Wednesday, July 03, 2013

On the Use of Qualifying Terms (Like "Traditionalist") Preceding the Simple Description of "Catholic"


By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

This took place on my Facebook page. "Boniface's" words will be in blue.

*****

I have stopped referring to myself as a traditionalist after being directed to a statement by Benedict XV saying that Catholics ought not to use those such labels.

Excellent. Where did he say that? I'd like to see it.

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
(Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24)

This was brought to my attention by another traditionalist. But I think the last phrase, "only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself" is very important as a qualifier, so that we know that "Catholic" in reality is not the same thing as everything in this world that has the adjective "Catholic" in front of it.
I actually issued a retraction on my blog, [ link ] because until that time, I called myself a traditionalist and even defended use of the label and labeling as such.

But I wonder, if the label can't be used, are we left with nothing but naked preference? I "prefer" traditional Catholicism and another "prefers" liberal Catholicism with neo-pagan meditation added in, and so long as we are both in formal communion, no label can be used to distinguish the two? What happens when whole parishes, even whole dioceses are not endeavoring to be in what reality what they call themselves? It seems ludicrous to say that Catholicism as BXV understands it and Catholicism as it is practiced in some places should be grouped together.

I always say that I call myself "Catholic"; if asked what kind, I say, "orthodox." If asked what that means, I say, "I accept all that the Church dogmatically and infallibly teaches and submit myself to her authority."

I would love for no labels to be
used. Unfortunately, a tiny group is quasi-schismatic and extreme, and so I refer to them as radical Catholic reactionaries, so as not to besmirch or broad-brush the entire group of "traditionalists": who are entirely distinct. The apologist has to precisely identify the group he is critiquing, and so labels cannot completely be avoided.

I would love, however, -- ideally --, for there to be no need for labels beyond "Catholic." I'm delighted to see that a pope said many years ago what I've been saying for over 20 years now.


Exactly. I can accept that we ought not to use labels, but it would be better to have a situation where the label was not necessary at all - where "Catholic" covered everything. I do not believe we are at that point yet. 

I agree. We should all insist on saying we are "Catholics" -- then if we are asked what it means, we can get into all the other business, as the occasion arises. But it's important to keep the tradition of the name "Catholic": which does historically mean quite a bit, and has a definite meaning.

Historically, labels tend to come in only once someone is outside the Church (Arians, Pelagians, etc). But interestingly enough, the Church has occasionally appropriated labels to refer to orthodox Catholics during times of great confusion - regular old run of the mill Catholics were once called "Chalcedonian Catholics" and in France those loyal to the Pope called themselves "Ultramontanes." The Church in both of these ages approved of these labels - but then again, they were being used in opposition to heretical movements that had been formally defined as such. The liberal scourge within the Church today is not so easy to put a finger on.

Very good. I highly commend you for taking a stand on this. I think it's great.


*****



3 comments:

The Ubiquitous said...

Labels cause division where there is not already distinction. However, because there is not a sharp distinction, we cannot be using sharp labels.

This is my conclusion, tentatively. Do we agree?

The Ubiquitous said...

Also, I have a tentative definition I think I would like to run by you, regarding radtrads and traditionalists --- and I appreciate that you're now saying the former subgroup is "tiny." I'm sorry if I've missed that earlier, but whattayagonnado.

There is a very simple definition of radtrad and traditionalist. Both appreciate the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, but this really has nothing to do with the difference between them.

This is the distinction:

The radtrad considers the Second Vatican Council an enemy of traditionalism. The traditionalist considers the Second Vatican Council an invaluable ally. (SC 23, &c.)

Thoughts?

Dave Armstrong said...

It's necessary to differentiate "radtrads" from "trads": as I again argued today on my Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/624367167598272

Your definition is a portion of the one I have used for years: the radtrad is one who constantly bashes and trashes one or more of the following:

1) VCII.
2) The Novus Ordo.
3) Recent popes (John XXIII forward).
4) Ecumenism.

I think the antipathy to the Novus Ordo is the most characteristic, followed closely by derision towards VCII.