A while back, Clyde Guzman wrote a piece for Where Peter Is called “’Traditionalism’ is the New Protestantism“. Its main point is well taken:
***
In my last article, “The Rise of Anti-Catholic Catholicism,” I mentioned that after becoming Catholic, I discovered a new variant of anti-Catholicism — one that is found in radical traditionalism. I mentioned that the approaches and attitudes expressed by members of the traditionalist movement towards the pope and hierarchy, as well as their ecclesiology, are similar to that of the Protestant mindset. In this article, I wish to provide some examples that demonstrate how the praxis of traditionalism directly parallels the modus operandi of Protestantism. Many of my fellow Catholic converts from Protestantism will recognize the similarities between the Protestant and traditionalist Catholic mentalities — that is, unless they have fallen into the world of radical traditionalism themselves.
In Catholicism, the visible source of unity is the pope (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 882). In Protestantism, however, the principal source of “unity” for the individuals within its countless denominations is scripture. From an outsider’s perspective, one might imagine that Protestant Christians are unified because they attend church on Sundays, sing hymns of praise and elevation, read the Bible, and share other common practices across these many groups. But once you take a closer look and examine the praxis of Protestantism and its operative systems of theological and moral conduct, you will realize that it is not a perfect reality.
In Protestantism, there are many divisions among individuals and groups caused by disagreements over any of a number of issues. These divisions often lead people to leave their churches — either to join a different church, establish a new one, or leave for another denomination. Some split over differing interpretations of scripture. Others are divided over which translation of the Bible is correct. Some groups split over the pastor’s core beliefs and principles. Others come apart over opinions on what style of music should be used in “authentic worship.”
Within the world of Protestantism we see people immerse themselves in apocalypticism and conspiracy theories — ranging from those who believe that we are in the end times to people who believe that secret societies control the world’s governments and will one day enact laws that will persecute “faithful Christians.” Many think that a one-world government, under the leadership of the Antichrist, will soon place restrictions on public worship and private practice of religion, meaning that the “Remnant” Church of Jesus Christ will suffer.
Some groups and individuals who recognize the divisions in Protestantism will adopt an “agree to disagree” mentality that suggests it ultimately doesn’t matter what denomination you belong to or the particular theological and moral stances you hold. For these Protestants, simply having faith in Jesus is all that matters in the end. The justification for this stance goes back to Protestantism’s modus operandi — the solas of the Reformation, particularly Sola Scriptura — the idea that scripture alone is the rule of faith for a Christian. Under this principle, everyone has the right to read and interpret Scripture according to his or her conscience because God Himself gives each person the inspiration to do so.
In the world of traditionalist Catholicism, particularly in its more radical strains, the principal source of unity is “tradition” — or, rather, their interpretation of what tradition is. From an outsider’s perspective, one might believe there is a form of unity among traditionalists, but a closer analysis of this movement reveals a multitude of divisions between them.
Catholic traditionalism, like Protestantism, relies on the individual’s interpretation of what is true. Even though they are presented under the guise of objectivity, universal truths are thrown out the window and relativism and subjectivism are the real norms of expression in this movement. Traditionalists argue among themselves on questions as foundational as whether to accept the authority and legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, the liceity (and even the sacramental validity) of the liturgical reforms following the council, whether it’s permissible to attend the reformed Roman Rite (even when the Latin Mass is not available), whether the use of Natural Family Planning is a mortal sin, and the legitimacy of the canonizations of saints after Vatican II. Some tell their followers and faithful to reject the Catechism of the Catholic Church in favor of the Roman Catechism or the Baltimore Catechism (or Credo).
Many are consumed — to the point of fanaticism — over liturgical preferences to the point where they reject any obligation to obey liturgical laws and regulations promulgated after the Council. Such traditionalists regard any form of liturgical discipline as an apparent assault against ‘tradition” — or rather, what they interpret tradition to be.
Much of the traditionalist movement is consumed with conspiracy theories. Many traditionalists immerse themselves in various forms of apocalypticism and obsess over notions — often fueled by unapproved private revelations and prophecies — that the Catholic Church is currently in a state of apostasy. They believe that the “true Catholics” are those who will wage war against the “conciliar Church,” which they think has been taken over by forces of spiritual darkness and evil. They believe that they are the “remnant” of the true Church, and that through their faithfulness and fidelity to “tradition,” they and a select handful of clerics (who are all that remain of the hierarchy of the Church) are the last guardians of Catholicism.
Traditionalists have a tendency to church-hop from one parish to another in search of a priest and community that conform to their understanding of tradition, reverence, sacred music, and orthodoxy. They will drive for hours on Sunday mornings in search of a chapel that meets their preferences.
Some traditionalists, however, are willing to set aside theological and aesthetic disagreements, “agreeing to disagree” because at the end of the day their commitment to the pre-Vatican II Mass and the principle of upholding “tradition” ultimately unifies them. Many of these disagreements are serious, but these unifying principles have always existed in the traditionalist movement, at least among non-sedevacantists since Vatican II. This notion most recently rose to prominence under the banner of “Unite the Clans,” a slogan appropriated from the film Braveheart by Michael Matt, editor of the traditionalist newspaper The Remnant, back in 2019.
Are we witnessing the genesis of a new Protestant Reformation among those who champion “tradition”? In recent years, there appears to be an increasing number of Catholics who are unashamedly repeating the errors of Luther and the Reformers with regard to the papacy and magisterial authority. We also see in this movement the adoption of the spirit of Americanism and political ideas that are incompatible with the teachings of the Magisterium. Traditionalist media outlets and well-known commentators such as Eric Sammons, Peter Kwasniewski, Taylor Marshall, Kennedy Hall all promote a common sentiment — that they claim to believe in the papacy and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in theory, but in reality, they reject the authority of the pope and any Church teachings that conflict with their notion of “tradition.”
These traditionalists sit in judgment of the Magisterium. Effectively their proclamations serve to override magisterial teachings in matters of faith and morals. They offer their assent to themselves and their own personal judgements, putting themselves in the driver’s seat. They place their own consciences above the deposit of faith. This is the essence of Protestantism.
Radical traditionalists will agree with the Magisterium insofar as the Magisterium is in agreement with them. If the Magisterium says something they do not like, they will “correct” the Magisterium in accordance with what they interpret “tradition” to be. Some will go as far as accusing the Magisterium of heresy. All the while, they call themselves “true Catholics” and insist that they are guarding the deposit of faith and tradition.
This very notion was first championed and enunciated by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms on April 18, 1521 (emphasis added):
“Since your most serene majesty and your highnesses require of me a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is clear that they have fallen into error and even into inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.”
— Martin Luther’s Speech at the Diet of Worms, 1521
Luther is, in essence, saying that he will submit to his own conscience and his personal interpretation of what constitutes and biblically sound doctrine, tradition, and revelation because he determined that the ecclesiastical powers of his time and the past have contradicted what councils and other popes have taught. He is asserting that unless someone can convince him that what the Catholic Church teaches is both biblical and in harmony with the deposit of faith, he will submit to his conscience and his interpretations. This pattern of thought is the framework of the thesis of traditionalism and is found in statements that traditionalists repeat ad infinitum such as the following:
“Pope Francis’s teaching on the death penalty is in contradiction with Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”
“Amoris Laetitia is not in continuity with divinely revealed truths.”
“The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious liberty is in direct violation of the Church’s previous teachings on the matter.”
“I will not obey Traditionis Custodes because it is a violation of justice and outside the scope of the pope’s authority.”
“I don’t follow the pope, I follow Jesus.”
Do you see the thought process at work? This mentality ultimately places the individual member of the laity or the average cleric as the authentic interpreter of divine law and tradition, over and above the authority of the pope and the official teachings and laws of the Church. Traditionalists assume that their preferred interpretations of the Magisterium are correct, and they are free to disregard what the living Magisterium teaches. This is similar to the Protestant notion of the individual’s freedom to interpret of Sacred Scripture. With this mindset, one is free to disregard what their own pastor or bishop says and instead abide by whatever seems most traditional to them. Likewise, Protestants are typically free to disagree with their pastors in order to follow their own personal understandings of Scripture.
***
Indeed, I do see the thought processes at work. And while I agree with the central point I would add a small refinement to the analysis of the absurdity of the “Traditionalist” position. I would argue that it is something more like Wicca than Protestantism in terms of its groundedness in history.
Let me explain. I do not, of course, mean that Traddery is devoted to paganism or goddess worship or anything of that sort. Rather, I mean that just as Wicca advances a claim of being a “restoration” of supposedly “ancient religion” while in fact being about as old as “Rock Around the Clock”, so “Traditionalism” is likewise a movement claiming to restore “Catholic tradition” while in fact being a theological reaction to–and entirely conditioned and spread by–social and technological developments barely fifty years old. Most Traditionalism and most Traditionalists have the historical depth of the Bee Gees or Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Consider this utterly typical sample of Trad accusation:
One has to have the historical depth of a spoon to say something this silly. I mean, come on…
But of course, the problem with the Traditionalist sect of fear and hate is that there is something in the human psyche that wants to give the benefit of the doubt to the endless malice they sling at Francis. “Nobody’s perfect” we say. “So surely where there is smoke, there is fire” Francis must be doing something to deserve the label of a historically horrible Pope!”
Let me suggest another approach instead. When a movement routinely and as a matter of course is so wrong about so much so many times for so long, when it is so reliably counted on to assume disastrously wrong positions on everything from the Holocaust to racism to denying women the vote to the goodness of torture to killing heretics to the wonders of geocentrist astronomy, then we should rather assume that their hatred of Francis is a badge of honor for him and not evidence that they have dirt on him.
Advertisement
7 Responses
This is excellent, Mark. As a fellow Catholic writer, I agree with everything you wrote. I tell my husband regularly that rad trads really get under my skin sometimes.
Nailed it. Thank you, Mark.
Yeah, they even bashed St. Pope JPII. I remember thinking that was very odd. I never made it to the lace mantilla stage of traddery due to the timely intervention of an Opus Dei priest. He managed to untie most of my “Apparition of Mary!!” “Three Days of Darkness!!” knots. I was afraid of everything at that point.
Once, when I was on retreat with a very likeable Trad., she confessed to all of us that there was something odd about some of the men at the Latin mass. (Her family would drive over an hour to get there.) She said they would oggle her in her mass veil. Some would approach her and comment. A few years later her husband was caught and prosecuted for lewd behavior with a couple of minors, including his own step daughter. Now he’s a registered sex offender.
In my experience, the common thread running through the whole tribe of Trads I knew was that they were intelligent, but *weird*, and had big superiority complexes. The Trad that takes the grand prize, of all the weirdos was the founder of a bunch of “traditional” schools. He’s the one that informed me that I should not have married outside of my race. He told me that after mass, with my fifth kid sitting on my hip. So creepy.
Brilliant and true. Thank you.
It appears the magisterium will also respond to the new protestantism the same way they responded to the old protestantism: ignore everything they have to say and villainize them instead of doing some soul searching and introspection. What could these people possibly tell the exalted geniuses Vatican, right?
The self-pity of your sect is exceeded only by your contempt for your victims. Grow up.
I would only point out that your Wicca reference is badly dated. When Gerald Gardner and other early Wiccans began promoting Wicca in the 1950s and for decades thereafter, it was held – either out of deception or, I think superbly poor scholarship, to be a direct descendant of pre-Christian European religion.
However, that notion was pretty well demolished by an actual scholar in the person of English historian Ronald Hutton more than 25 years ago. After some initial grumbling by old-time Wiccans, his and concurring scholarship have been widely accepted within the movement. I have not personally come across any Pagan in many years who can walk a line and believes what we have today is the unbroken tradition of pre-Cuthbert Saxon Woden worship or whatever. Just as well. Even the halls of the kings in those days was about as hygienic as a Seattle homeless encampment and the beer and medical care left much to be desired.
Of course it would go without saying that few modern Pagans, with the unfortunate exception of some far-right neo-Vikings do not support the sort of sadism that trads or Trumpers do.
Have a look at some of Huttons history videos on YT and the like. Interesting fellow and more resembles a hobbit than Peter Jackson or his creations.