THE RAD TRAD HERESY: RESISTING TRUTH

THE RAD TRAD HERESY: RESISTING TRUTH September 22, 2019

A Heresy For Our Times

Once, it was just grumpy alt-right conservatives complaining about the liturgy.  Then, it became radical rightists adding lists of perceived sins against orthodoxy by the official Church.  Finally, it has become a full blown heresy separating itself from the Roman Catholic Church which has handed down the faith unbroken for 2000 years.  Its name:  The Rad Trad Heresy, short for the Radical Traditionalist Heresy.  I may be the only one to have labeled it thus far, but I think my position is tenable.  Some have called this pattern of thought schismatic, but the time has come for it to be condemned for what it is; namely, a perversion of truth masquerading as a return to the one true faith of Jesus Christ. One caveat: this particular heresy does not include conservative Catholics or even those who identify as traditional Catholics.  This heresy is is far to the right of them and no longer deserves to be included in mainstream Catholicism.

Heresies are comfortable things.  They are always the easy way out of difficulties the Church might be facing in any historical age.  Heresies offer simplistic answers to complicated problems.  They almost always sound correct and proper and, just as often, the official Church is tongue tied at the beginning of a heresy when trying to battle heresies’ pernicious lies. The Church is almost always caught unaware and takes some time to catch up while the heresy already has had quite some time to formulate its beliefs.

What’s The Rad Trad Heresy All About?

What does this Rad Trad heresy seek to do?

It seeks to stop the confusion in Catholic teaching among the faithful particularly in the areas of liturgy and morality.

Who are the spokespersons of this Rad Trad heresy?

There are several individuals who propound several of the heresy’s propositions.  I am uncomfortable saying that they are the founders of the heresy.  Yet there are two public teachers of the faith who should be called out as cheerleaders for many of this heresy’s viewpoints.  I refer to Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider who have taken upon themselves the mantel of papal correctors and inquisitors of all things they label evil in the Catholic Church.  Both of these ecclesiastics seem too bright and learned to be labeled heretics but lately they have been skating very close to schism in their public utterances.

What do followers of this heresy actually believe?

Under the banner of The Rad Trad Heresy are the following beliefs:

  • The Church is corrupt and has taken a side road away from the path to Truth.
  • The Novus Ordo Liturgy–developed by Vatican II–is a monstrosity that prevents people from communing with the Transcendent Christ. Even where grudgingly accepted the Novus Ordo is seen as deficient compared with the Tridentine Latin liturgy.
  • A legalism that replaces authentic theological investigation.  When Canon Law becomes primary over Scripture and theology, the teaching of the Church becomes confused.  This has led to a vocal laity voicing what they think are the basics of Catholic teaching but in reality are legalisms masquerading as theology.  Indeed, what is visibly apparent about The Rad Trad heresy is the predominance of lay writers and speakers without a deep theological education waxing eloquent on what Catholic teaching should be.
  • Communion in the hand is an abomination and a major symptom of the disrespect shown to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
  • A basic disrespect of papal authority. Papal leadership is suspect and true orthodoxy must resist the present pontiff’s teachings.
  • The positive goodness of sexuality is reduced to almost nothing with the Rad Trad’s focus on sexual sinfulness which they see as rampant throughout all society.  Homosexuality, in particular, is seen as a simple choice and homosexuals, not simply their sins, are condemned in the strongest terms.  The sexuality of married persons is elevated to an ideal level not seen in real married life.
  • Judgement is primary over mercy.  There is no grey area in the life of the human person.  Mercy may only be offered if repentance has already taken place.
  • Holds as heterodox the positive Catholic anthropological view that human nature is basically good though weakened by sin.  Takes a Jansenistic/Calvinistic view of the concupiscence of humanity as so corrupting as to negate a positive appreciation of human nature.
  • Deficient Christology breeds a New Gnosticism.  Rad Trads neglect the salvific mission of the Son of God.  Jesus as well as his salvific activity seem to shift into the background. It is easy to miss this because so much is made of his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, particularly in Exposition.  There is an aversion to speak about the Cross/Resurrection event as it revealed itself in salvation history.  Paradoxically, the divinity of Christ is accentuated through liturgical add-ons like devotional Exposition, etc. (in themselves worthy actions) but the revelation of that divinity through his humanity as exemplified by Scriptures is ignored.  When coupled with the Rad Trad’s loathing of sexuality as well as their negative view of human nature, this heresy embodies a new Gnosticism.
  • An heretical Apocalyptic view of history which views the Blessed Virgin as the change agent ushering in the Final Days of humanity.  Strangely, this view is built on the private revelations given to seers of various Marian apparitions down through the ages.  Though many of these Marian appearances have been authenticated by the Church, the Rad Trads go further, enshrining the prophecies and predictions made to the seers a truth level akin to Scripture.  Instead of Mary bringing people closer to her Son, instead of Mary revealing Christ to the nations, instead of Mary being the Mother of the Church, the Rad Trads have used her as a severe prophetess whose predictions usher in the final days.

Most Serious Error Is View Of Human Nature

The crucial teaching condemning the traditional Catholic anthropological view of human nature as basically good is the lynch pin of The Rad Trad Heresy.  The heretical teaching cannot get away from its negative view of humanity.  To say that Christ came to save humanity because he found it worth saving would be like chewing ashes for a Rad Trad.  This heresy subscribes to the Protestant vision that Christ came to save us even though we all deserved to be damned.  Catholic orthodoxy accepts our sinfulness but says Christ came to save us because he found us worth saving.  The Rad Trad Heresy comes close to a Calvinistic predestination vision for people who it sees as truly radical sinners, most visibly the homosexuals and, now, those in non-sacramental marriages.  Their list is open to new members.  No matter what these sinners do, short of a complete rejection of their life-style, a sure and final damnation awaits them.

Rad Trads Change The Nature of Jesus

That anthropology sets the stage for a radical revision of the person and purpose of Jesus.  Jesus becomes an object to be adored in the Blessed Sacrament, not the dynamic Savior intimately involved in people’s lives.  Christology, down through the ages, has always swung between a belief in a too human Jesus and a too divine Christ.  That’s a poor word choice, granted, but it serves to show how difficult it is to keep the Chalcedonian definition of Jesus as totally God and totally human, 100% divine/100% human.  Rad Trads eschew Christ’s humanity and in doing so, reject Christological orthodoxy.  Scripture takes second place to its new replacement–Mariolatry.

Dispose Of Mary’s Traditional Role; Invent Her As Apocalyptic Prophetess

When the Rad Trads separated the Blessed Virgin from her scriptural basis as the one who brings Christ to the nations, they invented her as an apocalyptic prophetess of the final days. Apocalypticism, when it is scriptural, has a valued place in Catholic orthodoxy, but Mary as a figure of the apocalyptic end times is not scriptural.  Her appearance in the Book of Revelation is that of the Mother of the Church, not the begetter of the end times. Mary is raised to an almost divine status, eclipsing her Son and becoming the focus of people’s honor and devotion to the detriment of her Son. Many active Catholic lay people, however, are attracted to its “damn the world, bring on the apocalypse” mentality.  Although simply an observation, many dioceses have more public talks on Fatima and Mary then they do about Jesus and Scripture.  People are attracted to apocalypticism and, as always in the past, Church leaders have to carefully educate the faithful on an orthodox way to hold the end times.

Popularity Of  Rad Trad Heresy Growing

The Rad Trad Heresy denies the goodness of humanity, the human nature of Christ, and the authority of the pope. It is a poison to the hearts of all faithful Catholics. There is more, but these are the salient points of The Rad Trad Heresy.  No doubt as time goes on, these points will get further clarified.  A question remains about how many people actually subscribe to such a heresy.  Its predominant presence rests in social media and fringe alt-right Catholic publications and lay conferences throughout the United States. Many of these people now hold leadership positions in the Church and in society.  This gives them a voice out of proportion to the rest of the laity, but their influence should not be underestimated.

My purpose in this opinion piece is to raise issues for discussion.  As time goes on, I will have to further refine what I believe The Rad Trad Heresy to be.  But I would find it helpful if others would join in the discussion.  What has moved me to write is the tremendous disrespect for the Holy Father now coming from the voices of this heresy.  For the life of me, I have studied Pope Francis’ speeches and teaching and I cannot find a single heretical view among them.  It amazes me that some proponents of this new heresy even think he is not the official pope.  I love my faith and union with the Bishop of Rome is essential to fidelity.  So I write and learn.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Linda Daily

    “What has moved me to write is the tremendous disrespect for the Holy Father now coming from the voices of this heresy.”

    I find it shocking. When Cardinal Vigano released his letter last August, timed to undermine the Pope’s healing efforts in Ireland, it became clear that the alt right parellel church had moved beyond fringe media. The same morning the letter was released, Bishop Strickland of Tyler Texas had already posted it on the diocesan website with a note stating that Strickland found the accusations credible and that all parishes in the diocese were required to publish it in the weekend bulletin. I called the USCCB communications office that morning to voice my concern and they clearly were not aware of Strickland’s actions. The USCCB still has not issued a statement about Strickland’s scandalous behavior.

    I was pleased to read the Pope Francis state clearly that even if schism happens, it will not deter the Church from her mission.

  • Wayfairer

    Mary’s Magnificat was a prophesy, wasn’t it? I’ve long seen her as a prophet, though a prophet who is on the side of the poor and the weak.

  • Frank C.

    You left out that the Rad Trad is big into conspiracy theories – the Masons, long dead societies, (and some even say the Jews) are all working to control and/or destroy the Catholic Church. At least one person has made a lot of money pushing this angle – people eat this sort of thing up. And the Taylor Marshall followers are very aggressive to anyone (prominent or not) who will publicly stand up to them. I find this very sad and dangerous – and I actual agree with them on many things, but they take it too far and condemn, dismiss or ridicule anyone who doesn’t embrace their personal piety (legalism). They should lead by example, not by coercion. I sometimes think some of them want schism.

  • In their opposition to papal authority, they certainly appear to be at least bordering on schism. This opposition is indeed also associated with a belief that the Church and its liturgy have been corrupted. However, I have not seen anyone denying the goodness of humanity or of sexuality, let alone denying the humanity of Christ, which certainly would be heresy. Then again, maybe I am not looking in the right places. I also must admit that I am unsure how mercy can precede repentance.

  • Dominic Boever

    Personally, I want all the bishops in the world to display the courage and resolve that these men have. Calling them heretics doesn’t do away with all the good they have done and are doing for the Church, defending the traditional way of life and also, morality. When we’ve got men in our clergy like Cupich and Martin, I don’t understand why everyone focuses their argumentation on the traditional bishops, priests, and cardinals who are speaking out against the blatant errors and heresies of certain men in our Church. I think we need to prioritize here. I don’t mean to act like heresy/schism isn’t a big deal but let’s all recognize that Modernism has infiltrated our Church to some extent or another.

  • Dominic Boever

    You are right. The claim that the traditionalists have a faulty view of Christ and that homosexuals are automatically lost forever are not found in your normal Latin Mass parish. Sure, there are gonna be no homosexuals who enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s totally Biblical and magisterial. Also, TLM traditionalists are like right on when it comes to the Divinity/Humanity of Our Lord. I mean, heck, they’re all about Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine. When you got those two agreeing on stuff, you really can’t be wrong 99% of the time. So, the claim that the traditionalists are wrong on Christ makes no sense. If anyone has it wrong, it’s the liberals in the Catholic Church, guys like Kung (who we need to pray for) and Von Balthazar who really wasn’t a big fan of Aquinas and who kinda obscured a lot of things with his own speculations. I’m not saying he’s a heretic but he isn’t the most clear-cut when it comes to black and white, straight answers of the faith.

  • Frank C.

    Good observations, but I think you are confusing Traditionalist with Radical Traditionalist. The author is going after the radicals, although there is some cross-pollination between the two. I consider myself a traditionalist (or at least a very conservative Catholic). For example, I love and attend the Latin Mass on occasion, but the Ordinary form is also great — when done properly (without hippie folk music, hand-holding, jokes and the like). And yes, Modernism and homosexuality are the real problems. The Radical Traditionalist often have a hard time remembering this and rather focus on Dan Brown like conspiracies or very questionable interpretations of Marian apparitions. They are just as bad as the moderate bishops who will not focus on the real problems. I believe a lot of this is economic – evil secret societies and evil Jews get more clicks and sell more books than the more simple facts. Many radicals are often more Protestant than they realize when you get right down to it.

  • Dominic Boever

    Yes, I agree. I just try to stick with traditional everything, including both TLM and reverent Novus Ordo forms of the Mass, and the good, orthodox teachings of the Church throughout the ages on morality, especially in our world and times today. I think everyone just needs to understand what really matters and stick to the foundations of the one, true faith. Thanks for the comment!

  • Er, when exactly, and in what precise words, did the Magisterium of the Catholic Church pronounce that “there are gonna be no homosexuals who enter the Kingdom of Heaven”?

  • sancho

    When I came back into the Church I remember Scott Hahn saying
    that when we hear the voice of the pope (who at the time was JPII) we
    are hearing the voice of Christ. Also, fond remembrance was given to St
    Augustine’s “Roma locuta, causa finita est”. So the traditional belief
    that the current pope speaks with the voice of Christ and has spoken
    (as in Amoris Laetitia) should be accepted. Monsignor Barr is spot
    on. The so-called faithful (Burke, Schneider, etc… ) have become heretical. They speak out of both sides of their mouths, as those with forked tongues are fond of doing.

  • Linda Daily

    Out of curiosity, what good have they done?

  • Linda Daily

    And what are your credentials?

  • Andy

    How do you define a traditional way of life and traditional morality. I noted that below you said no homosexuals gonna get into the Kingdom of Heaven and it is Magisterial and Biblical. Please show me where it is magisterial and Biblical.

  • Andy

    How do you define traditional way of life?

  • Dominic Boever

    Among other things, they have promoted prayer (especially the Rosary) and fasting all across the world, they have defended the unchanging truths of the faith, especially Catholicism as the one true faith, they have defended the forever-true understanding of marriage as a holy Sacrament between one man and one woman for life. They aren’t the prideful people everyone likes to paint them out to be, but rather, are forced to correct their brother bishops with fraternal love and correction, just like Saint Paul did with Saint Peter. It’s all about saving souls, in the end, and of course! evangelizing is the call for everyone to carry out. However, we must remember that this doesn’t mean we can compromise the truths of the faith, nor does it mean doctrine doesn’t matter. Like all good things, it’s both/and.

  • Dominic Boever

    Well, as Catholics, that’s kinda what we’re all about: Holding fast to the traditions that Our Lord handed onto us: Keeping the commandments, receiving the Sacraments, telling others about the faith.

  • ITBWTW

    Since I was the first to respond to this article, and since my response was not posted, clearly my thoughts and disagreement with Msgr Barr, are not worth publishing. Or maybe too effective in rebutting Msgr. No one will know. Very liberal reaction to thoughtful responses. And this liberal reaction is confirmed by only ‘agreement’ being published in the comments section here. That says everything anyone needs to know about this article. Sorry Msgr Barr, you exposed yourself as a censor of thought, part of the problem with the Consiliar (Vatcian II) Church.

  • Dominic Boever

    “The Church seeks to enable every person to live out the universal call
    to holiness. Persons with a homosexual inclination ought to receive
    every aid and encouragement to embrace this call personally and fully.
    This will unavoidably involve much struggle and self-mastery, for
    following Jesus always means following the way of the Cross…. The
    Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance are essential sources of
    consolation and aid on this path.”

    – USCCB,
    (2006), p. 13

  • Dominic Boever
  • Dominic Boever

    10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are
    the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves
    condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of
    disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a
    healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected
    in word, in action and in law.

    But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual
    persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.
    When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned,
    or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has
    any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be
    surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational
    and violent reactions increase.

    This is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

  • Dominic Boever
  • Re_Actor

    So past popes spoke with the voice of Christ when they supported the death penalty. Has Christ changed His mind?

  • Linda Daily

    Meaning, you’re an person with a CCC who critiques Hans Kung and Hans Urs von Balthasar as mediocre. Got it.

  • Monsignor Eric Barr, STL

    I don’t know why your comment wasn’t posted. Sorry about that. I’m rather new to Patheos And I didn’t see your post so I don’t know what the moderators did. Could you try and re-post please because your voice should be heard

  • Andy

    You really didn’t answer my question did you. What traditions are you talking about? Keeping the Commandments, check; receiving the Sacraments, check; telling others about the faith, I would add living it, check. But what is a traditional way of life? Vague statements of what you perceive as a Catholic does not answer my sincere question.

  • PGMGN

    “Once, it was just grumpy alt-right conservatives complaining about the liturgy.”

    This is a lie right out the gate, Monsignor. Although it sets the tone of politicization that is crucial for those intent on creating a lofty sounding straw man. Good brief. If you supposedly embrace the inherent goodness of mankind, perhaps you could SHOW that instead of scrambling to label, dismiss, and besmirch solid Catholics who love Our Lord, the Catholic Faith, and the Pope.

    It is no true to love to encourage someone in sin to continue down that road. Quite the opposite. Perhaps some prayer and reflection would be helpful. Leading by example, too, to begin with you stepping off of the supposed hateful behavior you’d like to lay at the feet of others.

    You say, “As time goes on, I will have to further refine what I believe The Rad Trad Heresy to be.” What “you” believe it to be means absolutely nothing as it is a false manufacture of those who are unable to defend the dissolution of morals/doctrine under a banner of false mercy. Perhaps the Ignation Rules of Discernment would help you view your column from the beginning, middle, and end in a more productive fashion.

    We could brainstorm names to call you, Monisgnor. Shall we?

  • PGMGN

    What mission is that now? Seriously. The Apostles were chartered with baptizing all nations — not feigning that all is well as it is.

  • PGMGN

    The name calling and false politicization are automatic red flags in this column. To solidly formed Catholics that is. Too bad your responses were censored.

  • PGMGN

    Monsignor Barr is toeing the company line. Read CCC 675 if you want the low down on our current climate. (Look it up on Google.) The Pope is no longer Simon as in Simon Says. He has a duty to perform. And Catholics, like Christ, will be crucified for speaking the truth.

  • PGMGN

    Out of curiosity, what do you consider “good?” Going along to get along or keeping the faith whole and entire? I’d also like your thoughts on CCC 675.

  • PGMGN

    Pray, what are yours, Linda?

  • PGMGN

    What you seem to have is a severe case of confirmation bias. If truth is now fluid, then yes, von Balthasar and Kung are mediocre as their proposals are just passing phases in a particular era of time.

  • PGMGN

    I’m interested in the Rad Libs. Kind of like a “Mad Lib” that goes forth endorsing whatever stirs the most controversy and applause. Their lips move, but I can’t hear what they’re really saying because it changes all the time depending upon who is promoting the video.

  • Andy

    Don’t blame Msgr. Barr as disqus seems to without apparent rhyme nor reason block comments, send them to awaiting moderation purgatory.

  • ITBWTW

    And the article itself was about “name calling” authentic Catholics…so ironic…sooo ev.l!

  • PGMGN

    So sad to see the clergy fallen this low. As a person, a parent, a teacher, a Catholic, I’m gobsmacked at the shameful pandering that portents nothing but delusion if it’s not corrected.

    Monsignor, indeed.

    High Indoctrinator.

  • PGMGN

    Msgr. Barr should be blamed for writing such a woefully pitiful piece. Its disgusting how far things have gone.

  • Andy

    Good of you to respond about Msgr. Barr, when I commented on disqus. You are right it is disgusting how far things have gone and you went with them maybe turn if the sarcasm, anger and self-righteousness and your message may be heard.

  • PGMGN

    Perhaps you’re searching for sarcasm and self-righteousness. If you are, you’ll find it even in the holiest texts.

  • Andy

    Not searching for it, merely unfortunately finding it – and your texts are far from holy.

  • PGMGN

    Alas, Andy, your persistence is proof of your search and the same goes for your sarcasm regarding holiness. I never said my posts were holy. You may want to seek what you find in the mirror and examine that more closely.

    The same goes for the “good” monsignor whose dive into name-calling and finger pointing is a sad reflection of the current pontificate under which we must suffer.

  • Linda Daily

    None, but I’m not discrediting qualified scholars or assigning people to h*ll.

  • Linda Daily

    Maybe you don’t realize it, but you’re proving Msgr. Barr’s point with each comment.

  • Andy

    PGMGN – where to start? I do not seek out sarcasm, you provided it. My persistence 2 comments addressed to you, is hardly persistence. What us obviously persistent is your inability to examine your win behaviors. As you say I should find a mirror, I would suggest that you remove the beam from your eye. I never called you a name; I commented on your behavior; my comment about holiness was in response to your strongly implied description of where to find sarcasm and self-righteousness.

  • PGMGN

    Where to start is with yourself, Andy. I made an observation. No sarcasm. This pontificate is a punishment, and a call to action. The monsignor’s attempt to castigate others is shameful. Again, no sarcasm.

    As for strongly implied, look to the Monsignor’s blame shifting and reference to politics. That’s problematic. If you don’t see that, beams may miss your attention no matter how closely you feel you’ve examined yourself….or your intentions.

  • PGMGN

    How so? I’ve stated no political view. I’ve said nothing against the Catholic Faith. What I’ve done is filled the space you seem to need to make yourself feel better when treating the Church as if it were built upon shifting sands.

    Yes, I do realize it.

  • PGMGN

    To embrace those you’re lifting up is to disqualify a millennia of qualified theologians, scholars, and faithful Catholics.

    That’s what you may want to “realize” instead of substituting Catholic principles for political opinion, progressive rhetoric, and name calling from a monsignor who seems beyond grasping the self-soothing that could be the root of his column.

  • Tom G

    Snoooore. You always do this, @PGMGN. It’s like you insist on a quotes-fight, and because no one can keep up with you, you just nag them into submission. And by submission, I mean silence.

    Speak clearly, for crying out loud. Stop with the Socratic method nonsense. What is your beef with the Holy Father?

  • PGMGN

    You may add living it, but that means nothing. Seems you’re into the vague statements of which you accuse others. No wonder you’re so ruffled by contradiction to your status quo.

  • Daniel F. Crawford

    Thank you, Monsignor Barr, for pointing out what is so deficient and so destructive in Red Trad theology. Every time I read the Burkes, the Viganos, the Schneiders and their acolytes, I am struck by how far from the Gospels they are. Please keep reminding us that the -ism they proclaim bears little resemblance to the real glory of the Catholicism handed down over the centuries.

  • Agellius

    This is extremely sloppily written. You don’t convict someone of heresy by giving a laundry list of things on which you disagree with him. You name the heresy and show specifically where it contradicts orthodoxy. For example believing the Church is corrupt is not a heresy, unless you can show that orthodoxy requires belief that the Church is not corrupt and can never be corrupt in any time or place or in any way whatsoever. Believing the Novus Ordo liturgy is deficient is not a heresy unless you can show that orthodoxy requires the belief that any given liturgy is free of any and all deficiencies, or in other words, is perfect.

    All you’re saying is basically, “I disagree with these people on a, b, c and d, therefore they must be heretics!!”

  • Richard M. Sawicki

    “Only dead fish go with the flow”. (Hilare Belloc? G.K. CHesterton?)
    Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  • Richard M. Sawicki

    I’ve only just stumbled across this posting and I still can’t figure it out.
    Is this supposed to be satire, or for real?
    Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  • Richard M. Sawicki

    It is amazing how many people seem to think what they “feel” is what constitutes truth.
    Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  • Richard M. Sawicki

    “The Universal Call to Holiness”.
    That was the OFFICIAL THEME of the Second Vatican Council, which so many folks seem to have forgotten.
    Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  • PGMGN

    They’ve been taught as much by those who were run or prefer to run others by way of changing feelings. The rampant absurdity is almost beyond comment. Save to say that they prefer the darkness.

  • PGMGN

    Oh, I need to use that. Thank you. How true, too.

  • Dominic Boever

    Yes, totally!

  • Iza

    Me too. And likewise, I am utterly surprised at the author’s opinion. Accusing faithful bishops of being schismatic is also a divergent idea as to the unity of the Church.

  • Isaiah Hoogendyk

    Some documented evidence — you know, quotes, links, etc. — would be quite helpful. As someone who has been going to the Latin Mass exclusively for the last 3 years, most of these things could be classified as hearsay of fringe opinions, and all calumnious, both of the hierarchy mentioned, and the Catholics implicated.

    I’ve met and heard talks from Cdl. Burke and Bishop Schneider: they are both faithful and holy men who have inspired me to be a better Catholic. And guess what? I still think Novus Ordo Mass is in and of itself valid, even while still much preferring to pray and receive the Eucharist in the context of the Latin Mass.

  • MurphsLaw

    Rule 1.
    Identify, isolate and demonize the enemy.
    Avoid any discussion to understand that which is being rejected.

  • MurphsLaw

    Take a poll for yourself.
    Attend Mass at a different parish if need be. But over a period of time ask people if they have ever been to a Tridentine Mass. I have found 3 out 4 Catholics have never been. There are even some who look at you and ask what a TLM is !
    I’ve yet to meet anyone who didn’t feel the TLM was a more spiritually personal experience.
    Because it is more.
    Yes the N.O. Mass will do, but don’t let anyone tell you, it’s the best we can do….

  • Dominic Boever

    Yep. You’re right. I can’t stand people who make up complicated stories about how these faithful bishops are really just prideful men who hate Francis.

  • Ben in Oakland

    So, am I going to remain in Patheos limbo?

  • Frank C.

    I go to a Latin Mass on occasion. When I was a kid (and even into my 20s) the Novus Ordo was done with dignity and beauty (still is in one parish far from my house). The problem isn’t the N.O. Mass, the problem is how it is now conducted.

  • Ben in Oakland

    I guess I am. Well, don’t say I a) didn’t predict it, and b) didn’t warn you.

  • Mark Johnson

    Frank,

    But IMHO that’s a feature not a bug. There’s no reason to think that what we have today is not what the”designers” of the NO had in mind. (Not talking about the Council Fathers but the ones who, after the Council, cooked up the modern liturgy in its specifics.)

  • crediblefriend

    I have attended a TLM and did not feel like it was a more spiritually personal experience. It was beautiful, yes, but ultimately confusing.

  • T G

    Not sure which version of the Bible you use….there’s more elsewhere in Scripture, but this is pretty clear. And in case you’re unaware; The Magisterium is subject to and upholds Scripture.

    Douay-Rhenish Bible
    1 Corinthians 6:9
    Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
    Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

    World English Bible
    Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of
    God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor
    adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

  • Mark Johnson

    I
    Credible, it’s more complex and of course being in Latin it takes some getting used to. Like good wine, an acquired taste but well worth the effort.

  • Who are you talking about? Really. Much of what you describe is nonsense, if you are trying to assign Cdl Burke and Bp Schneider as carriers of the heresy. Nonsense. Utter.

  • First of all, may I direct your attention to St. Dismas, the “Good Thief”? Word is he’s in Paradise, so at least one thief managed to get through that barrier some other Bible writer threw up. Second, the Bible is not the same as the Magisterium.

  • Indeed! And I’ve often wondered why we can’t describe Mary as a priest, because she was the first one to offer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the world. 🙂

  • Ben in Oakland

    Oh, silly me. I didn’t realize you were a monsignor. Of course you’re not going to allow what I wrote to stay on your blog. Much to close to home, I guess.
    Well, as I said below, I predicted that, and I warned you.

  • Frank C.

    What???!!!!

  • Linda Daily

    Some day you will see all the destruction your poor witness has caused.

  • Linda Daily

    This seems a stunted vision of discipleship, maybe a place to begin but also to grow beyond. Honestly I don’t see them promoting anything but the political agenda of their donors and a few rosary rallies as a panacea. What I do see them doing is actively advocating against the Pope with dangerous right wing allies.

  • Shannon Menkveld

    I’m not a Catholic. I’m not even a Christian. I’m a NeoPagan polytheist. So maybe (probably) I’m missing something fundamental, but…

    I really don’t understand the “RadTrad Catholic”theological insistence that Latin is the only valid language for Christian liturgy.

    Jesus and His disciples probably didn’t speak a word of it. Paul’s letters, even to the Romans, were written in Greek. (Which isn’t surprising, since educated Romans, even in the Western Empire, were expected to be fluent and literate in Greek.) The New Testament wasn’t translated into Latin until the 4th Century.

    Granted, Latin liturgy, particularly Latin liturgical music, is beautiful. But that’s aesthetics, not theology.

    If the point is to emphasize the original, uncorrupted Deposit of Faith, which I’m assuming, as an outsider, that it is, why Latin? Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic make much more sense in that framework.

    I have never understood this.

  • fractal

    Fundys are the same regardless of religious preference.
    We don’t even need to describe them; we all know some.

    Humanists are do-gooders in the community, and they focus on action, rather than church politics.

    Mystics are the holy fools, singing and dancing with each other, not caring at all about dogma or whose path is “right”.
    They look for the experience of Grace moving thru them, and opening them up to insights and joyous merging.

    It isn’t about which religion you follow; it is how you follow it.

  • fractal

    You are tedious.

  • PGMGN

    Perhaps you should expand your perspective.

  • Frank C.

    Speaking of blame shifting. The King of all extremists is Taylor Marshall and he blames secret societies (some of which no longer exist) on our problems. The “Rad Trads” shift our attention from the real problems to semi-fictitious boogeymen. If I was one of the corrupt Cardinals, I would love Marshall — while everyone is chasing Freemasons they are not focused on me.
    And concerning Barr, he ‘seems’ to dismiss one of those real problems – the homosexuals in leadership.

  • PGMGN

    I always do this? That’s hilarious.

    Almost like you wondering why believing/practicing Catholics may take issue with the god of surprises being foisted upon the faithful.

  • PGMGN

    At least its witness, Linda, not incoherent carpet-speak. The tepid are those whom God vomits forth from his mouth.

  • PGMGN

    I’m no TM fan. Too late to the party.

    The after-the-fact scrabbling to label believing Catholics as “Rad Trads” is similarly too little too late. That is too little to counteract the reality that history is what it is. And the proposed new god of surprises ins’t God.

    Although there is a great herd that is so afraid of being being labeled–or looked down on–that they’ll invite a boogeyman to show everyone how brave they are.

    The homosexual leadership didn’t come about by accident either. Avoid labeling it freemasonry if that floats your boat, but do root cause. That’s good business practice.

  • Frank C.

    Honestly, based on what I’ve read online, I thought the extreme traditionalist (the ones that are bordering on being Sedevacantists) were okay with the term “Rad Trad” since some of them use the term themselves.

    I may be wrong – it might just be a handful of them. To me there are 4 schools of thought in the Catholic Church, the radical traditionalists, the traditionalists, moderates (JP II’s camp), and liberals (moderate and liberal are very misleading labels, but would take too long to explain and look up the Latin names). I live somewhere between the moderates and traditionalists. I know, and consider friends, people from all 4 categories, all good people – although the extremes on best ends drive me nuts sometimes.

    The Freemason conspiracy stuff also drives me nuts. They are harmless nowadays. I guess I’m wound up, because I recently finished T Marshall’s book and was shocked by how bad and in accurate it is. Sometimes I think the real “infiltration” is from an Episcopal priest. I just wrote a review (you probably wouldn’t like on Amazon – Oct 5, starts out “Holy Mackerel…”):
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1DK04NKOSGZ6C/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=162282846

  • Tom G

    What are you talking about? What is this “god of surprises” piece? I’m not taking issue with any believing/practicing Catholics.

    I’m pointing out that your thing on Disqus is to insist on some exhaustive knowledge of Catholic teaching and then, when no one can keep up with you, declare victory or some such.

    I don’t follow you too much here, but from what I’ve seen your knowledge of the faith is pretty exhaustive and few if any can keep up with you. Because of that, I’m somewhat passive-aggressively saying that I don’t think you’re planting any seeds like the apostle Paul, and I don’t think you’re watering any seeds like Apollo. So why do you do what you do here? What are you attempting to accomplish?

  • Tom G

    Perhaps you should provide citations for your perspective. You’re wound too tight, like the maniac of which Chesterton warned in the chapter entitled The Maniac of his book Orthodoxy.

  • PGMGN

    No need to provide citations. You’ve already made up your mind, so no amount of rational discussion will dissuade you from a misuse of Chesterton. If only concerns about Francis’s pontificate were merely those of an orthodoxy maniac. You fool yourself, Tom. But that’s okay. Many do.

  • PGMGN

    Tom, you may not think you’re taking issue with believing/practicing Catholics, but your words say otherwise. Check in with Francis for the lowdown on the ‘god of surprises.” He’s taking issue with believing/practicing Catholics, too. And by proposing that whatever novelties he concocts are the movements of the Holy Ghost.

    Go ahead and dismiss TM as a crackpot, but look at the novelties regarding Amoris Letitia, the Human Fraternity for World Peace, his feigning that the death penalty is somehow a rejection of human dignity, and this Amazon crackpot nonsense. (The title of this column is “The Rad Trad Heresy: Resisting Truth.)

    I’d like to ask you. “What is truth?” Is that not Our Lord Jesus Christ. His words. The Word?

    This perpetual twisting of what the words mean where yes means no and no means yes – see the above — is concerning. It’s obvious nonsense. And yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

    CCC 675: Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575
    will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious
    deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the
    price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is
    that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies
    himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576

    You may want to cut the passive aggressive attacks and ask some serious, straight questions. If you don’t agree, that’s okay. But I’m commenting on this blog because there’s rank disinformation in it–and from a cleric. That’s disgusting. It’s typical though as folks are scrambling to cover up the garbage their promulgating under the guise of the spirit. Not holy at all.

  • Agellius

    Frank,

    Not trying to pick a fight here, I just find this an interesting topic.

    It’s interesting that you put “moderates” on the liberal side of the scale. That is, you draw a spectrum between extreme traditionalists and extreme liberals; and on the traditionalist side you list traditionalists and radical traditionalists; whereas on the liberal side you have moderates and liberals. It seems to me that “moderate” would indicate someone on neither side but rather in middle. That you put “moderate” on the liberal half of the spectrum seems to indicate a bias on your part (and I don’t mean this in an unfriendly way at all), whereby “liberal” is associated with “normal”, such that “moderates” — that is, reasonable people — get placed on the same side of the spectrum as “liberal”, whereas there are apparently no moderate traditionalists.

    On the other hand, you did admit that “moderate” and “liberal” were misleading labels. Then again that in itself is interesting: That you consider those terms imprecise, whereas “traditionalist” and “radical traditionalist” apparently hit the nail right on the head. The implication being that there is more nuance on the liberal side than on the traditionalist side.

    What are your thoughts on this?

  • Frank C.

    Agellius, I pretty much agree with you. If it appears I am lumping “moderates” and “liberals” close together, then I didn’t explain it right. Being a theological and liturgical liberal doesn’t mean you are “normal” or more “reasonable” in the Church. They are 4 pretty distinct groups (I think the people on both ends are problems). And yes, in my opinion there are more nuances in the later two groups. Another way to look at it is that moderates look at Vatican II as a done deal, whereas liberals look at it as just the start of something that is evolving. Just so happens Bishop Barron did a video recently on the origins of these later two groups on You Tube (called “Understanding the Post Vatican II Church): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLy188DgyEI

  • Tom G

    I’m not misusing Chesterton. It doesn’t take that deep a dive into your comments on disqus to see how tightly wound you are. You need air, not argument. But if you’re going to insist on argument, provide citations. I really think if you start providing citations for literally every claim you make, you may perhaps escape from this silly thinking you’ve adopted that you’re somehow responsible for saving the Church from the Pope.

  • Tom G

    Oy vey. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    CCC 675 doesn’t necessarily back you up. It could be you who’s falling for a religious deception. That part of the Catechism doesn’t cut one way or the other necessarily. Your self-certainty is not evidence in itself.

    Your standard of proof is waaaaay off. It’s causing problems with the rest of your beliefs.

  • PGMGN

    I made no assertion of certainty. I’m rather reading the signs of the times and looking at how Francis–in his teachings–is deviating from Christ. On the subject marriage for example.

    Take that as you will. You will anyway. I have no expectation of you jumping to one side or the other as per this discussion. What amazes me is the wholesale dismissal and name calling that’s used to keep concerned, thinking people quiet so others can go on their merry way believing nothing at all because its easier not to think about things.

    So, with regard to your leap about my standard of proof, you can back that up with citations yourself now. There’s nobody causing “problems” with my beliefs. There is what there is.

    Believe what you will. But the divergence–and a nearly 180 turn from what constituted no or yes–is plain to see for anyone with critical thinking/observation skills. Even atheists who may want to study the subject.

    But oh, bey all you’d like. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But when we have a church hierarchy insisting that nobody can say what is true anymore, we’re in trouble. Although you may prefer to settle into the belief that words and concepts don’t matter. Best of luck with that measure in maintaining your own household.

  • Tom G

    I made no assertion of certainty. I’m rather reading the signs of the times and looking at how Francis–in his teachings–is deviating from Christ. On the subject marriage for example.

    Take that as you will. You will anyway. I have no expectation of you jumping to one side or the other as per this discussion. What amazes me is the wholesale dismissal and name calling that’s used to keep concerned, thinking people quiet so others can go on their merry way believing nothing at all because its easier not to think about things.

    I’m trying to read the signs of the times as well, though, and I don’t see how Pope Francis is deviating from Christ. In what way is he deviating from Jesus’s teachings on the subject of marriage or the death penalty? And I’m not dismissing anyone wholesale. Also, you and I may disagree on the acceptability of name-calling. Jesus did, after all, refer to the Pharisees as “whited sepulchers” and a “brood of vipers”, and told Peter to “get behind me, Satan”. It seems to me He considered these words necessary at times.

    And I’m not trying to keep anyone quiet. I’m only trying to get people of a similar mind to you to stop thinking they’re supposed to save the Church from the Holy Father. Church teaching develops over time, and that’s ok.

  • Tom G

    So, with regard to your leap about my standard of proof, you can back that up with citations yourself now. There’s nobody causing “problems” with my beliefs. There is what there is.

    Believe what you will. But the divergence–and a nearly 180 turn from what constituted no or yes–is plain to see for anyone with critical thinking/observation skills. Even atheists who may want to study the subject.

    Your standard of proof is off because you’re putting the burden of proof on the accused, rather than on the accuser. The divergence is not necessarily as clear or plain as you seem to think. Just provide citations to what you think are Pope Francis’s deviations from the Truth, and perhaps we can proceed from there. I don’t see any other way of reaching any conclusions about each other’s position in a venue such as Disqus, where neither you nor I know really anything about each other (which means we can’t judge each other by our respective fruits, as Jesus advised). What specifically is leading you to think the Holy Father is wrong or has deviated from the truth?

  • Tom G

    But oh, bey all you’d like. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But when we have a church hierarchy insisting that nobody can say what is true anymore, we’re in trouble. Although you may prefer to settle into the belief that words and concepts don’t matter. Best of luck with that measure in maintaining your own household.

    I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Even those things I don’t fully understand. I haven’t settled into any belief that words and concepts don’t matter. Where and/or when has anyone in the Church hierarchy insisted that nobody can say what is true anymore? Where is that happening? Who is saying that “nobody can say what is true anymore”?

  • davidt

    They are just narrcisists dressed in religious drag is all.

  • Agellius

    Tom:

    One subject at a time. You ask, “In what way is he deviating from Jesus’s teachings on the subject of marriage … ?”

    He is deviating from Jesus’ teachings on marriage in being deliberately vague about those teachings and refusing to clarify his meaning when asked to do so. Specifically, in leaving the door open to the divorced-and-remarried to receive communion, he denies the Church’s traditional teaching on both marriage and worthy reception of communion.

    There are two choices: Either it’s not a mortal sin to divorce and remarry; or it’s OK to receive communion in the state of mortal sin. He won’t say which teaching he is denying in order to make it OK for the divorced-and-remarried to receive communion.

    Have you read the dubia on this topic which he has refused to respond to?

  • BE

    Where are the footnotes? The quotes from the “other side”?

  • Tom G

    Not true. This is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only choices. The elements of mortal sin are (A) Grave matter (divorce and remarriage is grave matter, yes), (B) Full knowledge (which outside observers of particular individuals would not know with respect to those particular individuals), and (C) Deliberate consent (which, again, outside observers of particular individuals would not know with respect to those particular individuals). There are a number of choices due to those three (3) elements of mortal sin.

    Pope Francis has not deviated from Jesus’s teachings on marriage, and he is not being deliberately vague. Even if what Pope Francis has taught is “vague” in a particular theoretical application, we do not have evidence that any vagueness is “deliberate”. On top of that, you and I do not have the authority, the power, or really any business whatsoever subjecting Pope Francis to some kind of trial.

    The Dubia are utter nonsense. This cancerous belief that you or I or anyone else is somehow called to save the Church from the Holy Father has got to be abandoned.

  • Agellius

    Tom,

    My question was whether you had read the dubia.

  • Tom G

    Agellius,

    Yes, I have read the dubia. The falsity of the other claims you made outside your question was worth pointing out.

    Tom

  • Capreolus

    I distinguish! That St. Dismas entered Paradise: I concede (of course!).
    That he entered qua thief: I deny.
    He entered as a penitent thief, just as penitent cinaedi may enter.

    Also, that the Church interprets the Scripture: I concede.
    That the Church contradicts herself in so doing: I deny.

  • PeterTx52

    while the Mass is said in Latin one can easily fall along because the Missals are in Latin and English.

  • PeterTx52

    confusing in what? did you follow along by reading the English? did you ask anyone what was occurring during certain parts of the Mass?

  • Agellius

    Tom,

    You said the dubia were nonsense. The first dubium says,

    It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

    Can you tell me specifically what is nonsensical about this?

  • Tom G

    You can attempt to shift the burden of proof all you want, but it’s not going to work with me. Perhaps it’s worked with others in the past, but you should bear your burden of proof. You bear the burden of demonstrating that Pope Francis has deviated from the teachings of Christ. I do not bear the burden of proving that Pope Francis has not so deviated.

    You are the accuser here. Show your work; prove your case. I’m not playing your burden-shifting game and, more importantly, neither is the Holy Father. You and Cardinal Burke can say Pope Francis has deviated from Jesus’s teachings all you want, but that does not make it so.

  • Tom G

    Additionally, by “nonsense” I mean that the dubia are “things of no importance or value : trifles” and/or that they are “affected or impudent conduct”.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense

  • Sigroli

    Viganò is not, praise God, a Cardinal.

  • Linda Daily

    Demoted back to AB, thanks for the good catch!

  • Agellius

    Tom,

    I didn’t ask you to prove Francis has not deviated.

    I offered specific reasons for believing that he has deviated from Jesus’ teachings regarding marriage. You offered rebuttals to my reasons. One of your rebuttals consisted of the statement, “The Dubia are utter nonsense.” I can’t respond to all your rebuttals at once. I like to stick to one thing at a time. Therefore, I responded to your rebuttal regarding the dubia, by asking you to specify what was nonsensical about them.

    I said something, you responded, I responded to your response. How does this amount to me shifting the “burden of proof”? As you’ve said repeatedly, the accuser should prove his case. You accused the dubia of being nonsense, so I asked you to prove it. If you don’t want to prove your case, then don’t make accusations. If you choose to make them, you should be ready to back them up.

    You didn’t have to impugn the dubia. You could have just answered my question, which was simply, “Have you read the dubia?”, at which point the ball would have been back in my court, to make the point I was planning to make in that regard. Instead you chose to impugn them, thus taking the burden on yourself.

    Second point regarding burdens of proof: The post to which this comment thread is attached consists of a series of accusations, beginning with its subtitle, “Resisting Truth”. Immediately following the title, and before the text, is a photo of Cadinal Burke, one of the dubia cardinals, lest there be any question who is being accused.

    It’s strange then that when people come here to respond to the accusations against Burke and Schneider, they’re told that they have the burden of proof. If this were a post written by Cardinal Burke, filled with accusations against Francis, then those arguing in support of the post would have the burden of proving the accusations. Given that it’s the other way around, I say the over-arching burden is yours. I’m perfectly willing to back up my own statements, but where you get the idea that you have no obligation to support your side of the argument, I have no idea.

  • Tom G

    Mm hmm.

    No kiddo. That’s not how it works. You, your dubia-loving ilk, Cardinal Burke et al, Rad Trads, and anyone else who presumes to accuse the Holy Father of heresy or “deviation from Christ” or whatever bears the burden of proof. It’s not a rotating burden of proof depending on who is talking to whom. You, and the incredibly self-aggrandizing Cardinal Burke, must prove your charges against the Holy Father. We all owe a duty of deference and obedience to the Pope, but for some ridiculous and solipsistic reason, you folks think you’re here to save the Church from the Holy Father. Your colossal pride is a sight to behold.

  • Tom G

    Also, I said the dubia are things of no value or importance, trifling. Not merely impudent.

  • Capreolus

    Well said! It’s almost as if someone who didn’t really believe there was such a thing as “orthodoxy” or “heresy” suddenly realized that you can get more of a rise out of your opponent by using a word they really do care about, “heresy.” I mean, can you imagine Kueng or Schillebeeckx (after the mask came off) or any of the Liberal Catholics’ heroes defending their ideas as “orthodox” whereas traditional Catholic doctrine was “heretical”? They rebelled against even using those terms, opting for “free thought” and “free expression.”

    It’s an old trick–in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the watchword was “disobedient,” when the Liberal Establishment wanted to discourage any kind of attachment to traditional Catholic expression and practice–they who considered disobedience to authority their birth-right, but who realized how it could cause a crisis of conscience in humble, believing Catholics.

  • Agellius

    Tom,

    You write, “No kiddo. That’s not how it works.”

    Yes, that’s pretty much how it does work. I’m not denying I have the burden of proving my accusations, the only one of which I’ve made so far is that Francis has deviated from the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage. But the fact that I have a burden doesn’t give you the green light to toss accusations around with no need to back them up. If you get to do that then you have no ground on which to criticize others for doing the same.

    Speaking of which, you write, ‘You, your dubia-loving ilk, Cardinal Burke et al, Rad Trads, and anyone else who presumes to accuse the Holy Father of heresy or “deviation from Christ” or whatever bears the burden of proof.’

    Please tell us when and where Cardinal Burke accused the Pope of heresy. I may have the burden of proving the Pope has deviated from the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage, but the burden of proving that Burke accused the Pope of heresy is yours and yours alone. These, you see, are two separate issues. Whether or not to fulfill that obligation, whether to be known as someone who flings accusations about but can’t be bothered to substantiate them, is up to you.

    You write, “I said the dubia are things of no value or importance, trifling. Not merely impudent.”

    But you did say they were impudent.

    Moving on to the point I was going to make in the first place regarding the dubia:

    The first dubium, as quoted previously, says this:

    ‘It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?’

    “More uxorio” means “as man and wife.” Familiaris Consortio is an apostolic exhortation of Pope St. John Paul II, in which he states that the divorced and remarried may not be admitted to communion unless they either separate or resolve to live together abstinently. Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Sacramentum Caritatis are additional apostolic exhortations in which he reaffirms the same thing.

    So basically the dubium is asking, does the Pope’s teaching in Amoris Laetitia allow for divorced and remarried persons to receive communion without either separating or resolving to live abstinently?

    Here we have cardinals requesting clarification of the Pope’s teaching in light of the teaching of another pope. They have the unmitigated gall to ask questions! Quick! Call out the Inquisition!

    The reason I say the Pope has deviated from the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage is that, while his teaching in Amoris Laetitia is ambiguous, it appears to a lot of people to allow communion to the divorced and remarried without either separating or living abstinently. Because a lot of people interpret it this way, it appeared necessary to these four cardinals to ask the Pope to state unambiguously whether that was his intention or not.

    Did the Pope do so? He did not. He declined to clarify Amoris Laetitia one way or the other. He won’t say it does allow this, and he won’t say it doesn’t.

    I say this is a departure from the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage, based on the fact that he refuses to affirm the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage after his own teaching called it into question. If you say it’s not a departure from the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage, then you apparently believe Amoris Laetitia does not allow the divorced and remarried to receive communion without either separating or living abstinently. Fair enough. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t he say so? His silence, in my opinion, can only be interpreted to mean that he is content to let the teaching remain ambiguous, to let people interpret it in a way that is at odds with traditional doctrine, to allow fellow Catholics to disagree with each other on the issue and have heated arguments about it. This, evidently, he thinks is preferable to providing clarity.

    But the only way ambiguity, leading to dissension, could be preferable to clarity, is if he is in fact departing from traditional teaching. He would have nothing to lose by simply reiterating traditional teaching, as John Paul did numerous times. Whereas unambiguously defying traditional teaching would cause a great uproar and possibly schism. Therefore his ambiguity is evidence of his heterodoxy.

  • Agellius

    What’s really funny about the accusation of heresy directed towards those who are critical of the Pope, is that heresy is “obstinately adhering to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church” (see NewAdvent.com article on “Heresy”). The implication being that we refuse to submit to Pope Francis’s teaching. But the whole problem we have with his teaching is that it’s ambiguous! Before you can convict me of denying his teaching, don’t I first have to know what it is?

    If the teaching of Pope Francis, the denial of which makes us heretics, is the teaching that the divorced and remarried should be admitted to communion without either separating or resolving to live abstinently — then why doesn’t Francis simply answer the dubia and define that teaching clearly? But if he refuses to clearly define it, then you don’t get to call us heretics for refusing to affirm it.

  • PGMGN

    Yes, we do have evidence that his vagueness is deliberate. He fails to clarify when asked in the proper manner. The Dubia are the means and ways established by the Church.

    The “cancer” is pretending that nobody can/should question heresy.

  • PGMGN

    Can you answer the Dubia? Christ tell us, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no.”

  • PGMGN

    Are Christ’s words concerning marriage nonsense to you?

  • PGMGN

    You’re the one shifting the burden of proof.

    We’ve been warned about the blind leading the blind, and false prophets. Same goes for a “religious solution” that will require apostasy from the truth.

  • PGMGN

    You’re ignoring reality. So is Francis under the guise of mercy.

  • PGMGN

    Dubia-loving ilk? Good grief. The Church has established ways/means to clarify ambiguous statements for the benefit of the flock. (Authority is given to guide, help, and protect, not to confuse, abuse, and mislead off a cliff. Read scripture and the catechism.)

    Colossal pride comes from he who refuses to read the signs of the times, supporting the insupportable.

    The Holy Father should be able to clarify himself. He won’t. That speaks volumes.

  • PGMGN

    “But the whole problem we have with his teaching is that it’s ambiguous!
    Before you can convict me of denying his teaching, don’t I first have to
    know what it is?”

    BINGO!

  • Tom G

    No. It doesn’t speak volumes. You can read into Pope Francis’s silence all you want, but it doesn’t speak volumes. Just stahp.

    And you’re reading a lack of clarity into it where there is none. Get over yourself.

    The signs of the times don’t support your position. Again, get over yourself.

  • Tom G

    No I’m not. If anyone is ignoring reality, it’s you and your Rad-Trad ilk.

  • Tom G

    Funny how the “blind leading the blind” and “false prophets” magically never applies to you and your self-righteous crew of Pharisees encouraging others to disobey the Holy Father.

  • Tom G

    No, Christ’s words concerning marriage are not nonsense to me.

  • Tom G

    No one is obligated to answer Cardinal Burke’s silly and worthless dubia. It’s best to ignore him.

  • Tom G

    No the Dubia are not. Burke has ridiculously that he and he alone is here to save the Church from the Holy Father. Absurd.

  • PGMGN

    You need to educate yourself about how Rome works. Absurd is the “Holy Father” retooling the papacy to a dictatorship wherein he can preach whatever he likes and call it Catholic. Really, Tom, you’re an embarrassment, but testimony of what can happen when those tasked with teaching fail in their duty of state.

  • PGMGN

    Do you know anything about the actual workings of the Church outside the rhetoric of do whatever you’d like because some priest will come along and tell you it’s okay? Good grief, man. Educate yourself. The Pope isn’t God. He’s the Vicar of Christ. And when the Vicar stops preaching Christ–the Truth–then he negates that which gives him any authority.

    You may enjoy your dull slumber, but Our Lord is looking for someone to pray and wait with Him.

  • PGMGN

    Have you read Amoris Letitia?

    Or is that nonsense, too. Good, grief, but you dig a hole with every post. You either don’t know Catholic teaching, don’t care, or are willfully playing marionette.

  • PGMGN

    Oh, the ignominious “rad-trad” talk. What is that? Please, define it. Use specifics.

    You’re the one making the charge here. Prove it. What is “radical” about upholding Catholic teaching? What is radical about asking one’s father–the Pope in this instance–to clarify himself on important matters that touch upon the salvation of souls.

    If rad trads are supposedly not obeying the Holy Father, pray tell, where is the infraction. State the guideline that’s being transgressed. Be specific.

  • PGMGN

    So tell me. Do you believe that adultery is a mortal sin? Do you believe that receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege?

    Be clear.

    We are tasked with teaching future generations. If nobody can judge anything and/or there’s no clarity in the Church, what is there? The light is being put under the bushel basket. Why? Because people prefer the darkness.

    Christ was pretty clear when he spoke with his disciples about marriage. Why can’t Francis be clear? Is it to restore the faith? One can’t find their way when its dark, Tom. Although you and your radlibs may prefer it that way.

  • Tom G

    Snooore. More of the same “behold my incredible intellect” garbage.

  • Tom G

    He hasn’t stopped preaching Christ. It’s your premises that are wrong, kiddo.

  • Tom G

    You and your false dichotomies. What has led you believe this is at all fruitful?

  • Tom G

    No, @PGMGN, you bear the burden of proving that the Holy Father must clarify anything. Point out his transgression. Point out his falsehood. Point out his specific deviation or whatever-you-call-it. Point out what specifically it deviates from or whatever. You are the accuser, and so is everyone who thinks the Holy Father is somehow in the wrong.

  • Tom G

    If the three elements of mortal sin are present on the part of a specific individual, then yes, adultery is a mortal sin.

    If all the elements of mortal sin are present on the part of a specific individual, and that individual is indeed in a state of mortal sin, then yes, reception of Holy Communion is another mortal sin.

    The rest of your comment is useless, as again, it only makes any sense if all your premises are true. Which they aren’t.

    I’m curious to know what makes you say I’m a liberal. I’ve never been officially called that before lol

  • PGMGN

    You and your willing blindness.

    I can easily imagine your defense if you were tried at Nuremberg.

  • PGMGN

    Yes, that’s an appropriate response as you’ve obviously fallen fast asleep and can understand nothing but the convoluted pipe dream keeping you that way.

  • PGMGN

    What premise would that be, Sage Tom?

    That yes should mean yes and no should mean no?

  • Tom G

    Me and my willing blindness have led you to believe your false dichotomies are fruitful? You don’t make any sense.

    What’s this new silliness you’re bringing in about Nuremberg? C’mon @PGMGN, don’t be passive-aggressive. Speak clearly.

  • Tom G

    Your premise that you’re correctly applying Christ’s words to any given situation.

    You keep passive-aggressively accusing me of heresy, but you’ll only find peace once you admit you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when you attempt to apply Christ’s words to a particular individual.

  • PGMGN

    You are the one who owned being passive-aggressive. I’m not being passive-aggressive with you. I’m acknowledging what you’re writing. You seem to be oblivious as to the meaning of your posts. You also demonstrate a woeful lack of understanding of the matter at hand.

    The lunacy of this last statement from you would indicate that we all must rely on Christ speaking individually to each one of us to know anything about what He teaches. Not a bad idea, but not the way He established His Church.

    Did you raise a family this way? Now that would be curious. Stealing is okay for Mary. Not for John? How do we know? How do we live with one another? Hmmm. Scripture is apparently worthless because Christ was only talking to other people.

    Good grief, Tom. And you supposedly wonder why someone may presume you’re a modern-day liberal? Really?

  • Tom G

    There is no contradiction in saying both (A) adultery is always wrong, and (B) that person’s individual situation is such that we do not know whether or not they are in mortal sin.

  • PGMGN

    That is not what Amoris Letitia proposes, Tom. There is contradiction in what Francis is promulgating which is wholesale ambiguity where truth is obfuscated.

  • Tom G

    If there is contradiction, then there isn’t ambiguity. Point out the contradiction. Jeepers you are taking forever, PGMGN.

  • Agellius

    Tom,

    You write, ‘There is no contradiction in saying both (A) adultery is always wrong, and (B) that person’s individual situation is such that we do not know whether or not they are in mortal sin.’

    But if we know that adultery is always wrong, and we know someone is objectively committing adultery, even if it’s possible they’re not fully culpable of it, we have an obligation to tell them that adultery is always wrong and that they are committing adultery, and that therefore objectively they need to stop. And part of telling them they must stop, is telling them that if they don’t stop, then they cannot receive communion. In other words, when we encounter someone in ignorance of the evil of their situation, the solution is not to tell them it’s OK, you can go ahead and keep doing it and receiving communion to boot since you’re not aware of how evil it is. The solution is to inform them it’s wrong and they must stop. Love does not leave someone in their sin. If it does, then the Gospel is pointless.

  • Tom G

    No we don’t have that obligation. Your belief that we are called to spread some kind of Gospel of Nagging is a ridiculous one.

  • Tom G

    Well, if you don’t know what Pope Francis’s teaching is, then you can’t say he has deviated from Christ or Church teaching, correct?

  • Tom G

    If you don’t know what Pope Francis’s teaching is, @pgmgn:disqus , then you can’t say he has deviated from Christ or Church teaching, correct?

  • Tom,

    As much as I would like to continue our discussion, it seems Msgr. Barr has started censoring my comments as my last one has disappeared.

  • PGMGN

    If Francis hasn’t deviated from what the Church has always taught then you shouldn’t have a problem with traditional Catholics who are upholding Catholic teaching. You’ve solved you own problem. So maybe you can stop the name calling.

  • Tom G

    You’re committing the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Rad-trads aren’t upholding Catholic teaching insofar as they are accusing the Holy Father of heresy. They’re refusing to religiously assent as is their duty. Come now @pgmgn:disqus surely you can’t be serious 😉

  • PGMGN

    You’re concocting a straw man called “Rad-Trad,” a calumny often spurred on by folks like +Barr to cover heterodoxy. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

    Whereas you seem to be keyed on Simon Says, others are looking at what Simon is actually saying and doing. There is no judging the man. But the faithful are bid by Christ to judge the signs of the times and follow Him. (+Barr may not want you to read the history yourself, but rather take his word for it. I cannot say. But there have been bad popes in the past. So, this childish pretense that a sketchy pope is somehow unheard of–or that all must follow him off the cliff–is absurd.)

    One cannot religiously assent–as is their duty–to that which is unclear. So, sticking to tradition, that which has been handed down–also scriptural–is the only recourse. If nothing has changed under Francis, if nothing is deviating from the Deposit of the Faith, then Catholics are well served in cleaving to tradition. Until such time as the Holy Father does his duty and clarifies himself.

    Seriously.

  • Tom G

    The Rad-Trad label is not a straw man. It’s an accurate descriptor of a generally-similar group of people with generally the same complaints. It’s not a straw man just because one need not explain all the little nuances to essentially understand them as a group.

    If the Holy Father is unclear, then you cannot say that he has deviated from the faith. If the Holy Father is unclear, then you cannot say that holding to what he has stated is an abandonment of the faith. You need to make up your mind. Yes, we faithful are bid to read the signs of the times. But that cuts both ways and, for some reason, you appear to think you must save the Church from the Holy Father. That is absurd.

    Sketchy popes are not unheard of, sure. But we’re not talking about the Borgias here. Pope Francis is a good man, as is plainly obvious to all those who haven’t jumped on the “I, Cardinal Burke, and I alone, am here to save Holy Church from the Pope”-train.

  • PGMGN

    The Rad-Trad label is a straw man. Invented for the purpose of attacking orthodoxy.

    The complaints are well deserved in a pontificate that makes a point of fomenting confusion. The Holy Father has a duty to perform. Giving endless pressers, interviews, and continuing to speak in a manner that causes problems due to a pointed lack of clarity on his part is his fault.

    The faithful are correct in looking to him to clarify his teachings. Otherwise, the only alternative is to hold fast to the Deposit of the Faith. (Translated: Fuzzy orders foments fuzziness. Those asking for clarifications are the victim in this instance. And those souls misled by one who seems inclined to “make a mess” as he tells our youth they should do.)

    Again, you may want to get off your own crazy train. The TRUTH is what saves. Not Francis. Not Burke. That’s why Catholics who have eyes to see and ears to hear are concerned about what Francis is promulgating–intentional confusion.

    So stop being absurd. You’re painting this scenario with some odd colors, Tom.

    “If the Holy Father is unclear, then you cannot say that he has deviated
    from the faith.” One can call into question his beliefs if he fails to correct/clarify.

    “If the Holy Father is unclear, then you cannot say that
    holding to what he has stated is an abandonment of the faith.” You cannot hold fast to that which is unclear. That’s why cardinals asked for clarification.

    “You need to make up your mind.” Yes, you do.

  • Brock R. Henderson

    Very good, PGMGN. Did you notice that there was not a single moment in Msgr. Barr’s screed where he used concrete evidence to support his charge of heresy against Traditionalists in general? He is good at using the either-or logical fallacy, that’s for sure. He is adept at drawing unwarranted and wildly preposterous conclusions from the evidence he has, that’s a matter of public record. In short, Msgr. Barr is eager to charge Traditionalists with heresies, and it very well seems that in order to do so, he is willing to make them up.

    But throughout all this, did you notice Msgr. Barr claim – with a straight face as he was typing, I presume – that human nature is basically good? Let’s be blunt about what is going on, here, when he charges Traditionalists as a whole with heresy. It’s called projection.

  • PGMGN

    I have another word for it–desperation.