What passes for Traditional & Conservative these days?

[AdvanceAlways]

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.

Again agreed, but I’d also say that they could not possibly know what was to come, hence the Papacy today can clarify certain things in light of the times without changing the original intent. I’ll go back to liberalism. Liberalism in some of its variants will be and have always been enemies of the Church, namely the liberal tendency of religious indifference, radical ecumenism, and abortion.

However, economic liberalism (capitalism) was only condemned in its purest form when the human element is removed entirely. This type of liberalism has never existed on the face of the earth and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would advocate for it. Many traditionalists that I have dealt with though, are quick to condemn ALL forms of economic liberalism and start playing Pope and decrying it modernism when they are lacking a context.

So for someone like me, I have no problems saying I am traditional, I won’t let people outside perfect communion apply labels to me because we disagree on what tradition is. Being traditional is being faithful to the magisterial and trusting that the Holy Spirit is guiding and protecting the Church from the time of Christ to the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Iotaunum]

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.

Don’t get me wrong, I never meant to imply that I am making a personal attack on any individual. I wouldn’t do that nor think of doing that, even if the person in question is a heretic or an apostate - I am merely attacking a false concept which the Church has already condemned. When the popes condemned the modernists, they were not attacking their person but the false ideas dangerous to the faith which they held and propogated. I agree with you here.

With regards to the “descrepancies” you point out with various aspects of social teaching, I dont think this is the same as the modernist evolution of dogma and doctrine whereby they “interpret” the same teachings to mean the exact oposite, or in anycase contrary to how the Church has always interpreted and the magesterium explained it. For example, usury was condemned but what was sometimes considered under the condemnation was actually legitimate depending on the way in which the capital was employed, or whether or not the interest was morally due etc. I think the Church was correct insofar as usuary is driving the evils of extreme capitalism to a large extent even to this day.

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

Originally Posted by 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:

Originally Posted by 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.

I know i’m probably becoming a pest at this point, but I really dont see any issue here at all. I think the problem is that your personal interpretation of that paragraph in Humani Generis is at variance with Dei Verbum, not the document itself. Now personally speaking, I would have problems with that passage in Dei Verbum whereby it places emphasis on a “symbolic exegesis” - IF indeed it does that. That is not to say it is wrong of course.

Pius XII is not talking of a literal only approach to exegesis, but a literal approach as the Church interprets “Literal” to mean. Now I know this goes back to the whole meaning of words issue - but the Church has always insisted that it interpreted literally, even though it recognised symbolism, and of course Biblical types as well as metophors etc.

This is what the Church calls literal interpretation of Scriptures, as per Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu etc. What Pope Pius is condemning here then is not symbolism in Scripture, nor is he advocating that there can be no metophors etc, but the false idea which have led some supposed Catholics to teach that Noahs Ark was a tale, or that Original Sin was a methophor, likewise the Garden of Eden and the origin of all Men from Adam & Eve etc was a story an no more.

On this basis, I can see no reason to reject Pius XIIs condemnations in Humani Generis, in fact I would say a strong restatement of traditional Catholic exegesis is necessary today - precisely beacuse those methods warned about, which twist the traditional meaning of Scripture as defined by the Church are employed today with devastating consequences to Catholic doctrine. In fact, some of the encyclicals are still printed at the front of Catholic Bibles.

 

[CDNowak]

I think the Church was correct insofar as usuary is driving the evils of extreme capitalism to a large extent even to this day.

I do as well, but the presently those evils are tolerated.

On this basis, I can see no reason to reject Pius XIIs condemnations in Humani Generis, in fact I would say a strong restatement of traditional Catholic exegesis is necessary today - precisely beacuse those methods warned about, which twist the traditional meaning of Scripture as defined by the Church are employed today with devastating consequences to Catholic doctrine. In fact, some of the encyclicals are still printed at the front of Catholic Bibles.

It is not how I take it (taking both in context as the Onegin/ AdvanceAlways sidebar above discusses [hi guys]), but but how the majority can/will/does take it. They actually say much the same thing, but understanding the usage of “literal” as Pius used it is outside the mainstream level of awareness.

Actually I’m beginning to wonder if one can be a Traditionalist and not a radical (the GKC I’ve been reading certainly favoring that perspective).

 

[AdvanceAlways]

If we’re noting capitalism we must make a clear distinction between the Church’s condemnation of extreme capitalism with what we have (or have lost under this administration depending on who you ask) in place today. Nothing about the American capitalist worldview of today would subscribe to what Pope Pius was referring to. It’s a different era. Is extreme capitalism still to be condemned? Yes, but practical free market capitalism is not. Dr. Thomas Woods makes a good case for this. Anyway, just wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

[Onegin]

If we’re noting capitalism we must make a clear distinction between the Church’s condemnation of extreme capitalism with what we have (or have lost under this administration depending on who you ask) in place today. Nothing about the American capitalist worldview of today would subscribe to what Pope Pius was referring to. It’s a different era. Is extreme capitalism still to be condemned? Yes, but practical free market capitalism is not. Dr. Thomas Woods makes a good case for this. Anyway, just wanted to add my 2 cents.

Right. And I think that Capitalism succeeds at its primary purpose - namely generating wealth which it often does quite effectively. To this end, “extreme” capitalism would seem to be a situation in which people place the acquisition of wealth as a good to be achieved above all other goods thereby interfering with the achievement of certain virtues.

Furthermore, it seems that the Church in recent years, as you mentioned, has stressed the need for a government system that provides not only a means of securing wealth but also providing for the security of the citizens and the care of the poor. Leo XIII in particular seemed to support this view and I think here it often departs from what many consider to be the ideals of pure libertarianism or even some forms of conservatism. And this is where the dividing line also falls for many traditionalists as well.

When you refer to “we” in the context of an economic system, I assume you are referring to the American economic system? And I’d definitely be the first to agree - America is probably one of the best examples of a capitalist system we have today. And yet one could argue that there are certain “extreme” elements to that system at times whereby the worship at the altar of the free market on the part of some has led in to situations warned about in the encyclicals.

In any event, the unhappy compromise for all of us is to find - within our secular systems - a means to truly represent Catholic principles which is a very difficult task indeed.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Right. And I think that Capitalism succeeds at its primary purpose - namely generating wealth which it often does quite effectively. To this end, “extreme” capitalism would seem to be a situation in which people place the acquisition of wealth as a good to be achieved above all other goods thereby interfering with the achievement of certain virtues.

Furthermore, it seems that the Church in recent years, as you mentioned, has stressed the need for a government system that provides not only a means of securing wealth but also providing for the security of the citizens and the care of the poor. Leo XIII in particular seemed to support this view and I think here it often departs from what many consider to be the ideals of pure libertarianism or even some forms of conservatism. And this is where the dividing line also falls for many traditionalists as well.

When you refer to “we” in the context of an economic system, I assume you are referring to the American economic system? And I’d definitely be the first to agree - America is probably one of the best examples of a capitalist system we have today. And yet one could argue that there are certain “extreme” elements to that system at times whereby the worship at the altar of the free market on the part of some has led in to situations warned about in the encyclicals.

In any event, the unhappy compromise for all of us is to find - within our secular systems - a means to truly represent Catholic principles which is a very difficult task indeed.

That’s what I meant by “We.” I don’t know if I agree with your statement about coming close to what the encyclicals warned about. I think if anything, flirtations with condemned socialism have put us far more close to the warnings of past Popes. Now (and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m an Ayn Rand fan but I don’t advocate for her every word) if the government started advocating for 100% Ayn Rand capitalism that rejects charity and all means of state assistance (even removing state rather than federal assistance) I’d say there would be a problem.

I guess my main qualm with traditionalists who are quick to attack anything they see as “liberal” is their immediate assumption that classical liberalism is devoid of any form of God. I know it bugs certain elements of traditionalists that we are not a Catholic confessional state, but this is the best we will ever get at least in my opinion and I’d never trade it for a Confessional state. Some assume though because we have foundations in classical liberalism, that means that we are somehow founded in atheism and pure reason replacing God. This simply is not true. One can support the notion of human liberty and other founding principals and recognize that we are constrained by the laws of the almighty God.

 

[Iotaunum]

It is not how I take it (taking both in context as the Onegin/ AdvanceAlways sidebar above discusses [hi guys]), but but how the majority can/will/does take it. They actually say much the same thing, but understanding the usage of “literal” as Pius used it is outside the mainstream level of awareness.

No, I was not suggesting that it was just you who interpreted this way, but what I was saying was that you interpreted a contradiction (or almost) between the two documents and thus provided this portion of the encyclical as an example of a teaching of Pius XII or portion of an encylical which you would consider someone radical for teaching today - which I had asked you to provide. However, I really still dont see any problem here at all. As I said before, we know what “literal” exegesis meant as this has been clearly explained by the Papal encyclicals and the writings of various Catholic exegetes. This meaning is the only one which can be legitimately given to the term as applied in this document. Thus, any other interpretation is flawed, and the amount of people who hold this erroneously is therefore superflous, and does not change its meaning.

So basically, if anyone interprets “literal” exegesis to mean something else other than what the Pope and Church meant and explained - then they are misinterpreting and in error, not the document. Therefore I must conclude that this portion of the encyclical, and even the whole encyclial, is entirely relevant to the Church today, and no one could, or should be considered radical for holding it.

Actually I’m beginning to wonder if one can be a Traditionalist and not a radical (the GKC I’ve been reading certainly favoring that perspective).

Again, this comes down to your definition of “radical”. I would consider myself Traditional, and at the same time I would reject the term “radical” being applied to myself, as I hold the same Catholic Faith which was once considered the norm. I consider “radical” more inline with the innovators, than those who uphold tradition.

 

[CDNowak]

Again, this comes down to your definition of “radical”. I would consider myself Traditional, and at the same time I would reject the term “radical” being applied to myself, as I hold the same Catholic Faith which was once considered the norm. I consider “radical” more inline with the innovators, than those who uphold tradition.

The fact that it no longer is considered the norm makes it Radical: “Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world.” GKC, Orthodoxy

 

[Iotaunum]

The fact that it no longer is considered the norm makes it Radical: “Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world.” GKC, Orthodoxy

Not really. I’m not talking about change in externalities, but the faith. The faith of a Catholic should be the same as it has always been. For example, someone born before Vatican II should not have a different faith after it. If someone holds a different faith as “the norm” than what was always held, then he necessarily holds a different faith to the Catholic faith. So I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here - because I still cannot accept the argument that the past enyclicals of the Popes are somehow outdated, and that one could be considered radical for holding them.

 

[CDNowak]

Not really. I’m not talking about change in externalities, but the faith. The faith of a Catholic should be the same as it has always been. For example, someone born before Vatican II should not have a different faith after it. If someone holds a different faith as “the norm” than what was always held, then he necessarily holds a different faith to the Catholic faith. So I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here - because I still cannot accept the argument that the past enyclicals of the Popes are somehow outdated, and that one could be considered radical for holding them.

Ahh well,

My point was not that they were outdated, but that we all should be radical.

Anyway, one of the better conversations I’ve had here, Thank you.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Pope Benedict has changed a lot since the 1960’s. At the time of Vatican II, he was a liberal but his thoughts have changed drastically over time. In the aftermath of Vatican II, he released that the liberals had gone too far. In reaction to the extreme liberalism of his collegues, Ratzinger became more traditional and conservative.

The Pope began his ministry as a liberal theologian. When he released how dangerous the liberal agenda was he became more and more traditionally minded. If you read the autobiography of the Holy Father, you will see that his theology progressively became more conservative throughout his career.

 

[Iotaunum]

Pope Benedict has changed a lot since the 1960’s. At the time of Vatican II, he was a liberal but his thoughts have changed drastically over time. In the aftermath of Vatican II, he released that the liberals had gone too far. In reaction to the extreme liberalism of his collegues, Ratzinger became more traditional and conservative.

The Pope began his ministry as a liberal theologian. When he released how dangerous the liberal agenda was he became more and more traditionally minded. If you read the autobiography of the Holy Father, you will see that his theology progressively became more conservative throughout his career.

Yes, I know the general thought on this one, but my question really concerns not wether he became more conservative than he was, but whether he would be considered “conservative” as the Church has traditionally thought conservativism to be. He would certainly not have been considered conservative pre Vatican II- even as his theology and views stand now. This was my point: Are peoples definitions of conservativism changing?

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

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?

Tell me Iotaunum…why does this matter? Conservative, Liberal, Traditionalist modernist, …etc. I mean who is the better person? Group ? Which one is correct? Which one is in error? Which one should I be in? Which one will God judge as being not fit for His Kingdom? You seem to be well schooled, and I seek your advise. Please tell me, I am interested…very.
Joan of Ark

 

[Iotaunum]

Tell me Iotaunum…why does this matter? Conservative, Liberal, Traditionalist modernist, …etc. I mean who is the better person? Group ? Which one is correct? Which one is in error? Which one should I be in? Which one will God judge as being not fit for His Kingdom? You seem to be well schooled, and I seek your advise. Please tell me, I am interested…very.
Joan of Ark

The main focus of my posting this thread was not to discuss whether liberalism, conservatism, modernism etc was “correct” or in error. I didn’t think that was the issue.

For the record, Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”, and as you know “heresy” is not good. Modernism is an evil. It is a collection of heresies which works for the destruction of Cactholic Dogma. So Modernism is a grave error.

As for Liberalism - the Catholic Church has never been Liberal traditionally. Liberals tended to be condemned quite regularly by the Magesterium and many works from great Catholic authors explained why.

Conservatism is something which is traditionally thought of as being compatible with Catholicsm. Conservatism in the faith is nothing less that to hold onto what was recieved, not making much compromise. It is the direct opposite of Liberalism so often condemned by the Church.

Unfortunatley, the term “traditionalist” seems to have aquired a new meaning lately. Catholic Tradition is part of the Catholic Faith. All Catholics should hold on to Tradition (not talking about externalities which can be changed). However, since liberalism and progressivism has become so prevelant, people on both sides tend to label someone a “traditionalist” who practices the faith as it was pre-Vatican II and holds the same theology.

The problem with Modernists is that very few will admit that they are modernists. I know Modernist priests who assure me that they have taken the Oath Against Modernism, and are against it, yet their theology is pure modenism. Modernists will always agree with you, except that your wrong! A fundamental feature of modernism is to redefine certain terms and re-interpret dogmas and doctrines held by the Church in a different and contrary maner that was always held, on the basis that they are “understanding it better” or understanding a doctrine “more fully”. Pope St Pius X describes the tactics and errors of the Modernists in his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the syllabus etc.

The point of this thread was to get a larger sample of the thoughts people had on what constituted Modernism, Liberalism, Conervatism etc. In talking to a lot pf people I knew that the terms had been redefined somehow, but I wanted to gauge the extent to which they had.

If St Francis, St Clare, St Dominic, St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmin, St Pius V, St Pius X etc came back today and practiced the same faith, same theology, same Mass, Same Sacraments etc the Majority of those identifying themselves as Catholic today was call the “traditionalists” “conservatives” and even “rad-trads” etc. Likewise, these saints would consider most people “liberals” “modernists” and some not remotely Catholic. Truth does not Change. It does not get “understood” in a way that it contraditcs what was understood before. This is modernism.

I originally gave the example of Cardinal Ratzinger. I had read a lot of his books and works, and considered them to be “progressive” at best. He was known as a liberal before the Council, and holding the same views (some have changed) he is now considered highly orthodox and traditional. News reporters were telling everyone that a real traditional, conservative man had been elected. Where does that leave those holding the traditional Catholic Therology? No wonder they now call pre Vatican II theology and practice “radical”! The terms have been redefined, like when a modernist in the NCE tells you that the Real presence is dogma, but it is more a sense of community presence thant a physical one!