Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cranch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also wanted to post this excellent article from First Things magazine, on the topic of the differences between liberals, conserviatives, traditionalists, and radicals.

It’s by Peter Kreeft of Boston College and it’s called,

The Politics of Architecture:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3942
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Here is a short article written on the difference between Conservatives, Traditionalists, and Liberals. Quite interesting!

alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324
Click to expand...
Sorry, I dont’ find it the perfect article either. First of all, Bishop Bruskewitz is in my camp -whatever that is (I didn’t find it in the article). And secondly, this quote
For a conservative it’s a matter of taste
Click to expand...
If I’m told I’m in this category then this statement is wrong. For me it’s a matter of FAITH.
While most like traditional things, they opt for “what the people want” above all else
Click to expand...
in practice they cooperate far better and more often with liberals.
Click to expand...
Both of these would also be false.
 
In general, one of the largest differences between traditionalists and conservatives has to do with Church discipline. Thus, for instance, a conservative (to their credit) will decry abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass, but will not critique the Novus Ordo Mass itself. A traditionalist will critique the Novus Ordo Mass itself, even if he thinks it valid.

Further examples could be things like communion in the hand, where a traditionalist will criticize it and a conservative won’t (although he would want it done with reverence). As long as a discipline has been officially allowed by the Vatican, a conservative in general will not criticize it, while a traditionalist will if he believes the allowance or promulgation was a bad idea.

Personally I think it is perfectly acceptable to respectfully criticize matters of discipline, which are not infallible, especially since the Faith is often quite dependent on these disciplines (liturgy, architecture, etc.) to transmit the Faith.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Also wanted to post this excellent article from First Things magazine, on the topic of the differences between liberals, conserviatives, traditionalists, and radicals.

It’s by Peter Kreeft of Boston College and it’s called,

The Politics of Architecture:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3942
Click to expand...
I liked this article. It shows the oftentimes accuracy and the just as often error of stereotyping. What I find most fascinating in all the links posted, including the thread-starter, is the idea that conservative and traditionalist is not the same thing, however lacking these articles may be in defining the difference.
 
Personally I think it is perfectly acceptable to respectfully criticize matters of discipline, which are not infallible, especially since the Faith is often quite dependent on these disciplines (liturgy, architecture, etc.) to transmit the Faith.
Click to expand...
Again I refer people to
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Please note the sections on the Mutability of Disciplines and Disciplinary Infallibility.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Personally I think it is perfectly acceptable to respectfully criticize matters of discipline, which are not infallible, especially since the Faith is often quite dependent on these disciplines (liturgy, architecture, etc.) to transmit the Faith.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that. I mean, I really do not know. I have mixed thoughts on it. One thing I try to remain mindful of when on this forum, if criticism is okay, venues such as Catholic forums are a far better place for criticism and debate than the public arena. Better to keep it in the family, as it were. Anything worthwhile should be able to withstand criticism, anyway. On the other hand, I have always believed that once a decision is made, back that decision.

I would definitely have no problem with unlimited criticism if done in private and with the ends toward improvement. But then very few will ever be in that situation.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
…Personally I think it is perfectly acceptable to respectfully criticize matters of discipline, which are not infallible…
Click to expand...
The Jansenists were condemned for, among other things, criticizing matters of discipline. Why? Because ecclesiastial discipline is indeed infallible, but in a indirect and negative sense.

Pius VI condemned the Jansenist proposition that approved ecclsiastical discipline could be “harmful” or “dangerus” or “useless” or “burdensome” to the failful. (Auctorem Fidei, 78) Thus, ecclesiastical discipline is protected in an indirect sense, from these characteristics. Which mean that although disciplinary norms are not immutable, and can be provisional according to the changing circumstances of the world, they are infallible in another sense.

Furthermore, according to Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832):
“the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect"
Click to expand...
So, it appears that Catholics are not completely free to criticize the disciplinary norms approved by the Church in any manner whatsoever. To do so would be contrary to traditional Catholicism.

Consider also…

Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), who adomishes those who criticize ecclesiastical discipline in such a manner which…
"… categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church… [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794)… do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind?

And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?"
Click to expand...
According to Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):
“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends.”
Click to expand...
And, according to two Catholic theological texts written during the papacy of Pope St. Pius X…

1909 Catholic Encyclopedia - “Ecclesiastical Discipline”…
“[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.”
Click to expand...
From a 1908 source of Catholic doctrine, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:
“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
Click to expand...
Consequently, when people make the blanket claim that ecclesiastical discipline is not infallible and can therefore be criticized at will, I question what they mean precisely. It is certainly not infallible in the immutable sense that positive dogmatic definitions are, but there is a sense in which ecclesial discipline is protected from being dangerous and harmful to the faithul, and to criticize discipline as though it were, contrary to the condemnation of Pius VI and other popes is far from traditional.
 
Thanks to Bear06 and itsjustdave for their link and quotes.

In regards to the indirect infallibility of discipline, no traditionalist I read or listen to claims that the Novus Ordo Missae (or communion in the hand) is heretical or that the New Mass is invalid. Thus, one could posit, for instance, that there is nothing directly harmful in the Novus Ordo Missae. Nevertheless, in practical terms, criticism of the Novus Ordo Missae has gone on since its inception. And not just by “traditionalists.” Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has critiqued it, and written a forward to a book which does the same, and even presided over a conference in France at Fontgombault which critiqued it.

Another example is Cardinal Ottaviani and the Ottaviani Intervention (fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html).

And there are the books published by Ignatius Press which contain critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae such as “Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik.

Most of the critiques I have read say in general that something great was lost when we de facto suppressed the Tridentine rite and replaced it with the Novus Ordo. For example, there’s this line from the Ottaviani Intervention: “We now consider the essence of the Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, imperceptible to the faithful. Here are some of the main reasons: …” Whether or not someone agrees with certain critiques is beside the point I am trying to make. I am simply saying that either these men are wrong and perhaps impious in critiquing the Novus Ordo Missae, or, rather, the Church has no intention of suppressing legitimate criticism as long as it does not make declarations about such things as validity or heresy which are proper to the Church. I could go on, Dietrich von Hildebrand has written well on this subject in “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.”
 
And not just by “traditionalists.” Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has critiqued it, and written a forward to a book which does the same, and even presided over a conference in France at Fontgombault which critiqued it.
Click to expand...
He didn’t critique the Mass as called for. He critiqued what some did to it. He wouldn’t be critical of an Adoremus style Novus Ordo because this is what he wanted.
Another example is Cardinal Ottaviani and the Ottaviani Intervention (fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html).
Click to expand...
You are aware of what he said after the promulgation:
“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)
Click to expand...
And there are the books published by Ignatius Press which contain critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae such as “Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik.
Click to expand...
It’s important to remember that Ignatius Press is not calling for the dissolution of the Novus Ordo. They want the Novus Ordo as called for in Vatican II and so do I. I am privelaged to attend one such Mass and I hope that after the “reform of the reform” all will too. Here’s good example of Fr. Fessio’s beliefs:
adoremus.org/1298-VatIIMass.html
 
There’s no such thing as “negative” infallibility in Catholic doctrine.

The misinformation of the digital age is amazing. Quote a few paragraphs and people are miniature experts in centuries of Catholic tradition.
 
AlexV said:
There’s no such thing as “negative” infallibility in Catholic doctrine.

The misinformation of the digital age is amazing. Quote a few paragraphs and people are miniature experts in centuries of Catholic tradition.
Click to expand...
Sigh! Have you remotely bothered to read the Catholic Encyclopedia on this entry? Go ahead and say it again and again but it doesn’t make the fact that it’s in there. I’m sure if it agree with you, you would be quoting it too. This is Centuries of Catholic tradition.
 
The problem on these threads is people start asserting things about infallibility that make EVERYTHING of equal value. A mere quibble with a particular discipline becomes grounds for near schism or lack of communion.
 
elzoro said:
It’s incredible (or frightening:eek: ) how Conservatives so misread or misunderstand Traditionalist positions. Caricatures and straw men are erected daily and then “refuted”. If you really want to know the differences, click on this,it’s a MUST read:

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html
Click to expand...
"

I’ll say this, Fr. Chad is a wrong but great debater. Look how he’s masterfully pigeon-holed people in this little section:
Many of the things that neoconservatives do are the result of implicitly adopting principles that they have not fully or explicitly considered. Many of them would deny this characterization because they do not intellectually hold to what, in fact, are their operative principles.
Click to expand...
If we say that we have considered the pric(name removed by moderator)les we have adopted then we are wrong because we’re not following what he says we think. Sigh!
 
The problem in this media age is that everything a pope does is immediately broadcast worldwide and is interpreted by some as the new revelation on the Mount.

I mean, I remember a priest saying he would wear stoles outside his chasubles “because the Holy Father did, and so it’s all right.”

That’s papolatry, plain and simple…and that’s a very unCatholic problem.
 
bear06 said:
He didn’t critique the Mass as called for. He critiqued what some did to it. He wouldn’t be critical of an Adoremus style Novus Ordo because this is what he wanted.

You are aware of what he said after the promulgation:

It’s important to remember that Ignatius Press is not calling for the dissolution of the Novus Ordo. They want the Novus Ordo as called for in Vatican II and so do I. I am privelaged to attend one such Mass and I hope that after the “reform of the reform” all will too. Here’s good example of Fr. Fessio’s beliefs:
adoremus.org/1298-VatIIMass.html
Click to expand...
Fr. Fessio better reread all of Vatican II documents. Either that or maybe I missed reading where it calls for a Novus Ordo.
 
I agree with the Jesuit who nicely said of him, “Joe, you were a liberal then, and you’re a liberal now.”
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
In general, one of the largest differences between traditionalists and conservatives has to do with Church discipline. Thus, for instance, a conservative (to their credit) will decry abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass, but will not critique the Novus Ordo Mass itself. A traditionalist will critique the Novus Ordo Mass itself, even if he thinks it valid.

Further examples could be things like communion in the hand, where a traditionalist will criticize it and a conservative won’t (although he would want it done with reverence). As long as a discipline has been officially allowed by the Vatican, a conservative in general will not criticize it, while a traditionalist will if he believes the allowance or promulgation was a bad idea.

Personally I think it is perfectly acceptable to respectfully criticize matters of discipline, which are not infallible, especially since the Faith is often quite dependent on these disciplines (liturgy, architecture, etc.) to transmit the Faith.
Click to expand...
Probably the only things visible in similarity between the conservative and traditionalist are their recognition of a celibate and male priesthood as well as abstinence from meat during Lenten Fridays. Everything else is the modernist Novus Ordo Magisterium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top