Anti Vatican II Catholics - I'm confused

[tsering]

I’m confused over the mess that some Catholics are making against Vatican II - and Pope John Paul II - especially over what they call false ecumenism and complete heresy.

Examples include this: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Can anyone explain this division to me?

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m confused over the mess that some Catholics are making against Vatican II - and Pope John Paul II - especially over what they call false ecumenism and complete heresy.

Examples include this: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Can anyone explain this division to me?

Actually, this is being discussed in the Traditional Catholicism thread.

You might want to venture over into that forum to get your answers.

I’m not trying to blow you off, but the people on that section of the forum tend to know more about pre-vatican II than I do.

Hope this helps.

 

[Lormar]

Actually, this is being discussed in the Traditional Catholicism thread.

You might want to venture over into that forum to get your answers.

I’m not trying to blow you off, but the people on that section of the forum tend to know more about pre-vatican II than I do.

Hope this helps.

I was going to suggest that same thing.

But Tsering, bring your buckler and shield with you!

 

[Hesychios]

I’m confused over the mess that some Catholics are making against Vatican II - and Pope John Paul II - especially over what they call false ecumenism and complete heresy.

Examples include this: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Can anyone explain this division to me?

Here in China I cannot open the link.

Could you post a bit to clarify what your concern is?

 

[Third_Day]

I’m confused over the mess that some Catholics are making against Vatican II - and Pope John Paul II - especially over what they call false ecumenism and complete heresy.

Examples include this: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Can anyone explain this division to me?

The Diamond “brothers” are out of touch with reality. They take quotes from Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Pope Benedict out of context. They know nothing about the true teaching of the Church and have made themselves popes.

I’ have talked on the phone with " Brother" .Michael and he believes that 9-11 was an inside job. He belives that the planes were unmanned and were flown by remote control. That should tell you how credible they are.

 

[tsering]

Here in China I cannot open the link.

Could you post a bit to clarify what your concern is?

These guys seem to be ultra-traditionalist right wind Catholics who are arguing that the Vatican II is a complete heresy and apostasy, that Pope John Paul II was not a valid pope, that Mary is not co-redeptrix (because the council of Trent said Jesus alone is our redeemer and let anyone who says otherwise be anathema), that the post Vatican II leaders are the Whore of Babylon or a counterfeit church out to deceive, that they pose a false ecumenism by accepting other religions and praying with them even those other religions worship demons, etc.etc.etc.

These guys make preachers like John Hagee look like the Easter bunny…and they’re not Protestants…they’re Catholic!

 

[choy]

you’ll be surprised how many people have that same belief right here on this forum

and they post freely on the Traditional Catholicism forum

 

[TriuneUnity]

These guys seem to be ultra-traditionalist right wind Catholics who are arguing that the Vatican II is a complete heresy and apostasy, that Pope John Paul II was not a valid pope, that Mary is not co-redeptrix (because the council of Trent said Jesus alone is our redeemer and let anyone who says otherwise be anathema), that the post Vatican II leaders are the Whore of Babylon or a counterfeit church out to deceive, that they pose a false ecumenism by accepting other religions and praying with them even those other religions worship demons, etc.etc.etc.

These guys make preachers like John Hagee look like the Easter bunny…and they’re not Protestants…they’re Catholic!

I used to live pretty close to a Church that was Traditionalist, Our Lady of the Angels in Arcadia, CA. They were sedevacantist and belonged to the SSPX. I didn’t have much interaction with them, but one of their priests used to be on a local cable channel with a few other priests, discussing the fact that the Roman Catholic Church of the modern era was apostate. They weren’t particularly wild-eyed, but they would have made Martin Luther look like Fidei Defensor.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I used to live pretty close to a Church that was Traditionalist, Our Lady of the Angels in Arcadia, CA. They were sedevacantist and belonged to the SSPX. I didn’t have much interaction with them, but one of their priests used to be on a local cable channel with a few other priests, discussing the fact that the Roman Catholic Church of the modern era was apostate. They weren’t particularly wild-eyed, but they would have made Martin Luther look like Fidei Defensor.

The following is from SSPX. org:

Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.

I assist at an SSPX Mass and I don’t know anyone at our large chapel who is sedevacantist. One could quite easily say we are “anti-sedevacantist”. The sedevacantists think the SSPX are liberals. Sedevacantism is opposed from the pulpit and the classroom. I do know a guy who had been discreet about it while he was here with us who moved away to North Dakota where he could go to a sedevacantist group out there.

 

[edwest2]

First of all, a few Catholics have posted here expressing either offense or confusion about Vatican II. A few posters either knowingly or unknowingly accuse Vatican II of various bad things. The fact of the matter is – none of a number of changes attributed to Vatican II were actually recommended by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

Finally, Vatican II has been blamed for negatively influencing Catholics. I was Catholic before Vatican II and no less Catholic afterward. I have reason to believe that in order to deflect attention from the real culprit, a few here are trying to make Vatican II a scapegoat. I encourage my fellow Catholics to do their own research. An attack was made on the Church after Vatican II from those inside and outside the Church of which most Catholics were only dimly aware of at the time.

Thank God, Pope John Paul II and now, Pope Benedict turned things around.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tsering]

I’m still confused.

I can see this is a sticky subject.

Does anyone have any clear sources (i.e. websites) that can explain this division to me?

Listen, I’m thinking of joining the Catholic Church and I’m not sure of which church I should start attending…liberal Catholic, conservative Catholic, charismatic Catholic, ultra traditional Catholic, etc…

 

[ipwnuathalo]

and they post freely on the Traditional Catholicism forum

Heavens to Betsy! They post “freely”? Better lock them up and make this forum safe for nudists, Mormons, Atheists and Rastafarians.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Listen, I’m thinking of joining the Catholic Church and I’m not sure of which church I should start attending…liberal Catholic, conservative Catholic, charismatic Catholic, ultra traditional Catholic, etc…

Your town is in a diocese. It has a Bishop. He has a website that lists his churches. Choose one.

Problem solved, darling.

 

[jfoges]

I’m still confused.

I can see this is a sticky subject.

Does anyone have any clear sources (i.e. websites) that can explain this division to me?

Listen, I’m thinking of joining the Catholic Church and I’m not sure of which church I should start attending…liberal Catholic, conservative Catholic, charismatic Catholic, ultra traditional Catholic, etc…

Ok, first I want to strongly advise you to stay away from SSPX, sedevacantists, or any other “traditionalist” catholic group. Make sure whatever church you attend is fully recognized and approved by the bishop of your diocese. The traditionalists, for lack of a better term, are rebels/schismatics/renegades who teach different things than the real Catholic Church. The largest of them, the SSPX, is in negotiation with Rome to try to reconcile the differences. The negotiations are not going well because their beliefs are not in line with what the Church teaches.

Basically the traditionalist movement began around the time of Vatican II. Vatican II was the first ecumenical council in nearly 100 years and some people were not satisfied or were confused about what the Council taught. An especially sensitive issue was the changes in the liturgy from Latin to the spoken language, which confused and upset many people. The general confusion led to some demagogues and suspended priests to form new movements and parishes which claimed that Vatican II was not of God. I strongly urge you to stay away from these cult-like groups. Vatican II is one of the historic ecumenical councils of the Church. It cannot be in error, anyone who says otherwise is attacking the very basis of the Church’s teaching authority.

 

[jfoges]

Ok, first I want to strongly advise you to stay away from SSPX, sedevacantists, or any other “traditionalist” catholic group. Make sure whatever church you attend is fully recognized and approved by the bishop of your diocese. The faux-traditionalists, for lack of a better term, are rebels/schismatics/renegades who teach different things than the real Catholic Church. The largest of them, the SSPX, is in negotiation with Rome to try to reconcile the differences. The negotiations are not going well because their beliefs are not in line with what the Church teaches.

Basically the traditionalist movement began around the time of Vatican II. Vatican II was the first ecumenical council in nearly 100 years and some people were not satisfied or were confused about what the Council taught. An especially sensitive issue was the changes in the liturgy from Latin to the spoken language, which confused and upset many people. The general confusion led to some demagogues and suspended priests to form new movements and parishes which claimed that Vatican II was not of God. I strongly urge you to stay away from these cult-like groups. Vatican II is one of the historic ecumenical councils of the Church. It cannot be in error, anyone who says otherwise is attacking the very basis of the Church’s teaching authority.

I also want to add that the term traditionalist is misleading. A true traditionalist would accept Vatican II. What we are dealing with here are faux-traditionalists. I would also advise you not to listen or discuss this with any faux-traditionalists. They love to debate and may seem to know their stuff. Don’t be fooled, websites and quotes taken out of context don’t amount to anything. If you want to know the authentic church teachings talk to a priest who has multiple degrees in philosophy and theology. Read a book by theologians with Phd’s in theology or Church history. The faux-traditionalist internet theologians are not reliable sources of information.

 

[GIR]

If you are thinking of becoming catholic, I have a few suggestions and comments. You may already know them, but I they’ll help:

1: The catholic church has a visible head, the pope in Rome

2: The Church is full of stupid people (including myself). It has been this way since the beginning (look at Peter), and the fact that the Church has survived in spite of us and attacks from the outside is a strong indicator of its divine origin.

3: There are groups on either end of the spectrum who don’t like the pope because they think he’s too liberal (The SSPX and sedevacantists) or too conservative (Call to Action and Dignity). These groups stay in the Church for various reasons, because they like the financial support, they don’t know where else to go, they have a vague attachment to it from their upbringing or ethnic background, they want to bring it down from the inside.

4: Use the Pope as your litnis test. If a particular group is constantly harping on the pope, don’t join.

5: As regards the Catholic Charismatic movement, I would advise against that one as well. While, in my estimation, the majority of Charismatic Catholics are very loyal to the Pope, they borrow very heavily form Pentacostal ideas like “gifts of the spirit” which more often then not turn out to be over emotional silliness. Great saints who had extraordinary experiences like Padre Pio and St. Teresa of Avila didn’t whip themselves into a frenzy in order to force God to give them these gifts, they were given deliberately and for a purpose. Charismatics also fool with the Mass to make it more “trendy” and entertaining. The mass is not about having fun, it’s about worshiping God. Once you realize this, it becomes very fulfilling and perhaps one might say “enjoyable”.

Sorry I got off topic.

In summery, look to the Pope as a test of orthodoxy.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

If you are thinking of becoming catholic, I have a few suggestions and comments. You may already know them, but I they’ll help:

1: The catholic church has a visible head, the pope in Rome

2: The Church is full of stupid people (including myself). It has been this way since the beginning (look at Peter), and the fact that the Church has survived in spite of us and attacks from the outside is a strong indicator of its divine origin.

3: There are groups on either end of the spectrum who don’t like the pope because they think he’s too liberal (The SSPX and sedevacantists) or too conservative (Call to Action and Dignity). These groups stay in the Church for various reasons, because they like the financial support, they don’t know where else to go, they have a vague attachment to it from their upbringing or ethnic background, they want to bring it down from the inside.

4: Use the Pope as your litnis test. If a particular group is constantly harping on the pope, don’t join.

5: As regards the Catholic Charismatic movement, I would advise against that one as well. While, in my estimation, the majority of Charismatic Catholics are very loyal to the Pope, they borrow very heavily form Pentacostal ideas like “gifts of the spirit” which more often then not turn out to be over emotional silliness. Great saints who had extraordinary experiences like Padre Pio and St. Teresa of Avila didn’t whip themselves into a frenzy in order to force God to give them these gifts, they were given deliberately and for a purpose. Charismatics also fool with the Mass to make it more “trendy” and entertaining. The mass is not about having fun, it’s about worshiping God. Once you realize this, it becomes very fulfilling and perhaps one might say “enjoyable”.

Sorry I got off topic.

In summery, look to the Pope as a test of orthodoxy.

Hi GIR,

My Mom and Dad became Catholic in 2005 when they both were over 70. My wife and I sponsored them at the parish nearest to them. We never talked about the reasons we assisted at Masses of the Society of St. Pius X. I mention this to prove that I am not here to enlist anyone in “a movement”, especially those who aren’t even sure they want to be Catholic at all. If I would ever have tried to persuade anyone to follow us to the Society Masses, it would have been my parents.

Considering all of the real difficulties associated the Society, one should prudently weigh the arguments for and against. I understand why faithful Catholics would decide against. But the reason for this post is that some decide against on the basis of misinformation. Many have the idea that they are sedevacantist, when it is demonstrable beyond doubt that they are vocally and adamantly against the sedevacantist movement. You said of the groups in general that they “don’t like the pope.” As a member of an SSPX Chapel, I must protest my love for His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. I am profoundly attached to his person and pray daily that he will live long and have courage against the enemies of the Catholic Church. If I didn’t feel this filial warmth, I would retain the duty to pray for him as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

The possible reasons you give for why we remain Catholic were four. I would like to share a small word about each:

1. We like the financial support.
   —The SSPX chapels are self-supporting.
2. We don’t know where else to go.
   —Although the implication is that we wish we had an option, that’s really the one. God help me, I would never ever lead my family or anyone away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
3. We have a vague attachment to it associated with our ethnicity or other kind of background.
   —Maybe some do. But it is my experience that my fellow parishioners here take their Catholic faith as seriously as anywhere I have been. A lot of us are converts anyway, like me.
4. We want to bring the Church down from within.
   —It is possible that they are misguided or imprudent. But #4 is not the motive. We don’t believe that the Church of whom Christ is Head can be brought down. Praise be to God, we would not want to do anything that would blemish the Bride of Christ in anyone’s eyes.

I know you were speaking generally and not specifically. But it seems unlikely that someone considering becoming Catholic would be able to distinguish. I would not be the one to introduce this subject to candidates for the Catholic Church or to those who are happy in their parishes. But when the subject does arise at the intitiative of others, it seems warranted that in the interest of truth, I am justified in denying that we dislike the pope, want diocesan money, or want to destroy the Church.

I know you meant well, GIR, in your comments. I agree with your assessment of the best course for an inquirer. Sharing your love of Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ, I hope you will accept my comments that aim at avoiding some possible misperceptions about the SSPX in the same spirit.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,

Rory

 

[Bbigam]

Ok, first I want to strongly advise you to stay away from SSPX, sedevacantists, or any other “traditionalist” catholic group. Make sure whatever church you attend is fully recognized and approved by the bishop of your diocese. The traditionalists, for lack of a better term, are rebels/schismatics/renegades who teach different things than the real Catholic Church. The largest of them, the SSPX, is in negotiation with Rome to try to reconcile the differences. The negotiations are not going well because their beliefs are not in line with what the Church teaches.

I agree with most of what you say here - however, I think you’ve painted “traditionalists” with too broad a stroke. SSPX, SSPV, Most Holy Family Monastery, etc. are “Traditionalist” groups that for various reasons don’t fully submit to the Magisterium and the Holy Father, and I do recommend avoiding them. But there are also true Traditionalist groups that celebrate the traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) and other traditional sacraments and yet are in full submission and fidelity to the Holy Father and Magisterium. Examples of these are the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with supporting these groups and others like them, which are traditional and faithful.

 

[CMatt25]

Partly why a lot of traditionalists on CAF seem to dislike Vat2… Mass was opened to the vernacular language.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Partly why a lot of traditionalists on CAF seem to dislike Vat2… Mass was opened to the vernacular language.

Hey Matt,

Good to see you again.

Except Vatican II specifically required the retention of Latin:

The use of the Latin language, with due repsect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

—Sacrosanctum Concilium #36, Dec. 4, 1964

I hate bilingual Masses…Spanish/English and other hybrids that become necessary because nobody shares a commont tongue anymore. If the Church had obeyed the Council, all Catholics would have enough familiarity with Latin that when there are bilingual communities, the Mass could be in a tongue all Latin rite Catholics know.

Oh well…my rant. The post-conciliar era of the Church is marked much more in my opinion, by disobedience to Vatican II restraints, then any so-called liberty to do that which Traditionalists deplore. As a whole, if the Church had been obedient to Vatican II on the single subject of seminary formation, we would have Traditional priests using more vernacular. There is nothing wrong with vernacular, but there is something wrong with disobedience to the Council in excising Latin so completely that we now have a generation of Catholics who know nothing of their Church’s native tongue.