Traditionalism V Conservatism

[Dempsey1919]

What is the difference between the two?

I once considered myself a traditionalist but now I would consider myself as a conservative catholic. I attend the Tridentine Mass and I prefer the ancient spirituality of the Roman rite but I also accept the Pauline Mass. Would I be considered a traditionalist? Even though I attend the Tridentine Mass, I love Vatican II. I believe that Vatican II will be vindicated in the future and I hope I will live to see it’s proper implemenation. Vatican II is falsely blamed for many of the changes we have seen in the Church. Vatican II was essentially a conservative council that was subsequently misinterpreted (and I believe this was deliberately done by the liberals within the Church).

So what is the difference between a conservative and a traditionalist?

 

[iamscifimike]

I would say that the Traditionalist dissents from the current magisterial teaching in adherence to past small “t” traditions thinking that they are intrisically linked to the big “T” Traditions of the Church.

A conservative would adhere very strictly to the current teaching of the Church, allowing almost no deviation from what is written and assuming nothing that isn’t written or preached from the Holy See or their own local Bishop. Conservatism taken too far is adhereing to Rome when your local Bishop is in authority.

A liberal would take church teaching, most ashamedly Vatican II, out of context, almost flirting with protestantism at a certain point. I say this because Protestants seem to take much of scripture out of context.

 

[I_Believe]

Yes, it’s easy to blame most everything wrong with todays Church on VII.

It’s been just over a year since I’ve returned to the Church, and the whole time, I’ve been combing the web for info in order to catch up.
Basically, I was away from the Church from the time the NO was introduced, until just a few months before B XVI’s MP.

Today I find myself like you Dempsey, not sure what I am. I’m definately not a sedevacantist, and I see no reason to waste time wondering if deceased Popes were heretics, or if conspiracy theories may be true.

I have my opinions about what should be done to renew the level of devotion and piety of the laity that seems to have been lost since VII. But the opinions of traditional minded Bishops and Cardinals are the ones that matter. If anyone can influence the powers that be in the Vatican, it’s them. Not armchair theologians and Bishops of the independent sects.

All we can do as laity, is find a reverent Mass, TLM or NO, and enrich our spirituality as Catholics as best we can. It’s a beautiful Faith with a treasure chest full of ways to become pious Catholics. And we can always reach into it. No Council has ever put a lock on it.

I think most traditionalists are conservative. And I think a traditionalist can remain obedient to Rome. There is no Doctrine, Dogma, or Canon Law that would impede it.

:twocents:

 

[Dempsey1919]

But the opinions of traditional minded Bishops and Cardinals are the ones that matter. If anyone can influence the powers that be in the Vatican, it’s them.

I agree.

My priest is of the opinion that the conservative/traditionalist/right-wing element within the Church is growing and looks set to continue for many years. I think that this is a good thing and is surely due to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

I have also been told that the young priests are all conservative in their faith and practice; they are staunch followers of the Magisterium.

We may end up with a smaller Church in the future but I think that it will be composed of faithful members and free of dissenters.

 

[GerardP]

I would say that the Traditionalist dissents from the current magisterial teaching in adherence to past small “t” traditions thinking that they are intrisically linked to the big “T” Traditions of the Church.

Actually a traditionalist doesn’t dissent from magisterial teaching.
The problem is the conservative thinks all policies from the Vatican officials and even Popes are magisterial. They are not.

Conservatives put “magisterial” in front of everything and think it’s therefore a revelation from Heaven.

It’s a lack of discernment on the part of conservatives that makes them compromise with liberals in order to move the faithful of the Church ever more closely to losing the faith.

St. Pius X explained and condemned this notion in Pascendi:

1. Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of doctrine, it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus, turned aside from its primitive vital principle, would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence, studying more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual consciences and ferments there - especially in such of them as are in most intimate contact with life. Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance already of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity a factor of progress in the Church.** Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. **The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance.

Chesterton later restated this in political terms:

*“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” *

 

[GerardP]

My priest is of the opinion that the conservative/traditionalist/right-wing element within the Church is growing and looks set to continue for many years. I think that this is a good thing and is surely due to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

The framing of that argument is all wrong. Traditionalists are not right wing nor left wing. That’s a false dichotomy.

Conservatives are not the anti-thesis of Liberals. The Conservatives provide a slowing action for Liberalism in order for it to be gradually accepted.

When push comes to shove on matters of faith, there is no room for conservatives. We saw this especially when the Passion of the Christ was released. Some surprisingly were opposed to the film because of its uncompromising presentation and others had to step up to the plate to defend it even if they were generally opposed to traditional Catholics.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Conservatives are not the anti-thesis of Liberals. The Conservatives provide a slowing action for Liberalism in order for it to be gradually accepted.

This definition assumes that all ideas stemming from liberalism will eventually be accepted. This is false. It is entirely possible for conservatives to halt the errors of liberals.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’d have to agree with GerardP’s comments.

I would say the primary difference between traditionalists and conservatives is that traditionalists will criticize prudential decisions of the Vatican and conservatives won’t. So, traditionalists will critique the Novus Ordo while conservatives won’t (although conservatives will criticize liturgical abuses).

This goes for other things such as communion in the hand. Traditionalists will criticize that decision and argue that it was a bad idea to allow it. Conservatives will defend the decision because it was allowed by the Vatican.

 

[iamscifimike]

Actually a traditionalist doesn’t dissent from magisterial teaching.
The problem is the conservative thinks all policies from the Vatican officials and even Popes are magisterial. They are not.

I’ve heard many traditionalists putting forth the opinion such as the TLM is superior to NO. This dissents from Catholic teaching since it denys the Real presence of Christ in the NO.

(I do not intend to turn this into a TLM vs. NO debate it is just the most recent example, in fact I don’t think a vs. can be put between them)

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I’ve heard many traditionalists putting forth the opinion such as the TLM is superior to NO. This dissents from Catholic teaching since it denys the Real presence of Christ in the NO.

The claim that one form of the Latin Rite is more reverential and therefore superior is not equivalent to a claim that the other is invalid. Thus, one may hold the opinion that one form is better without denying Catholic teaching.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I’ve heard many traditionalists putting forth the opinion such as the TLM is superior to NO. This dissents from Catholic teaching since it denys the Real presence of Christ in the NO.

(I do not intend to turn this into a TLM vs. NO debate it is just the most recent example, in fact I don’t think a vs. can be put between them)

I think your answer actually evidences the primary difference between traditionalists and conservatives. I can’t say it better than Miles Mariae. There is this tendency among conservatives to equate prudential decisions (such as the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) and any critique of that decision or liturgy with dissenting from Catholic teaching.

Invalidity is a whole other matter as just about any traditionalist I have read considers the NO valid.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

There is no such thing as conservative or liberal Catholic. There are only orthodox and heterodox Catholics. If you are heterodox it doesn’t matter if you are extremely traditional or extremely progressive, both are wrong as soon as they leave the shelter of orthodoxy.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

There is no such thing as conservative or liberal Catholic. There are only orthodox and heterodox Catholics. If you are heterodox it doesn’t matter if you are extremely traditional or extremely progressive, both are wrong as soon as they leave the shelter of orthodoxy.

Okay, then, according to your definition, although I think the TLM is superior to the Novus Ordo and hope and pray for its more widespread use, and abolition of allowances like communion in the hand which I think was a mistake, I am really just an orthodox Catholic since I am not disagreeing with any dogma of the Church.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Okay, then, according to your definition, although I think the TLM is superior to the Novus Ordo and hope and pray for its more widespread use, and abolition of allowances like communion in the hand which I think was a mistake, I am really just an orthodox Catholic since I am not disagreeing with any dogma of the Church.

Just between you and I, I agree with you but watch your language. The TLM is NOT superior to the Novus Ordo, because the Church says it is NOT. Both are legitimate Sacrifices with infinite merit and grace. You may say that esthetically, you prefer the TLM to the NO, but as soon as you denigrate the NO, you are stepping out of orthodoxy into heterodoxy. Likewise, you may hope and pray that someday, communion in the hand is no longer allowed, but since the time of the Apostles communion in the hand was the norm, to say it is a mistake once again boarders on the heterodox.

“Liberals” criticize the Church all the time so it is easy to recognize when they step into heterodoxy, it is harder to see that in Traditionals, but it is there all the same. Look at the Sede Vacs, just for an example.

The key to orthodoxy is study and obedience. If a Bishop teaches something that sounds fishy research it, study it out. If it agrees with the Magisterium obey it, even if personally one would prefer something a bit more conservative and then offer it up for the Holy Souls.

 

[Windmill]

I agree with the above comments about conservatives taking everything that comes out of Rome as dogmatic even though the Church, herself, does say that loyal Catholics can disagree with the prudential judgement in these matters. What I think we need to understand is that while we may pray for an end to things like Communion in the Hand, Altar Girls, Mass said versus populum, etc…, we must not fail to recognize Rome’s authority to make these decisions, and we must be measured in our public criticisms of these decisions.

We must not become Ultramontanists.

 

[Windmill]

Just between you and I, I agree with you but watch your language. The TLM is NOT superior to the Novus Ordo, because the Church says it is NOT. Both are legitimate Sacrifices with infinite merit and grace. You may say that esthetically, you prefer the TLM to the NO, but as soon as you denigrate the NO, you are stepping out of orthodoxy into heterodoxy. Likewise, you may hope and pray that someday, communion in the hand is no longer allowed, but since the time of the Apostles communion in the hand was the norm, to say it is a mistake once again boarders on the heterodox.

“Liberals” criticize the Church all the time so it is easy to recognize when they step into heterodoxy, it is harder to see that in Traditionals, but it is there all the same. Look at the Sede Vacs, just for an example.

The key to orthodoxy is study and obedience. If a Bishop teaches something that sounds fishy research it, study it out. If it agrees with the Magisterium obey it, even if personally one would prefer something a bit more conservative and then offer it up for the Holy Souls.

Marsha,

Brennan is perfectly free to say that the TLM is esthetically and doctrinally superior in its form. What he is not free to say is that it is superior in its substance. It is the same sacrifice of Calvary, but he (as well as I) believe that the TLM safeguards the reality of the Catholic beliefs on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the hierarcical priesthood more effectively than the Novus Ordo Mass. To say that the Church promulgated a form of Mass that hurts the faith of the people is against her divine constitution of indefectibility. However, to say that one Mass is more effective in conveying the faith than the other is okay for a loyal Catholic.

Communion in the hand is a practice that fell out of disuse as the Church grew in her respect for the Eucharist. To say that it is less effective in safeguarding the teaching on the Real Presence is not heresy. Also, the arguments on the apostolicity of this practice are coming into question, so I wouldn’t even speak definitively on the historical nature of this practice. Suffice to say, liturgical development saw the prudence in abandoning this practice for the good of the faith.

I think we need to understand what we are free to disagree on and what we are not free to disagree on. To say that a pastoral practice is not prudential is a far cry from falling away from orthodoxy.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Just between you and I, I agree with you but watch your language. The TLM is NOT superior to the Novus Ordo, because the Church says it is NOT. Both are legitimate Sacrifices with infinite merit and grace. You may say that esthetically, you prefer the TLM to the NO, but as soon as you denigrate the NO, you are stepping out of orthodoxy into heterodoxy. Likewise, you may hope and pray that someday, communion in the hand is no longer allowed, but since the time of the Apostles communion in the hand was the norm, to say it is a mistake once again boarders on the heterodox.

“Liberals” criticize the Church all the time so it is easy to recognize when they step into heterodoxy, it is harder to see that in Traditionals, but it is there all the same. Look at the Sede Vacs, just for an example.

The key to orthodoxy is study and obedience. If a Bishop teaches something that sounds fishy research it, study it out. If it agrees with the Magisterium obey it, even if personally one would prefer something a bit more conservative and then offer it up for the Holy Souls.

I agree with your last statement. As Dietrich von Hildebrand once so aptly put it, “We obey, but we do not agree.”

And no, I am not going to “watch my language” in regards to prudential decisions regarding prudential decisions of the Vatican. Criticizing them does not border on the heterodox. Otherwise, I suppose Cardinal Ottaviani “bordered on the heterodox”, or actually completely stepped over the line, when he issued his intervention:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm#aband

I agree that to say that the Novus Ordo is invalid is heterodox. However, they are not the same liturgy and there is no dogma of the Church that says one is just as good as the other.

The same for communion in the hand. It was a prudential decision of the Vatican. Now, someone can certainly argue with me that it was a wonderful idea, but there is no dogma that communion in the hand is just as good as communion on the tongue or that the matter is indifferent (in fact Paul VI expressed concern about the loss of reverence when he allowed communion in the hand as an indult).

Although it’s off topic, to say that communion in the hand was the “norm” since the time of the apostles is debatable, to say the least:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

God bless.

 

[GerardP]

Just between you and I, I agree with you but watch your language. The TLM is NOT superior to the Novus Ordo, because the Church says it is NOT.

That’s not quite accurate. The Holy Father himself has written about the Novus Ordo as a “banal on the spot product.”

Liturgies are of different weight and quality. That’s why the TLM is the product of organic development over the course of 1500 years.

Both are legitimate Sacrifices with infinite merit and grace.

That’s the consecration. The Liturgy surrounding it can be more or less helpful in taking advantage of those graces.

You may say that esthetically, you prefer the TLM to the NO, but as soon as you denigrate the NO, you are stepping out of orthodoxy into heterodoxy.

On what do you base that?

Likewise, you may hope and pray that someday, communion in the hand is no longer allowed, but since the time of the Apostles communion in the hand was the norm, to say it is a mistake once again boarders on the heterodox.

Not true. As reverence and understanding of the Blessed Sacrament grew, more reverent gestures were introduced to both enhance faith and show proper respect. To then knowingly go back to a less reverent form would not have the same attitude as those who did prior to the improvements.

“Liberals” criticize the Church all the time so it is easy to recognize when they step into heterodoxy, it is harder to see that in Traditionals, but it is there all the same.

It’s easy to see heterodoxy in anyone if you actually learn the faith.

Look at the Sede Vacs, just for an example.

Sedevacantism is not a heresy.

The key to orthodoxy is study and obedience.

Study and true obedience. False obedience won’t get you anywhere but in trouble.

If a Bishop teaches something that sounds fishy research it, study it out.

What about when it’s the Bishop of Rome?

If it agrees with the Magisterium obey it, even if personally one would prefer something a bit more conservative and then offer it up for the Holy Souls.

No. You petition, lobby and pray and work for it’s reversal depending on the gravity of the situation.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

I would say that the Traditionalist dissents from the current magisterial teaching in adherence to past small “t” traditions thinking that they are intrisically linked to the big “T” Traditions of the Church.

A conservative would adhere very strictly to the current teaching of the Church, allowing almost no deviation from what is written and assuming nothing that isn’t written or preached from the Holy See or their own local Bishop. Conservatism taken too far is adhereing to Rome when your local Bishop is in authority.

A liberal would take church teaching, most ashamedly Vatican II, out of context, almost flirting with protestantism at a certain point. I say this because Protestants seem to take much of scripture out of context.

Your posting is very thought-provoking. It sounds very accurate as well. Could “orthodox” be substituted for “conservatism?” Well, perhaps not entirely as there are orthodox progressives as well. Nonetheless, I enjoyed reading your viewpoint.

 

[AltarEnthusiast]

The framing of that argument is all wrong. Traditionalists are not right wing nor left wing. That’s a false dichotomy.

Conservatives are not the anti-thesis of Liberals. The Conservatives provide a slowing action for Liberalism in order for it to be gradually accepted.

When push comes to shove on matters of faith, there is no room for conservatives. We saw this especially when the Passion of the Christ was released. Some surprisingly were opposed to the film because of its uncompromising presentation and others had to step up to the plate to defend it even if they were generally opposed to traditional Catholics.

While it’s problematic to apply political labels to the Church under any circumstance, I believe thee is a problem with your comment.

First, so-called “traditionalists” do seem to be of the right and many times, the far right in all my experiences within the Church. This may be only by practice and not design, but it’s been my experience all of the time.

I think perhaps the term “orthodox” is more appropriate? I have seen both left and right wing Catholics who are also extremely orthodox.