Empty Traditionalism

Last updated on: February 22, 2017 at 5:30 pm by Chase Padusniak

Empty Traditionalism 2017-02-22T17:30:14-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That is but one example of a refusal to think historically about terms. Now, let us turn to a liturgical-historical term (after all, Traditionalism is primarily a liturgical and theological idea, though one often connected to a political project).

“Novus Ordo.” This is a term I use a lot because it has real content: the New Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, the thing most Latin Catholics attend every Sunday. In this sense, it’s a bit trickier than “Cultural Marxism” because it has an obvious, concrete referent in the world. Though again, the web of associations often pregnant in its use must be examined.

Not rarely, I find myself on the internet, reading something by a Traditionalist of the stripe in question, and I come across the argument that “Vatican II ruined everything.” The Council is merely pastoral, wholly invalid; whatever the case may be, its institution of a new liturgy is the rotten fruit of an insidious corruption of the Church.

But here, again, history is ignored.

I am a Byzantine and so the question of the Novus Ordo is neither here nor there for me. Let it be known, however, that, if I must attend a Roman Catholic liturgy, I prefer a High Mass to a standard Novus Ordo (though I likely prefer a good Novus Ordo to a Latin Low Mass). My enemy here is not liturgical renewal. I have much love for the monks of Silverstream Priory and Stift Heiligenkreuz.

Rather, what must be questioned is the idea that decay can be linked so squarely to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo more particularly. So many seem to speak as if mere liturgical renewal would mean the revitalization of the Church, the filling of pews. This is historical amnesia of a particularly-sad sort.

Vatican II was a response—call it the wrong one if you’d like—to a changing world, a world that was already pressuring religious institutions across the West. There is the fairly-slow movement by the 19th-century Church to address the antagonism developing between bosses and workers, merchants and farmers. Behind this there is the emergence of Enlightenment institutions within “Catholic” lands, the creeping in of “new” ideas into old Catholic brains: the French Revolution but also the less-obvious machinations of Joseph II and the creeping spread of usurious banking along with the transformation of Europe’s economic and social structures from the late feudal to the emerging capitalist. There is the response to these issues by Catholic Integralism, which, while effective on some counts, was also, ultimately, unable to stem the tide (though many might still look to it for insights). Here we must ask why it failed, how it failed, and what it can teach today.

I could go on and on, but the point is, I hope, clear enough: the Novus Ordo (for all its issues either in se or in application) is not the issue. At worst, it is a symptom, the transformation of which, while it might assist in revitalization, would amount to little more than a Band-Aid. Its terminological use as a demonization exists to accomplish just that—to demonize, to fail to reckon with the difficulties of history, with the problem of the critical study (à la Adorno, et al.) of social and political institutions that rise up and pass away. History cannot be conceived as a series of mistakes to be corrected; rather, it must be seen as what any good Christian must see it as: Providence, as the unfolding of God’s will in time, a process to be evaluated and understood, and thus reckoned with in concrete detail, ending only with the eschaton. We will never achieve a “perfect moment” in history, but will always be figuring, always reevaluating, always fighting. The medievals understood this: enter Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth and co.

I leave you, then, with advice and prayers, with, yes, Adorno:

The almost insoluble task is to let neither the power of others, nor our own powerlessness, stupefy us.

Previous Post

February 16, 2017

The Sensuous Catholic Body

Next Post

February 25, 2017 Our Daily Bread

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Jephthah's daughter?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ruth Miriam Unnamed Deborah