Conservative vs. Traditional Catholics....and some stuff on Liberal Catholics too

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumspirospero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dumspirospero

Guest
latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

This is an excellent article written by a FSSP Priest, Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. He makes a lot of good points…I especially liked what he had to say here: “It should be noted, however, that the term “liberal” is often misleading. Many “liberals” are, in fact, unorthodox and do not believe what the Church believes. One can legitimately be a liberal if and only if one upholds all of the authentic teachings of the Church and then in matters of discipline or legitimate debate holds a more lenient posture. But often liberalism is merely another name for what is really unorthodox.”

Check out the article…it is wonderful. I hope you enjoy it like I did.
 
It is a great article indeed…I love it…everyone should read it.
 
You are indeed welcome my friend…I am a subscriber to the Magazine…it is a great read…let me tell you.
40.png
Jadesfire20:
cool article, thanks 👍
Click to expand...
 
It was a well written article from what I could see. I will admit though that I had a hard time following it.
So its basic idea is that it is trying to put the dagger into the back those who would go by the title “conservative” once and for all. So whats left liberals versus Traditionalists?
 
According to this writer’s definitions and generalizations, I am glad to say I fit in no category. I maintatin obedince to the current magisterium, but not for any of the reasons mentioned. I just do not feel more qualified than our church leaders to understand how historically doctrine develops and how that impacts the current direction of the church.

If the author of this article feels he is able, that is a freedom of conscience that must be respected. One must understand though the potential for any slant coming from a Journal entitled “The Latin Mass.”
 
40.png
pnewton:
According to this writer’s definitions and generalizations, I am glad to say I fit in no category. I maintatin obedince to the current magisterium, but not for any of the reasons mentioned. I just do not feel more qualified than our church leaders to understand how historically doctrine develops and how that impacts the current direction of the church.

If the author of this article feels he is able, that is a freedom of conscience that must be respected. One must understand though the potential for any slant coming from a Journal entitled “The Latin Mass.”
Click to expand...
But the writer of this article is a FSSP priest. So does that mean the FSSP is schismatic,because it’s priests have such views?
 
Interesting article and laid out in a reasoned fashion, which is refreshing. I do think he’s missing one aspect, however. I see “traditionalists” as fighting to hold on to those aspects of the pre-conciliar era that they hold dear, while “necconservatives” are focused on fighting against the progressivism that would continue to undermine the Church.

To “traditionalists” I say, Holy Mass in the vernacular is here to stay, join the fight for better translations, against liturgical abuses and for orthodox catechesis.

To “neoconservatives” I say, the TLM is a cherished part of the Catholic experience, join the fight for it’s “wide and generous application”.

Only by working together can progressivism be defeated. Let’s find that common ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top