The often-excellent Fr Dwight Longenecker has recently got himself into
a bit of a pickle over a post
Traditionalists Reject Divine Mercy, which in its
original version appeared to
give the impression that all Catholics calling themselves traditionalists
believe exactly the same thing. In fact,
pace* Fr Dwight, there are at
least three sub-species of traditionalist, and here is a short guide.
* traddy Latin expression meaning "with peace", here meaning "with due deference to".
Pope Pius I (2nd century A.D.). Accepted by most trads.
Traditionalistus Sedevacantus. These are the extreme trads, who
do not accept any pope since Pius XII (or Pius X, or possibly Pius V; one of
the Pii, anyway) as being legitimate. They have severe reservations about the
"modernistic"
Tridentine Mass, preferring the Sarum Rite, although some prefer to celebrate
the Whitby Rite dating from A.D. 664, in which "Yorkshire" Latin
(lingua ebagumsis) was
recommended. Some theories you may hear from
T.S. include the notion that Pope St John XXIII was replaced by the demon Telbat,
just before he summoned Vatican II, and that the next Pope -
"who will come from a Minster to the West" -
will be the last before the final Armageddon, the great battle between
Conservatism and Liberalism.
Archbishop Lefebvre looks on in horror as a giant puppet walks up the aisle.
Traditionalistus Nonvaticanduensis. Next on the scale we have
a variety of traditionalists who reject parts of Vatican II. Bishop Fellay, the
head of SSPX, has said that his team accepts 95% of the teachings of Vatican II,
which is not a bad score: an A* grade, surely? Of course nobody has ever read all the
Vatican II documents (739 pages of fine print, as contrasted with 42 for
Vatican I and 179 for Trent), although we are all waiting for the movie,
which will star Stephen Fry as Hans Küng and Kermit the Frog as
Basil Loftus. The documents have titles such as
Decree concerning the sacred pastoral dogmatic constitution on the apostolate of the renewal of priestly mission through the divine ministry of the ecumenical activity of social communication with the laity, which roughly means Kick-starting our priests.
T.N. will of course only attend a Latin Mass, regarding the Novus
Ordo as - at best - inferior, and - at worst - invalid. Although
they accept that Pope Francis is the legitimate pope, they tend to dislike
him so much that he might easily be the Beast of the Apocalypse in a white suit.
Flamenco dancing in church? At my age?
Traditionalistus Orthodoxus. These are the most numerous, and in fact
tend to be totally orthodox Catholics who see no point in changing things just for the
sake of change. They may well prefer the traditional Latin Mass for its
universality, purity
and beauty (enabling them to focus on God rather than worrying about whether
they will catch a loathsome disease from young Ernie Grotchet in the Kiss of Peace);
still,
they accept that the Novus Ordo is a totally valid way of worshipping.
They have no
particular quarrel with Vatican II itself (after all, if you look closely,
you find that it stressed the importance of
Latin). However, they
go for the "hermeneutic of continuity" approach, and therefore
believe that the so-called
Spirit of Vatican II - motto "Anything Goes" - is just a snare and a delusion
leading to liturgical dancing, clown masses and
banal hymns such as Shine, Jesus, Shine.
Often, they prefer Pope Benedict XVI's approach rather than Pope Francis's, but they console
themselves with the thought that the Holy Spirit never promised that all
popes would be supermen.
Not Pope Francis... or is he?
One could go on, with an analysis of watered-down Catholicism: does a fondness
for Walk in the Light mean that you automatically subscribe to
the weird views of Tina Beattie? If necessary, we can advise you.
