Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism - Distinctions with Philosophical Differences

Latin Mass Magazine ^ | Spring 2001 | Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Good catch. I guess that was a different Church.

[traditionalist]

Deborah, you've been sucked in by the Ultra-Trads, and especially the SSPXers.

The author of this article is not in the SSPX. He is a priest in good standing with the FSSP, no less Catholic and a lot more knowledgable than you. It is quite ironic that you accuse him of arrogance.

[traditionalist]

I'm sick of the "neo" and "post-conciliar" labels. They are meant to be divisive.

The labels reflect divisions; they seldom cause them.

Would have us ignore reality?

[american colleen]

It's correct. For neos, life began at Vatican II 35 years ago. That's a tradition of 35 years, not 2000 years. That's not Tradition by its very notion.

Same problems over Vatican 1 - even Neumann had reservations about the "big" Vat 1 event - but he accepted papal infallibility regardless of his own personal reservations.

Myself, I follow the catechism of the Catholic Church. I've read the documents of Vatican II and what I find is a consolidation of all that had gone before.

[ThomasMore]

I also agree. When the devil can't get us one way, there's always division as his fall back plan.

[american colleen]

When the devil can't get us one way, there's always division as his fall back plan.

Right. And we fall for it every dang time!

[Telit Likitis]

You did copy what was there! - that's not the problem.
I'm simply indicating a substantial difference in what appears to be essentially the same Essay in two different publications.

-Telit

[sinkspur]

I've been watching for quite a while now and the side which makes the most consistent, most reasonable arguments are the traditionalists.

Really? They're all anti-John Paul II.

Is that reasonable to you?

[sinkspur]

Well, you and I disagree about minor seminaries. There are only about one or two of them left in the United States, so I'd like to hear your justification of concentrating children in boarding schools under the guise of making them priests.

[Bellarmine]

The truth is divisive.

[TradicalRC]

Ditto.

[ultima ratio]

Yes. It connects the dots well. And let's not forget as a phenomenologist this Pope is of the modern school.

[TradicalRC]

Careful there, big guy. I consider myself to be leaning towards traditionalism and do NOT hate John Paul II.

[TradicalRC]

Thank you for posting the article.

Certain points I would argue: he mentions the traditionalist heresy that depreciates reason, then later states that one may be a liberal within Christianity. A liberal, properly defined would be someone who depreciates tradition in the name of reason. The modernist philosophers and their henchmen are essentially liberals: the French Revolution was a liberal revolution and they were champions of the god of reason.

I think he hit the nail on the head when he wrote the philosophical evolution of the neo-conservatives. I saw nothing that was inconsistent with what the orthodox Novus Ordo advocates post here.

[TradicalRC]

Another philosophical point I would argue is his definition of immanentism. I have always understood it to mean this world, the here and now, rather than an internal worldview. Although, it would also encompass that.

But the type of philisophical worldliness that immanentism stands for also lead to theological abberations such as process theology and liberation theology (Karl Marx wearing a Jesus mask).

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

They're all anti-John Paul II.

First of all that is not true. Second, even if some are critical of the Pope and his actions, it does not make them "anti-JP II". Most of the traditionalists here will tell you JP II is the legitimate Pope. I've only seen two or three sedevacantists and two are no longer posters.

This is part and parcel of the magisterialism argument. In some posters eyes the only way to be Catholic is to happily embrace everything that comes out of Rome. If you don't you are labelled schismatic. That is magisterialism as the article points out. It's possible to disagree and be fully Catholic (you well know this btw).

[narses]

"They're all anti-John Paul II"

That isn't me then. I love him, I pray for him and I acknowledge both his humanity and his enormous responsibility. When he is wrong, if it is so wrong that I feel I must speak out, I do. But to accuse me of being ANTI JPII is like callin g me ANTI Bush for criticizing his errors.

[Diva]

In some posters eyes the only way to be Catholic is to happily embrace everything that comes out of Rome. If you don't you are labelled schismatic. That is magisterialism as the article points out. It's possible to disagree and be fully Catholic (you well know this btw).

I was sort of this way until I had the opportunity to do research with several "traditionalists" who I considered to be just barely inside the Church. What I learned from questioning and listening to their answers is the frustration they feel when it comes to this issue. Thanks for posting the article, it has given me more clarity concerning the terms of Conservative and Traditional.

I was shocked on a number of occasions when referring to myself as a traditionalist and having it interpreted SSPX'r, which I am not. But, by far the most interesting label I ever received was from a very liberal seminarian (in his late 40's) who called me an antique Catholic and the Church I wanted as the Church of Nostalgia. He didn't last long at the seminary thank goodness!!

[As you well know...]

Agreed. For me, it is a question of whether there will be a synthesis of orientation/approach of pre and post V2 or whether there will be a retrenchment that absorbs the best of the new orientation during a reassertion of the traditional approach.

It is undeniable great change has occured and it is also undeniable that "conservatives" are reaching their limits. Witness "The Wanderer" adopting what usd to be solely the issues/concerns of the SSPX, the 1962 Roman Missal and Traditional Seminaries etc.

I wonder if the "conservatives" are prepared for impending changes that could be just as unsettling to them as the changes following V2 were unsettling to the Trads.

There will be a Pope Peter II some day.