You assume that the Traditionalist movement you mention is the same as the “traditionalist movement” associated with certain posters here.
lol, I don’t see many “vacant chair” trads posting here, so what you say is amusing.
The only thing that separates trads today is that some are working within the Church to improve things(which I believe is the smarter and most effective way) and some are refusing to tolerate… “the tolerance” of scandal and error, and speak their minds as encouraged by Saints, some of which are previous popes. There is much more both groups share in common than separates them.
When, in the history of the Church, have the former group been allowed to speak their mind in talks with the Holy See as they now are being allowed to do so ? Sorry, but those “certain posters” are not out of line in a strict sense. Not when history and great Saints encourage them to speak out against shocking occurrences such as the stunt at Assisi. Seems being a traditionalist may have it’s merits and has for a very long time.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - St. Athanasius, AD 373
“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.” -St. Vincent of Lerins († 445)
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are
traditionalists.”
- Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique
All the Councils addressed heresy and errors, but VII has been called “pastoral”. This quote cited shows that there were some at the council who share the concerns of traditionalists. Kinda floored me when I read it…
“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers?
All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
Well, now, we have a new, and more precise translation coming don’t we ? Pro Multis means “for many”, not “for all”. Seems a lot of Catholics have been misled for many years by those who dared change the meaning of the words of Our Savior Himself !
Kyrie Eleison indeed. At least they didn’t mess that one up
Hmm, I suppose those “certain posters” as you say have some fairly solid ground to stand on when rejecting the “spirit of VII”, and choose not to support the tolerance of sacrilege and the abomination at Assisi ?
“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.” -St. Robert Bellarmine
Considering the SSPX Bishops have had their excommunications lifted, and Rome is willing to hear their concerns, certainly that would indicate all is not well with the liberties taken with the VII documents. Just as the Gates of Hell will never prevail, neither will the opinions of the lukewarm and those ignorant of Tradition. I must digress though. The lukewarm and ignorant whose faith has been formed post-VII are not to blame. They only know what they were taught.
It’s a jungle out there in Rome, you know.