Catholics of all flavors need to be conscious of the potential scandal in attacking fellow professing Catholics in public. I believe some of the "Rad Trads" don't really care - thinking they are the only "true Catholics" - but those of us who ARE true Catholics must be careful not to cause even more scandal by making public accusations against other professing Catholics. "Rad Trads" may be "true Catholics themselves, just misguided by a zeal for tradition which overlooks the "novo cedat ritui" (they may recall singing this in Benediction). In their zeal - they may be causing even more harm to the Church, but we should not increase that harm in attacking them. Let us present the fullness of the truth as God continues to reveal through His Church.So what IS a "Rad Trad?" Well, as the "label" implies - it is someone who is not merely a Traditionalist, but is a "Radical Traditionalist." An old Latin phrase goes: "in medio virtus stat" - (in the middle, virtue stands). One has to be careful when embracing the extremist in any movement. Traditionalism is a GOOD thing in the Catholic Faith! However, extremists or "radicals" who go around blasting anything new and/or anything post Vatican II are doing more harm than good in the Church.
I threw in that piece from the Tantum Ergo, for those who have the English translation in their missals and/or hymnals - if you don't, here's that whole verse:
Latin:
Tantum ergo Sacramentum Venere mue cernui
Et anti quum documentum Novo cedat ritui
Praestet fides supplementum Sensuum defectui
English:
Down in adoration falling, Lo! the Sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing, Newer rites of grace prevail:
Faith for all defects supplying, Where the feeble senses fail.
Truly "traditionally minded" Catholics should not oppose "newer rites of grace!" The traditional Tantum Ergo (traditionally sung during Benediction) declares that the "ancient forms departing" and "new rites of grace prevail" and goes on to say that for any defects - faith provides, where our feeble senses fail.
My statement holds true for those who hold to the "rigorist" or "extremist" view of EENS too (see the other entries and ongoing comments on this here in CathApol).
I have offered a similar explanation on Patrick's blog as well.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Scott,
ReplyDeleteHow can you preach peace in your post then call EENS-ers extremeists?
We accept Vatican II. We accept the Pope. We accept the new mass, and then you call us extremists?
Didn't you just post this:
"Catholics of all flavors need to be conscious of the potential scandal in attacking fellow professing Catholics in public"
Am I not a professing Catholic?
Did I call you a lax or indifferent Catholic? Since you hold the "liberal" view. Would that be fair?
"Liberal" or "Rigorist," I didn't consider derogatory but extremist is, because we are only believing what the Church teaches how is that extremist?
Pax
Bill Strom
Hi Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou've jumped into that discussion which was actually part of a discussion from Patrick Madrid's blog wherein Mark Shea (whom Patrick quoted) was objecting to the term "Neo-Catholic" which is used by some Traditional Catholics, perhaps mostly by the "Rad-Trads" I make reference to.
That being said, Fr. Feeney's position on EENS is an "extremist" position! He took the teaching of EENS "to the extreme" and thus a "rigorist" position is an "extreme" position. Out of context, I do not see either "rigorist" or "extremist" as derogatory. Context could make either term derogatory.
The extremism of "Rad-Trads" (as I use that label) is in their "radical traditionalism" they not only reject Vatican II, but reject virtually everything which comes after Vatican II. Some "Rad-Trads" are so extreme that they are sede-vacantists and do not recognize any popes after Pope Pius XII, and at least one such group has actually elected their own pope.
As for folks like you (which I must admit, you're the first I've encountered who accepts VCII and also adheres to the "rigorist" view of EENS), I do not consider you to be a "Rad-Trad." When I said "my statement holds true for those who hold to the "rigorist" or "extremist" view of EENS too" I was saying to those that they cannot reject the "novo cedat ritui" either - THAT remains true and I do not see it as applying to you who has openly declared you do not reject everything post VCII and popes since Pius XII.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Let's be honest too - many who hold to the "rigorist" position of EENS are also Traditionalists many of whom outright reject anything from or post Vatican II.
ReplyDeleteI am rather interested in your position, are you part of a larger movement of Catholics accepting of VCII who also accept the "rigorist" view of EENS?
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Ok Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for being too sensitive but I thought we had "connected." Any way I understand you better, now.
ReplyDeleteAs for EENS-ers and the so called "Feeneyites"(which is a derogatory term developed by our opponents)that deny Vatican II I believe they are in the minority. Many are "traditionalist" in the sense that they rather go to TLM but most accept Vat. II and the NO form too.
The Benedictine Monastery in Still River-one of the approved orders spiritually founded by Fr. Feeney - celebrate the Novus Ordo.
The 2 other Franciscan orders approved who are "rigorists" have a regular TLM but accept the NO and Vatican II. There are even Eastern rite Catholics that hold the "rigorist" position:
http://russiancatholic.blogspot.com/
and
http://www.scribd.com/rashalampa
So EENS-ers are a variety.
Here is a forum run by a Novus Ordo EENS-er:
http://pascendi2.websitetoolbox.com/
A majority of Sede-vacantists hate Fr. Feeney and as well as the SSPX and many traditionalist Catholics.
So I would say the majority are good Catholics open to NO and what the Church teaches but in continuity.
PS- non of these above links are run by me. They are all independent people.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much. Good information. You put "connected" in quotes, as if maybe you're implying we did not connect?
I am what one would call a Traditionalist. I accept EENS myself, but not a "rigorist" view of it. I also do not consider the NOM to be invalid. Two of my 5 sons who are married were both married in the Novus Ordo Rite.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<