You may have noticed from the title of my blog I identify as a “traditionalist.” For some, ironically even within the traditionalist community, that is a politically incorrect, inflammatory ideology. Let me explain then my traditionalist views.
They ARE politically incorrect, but for me they ARE NOT an ideology.
I will preface that by saying there are secondary aspects that are ideological, and that we all naturally follow ideologies of all sorts. The Marines have a different ideology about a military code of ethics than the Navy. In the world of fly fishing, there is a camp that ideologically believes all tied flies should be of natural materials. In medicine, allopathic medicine is ideologically different than osteopathic or naturopathic medicine. And in terms of the Latin Mass movement, I am okay with different ideologies about lifestyle, manner of dress, educating children, and the like, as long as that is only one’s own philosophical set of principles in addressing a particular area of life, rather than treating their own sub-set of traditionalist thought as if it were Magisterial teaching and dogma binding on all. This phenomenon can be a problem, so much so that the local SSPX priest once gave months worth of conferences to humorously and insightfully point out different trad ideologies treated as being Magisterial.
Where do you think I have developed much of my own “traditionalist” understandings, after all?
To be clear, being a traditionalist is rather primarily a DOCTRINAL stance.
Case in point, the Church already definitively condemning religious liberty, or the Church already condemning the idea of widely joining in and conforming itself to the so-called “ecumenical movement,” or condemning absolutely communicatio in sacris, that is active participation in non-Catholic worship. These are already identified by the actual Magisterium as doctrinal errors, not just by the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre or Michael Davis.
For me, I follow the Catholic Church absolutely, and the Catholic Church herself has already taught that Sacred Tradition, i.e. both the unwritten Word of God, and the collective traditions of the Church, are, according to her DOCTRINE, BOTH obligatory to conform ourselves.
To say it again, it is a constant DOCTRINE, that is established, obligatory teaching, that every pope, bishop, priest, deacon, and layperson is strictly bound to uphold and follow the Ecclesial tradition as being intrinsically united to and intrinsically expressing the Divine Tradition. Modernism and the conciliar ideology turns this on its head reducing Ecclesial tradition (the Latin liturgy, Gregorian chant, Thomism, Scholasticism, etc.) to a mere personal preference.
And this is frankly, to say it again, one of the fundamental errors of the post-1988 Ecclesia Dei side of the traditionalist movement (FSSP, etc) to treat traditionalism as either a radical ideology to be avoided, or on the other hand a movement of personal preference. We can all admit this is the fact, reject this as a DOCTRINAL error, while otherwise giving some support for those groups (but not the errors). I say this as someone who has spent seven years mainly with the FSSP, then ten years with the SSPX (before they left town), and the last eight years between the FSSP, diocesan TLMs, Maronite rite, and sporadic attendance still at the nearest SSPX two hours away.
Being a traditionalist goes above and beyond ideology, or group, or personal preference Pope St. Plus X said every Catholic should be a traditionalist, and what he meant was upholding and defending Tradition/tradition from modernism, and the revolutionary spirit of the Enlightenment. This meant preserving Thomism in the seminaries, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, chant, the spirit of the Roman liturgy, the Social Kingship of Christ, the monarchical nature of the Church, integralism which subordinates intimately every government officially to the Church and Supreme Pontiff, the DOCTRINAL fact the Pope (and Church hierarchy) have BOTH spiritual AND temporal power over the world, and the like.
I am also a traditionalist in a DOCTRINAL sense about the Novus Ordo Mass. The nature of the Mass, and the central act of the Mass, was already settled once and for all by the Council of Trent. No Pope has the authority to give the liturgy of the Mass a Protestant form or spirit, that contradicts the Council of Trent, and especially to invert the Mass, making the secondary ends primary (the memorial, communal aspect), and the primary aspect secondary (the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, offering Christ on the Cross to the Father to save souls).
See the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae presented by the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, to Pope Paul VI. LINK
Also, no Pope, and no bishop, let alone all the bishops, has the authority to permit if not establish an effectively new religion (modernism/liberalism) to co-exist with the true Faith side by side within the institutional structure. That is to approve of a liturgical atmosphere, music, architecture, novel version of the priesthood, novel version of parish life etc. that collectively, clearly represents this new religion, which the Fathers of Vatican II themselves at the Council NEVER intended. We are forced to recognize that the true Church has become hijacked and eclipsed by an Ape of the Church, just as the Moon eclipses the Sun, as saintly theologians of the past predicted. At the same time we are forced to figure out what exactly constitutes the Ape and how to avoid it.
And my traditionalist DOCTRINAL position is then, to preserve my faith and help uphold The Catholic Faith, to generally avoid the reforms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and that general atmosphere. Applying this DOCTRINAL stance forces me to have to drive long distances to traditionalist enclaves largely separate from the mainstream, and to suffer with the stigma of being labeled a social outcast, rebel, or schismatic, simply for being what Pope St. Pius X called a "traditionalist" and following doctrine to its practical conclusions.
At the same time there is a lower tier to traditionalism than doctrine and that is theological position. There are many differing theological opinions about how far we can or should go into traditionalism, whether we must comply with the demands of consensus to keep our Latin Mass (publicly accepting the doctrinal errors of the Council and liturgical reform, which is what one does when giving total public acceptance, in order to be allowed the Latin Mass), while privately believing otherwise.
The problem then is the Preference Mentality which reduces Ecclesial tradition and the TLM down to a matter of private preference, to a movement of liturgical preference (vs. doctrinal obligation) which ironically is itself not doctrinal in orientation, nor in accord with Church Doctrine, but is itself an ideology.
Lastly, there are three main theological/ecclesiological positions in the traditionalist movement. That of the Ecclesia Dei movement, the SSPX, and Sedevacantism, each which could be further subdivided into particular positions. The key is that all three focus on the DOCTRINE of the Faith, while there are differences in practical approach. The Sedevacantists need to distinguish between what the MAGISTERIUM itself says about the limits of papal infallibility, verses the THEOLOGICAL opinions of the “Ultramontists,” treating their theory as if it is official Magisterial teaching. The SSPX cannot impose its positions on the FSSP and similar groups about relations with Rome, EXCEPT when those groups are going against DOCTRINE (by officially accepting what are truly Doctrinal Errors as being “true” in order to be allowed to function and say the TLM). Much of the other disputes are otherwise legitimate differences since they are theological positions not violating the Magisterium, on questions that have not been settled (yet) by the Magisterium.
There are of course other facets of being a traditionalist on even lower levels: philosophy, culture, lifestyle, etc. There is plenty of room for debate about those aspects.
But if there is one outcome I would desire for every reader of this blog post, it is to understand what the Church herself says about being traditional and opposing modernism. What is most at stake goes above and beyond preserving ancient liturgical beauty, the social traditionalist enclave of the TLM, it goes far beyond preserving in the short term easy access to a local TLM.
Traditional Catholicism, aka traditionalism, is about preserving the true Faith and Church for the next hundreds or thousands of years until the Second Coming of Christ. We the laity especially need to stand up and say a resounding NO to the new religion for our families and decedents, and defend the traditional religion of Christ.
In this sense, all Catholics today should be “traditionalists.”