L
larsont7
Guest
I didn’t catch that. I thought he was talking about “rad trads” in general and the not the SSPX specifically when he brought up baptism of desire. I could be wrong though.
Catholic Answers Live Radio Show on "Radical Traditionalism" Tonight!
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Haven’t listened yet, but it must have been a mistake, st least in the SSPX website they seem to not agree with him at all.
sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
J
jwinch2
Guest
They totally disagree with Feeney on Baptism, you are correct on that.
I am going to have to listen to it later to be sure I guess.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
That would make more sense since many Rad Trad like Fr Freeney
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Do you think you can bring von Balthasar on the forums?
L
Lormar
Guest
L
Lucky7
Guest
I listened for about 30 minutes and I have to say I was bored. It didn’t seem to hit on the controversial stuff. Then again, I’m tired and hot, so my attention was probably lacking. I’ll have to go back and listen to it another time…or maybe we could have folks continue to discuss what they heard/what they thought of what they heard right here!
J
jwinch2
Guest
Well now, that should be intriguing.He said that most “rad trads” hold that.
Oh, dear me. Father Cekada just called.
L
Lormar
Guest
I have to say this for Tim Staples. He is well read unlike others and knows what he is talking about. He has done his homework on this topic.
L
Lormar
Guest
Getting back to what he said about holding a rigorous interpretation of “no salvation outside…”, that struck me too, as I know very few traditionals that hold a strict interpretation of it. Maybe there are more than I realize.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Most that I know hold to what is presented on the subject in Ott’s text. There was a good debate on FE the other day on this exact thing, with the overwhelming majority holding the line of Church teaching on only one that I am aware of who was in Fr. Feeney’s camp on the issue.Getting back to what he said about holding a rigorous interpretation of “no salvation outside…”, that struck me too, as I know very few traditionals that hold a strict interpretation of it. Maybe there are more than I realize.
L
Lormar
Guest
Well, most that I know are the same. I knew one couple at the SSPX chapel who had come there from a Father Feeney group, and the SSPX priest at the chapel told them not to present themselves at the Communion rail while they held that line of thinking.
L
Lormar
Guest
I will say it again. Tim Staples really knows his stuff. He should do a CD set on this topic and go point by point on each and every one of their arguments and debunk them.
M
Mike30
Guest
I was interested when Father Cekada called in. I thought that could have been interesting discussion. Unfortunately, every time he spoke it seemed that they started atlking over him and not letting him finish.
i don’t agree with most, heck hardly anthing that he says, but they should have let him speak, then debunk him. When you continually try to talk over someone it kind of shows you are arguing from a position of wekness, not strength.
i don’t agree with most, heck hardly anthing that he says, but they should have let him speak, then debunk him. When you continually try to talk over someone it kind of shows you are arguing from a position of wekness, not strength.
E
Esrb99
Guest
Agreed. Even in the Curia, Fr. Cekada is well-respected. His research on the liturgical reforms of the 1960’s is even recommended by Bishops on the ICEL committee. I also do not agree with the bulk of Fr. Cekada’s theological conclusions, but in regards to his research and many of his conclusions on the liturgical reforms and linguistic changes, he is pretty spot on.
J
jwinch2
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No, it wasn’t the heat or your fatigue. I, normally a big fan of CAL, was very disappointed. (I listened to virtually all of it.) Far too much talking by both the host and Staples (especially Tim), mostly talking alone or back and forth with each other, with precious little opportunity in a 120-minute show, for callers. (There were also LOTS of sales pitches for products, etc., not related to the topic at hand.) Then, when they finally got a sedavacantist on at the end, Staples was so eager to talk over him and provide “answers” in substitute for the caller, that it took the host (Coffin) to intervene. I was actually waiting for 2 hours to hear (as you said, Lucky7) the key concerns. After all, there aren’t splinter groups for random reasons, they come from somewhere, and they have been a response to actual events, to actual leadership, and to actual perceived lack of leadership.
The last caller got fuzzy when being pinned down as to whether Roncalli (John XXIII) was a genuine Pope or not, but his main objection, IIRC, was to Paul VI, for the language in some of the V2 Council documents. (Which is exactly what I expected.) When Coffin further asked for specifics, Fr. said that his main objection was the definition of the Church as The People of God. Finally (last few miniutes only of program), Staples directly responded to him, saying that ‘Church as God’s People’ is biblical and Sacred Tradition, not an invention of V2.
Then the caller got more specific about the issue of heresy & baptism, disagreeing with Staples that previous Councils affirmed the baptized as permanently part of the Church, regardless of level of heresy or schism. I believe that Tim said that Leo XIII(?) affirmed that long ago, while the caller said that heretics were called “not part of the Church” or “separated from the Church.”
Here is what I think the tributary of concern is, regarding status of “baptized heretics” (or baptized heterodox). It is a concern allied with “The Church” = “The People of God.” In itself, the equation is (I agree with Tim) not a revolutionary concept. Again, though, as many of us have said repeatedly on this forum, it was the way The People of God understood their position and their authority/autonomy (after all, they’re “Church”), and how they were never corrected from assuming that membership = authority, that has been (still is, frankly) the source of the problem.
Yes, “we” are Church. But the obligation is one of obedience, the privilege is one of graces, community, and resources. That distinction has been blurred, both immediately after the Council and through today. Add to that, the inclusion of the heterodox and self-styled heretics as “fully” or “equally” Church, and such distinctions are too subtle for those who wish to manipulate the situation, or remain in ignorance or rebellion. The result is a level of internal chaos for the Church, when it is the Church herself who proclaims order as an essential principle and, as a human-divine organization, needs order in which to operate.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Thank you Elizabeth. So, basically, most things weren’t really clarified or resolved.
And, to another’s post (sorry I don’t remember who it was), the fact that Tim Staples talked over and really didn’t let the sede speak his mind will only harden/confirm their thinking. They will conclude that the VII Catholics really do not have the answers/really don’t want to debate.
And round and round we go…
And, to another’s post (sorry I don’t remember who it was), the fact that Tim Staples talked over and really didn’t let the sede speak his mind will only harden/confirm their thinking. They will conclude that the VII Catholics really do not have the answers/really don’t want to debate.
And round and round we go…
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
So, essentially you’re saying that heretics/heretical-leaning people set up a practical straw man and use it to–unlike usually–protect themselves? They beat that drum of, “But we’re the People of God.” If they do that, maybe the best response isn’t twiddling our thumbs and breaking a sweat because they’re right; perhaps the easiest response is, “Who cares? That’s not even what we’re talking about.” Because that really has nothing to do with it in the first place.
It would be like talking to a heretic and he says as a self-defense, “Two candles are required for celebrations of Mass,” or, “Jesus said to love one another.” Well, yes, both of those things are quite true and no one contests that, but that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps my analogy is self-evidently a bit absurd, but I think the argument about People of God is equally absurd here.
I’ve noticed a difference about the spectrum of things in the Church. On the “left” (for lack of better terms) we hear a lot of whining and catch-phrases. “People of God,” “collegiality,” “Jesus loves us too,” “Vatican II said, Vatican II said, Vatican II said (x5000000),” and so on. On the “right” we don’t hear catchphrases, we see reasoned arguments. NCReporter types are very eager to jump the gun and “coin the slogan and make the t-shirt” for everything; they treat everything like a social issue or March of Dimes fundraiser. The SSPX is not typically going to go around riling up laypeople; they’d much rather write an essay or a cool-headed piece for their website. I’m not saying either “side” is right on any particular bit in any particular situation based on their arguing techniques, but I do think the way they argue does let us see in to their minds and how they think about things, and the way they view the world.
Part of this, I think, is conditioned. For so long the NCReporter types were given de facto official status on just about everything, so they feel triumphant, albeit less and less as time goes on I do believe that is generationally limited, since they don’t have much ideological posterity*. The SSPX types have always had to fight for every scrap, and so of course they wouldn’t want to go around using NCReporter tactics, for that would make them look weird and unbalanced. However, I think they are becoming slightly more comfortable as time goes on, since they do have a very healthy sized ideological posterity. I think the way these “sides” argue belies their beliefs. For NCReporter types practically everything is fundamentally a social issue, and theology for them only backs up their thinking, but isn’t necessary to it. For SSPX types practically everything is an academic or theological issue, and pastoral and cultural/societal situations only back up their thinking.
Speaking for myself, I tend not to trust my feelings enough to be on the left side of things.
*Socially-necessary disclaimer: No, I don’t think saying that is uncharitable in any sense, since it is simply an observation of reality.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
He died on the day I was born.Mr. Congar, I thought you died back in the Nineties! Perhaps, you are posting from Purgatory or Heaven (I would certainly hope not that other place).
Seriously, thanks for the update. I am intrigued by this discussion. Definitely, not to miss.
- Status