Tis_Bearself
Patron
How exactly is Voris “wishy-washy on the faith”? That’s the first time I’ve heard that…
Last edited:
Bishop Barron and Voris Agree: Vatican II Is Not the Problem, “Rad Trads” Are
- Status
F
fairhful
Guest
I am an admirer of Bishop Barron. I think he is one of the most intelligent and insightful.Catholic writers of our times. His media productions, especially the “Catholicism” series, have brought many people into the Church and inspired countless others to return to the Catholic faith.
I find his perspective to be well- balanced, and he’s not one to hurl insults or lose that balance in the face of criticism. I guess what I’m trying to.say is that perhaps in light of all the conflict and division going on within our nation and within our Church right now, perhaps this is precisely the right time to examine more closely some of the reasons and directions for the controversy. That may be why he chooses this “fight” at this time.
I find his perspective to be well- balanced, and he’s not one to hurl insults or lose that balance in the face of criticism. I guess what I’m trying to.say is that perhaps in light of all the conflict and division going on within our nation and within our Church right now, perhaps this is precisely the right time to examine more closely some of the reasons and directions for the controversy. That may be why he chooses this “fight” at this time.
Last edited:
K
KyPerson
Guest
I often go to Mass at the chapel where the Fathers of Mercy have their home. You may have seen them on EWTN, especially Father Wade Menezes . They say the Mass in English according to Vatican II. It is reverent and beautiful. The hymns are in English and Latin and the people sing. Communion is at the altar rail and mostly on the tongue I seldom see anyone receive in the hand. The homily is always good since the fathers emphasize preaching and they hear confession regularly.
Vatican II isn’t the problem. It’s how it was implemented. Too much individuality, too much “look at me”, and in too many cases - especially in the universities - the lunatics got hold of things.
Vatican II isn’t the problem. It’s how it was implemented. Too much individuality, too much “look at me”, and in too many cases - especially in the universities - the lunatics got hold of things.
J
Jen7
Guest
So basically anyone even slightly more trad than him is rad? Heh. Interesting.
I will say, I feel like all the picking at so-called rad trads commenting on his online stuff makes him look petty. Wouldn’t it serve his platform better if he just ignored the puppies nipping at his heels? Unless he thinks they’re not really puppies nipping… What’s he so worried about?!
T
TK421
Guest
While sanctioned by the Pope, there were excesses during the crusade in southern France that were allegedly from zeal and devotion.
Some people don’t like to compare religion to politics, but they both operate with people who behave like people. When one side moves further in one direction, this causes another side to move further in another direction. A polarization effect. I believe the rise of radical traditionalists is directly linked to the laxity that came about in the 1970s. The way out of the problem is to lean on the pillars of the faith: prayer, penance, Our Lady, the Eucharist, etc.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
The real problem here is the label ‘rad trads’. As others have noted, there is no real definition of the term. There is a perfectly good word, “Sedevacantist” which describes what most people would think of when they think ‘rad trad’ —a person who ‘rejects Vatican II —visibly, by refusing to accept or tolerate the OF at all, and by rejecting the current Pope.”
Other than that, there is really no such thing as a ‘rad trad’. It is simply a pejorative label designed more or less to counteract ‘cafeteria Catholic’ —a label designed, as Rad trad is for “somebody who accepts more traditions than I do”, to deride the CC as “somebody who rejects more teachings than I do”.
All designed above all to turn us into judgmental jerks (now THERE is a label that we’re all, no matter which ‘side’, deserving of!!!) as we sneeringly label other Catholics and loudly proclaim
Ourselves and our judgment As superior.
The fact is that the OF and the EF are valid, and that while we can tolerate the many ambiguities and even disciplines that were not mandated etc. and even have legitimate preferences over what WE like, all these labels and condemnations are at best a waste of time and at worst a judgment on US.
Other than that, there is really no such thing as a ‘rad trad’. It is simply a pejorative label designed more or less to counteract ‘cafeteria Catholic’ —a label designed, as Rad trad is for “somebody who accepts more traditions than I do”, to deride the CC as “somebody who rejects more teachings than I do”.
All designed above all to turn us into judgmental jerks (now THERE is a label that we’re all, no matter which ‘side’, deserving of!!!) as we sneeringly label other Catholics and loudly proclaim
Ourselves and our judgment As superior.
The fact is that the OF and the EF are valid, and that while we can tolerate the many ambiguities and even disciplines that were not mandated etc. and even have legitimate preferences over what WE like, all these labels and condemnations are at best a waste of time and at worst a judgment on US.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
He used to be about to shining light in dark corners where bad clergy would prefer it remain dark. The last few years or so he’s more interested in pushing his own personal narrative. He sounds more like a major news network anchor than a Catholic apologist. The most recent diatribe that comes to mind is Voris’ onslaught against the SSPX. He has spewed such a blatant campaign of misinformation and downright calumny against the SSPX and their clergy that it is scandalous, to say the least.
C
commenter
Guest
An important distinction:
Bishop Barron is writing from within the Church.
CFN, LSN, CM, 1p5, Rorate, Remnant, etc are not affiliated with the Catholic Church. They are, in effect, part of the Secular media.
Thus, they are not really Traditional.
Last edited:
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
Having said all that I will concede that there are certainly those in both camps who take a holier than thou attitude about how one receives Communion (regardless of the conclusion they reach). Pride has always been present in the life of every Christian as it is the root of all sin. It saddens me that these divisions (and it is not necessarily bad that these exist so long as the hierarchy of the Church continues to allow truth and error to coexist side by side) become so entrenched that important topics for constructive dialogue become occasions to sh**post others who disagree with you. Not only does it not benefit the souls involved or further their cause, it just turns people off. If people are presented with a divisive topic like how to receive communion and every time its presented it turns into bitter arguing and name calling, most people will get turned off to the point that they simply won’t care about the issue anymore. And that’s tragic because this particular issue cuts to the heart of our Catholic faith, yet most Catholics simply don’t care to look into it because of how heated it gets. It’s understandable but regrettable and the one who really suffers by it is our Lord, who continues to have His body profaned by those who are otherwise trying their best to love Him.
Last edited:
S
ses
Guest
Do you mean they are not traditional because they’re not within the Church hierarchy? Now that’s an interesting claim to make.
C
commenter
Guest
No.
Many agencies staffed fully or mostly by Laity are affiliated with the Church. They have a relationship with their ordinary.
They are thus identified by the Church as Catholic media, though not employed by the Church.
This is how Pascendi described the process, and that Encyclical is highly regarded as Traditional. It’s also in V2 and Canon Law.
EWTN and Catholic Answers are Catholic ministries.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Pope Pius X was the chief opponent of Modernism. The entire Encyclical Pascendi is worth reading, but sections 50 to 53 are especially relevant to this thread.
His Encyclical on Catholic Action is also relevant in describing how the Church should respond. He was no stranger to problems in the Church, bad theology, secularized “Catholic” politicians and writers, false seminaries, wayward Jesuits, etc.
If even half of the people who admire him today actually read what he wrote, the Church would be in a better position to combat Modernism now.
His Encyclical on Catholic Action is also relevant in describing how the Church should respond. He was no stranger to problems in the Church, bad theology, secularized “Catholic” politicians and writers, false seminaries, wayward Jesuits, etc.
If even half of the people who admire him today actually read what he wrote, the Church would be in a better position to combat Modernism now.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
They’re defiitely trads. From my moderate POV I think some of them are rad trads, some are rad trads some of the time, and some are not.
The problem is, as you noted, that there are sedes and such who are even more “rad” so someone could probably always say, “Well I’m not as extreme as that guy over there.”
Somebody like Fr. Ripperger is pretty moderate when he’s getting everybody to pray exorcism prayers and discussing the devil, because this is something that priests from various factions of the Church do. Fr. Blount is far from “trad” but encourages the same stuff. Fr. Ripperger only verges on “rad trad” when he starts saying women shouldn’t work outside the home. Fr. Heilman is even less “rad” than that and only thing extreme about him is when he gets knee deep in political conspiracy and pushing unorthodox health cures which is where I tune out, but those things don’t make him a “rad trad”.
The problem is, as you noted, that there are sedes and such who are even more “rad” so someone could probably always say, “Well I’m not as extreme as that guy over there.”
Somebody like Fr. Ripperger is pretty moderate when he’s getting everybody to pray exorcism prayers and discussing the devil, because this is something that priests from various factions of the Church do. Fr. Blount is far from “trad” but encourages the same stuff. Fr. Ripperger only verges on “rad trad” when he starts saying women shouldn’t work outside the home. Fr. Heilman is even less “rad” than that and only thing extreme about him is when he gets knee deep in political conspiracy and pushing unorthodox health cures which is where I tune out, but those things don’t make him a “rad trad”.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Tis, I think you are giving an excellent example of what I said earlier:
It is all based on labels and perceptions.
Now, you speak of yourself as holding a ‘moderate’ view. (I’m not disagreeing with you). But this is your perception based on what you personally see as extremes on either side, and what you see as yourself standing in the via media or middle way.
But to a person on the extremes (either way), you look like an extremist just as much as the ‘true opposite’ is.
And even to a fellow person who likewise believes himself or herself to be a moderate, you could look not to be ‘as moderate’ yourself. Perhaps their moderation leans more ‘left’ or more ‘right’ than yours, again, they will feel that you are more ‘rad’ one way or the other.
That’s why ‘rad trad’ just as much as ‘cafeteria Catholic’ are labels we should absolutely refuse to use. They are meant to imply less than acceptable behavior right in their names! “Rad’, radical, dangerous. “Cafeteria’, only accepting what they want and ignoring all else.’
Aren’t we better than that? Shouldn’t we be better than that?
It is all based on labels and perceptions.
Now, you speak of yourself as holding a ‘moderate’ view. (I’m not disagreeing with you). But this is your perception based on what you personally see as extremes on either side, and what you see as yourself standing in the via media or middle way.
But to a person on the extremes (either way), you look like an extremist just as much as the ‘true opposite’ is.
And even to a fellow person who likewise believes himself or herself to be a moderate, you could look not to be ‘as moderate’ yourself. Perhaps their moderation leans more ‘left’ or more ‘right’ than yours, again, they will feel that you are more ‘rad’ one way or the other.
That’s why ‘rad trad’ just as much as ‘cafeteria Catholic’ are labels we should absolutely refuse to use. They are meant to imply less than acceptable behavior right in their names! “Rad’, radical, dangerous. “Cafeteria’, only accepting what they want and ignoring all else.’
Aren’t we better than that? Shouldn’t we be better than that?
Last edited:
A
Alexandria2020
Guest
I’ve only taken my faith more seriously after listening to people like Fr Ripperger and Jesse Romero. I attended two years of high school at a Catholic school (in Canada), and the attitude and atmosphere was very liberal. I didn’t get anything positive about my faith by going to that school. In fact I did a project on Buddhism in one of my religious education course. In that regards- people like Fr Ripperger and Jesse Romero are a big help to the majority of the average laity. I remember about this one friend of mine during my teenage years, he would always say things like “it’s not important to always go to church, what’s important is that we have a good heart”. The fact is the majority of the laity are poorly catechized.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If you grew up with a lot of old pre-Vatican II Catholics around like I did, then priests like Fr. Ripperger seem fairly normal. And somehow, there’s always been a few such priests around, although one might have needed to hunt a bit for them. Even during the worst of the 70s (and 80s and 90s), every young priest was not a Kumbaya liberal type, and in fact, a lot of those type priests did not want to serve in parishes and headed off to the missions instead, or left the priesthood.
Last edited:
- Status