J
Jen7
Guest
Sounds like that’s what it was then. Is he basically saying you have to be a Democrat or a “progressive Catholic” to NOT be a rad trad? Sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder…
- Status
A
aroosi
Guest
@maximian and @jen7 I think you guys should listen to Bishop Barron himself to understand what he thinks
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I watched. Two things: First, he was going on about some ‘trads’ and how they shouldn’t reject Vatican II.
Then later with his ‘animal’, he was ‘assimilate what you can, resist what you must’. . .
Here’s the problem: A. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. It did not lay out responses to dogmatic challenges. So what did it do then? I’ve read all the documents (and ambiguity is definitely the word here!!!). I truly don’t know traditionalists who ‘reject’ Vatican II per se. It was a council. It was called. It said some things. Just like any council of its kind, it addressed issues and, at any given time, another council could be called and address issues and clarify or deepen documents.
But there were a lot of things Vatican II supposedly ‘did’, like mandate CITH, rip off women’s veils, tear down communion rails, and have the priest ‘facing the people’, as well as ‘abrogate the Latin Mass…’
Vatican II did not do these things, therefore traditionalists who note that it did not are not ‘rejecting Vatican II.’
Also with regard to questionable passages from Nostrae Aetate etc., it is not REJECTION to ask for clarification or to continue to hold to ‘earlier’ interpretations.
We aren’t Feeneyites if we wonder if certain interpretations which are made (not the statements themselves which are ambiguous enough that they COULD say what is claimed but also could still say an earlier teaching that the first interpretation says it has ‘deepened or clarified’), could still be legitimately recognized in the older view. That is still not rejecting Vatican II.
Above all, preferring the TLM and even (gasp) stating that the reason for our preference is that we honestly believe that it offers more active participation and a more complete understanding of Christ’s sacrifice as opposed to the OF, is no more divisive or rejecting of Catholic teaching than it is for a person to state that his or her preference for the OF is that IT offers a vernacular and simple rite. After all we are constantly told that a person’s preferences for simple or complex aren’t wrong in themselves, aren’t we? So again, expressing the reason why a person believes the TLM is superior for teaching Christ’s sacrificial message isn’t saying the OF doesn’t do a good job. The runner up in the Miss America pageant is still a beautiful woman, still a talented woman, and plenty of people think she is actually ‘superior’ to the woman chosen as Miss America. Heck, for the person who likes the OF, that person can choose to ‘vote’ for the OF as ‘Miss America’ and see the EF as ‘the runner up’, right? All in the perception. Two valid rites, preferring one to the other by no means ‘rejects Vatican II”. . .
So I still am a bit curious but I’m hoping that Bishop Barron is only really concerned about Sedevacantists. They would be the only ones who ‘reject Vatican II”, right?
Then later with his ‘animal’, he was ‘assimilate what you can, resist what you must’. . .
Here’s the problem: A. Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. It did not lay out responses to dogmatic challenges. So what did it do then? I’ve read all the documents (and ambiguity is definitely the word here!!!). I truly don’t know traditionalists who ‘reject’ Vatican II per se. It was a council. It was called. It said some things. Just like any council of its kind, it addressed issues and, at any given time, another council could be called and address issues and clarify or deepen documents.
But there were a lot of things Vatican II supposedly ‘did’, like mandate CITH, rip off women’s veils, tear down communion rails, and have the priest ‘facing the people’, as well as ‘abrogate the Latin Mass…’
Vatican II did not do these things, therefore traditionalists who note that it did not are not ‘rejecting Vatican II.’
Also with regard to questionable passages from Nostrae Aetate etc., it is not REJECTION to ask for clarification or to continue to hold to ‘earlier’ interpretations.
We aren’t Feeneyites if we wonder if certain interpretations which are made (not the statements themselves which are ambiguous enough that they COULD say what is claimed but also could still say an earlier teaching that the first interpretation says it has ‘deepened or clarified’), could still be legitimately recognized in the older view. That is still not rejecting Vatican II.
Above all, preferring the TLM and even (gasp) stating that the reason for our preference is that we honestly believe that it offers more active participation and a more complete understanding of Christ’s sacrifice as opposed to the OF, is no more divisive or rejecting of Catholic teaching than it is for a person to state that his or her preference for the OF is that IT offers a vernacular and simple rite. After all we are constantly told that a person’s preferences for simple or complex aren’t wrong in themselves, aren’t we? So again, expressing the reason why a person believes the TLM is superior for teaching Christ’s sacrificial message isn’t saying the OF doesn’t do a good job. The runner up in the Miss America pageant is still a beautiful woman, still a talented woman, and plenty of people think she is actually ‘superior’ to the woman chosen as Miss America. Heck, for the person who likes the OF, that person can choose to ‘vote’ for the OF as ‘Miss America’ and see the EF as ‘the runner up’, right? All in the perception. Two valid rites, preferring one to the other by no means ‘rejects Vatican II”. . .
So I still am a bit curious but I’m hoping that Bishop Barron is only really concerned about Sedevacantists. They would be the only ones who ‘reject Vatican II”, right?
M
Maximian
Guest
Why has a moratorium on this discussion been imposed after 16 hours? Have we done something wrong?
B
Bithynian
Guest
I think if one were to understand +Barron’s perception of ‘rad trads’ (or whatever endonym they might prefer), it’s useful to have a gander at the responses to his Twitter.
Some choice responses to his most recent tweets include:
Some choice responses to his most recent tweets include:
His Twitter comments are rife with such things, and I can imagine why he would be concerned about such a phenomenon, regardless of whatever term (‘rad trad’ or otherwise) they may go by.
M
Maximian
Guest
The SSPX has never rejected Vatican II.
What they reject is any interpretation of Vatican II which contradicts the previous teaching of the Church.
That may sound like the same thing, but it isn’t.
What they reject is any interpretation of Vatican II which contradicts the previous teaching of the Church.
That may sound like the same thing, but it isn’t.
M
Maximian
Guest
It is not charitable to dismiss an entire category of catholics who are defined by a preference for more conservative liturgy and doctrine, just because they include some people who are very rude. Even the Holy Father has sometimes used colourful and abrupt language.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Yes, an important distinction. But it is important to note that they have also rejected the authority of the Holy Father; when Archbishop Lefebvre performed episcopal ordinations without a mandate, he pled “state of emergency” but in actuality he did it out of disobedience. The SSPX could rejoin communion with the Church at any time they should choose to exercise obedience.
M
Maximian
Guest
All christians are obliged to ignore an illegal or immoral order, even if it comes from the Pope.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Disregarding the fact that this was the lack of a mandate and not disobedience of a mandate itself, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that Pope St. John Paul the Great was issuing illegal orders to his bishops.
And if he was issuing illegal orders, then where does it end? Perhaps decree X or decree Y was illegal too? Perhaps Evangelium vitae was issued illegally? Perhaps he created illegal cardinals and the 2005 conclave was invalidated? I mean, you could just run wild with that. Why stop at one illegal lack-of-an-order?
A
AlbMagno
Guest
What was the illegal or immoral order? One should only disobey the superior Bishop when he ask us to directly sin.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Just as a comparison, and not stating that this is comparable, but only to give an example, when the Arian heresy had crippled the world and the majority of bishops and even the Pope were accepting that heresy, St. Athanasius resisted; to the point of being exiled.
When the antipopes were set up in the Avignon papacy, even some SAINTS supported the candidate they truly believed was the Pope but who, years later, was judged to be an antipope. When the whole mess was finally sorted out many years later, those saints were not judged ‘guilty of sin’ for having followed their conscience.
So yes, there are precedents. I leave it to others to determine if today we are in a comparable type of situation. It can be hard to determine the scope of something when one is right in the middle of it; sometimes it takes quite a while for things to be made clear.
When the antipopes were set up in the Avignon papacy, even some SAINTS supported the candidate they truly believed was the Pope but who, years later, was judged to be an antipope. When the whole mess was finally sorted out many years later, those saints were not judged ‘guilty of sin’ for having followed their conscience.
So yes, there are precedents. I leave it to others to determine if today we are in a comparable type of situation. It can be hard to determine the scope of something when one is right in the middle of it; sometimes it takes quite a while for things to be made clear.
Last edited:
- Status