Tuesday, 11 November 2014

To be Catholic is to be a "radical traditionalist"

What Catholics once were, we are.
If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
If you were right then, we are right now.
Robert De Plante

Given the quotation above, I think we can say it clearly; if you are not a traditional Catholic then you are a bad Catholic and in fact, a protestant. You flirt with dissent and heresy and you are the cause of schism and the current crisis in the Church. 

To be Catholic is to be traditionalist. To be traditionalist is to be Catholic. It seems that during these times of crisis in the Church to be traditionalist in a Catholic sense is to make one the equivalent of the red-headed stepchild. What of those who use this phrase to describe their fellow Catholics? What does it make them when they use the tactis of Saul Alinsky himself?

Frankly, it makes them, bad Catholics. 

When one is accused of being a "radical traditionalist" what does it mean?

Does it mean that one rejects the Second Vatican Council or the "banal manufactured product" of the new Mass as Benedict XVI referred to it? What if one accepts the reality of the new, but prefers the old? Does it mean that one speaks out against the shenanigans coming from the highest places in Rome? If we are angry about the heresy proposed by Kasper or his racist remarks about Africans, if we are disturbed by some of Pope Francis' ill-chosen words and phrases or interviews, if we are dismayed when media prominent priests blatantly ignore the liturgical law and then distort to explain it away, does that make us radical traditionalists? If we oppose the will of some bishops and cardinals to provide the Most Blessed Sacrament to people in unrepentant mortal sin does that make us radical traditionalists? 

I hope so!

One cannot be Catholic without being traditional. If one is Catholic one must be radical. The word comes from the the Latin radix, meaning root. How can Catholic be anything but radical, particularly living within this secular world and the new "pagan ideology" that has taken over parts of the Church as so aptly phrased by Bishops Schneider.

The reason that we are labelled such is that we are right. Those who put these labels on us are conflicted and schizophrenic because on one hand, they might like a little Latin Mass once or twice per year but on the other hand they have become "pagan Catholics" as our Holy Father so aptly called them a few days ago. If all you can do is look away from the real problems and crisis facing the Church and mock and deride then you are nothing more than a coward and part of the problem; and this goes for you if you are laity or priest or a bishop. You are lukewarm and you will be spat out on the last day.

If I wish to follow the practices of the faith in my life my parents grew up with in the Church I am, in the positive sense of the word, proud to be a radical traditionalist.

If you are not a radical traditionalist, then you are simply, not Catholic. 


LWC said...

Who in their right mind just doesn't love gold, ermine, silk, and cilice?

Vox Cantoris said...

Dear Wayne,

There is no salvation outside of the Church. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Word of God Incarnate to save you and me and the world from its sins and to live with God for eternity. There is no buddha or any other pagan deity or false religion that can do this. You are called to be a Catholic as you are a child of God.

To be Catholic, particularly in this decadent culture, is to be radical. To be Catholic is to be traditional.

As for gold and silk, nothing is too good for the worship of God in the Mass. If your comment refers to what a priest or bishop or pope might wear be careful how you analyse these things.

For example, is it more humble to live in a "motel" when it requires the investment of funds to restrict access to a whole floor or to live in highly secured sixth floor apartment that exists and costs less to maintain?

LWC said...

Where would Jesus prefer his apostles to live?

Vox Cantoris said...

Why don't you tell us Wayne? You state that one of your interests is debate, all I see here is smarminess.

LWC said...

"Us"? I don't see many chickens in this coop, but I'll bite.

To the first point, indeed Jesus exhorted his apostles, "...[T]herefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

He also admonished a wanna-be disciple with, "...[i]f you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

I'm no theologian nor doctrinal scholar, but it would appear our Lord would be dismayed at how many within the Church ensconce themselves within gratuitous opulence apart from the structures that have been erected in his honor.

I believe our Lord is a lord of evangelization not a lord of spectacular and ostentatious worship.

I'm no less struck by the beauty and magnificence of our Faith. And indeed those structures erected in the name of our Faith; however, when I juxtapose that to the immense poverty throughout the world, the starving, the dying, the needy-- one cannot help thinking resources could be otherwise better allocated.

Further, when traveling throughout Europe and visiting grand cathedrals built before the Reformation, one witnesses an eclipse of the Crucifix by an exaltation of men (and women).

It was only then I truly understood some of the motivation behind the Reformation.

Indeed I am proudly Roman Catholic, but I fear ostentatious worship is not too unlike driving a Lamborghini Veneno at 150 miles an hour down the streets of Rome.

Something is bound to go wrong.

Francis has taken the keys, and is rightly putting us into a Ford Fusion.

Vox Cantoris said...

Thank you for the comments.

I would be interested in knowing with some kind of empirical data how many people leave comments verses how many readers. These days, over a thousand per day visit here, not many comments. I don't worry about it but I assure you, there are more than the two of us.

The Church has lost her way on the matter of evangelisation and the salvation of souls; on that we agree!!!

That does not mean that we throw out the treasure that is held for the world. I believe I understand your point, if the beauty is in the house of worship there is a distinction and I agree, to a degree.

Take the Santa Marta residence as the example here; it is known that there is a significant cost to this, the whole floor is secured and not rented out. The papal apartment is not luxurious, at least the bedroom is not, it is in the apostolic palace and it still there, heated and secure. Is that not better than spending money on the other? Money that could be used for the poor?

We agree, the poverty and injustice in the world is a crime against God, so is abortion and same-sex marriage. It is not one or the other, it is both, and. I am sure you agree.

Yet, everything had its symbols. The red shoes were made by a local Roman cobbler and symbolized them walking in the blood of martyrs; the cappa magna was also symbolic of this world and the stripping of this world and the putting on of Christ; the raising of the chasuble during the elevation in the EF by the server symbolises the faith of the hemorrhaging woman. Some think these are not important today.