Which of these would you consider “Rad Trads”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aroosi said:
Latin Mass only/Communion on the tongue only/women veiling, anti-Pope Francis, anti-Vatican II, Fr. James Martin seen as the devil, usually exclusive homeschooling, often buy into conspiracy theories (plandemic, vaccine is a way for Gates/Soros to control the world etc), see Trump as the savior of US, often their ‘prophets’ have a controversial Twitter account.
Click to expand...
All of those things are permitted by the Catholic Faith - although not to an unlimited degree. There is room for disagreement on both sides of the issues. If something spills over into a denial of the Catholic Faith, then that’s different. For those who do not like the so-called, “rad trads”, I think it’s important to try to engage in respectful dialogue and build understanding. If a person enters the conversation upholding the values of tolerance, open-mindness and ecumenism - for example - then those values should be applied to rad trads.
That’s the trap that has been created for people in the dialogue.
A person who is a radical defender of “the Spirit of Vatican II” for example, surrenders the right (to remain consistent) in opposing or denouncing people of different theological opinions of their own. That’s one of the principles offered by Vatican II - where Protestants actually attended the Council and contributed to the discussions. It would be difficult to denounce them at the same time that they were welcomed.
Others believe that “The Spirit of Vatican II” is not correct and that we should be somewhat like Vatican II “literalists” and only follow what the documents state.
But that also puts us in a situation where the Latin Mass was not forbidden by Vatican II, nor was veiling, or Communion on the tongue.
It’s a difficult situation.
In my view, many rad trads have painted themselves into a corner and there’s no way out without compromise. But for now, they have a very strong position and the Church will do well to restore traditions, to some extent. Whatever is good from the Vatican II era, will be something (I think) that God would want to preserve for the future. That may be only a very little, or it may be more than that.
But if the Church begins to restore traditions, then the term “rad trad” will lose meaning, since those ideas will not be considered radical any more (as I don’t think homeschooling is that radical these days, but maybe it is for some people).
 
Last edited:
Montrose said:
There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
I see nothing offensive in stating the truth. Either a Catholic is in a state of grace or they aren’t. Sometimes the Truth shocks - as Jesus did when He preached, there were some who couldn’t abide by His teaching (speaking the Truth) either (then and since) and went away.
 
Im not sure what “the veredict” means in this context.

Both on this site and in catholic media generally the terms “trad” and”rad trad” are used often and it seems to me a legitimate way to understand what people mean by this.

For example it is reported that Bishop Barron is concerned about the growth of “rad trads” and it would be useful to know how wide the catchment area is.

Im certainly a trad; but am I a rad trad? I recognize the authority of Pope Francis, the validity of NO and the fact that Vatican Two was an ecumenical council. But then, so does SSPX.
 
Last edited:
I think a rad trad is what non-traditional folks call any person who is more traditional than they are comfortable being.
 
I think you may be right but I also think it should be possible to find rational criteria.

It’s the same with “far left” and “far right”. In politics I would say the term “far” becomes usable when a person rejects democracy.
 
Maximian said:
I think you may be right but I also think it should be possible to find rational criteria.

It’s the same with “far left” and “far right”. In politics I would say the term “far” becomes usable when a person rejects democracy.
Click to expand...
Okay so then maybe “rad” comes in when you reject the Pope? (Although I’d say that just makes you non-Catholic…)

I dunno. Personally I think you have Catholics who contracept and those who don’t. To me that’s the big divide. The contracepting ones are not “trads” and the NFP users are “trads.” Throw in a mantilla or long skirt or any Latin & you have a rad-trad (or trad+). But I’m a mom. It may be different among the single folks.
 
It’s not useful at all to ask such a controversial topic to people who don’t have any authority to define these terms. That’s why this thread has the potential to turn itself into name-calling between users.
 
This.

Also, while you will find KofC councils with different flavors, I know Knights across the political spectrum, they are a fraternal org. They do not conduct liturgies, etc.
 
Anyone not in communion with the Holy See.
“Rad trad” is subjective, and probably always one more degree than the observer.
 
This is a discussion forum, which means it’s for discussion. It’s not a “have your dubia definitively answered by an authority” forum.
 
I’m not a fan of the term. People use “rad trad” to marginalize traditionalists – many who have concerns and critiques that are legitimate. Being a traditionalist doesn’t necessarily make you “radical” and to just brush it off as “radical” is intellectually lazy.

I only assign “radical” to those that go so far off base that they choose sede vacante.
 
So rad means “radical”, correct? And that fact that one is radical in a particular flavor of Christianity typically carries a spiritually negative connotation as being outside “the whole”.
Is this what you are asking?

Spiritual dispositions tend to be unique to the person rather than assignable to groups. That would seem to be prejudice.
I guess your question is kind of vague, and speculating on vague questions frequently leads to inflammation. I hope I’m making sense.
 
Obviously not “secret,” so Fr Z is batting zero already in his headline. :roll_eyes:
 
OP here.

Very few of you have actually answered my question which was which of those organisations do YOU think qualify as rad trad.

The conversation has morphed into a discussion about what “rad trad” means. Ok, I don’t mind.

Clearly there’s a difference between trad and rad trad, otherwise the rad has no meaning except possibly as an insult.

My view is that a traditionalist is a person whose preference is for the pre-Vatican II Mass and who rejects any moral or social teaching which contradicts what went before.

A hankering after some traditional practices like ad orientem or communion in the hand makes you a conservative not a traditionalist.

A trad is only rad, I think, if he rejects the validity if the novus ordo, or the authority of vatican ii.

If that’s right, then I am disturbed that according to the Nat Cath Rep article, Bishop Barron was invited to call a discussion about “rad trads” defined by Vogt as follows:

““Rad trads” are often young Catholics who prefer traditional liturgy, including the Latin Mass, and subscribe to more conservative political beliefs and religious practices.”

I don’t see anything radical about “preferring traditional liturgy” or “subscribing to more conservative political beliefs and religious practices.”

On that definition, every single Catholic who votes republican is a “rad trad”; so is every single person who kneels for holy communion or likes the EF.

Im not saying that there isn’t a discussion to be had about really radical traditionalism, but if all you need to do to be targeted in this way is to “subscribe to more conservative beliefs,“ then this was just a divisive and one sided stunt to which Bp Barron should not have given his blessing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top