What kinda Catholic do you call one that's neither liberal, nor Traditionalist?

I want the views of both Catholics and non-Catholics on this one.

I obey the Church (try to) and I believe that Christ guards the church from error regardless of any appearances to the contrary.

I’m neither of the:
A) “Spirit of Vatican II” and “Vatican II replaced/superseded any teaching before it” groups,
Nor do I subscribe to the
B) “Vatican II lacks ANY binding authority” and “Vatican II is evil” groups.

I believe that the Church is the Church and whether or not Vatican II was pastoral or doctrinal, it is the teaching of the Magisterium which carries Divinely given authority to both teach and govern the Church and no one can just wriggle himself out of obedience to the teachings of Vatican II any more than anyone can disobey the teachings of all the previous Councils.

When I say Conservative Catholic, that seems to mean or at least include Traditionalists. It also implies politics.

What name/designation clearly indicates to others this type of Catholic whose Catholicism is not based on Traditions (Either completely rejecting them or totally clasping to them) but on obedience to Christ’s designated Authority, whether that Authority requires adherence to certain customs or not?


You are “Catholic”.

Labels serve no purpose other than to cause division.


Most “traditional Catholics” I beleive would simply consider themselves Catholic. The problem comes in when we label ourselves or allow ourselves to be labled. I consider myself to be Catholic, period. But something needs to be understood.
Most Catholics born after 1970 have no idea what the Church in America looked like prior to Vatican 2. The sweeping cultural and societal changes that came with it overpowered a generation.
Try to imagine this. Let’s step into a time machine and go back to the late 1950s-1970s.
You grew up going to a Latin Mass, you observed Holy Days, your family and local parish were culturally Catholic. As you get older, as with many people, the cares of youth draw you away. You’re still Catholic…but its a lot easier to sleep in on Sunday morning. You neglect the Church. No matter, the old Homestead will always be there.
A few years go on, you’re married now and kids start coming. You have them Baptized because we are all Catholics.
You see what is happening in the culture around you. But you can always count on the Church being there. NOTHING will ever change with that. It’s home. Your heritage is there. It will be waiting for you when you come back. Time goes on, the kids are getting older.The Holy Spirit reminds you that you need to return to Mass, You hear its in English now, well, that makes sense, Never did understand that Latin anyway.
You walk into the parish you have negleted over the years…and you don’t recognize it. The Tabernacle has been moved to a little room in the back of the church. A table has replaced the Altar. The beautiful statues of Mary and the Saints have been replaced with wooden monstrosities that cannot even be identified by the priest (knew of this personally). The Mass is in English, the priest is now facing the people instead of with the people toward the Tabernacle (which isn’t there anyway).
Altar rails have been pulled out. Communion is now by standing. Communion is now distributed by Eucharistic ministers along with the priest. The organ and choir have been replaced by a “folk band”. Nuns no longer wear habits. Priests are seen in the supermarket wearing polo shirts. You expect to hear homilies on Catholics remaining steadfast in the morality they were raised in. But now all they hear is the “brotherhood of man”
The ONE PLACE you thought you could count on to NEVER CHANGE is gone. It’s like going back to the old homestead and seeing it replaced with a strip mall. You feel guilty for all those years you neglected the Church, and now its gone. When they questioned the changes they were told (sometimes with words sometimes without words) to sit down, shut up, and deal with it. You’re the older generation, we’re the younger, we know best.

That is how it felt for my parents generation. I was born in 1961, so I got the tail end of it.
They did one of three things:
They stopped going to Mass.
They grit their teeth and endured it.
They found a Latin Mass somewhere.

Now I am not giving an opinion on any of those changes (I have them, beleive me). I’m just showing you how my parents generation felt about the changes.
And that cannot be easily explained away or dodged,

Catholic. I don’t know what else. Moderate Catholic? Although that also implies politics. :shrug:

I think labels are fun and in fact, they help make light of things when not taken too seriously.

My view is like yours. I think Vatican 2 isn’t all what either party has made it up to be. I find Liberal Catholics odd and extreme Traditionalists disturbing.

As for a label, I personally prefer calling myself a Down-To-Earth Catholic because neither side seems intent in facing the facts of things.

Catholic only means Universal. (Universal Church) which is world wide. Roman Catholic is the Universal Church based - (headquarters, if you like,) in Rome. I am in the Church of England - Anglican. We are too Catholic because we believe in the Holy Trinity and the creed etc. A lot of people on here really do get very mixed ideas on what Catholic means.

We give ourselves labels to try and help ourselves but more often than not those same labels that help ourselves confuse ourselves too.

If you believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit you are Christian and Catholic.

I agree. The trouble with both liberal and traditionalist views is that they are both heresy, just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Vatican II, the vernacular Mass, ecumenism, all that is here to stay. And that’s a good thing. It is part of the growth of the holy tradition of the Church, and being a Catholic today means accepting that these changes are right and good and not in conflict with the infallibility of holy tradition. “Traditionalists” who can’t let go of the past end up falling into heresy like SSPX or schism like the sedevacantists. At best traditionalism, in the sense of an unwarranted nostalgia for the pre-Vatican II era, is treading too close to dangerous territory.

Conversely, Vatican II was not the abrogation of the absolute nature of truth, it does not mean that all religions are equally true, or any of the other manifold heresies you see among modernist Catholics. This sort of New Age Catholicism is every bit the heresy that SSPX is, just in the opposite direction.

I’d really rather not get into that fight over the name “Catholic” and its identification with the Catholic Church- I’m satisfied that regardless of how many kinds of groups “claim” it, most people in the World know exactly who a Catholic is- The ones with that old dude in a white “dress” and a tiny white “hat” in Rome. Catholics don’t mean anything less than universal when they use the term- Catholic Church. We just believe that the one, true, universal, apostolic church, is identical with the one that has that old dude in white dress and a tiny hat who occasionally goes around in a funny little car…

I was more interested in how the different kinds of members of this Church with the old dude in white dress and hat going round in that small car, can identify themselves to designate their commitment to the magisterium teachings. :slight_smile:

Funny, I call myself a conservative Catholic but I don’t see it as a political statement at all. I’m neither Traditionalist nor Liberal.

Conservative is to me just a way of saying that I don’t do the “Happy Clappy Baptist Revival” type stuff. That I like my form of devotion and worship to be REVERENT, whether it’s a NO or EF Mass. To tell you the truth, I’ve never had the opportunity to attend an EF Mass, but knowing myself, I’d love it! I love the bells and smells… what can I say?

I’m also quite comfortable with a gregarious but reverent Mass. The operative word is reverence. Liberal to me, leaves too much room for error (almost purposeful error)… and traditionalist to me, leaves not enough room for error (stiff and unforgiving). I come from the standpoint that error is just that… error. In our humanity, mistakes do happen, and being conservative is recognizing the mistake, and moving forward to correct it.

That’s my take on MY conservative “title”

You left out a lot of us of your parents generation who returned and liked what we saw. We didn’t just grit our teeth and endure it. And then there is the group who accepted it without complaint–after all, it’s their fault they left and didn’t keep up with things, and they could live with the changes just fine. Rome had spoken and it was fine by them. Most of them fall into these two categories, I would say. The ones who stopped going to Mass had already stopped going to Mass. They just found another excuse not to go. Very, very few Catholics, out of the total number actually wanted or looked for a Latin Mass. And really, not that many gritted their teeth for too long. They got used to it.

The average Catholic in the the average parish is actually fine with things. They mostly don’t like the new translation. The people on these forums tend to be far more conservative than the average Catholic and their numbers in no way represent what is going on in the average parish. They are the ones complaining, not the other 5000 people in the parish.

The idea that the Church would never change is false. God is the only unchanging being in the universe. Everything else, including His Church, is mortal and changeable. Indeed, the nature of the Church requires change. The Latin Mass itself was a change, a break from the past. I bet people in 1570 felt the same sort of fear of change when the first Tridentine Mass was celebrated. But change is a necessity.

Normal or the more politically correct “typical.”

What was there before the Tridentine Mass?

How about just “Catholic”?

That is a fascinating question, and I’m woefully ignorant. But here’s a wikipedia article about it:


Apparently, the earliest Masses were said in Greek, which isn’t surprising.

But the point I was trying to make is that the Mass can change, and that’s a good thing. But change is uncomfortable. I admit that I would prefer a Latin Mass myself, I love Latin. But the Church needs the vernacular Mass, it is far to important to fulfill that need than the need of a few nostalgic Latin-lovers.

Actually the first masses were in Aramaic and Hebrew…on the first Holy Thursday…Jesus was the presider.

Good point! :thumbsup:

I agree with this.

I have begged over and over for a section for what I call regular Catholics, to no avail. They only have a section for traditionalists, one for non-catholics, and one for Easterners, that is mainly where I hang out.

Where I live there is only one Catholic parish, where Mass is celebrated in a foriegn languauge that is not not latin, and the music is by a mariachi band,

So I began looking for an Eastern rite parish, there is none for 400 miles, so I am in an eastern Orthodox church now.

Wel’l see how that works out.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.