So how conservative is our Holy Father?

[OLRansom]

Alright, then how conservative is the Holy Father?

He is not.

 

[batteddy]

Within Catholicism, being orthodox and a conservative are the same.

Not true.

Being orthodox is not the same as being conservative in Catholicism.

Orthodoxy means just not being heterodox. There are reactionaries, conservatives, moderates, and liberals who are all technically orthodox, meaning they hold to the essentials of the faith. I’m less sure about radicals, but anything can happen I guess…

For example…people supporting married priests and major lay administration and liturgical dance and stuff in the Latin Rite…are liberal, but if they hold to the dogmas…they are orthodox.

Traditionalist Catholics are not conservative either, we are reactionary. But we are certainly orthodox.

Being an orthodox/conservative Catholic and being a traditional Catholic are totally different.

No and Yes.

Being an orthodox Catholic is not “totally” different from being a traditional Catholic. Because traditionalists are almost certainly orthodox (unless you count fringe sede [edited by Moderator]). Almost all traditionalists are orthodox (though not necessarily obedient), though not all orthodox Catholics are traditionalists.

However, being a conservative Catholic IS very different from being a traditionalist. And yet both can be, and often are, orthodox.

A good article explaining the “conservative” vs. “traditional” mindset is here:
latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html

 

[rlg94086]

Looks like there are two similar threads.

1. The chance of a “reactionary” Pope being elected is very slim. Since it is a group of Cardinals led by the Holy Spirit, I think it would be rare for a severe change to occur.
2. IMO a “reactionary” Pope would be a disaster for the Church. Maybe only short-term, because I know we would survive, but possibly long-term, because the political battle that would ensue could very well doom Traditionalism. IOW the opposite result would be accomplished.

Therefore, what we need now if civilization is to be saved…are reactionaries, not conservatives. People willing to move “backwards” out of belief in an absolute ideology, not merely people clingingly desperately and impotently to the status quo in the hopes of merely slowing the leftward march of recent history as much as possible. We need people willing to try to reverse change, not merely prevent more change. People willing to return to a healthier model of civilization (ie, Christendom) from the past…not merely trying to keep things like they are.

The present is too small to fight the future. The present can slow the future, but it will inevitably make gains unless we pull positively in the pastward direction.

Adding zeroes to an accumulating string of numbers will slow it’s growth, sure, but you need to add negative numbers to actually start reducing it.

Not releasing any more pollution, or as little as possible, will stop or slow the accumulation of pollution…but it won’t get rid of any of the pollution that already exists unless positive steps are taken to reverse the old pollution.

Things need to be made BETTER, not merely stopped from getting worse!

Acting as a passive dead-weight in a tug of war can slow the other side from winning…but if they keep pulling, their little gains will add up to an eventually win unless you ACTIVELY pull in the OTHER direction.

Conservatism then, is a passive and effeminate position to take. Refusing to participate in any more evil perhaps, but too scared to take a stand against that which has already piled up in the mainstream. Declining to go any further on our civilization’s death-march, but too cowardly to actually try to regain ground and move positively backwards.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Totally different? Traditonalists are conservative in nature.

Traditionalists who have stayed with the Church could be considered “conservative”, but their are some (like Archbishop Lefevre) who are as disobedient to the right as Lorraine Bottner is to the left. Should Lefevre have been considered “conservative”?

Conservative and Liberal are not Catholic terms, but the Catholic Church does not have possession of words. According to Houghton Mifflin, the first definition of conservative is:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

and the first definition of orthodox is:

Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

So why can you say that a conservative Catholic is not an orthodox Catholic.

Furthermore, if we are talking just about the faith, can’t a Novus Ordo Catholic be considered traditional, considering the faith has not changed?

 

[ncjohn]

Traditionalists who have stayed with the Church could be considered “conservative”, but their are some (like Archbishop Lefevre) who are as disobedient to the right as Lorraine Bottner is to the left. Should Lefevre have been considered “conservative”?

Conservative and Liberal are not Catholic terms, but the Catholic Church does not have possession of words. According to Houghton Mifflin, the first definition of conservative is:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

and the first definition of orthodox is:

Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

So why can you say that a conservative Catholic is not an orthodox Catholic.

Furthermore, if we are talking just about the faith, can’t a Novus Ordo Catholic be considered traditional, considering the faith has not changed?

I think what you’re saying here is why it’s hard to mix terms that don’t have a Catholic meaning with those that do.

A “conservative” Catholic, opposing change, might very well be out of communion because they do not accept Vatican II. If they do not accept Vatican II, they could not really be considered “orthodox”.

A “Novus Ordo” Catholic certainly can be considered “Traditional”, adhering to the unchanging faith, and may or may not be orthodox. However “traditionalist” has taken on a narrowly-defined meaning–at least here–of supporting the TLM–and other older disciplines depending on which “traditionalist” you ask. Under that “definition” someone who prefers the Pauline Mass cannot be a “traditionalist” though they can be a Traditionalist. And someone who is a “traditionalist” may or may not be “orthodox”, at least in the eyes of the post-conciliar Church. Archbishop Lefevbre would be both “conservative” and “traditionalist”, but not “orthodox” in the eyes of the post-conciliar Church.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I think what you’re saying here is why it’s hard to mix terms that don’t have a Catholic meaning with those that do.

Definitely! Should anyone be labeled a conservative or a liberal Catholic? To me, the term is redundant because it is our collection of beliefs that make us Catholic, not our liturgical preferences. A Byzantine is no more or less Catholic than someone in the Latin Rite.

A “conservative” Catholic, opposing change, might very well be out of communion because they do not accept Vatican II.

I barely consider them Catholic. But, some have argued whether someone who has left the Catholic faith is still a Catholic, albeit a sinning one.

If they do not accept Vatican II, they could not really be considered “orthodox”.

I’ll agree with you there.

A “Novus Ordo” Catholic certainly can be considered “Traditional”, adhering to the unchanging faith, and may or may not be orthodox. However “traditionalist” has taken on a narrowly-defined meaning–at least here–of supporting the TLM–and other older disciplines depending on which “traditionalist” you ask. Under that “definition” someone who prefers the Pauline Mass cannot be a “traditionalist” though they can be a Traditionalist. And someone who is a “traditionalist” may or may not be “orthodox”, at least in the eyes of the post-conciliar Church. Archbishop Lefevbre would be both “conservative” and “traditionalist”, but not “orthodox” in the eyes of the post-conciliar Church.

I dislike labels just as much as people on this TC forum dislike Marty Haugen.

 

[ncjohn]

Definitely! Should anyone be labeled a conservative or a liberal Catholic? To me, the term is redundant because it is our collection of beliefs that make us Catholic, not our liturgical preferences. A Byzantine is no more or less Catholic than someone in the Latin Rite.

I agree with you. I call myself Catholic, without any modifiers. They are dangerous in my opinion if for no other reason than the fact that you can’t put someone in a pre-defined box. There are always parts of things that apply and parts that don’t.

I barely consider them Catholic. But, some have argued whether someone who has left the Catholic faith is still a Catholic, albeit a sinning one.

According to the Church, one who has been baptized Catholic is Catholic, however deficient their journey might be at any given point, except under some very limited circumstances. One can be out of communion with the Church, in many different ways, but it does not change one being objectively Catholic. I personally left the Church for 20 years or so, and was only a pew potato, there against my will for several years when I did return. But during that entire time I was still objectively Catholic.

I dislike labels just as much as people on this TC forum dislike Marty Haugen.

Amen to that. If a person wants to use them themselves as a description to help identify some preference to another person, that’s fne and dandy. Beyond that though, I don’t think we should be applying them to each other. The only label I like to apply is “beloved child of God” for I know it is safe no matter to whom I am speaking.

Peace,

 

[Ad_Deum]

As we can see right now he is returning or reintroducing those Catholic traditions little by little, but how conservative or orthodox the holy father is… I can’t honestly say, but he writes well and reasons wisely.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christo
Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[m134e5]

I remember at his election people, including your’s truly, were all anticipating this huge smackdown on progressives. However, we have seen nothing of the sort, which leads me to ask this question. Exactly how Orthodox is Benedict XVI?

Pope Benedict understands that no one human soul is less valuable than any other human soul. You don’t just show someone the door when they aren’t perfect (even if they are imperfect by their own choosing). In his former position, before he was pope, it was his job to correct false theologies. His job is much more broad now. Being pope is a new job for him- it is not the continuation of his former job, with the added bonus of not having to answer to anyone else on earth. The Holy Father will do what he needs to do, but he isn’t going to try and do it all at once. We must trust him. Pray for him- and pray for the souls that need correction.

 

[kleary]

I remember at his election people, including your’s truly, were all anticipating this huge smackdown on progressives. However, we have seen nothing of the sort, which leads me to ask this question. Exactly how Orthodox is Benedict XVI?

God does not act according to your timeline-

However I can see drastic action already taking place:

1. VATICAN CITY, JUL 7, 2007 (VIS) - Given below is a non-official English-language translation of the Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” of Pope Benedict XVI, “Summorum Pontificum,” concerning the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The original text is written in Latin.
2. VATICAN CITY, JUL 10, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”
3. VATICAN CITY, JUN 26, 2007 (VIS) - Made public today was a “Motu Proprio,” written in Latin, with which the Holy Father Benedict XVI restores the traditional norm concerning the majority required for the election of the Supreme Pontiff. According to this norm, in order for the election of a new Pope to be considered valid it is always necessary to reach a majority of two thirds of the cardinals present.

 

[bastion]

… And Popes can be heretics, and have been, but are protected by the Holy Spirit from declaring their heresy ex cathedra. This Pope, however, is not a heretic.

Hi batteddy, sorry to dig this up from the other day, but I was reading through the thread and felt I needed to get some clarification here.

I was under the belief that a heretic could not be a Pope. I had a little hunt around and found a couple of points that Doctors of the Church have written previously, namely:

St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306 “Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the church…”

St. Antoninus: “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, seperated from the Church…He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” Summa Theologica, cited in *Actes de Vatican I.*V. Frond pub.

Clearly a different view here, just wondering what you base your statement on?

I enjoyed some of your other points though, very thought provoking!

 

[DJim]

Bastion is promoting a sedevacantist agenda, people. Don’t be fooled…

DJim