What is a Traditionalist Catholic

[cothrige]

I am continually amazed at the number of people who say this. If we believe the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how can we presume to speak up about “the fruits of the council”. If we do so, we are judging the actions of the Holy Spirit himself. I would not want go there.

The only other alternative is to say that the Holy Spirit was not involved. If we say this, we call Jesus a liar because he promised the Church would be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. . I would not want to go there either.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed,

So man’s sin cannot have an impact on the Church? Why then did the Holy Father in the past express sadness over historical events or apologize? Was he judging the actions of the Spirit? And what about schism? That affects the Church and is in the life of the Church and surely isn’t a direct result of God’s will, in the sense that we should embrace and celebrate it so as to avoid judging the actions of the Holy Spirit. Are those who were upset or disappointed about the Protestant Reformation throughout history actually judging the actions of the Holy Spirit? Or was the Church not under the guidance of the Spirit during these events?

I think you are overstating this view greatly. The Council was certainly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and so is the Church, but generally we avoid thinking in a manner suggesting that men are nothing but puppets of God without the ability to contribute either for good or ill in the life of the Church. Not every action in the Church is the right one, and not every outcome is good. The actions of men, often sinful men, can play into the way these things are actually received and carried out. Implementation of the Council has been pretty awful in some cases and saying so hardly seems a rejection of God as you would imply.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So man’s sin cannot have an impact on the Church? Why then did the Holy Father in the past express sadness over historical events or apologize? Was he judging the actions of the Spirit? And what about schism? That affects the Church and is in the life of the Church and surely isn’t a direct result of God’s will, in the sense that we should embrace and celebrate it so as to avoid judging the actions of the Holy Spirit. Are those who were upset or disappointed about the Protestant Reformation throughout history actually judging the actions of the Holy Spirit? Or was the Church not under the guidance of the Spirit during these events?

We are talking about two entirely different things. I am talking about Vatican Council II, and you bring up the sins of individual members in the Church. I am speaking of people judging the Council of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The two do not equate.

The Council was certainly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and so is the Church,

Here we definitely agree

Not every action in the Church is the right one, and not every outcome is good.

Are you saying in the Church, or of the Church. The Church does not teach error. Man’s implementation of the Churches teaching can be erroneous.

The actions of men, often sinful men, can play into the way these things are actually received and carried out. Implementation of the Council has been pretty awful in some cases and saying so hardly seems a rejection of God as you would imply.

Here we agree. I don’t know about you, but I have had the privilege of speaking to several of the Council Fathers. They all lamented what was being done and to a person said," this is not what we did at all. They are getting it so wrong." The alleged spirit of Vatican II was neither the spirit of nor the teaching of the Council, but the actions of misguided individuals. Do not blame the Council for the actions of misguided individuals. Look to the individuals, not the Church. Put the blame where it belongs. That is what I am saying.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[cothrige]

We are talking about two entirely different things. I am talking about Vatican Council II, and you bring up the sins of individual members in the Church. I am speaking of people judging the Council of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The two do not equate.

In going back I think I see how we are looking at this differently. I understood the term “fruits of the Council” used by the poster above to mean the results of the implementation. I think you have understood it to mean the intended results of the Council or the will of the Council itself. In that light, having read this post, I can understand how we came at this differently.

Here we agree. I don’t know about you, but I have had the privilege of speaking to several of the Council Fathers. They all lamented what was being done and to a person said," this is not what we did at all. They are getting it so wrong." The alleged spirit of Vatican II was neither the spirit of nor the teaching of the Council, but the actions of misguided individuals. Do not blame the Council for the actions of misguided individuals. Look to the individuals, not the Church. Put the blame where it belongs. That is what I am saying.

I agree. That is how I understood the post you responded to, and took the meaning to be a criticism of the actions of people after the Council in their “implementation” of the Conciliar decrees. Since I understood it in that light, I also understood your post as a response to that meaning, and so obviously misunderstood you entirely. I think we would be on absolutely the same page on this. Thanks for clarifying your position for me.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Thank you for your reply. I thought for a while we were on different pages, but half way through, the same page, then an I don’t know. I am glad to see we are in total agreement. Welcome to the front lines.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We are talking about two entirely different things. I am talking about Vatican Council II, and you bring up the sins of individual members in the Church. I am speaking of people judging the Council of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The two do not equate.

Here we definitely agree

Are you saying in the Church, or of the Church. The Church does not teach error. Man’s implementation of the Churches teaching can be erroneous.

Here we agree. I don’t know about you, but I have had the privilege of speaking to several of the Council Fathers. They all lamented what was being done and to a person said," this is not what we did at all. They are getting it so wrong." The alleged spirit of Vatican II was neither the spirit of nor the teaching of the Council, but the actions of misguided individuals. Do not blame the Council for the actions of misguided individuals. Look to the individuals, not the Church. Put the blame where it belongs. That is what I am saying.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I’m going to still make the argument that a Catholic does not have to consider the calling of the Council either wise or prudent (and thus not necessarily called by God Himself).

And while it is true there is a negative infallibility attached to any Council that it will not teach error in regards to faith and morals, that does not mean that the Council documents cannot be written in a way which is ambiguous enough to be taken advantage of. Further, just because the Holy Spirit protects a Council from teaching error in regards to faith and morals does not mean that any particular Council is thus going to produce good fruit.

God bless.

 

[latinmass]

Attend a FSSP Mass and you will see. If you can’t a Traditionalist prefers to worship at the TLM, veils, no meat on Friday etc. Enjoys the freedom to worship in a pre-V2 manner. Understands that the vagueness of V2 documents did not change any doctrine.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

NO mass and TLM mass are like segragation. Blacks and whites. The TLM people look down on the NO people. One day we will have a great leader that will let both of the masses live in peace and equality together.

 

[ethelzguy]

NO mass and TLM mass are like segragation. Blacks and whites. The TLM people look down on the NO people. One day we will have a great leader that will let both of the masses live in peace and equality together.

True, so true. We have all spent our lives begin taught that “seperate but equal” is wrong. Go figure.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

just because the Holy Spirit protects a Council from teaching error in regards to faith and morals does not mean that any particular Council is thus going to produce good fruit.

God bless.

I would hope you are not saying or implying that a Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can produce bad fruit. Or are you saying Vatican II was not under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit? If you say no to each of these questions, than we would be in agreement that anything negative that resulted was not the result of the Council, but of misguided individuals doing their own thing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[latinmass]

NO mass and TLM mass are like segragation. Blacks and whites. The TLM people look down on the NO people. One day we will have a great leader that will let both of the masses live in peace and equality together.

A pretty sweeping statement “The TLM people look down on the NO people” I sounds like the NO people have a chip in there shoulder.

 

[latinmass]

I would hope you are not saying or implying that a Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can produce bad fruit. Or are you saying Vatican II was not under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit? If you say no to each of these questions, than we would be in agreement that anything negative that resulted was not the result of the Council, but of misguided individuals doing their own thing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Are you saying that V2 has bore good fruit. The Holy Ghost was at V2, the question is, did those there listen? Statistics do not show much good from V2, if Mass attendance and knowledge of the Church is any indication.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I would hope you are not saying or implying that a Council, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can produce bad fruit. Or are you saying Vatican II was not under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit? If you say no to each of these questions, than we would be in agreement that anything negative that resulted was not the result of the Council, but of misguided individuals doing their own thing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon Ed,

I suppose it comes down to what one means by the phrase “guidance of the Holy Spirit.” I attribute the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the negative infallibility a Council enjoys to not officially teach error in the realm of faith and morals and that’s it. I of course don’t attribute it to any prudential decisions of any Council (though one hopes and prays these decisions are wise and good). Nor do I believe “guidance of the Holy Spirit” means that the Holy Spirit inspired the Council members to write the documents in the best manner possible (as in unambiguous).

I certainly don’t believe that most of the Council Fathers themselves intended the implementation the Council received after it was done which did produce much bad fruit. Nevertheless one can make the argument, I believe, that releasing the type of documents (i.e. ambiguous in a number of places) the Council did enabled those in the Church who wanted to take advantage of the documents to do so. And thus the Holy Spirit is not necessarily going to protect the Church from releasing ambiguous (although not heretical) documents at a particularly bad time when they can, were, and are taken advantage of.

One is reminded that Pope Pius XII considered calling a Council himself but decided against it because he thought it was not a good time to do so. Thus implying that he could have called a Council at a bad time had he chosen to do so and thus the Council he called might not have produced good fruit (even if it would have been free from error on faith and morals).

God bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I can only say that if you believe that Vatican II produced bad fruits and that it was faulty, than we have nothing further to discuss, as I could not disagree with you more vociferously. I for one am glad we had the Council I see the direction the Church is going and I LIKE IT. You will remain in my prayers. Please keep me in yours
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Are you saying that V2 has bore good fruit. The Holy Ghost was at V2, the question is, did those there listen? Statistics do not show much good from V2, if Mass attendance and knowledge of the Church is any indication.

Yes, I am saying that Vatican II bore good fruits. The remainder of my response is in my previous post.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[jeff417]

I spent the last 15 years of my life in a TLM parish which didn’t even follow the pope. I have recently brought my family back into the “NO” church. I believe that it is important to remember that both sides of the argument are trying to get to heaven and are living what they believe to be the TRUE faith. It is not for us to judge but to love and pray and hopefully be an instrument for grace. None of the arguments in this or any other forum will change a single mind or open a single heart to the truth. Only through prayer and the gift of Gods grace will any of us be saved. I greatly enjoy these forums, but wish sometimes it would be less “us vs them” and more sympathetic to the struggles of confused Traditionalists.

 

[MrS]

A pretty sweeping statement “The TLM people look down on the NO people” I sounds like the NO people have a chip in there shoulder.

Actually the high altar is meant to look up.

A properly celebrated NO is a beautiful Mass.

But again it looks like those who love the TLM actually know what the TLM is **supposed **to look like
and
those who love the NO often have NO idea what the No is supposed to look like

go figure:shrug:

 

[ethelzguy]

A pretty sweeping statement “The TLM people look down on the NO people” I sounds like the NO people have a chip in there shoulder.

Are you denying that many of the TLM crowd looks disdainfully toward the NO folks?

 

[MrS]

Are you denying that many of the TLM crowd looks disdainfully toward the NO folks?

As part of the “TLM crowd” who also loves the properly celebrated NO, I do not look down on you at all. And to suggest distain is goofy… but not unexpected from the “NO crowd”

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I can only say that if you believe that Vatican II produced bad fruits and that it was faulty, than we have nothing further to discuss, as I could not disagree with you more vociferously. I for one am glad we had the Council I see the direction the Church is going and I LIKE IT. You will remain in my prayers. Please keep me in yours
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Hi Deacon Ed,

I don’t know that I would say that Vatican II itself produced bad fruit in that none of the documents state that Catholics should show less reverence at Mass, or people should stop converting to the Church, and Mass attendance should drop, priests should leave the priesthood etc.

However, I would liken it to a military commander who has to take out a machine gun emplacement and gives his troops sticks to do it. They attack and get mowed down and don’t take over the machine gun emplacement.

Now, the commander can rightfully say that he didn’t intend for any of his troops to get mowed down and that he actually intended for the plan to work and be successful. But that doesn’t mean, despite the intentions, that it was the best plan.

I don’t necessarily use the word faulty in regards to the Vatican II documents, I use the word ambiguous.

Now you are free of course to be glad the Council was called and like the direction the Church is going. All I’m saying is that people who lament the fact that the Council was called and don’t think it has produced good fruit (even if it was intended to) are not thus denying that the Holy Spirit was in operation at the Council. In fact, reading what went on behind the scenes at the Council one can actually be greatly impressed that the Council didn’t officially teach error as there were certainly prelates in attendance who probably would have loved to overturn some “antiquated” dogma.

And I might even note that even Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger have remarked that instead of the wonderful renewal people were expecting what we got instead was a lot of confusion and even “auto-demolition.” One can say that’s not what the documents called for, true, but it isn’t going against the Holy Spirit to say the Council has not (in general) produced good fruit. Not all Councils are successful in doing what they are intended to do even if they are protected from teaching error in faith and morals.

God bless, and no you don’t have to respond to this post if you wish to cease discussion.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Hi Deacon Ed,

I don’t know that I would say that Vatican II itself produced bad fruit in that none of the documents state that Catholics should show less reverence at Mass, or people should stop converting to the Church, and Mass attendance should drop, priests should leave the priesthood etc.

However, I would liken it to a military commander who has to take out a machine gun emplacement and gives his troops sticks to do it. They attack and get mowed down and don’t take over the machine gun emplacement.

Now, the commander can rightfully say that he didn’t intend for any of his troops to get mowed down and that he actually intended for the plan to work and be successful. But that doesn’t mean, despite the intentions, that it was the best plan.

I don’t necessarily use the word faulty in regards to the Vatican II documents, I use the word ambiguous.

Now you are free of course to be glad the Council was called and like the direction the Church is going. All I’m saying is that people who lament the fact that the Council was called and don’t think it has produced good fruit (even if it was intended to) are not thus denying that the Holy Spirit was in operation at the Council. In fact, reading what went on behind the scenes at the Council one can actually be greatly impressed that the Council didn’t officially teach error as there were certainly prelates in attendance who probably would have loved to overturn some “antiquated” dogma.

And I might even note that even Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Ratzinger have remarked that instead of the wonderful renewal people were expecting what we got instead was a lot of confusion and even “auto-demolition.” One can say that’s not what the documents called for, true, but it isn’t going against the Holy Spirit to say the Council has not (in general) produced good fruit. Not all Councils are successful in doing what they are intended to do even if they are protected from teaching error in faith and morals.

God bless, and no you don’t have to respond to this post if you wish to cease discussion.

Brennon, what I have said all along is that Vatican II is being blamed for something that was festering long before Pope John XXIII called the council. The fact that all hell broke loose was not the fault of the council, but of things that were percolating long before Blessed John XXIII was even elected pope. That crisis is now over and the Church is emerging from this unfortunate period stronger than it could have been had it remained without the Council. You may not see the new vibrancy that I see in the Church. Maybe thats because where the Church is concerned I have learned long ago to look for the good. And I do see a lot of good.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B