Loading ...
There has been talk recently of a distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism.” This includes a critique of what some view as non-essential religious, cultural, political, and social positions (baggage?) often associated with Catholic traditionalism. Andrew of the Holy Whapping has proposed alternative models for traditionalism: “To sloganize the idea, think Latin Mass with an Ignatius Press reading list, perhaps. But of course, that’s a very simplistic example.”
This proposal led me to ask, “What are some positions generally associated with Catholic traditionalism, other than devotion to the Latin Mass and traditional liturgy in general, a critical attitude toward ecumenism, and a critical attitude toward the reforms (at least in their implementation) of the Second Vatican Council?” I regard these three as pretty much the defining characteristics of traditionalism, though perhaps not the only ones.
The rest of this post will be a list, not necessarily in any particular order, of other positions/attitudes often held by Catholic traditionalists. I base these observations on about a decade of reading books from Tan, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, From the Housetops and other materials from St. Benedict Center-NH, the works of Vin Lewis’ “All Roads Ministry,” Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Crusader, Latin Mass Magazine, Seattle Catholic (R.I.P.), Catholic Apologetics International, The Angelus, Christian Order, Culture Wars (not traditionalist per se, but a “fellow traveler” of sorts), Christ or Chaos (before Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey finally opted for the latter and became a raving sedevacantist in a roving motor home), and others. I think that this list is pretty representative of a large number of traditionalists. (If I had read less and prayed more, I’d be a saint by now! That, or at least I would have had the free time to get a girlfriend. ;)
So, here is the long list, with a description of the stances taken by traditionalists in the publications mentioned above. Nota bene! I am trying to be a neutral and objective observer here. Presently I am trying neither to defend nor criticize these positions either in themselves or as constituent parts of a consistent Catholic worldview. (Johnboy, please read the last two sentences again, slowly!) I also am focussing on positions taken by a broad swath of traditionalists, not on the particular traditionalist leaders (e.g. Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Feeney, Fr. Gruner, countless independent priests) whose actions and stances particular groups defend. For the most part, I do not address positions shared by “conservative” Novus Ordo Catholics, such as opposition to abortion and the “culture of death.” Nor do I mention the sedevacantists, whose irreverence is exceeded only by their irrelevance.
I present these positions since I am genuinely curious to see what your responses will be. Were my observations accurate? Are the positions at all typical of traditionalists, or of a significant number of them, or of the bloggers here? Did I miss something? Are these positions rational? Or are they irrational prejudices? Should they be maintained? Jettisoned?
1.) Homeschooling: better than both public schools and the parochial schools or those run by religious orders (at least those recognized by the Vatican). This is due partly to the moral, theological, and scholarly laxity of these Catholic schools (for specific issues, see #2-#4, #8, and #11 below) and their use of the Novus Ordo. As for public schools, they were devised from the beginning by Protestant and Freemasonic bigots in order to combat Catholicism (see #9, #11). Furthermore, according to the natural law, it is the primary duty of parents themselves to educate their children.
2.) Young earth creationism: the creation narrative in Genesis is literally true. The earth was created over the course of a week, a few thousand years ago. Microevolution and natural selection occur, but not macroevolution (i.e. the natural development of one “kind” of organism into another). Adam, a single man, was created directly from the earth, and his wife Eve from his rib. The narratives of the Fall and of the Deluge are literally true. Man walked with the dinosaurs. Darwinism is a noxious materialistic ideology that contributed to secularism, Communism, theological Modernism (see #17), eugenics, Naziism, and the New Age movement. The position more conciliatory toward evolution which Pope John Paul II, etc., adopted was not of infallible status and was mistaken (see #16). Intelligent Design Theory is good, but does not go far enough. Defense of geocentrism, whether as at least feasible or else as theologically less problematic than heliocentrism, is a lesser trend associated with young earth creationism.
3.) Further rejection of modern (e.g. source-critical) scriptural exegesis: Moses wrote the Torah/Pentateuch. King David wrote those Psalms ascribed to him. Isaias (for traditionalists use the names and enumeration of books found in the Vulgate) is the work of a single author. Job, Tobias, Esther, etc., are historical books and hence historically accurate. The Gospels and Epistles, etc., were written by the people to whom tradition ascribes them (e.g. St. Paul wrote Hebrews). The decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X confirms these positions. The Vulgate of St. Jerome is the best Bible, and the Douay-Rheims the best English translation.
4.) Sex education: belongs to the parents. Not even Catholic schools should teach “orthodox” sexual education. Corollary of #1. Sex education is part of a concerted assault by certain entrenched interest groups (see conspiracy theories of #11) against the traditional social order and its basic building block, the family (cf. #6).
5.) Natural Family Planning: while outright rejection of the practice as inherently immoral is rare (among others, Popes Pius XI and XII approved it), traditionalists frequently seek to maintain stricter criteria for when it is justified. There is criticism of a “cult of NFP” promoted in the “neo-Catholic” press (e.g. EWTN, see #16).
6.) Dress and the role of women: a generally more modest and formal dress code is promoted. Women tend to wear skirts, often exclusively, and longer skirts at that. The distinction between the husband as head of the family and the wife as helpmate is noticeable. Due to #1 and #5, being a housewife and fulltime mother is held up as a model career for women. The widespread entrance of women into traditionally male-only fields of employment is deplored as an encroachment of false economic ideologies (capitalism and socialism, see #12) and socio-political ones (feminism, totalitarianism, cf. #11) into family life.
7.) Music: Rock-and-roll is of the devil, being derived ultimately from the pagan rhythms of pre-Christian Africa. Beyond the sexualized and often revolutionary lyrics, the sensual-cum-violent beat of the music appeals to the baser passions. The wretched lives of rock-and-roll stars is part and parcel of the music.
8.) No Salvation Outside the Church: a dogma much forgotten today. Some groups identify with the stance of Fr. Feeney, some reject it (notably the SSPX). Yet all recognize the teaching of it in the contemporary Church as insufficient, Dominus Jesus notwithstanding. Failure to believe in the dogma is at the root of the false ecumenical movement and even of the liturgical revolution.
9.) Church and state: the American model of the separation of the Church and state is inadequate. Once a requisite number of Americans convert, the Church should be recognized officially by the government and non-Catholic religions subjected to government surveillance and censorship of varying degrees, as prudence dictates. The Church should take over public education (cf. #1), religion and prayer being part of the curriculum. Plurality of religion undermines social unity (see the part about the Inquisition in #11). Two problems of America are the religious indifference and the de facto “nonsectarian” civic religion promoted by the U.S. Constitution and by the general thrust of American political conservatism (see also #11 and #13). This innate defect of the American character and regime leaves the country prone to domestic subversion of Christianity (e.g. by the ADL, see #10) and the foreign policy claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” (see #14).
10.) Rabbinic Judaism and Zionism: a tendency to highlight the continuing Jewish rejection of Christ the True Messias, as opposed to focussing upon sympathy for the plight of Jews as victims of antisemitism. Generally “politically incorrect” critique of the role of Judaism and Jewish culture in world history. Admiration for the works of Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. Claim that Jewish mysticism — the Kabbalah — lies behind Freemasonry. Rejection of the “Christian Zionism” of so many fundamentalist Protestants and “neo-Catholics.” Criticism of the rationale for the foundation of the State of Israel, as well as disdain for the continued “special relationship” between the U.S. and Israel. Resistance to the idea that Jewish suffering in the Holocaust was an unparalleled evil in world history, and defense of the role of the Catholic Church in saving Jews from the Nazis. Sufferings of Christians at the hands of Nazis and Communists often held up as comparable, or even greater, atrocities of the 20th century.
11.) “Revisionist history” in general (I DON’T mean that term pejoratively, but merely as critique of the consensus of most modern historians):
– defense of the Crusades and the Inquisition, at least in principle
– rejection of the “Black Legend” surrounding Spain
– a generally conspiratorial view of history, with Freemasons, Protestants, Communists, feminists and other sexual revolutionaries, neoconservatives, etc., as leading conspirators
– rejection of the “Whig” view of history; defense of the Royalists in the English Civil War and of the Jacobites later; reactionary interpretation of the French Revolution and 19th century revolutions; admiration for the Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonial empires and for the Hapsburg Empire in Austria-Hungary
– debunking of America’s secular saints: critique of the Founding Fathers’ rationale in the founding documents of the United States (see #9); debunking of the Pilgrim Fathers and Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy
– criticism of Protestant/Masonic bigotry in America’s history (e.g. the Mexican War, Know-Nothingism, Manifest Destiny, the Spanish-American War, Prohibition, assimilation of Catholic minorities and immigrants into Anglo-Protestant culture, etc.)
– sympathy for the American Confederacy: slavery not necessarily morally wrong when master respects and cares for his slaves; Confederacy an aristocratic, agricultural, quasi-feudal society defended by Blessed Pope Pius IX against the revolutionary nationalism of Lincoln (Plus, few people love a lost cause as much as a Catholic traditionalist — and that’s not necessarily a negative judgment.)
– defense of so-called “fascist” and “reactionary” movements in the 20th century: Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, the Cristeros in Mexico, Dollfuss in Austria, Diem in South Vietnam, etc.
– critique of the Allied cause and/or methods in both world wars: Anglo-American secular liberal democracy itself identified as an unstable, imperfect, revolutionary form of government; war crimes committed by Allies, such as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire-bombing of civilian centers; too much conceded to the Commies after WWII
– denial that the Cold War ended in an unqualified “Western victory,” coupled with a belief that Russia has not converted according to Our Lady of Fatima’s specifications (see #15)
– claim that America and the European Union are being entwined in an Antichrist “New World Order” (see #14); Moslems taking over Europe
12.) Non-capitalist economics: traditionalists love private property, but often see unregulated capitalism as an impediment to widespread private property. This situation leads inevitably to socialism. Capitalism also instills greed in its practitioners and dissolves the bonds of family, community, local culture, morality, and charity. Global free trade is suspected as unpatriotic and immoral. International banking interests conspire against the reign of Christ the King and the good of nations (see conspiracy theories of #11), often resulting in unjust wars (e.g. #14). Historically, capitalism developed from worldviews that rejected the Church: longstanding Jewish involvement in usury (see #10); Calvinism; and the ideologies of the Enlightenment. Distributism, solidarism, corporatism, “back-to-the-land” movements, guilds, Third Way movements, etc., are proposed as alternatives.
13.) Distrust of the Republican Party: many traditionalists distrust the Republicans. They view them as cynical manipulators who use patriotism and cultural conservatism to turn out the vote and then abandon this to benefit special interest lobbies, e.g. Big Business (see #12) and neoconservatives-cum-Israel (see #10 and #14). Plus the Republican “big tent” is just too bleepin’ big. The GOP panders to Protestant heretics and seems to believe in the infallibility of the American Founding Fathers (see #9 and #11). Some traditionalists retreat into third parties (e.g. Buchanan’s run in 2000), political inactivity at the national level, or quixotic monarchism.
14.) Critique of the current Iraq War: many traditionalists are critical of the war, usually for the same reasons that paleoconservatives criticize it. There are the claims that the war benefits primarily the perceived interests of Israel, not the United States (see #10); that the war was planned by neoconservatives of a Trotskyite/Wilsonian democratist pedigree, not true American conservatives (see #11 and #13); that the American govt. uses the War on Terror to promote a secularized, multicultural, religiously pluralistic “New World Order” (see #9 and #11); that the war serves the interest of economic globalism (see #12). There are also concerns about the legality and the morality of the tactics of the war.
15.) Our Lady: Our Lady, via the apparitions of Fatima (and, to a lesser extent, those of LaSalette and Akita), seen as the solution to current world ailments. Russia not properly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and hence that country has not really converted yet (#11). A conspiracy within the Vatican suppressed part of the Third Secret, misinterpreting that part which was publicized (#16). Our Lady should be defined to be the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of Grace, and Advocate. Recent Protestant film depicting Our Lady enduring birth pangs was blasphemous — the Nativity was virginal, miraculous, and painless.
16.) The personal responsibility (including culpability) of the Pope and others: Pope John Paul II (the “Fair”) in particular has an inflated personality cult. The regrettable Assisi prayer meetings, kissing of the Koran, promotion of evolution (see #2), misguided condemnation of the death penalty, profuse apologies for past Catholic misdeeds (real or alleged) with the implication that the Church was responsible (see #8-#11), allowance for altar girls, confusing statements about “mutual obedience” of spouses (#6), Marini-orchestrated liturgical experiments (e.g. World Youth Day — see #7), botched handling of the Fatima revelations (#15), bad episcopal appointments, etc., etc., are mistakes attributable to the late Pontiff. Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI does not have entirely clean hands (see also #17). The new Catechism of the Catholic Church is not perfect. A sort of magisterial positivism and near papolatry (often identified as/with “neo-Catholicism”) has gained a footing in certain “conservative” Catholic organizations. For instance, EWTN promotes a near cult of NFP (#5) and promotes judaizing tendencies among recent converts from Judaism (#10).
17.) Rejection of the Nouvelle Theologie: attempts made to trace the origins of the so-called “Nouvelle Theologie” of the mid-20th century to the influence of the Modernist heretics condemned by Pope St. Pius X. Fr. Teilhard’s evolutionary theories (#2) helped bridge this gap. Jacques Maritain, Yves Cardinal Congar, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar (nearly a Cardinal), Fr. Karl Rahner, the former Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (#16), Avery Cardinal Dulles, etc., all at various times and to various degrees introduced dubious elements into contemporary theology, elements that tend toward the disintegration of a consistent Catholic worldview. A rejection of Thomism, such as that revived by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, is a cornerstone of the movement. Many of these men were periti at the Second Vatican Council, which explains why the Council went so fantastically, spectacularly wrong. Whereas Fr. Rahner once was the traditionalists’ favorite villain, now it is Fr. von Balthasar. He introduced elements of Protestantism and false Enlightenment ideas into theology, resulting in a probably heretical salvific universalism, a disastrous desire to “raze the bastions” of the Church (i.e. many traditions whereby Tradition was hedged in), and a very skewed understanding of Christ’s descent into Hell. The Conciliar crisis in theology cannot be resolved until Thomism is restored and the Nouvelle Theologie definitively rejected. That means that we probably cannot expect a full Restoration of Tradition (which is different from a “reform of the Reform”) until Pope Benedict XVI (see #16) and the generation that attended and implemented Vatican II has passed on. (Nevertheless, we can expect some practical, incremental improvements under Pope Benedict.)
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I have probably only read about 1% or less of what you have read with regard to far right periodicals but many of those things you state are my general observations, too!
You forgot obsessive love of Latin!! Attempts at Latin conversation, Latin phrases used to excess, cookbooks in Latin…Charming, and occasionally quite hilarious.
Hmmm… Interesting list, thanks for drawing this up. Do you really think that most trads believe in literal Young Earth Creationism? I’m incredulous.
Other than that it’s perhaps #17) that I think is most problematic in terms of the blanket rejection of non-Thomistic philosophical systems. The members of the Society have had this out before, but this seems to me to be straightforwardly silly, and furthermore is something that Thomas himself would have almost certainly rejected.
I suspect those of us who are converts, but attracted to a living tradition, are more in line with the neo-Thomists.
Hmmm….
Most the traditionalists who write for those periodicals seem to be Young Earth Creationists, yes. I submit that many traditionalists read those periodicals and websites, particularly “The Remnant.” Tolle, lege.
Do all traditionalists really believe all those things? Surely not all popes pre-vatican II would have ascribed to some of that!?
Matt, I did not claim that all traditionalists believe all these things. I am assembling what I have gleaned from those websites and periodicals I listed, which I do think many traditionalists read. That is quite a different thing from claiming that all traditionalists believe them.
Don’t forget insistence on the non-salvation of infants dying unbaptised - (in limbo, or for unreconstructed Augustinians, in hell). Such insistence usually involves the further claim that this doctrine is not a theological opinion, but defined. Perhaps it goes with a certain reading of No Salvation Outside the Church, but it is worth mentioning in its own right as a very distinctive divider between traditionalist and conservative (conservatives tend to hope for the infants’ salvation, or at least regard the doctrine of non-salvation as a mere opinion, albeit a venerable one.)
Actually, this one is a really difficult issue, and each side is far too prone to assume the obviousness of its position. And, as with many other issues of strict theology on this list, this division certainly predates Vatican II.
Oh, right, I forgot to mention the emphasis that many traditionalists place upon traditional claims to the effect that few are saved.
I should add that in my main post I am using the words “conspiracy theory” in a neutral way. Some people use the term pejoratively, but I do not do so here.
An interesting and valuable post. Still, I would normally consider myself a traditionalist, but after reading this list I must say I am a bit put off by many of the items. I’ve certainly encountered many of these views in traditionalist literature, but wouldn’t you say that these are found only on the more extreme fringes–the fever swamps–of traditionalism?
Also, I would like to add to #16 or give another point entirely–traditionalists believe that the papal magisterium did not spring into existence ex nihilo with the pontificate of John Paul II. One must interpret the last forty years in a way that is consistent–or as close to consistent as possible–with the papal magisterium of the modern popes going back to Leo XIII.
“The fever swamps” — this stuff is in the “Remnant” and the “Angelus.” Apparently none of the people who read this blog are aware of how many traditionalists read these periodicals?
Also, I hope that you’re not implying that the papal magisterium does not predate Leo XIII? ;)
Which particular things are standing out to people? There seems to be a tendency in the responses to refer vaguely to disagreeable patches in my observation without specifying which ones. Let Dr. A.’s post be your model if you care to distance yourself. Thanks.
Plus, there is a tendency of people to dismiss positions with which they disagree as “fringe.” This is because we like to identify truth and moderation. But by most people’s calculation, traditionalism itself is already a fringe movement. If I were to locate our own blog within a traditionalist range, I would say that on several issues some of our writers are on the “liberal” edge of traditionalism. There may also be a disconnect here between the old, established print media of traditionalism, in which I would say “The Remnant” is a very old and venerated publication, and the recent blogosphere of predominantly young, Indult people. But if you disagree with my observations, please do.
I think a bit more attention should be paid to traditionalist anti-semitism. The Angelqueen message boards read like Der Sturmer. Phrases like “the perfidious Jews,” and “the Jewish problem” are not uncommon.
Sticking to the sociology, I should say that, in London UK at least, there are increasing numbers of younger people attending Old Rite masses (now fairly freely available in and around the capital) whose theology is broadly conservative rather than traditionalist, and who happily see themselves as ‘John Paul’ Catholics. The traditionalist criticism of the late pope is not that popular with them. The disconnection of enthusiasm for the traditional liturgy from any markedly traditionalist theology is significant, and increasing with the rapidly widening popularity of the Old Rite. This growing popularity of the Old Rite with younger Catholics, lay and priest alike, suggests a bleak long-term outlook for the Pauline liturgy in its present form - but not a corresponding springtime for traditionalist theology.
That’s England as I see it - but America?
Fair enough, I was pretty vague. In fact, I reread the points and the only one I categorically reject is young earth creationism and on other points I differ mostly in matters of degree.
Young earth creationism would be harmful to traditionalism if it were made a non-negotiable point. But even in that case, I agree with most of the principles that certain traditionalists are trying to save in embracing YEC: the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the rejection of scientism and the “worldview Darwinism” of Dennett, Dawkins et al., the rejection of the literal sense of Scripture especially when it is inconvenient (Jesus didn’t REALLY perform miracles, etc.).
But one can agree with all of these principles and still reject YEC. For instance, St. Augustine in De genesi ad litteram shows that one can have a literal interpretation of Genesis that does not commit one to YEC by giving evidence that the sacred author did not intend certain words to be used in their eveyday sense. The interpretation is literal, but does not presume that the sacred author intended to teach a scientific theory in the opening chapters of Genesis. I doubt there are any traditionalists who would dismiss St. Augustine as a liberal on this point. Wedding YEC to Scriptural innerrancy and infallibility is just irrational and is going to drive people away from other aspects of traditionalism that help convey the faith to future generations.
The other points can be defended to a certain extent. For instance, there are good criticisms of the Nouveau Theologie, but there’s a big difference between Teilhard DeChardin and Jacques Maritain or, for that matter, between Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner. Plus, one need not reject everything these authors proposed. Many of the other points can be qualified in a manner like this that would make them much more plausible, such as the conspiratorial view of history.
I believe your observations of traditionalists views are presented fairly and accurately for the most part and I will take issue on just a few points. It would be an understatement to say that traditionalists do not always agree but I would say that most would agree with at least 12 out of the 17 points you presented. Not all are as well read as you and are not concerned with saving the whole world. Many focus on TAN books rather than the periodicals you mentioned, a number of which I am not familiar. Traditionalists like any other group vary in their interests, concerns and the degree of their depth into the movement.
Those born into a traditionalist family would take all of your points in stride without balking because they have been introduced to these ideas slowly over a period of time. Those who are recently converted to the Faith or have come back to it after being away will find a number of items radically extreme such as those from #9 thru #14. They will naturally use the traditional virtue of Patriotism as a defense to block out any criticism of country. And they will be completely horrified by thoughts expressed in item #10, for they go no further than the book of Exodus in their outlook on the chosen people, completely ignorant—willingly so—of Church history on the subject.
In #1 the Church in days gone by made it an obligation under pain of sin for Catholics to send their children to parochial schools. (Apparently the Church had something against Public Schools.) Traditional Catholics do not want to educate their children themselves but are left with little alternative.
In #5 we have the reason why traditional Catholics have more children than the traditional American family of one and a half children.
Regarding #9, I don’t think many traditionalists think about the Church ever getting the upper hand.
In #13 you mention Patrick Buchanan, a true traditionalist. Why wouldn’t he be the natural choice for President? Traditionalists don’t go for the excuse, “He doesn’t have a chance.” They are willing to stand behind their man.
Regarding the Iraq war mentioned in #14, traditionalists are truly split. Prime reasons of those against it, besides those mentioned, are that a “preemptive strike” is against the traditional norms of a just war. At this point the war seems one step above the suicide bomber in results of purpose and collateral damage.
To answer your question, “Yes, these are all rational positions that can be defended quite logically and should be maintained.” If you want to call me extreme, don’t try it. A friend has already labeled me a “Novus Ordinarian.” I await his post on these issues.
In response to Tom: Yes, that is true also in America.
Many young people - “The New Faithful” - http://www.amazon.com/New-Faithful-Embracing-Christian-Orthodoxy/dp/0829416455
love the Tridentine Mass and attend whenever they can here in America. I went to the Tridentine High Mass at St. John Cantius just yesterday and do so often. http://www.cantius.org There are many young people, and young families that are parishioners, and vast majority of them are in no way Traditionalists with a capital T. They loved JPII and Benedict XVI and Fr. Corapi, who says “I love Vatican II” - in his Catechism series, explaining the correct interpretation of the 16 documents of VII as opposed to the “spirit of VII” during that time, that would want to make you believe “VII said this ..” “VII did away with that!”
But as for Traditionalist Catholics, at least amoung traditional Catholics I know, they won’t even go into an SSPX church. They are disobedient and that is the facts. And it’s not only their views on the liturgy, and the Mass of Paul VI that makes them off.
*AMONG traditional Catholics
Here’s Fr. Corapi’s website. http://www.fathercorapi.com/index.aspx
Thanks for all the responses — I am learning much. Don’t expect me to call you extreme, Discupulus. I was a Buchanan voter back in 2000.
Young earth creationism - does this exist among creationists outside the US? It sounds like an effect of fundamentalist influence, as the idea that it is part of the faith is not a part of Catholic theology (it is rejected by e.g. St. Augustine). As for #10 - you are a bit coy; you need to include ‘hating Jews, because they enjoy hating them’ under it, as this is definitely an element of traditionalist thought. Two things stand out in your list; a sociological element and a historical one. The sociological element is that traditionalists are very much like a sect that defines itself by its rejection of the surrounding society, like the Amish or Hasidic Jews. The historical element is that they descend from an outlook that was once a considerable force in the Church (in the U.S., the Catholic supporters of isolationism, of that radio priest whose name I forget, and of Joe McCarthy), but that lost the political struggle during (to some extent before?) the Second Vatican Council and as a result was reduced to a tiny fragment. These aren’t criticisms. When the church and society is moving one way, people who resist this move are often going to be ones who are attracted to a sect-like approach to life, and even those who aren’t will be pushed towards such an approach by the situation they are in, that of belonging to a small and scorned minority. Nor is it surprising that the losers in a political struggle will be inclined to reject the positions of the winners wholesale. It does raise the question though; what happens now that it is becoming apparent to more and more informed people that most of the traditionalist views in your list are in fact correct? This leads to problems; the attitude on life of a sect can’t be passed on to a wide movement; although most of the given views are correct and some are arguable, some of them are ridiculous (young earth creationism) and some are repellent (hatred of Jews, belief in Jewish conspiracies, enthusiasm for the disgusting and rightfully destroyed Confederacy, hostility to the cause of the Allies in the Second World War (some of the criticism of their actions are correct of course, as will always be the case with any side in a war)). I will be blunt and say that it is imperative to avoid the good aspects of the traditionalist cause, which are simply the teachings of the Catholic faith, being tainted with their repellent aspects, which is exactly what heretical propaganda seeks to do with some success. When I talk about these repellent aspects I want to make clear that I don’t attribute them to all trads, and to acknowledge the great virtue and heroism of traditionalists, whose efforts to preserve the faith have put us all in their debt.
The word “conspiratorial” needs to be qualified a bit. It does not seem that trads actually believe all these disparate elements throughout history have been having secret meetings and planning every step of society’s march away from Catholic ideals. “Conspiracy” does, however, imply a guiding intelligence of some sort. To the extent trads perceive such an intelligence to be operating, it is mainly a preternatural and incorporeal one.
John L. — many people cite St. Augustine on the non-literalness of Genesis. Did any other Church Father teach it? Many people mention St. Augustine’s teaching as though that were the whole story. As I understand it, most Catholics for 1800 years simply assumed that the Genesis account was true. That alone does not make it a “part of the Faith,” but it makes it difficult to call young earth creationism ridiculous prima facie. I hold that scientific theories and discoveries are not a priori intuitions, so the literal truth of Genesis as an accurate account of the creation cannot be dismissed a priori. I think any position requires argumentation.
Secondly, I think that outright hatred of Jews is not common *among the people I am citing.* In those publications, there is no racial hatred of Jews. Zeal for their conversion, yes; racial hatred, no. I have read actual, honest-to-goodness neo-Nazi writings, and these Catholics don’t deal in that. Now, these Catholics may let their antipathy toward Judaism affect their analysis of current events somewhat. There does seem to be immediate suspicion of Israeli interests, for instance. However, they do have some rationale — the King David Hotel bombings, Deir Yassin, the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, etc. That is a very bad part of the world, and I don’t think anyone has their hands clean, except for the local Christians (in the main).
John L., I think that you are right in claiming that the “isolationism” of Fr. Charles Coughlin and the anticommunism of Sen. McCarthy fed into the traditionalist movement. Unfortunately for your theory, it has subsequently been revealed just how honeycombed with Communists the New Deal administration really was. I think that the historian Tom Fleming wrote a book, “The New Dealers’ War,” revealing how the Roosevelt administration manipulated the war for non-military reasons. In any case, I don’t know anyone at those publications who has stated that he would have preferred an Axis victory. They all condemn Naziism, Fascism, and Japanese imperialism. The question is if the Allied cause and methods were simply and absolutely pure. I think it is fair to say “no.” I do think that you agree here — the reductio ad Hitlerum does not justify Dresden, Hiroshima, Katyn, and the betrayals of Yalta.
Nevertheless, John L., I think that you have made some very wise statements about the sociological and historical development of the traditionalist movement. While I think we disagree about some facts, I think that you frame your aspirations correctly — a winnowing is necessary, not a wholesale rejection of traditionalism. The Indult and the blogosphere may mean the development of a younger, more liturgically oriented traditionalism that does not immediately “buy into” all of the positions of the older movement.
Pfui, I do think that the traditionalist groups I have mentioned in my list do attribute some of the actual planning to human organizations. Certainly, Satan and his angels are behind the “City of Man.” Nevertheless, many traditionalists do in fact that Satan “outsources” some of the work to his human minions. For instance, Fr. Fahey talked about an “organized naturalism” that opposed itself to the Church, which is “organized supernaturalism.” Fahey identified the Jewish nation and the Masonic Lodge as the primary naturalistic forces in the world, though with the return of militant Islam we might want to say they are the two forces in *western civilization.* William Thomas Walsh is popular among trads, and his book “Philip II” from Tan identifies a Protestant conspiracy behind the Reformation. Many trads of the stripe I’ve mentioned are fans of Abbe Barruel, who claimed that Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt’s Illuminati was behind the French Revolution. Plus, the current head of the John Birch Society is a traditionalist Catholic, and the JBS does deal in human conspiracies.
Oddly, one of the most extreme (even in my view!) of the traditionalist writers seems to agree with John L. about the potentially “sect-like” aspects of traditionalism. Solange Herz is a geocentrist, monarchist, Luddite, conspiracy theorist, you-name-it. She observed that the division into “liberal, conservative, and traditionalist” is as much a division of personality characteristics as of theology. She observed that the same tripartite division exists in Judaism, where the sects are conveniently named Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. She observed that acceptance or rejection of religious truth is not sufficient to explain this division since rabbinic Judaism is not the True Faith. Hence, natural differences between Jewish adherents led to the range of sects. Her conclusion, as best I recall it, was that similar forces may well be at work in Catholicism. There was a threat that Catholic traditionalists would come to identify their particular personality characteristics and charisms as the sole ones proper to the Universal Church. She would say that the traditionalists are theologically correct in the current crisis, and that their personality characteristics tend to reinforce their Faith within the current circumstances. Nevertheless, in different circumstances, different charisms might be needed, and in “normal” times (presumably before and after ther Conciliar crisis) the traditionalist mode would not necessarily be the best. (Perhaps I’ve added my own observations to hers.)
I think that a lot of traditionalists, whose communities and identity were forged back before the Indult, lament the fragmentation into sects. One of my particular objections to the Saint Pius X Society is that they behave as though they were the magisterium of the traditionalists. Sometimes you would think that they alone were justified in standing up to the Novus Ordo hierarchy and that if you don’t stand with them, then you should fall. Also, the Remnant newspaper and Catholic Family News sometimes encourage the SSPXers and independent chapel people to reject practically anything the Vatican offers. Yes, that is sectarian behavior. But that is getting away from my list of non-liturgical, non-jurisdictional points.
Similarly, the Catholic Traditionalist movement in France continues to suffer, even in these modern times, from its old association with the Vichy regime.
Vichy?! Vichy?! Is that really the best you can do, JSP? When I wrote this post, I was expecting to get some fireworks from you. ;)
Tobias Petrus,
You wrote a great post. I was tempted to chime in at several times - especially in response to Johnboy’s evil clone.
But perhaps it’s due to the Lenten Season, but I can’t get the desire and passion to fight Novus Ordinarians.
Me personally, I buy into Catholic traditionalism 100%. I say why not?
Those who laugh at biblical Creationism only do so because 12 years of Judeo-Masonic public schools or modernist comprised parochial schools have indoctrinated them to have such a reaction.
The biblical timeline works out perfectly — nothing with God happens by coincidence — each major epoch in Salvation history had about 2000 years in between.
Where does the Novus Ordinarian skepticism end?
Those who say a mature faith can doubt things like the whether or not Jesus Christ was actually born on December 25th or not and still be a good Catholic are fools. Eventually this type of thinking leads to greater doubt and eventual apostasy. Just because it hasn’t happened to you means nothing.
In reality it’s so stupid to question any article, no matter how small, of our Sacred Tradition. For instance, with regard to December 25th, are we to suppose that somewhere in the Apostolic Succession, the date of Jesus’ birth was not passed on correctly? Certainly, Mary and the Apostles knew this date. ((Has anyone out there every met a mother who didn’t know the birth date of their child?)) If they knew it, then of course the Church knows it. It’s no coincidence that Jesus was born at the height of Paganism in the world and on the darkest day of the year — there are no coincidences with God.
So, yes, I believe in it all — Christmas Day, Sts. Christopher and George, Creationism, even geo-centrism — I can’t prove or disprove it either way, so I believe in that too – if for no other reason than to tick off the Novus Ordinarians and I’ll teach it to my homeschooled kids just to tick off our Judeo-Masonic masters.
I’ve been reading this thread with interest but not saying anything because I’m not really qualified. I’ve read only the tiniest fraction of what Tobias Petrus has read from Trad literature, and while I’d at least heard about most of the issues mentioned on his list, I won’t claim to speak authoritatively about how widespread they are or the history behind them.
Obviously a recent convert like me is not likely to be a classic traditionalist. (In addition, if it’s true that people tend to separate out into sects by personality type — a theory with significant limitations, I think, but still — then I’m pretty sure I don’t have the classic “trad” personality. My mother used to laugh that I was in a state of conflict since I had a liberal personality and conservative views.) The only items on your list that I’d more or less dismiss would be 2, 12 and 14. But there’s nary an item there that I wouldn’t want to qualify, and in some cases qualify heavily. They all seem to me to contain at least a kernal of good insight, but often this is taken (in my mind) to an unfortunate extreme, thus neglecting other relevant truths. Such is the tendency of a reactionary movement.
Let’s suppose it’s true that the Latin Mass is now beginning to attract an influx of younger people and converts who don’t have the same pre-Vatican II connections to Traditionalism. A lot may hinge, then, on the ability of these different kinds of Latin Mass supporters to unite peacefully around the goal that presumably should be the most important to all of them, namely, preservation of the Latin Mass and other traditional devotions, and a resurgance of Catholic orthodoxy. On the side of the newer folks, this might require a measure of tolerance and open-mindedness about the views of the old guard. Some of their ideas are certain to seem strange/crazy to newcomers, but the shock or incredulity should be held in check. It takes a certain amount of humility is required to recognize that often one simply has untrained sensibilities that make it difficult to understand the purpose or wisdom behind a particular practice or view.
But some flexibility will be required from the other side as well, and this can be difficult since longstanding Traditionalists do have the sort of defensive attitude that is so common among members of a beleaguered minority group (or sect?). Many of the items on your list may seem to people fairly indispensable for revitalizing the Church, but others pretty clearly are not. As others on this thread have noted, Traditionalists are not pure and unfiltered mirrors of the Church before Vatican II; they have been affected by other historical developments that have no special relationship to eternal truth. So, views about politics or economics can surely be secondary to more central liturgical or doctrinal issues. We should be able to break bread with people who admire MLK or Jefferson or (yes, I’m going to say it) John Paul II. Possibly some room could even be made for people who have reservations about homeschooling. :-)
So I guess I would suggest that, in looking at this list and deciding which items you agree with, it would be well for each of us to consider also which seem the most important. Presumably we want the Latin Mass (and other practices that are now fairly distinctive to Latin Massgoers) to become more “mainstream” in the sense of bringing its graces to a much larger body of Catholics. If that is to happen, it will be necessary to make the transition from a sect-type mentality
I can see how the personality-sect identification model does not work; I became a traditionalist during a fit of adolescent rebellion. I too would qualify heavily the claim that the list above is the result of traditionalists becoming entrenched in a “sect” mode. I proposed it merely as an attempt at a partial explanation, and not a sufficient one, of certain traditionalist stances — really more as a threat to the movement than a necessary reality.
I think that for at least some traditionalists, the list above is part not of liturgical traditionalism, but of a consistent resistance to the persistent errors of Protestantism, the Enlightenment, and Modernism. I don’t think that the *principles* lying behind the 17+ things I’ve enumerated would have been so strange to Catholics prior to Vatican II. I know some traditionalists who view the undermining of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” as the root and cause of the liturgical crisis, and ultimately more important than it. Decades before Vatican II, Fr. Feeney wrote, “And by the way, when speaking of how to pray, dogmas come first, not liturgies.” That’s the necessary corollary of “lex orandi, lex credendi” — the belief is actually the thing being attacked by the liturgical deformation, hence the Faith is more important than the liturgy that serves it. For whatever that’s worth.
And JSP reminds me of some stuff I forgot in my list: Christmas really was on December 25th, Sts. Christopher and George really existed, the Fourteen Holy Helpers should be restored to their due prominence, the child martyrs (like Little St. Hugh of Lincoln) should have their cult restored, the pieces of the True Cross are real, the Turn Shroud is real, etc.
– TurIn Shroud.
Well, I think that it would be regrettable for anyone to refuse to break bread with someone else over these things. So long as we avoid near occasions of sin for ourselves and undue risk of scandal for others, we should be willing to break bread with anyone, it seems. Our Lord did so with prostitutes and Pharisees alike, when the latter let him. As Clara notes, that seems to be a problem coming from the opposite direction — against traditionalists — as well. I think that by relegating the “old guard” to the “fever swamps” and the “extreme fringe,” there is the risk of violating charity on that end. Of course, charity can still go hand in hand with candor and vigorous debate, which is what we’re all attempting here.
Part of the impetus for my post is the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center recently published a list of twelve traditionalist Catholic organizations and periodicals it deemed “extremist, anti-semitic, racist,” etc. Some of the groups I do not keep up with and may publish junk, for all I know. For others that I have read (including seven in my list above), this is simple slander and obfuscation. The Left is very adept at practicing its own form of “McCarthyism,” usually by branding its opponents as McCarthyites! And intolerance against Christians is often rationalized on the basis that Christians are intolerant.
I am always very suspicious of this sort of talk about “principles” being consistent. That can cover up all sorts of intellectual sloppiness. Part of having good principles is being able to apply them intelligently and prudently, and it isn’t clear that Traditionalists have always done that. I’ve agreed that I can see a kernel of insight in each of the items on your list, but then again, most mistaken views are motivated by some noble sentiment; it’s tough to be wrong all the way down to the ground.
Obviously the errors of Protestantism, modernism and all other evil movements, should be refuted, but the question is whether in their eagerness to refute heresy the Traditionlists are rejecting things that should be areas of agreement. Every heretic is right about some things.
I just think we need to be really careful about claiming that any particular belief is in keeping with Church teachings prior to Vatican II, even though nobody really held that view before Vatican II, just because of a perceived harmony of “principles.”
Clara,
I singled out “principles” because a number of the concrete historical situations, and hence concrete critiques, that I mentioned (e.g. the Iraq War and the continuing decline of the Republican Party) took place after the Council. “Nobody really held that view before Vatican II” would be an accurate statement regarding which of the things I listed? The closest I can come up with is the homeschooling thing, and I think that many advocates of homeschooling would say that the pre-Vatican II schools were fine. So even that is more of a post-Vatican II phenomenon. As Tom and John L. pointed out, yes, many specific criticisms and stances in my list were “current” in the Church prior to Vatican II, though perhaps more so in the early 20th century than in the immediate pre-Council years
.
Oh, you’re surely right, Tobias Petrus, that much slander and unfair treatment is directed towards Traditionalists as well. People like me, who have some Trad tendencies but who haven’t necessarily signed onto every Traditionalist view, get grumpy on some days when we feel like we’re standing in the middle of the road getting hit by cars from both directions. And yet, surely you should want the gap to be bridged at some point, if Traditionalism is to have any larger impact on the Church as a whole? Anyway.
Clara,
I singled out “principles” because a number of the concrete historical situations, and hence concrete critiques, that I mentioned took place after the Council. For instance, before the Council, the question of “How conservative is the Republican Party” was not relevant. But capitalism existed before the 1960s, and there were quite a few non-leftist criticisms of it by prominent Catholics. So, among those controversies in my list that did arise before the Council, “Nobody really held that view before Vatican II” would be an accurate statement regarding which of them? The closest I can come up with is the homeschooling thing, and I think that many advocates of homeschooling would say that the pre-Vatican II Catholic schools were fine, which is in agreement with the prelates of that time. The crisis arose later. As Tom and John L. pointed out, yes, many specific criticisms and stances in my list were “current” in the Church prior to Vatican II, though perhaps more so in the early 20th century than in the immediate pre-Council years.
My last post is a revision of the one before it, but Clara responded to the earlier draft, so I’ll leave both there.
Re: bridging the gap. I’d like the traditionalists to have a vigorous, honest debate with the rest of the world . . . and win it, completely. You can’t say “triumphalism” without saying “triumph.”
Okay, I’ll tone down the rhetoric a bit. Yes, I want traditionalism to have a greater impact on the Church. But even more so, I hold that, properly speaking, I want Tradition to triumph. Properly, a traditional Catholic is not an adherent of a particular stripe of Catholicism, an adherence that has more or less impact on the Church. Rather, I hold that a traditional Catholic is one on whom the Church, via Tradition, has greater impact. I really do want most of the Church to adopt again the things that traditionalists have been defending. So I am quite wary of shearing some things away in order to have greater influence.
But our topic here is precisely the fact that there’s a great deal of controversy concerning precisely what is “core” to traditionalism and what not. One person’s “impediment to greater impact in the furtherance of our goals” is another person’s “selling out part and parcel of our raison d’etre.” I’d be willing to let the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication be known only to Mgr. L. and God until the Last Judgment, provided the SSPX get itself regularized. The SSPXers apparently want the rescinding of the excommunication as a precondition to regularization.
Oh, and thanks, JSP! I knew that you wouldn’t let me down.
I didn’t really mean to attack you for making reference to principles; I only meant to note that we need to be very circumspect when using such arguments. On such questions as homeschooling, application is everything. We can all agree that children need to be educated and that there are many unwholesome influences to which they should not be exposed. But then we face lots of prudential questions about how bad the current options are and about the possible negative impacts of not sending kids to school. The meat of the debate is in these questions of application, so reference to principles doesn’t necessarily help. Similarly in many other issues that you mention, the entire question rests on the correct applicaton of Catholic principles to situations that had not been faced before Vatican II. Like I said, it’s just a warning not to be too cavalier about claiming the principles for your side.
On the issue of fostering a “middle ground” — I’m not suggesting that people need to abandon views that they think critical to the health of the Church. Of course there will be widespread disagreement on what those are, and I’m under no illusions about our being able to solve everything with a simple widespread appeal for more understanding. It’s just that I sometimes note longstanding traditionalists being standoffish or openly contemptuous of what you might call half-traditional Catholics, as if these people are quasi-traitors to the cause, or wolves in sheep’s skin. This is a bad way to look at things. By all means, continue to press those views that you think most important on the unconvinced or the half-convinced, but recognize that the existence of a traditional middle-group (if you will) is a hopeful sign, not a bad one; it shows that at least some traditional causes are reaching a wider group of people. And everyone should be prepared to be less tenacious about those views that they themselves recognize as being less important.
I concur with everything you have just said.
As I wrote at AngelQueen, here’s one non-Catholic who would be rather LESS sympathetic to Catholic Traditionalism if it were NOT for the “revisionist history” fairly accurately described in #11. It’s not necessary to be a believing Catholic to agree with most of those points. It’s only necessary to be free from Americanist and leftist propaganda and indoctrination. Long live Quixotic Monarchism!
Aaron Posted:
“I think a bit more attention should be paid to traditionalist anti-semitism. The Angelqueen message boards read like Der Sturmer. Phrases like “the perfidious Jews,” and “the Jewish problem” are not uncommon.”
AntiSemitism? Does it say Semitism or Judaism? There is a difference between the Jewish RELIGION and the Semite ETHNICITY!
To criticize one does not automatically make you criticize the other.
There are plenty of Semites who are not members of the Jewish religions.
There are plenty of members of Judaism who are not Semites.
So how is being critical of Judaism and Zionism AntiSemitic?
When someone is called a racist for opposing, not a race, but a religion, its just plain sick.
Don’t accuse people of being AntiSemites, if they are only trying to convert Jews.
AntiSemites want to kill Semites. AntiSemites hate Semites, for no other reason except that they were born Semites.
Judaism, however is a religion, not an ethnicity. Judaism is something you can join, or leave. Its not something you are born a part of.
We are not born Catholic, we must be baptised, and/or convert.
Just the same as Catholicism is not an ethnicity, neither is Judaism.
I hope that clears it up.
Oh, and another thing, traditionalists don’t hate Jews!
That’s gotta be one of the biggest lies about us.