…What exactly are the ‘traditionalists’ saying?
Not all traditionalists say the exact same thing. This article,
Traditional Catholicism 101: A Brief Primer, does a pretty good job of “laying it all out” - here’s an excerpt:…It is a matter of debate among traditional Catholics as to whether any (of the documents of VII) teach – or even
can teach – outright error. Some traditionalists work very hard to read them as perfectly Catholic, seeing the ambiguities as simply that: ambiguities which must be read in the light of Tradition. Others believe that positive error is contained in them. All agree, though, that no solemn definitions that a Catholic must accept de fide (as an article of the Faith) were promulgated. That this is true is supported by papal statements regarding the Council’s intent (such as the opening address linked to above) and in the fact that none of the documents are marked by the language used in infallible definitions.
No matter the case as to the exact nature of the documents in themselves and how they may have been intended to have been read, it is a fact that the ambiguities have been exploited in a revolutionary way. This revolutionary attitude – called “the spirit of Vatican II” by conservatives and traditionalists – has swept through the human element of the Church, leaving destruction and confusion in its wake. How often are Catholics told that “since Vatican II, the Church no longer teaches/practices/believes” various aspects of Catholic doctrine?
Most traditional minded folks I know are in the camp trying to read the ambeguities of the documents of VII in light of Tradition, no matter how difficult this often can be. This is consistant with the stand, I believe, of most conservative catholics - though they would tend to say it’s not as difficult as the traditionalist folks.
The confusion and disagreement arises on just how to interpret the ambeguities in light of Tradition, what is “official and what is not official”, and just how high up and widespread is the confusion and/or dissent from official and explicit teachings throughout the ages.
…Are they saying that Vatican II was not a valid Council and that all the Popes since and the entire Magisterium since have not been valid either?
Some say it did not invoke infallibility since it did define or condemn anything - it produced longer essays rather than expoicit canons and definitions, etc. It was intended as pastoral in nature, and the essay format of its documents along with this make the Council a bit unique in the history of the Church to say the least.
Some say that it was infallible in that no formal error was defined or bound for the faithful, but that the ambeguities could easily be taken in the wrong way, and thus are problematic by their very nature. As such, great care must be taken that the ambeguities are read and understood in light of all that went before, rather than all that went before being read in the light of a new contradictory understanding.
…Doesn’t this in itself negate the very concept that the Church is and always will be led infallibly by the Holy Spirit?
Well, anyone looking at these questions must be careful not to fall into this trap - many a Sedevacantist went this route. If one thinks that formal error has been bound, then yes - the whole house of cards come tumbling…that’s why it’s crucial that the ambeguities are read in light of tradition…hence the ongoing debates.
…If we don’t believe at all in the development of doctrine and our continued understanding of revealed truth, then the whole idea of the Church as we have always known it has been a sham from the beginning.
True - but that development can never arrive at a place where it
contradicts the understanding handed on to us by Christ and the aposles. Again, this is understood by conservative catholics and traditional catholics alike. For example, see the Catholic Answers tract: *
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth:*His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).
Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers - the pope and the bishops united with him - have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12-13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
the problem is, as traditional folks see it, many well meaning catholics have taken contradictory interpretations of the ambeguities in VII documents and are simply saying they don’t contradict - while the traditional folks say wait just a minute…look at this, and this, and this - and that doesn’t contradict??? It is in looking at the past more closely - those old encyclicals and Council documents and such, that bring many folks to say…“Hmmmmm…those crazy traditionalists might just be on to something.”
That’s it in a nutshell - got to run.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
