I particularly liked this:
I think we need to make a distinction between "traditional" and "traditionalist".
The traditional Catholic holds on to what is good until it gets old. The traditionalist Catholic holds on to what is old, whether it turns out to be good or not. All Catholic ought to do the former, while the latter seems a bit risky to me.
Hestor sent this link in the comment box: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html
If you can read your way through it, good luck to you. There is a fairly complete failure to understand the new movements in the Church (so far as I can gather, it is these that are being referred to as "neoconservative Catholics"). Such gems as this, tucked away in the middle of the article, reveal underlying presumptions that are masked by an appearance of the intellectual:
There is a more useful discussion here. Accepting a "common usage" is fine, but from a juridical point of view - and the article does refer to Summorum Pontificum establishing juridically that there are two forms of the one Roman Rite - no one of the two forms should be considered as any more traditional than the other. In reality, I suspect that most of those using the term "traditional" to refer to the extraordinary form are at least implicitly including the idea that it is in some way more traditional than the ordinary form. I think the Latin Mass Society would do well to adopt the terminology of ordinary and extraordinary form.
...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.