Traditional Catholics in Communion with Pope

[dominikus28]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II? By changes, I don’t mean unchangeable dogma and doctrine and teachings, but things like the new mass, etc.
For example, I believe in the validity of the new mass, but I believe that Vatican II would have changed the Catholic faith into a protestant one, was it not for the protection of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the new mass is valid, but it is bad because things are more relaxed and people slowly fall away from the faith. There is less emphasis on rosary and prayer, etc. and that is why we have so many pro-choice ‘Catholics’ instead of all Catholic being united by common beliefs (pro-life, faithful to Church teachings).
I believe that Vatican II changed all that it could for the worse, and what remains (validity) is only thanks to the Holy Spirit. Are there any groups that believe this?
I am a traditional man myself, and I think that the best thing to do would be to make things stricter not relax them - tell it like it is, if you commit mortal sin, you go to hell, simple as that (most of the time). Relaxing rules just makes people fall away from the faith. I say, it is better to be too strict than to relaxed.
Thanks :knight2:

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

One small point: don’t call abortion ‘choice.’

Whatever else there may be, there is a concerted war of words and meaning that is being waged by the enemy, and when we use the enemy’s language, we concede the battle.

 

[James224]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II? By changes, I don’t mean unchangeable dogma and doctrine and teachings, but things like the new mass, etc.
For example, I believe in the validity of the new mass, but I believe that Vatican II would have changed the Catholic faith into a protestant one, was it not for the protection of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the new mass is valid, but it is bad because things are more relaxed and people slowly fall away from the faith. There is less emphasis on rosary and prayer, etc. and that is why we have so many pro-choice ‘Catholics’ instead of all Catholic being united by common beliefs (pro-life, faithful to Church teachings).
I believe that Vatican II changed all that it could for the worse, and what remains (validity) is only thanks to the Holy Spirit. Are there any groups that believe this?
I am a traditional man myself, and I think that the best thing to do would be to make things stricter not relax them - tell it like it is, if you commit mortal sin, you go to hell, simple as that (most of the time). Relaxing rules just makes people fall away from the faith. I say, it is better to be too strict than to relaxed.
Thanks :knight2:

I agree with you on some things. I attend the Ordinary Rite and the Extraordinary Rite. The Cathechism says in Paragraph 1203, “…the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity…” I have attended the Extraordinary Rite for 17 years about half the time. The Extraordinary Rite is my preference, however, as shown above, we cannot put down the other rites. There are many who say they love the Ordinary Rite and get much out of it and I am included in that group but I also get much out of the Extraordinary Rite. I started out that way in 1963 when I became an altar boy. I do wish the Church would be more strict. I also wish the teaching of the laity would get better. I leave that to the wisdom of the Church. I guess some of the reason why I like the more traditional approach to the Faith has to do with my personality. I naturally gravitate to tradition. All the books I read and my prayers and hymns I like are very traditional. This doesn’t mean I’m right and verybody else is wrong. I taught Catechism several years and think the catechisms need to be improved. I used the Baltimore Catechism as a supplement. By the way, I’m going to be an altar boy at the Latin Mass again after, at least, 45 years! I could go on but I will leave it at that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II? By changes, I don’t mean unchangeable dogma and doctrine and teachings, but things like the new mass, etc.
For example, I believe in the validity of the new mass, but I believe that Vatican II would have changed the Catholic faith into a protestant one, was it not for the protection of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the new mass is valid, but it is bad because things are more relaxed and people slowly fall away from the faith. There is less emphasis on rosary and prayer, etc. and that is why we have so many pro-choice ‘Catholics’ instead of all Catholic being united by common beliefs (pro-life, faithful to Church teachings).
I believe that Vatican II changed all that it could for the worse, and what remains (validity) is only thanks to the Holy Spirit. Are there any groups that believe this?
I am a traditional man myself, and I think that the best thing to do would be to make things stricter not relax them - tell it like it is, if you commit mortal sin, you go to hell, simple as that (most of the time). Relaxing rules just makes people fall away from the faith. I say, it is better to be too strict than to relaxed.
Thanks :knight2:

If you accept everything about the Church, then you should accept the Pauline Mass as much as the Tridentine Mass. Because the Church herself has said that both forms are different expressions of the same Mass.

From Sommorum Pontificum:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

So if you accept everything the Church teaches, you cannot reject the Pauline Mass because the Church teaches that the Pauline Mass and Tridentine Mass are two expressions of the same Mass.

 

[Daughter_of_Eve]

The title of the thread seems redundant.

I am sure the Holy Spirit knew what it was doing at Vatican II, but find an FSSP parish as quickly as you can.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II?

No.

 

[Nita]

Are you familiar with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter - abbreviated as FSSP? They are an approved order and accept Pope Benedict XVI.
Generally, they celebrate only the Tridentine Mass.

Here is their website:
fssp.org/en/index.htm

 

[puzzleannie]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II? By changes, I don’t mean unchangeable dogma and doctrine and teachings, but things like the new mass, etc.
For example, I believe in the validity of the new mass, but I believe that Vatican II would have changed the Catholic faith into a protestant one, was it not for the protection of the Holy Spirit. I

no rejecting V2 means rejecting the God given authority of the Church. If you mean rejecting changes that were instituted by some priests and bishops in the name of V2, which were not actually part of any V2 documents, that is another thing entirely. There are plenty of Catholics who accept the full authority of the pope and the magesterium, including fully embracing what V2 actually said and did, while rejecting the perversions enacted illicitly using its name. They are called “Catholics”.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

no rejecting V2 means rejecting the God given authority of the Church. If you mean rejecting changes that were instituted by some priests and bishops in the name of V2, which were not actually part of any V2 documents, that is another thing entirely. There are plenty of Catholics who accept the full authority of the pope and the magesterium, including fully embracing what V2 actually said and did, while rejecting the perversions enacted illicitly using its name. They are called “Catholics”.

:clapping:

 

[Tomster]

Are there any groups that recognize the current Pope Benedict XVI as the true valid Pope (unlike sedevacantists) and accept the dogma and teachings of the Church (SSPX questions the post-Vatican II sacraments validity, as far as I know) but are against the changes post -Vatican II? By changes, I don’t mean unchangeable dogma and doctrine and teachings, but things like the new mass, etc.
For example, I believe in the validity of the new mass, but I believe that Vatican II would have changed the Catholic faith into a protestant one, was it not for the protection of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the new mass is valid, but it is bad because things are more relaxed and people slowly fall away from the faith. There is less emphasis on rosary and prayer, etc. and that is why we have so many pro-choice ‘Catholics’ instead of all Catholic being united by common beliefs (pro-life, faithful to Church teachings).
I believe that Vatican II changed all that it could for the worse, and what remains (validity) is only thanks to the Holy Spirit. Are there any groups that believe this?
I am a traditional man myself, and I think that the best thing to do would be to make things stricter not relax them - tell it like it is, if you commit mortal sin, you go to hell, simple as that (most of the time). Relaxing rules just makes people fall away from the faith. I say, it is better to be too strict than to relaxed.
Thanks :knight2:

Shouldn’t all Catholics consider themselves “Traditional”? Think about it.

In my lifetime I have met “Catholics” who actually believe Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope.

I have also met “Catholics” who believe that the Catholic Church really started after the Second Vatican Council and that the Church prior to Vatican II had to be totally reformed.

Granted these are the two extremes but shouldn’t all Catholics embrace all of the teachings of Holy Mother Church from Pentecost through the present day? This is how I view being a Traditional Roman Catholic.

Sacred Tradition - It’s a beautiful thing!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Shouldn’t all Catholics consider themselves “Traditional”? Think about it.

I would say the opposite. All Traditional Catholics should just consider themselves Catholic. I don’t even understand why the need to add anything to Catholic? We are One Church. Being simply “Catholic” should say it all.

In my lifetime I have met “Catholics” who actually believe Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope.

Yes, the quotes are apt. Rejecting the validity and authority of the Pope is to reject the Church itself. The Catholic Church is more than traditions and forms of Mass. If we’re not in Communion with the Pope, then we’re not part of the Church because the Church is built upon the authority of Peter as the rock. The Pope has inherited that authority and if we are not anchored onto this rock, we will fall into error. Because Jesus promised that Peter will not fall into error and we can only benefit from that by being anchored onto this rock.

I have also met “Catholics” who believe that the Catholic Church really started after the Second Vatican Council and that the Church prior to Vatican II had to be totally reformed.

Wow, this is something new for me. I guess you learn something new each day. I’ve heard of people say the Catholic Church was founded at the Council of Nicea, but not after V2.

Granted these are the two extremes but shouldn’t all Catholics embrace all of the teachings of Holy Mother Church from Pentecost through the present day? This is how I view being a Traditional Roman Catholic.

Sacred Tradition - It’s a beautiful thing!

Amen

 

[corsair]

Those of us that use and claim the " moniker" of Traditional Catholic, use it to distinguish our preference for the 1962 Rite. Most of us still attend the OF Mass at least on occasion. Most of us accept the OF as a valid form of the Latin Rite. Its our preference to attend the EF when ever we can. Some are fortunate enough to be able to attend the EF every day. Some only once in a while.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Shouldn’t all Catholics consider themselves “Traditional”? Think about it.

In my lifetime I have met “Catholics” who actually believe Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope.

I have also met “Catholics” who believe that the Catholic Church really started after the Second Vatican Council and that the Church prior to Vatican II had to be totally reformed.

Granted these are the two extremes but shouldn’t all Catholics embrace all of the teachings of Holy Mother Church from Pentecost through the present day? This is how I view being a Traditional Roman Catholic.

Sacred Tradition - It’s a beautiful thing!

Woohoo!

 

[Tomster]

Those of us that use and claim the " moniker" of Traditional Catholic, use it to distinguish our preference for the 1962 Rite. Most of us still attend the OF Mass at least on occasion. Most of us accept the OF as a valid form of the Latin Rite. Its our preference to attend the EF when ever we can. Some are fortunate enough to be able to attend the EF every day. Some only once in a while.

My preference is for the 1962 missal too. I attend it and pray it every chance I get. The Mrs. is not as accepting of the 1962 missal as I am which made life somewhat difficult in the past. However, and this is very interesting, she brought the topic up, privately, with our pastor. In no uncertain terms our pastor told her to leave me alone on this one. He told her that if it meant we had to attend Sunday Mass separately then so be it.

The Mrs., still, will not attend the EF with me, but she has kept absolutely quiet about the matter to me.

 

[HCC]

Traditional Catholic groups in union with the Pope:

institute-christ-king.org/home/
fssp.org/en/index.htm
canons-regular.org/
canonsregular.com/
barroux.org/
clearcreekmonks.org/
chemere.org/
institut-philipp-neri.de/
randol.org/
riaumont.net/
chanoines-lagrasse.com/
carmelitemonks.org/
ordo-militiae-templi.org/
unavoce.org/

That is just a sampling.

 

[DavidPalm]

Those of us that use and claim the " moniker" of Traditional Catholic, use it to distinguish our preference for the 1962 Rite. Most of us still attend the OF Mass at least on occasion. Most of us accept the OF as a valid form of the Latin Rite. Its our preference to attend the EF when ever we can. Some are fortunate enough to be able to attend the EF every day. Some only once in a while.

I adopt and use the adjective “traditional” and the noun “traditionalist” to describe a particular reverence for the “tried and true” beliefs and actions of our fathers in the faith, the need for organic continuity of those beliefs and practices, as well as an attitude toward change itself. Change for change’s sake has never been a Catholic attitude, much less embracing and welcoming changes which are part of a revolution intended to push the Catholic Church in an undesirable direction.

So the OP’s question, while valid, is too broad and some of the answers have been too broad as well, IMO. I hold the Pauline rite to be valid, when said according to the official rubrics, typical edition of the text, and with the right intention. But that does not mean that I think that every vernacular translation is good and helpful, or that every indult given for deviations from the norms of the Roman Rite is good and helpful, to say nothing of the relative lack of enforcement in the face of widespread liturgical abuse. One can certainly be “opposed” to the way in which the liturgical reform/revolution was allowed to progress and with certain details of its implementation and still remain a faithful Catholic.

Similarly, I hold Vatican II to be a valid ecumenical council. But that does not mean that every document achieved its purpose, or that it was phrased in a way that brought clarity to the topic it was addressing, or that it is always clear how a given passage can be harmonized with the prior Tradition.

So it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to take a position such as this on both Vatican II and the liturgy:

With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.

I guess what I’m really responding to is a sort of “You’ve gotta love and support it all or you’re unfaithful” kind of attitude that I see expressed in these forums and elsewhere pretty regularly. That is setting the boundaries of what “faithful” means much narrower than Rome herself does.

 

[MerryCatholic]

if you commit mortal sin, you go to hell, simple as that (most of the time).
Thanks :knight2:

if you commit mortal sin and its forgiven you don’t go to hell. its not that simple. God forgives sin as long as its sincere repentence and we endeavour not to do it again. its almost impossible for any man not to have commited at least one mortal sin in their life because we are imperfect human beings. God knows this, that is why He said to Saint Faustina, “the greater the sinner, the more right He has to God’s mercy”. a man can be completely consumed with mortal sin, yet if he is sincere and truly sorry for his sins, he can be forgiven. its those that boldly and uncaringly refuse to repent their mortal sins before they die that will be judged as well are when we meet God. the decision to send one to hell is up to God. to say that if you commit mortal sin you go to hell is really a scarey statement because it makes pdeople think that they are not going to be forgiven when in fact that is not true. they can be forgiven.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I do not know that as the original poster claimed, the SSPX doubts the validity of the Novus Ordo Sacraments. I sat in on an adult catechism given by an SSPX priest where he carefully explained why the Ordinary Forms of the Sacraments of Holy Orders and the Holy Eucharist are valid. I thought he claimed that this was what he was taught at the seminary and that Abp. Lefebvre believed.

Someone mentioned the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. There is also a fledgling community called the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem. The priest who is trying to form this community had some difficulty that prompted a move from St. Louis. They are now in So. California living in a Norbertine Abbey that occasionally provides Mass in the Extraordinary Form, but the Canons Regular use the Extraordinary Form exclusively. I don’t know a lot about others, but there is one called the Institute of Christ the King too. I am sure that all three of these communities/fraternities are in full communion with Rome and act only under the jurisdiction of their local ordinaries.

 

[diggerdomer]

Those of us that use and claim the " moniker" of Traditional Catholic, use it to distinguish our preference for the 1962 Rite. Most of us still attend the OF Mass at least on occasion. Most of us accept the OF as a valid form of the Latin Rite. Its our preference to attend the EF when ever we can. Some are fortunate enough to be able to attend the EF every day. Some only once in a while.

I don’t know of any Catholics who would claim they are not “traditional”.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do not know that as the original poster claimed, the SSPX doubts the validity of the Novus Ordo Sacraments. I sat in on an adult catechism given by an SSPX priest where he carefully explained why the Ordinary Forms of the Sacraments of Holy Orders and the Holy Eucharist are valid. I thought he claimed that this was what he was taught at the seminary and that Abp. Lefebvre believed.

Someone mentioned the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. There is also a fledgling community called the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem. The priest who is trying to form this community had some difficulty that prompted a move from St. Louis. They are now in So. California living in a Norbertine Abbey that occasionally provides Mass in the Extraordinary Form, but the Canons Regular use the Extraordinary Form exclusively. I don’t know a lot about others, but there is one called the Institute of Christ the King too. I am sure that all three of these communities/fraternities are in full communion with Rome and act only under the jurisdiction of their local ordinaries.

THe problem is Bishop Lefebvre rejected things that were taught definitively by the Magisterium. De facto that’s excommunication. Specifically, when he ordained Bishops contrary to the Pope’s (and Catholic Church’s) teaching.