* * *
1) I have always regarded "traditionalists"
as Catholics (and refer to them as
such on my web page devoted to them). I admire several things about them: their
zeal and concern for orthodoxy, their desire to see liturgical and
architectural excellence, their observance of traditional Catholic piety,
traditional Catholic morality, willingness to take on liberals and modernists,
desire to see people come into the fullness of the Catholic Church, etc.
I oppose (as a Catholic
apologist) what I feel to be errors and excess in their ranks. There is nothing
“personal” (let alone “hateful”) about it.
2) I know that most
"traditionalists" are not formally affiliated with schismatic breakaway groups, and that
sedevantism (the position that there is no sitting pope) is a tiny, extreme,
radical wing of the movement.
3) Similarly, I don't classify "traditionalists"
(excepting the most extreme ones) as "schismatic." I have used the
term "quasi-schismatic" in the past, but have tried to use it more
recently only in extreme cases. Most of what I write about Catholic
"traditionalism" is not intended at all to characterize the entire
group. In past efforts on the Internet (starting in 1997), I was usually
responding to arguments I encountered directly, or assertions of more radical
("radtrad") elements of the movement.
That will be the case presently,
as well. I have learned a lot over fifteen years, especially in recent
dialogues. I understand also that there is a large diversity of opinion in “traditionalist”
ranks.
4) Most
"traditionalists" accept the notion of the indefectibility of the Church. I have used the term
"quasi-defectibility" to describe a position holding that the Church
is still the Church, but in very dire condition and barely surviving. I've
always agreed (closely following my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.) that
modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. Disagreement with
“traditionalists” occurs regarding its exact cause and location, and
the solutions to the problem.
5) Most
"traditionalists" accept the validity of the Novus Ordo or “New”
or Pauline Mass (now also referred to as the “ordinary form”), but consider it
objectively inferior to the Tridentine Mass, (extraordinary form) and (as I
wholeheartedly agree) often subjected to the grossest abuses in practice. I
agree that all abuses ought to be eliminated, but the Church allows and
encourages liturgical diversity within a proper observance, so that people can
worship as they please, within a context correct, orthodox liturgical practice.
There are 22 rites in the Catholic Church.
6) I don't have the slightest
objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the 2007 decree from
the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available (that had been my own
position since becoming a Catholic in 1990).
I've been attending the only
parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended
the very reverent, traditionally practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there since
1991 to the time of writing. This book will consider as “radtrads” those who
insist on continually bashing the Pauline “New” Mass (whether they regard it as
valid or not) as somehow less than fully Catholic, or doctrinally
watered-down: along with insults towards those who prefer it, as second-class
Catholics.
7) Most
"traditionalists" accept Vatican
II as a legitimate ecumenical council, but (to various degrees) they
usually contend that it was "ambiguous" and was subject to an
attempted takeover by modernists in the Church, or of a fundamentally different
nature from past councils, since it was “pastoral”. I reply that controversy
and subterfuge existed on a human level in all councils. This is precisely why
we need the protection of the Holy Spirit, lest human beings make a complete
mess of everything in the Church.
8) Most
"traditionalists" believe that the
popes since Pius XII (the usual dividing line in radtrad and sedevacantist
analyses) are legitimate popes, though they make many strong criticisms,
including even accusations of modernism to some extent.
9) Most
"traditionalists" (and in this respect, not just the radtrads by a
long shot) take a very low view of ecumenism,
yet I have often observed that they classify "Catholic ecumenism" as heretical
indifferentism: something that Vatican II and encyclicals have consistently
condemned. They tend to think that it is somehow contradictory to the notion of
"no salvation outside the Church" or efforts to do apologetics and to
bring people into the fullness of the One True Church (which it is not at all). It’s a
confusion of category and intent.
10) I and most credentialed Catholic
apologists I know of, treat "traditionalists" as fellow Catholics.
Yet they (especially the radtrads) often refer to us with the highly insulting
description, "neo-Catholic." "Neo-conservative [Catholic]" is
almost equally objectionable as well (especially once one studies about what it
means in various "traditionalist" circles). Sometimes “Novus Ordo Catholic” or “Vatican II
Catholic” are used. We call ourselves
"Catholics" or (if an additional descriptor must be added) "orthodox
/ obedient / faithful / magisterial Catholics."
11) I continue to consistently
put "traditionalist" in quotes
because I deny that the self-identified group has a unique or exclusive
monopoly on Catholic tradition, or even that they have defined it properly. It’s
an improper use, in much the same way as I think “Protestant Reformation” is
improper: what happened in the 16th century was no “reformation”
from a Catholic perspective, but rather, a revolt. The very word is loaded with
prior Protestant bias.
I would call myself a
"traditionalist" insofar as I accept in faith (and wholeheartedly) all
that the Church teaches. I am willing to at least call “traditionalists” what
they call themselves, even if I put it in quotes, to register a
"protest" of sorts, whereas we
are given arbitrary titles that are downright insulting: that question our very orthodoxy or commitment
to the fullness of Catholic tradition. I think this is an elementary ethical
consideration: not referring to people in ways that are known to be quite
insulting to them.
12) As alluded to above, I define
“radtrads” (i.e., “radical
traditionalist Catholics”) as the rather extreme, fringe wing of the larger
“traditionalist” movement. These are people perhaps on the way out of the
Church, who may very well eventually adopt schismatic positions or even
sedevacantism. Those of us who have followed and critiqued the goings-on of the
larger movement have personally observed many people head down this road, right
out of the Church. Some of them I personally and repeatedly warned, to no
avail.
Radtrads can’t stop bashing and
trashing popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism: going as far as they
can go without technically crossing over the canonical line if schism. In
effect, they become their own popes: exercising private judgment in an unsavory
fashion, much as (quite ironically) Catholic liberals do, and as Luther and
Calvin did when they rebelled against the Church. They can’t live and let live.
They must assume a condescending “superior-subordinate” orientation.
It might be argued that the
fundamental problem here is one of self-important attitude: a Pharisaical,
relentlessly legalistic, know-it-all, holier-than-thou mentality, and lack of
faith in the authority of Holy
Mother Church;
also an unwillingness or inability to think along with the Mind of the Chruch. That
lies at the root. It’s “spiritual kindergarten.”
Often (quite humorously but
tragic-comically) it will occur in young people, all of 18 or 20 years-old.
Thus, the spiritual immaturity often exhibited may simply be part of the usual,
utterly predictable adolescent angst and testosterone-driven deluded cocksure
“confidence” in one’s own pseudo-infallibility, and superiority to those
unfortunate souls who happened to be born at an earlier date. The hippies in
1967 in San Francisco
were gonna change the world with flower power. Likewise, these young elites are
gonna transform the Church with their manifest wisdom (so they actually
believe). In one of my more colorful descriptions in my first book on this
topic (Pensées on Catholic Traditionalism,
Lulu: 2007), I defined the common radtrad mindset as a:
.
. . scenario of every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a picture of Pope St. Pius X in
one hand, and a dog-eared copy of Denzinger in the other, going around judging
(nay, trashing) the pope or an ecumenical council, as if they were some sort of
expert . . . This is self-importance elevated to the level of the profoundly
ridiculous; almost grotesque or surreal. And they are blind to this obvious
reality, which makes it all the more frightening. One can do that in Protestantism, as everyone
is their own pope, when it comes down to it. But to attempt it in Catholicism
is patently and manifestly absurd. (#129)
The term “radtrad” is relatively
recent, and is claimed to have been coined by Catholic writer Sandra Miesel (on
Catholic writer Amy Welborn’s website, Open
Book, on 16 March 2004). I have seen it in use online as early as 2002. I
myself have only mostly used it since 2010. Miesel defines it even more
narrowly than I do: as referring mostly to conspiratorial wackos and extremist
reactionaries.
Whereas attempted discussions
with radtrads always seem to center upon legalistic lines and criteria (valid
vs. invalid, schismatic or not, extreme historical cases made normative, etc.),
in my opinion one must go far underneath those ploys, to identify the faulty
arrogant attitude that is the premise upon which the legalistic games and
tactics are built. Historically, schism was regarded not so much as a heresy,
as, rather, a lack of love towards fellow Catholics. Quasi-schism partakes of
that same quality, since it is far down the spectrum towards canonical, or
legalistic schism.
13) As for “neo-Catholic” (it is claimed that this term was first used in a
radtrad book in 2002): if someone foolishly insists on using the title, then it
must be (logically speaking) because it is being used to distinguish oneself
from the likes of “[orthodox] Catholics” like me, who have supposedly
transmogrified into somehow becoming simultaneously "liberal" and
"orthodox" (by the application of this truly silly and nonsensical
term). One is either a Catholic or not. A truly “new” (“neo”) Catholic (as if
the term and concept can be redefined, willy-nilly) is a dissident or liberal
“Catholic”: a new kind of Catholic. But this is an oxymoron, according to the
nature of Catholicism. There can be no "new Catholic." One is simply
an orthodox Catholic, according to the tradition of the ages, or not.
Catholic (in its deepest
sense) means "orthodox", so to say that one is a "new
Catholic" is to say that one espouses a "new kind of orthodoxy,"
which, of course, is a self-contradiction. There is no such thing as a
"new orthodoxy." That would be, rather, a novelty or heterodoxy
or heresy. Thus the label basically reduces (but this is actually
consistently applying logic, mind you) to calling someone heterodox or a
heretic.
It’s difficult to find any
non-derogatory criterion by which “neo-Catholic” can be correctly,
non-slanderously applied. It’s a cynical, uncharitable attempt to create
division in the Church and separate Catholic believers into a
superior-subordinate relationship, with the "traditionalists" being
the ones who "get it" and the "neo-Catholics" being dupes
and fellow travellers of their liberal overlords in the lower hierarchies of
the Church. Either way, it stinks to high heaven.
For the mostly radtrad folks who
sling around this term, "neo-Catholics" don't simply sincerely misunderstand
the nature and causes of the current crisis in the Church, but are, in fact,
the very crisis itself. We exemplify it, and are the forerunners and
sustainers of it.
The Wikipedia article,
“Neo-Catholicism,” in one of its former versions (now modified), took a swipe
at me, citing my words from my book that I cited above in #12, and opining:
. . . they hold that it is
against Catholic teaching, or, more moderately, "UnCatholic" to
criticize the Pope even with regard to his personal opinions or public actions.
. . . . . . This belief that the Pope in his behaviors and personal opinions is
beyond criticism has caused some Catholics to accuse Neo-Catholics of
"Papolatry" or "Pope-worship".
The problem is that I have never held such a position. I was contending
(then and now) that the criticisms radtrads make about popes are improper
because they are extreme, careless, made without sufficiently compelling
reason, and far too frequent; not that no one can ever make one in any
circumstance. I’ve had papers on my website for over fifteen years arguing that
popes can and should be rebuked in certain dire circumstances (one from 1997
presented as examples of this, St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi). Ironically, the current version of the same Wikipedia article actually cites this
paper.
My citation was wrongly applied
in the older version, since I made it clear that the mentality I referred to
was one of “judging (nay, trashing)
the pope or an ecumenical council, as if
they were some sort of expert”. It
obviously was specifically referencing extreme radtrad tendencies. But radtrads
are all about taking things to an extreme and digressing into an absurd, almost
self-caricatured legalism (including grotesquely exaggerated distortions of the
opinions of those who oppose them).
“Neo-conservative [Catholic]” is
usually used as simply an alternative version of “neo-Catholic”: with pretty
much the same inaccurate, logically absurd, and derisive intent. Because “neo-conservatives”
are those (in political categories) who used to be liberal, “traditionalists”
(especially radtrads) simply assume that the “neo-Catholic” is a theological
liberal under the guise of being a conservative, and the same cynical appraisal
applies: they think the "neo-Catholic" is at heart a liberal: at best
a relative ignoramus as to traditional doctrine and practice and at worst a
useful idiot or fellow traveler or a sort of infiltrating spy, in an
ecclesiological sense.
Needless to say by now, this
terminological usage is as intellectually ludicrous and indefensible as it is
personally insulting. Those who accept all the dogmas and doctrines that the
Catholic Church teaches are Catholics:
period!
* * * * *
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
