What passes for Traditional & Conservative these days?

[Iotaunum]

In our times it seems like the very meaning of the terms “Traditional” and “Conservative” have been changed drastically. So I basically want to know what people consider both terms to mean these days.

The Catholic Church has always been Traditional and Conservative by its very nature. Modernism, evolution of dogma and liberalism have been consistently condemned by the Popes and Magesterium.

What got me considering this change initially was none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Almost throughout his entire time in the service of the Church he has been known to back some of the more liberal trends in theology and philosophy. He was known to be liberal during his time at the council, and after reading nine of his books so far he would surely have been considered a liberal by the Church pre 1960’s. (no disprespect)

But then recently (just before the death of Pope JPII) he came to be considered both conservative and traditional, while still maintaining the same views which were considered liberal pre 1960’s. What has changed?

Do liberal, conservative, traditional, modern etc all have new meanings since Vatican II?

Some people consider a Catholic to be conservative if he/she holds church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality etc, while the rest are just “more liberal”.

Others consider those who hold Church teaching as it was in the days of Pope Pius XII and all preceding times as “radical”?

So the question is, what passes as Conservative and Traditional today, and what does one have to do to be considered Radical or liberal?

 

[excelsus]

So the question is, what passes as Conservative and Traditional today, and what does one have to do to be considered Radical or liberal?

I would say that a conservative is one who agrees with all the teachings of the Church, someone who is traditional would be one who has a preference for the EF or TLM (it’s not really a stance on issues except that one, but most are conservative in my experience), a liberal would be someone who doesn’t agree with all the teachings of the Church (“I agree with the Church except about X, Y, Z” (usually abortion, gay rights, etc)), and a radical would be one who advocates for extreme change in Church teachings.

 

[JohnDamian]

Traditional - Someone who tends to have a preferance to TLM and other such things; might not be 100% behind VII; or at least have some sentiments or preferances to some pracitces before VII.

Conservative - Someone who upholds the values of the Church fully.

Liberal - Someone who is more open to being “flexible” with Church teaching; able and/or willing to justify concessions on some / all points against the Church.

That at least is how I see it.

 

[Onegin]

Allow me to be a bit caustic here for a moment.

One who agrees with all the Church teaches is not a “conservative” Catholic. They are Catholic. One who dissents from and does not follow Church teaching is a heretic even if they want to call themselves Catholic.

So, the “base” level of Catholicism (if you will - "regular or “nonpartisan” Catholicism) is accepting that which the Church teaches and rejecting all that She rejects.

Now a “liberal Catholic” is someone who agrees and submits to all the Church teaches (otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholic) but nevertheless thinks that the Church teaching needs to be brought in line with modern thinking.

A “traditional” Catholic is one who also agrees and submits to all the Church teaches and believes that it is unnecessary for the Church to conform to modern thinking, that the world should conform to the Church and not vice versa.

I don’t really know what terms like “conservative” or “orthodox” mean other than as synonyms for traditional to varying degrees.

 

[Melchior_1]

A “traditional” Catholic is one who also agrees and submits to all the Church teaches and believes that it is unnecessary for the Church to conform to modern thinking, that the world should conform to the Church and not vice versa.

To me this would actually be a Traditional Catholic (which I include myself in), whereas a tradtional Catholic prefers the EF, COTT, older music at Mass, etc etc.

“Conservative” I’d say is more political than spiritual.

 

[CDNowak]

In our times it seems like the very meaning of the terms “Traditional” and “Conservative” have been changed drastically. So I basically want to know what people consider both terms to mean these days.

The Catholic Church has always been Traditional and Conservative by its very nature. Modernism, evolution of dogma and liberalism have been consistently condemned by the Popes and Magesterium.

What got me considering this change initially was none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Almost throughout his entire time in the service of the Church he has been known to back some of the more liberal trends in theology and philosophy. He was known to be liberal during his time at the council, and after reading nine of his books so far he would surely have been considered a liberal by the Church pre 1960’s. (no disprespect)

But then recently (just before the death of Pope JPII) he came to be considered both conservative and traditional, while still maintaining the same views which were considered liberal pre 1960’s. What has changed?

Do liberal, conservative, traditional, modern etc all have new meanings since Vatican II?

Some people consider a Catholic to be conservative if he/she holds church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality etc, while the rest are just “more liberal”.

Others consider those who hold Church teaching as it was in the days of Pope Pius XII and all preceding times as “radical”?

So the question is, what passes as Conservative and Traditional today, and what does one have to do to be considered Radical or liberal?

Most of those terms are, by their nature, relative. The radical shift in mainstream Catholicism after (not by) the Council changed the metric these terms measured against, and as a default the nearest big event became the point we draw the line (V-II)

If we actually look at what these terms mean, those who prefer the status quo are the *conservatives *(including the “What if we just said wait” crowd").
Liberals I think tend to also be conservatives at this point, if we use the older definition, promoting a “what works for you” approach to Catholicism.
There is a wide spectrum of progressives, including those that think we need to change doctrine and those that believe we need to return to Trent to find a true Creed.
*Traditional *is, generally half of that spectrum, from re-reading V-II in light of the ~1930 years of Church teaching (I believe the Pope falls in this category, but then so do I) to those that do not wish to waver on any wording of what came before because even in changing the wording meaning can be lost.
Modern, by the common definition is what is current, and I honestly can’t make anything useful out of the “synthesis of all heresies” definition
Radical, again depends on the definition : either extreme progressive or Traditionalist.
I would propose “Innovator” as the accurate opposite of Traditionalist.

So if one holds to the teaching from Pius XII they are a radical, progressive Traditionalist. (aka SSPX).

Pope Benedict, since the extent of his liberalism (and beyond) was recognized by the Church is merely a progressive Traditionalist.

Kung (for example) would be a radical progressive Innovator (with all the distaste the Orthodox can put behind that word )

Bishop Trautman (again for example) would be a modern conservative, with a tendency to innovate.

“Joe and Mary Pewsitter” are generally conservative, with a little bit more of a taste for traditionalism than innovation.

 

[Onegin]

To me this would actually be a Traditional Catholic (which I include myself in), whereas a tradtional Catholic prefers the EF, COTT, older music at Mass, etc etc.

“Conservative” I’d say is more political than spiritual.

And yet, many Traditional catholics see COTH and the OF as attempts by the Church to conform herself to the modern world instead of vice versa, and so it fits that they then prefer the things that do not have this effect.

But yes, I am not denying that there are degrees of it and the “conservative” label sounds more political since it often involves Catholics who espouse a particular political viewpoint as well.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

Some people consider a Catholic to be conservative if he/she holds church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality etc, while the rest are just “more liberal”.

I consider the rest to be “Non-Catholic.”

 

[Blairamir]

In our times it seems like the very meaning of the terms “Traditional” and “Conservative” have been changed drastically. So I basically want to know what people consider both terms to mean these days.

Do liberal, conservative, traditional, modern etc all have new meanings since Vatican II?

So the question is, what passes as Conservative and Traditional today, and what does one have to do to be considered Radical or liberal?

When I read your post I thought of the Syllabus of Pius IX, aka the syllabus of errors, from 1864 and whether or not cardinals and bishops in the church today consider some of the errors as important in our modern Internet Age.

newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

Traditional - Someone who tends to have a preference to TLM and other such things; might not be 100% behind VII; or at least have some sentiments or preferences to some practices before VII.

Conservative - Someone who upholds the values of the Church fully.

Liberal - Someone who is more open to being “flexible” with Church teaching; able and/or willing to justify concessions on some / all points against the Church.

Good definitions for most conversations. Many who call themselves Liberal Catholics are actually ‘heretics’ but that word has such a harsh connotation that I’d recommend just using ‘protestant’ instead.

 

[Iotaunum]

Most of those terms are, by their nature, relative. The radical shift in mainstream Catholicism after (not by) the Council changed the metric these terms measured against, and as a default the nearest big event became the point we draw the line (V-II) .

See, I guess thats why people have different views as to what/who actually is a “traditionalist”, “modernist”, “conservative” or “liberal” etc. In fact, I would consider your view that these terms themselves are relativistic to be a liberal one.

*Traditional *is, generally half of that spectrum, from re-reading V-II in light of the ~1930 years of Church teaching (I believe the Pope falls in this category, but then so do I) to those that do not wish to waver on any wording of what came before because even in changing the wording meaning can be lost.
Modern, by the common definition is what is current, and I honestly can’t make anything useful out of the “synthesis of all heresies” definition
Radical, again depends on the definition : either extreme progressive or Traditionalist.
I would propose “Innovator” as the accurate opposite of Traditionalist.

Yes, I think “Inovator” would be the opposite of Traditionalist, as you say - but I think that not all tradtionalists (myself included) are against innovation (at least not in the sense which the Church has always been innovative). With regards to the “synthesis of all heresies”, I agree with Pope St Pius X on this one - but then I am a traditionalist. In fact, modernism is a bigger problem today than when the Pope first condemned it.

So if one holds to the teaching from Pius XII they are a radical, progressive Traditionalist. (aka SSPX).

Pope Benedict, since the extent of his liberalism (and beyond) was recognized by the Church is merely a progressive Traditionalist.

Kung (for example) would be a radical progressive Innovator (with all the distaste the Orthodox can put behind that word )

Bishop Trautman (again for example) would be a modern conservative, with a tendency to innovate.

“Joe and Mary Pewsitter” are generally conservative, with a little bit more of a taste for traditionalism than innovation.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me on this one. How can you say that holding the teaching from Pius XII is “radical”? Traditionalist -yes, but the use of the term “progressive” in this instance escapes me. I would like to think that I along with other Catholics held the same Church teachings as Pius XII held - I would consider him a very good Catholic. This is the problem. I think if one of the past Popes or saints came back to life people would label them radical or even “radtrad” etc - which I think is generally unfair.

 

[CDNowak]

Part of being so thorough in my previous post was to point out the inanity of trying to find the meaning of labels qua labels, the meaning of the words themselves have no connection to their current usage…

See, I guess thats why people have different views as to what/who actually is a “traditionalist”, “modernist”, “conservative” or “liberal” etc. In fact, I would consider your view that these terms themselves are relativistic to be a liberal one.

Conservative and modern are, by definition, relative, liberal is also fairly relative in common usage (I don’t know that dictionary definition liberals exist anymore). “Modernist” is used too much as a catch-all to have any meaning beyond the implied ‘heretic’. Traditional, in the Catholic sense, is objective but broad.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me on this one. How can you say that holding the teaching from Pius XII is “radical”? Traditionalist -yes, but the use of the term “progressive” in this instance escapes me. I would like to think that I along with other Catholics held the same Church teachings as Pius XII held - I would consider him a very good Catholic. This is the problem. I think if one of the past Popes or saints came back to life people would label them radical or even “radtrad” etc - which I think is generally unfair.

Radical (from the Latin radix meaning: root) indicates more a ‘fundamental’ approach without indicating direction or value judgement (that you seem to be making).

Progressive means supporting change, indicating a ‘forward’ motion: to paraphrase Lewis, sometimes that means going back to where you left the road. The “conservative” movement in the Church is hardly conservative (preserving the status quo) at all, many want sweeping changes.

Yes, if someone believes in all Church teaching in the same language that was used by Pius XII (and the implication of nothing since) then they would be considered radical, in part because the rapid changes in language over the past 60 years, and in part because the fact there was a Council and five Popes since then.

Yes, I think “Inovator” would be the opposite of Traditionalist, as you say - but I think that not all tradtionalists (myself included) are against innovation (at least not in the sense which the Church has always been innovative). With regards to the “synthesis of all heresies”, I agree with Pope St Pius X on this one - but then I am a traditionalist. In fact, modernism is a bigger problem today than when the Pope first condemned it.

The ideologies condemned as modernism aren’t a discrete system of thought, but various competing theories that often contradict each other. It isn’t a matter of being a Traditionalist, it is that the term lacks utility (and therefore meaning, or is it vice versa ) I honestly think any discernible, monolithic modernism is past its heyday (ending late 1970s early 1980s: the bigger problem today is a general apathy in thought and hiding behind labels as a substitute for discussing the issues.

 

[Iotaunum]

Part of being so thorough in my previous post was to point out the inanity of trying to find the meaning of labels qua labels, the meaning of the words themselves have no connection to their current usage…

Yes, I thank you for your thorough response however I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the significance of the “labels” as you refer to them. It does not seem to me inane to work out their meaning, as this forms the crux of my question - what does it mean to be “traditional”/ “Conservative”? etc. Also, I strongly disagree with you that the “meanings of the words themselves have no connection to their current usage”. It is not so much the literary meaning of the words as defined by secular society, which is of course subject to change and evolution; but the meaning of the terms to decribe thoughts, errors, movements, trends etc as clearly defined by the Church in those documents which discussed them.

For instance, “modernism” can easily be defined by reading the Encylicals of Pope Pius IX, X and XII and the Holy Office instructions etc - but there are those today who openly hold opinions condemned as grevious errors dangerous to the faith because they say “they do not apply to our times” or “we have a better understanding etc” . It seems to me that the subjective, relativistic/revisionist approach to interpreting these condemnations are the very trends which were being condemned and warned about. I hope I am making sense - I dont know how exactly to phrase what I am trying to say here.

Basically, it is like the Church condemning the view that teachings are subjective to the time in which we live, and that doctrines can evolve and change meaning - and then someone explaining why this no longer applies, giving the reason that; “times have changed and we have a different understanding now” - i.e the very reason which was condemned. Kind of like situation ethics, only regarding time/doctrine etc. I know im not explaining this very well, but I think this example shows the general idea.

Yes, if someone believes in all Church teaching in the same language that was used by Pius XII (and the implication of nothing since) then they would be considered radical, in part because the rapid changes in language over the past 60 years, and in part because the fact there was a Council and five Popes since then.

Im afraid I stll cant understand your view here that; " if someone believes in all Church teaching in the same language that was used by Pius XII (and the implication of nothing since) then they would be considered radical".

I agree with you about someone who rejected the “nothing since” part, but the “same language” I have no problem with. I have read all of Pius XII’s encyclicals for example, and I would agree 100% with him - language and all. I dont see a problem with that. I guess it goes back to the issue of; Do the meanings of words, terms etc as the Church described them evolve to mean different things over time? - I dont think they do, and I think that is the problem that the Church faces today. I would say modernism is still not only alive and well today but is actually thriving.

Thanks for your indepth response by the way.

 

[CDNowak]

Most people looking into what labels mean want to short-cut the discussion. This is why I generally do find the instance on labels inane. I’m very glad that you want to go past that.

The English language is changing, perhaps faster than any non-created language ever has. The Church continues to use words in a more or less literal way, even as those words in society have taken on completely different meanings. I personally waver on this, but his is where the ‘radical’ comes in. Quite literally those who identify with Pius XII are radicals in their use of language. They go back to the roots. This spills over into general life, and generally is a good thing (BTW, my notion of radical comes from an experience with the group ‘Radix’, a very solid ministry, and is similar to GKC’s view of it).

What makes this so Radical is the fact that the Church’s teaching hasn’t changed, but the world’s view (as perpetually egocentric) of the doctrine has changed. Radicals whether Traditional on Innovating have the same disconnect with the general culture. To a certain degree we are called to have that separation.

Traditionalism is orthodoxy. If we cut through the posturing of those that claim the name, that is all that it is and that is all that matters, even if it disqualifies a majority of those that claim it.

Conservatism, as far as I can tell is undefined when it comes to Catholicism, in which case we could adopt common usage (turning back to what was, anti-progress) or the dictionary definition (preserving the status quo). The latter is more satisfactory, because it has more meaning.

Liberalism, is difficult to define because there are several movements that have the same name in different spheres. In general, a theological liberalism is the largest identifiable trend in the propositions condemned under the banner of modernism. It encompasses the doctrine on religious liberty, the emphasis on personal conscience, and a focus on the individual. Politically (I don’t know your location, so I’ll give the US picture) liberalism exists in multiple areas: in economics (Laizze faire capitalism), Social welfare (Socialism), Role of government (Libertarian), individual rights (again, Libertarian, including separation of Church and State).

Most, but not all propositions related to theological Liberalism and Political Liberalism (to the extent it relates to the Church or economics) are in the Syllabi. Individual conscience is in V-II and the Catechism. More specifics that arose from combining the extremes of political liberalism with a very anti-liberal notion of the relation of Church and state have been condemned in totu (so called “Liberation Theology”).

Modernism while it is described by the prohibitions of it, but not really defined. Relativism may be the closest thing to a simple definition because “synthesis of all heresies” necessarily contains self-contradictions (Arianism and Docetism).

 

[Chatter163]

What got me considering this change initially was none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Almost throughout his entire time in the service of the Church he has been known to back some of the more liberal trends in theology and philosophy. He was known to be liberal during his time at the council, and after reading nine of his books so far he would surely have been considered a liberal by the Church pre 1960’s. (no disprespect)

But then recently (just before the death of Pope JPII) he came to be considered both conservative and traditional, while still maintaining the same views which were considered liberal pre 1960’s. What has changed?

You may not have become aware of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger until the last days of JP2, but he was already very well known twenty years prior to JP2’s passing. His book *The Ratzinger Report *in 1985, published just prior to the extraordinary synod of bishops called by JP2 later that year, caused many in the media to question if he was encouraging JP2 to “roll back” Vatican II. This is due to the media’s manipulation of terminology, a trend that has only continued since that time. They tend to see everything through a political lens, and apply secular political terms to Catholic teachings. If one affirms Catholic doctrine, then one is “conservative”; if one opposes it, then one is “liberal.” The media tends to favor the latter perspective.

JP2 was attacked by the secular media as being “conservative” because he followed Catholic teaching and would not ordain women, condone contraception or abortion, etc. Yet many Catholic traditionalists (uh-oh, another loaded word…) consider him a “liberal” because of his ecumencial activity (Assisi, visits to synagogue and mosque) and frequent apologies to carious groups.

 

[Iotaunum]

What I generally find is that most people these days want to avoid labels altogether. Too many times people claim that they dont want to be “pigeon holed” or have an idea or thought pigeon holed. Many people who are infact liberal catholics, as the Church has always understood liberalism to be, now claim they are infact “tradtional Catholics” - because (and this is the crux of their argument): Times have changed.

Personally this doesn’t wash with me, as I read the Papal encyclicals and magisterial documents and find that the idea of interpreting a Church teaching or dogma acording to any other way except that in which the Church has always interpreded it condemned. Thus, the logic in suggesting that; “that was in the old days- and we ***understand differently ***now” escapes me entirely.

The English language is changing, perhaps faster than any non-created language ever has. The Church continues to use words in a more or less literal way, even as those words in society have taken on completely different meanings. I personally waver on this, but his is where the ‘radical’ comes in. Quite literally those who identify with Pius XII are radicals in their use of language.

I see what you are saying with regards to the evolution of meaning in the English language. I recognise this problem. However, this is not the change I am referring to. If we take the official Latin text of a Canon or whatever, we can see the clear meaning of the teaching as it was originally recorded. Now there are differences among the various vernacular translations, which may also need ammended as the living language evolves - however, the original concept is still found within the unchanging Latin text. Also, we have the immediate context of the document as well as the constant interpretation of the Church in order to safeguard that original meaning. With this said, my point is that we can and should still hold all that say Pius XII has taught. This doesn’t pose a problem to me. As I said, I have read his encyclials and found nothiing I would consider contrary to the Catholic faith, or in anyway radical. At the very least this is the case for the Latin text.

So I still cant see how you hold that: “Quite literally those who identify with Pius XII are radicals in their use of language.” Perhaps you could give me an example of a teaching of Pius XII or portion of an encylical which you would consider someone radical for teaching today. I dont mean to be a pain, but I think this would help clarify your position.

Modernism while it is described by the prohibitions of it, but not really defined. Relativism may be the closest thing to a simple definition because “synthesis of all heresies” necessarily contains self-contradictions (Arianism and Docetism).

Yes, a full definition of Modernism would require a number of books (alot of which have been written on the subject). But the main concepts of Modernism can be understood in those errors condemned by the Popes and Magisterium as Modernism, and the thought of the modernists. Basically, the idea that somehow Church dogmas/teaching can and should evolve with time, or that they should be understood differently, even contrary to that meaning which the Church has always given them to mean is the essence of modernism.

This is why I say that Modernism is still rife in the Church today - and in fact worse than it ever was since it was first condemned by the Popes. But unfortunately, the modernists themselves, or those with modernist sympathies, tend to call themselves Traditional Catholics and their reason for rejecting what the Church has previously proclaimed a dogma/teaching to mean, is the very reason condemned as the error of Modernism - i.e. that Dogmas/doctrines can/should be understood differently in light of the times in which we live, thus de facto that they can and should evolve to mean something completely different than that which the Church has always taught them to mean. This is also my point about the evolution, or change in meaning of the terms “Traditional”, “Conersvative” etc.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

One can be traditional and recognize that the world does indeed change. It is not modernism to say that the writings of a past Pope need to be seen in context because not everything contained in the Syllabus was prophetic. The Church’s understanding of certain issues logically, when dealing with some secular matters (economics, etc) will not be the same in the 21st century. This is reality, not modernism. Relativism is indeed modernism but looking at context is not.

 

[Onegin]

You’re right, looking at context is not modernism nor, necessarily, a bad thing. However, the past has shown us that “looking at context” can often be used as an excuse for determining that an older, traditional document is no longer relevant to modern man which goes against what I believe the Popes intended when they wrote encyclicals.

Clarification is one thing but total irrelevance (which is what many of the older encyclicals have been reduced to) is another.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

You’re right, looking at context is not modernism nor, necessarily, a bad thing. However, the past has shown us that “looking at context” can often be used as an excuse for determining that an older, traditional document is no longer relevant to modern man which goes against what I believe the Popes intended when they wrote encyclicals.

Clarification is one thing but total irrelevance (which is what many of the older encyclicals have been reduced to) is another.

Oh I agree with you, we as Catholics can and should learn from past encyclicals. One of my biggest problems though, with some traditionalists who jump on everyone who doesn’t view this century as evil, is that certain condemnations must be seen in context or from the proper meaning because the condemned proposal is antiquated.

 

[Onegin]

Oh I agree with you, we as Catholics can and should learn from past encyclicals. One of my biggest problems though, with some traditionalists who jump on everyone who doesn’t view this century as evil, is that certain condemnations must be seen in context or from the proper meaning because the condemned proposal is antiquated.

True indeed, however, I doubt that there are many Popes who wrote encyclicals without contemplating that they might be read by other people/cultures/historical times. Because of this, I think they specifically write the encyclicals in such a way as to make important statements and condemn errors in such a way as to remain relevant. So hopefully the result is that we (the people) can read an encyclical and see that an error in our times may be the same as an error in the 1800’s, just using slightly different language and modern terminology.

Likewise, I am sure the Popes also relied upon future Popes identifying modern errors and making clarifications to link older encyclicals (where needed) to make the point. Unfortunately, in the last few decades we kind of dropped the ball on that one, and consequently a lot of the older encyclicals that may have been relevant got left in the dust.

 

[CDNowak]

Many people who are infact liberal catholics, as the Church has always understood liberalism to be, now claim they are infact “tradtional Catholics” - because (and this is the crux of their argument): Times have changed.

Except the Church condemns the idea not the person, so we do need to be careful saying “liberal Catholic”, because then we cannot condemn the idea without condemning the person (hate the sin, love the sinner. Also, there are aspects of liberalism that were non condemned, but condoned (primacy of conscience).

Personally this doesn’t wash with me, as I read the Papal encyclicals and magisterial documents and find that the idea of interpreting a Church teaching or dogma acording to any other way except that in which the Church has always interpreded it condemned. Thus, the logic in suggesting that; “that was in the old days- and we understand differently now” escapes me entirely.

It escapes me as well, but we have the *discrepancies *on usury, the role of the Church in a pluralistic society, indeed much of the social teaching represents a shift in response to changes in the culture. (and Catholics as a whole are understandably reticent to dig in to these subjects, and it is on this point that you may be able to convince me of the prevalence of modernism).

I believe we are in agreement on the issue of Latin vs the Vernacular.

As to the radicalism of holding overmuch to the words of Pius XII:
Humani Generis:

Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

The above would be heard as a condemnation of Biblical study beyond the literal, in contrast to:
Dei Verbum:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

A radical (to the root) difference. Radical Traditionalism is resourcement, a positive approach. (I’m sorry that if I am still failing to make myself clear.)