When St Dominic encountered radical traditionalists in the 13th century, he overcome through prayer and penance.
Barron and Voris agree? It’s like the lion and the lamb just laid down together.
Which rad trads would that be?
Apparently, the Albegensians who weren’t simply “rad trads”, but outright heretics.
The Albigensians were Neo-Gnostic heretics descended from the Bogomil heresy that originated in Bulgaria.
Traditionalist Catholics are Catholics who keep the Faith as handed down from the Holy Fathers and do not deviate into Conservatism nor Liberalism.
Methinks you are comparing apples to oranges.
Bishop Barron has been on a bit of a crusade as of late against rad trads, but I don’t think he’s using the term correctly. He’s obviously using the term to encompass entities like Church Militant, LifeSite, and 1P5, but none of them are really what I’d consider “rad trads”. CM and LifeSite aren’t really big into tradition but focus on other matters, usually scandals in the Church, or what they perceive to be scandals. 1P5 is more into tradition, but they not outright Sedes or anything. He seems to be using the term to label anyone as a rad trad that “doesn’t like Vatican II”, or more accurately, doesn’t like “the spirit of Vatican II” based on some comments he’s responded to on social media in the last few weeks that I’ve seen. There are probably people on this forum who don’t even attend the TLM that he would label as “rad trads” because they think the implementation of V2 was poorly done.
I guess I just don’t understand why he’s picking this fight right now. I know that he gets a lot of nasty comments on YouTube and Facebook and stuff but honestly that’s just par for the course for any public figure on the Internet. These kinds of entities aren’t going away anytime soon; if anything they’re getting more popular in today’s age. I’m not sure that this is a battle that Bishop Barron can win or even one that he can come out of looking better than before. I fear that he may do more harm than good if he keeps this up.
When I hear “Rad Trad”
Has anyone read the article? A little convoluted.
Has anyone heard Voris talk about Barron? Voris is not likely to agree with Barron on much.
But, hey. One click-bait of a headline.
Title makes it sound like they had a discussion directly. They did not. Voris recognizes the validity of Vatican II and is not pro SSPX. I’m not sure how that makes him and Barron much in agreement, regardless how how someone feels about either, because Voris disagrees with Barron about quite a bit otherwise. I am not under the impression they are in agreement about the direction the church should go in.
As if we could all neatly and clearly define and label a group as “rad trad” in such a tidy manner and pin everything all on them. Yeah, that will solve everything.
I mean, the SSPX recognize the validity of it, too. So I don’t know why they came up together.
Yeah I worded my rant somewhat poorly. In a nutshell, their header is odd and misleading. Apparently the article is more pro-Traditionalist/Schneider/Vigano but the header was somewhat odd.
I will lay you odds that someone higher up in the Church tasked him with doing so. He’s about the only Bishop who has an Internet presence and any sort of a handle on this stuff.
In the first two paragraphs, there are fairly clear definitions of radical Traditionalism.
“‘radical Traditionalist’ movements that are often marked by personal attacks and vitriolic commentary.”
…the meeting of Catholic media professionals discussed the online behavior of traditionalists who ‘ruthlessly criticize the pope and bishops, and question the authority of the Second Vatican Council, often to the point of repudiation.’”
The rest of the article appears to be Catholic Family News saying “What about me? I’m Rad Trad, I like Rad Trad guys. Everyone should be Rad Trads.”
It is a very odd mix of quotes from “two of the Church’s most faithful prelates alive today: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider” that “ruthlessly criticize the pope and bishops and question the authority of the Second Vatican Council.” IOW, the author equates fidelity with being Rad Trad, a point exemplified by their interspersed commentary that could certainly be called “vitriolic commentary”:
IOW, CFN supports what Barron and Voris oppose.
The problem I have is that vitriol tends to mean different things to different people.
I’ve seen people classify speaking the truth as hateful vitriol, even though it’s as simple as, “this is a sin”.
And in this thread we’ve had a comparison between rad trads and historical heretics. The vitriol is on both sides.
I like Bishop Barron. I had him as a professor in 2 or 3 classes…wow, 20 years ago now. Likely the smartest and most impressive teacher I’ve ever had (and I have had a lot of teachers). I don’t know of anyone alive in the USA who has tried to do more to spread the Catholic faith. Do I agree with every one of his opinions? No, but I think most of the attacks on him are self-defeating nonsense.
That being said, I agree. Probably not a lot of light at the end of this tunnel.
My thoughts exactly (only better expressed).
Pardonnez moi? The Albigensians were not rad trads.