I think the Orthodox patriarchs and Pope Francis have built a very positive relationship with solid ground for hoping for full communion very soon. The patriarchs seem to have a lot of respect for the teaching and action of Pope Francis, IMO. Do you see things in a similarly positive light from an Orthodox perspective?
I realize that. They organize the tent where all the priests in attendance say their daily Mass every morning before starting out again and don’t allow priests to say Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI.
I’m not trying to belabor a point but have some of these priests complained about saying the EF? In some ways, it seems appropriate to say the EF on this pilgrimage, since the pilgrimage originated in the 12th-century. I think the Mass celebrated at Chartres is also said in the EF.
Please, don’t hold back!
It’s a “family apostolate” only in the sense that some workers are relatives. It’s not a “family apostolate” in the sense that it attracts families to the Catholic Church, or stands in unity to the Catholic Church in the fight to defend the family. It constantly opposes the leaders of the Catholic Church. It seldom finds fault in non-Catholic religious leaders, or non religious leaders.
Indeed. Good riddance.
That’s the thing. Rabid, radical ‘traditionalists’ (not to be confused with real traditionalists) are pretty much the fundamentalists of Catholicism. The pessimism-bordering-on-paranoia (especially the ones you see on the Internet varieties of radical ‘traditionalism’) and elitism is kind of the same as you see in the likes of Jack Chick or the Westboro Baptist Church.
I mean, just substitute ‘Tridentine Mass’ or ‘traditional Catholicism’ for ‘punk music’ and ‘liberals’ and ‘neocons’ for ‘jocks’ and ‘poseurs’. It’s all the same.
, and there is corruption and other nasty things occurring within the Church), but they’re not really doing anything constructive; they just choose to go reclusive and elitist, all the while moaning and whining and attacking, well, anything that isn’t them. As if that’s going to solve anything.It was the Southern Poverty Law Center that coined the term “radical traditionalist.” Just in case anyone wants to separate himself or herself from the use of it…That’s the thing. Rabid, radical ‘traditionalists’ (not to be confused with real traditionalists) are pretty much the fundamentalists of Catholicism. The pessimism-bordering-on-paranoia (especially the ones you see on the Internet varieties of radical ‘traditionalism’) and elitism is kind of the same as you see in the likes of Jack Chick or the Westboro Baptist Church.
To use an analogy, the way I see it, these publications just reminds me of those punk zines that keep moaning and whining about things like mainstream music and how bad it is, how mainstream artists are greedy money-grubbers who sold their soul for filthy lucre and are just making music for the money. That’s the thing: some punks really have that sort of elitist mentality that you also see in these circles: we’re special because we’re the minority who listen to ‘real’ music in this wasteland filled with corporate junk. We’re totally not like those jocks who consume the mainstream pap and poseurs who act like they’re ‘punk’ but aren’t.
I could say the same thing for these publications as I do with these zines: their criticisms have a grain of truth in them (much of modern pop music do suck
I am sold on that point!
However, if you noticed the way this was used above, the quotes separated, making the first two adjectives modifiers, not part of a single term. I will take your point and try to find synonyms when I need to say something similar.To be fair, this sounds a bit too much like a genetic fallacy to carry much weight. I personally find “radical traditionalist” to be a very fitting term, as I do phrases like ultra traditionalist and, when suitable, quasi-Sedeprivitationist, which is a position I believe a lot of radical traditionalists can be described as implicitly adhering to.
Speaking of which, what exactly is the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Per wikipedia: “The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation.”
Still - if CAL is willing to use the term, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Generally, “radical traditionalism”, as it generally is considered here, is the belief that leadership of the Church (esp. the Pope) can no longer be trusted because it has somehow fundamentally changed Church doctrine. Are there problems with certain bishops? Of course. Does Pope Francis sometimes speak seemingly in ways that are often misconstrued by modern culture (in other words, using words and phrasology that are quite twistable by our modern culture)? Most definitely. But, if we pay close attention to what Pope Francis has actually said and written (instead of viewing it with pre-construed notions of what he said), none of it contradicts any Church teaching - and it’s all the same as what Bl. Paul VI, St. John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have said, often just using simpler verbage. But there are many groups out there that question the legitimacy of Vatican II as a council, and also question the legitimacy of all Popes who have been elected since the convening of the council.
They started doing wonderful work to combat racism.
Yes, CAL used it. But I wouldn’t say they used it well. The programs they’ve done on so-called radical traditionalism haven’t provided much of a definition and instead have been a strange, confused mash-up of traditionalists, sedevacantists, and the SSPX. Perhaps this is why it’s dangerous to use a term that wasn’t born in Catholicism to describe facets of Catholicism.
All terms used to describe the types of religious groups you mention will be approximate, or maybe a little “confused”, because they are somewhat confused, and changing. The SSPX is taking positions it would not have taken a few decades ago, much more aggressive - (towards bishops, not more aggressive towards the secular institutions). The Remnant is “traditional” in some ways, considering the authority of popes before 1960, but not “traditional” in other ways, regarding authority of recent popes. It’s changed a lot, too.
I believe the SPLC has characterized a number of pro-life organizations (if not the entire pro-life movement) as “hate groups.” Like all the other key engines of “political correctness,” they “tolerate” only those groups agreeing with their agenda.
I just don’t think “radical traditionalism” is a useful catch-all term for all confused groups. For example, the SPLC associates antisemitism with this term – but in reality this doesn’t apply to those at The Remnant. Or the SSPX, for that matter. The SPLC uses this term to refer to those like the Dimond Brothers, who are barely hanging onto reality. Should it also be used, then, to refer to those who have not rejected the papacy (like the SSPX)? The “Most Holy Family Monastery” (labeled as “rad trads” and a hate group by the SPLC) rejects all popes since and including John XXIII as heretics and believes there is no valid priest who can provide access to the sacraments. I feel a bit uncomfortable using the same label to describe these folks as I would the non-schismatic SSPX.
I don’t give the SPLC any credibility.