Dr. Rafael Xavier Gonzalez
The Traditionalist movement of today has to be careful to not be reactionary. This can even happen to Saints like Saint Augustine who defended grace and (Catholic) predestination against the heretical Pelagius. The Doctor Gratiae even wrote a book of retractions in which he writes:
“For a long time I have been thinking over and planning a task which, with the help of the Lord, I am now beginning, because I think it should be postponed no longer: namely, to review my writings, whether books, letters, or tractates, with a kind of judicial severity, and to indicate, as if with a censor’s pen, what displeases me”.
Because Catholicism is profoundly synthetical, harmonizing apparent contradictory positions, defending a position over its contrary, even a heretical one, can lead to heresy itself (Though I do not agree with all the points, the book Heresy Disguised as Tradition is quite informative, see my interview with Pedro Gabriel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULxM4B1cEU).
A clear example of the above is Eutyches, thinking that he was defending the orthodoxy of Cyril, opposed Nestorianism in an extreme manner, namely, affirming the unity of the natures in Christ, that Christ had only one nature (Monophysitism).
Traditionalism (of course not the 19th century condemned version) must also be precautious. It can fall into the same error. My friend Matthew Hoffman wrote an illuminative article for CWR (Catholic World Report) on the topic: The Weaknesses and Flaws in Bishop Schneider’s Credo: A Traditionalist’s Review (you can also see my interview with Mr. Hoffman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL5s2veGmKU).
In the article Mr. Hoffman says:
“Credo also contains a disturbing number of affirmations that must be said to be misleading or even clearly erroneous regarding important truths of the Catholic Faith, and this can only undermine Bishop Schnieder’s noble purpose. It seems that the good bishop, in his eagerness to counteract false interpretations of the faith, has allowed himself to go to opposite extremes that may also lead to error”.
One of the major reactionary views of the Traditionalist is to hyperfocus—or at least the temptation to do so—on supernature while diminishing nature (nature which is way too overstressed by the Modernist today). Here’s a clear example from the Credo, mentioned in Mr. Hoffman’s article:
“In Part I, paragraph 224, Schneider asks, ‘Is the dignity of the human person rooted in his creation in God’s image and likeness?’ and answers that ‘This was true for Adam, but with the Original Sin the human person lost this resemblance and dignity in the eyes of God,’ adding ‘he recovers this dignity through baptism’”.
Mr. Hoffman, based on the Scholastics especially Saint Thomas, points out the reductionism in such an answer, borderlining the traditional Protestant view of total corruptibility of human nature by sin. Again, from the article:
“In furtherance of his dispute against natural human dignity, Schneider goes on (in part 1, par. 225) to answer the question, ‘Then human dignity is not the same in all persons?’ ‘No,’ he responds. ‘The human person loses his dignity in proportion to his free choice of error or evil.’”
Mons. Athanasius Schneider seems to be the episcopal face of the Trad movement. The good bishop rightly tries to combat an extreme anthropological optimism that claims, without qualification, that man of himself has infinite dignity (Declaration “Dignitas Infinita”). Of course the affirmation is clearly ambiguous to say the least! Yet, though well intended, the Bishop Schneider seems to have overstressed the other extreme position of a so-called supernaturalism, seemingly rejecting natural human dignity.
Another clear example that Mr. Hoffman points out is the following:
“Having denied that all human beings bear the likeness of God, Schneider continues with the same poor reasoning in part 1, paragraph 226, where he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2212), asking, ‘Isn’t every human person ‘a son or daughter of the one who wants to be called ‘”our Father”?’ ‘No,’ he answers flatly. ‘One becomes a child of God only through explicit faith in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God, being reborn of God…through the sacrament of baptism’. In a footnote he calls the statement ‘a regrettable affirmation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,’ but in fact it is Schneider’s deficient catechesis that is regrettable here’.
Though the good Bishop is right, there is a clear lack of distinctions. Saint Thomas and the Church Fathers explicitly differentiate two senses of divine filiation, something Mr. Hoffman explicates (make sure to read the article and see the interview for more examples).
One book that impacted me the most in addressing so-called Traditionalism is “The Council in Question, A Dialogue with Catholic Traditionalism” by Moyra Doorly and Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. In it the main issues of Vatican II are address in dialogue fashion through written letters (an important read!).
In the aforementioned book, Fr. Nichols warns Traditionalists of seeing Modernism in everything. Yet actually the Traditionalists are right, in a sense. Though doctrinal or dogmatic Modernism is quite prevalent no doubt, Fr. Nichols writes rather that many unfortunately fall into “cultural Modernism” and its promotion, especially Vatican II and the many in hierarchy today. Fr. Nichols defines his terms in the book (pg 63):
“By ‘cultural Modernism’ I mean an optimistic expectation that distinctively modern trends in culture will turn out to be compatible—to say the least—with the truths about humanity held by the Church”.
What Fr. Nichols says is manifest in Vatican II, especially in Gaudium et Spes (see #54). Even today this mentality reigns in the Church. It can, and does, lead to doctrinal Modernism, as attitudes can eventually alter our foundational positions. Nevertheless, for the sake of true charity and evangelization, we must have this more benign view of our fellow Catholic as a counter to an overzealousness in Catholic orthodoxy which can make us unjustly accuse our brother and hence close us off to seeking his actual conversion. As Traditionalists we must be careful to not fall into a scrupulous spirit that sees doctrinal Modernism in every little action of our brothers.
Traditionalists because they defend orthodoxy or sound doctrine tend to have the danger of falling into an abstractionist mindset, a strong theoretical framework that focuses on changing the culture. Hence the deductive theology, which is sound theology, is stressed, which is the top-down, theory-to-practice type of theology. The cultural and doctrinal Modernists tend to focus on the singular concrete things while deemphasizing doctrine. Theirs is an inductive theology, which is less sound, and is a more horizontal and tends to interpret doctrine from man’s existential concrete acts, history being a key factor (historicism?). For them the practical trumps the doctrinal.
Though Traditionalists are clearly on more solid grounds, we must be careful of absolutizing our position. We need the doctrinal tension from non-Trads to sharpen the position of true Catholicism. Only thus can we Evangelize as God intended.
In a great book written by my friend, Michael Warren Davies (not the Michael Davies that is more known in Catholic circles), After Christendom, he writes (pg. 79):
“True evangelism is personal, intimate, raw and self-giving…you can’t convert a nation, much less ‘the culture,’ because nations and cultures do not convert. Nations can’t accept Christ into their hearts. Cultures can’t be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Only people can…The Fathers of the Church weren’t trying to save humanity: they were trying to save humans, one by one”.
I must admit that the whole Trad question is a tough one, in which I myself am not too clear and hence I am open for discussion. But let us truly find what the synthetical Catholic spirit, while avoiding the erroneous Hegelian dialect of (attempting) harmonizing true contradictions. Only be properly distinguishing can we arrive at sound doctrine and practice as Saint Thomas wrote.
Let us live to always please Our Lord and ask his grace.
