Vatican II, Sedevacantism, Traditionalist Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter dsully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dsully

Guest
Hello,

I’ve been reading a book on Vatican II as part of my process of learning more about the Catholic Faith. While doing my research I came across some online posts advocating the position that Vatican II, because of the nature of its reforms, is a false Council and that, consequently, the current Roman Catholic Church is a false Church, with false hierarchies and invalid masses, sacraments, etc.

From what I can tell, this sedevacantist view seems to be held by only a small minority. However, from what I was able to read, it seems that many Catholics, called Traditionalist Catholics, are at some level suspicious of Vatican II and/or some of the reforms made in its wake. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, should this state of affairs affect my consideration of becoming a part of the Roman Catholic Church? (One sedevacantist said that it would be better to remain a protestant than become part of the Vatican II Church).

Thanks for your feedback,

Dan
 
dsully said:
Hello,

I’ve been reading a book on Vatican II as part of my process of learning more about the Catholic Faith. While doing my research I came across some online posts advocating the position that Vatican II, because of the nature of its reforms, is a false Council and that, consequently, the current Roman Catholic Church is a false Church, with false hierarchies and invalid masses, sacraments, etc.

From what I can tell, this sedevacantist view seems to be held by only a small minority. However, from what I was able to read, it seems that many Catholics, called Traditionalist Catholics, are at some level suspicious of Vatican II and/or some of the reforms made in its wake. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, should this state of affairs affect my consideration of becoming a part of the Roman Catholic Church? (One sedevacantist said that it would be better to remain a protestant than become part of the Vatican II Church).

Thanks for your feedback,

Dan

P.S. My intuitive sense is that there may be some valid insights on the part of Traditionalist Catholics but that sedevacantists are extremists, whose views are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
IMHO, many if not most Traditional Catholics are at some level suspicious of some of the reforms made in the wake of Vatican II. I would go so far as to say that Pope Benedict fits in that category.

This should not affect your consideration of becoming part of the Catholic church, especially if you come to the (obvious) conclusion through your prayers and intense study that it is the one True Church and that all others contain some measure of error along with a measure of truth. Unfortunately, we have had some very high level Catholic Bishops and Cardinals who have privately and publicly held the opinion that it was not important to convert to the Catholic faith.

Sedevacantists have taken upon themselves the ability and/or authority to judge the Pope to be a heretic, a power NEVER in the history of the church given to the laity, priests , or individual Bishops but retained to the college of Cardinals, Councils, and sometimes successor Popes. By this action, they infer that the visible church has pretty much vanished from the earth and the true church is now an “invisible” church, which is completely contrary to Christ’s promises on the matter.
 
giuseppeTO said:
IMHO, many if not most Traditional Catholics are at some level suspicious of some of the reforms made in the wake of Vatican II. I would go so far as to say that Pope Benedict fits in that category.

This should not affect your consideration of becoming part of the Catholic church, especially if you come to the (obvious) conclusion through your prayers and intense study that it is the one True Church and that all others contain some measure of error along with a measure of truth. Unfortunately, we have had some very high level Catholic Bishops and Cardinals who have privately and publicly held the opinion that it was not important to convert to the Catholic faith.

Sedevacantists have taken upon themselves the ability and/or authority to judge the Pope to be a heretic, a power NEVER in the history of the church given to the laity, priests , or individual Bishops but retained to the college of Cardinals, Councils, and sometimes successor Popes. By this action, they infer that the visible church has pretty much vanished from the earth and the true church is now an “invisible” church, which is completely contrary to Christ’s promises on the matter.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback.

The trajectory of my journey has been from spiritual seeking to faith in Christ to a desire to worship Christ in the most historically authentic way, which seems to be the Catholic Church. I want to be in communion with all the saints of history and not just the 200+ folks who attend my local non-denominational bible church (as sincere and devoted to Christ as they may be).

Regarding Vatican II, I actually appreciate the insight that there may be degrees of truth in various forms of Christianity (and even the world religions), but with the Catholic Church holdings onto its fullness. It’s as if the Eucharist is the center of the Christian universe, and Christ is calling us all to be in fellowship with him around that sacrament.

I think I should just be excited and content with the prospect of coming into the true Church and let God handle the details as time unfolds.

Bless Him,

Dan
 
dsully said:
Hello,

I’ve been reading a book on Vatican II as part of my process of learning more about the Catholic Faith. While doing my research I came across some online posts advocating the position that Vatican II, because of the nature of its reforms, is a false Council and that, consequently, the current Roman Catholic Church is a false Church, with false hierarchies and invalid masses, sacraments, etc.

From what I can tell, this sedevacantist view seems to be held by only a small minority. However, from what I was able to read, it seems that many Catholics, called Traditionalist Catholics, are at some level suspicious of Vatican II and/or some of the reforms made in its wake. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, should this state of affairs affect my consideration of becoming a part of the Roman Catholic Church? (One sedevacantist said that it would be better to remain a protestant than become part of the Vatican II Church).

Thanks for your feedback,

Dan
Click to expand...
Which book on Vatican II is it? It sounds as if it is written by someone who is not in communion with the Catholic Church. The sedevacantists are a very tiny, but extremely vocal minority. They are, first of all, disobedient and everything that they say or do must be viewed in light of that fact. They object to what was a pastoral, and not a doctrinal council. In other words, they want to do it their way. I see them as slaves of their egos.

I ask by what authority they, or anyone else, declare a Church council to be false? They do this solely by the force of their personal opinion, and nothing else. My advice is to disregard them, as they are a noise which distracts you from your search for the truth.

Rather, obtain a copy of the catechism, if you do not have one. Read through its contents and you will be amazed at how similar the Church’s teachings are to what you already believe. Here is an online catechism.

You are searching for truth and your decision must be predicated upon your conviction that the fulness of truth is safeguarded somewhere.
 
dsully said:
Thanks for the feedback.

The trajectory of my journey has been from spiritual seeking to faith in Christ to a desire to worship Christ in the most historically authentic way, which seems to be the Catholic Church. I want to be in communion with all the saints of history and not just the 200+ folks who attend my local non-denominational bible church (as sincere and devoted to Christ as they may be).

Regarding Vatican II, I actually appreciate the insight that there may be degrees of truth in various forms of Christianity (and even the world religions), but with the Catholic Church holdings onto its fullness. It’s as if the Eucharist is the center of the Christian universe, and Christ is calling us all to be in fellowship with him around that sacrament.

I think I should just be excited and content with the prospect of coming into the true Church and let God handle the details as time unfolds.

Bless Him,

Dan
Click to expand...
You may want to even explore the Eastern Catholic Churches.
They have maintained more of the historical traditions of the early Church then the modern Latin Catholic Church.
 
I think those people are not so much upset with the council as much as they are upset with the abuses that occurred in the Liturgy after the council.

They have a point. But the abuses were not due to Vatican II, but due to lack of understanding of the Faith. This lack of understanding was exactly what Vatican II was trying to confront. More work needs to be done, but change takes time.

You will find a great pride in people that claim things like the Pope is in heresy. Indeed, some of them think they are holier than the Pope! They also often really believe that having the Church say prayers in a language that the people could understand was the worst thing that could have happened. Don’t get me wrong, Latin is a beautiful language and there is GREAT value in understanding the original language of the liturgy, but… many people had no idea what was happening in the mass when it was exclusively Latin.

If you are really worried, read the actual documents that the bishops produced for yourself.
 
dsully said:
The trajectory of my journey has been from spiritual seeking to faith in Christ to a desire to worship Christ in the most historically authentic way, which seems to be the Catholic Church. I want to be in communion with all the saints of history and not just the 200+ folks who attend my local non-denominational bible church (as sincere and devoted to Christ as they may be). …

I think I should just be excited and content with the prospect of coming into the true Church and let God handle the details as time unfolds.

Bless Him,

Dan
Click to expand...
You listed things that never change and made a wise statement. Sedevacantists are a very small minority, a lot of people in the pews don’t even know what the word means.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church and if it goes wobbling around the ideal, well, it’s full of flawed people, so we concentrate on God and let them all work out whatever.

Very excited to welcome you Home, let us know.
 
I’m probably going to echo some of the other posts here… but it isn’t so much Vatican II as it is the absolute stupidity that some people employed in their “interpretations” of VII. If it wasn’t VII it could have been anything. Any time the Church of Christ tries to do something, someone, somewhere, will have their little beef. And there’ll be some sort of schism. The sedevacantist who told you you’re better off remaining protestant is himself a protestant. The Church requires the active participation of a Bishopric, and at the head of the Bishopric, the successor of Pope Saint Peter. That would be His Holiness Benedict XVI, and not “pope” Michael from the buckwheat midwest, not the Holy Family monastery, not the old ‘catholic church.’ Don’t let some of the silliness stemming from V2 hold you back. As much as I dislike the liberalism that people try to attach to Vatican II, some of the reforms have been worthwhile. Even the Vernacular Masses, done properly, have great reverence. Anyway, I guess that’s the end of my rant.

God bless,
 
sllhouette said:
I think those people are not so much upset with the council as much as they are upset with the abuses that occurred in the Liturgy after the council.

They have a point. But the abuses were not due to Vatican II, but due to lack of understanding of the Faith. This lack of understanding was exactly what Vatican II was trying to confront. More work needs to be done, but change takes time.

You will find a great pride in people that claim things like the Pope is in heresy. Indeed, some of them think they are holier than the Pope! They also often really believe that having the Church say prayers in a language that the people could understand was the worst thing that could have happened. Don’t get me wrong, Latin is a beautiful language and there is GREAT value in understanding the original language of the liturgy, but… many people had no idea what was happening in the mass when it was exclusively Latin.

If you are really worried, read the actual documents that the bishops produced for yourself.
Click to expand...
This is one of the better answers that I have seen on the subject.
 
Traditionalists…significant minority…maybe about 10 percent.

Ultra-trad sede vacantists: tiny, microscopic minority. They could probably have a convention in a CCD classroom.
 
Thanks again. All of these replies have been helpful in terms of guidance and encouragement.

Dan
 
The problem with Sede’s is they make a declaration (that the chair of Peter is vacant) they have no way of proving outside of their own reasoning. Once you eliminate the Authority of the Papacy you are left to your own reasoning.
Which is exactly what the Protestants do.

I vote we stop using words like Tradtionalist and just go back to being called Catholic.
 
There’s little I could add to the above replies, but I’ll add this:

Don’t get the impression that exploring the old rites and catechisms is something Catholics aren’t supposed to do.

I consider myself an ordinary Catholic, but for the most part I only assist at the traditional Mass and stick to pre-Vatican II catechisms and spiritual writings and that’s okay, too. I just find the same Faith expressed more clearly and beautifully and like living the old worldview that has largely passed out of the lives of Catholic laity.

I’d suggest reading the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults and the Baltimore Catechism #3 and seeing the difference for yourself. Same faith, but you may feel more at home in the older expression like I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top