"Traditional Catholic"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
O.K. this is more a series of questions. I was reading on a previous thread that Mel Gibson did not accept the Vatican 2 coucil and was a “Traditional Catholic”. What do they mean by “Traditional Catholic”?
I thought that one had to accept all the Churches teachings to be “Catholic” so how could He not accept the VC2 and be called a (anything) Catholic? Or was there something the council did that was deviable?
What did the Second Vatican Council do that would cause people like Mr. Mel Gibson (wait is he really a “Traditional Catholic” or is that something anti-gibsion/“Passion of the Christ” are saying) to deviate?
Thanks.
 
**Traditional Roman Catholicism, or Tradition, which we can say is, essentially, all of Catholic dogma. Dogmas, simply, are revealed truths contained in the inspired Word of God, the Bible, that all Catholics are bound to believe, and live. The Church is living, and the Word of God is living; although His Word is unchanging, the Church for two millennia, through specific Councils and the Popes, have defined and documented these truths more and more.

Such revealed truths cannot be contradictory; they simply build on what has been written before, and most likely the Church will continue to do this until the end of time.
To prevent Her from erring on matters of so great importance, which concern the very salvation of souls, She was given the Holy Ghost as Counselor to guide Her, by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Since dogmatic writings are oriented for theological scholars and can therefore be complex, they are stated more simply in catechetical books so that even laymen lacking religious training can grasp the concepts**.

Sara
 
Montie Claunch:
O.K. this is more a series of questions. I was reading on a previous thread that Mel Gibson did not accept the Vatican 2 coucil and was a “Traditional Catholic”. What do they mean by “Traditional Catholic”?
I thought that one had to accept all the Churches teachings to be “Catholic” so how could He not accept the VC2 and be called a (anything) Catholic? Or was there something the council did that was deviable?
What did the Second Vatican Council do that would cause people like Mr. Mel Gibson (wait is he really a “Traditional Catholic” or is that something anti-gibsion/“Passion of the Christ” are saying) to deviate?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I think it might be more accurate to call Mel Gibson a “radical traditionalist”. These are people who reject the Vatican II council. The schismatic group “St. Pius X Society” are an example of this. The problem is, they reject Church teaching just as liberal/heterodox Catholics do, only from the opposite side of the spectrum.

There were many abuses that arose from Vatican II. Many dissenters discovered a so-called “spirit of Vatican II”, which led to many of the abuses that we fight now, and a general Protestantizing of Catholicism. (It’s a bit like the Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the “emanations from the penumbra” of the Constitution, thereby justifying Roe v. Wade.) Now, the traditionalists are right to deplore the abuses. But it’s simply overly simplistic to say they were caused by Vatican II. They were caused by the abuse of Vatican II, not Vatican II itself. Some of the language of Vatican II was vague, and therefore open to such abuse. That doesn’t mean that the Council should be rejected—read the documents of Vatican II for yourself, and you won’t see the heterodoxy that the “rad trads” hate or the heterodox liberals love.
 
But Mel does accept the authority of the Pope and his teaching. :cool:
 
Mel does. I’m sorry I had heard he didn’t. I am really sorry about that. I retract that statement on Mel. I was given Bad information. I am sorry.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
IThere were many abuses that arose from Vatican II. Many dissenters discovered a so-called “spirit of Vatican II”, which led to many of the abuses that we fight now, and a general Protestantizing of Catholicism.heterodoxy that the “rad trads” hate or the heterodox liberals love.
Click to expand...
AMEN ! Whenever someone mentions the “Spirit of Vatican II” you know twothings-they have never read the documents that came ut of vatican II and they are proposing some radical change in the Church.
 
Montie Claunch:
O.K. this is more a series of questions. I was reading on a previous thread that Mel Gibson did not accept the Vatican 2 coucil and was a “Traditional Catholic”. What do they mean by “Traditional Catholic”?
I thought that one had to accept all the Churches teachings to be “Catholic” so how could He not accept the VC2 and be called a (anything) Catholic? Or was there something the council did that was deviable?
What did the Second Vatican Council do that would cause people like Mr. Mel Gibson (wait is he really a “Traditional Catholic” or is that something anti-gibsion/“Passion of the Christ” are saying) to deviate?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
First, if Mel rejects Vatican II, he does not accept the authority of the Pope and is not an orthodox (much less traditional) Catholic but a dissident. I don’t know where Mel is as the media coverage seems to be on both sides and the confusion could be the fault of the media and not Mel’s orthodoxy.

Second, I do think that one could be both orthodox and accepting fully the teachings of the Church and be called “traditional” or “contemporary.” I belong to a very orthodox parish with a very orthodox Priest who is always aspiring to follow the letter and the spirit of directives from our Bishop and Pope (while I know of none, I can’t guarantee that something inadvertently and with ignorance is slightly out of conformance to the GIRM). However, we have our early Sunday Mass that I would characterize as traditional (nearly always male altar servers, chants, Latin responses mixed in ie kyrie elyieson (sp?), traditional music usually with only an organ and single song leader, etc.) and our latest Mass is what I’d call contemporary (male and female servers, folk music (of course theologically correct) or something more modern, no chants etc.

While totally in conformance with the GIRM etc, the flavor of the Masses are different. Personally, I like the diversity of the liturgies as they fulfill one fo the objectives of Vatican II- emphasize the the laity is a critical player in God’s Plan including participation in teh Mass, whether it be the form of worship conducive to older parishioners or to the young. Myself, as I’ve aged, I’m moving to be more traditional (attending the middle Mass on Sunday 🙂 ) but I am grateful for the “flavor” I enjoyed when I was younger and the “flavor” I’ll probably enjoy in my later years.
 
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
 
40.png
misterX:
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it’s pretty cleart that the next generation of Catholics are already showing themselves to be extrememly commited to orthodoxy.
 
40.png
misterX:
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I live in tye-dye! I don’t even think I know how to spell it. I think you’re a little off. Let’s look at some “V.C. 2 ers” who are liberal hippies. Let’s see, there’s Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, St. Jose Maria Escriva, Fr. Groeschel, Fr. Fessio, Mother Angelica, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, they’re a bunch of hippies alright! :rolleyes:
 
Montie Claunch:
O.K. this is more a series of questions. I was reading on a previous thread that Mel Gibson did not accept the Vatican 2 coucil and was a “Traditional Catholic”. What do they mean by “Traditional Catholic”?
I thought that one had to accept all the Churches teachings to be “Catholic” so how could He not accept the VC2 and be called a (anything) Catholic? Or was there something the council did that was deviable?
What did the Second Vatican Council do that would cause people like Mr. Mel Gibson (wait is he really a “Traditional Catholic” or is that something anti-gibsion/“Passion of the Christ” are saying) to deviate?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
A Traditional Catholic (although I think it a slight misnomer since I consider myself a Traditional Catholic in that I follow the Tradition of the the Catholic Church) is usually considered one who has an attachment to the Traditional Latin Mass. A Radical-Traditionalist (I would use my shorter favorite but it seems this is not allowed anymore) is something all together different.
 
40.png
misterX:
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
Click to expand...
Wow. What an un-Christian characterization of our Popes (remember our last two Popes were critical leaders during Vatican II) and a huge predominant percentage all Catholics today. Being a Vatican 2er doesn’t mean you support the things you describe above but means you follow the teachings of the Church primarily described in the Catechism but also the encyclicals from the Pope.
 
40.png
misterX:
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
Click to expand...
This was the way I saw the Church growing up. Vatican II gave birth to many misinterpretations of doctrine by both laity and the clergy, and in effect gave rise to very liberal uses of the GIRM here in the US. Given that the 60’s were a time in America where the “hippy” movement was in full swing, Americans in general gave in to that free-wheeling lifestyle, and it permeated in all areas of life, including Catholic spirituality.

I glad that with time, study, and reflection, it does appear that orthodoxy is making a come-back, and I’m eagar to see the Body of Christ move towards a more closer adherence to the Magisterium. 👍
 
Frank Roman:
But Mel does accept the authority of the Pope and his teaching. :cool:
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe that Jeff Cavins met with Mel before the release of his movie. Afterwards, when asked about Mel’s beliefs, he indicated that Mel was NOT in communion with Rome. Whether this is because he doesn’t accept the teachings of Vatican II, I don’t know. Regardless, his film was great.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
First, if Mel rejects Vatican II, he does not accept the authority of the Pope and is not an orthodox (much less traditional) Catholic but a dissident. I don’t know where Mel is as the media coverage seems to be on both sides and the confusion could be the fault of the media and not Mel’s orthodoxy.

Second, I do think that one could be both orthodox and accepting fully the teachings of the Church and be called “traditional” or “contemporary.” I belong to a very orthodox parish with a very orthodox Priest who is always aspiring to follow the letter and the spirit of directives from our Bishop and Pope (while I know of none, I can’t guarantee that something inadvertently and with ignorance is slightly out of conformance to the GIRM). However, we have our early Sunday Mass that I would characterize as traditional (nearly always male altar servers, chants, Latin responses mixed in ie kyrie elyieson (sp?), traditional music usually with only an organ and single song leader, etc.) and our latest Mass is what I’d call contemporary (male and female servers, folk music (of course theologically correct) or something more modern, no chants etc.

While totally in conformance with the GIRM etc, the flavor of the Masses are different. Personally, I like the diversity of the liturgies as they fulfill one fo the objectives of Vatican II- emphasize the the laity is a critical player in God’s Plan including participation in teh Mass, whether it be the form of worship conducive to older parishioners or to the young. Myself, as I’ve aged, I’m moving to be more traditional (attending the middle Mass on Sunday 🙂 ) but I am grateful for the “flavor” I enjoyed when I was younger and the “flavor” I’ll probably enjoy in my later years.
Click to expand...
Well put. I would classify myself as a “traditionalist” in my tastes (chant, Latin, etc) but I have no problem with a more contemporary approach if that’s what people prefer—as long as it is orthodox and in accordance with the rubrics, and as long as it is reverent. Not everyone shares my utter dislike of Marty Haugen and David Haas, I will admit…
 
Anyone who thinks there were changes should read this:

QUOTE

Many people use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”

UNQUOTE
 
Montie Claunch:
What does “GIRM” stand for?
Click to expand...
General Instruction on the Roman Missal, I think. It’s basically is where the lrubrics for the liturgy are set down.

Faithful Catholics view the present through the eyes of the past, through the eyes of Tradition–the constant teaching of the Church. Viewing Vatican II in this light leads to no problems. However, when people toss out 1,960 years of Tradition and treat Vatican II as some sort of super-dogma, all sorts of heterodixies ensue. :banghead:

The fact of the matter is, unlike many other councils, Vatican II never exercised the extraordinary magesterium because it never made any solemn definitions. The infallibility that comes through the extraordinary magesterium usually only applies to a couple lines of a council document or ex cathedra papal statement.

The rest of the council is considered part of the universal magesterium when it simply repeats the constant teaching of the Church. This constant teaching, called the universal magesterium, is also infallible. Therefore, it is possible for a council document to contain error, but it will never solemnly define error as a dogma.

That being said, everything in Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition.
 
40.png
misterX:
The way i see it you have two sorts of catholics. you have the pre V.C 2 er’s. who prefer more focus on the Lord who seek him in prayer and worship in a more respective and meaningfull manner. then you have the V.C 2 er’s. who are more liberal/ hippish. They prefer that we don’t say or do anyting that might be seen as political incorrect. You know they think that women should be allowed to be priest or that homosexuality isn’t a sin. or that muslims and jews are going to heaven even though they reject Jesus. because if i remember correctly Jesus said “noone enters heaven except through me” (or something very close) But thats another topic. Well i guess the simple explaination is that pre V.C 2 er’s lean more towards a more traditional …um… lets say st. peter form of catholisim. while V.C2 er’s lean towards a more hippy “protestant” style of worship.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t even alive until after Vatican II, and I’m by no means a hippie nor am I a liberal. My priest is very orthodox, follows the GIRM to the T and is spot-on when it comes to following the doctrine and dogmas of the Catholic Church. Please don’t make these sweeping generalizations. Your ‘simple explanation’ is incorrect.

Peace,
MW
 
I think some of this comes from the fact that he built his own chappel where he has Mass celebrated in the 1962 Missal. But has an indult I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top