The Essence of Traditionalism

I am a traditionalist Catholic. For some of you, that will mean something, for others, nothing at all.

What is traditionalism?

A few years ago I tried to answer that for myself in a series of long, tortured essays originally meant for public consumption. My conclusion was that traditionalism, by which I mean traditionalist Catholicism, was an organic relationship of various movements and organizations that all developed from an original skepticism of changes in the modern Church. In other words, traditionalism as a singular idea or theology simply does not exist, only relationships between organizations.

Those organizations include groups that have varying relationships to the Roman Catholic Church. For example, on one extreme there are groups such as the C.M.R.I or Independent chapels which deny either the authority or the validity of the current Pope due to his 'heretical' or 'modernist' beliefs, or due to the fact that they deny the validity of Holy Orders in the new rites of the Catholic Church altogether. On the other extreme are groups such as the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, certain Benedictine houses (like Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek in Oklahoma), or even certain Oratories of St. Philip Neri, where the Usus Antiquior, or traditional form of Mass, exists alongside the celebration of the Forma Ordinaria, or Novus Ordo, and priests are fully integrated into the ordinary structures of the Church. In between, leaning towards the independent side of the argument, is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and leaning towards the integrated side, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). The SSPX, for example, celebrates the Sacraments and operates chapels/parishes without the ordinary authorization of the Church, while still claiming obedience to the Holy Father, while the FSSP refuses to celebrate in the Novus Ordo, but still cooperates with Rome and with the local bishops in carrying out their mission. In my experience, both organizations take a fairly similar stance on interpreting the Second Vatican Council. That is to say, they ignore it as much as possible.

The fact is that while these groups have radically different theologies, perspectives on the Church, interpretations of conciliar documents, and approaches to ministry, they are all connected organically, i.e., on a personal level. Thus, most of the Independent chapels and SSPX churches have members that have defected from one or another of the other organizations, and those who attend officially approved celebrations of the usus antiquior, get support materials, publications, and news from groups and individuals which do NOT operate under normal Church rules. However, for each person the level of contact between these groups is different, such that there is more of a "nexus" of relationships amounting to the "traditionalist movement" than an actual organic body of sparring traditionalists.

If all of that didn't make much sense to you, don't worry. I've been trying to explain it to fellow traditionalists for years without much success. Ultimately, the most important thing to understand is that for each traditionalist the traditionalist movement is different, albeit sharing some similar characteristics with other traditionalists' views of the traditionalists, and that the sum total of these similarities could be called the "traditionalist movement", which means that most traditionalists cannot agree fully with any other traditionalist on anything.   This is my self-justification for writing yet another traditionalist blog, in hopes that I may find an active readership which will share at least some of my opinions, or want to debate them.