Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 29

John Calvin's Flimsy and Unbiblical Objection to the Term, Mother of God and Anti-Catholic James Swan's Vapid Swipes at Catholic Apologists Regarding the Overall Issue

The Catholic / patristic tradition regarding Mother of God or Theotokos ("God-Bearer") requires a little bit of thought, but it's not rocket science. Let's run through a quick version of the rationale:

Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!”

“Lord (kurios) God (theos)”: Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

Therefore, “Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

Jesus is called both in John 20:28.

Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

Case closed.


Moreover, we don’t say of mothers that they are the mother of their child’s body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn’t create the soul; God did.

Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It’s wrong and even illogical  to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.

Most of the early Protestant leaders understood this and retained the terminology, but John Calvin (the one most influential on later Protestantism) did not.  He gives his reasoning in a letter of 27 September 1552 to the French Church in London:

. . . to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

Just before this, he admitted that some of the objection (among Protestants) wasn't justified, and based in a degree of ignorance:

. . . I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest.

Ironically, however, it is Calvin himself who shows some degree of ignorance, as to the history of the term (which he knew full well, as a student of the Church fathers and early Church, was used to counter the heresy of Nestorianism). He himself explains it in a way that is perfectly in accord with the Catholic and Orthodox understanding:

She [Elizabeth] calls Mary the mother of her Lord This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

(Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, comment under Luke 1:43; Calvini Opera, ibid., vol. 45, 35)

Simple deductive reasoning . . . Thus, in my opinion, he really has no excuse for his objection. There are only so many grounds to object to Mother of God:

1) If one believes that Jesus isn't God, Mother of God wouldn't apply to His mother. This is not true of Calvin, because, as we plainly see above and in many other of his statements, he holds to the divinity or deity or Godhood of Jesus Christ: God the Son: the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

2) "God" can only refer to the Father and not to Jesus (a variation of #1, thus not applicable to Calvin, either). Since Scripture shows Jesus being called God in several places, it's a moot point for all who believe that the Bible is inspired revelation.

3) One can believe that Mary is only the mother of Jesus' human nature, not of a Divine Person with Two Natures (divine and human). This is the heresy of Nestorianism. Calvin would seem to deny it also in the above comment, though some sections of his writings elsewhere strongly smack of it: at least in some respects.

4) Lastly, an objection can be made that derives from the fear or concern of Mother of God  being misunderstood. This is Calvin's rationale. I think it fails, though, because Christianity is the sort of thing that has many elements that people can easily misunderstand or not comprehend correctly in the first place. The Holy Trinity is the most obvious example of that. We don't stop using the term "Trinity" because ignorant people will misunderstand it as three gods or a "three-headed god" (as the Jehovah's Witnesses mock it). Calvin certainly doesn't do so. We don't avoid using the term Hypostatic Union (the Two Natures of Christ), because it is a difficult notion and not all that easy to fully grasp.

Yet when it comes to Mother of God, Calvin changes his mind and advocates the cessation of its use, even though it is perfectly legitimate in and of itself, and he himself understands it to be so.

Furthermore, some of the reasoning he brings to bear for why he thinks so, is immediately suspect. He claims that Mother of God isn't "right, or becoming, or suitable," so that "sober-minded people" should avoid it. And why is that? He provides some reasoning for his assertion: bringing Holy Scripture into it: "for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God."

Alright; let's examine this for a moment. Is it completely true? It's correct (as far as I know; I'm pretty sure) that the Bible doesn't refer directly to the "death of God." Yet Jesus is God and Jesus died. It follows (simple logic) that God (the Son) died. It's just one Person of the Trinity, but He did die and He was God. The reasoning is similar to Mother of God.

Scripture also refers to the "head" of God, but in non-literal or metaphorical ways: either anthropomorphically or, in another sense, relationally, such as in 1 Corinthians 11:3: "the head of Christ is God." God the Father is a spirit. But that is not, almost certainly, what Calvin was referring to.

The place where Calvin plainly stumbles badly in providing biblical disanalogies to Mother of God is in his reference to God's blood: as if that is an unbiblical usage. In fact, it certainly is, as I immediately recalled, from some of my own past apologetics work.

I've found 15 major translations of Acts 20:28 that refer precisely to the "blood" in reference to God the Father. Now, God the Father doesn't have a mother, as Jesus has (nor does the Holy Spirit). Yet, Mother of God was used in Church history, as referring to Jesus alone. Mary bore God, because Jesus was God. It doesn't mean she is greater than God or a second God, or eternal, or any similar such nonsense, because it refers only to the Incarnation.

Mary was a creature. Catholics know this, but many Protestants (largely of the anti-Catholic sort) casually think we are too dumb and stupid to comprehend these simple things (which is a large part of the problem). Calvin also thinks many Protestants will be too dumb to grasp it, too, so he thinks it is better to avoid using Mother of God altogether.

Yet, by analogy, if the Bible refers to God's blood (also, in context -- quite remarkably -- , the Holy Spirit's "blood"), when this is not literally true, why can't we use Mother of God, when that is definitely true of one Person of the Godhead? Here is the passage (Acts 20:28):

NIV Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

KJV . . . feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

NKJV / NASB . . . the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

ASV / Moffatt . . . the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Phillips . . . at the cost of his own blood.

Jerusalem . . . bought with his own blood.

NEB / REB. . . by his own blood.

Williams / Beck . . . bought with His own blood.

Amplified . . . with his own blood.

Wuest . .  . which He bought for Himself through the agency of the blood, the blood which is His own unique blood, possessed by Himself alone.

Goodspeed . . . church of God which he got at the cost of his own life.

Goodspeed actually expresses directly the notion of the "death of God" or "God died" -- by referring to the "cost of his own life": referring to "God" as the subject in the same sentence.

The only major exceptions to this predominant view I found were RSV / NRSV ("blood of his own Son") and Barclay ("blood of his own One"). 15 out of 18 translations (or, 83% of them) thus refer to the "blood" of God the Father (even though He literally doesn't have blood). What's the big problem and beef, then, with Mother of God? There is no problem: not scripturally speaking. Calvin is all wet. His argument fails; it falls flat (a not uncommon thing where he is concerned: believe me, I know, having refuted his Institutes line by line in two books (one / two).

This also recalls to my mind, Zechariah 12:10, in which God says, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (KJV; cf. NASB, NIV, ASV, etc.). It's God the Son Who was literally pierced, but here it is referred to the Father as well, which in turn reflects Jesus' language of "he who has seen me has seen the father" (Jn 14:9).

As usual, then, the arguments against Catholic tradition (biblical or otherwise) do not succeed. If Calvin argues, "don't use this terminology x because Scripture doesn't use analogically similar terminology y, yet y is shown to indeed be a biblical usage, then x is established by analogy as biblical and therefore completely permissible, no matter how much it may be misunderstood by ignorant and uneducated folks that every Christian communion is blessed with in abundance.

                                                                      
* * *

James Swan, an anti-Catholic Presbyterian polemicist, wrote a paper about this, in which he cited a paper of mine, unattributed as usual, referring to me as "One Roman apologist" and not providing a link, so that people can read my remarks in context. I wrote in his combox:

Calvin is the one who shows himself quite ignorant of both historic and biblical usage of terms, as I will show later today (after a softball game).

Thanks for the Calvin citation! Now he can hang himself . . . [with a link to this paper]

In a rare instance of magnanimity and actual fairness, Swan decided to leave up my comment (he has routinely deleted them for some time now: ah, but see my note near the end . . . ). Then he replied as follows (in his usual contemptuous fashion):

One of the major points of my blog entry was to demonstrate that a number of Roman polemicists have incorrectly used Calvin’s comments on Luke 1:43. I believe I've proven my case, once again, that Roman polemicists veer towards propaganda at times rather than actually going deep into history.

Swan carps on and on in his article about how Catholics have misquoted Calvin. It's true that Calvin appears not to have used the phrase Mother of God, for the inadequate reasons he has provided. For this reason I qualified my comments in the paper of mine that was cited:

. . . early Protestant leaders Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger all used the term 'Mother of God' (or at least described the same concept in slightly different terms).

In the more important sense of concept and actual meaning (as in the parenthetical remark above), however, Calvin acknowledges exactly what Catholics assert, as I have shown above. In the following comment of his, he essentially asserts that Mary is the Mother of God: by the logical thrust of the words:

She [Elizabeth] calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God.

This is how the other Catholics he cites also argue it. Swan cites one Catholic, John Pasquini, writing, "Calvin recognized the reality of Mary as the Mother of God." This is a true statement. Calvin did do that, as I have shown. This has to do with concept, not terminology per se. Swan cites Dr. Robert Schihl, who does exactly the same thing, by arguing that Calvin's comment on Luke 1:43, amounts to the same thing, with slightly different wording: Lord instead of God, but then noting that Jesus was God in the very next sentence.
Swan then cites some article (written by who knows who) called, "The Protestant Reformers on Mary." When we go there, we find that it doesn't refer to Mother of God at all when discussing Calvin's views on Mary: even his views of Mary as the mother of Jesus. The same thing is applicable to Scott Windsor's cited article as well. Then I am cited anonymously, and we have seen how I argued it in the same fashion. It's much ado about nothing (as usual with Swan: he sees what he wants to see: who cares about actual facts?).

The gist of his paper was (for the umpteenth time) to run down Catholic apologists and apologetics, yet nowhere does he establish his central assertion, that he stated today: "a number of Roman polemicists have incorrectly used Calvin’s comments on Luke 1:43. . . . Roman polemicists veer towards propaganda at times rather than actually going deep into history."

This is simply not the case, as I just demonstrated. All they did was cite Calvin's commentary on Luke 1:43, where he says, "mother of her Lord" and in the next sentence calls Jesus "the eternal God." He expresses the concept, while not using Mother of God, and none of the Catholic apologists cited state anything differently (much as Swan would have wished, for his smearing purposes).

After all of this perfectly irrelevant, non sequitur citation, not proving his case in the slightest, Swan asserts:

These Roman Catholic documents make bold assertions in regard to Calvin's comments on Luke 1:43.

Nothing is bold at all about it! They simply present the facts of what Calvin's view was. He didn't like the terminology, but expressed the same concept as what Catholics mean. It's not difficult for anyone to grasp. But when one puts on polemical blinders for the purpose of smearing, one can't see the obvious, right in front of them. Protestant scholar Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School,  affirms this:

The third title of Mary to consider is Theotokos, the “God-Bearer,” a title for Mary as the Mother of God. Evangelicals can and should join Catholics in celebrating the Virgin Mary this way. In the Reformation, Calvin (unlike Luther and Zwingli) balked at the title Mother of God but not at the doctrinal truth it was intended to convey. Barth, however, was faithful to the deepest intention of Reformed Christology when he acknowledged that Mother of God is “sensible, permissible, and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition.”

Although the conceptual genesis of Theotokos is very early-Ignatius of Antioch can say “Our God, Jesus Christ, was carried in Mary's womb” (Ephesians 18:2), the debates leading up to the Council of Ephesus were not concerned in the first instance with the status of Mary but rather with the unity of divinity and humanity in her son. The Church was right to reject Nestorius' preferred title for Mary, Christotokos, “mother of Christ,” as an inadequate description of Mary's role in the mystery of the Incarnation. We are not at liberty to construct a merely human Christ, cut off from the reality of his entire person.

("Evangelicals and the Mother of God," First Things, February 2007)

It's a remarkable instance of a complete non-argument, or complete absence of an actual argument or demonstration, utterly failing in its purpose. None of Swan's examples document Catholic apologists claiming that Calvin liked the phrase Mother of God (only that he taught the concept in different terms). Nor does the Wikipedia article on Calvin's view of Mary that he is obsessed about make any such claim, let alone document it. So Swan ends up with nothing whatsoever. He talks a good game (like all propagandists do) but his supposed, alleged "argument" is like the proverbial onion that is peeled and peeled until the peeler finds that there is nothing in the middle of it.

Oops! I just checked again, and Swan, true to form, has deleted my comment on his blog. I was foolish enough to actually believe for a few minutes that he had the courage of his convictions and would allow free speech. But no such luck.

Fortunately, he can't prevent me from refuting his lying nonsense on my blog and Facebook page. I have done so.

Thus we observe two completely different emphases and approaches and goals:

1) James Swan: engage in hyper-uncharitable polemics, seeking to show that Catholic apologists are, once again (as always) dumbbells, who deliberately cite out of context for their nefarious ends (and lying about them and what they argued in order to supposedly "prove" this).

2) Dave Armstrong: engage in apologetics and amateur historiography, in order to determine the actual facts of what Calvin believed about Mother of God: whether he believed the concept (yes, with support from a great Protestant scholar), whether he liked that particular term (no), and whether his rationale from the Bible for why he doesn't like to use the term, Mother of God holds water (no).

* * * * *

John Calvin's Flimsy and Unbiblical Objection to the Term, Mother of God

The Catholic / patristic tradition regarding Mother of God or Theotokos ("God-Bearer") take s a little bit of thought, but it's not rocket science. Let's run through a quick version of the rationale:

Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!”

“Lord (kurios) God (theos)”: Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

Therefore, “Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

Jesus is called both in John 20:28.

Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

Case closed.


Moreover, we don’t say of mothers that they are the mother of their child’s body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn’t create the soul; God did.

Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It’s wrong and even illogical  to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.

Most of the early Protestant leaders understood this and retained the terminology, but John Calvin (the one most influential on later Protestantism) did not.  He gives his reasoning in a letter of 27 September 1552 to the French Church in London:

. . . to deal with you with brotherly frankness, I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. Neither will any sober-minded people do so, for which reason I cannot persuade myself that there is any such usage in your church, for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God. You know that the Scriptures accustom us to a different style; but there is something still worse about this particular instance, for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions. And he that would take a pleasure in that, shews clearly that he knows not what it is to edify the Church.

Just before this, he admitted that some of the objection (among Protestants) wasn't justified, and based in a degree of ignorance:

. . . I doubt not but there may have been somewhat of ignorance in their reproving the way of speaking of the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, and together with ignorance, it is possible that there may have been rashness and too much forwardness, for, as the old proverb says, The most ignorant are ever the boldest.

Ironically, however, it is Calvin himself who shows some degree of ignorance, as to the history of the term (which he knew full well, as a student of the Church fathers and early Church, was used to counter the heresy of Nestorianism). He himself explains it in a way that is perfectly in accord with the Catholic and Orthodox understanding:

She [Elizabeth] calls Mary the mother of her Lord This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.

(Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, comment under Luke 1:43; Calvini Opera, ibid., vol. 45, 35)

Simple deductive reasoning . . . Thus, in my opinion, he really has no excuse for his objection. There are only so many grounds to object to Mother of God:

1) If one believes that Jesus isn't God, Mother of God wouldn't apply to His mother. This is not true of Calvin, because, as we plainly see above and in many other of his statements, he holds to the divinity of deity or Godhood of Jesus Christ: God the Son: the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

2) "God" can only refer to the Father and not to Jesus (a variation of #1, thus not applicable to Calvin, either).

3) One can believe that Mary is only the mother of Jesus' human nature, not of a Divine Person with Two natures (divine and human). This is the heresy of Nestorianism. Calvin would seem to deny it also in the above comment, though some sections of other of his writings smack of it: at least in some respects.

4) Lastly, an objection can be made that derives from the fear or concern of it being misunderstood. This is Calvin's rationale. I think it fails, though, because Christianity is the sort of thing that has many elements that people can easily misunderstand or not comprehend correctly in the first place. The Holy Trinity is the most obvious example of that. We don't stop using the term "Trinity" because ignorant people will misunderstand it as three gods or a "three-headed god" (as the Jehovah's Witnesses mock it). Calvin certainly doesn't do so. We don't avoid using the term Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures of Christ, because it is a difficult notion and not all that easy to fully grasp.

Yet when it comes to Mother of God, Calvin changes his mind and advocates the cessation of its use, even though it is perfectly legitimate in and of itself, and he himself understands it to be so.

Furthermore, some of the reasoning he brings to bear for why he thinks so, is immediately suspect. He claims that Mother of God isn't "right, or becoming, or suitable," so that "sober-minded people" should avoid it. And why is that? He provides some reasoning for his assertion: bringing Holy Scripture into it: "for it is just as if you were to speak of the blood, of the head, and of the death of God."

Alright; let's examine this for a moment. Is it completely true? It's correct (as far as I know; I'm pretty sure) that the Bible doesn't refer directly to the "death of God." Yet Jesus is God and Jesus died. It follows the God (the Son) died. It's just one Person of the Trinity, but He did die and He was God. The reasoning is similar to Mother of God.

Scripture also refers to the "head" of God only in non-literal or metaphorical ways: either anthropomorphically or relationally, such as in 1 Corinthians 11:3: "the head of Christ is God." God the Father is a spirit. But that is not, almost certainly, what Calvin was referring to. The place where Calvin stumbles badly in providing biblical disanalogies to Mother of God is in his reference to God's blood: as if that is an unbiblical usage. In fact, it certainly is, as I immediately recalled, from some of my own past apologetics work.

I've found 15 major translations of Acts 20:28 that refer precisely to the "blood" as referring to God the Father. Now, God the Father doesn't have a mother, as Jesus has (nor does the Holy Spirit). Yet, Mother of God was used in Church history, as referring to Jesus alone. Mary bore God, because Jesus was God. It doesn't mean she is greater than God or a second God, because it refers only to the Incarnation. Mary was a creature. Catholics know this, but many Protestants casually think we are too dumb and stupid to comprehend these simple things (which is a large part of the problem). And Calvin thinks many Protestants will be too dumb to grasp it, too, so he thinks it is better to avoid using Mother of God altogether.

Yet, by analogy, if the Bible refers to God's blood (also, in context -- quite remarkably -- , the Holy Spirit's "blood"), when this is not literally true, why can't we use Mother of God, when that is definitely true of one Person of the Godhead? Here is the passage:

NIV Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

KJV . . . feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

NKJV / NASB . . . the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

ASV / Moffatt the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

Phillips . . . at the cost of his own blood.

Jerusalem . . . bought with his own blood.

NEB / REB. . . by his own blood.

Williams / Beck . . . He bought with His own blood.

Amplified . . . with his own blood.

Wuest . .  . which He bought for himself through the agency of the blood, the blood which is Hiw own unique blood, possessed by himself alone.

Goodspeed . . . church of God which he got at the cost of his own life.

Goodspeed actually expresses directly the "death of God" or "God died" by referring to the "cost of his own life": referring to God as the subject in the same sentence. The only major exceptions I found were RSV / NRSV ("blood of his own Son") and Barclay ("blood of his own One"). 15 out of 18 translations (or, 83% of them) thus refer to the "blood" of God the Father (even though He literally doesn't have blood. So, what's the problem with Mother of God? There is none: not scripturally speaking. Calvin is all wet. His argument fails; it falls flat.

This also recalls to my mind, Zechariah 12:10, in which God says, "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (KJV; cf. NASB, NIV, ASV, etc.). It's God the Son Who was pierced, but here it is referred to the Father as well, which in turn recalls Jesus' language of "he who has seen me has seen the father" (Jn 14:9).

As usual, then, the arguments against Catholic tradition (biblical or otherwise) do not succeed.

                                                                          
* * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology

 The Three Holy Hierarchs

Misc.

Introductory Post [Facebook]
Introduction

Table of Contents

 Index of Topics

Excerpts[all on Facebook unless otherwise specified]

St. John Chrysostom

On Relics
On Oral Tradition
On Merit
On Faith and Works
On the Contralife Will (and by Logical Extension, Contraception)
On Salvation and Works
On Infused Justification (Sanctification)
x

*****


Last Updated on 26 April 2013.

"Traditionalist" (or Radtrad?) Super-Site Rorate Caeli's "Cherished Friend" and Featured Pope-Basher, Marcelo González, is a Holocaust Revisionist

Gas chamber at Auschwitz 
This is another highly disturbing example of anti-Semitism among the extremist radtrad sector of the "traditionalist" community. Mainstream "traditionalists" continue to maintain that the radtrad fringe is a tiny one, and far more "vocal" (and numerous) online than in "real life." It's also disputed how rampant anti-Semitism is among radtrads, and how much it is also present in the larger movement.

One thing is for sure, though (however large this sub-group is): there are numerous examples of outrageous anti-Semitism online, emanating from it. Catholic apologist and journalist Mark Shea has been documenting and decrying it for years now. Mark wrote in his usual inimitable fashion about this very issue two days ago:

I keep being told these people are a tiny minority in real life.  I have no reason to doubt it since I almost never meet them in my parish, just as I–living in the least-Churched city in America never meet militant atheists in real life either.  Something about face to face encounter almost always guarantees that socially unskilled people just don’t act out their social and emotional cluelessness–until they get on line and are no longer hindered by normal human interactions and are encouraged to behave like Dwight Schrute by their fellow socially unskilled dogmatists writing from their mom’s basements. 

When that happens, you suddenly find that a group who constitute a tiny, sullen percentage of people in real life suddenly dominate conversations in great excess of their numbers and suck all the oxygen out of the room with their anger, paranoia and supremely un-self-aware tantrums.  And so we find that bitter SuperTrads (what one sane and healthy Traditionalist calls the “Urine and Vinegar Wing”) occupy a vastly bigger amount of time and space on the Internet than they do in real life since normal Trads are busy with, you know, Life and Happiness and Being Normal while these guys continue to cling to rage about their obsessions.  One such guy was busy in my comboxes last week, repeating variations of stuff I have had flung at me a thousand time in cyberspace.

Mainstream "traditionalist" Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, F. I., writing (4-8-13) in the combox of Dawn Eden's article (see below) thinks it is a little bit more prevalent than that:

The problem in the SSPX is not just Bishop Williamson. In December, Bishop Fellay said Vatican II was a not a Council of the Church but one of the Jews, Masons and Modernists. In its literature the SSPX draws a hard line between prejudice against Jews because of their race and that against their religion, and excuses their conspiracy theories on that basis. By the way, Michael Voris takes the same line. Antisemitism has been a problem among traditionalists for a long time and it goes largely unchecked from within.

Dawn has been pretty charitable in this regard–more than I am inclined to be. Those attached to the EF need to clean house, so that others don’t have to do it for them. And yes, this is indeed one of the reasons there many bishops who want nothing to do with EF. There is a whole political and social side to traditionalism that needs to be purged once for all.

Perhaps the word “purge” is to easily misunderstood. My comment spoke of the political and social aspects that need to be changed. I was not talking about shunning people. The problem needs to be first of all acknowledged frankly.

This is an opportunity for traditionalists to denounce the problem. I did not say it was everyone. I say the EF everyday for our sisters in Cornwall. I have been saying the EF since 1995 (not everyday). I know what goes on in the traditionalist movement from the inside. There is a serious problem and anytime anyone brings it up, this is what you get. And so the problem will go on unabated. I hope you [Kevin Tierney] are right that the younger generation of traditionalists are improving.

. . . refuting the political and social aberrations; a little self-criticism; a bit of honesty that not all critiques of the trad movement are rooted in heterodoxy.

It's high time for mainstream "traditionalists" -- if they are to gain the respect they so (almost desperately) desire --, to speak out loud and clear and often about this horrendous garbage that keeps appearing in the fringes of their community.

If they don't do their own housecleaning, then we regular old [orthodox, magisterial] "Catholics" (cynically known by many other names in "trad" and radtrad circles) -- who actually have a great degree of sympathy for many aspects of mainstream "traditionalism" (wide access to the Tridentine Mass, high concern for orthodoxy, traditional morality, liturgical propriety, and reverence, detestation of liturgical abuses, etc.) will have to do it for them.

The present story goes back to an article posted at Rorate Caeli, by "New Catholic" (one of the moderators and webmasters) on 13 March 2013: the very day that Pope Francis was elected. It's called, The Horror! A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio. It starts out:

We have many friends around the world, including in the dear Argentine Republic. And we asked a cherished friend Marcelo González, of Panorama Católico Internacional, who knows the Church of Argentina as well as the palm of his hand to send us a report on the new pope.

González proceeds to rip the new Holy Father to shreds, with the usual ultra-judgmental, uncharitable, pharisaical radtrad boilerplate:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. . . . he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals . . . A Sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass . . . he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" . . . the future terrifies us.

"New Catholic" then ends the disgraceful, dissident / modernist / theological liberal-type  tirade with the obligatory disclaimer, in the long tradition of radtrad doublespeak and equivocation:

The above is a personal assessment by the author and does not indicate any opinion of this blog or its contributors.

Yes, of course! [choke] And I have some beautiful oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, too, if you believe that.

Blessedly, mainstream "traditionalists" like Dr. Taylor Marshall spoke out strongly and quickly against this sewer scum garbage and other similar expressions. He exclaimed:

Way to go, trads! We have been working so hard under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate that we are not an inbred subculture of angry, hateful, quasi-schismatic, Jansenistic, holier-than-the-Pope Catholics. Everyone thinks that we who attend the 1962 liturgy are judgmental, Pharisaical, and rude (click here for details). And guess what. You just amplified that terrible reputation one hundredfold. It seems that their contrarian words were spoken in the heat of passion - and the stirred up passions are the devils' playground. 

Now, fast-forward almost a month (remember cassettes and videotapes?), to Catholic writer and speaker Dawn Eden's article, Traditionalists’ “expert” on Pope Francis is a Holocaust denier (7 April 2013, with several updates added). She wrote:

Being that I am a Jewish convert to Catholicism who attends Mass in the Extraordinary Form (the traditional Latin Mass), and am all too familiar with the antisemitism that Father Angelo Mary Geiger calls the “soft white underbelly of the Rad Trad movement,” I had a bad feeling about Gonzalez. Pope Francis was known in Buenos Aires as a friend to the Jewish community, even co-writing a book with a leading rabbi of the city, and I sadly wouldn’t put it past certain trads to harbor special resentment for him on that account. So, on a hunch, I looked to see what (if anything) Gonzalez had to say about Jews and the Holocaust.

It wasn’t hard to find.

What Dawn found was González' despicable and outrageous article, “Holocaust and Hollowcaust” (Google Translation version; see original Spanish; dated 11-14-12). González has now provided his English translation. Another had already been given by "Bayou Ben" (4-9-13) in a combox at Rorate Caeli:

Sick of [or “Fed up with”] seeing how certain persons are manipulating and how others remain silent, one does not know whether [they do this] out of personal conviction or of fear of going against what is “politically correct” in certain settings, I decided to fix/cement my position on this topic.

The so-called “Holocaust,” which means in this case the death of an undetermined number of Jews in German prison camps during the Second World War, has been manipulated with [such] sickening frequency as to have become disingenuous concerning the truth of the facts.

We know that there are political, economic, and propagandistic interests [at play] in this [topic] [which are seeking] to establish figures of victims in the millions and, above all, to ignore the other victims that were not Jews. The first point, how many there were, I will not dispute/discuss, because I have neither the desire nor the historical authority to enter into said polemic. It seems to me licit/valid that others do so, as long as they provide proofs of their case and do not squawk when they suffer the consequences.

History, which is a subject in which I take great interest, does not permit me to accept the thesis that in said camps there were only Jews. There were also other prisoners. And, there were also Catholics, certainly many were priests, who resisted the Hitler regime for doctrinal or patriotic reasons. We should remember that Hitler’s doctrine/teaching is condemned by the Church on many of its points.

The laws concerning race in Germany, as well as those nations allied to or subject to Germany, although they were applied with various grades of enthusiasm, were clearly unjust [against the right]. If there had been any motive to isolate a [particular] community, such motive never could have been race. And, if it were not race [as some argue], I ask myself why Jews who had converted to Catholicism were included in the above-mentioned detention [camps].

In the United States, the Japanese community was forced into prison camps in California during the time that the war lasted. Was this measure necessary? The North American State understood that yes, for reasons of security, [it was necessary]. Okay, up to that point I can agree in theory with a measure of such type.

I can also understand that the conditions of life were very different in a country that was not affected by the war in its own territory, rich in food and fuel, and for that reason not rationing these things, as the Axis powers were forced to do, in particular in the final years.

What I mean is that perhaps many of the prisoners [could be said to have] died because of hunger or the poor sanitary conditions and that these deaths were not necessarily a product of the will of those who directed these camps, at least, not all of them.

However, it remains evident, proven by documentation that the Holy See as been declassifying in these last few years, in which Pius XII (whom some stupidly call “Hitler’s Pope”) actively protested against these persecutions and did what was possible to alleviate them [those in the camps] by means of diplomatic action and concrete material helps. Not everyone knows that Pope Pacelli received an emotional expression of gratitude from a great number of Jews who had emigrated with the help of the Holy See, as even Golda Meir recognized.

And [Yet?] it is said that to say that everything done by the Axis [powers] was a cruel plan of systematic extermination is as unacceptable as to affirm that those who were detained in the said-camps lived in a recreation/resort facility. That is, the Holocaust Story comes in two versions: the Jewish and the anti-Jewish. And the truth of the facts is the most conspicuous victim [of all]. Moreover, it will continue being so, because it is well known that this topic may not be discussed, because the authors of one version, the most profit-making version (that of the pro-Jewish Holocaust Story), have many ways to silence an open and rational debate.

Nonetheless, passing on to the part that really matters to Catholics in their Faith, given that the other is an historical discussion, it is much more important to consider, and [it is] inacceptable, that some high-up hierarchs of the Church [simply] accept as correct [only] one version, the politically correct one, with the added irritant of assigning it—and this is worse—a theological value: “one cannot be Catholic and deny the holocaust.” This is an absurdity, a heresy, and a stupidity. No historical fact/happening can become a truth of the Catholic Faith. The truths of the Faith that have an historical fulfillment have already been defined and in good measure [already] accomplished. The Incarnation, the Redemption, and in the future the Judgment of the Nations preceded by the reign of the Antichrist.

Dawn, of course, was then subjected to an avalanche of hate-filled rhetoric at her own site (that continues unabated to this time; please pray for her). She observed:

Rorate Caeli commenters have shown their true colors with viciously antisemitic comments to this post. I have allowed some to appear in the comments section here for the record, but the more vicious ones I have forwarded to other concerned bloggers, as I am occupied with schoolwork and do not wish to continue to engage the soft white underbelly of the rad-trad world. You may look for them on Mary Victrix, the blog of Father Angelo Mary Geiger, F.I., who has already written about this post.

Mark Shea was among those who took up the mantle. His post about it,  Why Would a Catholic from a Jewish Background Feel Unwelcome (4-9-13) has generated 167 comments, as of this writing, including more from the loudmouthed radtrad anti-Semitic wingnuts. He added a second post the next day (4-10-13), reiterating:

The truth is that, on the Internet, Jew-hatred and self-identified Traditionalist Catholics are like peas and carrots and it is leaching out into the bloodstream of Internet Catholicism.

Again, not all Traditionalists subscribe to this filth. But on the internet, if you meet a Jew-hating Catholic, odds are in the high 90th percentile that he will tell you he is a Traditionalist. Odds are also very high that he is a warmly welcomed (“cherished” is the word Rorate Coeli used to describe their Holocaust Denier) contributor to a Traditionalist web.community. You constantly run into it all over the place all the time. And the absolutely worst way to deal with it is to shout “Stop talking about it” at their opponents when these people invade your comboxes, or get mainstreamed by puff piece interviews conducted by massively-popular-with-Traditionalists Real Catholics[TM] . . .

I put up my own link to her article and Mark's first one on my Facebook page last night, and made several observations of my own on what I felt were necessary and important distinctions to keep in mind:

The issue for Dawn was not that Rorate Caeli was itself a Holocaust-denying outfit, but that it used a lousy source (those are two entirely different claims).

***

Some things are dealbreakers, in terms of whether someone can be considered a reliable source or not. Holocaust denial or Holocaust "minimizing" is one such thing, I would contend. Such a person loses credibility and shouldn't be a source. That remains true whatever the facts are about the EF Mass in Argentina.

That was Dawn's point, far as I can tell. She said she was willing to apologize if Google translated the article incorrectly.

***

People can reasonably disagree on the "implementation" issue, I suppose. Dawn was basing her assessment on info. she got from Fr. Z and other posts, such as this one.

***

I don't know what the facts are about the EF [Extraordinary Form, or Tridentine] Mass in Argentina. Folks are arguing about it. But I'm pointing out that it is a separate issue here that has to be argued separately: whether this source denied or minimized the Holocaust or not.

If he did, he should not be used as any sort of reliable source by anyone (even if he got this reputed fact right). If he didn't, then that needs to be shown by a native Spanish speaker, in an analysis of his article, since he himself claims there are language subtleties in it that were missed.

***

[referring to anti-Semitism among commenters at Rorate Caeli] Toleration of truly hateful, bigoted material does suggest some sort of agreement with them; otherwise, they wouldn't be allowed.

On my page I have a zero tolerance for anti-Semitism. When I caught wind that one of my FB friends was a Holocaust denier, he was gone in a heartbeat.

Allowing that sort of rotgut to be posted on a site is itself highly suspect.

My [Facebook] page is an example of a place where those three things are not tolerated in the slightest, and are grounds for immediate blocking.

***

This guy is a typical radtrad: he talks out of both sides of his mouth. It's sort of "Clinton-speak" or Orwellian doublespeak: the ability to say contradictory things simultaneously, so that if ever called on the bad stuff, one can say, "oh but you're wrong, cuz over here I said x . . . "

***

I have agreed all along that this has no direct bearing on the state of affairs in Argentina regarding the EF and what Pope Francis did in relation to it (or on Rorate Caeli being anti-Semitic in terms of policy or at the highest levels).

To me it is simply a matter of a source being discredited and the responsibility now of Rorate Caeli to admit this and to stop the diversionary tactic of objecting to the messenger (Dawn Eden). The stakes are high, though. They may dig in.

It's always better in these sorts of things to quickly admit the wrong and move on. If a cover-up or rationalization is attempted, it makes it 100 times worse.

***

For me (and I think for Dawn), the main issue is using a source who engages in Holocaust revisionism. I just read the entire translation from "Bayou Ben" and I think it's outrageous. It's true he doesn't outright deny the whole thing, but he denies that the Nazis had a "final solution" and compares it to Japanese detention camps and other such things. I don't see how a positive slant can be put on it.

To me he has lost all credibility as a source. Granted, perhaps Rorate Caeli didn't know this when they used him as a source (I sure hope they didn't know), but now they do, so they should denounce his views and him as a source.

If the blog itself is not anti-Semitic [as a source who knows a bit about it told me], all the more reason to denounce Gonzalez' thinking on this. If it's not done, then it's almost as bad, since a venue that denounces anti-Semitism generally, won't do it in a particular case.

Curious, I did some searching, myself, regarding González and the Holocaust, and his views on Jews. I found an article, dated 25 February 2009, entitled, "Holocaust Denying Bishop Storms Out of Argentina." Guess who shows up in it? It was about the schismatic, anti-Semitic SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, who is so extreme that he was actually expelled from the SSPX in October 2012. But here is González defending him in February 2009:

Marcelo Gonzalez, a journalist and church-goer, said Williamson had overstepped his bounds as a bishop, but objects to his expulsion.

[Marcelo Gonzalez, Journalist]:
“I agree that what he said was imprudent. It's beyond the responsibilities of a bishop. A bishop shouldn't express opinions. His responsibilities are exclusively religious and spiritual. But it doesn't warrant kicking him out of the country. What he did in the country must be considered.”

Argentina is home to one of the world's largest Jewish communities outside of Israel.

Williamson had said he believed that no more than three hundred thousand Jews died in Germany's Nazi concentration camps rather than the widely accepted figure of six million.

In justifying his expulsion, the Argentine government cited irregularities in his immigration application and condemned his remarks on the Holocaust as "deeply offensive to Argentine society, the Jewish people and humanity."

From the Wikipedia article on Williamson:

Citing the Leuchter report,[52] Williamson has denied that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps and the existence of Nazi gas chambers[13][55][56] and praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.[45][46][49][50] During an interview on Swedish television recorded in November 2008, he stated: "I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler",[56] and "I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers."[13][55][57]

Here's an article about the gas chambers at Auschwitz (not for the faint of heart).

I then found an ultra-anti-Semitic comment that was posted on González site on on 9 February 2009 [apparently originally in English], which means it has been there for over four years (since I found it in a search). The name of the post it appears under, is "El Comentario del Día" (2-8-09) [paragraph breaks added]:

alguien que sabe

Transcribo un artículo en referencia al tema que "sacude al dogma católico": tener duda razonable sobre eventos históricos; Lamento que esté en inglés: "The tenor of this article from the untrustworthy German-Zionist press ( Deutsche-Welle | Feb. 7, 2009 http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4010109,00.html) is that Bishop Williamson is about to recant and intends to recant unless new revisionist evidence convinces him otherwise. 

This is not the case. His intentions are pure. He is only keeping an open mind. He has made no decision to recant and he is not disposed to recant unless the exterminationists can prove their case. As Robert Faurisson, Arthur R. Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Samuel Crowell, Paul Grubach, Fred Leutchter, Richard Widmann, Brian Renk and many other competent and courageous revisionist scholars have shown, the case for the execution gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau has never been more flimsy. 

For myself (I am not speaking for Bishop Williamson!) St. Paul gave us the warrant to doubt in Titus 1:14: "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." If the whole media were tomorrow to confront me and say I must believe that the moon is made of green chesse, it is not incumbent on me to prove that it is not made of green cheese! The obligation is on those who assert the proposition. This writer is forever absolved from having to believe in the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz. 

I was a reporter at the first show trial of publisher Ernst Zundel in Toronto in 1985. I reported it from the press gallery in the courtroom, as an accredited member of the media. I observed as the "infallible" Judaic "eyewitnesses" to the gassings were finally cross-examined instead of pampered and worshipped, in this case the cross-examination was conducted by the skilled defense attorney Doug Christie, guided by Prof. Faurisson, who led the Zundel defense team. Under cross-examination it was these Judaic "infallible eyewitnesses" who we are commanded by the Vatican to believe as if they were the angels of heaven--it was they who recanted, including the famous War Refugee Board "eyewitness" Rudolf Vrba. According to the pope, the Vatican, the media, the blood-drenched killers of the Israeli regime and all the planet's leading moralists, it is some kind of mortal sin not to believe these liars. 

Sorry. I was there. I saw them confess their lies. Dr. Raul Hilberg testified at the same trial, also for the prosecution. He was the "dean of American 'Holocaust' historians." Under cross examination he could produce not one autopsy report showing that anyone had ever been gassed at Auschwitz. Not one. Burn me at the stake, but I do not believe that anyone was ever gassed to death at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In the words of Prof. Arthur R. Butz in his classic treatise, this notion is "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." And what of the German eyewitnesses like agronomist Thies Christophersen who were stationed in Auschwitz and testify that there were never any homicidal gassings? He gave this testimony in spite of it being, under modern German law, illegal for him to do so. 

If the modern Catholic Church makes this execution gas chamber fable a litmus test for fitness to hold church office, as Pope Benedict XVI seems to have done, it is the end of the credibility of modern Catholicism. Benedict's move is an extension of the rabbinic Shoah theology pioneered by Pope John Paul II, who "infallibly" declared as part of the canonization process of Edith Stein, who became a Catholic nun and died tragically in Auschwitz, that her cause of death was "gassing." 

Revisionist skepticism -- toward Auschwitz-Birkenau gassings or any statement of any Orthodox rabbi on any point of Scripture, theology or history --such skepticism is divinely warranted by Titus 1:14. No Orwellian rewrite or Talmudic-Vatican nullification will every overthrow what the Apostle Paul declared to be the right of every Christian. I'll take the Apostle Paul over the modern Vatican Saul any day. If Pope Benedict really did act as the Vicar of Christ and the heir of St. Peter, he would tell German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the disgusting jailer of writers and scientists, and the Israeli rabbinate, the depraved purveyors of lies and hatred for Jesus Christ, to butt out of the affairs of the Church! 

 Instead, we see the usual servile Machiavellian gamesmanship. A few years ago Bishop Williamson made an analogy between cutting deals with the Vatican and the famous cautionary poem by Mary Howitt, whose signature line is, "Welcome to my parlor, said the spider to the fly." May God grant the bishop the grace and tenacity to recall that wisdom now, in this great crisis, when the eyes of the world are upon him, so that he will cut no deals and recant no doubts about "commandments of men that turn from the truth." 

By so doing he will earn the thanks and admiration of every sincere truth-seeker, and what is more by far, He will glorify the Name of Yahweh our God, and His Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Michael Hoffman 

(Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and the author of "Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit)" http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/
Enviado por Anónimo el Lun, 02/09/2009 - 10:42.

Again, I have no problem granting that Rorate Caeli (and/or, "New Catholic") was probably unaware of this rotgut, posted (and allowed to remain) on the site of their "cherished friend," Marcelo González. If they ever read this, now they do, and it's a different ballgame altogether. We've seen more than enough for González to be discredited as any sort of "reliable" source: let alone one to bash and trash the pope, starting from Day One.

González feebly defended his remarks in an "addendum" article. Dawn Eden replied in a fifth update to her article (dated 4-10-13):

When I have time . . ., I will post more thoughts on the matter. Here is my initial reaction to the “clarification”:

Gonzalez says in his non-apology apology,

For this reason, I clarify, or rather I reiterate that I am convinced that the Holocaust (that is, the death of millions of Jews in concentration camps or on their way to them during the Second World War) is a fact of uncontested historicity. Other aspects – of which I cannot speak, because I am no historian – remain in the academic sphere.

Note what he is not saying–that there was a systematic, state-sponsored plan of extermination. In his article, he in fact denies such a plan, offers other reasons why Jews died, and claims that one who accepts that there was a Holocaust “may incur in an historical error of judgment.”

So he is a Holocaust denier–because the Holocaust was nothing if not “a program of systematic state-sponsored murder” of Jews, to use Wikipedia’s current and very apt wording. It is true that the Nazis also targeted millions of others for extermination because of their race, Catholic or Orthodox religion, disability, homosexual behavior, or political affiliation, and it may be legitimately argued that the killing of these populations should be included in the term “Holocaust.” But to cast doubt in any way upon the Nazis’ systematically murdering Jews is outrageous.

In Update #4, she had written:

Thanks to the relatively few lovers of the Extraordinary Form who have written with their support. [As of 4/10/13, many more have written. Thank you!] To those who love the traditional Mass and have not commented: If you don’t want the Extraordinary Form community to be dismissed as a bunch of hate-filled, antisemitic cranks, you need to raise your voice in the public square, and not be afraid of what the veils-and-brocade police say about you.

Lastly, we have the pathetic, patronizing, head-in-the-sand Rorate Caeli / "New Catholic" response to Dawn Eden's article (4-8-13): that never mentions González himself (nice touch there, guys!). Here are some highlights:

Unfortunately, Miss Eden (just yesterday) bought into the myth that the traditional Latin Mass was offered in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, and wrapped that misconception around unrelated issues in an attempt to smear traditionalists and this blog. . . . 

Now, Miss Eden's non sequitur will not make us back down, since the main matter discussed in her post is absolutely irrelevant to the reality that there was no diocesan 1962 Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires at the time of the election of the new Pope, and that is an absolute truth. . . . Too bad Miss Eden did not link to us or ever mention us (since this seems to be a matter of specific concern to her) when we presented the first-ever online English translation of the "70th anniversary of the Pastoral Letter of the Bishops of the Netherlands on the deportation of the Jewish population" in our special series on 1942 in the Netherlands. . . .

Catholicism demands from us to denude ourselves from all ideologies - but it seems some with highly ideological pasts and agendas (such as Miss Eden) have a hard time grasping that these ideological tests are not for us, that for Catholics the "test" to pass is a good confession, in the hands of a merciful God by way of the Priesthood of the New Testament, hoping and praying for final perseverance. We do not want to be "liked" or "accepted" or "deemed acceptable" or respectable by Miss Eden, but only by Our Lord in the Confessional and in particular judgment when time comes. . . .

We refused to be placed in a corner, but this is a matter we consider closed,. . . 

Whatever the matter is, the very last thing it is, is "closed." And Rorate Caeli will have a huge price to pay in "public relations" and credibility if this anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying sewer scum from the pit of hell, from Marcelo González (or his admirers on his site) is not thoroughly denounced, and by yesterday. Will they (in effect) wink at mass murder and the Holocaust or roundly, unequivocally condemn it, including denial of it even in "cherished friends" who are prominent sources utilized to trash the Holy Father? A word to the wise (or the unwise, as the case may be. . .).

So far, they appear far more concerned over at Rorate Caeli, with feet being washed by the pope (in imitation of our Lord) than with the feet of multiple millions of dead Jewish (and non-Jewish) corpses at Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps. What would Jesus (or Pope St. Pius X) think about those priorities?

UPDATE #1 (4-10-13, 3:32 PM ET)  "New Catholic" has foolishly decided to ratchet up his polemical rhetoric, and to "dig in" even further: now descending, it seems, to the recourse of tired, 3rd-grade playground "mentally ill" and "filthy lucre" tactics. Replying to a commenter who stated, "many of the 'Vatican II Catholics' have gone out of their way to demonize traditional Catholics," he replied (4-10-13):

True, as we have been personally reminded in the past few days. Much worse, of course, are those who have misgivings about post-conciliar events, but demonize traditional Catholics with even more vigorous hatred, either to sell books, or to ingratiate themselves with publishers, or with those who would despise them otherwise. It is impressive how they write and speak insane and violent words to earn "respect" from the wrong side, "that they may be honoured by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward."

Of course, the answer from us is the same we advise others to do: do not engage, never engage, we should not engage with those in need of a certain kind of help.

For starters, Rorate Caeli needs to renounce Marcelo Gonzalez as a source and utterly denounce his Holocaust denial? That seems straightforward enough. Instead, they are choosing to retrench. They don’t have to speak for “all” trads. The movement to clean this up has to start somewhere, and they are a prominent online voice in the movement. Dawn dared to criticize them. She was entirely right to do so.

They’re gonna have hell to pay for this. The sooner it is dealt with, and the less cover-up, the better (as is the case in all scandals). It ain’t gonna go away and we are not gonna be intimidated and shut up about this, by 3rd-grade tactics and recourse to epithets. It’s too serious of an issue.

“Traditionalists” stand to suffer the most if this is tolerated, but it reflects on all Catholics, and apologists like Mark and myself, who defend the faith, have to deal with it. It is Catholics, after all, who are spewing this garbage. None of us have denied that they are that. So it’s in our house, too (since it is one house and one Church), and we feel a responsibility to do something about it by speaking out and condemning it.


[my comments above were called “rhetorical scorched earth”]

I call it “tough talk against extremely serious sins.” There is a time for that. The prophets did it; Jesus did, the apostles and Fathers and Doctors of the Church all did. We need to do it today, too.

Any healthy movement is perfectly capable of self-policing and self-criticism. It’s only when a movement is too self-centered, self-important, and weak that it thinks it can never admit mistakes, that it refuses to do so.

We see again and again the mentality that "traditionalists" and their radtrad fringe are above all criticism. If we dare to do it, it has to be motivated by either: 1) hatred, or 2) heterodoxy and disdain for Catholic tradition, or 3) blind inability to differentiate between extreme radtrad wingnuts and moderate, sensible, mainstream "traditionalists." None of those things apply to me, nor to Dawn or Mark.

Some of the more pointed criticisms in this controversy have been made by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, F. I., who has been "saying the EF since 1995." So now he hates himself? He's both orthodox and heterodox at the same time? We aren't allowed, apparently to utter any criticism of "traditionalists" -- just like no one dares criticize Barack Obama for fear of being ridiculously tarred a racist, simply due to mere political criticism.

In the world of thinking adults, criticism implies exactly an underlying respect and an acknowledgment that the other can be persuaded by reason, because he is an equal and presumably a rational person (or group). But instead when we criticize "traditionalists" we hear 1,508,208 times that it's because of hatred or heterodoxy or absurd broad-brushing.

To me this proves that "traditionalists" (as a broad generality) must greatly lack self-confidence or else they would be able and willing to have a normal, constructive discussion about issues that are brought up. Some can do that; many cannot. A long way to go there . . .

“Whether you like it or not, most people don’t know or care what Rorate Caeli (or you for that matter) post on your blog.”

All of which is perfectly irrelevant and a matter of complete indifference to me. If I positively affect one person today — entirely by the grace of God, as are all good things — then I go to bed a happy man, content that I have done something good for the day, according to the lights God has chosen to grant me.
This is a terrible wrong, and I and others are denouncing it. I understood that Rorate Caeli was a prominent website and “voice.” Perhaps it isn’t. I don’t know; I’ve never followed it (this is what I’ve heard). But that’s a total non sequitur, too, as to whether it can or should be criticized when it is warranted.

In this instance, it is warranted, and it's right, so we do it, whether one person or 10,000 read their site. Obviously, though, the more who read it, the more harm is done by their advocacy of a person who denies or outrageously revises the Holocaust.
[Reply to "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney] Why do you keep showing up in all these types of threads on Mark’s site then, Kevin, if it is an irrelevance and a ho hum? Just don’t show up! Lead by example! If what Mark says is so unnecessary, then "traditionalists" can get together and decide not to respond to him anymore, if you don’t want to.

I suspect he will continue anyway because he feels (as I do) that it is the right thing to do, and that remains true despite popularity or unpopularity or insults, etc. . But you’ll be able to consistently convince yourself that you couldn’t care less about the Internet (as you keep saying), because it is only 0.0000000000078% of the populace and 0.00000000000000000000000000000012% of the "traditionalist" movement, etc.

That ain’t rocket science, either. If you argue that the Internet ain’t real life (we all agree), then go do your real life and leave the Internet! But if you stay here and comment, then accept that it is of some small significance and stop saying that no one cares about anything on the Internet. They do! I’ve seen very few ever leave, though.

What more is needed? Do we need to respond every day to something some scrub says in a combox or blog? Let’s state this clear for the record: Anti-Semites have no business being in our sandbox. We don’t want them there. So what else has to be done?

Get up a petition drive or some other kind of pressure to get Rorate Caeli to renounce this garbage. If that happens, then Mark and I will agree (I think he would) that this is a positive sign that it is being rejected from “traditionalism” in a serious way. Next time it happens (with whomever else loves to carp on about the Jews), do the same thing again. Two or three times is a trend.

Then we won’t feel that we have to do it, and we’ll be happier (I’d love to do 10,000 other things, believe me), and so will you. It’s remarkably simple: shut down the trash and have zero tolerance for it. It’s not on Mark’s site, or mine, or Dawn’s. It doesn’t have to be on any mainstream “traditionalist” site, either. It is possible to clean this up.

But you guys don’t seem to want to because you keep saying you don’t have to: as if a group is able to slither on by without internal policing and quality control. Any human group (I don’t care what it is: even including Holy Mother Church herself) has to do that or it’ll be in big trouble.

* * * * *

Last updated on 10 April 2013.


 

Faith and Works (But Not Protestant One-Time Justification) in Isaiah Chapter One

Isaiah (Rembrandt)
Isaiah 1 provides a case study in taking passages out of context, to bolster up preconceived notions. Ironically, it was a longtime Baptist friend of mine, on the phone last night, who called my attention to this. He's good Protestant (in no "danger" of becoming Catholic whatsoever), but unlike many Protestants, doesn't try to systematically omit the importance of good works in the Christian life. He doesn't separate faith from works, as James and Paul in many places urge us not to do. He's right. This is the biblical teaching.

The passage usually cited by Protestants is Isaiah 1:18 (RSV, as throughout, when I cite Scripture):

Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.

This is reminiscent of Psalms 51:2, 7, 9-10 and King David's repentance:

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin! . . .

[7] Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. . . .

[9] Hide thy face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities.
[10] Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and put a new and right spirit within me.

Protestants (of a certain sort) don't and won't hesitate to cite the Old Testament as authoritative if they think a passage supports their theology. When it doesn't, then the tendency is to dismiss it as irrelevant, because, well, it is the Old Testament. Quite often (if not, typically), evangelical and Reformed and fundamentalist Protestants cite Isaiah 1:18 in isolation as a prooftext for one-time justifiction and/or instant salvation. Here are some examples:

What will happen when you repent and believe? God will forgive your sins, as He said, "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." (Isaiah 43:25) and He also says, "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, " Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18) . . .

Now if you have repented and believe in Yeshua, you are saved and have been given His Holy Spirit who will always be with you, . . .

("When you die . . . are you ready?," Hallsville Baptist Church; my bolding)

In the Book of Isaiah the concept of [Protestant] justification is stated beautifully - Isaiah 1:18.

(WikiChristian: "Justification")

. . . not that pardon of sin takes sin out of the hearts and natures of men, nor changes the nature of sin, or causes it to cease to be sin; but this is to be understood of the persons of sinners, who hereby are made so white, yea, whiter than this, (Psalms 51:1) as they are considered in Christ, washed in his blood, and clothed with his righteousness, which is fine linen, clean and white; God, seeing no iniquity in them, has thus graciously dealt with them, and they being without fault, spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.

(John Gill's Exposition of the Bible)

None of these comments seem to give the slightest attention to context. When we do that, we see that works are part and parcel of what is being dealt with. The immediate context is most striking (and jolting for those who hold to Protestant soteriology). Here are the two verses preceding Isaiah 1:18:

[16] Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your doings
from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
[17] learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
defend the fatherless,
plead for the widow. (cf. 1:23)

Isn't it fascinating how God, through His prophet, includes the actions of the penitent in the whole equation? Protestants tell us nothing can be done by man prior to justification (what many of them equate with a "salvation" that can't ever be lost once truly granted). We actually agree with them, insofar as we are talking about initial justification or regeneration. Those are entirely works of God's grace, and this is the clear teaching of the Council of Trent.

But then, the context of this passage doesn't fit into that scenario. Here, man is clearly doing something: quite a bit: and it can't be separated from God's pardon. Catholics simply say that it may be an instance of justification after the time of initial justification, because we don't see justification as a one-time thing (see my paper, Justification is Not by Faith Alone (Romans 4 + James 2) and is Ongoing, as Seen in Abraham's Multiple Justifications). Protestants will have to offer some other explanation concerning the context, or cease using Isaiah 1:18 as a prooftext for justification (as they define it).

God says, "Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean" and two verses later, we see the result: "your sins . . . shall be as white as snow." But Protestants want to ignore all of the actions of men in the overall passage. All of a sudden in Isaiah 1:17, God is talking about a bunch of works again! "Good," "justice," battling "oppression," helping fatherless children and widows . . . How reminiscent this is of the judgment passages, where Jesus says that the key to salvation is not faith alone, but rather (you guessed it), works:

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 

The same thing (works and obedience) is seen in the two passages following 1:18:

If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
[20] But if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be devoured by the sword;
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Everything is conditional ("if . . ."). It's the furthest thing from an irrevocable unconditional promise. The entire chapter is about the nation of Israel, but generally such passages are regarded as having a double application to the Christian believer (as God's "chosen," etc.). How about Isaiah 1:27? Does it talk about faith alone as the prerequisite of justification and one-time salvation? Hardly:

Zion shall be redeemed by justice,
and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

Redeemed by "justice"? Hmmmm. Why that is salvation by works! That can't be! "Redeem" and "redemption" are good Protestant words, and they refer to God's actions only, not our own. But there it is in front of our face. Works, works, works, actions of men, cooperation with God, obedience, "working out your own salvation,": all of that terrible, idolatrous Catholic supposed "works by salvation," semi-Pelagian stuff.

It's the same everywhere in the chapter. There is no respite for the Protestant who dares to read the whole thing, and to interpret 1:18 in context, rather than atomistically isolated: as if it were merely a saying on a poster, to be repeated without any examination.

[4] Ah, sinful nation,
a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers,
sons who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the LORD,
they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
they are utterly estranged.

If Israel represents the individual sinner or the Christian, here we have a nation (by double application, person) that once knew the Lord, but now no longer does. You can't "forsake" something or someone without having formerly followed them.  Yet by Calvinist and Baptist and evangelical "perseverance" and "eternal security" thinking, this is not possible. One can't fall away. Grace is irresistible and election is unconditional. Thus we have to choose between what the Bible teaches and what men teach, in contradiction of it.

Under Catholic principles, on the other hand, no problem at all! Men can fall away from grace, and be restored to it through repentance and absolution and additional justification. Our view is perfectly consistent with what we find here. No special pleading or rationalization necessary; no need to force our prior view into the text in a hackneyed, arbitrary, implausible fashion (what is called eisegesis).

Prayer and worship and rituals and calling God for salvation are worthless unless we repent from the heart and indicate it by our good works:

Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies --
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
[14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
[15] When you spread forth your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.

Here as everywhere in Scripture, faith and works are together. Man cooperates with God after receiving initial justification and regeneration (which come entirely by God's grace). So next time you see a Protestant prooftext for anything, be sure to check out the context. It's always a good and helpful policy to abide by.

See my related papers:
St. Paul's Teaching on the Organic Relationship of Grace / Faith and Works / Action / Obedience (Collection of 50 Pauline Passages)

Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated With Works And Never With Faith Alone (50 Passages)

The Interpretation and Exegesis of Romans 2-4 (Justification and Works of the Law) (Includes Very Extensive Patristic Commentary and Definitional Citations from three Protestant Bible Dictionaries)

 The "Obedience of Faith" in Paul and its Soteriological Implications (Justification and Denial of "Faith Alone") [from Ferdinand Prat, S. J.; Facebook]

Dialogue on Justification in James

Biblical Evidence for the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification)

Biblical Evidence for "Power" as a Proof and Manifestation of Infused (Catholic) Justification

Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis and Transformational Sanctification Closely Allied with Justification

Is Christ's Righteousness Imputed to Believers?: Catholic vs. Reformed Protestant Understanding ("Adomnan" vs. John Bugay)

Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue on Justification and "Faith Alone" ("Adomnan" vs. Nathan Rinne)

"Work Out Your Own Salvation With Fear and Trembling" (Philippians 2:12): Does It Harmonize With Protestant Soteriology? (vs. Ken Temple)

Martin Luther Despised the Widespread Antinomian Distortions of His Teaching on Faith Alone and Did Not Reject Mosaic Law

Church Fathers vs. the "Reformation Pillar" of Faith Alone (Sola Fide) [Including "Revised Protestant Standard" Variant Readings]

Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith

John Calvin Taught That Good Works Are Part of Every Christian's Life and the Inevitable Manifestation of a True Saving Faith and Justification


***** 

"Free Speech": Am I Obligated to "Debate" and Seriously Engage Fringe, Kooky Positions Like Holocaust Denial? / Shunning Unrepentant Sinners and Contentious Folks: Is it Biblical?

 
My answers to the questions in the title are "no" and "yes." I've been catching some flak today on my Facebook page because I blocked three Holocaust deniers and/or radtrad Catholics.  Some people tell me I can't do that: that it isn't Christian; that it violates "free speech"; in other words that I am supposedly obligated to spend my time interacting with any and every wacko, lunatic position imaginable.

My policy is clear; always has been from Day One online. It is expressed quite clearly in a post linked on my blog sidebar, and has remained essentially the same for many years. I don't moderate every comment on my blog and I virtually never ban people there, as I stated in this post. I even took a poll once on my blog about how to treat clear trolls. Here is what happened:

We just voted on the trolls issue. The "let them stay and ignore them" proposition won by a 62-38% margin. That's always been my policy, and now I know that 6 of 10 of my readers agree with it.

But I am sensitive to the other 40% too, who wanted to ban the trolls. They often gave very good reasons for their position on this matter, too. It seems to me that there is another level of annoyance and obnoxious, insufferable behavior that deserves immediate banning, above and beyond the troll issue. Everyone recognizes that a person coming and speaking rank vulgarities and profanities, should not be allowed free speech. And we all accept that the person who yells "fire!" in a crowded theater should be escorted out and even possibly charged with a criminal act.

Well, it seems to me that a similar line is crossed with people whose sole intent in coming onto this blog is to insult its host, who (as they know full well) has always let them speak up till now.

Thus, my one exception was someone who could only insult me on my blog, and do nothing else.

I also have more debates with all types of folks online than anyone I have ever seen (some 650 or so by now: I stopped counting some time ago). Of all the absurd charges I've had to put up with: the one that I am "scared" to debate or somehow wish to shut down free exchange of ideas is surely one of the most manifestly ludicrous.

But I have chosen (as a matter of time stewardship) to no longer attempt debate with some folks who have shown themselves persistently, relentlessly unable to engage in civil, constructive debate. Hence, I stopped attempting it with the fringe anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism in 2007.

On Facebook, however, it is necessary to follow a stricter guideline with regard to "free speech." I do not apply my usual (virtually unlimited) free speech advocacy there. The reason is simple: I have nearly 5,000 friends and my posts are all set to "public." This means that anything posted is seen by potentially a lot of people. Certain extreme, fringe, kooky folks are too extreme to warrant being granted any attention at all. Holocaust deniers would be among them. Neo-Nazis or Klansmen would be, too. I completely agree with what Simcha Fisher stated in an article in the National Catholic Register today:

. . . once you publicly deny the Holocaust, you are no longer allowed to say anything, about anything, ever. Shutting up: that's what's for you, from now on. The end, goodbye to you and farewell to thee.

I think belief in a flat earth or geocentrism fits into extreme kook category, too, though it doesn't involve a despicable hatred as these other views. I also will not countenance radtrad Catholics (i.e., those who want to tear down the pope and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo ("New") Mass and can do little else.

No one is obliged to offer absolutely unlimited free speech on a Facebook page or a blog. This is immediately obvious to most people. For example, vulgar sexual talk is understood to not be allowed in Christian venues (and even, for the most part, in secular venues). That's understood. It's a limit; it takes away so-called "rights" for people to say anything they want, of this nature, in public. It may no longer be the case on TV and in the movies, but it is on Christian Internet sites. The classic instance of such a limit is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

My purpose on my Facebook page and blog is to be a Catholic teacher and apologist. I want as many people to visit and read as I can get, and I want them to feel that it is a congenial place, minus all the rotgut and fighting and sheer nonsense that is so prevalent on the Internet. I want it to be different; an example of what discussion can be online if people cultivate an atmosphere for it to take place; applying a higher standard. Many thousands are completely fed up with the Internet and the low level of discourse that is so widely found. I hear the complaints all the time.


Also, one must distinguish between debating someone in some neutral place vs. the same person coming in and commenting in an obnoxious manner, or trying to dominate (trolling) on a Facebook page, which is one's own "territory" or domain. It's akin to an unwanted person coming in and dominating a party in your home and offending lots of people there. No one is obliged to entertain such a person indefinitely under the guise of so-called "free speech." Crucial distinctions must be made in this regard.

The only way to create a good atmosphere for discussion and learning (in Facebook) is to block the wackos (or defriend them if posts are "friends only"). Its really that simple. It's not ideal (in a sense), but it's the only practical way to do it. Nor is there anything in the slightest bit "wrong" or "unjust" about this. People can get to a place (because of fringe, extremist notions) where they aren't welcome in venues where thoughtful, conscientious people gather to engage in constructive, civil, charitable discussion about issues.

Now, here are some exchanges today on this issue from my Facebook page. my debate opponent's words will be blue.

[after blocking three Holocaust deniers and/or radtrads] These radtrad goofballs have free speech on their own pages. They don't have the "right" to be idiots and scumbags on my page. I have quality control. It's why people are comfortable here. They know we have adult Catholic or otherwise Christian conversation, minus insults and nonsense.

Most "deniers" are actually "revisionists", people who believe the numbers remain inflated. Shall we make pariahs of Catholic "Inquisition Deniers", who downgrade the numbers of people killed in the Inquisition from 200 millions over 200 or so years to something much smaller? Shall we shun the Stalin-purge deniers--I read one several months ago, by a New York Times commentator I believe, who cut the estimated number of dead under Stalin to about 5% of the usual number. 

In any case, this practice of cutting off dialogue and conversation with reasonable people who happen to hold theories you disagree with is un-Christian. It is anti-Catholic. It is un-American. And it is illiberal. The Christian, the American way of things is to lay out ones case, to hear out the other side in a reasonable respectful dialogue--putting aside so far as possible any emotional investment in the discussion--and go forward from there. And holding minority views, eccentric views,even unpopular, eccentric minority views on one topic never renders one's opinions on some other subject invalid. Or reduces one to the status of pariah. Christians know no pariahs. Not ever. Not nowhere. Not nohow. 

Holocaust deniers or minimizers or belittlers (choose your term) are not reasonable. Not ever. Not nowhere. Not nohow. This is most of the point!

As to the rest of your analysis, in my opinion you put Americanism and absolute free speech ideals: that come more from the so-called "Enlightenment" than from Christianity (even though those guys guillotined prominent scientists rather than give them free speech) above biblical teaching. You seem quite unfamiliar with the abundant biblical teaching in this regard.

St. Paul repeatedly urges Christians to not associate with (or separate from) divisive, sectarian-type folks:

Romans 16:17 (RSV) I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one.

2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. [10] As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

St. Paul's advice to separate was not written only to bishops. He was writing to the Roman and Thessalonian and Corinthian congregations. Romans, for example, is written "to all God's beloved in Rome" (1:7); 1 Corinthians "to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1:2). Thus his recommendation / command to "avoid" difficult, contentious people is a general one in application: it applies to all Christians by logical extension.

When writing to the Corinthians above, Paul is scandalized that a serious unrepentant sinner had not already been removed by the assembly. He noted that he had told them to remove such a person, but they hadn't done so. But they can make that call. Paul gave the general teaching: "not to associate with any one who . . . " They apply it specifically to individuals.

Excommunication and anathematizing is perfectly biblical and Christian:

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenae'us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Some things are so extreme and wicked that the person removes himself from reasoned, civil discourse. Simcha was exactly right in her article. This Holocaust stuff is one of them. If someone doesn't like it, they can lump it. Anyone is free not to participate in my discussions if they don't care for them, or for the "quality control" / moderation I exercise on my own page. It's perfectly justifiable according to the biblical teachings above.

We should absolutely debate ideas (and I do), except for the most extreme, wicked, idiotic positions that don't deserve the dignity of a response. Someone wants to debate Holocaust deniers? They can go right ahead. No one will prevent them from doing so. I am under no obligation to do so.

No one can tell me that I have to spend time countenancing wackos and extremists on my page. I have ample biblical warrant for not doing so. If someone else wants to do so, they can learn the hard way how many normal people will visit their page and participate.

[further lengthy comments from my friend]

And once again (as always so far), you have completely ignored all the Scripture I brought to bear on the topic. You want to go by fashion and secular libertarianism rather than Christian guidelines. Scripture is objective, inspired teaching. Your own opinions on this carry no particular weight (nor do mine). But God's revelation and Catholic tradition following it is entirely different.

Again, you state: "engaging those whose ideas we know to be wrong so long as they will engage us reasonably." But a Holocaust denier is anything but reasonable. Your assumption there is entirely debatable. Even your statement of it has a loophole a mile wide: "so long as they . . ." I say they don't do so, and we saw it in this very thread today.

All that said, you still have to ignore Paul's repeated injunctions to avoid unsavory people of many different types. At least you finally bring in some semblance of Bible teaching: Ultimately, we need to be like Christ, who made an apostle of a tax collector, received prostitutes and lepers as friends, and generally refused to give in to the impulse to make pariahs of others.
 
But you cite one motif in Jesus' actions while ignoring another. The same Jesus also stated:

Matthew 10:13-14 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. [14] And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

Stubborn people don't listen to the apostles; Jesus tells them to shake the dust off their feet and leave; not to keep engaging them forever out of some false notion of pseudo-"charity".

My biblical rationale for this remains unresponded to. It's diametrically opposed to what you are saying. Even your example of Jesus eating with sinners doesn't apply, because they were open to what He was saying, whereas Paul talks about those who are obstinate, contentious, divisive people who are deliberately being "oppositional."

We all have to conform to biblical teaching, and this one is quite clear. The only dispute is how to apply it. I say a Holocaust denier applies in spades, because he is a liar and is exercising the height of uncharity.

Jesus didn't spend time reasoning and being meek and mild with the moneychangers, either, did He? Here's what He did:

Mark 11:15-17 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; [16] and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. [17] And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." 

*****

Books by Dave Armstrong: Catholic Converts and Conversion

I was received into the Catholic Church (and Judy returned to it), on 8 February 1991 (I was 32), by the eminent catechist and author, Servant of God,  Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.

[book in progress: begun on 26 March 2013]

INTRODUCTION


The early 1990s were a very exciting time in the Catholic world, in terms of an increasing flow of converts into the faith, and the advent of the "modern apologetics movement." Dr. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister (and anti-Catholic) was received into the Church at Easter 1986, and immediately started making a splash with his exciting conversion testimony: delivered in a way that only a former evangelical pastor can do it!

Meanwhile, Karl Keating, trained as an attorney, began publishing The Catholic Answers Newsletter in August 1986 (evolving into the magazine, This Rock, four years later). In 1988, his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press) was published, and shortly thereafter, he formed Catholic Answers: the largest and (by far) most influential Catholic apologetics organization.

Thus, 1986 may be regarded as the starting-date of the current "Catholic apologetics / influx of converts revival" -- with Hahn and Keating as the two founding fathers (Hahn being the convert and Keating the lifelong, or "cradle" Catholic). It is now 27 years old and flourishing, with the massive help of the Internet: another innovation of the 1990s, EWTN, and Catholic radio.

But these two "fathers" were by no means alone. Many more became involved in apologetics outreach; notably, Patrick Madrid and Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (cradle Catholics), and Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, Thomas Howard, and Peter Kreeft (all converts).

Also, during this period, in 1993, Marcus Grodi began The Coming Home Network. It provided pastoral support for Protestant clergy and others who were becoming Catholics or already convinced. Many are familiar with Marcus' EWTN television show, The Journey Home. I later worked for CHN (2007-2010) as a staff moderator on their Internet forum.

Moreover, the Defending the Faith conferences at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, provided a fertile meeting ground for all of these connected movements to network together.

In metro Detroit, where I grew up and still reside, we had a little apologetics / conversion revival of our own. I became convinced of Catholicism by October 1990; and my non-denominational pastor from 1986 to 1989, Al Kresta (now a Catholic radio talk show host and author), returned to the Church a few years later, followed not long after by the conversion of Steve Ray, who is well-known as an author, public speaker, and host of the Footprints of God video series.

I had been friends with both men since 1982. We were all rapt admirers of the Presbyterian popular apologist, Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). Steve had personally studied with him, Al portrayed him in a play, and I named my Protestant campus ministry after a phrase of his ("true truth"). How odd and completely unexpected that we now all found ourselves in the Catholic Church!

Al and I were privileged to have our conversion stories included as the last and second-to-last entries in Pat Madrid's huge bestselling book, Surprised by Truth (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994), while Steve told his story in his volume, Crossing the Tiber (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997).

Apologist, author, and cradle Catholic Gary Michuta was also active in southeast Michigan by the mid-90s (when I first met him), giving talks and publishing a magazine, Hands-On Apologetics, that might be described as Michigan's version of This Rock.

It's been a long and exciting journey for all of us in the apologetics movement, and especially for those who are converts or "reverts." I'll tell my story at some length in Part II of this book. Part I is devoted to various analyses of the conversion process, while Part III consists of a collection of older conversion stories (now in the public domain) that have a timeless quality: highlighting reasons for becoming Catholic (that is, apologetics).

This book provides (from many different angles and approaches) explanations of "how and why" men and women become Catholics or return to the Catholic Church after having left it. I hope and pray that this book will be an encouragement and aid to faith and confidence to those already Catholic, and a persuasive tool, by God's grace, for those who are on the road to the Catholic Church, or who may yet to be persuaded to embark on that narrow but exceedingly bright road.


DEDICATION

To my fellow Michigander apologists, who are converts, have returned to the Church, or experienced a great personal revival as Catholics: Al Kresta, Steve Ray, and Gary Michuta. I treasure your friendships and the wonderful work that you do for Holy Mother Church. Carry on, brothers!


TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 [possibly to be revised as I proceed]
 

Dedication (p. 3) [read above]

Introduction (p. 5) [read above] 




ANALYSES OF CATHOLIC CONVERSION

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.


MY OWN CONVERSION SAGA 

x. My Journey: From Clueless Spiritual Curiosity through Heartfelt Evangelicalism, to the Fullness of Catholicism / Early Catholic Apologetics Efforts [read excerpt: early life: Facebook]

TIMELESS CONVERSION STORIES FROM YESTERYEAR (EMPHASIZING APOLOGETICS ELEMENTS) 

x.

xx.

xx.

xx.

xx.

xx.

xx.

xx.

xx.




Last Updated on 26 March 2013.

Catholic Magisterial Use of the Description, "Separated Brethren" Prior to Vatican II (1962-1965)

Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903)


Pope Leo XIII 
 [first to do so]


They may then commend to others their own bright example of integral knowledge, and Our dissident brethren may seek out morereadily the embrace of their Mother, the Church.

(Encyclical, Orientalium Dignitas ; On the Churches of the East, 30 November 1894)

O sorrowful Mother! intercede for our separated brethren, that with us in the one true fold they may be united to the supreme Shepherd, the Vicar of thy Son. [last paragraph]

(Apostolic Letter, Amantissima Voluntatis ; To the English People, 27 April 1895)

No better way is afforded of proving a fraternal feeling toward their separated brethren than to aid them by every means within their power to recover this, the greatest of all gifts. (19)


For Our Separated Brethren
27. For that reason We say that the Rosary is by far the best prayer by which to plead before her the cause of our separated brethren.

(Encyclical, Adiutricem; On the Rosary; 5 September 1895)

The ardent charity which renders Us solicitous of Our separated brethren, in no wise permits Us to cease Our efforts to bring back to the embrace of the Good Shepherd those whom manifold error causes to stand aloof from the one Fold of Christ. Day after day We deplore more deeply the unhappy lot of those who are deprived of the fullness of the Christian Faith. (1)

(Encyclical, Caritatis stud ium; On the Church in Scotland; 25 July 1898)




Pope St. Pius X


 . . .  dissidentes fratres . . . ["dissident brothers"]

(Apostolic Letter, Ex Quo , 26 December 1910)

Désiré-Joseph Cardinal Mercier 
 [link]
And it is just when devout Protestants are attacked by liberalism and tossed about by doubts, and appeal in despair to authority for help, crying: "Save us, O Lord, or we perish!" that the Modernists would do away with the Chief who makes us the envy of our separated brethren, and invite us to renew an experiment that four lamentable centuries proclaim a failure.
( The Condemnation of Modernism , September 1907) 


Pope Pius XI

25. Another bond which should serve to unite us with the Eastern Slavs is their truly singular devotion for the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God. This love for Mary at one and the same time cuts them off from many heretics and brings them closer to us. Our Saint, too, was conspicuous for his devotion to the Blessed Virgin and with childlike confidence trusted in her favor in his work for unity. He was accustomed to venerate with a special love, after the manner of Easterners, a small icon of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, a picture which is also held in great veneration by the Basilian monks and by the faithful of every rite, here in Rome where in the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus it is honored under the title of "Queen of the Pasture." Let us therefore pray to her, our most loving Mother, and especially under this same title, that she may guide the steps of our Schismatic brethren toward the pastures of salvation, toward those pastures where Peter, living always in his successors, the Vicar of the Eternal pastor, feeds and rules the lambs and sheep of the Fold of Christ. 
(Encyclical Ecclesiam Dei ; On St. Josaphat,  12 November 1923)
23. Moreover, since the words of Christ "the harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few" (Matt. ix, 35; Luke x, 2) are true, even in the present condition of affairs, Europe from whence most of the missionaries have come is itself in need of priests, and this at a time when, with the help of God, it is most important that our separated brethren be led back to the unity of the Church and that non-Catholics be convinced of and delivered from their errors.
(Encyclical, Rerum Ecclesiae ; On Catholic Missions, 8 February 1926) 
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.
12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. 
13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us . . . 
(Encyclical, Mortalium Animos ; On Religious Unity, 6 January 1928)

Venerable Pope Pius XII

29. The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay. 

(Encyclical, Summi Pontificatus ; On the Unity of Human Society, 20 October 1939)

42. What a proud vaunt it will be for the American people, by nature inclined to grandiose undertakings and to liberality, if they untie the knotty and difficult social question by following the sure paths illuminated by the light of the Gospel and thus lay the basis of a happier age! If this is to come to pass power must not be dissipated through disunion but rather strengthened through harmony. To this salutary union of thought and policy, whence flow mighty deeds, in all charity We invite them, too, whom Mother Church laments as separated brethren.

(Encyclical, Sertum Latitiae ; On the 150th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Hierarchy In the United States, 1 November 1939)

38. And We, Venerable Brethren, as We celebrate the fifteenth centenary of this heavenly birthday, have no more earnest desire than to see all who can be called Christians take St. Cyril as their model, and work ever more and more zealously for the happy return of our separated brethren in the East to Us and to the one Church of Jesus Christ. Let there be in all one faith inviolate; in all one charity, uniting all together in the mystical Body of Jesus Christ; in all one earnest and practical loyalty to the See of Blessed Peter.

39. The furtherance of this worthy and meritorious work must be the special endeavor of those who live in the East and who, by mutual esteem, by friendly intercourse, and by the example of their spotless life, can more easily induce our separated brethren, and especially their clergy, to become reunited with the Church.

42. And God grant that this Our fatherly and urgent appeal may be given a friendly hearing by those separated Bishops and their flocks who, though divided from Us, yet admire and venerate the Patriarch of Alexandria as a hero of their own land. Let this great Doctor's teaching and example move them to restore peace by means of that triple bond which he himself so strongly urged as indispensable, and by which the divine Founder of the Church willed all His sons to be united together. Let them remember that We, by the Providence of God, to-day occupy that same Apostolic See to which the Patriarch of Alexandria felt bound in conscience to appeal, when he wanted to provide a sure defense of the orthodox faith against the errors of Nestorius, and to set a divine seal, so to speak, upon the reconciliation achieved with his separated brethren. And let them be assured that the same charity which inspired Our Predecessors inspires Us too; and that the chief object of Our constant desires and prayers is that the age-old obstacles between us may be happily removed, and the day dawn at last when there shall be one flock in one fold, all obedient with one mind to Jesus Christ and to His Vicar on earth.

45. It only remains for Us now, Venerable Brethren, on the occasion of this fifteenth centenary of St. Cyril, to implore the most powerful patronage of this Holy Doctor for the whole Church, and especially for all those in the East who glory in the Christian name, imploring for our separated brethren and children that blessing which he himself once so joyfully described:

Behold the sundered members of the Body of the Church are reunited once again, and no further discord remains to divide the ministers of the Gospel of Christ.

(Encyclical, Orientalis Ecclesiae; On St. Cyril of Alexandria, 9 April 1944)


Blessed Pope John XXIII

86. We address, then, as brethren all who are separated from Us, using the words of Saint Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when they stop saying 'Our Father.'"

90. We repeat this prayer, as does the whole Catholic world in union with Us. We are spurred by a burning love for all men, but also by that interior humility which the gospel teaches. For We know the lowliness of him whom God raised to the dignity of the Sovereign Pontificate, not because of Our merits, but according to His mysterious designs. Wherefore, to all Our brethren and sons who are separated from the Chair of Blessed Peter, We say again: "I am . . . Joseph, your brother."[40] Come, "make room for us."[41] We want nothing else, desire nothing else, pray God for nothing else but your salvation, your eternal happiness. 

(Encyclical, Ad Petri Cathedram ; On Truith, Unity, and Peace, 29 June 1959)

. . .  that the renewed vigor of all the Christian virtues which We hope this Council will produce will also serve as an invitation and incentive to reunion for Our Brethren and children who are separated from this Apostolic See.

(Encyclical, Grata Recordatio ; 26 September 1959)



* * * * *

Dialogue on the Propriety of the Term Radtrad (vs. Jeffrey Stuart)

This amiable, constructive exchange (albeit with no clear resolution) occurred in the combox for my related paper, Origins and Ongoing Evolution of the Term, Radtrad. Jeffrey Stuart's words will be in blue. I thank you for his articulate, charitable presentation of his view. I remain unpersuaded, but I always appreciate someone who cogently presents their viewpoint.

* * * * *
A lot of energy directed to labeling and categorizing Catholics that I don't think provides much value added. Whether calling people "neo-Catholic" or "RadTrad," I deplore both terms and think both sides should just stop. It's akin to High School tribalism. 

Meanwhile, as an apologist I have to have some sort of way to distinguish between mainstream "traditionalists" who simply prefer the Tridentine Mass, and those I call radtrads.

What do you suggest? If I make no differentiation, I catch hell for supposedly lumping every sort of "traditionalist" together, as if I consider all of them extreme fringe wackos (which I do not at all).

I can't win for losing. If I seek to be charitable by drawing this distinction, I get misery. But if I just use the term "traditionalist," then I can't even make the critiques I make of excesses and errors, because people will think I'm bigoted and attacking the whole movement across its entire spectrum.

Also, St. Paul vociferously and repeatedly condemned sectarianism and folks who were causing division.

There is a place to do so. One function of the apologist is to warn people of certain errors, in order to try to prevent them from falling into it. We try to protect the flock from them.

Thanks for your reply.

Rightly or wrong, I think I sense a bit of frustration as you write, “I can't win for losing.” I think in a nutshell, that is my point. You are correct in saying that. There is nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why is that?

While I’m not going to say I am the only one in the World who has had this experience, I have at times been called both a “neo-Catholic” and “RadTrad in my lifetime. Now I am the same person in both instances. So to me, when someone uses those terms it really says more about that person than the individual they are attempting to label. It’s a “I’m not you” sort of statement depending on whatever they see “you” as being.

Also, no matter how much effort you put towards trying to define such terms, everyone uses them differently and the distinction can be so fuzzy that the collateral damage is very real as you end up offending people that you didn’t mean to offend. So then, you have to take time explaining what you meant in using the label which often, in my opinion, makes matters on worse. Think of an individual who uses the word n****r and tries to explain how he really only means a certain segment of black people. It’s a no-win situation. You only dig a deeper hole in the sand.

Further, because it is a fuzzy term and because it is often seen in an “us vs them” manner, it compels people to take sides. So, someone uses the term “RadTrad” to discuss a viewpoint he doesn’t like. Listener hears this message, reflects on the fact that the person being called “RadTrad” has very similar views, and therefore concludes that given this debate, he sides with the “RadTrad.” Net result is further polarization.

Communication can be difficult even when we try to be exacting. But ultimately, you have to reflect on whether it is working even if you think you have done everything possible to be clear and make distinctions. As an apologist, I think you would agree with me that some methods of explaining certain Catholic teachings resonate with a protestant audience more than others. Yes? While we might agree that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix and we can back it up with all manner of justification, it’s probably not the most effective means of entering into a discussion with a fundamentalist. Same applies here. And if you have to take extra time to constantly explain this term, then I would say communication isn’t happening and a different approach is warranted. For instance, look at all of the effort you have to take to affirm that you have no beef with so-called “traditionalists.” I don’t think that is where your time as an apologist is best used.

My suggestion? Don’t use the terms at all and stick with words that have distinct meaning. If the person is a sedevacantist, then call him that. If the person is heterodox in thought, then use that term. If the person is just being a rude jerk, then that use that term. Label the behavior and apply it to individuals who demonstrate it openly.

To close, I appreciate the work you have done over the years and even have some of your books on my shelf. I wish you all the best and God’s continued blessings.


I appreciate very much your calm, reasoned, charitable approach and the time you've taken to explain it.

The problem still remains of how to identify a clear and troublesome category of folks. We need to have a name for them. We can't use a 17-word sentence every time they are referenced. Language doesn't work that way.

As I explained, in using "radtrad" I seek to be charitable to the mainstream of "traditionalists." It's actually an ecumenical effort at bottom.

My web page devoted to these issues is entitled, "Catholic 'Traditionalism' and its Extremist 'Radtrad' Fringe". That makes the distinction quite clear (and was designed to do so).

My recent book is called, Mass Movements: The Extreme Wing of "Traditionalism," the New Mass, and Ecumenism . You'll be happy to hear that I was persuaded to remove "radtrad" from the subtitle.

We can come up with any number of alternate terms: the people involved will be offended whatever we do. "Ultratraditionalist" has been used; I used to use "quasi-schismatic." People use a variety of epithets that are simply insults ("wackos," etc.)

You suggest "rude jerk." Like that will go over very well? :-) But "rude jerk" does not identify the essential problem; it's not primarily a matter of behavior (apologetics analysis in general is about belief, not behavior), but rather, of the "us vs. them," legalistic, exclusivistic, Pharisaical views being espoused.

My job as an apologist is to critique and refute error and to try to prevent people from being 1) harmed by it, and 2) falling into it themselves.

It's easy for the non-apologist to say, "well, don't use this term because it's mean and causes problems." I'm happy to discuss whether my chosen term is inadequate or uncharitable, and whether it should be discarded, but I need an alternative, because we still have the practical issue of identification for a distinct group.

I think I mentioned in the paper above that I have gone through almost identically the same dispute concerning "anti-Catholic," which has a long, indisputable, perfectly legitimate use among scholars.

People don't like being labeled that. But there is such a group. I am far more offended by the belief-system and lies of those who are correctly called that. They oppose Catholicism. I oppose abortion and have no problem with "anti-abortionist," so why should an anti-Catholic object to a simple description of what is so plainly their beef?

It's the same here: the beliefs that radtrads espouse and how they view orthodox Catholics are infinitely more uncharitable and offensive and outrageous than a mere shorthand term for "radical traditionalist," that uses the chosen self-description and simply adds a pointed but not inherently insulting indication of how far along on the spectrum a person is.

I still think it is perfectly justified, until I am persuaded that an alternate term (besides "rude jerk") is more appropriate and sensible. If I am, I'll revise my book and go through my entire blog and replace "radtrad" with the new alternate term. I've modified or removed papers many times before when it was warranted (for one of several reasons). It's nothing new with me at all.

But I guarantee as sure as I'm sitting here that I'll catch hell no matter what term is used. I could call them anything whatsoever and it won't matter, because they reserve the right to use their offensive terms of orthodox Catholics, while we are supposed to have no "right" at all to identify them.

They're simply "traditionalists," according to their self-description, but the whole point is that they are not just that (and it insults the mainstream "traditionalists" to contend that they are), and so have to be identified more specifically.

Thanks again for your time.

There is nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why is that?

I would say that it is because too many people are being irrational and uncharitable in defining and using descriptive terms, whereas I am painstakingly expending effort to very carefully define terms and to be as charitable as I can in doing so.

I don't deny that "radtrad" has a certain pointedness and semi-humorous, tweaking "bite," but not nearly as much as Jesus' "vipers" or "whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones" or calling Herod a "fox" (or St. Paul describing some people, "whose god is their belly"). I think it is fully justified and as charitable as it can be under the miserable circumstances.

Definition of terms is absolutely crucial for rational discourse to take place. We have to know exactly who we are talking about, so there is not further confusion.

The only way to do that is to use terms consistently and to define them with great care. I do so at the beginning of my book and at the top of my "traditionalist" web page, so that there can be no confusion as to my use. I've even done a paper about its etymology.

But people will still be offended no matter what, because that is what happens when you disagree with folks. I've gone through this same dispute over the term "anti-Catholic." It goes with the territory in apologetics, along with being personally attacked ourselves because we dare to say that "a is right and b is wrong." People don't like that. It's human nature.

I'm not saying that you are being unreasonable. We're actually discussing the matter rationally and calmly, which is extremely refreshing to see. I'm just saying that you don't seem to realize that some concrete identifying term is needed, and "rude jerk" just doesn't cut it.

Another thought occurred to me. For a radtrad to say that he is simply a "traditionalist" insults the vast majority of legitimate "traditionalists" in much the same way as a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Unitarian calling themselves "Christians" is an insult to ones who truly are Christians (who accept the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc.). And these groups always reject our classification of them as "heresies" or "heretical sects" or "cults."

It's the very co-opting of the term to describe the narrow, objectionable group, that is completely unacceptable.

"Traditionalist" has its own difficulties that I have written about ("traditionalists" aren't the only ones who care about and hold to "tradition"), but for now it is a term widely in use, and I am willing to bow to it, as long as I can put quotation marks around it as a mild protest: as I always do. I bow to it because the group calls itself that, and at some point, that becomes normative, inasmuch as language can be.

But the radtrad calls himself the same thing, while being radically different. Again, we have a problem of insufficient differentiation, and so we use radtrad to indicate a "traditionalist" who is "radical" and far right: almost to the point of schism, and certainly already divisive in precisely the sense that St. Paul so often vehemently condemned.

I’m actually maintaining that you don’t need to generalize the group at all and when you do, even when trying to be very specific, you don’t gain anything. In fact, you only lose. I suppose you could see my points as those of a “non-apologist” with an implication that there are aspects of your craft that I don’t understand. That’s fine. But in return, I could point out that I have experience in strategic communications and deal with issues like this in my current employment as a matter of course.
Clearly, your intent is a good one. I can see that. But measuring the effectiveness of communication is more than just what you actually say. You have to look at how it is received as well. And if your goal is to communicate effectively, you have to take into account that reception even though you don’t directly control it. It might me that a change in tact is in order so that you get through to the recipient in a way that works for them.

Using pejoratives to label groups of people only serves to causes more division. This is almost a guarantee. It’s a vicious cycle. And I would say we have seen that play out in spades in the Catholic blogosphere and I don’t see much value added. Instead, I see division amongst the Body of Christ. In fact, I had a well-known member of the clergy comment to me last week that “the Catholic blogosphere is absolutely toxic and it’s from all sides.”

Now let me clarify what I am proposing because I don’t think my point was clear enough. I say, do not label groups of people. Don’t call them neo-Catholics, progressive Catholics, Peace & Social Justice Catholics, Traditional Catholics, RadTrads, etc. It’s counterproductive for all of the reasons I stated before. Instead, label specific beliefs or specific individuals on their behavior.

So I’m not suggesting you exchange “RadTrad” for “rude jerks” in talking about a group of people. I’m saying that if an individual is a rude jerk, then simply call him a rude jerk. If someone espouses a view that there is no valid Pope, then point out the errors of Sedevacantism. Keep it specific and keep it focuses on bad thoughts and bad behavior of individuals. That’s where you energy would be most productive, not defining particular so-called sub-cultures within the Universal Church.

God bless.

This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a certain number of people. There has to be a label in order for folks to know what I'm talking about in the first place.

It is also relevant to point out that I didn't start this whole ball in motion. I'm dealing with the existing state of affairs as an apologist. I didn't set out to classify people as "traditionalists." They have done that themselves, and I have registered my principled disagreement with it (on much the same grounds as you are using now: that it is a useless, unnecessary qualifier to "Catholic").

But there are different types of "traditionalists" -- just as there are wildly different types of Catholics (orthodox / obedient / magisterial and nominal and cultural and modernist / dissident / liberal).

This is reality. I didn't make it what it is by my labeling. It is what it is.

So in this issue there remains a definite need to classify and identify a far-right element of "traditionalism" that gives the entire movement a bad name. Someone suggested that "ultra-traditionalist" was preferable. I replied that it means the same thing (ultra = radical) and so would not resolve the "problem."

I appreciate your point about how things are received, but that can't be the final (or only) determinant, because, as I've noted, people are offended no matter what name they are given, if they know it is a "critical" classification, implying disapproval of what they believe. This is why the racist virtually never agrees that he is one or should be called that.

Do we stop using the terms "racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this? No! The political liberal wants to run from that term, even when it is clear that it is applicable and descriptive. Pro-abortion people want to play games with words and use "pro-choice" so they can cover up what it is they advocate (abortion on demand). Even many Protestants don't want to use that word of themselves and want to call themselves "Christians": as if that is helpful to identify what they believe. That problem will never be solved (of people not liking their title given to them by someone else).

Again, you say that I shouldn't use any term at all, but it's not possible to do that as an apologist who is identifying an error and critiquing it. Its absolutely necessary to have some identifying term, as one can't write a long sentence every time someone in the group is referenced.

If I can't use a name for the phenomenon I am critiquing, then I can't critique it at all, pure and simple. And I think it should be critiqued and refuted, as it is a dangerous, spiritually deadly movement, drawing people in every day.

You said, “This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a certain number of people.” If you have identified a “tangible error,” then address it. Stay away from generalizing whole swaths of people as being associated with that error. Your generalizing only serves to create collateral damage and takes you “off message.”

You ask, “do we stop using the terms "racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this?” Question is, does applying a term like that to a whole group of people achieve our ends? Racism is wrong. We clearly agree on that and when such behavior is encountered, we should condemn it in individuals. But when people say things like “all of those racist southerners” then you start to offend people that you didn’t want to offend. Again, now you are reacting to collateral damage and “off message.” Wasted time and energy. Instead, stay focuses on bad ideas and individuals.

You remark that the “problem will never be solved (of people not liking their title given to them by someone else).” I see two courses of action out of this. Either avoid the problem or carry on as you suggest. If the latter, then I don’t know why others on the Catholic blogosphere get offended when some other group classifies them as a “Neo-Catholic.” All of the reasons that you present here in terms of needing to be accurate in classification and such can be used by those who employ such terminology. Both sides will claim the mantle of ultimately being “Catholic” and this amounts to “it depends on where you sit” as to which terms you apply. Not very unifying for the Body of Christ.

Ultimately, this labeling from both sides will continue to be destructive and bear no good fruit. It will further harden rhetoric and entrench people into increasingly polarized tribes. Unless some people of good will attempt to break the cycle by simply not participating.

As for me, while almost exclusively attend a FSSP parish, I eschew all manner of modifiers to my being Catholic and that includes the word “traditional.” I didn’t convert to the Universal Church only to fall back into loose “denominations” within the Church. That’s my perspective.

I appreciate the discussion here and leave you the last word on this point.

God bless.

I would also note that mainstream "traditionalists" themselves draw the same distinctions I do, but simply use different terms. I mentioned one "traditionalist" with whom I clashed recently. She used the term, "wacko."

Here is what Dr. Taylor Marshall, a "traditionalist" and friend of mine, stated, referring to some radtrads who immediately bashed Pope Francis:

Way to go, trads! We have been working so hard under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate that we are not an inbred subculture of angry, hateful, quasi-schismatic, Jansenistic, holier-than-the-Pope Catholics. Everyone thinks that we who attend the 1962 liturgy are judgmental, Pharisaical, and rude (click here for details). And guess what. You just amplified that terrible reputation one hundredfold.

("Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down?," 14 March 2013)

In another related article he makes many similar comments:

. . . like all stereotypes, the traddy stereotype is greatly exaggerated but based on reality.

Judgmentalism is a problem for any Catholic who is serious about his faith. Whenever we try hard to enter the narrow gate, we occasionally pause and pity all the souls taking the other path. Pity often gives way to resentment, especially when they're having so much fun on the other path. Is there an inordinate amount of judgmentalism or Pharisaism in Latin Mass circles? Yes, it's certainly there. However, I don't think that Latin Masses cause judgmentalism.

To summarize, most of the stereotypes are not fully accurate but do in fact touch on elements, good or bad, in communities attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass.

("My Initial Doubts about the Latin Mass," 8 January 2013)

In other words, these elements are really there, in a small, fringe element of the "traditionalist" movement. Taylor doesn't settle on a distinct title for them. I do: I call those who exhibit these tendencies "radtrads": precisely to distinguish them from sensible, cogent folks like Taylor Marshall.

The main disagreement seems to be over how prevalent radtrads are. We're told they are a very small minority. That's fine. Maybe they are. But it's still a dangerous error to be confronted, and these folks are very vocal on the Internet and spreading poison rapidly, regardless of how small they may be.

Exhibit #2 in my latest argument is "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney. He recognizes that there is a sub-group that I call "radtrads" ("those who thrive on urine and vinegar" -- a delightful description promptly adopted by Mark Shea) but that they are so tiny that they can scarcely be found at all among "traditionalists." Again, the disagreement is about quantity: not over whether the group exists or not. He writes:

Nobody (or at least precious few people) say that you can't have reverence and a love for the liturgy unless you are 100% Extraordinary Form all the time.

Caricaturing the critique (just as he distorted my own views in a recent fracas, claiming that I think those who like the TLM are my "enemies"), Kevin opines:

"But, but, but, buuuut Kevin! Some mean people on the Internet in comboxes believe that if you aren't a traditionalist, you are a second class Catholic. These .05% of traditionalists are a blight upon the entire movement, and until they are eradicated, nobody should ever listen to anything a traditionalist has to say!" Again, enough with the concern trolling. Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational discourse. Putting them on a Catholic website isn't going to change things. Blame concupiscence. Anyone who actually spends real time amongst traditionalists in our parishes, at their events, or even at dinner & drinks realizes the Internet minority is a nasty yet irrelevant crowd that most traditionalists aren't even aware of.

("Concern Trolling Traditionalists," 20 March 2013)

On a humorous note, I can't help but point out that he says, " Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational discourse," yet he has them on his own website, and he freely participates in the combox of, e.g., Mark Shea's blog, and in those of others on Facebook (one of which he stopped by recently to claim that I was scared stiff of debate: especially with him. I'm trembling in my boots . . .). Apparently, then, he makes a tacit exception of his own remarks, which are unfailingly rational and sane, as opposed to the generality of the bulk of the comments of others.

So Kevin thinks they are a teensy-weensy dinky fringe group, but he doesn't deny that they exist. He's obviously trying very hard to distance himself from them and to give the "traditionalist" movement far better PR and a more positive "face."

I hope they are very tiny. But they exist and can be identified as radtrads. I know they exist because I've been dealing with them for 16 years. I've dealt with folks like Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics, who are now sedevacantists. Regardless of their actual size, they are vocal and cause considerable damage to the faith of many. They exist, and I give them a name: radtrads. If someone can come up with a better name, I'm all for it.

But I'm right alongside Kevin and Taylor in opposing what these radtrads stand for. Kevin wants no association with them (they clearly embarrass him and he seeks to marginalize them as any sort of representatives of his own movement); I don't want to associate mainstream "traditionalists" with radtrads in my analyses.

Because of that, I must have some term to differentiate the two. The distinction has to be made. I can't just refuse to use any labels, because some might misuse labels. That holds true for anything whatever, as any good or true thing can be distorted and abused.

We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


* * * * *

Origins and Ongoing Evolution of the Term, Radtrad

Sandra Miesel: almost certainly the originator of the term radtrad

Radtrad (or sometimes, Rad-Trad, Rad Trad, etc.) is shorthand for "radical traditionalist". For background (at least from my own perspective) on the definitions of both "traditionalist" and radtrad, see the Introduction and Chapter One, respectively, of my 2012 book, Mass Movements .

* * * * *

Presently, my interest is in the etymology of the term. I've only used it, myself, since (best I can determine) 17 May 2008:

Radtrad Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [who has since moderated his views quite a bit] and his comrade Chris Ferrara . . .the notoriously radtrad Seattle Catholic . . .

On 23 June 2008, I made it clear that I distinguished the radtrad from plain "traditionalists":

. . . the good ole Remnant, (a radtrad organization: more radical than many -- most? -- "trads") . . . The approach was entirely predictable, and perhaps gives indication of what we can expect to see a lot in the future from "trad" circles (or at least radtrad ones) . . .

On a somewhat ironic note, my friend David Palm, himself a mainstream "traditionalist,"  applied the term to an analysis of mine (i.e., conceptually), even though I had not yet been using the term at the time, as far as I can tell. In a piece posted on 12 September 2007 ("What is Traditional Catholicism?"), that I have pinned at the top of my "Traditionalism" web page, as a helpful definitional aid, David writes (my bolding):

. . . there are loud and bitter denunciations from certain parties. Cries of "schismatics", "dissenters on the Right", and "Rad Trads" abound in neo-conservative Catholic Internet sites and publications.

One Catholic apologist [that's me, folks!] has a three-fold test to try to separate what he would consider the good Catholic wheat from the "Rad-Trad" chaff. He asks:

1. Is the Novus Ordo Mass valid?
2. Is Vatican II a valid and binding Ecumenical Council?
3. Is Pope John Paul II a valid pope? [Now, I presume, he would update this to Benedict XVI.]

These are perfectly good and necessary questions. And I should be free from all suspicion of being a Rad Trad, since I answer yes to all three.

I would note that my thinking on the matter has evolved and expanded considerably since 2007, and since the late 90s, when I developed the above "litmus test" in order to distinguish what I now call a radtrad from more mainstream "traditionalism." In fact, articles like David's above, were key in helping me to develop this thought, and to make more nuanced distinctions about the larger movement under consideration.

Before then, back to 1997 or so, I used as a rough equivalent, the term (which I may have possibly coined, myself), quasi-schismatic. (I see that Dr. Taylor Marshall used the term on 14 March 2013).

My own use of radtrad has ruffled a considerable number of feathers, apparently, judging by a recent huge controversy about it.

In this last-linked paper, I discovered that other Catholic apologists and writers used the term as well. I'm not alone, by any stretch. I found it being used by apologists Jimmy Akin [link] and Mark Shea [link], as well as Catholic writers Steven D. Greydanus [link] and Daria Sockey [link]: all in pretty much the same sense that I use it myself. Thus, if the word is evolving (as all words do, and especially newly-coined words), it appears to be generally in the same direction, in terms of its use by credentialed Catholic writers. There is nothing improper in any of this, as any etymologist (expert on the origin, history, and evolution of words) would quickly agree.

Catholic writer Sandra Miesel [see Wikipedia bio] has claimed credit for the origin of radtrad. Miesel holds master's degrees in biochemistry and medieval history from the University of Illinois. According to Wikipedia:

Since 1983, Miesel has written hundreds of articles for the Catholic press, chiefly on history, art, and hagiography. She wrote regularly for the now-defunct Crisis Catholic magazine and is a columnist for the diocesan paper of the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut. Miesel is also a well-known speaker. She has spoken at religious and academic conferences, appeared on EWTN, and given numerous radio interviews.

She has co-authored [with Carl E. Olson] a book, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code, a detailed critique of the popular novel based on her knowledge of Catholic history and teachings. Most recently, she has co-authored a book The Pied Piper of Atheism: Philip Pullman and Children's Fantasy with Catholic journalist and canon lawyer Pete Vere [and Carl Olson also]. The book, published by Ignatius Press, offers a detailed critique of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy.

On 16 March 2004, Miesel wrote about coining radtrad (all bolding added):

As the person who coined the term RadTrad, what I had in mind was a certain complex of views exemplified by the pages of The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader, and allied productions: anti-Semitic, Gallophilic, pro-Confederate, anti-American, and fond of conspiracy theories. (It's all the Illuminati's fault doncha know.) Their beau ideal of a ruler is Salazar, the former dictator of Portugal, since there's no King of France available at present. The supreme contemporary example of a RadTrad writer is Solange Hertz who views electricity and even brick-making as inventions of the Devil.
Lists of supposed Jews among the early Bolshies can be found in the works of Fr. Denis Fahey, a founding father of RadTradism. I have a whole boxful of such books obtained from Catholic Treasures and Fr. Gruner's Our Lady's Book Service.

(comment on a thread on Amy Welborn's blog, Open Book, under the post, "Instead of . . .")

Om Amy Welborn's site, Via Media (18 August 2005), Sandra clarified:

Trads and RadTrads are two very different species. I have no problem with the former at all but the latter are an ugly bunch.

She reiterated on 16 April 2008 at Ignatius Insight Scoop:

As the inventor of the term RadTrad, may I assert that it doesn't mean simply preference for the Old Mass and traditional devotions. RadTradom carries a lot of other other social and political freight that has nothing to do with praying in Latin: Integrism, Gallophilia, anti-Semitism, Confederate sympathies, attraction for aristocracy and authoritarian forms of government, etc.

Interestingly, one of Miesel's co-authors, Pete Vere (also co-author of Surprised by Canon Law , More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism , and Annulment: 100 Questions and Answers for Catholics ), has recently claimed the same:

Regarding Dave's use of the term "radtrad" . . ., I find it interesting how the term has expanded and morphed since I first coined it. But that was due to several people and not just Dave.

Basically, in the old sandbox of traddyland way back when, I was just looking for something to counter the term "indulterer" (as I have repeated ad nauseum). I think it is fair, especially after the radtrads introduced the epithet "neo-Catholic" into the apologetics lexicon  . .

(16 March 2013 on Terrye Newkirk's Facebook page; also recorded in a paper of mine on the term)

Pete Vere wrote on a Facebook thread of mine, the following (on 17 March 2013), before I even asked him about it, almost at the same time I was writing this post (but he had read my mention of Miesel at the end of my recent paper):

With regards to the competing claims between Sandra M. and myself over who coined the term "radtrad", she may in fact be correct. Around that time we were corresponding quite a bit on traditionalist issues, because of certain trends and controversies happening within the broader traditionalist movement online - particularly among the schismatic branches. This would eventually lead to the two of us discovering a mutual love of fantasy and children's literature, which years later led to us co-authoring Pied Piper of Atheism for Ignatius Press when the whole Phillip Pullman controversy broke. Regardless, it is quite possible that I had picked it up from her during one of our earlier private exchanges.

And again, within an hour of the above:

The difficulty with on-line research is that most of the discussion took place within email distribution discussion groups that I moderated, first from my own computer (Tradition-X, FIAT) and then via CinGreg. It would later spread over to yahoogroups, but I was long gone by this time. I recall using the term "radical traditionalist" to distinguish from "papal traditionalist" back on Trad-X and FIAT. This would have been during the mid-90's and was before I met Sandra. However, I do not recall using the shortened "radtrad" before meeting Sandra. So it is quite possible that she or Mark Shea shortened it since our initial conversations were three-way, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, I believe Sandra keeps email records of many of these things.

This is not to say that I did not use the shortened "radtrad" prior to meeting Sandra, only that I have no recollection of having done so. It is also possible that we both coined the term independently of each other and then merged definitions during our period of collaboration. One thing to remember is that back then there was little vocabulary for traditionalists of an Indult persuasion to draw upon when responding to criticism from radtrads. So those of us in the mix ended up coining a number of terms and expressions that later made it into popular trad usage. The other thing is that the movement was so small and the workers so few, that we cross-pollinated many of our terms and ideas. What I can say is that I used the term "radical traditionalist" as far back as 1996 to counter the word "Indulterer" among radtrads, as well as to distinguish us "papal traditionalists" (another term I coined at the same time) from those advocating schism. The only reason I recall coining the term "radical traditionalist" is because I coined "papal traditionalist" as the same time.

. . . I really have not given much thought to how it is used today. I was more concerned about defining who we were as "papal traditionalists" than who were were not (i.e. "radical traditionalist"). So I mainly used "radical traditionalist" as a shield against radtrads and anti-trad conservative NOM's, while my sword and main focus was the term "papal traditionalist".

However, if I recall correctly, Mark Shea and Sandra revitalized and re-defined the term "radical traditionalist" (and may have shortened it at this time as well) when the controversy was breaking about Bob Sungenis's views on the Jews. From here it was picked up by St. Blog's and came into wider usage among Catholics outside of the traditionalist movement. So we are talking sometime between 2003 and 20004 if I recall correctly. At that point, both my apologetics and my canon law career were skyrocketing, as the idea of "papal traditionalism" was gaining widespread credibility and acceptance among bishops, and I was answering inquiries from canonists each day from other dioceses whose bishops wanted to offer or expand the indult, or who were wondering about the legitimacy of some obscure priest or trad group that had popped up in their diocese. So I kinda lost touch with the term "radical traditionalist" or "radtrad".

I cannot really comment on how it is used today, except to say that I never objected to how Mark Shea or Sandra M. used the term. Nor have I followed how it has since morphed. 

I completely agree with Mark's spot-on usage from a 2010 article that I cited in my previous paper on this topic (my bolding):

It is only when docile Catholics are on the receiving end of this aggressive contempt that we will sometimes use the term "Rad Trad" to describe the aggressor. But we do not mean that to refer to all self-described Traditionalists. We only mean it to refer to those Traditionalists who attempt to reduce the Faith to their hothouse subculture and to exclude those outside it from the dignity of being hailed as fellow Catholics in full obedience to Holy Church. We do not apply it to those who happen to have Traditionalist sensibilities, but who do not suggest, insinuate or say that Catholics docile to the Magisterium are second-class "neo-Catholics".

There is a third claimant, however: Catholic apologist Scott Windsor (who often uses the nick, "CathApol"). Writing on his own site on 9 May 2011, Windsor states (my bolding):

I also fully understand what you mean about the "Rad Trads" (I coined that phrase years ago) as I have had some ties to such "Rad Trads" - though I was never in their camp. Their position is just too untenable to logically stand. 

Later on the same thread, on 13 September 2012, He added:

I'm sure Armstrong got the "Rad Trad" terminology from me.  (grin)

I definitely got it from someone, since I wasn't using it before 2008, and its use online goes back to at least 2002, as I will demonstrate below. Pete Vere wrote on my Facebook page, on 18 March 2013:

I apologize, but I had forgotten completely about Scott Windsor. Given that he was a big contributor to early discussions and debates back in the mid-to-late 90's, I could easily recognize his claim to having coined the term "radtrad" as well. Regardless of whether it was Sandra, Scott or myself who coined the term, I think it is clear that the term goes back almost twenty years and that it was coined by traditionalists loyal to Rome (or their sympathizers) as a shield against those who attacked our status as traditionalists.

And this goes back to the point I vainly tried to make to one of my out-of-control, misguided accusers a few days ago: the term is used precisely in order to distinguish between respectable, "magisterial"-type "traditionalists" and those who -- at least overwhelmingly in tenor and tone, if not canonically in schism --, act in very different ways. The intention (I can't stress this highly enough!) is to differentiate between the two, so as to make clear that there is a class of "traditionalists" who are not in schism or anywhere near it. As such, it is as much an act of charity (in this regard) as it is slightly tongue-in-cheek and biting-but-permissible social commentary (as directed against its recipient).

Pete couldn't have put it any better than he did. And a lot of the information I compile below confirms this, rather strikingly.

Some Internet History of Radtrad    [bolding added]



F. John Loughnan (10 July 2002):

Personally, I believe that the RadTrad schism is "smallfry" compared to the potential schism of the radical apparitionists.

Pete Vere added:

Dave, another thought on your article. John Loughnan, Bill Grossklas and I were very close collaborators from 1997 to 2002. In fact we communicated by email and by phone weekly, and sometimes daily, during this period. Thus if John Loughnan was using the term radtrad as far back as 2002, as you demonstrated, I know I would have been using the term as well.

Lane Core, Jr. (23 October 2002):

. . . the main problem was blockheaded and/or vitriolic anti-Catholic Protestants; at about the time I got out, the RadTrads were just starting to make their way in.

Christopher Blosser, at Against the Grain, wrote (11 April 2003):

James Likoudis of Catholics United for the Faith published a blistering review of the recent 'radtrad' polemic The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (Remnant Press, 2002).

  
And on 21 September 2003:

I've referred to Sandra Meisel's article Swinging at Windmillsa number of times in blogging on the radtrads.

And 11 October 2003:

In her appearance to three children at Fatima, Our Lady requested that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart by the Pope and the bishops of the world. It is a common allegation among the RadTrads -- among them CAI's Robert Sungenis, Christopher Ferrara, and the suspended priest Fr. Nicholas Gruner 1 -- that the Pope never followed through in said consecration, and is complicit in a conspiracy to cover up "The Third Secret".

And again on 1 November 2003:

Bill Cork posted recently on "Ecumenical Jihad", referring to a book by Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston U. and Catholic apologist. The title of the book is apt to send some religious factions into hysterics (radtrads at the word "ecumenical", liberals at the word "jihad"), but if you glance beyond the cover the proposition is interesting: a united moral front of Christians and Muslims against the oncoming tide of godless secularists"who acknowledge no law above human desire and all the religions of the world." (Incidentally, Mark Shea invoked Kreeft back in January 2003 in a plea for anti-Catholics and radtrads to cease "niggling about niceties of some point of doctrine" and come together over what counts).

And yet again on 10 September 2005:

The issue of virulent anti-semitism as an obstacle to reconciliation was addressed on this blog back in 2003, as well as by Bill Cork (with respect to another on the radical fringe); it’s presence among “radtrads” has been copiously documented by F. John Loughnan.

Apolonio Latar (31 May 2003):

Debate with a Rad-Trad

This was a debate between a Radical Traditionalist and me.

"Secret Agent Man" (16 August 2003): 

The reason Kooky RadTrads don't twig to this issue is that, deep down, they're Calvinists.

This Rock (Catholic Answers), September 2003 issue (p. 10:  "The Apologist's Eye"; unknown author; possibly Jimmy Akin):

Mad Rad Trads

For years, Pope John Paul II has been called evil by the "radical Traditionalist" (a.k.a. "rad trad") folks at NovusOrdoWatch.org because of—well, the Novus Ordo Mass, among other things. So when the Pope announced that a Latin indult Mass would be celebrated at St. Mary Major, the folks at Novus Ordo Watch were full of Christian charity and gratitude, right? Well, no.

Shawn McElhinney (20 September 2003):

. . . I was entering into the first throes of challenging my radtrad weltanschauung . . .

Jeff Miller ("The Curt Jester"), 18 February 2004:

RAD TRAD = Radical Traditionalist. Those that have joined groups like the SSPX that believe that [the]  Church has gone astray since Vatican II and some believe that there is no current valid pope or that the pope is someone other that John Paul II. This is not to be confused with traditionalists like those who have a love for the Latin Mass and wish that it was made more available. The major difference is obedience to the Church.

Ben Douglass, himself a "traditionalist," wrote the following article, with a tongue-in-cheek title that indicates something about the ongoing evolution of our term; dated  28 January 2005:

"I Make a Terrible Radtrad (On Communion in the Hand)"

By 2005, even one of the most prominent anti-Catholic apologists used the term. James White wrote (22 June 2005):

I do not trust Bob Sungenis. His credibility is shot with me, and with anyone else who has followed his tortured path to his present position, and truly, what is accomplished by vindicating Reformed theology against someone who was once with Harold Camping, and once a Presbyterian, and once a member of the International Churches of Christ, and now off on his own in the rad/trad camp somewhere, who may well be who knows where next year?

Urban Dictionary (8 April 2006):


RadTrad    
In the Catholic faith, a derogatory word for "radical traditionalist." This generally involves the following things: 1) Rejection of Vatican II
2) Rejection of the non-Latin mass
3) Rejection of the authority of the current bishops and popeHe was so disgusted by the homilies at his parish that he started going to an SSPX chapel and now he's a complete RadTrad.
Jimmy Akin (August 2006):

This is further corroborated by the fact that his father is a known anti-Semite and that anti-Semitic views are common in the Rad Trad circles in which Mr. [Mel] Gibson apparently moves.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker (15 April 2008):

The American Catholic Church is also highly polarised. At one extreme are the ‘rad traddies’. They argue for the Latin Mass and support schismatic groups opposed to modernising the Church. These radical traditionalists want to turn back the clock to some golden age before the Second Vatican Council. They live in a black and white world where anyone outside their group is a damnable moderniser. They come across as angry, self-righteous kooks. . . . In between the ‘rad traddies’ and ‘rad trendies’ are the largest group which my friends refer to as ‘AmChurch.’

He clarified this on 8 May 2008 on the New Liturgical Movement site (in an article by editor Shawn tribe):

No, I am not against the Latin Mass, but against the extreme traditionalists who rubbish Vatican II, support cranky right wing conspiracy theories and take a sedevacantist or semi-sedevacantist position. That's why I referred to them as 'Rad Traddies' ...

Those who support and encourage the Latin Mass within the full life of the church as promoted and permitted by the Church I have no problem with.

He wrote again on 30 January 2010:

When I compare two groups of Catholics: the rad trad crowd and the vast hordes of AmChurch ordinary Catholic folks I have to ask what my impression is of them as people. As a priest I get far more negativity, criticism, sour self righteousness, suspicion and downright ugliness from the traddies than the trendies. I also get far more appreciation, respect, good humor, and open positivity from the trendies than the traddies.

Michael Liccione (9 June 2008):

A rad-trad converts [title]

Scott Windsor (12 January 2010):

I was recently castigated for using the term “Rad Trad” on Patrick Madrid’s blog [not by Pat himself, but by someone else] but I assume it was due more to a lack of understanding of my intention than anything else.  I was accused of “sweeping generalization” and “put(ting) down those who love Tradition.”  Perhaps we should all try to be clearer in the terms we use.  I suppose I could have included a bit of an explanation when I posted that – and in hindsight, I believe I would have had I known the way some would respond.  Here’s my initial comment from Patrick Madrid’s blog:

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.

Under fire, on the same day on Pat Madrid's blog, Scott clarified and defended his usage (first bolding and also asterisks his own; subsequent bolding is mine):

Folks, I *am* a Traditionalist! I *support* the Traditional movement, and have since I converted to Catholicism back in 1988! Please don't misread me, I do NOT "put down those who love Tradition!" "Rad-Trads" are those who would throw out the baby with the bathwater, as if - if it is not in Latin, it's Modernism. Be real folks, there are some "Rad-Trads" out there who do indeed give the rest of us Traditionalists a black-eye. Now I, for one, would not shed a single tear if Pope Benedict XVI abrogated the New Order of the Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) and reverted the entire Latin Church back to the Traditional Latin Mass - but I am also not one who proclaims the Novus Ordo is invalid and/or that priests ordained after the Rite of Ordination changed (early 1970's? - I don't have the date handy) are not valid priests. There ARE those in the extreme of the Traditionalist movement who DO make these claims - and I have engaged and been summarily condemned by them because I have ANY tolerance for anything post Vatican II. I am of the mindset that IF there is ANY defects of the "novo cedat ritui" - that "praestet fides supplementum" (faith supplements). . . .

I hope that helps clear up what I was saying. As I said, I do not oppose Traditionalism. I support bringing more and more Latin back into the Mass - as Vatican II proclaimed as well, "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." I also participate more frequently in the extra-ordinary rite (as it is now called) than I do the novus ordo rite.

Mark Shea was lied about by someone on the same thread, in exactly the way that I was lied about, myself and turned into a straw man to pummel, a few days ago, by a good half-dozen people or more: as if I am somehow opposed to Latin Mass or the Extraordinary Form. Mark replied as follows (14 January 2010):

Mark Shea's entire online existence revolves around complaining about Catholics who attend the traditional Latin Mass.

False. You are either ignorant of the fact that my son often attends a Latin Mass or you are just another liar. I have no problem whatsoever with the Latin Mass. I have a problem with so-called Traditionalists who treat brother Catholics as second-class Catholics and half-breeds.

His latter sentiment was, in fact, the reason for the initial post (11 January 2010) that led to the thread above, by Patrick Madrid. While not using or endorsing the term radtrad (which Mark often uses in battling the above mindset, as shown in one of my links above), Pat stated in full agreement with Mark (and with what is my own view):

Mark Shea throws down the hammer on those who impugn Catholics (such as Karl Keating, myself, and others) as "Neo-Catholics," pointing out that this epithet is simply a thought-stopping term used by some against those who, as Mark pegs it, are not "sufficiently bitter" toward Pope John Paul and Vatican II.

While Mark and I may disagree on a variety of issues, I think he's right on target in his analysis of the connotations implicit in the snarky "neo-Catholic" put down. Frankly, his push-back on this particular issue is overdue, and I am happy to see it. Thanks, Mark. You said it better than I could have.

Patrick Madrid clarifies in a comment (13 January 2010), that he, too, is a "traditionalist" (in the broadest sense), who attends the Tridentine Mass:

Just to clarify, as a life-long Catholic, I personally LOVE the Traditional Latin Mass and try to attend it whenever the opportunity arises (there's a bit more on that in my bio..). I am not a party to any antagonism toward anyone because they, like I, love the Traditional Mass.

My purpose in drawing attention to this particular comment of Mark's is that I believe he correctly identifies the problems surrounding mis-labeling certain Catholics as "neo-Catholics."

Same here. As I've stated till I am blue in the face, I have attended Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) for 22 years at my parish, St. Joseph's in Detroit. My parish also offers the Tridentine Mass sometimes, for example, at Midnight Mass at Christmas. I have attended them. They're beautiful and highly moving. Our parish cluster is one of only three or so that offer the Tridentine Mass in metro Detroit (one of the parishes, every week). There is no hostility at all (zero, zip, zilch, nada, nuthin'!) to Latin or the Old Mass here. I advocated Pope Benedict's position of freedom to worship as one pleases for my entire Catholic life, which is now about 22 1/2 years. I always receive Holy Communion on the tongue, kneeling at an altar rail (in my parish), I detest and have often roundly condemned in my writing, all violations of liturgical rubrics, massive overuse of eucharistic ministers, etc.

Whoever flatulently bloviates otherwise about me is, like Mark's critic, either "ignorant" or a "liar." Its not difficult at all to ascertain what I believe (me, with my nearly 2,500 blog posts). Ever heard of a search engine, folks? Hello! But this was done just a few days ago in a public Facebook thread. For example, Kevin Tierney, a regular contributor to Catholic Lane, apparently couldn't stop himself from lying (as usual, where I am concerned):

It is good to see my "friend" living in Melvindale is still treating his brother Catholics who love the Latin Mass like they are the enemy.

Blessedly, Pete Vere himself, one of the originators of the term (as seen above), defended me from this bogus charge, at the end of my previous paper on the topic.

A notable exception to the general trend of the evolution of the word radtrad is a man who may be considered  the father of the modern Catholic apologetics movement,  Karl Keating. Writing on a public thread on Terrye Newkirk's Facebook page on 15 March 2013, he stated:

Usually it's the Traditionalists who collapse into name-calling. . . . I have an extensive vocabulary. If I want to indicate my disdain for someone, I don't have to fall back on slang such as "radtrad" or "Fundie" or "Prot."

Likewise, staff apologist at Keating's Catholic Answers, Michelle Arnold, wrote on 20 February 2013 on that organization's site:

Some years ago, I contributed posts to my colleague Jimmy Akin's blog. One of the more controversial posts I wrote was Single RadTrad Catholic Seeks Same [Feb. 2006], in which I talked about an online dating site for single Catholic Traditionalists. (Nota bene: Following global upgrades to Jimmy's site over the years, the original byline indicating my authorship of the post was inadvertently altered, but the post was indeed written by me and not by Jimmy.) Quite a few Catholic Traditionalists, whom I will admit I might have treated more kindly by not using the faddish moniker "RadTrad" that was popular at the time, were outraged that I criticized a dating site that catered specifically to their desire to find a likeminded spouse.

These are the only critics of note (apart from the radtrads themselves and loose canon former radtrads like Tierney) that I could find (and I looked very hard). Perhaps they are correct (this is not an absolute thing in the first place), but in any event, words evolve (see the study of etymology) and develop as time goes on, and definitions are determined by actual usage, not preordained proclaimed "dictionary dogmas." That itself would be another long discussion (and I love it, myself). We have clearly seen from the above survey how the new term radtrad (originated c. 1995) is evolving: overwhelmingly in one direction, with remarkable agreement across the board.

I would happily engage anyone on this topic, provided it is serious, constructive, respectful, amiable discussion (in other words, very unlike what I was subjected to over the last weekend).


* * * * *