Psalm 136

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Sion.

There upon the willows we hung up our harps,

For those who had made us captives asked us for songs;

said those who had led us away:  “Sing for us a hymn of Sion!”

How could we sing a song of the Lord in a foreign land?

If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither.  May my tongue cleave to my palate if I remember you not, if I place not Jerusalem at the height of my joy.

Remember, O Lord, the sons of Edom on the day of Jerusalem’s ruin, when they said, “Raze it, raze it down to its very foundations!”

O wretched daughter of Babylon, blessed be he who shall requite the evil you have done to us!  Blessed be he who shall seize your little ones and smash them against the rock! *

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.  As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen.

*  Verses removed from the Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Hours.  Because it’s not hubris to edit out the parts you don’t like in a prayerbook written by God Himself.

What destruction they have wrought

Imagine you are a liberal Catholic.  You look back on your work of the last fifty years.  You see what you have wrought.  You have destroyed church architecture.  You have destroyed the Mass.  You have destroyed the Divine Office.  You have destroyed Catholic schools.  You have destroyed Catholic morality.  You have destroyed the seminaries.  You have destroyed Marriage.  You have destroyed the Papacy.*  People don’t believe in the Real Presence.  People don’t say the Rosary.  People think all religions are the same.  People think the Church is unnecessary for salvation.  In fact, they think salvation is unnecessary.

This is what we had:

This is what we are left with:

And you look back and think…  Wow, what a great job we did.

Amazing.

*Yes, I know they cannot “destroy” the Mass, Marriage and the Papacy, but you should know what I mean…

A taxonomy of traditionalism

For those who are new to traditional Catholicism, the various different groups can be hard to understand and clearly distinguish.  I haven’t seen a succinct summary of the different varieties of traditionalist, so I will attempt to summarize here.  But first, let me begin with a definition.  What is a traditionalist Catholic?  A traditionalist Catholic is a Catholic who rejects, in some way, the changes which happened in the Catholic Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council.  As we will see, this covers a broad spectrum.  Most Catholics do not consider a “traditional” Catholic to be the same as a “conservative” Catholic.  While anybody in the traditionalist milieu would be considered “conservative” by the standards of the modern world, when we refer to conservative Catholics we usually mean Catholics who are not particularly concerned with Vatican II or modernism, and probably even accept both of them.
Indult Traditionalists:  So-called because they first showed up when John Paul II issued an indult permitting the Latin Mass under his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei.  These Catholics operate fully within the approved Church structure.  Some are utterly opposed to the new Mass and the new Church in general, while others will quite freely go to Novus Ordo masses as long as they are “reverent.”  Generally these Catholics accept the Vatican II documents, but believe they have been hijacked and misinterpreted by liberal modernists.  Indult traditionalist groups include the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and various diocesan priests who say the traditional Mass.  Some of these diocesan priests continue to say the New Mass, while some will exclusively say the TLM.
Recognize and Resist:  R&R Catholics recognize the current pope as valid, but they believe he is evil and possibly a heretic.  They therefore recognize him in name only and tend to ignore most attempts by the pope to use his authority.  They reject Vatican II as a heretical council that is not consistent with Catholic tradition.  The most notable of these groups is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), although there are a number of other groups as well.  Tradition in Action is another example of such a group, and they are not supporters of SSPX even though they espouse similar positions.
Resignationist:  Resignationists believe that Pope Benedict XVI was a valid pope, but that Pope Francis is not.  They believe that Benedict’s resignation was invalid for some reason, and that he therefore continues to be pope.
Sedevacantist:  Sedevacantists (from the Latin meaning “empty chair”) believe that the current pope is not, in fact, pope at all, but a false claimant to the title.  They believe that the See of Peter became vacant sometime around Vatican II.  I’ve heard different accounts of who was the last real pope, but it is usually either John XXIII or Paul VI.  All popes since then are false popes.  Although it is not directly part of the sedevacantist thesis, normally sedes believe that the new rite of episcopal consecration, and probably the new rite of ordination, are invalid.  Therefore, any bishop consecrated (or priest ordained) in the new order is not truly a bishop (or priest).  This means that not only the pope, but most of the hierarchy, are imposters as well.  There are several sub-divisions of sedevacantism.  Father Anthony Cekada is probably the most articulate spokesman for this thesis, although there are several groups (e.g., Most Holy Family Monastery) that do not agree with his positions. Conclavist:  Conclavists are sedevacantists who believe that it is necessary to elect a new pope since the Holy See is vacant.  They believe they are a tiny remnant of true Catholicism, and therefore have a right to proceed with their own election.  Pope Michael is the most prominent example.  They generally have a very small following.