valid because those who presided over the second vatican council committed heresy by substituting the Tridentine Latin Mass with the Novus Ordo Mass as the standard (but not only, as the TLM is still validly used in some dioceses) Mass of the Church. I personally believe the radical traditionalists are wrong. If they were right, that would mean that the one, true Church (the same church that the rad-trads recognized as such before Vatican II) had institutionalized heresy, which is impossible by the very definition of the Church.


#5

The other question that must be asked is this: what is the Church’s definition of Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against it? That a Pope would never teach something heretical in a matter of faith and morals as binding upon the whole Church. What changed with Vatican II? Practice-the way the standard Mass is said and carried out. No doctrines of faith and morals changed.


#6

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic, which means to me that I practice in accordance to Vatican II. There’s no seperation for me. Now there are some liberal folks out there who’ve used Vatican II as a rallying point to try to bring non-traditional practices into the church, especially in America. Most of this feeds on the fact that most rank and file Catholics have not read the documents that came out of Vatican II and are easily convinced that certain liberal practices are allowed. Once you actually read the documents you see that those liberal ideas have zero corelation to Vatican II.


#7

[quote=StCsDavid]I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic, which means to me that I practice in accordance to Vatican II. There’s no seperation for me. Now there are some liberal folks out there who’ve used Vatican II as a rallying point to try to bring non-traditional practices into the church, especially in America. Most of this feeds on the fact that most rank and file Catholics have not read the documents that came out of Vatican II and are easily convinced that certain liberal practices are allowed. Once you actually read the documents you see that those liberal ideas have zero corelation to Vatican II.
[/quote]

Agreed! Anytime someone talks about “The Spirit of Vatican II” hyou can be sure of two things:

They have never read the documents that came out of Vatican II
They are pushing a radical agenda (female priests, married priests, etc)


#8

[quote=StCsDavid]I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic, which means to me that I practice in accordance to Vatican II. There’s no seperation for me. Now there are some liberal folks out there who’ve used Vatican II as a rallying point to try to bring non-traditional practices into the church, especially in America. Most of this feeds on the fact that most rank and file Catholics have not read the documents that came out of Vatican II and are easily convinced that certain liberal practices are allowed. Once you actually read the documents you see that those liberal ideas have zero corelation to Vatican II.
[/quote]

Well, according to this post, I’m a traditional Catholic also! Now I’m truly wondering exactly how the person talking to my friend meant this. From what she said, I assumed that “traditional” in the course of the conversation was not agreeing with Vatican II. But if the “traditional” person in this case is disagreeing with someone who is playing fast and loose with Vatican II, then they are in the right. Oh, my. This is going to be harder than I thought to explain to a non-Catholic. :confused: Holy Spirit Help me!

Thanks people for your responses.


#9

[quote=estesbob]Agreed! Anytime someone talks about “The Spirit of Vatican II” you can be sure of two things:
[/quote]

Hi estesbob -

I agree with you on half of your points.

They have never read the documents that came out of Vatican II

I don’t know many Catholics who have taken the time to find out about the religion, so your statement falls in line with that.

They are pushing a radical agenda (female priests, married priests, etc)

I know very few people who even bother with these aspects of what you mention. Some have opinions, but most don’t bother. Yes, there are radicals who espouse these agendas.

I tend to be conservative. I practice VII decrees and don’t think we should have female priests. If the bishops decided to let married men become priests, I don’t see an issue with that. Married Eastern and Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism remain married. It is not a new concept.

One change of VII that should be mentioned is that it put accountablility into the laps of the clergy and also non-clergy, such as nuns and monks. They were told to rethink thier position in the Church. For nuns, it meant that they were not subservient to the clergy.

Subrosa


#10

[quote=Baptista]I think you helped me to be clearer on that with what you said next about SSPX “splintering off”. I’m sure I have read/heard of other groups who call themselves “Catholic” but do not put themselves under the Pope.
[/quote]

Which is sort of like being underwater without being in water. :slight_smile:

Vatican II changed not a single bit of belief or doctrine.

– Mark L. Chance.


#11

[quote=Subrosa]Hi estesbob -

I tend to be conservative. I practice VII decrees and don’t think we should have female priests. If the bishops decided to let married men become priests, I don’t see an issue with that. Married Eastern and Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism remain married. It is not a new concept.

Subrosa
[/quote]

I should not have put “married priests” in my “radical” list as i have no problem with married Priests and know that it is a discipline that can be done away with with the stroke of B16s pen. i disagree, hovers, with those who beleive that allowing priests to marry will increase vocations and/or cut down on sexual abuse by priests.

My understanding of vatican II was that it noted that the Church was frozen in time into the 1500s. it decided that rather than look at the 1,500s as a guide we should look at the early Chrurch.


#12

[quote=StCsDavid]I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic, which means to me that I practice in accordance to Vatican II. There’s no seperation for me. Now there are some liberal folks out there who’ve used Vatican II as a rallying point to try to bring non-traditional practices into the church, especially in America. Most of this feeds on the fact that most rank and file Catholics have not read the documents that came out of Vatican II and are easily convinced that certain liberal practices are allowed. Once you actually read the documents you see that those liberal ideas have zero corelation to Vatican II.
[/quote]

I too consider myself a traditional Catholic. And I agree that there are those who “abused” Vatican II by trying to “reform” the Church. Unfortunately, we have people now on the other side willing to defy Authority to “protest” these “abuses” and “reforms”.

While I consider these “abuses” and “reforms” as ill-advised and ill-concieved, I don’t consider them to have been ill-intended. If we want to get the proper balance, IMHO opinion we need to do the following:

  1. Respect the Authority of our Pope and Bishops. Meaningful liturgical “reversion” will only be accomplished is the faithful respect the authority of our Pope and Bishops.

  2. Be patient. These “abuses” didn’t spring up overnight and their elimination will require effort and catechesis so the faithful understand the change. If you have only worshipped under these “reforms”, you will naturally resist the changes unless you have the rationale explained to you. But if approached with a proper attitude of submission to authority and catechesis, the faithful will have the knowledge and change of heart to embrace the changes enthusiastically (this should be all of our desire) as opposed to reluctantly.


#13

From an article:

QUOTE

Some Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”

UNQUOTE


#14

I like to think of myself as a Roman Catholic, one that follows the direction of Rome.


I try to avoid folks that try to go beyond V2 as if it was a never-ending revision of the Church.


#15

[quote=Baptista]Can anyone help me here? Someone asked the difference between “traditional” Catholicism and “Vatican II” Catholicism. I’m thinking that the person who told her that he is “traditional” and not “Vatican II” belongs to one of the churches that have separated from Rome, but still call themselves Catholic. I do not have the “smart words” to explain this to a non-Catholic Christian who is a very, very good Christian. She just doesn’t understand Catholicism, and I don’t want to confuse her.

Can someone tell me the “Why” of the separation, and the actual differences?

All I really know about it is that some don’t go along with Church Teaching anymore. Some are ultra-conservative, and some are ultra-liberal. Neither actually answer to the Pope. Am I right, at least in this much?

Thanks to any and all who can answer this.
[/quote]

All you’d need to know you can find here.
jloughnan.tripod.com/index.htm

This is a very lenghty discussion. It would take many posts to fill you in on this whole separation. You should also be forwarned that one radical traditionalist can believe something quite different from another so it would be hard to sum up what they believe. The thing that they all have in common is that they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff whether they say they obey him or not. You can be submitting when you are disobeying. Please note that there is a big difference between a traditionalist and a radical traditionalist. We should lump them all in the same sinking boat. :thumbsup:


#16

[quote=estesbob] My understanding of vatican II was that it noted that the Church was frozen in time into the 1500s. it decided that rather than look at the 1,500s as a guide we should look at the early Chrurch.
[/quote]

If the 1500’s were the wrong time to be frozen into and the Council was to set the Church up to deal with the modern world, why would we go all the way back to the early church for guidance?


#17

[quote=rwoehmke]If the 1500’s were the wrong time to be frozen into and the Council was to set the Church up to deal with the modern world, why would we go all the way back to the early church for guidance?
[/quote]

Yhe Purpose of Vatican II was NOT to take it into the modern world. That is one of those misconceptions that lead to all sorts of abuses based on what the Council supposedly said. The prupose was to take the Church back to its roots-early Christianity.

If we start trying to conform the Church to the “modern world” we end up like the Episcopal Church-changing doctrines at the whim of public opinion.


#18

One think I’ve learned from reading all of your welcome posts, and looking at the links (no way have I been able to finish reading all those!) is that people who call themselves “traditional” don’t necessarily agree on what that is. But at least it helped me to tell the woman who asked the question originally a few of the different definitions and that she should talk to the person in question to find out their definition of what they believe.

I also gave her a few ideas on what to read when she said she was interested in learning more about Catholicism. That at least I can do. :wink:

Thanks to everyone who has responded here.


#19

[quote=estesbob]Yhe Purpose of Vatican II was NOT to take it into the modern world. That is one of those misconceptions that lead to all sorts of abuses based on what the Council supposedly said. The prupose was to take the Church back to its roots-early Christianity.

If we start trying to conform the Church to the “modern world” we end up like the Episcopal Church-changing doctrines at the whim of public opinion.
[/quote]

Hi estesbob -

Have you read this VII document?

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2modwor.htm
GAUDIUM ET SPES

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE
MODERN WORLD

PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965


#20

[quote=Subrosa]Hi estesbob -

Have you read this VII document?

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2modwor.htm
GAUDIUM ET SPES

PASTORAL CONSTITUTION
ON THE CHURCH IN THE
MODERN WORLD

PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965
[/quote]

Yes. It in no way contradicts what I said.


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.