Robert
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I was watching Bishop Barron’s videos about Vatican II and traditionalists. I can’t shake the feeling that something is missing in them. What do you think about these videos? I can’t put my finger on it. But I know that he had a secret meeting about the growing problem of so-called “trads” now. Is he organizing a movement against tradition and the Latin Mass?
I’ll lead with a Tweet…
Why is it that +Barron takes Protestant objections to Catholic teaching seriously and tries to dispel confusion, but when Catholics have trouble reconciling passages in VII with traditional teaching we are dismissed as “Protestants”?
pic.twitter.com/bYYafjMgIo— Owen (@DumbOxOfSicily) August 16, 2020
I don’t know what Bp. Barron is doing.
Folks, I am genuinely perplexed by him. He clearly does some good.
It seems to me that he isn’t formally organizing some movement against tradition. He’s not dumb. There’s no upside to doing something like that. Zero. As a matter of fact, there would be a tremendous downside.
I don’t think that Barron is hostile towards tradition, in the way some bishops are. It seems to me that he is so wrapped up in Vatican II and the notion of “New Evangelization”, that there’s no room in his thinking about traditional Catholics. Unless they come across his screen for attacking him or things he has associated himself with, trads don’t live in his Church.
Moved by the query I looked at some of his recent videos.
On 14 August 2020 he posted a video of himself, apparently to the 2020 Napa Institute gathering. HERE He says that something “on his heart” now is the fact that there are people who criticize Vatican II. He says this “cuts across” the integrity of the Church (whatever that means). He is concerned that “strong voices” use social media. Later in the video he effectively calls these people “protestant”. He is thinks that attacks on Pope Francis are unjustified. He goes on to describe what he thinks are great influences on Bergoglio, including Gaston Fessard, SJ.
On a positive note, he made a good point about the point of Vatican II being about “bringing the light (lumen) to the nations (ad gentium)… Lumen gentium.
During July 2020 Bp. Barron posted short videos on YouTube which are clearly excerpts of a larger event with the highly valuable Hildebrand Project. Several of these short videos, just a couple minutes each, touch on traditional issues. Barron responds to different questioners. In one video he addresses himself to “John Henry” whom I assume is Weston of LifeSite who is probably John Henry Crosby of the Hildebrand Project. In another, a “Rocco”, who is, Rocco Buttiglione. Maybe there was yet another questioner, I’m not sure. In any event, these short videos are snippets of a longer video (Zoom?) interview with different people.
Barron posted one short video – from this event – in which he purports to unfold his opinion of the Traditional Latin Mass… which he absolutely does not. HERE He talks instead about the qualities of the Novus Ordo and how John Paul II said Mass. Moreover, the Novus Ordo fed the spiritual lives of Mother Theresa and John Paul. I will add the obvious: the Mass that formed them as Catholics in the first place was the pre-Conciliar form, not the Novus Ordo. Barron munificently adds, “I have zero quarrel with Benedict XVI opening things up to a wider practice of the Extraordinary Form.”
Another video: Buttiglione seems to have asked: “Should Bishops allow priests to offer Mass in Latin?” HERE He goes off the rail here. Firstly, even though the question obviously concerns the Traditional Latin Mass, there was no hint that the Novus Ordo really ought to be celebrated in Latin. Barron refers to his time as rector of Mundelein Seminary and how he dealt with seminarians who were interested. He required them to have some knowledge of Latin. Good! Apparently the others were not required to work on Latin. Bad! That, of course, would be a blatant violation of Can. 249 of the Code of Canon Law, whereby formators in seminaries are required to make sure that ALL seminarians are “very well skilled” in Latin (lingua latina bene calleant).
Bp. Barron has another video in which he says he is a “traditionalist”. HERE He explains what he means by that word. What he says is entirely acceptable, in a sense, though it seems to me that his explanation was a dodge. I don’t think that he answered the question that was put to him. Surely the questioner intended to ask about what is going on today with “traditional Catholics”, that “traditionalism”. Barron expands the definition of “traditionalism” to embrace pretty much everything through the history of Christianity. His answer isn’t bad, but I don’t think it was an answer to the question he was asked.
Another video: “How Have Catholic Extremists Missed the Point of Vatican II? — Bishop Barron on Vatican II”. HERE Does he answer this question (from Buttiglione)? Sort of. I am not sure whether or not the questioner meant “extremists” on both left and the right, but Barron talks about how both left and right miss the point about what Vatican II was all about: evangelization. Remember: John Paul II disciplined Hans Kung! Moreover, on the extreme right there is desire to go back to the “bastione” (a reference to a comment in another video about von Balthasar’s call to tear down the bastions, Schleifung der Bastionen). Once again, he expatiates about John Paul II.
His response to “What Does Vatican II Say About the Mass?” is pretty good. HERE He seems to get the integrating function of the Church’s liturgical worship. In that, his position and mine are very close. Where his view is deficient is his being stuck entirely in the Novus Ordo.
In this series of videos the answer to every question – no matter what the topic of the question is – seems to be an amalgam of “John Paul II!” and “new evangelization!” with smatterings of John Henry Newman and Hans Urs von Balthasar.
I would find Bp. Barron more convincing were he also to extend a little of his considerable energy to reach out in a friendly way to the single most marginalized group in the Church today: traditional Catholics. That would boost his credibility with me considerably, though it might hurt his prospects within the USCCB.
In his Napa address Barron goes on for a rather long time about Francis’ emphasis on mission and avoiding introversion. We have to “raze bastions”. We have to be personally involved in evangelization.
However, traditional Catholics have for a long while been shoved by their pastors to the periphery. Will Bp. Barron personally meet these people where they are?
HENCE…. I extend here for the THIRD time an invitation to Bp. Barron to come to Madison to celebrate a Pontifical Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite. If he has concerns about traditionalists or others in the Church, then such a moment would be a sign that he is willing to do something – and not just talk – for people on the periphery.
In regard to the Second Vatican Council….
I maintain that in the Church’s long history there have been really important pontificates and not so important, really important councils and not so important. I am of the mind that Vatican II, when lined up with other Councils, does not rank anywhere close to being among the most important. It seems like a big deal to us because it was within living memory. Also, because councils tend to create a period of disruption, and we are in that period, Vatican II seems to us to be more important than it will eventually be seen to be.
We still to have a sober consideration of the long-term fruits of the Second Vatican Council. Half a century out, results have varied and they are not entirely in the positive column, to put it mildly.
One might say that Vatican II was hijacked and badly implemented. Thus, it is unfair to say that the Council caused the massive wounds that were inflicted after the Council. Okay. However, the fact that a Council is “hijackable” is itself a problem.
Enough of this.
I don’t know what Bp. Barron is doing.
His secret meeting with catholic media types – during which the“disturbing trends in the online Catholic world,” including the rise of “radical Traditionalist” movements were discussed – doesn’t point in a good direction. HERE
The moderation queue is ON. I will simply not permit knuckle-headed Barron bashing in the combox. If you don’t have something thoughtful to contribute, don’t bother posting.
Loading ...
I think that Bishop Barron has been feeling burned by some traditionalist Catholics who don’t like him for one reason or other. I know of one of them who blogged a bunch of anti-Barron diatribes a few years ago. I don’t recall the specific charges, but I think that some form of “modernism” was among them. One of Bishop Barron’s projects has been to restore traditionalism–that is, traditional reverence–to the Novus Ordo Mass. This strikes me as a worthy project, since most Catholic worship is in the Novus Ordo, which has been badly abused, as we all know. Being attacked from the right–by people who ought to be his allies–has probably made him jumpy and suspicious of everyone who likes the old Latin Mass. It is an unfortunate situation, and I hope there will be a truce one of these days. That said, he indeed ought to be strongly promoting priests’ learning Latin–and it is shocking that seminaries have let this lapse. Knowing Latin in and of itself will contribute to making the performance of the Novus Ordo more traditional and reverent and open priests’ minds and hearts to the richness of the old Latin Mass.
What is up with his ‘trad’ attitude? I would guess that its his gaining some ‘cred’ for his movement upward. Must be a delicate line one must follow to remain on Rome’s radar and at the same time stay charitable amongst the many groups. This is not to imply that he is insincere. I still respect his leadership.
Thank you Fr. Z. You say “Vatican II seems to us to be more important than it will eventually be seen to be.”
My personal experience of Vatican II is that it was the fundamental cause of the loss of faith of my family of 6 siblings and later my own 4 children. The ambivalence of its documents was the key which opened the door to the wrecking shed where all the destructive leftist and Marxist tools were kept. And boy, did those breathless priests, monks and nuns rush in there to help themselves. The onslaught devastated my father, who was unable to defend his own profound pre-conciliar faith and who was effectively shocked into silence while everything he knew and wanted us to have was torn away, as the flood of the ‘new’ engulfed my family through enthusiastic priests and compromising schools. I am the only survivor, and I too was badly damaged for decades by poor catechesis, followed by being surrounded by ignorant work colleagues with similar history.
As a result my siblings are to a man pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, non-church-goers, virtual sun-worshippers, and militantly libertarian in the worst sense of the word. As are my children, because I too was unable to pass on what I wanted for them, as I was opposed at their schools and struggling with my own ignorance during their formative years. All this is as a result of a Catholic Education under brothers and nuns who basically betrayed my father’s trust in them for his children.
No, I beg to differ. I see Vatican II as being very important indeed; it wrecked my both families completely. Both generations now barely tolerate my presence because I practise my faith, and they never allow me to contribute on any topic, rolling their eyes at anything I might say, as they despise me for it. The next generation is not baptised, so, that’s the end of it in my family.
My judgement of Vatican II: a devastating, massive fail. From the moment Cd Leinart stepped up to the microphone it became a fake Council. I’m with Abp Vigano: it should be abolished; it was not even dogmatic anyway, so why do we treat it as such? As for it’s so-called fruits, we already possessed them in abundance anyway. It added nothing of any value, in my view, but rather smashed through the whole beautiful Old Church like a wrecking ball, destroying everything, for me.
Wish we could get him to celebrate or even sit in choro at St. Vitus, the FSSP parish in Los Angeles, to see that not all trads are hostile. One of his predecessor auxiliary bishops sang Pontifical Vespers and the Archbishop conferred traditional Confirmations a few years ago (he’s delegated authority for the priests due to scheduling excuses the last couple).
[Keep inviting him.]
Thank you Fr. Z, this is helpful.
Briefly, myself and others benefited from Bp. Barron’s videos years ago, but the last several years WOF seems to have strayed into Empire Building. Deo volente, they will rein themselves in before straying into New Religious Movement territory.
As for Bp. Barron’s “Protestant” insinuation, Cardinal Newman: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
Bp. Schneider and Abp. Vigano are the more astute observers these days.
I wonder if in Barron’s case it has more to do with St. John Paul II and less to do with V2. His Holiness certainly captured a lot of hearts with his teachings. He didn’t condemn V2 and Barron reveres him, so how can these “trads” think they have a better grasp of the council than he did?
Just a thought.
“I would find Bp. Barron more convincing were he also to extend a little of his considerable energy to reach out in a friendly way to the single most marginalized group in the Church today: traditional Catholics. That would boost his credibility with me considerably, though it might hurt his prospects within the USCCB.” Oh, how this speaks to me. So, the Mary in me will pray that Fr. Barron understands the role he could play in unifying the Body of Christ, and the Martha in me will write to him.
I agree with Fr. Z that Bishop Barron clearly does some good work. I’ve learned a fair amount from some of his previous work.
I wonder if this is all about the pursuit of the little prefix “arch” on this title. I am reminded of an archbishop of a Midwestern archdiocese who clearly wanted his red hat. He basically did nothing controversial during his tenure in said archdiocese. He neither implemented nor condemned the radical elements, including allowing his disgraced predecesor to engage in some public ministries (Confirmations for example). By not stirring up anything, he got his red hat. (Boy, did he ever.) In this case, Bishop Barron had previously established himself as a public figure, much moreso than your average bishop. He, therefore, can’t just stay out of the news and wait for the promotion. I think it is clear to most people which way the winds are currently blowing, so he needs to firmly establish that he is in line. Who knows what his actual thoughts are.
Sorry Fr. Z. I don’t see a red hat coming your way any time soon….
Bishop Barron answers his questions with eloquence drawing from his intellectual gifts. I come almost always learning from how he answers his questions. But he does seem to “not answer” many questions that he poses. This is his style & method of answering that thus far proven to be effective for him in gaining popularity.
But it also reveals, with questions relating to tradition, that he is not fully comfortable with the more traditional elements of anything Catholic, i.e., liturgy, devotions, tradition, etc.
What chafes me is how he dresses down Traditionalists, but is chummy with James Martin at the Religious Education Congress, as one example among many.
His behavior reminds me of many, if not most, center-right bishops during the pontificate of John Paul II. They were marching toward a “restoration” of the Church following the late 1960s and the dreadful 1970s, but to them it meant re-purposing Vatican II, not restoring anything before it. I thought most of that reform of the reform school died off (or hopped aboard the Summorum Pontificum bus), but apparently this 1980s thinking still exists. Goodness, even Crisis magazine and First Things — the Catholic media outlets of the 1980s reform of the reform — have moved on and embraced tradition!
I’ve been reading a biography of Newman this week (after attempting his Apologia with far too little knowledge). One thing that struck me was that Newman was utterly convinced, in his Tractarian days, of the power of the via media. He believed that the Anglican church was the middle way between extreme Protestantism and Catholicism.
It strikes me that many ‘conservative Catholics’ believe that they are following the via media between the … ahem … ‘liberal Catholics’ and the ‘traditional Catholics’. They form their own Catholic Tractarian movement (as it were): Some might even call it a “reform of the reform”.
Of course Newman realised that the Truth – the Light – was not to be found in the middle way, but in one of the more radical ‘viae’. I think Bishop Barron (and there are many good bishops, priests and lay people who subscribe to this view) may yet come to see the via media as a dead end – just as Newman did.
Perhaps john Henry Crosby, President of the Hildebrandt Project? (This is in reference to the July videos – which I haven’t seen)
[Ah! Yes. That makes a lot more sense.]
As a cradle Catholic revert to the faith I never understood the animosity between the N.O. Only supporters toward those who prefer the T.L.M. Since the Traditional Holy Mass is all about Christ where He is made present. If Christ is made present at this event, how could it possibly be “bad”?? Why do they oppose it so strongly if they’re so confident in the necessary novelties of the Novus Ordo? I would follow the example of the old Evangelization (which included the TLM) that was successful, not the terrifying numbers brought to us by the renovations of the Mass…. what do I know….. I’m just part of the lost generation who was deprived of these beautiful liturgical traditions, thank God his faithful children kept pushing so I may discover these things. Thank you Padre for your efforts.
It is correct to talk about the new evangelization as a keynote of Vatican II and even to mention that such is the mandate of the laity.
The problem is the laity have not been instructed about that mandate in their catechesis. Moreover evangelization requires a conversion of heart towards the truth of the Gospel. It requires living virtuous lives. Have we heard that from the post Conciliar Church?
Instead, what we hear is that VII was a repudiation of the medieval Church that persisted until 1960. The institution of the Novus Ordo and the intransigence of its adherents reinforces that aforementioned repudiation.
I hold that VII was an important Council eschatologically. The New Testament is a journey to the final judgement and VII, in my mind, is a call to the Church to be relight the fire of Faith in the world in anticipation of the final judgement. Christ has spoken through Our Lady of Fatima and other apparitions on the importance of conversion. VII gives that call a formal authority. I dare say that very little about that message persisted beyond a year or two after the Council, my instruction coming from older Redemptorists in seminary and novitiate immediately after the Council ended.
I think we can safely say that the aftermath of the Council with its focus on the Novus Ordo completely obliterated the eschatological meaning of the Council.
While others see the term “Pastoral” as a diminishment of its importance, I see it as an affirmation that the Council was used by God as a formal plea to repentance, the single most important precursor to evangelization. The call to evangelization is in turn a call to convert the world in preparation for the end times; not claiming those times to be imminent, but certainly saying that when that time comes, no one can claim they weren’t warned.
For the Council to reclaim its eschatological meaning it has to abandon the notion that it abrogated the so-called medieval Church and frankly it must abandon the Novus Ordo which in fact was a breach with the keynote message of VII. I firmly believe Pope Benedict XVI deemed the NO to be a mistake but he didn’t want to burden the Church with another cataclysm.
As for the controversy surrounding VII’s exposition on religious freedom, just as an aside,, it is impossible to hold that VII taught formal error or saying it differently, that it formally taught error. The truth about the Church being the only way to Heaven and God has to be reconciled with the truth about the freedom of conscience.
SSPX would do the Church a great service if they chose to reconcile the two truths properly rather than claiming the Church defected.
Anyway, Bishop Barron gives us half the story or actually less than half. He doesn’t call out his brother Bishops for their failure to teach the laity the proper meaning of evangelization nor the fact that VII did not intend to undo Trent.
So in summary the real error of the post Conciliar period is having allowed the undoing of its message while attempting to abrogate Tradition. In that context the manufacture (we have no less than Cdl Ratzinger’s authority on that matter) and the introduction of the Novus Ordo was quite sinister. Moreover, one has to consider that the use of the Novus Ordo correlates strongly with a failure to convert souls and evangalize the world. As such it could be argued that the NO is a contradiction of the stated real purpose of VII if one could also posit causality.
Bishop Barron is perplexing indeed. He has done a great deal of good work in bringing people to the Church and making the Faith known via various social media platforms and his series entitled ”Catholicism” was really well produced with good solid content for the better part. (Still available online). It is an excellent introduction to the Faith for non-Catholics. What I don’t understand is this current focus on Vatican II and his defense of it. Why is it necessary? What’s the long term goal?
Regardless, he is in my daily prayers.
I think letting Bishop Baron speak for Bishop Barron is charitable and instructive.
Bishop Barron was the USCCB spokesman for promoting the alleged “change in Church teaching” on the death penalty. As such, Bishop Barron stated in the clear {sic} that the USCCB was adopting this change on the basis of Pope Francis’s “eloquent ambiguity”.
Now first, we have the problem with a “change in teaching” as-it-were. Let’s leave that for another day. But secondly, Bishop Barron, who is not stupid nor is he uneducated, chose to coin a phrase more suitable for duping than enlightening Catholics into accepting this “change” as the basis of his defense is that of a condemned construct, that of “ambiguity” {no, the adjective does not make it orthodox}. “Ambiguity” in theological formation has been condemned {Auctorem Fidei, then positively stated in CCC 1697}. As such, it provides as much shelter from a charge of poorly formed theology or even heresy as does a colander from the rain.
We need Bishops who will actually teach the faith.
It’s very interesting how the USA is grappling with its institutions and how we got here, as both major parties right now grapple with which direction they want to move forward in.
And the church too is grappling and reflecting how it got into its current situation of empty churches and Catholic schools. I think it’s healthy that the church is re-questioning and revisiting VII.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Dear mpsguard,
just my two cents to this passage:
As for the controversy surrounding VII’s exposition on religious freedom, just as an aside,, it is impossible to hold that VII taught formal error or saying it differently, that it formally taught error. The truth about the Church being the only way to Heaven and God has to be reconciled with the truth about the freedom of conscience. SSPX would do the Church a great service if they chose to reconcile the two truths properly rather than claiming the Church defected.
I am not saying the SSPX is right (or wrong – I resist the temptation to say what I do think, not because of cowardice, but to keep this comment focused on what I am actually going to say), but
1. It’s quite possible that a Council teaches error, outside its dogmatic definitions of course. We know and can prove that Popes have taught error, outside their dogmatic definitions of course. Why wouldn’t Councils?
2. Consequently, a Council teaching error does not mean that the Church defects (which we know to be impossible), a fortiori if the error in question is certainly no heresy (the staunchest SSPXers apparently claim freedom of religion is haeresi proxima, but at least where the terms are used with their precise meaning noone can think it is a heresy).
3. In addition, the SSPX does not actually say the Church defected, which they as well as we know to be impossible.
(Some, in argumentative speech not scholastic precision, might utter the phrase “Rome has defected from the faith”, generally meaning not DH but “the whole lot of stuff put together”. Here, however, “Rome” does not mean “the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ” but “those having office in the Church, especially at the Holy See, and the way things go there”, nor does defecting here denote precisely apostasy.)
I’m afraid that too much of our ecclesiology has taken on the trappings of politics i.e. who is perceived to have the most power and influence in the Church. It is clear that bishops by their own doings or negligence have lost a great deal of influence over the faithful. And the lacunae in leadership has been filled (largely on account of the wide appeal made possible by the internet) by certain laymen. This does not go over well with certain bishops whose authority is seen as largely irrelevant – again by their own misdeeds and lack of leadership. We are in a time when the sheep are not turning to their shepherds for leadership but to the stronger sheep in the flock.
Bishop Barron strikes me as a member of the Church of Now. I know many sincere Catholics in the same boat. I would put George Weigel in that boat, and folks like Scott Hahn. They may comprehend the intellectual concept that life within the Church was different before modern times, pre-Vatican II, but there’s no internalization of that truth. They lack either the experience or the imagination or both to actually appreciate what the liturgical and secular life of a faithful Catholic was before 1960, and as a result they simply cannot understand why “traditionalists” have any problem. It’s easy to say phrases like “hermeneutic of continuity” and “there is no such thing as a pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Church” when one only spends time thinking, breathing, and worshiping in the Now. It gets more difficult to pretend there was no rift the deeper one goes into the mindset and life of the faithful before Vatican II. In my opinion, anyone who does not make the effort to at least appreciate and experience the traditional liturgy that formed the Church for well over a thousand years does not have the right to form any opinions worth listening to about the state or future of the Church, regardless of their clerical status.
I think Jacob makes a good point, too. For many it is also part of a personal investment in the cult of personality of St. John Paul II – which is one of the dangers of a cult of personality.
This mindset is not in any way unique. Modern men everywhere seem unable to appreciate that history was made by men and not caricatures of men. That previous ages had their follies and their wisdom, but lived with a different world view than our current age, a fact that does not warrant condemnation of all previous ages. One could wax philosophical for a long time on this subject . . .
Bishop Barron, I think, was prompted to have the meeting about trads because he was bashed on social media. He has a vibrant following, his approach to evangelizing has helped many, and his Word in Fire project gets a lot of praise. So I think he was truly baffled when he received harsh criticism online. I think he wants to understand what motivates trads and how to respond to them effectively.
Bishop Barron seems to like TAC very much; it is within his geographical responsibilities, and he has visited it a number of times. The NO is offered in Latin at TAC, and the TLM is celebrated there, too. Bishop Barron seems completely fine with this, so I’m led to believe he is simply trying to find a way to understand trads whose responses to him seem excessively harsh.
Barnacle’s excellent comment sums up the similar experiences of thousands, even millions. Vatican II “smashed through the whole beautiful Old Church like a wrecking ball…” There is no way to deny it.
Not really a secret meeting when anyone can watch it on the app, FB, etc. It was open to the public. I chalk this up to another example of what happens when one does not read the actual documents. My experience, this “Spirit of Vatican II” syndrome is alive and well in the traditionalist/liberal/sede-vacantist wings of the Church. The Vatican II series by Bishop Barron is to encourage evangelization and to encourage people to actually read the documents.
To the point of “Padre Pio Devotee says:
19 August 2020 at 9:38 PM”:
I do, too. It is not only necessary, it is well past due.
I am also very interested that the discussions involve topics that Archbishop Lefebvre presented long ago, topics he was severely criticized for addressing, he himself being marginalized as a some sort of lunatic and persecuted while rank heretics were left to seed the entire Church with their lies.
Today, thankfully, the discussion is spreading and shows no signs of going away, with more and more entering into the debate. I’d call that a pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel.
Bishop Barron is an Auxilliary Bishop in our Archdiocese of Los Angeles. I’ve met him and had lunch with him. I listen to his homilies and love watching his videos. But I’m not a “Follower of Bishop Barron”, in the sense that he is the final authority. I think he’d be glad about that, just as I am glad that nobody that I know of follows me that way either.
Just this week I got a letter from a parishioner who disagreed with something I’ve said. I was happy to get the letter because he had the wisdom to tell me directly about it instead of talking about it with other people in the parish. I wrote him back and thanked him for addressing me directly. I explained to him what I had meant by my comment and that I think he had taken my words in the wrong way, which sometimes happens.
Why don’t we ask Bishop Barron about all of this?
I have to admit, I don’t exactly know what the term “the New Evangelization” means…Like so many
catchy phrases, it is vague and somewhat warm and fuzzy? Let’s be honest- if there is to be any evangelization, it ought to be directed to members of the Church, i.e. Catholics of today- the catechesis of the past 50 years has been abysmal- a sham, a failure, and has resulted in 2 generations of “catholics” who know very little if anything of the Faith. Coupled with this is the degeneration of the liturgy and of course, the scandals. And people wonder why only a fraction of Catholics believe in the True Presence? The Church post VII has become lukewarm at best, and utterly clueless and nearly apostate, if truth be told. But, Benedict told us the Church would become smaller, purer as time unfolds. Thank you Fr, Z for all your good guidance and efforts.
WVC: About Scott Hahn, see last month’s video “Why Scott Hahn attends Traditional Latin Mass.” George Weigel has criticized Michael Sean Winters, stated “Read the black and do the red” in a piece against liturgical buffoonery, and has written that “synodality” can function as propaganda for imposing progressivism on the Church.
Kate: Not quite, take a closer look. WOF’s inability to tolerate constructive criticism and their rejection of numerous invitations for dialogue indicates a problem in their camp.
gouletdrg: Note who participated in that meeting, also note when one reads the VII documents there is more than one problematic area worthy of discussion.
Since we can’t read people’s minds, it’s a fruitless exercise to try and imagine what Bishop Barron’s motives are for doing what he does. It would be great if he would explain himself better and what he thinks about this topic of so-called radical trads.
@Semper Gumby – That’s great news about Scott Hahn. I was not aware. Last I had heard, he was big into the “Charismatic” movement.
About Weigel, I don’t know if I’ve read an article by him about the state of affairs today where he hasn’t made some kind of snide comment against “the fever swamps of the far right” by which he means “traditionalists.” He seems a sincere Catholic, and against the new Catholic Red Guard, but unless something’s changed he seemed to have no real understanding of the traditional thoughts and practices of the Church.
I didn’t mean to say that Scott Hahn, Weigel, or Bishop Barron weren’t good Catholics who love the Church and who oppose the Fish Wrap and Amerika type “c”atholics. It’s just that what I’ve heard or read from them seemed to betray a lack of empathy with the actual ways and means of the Church which existed for many, many years before Vatican II and our modern era. Sorry if I came across as being contra-Barron or Hahn or anyone like that.
To the question placed by “FrJohnDowney says:
20 August 2020 at 9:50 AM”,
I did above reference words straight from Bishop Barron. Together with his response to the question asked of him in apparent good faith by Ben Shapiro, we obtain through his clear ambiguity a measure of his beliefs.
WVC: Good point, Weigel does get a little carried away sometimes (such as recommending reading only certain Catholic media), but the Fishwrap thinks he’s one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Excellent.
As for Bp. Barron and WOF, hopefully they’ll loosen their grip on Vatican II.
GK Chesterton: “To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”
FrJohnDowney asks, “Why don’t we ask him (Bp Barron)?”
Father, he has been invited to have a respectful dialogue with several of the “radtrads” he disparages; he has not deigned to respond. And that is a shame because the very people he rails against in Catholic media could possibly enlighten him about a great many things…their motives being among them. It’s a shame because I truly believe he is “protesting too much.” He’s too smart to continue to rebuff the TLM and those who love it.
I think that while answering questions posed by high profile people such as John Henry Weston is good, [probably John Henry Crosby of the Hildebrand Project. ] the voices of the more common laity at the parish level are left out. It’s not just Bishop Baron who is making this mistake, though. Many of our bishops, for some reason or another, fail to go where Traditionalist Catholics participate in the Mass and thus, the life of the Church. Is it out of fear of acknowledging the Traditional Latin Rite or out of personal preference for the Novus Ordo? In either case, it would be good for all of our bishops to remember the prophetic words of Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen that it would be the laity who will save the Church. They cannot ignore the Trads in their flock and expect Our Lord to approve their imbalanced discharge of their holy offices.