Inspired by the "This is for you Poche.  Leave the new religion", thread, particularly the following from Steve Skojec's article.

I went to see a priest I knew — who had been trying to tell me that my search was going to be in vain — and told him what I had found. He was sympathetic but asked me, “Hilary, what did you expect to find?” I told him what I had expected and to my surprise, he laughed. “You don’t imagine you’re a conservative, do you?” I was taken aback, and said something to the effect of, “What else is there to be?” He said, “You have told me that you can’t support the argument that everything is fine under John Paul II, that the Church is getting back on course. This visit has confirmed that what you have been suspecting all along is actually true. Hilary, I’m sorry to have to tell you; you’re not a conservative. You’re a Traditionalist.”

I think some people here would probably view me as more conservative than traditionalist, and I'm OK with that if its more accurate, but I'm not exactly sure what concrete principles delineate the two.

For instance, I think it MAY be possible to, with VERY conservative and careful interpretations of it, to reconcile the letter of Vatican II with past church teaching.  I'm not certain of that ,but I think its possible. I get the impression that most traditionalists would think Vatican II cannot be reconciled.  But I also get the impression that most "Conservatives" would see Vatican II as comparatively easy to reconcile, or might have a problem with the way that "sometimes" Vatican II was implemented, but don't seem to think the entire thing was a ticking time bomb of weaponized ambiguity like I think it was.

I don't know enough about the whole "is the Novus Ordo licit"/quo primum debate to come down definitively on a side, but I do know that *even if* the original 1965 Latin Novus Ordo was OK (I'm not certain either way on this) the way the Novus Ordo was implemented in real life has been pretty disastrous for Catholic piety.  I'm not certain staying home is better than going to the Novus Ordo, most traditionalists probably would think so.

I'm not bothered by the idea that certain individuals ,outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church, *may* be inside the Church and come to salvation.  I realize most traditionalists in general aren't bothered by this either, but most traditionalists *on this forum* seem to be, and seem to think that rejecting the more extreme position on this is a type of material heresy at best.


However, I have some major disagreements with most people who would be called "conservatives."

1: I think the Novus Ordo was, at a minimum, a horrible thing to do to the Western Rite.

2: I think the ecuмenism that practically followed Vatican II is pretty gross.  Its one thing to say some individuals outside the visible bounds of the Catholic faith might be saved, but its a whole nother thing to esteem, respect, or promote entire groups of people that are identified by their "not Catholicism."  Vatican II seems to do this, and certainly the Popes wo have implemented it have.

2a: I think Assisi, and the Koran kissing, were scandals.  To the point where, since John Paul II openly engaged in these scandals and didn't repent of them, I have some doubt regarding his sainthood.  Most conservative non-traditionalists adore John Paul II.

2b: I think Archbishop Lefebvre was right.  Yes, I think he was right to not allow the Latin Mass to be eradicated by modernists, but even more so because of the abomination of assisi (And as I recall, he was against consecrations before assisi.)  Ensuring traditionalists had some bargaining power, and wouldn't just be forced into capitulation, was huge.

3: While its one thing to speak of certain individuals perhaps being saved without explicit knowledge of the Catholic faith, I don't see any sensible basis to presume that this applies to a great number of people, or certainly not that it could apply to everyone (the view that bishop barron holds, and that Vatican II Catholicism allows).  

4: I'm solidly against any notion that religious liberty is a human right, in the modern sense.  I think on this point, I soldily disagree with the ideology of Vatican II, even if perhaps it was making a prudential, pastoral argument against the communists, the argument was still presented terribly and in a way that uses enlightenment principles rather than modern ones.  Most conservative, non-traditional Catholics think religious liberty as defined in Vatican II is indeed fine, and indeed a human right.  


So I don't know what exactly I should be labeled as.  I get that most here wouldn't exactly consider me traditionalist, and I can understand why, but I don't think I'm exactly what's normally described as "conservative" either.  What would people here label me as exactly?  Is there any term between "traditionalist" and "conservative?" 

(I'm not so much starting this thread to debate my current positions on the crisis per se.  Certainly someone could debate me, and there's no reason to believe anything just because I said it.  BUt I'm more wondering what exactly, with the positions I have, people would label me as, exactly.) 

Why  do you wish to know how people labei you?
ANd why do you need to put a label on yourself?

You seem confused about a few thing or at least you don't have a full picture.

I would never label myself as either conservative, which is a meaningless description in terms of the Faith, or traditionalist. This term did not exist before Vatican ll. And so,in a sense, by using it, you give a certain power to those who reject tradition, and those who reject tradition are really not Catholic.

And so I label myself Catholic, whenever it is necessary to use a label.

By the way there is no original 1965 Latin Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo came into effect in 1969.

Regarding communism, I believe that there was nothing stated against
communism because Paul VI had an agreement with the Russian observers that no word would spoken against it.

We are Catholics.