Some mainstream Catholics call others "rad trads" and position themselves as moderates, in the centre between two extremes. All this shows a shocking lack of historical awareness and respect.
I mention that term in the article too. Personally, I think itnis basically just a way of saying "Don't worry, I'm not like the nasty rad-trad guys. I'm nice." What do you think?
I've never heard the term in my life. I naively assumed I made it up.
For me what it means is that I'm just happy to be part of a tradition of faith going back to the apostles, and all attempts to paint me as something worth fighting are merely evidence of a lack of charity
I appreciate that, fair enough. However, it is often used, as I said, to say "I'm a trad, but not one of those nasty ones" - and by "nasty" is meant not just actual nastiness, but rather being more "hardline" than the speaker.
Basically, it does the same job as "rad trad", only indirectly rather than directly.
I’m a Roman Catholic. I will die a Roman Catholic. Causing division & chaos has never worked so well as it appears to be in our church today. Yet the scales on the eyes are so slow or stubborn to fall from our eyes & our hearts. Excellent article!
There are things that I certainly sympathize with in this article and there are things I disagree with and there are things that I need further clarification on. That said, I am going to start small and hopefully we can have some shorter back and forths instead of me writing a catechism long essay and receiving one back.
Agreement - Those that maintained the faith in the times of turbulence following the implementation (mostly poor implementation) I believe will be among the greatest of saints. These people include my grandparents which was critical in getting the faith to me and my siblings through my father.
Disagreement - labels have to be used because communication can't be infinitely nuanced. Words themselves are labels. They are the way in which we describe the world. When I say "cup" that narrows all of reality down to an incredibly small portion of reality, but it doesn't tell you the size, shape, color, physical material, or numerous other characteristics of the cup. Most of the time, I simply stop at "cup" though and move on without providing any of those other details and that is okay. If someone uses "radical traditionalist" and defines it as something that is different that your use of the term then you should do two things 1) explain why their definition shouldn't be used because it is so far away from an appropriate use of the term (the way the political left uses Nazi today), if you think that is necessary and 2) put aside your definition of the term and adopt the other's use of the term for the rest of their message so as to not conflate the usage and talk past each other.
Further clarification - Radical is a term that inherently includes a sense of relativism. I can only be radical in comparison to something else. Radical hence cannot be an inherently bad term. When Jesus says, "Repent and believe in the Gospel" or "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand." The word used for repent is describing a radical reorientation of one's life towards Our Lord (CCC 1431). Surely you would not disagree that we Catholics should be radical in this sense?
Whatever dude. Traditionalism is a Pharisee cult: https://open.substack.com/pub/thaddeuskozinski/p/catholic-traditionalism-is-a-pharisee?r=24l7o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/thaddeuskozinski/p/why-traditionalists-wont-stand-a?r=24l7o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, toxic, pretentious, and not in agreement with me about things, as also is this rad-trad."
I'm happy to expend all amounts of energy with people who want to actually talk in a civil, sincere manner.
Until you show some sign of that, you should just buzz off, mate. Thanks.
I'm not a rad read. I'm a glad trad.
I mention that term in the article too. Personally, I think itnis basically just a way of saying "Don't worry, I'm not like the nasty rad-trad guys. I'm nice." What do you think?
I've never heard the term in my life. I naively assumed I made it up.
For me what it means is that I'm just happy to be part of a tradition of faith going back to the apostles, and all attempts to paint me as something worth fighting are merely evidence of a lack of charity
I appreciate that, fair enough. However, it is often used, as I said, to say "I'm a trad, but not one of those nasty ones" - and by "nasty" is meant not just actual nastiness, but rather being more "hardline" than the speaker.
Basically, it does the same job as "rad trad", only indirectly rather than directly.
That's entirely fair actually.
I’m one of those who “lived through and after Vatican II.” Vatican II broke my heart.
We honour and salute you.
Oh, it was a blessing. And I thank you for your writing and support of our beloved faith.
I’m a Roman Catholic. I will die a Roman Catholic. Causing division & chaos has never worked so well as it appears to be in our church today. Yet the scales on the eyes are so slow or stubborn to fall from our eyes & our hearts. Excellent article!
Thank you!
Thanks for this piece. I’ve jokingly referred to myself as a “rad-trad” many times, without realizing the scandalousness of the moniker.
Those interested in the linguistic aspects of the counter-revolution would do well to read Dr. Peter Kwaniewski’s “How to Talk Like a (Traditional) Catholic”: https://open.substack.com/pub/traditionsanity/p/how-to-talk-like-a-traditional-catholic?r=p4b7a&utm_medium=ios
Thank you!
There are things that I certainly sympathize with in this article and there are things I disagree with and there are things that I need further clarification on. That said, I am going to start small and hopefully we can have some shorter back and forths instead of me writing a catechism long essay and receiving one back.
Agreement - Those that maintained the faith in the times of turbulence following the implementation (mostly poor implementation) I believe will be among the greatest of saints. These people include my grandparents which was critical in getting the faith to me and my siblings through my father.
Disagreement - labels have to be used because communication can't be infinitely nuanced. Words themselves are labels. They are the way in which we describe the world. When I say "cup" that narrows all of reality down to an incredibly small portion of reality, but it doesn't tell you the size, shape, color, physical material, or numerous other characteristics of the cup. Most of the time, I simply stop at "cup" though and move on without providing any of those other details and that is okay. If someone uses "radical traditionalist" and defines it as something that is different that your use of the term then you should do two things 1) explain why their definition shouldn't be used because it is so far away from an appropriate use of the term (the way the political left uses Nazi today), if you think that is necessary and 2) put aside your definition of the term and adopt the other's use of the term for the rest of their message so as to not conflate the usage and talk past each other.
Further clarification - Radical is a term that inherently includes a sense of relativism. I can only be radical in comparison to something else. Radical hence cannot be an inherently bad term. When Jesus says, "Repent and believe in the Gospel" or "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand." The word used for repent is describing a radical reorientation of one's life towards Our Lord (CCC 1431). Surely you would not disagree that we Catholics should be radical in this sense?
God Bless!