Thursday, November 09, 2006

Catholic "Traditionalism": Radtrad and Otherwise (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)

.
.
[STJOSEPH2.JPG]

St. Joseph's Church, Detroit, Michigan: a traditional but not "traditionalist" parish

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com

http://ninevehscrossing.com/index.html


Disclaimer

(I highly urge more mainstream "traditionalists" who read any of the papers listed below, to first read these ten clarifying points and the concluding paragraph with a link, so as to avoid needless misunderstandings of exactly what I am against, and what I do not disagree with. Thanks!)


1) I have always regarded "traditionalists" as Catholics (and refer to them as such on my web page devoted to them). I admire several things about them: their zeal and concern for orthodoxy, their desire to see liturgical and architectural excellence, their observance of traditional Catholic piety, traditional Catholic morality, willingness to take on liberals and modernists, desire to see people come into the fullness of the Catholic Church, etc. I don't "hate" them at all (as some seem to think), because I don't hate anyone. I oppose (as a Catholic apologist) what I feel to be errors and excess in their ranks.

2) I understand that the issue of attendance at SSPX chapels is somewhat controversial, as to whether this is considered schismatic. It is, however, an illicit and less than ideal participation, since there is some distinct sense of "separateness" from the Catholic Church. I know that many if not most "traditionalists" are not formally affiliated with SSPX, let alone being sedevacantists (the position that there is no sitting pope), which is a tiny extreme, radical wing of the movement.

3) Similarly, I haven't classified "traditionalists" (excepting the most extreme ones) as "schismatic." I have used the term "quasi-schismatic" but recently have tried to stop using that description as well (and removed it from the title of my "traditionalist" web page). Most of what I write about Catholic "traditionalism" is not intended at all to characterize the entire group. I was usually responding to arguments I encountered directly, or assertions of more radical ("radtrad") elements of the movement. Many of my papers on the topic were written before 2000, and I have learned a lot since that time, especially in recent dialogues. In my book and some of my major, more general papers on the topic (example), I never name a single person or group, because I was concerned only with rebuking errors and certain attitudes. This was also the methodology of the Council of Trent (it never named Luther or Calvin). In other critiques, I went specifically after declared erroneous opinions of individuals or groups (example one / example two / example three). I understand full well that there is a large diversity of opinion in their ranks.

4) Most "traditionalists" accept the notion of the indefectibility of the Church. Again, I have used the term "quasi-defectibility" to describe a position often heard, that the Church is still the Church, but in very dire condition and barely surviving. I've always agreed (closely following my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.) that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church (which is why I also have a web page devoted to criticism of the liberals, and half a book about modernism as well). The disagreement is regarding its exact cause and location, and the solutions to the problem.

5) I understand that most "traditionalists" accept the validity of the Novus Ordo or Pauline Mass, but consider it objectively inferior to the Tridentine Mass, and (as I wholeheartedly agree) often subjected to the grossest abuses in practice. I agree that all abuses ought to be eliminated, but I am in favor of liturgical diversity within a proper observance, so that people can worship as they please, within a context correct, orthodox liturgical practice. There are 22 rites in the Catholic Church.

6) I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the recent decision from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available. I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally-practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there for 17 years.

7) Most "traditionalists" accept Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council, but they usually contend that it was "ambiguous" and was subject to an attempted takeover by modernists in the Church. I reply that there was controversy and subterfuge in all councils. This is why we need the protection of the Holy Spirit, lest human beings make a complete mess of everything in the Church.

8) Most "traditionalists" believe that the popes since Pius XII (the usual dividing line in their analyses) are legitimate popes, though they make many strong criticisms, including even accusations of modernism to some extent.

9) Most "traditionalists" take a very low view of ecumenism, yet I have often observed that they classify post World War II "Catholic ecumenism" as heretical indifferentism: something that Vatican II and encyclicals have consistently condemned. And they tend to think that it is somehow contradictory to the notion of "no salvation outside the Church" or efforts to do apologetics and to bring people into the fullness of the One True Church (which it is not at all). So here it is a confusion of category and intent.

10) Since I and most Catholic apologists I know who treat "traditionalism" regard its adherents as fellow Catholics, we would greatly appreciate it if they would cease referring to us with the highly insulting description of "neo-Catholics." I object to "neo-conservative Catholic" as well (especially once one studies about what it means in "traditionalist" circles), but it is at least better than "neo-Catholic" -- if we must be called something other than the preferred "Catholic" or "orthodox Catholic." I continue to consistently put "traditionalist" in quotes because I deny that they have a lock on Catholic Tradition, or even that they have defined it properly. I would call myself a "traditionalist" because I accept in faith all that the Church teaches. But I am willing to at least call them what they call themselves, even if I put it in quotes, to register a "protest" of sorts, whereas we are called things that are downright insulting and that we vehemently object to, and that question our very orthodoxy or commitment to the fullness of Catholic Tradition. I think this is an elementary ethical consideration: not referring to people in ways that are known to be quite insulting to them.
For a very helpful, thoughtful treatment of the general topic, written by my friend David Palm, the self-described "reluctant traditionalist," see his essay, What is Traditional Catholicism? I believe I am the person he cites a few paragraphs in, regarding the "three-fold test." I don't agree with absolutely everything here, but I think this is a good aid for drawing the necessary distinctions that are so crucial in discussing these matters. David and I have dialogued and disagreed on several issues, but for the most part, my concerns are with those far to the "right" of him: the true "radtrads." I want to make it as clear as I can, what it is I agree and disagree with in this regard.
 

General










Paperback ($13.95)



$4.99
 $1.99
$4.99


Cordial, Constructive Dialogues With a Mainstream Traditionalist (who wishes to remain anonymous)








Tridentine vs. Pauline Mass



Liturgical Abuses at Mass: How Much Should We Endure and What Should We Do About It? (Dave Armstrong and David W. Emery)

Are Vatican II and the "New Mass" Counter-Influences to Orthodoxy and Traditional Liturgy, in Terms of Drawing in Converts to the Catholic Faith?





Vatican II





Terminology Issues



Popes








Venerable Pope John Paul II's Teaching Concerning Marital Submission: Consistent Development or Contradictory Innovation?




Robert Sungenis Misrepresents the "St. Peter Being Hypocritical with Jews" Incident in Galatians and Makes a Pathetic Comparison to Pope Benedict XVI

Ecumenism and Salvation "Outside" the Catholic Church








 
Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions (Particularly in the Middle Ages; With Emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas's Views)




Should a Christian Ever Contribute to a Mosque Building Fund? / Early Christians and Jewish Synagogue and Temple Worship (vs. Grubb)



Errors of Robert Sungenis (Theology of God,  Geocentrism, and Blistering Attacks on Blessed JPII and BXVI )

GEOCENTRISM




Response (in Words and Actions) to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrists "johnmartin" and "juscot"




Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught  (David Palm)

On Credibility, Conspiracies, and Caution (David Palm)

Sungenis and "johnmartin" Studiously Miss the Point (David Palm)


Neo-geos Come Unravelled (Robert Sungenis and John Martin) (David Palm) 

Neo-Geos: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain (David Palm)

"2012: A Sungenis Odd-yssey": Robert Sungenis Pushes a "DVD of the Month" from an Anti-Christian Gnostic Space Case, Claiming that Famed Director Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Landings

Robert Sungenis' Lousy "Comedic" Attempts to Rationalize His "Fake Moon Landings Filmed by Kubrick" Viewpoint, Complete with (Twice!) Imaginary Words of Yours Truly

Guess I Hit a Nerve: the Singular "Apologist" (???) Bob Sungenis Goes Nuclear Against Yours Truly in His "Reply" to My Two Rational Critiques / Responses


THEOLOGY OF GOD

Can God Change His Mind?: Dialogue With Bob Sungenis on God's Immutability, Omniscience, Atemporality, Simplicity, and Impassibility (Divine Emotions?)

Robert Sungenis' "Changeable God": More Documentation of His Erroneous Views (God Changing His Mind, Having Emotions, Being Bound to Time)

Does the Church Support Robert Sungenis' Novel Theories? (Jonathan Field)

Jonathan Field vs. Robert Sungenis on the Latter's Errors Regarding the Theology of God, Part II

Robert Sungenis' Responses to Recent Critiques on This Blog Regarding God's Characteristics and Geocentrism (With My Replies)



 ATTACKS ON THE HOLY FATHER AND BLESSED POPE JOHN PAUL II





Robert Sungenis Misrepresents the "St. Peter Being Hypocritical with Jews" Incident in Galatians and Makes a Pathetic Comparison to Pope Benedict XVI

Extreme Radtrads and Sedevacantism



 


Critique of The Remnant, with Copious Documentation (vs. John Vennari, Michael J. Matt, etc.)

Dialogue on The Remnant ("Traditionalist" Group) (vs. Mark Cameron)





Last updated on 23 February 2012.



 ***
Posted by Dave Armstrong at 12:01 AM
Reactions: 

1 comments:

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Dave, your characterization of the choice of one Mass or the other as a "preference" is itself an indication that you've been infected by Modernism. Please go to the following page, scroll down, and read the excerpts of that new book:

http://www.philotheapress.com/store/work-of-human-hands/

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Wed Jan 18, 08:22:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)