Comments on: Traditionalists = Modernists?

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:33:29 +0000

Mr. Guenzel, that is wonderful news.

By: Dan Guenzel

Dan Guenzel — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:39:23 +0000

Tobias Petrus:

Sir: Father John Rausch is hale and hearty and says the indult Mass on a regular rotating basis in Milwaukee, which is, as you see, now located at the gorgeous St Stanislaus Church.

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:45:39 +0000

Great, MW, I’m glad we agree.

Thanks, Terry Brown, for the info! If Archbishop Weakland didn’t crush the Indulters, I knew that Dolan very well couldn’t let them wither on the vine. Do you know if Fr. Rausch is still around and what shape he’s in?

By: Terry Brown

Terry Brown — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:00:51 +0000

The Indult Mass in Milwaukee remains at Saint Mary Help of Christians through Easter Sunday. Beginning Low Sunday, the Mass will be located at the Church of Saint Stanislaus located at 5th and Mitchell Street on Milwaukee’s south side.

By: Marcel White

Marcel White — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:37:52 +0000

TP,

Thank you for your lucid explanation. I did not take any issue with your original post, just a subsequent comment.

I attend the Indult. My reading of the simplistic article was that it referred to traditionalists who find themselves in ‘peculiar situations’. If he is indeed referring to ‘indult communities’ then his argument falls down and I enthusiastically support your original analysis.

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:12:37 +0000

Marcel, I fear that you have not understood the basis of my response. I did admit that the sedevacantists, for instance, are crazy. Yes, there are people who call themselves traditionalists who fall into the categories that Mirus talks about. The problems is that not all of the things that Mirus says are wrong are in fact wrong — the Holy Father(s) have permitted the Indult Mass, for instance. Mirus makes it sound as though this itself is tantamount to heresy. Furthermore, as I said, the term “traditionalist” is simply not the proper term for the problem people, since everyone should admit that many brands of traditionalism are okay, i.e. in communion with the Pope. There are not just two extremes, but multiple ones. And one “extreme” is Mirus’, which simply and simplistically anathematizes everyone who does not share his own prudential judgments, without reference to what the magisterium itself has seen fit to do in response to the “traditionalist extreme.”

By: Marcel White

Marcel White — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:41:10 +0000

I think it is sufficient to call oneself Catholic. Very often when one meets a ‘traditionalist’ they will let you know this fact before they even divulge their name (on the Internet the name is always a Latin maxim, or alternatively one has named themselves after a saint, a peculiar habit).

If one is not an apostate, a heretic or a dissent embracing modernist, then they are simply Catholic. I think the term traditionalist may at one time have been a perjorative of sorts, now happily claimed by a wide variety of people.

The good Dr’s article is simplistic, but not totally without merit. People are falling off both sides of the boat and WJMH is wrong to say there is a “Scylla and Charybdis fallacy at work in a lot of contemporary thinking” in reference to the article.

It is undeniable there is an extreme ‘other side of the coin’ to modernism. The overwhelming problem in the Church today is one of disobedience. Whether one looks to the ‘left’ or ‘right’ (terms of art, and insufficient) there is always someone standing there. If you’re in SSPX then it’s a stone’s throw to SSPV. If you’re in SSPV then it’s around the corner from CMRI. From there it’s a hop and a skip to Independent sed priest, and then a short walk to ‘Pope’ Michael’s basement. To state there is ‘not two extremes’ is naive in itself.

The only difference between the modernists and the radical traditionalists is that the modernists are laughable, the radical traditionalists are downright scary.

By: unreconstructed

unreconstructed — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:55:20 +0000

That piece reads as if it was penned 10 years ago, when attachment to the Old Rite was seen as subversive and ‘traditionalist’ was a dirty word! …Ah for the halcyon days of old, when JPII was on the Throne of St. Peter, the indult just a temporary sop to some greying diehards, and the NO was the epitome of the glorious vision of the Council!

At the time of JPII’s death, I wondered if the conservative NO establishment would be able to continue without him – they were so certain of their arguments during his pontificate. No longer though. The old traditionalism=schism line doesn’t convince too many people these days, thank God.

By: Doctor Asinorum

Doctor Asinorum — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:03:36 +0000

Indeed, I think Dr. Mirus is remarkably naive. He seems to depend entirely too much on his own experience of both “modernists” and “traditionalist”, and thus, as Tobias sees well, fails to reflect in a detached way on the meaning of his terms. And thus, his evidence, such as it is, seems quite weak and misused, being founded mainly on a misconception of what Tradition is (and I would submit even what Modernism is). Finally, one is given pause by the hubris of a man who would give sentence to his brothers in Christ who cooperate fully with the Magisterial authority of the Church, even as they offer rebukes to certain defects of prudential reasoning.

Dr. Asinorum :)

By: Iacobus

Iacobus — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:59:19 +0000

Very well put, Tobias.

That Jeff Mirius is a curious fellow. If he’s the driving force behind the Catholic Culture website reviews, I’m not too surprised by this. Those web reviews are hilarious – Una Voce, Michael Davies, and Tan Books are all excommunicated as “overly-critical” of the magisterium. New Oxford Review gets the boot too for lack of charity, as I recall. Doesn’t he run CWnews these days?

By: TPC

TPC — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:39:02 +0000

TP,

An excellent reply. Soon after my conversion to Catholicism, I recall lengthy arguments with a Traditionalist over the ‘validity’ of the Novus Ordo rite. How, I asked him, could Holy Mother Church officially and intentionally promulgate something which was intrinsically heretical, knowing that there are millions of Catholics who have lived and died over the past thirty seven years who knew nothing but the N.O.? Would that not make the church herself evil? I could not then, and do not now, accept that as a believable position regarding the Church and the N.O. However, I do believe that the N.O. is flawed, perhaps fatally, in its structure, which is why so many particular Masses held under the N.O. rite probably are, in fact, invalid. A Tridentine Mass can be made invalid as well, though its more difficult to do. That’s a great strength of the rite, and reflects much of the wisdom of the Trent Council. The N.O. is easily invalidated, which is one of its great weaknesses, and reflects an overall lack of wisdom on the part of those who promulgated it. But, that doesn’t make it invalid. My very little brain will never understand why the N.O came into being, but I do firmly belive this (and have said it elsewhere): The Novus Ordo is sterile. It doesn’t make priests. Fifty years from now it will be gone. So will I, but that is besides the point. What will remain? Well, as I watch the six or seven altar boys (one of my own three sons among them – the oldest, the others are yet too young) who assist every Sunday at the Mass in our church (and, understand this: there are more boys who want to participate than there are spaces in the sanctuary) what remains will be Tradition, and the Mass of All Ages.

God bless,

TPC

By: WJMH

WJMH — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:41:18 +0000

Yes. Thanks Tobias. The gentleman seems like a decent enough fellow. I am afraid he’s just badly informed. There is a kind of Scylla and Charybdis fallacy at work in a lot of contemporary thinking–that extremes are wrong because they are extremes (to those who think they are extremes) and therefore a “centrist” position must be correct. This is tempting, but it simply isn’t logically true or even empirically true.

One of the things the hoped for motu proprio may accomplish is a dismantling of misconceptions of what traditionalism is. And if traditionalism means “Tridentine Catholicism,” well, that’s hardly an insult. Look at the great achievements that flowed from that Council. A rejuvenated priesthood, a spirituality more open and accessible to the laity, in fact–strong lay movements, especially in France. Hmmm…sounds like what Vatican II was supposed to be after…

At any rate, I do ascribe to the position that freeing the Mass of the Ages will have a considerable beneficial effect on the state of the Church. That is not equivalent to modernism. It makes no sense to even make such an argument.

I especially appreciate the charity of your comments toward such folks. All you Cornellians keep up the fine work on your website!

By: John L

John L — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:21:05 +0000

Here’s a further statement from Paul VI condemning Lefebvre that trads will have to reject – he (Lefebvre) is said to have committed the sin of giving ‘the sad impression that the Catholic Faith and the essential values of Tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the People of God, at least in certain countries’! See Michael Davies’ Apologia pro marcel lefebvre, vol. 1 ch. 15. I sometimes wonder if Paul VI was right in the head, since this ‘sin’ is one he himself committed in moments of lucidity. I note that the doughty traditionalist Davies was thus described by then Cardinal Ratzinger, in a message on the occasion of Davies’s death;

‘I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Translated from the original German)
9 November 2004′

(from http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2005/michaeldavies.html)

Davies’ ‘putting all his energy into the service of the Faith’ consisted principally in attacking the new liturgy. Sorry to trads who are familiar with all this but passing readers may find it of interest. I myself had my attitude to traditionalism entirely changed by reading these remarks of the current Holy Father.

By: John L

John L — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0000

Is it wrong to say the Novus Ordo is sacrilegious? In a strong sense of sacrilegious – the sense in which a black mass is sacrilegious – it is wrong, but there are weaker senses that could be justified. I think it could legitimately be called an offence against religion, in fact it implicitly has been by the Pope when he called it a fabricated, on-the-spot, banal product; obviously to use such a product to celebrate the eucharist is an offence against religion. I find it interesting to cite these words to ‘conservatives’; they just refuse to believe that they describe the Novus Ordo, and instead claim that they describe its translations, despite the fact that this means rejecting their clear sense. This banality is not all there is to its being an offense against religion; it appears that one of the guiding principles in its composition was erasing central Catholic teachings (cf. the work of Lauren Pristas). Of course the mere fact of its being a total rewriting of the liturgy is an offence against religion in itself, as the Pope has also pointed out.
Your defence against criticism I think evades some issues in pointing out that ‘traditionalism’ had never been condemned. One can find some statements of Paul VI condemning Archbishop Lefebvre (e.g. his allocution to the college of cardinals of 24 May 1976) that do condemn some traditionalist tenets (as e.g. the claim that ‘the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives’, condemned in the allocution in question despite its obvious truth); and in turn traditionalism means rejecting or criticising some magisterial documents of lesser authority, on the grounds of their being incompatible with teachings of greater authority. In general I don’t think you can make the case for the legitimacy of traditionalism without actually arguing for its substantive claims.