I am melding together some posts from other sites I've participated in recently...I will include the post from yesterday incorporated into this post as well, but I think that the idea is fascinating and a very fresh idea on Traditionalism...
There is room for traditional and liberal Catholics, but worship is not a place for politics. What I am advocating isn't political,
it is simply a return to what Vatican Council II envisioned. Show me
where any of the things that I have mentioned previously in this [site]
were explicitly stated to be removed or replaced in the Mass, using the
documents of Vatican Council II. You won't be able to do it, because
they are not there. Everything I have advocated is fully supported by
Vatican Council II and everything I have put forth in this post is 100% apolitical.
There isn't one thing political about it, unless the liberals who don't
like it make it so. Because I can guarantee you there isn't a
traditional Catholic who has one iota of trouble accepting what the
Church wants liturgically.
So, liberals be liberal, but don't project liberalism onto the Mass or any other liturgical or Sacramental action. My
call for a return to what the Mass should be isn't political, it is
anti-political. I am literally trying to take the liberal agenda away
from the Mass and restore the patrimony to what it has been intended to
be. Liberals bemoan this and say it is political, because that is how liberals operate.
Traditionalists usually don't, they are mostly apolitical or
anti-political, trying to eliminate the politics of the modern world
from those things which are Catholic and have no political meaning or
Yes, but liberalism in the Church prior to the Ecclesiastical and Social revolutions of the 1960s meant something different.
Political liberalism, as defined today (rooted in 1950s and 60s
socio-theological circles) in the Church was not the same type of
ecclesiastical liberalism that existed in the times of Benedict XV and
Pius IX. Their brand of liberalism was largely one of theological
hypothesis, as opposed to the truly liberal who has distorted and
maligned great works such as Rerum Novarum, etc...
I think that the brand of liberalism TODAY is what was Modernism (the heresy) then.
My point is that liberalism wasn't the same thing then as it is today.
Looking at how Newman defined liberalism, I have no problem with. It is
different than how I view things, but the times were different. And
the ideologues were different.
It was once said that Paul VI made the grievous
error of "eliminating" heresy from Catholic nomenclature, when he
wouldn't condemn certain actions that were taking place during the 1960s
and 1970s, which his predecessors were quick to control. I think that I agree with that.
I also think that Catholic liberalism and the ensuing shift to Modernism
with regard to the Church in the 1960s and 1970s was strongly
influenced by the Kennedy family and the East Coast cardinals and
bishops, who followed Paul VI model.
Finally, I think that the biggest problem with the shift to Modernism
from authentic liberalism was the idea of aggiornamento. It was this
mindset which set the Church leaders down the path they have taken over
these last 50 years. So much so that cardinals like Bernadin and
Mahoney and Keeler; and bishops like Gumbleton and Clark and Weakland
are perfectly legitimate in promoting the errors they promoted and still
promote, yet bishops like Lefevbre and Castro De Mayer are demonized
for holding on to Catholic tradition.
I said two days ago, that my call for a return to what the Mass should
be isn't political, it is anti-political. I am literally trying to take
the liberal agenda away from the Mass and restore the patrimony to what
it has been intended to be. Liberals bemoan this and say it is
political, because that is how liberals operate. Traditionalists usually
don't, they are mostly apolitical or anti-political, trying to
eliminate the politics of the modern world from those things which are
Catholic and have no political meaning or need.
This can be applied to all aspects of the Church,
not just Sacramental theology, it's just that Sacramental theology is
the most visible. I firmly believe that. The
polarization has come from the left. Those of us who are traditional
just want the Church to be viewed in the same light it always was.
There are humans who choose by their actions to refuse redemption. The
Catholic revolt of the 1960s (not revolution) didn't keep things the
same. There was a rupture or break in Tradition. This much is
I stand firm in saying that Modernism (heresy) poisoned authentic
liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s for the reasons listed above.
Yes, I'll pray for those who are Modernist, but the prayer is that they
recant the Modernist heresy and return to an authentic liberal
ideologue. By their choice to adhere to the Modernist heresy, they
aren't irredeemable, but rather they refuse redemption.
Again, like I said below, aggiornamento (thank you John XXIII and Paul
VI), led Pope Paul to make the now famous statement, "It is as if from
some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the
smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God."