Well said Stevus.
If I may add a few things, Neo-trads fail to realize that Traditional Catholicism is by its own nature counter-revolutionary and counter-cultural.
They lack for the most part the virtues of class(nobility) and modesty and some have little concern for traditional doctrine. They indeed play a dangerous game, one which leads to a faith that is compartmentalized like the (conservative) Protestants. It is one that will fade in time.

They do not learn from history's past concerning the deadly error of Americanism. We've already have seen what happened there, yet they(the Neo-trads) fall into exactly the same mindset of the Americanists, one which seeks to water-down traditional teachings on morals, doctrine, philosophy, theology, history, etc in order to make traditional Catholicism more expectable to the world.
 
They are in essence creating the notion of "Pop Traditionalism," a notion which we've see fail in regards to "Pop Evangelism" which neo-Catholics later adopted as "Pop Catholicism."
 

One prominent Neo-Trad claimed that it would be Catholic to believe that Hell is not permanent and God can pluck souls out of Hell, just for starters.

Figures. Even if this following statement is not de fide definita, it still requires at they very least, the assent of Faith:
Pope Vigilius 543 AD:

If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.

Caraffa,

Good points.

I've seen other Neo-Trads support such things as:

- detached altars
- Mass facing the people
- communion under both kinds
- communion in the hand
- women in pants
- women unveiled
- lay readers
- long hair on men
- wearing flip-flops/ t-shirts to Mass
- listening to heavy metal and watching the videos
- frank mixed discussions of sɛҳuąƖity
- a consesus opinion of theologians binds us to a moral certainty
- Catholics could morally have used birth control before Humanae Vitae if their priest told them it was ok
- It is Catholic to believe God can yank souls out of Hell (Hell is not necessarily permanent)

The list goes on and on.

What is boils down to is that no Neo-Trad could explain what constitutes a Traditional Catholic. They were so afraid to limit their own beliefs they barely admitted that it would, at minimum, entail a preference for the TLM.

They don't like "labels". This is code-word for them wanting to be able to believe in and practice whatever they want and still call it Traditional Catholicism. You'll see these types constantly attacking "50's" Catholicism or their idea of it, which in their eyes was rigid and shallow. Then you'll see them pluck all sorts of archaic practices out of Church history, strip them of all context and use them as a pretext for a liberal "diversity" in the Traditional movement.

These people are the worst corrupters of Tradition. Though they would never admit it, they are liberal wolves in Traditional trappings. They love to talk the talk and wear the name, bash the Neo-Caths and the libs out of a sense of superiority. But they save their worst ire for true Traditionalists. You then hear the same tired old cries you hear from liberals.

You are judging! Who are you to judge? Tradition is not cookie cutter, Tradition is diverse! There are many ways of being Traditional. You are too into appearances, Tradition is what is on the "inside".

These same people are still debating and trying to figure out if in our day and age, hair down to your waist is feminine or masculine, if men or women are supposed to wear pants, if listening to death metal is uncatholic, etc. They are simply lost, lost, lost.

They are Neo-Catholics and liberals who like the TLM, but who want to separate themselves from Neo-Caths and liberals. You'll see them complaining about JPII in one breath and then venomously attacking true Traditional Catholics if they actually try to point out where he preached error. As all liberals, they are walking contradictions. Their reticence to condemn error forcefully comes from their own guilty consciences. To condemn error would be to condemn themselves because they've bought error and are addicted to error.

They truly represent liberalism, dressed up with incense and a Roman chausible. In this sense they are worse and more diabolic than the Neo-Caths because the Neo-Caths are easily identifiable. These types are a Trojan Horse in the Traditional movement. A 5th column looking to destroy it from within. They should be called out and counteracted at every turn. I salute Matthew for attempting to do that with this site.

The Neo-Trads, like the liberals, will spew every sort of calumny, hypocrisy, and venom they can at us to silence us. They will ban us from their forums, malign our character, call us names. But do not be disheartened as these things are a badge of honor. Know that this is the best sort of endorsement as to your orthodoxy, to be irrationally attacked by a Neo-Trad. It shows you have pricked their conscience. And with that, and prayer, comes hope of their conversion.

Good stuff Caraffa. I agree on almost all counts.

However, I don't think I communicated the 50's point as well as I could have.

Trads often express the correct notion, that the Church just before VCII was much healthier and stable than it is now. We use statistics and point out the Mass attendance, seminary #'s, #'s of religious and priests, lay Catholic belief in the Eucharist and against BC, etc. was much much better then than afterwards.

The Neo-Trads hate this because at heart they are liberals and relativists. They see the 50's as a time of complete repression, conformism, idiocy, superstition, cookie cutter, etc. They hate the fact that most women wore dresses and skirts, were veiled at Mass, the man was the head of the house, guys didn't have hair to their waist, only sailors had tattoos, premarital sex was strictly forbidden, people dressed up for Mass. They can't stand these elements of Catholicism and for them the 50's embody them all.

So they lash out at this decade painting a caricature of it and demonizing it. Now, of course you and I know that 50's Catholicism was not perfect. Mainly because the underground revolution had already been infesting the liturgy and theology, (moreso in Europe) and the whole thing was about to blow. But our biggest critique of the 50's (and Bishop Williamson hints on this) is that the Catholics of the time were way too reliant on obedience. In principle they were Neo-Caths. They, de facto, believed the Pope was impeccable and anything the Vatican said, goes.

Now, there were a lot of very good faithful Catholics in the 50's and it was an easier time to be a Catholic because society was not as opposed to Catholic life and even was a help to it morally in many respects. They were also very obedient to the Popes and Bishops, but they had an over-reliance on them for orthodoxy. This was brought about by decades of great and orthodox Popes and Bishops who did them well. So when the Popes and Bishops went astray they all followed like good sheep. It was a diabolical but effective plan of Satan.

But do the Neo-Trads attack the 50's for this Neo-Cath error of Neo-Ultramontanism? No. They attack 50's Catholics for the things we respect them for! It all goes back to their guilty consciences. Lashing out at the 50's is like lashing out at their parents. It is a sign of their rebellion. They hate being told what to do, conforming, being told how to dress, that there are clear moral lines, that liturgical rules matter.

So they go overboard. They attack all American 50's Catholics as imbeciles who didn't know anything about their faith. That they were all brain dead robots who just recited things. That they were all seething modernists underneath the surface and it was the rigidity of those mean old nuns and dictatorial Catholic parents that drove these poor kids to rebellion and thus we had VCII.

I even had one Neo-Trad tell me that the state of the Church is BETTER now than it was then. Better! He said Catholics today are much more informed and educated and devout than the 50's. Really? Most Catholics today voted for a man who supports infanticide, believe abortion is ok, practice birth control, and don't believe in the Eucharist and don't go to Mass! And we're better off now than before? Please.

Again the 50's were not perfect but to compare them to today is like comparing an imperfect cake that still tastes decent and is edible to one that is teeming with maggots and fit to be thrown in the dumpster.

In any case, that is the distinction. The Trad critique of the 50's and the Neo-Trad critique of the 50's are coming from two wholly different directions and have two totally different purposes. One wants to condemn and caricature the past to defend their own theological and moral license. The other wants to learn from the imperfections of the past during the last time in history that was stable and relatively healthy for the Catholic Church.

Great stuff Tele. I think feminism plays a huge part in a lot of their attitudes, especially the women. What they really have a problem with is God Himself and his plan for order in the home. They caricaturize it and then attack it. They have one foot in the world and one in Tradition.

Caraffa,

Your point on their ad hominem attacks is well taken.

They will completely ignore the point of arguments and try to focus instead on the poster, divining their intentions, psycholanalyzing their motives, making accusations, etc. Anything but substantively respond to the argument presented.