Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared

[Eliza10]

… It’s not good to paint with a broad brush. The schismatic right and the heretical left do exist but there are those caught in the middle who are not either…

…
The traditionalists are not the only people who desire “the Catholic Faith whole & entire” and those who actually believe that they are the only ones with this goal is are annoying to some.

Bear06, I am in agreeement with you!

I read the article, hoping it would tell me what “camp” I’m in, as, since I converted, old Catholics at times seem to know immediately what “camp” I’m in - not that they want to explain it, but they seem to “know”. I always feel: “But how can you know? Even I don’t!”

I thought this article would give me some insight into what camp I’m in, but as you say, Bear06, I must be one of those caught in the middle who is neither.

At first, when he talked of the emphasis on munus doceni “function of teaching”, esp. as JPII emphasized] vs. munus regendi “function of governing” -the need for force behind the law], I thought: I must be conservative.

Then I read: “The conservative buys into the John Shelby Spong hermeneutic…”

What?! Sprong is a far-flung liberal. A worldly, retired Episcolapian Bishop.

Sprong has come up with his own “Theses”, which are a “challenge to Christianity”, he says. He compares them to the 95 Theses, and of them he says: “My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically.”

Sprongs Theses are more than a challenge - they are Anti-Christianity. They include:

1. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
2. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
3. The miracle stories of New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post- Newtonian world as supernatural performed by an incarnate deity.
4. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
5. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
6. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

All twelve of his “theses” are this blatant heresay; I picked a few to display his beliefs.

And this is what the anonymous author says is conservatism?? Clearly, the author thinks not much of conservatism, if this is his evaluation of them. And, gee, I guess by this definition, hardly anyone I know is “conservative”. Well, some of the clergy and deacons in this diocese would not find offense in these theses’ of Sprong, most unfortunately. My view is that here in Rochester, the small minority of those true conservatives (according to this author’s definition of what that is) are often running things in the churches here. Their sheep are ignorant and untrained in their faith through no fault of their own, but the hearts of these sheep recognize and hunger for truth. I have seen it. All we need is a good shephard here in Rochesrer and the sheep will flock.

I agree with the anonymous author’s point that the emphasis needs to be munus sanctificandi (the function of sanctification). And I see that there are those in both the so-called “conserative” and in the “traditional” sectors of Catholicism that really focus on this, above all else.

 

[bear06]

My point was to show that it was unfair equate attendance in TLM with Schism . Just as it would be unfair to equate attendance at NO with heresy and apostates

As far as Apostates
IMHO – Good example is the Clown Mass
youtube.com/watch?v=NsC4wRPybpA

This has no resemblance of a Catholic Mass ( the suppression of this blasphemy should be supported by conservatives and traditionalist alike)

Lastly…I hate to beat a dead horse but SSPX is not in schism but a irregular state per Vatican

Sigh! This happened once a year my diocese a few years back before we got our new bishop. Thankfully, I think we’ve seen the end of these.

That said, this was an outrageous abuse (in fact this is one of the things put on the CD to Rome which got our bishop) but I highly doubt that Fr. Joyce is an apostate. Apostacy is the complete and voluntary repudiation of the Christian Faith. I think the levels of disobedience goes something like this: disobedient, schismatic, heretic and apostate. Fr. Joyce may very well be a heretic but I doubt he’s an apostate.
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defnapos.htm

Again, this isn’t a debate about whether the clown Mass was most grevious. It was. This is just about being precise in our definitions. Of course, I would disagree with you about the schism thing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That article was totally misleading. What it defines as “conservative” is nothing more than the false neo-conservative attitued, eg that of most Republicans.

That article reminds me of an old SSPX article where the author tried to make a definitive split between two similar concepts of “conservative” vs “traditionalis”…for all I know it could be the same article. In both cases what was mostly a straw man was erected in order to smear the “conservative” end.

Lets look at how he describes “conservative”…The conservative buys into the John Shelby Spong hermeneutic while trying to keep the classical formulations of faith all the while trying to make them more attractive, like advertising. …if the packaging is not palatable, the gift will be rejected.
Totally offensive, Spong is a Episcopal far left liberal. As for “reformulating” and “packaging” that isnt really defined. If its under the guise of constantly needing to change terms and definitions, then that is not conservative. If it becomes about spinning the Gospel so that it is watered down then that is not conservative.The amusing thing is that conservatives are intent on upholding the authority of the Pauline Missal against the traditionalists. One well known priest once wrote, “I actually see no real difference between the two missals,” which was as great discredit to his reputation as a scholar. … everyone in the Church realizes the New Mass is new except for the conservatives.
This is a straw man. Conservative means you see no problem with the TLM and conservatives dont like the fact the TLM is limited. The talk about how “there is no difference between them” and “its not new” is a straw man smearing conservativism. What he is describing is a new false conservativism.The conservatives who fight very hard to demand observance of the rubrics and adequate translations usually end up being routed.
True, and that shows conservatives dont like innovation and aware of the liberal influences against them, even in Church authorities.Conservatives consistently find themselves in positions of liturgical inconsistence because their barometer of religious fervor is that of accepting whatever comes out of Rome and not what actually makes sense.
Conservatives operate on the principle the Church cannot teach error, not that Church leadership cant cause scandal. Conservatives resist schism at all costs, if we have to bear a hard ship we will.This is often seen with the attitude towards extraordinary ministers of various kinds. Many will use eucharistic ministers while hating every minute of it, seeing it as a kind if lesser evil permitted by the church, but at the same time they will defend to blood the Catholic liturgical principle that An extraordinary minister cannot function in the presence of an ordinary one. Then they go to Rome and are scandalized to see this being flouted everywhere, and then when they see the same thing happen at Papal Masses, then say, well the Pope does it so it must be okay…
This is another straw man, a conservative isnt “scandalaized” one day and “it must be ok” the next. A conservative would recognize the use of EMs (apart from truly extraordinary circumstances) is uncalled for. If it is a Church rule the conservative recognizes they have no right/power to go against the rules and must instead bear it unwillingly.The attitude of the conservative is quintessentially American: open to new ideas, creative, vigorous, but often ingenuous, rigid, and superficial.
False, this is what is actually called neo-conservativism which is essentially a mainstream Republican voter.The conservative Catholic movement is a predominantly American thing: the conservative Catholic is conservative in every aspect of his life from politics to clothing, and is so because his is a way of looking at society. The conservative thinks that he can “solve the problem” and that Eternal Rome is on his side because he obeys the pope and loves the Church just as she is.
This is a misrepresentation and confusing the issues pure and simple. For example in regards to “aspect of life from politics to clothing”…how would a “traditionalist” go about aspects from “politics to clothing?” It would be no different than a true conservative…now he confuses this with “obeys the pope and loves the Church just as she is”…no, while conservatives obey the pope and love the Church conservatives dont like it “just as she is,” a lot of what conservatives see is sub-par from what the Church can and should be doing and wish some strong conservative Church leadership would clean house already.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(Cont)The attitude of the traditionalist is classically Roman: suspicious of innovation, cautious to act, slightly cynical about affairs between men, but often pigheaded, lax and uncaring. The traditionalist movement takes as its motto that of Cardinal Ottaviani: Semper idem, because he can separate the unchanging world of dogmatic and moral truths from the faulty men who try to get them across. The traditionalist is not interested in doing anything in the sense that he does not want to effect change for the good, but he wants to be Catholic in all of his being and acting. The traditionalist knows full well that the Rome of the dicasteries in 2003 is distinct from the ideal Rome, and that authority in the church is a mystical Venn diagram where the two sometimes meet and sometimes do not. The traditionalist has the hope to be authentic, which is what he seeks: a way of living that aspires to the fullness of appreciation of the Catholic Thing which is beyond temporal and local considerations, religion made a way of life.
This paragraph essentially exposes the false dichotomy which this author founded his ariticle. Conservativism agrees with virtually everything that was just stated, especially “religion made a way of life.” The conservative sees that churches that celebrate the Tridentine mass are filled with false mystics, hyperdevoted religious psychotics, critical naysayers and other weird people while their churches are just the normal People of God. The traditionalist sees his churches filled with the sick looking for a Divine Physician, a tattered army of weary soldiers struggling for a lost cause while being ridiculed by people whose self-proclaimed normality only distances them from the real world which sees both sides as equally insane.
Straw man, straw man! Conservativism says no such thing and that is nothing but slander and redefining the term of “conservative” to put a wedge between “traditional” and “conservative” Catholics.The conservative has the complex of wanting to appear just like everyone else. His love for order sees singularity as threatening; if he is a cleric he will be in many ways indistinguishable from his fellow clerics. He says Mass like everyone else, but he believes; he wears the collar proudly when in church and hangs out with the guys in layclothes and is bothered by the bothersome traditionalist who is incapable of not being eccentric. He is the icon of fashionable middle class values grafted onto the priestly identity. He is convinced that in this way he can advance the cause through his career which will save the Church from extremisms.
This author has an agenda, its to cause outrage not teach. What he defines as “conservativism” which is actually neo-conservativism or closet liberalism. This article is bogus.The traditionalist knows he is an extremist to the eyes of the world but does not care, because the gift of his faith is more important than what others think of him.
There is nothing here that conflicts with true conservativism.The most serious criticism leveled by conservatives at traditionalists is that they live in a dream world of the sixteenth century (or twelfth or fifth) instead of the twenty-first and that they are escapists who use the traditional liturgy for, at best personal fulfillment, or worst, for some kind of autoerotic gratification. This author has consistently heard that traditionalists are usually open or closeted homosexuals, and that the impulse towards “that dodgy rite” is driven more by sexual psychosis than devotion.
This is misinformation and slander. I dont know what type of “conservatives” this man is dealing with because he has his definitions wrong. Conservativism does/teaches none of the above.Seminaries that are often touted as conservative, however, are often filled with open or barely stifled homoeroticism…
Key phrase "touted as conservative"There is a great attempt on the part of conservatives to distinguish between a true and a false ecumenism while trying to uphold the unicity of Christ and Catholicism and reconcile ecumenism and evangelization.
There is such a thing as true and false ecumenism, to pretend there isnt is childish. Conservatives note such a distinction precisely because they recongize false or watered down acts of ecumenism.After years of this “ecumenical” debate between factions of Catholicism, I have resigned myself to the fact that I am not in control of the Church or the Pope. Political solutions by laity or simple parish priests do not effect change in a divinely instituted church with an all too human hierarchy.That is essentially what a conservative Catholic recognizes.

 

[Eliza10]

…

This paragraph essentially exposes **the false dichotomy which this author founded his ariticle. **

…that is nothing but slander and redefining the term of “conservative” to put a wedge between “traditional” and “conservative” Catholics.

…This author has an agenda, its to cause outrage not teach. What he defines as “conservativism” which is actually neo-conservativism or closet liberalism. This article is bogus…

Great commentary. (Highlights are my own.)

I read the article with a good will, but the “Spong hermeneutics” alerted me something was amiss, which you did a good job defining.

I feel sorry though for the priest who wrote it. I think if he would only focus on all of God, Who is Love, and not get so sidelined by the human skirmishes between people, he could write an article he would not mind putting his name to.

P.S. Where did you get the great quote? I love St. Jude!

 

[Godefridus]

I’ve been a seminarian for a long time, in three different seminaries (two of them with reputations for being liberal) and in my experience, the author’s statements about scandalous activities in seminaries today are at best grossly exaggerated.

The one ‘conservative’ seminary I went to showed nothing of the scandal the author attributes to ‘touted-conservative’ seminaries.

 

[pnewton]

It is hard to see myself in most of his description of the “conservative” Catholic.

I am in the same situation. I think his pidgeon hole of conservative misses me, too. I strongly disagree that the conservative is typical American way of thinking.

 

[RobedWithLight]

My point was to show that it was unfair equate attendance in TLM with Schism . Just as it would be unfair to equate attendance at NO with heresy and apostates

As far as Apostates
IMHO – Good example is the Clown Mass
youtube.com/watch?v=NsC4wRPybpA

This has no resemblance of a Catholic Mass ( the suppression of this blasphemy should be supported by conservatives and traditionalist alike)

Lastly…I hate to beat a dead horse but SSPX is not in schism but a irregular state per Vatican

Let me repeat it if my point is still unclear. No one here has ever suggested that attending the TLM is in itself and by itself schism. It is good you likewise stated that attendance in the NO is not heretical.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Let me repeat it if my point is still unclear. No one here has ever suggested that attending the TLM is in itself and by itself schism. It is good you likewise stated that attendance in the NO is not heretical.

Yet these are tending to become our knee-jerk reactions. I am frankly increasingly suspicious of people who express a desire for the TLM (esp. if they go any distance toward denigrating the NO Mass), due mostly to a great deal of arrogance and radicalism given voice by many devotees of the TLM. This attitude is not, however, remotely fair to EVERY TLM devotee nor would it be fair to the TLM itself, any more so than it would be fair for a TLM devotee to assume that anyone who assists (by choice or otherwise) at the NO Mass is a member of Call to Action or guilty of liberalism or modernism. Further, even if that person WAS a member of CTA or an avowed liberal or a shrill modernist, it would be unfair and inaccurate to blame the NO Mass. That’s why “knee-jerk” is ALWAYS bad.

HH Pope Benedict XV, of happy memory, stated in *Beattisimus Apostolorum *that it was sufficient for each to say “Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname.” Maybe if we avoided labels altogether, our suspicions would be somewhat alleviated (and I have been guilty of labling myself).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Lastly…I hate to beat a dead horse but SSPX is not in schism but a irregular state per Vatican

And I hate to help you with the dead horse, but like Bear, I have to say that the truth of the SSPX is that the bishops are excommunicate, the priests suspended ad divinis and the laity who associate with them are warned against the danger of imbibing a schismatic attitude (as per a papal decree, not an interview by a cardinal). Labels aside, facts are simply facts, traditional facts or conservative ones.

 

[bear06]

the priests suspended ad divinis and the laity who associate with them are warned against the danger of imbibing a schismatic attitude (as per a papal decree, not an interview by a cardinal). Labels aside, facts are simply facts, traditional facts or conservative ones.

I would also like to pint out that the excommunication decree says this:

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication

. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

 

[RobedWithLight]

The article’s paragraph on ecumenism is quite interesting:

The natural desire for peace and to avoid repeating the horrific scenes of history in which men killed each other in the name of God has led to a false irenicism in which we have replaced the Nicene Creed with the Nice Creed and we no longer believe in the mission of the Church to bring all to Jesus Christ in the fullness of truth. There is a great attempt on the part of conservatives to distinguish between a true and a false ecumenism while trying to uphold the unicity of Christ and Catholicism and reconcile ecumenism and evangelization. Much ink has been spilled on the matter without there being any convincing theological resolution. The traditionalist ignores all of this, as he is sure in his faith and wants to bring it to others who then become confused by a Church that drowns herself in inscrutable verbiage about whether it really is the true Church or not.

The above statement is certainly incorrect. There is indeed a true and a false ecumenism. If in the act of dialoguing with other religions the Church were to renounce or dilute her salvific message, the dialogue would no longer be properly called a true dialogue but a surrender of its divine mandate, a denial of its reason for existing. She would thus lose her very identity, and this is what is called false ecumenism. A sense of identity is absolutely essential and only with it can one truly dialogue with others. This is true both with inter-Christian ecumenism, and inter-faith dialogue with other non-christian faiths.

*Dominus Iesus *was very clear on this, so I don’t understand why this author states that the Church allegedly uses “inscrutable” verbiage.

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”. “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”. Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes. Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Yet these are tending to become our knee-jerk reactions. I am frankly increasingly suspicious of people who express a desire for the TLM (esp. if they go any distance toward denigrating the NO Mass), due mostly to a great deal of arrogance and radicalism given voice by many devotees of the TLM. This attitude is not, however, remotely fair to EVERY TLM devotee nor would it be fair to the TLM itself, any more so than it would be fair for a TLM devotee to assume that anyone who assists (by choice or otherwise) at the NO Mass is a member of Call to Action or guilty of liberalism or modernism. Further, even if that person WAS a member of CTA or an avowed liberal or a shrill modernist, it would be unfair and inaccurate to blame the NO Mass. That’s why “knee-jerk” is ALWAYS bad.

HH Pope Benedict XV, of happy memory, stated in *Beattisimus Apostolorum *that it was sufficient for each to say “Christian is my name and Catholic is my surname.” Maybe if we avoided labels altogether, our suspicions would be somewhat alleviated (and I have been guilty of labling myself).

I dislike labels too, although at times admittedly, that likewise can’t be helped. In any case, I’m becoming suspicious too about the cavalier way some people here express their love for the traditional liturgy but casually and predictably bash the NO, a valid, legitimate liturgy of the Church.

Our friends who often disparage the NO must read the clear warning of Canons VI and VII of the Council of Trent:

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

That Benedict XV quote was quite nice. I’m thinking of using it as my signature, if it hasn’t been taken yet.

 

[BobP123]

Ok, I have to admit that I have an axe to grind with the NO. While I still think most of those who are sold on the NO are good people, nevertheless I am very glad that Pope JPII ruled that the pre-Vatican II Mass is indeed valid and needs to be revived. Maybe this had unintended consequences, maybe not. I tend to believe I was the proverbial frog in a slowly boiling barrel of sweet-smelling oil. That’s where the NO was leading me for 26 years. Where exactly did I think something was not right with this new order of things? It was on boards like these that I started doing my own research and discovering that what the nuns taught me in grade school was the Truth after all.

The Novus Ordo crowd seems to be the one who gets denied something by one parent, then gets the approval of the other parent and starts attacking the first parent as not being hip. (I know, I was there once too.) All this hostility and all this divisiveness would have never happened if there hadn’t been a Vatican II, not when it convened anyway. Maybe there would in time have been a Novus Ordo anyway but it certainly would not have been accepted as a Catholic Mass, much less a normative mass. Think about it.

 

[RobedWithLight]

The Novus Ordo crowd seems to be the one who gets denied something by one parent, then gets the approval of the other parent and starts attacking the first parent as not being hip. (I know, I was there once too.) All this hostility and all this divisiveness would have never happened if there hadn’t been a Vatican II, not when it convened anyway. Maybe there would in time have been a Novus Ordo anyway but it certainly would not have been accepted as a Catholic Mass, much less a normative mass. Think about it.

And the Arian heresy would not have spread had Nicaea not used the term “homoousios”…

And the Monophysite Christians would not have left had the Council of Chalcedon in 451 not insisted on its teaching concerning the dual nature of Christ,

And the Old Catholics would not have seceded had Vatican I not proclaimed the teaching of Papal Infallibility…

Every council has had its share of dissidents and “traditionalists” who walk out after they failed to have their way.

And the fact is, the Novus Ordo, Bob, is here, and is here to stay. Let’s just accept it and attend what liturgy best suits us, be it TLM or NO.

 

[devotus]

And the fact is, the Novus Ordo, Bob, is here, and is here to stay. Let’s just accept it and attend what liturgy best suits us, be it TLM or NO.

I agree…

My problem with NO is that too many times the abuses Blaspheme the Lord ( like clown Mass) But if the NO is cleaned up and errors removed ( Pro Multis = for all, Et cum spiritu tuo = and also with you , etc) it may be ok for those who chose it. But the TLM should be avail for those who want a more – dare I say – a more distinctly catholic mass

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The TLM has nothing to do with Schism. Many Good Catholics love this Mass as it is very Catholic.

The way that we worship God is paramount to our beliefs – Hardy a distraction to any concerned catholic. Look at the impact on the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist has dropped over the last 40 years.

If only his bishop would take the lead from the Holy Father in allowing the Mass

Fair… But JPII has made many mistakes as pope.

These are different Masses with different focuses ( God vs Community). Language is a very small difference as the NO can be said in Latin

Hey I guess that means Jesus would spend time with us

I’ve given reasons why a “conservative” might not be a traditionalist, that is to say, given an opportunity to celebrate the TLM, would decide instead to celebrate an NO Mass. There are many possible reasons, some good some bad.

However the article by Fr Faber says

Conservatives consistently find themselves in positions of liturgical inconsistence because their barometer of religious fervor is that of accepting whatever comes out of Rome and not what actually makes sense.

He gives only one reason. Conservatives are loyal to Rome at the expense of everything else.

 

[devotus]

I’ve given reasons why a “conservative” might not be a traditionalist, that is to say, given an opportunity to celebrate the TLM, would decide instead to celebrate an NO Mass. There are many possible reasons, some good some bad.

However the article by Fr Faber says

Conservatives consistently find themselves in positions of liturgical inconsistence because their barometer of religious fervor is that of accepting whatever comes out of Rome and not what actually makes sense.

He gives only one reason. Conservatives are loyal to Rome at the expense of everything else.

I guess it depends on your tolerance …

My conscience has led me to walk out of NO masses.

I would rather not participle in something that I feel in my heart is disrespecting the Lord – Even if Rome supports it.

 

[TNT]

However the article by Fr Faber says

Conservatives consistently find themselves in positions of liturgical inconsistence because their barometer of religious fervor is that of **accepting whatever comes out of Rome and not what actually makes sense. **

He gives only one reason. Conservatives are loyal to Rome at the expense of everything else.

I refer to this as Zombieism.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I refer to this as Zombieism.

You have to distinguish between zombies and those who realize there isnt anything they can do (apart from schism).