Hold to Tradition

@kennedyhall uoj.news/defending-fait…

Well, this is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read: fsspx.news/en/news/episco…

@AuditeInsulae Indefectibility was never identified with one see’s triumphs or failures. Rome defected from the fullness of the orthodoxy, in ecclesiology and pneumatology. As St Vincent of Lérins wrote “cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”

@AuditeInsulae Sure, all of that doesn’t prove Christ abandoned His Church. But the harder question for Catholics is can Vatican I ecclesiology survive a situation where being a traditional Catholic seems to regularly require testing, reinterpreting, even resisting the living Roman magisterium.

One of the deepest problems I have with the radical anti-conciliarism which seems so prevelant on Catholic Social Media is that it seems unable to accept a profoundly Catholic truth: the Church can pass through humiliation, confusion, scandal and suffering without ceasing to be the Church. Some appear to believe the true Church must always look externally pristine, triumphant and untouched by crisis. But that has never been Catholic history. The Arian crisis saw bishops collapse into confusion. The Western Schism left Catholics unsure who the true pope even was. Renaissance Rome was morally corrupt. Entire nations fell into heresy. Yet the Church endured through all of it. Why? Because the Church’s indefectibility does not mean every churchman will speak perfectly, govern prudently or avoid scandal. It means Christ does not abandon His Church. The Mystical Body follows the pattern of Christ Himself. And Christ did not redeem the world through worldly triumph, but through betrayal, humiliation and the Cross. At times, some forms of “trad” polemic seem to reject this entirely. The visible Church appears wounded, therefore it must be false. The hierarchy appears confused, therefore the Church must have defected. But that is not Catholic ecclesiology. It is effectively a refusal to believe that the Church can suffer. The saints never reasoned this way. St Athanasius endured exile during the Arian crisis without declaring the Church a counterfeit sect. St Catherine of Siena confronted corruption in Rome while remaining fiercely devoted to the See of Peter. The Church is holy because Christ is holy. Not because every age is free from darkness. The Cross is not proof Christ has abandoned His Church. Very often, it is where His fidelity is revealed most clearly.

@AuditeInsulae @PaulinusOfTrier @timotheeology I don’t think many traditionalist Catholics have wrestled with the gravity of this. Rome’s liturgical identity and continuity has dissolved. lex orandi, lex credendi is crucial. What does it mean when a communion’s normative experience of worship is distorted for generations. 2/2

@AuditeInsulae @PaulinusOfTrier @timotheeology I’m Orthodox Christian, but sympathise with the position the SSPX find themselves in. ‘traditional Catholicism’ is a tolerated subculture in the Roman communion. It is a drop in the ocean of Catholicism. Rome has moved on from its liturgical patrimony, probably permanently. 1/2

Superior General of SSPX recently said: "in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation." No matter how gae your novus ordo or its priest is, this SSPX claim is pure bullshit: every parish offers Communion and Confession. Is SSPX claiming Communion/Confession at novus ordo are invalid? Episode tomorrow at 6:00 CST ON R4R.

@AuditeInsulae @RorateCaeli There’s a deeper issue. Traditional Catholics are increasingly having to defend Tradition against the living magisterium. Rome is supposed to be the guardian of Tradition. This claim looks very fragile these days. Rome has moved decisively away from its past, never to return.

"Enough is enough. Enough with the mockery. Enough with the ridiculousness." — @RorateCaeli rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/04/it-loo…

@FrMatthewLC ”Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances” (Dignitas Infinita, 34)

Popes Francis & Leo are right that the death penalty is currently inadmissible. But, "inadmissible" does not mean intrinsically immoral. It is a judgment that there is nowhere on earth where it is needed to protect society from criminals. Me, in 2018: patheos.com/blogs/throughc…

@DrKwasniewski There’s a bigger issue here. If Catholicism is increasingly forced to appeal to tradition against missteps of the living Roman magisterium, then Rome’s claim to be the uniquely reliable interpreter of Tradition looks fragile. As Orthodox, we hold Holy Tradition as the sure norm.

@DrKwasniewski Francis seemed to teach the death penalty was always wrong regardless of the circumstances, now Leo seems to have followed suit. I agree capital punishment was always permitted. The dilemma is the living Roman magisterium is meant to be a safe proximate rule of faith. How so now?

The death penalty question is back in the air, ever since Leo XIV doubled down on the error of his predecessor. No, the death penalty is NOT "inadmissible." It is NOT "per se contrary to human dignity and the Gospel." It is admissible. It is permissible. It is sometimes warranted. It is sometimes even necessary for the preservation of the common good. All this is clear from Scripture, Tradition, and the solemn, perennial Magisterium of the Church. The *only* issue that can be debated is whether it is prudentially right in this or that situation or context. For a quick overview of why this is the only coherent position a Catholic can take, see the lecture linked here, given in 2019, and the shorter article from 2023. Of course, the literature is vast; Ed Feser's work is particularly commendable for its careful attention to both argument and authority. "What Good Is a Changing Catechism" rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/06/what-g… "The Horns of the Death Penalty Dilemma" onepeterfive.com/horns-death-pe…

@ArchangeloRom @ErickYbarra3 It’s in the next paragraph after the one you quoted there.

To reduce is to 1 single reason would be that Catholicism is the true Church. But the question is looking for what is the strongest piece of evidence that Catholicism is true over Eastern Orthodoxy. I would say the strongest is the defeat that the East receives in the Filioque controversy. As I explained on Suan Sonna’s YouTube channel, “Intellectual Catholicism”, the Orthodox would have had a good case in accusing the Latins for adding the Filioque clause to the creed against the rules of previous Councils. It would have been going against those rules if someone added that Mary is the mother of God, that the Eucharist is the true body and true blood of Christ, or any other orthodox profession. But the Orthodox took the matter to a very different level when they said that the Filioque doctrine is a heretical violation of the Trinity. They shelved Filioquism next to Arianism, Sabellianism, or any other error that destroys the Trinity. By doing this, they clearly reverse anathematize the pneumatology of the Latin doctors, at the very least. This would be to stain with poison half the root and trunk of the single tree you claim as your own. That right there is the biggest reason the EO are wrong, according to Mark of Ephesus. He admitted that if the Filioque is true, then the entire project of the Greeks separating from Rome is criminal. And so, quite ironically, Mark of Ephesus spells out the strongest piece of evidence showing how the EO are wrong.