Traditionalism vs Twisted Novelty: It really is this simple, and this visible

From Louie Verrecchio:

QUESTION: How many long held non-infallible Catholic doctrines do you consider subject to rejection as possibly erroneous and perhaps even dangerous?

A) I believe that only those teachings that are obviously incorrect, insufficiently nuanced, or otherwise untenable in light of present-day circumstances are subject to rejection.

B) Technically, all of them are potentially suspect and subject to rejection since they’re not infallible.

C) None.    

If you answered C, you gave a solid Catholic answer. You also happen to be in the overwhelming minority.  

When push comes to shove, most so-called “traditionalists” (better known as tradservatives) will admit to holding position A, even if only reluctantly. For instance, following are three prime examples of long held non-infallible Catholic doctrines that tradition-minded Catholics frequently twist, gloss over, or reject altogether as they attempt to make sense of the current ecclesial crisis…

In each case one has a choice to make, to either apply what the Church has always taught to explain the present situation, or to redefine (that is, to twist or reject) what the Church has always taught to fit the present situation.

  • The organization presently in Rome claiming to be the Holy Catholic Church authoritatively teaches false doctrines. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about herself, the organization presently in Rome, since its doctrines endanger the faithful, cannot be the one true Church.

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: The organization presently in Rome is the one true Church, despite what the Church has always taught about herself. Yes, it teaches false doctrines, but not infallibly, and so we are called to resist.

  • Jorge Bergoglio fails to manifest the true faith; he actively opposes it.  

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about membership in the Church, Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic of any rank. 

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Holy Catholic Church, despite what the Church has always taught about visible membership in her. What’s more, given that most everyone considers him pope, we have no right say otherwise.

  • “Francis” attacks the true faith but claims to be the Holy Roman Pontiff. 

TRADITIONAL EXPLANATION: Based on what the Church has always taught about the pope being our rule of faith, the Divine protection afforded to the pope by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years, Francis is obviously an anti-pope.  

TRADSERVATIVE NOVELTY: Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, despite what the Church has always taught about the papacy, the Divine protection afforded to it by Our Lord, and the witness of the past nearly 2,000 years. Even though he is the pope, we cannot treat him as our rule of faith, rather, we must defend ourselves against his false doctrines!

Having considered these three fairly common examples, one must further consider:

What’s to prevent these same tradservatives from one day calling into question the validity of other non-infallible doctrines. For example:

Public revelation ended with Christ and the Apostles.

Some readers may be surprised to discover that this doctrine has never been infallibly defined, it is, in other words, a non-infallible teaching. 

If the anti-Christ arrived on the scene tomorrow, proclaiming to be God, his words no less than “divine revelation,” where will the tradservatives of today line up? One wonders, will they apply what the Church has always taught to the situation and conclude that the man is a diabolical liar, or will they accept his claims despite what the Church has always taught?

Based upon their behavior today, all indications are that many will follow the latter course of action…

Read the rest, there is much more: 

16 thoughts on “Traditionalism vs Twisted Novelty: It really is this simple, and this visible”

  1. Yes! I read this this morning. I was not aware that it was not infallibly defined that revelation ceased at the death of Christ and the Apostles. It really comes down to can the Pope/Church teach error? If they can, then what’s the point? Might just as well be a protestant…’s a much, much easier life.

  2. Unless you have the scriptures and catechism memorized, you are out of luck. The antichrist will point to them to justify himself. Unless you remember what they say, he will show you that scripture has always taught what he teaches. For example, bible have slowly changed the words so the Our Father in Matthew 6:9 tells us to forgive debts whereas we remember it as “trespasses”. Will come in handy for him when the global economy crashes..

    1. Dude “debts” has long been one way to translate that part of the prayer. There is a section of the Catechism of the Council of Trent that gives commentary of the use of the word “debts.”

      1. Pop quiz: ____ shall lie with the lamb.
        Fill in the blank from memory, then check the Book of Isaiah.
        Or tell me how many individuals were possessed in the incident with the man and the pig.
        This is one of the signs that convinces me we are in the end times. People have added and removed from the Bible, like God warns in the Apocalypse.

  3. Vatican I defined that the universal, ordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible. The teaching that public revelation ended with the Apostles is part of the corpus of universal, ordinary Magisterium, and thus infallible.
    As Louie points out, though, the Church holds that, being Divine, the Church can teach no error. Even if something is NOT “infallible”, it is to be held as such, because the Church teaches it

  4. I must admit that I have some sympathy for those who take option A, simply because they are attempting to take correction and instruction from Reality. Unlike the vast majority of moderns, who hate Reality and cannot suffer the tyranny of a defined and real Creation.

  5. Vatican I teaches that the ordinary, universal Magisterium is infallible, and the doctrine that public revelation ended with the last Apostle is part of the ordinary Magisterium (it has always been “recieved and approved” by the Church)…which makes it infallible.
    It has not been “extraordinarily” defined as such because there has been no need. It had either never been questioned, or has not been something (like papal infallibility) that would prevent the Faithful from falling into error.

  6. T,
    This is problem with modern “catechesis”. It encourages poor Faith formation and when Scripture is read at NO services, it leaves out “difficult” passages that “offend modern sensibilities”.

  7. God gave us discernment, and the way to know truth from lies. It does not rely on knowing scripture like a theologian. It does not require memorization of whole swaths of the bible. I have relied on it and in my opinion it is a sound method for determining the nature of things, who is trustworthy and who is not. It has made it incredibly easy, because even though I’m not as well versed as many about scripture or the church, I identified Francis as bad almost from the start. He refused to kneel for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and I did not recognize his voice as the voice of the shepherd, because he preached a new gospel, one I didn’t recognize. He refused to do his job, pass along the Deposit of Faith. What more did we need to know. I don’t understand why what seems perfectly obvious was so agonizing for people to accept, we have an anti-pope, at least. Regardless, God has not left us.

  8. If anyone is interested, I listened to a priest (sede) give a talk on the Syllabus of Errors. It’s about an hour and twenty and I’ve only been able to listen to half….but it’s very, very good. Learned that St. John Bosco had a dream and told Pope Pius IX he had to define papal infallibly.

      1. Kate, hope you enjoyed it. Another fun fact was how father said the Boy Scouts were preparation for young men to enter Freemasonary. Makes sense as they were founded in 1910. I did not know that.

  9. Well we can now witness as ‘Democracy’ attempts to overthrow Truth and enshrine itself as the standard of orthodoxy. Precisely the rationale for Tradservative dependency on ‘ Universal Peaceful Acceptance’ being the sole criteria for accepting the contradiction of Francis, despite that this is proven false via the historical record of anti-popes enjoying majority support. Could Francis be considered the first Trans-Pope according to this? So they acknowledge something is wrong, but politely use his preferred title? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake and consecrate the wrong body?

  10. I expect the gospel of antichrist to be similar to this
    He’ll probably add a spiel about how religious fundamentalist are like Jews in the New Testament times, not expecting his advent despite all the signs he performs, calling his “miracles” demonic. After all, didn’t they see the cross in the sky (illumination of conscience)?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.