[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I found this recently. It is a long but worthwhile read which I think accurately describes the differences we encounter here on the forum.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Magisterialism is a fixation on the teachings that pertain only to the current Magisterium. Since extrinsic tradition has been subverted and since the Vatican tends to promulgate documents exhibiting a lack of concern regarding some previous magisterial acts, many have begun ignoring the previous magisterial acts and now listen only to the current Magisterium.

This problem is exacerbated by our current historical conditions. As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

[Pyro7480]

Thank you so much! I also visited the link to the Latin Mass magazine and printed some other articles out.

[sinkspur]

It is a long but worthwhile read which I think accurately describes the differences we encounter here on the forum.

Accurate? This guy clearly holds neoconservatives in contempt. He calls them "magisterialists." To assert that "neoconservatives" don't have the anchor of Scripture, or intrinsic or extrinsic tradition, is plain silly and arrogant.

He also teaches at a minor seminary, which is one of the anachronisms of the pre-Vatican II Church.

There is no good reason for "minor seminaries." Herding 13 year old boys into environments where they are denied contact with the opposite sex and given the impression that they can discern, at that age, a vocation to the priesthood, is ridiculous.

[ultima ratio]

Yes. It connects the dots well. And let's not forget as a phenomenologist this Pope is of the modern school.

[ninenot]

If you want the REALLY long version, Fr. Rutler wrote a book on the various philosophical schools and their effects. Unfortunately, I gave away the book and can't recall the title, but Ignatius Press is the publisher.

Rutler's book, however, is not meant to distinguish 'traditionalists' from 'neo-cons.' It does give an exhaustive analysis of the philosophes, however..

Thanks for the post. Certain people will be delighted to know that Fr. Ripperger teaches at the Lincoln Diocesan Minor Seminary. Others will be aghast.