SPLC classifies Traditionalist Catholics as a Hate Group?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you spot a “radical traditionalist” aside from the I like the SSPX crowd?
 
I start by ignoring the word “radical.” Such a term is not usually defined. There are traditionalists that have a greater spiritual connection to Latin, the TLM, communion in hand, altar rails, etc. Then there are those that have that connection and are militant about converting other orthodox Catholics to their faith. I say it that way, because when you think you are a “remnant,” as in the Magazine, or somehow see your little clique right and all others as wrong, you are isolating yourself into your own faith tradition. It is the latter group to which I refer.
 
Last edited:
How do you spot one? I see 100 Catholics by a Church, who is the one the SPLC is concerned about? How can they tell?
 
Good distinction. SSPX is not sedevacantist. SSPV, CMRI, Mel Gibson’s chapel and some others, are.
 
Last edited:
Then why did they sign the Reichskonkordat, becoming their first international legal partner of the Nazis? Article 16 says that when bishops take office they are required to take an oath of loyalty to the German Reich. Doesn’t sound “completely against” does it?
 
Last edited:
It was signed on 20 July 1933 by Cardinal Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII, on behalf of Pope Pius XI. The Church did it to get a promise that Catholics and clergy in Germany would not be molested. Cardinal Pacelli, later Pius XII, said privately he knew the Nazis would violate the treaty when he signed it and four years later, they did. What the Nazis got out of it was major international credibility that led to them signing treaties with a lot of other countries, all of which they also violated. But the Church led the way.

In 1937, Cardinal Faulhaber of Germany gave a sermon: “At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government.”

That same year, the Nazis violated the treaty. Then, and only then, did the church start opposing the Nazis.

Those bishops took the oath, so I don’t know about malicious, but certainly capitulating with evil. Their forebears in the Church would have allowed themselves to be martyred instead.
 
Last edited:
It may sound like I am Church-bashing, but I’m really not. But I believe that if history is not acknowledged, it will be repeated. I don’t expect the Church to be perfect. I don’t need it to be perfect to have faith. But I really don’t like to see it whitewashed. Promoting a good institution with bad arguments does no service to that institution. I love my Church, warts and all. Maybe especially with the warts.
 
I wonder how many anti-semitic acts have been committed by such radical Catholics? For the left wing, it really does not matter. What matters is generating operating funds so as to keep the 60s alive (and not to disappear completely).
 
jfz178 said:
But I really don’t like to see it whitewashed.
Click to expand...
For those of us who are European, it is very important to acknowledge that there were Bishops and Priests who were collaborators of the Nazis. That was a monstrous evil within the Church and that cannot be allowed to fade from the memory.

Indeed, it needs to be further explored by historians as what happened in the Holocaust wrought a new era in the Church and our relationship the Jewish people as we had to come to terms with a truly awful legacy of the Church that spanned centuries of persecution and oppression.
 
I used to respect the SPLC, but in recent years when they pretty much designate every three guys in a basement saying something politically incorrect a “hate group”, I pretty much just ignore them.

That’s not to say that there aren’t rad trads, as well as normal Joe Catholics attending OF, who don’t openly express bias against Jewish people or other groups to some degree. The important point the SPLC makes is that this type of thinking is not in line with what the Vatican teaches (to say nothing of the vast majority of Catholics I know), so these people are basically going against the teachings of the Church, probably committing sins, and not acting in the way Catholics are supposed to act.
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
Radical traditionalist” Catholics, who may make up the largest single group of serious anti-Semites in America,
Click to expand...
🤣😂🤣

Yup, after every Latin Mass, there is an announcement to tweet nasty things to Ben Shapiro.
JanSobieskiIII said:
I’m no fan of the splc but you read it wrong.
Click to expand...
Holy potatoes, Batman! I thought you said something else instead of splc and had to read that 3 times to see the l. 😂🤣😁
 
Don_Ruggero said:
For those of us who are European, it is very important to acknowledge that there were Bishops and Priests who were collaborators of the Nazis. That was a monstrous evil within the Church and that cannot be allowed to fade from the memory.
Click to expand...
  1. Is there any evidence of this?
  2. The point is the SPLC just calls people they don’t agree with haters. A tired and boring tactic.
 
Yeah, 65 years and counting. Altar server in the Latin Mass, Catholic grade school and high school, was taught the old Catechism by nuns, priests and brothers, music minister for 40 years this year.
 
Last edited:
Um, is it only a matter of time before Catholic Answers is classified as a “hate group” by the SPLC? How about EWTN?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but that’s still a problem. It would be different if it were satire, but they are quite serious.
 
It makes it hard to take them seriously when they do things like put an entire record label that has been functioning for years in the “hate group” bin because one of the many artists on its roster is accused of being a neo-Nazi.
 
All this talk of appeasement has stuck a worm in my head. Please help. What was the Vatican’s policy of getting along with communism called before the papacy of John Paul II? Can anybody help? I know I read about it a few years ago in George Weigel’s biography of the Pope.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Is there any evidence of this?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Perhaps you should begin your study with a look at Msgr. Jozef Tiso. There were many other ecclesiastics but his role in the Third Reich was remarkable by any standard.
 
pnewton said:
All this talk of appeasement has stuck a worm in my head. Please help. What was the Vatican’s policy of getting along with communism called before the papacy of John Paul II? Can anybody help? I know I read about it a few years ago in George Weigel’s biography of the Pope.
Click to expand...
I don’t need a book to remember it…it is in my lived memory

You are thinking of the Ostpolitik @pnewton
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top