Friday, June 14, 2013

Open season on rad trads

Modestinus posts:
Though lengthy, the article takes apart the usual array of neo-Catholic/conservative objections to traditional Catholicism while also exposing the shortcomings in the typical neo-Catholic defenses of Vatican II and the changes which have taken place within the Church over the past 40 years.
As I wrote earlier, in the dark ages of Paul the Disaster (but he held the line on contraception; the nature of the church and the papacy made that so) and Blessed John Paul the Overrated, libs weren’t our mortal enemies. They didn’t take us seriously. It was the Novus neocons, defending tradition since 1970 and whatever the Pope’s opinion was that week (which is not what papal infallibility means). I thought that hostility abated under Benedict the Great (it IS ‘for you and for many’; case closed); maybe I’m wrong.


  1. I once encountered a statement of Fr. Greeley's in which he supposedly studied statistically the views of Catholics toward the modern mass. According to him, his study concluded that about 87% of Catholics were happy with the new mass. Regarding the remainder, he said that 5% favored the TLM (I don't know if this is 5% of the total studied or 5% of the remaining 13%). In any case, Fr. Greeley referred to these 5% of Catholics as "kooks." Given that the neo-cons in the linked article called them "radical traditionalists," I opine that kook = radical traditionalist. If this is so, then perhaps Catholic answers apologists are liberals instead of neo-cons. Perhaps neo-con is really not a good descriptor at all and should just be subsumed under the "liberal" moniker. Yes, I know this complicates the theological differences between liberals and alleged neo-cons. However, given all the ambiguity in the Church in the post-Vatican II age, I think considering neo-cons to be liberals (i.e., lumping them all together into one miserable group) is most appropriate. :-)

    Yes, I know "it's not about Latin." Yet Sacrosanctum Concilium explicitly called for Latin to be retained in the liturgy and that Gregorian Chant to be restored to common use for worship at mass. So maybe it really is about Latin after all!

    I know this won't happen, but if the Church authorities mandated the wholesale elimination of the N.O.M. liturgical system (including the Ordo for the sacraments) and re-instated uncritically and unchanged (minor calendar changes excepting) the TLM, etc., then I think there would be wholesale revolt in the pews, in parish rectories, and diocesan chanceries. I wonder where Catholic Answers, etc., would stand on this? . . . an exception perhaps to the "Pope can say or do no wrong?" in their collective opinion, thus making CA, etc. "radical neo-cons????" *rambunctious grin*

  2. Nice article, I appreciate your linking to it.


Leave comment