Can someone explain to me the differences between traditional and Vatican II Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AugustineFanNYC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It may be the tap dance answer given, but the reality is, the title itself, “Traditional Catholicism,” isn’t about the traditions of the Catholic Church.

Jim
 
Or how about EWTN and Mother Angelica. Love Dr. David Anders. I download his podcast (called to communion) from the EWTN website. He’s amazing.
 
I consider myself both. Heeding the writings of an infallible council is part of what constitutes being a traditional Catholic. I accept the documents and changes that the Church actually made, and not the modernist modifications that liberal bishops priests and laypeople spearheaded.
 
I guess coming from a protestant background, the changes that have come about as a result of Vatican II do not bother me per se. At least for now until I dive deeper into the faith, perhaps that will change too. The only thing that worries me at all is some of the ecumenical stuff with the non-Christian religions. I am guessing that is the liberalism and modernism that the traditionalists are talking about, no?
I don’t blame them because some of it is so ambiguous as to tread the line into unitarianism. I am looking for the one true faith after all.
 
Last edited:
snooop1e said:
Or how about EWTN and Mother Angelica. Love Dr. David Anders. I download his podcast (called to communion) from the EWTN website. He’s amazing.
Click to expand...
Is Dave Anders a traditionalist? He is amazing.

I love ETWN.
 
“Apart from Christ, our good works are filthy rags.” I think Catholics should not forget that this statement does not negate good works, but rather those good works must be connected to Christ. That is, works depend on faith. Yet for Catholics the reverse is also true: faith depends on works. The two–faith and works–are inextricably interwoven and cannot or should not be separated. Otherwise, Catholicism would be, similar to some forms of Protestantism, a sole fide religion, which it is not. There is biblical evidence for BOTH faith and works in the Gospels, and not separated from one another.
 
Last edited:
He’s a Catholic as opposed to a catholic. In other words he doesn’t cherry pick which teachings he accepts/adheres to according to his personal feelings. Essentially the teachings in the Catechism. Many people today call themselves “Catholic” but reject many of the churches teachings.
 
There is the Church before and after Vatican II.

Compare liturgies, liturgical calendars and prayers from each side; read books and biographies related to saints; learn the Creed and the Infallible Magisterium.

Eventually, you will realize the differences and even pick one side in the process
 
However, there is disagreement on what this means. Some Catholics interpret it to mean that only Catholics may be saved. Some Catholics interpret it to mean that non-Catholics may be saved, but if they are, it is only through the Catholic Church. (In other words, they’re saved by Christ through the Catholic Church even if they don’t know it.)
Click to expand...
No, the former position is NOT the Catholic position, and was denounced even before Vatican II.

That non-Catholics can be saved is clear from the fact that the Catholic Church teaches valid non-Catholic Baptisms. In addition, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that God gives the sufficient grace for EVERY person to be saved. Not all persons in history have had the practical chance to be Catholic, and yet all have had a sufficient offer of grace. Therefore, per official Catholic teaching, it’s not only Catholics who are saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top