#2 Many of the docments of Vatican II contain infallible teachings. The real problem with Vatican II was not the council itself but the “free-for-all” that seemed to break out afterwards theolgically and liturgically. “Spirit of Vatican II” is a high insult to a traditional Catholic.
I would say that most traditionalist Catholics, whether they go to an FSSP, ICK, or SSPX parish, or whether they go to the OF, believe that Vatican II was not an infallible expression of the Magesterium. After all, Pope Paul VI said in 1966:
There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the** pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.**
But I agree that traditionalist Catholics who are still inside the church (i.e. not SSPX, SSPV, or sedevacantists) do agree with Vatican II so long as it is interpreted in light of tradition, and that the big problem was how people used Vatican II as an excuse (“oh, yeah, that was in Vatican II” or “that was the spirit of Vatican II”) when it came to removing things that had been distinctly Catholic (the Latin Mass, communion on the tongue, etc.
But alas, I come not to argue about the infallibility of Vatican II, as that is not the purpose of this thread.
In answer to the OP, I would say that a traditionalist Catholic is one who:
- At least prefers the Traditional Latin Mass, and attends that Mass almost exclusively (or would attend that Mass almost exclusively if they had the chance).
Those in communion with the Church would probably say that there is nothing wrong with the OF, provided that it is celebrated according to the rubrics.
Those outside communion with the Church would probably say that the TLM is better not because the OF rubrics are strictly adhered too, but because there is something inherently wrong and dangerous within it. They may also say that it is influenced by Protestantism and Modernism.
- Holds to the devotions that were popular among the laity before the late 1960s. They may pray the Rosary according to the traditional schedule, have blessed salt or holy water in the home, have a family home altar, read the Douay-Rheims Bible, and if a woman, veil in Church.
- Theologically, as I said before, traditionalist Catholics in union with the Church would probably say they have no problem with Vatican II and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church so long as it is interpreted in light of tradition.
Those outside the Church might say the same thing, or say that there is something inherently wrong, protestant, or modernist with Vatican II. Some go so far as to say that the new Mass and the other new rites for the sacraments are invalid, and that all the Popes since John XXIII or Paul VI have been invalid popes. Some traditionalists, called conclavists, have gone so far as to elect new Popes. See
“Pope” Michael I.
- Are more conservative than the average Catholic, especially when it comes to social customs. Some may hold fast to those customs common in the first half of the century. Others have no problem with things like women wearing pants, etc.
In short, traditionalists are a pretty sorted bunch, made all the more confusing with each having a seemingly different definition of what a traditionalist is. But I think the four things I listed above best describe them based on my experience.
.