tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5108741724933619004..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: On the Use of Qualifying Terms (Like "Traditionalist") Preceding the Simple Description of "Catholic"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84246984364498861282013-07-27T15:35:13.953-04:002013-07-27T15:35:13.953-04:00It's necessary to differentiate "radtrads...It's necessary to differentiate "radtrads" from "trads": as I again argued today on my Facebook page:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/624367167598272<br /><br />Your definition is a portion of the one I have used for years: the radtrad is one who constantly bashes and trashes one or more of the following:<br /><br />1) VCII.<br />2) The Novus Ordo.<br />3) Recent popes (John XXIII forward).<br />4) Ecumenism.<br /><br />I think the antipathy to the Novus Ordo is the most characteristic, followed closely by derision towards VCII. <br />Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-55638630425515039552013-07-27T15:23:45.854-04:002013-07-27T15:23:45.854-04:00Also, I have a tentative definition I think I woul...Also, I have a tentative definition I think I would like to run by you, regarding radtrads and traditionalists --- and I appreciate that you're now saying the former subgroup is "tiny." I'm sorry if I've missed that earlier, but whattayagonnado. <br /><br />There is a very simple definition of radtrad and traditionalist. Both appreciate the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, but this really has nothing to do with the difference between them. <br /><br />This is the distinction: <br /><br />The radtrad considers the Second Vatican Council an enemy of traditionalism. The traditionalist considers the Second Vatican Council an invaluable ally. (SC 23, &c.) <br /><br />Thoughts? The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-91588901571626324782013-07-27T15:21:50.257-04:002013-07-27T15:21:50.257-04:00Labels cause division where there is not already d...Labels cause division where there is not already distinction. However, because there is not a sharp distinction, we cannot be using sharp labels. <br /><br />This is my conclusion, tentatively. Do we agree? The Ubiquitoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395703772492059721noreply@blogger.com