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.
Traditional Catholics are normal Catholics. Not a “cult” inside the One True Church as some may suggest. Though sedevacantists are heretics and the SSPX are schismatics, apart from them, Traditional Catholics preserve the tradition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I lean more towards the Traditional side myself, and i can say that we preserve the beautiful tradition of the Church through the centuries. The faith as taught by the fathers, doctors and saints of the Church. These traditions shouldn’t be ignored. Such traditions can be from Augustine and Aquinas too.
 
About salvation outside of the Catholic Church, it would help you to hear what some of the Popes, Bishops and Saints over the centuries have to say about the matter, then you can decide yourself. These are just quotations from what the Church has said over the centuries. It is up to you to form your own opinion and perhaps opt for the newer interpretation of “No salvation outside of the Catholic Church” where God can save who He wants.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): “What is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church.”

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
 
There is only one Church. Vatican II did not change the faith–in fact, it could not (any interpretation that it did–or if i actually tried to–would be null). It did explain old truths in new was. Many “traditional” Catholic prefer the older formulations, which is fine, since the the doctrine of the faith must always be held according to “the same sense and the same meaning” (as Pope John said in his opening address to the Council).

Unfortunately, lots of actual doctrinal novelties proliferated after the Council (it’s why we got a universal Catechism a few decades later for the first time since the Reformation), and “traditional” Catholics definitely oppose these (as they should).

The biggest real change that directly sprung from it was the new rite for Mass. Unfortunately, in practice this new rite has become associated with a lot of irreverence, abuse, and general banality. Since the older rite was never abrogated, it is fine for Catholics to have their reasons for seeking out the more traditional rite, and this is what those who call themselves “traditional” Catholics tend to do.

Personally, I think we should all just use Catholic as our firstname and Christian as our surname and leave off any other qualifiers.
 
Last edited:
OP needs to understand that a lot of us do not “classify” ourselves in either camp. A Catholic Mass is a Catholic Mass. I attend all different kinds and I say all kinds of Catholic prayers from all eras. I accept the authority of the Pope but I like that we have the option of attending TLM just as I like that we have the option of Charismatic Masses and Personal Ordinariate Masses.

People whose main exposure to Catholicism is via the Internet will perceive a lot of division. In reality, most of us are just Catholic and everything else, like “what type of Mass do we like” is just a preference. We don’t go around saying “I’m a Vatican II Catholic” or “I’m a Traditional Catholic”. Only a few people who are extreme do that. Most of us just say, “I’m a Catholic”.
 
There is a Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) movement that has been around a long time and is approved by the Vatican. They have Masses and prayer services. “Speaking in tongues” sometimes happens at these services (such as before the Mass begins), but it is not a regular occurrence or a “feature” of the Mass. The Mass is a regular Mass with more exuberant music, preaching and gestures, calling upon the Holy Spirit, and sometimes having healing prayers after the Mass for those who wish to participate.
 
They technically aren’t in schism because they don’t have lay congregations. If they did have congregations, from what I understand, they would be in schism. Basically a technicality.
 
Yes. There’s a LOT of variation under the tent of “Catholic”. We haven’t even gotten into the Eastern rites (and I’m not qualified to discuss).
 
I’ve heard that too. There is so much debate over it that the “canonical status of the SSPX” has its own Wiki article. I think the bottom line is that some people will say schism and some will say technicality schism and some will say no schism. I find it easiest to just avoid SSPX and turn to the FSSP or other groups clearly in communion with Rome for my traditional worship needs.
 
deMontfort said:
Yes. There’s a LOT of variation under the tent of “Catholic”. We haven’t even gotten into the Eastern rites (and I’m not qualified to discuss).
Click to expand...
It makes me think what was the point of a “reformation” Between reading more Augustine, and the Thomist/Molinist theories, all that Protestantism is dealing with happens in the Catholic Church only with out disunity.

But even though Charmasticism is also approved by the Vatican, as a Catholic do you have to believe in that? I mean I don’t quite believe in speaking in tongues.
 
I’m dubious about the Charismatic movement and all it’s manifestations. That being said, you’ll never see me say anything negative about it as I’m ill inclined to put down something multiple Popes have endorsed.
 
“Charmasticism” is not a word, nor is it a school of “belief”.

The Charismatic Movement is simply a group of Catholics who choose to focus on calling the Holy Spirit to be active in their lives. It is not all about “speaking in tongues” and honestly almost nobody does that. The fact that you are so fixated on “speaking in tongues” shows that you really don’t understand it.

It is not a separate belief system. They believe all the same things regular Catholics do.

You are not obligated to ever attend a charismatic service any more than you are obligated to attend an EF TLM service. You can skip the entire thing. Just be respectful of the Catholics who do attend. And please, drop the fixation on “speaking in tongues”.
 
deMontfort said:
I’m dubious about the Charismatic movement and all it’s manifestations. That being said, you’ll never see me say anything negative about it as I’m ill inclined to put down something multiple Popes have endorsed.
Click to expand...
Did the Pope endorse ‘speaking in tongues’? Or did he just endorse the movement has being another way to bring people closer to Christ and the Church?

I am dubious about Charismatic movements too.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Charmasticism” is not a word, nor is it a school of “belief”.

The Charismatic Movement is simply a group of Catholics who choose to focus on calling the Holy Spirit to be active in their lives. It is not all about “speaking in tongues” and honestly almost nobody does that. The fact that you are so fixated on “speaking in tongues” shows that you really don’t understand it.

It is not a separate belief system. They believe all the same things regular Catholics do.

You are not obligated to ever attend a charismatic service any more than you are obligated to attend an EF TLM service. You can skip the entire thing. Just be respectful of the Catholics who do attend. And please, drop the fixation on “speaking in tongues”.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I am coming from a Protestant background and am new to Catholicism. I never even knew about a Charismatic movement until about a few minutes ago when you brought it up. So the only image that ever popped into my head was the Pentecostals and the speaking in tongues.

I meant no disrespect. I didn’t know that it was markedly different from the Protestant version.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Good grief :roll_eyes:

Please go read up on the subject. To be blunt, you just sound foolish.
Click to expand...
I will but why react harshly when I was just asking a few questions. I could understand you being upset after a page of questions without reading on it, but I only asked a few. I will read on it though so I will not be so “foolish”.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top