[Mike Fieschko]

There's a difference between the 'conservatives' such as Buckley, Bennett, and Weigel, and traditionalists such as Buchanan, John Blewett and (to some extent) Ronald McArthur.

To a large extent, the 'conservatives' view the changes since the Council (changes which were not mandated by the Council) as beneficial to the Church.

Trads are much more likely to see the changes since the Council as great a catastrophe as the French Revolution, Luther's rebellion, or the Arian heresy.

By objective criteria, the trads have a lot more evidence on their side than the 'conservatives.'

Sort of like political 'conservatives' who object to government expansion only as being excessive or too rapid.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The Boston Globe chose the headline. I have no argument with your categorial distinctions. Buckley calls himself both a "libertarian" and a "conservative" in secular politics and his name has appeared as a contributor to some "traditionalist" publications. Many "Traditionalists" are "conservative" politically generally speaking. (and I'm a somewhat traditionally oriented conservative of sorts) Of course, the hard-core paleos would want to go off on Buckley's fascination with "classical liberalism."

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I agree that "catastrophe" describes the cultural revolution in the Church over the last 35 to 40 years or so.

[american colleen]

By objective criteria, the trads have a lot more evidence on their side than the 'conservatives.

Thanks for explaining the difference between trads and conservatives... I had used the terms interchangably - now I won't.

I was thinking tonight that here on FR, we Catholics probably are either Trad or Conservative - I'd guess if you popped over to DU, it would be quite different amongst the Catholics...might be interesting (and upsetting) to see what "liberal" Catholics are saying.