"Traditionalists" vs. "Spirit of Vatican II"

Many of us have been exposed to those who introduce or support liturgical abuse from a overly “progressive” point of view. They follow their own desires (or those of popularist culture), rather than what the Church directs. Many do so under the guise of “the Spirit of Vatican II.” We have posted at length about this issue.

The same thing is taking place in the “traditionalist” (whatever that is) camp. The traditionalists also seems to have a penchant to discount what the Church directs – in favor of what they feel the Church should be directing – even if it contraves the Church!

Their efforts are done not in “the Spirit of Vatican II”, but in what they believe ther early church did, or the 1962 Missal church did. The effect however is the same – dissent.

When all is said and done, neither the spirit of Vatican II’ers or the traditionalists are orthodox Catholics. By discounting the Church for their own desires, they are indeed heterodox – and they both harm the Church.

Ok, tell us what we are dissenting? I would like to know.

How are we heterodox, what heresy do we hold?

How are we non-schismatic traditionalist harming the Church?

And please define “the spirit of Vatican II” - everytime I hear someone say that I know they are about to justify some non-Catholic teaching as valid.

I would grant that extremists in any matter are nonproductive but heterodoxical - that’s rather strong language, don’t you think?

[quote=catholiclady]And please define “the spirit of Vatican II” - everytime I hear someone say that I know they are about to justify some non-Catholic teaching as valid.

I would grant that extremists in any matter are nonproductive but heterodoxical - that’s rather strong language, don’t you think?
[/quote]

The “spirit of Vatican II” is nothing more than an excuse. It has nothing or very little to do with the LETTER of Vatican II.

I think it’s fair to say that many of the “traditionalist” demands are quite heterodox.

[quote=Crusader]I think it’s fair to say that many of the “traditionalist” demands are quite heterodox.
[/quote]

It is neither fair nor accurate.

[quote=dcs]It is neither fair nor accurate.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you are mistaken once again.

"Heterodox: Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma."

There are a who slew of beliefs and ideas that some traditionalists hold that are no less heterodox than the most progressive beliefs and ideas that do not conform to what the Church teaches.

[quote=Crusader]Unfortunately you are mistaken once again.
[/quote]

Once again? You haven’t said where I was mistaken the first time! :wink:

There are a who slew of beliefs and ideas that some traditionalists hold that are no less heterodox than the most progressive beliefs and ideas that do not conform to what the Church teaches.

Why don’t you list them, then, so one can see what you’re talking about?

The biggest problem among traditionalists is integrism, but Dietrich von Hildebrand showed conclusively that this is not nearly the problem that progressivist heresy is. I urge you to read his book The Devastated Vinyard.

Ok, tell us what we are dissenting? I would like to know.

How are we heterodox, what heresy do we hold?

How are we non-schismatic traditionalist harming the Church?

Not only that, I am seeing more name calling against traditionalist.

**Quote:**Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, is also chairman of the Ecclesia Dei commission, set up by Pope John Paul II to supervise the implementation of the papal indult authorizing a “wide and generous” accommodation of Catholics who prefer the traditional [Latin] Mass. …

To satisfy the legitimate concerns of traditionalist Catholics, “a greater understanding is necessary,” the cardinal said. He observed that Pope John Paul has “recognized the validity of their liturgical sensibilities.” While other Catholics may not share those sensibilities, he insisted that traditionalists “are not second-class Catholics and must not be treated as such.”

.

[quote=catholiclady]**Quote:**Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, is also chairman of the Ecclesia Dei commission
[/quote]

Odd… when I mentioned an article that I found helpful:


"The Latin Liturgical Tradition:
****Extending and Solidifying the Continuity
****by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins (staff member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome)"
latinliturgy.com/calkinstalk_lla.htm

it was pooh-poohed.

No list? :hmmm:

Melman - pooh poohed by whom and when and where?

See the end of the thread titled “Universal Indult”

There is another principle of capital importance which I cannot sufficiently stress: The Mass is the Mass. It is the sacrifice of Jesus; it is the sacrifice of His Church.[font=Arial] In any celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy according to any of the liturgical books recognized by the Church celebrated by a validly ordained priest with the intention to do what the Church does (facere quod facit Ecclesia), the sacrifice of Christ is made present on the altar. It cannot be made more present or less present depending on the rite followed; it is either made present or it is not. The Church recognizes a preference with regard to the rite followed as legitimate, but it is wrong to absolutize the rite over the mystery of faith itself and can do immense harm to souls”[/font]

[font=Arial]This is where I see a line that makes it difficult for Mother Church and the SSPX to get together. All of the Traditionalists that I know who remain in union with Holy Mother Church would agree with this but many SSPX and Sedevacs do not want to acknowledge the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass in any other rite than the Tridentine. [/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]If I am correct, one of the requirements for the Indult Mass is acknowledging that the current rite is a valid Mass, something which LeFeberites do not wish to acknowledge.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]For myself, by now all on this forum know I prefer the Tridentine Rite but I also go to both Eastern Rite and Current Rite (I have been admonished for calling it N.O. so don’t know how else to reference it) and it is not dislike for the current rite but that it has been tinkered with and messed up so badly in many parishes that makes me lean to the Tridentine. I don’t deny the validity of the sacrifice so long as it meets the requirement of a validly ordained priest, valid substance and correct words in the consecration. [/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]I also have no bone to pick with Vatican II but all would surely agree that what was intended and what has become manifest are far from each other.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]*"It is easy enough to say that the Council caused all of the destruction in the Church; everything was fine before it took place. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. The reality is far more complicated. In so many cases those who gained dominance in interpreting and implementing the Council in every area of the Church’s life had their own agenda and used their position to advance it. " *[/font]
[font=Arial]**[/font]
[font=Arial]Serious errors have been committed in the name of “The Spirit of Vatican II” - unfortunate.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]

[quote=catholiclady]Melman - pooh poohed by whom and when and where?
[/quote]

I have no qualms about admitting that I was the one who pooh-poohed it.

I thought it made some good points.

Let those who would speak of the spirit of VII read the Ottaviani Intervention. Because of it the Pope dealyed the implementation of of the Novus Ordo for two years. To deny this Cardinal and those who joined him in signing the document speaks volumes about those who finally implemented the Novus Ordo. I came to the Traditional Latin Mass some 3-4 years ago. Had I read this document,I believe I would never have accepted the Novus Ordo. I believe every Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo, is obligated to search out the truth of VII and not just accept what his Bishop or Priest tells him. I can’t tell you how frustrated I became when I asked my pastor questions and received some of the most dumbed down answers in my life. He didn’t lie. but he very conveniently talked around the truth. (Good seminary training?) Please read the Ottaviani Intervention!

Wow !
In searching in an old missal for the “Novus Ordo” references being challenged/discussed, I just found something else rather interesting.

I’d either lost or seriously misplaced my old, pre-Vatican II Latin St. Joseph’s Daily Missal. During the changes, I had purchased what was the updated St. Joseph’s Missal (1966), and for the sake of this post, I was looking up “Novus Ordo” or “New Order” of the Mass - an expression I’m sure I’ve seen printed somewhere (but not found in this missal, so perhaps, it’s in Church missalettes).

However - here’s something interesting. While the Mass has Latin - in small, italicized at bottom of pages - (it used to be on left-hand side pages in the older missals), this Missal has nothing in Latin ***after the Offertory. Latin picks up again for the “Pater Noster” (Our Father). *** The Consecration is still printed with the words “for many” (versus “pro all”) - and yet - nothing in Latin for the Consecration. (???)

Just a curious find. Has anyone got this missal and noticed same?

I believe this may be the oldest thread yet ever resurrected. Not very fair to the earlier posters.

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.