Comments on LMS Chairman: What is Traditionalism?

It is interesting how even discussion of the label...

2009-06-27T13:37:54.374+01:00

It is interesting how even discussion of the labels, which are really just convenient terms, causes clear upset.

My suspicion is that 'liberals' are essentially 'traditionalists' but are impeded from becoming so because they perceive, wrongly, 'traditionalists' as 'conservatives'.

I suspect the danger for 'traditionalists' is that they become, or are encouraged to become 'conservatives'.

This is a very good blog and blogger. The articl...

2009-06-26T17:21:43.806+01:00

This is a very good blog and blogger. The article and its comments are superb as well.

While I think we can all acknowledge that there is at least some merit in berenike's assertion that labels themselves can be divisive, I too have found myself moved from the conservative to the Traditional position. Still, I have to admit to fundamental confusion regarding the relative merits of loyalty to a man, versus that to men, to an office, or to Tradition, or at least to Councils. Unfortunately I can see more than one (at least historical) circumstance where it could differ (or has differed) as to which one might be best (at least before God). I would think that the only surety is loyalty to the 'good' itself, although I admit that since few may be able to discern The Good, or to find the will to follow that discernment even if in possession of it, various fallback positions may be inorder-- like "Traditionalism" per se.

But isn't the argument (at least implicitly) that Ultramontanism/neoCatholicism is simply a fallback position away from Traditionalism? And isn't that argument made by folks themselves taking a stance upon a form of fallback position, and for essentially the same reasons?

I can restate this more clearly if need be.

I think I have to agree. I can't see the harm in ...

2009-06-25T17:14:04.999+01:00

I think I have to agree. I can't see the harm in using labels. They're just shorthand ways of referring to opinions, and applying the labels to persons is a shorthand way of saying those persons hold those opinions.

And there is no prohibition against Catholics having differing opinions -- except to the extent that an opinion has been formally proclaimed by the Church to be false.

Berenike - you may think that, but the liberals an...

2009-06-25T16:27:44.917+01:00

Berenike - you may think that, but the liberals and cons don't. We have to have the humility to realise that other sincere people, who we have no right to eject from the Church, have different views about what being a Catholic entails. Until the Magisterium does throw them - or us! - out of the Church, there will be liberal Catholics and Conservative Catholics and the others - the Trads.

Not brilliant. You are taking much of what being...

2009-06-25T15:21:40.399+01:00

Not brilliant.

You are taking much of what being Just A Catholic actually means, and labelling it as a Special Kind of Catholic. As if Catholicism had different admissable versions. There are indeed liberal and neo-con (or con) schools of thought, but though Catholics may hold them they are not Catholic ways of thinking. There are traditionalist schools of thought, and Catholics may belong to them, but they are not Catholic ways of thinking. I do not want to be labelled a traditionalist, or a Traditional Catholic, and you are taking much of boring old "just Catholicism", and sticking a label on it, ready to be lined up for comparison with Liberal Catholicism and (neo)-Conservative Catholicism and Marxist Catholicism, ... and leaving no label for de facto Traditionalist Catholicism, which does deserve a label.

Chairman, Jackie.

2009-06-25T13:44:13.911+01:00

Chairman, Jackie.

Brilliant! I believe this is covered well in the ...

2009-06-24T15:00:54.580+01:00

Brilliant!

I believe this is covered well in the Great Facade by Chris Ferrera and Thomas Woods. Ultramonatanism is very un-Catholic can only confirms the Protestant suspicion that Catholics worship every word the pope says, making a mockery of the solemn definition of papal infallibility.

Even though I think that the Luminous Mysteries are not needed, even JP II said that they should not be considered as mandatory but only as an aid to those who want to use them. Yet we have neo-conservatives telling us that we are schismatic when we dare to present the above information!

Melchoir Cano O.P's quote is very prophetic, "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they damage instead of strengthening its foundations."