Questions about traditional Catholicism

[mathematoons]

I’ve been reading about traditional Catholicism at fisheaters.com, and while the doctrine and morals make a lot of sense to me, I’m having trouble with the Latin Mass and the ideas about the Vatican. It doesn’t make sense that Catholics should go to a Mass in a language they don’t know, or that the Vatican somehow made a mistake with Vatican II.

First, I thought the Vatican was guided by the Holy Spirit, which is why we still have the time-honored teachings on things like contraception. Also, my priest says the Catechism is the Vatican II teaching, that moral relativists who claim to be “in the spirit of Vatican II” are wrong, and that Vatican II fixed a lot of problems. Was he wrong?

Second, is the Latin Mass the sole definition of a traditional Catholic? Is someone like me, who agrees with the teachings on doctrine and morals but not the teachings on liturgy and the Vatican, a traditional Catholic? Conversely, what about someone who goes to the Latin Mass but accepts post-Vatican-II teaching?

 

[Nowhere_Man]

First of all, while Fish Eaters is a great resource, a lot of the information is critical of the Magisterium and their decisions during Vatican II, which isn’t how most traditional Catholics think.
Second, there weren’t any changes in doctrine or dogma after Vatican II (that I’ve ever read) and in all cases Catholics are to hold to the doctrinal and dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[Immaculata90]

It doesn’t make sense that Catholics should go to a Mass in a language they don’t know

And yet, it can make so much sense.

When the priest celebrates the Mass in Latin, he is offering the sacrifice to the Lord (not to the people) Because we don’t understand or hear every single word the priest says, it allows those at the Mass to truly have silence and unite their prayers with those of the priest. It also allows for the true mysterium fidei to shine through. Even in English, there is so much that we don’t understand about what is taking place at the Mass–using Latin in the Mass allows for a greater openness to this great mystery. There is such an emphasis on “understanding” literally everything that is said, but it seems to me that sometimes our souls can comprehend some much more in prayer than our minds ever could in English. We don’t always have to have all the answers and everything solved.

Another beautiful thing about Latin is the aspect of unity it provides. Many times, people want to scream about unity and holding hands, etc. but that is not true unity. Unity is being united to someone from Latin America, Africa, or anywhere else around the world who is celebrating that exact same Mass using the exact same words. It also give us unity throughout time, with all of those who celebrated or attended the Latin Mass. It gives Catholics a true sense of connectedness within the Eucharist–we are connected in the prayers, and the priests are connected in their movements, prayers, down to the way they vest themselves for Mass. It is a much more full and robust unity in the Latin Mass.

Although it does take a little work, after attending Mass a few times in Latin and doing a little studying (and really, I literally mean minimal effort here) people who attend the Mass in Latin begin to understand a lot of the Latin words.

Vatican II was not necessarily a bad thing. People desired to love the Lord and understand the Mass more fully in a more literal sense. The problem occurred when people (both clergy and laypeople) took the beautiful documents and misinterpreted them so that they fit a more relativistic view of Holy Mother Church. They made the Church adapt to the changing world, not the changing world adapt to the Church (the latter being the desire of Vatican II).

 

[JM3]

I’ve been reading about traditional Catholicism at fisheaters.com, and while the doctrine and morals make a lot of sense to me, I’m having trouble with the Latin Mass and the ideas about the Vatican. It doesn’t make sense that Catholics should go to a Mass in a language they don’t know, or that the Vatican somehow made a mistake with Vatican II.

Don’t judge a website by the people who post there. Read the statement of faith for the site.

fisheaters.com/contact.html#faith

First, I thought the Vatican was guided by the Holy Spirit, which is why we still have the time-honored teachings on things like contraception. Also, my priest says the Catechism is the Vatican II teaching, that moral relativists who claim to be “in the spirit of Vatican II” are wrong, and that Vatican II fixed a lot of problems. Was he wrong?

He is not wrong. Some feel that they have the authority to interpret Church documents instead of listening to the Church.

Second, is the Latin Mass the sole definition of a traditional Catholic? Is someone like me, who agrees with the teachings on doctrine and morals but not the teachings on liturgy and the Vatican, a traditional Catholic? Conversely, what about someone who goes to the Latin Mass but accepts post-Vatican-II teaching?

A traditional Catholic is someone who is baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church and believes, in mind, heart and action, everything that the Church teaches.

 

[Irish_Pride]

That’s what I like about the traditional mass .I love it .I am still learning latin though.That’s what makes us differant and I like being different.

 

[guanophore]

Second, is the Latin Mass the sole definition of a traditional Catholic?

No. there are 22 non-Latin Catholic Rites in communion with the successor of Peter in Rome. These Eastern Catholic Rites contain Traditional Catholics that have liturgy in Slavic languages and Greek as well as others. The Syriac Liturgy is older than the Latin Mass, and is used in the East.

 

[choliks]

No. there are 22 non-Latin Catholic Rites in communion with the successor of Peter in Rome. These Eastern Catholic Rites contain Traditional Catholics that have liturgy in Slavic languages and Greek as well as others. The Syriac Liturgy is older than the Latin Mass, and is used in the East.

A very good point.