Is Traditionalism Protestant in nature?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mathematoons

New member
First, let me start by saying that I love the Catholic faith and tradition in general. I find the Latin Mass to be very beautiful, and I am as appalled by modernism as many of you, possibly more so. I find some of what goes on with our current Pope to be difficult to deal with (let’s not derail the thread with that, this is discussed in plenty of other threads). I have to admit that traditionalism has its appeal.

However, I have some reservations about the whole thing. It seems that traditionalists are saying that the Church has been teaching error since Vatican II. Just the idea that the Church can teach error seems very Protestant; like the early Protestants and modern liberals, they claim that faithful Catholics are free to resist the Pope if he says something contrary to their private interpretation of what the faith has always taught. Preferring the Latin Mass is one thing, but saying that the Church is wrong about something (anything) seems to go too far into Protestant territory. It seems like the same error: going by private judgment rather than relying on guidance from the Church.

Am I misunderstanding something? I hope so, because I do admire the faith of many traditionalists. Indeed, I have more in common with them than most Catholics in my own parish. But if I understand correctly, then there is no way I could be part of anything that breaks from the Church, even if only in attitude.

Thanks.
 
Technically, there is no “them”. So I’m not sure why this is a concern at all. Or, are you just ‘thinking out loud’?
 
If they are schismatic/sedevacantist willfully, yes.

If not, no.
 
“Traditionalism” isn’t a monolithic, cohesive group. Yes, some modes of traditionalism are difficult to reconcile, if not entirely irreconcilable, with the traditional understanding of the indefectibility of the Church (e.g. sedevacantism). Other modes aren’t. Chances are if you’re going to a diocesan approved Extraordinary Form Mass or one being celebrated by a religious institute that is in regular communion with the Church you won’t have any problems.
 
Last edited:
Comparisons such as this one do help me understand why the Traditional movement is so closed and why the traditionalists are so reserved at times.
 
Last edited:
  1. Traditionalists aren’t all sedevacantists.
  2. I myself am very traditionalist in some ways, and modernist in other ways. As someone else said, “traditionalists” aren’t one monolith who agree on everything.
  3. If “saying that the Church is wrong about something (anything)” equates to being Protestant, then probably 80 to 90 percent of the Catholics out there are Protestants by your standards, as plenty of modernists also think the Church is wrong about at least one thing. Being Protestant usually requires something beyond just one person disagreeing, for instance you declare yourself independent from the Pope, reject some dogma and go found your own church.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the Church does not and never has teach something that is erroneous? I’m not talking about magisterialy or in an infallible way, but just perhaps the opinion of a Pope, any pope. Or a council? Or a group of Bishops? Is the Church historically and currently free from any error in its teachings? All of them?
 
It kinda is… many of the points in thread reinforce that, but it too complicated to make a broad judgement on the entire so-called traditionalist population
 
For years, I would have categorically said “no.” My view has changed due to experiences I’ve had with the SSPX.

The SSPX and those who accept their views are essentially Protestants. They’ve set themselves up as judges concerning what is Catholic. This has led them to reject an Ecumenical Council and reject - in practice - all of the post-conciliar papal teachings. They’re literally protesting against all of the Popes who came after Pius XII.

The traditionalists who accept the last Council and the post-conciliar teachings are Catholics who prefer the Old Mass. They’re not Protestants at all.
 
Saxum said:
The SSPX and those who accept their views are essentially Protestants.
Click to expand...
I won’t loose my time and the rest of patience I have defending the SSPX against the accusations you’re making here, I’ll just ask you this:

Do you know what respect means?
With these words you’re simply accusing bishops, priests, seminarians, sisters, members of the third order and the rest of the faithfull, including me, of not being real Catholics. This is highly disrespectful towards hundreds, if not thousands of good and honest men and women, all God fearing Catholics.
It’s highly uncharitable too.
 
It’s highly uncharitable to teach and preach that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is harmful to the Faith and ought to be avoided. It’s highly uncharitable to reject an Ecumenical Council that was called by a Sainted Pope and confirmed by two more Sainted Pontiffs.

The clergy of the SSPX are suspended a divinis from the moment of their ordination. Despite the very kind extension of faculties by Pope Francis, the SSPX operates without a canonical structure.

To summarise:

The SSPX reject an Ecumenical Council
The SSPX reject the reforms of an Ecumenical Council
Therefore:
The SSPX reject papal authority
Hence they are de facto Protestants
 
Thanks, this is what I thought. It seems to also be true of traditionalists who haven’t joined groups like the SSPX but still reject Vatican II, e.g. the author of the Fish Eaters website. All the angry replies here tell me that the others are defensive and know that my question is a valid one.
 
Does anyone else see the irony in people calling the SSPX Protestants when they themselves would be hugely offended by the same SSPX calling them Protestant? And to be more precise:
Saxum said:
The SSPX reject an Ecumenical Council
The SSPX reject the reforms of an Ecumenical Council
Click to expand...
The SSPX argue that Vatican II was not ecumenical, but pastoral, and therefore the changes that came with Vatican II are not required to be implemented. This is not the same rejecting the council outright.
Saxum said:
The SSPX reject papal authority
Click to expand...
Bishop Fellay, if I’m not mistaken, signed the Dubia, and in it acknowledged Pope Francis as Pope and head of the Church. They argue that the Popes in recent times have overstepped their bounds in trying to force something which non-binding (since they believe Vatican II is pastoral, not ecumenical) as required.
mathematoons said:
All the angry replies here tell me that the others are defensive and know that my question is a valid one.
Click to expand...
You’ve hardly gotten angry replies. You got a reply from one person who got mad that they were called a de-facto Protestant, as you would be if that same person called you a de-facto Protestant. People get angry because the SSPX is so often mis-represented on this forum (like saying they are sedevacantist). You can disagree with them, I do as well. But slapping all traditionalists with that label as you do in your OP is rude. Especially when those people have issues with the OF and Pope Francis and yet go to the TLM within diocesan norms out of obedience to him and his bishops.

I know only one person who goes to the SSPX, yet that person also attends the OF and is on friendly speaking terms with the diocesan priest who celebrates it. Traditionalism, and even the SSPX, is a spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
The SSPX and those who accept their views are essentially Protestants.
Click to expand...
That is not so. SSPX is Catholic! The issue with SSPX is not that they are teaching heresy, it’s one of obedience. So therefore they are not Protestant. Nor is SSPX sedevacantist as they recognize Pope Francis as the current supreme pontiff (sedevacantists reject all Popes after Pius XII).

SSPX has very legitimate criticisms of what happened at the Second Vatican Council. It’s just SSPX is the most vocal about those criticisms. There are many traditionalist Catholics who are critical of what happened at Vatican II, but they are much more muted about it.

I attend a parish run by ICKSP, and the ICKSP priests are very traditional (ardent defenders of the Tridentine Mass and Catholic doctrine), but they are obedient to the Holy See. My priest talked to me about SSPX and said many people are quite ignorant about them and their actual canonical status within the Church.
 
Last edited:
mathematoons said:
It seems that traditionalists are saying that the Church has been teaching error since Vatican II. Just the idea that the Church can teach error seems very Protestant
Click to expand...
No because the error is essentially Protestant changes to Church (e.g. mass in English written by six Protestant ministers, priest facing crowd, churches bulldozed and changed to resemble Protestant Church buildings, lay people involved in the service, etc etc)
 
OK, before this goes off the rails as another SSPX thread that will likely get locked, back to the topic.

Yes there are certainly what you might be considering “Traditionalists”. Lutheranism is the one I’m most familiar with. A few in my extended family are very religiously conservative, one is even a Pastor. We’re talking about churches in which women can’t occupy a position that puts them in charge of or teaching their faith. The difference is the churches just split or even recombine.

There’s nothing like a Pope to keep them together. Only one in this country even has Bishops. Even then, when they leave their post, they revert back to a regular pastor. The difference here is that they never are re-consecrated and remain consecrated to word and sacrament just as a Catholic priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top