There is a third way, and it’s called tradition. I contend it will be tradition that ultimately reigns supreme within both the Church and civil society.
It is important that we understand what we mean by tradition in the context of ideological positions within the Church. Tradition only makes sense if we recognize the other two dominant ideologies: progressivism/modernism and conservativism/modernism.
Perhaps in a later article I will explain how tradition can lead us to the promise land in civil society, but first we need to understand why tradition matters in the context of the Church, and how it is quite different than the mainstream conservative Catholic position.
Progressivism, Conservativism and Traditionalism
In the Church setting, there are the progressive Catholics who tend to subscribe to the idea that faith and morals “develop” over time to meet the changing circumstances of the time. Most think of the German bishops or liberation theologians in South America when labeling someone a progressive Catholic. The progressive Catholic is the equivalent to a modernist heretic—one who accepts the heresy of modernism as defined by Pope St. Pius X—although they would never concede to it as heresy. Jorge Bergoglio (Francis) of Argentina and Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany would fall into this category.
The conservative Catholic is a fairly new phenomenon. Conservativism within the Church came to fruition after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). The conservative mission seeks to preserve those ideas and practices of the past that they believe will fulfill the original intent and purpose of Vatican II, while rejecting the modernist ideas that they contend betray the text and spirit of Vatican II. Conservatives also accept “development” if it comports to what the conservative perceives as the true teachings and spirit of Vatican II. The standard-bearer of this movement, Pope John Paul II, the conservatives tell us stood as a bulwark against the worst type abuses of interpretation and modernist disobedience to the Council’s mission. Bishop Robert Barron is the poster child for this position today.
And then there is the traditional Catholic. One cannot say traditionalism is a new movement because its ideas are the same as they were 100 years ago, 500 years ago and even 1500 years ago. Tradition is not so much of a movement within the Church but simply doing and believing what the Church always taught. Tradition does not deny legitimate development in the sense that doctrine can be made more explicit and clearer over time, but easily distinguishes between authentic development in doctrine and change in doctrine. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), is one of the patriarchs for tradition because of his efforts to save both the traditional teachings of the Church and the Traditional Latin Mass from extinction following Vatican II.
Traditionalism vs. Conservativism
With some basic definitions out of the way, the remainder of this article is going to focus on the difference between traditionalism and conservatism and why it matters.
I used to be a conservative, but now I am a traditionalist. This is because after hours and hours of research, study, listening and reading, it became clear to me that conservativism is modernism, just a different flavor. The core principles of progressive modernism and conservative modernism are the same. It is only in the application of these principles that the difference lies.
Notice that conservativism in the Church only came to be after Vatican II. If you listen to conservatives today, such as Bishop Robert Barron, it is rare they go through any lesson, homily, or speech without mentioning or referencing Vatican II. This is because for them there was something amiss in the Church that needed correcting, and Vatican II was supposed to do that.
Now, it is true, in the conservative mind, what needed fixing is not the same perhaps as what the progressive modernist would suggest. The conservative would not argue for women priests or homosexual marriages. But they would argue for other things such as elimination of the death penalty or a “new” Mass that is celebrated in the vernacular and permits female altar girls and lectors. Such novelties were essentially unheard of before Vatican II but remain mainstream now in conservative Catholic culture.
[Side note: I am very aware that conservatives, like the progressives, often argue that practices which occurred in the early years the Church justify their existence today. The argument fails to acknowledge the role of tradition or how it operates. Pope Pius XII condemned this error, known as anitquarianism or archeologism, in Mediator Dei.]
The key is to recognize that the progressive and conservative modernists share the same core belief (false premise actually) that doctrine can develop over time to comport with modern circumstances even if such development ultimately ends up with something entirely new that was unheard of in the Church’s past or even completely inconsistent with those traditions of the past. So long as the hierarchy, especially the Bishop of Rome, approves of it then they will falsely label such an idea part of the ordinary magisterium and claim all Catholics are bound to submit to such novelties.
Traditionalists, on the other hand, recognize the force of tradition itself. That is, while certainly acknowledging that the faith and practices develop and can be modified organically over time which accounts for such things as the addition (not elimination) of prayers to the Traditional Latin Mass, it rejects attempts to change what Tradition (both big T and small t) has handed down to us over the centuries. Any such legitimate additions or modifications, the traditionalist will tell you, must not change the substance of what we already know to be true.
The traditionalist rejects the underlying principle of modernism that the truths of faith and objective morality can change with the times even if someone in the current hierarchy claims that it does. The traditionalist does not reject authority in itself. To the contrary, the traditionalist defends the Church’s authority because he says that someone who otherwise may have legitimate jurisdiction nevertheless lacks authority to teach or impose practices contrary to what the Church already taught as being true.
Thus, while the progressive and conservative accept the same false principles of Modernism, the traditionalist rejects Modernism in toto and defends that which the Church, through her magisterium, always consistently taught over the centuries.
Consequences
The conservative, therefore, finds himself in a catch-22 because while he wholeheartedly approves of novelties accepted by John Paul II, he does not approve of Francis’ novelties which are obviously contrary to the faith. And yet, the conservative cannot intellectually argue against what Francis is doing because the progressives simply use the conservative arguments of “obedience” used to defend John Paul II against him to defend Francis.
The traditionalist finds himself in no such pickle. The traditionalist, whether speaking against the non-Catholic novelties of John Paul II or Francis, simply falls back on what the Church already taught as handed down to us over the centuries to reject any novelties that contradict such teachings.
The traditionalist position is consistent. If the teaching or command of anyone, including someone who may otherwise hold legitimate jurisdiction within the Church’s hierarchy, contradicts that which we already to know to be true, then such novelties lack any binding authority.
Does the traditionalist become his own pope to pick and choose what teachings he will accept? Not at all. The traditionalist remains perfectly obedient to the Church’s teachings. It is the modernist conservatives who reject the Church teachings. And that is the entire point.
Hermeneutic of Continuity: A False Remedy
The final point to be made here is that Pope Benedict XVI clearly understood the predicament the conservative finds himself in. This is why Benedict, and other conservatives, will often speak of the hermeneutic of continuity as an attempt to climb out of this catch-22 I just explained. The problem is that it just exacerbates the problem and digs the hole deeper for the conservative.
The problem with the hermeneutic of continuity is that while it attempts create a new principle that forces modern teaching to somehow conform with prior magisterial teachings, it fails the reasonableness test because it demands the Catholic to set-aside his common sense and argue why two plus two can equal five.
In other words, the hermeneutic of continuity requires the faithful to engage in mental gymnastics, or tortured reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion that is obviously false on its face. The conservative defense of Amoris Laetitia is a classic example where conservative apologists felt obligated into arguing why those who abandon a spouse for a new partner may be “forced” into maintaining such a relationship, such that their objective adulterous actions can no longer be considered a mortal sin, which would allow them to receive Holy Communion.
The traditionalist refuses to play such games with logic because the Church’s teaching on this issue, which ironically includes that of the Council of Trent AND John Paul II, clearly forbids unrepentant adulterers from receiving Holy Communion. Therefore, any attempt by Francis (even if he were a valid Pope) to allow for the contrary cannot possibly be accepted or admitted.
Interestingly, the progressive rejects the hermeneutic of continuity because they more or less admit what they are doing is changing the faith and the traditionalist rejects the hermeneutic of continuity because it requires us to suspend what we know to be true and construct false realities in order to square a circle. The conservative is left out in the cold.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the differences between a traditional and conservative Catholic are important. These differences go to the heart of the purpose of the Church and whether the heresy of Modernism will be rejected or allowed to reign in an Antichurch established with the intent of replacing the real Catholic Church.
The conservative false base premises that initially began with a futile attempt to defend Vatican II has led conservatives down rabbit holes, dead ends, and ultimately left them to hang out to dry with nowhere to turn but to tradition. It is my hope this exposure of their false assumptions will continue to lead more conservatives back to the fold of tradition as it did for me.