I think it’s important for you to write a rebuttal to Mr. Flanders article and submit it to 1P5 so that the readership of that publication can hear your points. This system whereby everyone publishes only behind their private paywall promotes division. I love reading your work and I don’t mind paying for it , but 1P5 is free and provides a space where people can be exposed to an actual debate. Perhaps it would challenge Flanders and improve his work.
Thanks for this Joan. There's no paywall on this one! We try to keep all our important stuff free, and keep the paywall for fun or interesting extras to say thank you to the supporters.
A point not mentioned in toto but briefly biographically alluded to is that I believe both Mr. Flanders and Mr. Kwasniewski carry, as converts to Catholicism post Vatican II, from Protestantism (and in Mr. Flander's case more) some of those antecedent biases against Vatican I and proper magisterial authority as understood throughout the history of the Church that were not rooted out by proper Catholic instruction and leaves them in a confused state that results in their R&R mindset. The only alternative they see and one not based on tradition is they must use private judgment (protestant) to reject papal teaching they disagree with or recognize as contrary to their interpretation of constant Church teaching while still calling said teacher the pope rather than realizing they can not use private judgment to reject papal teaching on faith and morals but only comparison by right reason to what the Church has always taught magisterially succinctly and directly with most certainty up to infallibility and realize someone teaching the contrary can not be pope. They suffer from bad Catholic formation. (Perhaps I do as well but I'm a cradle Catholic so I have no excuse).
I found Louie's blog on this topic very useful: https://akacatholic.com/the-trad-movement-protestantism-in-drag/
I think it’s important for you to write a rebuttal to Mr. Flanders article and submit it to 1P5 so that the readership of that publication can hear your points. This system whereby everyone publishes only behind their private paywall promotes division. I love reading your work and I don’t mind paying for it , but 1P5 is free and provides a space where people can be exposed to an actual debate. Perhaps it would challenge Flanders and improve his work.
Thanks for this Joan. There's no paywall on this one! We try to keep all our important stuff free, and keep the paywall for fun or interesting extras to say thank you to the supporters.
Your Part 1 link is not working correctly.
Thanks, will fix it.
A point not mentioned in toto but briefly biographically alluded to is that I believe both Mr. Flanders and Mr. Kwasniewski carry, as converts to Catholicism post Vatican II, from Protestantism (and in Mr. Flander's case more) some of those antecedent biases against Vatican I and proper magisterial authority as understood throughout the history of the Church that were not rooted out by proper Catholic instruction and leaves them in a confused state that results in their R&R mindset. The only alternative they see and one not based on tradition is they must use private judgment (protestant) to reject papal teaching they disagree with or recognize as contrary to their interpretation of constant Church teaching while still calling said teacher the pope rather than realizing they can not use private judgment to reject papal teaching on faith and morals but only comparison by right reason to what the Church has always taught magisterially succinctly and directly with most certainty up to infallibility and realize someone teaching the contrary can not be pope. They suffer from bad Catholic formation. (Perhaps I do as well but I'm a cradle Catholic so I have no excuse).
1P5’s list of three non-negotiables which define its traditionalism is absurd, and in effect stands as a repudiation of same.
Consider the opposite proposition:
Sean Johnson declares himself a conciliarist, and lists the following three non-negotiables of his conciliarism:
1) Rejection of the legitimacy of all papal claimants since Pius XII;
2) Rejection of the legitimacy the Second Vatican Council;
3) Rejection of the validity of the new Mass and sacraments.
In the face of that description, would (or could) any thinking Catholic reasonably conclude I was truly the conciliar Catholic I professed to be?
How then could any reasonable Catholic consider 1P5 traditionalist in the wake of their own description???
Perfect. It's absurd.