Critique of Some Comments from a "Traditionalist"

[this person wishes to remain anonymous, so I have removed his name, or substituted "Bill"]

Some of our friend's rhetoric about Catholic convert apologists unfortunately parrots rabid anti-Catholics like Steve Hays. I've long noted, in any event, how Catholic "traditionalists" are similar in many ways in their outlook to both Catholic liberals and Protestants. The fact that they often line up with enemies of the Church in their opinions of fellow Catholics ought to give them pause. My comments will be in blue.

* * * * *

People think I'm nuts when I say I find EWTN kind of liberal.

[Really?]

[M]ore disturbing to me personally, is the belittling of "t" Tradition by virtually every apologist who appears on EWTN radio, and who has been on their television or writes books in the neo-conservative mainstream of modern Catholics.

[see my shredding of this cynical, derisive use of "neo-"; Bill later helpfully clarified that he does not use the term "neo-Catholic"]

[T]here is a current which runs in the neo-conservative mainstream to downplay the importance of the little traditions. This is done primarily when they incorrectly define them. One will say "Big 'T' Tradition stays the same always, and is of the utmost importance, but small 't' Tradition is here today and gone tomorrow.

["small 't' Tradition" -- how could "small 't' tradition" be capitalized? -- by definition, is not as binding and unchangeable as "Big 'T' Tradition, no? That is not to deny the importance and worthiness of a lot of this lesser tradition, but there is an essential difference in dogmatic status]

It is not important and we shouldn't get wrapped up in it. This is basically the position of Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin, as well as Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea, not to mention some others, who are converts separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism pervading the Church since the Council.

[first of all, to correct one factual error: Karl Keating is not a convert. But is Bill claiming we're liberals and heretics? Am I a modernist, too, even though I excoriate modernists all the time and have devoted part of one of my books to a hyper-critical analysis of their errors, and also one of my web pages? I must be quite the double agent!]

Let us even take a Novus Ordo celebrated with obscene abuses. There is no shortage of idiots who will insist that there is no difference between that and a "reverent" novus ordo (which as far as I'm concerned is an oxymoron), because if done validly "Jesus is there". Even if that is true, the grace which He imparts through the sacrament is impeded, it is not as powerful as one celebrated in union with the Church's intention.

The rites and the meaning they embody are superior to the Novus Ordo in every way, and consequently it is a better Mass in terms of the grace it imparts.

[these two comments smack of the Donatist rigorist heresy and a denial of ex opere operato.

Note: I later clarified this in the combox, to make it clear that I was not accusing Bill of the heresy, but only of being similar to it: "smacking" of that heresy. I apologized as well for possibly having misrepresented his position]

If you look at the normal person at the Novus Ordo, not the exceptional case, you find people whose liturgy tells them nothing about the doctrine of Catholicism, but is tailored to make them feel good.

["nothing" huh? I think this is an extreme characterization]

This all brings me back to the original point of this post, namely what is that historical Catholicism which modern apologists, many of whom are converts, seem disconnected from?

[Ah, the old, "he's a convert, so he is still half-Protestant" routine, as if mere history of doctrinal and ecclesiastical adherence has anything necessarily to do with what a person believes now. That would mean that St. Augustine remained half-Manichaean all his life, and Cardinal Newman half-Anglican. Right. I agree that there are converts who are "insufficiently converted," but they are, by and large, in the "traditionalist" camp. Gerry Matatics is one sterling example. He became so "Catholic", er, Protestant, that he now no longer believes that Pope Benedict XVI is pope. Robert Sungenis is another. So, Bill wants to hold against converts the fact that they were once Protestant, as if they can never shake the falsehoods in that system? By this criterion, we should dismiss much of what Bill says as too influenced by the "ex insane and conspiracy nut" notions that he used to hold, and perhaps retaining elements of silliness and immaturity even up to the present, if we listen to his own appraisal. But beyond that, why could we not plausibly observe that Bill was raised as a textbook liberal, and so he now he has gone to the other extreme of "traditionalism"? It happens all the time, and I observe it all the time]

I have read people claim they are not part of a "bloggersterium", that they follow the Pope. I wonder if they would acknowledge the danger from the "apologeticsterium"?

[a new term is coined!!!]

Let us look seriously.

Who lives or dies by what someone writes on a blog? If anyone does he is an idiot.

But there are people who conform their worldview to what this or that apologist writes.

[if they do that without knowing whether some particular apologist has credentials and accurately conveys orthodox Catholic teaching, then they are thinking in Protestant terms. On the other hand, if the apologist has adequate credentials and pedigree (as I do, and virtually all of the best-known, published apologists do) then they can trust them as accurate purveyors of orthodox Catholicism -- just as they would any teacher --, and thus are trusting the Church's teaching, as conveyed by the apologist, not the apologist in and of himself. In other words, it is not about credentials per se, on the lay level, but about one's orthodoxy and fidelity to the Church. Bill has no such credentials or standing in the Church that I can see (it's not just attainment of two Bachelor's degrees), and so folks who trust his opinion -- even when he foolishly defies popes -- are the ones who suffer from the mentality that he himself decries. How ironic . . . In other words, in the very act of decrying people who rely upon mere bloggers for their theology, Bill is himself writing as a mere blogger, with no official standing in the Church (just as I have none, in a strictly "official" sense). I find that a bit self-defeating, with all due respect]

On the whole, I am perfectly willing and happy to acknowledge where apologists have done good, or even great work. Yet the ministry of lay apologetics is precarious at best. They are filling a void which our Bishops and Priests ought to be filling in terms of real and true teaching.

[how can it be so precarious when those same bishops have highly encouraged lay apologetics? (link one / link two). This becomes a doubly comic analysis when we see that Bill himself links on his sidebar to the book, The Everlasting Man, by G.K. Chesterton, a layman who never even obtained any college degree. He's big on Hilaire Belloc: another layman. He is ready to trust both of them in economic matters (distributism: virtually my own economic position, by the way) and think nothing of it, while at the same time railing (to some extent) against lay apologetics. And why does he like the distributists? Well, because he thinks that their teaching lines up with magisterial Catholic social teaching (and I agree). But of course that is directly analogous to the situation of lay apologists: if their teachings can be shown to be perfectly consistent with the magisterium, then they, too, are perfectly legitimate]

The problem and the danger, not unlike what everyone is always whining about with blogs, is when they get looked upon as a counter magisterium.

[Apologists should not be blasted because some folks go overboard and become absurd in accepting their opinions as supposedly "magisterial". But I've rarely, if ever, actually observed this. If Bill thinks otherwise, I'd like to see him document it]

Mind you, not when they try and usurp that for themselves, although such is theoretically possible, I'm not aware of lay apologists doing that.

[thank you. This agrees with my previous point]

Yet, when you have a radio show hailing this or that apologist as the foremost thinker in the Church, on no other grounds than that network's credibility to make such a claim there is a great danger, and when they are wrong there is an even greater danger.

[first of all, above, it was stated earlier in the article that the person was called the "foremost apologist," not thinker. Which is it? The second category is far broader. I agree that it was a silly claim: not plausible in and of itself, and not conducive to a healthy humility, but it is a far cry from a feared "counter magisterium." If the factual examples of excessive claims were emphasized, the article would have been more effective]

What do you do about thousands of Catholics who don't know any better and follow this disconnect from historical Catholicism that various ex protestants seem to carry with them to the faith?

[one ought to make sure that they are credentialed within the Church, by being properly recommended and sanctioned by those in the magisterium or official teaching positions, as I am by the recommendation of (among many others) the late great Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa and highly respected catechist, and my affiliation with several respected and bishop-recommended apostolates (The Coming Home Network, Sophia Institute Press, Catholic Answers, Our Sunday Visitor, etc.: themselves supported and overseen to some extent by bishops and priests). The "ex Protestant" canard is meaningless as soon as the convert shows that he has truly converted to the Catholic position. Fr. Hardon was describing my writings as "very Catholic" as far back as 1991.]