On the Use of Labels:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

While I will in my participation to this weblog concede to those who are members of this project the term Traditionalist, I do want my general opposition to such terminology noted for the record. To achieve that I have posted here a thread which Kevin and I interacted on back in late September at the Envoy message board{1} with some very minor tweaking made to it. My words will be in regular font except for my previous words in the thread which will be in blue. Kevin's previous words will be in darkgreen font and any previous words of his in additional italics if applicable. My sources will be in darkblue font.

The whole use of labels reminds me of the folllowing admonition by Pope Benedict XV of holy memory against those of his day and age who tried such things:

It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (c. 1914)]

Furthermore, the idea that Tradition is based on theological positions, disciplines, liturgical observances, and devotionals is seriously askew. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...it suffices to call all Catholics "Catholic" and avoid these kinds of novel innovations which the popes have proscribed. Those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy can refer to themselves as "Catholics with a Tridentine preference" if they like as that does not presume arrogantly that one group is or is not "more or less Traditional" than another.

There, I have said my piece.

Rerum Novarum

A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'

The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/21/2005 5:22:43 PM

My good friend Shawn protest too much. I can understand the worry about "this group being more catholic than the next" but provided such a spirit is avoided, such classifications are no different than people attaching themselves to particular charisms in the body of Christ.

I respectfully disagree...there are enough divisions without creating more. Besides, I have posited a papal proscription of that approach. If my friend Kevin wants to posit an example of the popes giving a different view on the matter subsequent to 1914, be my guest. However, I doubt he will find anything of the sort from the magisteriums of Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, or John Paul II. We already know that Benedict XVI twenty years ago referred to "so-called "traditionalism" in The Ratzinger Report; ergo he did not countenance such labeling:

It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils. It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme forms…Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: "The Ratzinger Report" pg. 28 (c. 1985)]

My offer to Kevin to provide a papal counter to what I posted from Benedict XV on this kind of approach remains open of course.

I would more say what constitutes a traditionalist is the worldview they operate from more than anything else.

I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be. As I have noted elsewhere:

[A]uthentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend, what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse, or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude. It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have the hallowed sanction of time. [A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part I (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

That summarizes it adequately enough.

Though more often than not, those people with the devotions/practices/theological positions more often than not would coincide within a traditionalist worldview.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this.

(And no I do not think the SSPX/remnant addicted to wreckage crowd operates from within that worldview, but that is for another time.)

But they tend to have the same liturgical preferences, the same devotions, the same theological speculations, and the same disciplines as the ED crowd Kevin. What makes them unacceptable by your criteria??? By mine they do not manifest the correct integral frame of mind and attitude and I could posit countless examples to substantiate that theory. But if you admit that it requires what I claim is required, then I fail to see how we disagree on this matter. Which brings us back to my original comments on this thread but I digress...

Edited by - IShawnM on 09/22/2005 6:41:32 PM

Briefly in response to Kev...

I simply submit that you are misinterpreting that papal prouncment, since Benedict had in mind the integrists who state that because they belong to this particular flavor of Catholicism they are "more catholic than thou."

With not a few who call themselves "traditionalists", that is the intended interpretation. And they prove it in spades when they resort to the "neo" labeling which implies that the party so labeled is somehow not authentically Traditional.

If one group emphasizes a particular charism over another, one can classify it that way without stating they are less Catholic. As you well know (at least from my writings) I in no sense employ that, and I'm sure other who use those labels do not either, though many do.

The question remains how many use that expression who do not make the distinction that you do. I would argue that it is more than who do not; ergo for the sake of confusion, the moniker "traditionalist" should be scrapped as being more devisive than unitary.

"I do not see a distinction to be made between Catholics Kevin. Either someone is or they are not and if they are, then they are aligned with the Great Tradition whatever their devotions/practices/liturgical preferences/disciplines happen to be."

It depends on how one defines the term. For one who always likes to talk about the context in which one uses their terms, on this one point you sure do raise a lot of guff in blanket statements.

Actually, the term you are defending the use of is the blanket statement. I prefer (if you need a term of identification) the expression "Catholics of a Tridentine preference" or "Tridentine-inclined Catholics" or some equivalent. That correctly identifies the term and does not make the mistake of claiming that Tridentine-preferences are somehow "traditional" when in fact such a presumption ends up placing the value in the external adornments rather than the internal dispositions which is where authentic Traditionalism subsides.

"Perhaps, perhaps not. I know Ecclesia Dei sorts whom what you say applies to; however, there are others who are more questionable. Likewise, I know non-ED people who could be called authentically Traditional (in the proper sense of that term) and non-ED people who would not be. It is an integral thing but as I said, it involves a frame of mind and a certain attitude and external adornments are derivative at best to the equation. I am not aware of the popes disagreeing with me on this but you are welcome to dispute this."

Frame of mind and attitude, in other words, a worldview. :) Again, you protest too much.

I disagree because I do not tie the worldview to certain externals as you seem to do. For example, when you say that the SSPX are their ideas [are] certainly not traditional with the exception of their liturgy. I see nothing truely Traditional in their approach to the liturgy. Indeed, they are actually the antithesis of a truely Traditional frame of reference. And as time is short, I will reference the definition of Tradition given by my favourite academic orientalist Fr. Robert Taft SJ:

Tradition is the church's self-consciousness now of that which has been handed on to it not as an inert treasure, but as a dynamic principle of life. It is the church's contemporary reality understood genetically, in continuity with what produced it.

This is why Tradition is not found in ancient texts or monuments in its essential form -though the latter can of course bear witness to Tradition. And that is why true Tradition embraces a proper integral frame of mind and attitude as I noted before. A proper understanding of Tradition achieves a few things at once:

---It frees us from the tyranny of any one particular part of the past.

---It frees us from the tyranny of present day cliches.

Authentic and living Tradition is beholden to but never a prisoner of the past in other words. But with so many who call themselves "traditionalists", they essentially are prisoners of the past in a manner that is inauthentic: they tie themselves to old liturgies or prayers with the mistaken notion that these are in and of themselves what constitutes Tradition when instead they are a means or mediating point if you will. Nor for that matter are they the only mediating points but this response is long enough already so I will cut it short at that point.

Note:

{1} This thread was also posted to The Lidless Eye Inquisition two minutes ago but (judged by the timestamp) it was posted eight hours and two minutes later. Are we on French time at this weblog or something???