Replies

Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is?

*Certainly. A liberal is, in essence, one who decides for himself. He is his own authority and he will "obey" the Magisterium if what the Magisterium Teaches agrees with his own personal opinion. If the Magsterium teaches or takes decisions he opposes, he refuses to submit to the church. He is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. In a word, he is a protestant of the left.

A Libertrad (a liberal traditionalist) is the "right" or "conservative" counterpoint to a Liberal. He too, in essence, is one who decides for himself. He is his own authority for what Tradition is. When the Magisterium takes decisions about ecclesiastical traditions he does not approve of, he wars against the Magisterium - publicly and relentlessly. When it is pointed out it is the Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition, he will begin citing the personal oponions of this or that theologian, far-right polemicist, schismatic etc and he will attack the very Christian Church Jesus established insinuating, if not outright claiming, the Magisterium is untrustworthy, devious, deceptive, and intentionally destroying Tradition. His will must predominate. He will not submit to the Church. The Libertrad is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. He judges the Church corrupt, schismatic, in error etc. It must be his personal opinion of what constitues Tradition which prevails. In a word, he is a protestant of the right

First, we must give meaning to the words we are using. Liberal is defined according to dictionary.com as "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."

The Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org tells us "Ecclesiastical Liberalism" is:

(B) Ecclesiastical Liberalism (Liberal Catholicism)

(1) The prevailing political form of modern Liberal Catholicism, is that which would regulate the relations of the Church to the State and modern society in accordance with the Liberal principles as expounded by Benjamin Constant. It had its predecessors and patterns in Gallicanism, Febronianism, and Josephinism. Founded 1828 by Lamennais, the system was later defended in some respects by Lacordaire, Montalembert, Parisis, Dupanloup, and Falloux.

(2) The more theological and religious form of Liberal Catholicism had its predecessors in Jansenism and Josephinism; it aims at certain reforms in ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline in accordance with the anti-ecclesiastical liberal Protestant theory and atheistical "science and enlightenment" prevailing at the time. The newest phases of this Liberalism were condemned by Pius X as Modernism. In general it advocates latitude in interpreting dogma, oversight or disregard of the disciplinary and doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations, sympathy with the State even in its enactments against the liberty of the Church, in the action of her bishops, clergy, religious orders and congregations, and a disposition to regard as clericalism the efforts of the Church to protect the rights of the family and of individuals to the free exercise of religion.

Now that we have defined what a liberal is in the ecclesiastical sense, let's define what a traditionalist is.
It is defined by dictionary.com as "adj : stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded".

Now one is left with a dilemma here for these definitions most assuredly contradict each other. But you say that it is a manifestation of both -- that they have taken traits from each side and combined it to make a "libetrad."

You say that these people are self-centered, that they do not submit to the will of the Magisterium, that they do not love the Church, and that they do not take the word of the current hierarchy of the Church on deciding what the Tradition is.

Respond to the fact that they do not submit to the will of the Magisterium. In Acts, Peter says to the Jewish authorities " We ought to obey God rather than men." Now the "Traditionalist" looks at this, looks at the changes (mark of a liberal/progressive) in the Church, looks at the outright rejection by some of the PREVIOUS 20 councils and is left to wonder.

This is not the sign of a self-centered, egotistical person, but rather a prudent mind. Remember in obeying God we obey the Church that is the Mystical Body of Christ.
They are NOT two separate things. They are NOT able to be changed by man. It is this that they are "protesting" and I think rightly so.

Sorry, but Protestants do not have valid ordinations nor valid Eucharist, despite the shortcomings of the SSPX(especially with Bp. Williamson), the SSPX does.

In terms of dogmas and doctrines, the church does require obidience, in terms of disclipine, such as liturgical matters, blind obidience on the laity is not required, people can disagree as long as the concecration remains valid(though in some suburban parishes that is questionable).

One intresting thing in the next few months is what will happen to the cult of personality that surrounded Pope John Paul II(Though no fault of the late Pope), who often took people who had questions about the current missal as an attack against Pope John Paul II, and retaliated by using terms such as Protestant or worse against them.