Some Rad-Trads Are Lazy Curmudgeons

I've written in the past about some strange things I've noticed about those who identify themselves as Catholics faithful to the magisterium but who hold themselves aloof from other faithful Catholics.  For lack of a better term, I'll call them either "rad trads" or (probably more accurately) curmudgeons.  I've described some of their characteristics in earlier posts: disdain for democracy, poo-pooing any votes for anyone less than a saint, condescension towards those of us active within politics or speaking in the public arena, etc.

I've tried for some time to understand just what might be the driving force behind their beliefs and behavior and realize that the answer isn't really that complicated.  To wit:

Quite a few are lazy - and quite pompous about it.  They justify their laziness to themselves by imperiously  proclaiming that the actions that they eschew (voting, boycotts, prolife activism, etc) are at best a waste of their oh-so-precious time and at worst a compromise of the One True Faith.  In other words, pride comes into play as they mock us from their insular conclaves.

Yep!  Why else would they put down the efforts of other Catholics, pretending that those efforts aren't good enough?  Why else would they mock President Trump non-stop without uttering a peep about those Democrats who are openly against God, life, family, human freedom, etc?  They mock our efforts to justify their own unwillingness to get off their duffs and do something.

I've even heard one of them mock pro-life action as "prolifeism" as though our efforts constituted a form of idolatry against the One True Faith.  Their big beef is that many of us in the pro-life movement work alongside non-Catholics.  Well, so what?  When they get off their rears and join the effort, maybe they will have some room to talk - that is, if they don't learn to appreciate the contributions of non-Catholic people.  To paraphrase one pro-life leader, I like what some non-Catholics are doing better than what some "rad-trads" aren't doing.

I recently was involved in a facebook discussion with some of these individuals, with the topic revolving around the intentions of some Catholics to boycott Netflix because of their portrayal of Jesus as a homosexual pervert.  The boycott effort was - of course - belittled by these "rad-trads".  Here's an interesting snippet.

Two of them are conversing here. Now why on earth to they pretend that we hold boycotts to be sacraments, of all things?

Here's another, with them dismissing the right and responsibility to vote.  Again, they like to bandy the word "sacrament" around, using it as a perjorative.  The one guy is calling the act of voting "material cooperation in evil".  On the contrary, I've explained my belief in previous posts why I believe the disdain of voting to be its own evil.

As I write this, news comes to us that the House just voted to impeach President Trump on very specious pretenses.  It is reasonable to believe that the absent Catholic vote in 2018 is largely to blame for putting the Dems back in control of the House.  Shall we now pray that the GOP in the Senate has the wisdom and courage to do the right thing?

Moreover, in 2020 elections will be upon us.  We've already suffered through enough Democrat debates to know that whoever is the victor will usher in baby slaughter, gay agendas, transgenders, you name it.  We will have to get involved (if we aren't already).  When we hear our very confused rad-trads spout their non-voting crap, well, let's recall that "rebuke the sinner" is a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

Rad Trads Being The Dupes Of The New World Order

As part of my efforts to glean and report on events vital to the Church, I peruse Facebook.  On it I encounter all sorts of people from the truly concerned fathful Catholic to clueless and obstinate people.  Those people are what we call the "far left" and "far right".  For the purpose of this post, I'll focus on the latter, for I think their spewings can cause the most confusion among other faithful Catholics who are trying to sort through the mess made by progressives throughout the years.

Every once in a while these "rad trads" will spew nonsense that hearkens to Catholic-sounding stuff that isn't really Catholic.  For instance, they often will rail against free speech, claiming that "error has no rights".  From then they will segue into the evils of the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.  They claim that the First Amendment is how the United States government gives approval for pornography and religious errors.

Let's look at the First Amendment.  I'll quote it here, as it isn't too long.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So where, oh where, is all this express allowance for pornography and the such?  I don't see it.  The Founding Fathers never insinuated that all speech is moral.  They simply stated that it is not the role of Federal Government to decide those matters.  The first 10 amendments are collectively known asa the Bill of Rights.  Their primary function is to place limits on the powers of the Federal Government.  That's it.

This same First Amendment means that these "rad trads" can spew such nonsense against their government, and not fear any reprisal.  I'm sure that they take their free speech rights for granted.  I'm also sure that this irony escapes them.

Then they'll whine on about the Constitution not being founded on Catholic principles.  Well, of course it wasn't because Catholics have always been a minority in this country.  Admittedly I would like to see more Catholicism in the Constitution.  However, there is a way to fix that, and that is by amendment to the Constitution - a process put in place by those "evil" founding fathers.  But that entails getting involved in US political processes, and here again is where "rad trads" engage in massive mental disconnects.

There are a few of them who actually hold to something called the "divine right of kings".  Believing that ordinary citizens should have no say, they will rail against the heresy of Americanism.  Yes, that actually is a heresy, but not what they think it is.  They will cite Pope Leo XIII's letter to Cardinal Gibbons in 1899 titled Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae as their authority.  Ok.  I linked to it.  Let's take a look at it.  Leo is cautioning the US bishops against several specific matters:

• The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. 
• the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty
• From this disregard of the – angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization

Read the letter for yourselves.  I see no indication that the pope was condemning our system of government outright (by the way, it is a constitutional republic, not a democracy).  In fact he remained totally neutral on it as a system of civil government.  He did NOT yap and yammer about the "divine right of kings".

One favorite bone of contention is about elections, and the fact that often very flawed men are running for the same office.  In a given election, both candidates may support intrinsic evils, but to widely varying extents.  Regardless of these facts, they simply refuse to vote, to participate in that election whatsoever.  They claim that they cannot support evil, no matter how much "evil" is involved.  They fail - or refuse to - acknowledge that a vote is not always about advocacy but can be simply damage control.  I thought that such obstinacy was simply being simplistic, but the ferocity and bombastic stances that they take cause me to suspect that a good deal of virtue-signalling may be occuring.  The most recent "case in point" was the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton.  I've written much in the past to illustrate that it was a moral evil to deny Trump one's vote; I needn't rehash it all now as you can go to this collection of my previous posts.

I will now post a video done by Michael Matt of the Remnant TV.  He points out that after this Amazon Synod, the masks are coming off the progressives in the Vatican - and that includes the pope.  They are attempting to implement the Sustainable Develop goals of the United Nations, a dream of theirs for quite a while.  They knew that they had some formidable obstacles that stood in the way of their "one world rule" goal.  One of them was the Catholic Church so they worked for years to subvert it.  This synod is a clear sign that they have the pope on their side.  Another obstacle to them is the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump.  They are now working to undermine him, as he is succeeding in his goals of strengthening the USA against its outside adversaries, making it less likely that the USA will swallow the "one world rule" mantra.  That is why the progressive USCCB recently lamented Trump's decision to pull the US out of that insidious Paris Agreement.  They aim to derail Trump's work.

Obviously they will want to defeat Trump in the 2020 elections.  The progresives will pull no stops to do so.  The real question is, will these #nevertrump "rad-trads" be able to see past their egotistic virtue-signaling, or will they be willing dupes of the progressives as they seek to remove one of their few obstacles to global dominance?  Now the video follows..

Consecrated To The Immaculate Heart Of Mary, Or To Pachamama???

There is some confusion and consternation regarding some translations of the consecration prayer used today by the pope.  I linked to it a few days ago; obviously I linked to the English translation.  The phrase in question is "Queen of Heaven".  In the English, this is a perfectly fine reference to use for Our Lady.  However, in the Italian, the language used by the pope in the consecration prayer earlier today, the phrase put in its place was "tiera del cielo".  Roughly translated, it means "earth of heaven".  Some think this may be a not-so-veiled reference to the pachamama demon-idol. 

Below are two videos, one from Taylor Marshall and the other from Michael Hichborn - both men whom I respect.  Marshall believes that the phrasing is, at best, suspicious.  Hichborn doesn't and he cites some Byzantine liturgies as precedents for the phrase's use.

I tend to side with Marshall on this one.  Even if Hichborn is correct in believing the phrase has basis for usage, it doesn't explain the variance between the English and Italian translations.  "Queen" simply doesn't get translated into "earth".  If anything, "Queen of Heaven" should be rendered "Regina Cielo" or something to that effect.  Why the disparity in those two words?  Most other languages, by the way, have the "earth of heaven" phrase as well.  So again, why is the English have a phrase that is more compatible with traditional Catholicism?

Well, call me a cynic, but I believe that you are looking at one of those reasons.  Blogs and other media outlets such as this, many of them in English-speaking countries, are run by us "neo-palagian rigid trads" who have obnoxious habits of calling the shots as we see them and doing so loudly and often.  Perhaps the Vatican thought we'd be so ecstatic about the consecration occurring that they thought we wouldn't notice such teensy details.  But, as they say, the devil is in the details - perhaps literally.

At the end of the day, though, there is hope that the consecration was done properly - not assurance but hope.  Both of the men below agree that no matter what, we must still conduct ourselves according to the requests of Our Lady of Fatima.  That means praying the Rosary daily and wearing the brown scapular.  That means keeping the Five First Saturday devotions.  That means prayer and penance.  We are still in for some intense battles so stay close to Our Lord and Our Lady.

As The Elections Draw Near, Never-Trump Trads Need A Verbal Spanking

As I write this, the Democrats have announced that Kamala Harris will be Joe Biden's running mate.  I would expect that Plugs himself was rather shocked at the news, but I don't want to explore that tangent just yet.  Suffice it to say that if (God forbid!) the Dems manage to cheat their way to victory, the most pro-abortion duo will ascend to power.  Given Biden's obvious mental issues, Harris will be less than a heartbeat from the presidency.

Yet even in the face of this looming disaster, there are still some who call themselves "traditional Catholics" who are announcing, perhaps virtue-signaling would be the more appropriate verb, that they will write in some obscure person or not vote at all in November 2020.  They have more disparaging things to say about Trump (who actually has made some solid pro-life accomplishments) than they do for the Dems, who are unabashedly pro-abortion.  I can only characterize their attitudes towards Trump to be so overly persnickety and finicky as to border on effeminacy.  They are more concerned about satisfying the unreasonable demands of their emotions (what they call conscience) as opposed to an actual rigorous examination of the matter in the light of Tradition.  I've taken a stab at so doing.  Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll link to two such posts of mine, here and here.  The comments in those posts illustrate some salient points as well.

Father Pavone of Priests for Life published a list of Trump's pro-life accomplishments - not promises but accomplishments.  In contrast, Biden, while Obama's vice president, assisted him in all his pro-abortion endeavors.  For her part, Harris is equally pro-abortion and has made no secret of her anti-Catholic prejudices.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you have some "never-Trump" people in your circles, please speak directly with them.  On this upcoming election depends western civilization, millions of lives and yes, souls.  

Young People Return To Tradition, Whereupon The Progressives Scold

It is no secret to any Catholic with at least one functioning eyeball that young Catholics are rediscovering traditional Catholicism, the patrimony that the now-aging hippies tried to trash.  Funny thing, though.  When something truly is of Divine origin, it simply won't stay under wrap.

A few weeks ago we saw Father Reese of Jesuit magazine wail and gnash his teeth.  He actually had the hubris to declare that "children and young people should not be allowed to attend such Masses".  Rather imperious and arrogant, don't you think?  I attend a traditional Mass myself and I rejoice at the number of young families (with several children each) in attendance.

Father Reese is not alone in bewailing the demise of the clown-rock-hippy-clappy masses.  A few days ago, we saw in US Catholic an article entitled "Parish Differences Pont To Divisions In The Church" by Peter Feuerherd.  I wonder if he is related to the late Joseph Feuerherd of the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter?  That certainly would explain some of his progressive bent.  Anyway, the thrust of his screed is that the mean old rad-trads (never mind that many of them are young people) are making others feel bad and driving them away from the Church.  Truth be told, those others probably never had actual faith in Our Lord and love for His Church, for if they did, the presence of differing people would never cause them to leave.  We didn't leave the Church when the hippy Jesuits were in ascendency.  I think they are looking for an excuse to undermine those who are living the true faith and to excuse their own disdain for the Mass.

Speaking of Not-At-All Catholic Reporter, we have Michael Sean Winters chiming in with his "Catholics Behaving Badly" nonsense.  In this installment he belittles Father David Nix, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Michael Warsaw, and Sohrab Ahmari.  My!  It gives us bloggers something to which to aspire - to be listed by Winters as "Catholics behaving badly"!

As the liberal hysteria grows, I'm sure we can expect more snit-fits to be published.

SSPX And Austrilian Bishops - Two Different Errors

A few days ago, while writing about some curmudgeonly "rad-trads", I forgot to mention one of the most egregious - and sinful - things that have spewed out of the mouths of some of them.  As a rule, they attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, often making great sacrifices to do so.  I too will attend those Masses, but not exclusively.  I understand the impetus, for often at the NO masses, there are attitudes that are way too casual; sometimes it gets worse than that.

However, some take it to sinful extremes.  I was in another facebook discussion with some of them.  They stated that because the NO mass was so bastardized by Vatican II, it cannot be considered a valid Mass.  Therefore, according to them, if one cannot attend an EF mass, one no longer has the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.  For their "authority", they cite this from the SSPX website.  I've often wondered how SSPX could be considered at variance from the Magisterium.  My question has been answered.

Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable.

The word "excuse" brings me to another point.  Excuse, or defense of evil done, is one of the nine ways of cooperating with mortal sin.  So is "counsel", such as that evidenced in the SSPX screed.  On the face of things, it seems that this SSPX priest needs to recant and get to confession asap.

Now let's look at what some Austrilian bishops are doing.  They have in fact advocated sin against the First Commandment by falsely stating that Catholics can also be Freemasons.  Besides the fact that Freemasonry is a major player in the desconstruction of our Church, they advocate false beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity.  In that last link is a video going into more detail about Freemasonry.  These bishops are also cooperating with mortal sin, thus incurring guilt attached to that sin.

So what might be the difference between the SSPX and these Austrilian bishops?  Probably not that much.  One the one hand, mortal sin against the Third Commandment is being touted; on the other hand, it's mortal sin against the First Commandment.  Both have the potential of damning a soul to hell.  Both agencies are being duped by the devil into doing his work.  Satan wants Catholics to leave the Church, and he doesn't care whether they exit "stage left" or "stage right".  Let's be wary of either tendency.

Fallacies Of The Isolationist Catholics

I've often wondered how Catholics who love their Faith and traditions could be caracatured as reactionary curmudgeons.  I'm beginning to understand why, thanks to some facebook discussions in which I have recently participated.

On one thread, one man stated his belief that the apostle St Paul mandated that women pray only with covered heads - both in and outside Church.  Of course we all wore head coverings when we went to Church.  However, this is the first time I ever heard it suggested, let alone mandated, that women and girls should cover their heads when they pray outside of Church, be it in the classroom, at home, anywhere.  Mind you, the first five years of my Catholic education were free from the contagions of Vatican II.  We started the school days with prayers while standing by our desks.  Of course we were all wearing the school uniform.  At no time did any teacher ever dream of telling us girls to get our beanies from our desks and put them on before praying.  Of course when we went to Church (and we went to confession and Mass every First Friday) all the girls wore their beanies.  So now where on earth did this facebook Catholic ever come up with that notion??

Another thread pertains to another discussion that has come up in various trad circles from time to time.  Here's how it started.

Catholic conservatives are a sad lot. (How's that for an opening line?) They constantly bemoan the liberal progressive forces that undermine the influence of the one true Faith, yet they themselves promote the very dogmas of modernity, such as academic and religious freedom, that are the causes of the corrosion of the Church's authority. They are like cartoon sailors on a sinking ship who furiously bail water from one part of the ship while they unwittingly pour the water into another part, fully convinced they are the ship's saviors. When you point out the futility and self-defeating nature of their well-intentioned actions, they either ignore you or bail with greater intensity. That is, they hunker down and defend the false principles that have created the leaks in the first place.

When I pointed out that the First Amendment only set limitations on what federal government may or may not do to regulate religion and speech,   Someone made the point that secular judges, without reference to the Church would set limits, etc.  Well, yes.  I didn't have the time to go into basic history, that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were largely Anglicans and/or deists.  I repeatedly asked them what practical alternative they'd suggest and they refused to say.  The originator of the thread had this to say:

You miss the point entirely. Any practical solution requires that one first have the correct theoretical position. Embracing a theory of practice is the problem.

Rather than rehash the dialog, I'll just post a screen shot.

As I see it, the common definition of "religious freedom" is the ability to practice one's faith without fear of governmental reprisal.  Had that "evil" of religious freedom not been in place in our country's founding documents, then Catholics at that time would have been at great disadvantage, since Anglicanism was the creed of most of the people then.  While I agree that a Catholic confessional state would be ideal, I also acknowledge that Catholics were always a minority in this country.  I also acknowledge that a Catholic confessional state could easily devolve into a tyranical nightmare if proper checks and balances are not in place.  Catholic confessional states did exist in the past. If they were so wonderful, why did they fail and disappear?

By the way, my last question was never answered.  I don't think they have a decent answer.  It seems all they can do is sit in their little cliques and b!tch about how terrible our system of government is.

Let's look at some encyclicals that deal with the social kingship of Jesus Christ.  We can start with Quas Primas, issued by Pope Pius XI on Dec 11, 1925.  Take a look at section 14 and notice "the threefold power which is essential to lordship": law-giver, judicial, and executive.  Do they sound familiar?  They should, for they are the three branches of federal (and most states') government.  In this encyclical, I read of no disapproval of either academic nor religious freedom.

Many trads rail against the heresy of Americanism, but do they really understand it?  As I see it, Americanism was the faulty way of thinking by prelates, most notably Cardinal Gibbons, that Catholic values should have no impact on political and social life and thus were striking compromises with civil leaders regarding the same.  Pope Leo XIII never meant to condemn the civil liberties enjoyed by Catholcis; rather he condemned the squandering of these liberties by American Catholics, who used those liberties for their own gain rather than as means to further the teachings of Jesus Christ in the social realm and to save souls.

After the jump break, I'll post snapshots of another facebook debate in which I am engaging.  You can see the logical fallacies espoused by these people for yourselves.  One lady says she won't participate in the US electoral system until changes are made.  As I asked her, who does she think will be doing the changes and what changes will be done if she doesn't lend her voice to the process?  That question is never answered.  Here goes..