Dialogue with a Catholic "Traditionalist" on Premises and Foundations in the Discussion of "Traditionalist" Concerns (vs. Benjamin Baxter)

This came about in a spontaneous Facebook discussion regarding my most recent collection of thoughts on "traditionalism": cross-posted there. Ben was previously an acquaintance of mine. His words will be in blue.
* * * 
There is a way to engage something other than the lowest common denominator. If in any argument you're at the point where you don't understand how someone can come to a particular wrong conclusion, you always need to take five steps back, take a breath, and stop shouting. Because shouting back 9 times out of 10 adds more heat than light, and most "anti-traditionalist" screeds are exactly this.

As to your [earlier] point, Benjamin, about using ""sugar" rather than vinegar, etc., I have tried to do that, myself, and took the greatest pains to show respect and find common ground in my recent book. I did so by presenting debates that I had with intelligent, sensible, thoughtful "traditionalists": some of whom remain friends to this day. I tried to charitably present the most articulate "traditionalists" I could find: not the wingnuts (though they are out there in great numbers).

So I do that; I give credit where it is due, and I always assume good faith. At the same time, I will not water down any critique of serious, dangerous error, because souls are at stake, and the devil loves to siphon away would-be vocal apologists and evangelists, so that they will spend their time bashing, rather than defending the Church. I see it all the time.

So the purpose of this thread is to bash radtrads? That seems about as helpful as an apologetics group that spends its entire time bashing Protestants.


No, it's not to bash radtrads, but to correct their errors.


As a self-described traditional Catholic, I would find it most helpful if there would be someone who would at least be willing to talk things through with me. I have done a fair bit of reading, and I do not arrive at "traditionalism" by ideology but study and, less often than I should, prayer.

Tradition is here defined a different way than Apostolic tradition. It is used more in the sense of the word "heritage" for liturgy and culture.

Didn't the Holy Father say it ought to be read with a hermeneutic of continuity? Doesn't that mean we should read it in light of everything prior to Vatican II?


I think there is a way to talk intelligently and calmly about it, but it's very tricky, and hard to do in proportion to how many people jump in. I left Internet discussion boards about ten years ago because I was disgusted with them, for many reasons. Blogs and Facebook continue to exhibit the same tendencies. Constructive discussions are as rare as a Democrat balanced budget.


So may I suggest some future revisions?


Revisions and development are not bashing. Of course. But you go beyond that. We know that from what you have already expressed. The complete break with tradition, blah blah blah.

Why can't you simply worship as you please, Benjamin, and let others do the same? Is that so difficult? No one has a problem with that. You go to your TLM, we go to our OF [ordinary form, or Novus Ordo] (my church also offers Latin Mass in both forms). Live and let live. Why is it even an issue?

You know more than Pope Benedict when he declared on the issue in 2007? I'm not trying to be provocative. It is a perfectly sincere, logical, rhetorical question. Why can't you (and who knows how many other "trads") simply accept what he said and move on?

That is a good, sincere, honest question. It also has an answer. First, let's build some common ground.

What did Vatican II ask of the liturgies of the Eastern Rites? Can we agree that it asked them to be true to their own traditions?

(Please be more careful in your accusations. That it is a break from tradition is a reason for future revisions. In fact, that's the implicit charge, reason, and excuse for the revisions done in the name of Vatican II, if you read carefully enough.)

First, the definition of terms, one at a time.

Novus Ordo, as discussed here: the changes made for any and all liturgical prayer done in the name of the Second Vatican Council. This includes the Divine Office, the Lectionary, the Divine Liturgy, &c. Depending on context, the term could include both the first set of books of this kind and/or the most current revision, as appropriate.

Whatever . . . You don't like it; pope says it's okay. And you expect your opinion to have more sway and influence than the pope's: to be accepted as if it were actually on some kind of remote level of parity with official utterances of the Holy Father? Again, not trying to be provocative or insulting; just making the obvious logical observation. Catholics listen to what popes say and accord them the highest respect. It's not robotic obedience to every jot and tittle. It's Catholic ecclesiology, the Catholic Way; honor, obedience, respect, following the Mind of the Church.    

I don't debate based on legalistic distinctions ad infinitum. I am debating the spirit and the "atmosphere" of what we find very often in "traditionalism": getting down to brass tacks. 

So what, then, is the point at dispute?

I dunno. You're the aggrieved party. I love how the Church has developed. I think it's fantastic.  

We both agree that Catholics can disagree with the Pope, so long as he is afforded the highest respect.

I don't agree that a guy like you can dissent against an official proclamation of the pope and expect to be taken seriously. It's not a serious enough issue to dissent upon, and you are not important enough for the criticism to have any weight.  

When I say the pope can be disagreed with, I'm talking mostly about historically important instances like St. Catherine or St. Dominic or St. Francis, or about things that have nothing to do with binding declarations on dogma, faith, or morals. 

So you believe that the liturgy of the Church has developed, that the Novus Ordo is an authentic development of the Tridentine Rite. Briefly, what are the reasons for this?

I gave my reasons in a lengthy paper.  

How does the liturgy have to do with dogma or morals? The true complaint of traditionalists is right there in the name: A break from tradition, defined as "liturgical-cultural heritage." It does not refer to the Apostolic deposit of faith and morals or the sacraments. It refers to the particular, peculiar manifestation of how these are carried out in a given culture. For example, exactly in the same way we can speak of Byzantine traditions separate from Syriac traditions and the like, we can speak of Roman traditions. Tradition here includes the internal rules governing these celebrations, in accord with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.

Tradition used as "heritage" does not refer to the things that have died but the things that have survived. Those things which have survived ought to be given at least as much weight as the things which have not.

The pope says it's not a break with tradition. But you expect me to go with your opinion over against his, huh? Why would any sane Catholic do that? It's absurd. It's the spirit of Luther and dissent. I believe that is what it literally, logically reduces to. I'm not trying to be insulting at all. I often reduce things to their logical outcomes in argument. And it's usually misunderstood.

"Traditionalists" want us to "feel their pain" and relate to their concerns. Well, it works both ways. You have to realize how utterly repugnant some of your basic ideas are to those of us who simply think of ourselves as orthodox, obedient Catholics.  

You haven't replied to my several comments about the relative infinitesimal weight of your criticisms over against the proclamations of the Holy Father.

Canon c. 212 § 3, incidentally.

Christ's faithful "have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."

That's talking about priests, not popes (or even much about bishops). Nice try. It also becomes a much larger discussion about how often this should happen, and on what topics, and how vigorously.

So ... the question is not "Why are we talking" but "why aren't you listening?"

The title, actually, says this: TITLE I : THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF ALL CHRIST'S FAITHFUL.[ link ]

I'm all for lay participation. I'm a full-time lay apologist, after all. I edited Newman's writings, and he is my hero, and he was the big champion of the layman. That's not at issue.

You have to address the issue of your complaints over against the pope's teaching. It's fundamental to everything. I told you I'm not gonna get into legalistic discussion. That is always the "trad" tactic. It doesn't work with me.

I'm just trying to be careful and define my terms. I'm not trying to be a legalist.  

What do you mean by "address the issue of your complaints over against the pope's teaching?"

Just scroll up. I asked repeatedly. You haven't answered yet, and now you say, "what do you mean . . ."

Note how similar your tactics are to Martin Luther's at the Diet of Worms in 1521. The Catholics stated (paraphrase), "the Church teaches thus-and-so. Do you accept it or not?" Luther came back with obscurantism and claims that councils contradicted each other, and that the pope wasn't infallible. Uncannily similar . . .

I've studied Luther in great depth. I used to think very much like he did. He was my hero. I know how that thought works, and I know how "trads" often think in very similar ways and categories.

Please do not accuse me of claims I do not make.

I was drawing an analogy. If the analogy of this discussion is to Worms, clearly you are in the position of questioning, dissenting Luther, and I am the defender of the Church and tradition. It's patently obvious. Analogies are imperfect by definition.

If your question is why should you listen to me, it's because I would like to offer some clarifications on what the traditional Catholic complaint is, and how we come to it, and why it is true. I do not come at you as a crusader but as a brother discussing a particular point of teaching.

I didn't ask you what your reasons for "traditionalism" were (which is a legitimate discussion); rather, why I should give you credence when you directly contradict what the Holy Father proclaimed in 2007?

Are you talking about "in the history of the liturgical reform, there ... is no rupture?"  What the pope actually says is this:

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."

In context, it is clear that the Pope refers to the reforms of Vatican II as being in continuity. I simply hold that the reforms of Vatican II, though dearly needed, have not been fulfilled in the light of tradition. They have been fulfilled in every other way except this metric.

Did you not claim that they were a decisive break with tradition on this page, an hour ago or so?  

Here's the trouble: I hold that the Novus Ordo is a break with tradition, defined as above, not Vatican II. Put cheekily, I hold that the Novus Ordo is a break from Vatican II.  I draw a sharp distinction between the new order and the desire of the Council. Does this distinction help?

I would argue that the Pope's purpose in the letter is not to chastise traditionalists so much as chastise those explicitly against the implementation of SP. After all, the letter is written to the bishops, and the bishops against it are those that need the convincing. Of course, it has wider relevance to us also, and we can read it and benefit from it, but we should also consider the destination. Not just the source.

Over on your other debate page (linked above) you write that the Novus Ordo is "objectively inferior" and "juridically inferior" and that: 

. . . the Novus Ordo was crafted without regard to the living traditions of the Church. It is therefore suspect and deserves serious scrutiny. . . . all but zero care was given to the traditions of the rite. At best, things remained themselves the same but were utterly rearranged. . . . the mixed bag that is the Ordinary of the Novus Ordo is not something the informed should give the benefit of the doubt, at least on the level of fidelity to tradition.

And you think all that squares with what Pope Benedict stated in 2007? You actually think these opinions are consistent with the pope's teaching on liturgy?

Right. Because, again, I draw a sharp distinction between the Novus Ordo and the desires of the Council. This is readily apparent by the fact that Pope Benedict has revised parts of the Novus Ordo already, slowly and carefully. (This is apart from correcting abuses.)

Revision is not the same as a rupture with tradition.

When I critiqued Michael Voris' trashing of the New Mass, I showed how he directly contradicted the pope (as you do) [his cited words in green]: 

We see nothing here of the stark contrast that Voris draws between the two forms of Mass. In fact, the pope decreed that they are "two uses of the one Roman Rite" (extraordinary and ordinary). What Voris separates into wonderful and traditional vs. something that is not "authentic Catholic worship" and "more Protestant" than Catholic: to the extent that the two forms of worship are "two entirely different structures," the Holy Father regards as "two expressions of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church."  The pope refers to the "spiritual richness" and "theological depth" and "holiness" of the New Mass. Voris, on the other hand, thinks (rather Luther-or Calvin-like) that the theology it exhibits is "manipulated and twisted and deformed."  

Two vastly different and utterly irreconcilable opinions indeed . . . Now whom shall the faithful Catholic believe?: the pope or a vociferous commentator who appears to casually assume that he knows far better than the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church in her judgments? Is it Pope Benedict XVI who is our leader and guide, or Pope Michael XVI?

You think you can correct popes. I think that is manifest hubris, folly, and absurdity.

 I do greatly appreciate your cordiality, though, in the face of my usual hard-hitting critiques. God bless.

 [possibly to be continued and expanded in the future]


 * * * * *