On January 19, 2026, Timothy Flanders published an article at OnePeterFive, the website that he serves as Editor-in-Chief.
In it, Flanders provides readers with a list of what he calls, “Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement,” which he describes as “the common denominators which unite all those who call themselves ‘traditional Catholics.’”
According to Flanders, the category known as “traditional Catholic” can be further broken down into various “clans,” each of which diverge from the others on certain philosophical and theological matters.
Flanders mentions the existence of traditional Catholic clans several times in the article, an idea presumably inspired by the valiant efforts of Michael J. Matt, Publisher of the nation’s oldest…
Regardless of his inspiration, the truth of the matter is that there’s no such thing as a “traditional Catholic,” much less any “clans” among them, no more than there is such a thing as a “Christian Catholic” as opposed to a non-Christian Catholic. Being Catholic necessarily means being traditional.
The word “tradition” comes from the Latin verb tradere, which means to pass down or to transmit, e.g., the truths of the Faith such as they have been handed down from generation to generation throughout the ages.
A Catholic necessarily embraces each and every one of these truths of the Faith, i.e., “traditional” is one’s nature as Catholic, it is not a type of Catholic.
Before providing his list of so-called non-negotiables, Flanders gives a shout out to what he calls “Trad Godfathers,” certain notable teachers and defenders of the Faith who lived before the conciliar revolution.
Among them is Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whom Flanders quotes at great length. No doubt the eminent Dominican theologian was a giant in his field, but I found it odd that he received so much attention in this article.
In 2022, I had a cordial but somewhat shocking Facebook exchange with Peter Kwasniewski, a Contributing Editor at OnePeterFive, wherein I shared for his consideration citations taken from Garrigou-Lagrange’s treatment of the Church’s infallibility.
Kwasniewski’s response was to say that while Garrigou-Lagrange was a great Thomist, he was also “a man of his age and culture” and, as such, his writing admits of some “real excesses” that need to be “pruned.”
Now, is that any way to speak about the ecclesiological insights of a man that Flanders hailed as “the sacred monster of Thomism,” an epithet attributed to the French Catholic novelist François Mauriac?
Even at this early stage in Flanders’ article, the reader (having been apprised of Kwasniewski’s dismissiveness of Garrigou-Lagrange, the former being the de facto CEO of Trad, Inc.) is getting a sense for just how non-traditional – and illogical – the so-called “Trad Movement” truly is.
At long last, Flanders provides, at least in part, his much-anticipated list:
First of all, our editorial stance [at OnePeterFive] names three non-negotiables which unite Trads with other non-Trad Catholics:
- We accept Pope Leo as the reigning pontiff
- Vatican II is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church
- The New Mass and Sacraments are valid
For my part, “non-negotiable” #2 is where the rubber hits the road. If it’s not true, then neither is #1 (applicable to Paul VI on forward). As for #3, this subject merits more attention than we will give it here.
Flanders immediately mentioned the “pious doubts” that existed about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s so-called pontificate before explaining the editorial position of OnePeterFive on the status of papal claimants:
Unless something definitive happens – like the death of the pope, an “Imperfect Council,” or some other act of God – we will still accept the reigning pope as the Roman pontiff.
By “reigning pope,” he obviously means whoever is widely acknowledged as the acting head of the conciliar enterprise presently in occupation of the Vatican.
Though he chose not to elaborate on precisely what “definitive” means, Flanders seems to be saying that there is nothing a papal claimant (like Bergoglio or Prevost) can do – presumably short of publicly declaring his departure from the Catholic faith, or attempting to infallibly define an obvious heresy – that would move the brain trust at OnePeterFive (and “Trads” more broadly) to reject that man’s claim to the Chair of Peter.
In other words, he believes that the supposed pope can authoritatively teach all manner of heresy, blasphemy, and grave error in matters of faith and morals and still remain not only a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, but also its visible head on earth!
Since making lists is the theme of the day: In order to embrace this foolish notion, one must first reject what has been handed down (i.e., tradition) on such gravely serious doctrines as:
1) the requirements for membership in the Church
2) the visible nature of membership in the Church
3) the infallibility of the Church
4) the Sacred Magisterium as the proximate and universal criterion of truth in matters of faith and morals
5) the unique gifts and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff
Flanders went on to say that “a traditionalist is not a sedevacantist,” although he quickly clarified that sedevacantists “deserve the name ‘Catholic.’”
How nice of him, eh?
Actually, no, not really.
I don’t know Timothy Flanders personally, but he strikes me as a decent guy. That said, he also happens to be incredibly confused.
Recall that the first non-negotiable on his list is that Pope Leo XIV must be accepted as the reigning pontiff. Now, if Leo really is the reigning pontiff, then sedevacantists most certainly do not deserve the name “Catholic,” rather, they would be deserving of the name schismatic.
Saying so plainly, especially in the context of this attempt to produce a list of non-negotiables of the Trad Movement, wouldn’t be rude, it would be the only Catholic conclusion that one could possibly draw.
The fact that Flanders doesn’t do so demonstrates the degree to which the so-called Trad Movement is anchored, not in the unchanging truths of the Catholic faith but rather in personal opinion and emotionalism.
He went on to say that the sedevacantist position is drawn “from presuppositions which are Hyperpapalist.” [Flanders later defines what Hyperpapalsim entails. We’ll get to that shortly.]
The phrase Hyperpapalist comes directly from the Chair of Peter (Kwasniewski), the same man who insists that the time is neigh to “rethink the papacy” such as the Church has always described the Roman Pontiff’s unique gifts, rights, and prerogatives.
Explain to me exactly how these people have any credible claim to the appellation traditional?
At this, Flanders provided “those specific non-negotiables which unite all Trads,” whereas his previous list concerned that which unites “Trads with other non-Trad Catholics.”
Needless to say, based on what was stated previously about the inextricable relationship between “Catholic” and “traditional,” there is no such thing as a non-Trad Catholic!
That clarified, following is Flanders’ list of three non-negotiables, addressed one at a time:
A traditionalist Catholic defends the Latin Mass (and the other monuments of our forefathers) against the New Iconoclasm occasioned by Vatican II.
So, among the non-negotiable tenets of the “Trad Movement” is that Vatican II, despite being a valid ecumenical council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, set in motion an attack against the ancient Roman Rite.
Who claiming to be “Christian” firmly believes that an exercise of the Supreme Magisterium of the Catholic Church – in this case, the world’s bishops teaching with and under Peter – can make war against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? [HINT: Starts with a “P” and ends with a “rotestant.”]
A traditionalist Catholic takes the Oath against Modernism: he defends all traditional doctrines of faith and morals (and all traditional devotions) against Modernism and Neo-Modernism.
I suppose he means to say that traditionalist Catholics embody the Oath, i.e., surely, he’s not suggesting that everyone who wishes to join team “Trad” is required to formally recite, or to sign, the Oath.
In any case, his point is that the “Trad” must “sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport” (as stated in the Oath).
Flanders elaborates, rightly stating that the Oath taker is obligated to defend all traditional doctrines of faith and morals.
What Flanders means by “defend” isn’t made entirely clear, but presumably he means reject as incompatible with the traditional doctrines of faith and morals as taught by the Sacred Magisterium.
How can anyone logically, at one and the same time, pledge acceptance of Vatican II – with all of its blatant errors – as a valid ecumenical council of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and yet also claim faithfulness to the Oath Against Modernism?
The answer is that this is not possible as these two propositions are contradictory and thus mutually exclusive, which explains why Paul VI did away with the Oath.
Moving on:
A traditionalist Catholic believes that “Liberalism is a sin,” heresy or at least an error against the Catholic faith and therefore resists all Liberalism promoted by Popes, Bishops or Priests.
Here we have yet another contradiction insofar as the Roman Pontiff – according to the traditional doctrine that the “Trad” supposedly has a non-negotiable obligation to defend – “is the proximate rule of faith” for the Church. (See Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1919).
What does this mean exactly? Msgr. G. Van Noort explains:
The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. (See Christ’s Church: Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, 1957)
This being so, the very notion of a Roman Pontiff promoting Liberalism (which entails freedom of religion, conscience, creed, etc. – all of which were espoused at Vatican Council II) is an irreconcilable contradiction.
To be clear, Flanders isn’t just engaging in hypotheticals here. The fact is, as he most certainly would acknowledge, each of the post-conciliar claimants to the Chair of Peter have used authoritative papal instruments [sic] to promote all manner of Liberalism.
Now perhaps the reader can appreciate why Peter Kwasniewski is so keen to rethink the papacy, namely, because the papacy as understood according to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church is utterly incompatible with the Resist-the-Pope enterprise.
At this, we come to Flanders’ definition of Kwasniewski’s brainchild, Hyperpapalism, which Trad, Inc. considers the primary crime (or perhaps sin) upon which sedevacantism rests.
Hyperpapalist – the pope can never be in error or heretical, and his will is the will of the Holy Spirit, and thus anything less than blind obedience to him is schismatic (Tolerated Opinion)
As stated, I’m happy to assume that Timothy Flanders is a decent enough guy. Even so, there is no excuse whatsoever for what, at best, is the intellectual laziness on display here.
I have never (and I highly doubt that Flanders has either) come across even one serious person who holds to the sedevacante position and who endorses a policy of “blind obedience” to the pope, or who believes that the pope’s will is necessarily the will of the Holy Ghost.
That Flanders descends to such utterly bogus accusations is a tacit admission that the “Trad Movement” has nothing more to offer in response to the sedevacantist position than emotional objections and mischaracterizations.
Flanders went on to provide the favored “Theological School” of the Trad Movement. [Note: For the sake of brevity, the boundaries of which have long since been obliterated in this post, I will refrain from commenting on the “Papal Maximalist” and “Neo-Jansenist” categories as described in the article.]
Papal Minimalist – the pope can become a heretic and err outside his ex cathedra statements (although this can only happen rarely, due to the general protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit). The pope is bound to Tradition in his liturgical acts, and thus he can be disobeyed even in things not manifestly sinful but only according to a well-formed conscience. Public resistance to ecclesiastical authority can only be justified for a manifestly grave cause (Probable Opinion).
Where has Timothy Flanders been for the past several decades? More to the point, where does he think the general protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit went from the 1960s to the present?
Under Francis, whom he and his confreres called “Holy Father,” the one thing that only happened rarely was authentic, unadulterated Catholic teaching! And Leo is evidently committed to following the same pattern.
As for the idea that public resistance to ecclesiastical authority (including that of the Roman Pontiff) can only be justified for a manifestly grave cause, one notes that Flanders doesn’t define what constitutes “a manifestly grave cause,” much less does he tell readers who gets to make that determination.
The answer, of course, is that it is up to the individual “Trad” to determine such things.
Flanders does say, however, that the “Trad” in question must have a “well-formed conscience,” but one is left to wonder: well-formed according to whom?
I think we all know the answer: That’s also the purview of the individual Trad!
If one simply strips away all of the pious-sounding language from the “Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement,” like removing the wig and the makeup from a drag queen, what is revealed is just another imposter. In this case, a Protestant enterprise that – much like the conciliar church to which it belongs – poses an even greater danger to naïve souls than those that overtly identify as such insofar as it has stolen the name “Catholic.”
In conclusion, please allow me to provide a couple of very simple non-negotiables of my own:
Those who wish to be, and to remain, Catholic have no right whatsoever to twist, contort, or otherwise redefine what Holy Mother Church has consistently taught about herself and the unique gifts, rights, and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff. PERIOD.
If the man-in-white in occupation of the Vatican, and the society over which rules, doesn’t fit the Church’s perennial teachings on these matters, then neither one is Catholic.
