BISHOP BARRON TAKES ON THE RAD TRADS

I just watched the Vortex response to Bishop Barron's "invite only meeting of media professionals"
The response was good and right on point.

The quote "church of nice" perfectly describes Barron.

chevyontheriver said:

Which is why he could have picked a middle road and included those of moderate right and moderate left to discuss this with. But he seemed to have neglected having this discussion with anything not left of center. I hope he rectifies this soon.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm no expert when it comes to Catholic media sources. What would have been a more representative sample than America Media, Catholic News Agency, Catholic News Service, Crux, and Our Sunday Visitor? Which right-center voices did he neglect?

He seems willing to 'accompany' many diverse people, which is great. But does that extend to anyone not left of center? He has been invited to do so. Maybe he will.

What I see, what I saw in a piece by National Catholic Reporter, was concern about rad-trad sites like Lifesitenews and ChurchMilitant. I wonder how some real hard core rad-trad fellows? Like Ann Barnhardt perhaps, who says Francis is a definite anti-pope. She doesn't mess around, thinking Benedict is still pope. And I wonder if he's not most concerned, without him actually naming anyone at all, with Taylor Marshall?

If the Church is a mess, and it really is at this time, what's the most important thing to do to fix the mess? Complain about rad-trads? See, I find that to be an odd thing to host a big media confab about. Sure, mention it. AS has Fr. Z, in the many instances where he asks for civility. I don't know what to think about bishop Barron right now. I will concede that in the past he has done very good work. But now I just have to wait.

Click to expand...

I guess I still reject the premise that this is a battle against ideology rather than a battle against calumny and contempt. In #33 I gave an example of Barron criticizing the left for the same thing. Bishop Barron is an able debater. If he wants to critique traditional theology he could do it head-on rather than under the guise of calumny or contempt.

zippy2006 said:

I guess I'm no expert when it comes to Catholic media sources. What would have been a more representative sample than America Media, Catholic News Agency, Catholic News Service, Crux, and Our Sunday Visitor? Which right-center voices did he neglect?



I guess I still reject the premise that this is a battle against ideology rather than a battle against calumny and contempt. In #33 I gave an example of Barron criticizing the left for the same thing. Bishop Barron is an able debater. If he wants to critique traditional theology he could do it head-on rather than under the guise of calumny or contempt.

Click to expand...

It would be a help if he would do so, but I can't picture him getting into a debate with anyone.
I think he's much more useful as a teacher of the basics, and a 'bringer of good news."

eastcoast_bsc said:

The quote "church of nice" perfectly describes Barron.

Click to expand...

I would hold off on that identification, at least for now. But it DOES fit someone like James 'ever so polite' Martin, who is very skilled in knowing exactly what he can say, how close to heresy he can be in public, and get away with it. I still hold out hope that bishop Barron has remnants of episcopal spine somewhere and a core of orthodoxy still extant somewhere.

eastcoast_bsc said:

I just watched the Vortex response to Bishop Barron's "invite only meeting of media professionals"
The response was good and right on point.

Click to expand...

'Catholic establishment class' is an interesting term. It seems to fit. And yet we know that we should not engage in class warfare.

I thought Voris did a good job. This is a guy I loved to hate only two short years ago.

zippy2006 said:

Were you present at the private meeting, or are you speculating as to what was said there?

Click to expand...

He's suggested in the past that Taylor Marshall is a "provocateur" and he's taken issue with Michael Voris/Church Militant, both of whom/which are excellent contributors and are often the only ones talking about serious issues that are otherwise glossed over by constituent outlets like the one in the OP. I'm not interested in Barron's idea of a USCCB imprimatur on American Catholic media.

The article itself, sourced from Brandon Vogt one of Bp. Barron's own staffers, says that one of the points discussed in his little meeting was the influence of "rad trads" online, which he then goes on to define as,


Okay well... that's pretty much most, if not all, faithful young Catholics. The true definition of a rad trad is more often someone who either questions Vatican II or rejects it outright, and/or someone who might even be sedevacantist. Neither Marshall nor Voris nor Church Militant could be accused of either of those things. In fact, Voris has always consistently acknowledged the validity of Vatican II. Most traditional Catholics don't eschew Vatican II either, we like the Latin Mass because it's better, we're conservative because the Catholic faith necessitates it.

If he's going to define rad trads as simply Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass and are conservative well then he just defined almost every young Catholic who affirms the entire Catholic faith.

Furthermore, let's ask who's really fringe here. Borrowing some research from another poster:

Fenwick said:

He's suggested in the past that Taylor Marshall is a "provocateur" and he's taken issue with Michael Voris/Church Militant, both of whom/which are excellent contributors and are often the only ones talking about serious issues that are otherwise glossed over by constituent outlets like the one in the OP. I'm not interested in Barron's idea of a USCCB imprimatur on American Catholic media.

Click to expand...

I am interested in evidence, so if you know where Barron said that I would welcome it. Of course, "Provocateur" doesn't seem like a bad way to describe Marshall, does it? I don't think he's an empty sleeve, but he is surely provocative.

The article itself, sourced from Brandon Vogt one of Bp. Barron's own staffers, says that one of the points discussed in his little meeting was the influence of "rad trads" online, which he then goes on to define as,

"often young Catholics who prefer traditional liturgy, including the Latin Mass, and subscribe to more conservative political beliefs and religious practices."​

Okay well... that's pretty much most, if not all, faithful young Catholics.

Click to expand...

That's how NCR describes the term, not Vogt or Barron. As rector of Mundelein Barron made instruction in Latin and the extraordinary form available to seminarians, so long as their bishop allowed it.

The true definition of a rad trad is more often someone who either questions Vatican II or rejects it outright, and/or someone who might even be sedevacantist. Neither Marshall nor Voris nor Church Militant could be accused of either of those things. In fact, Voris has always consistently acknowledged the validity of Vatican II. Most traditional Catholics don't eschew Vatican II either, we like the Latin Mass because it's better, we're conservative because the Catholic faith necessitates it.

Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. Honestly, the term "rad trad" is slang, and has no univocal meaning. It is one of those terms that is used differently by different groups of people.

If he's going to define rad trads as simply Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass and are conservative well then he just defined almost every young Catholic who affirms the entire Catholic faith.

Click to expand...

But you're doing it again. You took a quote from NCR and put it in bishop Barron's mouth. The bishop simply didn't define the term that way.

Furthermore, let's ask who's really fringe here. Borrowing some research from another poster:

Alexa says that Fishwrap is #101,350 in global internet engagements. Word On Fire is #122,959. However, Lifesite News is #25,936. Church Militant is #74,261.

Similar Web shows Fishwrap at a Global Rank of 53913 Word on Fire is 74513 Life Site News is 18673 Church Militant is 50595.

LifeSite and Church Militant are kicking Fishwrap‘s dissident backside in traffic and even more strongly outpacing the beige Word On Fire.​

Click to expand...

Sensationalism does sell, but there are all sorts of metrics. For example, WoF outpaces CM in Youtube subscribers by a massive amount (344k vs 187k), and yet CM has 12m more total views. It's not really clear what the point of these sorts of comparisons is, though, for WoF isn't an online news service as CM or LifeSite is.

zippy2006 said:

Barron has done quite a bit on the Real Presence. Those who follow him hear about the Real Presence much more often than the things noted in this OP.

Rubin and Shapiro are not atheists, and Barron is polite to atheists and Christians alike. Has anyone legitimately accused Bishop Barron of being unpolite? Those interviews are certainly worth talking about, but if someone like Voris had been in that seat he would have pushed the hosts further from Catholicism and embarrassed the Church. In any case, he would never have been invited in the first place. All points worth considering.


What most people have for Bishop Barron is second-hand hate, and that illustrates the problem he is trying to tackle with respect to radical traditionalists. Why are Catholics attacking bishops they have never read or listened to? Because their favorite pundit convinced them to do so. Why do we have so many hateful and misrepresentative Catholic pundits? Great question.

Click to expand...

you think our dislike of Barron is second hand? I watched him for years, he was all over this forum, all over Facebook, especially when he was still just Fr Barron, at that time he was almost inescapable.

and I loved his videos
But as time went on I had to keep making excuses for him.

Also I did not say Shapiro is an atheist, I thought at the time of the interview Rubins was though. Either way Barron showed that he was only concerned with getting praise from the secular world when he dodged a question from Shapiro and reduced Christianity to “the privileged way” rather then the only faith that saves, that is what pushes people away from Christianity, people are naturally disgusted by weakness, and a watered down Gospel does not attract anyone.

chevyontheriver said:

Plain old Catholics who are told that AOC is the new face of the Catholic Church. Huh?

Click to expand...

Barron already took his shot at Cortez (quite effectively), but Esolen's came today:

zippy2006 said:

Barron already took his shot at Cortez (quite effectively), but Esolen's came today:

Ocasio-Cortez is not the future of the Catholic Church. She is not the future of anything that has a future. She cannot be. She is a rather stupid woman, without the learning that comes from arts and letters, or the experience that comes from struggling with the natural world and its resistance to human will. She is neither a scholar nor a farmer. She can neither parse a sentence nor dig a well.

Ideology Makes You Stupid - The Catholic Thing
​

Click to expand...

Wow. Esolen's blade is so sharp that it cuts clean through before you realize it's cut the 'AOC is the future of the Catholic Church' argument in half. The only thing left is for the halves to separate.

I was glad bishop Barron also addressed this. And glad you shared it.

eastcoast_bsc said:

The quote "church of nice" perfectly describes Barron.

Click to expand...

Bishop Barron couldnt preach the truth to Ben Shapiro. What a disappointment.

"Vatican II FAQ" from Word on Fire:

Vatican II FAQs - Word on Fire

zippy2006 said:

"Vatican II FAQ" from Word on Fire:

Vatican II FAQs - Word on Fire

Click to expand...

I like this. I think I disagree on number nine though. There does seem to be ambiguity that can be exploited by the destroyers. I think Lefevbre was right about that one point. Word on Fire minimized it, but I think it's real nonetheless.

chevyontheriver said:

I like this. I think I disagree on number nine though. There does seem to be ambiguity that can be exploited by the destroyers. I think Lefevbre was right about that one point. Word on Fire minimized it, but I think it's real nonetheless.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the question very far, but I thought the answer was helpful. "It may be that there are theologians present at a council—contributors to a conciliar text—that hope to employ the ambiguous language in a wrong way later. But the Church has a guardrail against this—namely, the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in interpreting its councils and handing on the faith."

There is a natural disarray that follows upon a council, and I think there is still good hope that Vatican II will be properly interpreted and contextualized. Before Francis' election folks were very confident in this hope.

zippy2006 said:

I haven't looked into the question very far, but I thought the answer was helpful. "It may be that there are theologians present at a council—contributors to a conciliar text—that hope to employ the ambiguous language in a wrong way later. But the Church has a guardrail against this—namely, the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in interpreting its councils and handing on the faith."

There is a natural disarray that follows upon a council, and I think there is still good hope that Vatican II will be properly interpreted and contextualized. Before Francis' election folks were very confident in this hope.

Click to expand...

There is natural disarray. Fulton Sheen expected it. It's just normal after a major council as things still need to be worked through.

The Holy Spirit guides, and I think the evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding showed up in the results of the 1985 synod on interpreting the council. That was the synod where cardinal Ratzinger announced the outline of the Catechism and the synod endorsed forming the new Catechism at that time.

Anthony Esolen has a new essay out about how he thinks the time for Vatican II has largely passed and it is best not to dwell too much on it any more. We have new issues now and Vatican II doesn't have the ability to address them so well. Interesting essay. I'll try to find it and post a link. He's not saying Vatican II is wrong so much as the pastoral needs have changed in the intervening 55 years.

Rhamiel said:

on having a “reasonable hope” that hell is empty is also very heterodox

Click to expand...

Yep... just reading this bit from the 6th Ecumenical Council.

"...They dream up, both godlessly and mythically, that all rational things were produced in a henad of minds, and they abuse the creation of the waters above heaven, and want an end to punishment, and they introduce besides total corruptibility of all perceptible things, while alleging the restoration of all rational creatures, angels, human beings, and demons, and again confounding their differences into one mythical unity, when Christ will be different from us in no respect, whom they preach in foolish manner, not with one foul perversion only but giving their neighbor myriads of droughts to drink, and, wretches that they are, deigned to die and poured out the ransom that was his divine blood and laid down his own life as a most divine gift exceeding all worth.

But we, because we have been given to drink the rational and guileless milk of right and blameless and well-disciplined faith, have tasted the good word of God, thrust away all their shadowy teachings. Being free of all their lawless babblings and walking in the footsteps of our Fathers, we both speak of the consummation of the present world and believe that that life which is to come after the present life will last forever, and we hold to unending punishment; the former will gladden unceasingly those who have performed excellent deeds, but the latter will bring pain without respite, and also indeed punishment, on those who became lovers of what was vile in this life and refused to repent before the end of their course and departure hence. For ‘their worm will not die’, says Christ the judge, who is the truth, ‘and their fire will not be extinguished.’ These things received them from proclamation which is from apostles and evangelists, from prophets and the Law, from Fathers and Teachers..." - Excerpt from the Synodal Epistle of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem

Released today: "Pope Francis and Vatican II"

zippy2006 said:

Released today: "Pope Francis and Vatican II"

Click to expand...

Not bad.

He distinguishes between the 'Concilium' folks and the 'Communio' folks after Vatican II. He says he sides with the 'Communio' folks. (Whome I identify with as well.) And yet I don't know if he's making common cause with the remnants of the 'Consilium' folks when he does this taking on of the Rad-Trads. I donno. Because a lot of 'rad-trads' seem like the remnants of the 'Communio' folks. Not all, but a lot of them/us.

He did do a good job of explaining why we don't abandon Vatican II. What he seems to miss entirely is what has pushed so many people to want to abandon Vatican II, and that is that there is something really wrong in the Catholic Church in the past few years. Actually it's only more obvious since the election of pope Francis that the 'Consilium' forces have pulled out all of the stops going for the win, sweeping away John Paul II in the process. Might a lot of 'rad-trads' just want to cling a bit to John Paul the Great for a few more years instead of having his work be undone?