Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad"

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." The following exchange occurred on a Facebook page of a friend. My opponent did not agree to have her words transferred here, so the following may appear "choppy" because I was responding to her in numerous back-and-forth exchanges. It was not totally "public" anyway (like my own Facebook page is), so I can only cite my own words, without express permission.

It's probably for the better. The initially promising discussion soon broke down (what else is new on the Internet?) into foolishness and non-interaction. I am sick to death of ridiculous, worthless discussions online. But I think I made some relevant points, and so have preserved them below. My opponent could have been heard here, too, if her reasoning was so compelling and inherently superior to mine, as she made out, but she refused. No skin off of my back . . .

To see what this person (publicly) wrote about our exchange afterwards, on her page, and her wholesale distortion of what I wrote and argued, see my Facebook post and discussion thread about it]
* * * * *
As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends.


I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note:  "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]


Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law. It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.







* * * * *