Traditions are something entirely different. One can follow a 'tradition' of modernism for example. It is simply a way of thinking, being, or acting transmitted through generations. A Traditionalist is one who follows a concept of something Traditional. However, the problem of course, is that cultural, political, economic, social, religious modernism (liberalism if you like) is a tradition, it has traditional linkages. This is why a modernist and traditionalist may both be seen as identical they both have an idea of the past, and 'bring it forward' towards the future. When approaching the difficult question 'What should I do now?' it appears that one has a choice, 'Traditionalism v. Modernism', 'Conservatism v. Liberalism', 'Capitalism v. Communism', 'Right v. Left'. None of these however, is really a choice, for they all of them amount to the same thing, minus a few cosmetic differences. Pro-life v. Pro-Choice in a debate differs only in cosmetic detail, (not that in reality the 'choice' of abortion is only cosmetically different from the choice of life, thank God), what I mean by this is that both parties are in a sense pro-choice and pro-life. The real answer to the problem lies not in choice v. life, but in the important question 'What is good?', 'What will help to attain the Good, the True and the Beautiful?'. Otherwise, all that can come of the debate is 'What is the best synthesis between life and choice?', the question is pure nonsense.
What does this have to with Tradition, Traditionalism and Modernism? Simply this, if we opt to be Traditional Catholics we opt for a living Tradition, not a dead Traditional idea. Otherwise, we are no better than a modernist who opts for a dead 'modern' idea. 'Living water', Our Lord promises that if we ask we will have living water. When we live we always live in the modern world. St. Thomas was a modern when he was alive, as was St. Augustine or St. Pius X. We never live 'in the past', we can only live 'in' the now. We can be within a tradition and it be as dead as being within a modern idea. Since Our Lord is alive now, as He ever was and as He ever shall be, He is the one we can live 'in' now. He is living Tradition, in the sense that he is ever with us generation on generation. St. Augustine could be as much a Catholic as anyone today, because he could be with Our Lord. He did not need to be a Traditionalist, working within a husk of a man-made idea, clinging to his own intellect and ideas. He could be 'within' a living Tradition that would last ages upon ages. So it is today; to be a Catholic is first and foremost to be 'in' Christ, to be with Him, to try to love Him as he Love's us. To be a Catholic is emphatically not to be a Traditionalist, or a neo-Catholic, but to be 'in' the Christ, to have 'living water'.
Cardinal Newman said that early on in his life he was aware of two things; himself and his Creator. This is the perfect balance between immanentism and transcendalism, over emphasis on either side will always lead to problems. What this means is that for every single Catholic he must know himself and he must know, however imperfectly, his Creator. He must be in communion with God, in order to know himself, to find himself. Thankfully, man has some help, for he would simply be unable to bridge this gap between himself and his Creator unaided, without the Church, a living Tradition. Chesterton called the Church ever new and yet ever ancient. We commune with God, through Our Lord. Our Lord is wed to the Church, it is His. So we as the Church are wed to Our Lord, in communion with him, and hence the Church is 'alive' is 'living' as Our Lord 'lives'. Thus, when I call myself a Traditionalist I mean that I live in Tradition, the Church, Our Lord. I do not live in traditions which are dead. I do not live in Newman's ideas, or Augustine's ideas. I am alive today, I am modern, yet I commune with Him, the One, the 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', the immutable, unchanging, ever-present, ever-one God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
This may seem an odd distinction to make, but I believe that it is essential to understanding what it is that a 'Traditional' Catholic is fighting for. If he is seduced by the false dichotomy of Traditionalist v. Modernist he will find nothing but the empty husk of a synthesis. In any case as I grew in understanding of Catholicism, my reading of Reformation and Counter-reformation history and my going through the Catechism, I immediately hit upon what might be called the contemporary crisis of the Catholic Church. The crisis is so large and on so many fronts that no single thing can sum it up. 'The Spirit Vatican II' is not sufficient for merely assigns an arbitrary date, time and place and all errors to that thing. 'The spirit of the age' is another expression, which is more embracing than the former yet it lacks a concrete instance, real reality to behold. Generally, I think these expressions get used by Traditional Catholics to explain certain things and I do not criticise the intention, but merely question the meaning of the expressions. What does it mean when one says, 'Owing to the Spirit of VII....', do you mean the Council itself?, the implementation of the Council?, a false spirit? (I know that it will be objected that the meaning can be clarified by context, judgement and so on, however ideas like "the spirit of" stick in the mind, and are not to necessarily clear. What exactly is a 'spirit of' a council, any council, for example?)
Nonetheless, I was immediately involved with the 'Traditionalist' controversy. I had for about a semester been attending a Novus Ordo Mass, in English in place of Sunday services at the Anglican Church. I must confess that as I attended these Masses, I did not perceive any substantial difference between them and those I was missing in their favour. I pointed this out, that I couldn't see the difference between a Catholic Novus Ordo Mass in English and the Common Form service of the Anglican Church. The people conducted themselves much the same way, the priest carried himself in the same way, the interior of the Churches were practically identical, and the words of the Mass were identical. If anything Anglican services were conducted with more rigor, more attention to detail, and with more reverence than these Catholic Masses, so I said. My friend was sceptical, saying there was a huge difference between Catholic and Anglican Mass, just like there was a huge difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism.
Nonetheless, I stood my ground, insisting that there was little substantial difference, I was soon invited to see a Traditional Mass. This was the first time I had seen, if you like, the underbelly of Catholicism. It would not be to much to say that without the Mass the Church would not exist. The difference between the Traditional Roman Rite and the Modern is extraordinary (no pun intended). The whole thing was conducted with reverence, Introibo ad altare Dei, mea culpa, silence now, beautiful vestments, genuflections, bells, kneeling (a lot of kneeling), mea culpa, ALL LATIN!!!, and then it was over. It past by my senses and I couldn't make head nor tails of it, I had not the mental or spiritual tools to understand its significance (I still don't, not fully, nor do I think I shall ever be able to fully comprehend its significance until, please God, the end, no matter how much I understand it now).At the end I was asked what I thought about it. It probably wasn't the right question, however I said that I have never seen anything like it before, that there was a vast difference between that and the Anglican and Modern Mass. I did begin to attend Traditional Masses more regularly, I was given a missal and slowly I began to follow what was going on. I also spent a good deal of time before and after Mass praying with the prayers for and after communion. This was all happening while I was studying the Counter-Reformation.
I remember also that the Bishop of Southwick was at the University to give a talk on 'Interreligious Dialogue'. I went along for curiosity sakes and came away thinking that what he said made sense. My friend insisted that he had basically talked Catholicism into insignificance, making the point that there was no point in dialogue unless there was to conversion to Catholicism. It was almost as though Catholicism was not true and the point of talking with other religions was to agree on how untrue Catholicism was. I defended the Bishop believing that this was an over reaction; the words 'Vatican II' came up, talk about confusion in the Church, and fear that I might be put off by it. I went away and spent some time on the internet. I have no idea where I went, or what websites I visited, but after about a week or two I came back to my friend and told them that I basically agreed with what they had said. The 'problem' of Vatican II was just another thing, something pray about, but after all Our Lord was to be with the Church until the end of time.
No doubt by the summer of the first year of University I was Catholic in my mind but not in practice. It seemed to be an age, each day passed and I was seemingly no closer to being received. I began my instructions in the Christmas semester, although I knew quite a lot of what Father was saying I waited patiently while these instructions were given. By the Easter of that year I had been received, had first Holy Communion, Confession, and Confirmation. It seemed to go on very slowly and yet it was only a matter of a few months. Intellectually I was becoming more Catholic, more importantly spiritually I was becoming more Catholic. The more I read the more I was convinced of Catholic truth. Every issue became a theological one. I have yet to read an effective repudiation of Catholicism, since it can be defended Historically, Philosophically, Theologically, Logically. I never had, nor do I have, all the answers, but whenever I asked a question I could get a Reason-able answer.
Incidentally, I happen to like this amusing Chesterton poem about counter-conversion:
"The Roman Catholic Church had never forgiven us for converting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle from his agnosticism; and when men like Mr. Dennis Bradley can no longer be content with the old Faith, a spirit of Jealousy is naturally roused" A Spiritualist Paper. (G. K. C.)
She sat upon her Seven Hills
She rent the scarlet robes about her,
Nor yet in her tow thousand years
Had ever grieved that men should doubt her;
But what new horror shakes the mind
Making her moan and mutter madly;
Lo! Rome’s high heart is broken at last
Her foes have borrowed Dennis Bradley.
If she must lean on lesser props
Of earthly fame or ancient art,
Make shift with Raphael and Racine
Put up with Dante and Descartes,
Not wholly can she mask her grief
But touch the wound and murmur sadly,
“The lesser things are theirs to love
Who lose the love of Mr. Bradley.”
She saw great Origen depart
And Photius rend the world asunder,
Her cry to all the East rolled back
In Islam its ironic thunder,
She lost Jerusalem and the North
Accepting these arrangements gladly
Until it came to be a case Of Conan Doyle v. Dennis Bradley
O fond and foolish hopes that still
In broken hearts unbroken burn,
What if, grown weary of new ways,
The precious wanderer should return
The Trumpet whose uncertain sound
Has just been cracking rather badly
May yet within her courts remain
His trumpet- blown by Dennis Bradley.
His and her Trumpet blown before
The battle where the good cause wins
Louder than all Irish harps
Or the Italian violins;
When armed and mounted like St. Joan
She meets the mad world riding madly
Under the Oriflamme of old
Crying, “Mont-joie St. Dennis Bradley!”
But in this hour she sorrows still,
Though all anew the generations
Rise up and call her blessed, claim
Her name upon the new born Nations
But she still mourns the only thing
She ever really wanted badly;
The sympathy of Conan Doyle
The patronage of Dennis Bradley.
(P.S. I realise that I may have sounded a tad critical of pro-life movements, I am absolutely not against them. I realise that they are reactions against a monstrous reality, that they need all the help that they can get, and that if they stop just one murder in a million that are doing some positive good. It is the fault of 'intellectuals' and cranks that we have even to discuss the question, 'Is it right to kill a baby?'. Even if this question is asked the general answer will be some mumbling 'Its just a blob', or 'No'. My real problem is the reduction of the question to whether one is in favour of 'life' or 'choice'. This is a load of nonsense, I personally am in favour of life and choice, but not a synthesis of these two 'ideas' merely a correct understanding of the objective truth of both of those things. Nonetheless, any pro-life activity that I can support I will, particularly Catholic pro-life, and please God we can end the abortion holocaust soon and forever.)
No comments:
Post a Comment