Examination of the Traditional Position

IN THE PRECEDING article it was noted that conservative Catholics have reacted to the post-conciliar crisis in differing ways. Some have gone into schism, claiming that they alone constitute the true Church, others have put their faith in alleged private revelations of doubtful authenticity, and a large number offer an uncritical endorsement of everything said by, done by, or approved by whatever pope happens to be reigning. Archbishop Lefebvre has warned us against all these options and has adopted a policy which can be termed "persevering in tradition."

After the Council, His Grace retired from public life. He resigned as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers even though his term of office still had several years to run. He realized that the Order had become so infected with the "spirit of Vatican II" that he could not stem the tide. This is a fact which can be borne in mind usefully by those inclined to judge the present Pope too harshly. It is no easy task to govern any civil or religious society when most of its more influential members are not in sympathy with your thinking or your policies. There is a natural tendency for those in authority to draw back from an open conflict. This was the attitude taken by the Archbishop and it proved to be a providential one. He was induced to act as spiritual advisor to some seminary students in Rome. He soon discovered that the instruction they were receiving was seriously inadequate and had them enrolled in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, but then discovered that it was no longer orthodox. He realized that the only adequate solution would be to found a new religious order, and he did so strictly in accordance with the norms required by Canon Law. Within a few years his seminary at Ecône had become the most flourishing in Europe and soon acquired an international reputation for its orthodoxy. The Seminary was praised by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, and the Sacred Congregation for Religious allowed members of other religious orders to transfer to the Society of St. Pius X. Everything was as official as it possibly could be.

As so often happens, success brought envy. The French bishops, whose seminaries were empty, or emptying rapidly, brought pressure to bear on Pope Paul VI, and eventually, after a series of squalid maneuvers, Archbishop Lefebvre was ordered to disband his flourishing Society and close down his Seminary. He was even denied leave to appeal against the decision according to established canonical procedures. His response was not to comply without being granted due process of law; and, canonical arguments aside, he claimed that the action taken against him was an offense against natural justice, and hence, invalid. When the background to this action is examined, it can hardly be denied that his appeal to natural justice is based on very strong grounds indeed. A fully documented account of the action taken against the Archbishop can be found in my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. I.

"We are not rebels"

Archbishop Lefebvre denies that he is a rebel though to most Catholics he appears to be. During a period of almost universal revolution, it is those who refuse to join the rebels who appear to be out of step. The Archbishop has summed up the basis of his stand in the following words:

Tradition and Traditions

It is necessary to make an important distinction at this point—a distinction between Tradition and traditions. By Tradition, with a capital "T," we mean the Deposit of Faith entrusted by Our Lord to His Church. Each generation of Catholics has the duty of preserving this Deposit intact and handing it on to succeeding generations. Conservative groups such as Catholics United for the Faith, who are bitterly opposed to the Archbishop and the Society of St. Pius X, would claim that they are devoted to Tradition, and that their principal objective is to preserve and uphold it. I would not seek to contest this claim for one moment. They accept and defend the; great truths of our Faith proposed to us by the Teaching Authority of the Church, the Magisterium. Such Catholics can be termed conservatives, although the term can also be applied to traditionalists whose principal objective is to "conserve" Tradition. Conservatives and traditionalists have the same objective, but they differ over the most effective means of achieving it. It is thus particularly sad that there is often so much animosity between two groups sharing the same faith, which can only bring comfort to the Modernists who, to all intents and purposes, have abandoned the Catholic religion.

Tradition with a capital "T" must be distinguished from traditions with a small "t." Tradition is immutable, but traditions are not. As the centuries passed the great truths of Tradition came to be manifested by countless traditions, some almost universal, others confined to a particular rite, country or even locality. Most readers will belong to the Roman Rite which has its particular liturgy and traditions, but there are a number of Eastern rites in Australia, particularly the Byzantine Rite to which Ukrainians belong. Their liturgy is very different from ours, but it is just as Catholic. A universal tradition which developed within every rite of the Church was that the laity should never handle the Blessed Sacrament. In the West the consecrated Host was placed on the tongue of the communicant by the consecrated hands of a priest. In the East Communion is received under both kinds by being placed on the tongue with a small spoon. In some countries there was a local tradition that at Mass men kept to one side of the church and women to the other. It is a tradition within the Roman Rite that married men cannot be ordained. In some Eastern rites, in union with the Pope, they can. In the Roman Rite Communion has been given to the laity under one kind only for about 1,000 years. In the East it has always been given under two kinds.

The Real Presence is an excellent example to illustrate the difference in approach between traditionalists and conservatives. Both accept Tradition, i.e., that the Blessed Sacrament is the true Body and Blood of Our Lord. This Tradition has come to be expressed within our rite by many traditions. We believe the Host we receive in Holy Communion to be Our Lord, and so we receive Our Lord kneeling from the consecrated hands of a priest. Laymen do not touch certain sacred vessels which contain the Sacrament. The priest keeps his thumb and forefinger together from the moment of consecration lest the smallest particle should fall upon the ground. A communion plate is held beneath the chin of each communicant for the same reason. The chalice and paten are gilded. The priest who consecrates and distributes the Holy Eucharist wears certain prescribed vestments. These, and other traditions expressing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, are not essential to the dogma. The truth of the Real Presence would not have been affected if some of these traditions had never evolved. But just as human nature consists of a spiritual soul united to a physical body, so we need concrete ways of expressing what we believe with our minds. Respect for traditions has been second in the Catholic Church only to respect for Tradition itself. In fact, and here we come to the basis of the traditionalist case: Tradition and traditions can become so closely related that it may not be possible to abandon the practice of the latter without compromising belief in the former.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

There is an old axiom within the Church that the law of prayer, the lex orandi, i.e., the way we worship represents the law of belief, lex credendi. Thus the abandonment of venerable traditions can endanger the very beliefs which they manifest. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that: "It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old." Cardinal Newman warned that: "We should be on our guard against those who hope by inducing us to lay aside our forms, at length to make up lay aside our Christian hope altogether." Countless testimonies could be cited to testify to the veneration for traditions which has always been a characteristic of the true Catholic. The results following a wholesale abandonment of traditions, totally without precedent in the entire history of the Church, are now evident for all of us to see. A visitor present at Mass in any church of the Roman Rite before Vatican II would not have had the least difficulty in appreciating the profound reverence for the Blessed Sacrament shown by everyone present. It is, alas, now rare in the English-speaking world to find a church in which the same impression would be conveyed. In most of them every tradition expressing reverence for the Blessed Sacrament has been abandoned. It is quite normal for standing communicants to be given the Host in their hands by a layman with about as much reverence shown on either side as is displayed at the handing over of a hamburger at McDonald's.

Some months ago I went into a London church on a weekday evening while a group of children were practising some appalling folk ditties. I met an elderly lady coming out as I entered, who complained, "You can't pray in there! It's impossible!" The practice ended a few minutes later and the person in charge said, "That's fine, you can go." The children turned and ran out of the church as if they were leaving school to go out to play. Not one of them even glanced at the tabernacle which, in any case, had been thrust out of the way in a corner. Did those children believe in the dogma of the Real Presence? I very much doubt it. The traditions expressing that belief had been abandoned, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament was abandoned next, and then the belief itself.

The position of Archbishop Lefebvre is, then, that he will not acquiesce in a wholesale abandonment of traditions received from our fathers, and that he will resist this process—not in a spirit of rebellion, but in a spirit of fidelity to the Church, which is fidelity to Our Blessed Lord Himself. He has taken this stand not from an inability to adapt, or from simple nostalgia, but because of the disastrous effect which abandoning traditions has had upon Catholic life. He is, then, taking this stand to preserve the Faith, to uphold Tradition. He argues that such resistance does not make traditionalists rebels or schismatics. How can it be rebellion or schism to remain faithful to what has been handed down and, as he expresses it, has "sanctified the saints who are in heaven"?

Every moral theologian would agree that Catholics must resist any command which they are convinced in conscience is harmful to the Church, but they would have a grave responsibility to ensure that they had taken every possible step to inform their consciences properly before disobeying the command of a lawful superior. Cardinal Newman teaches that our presumption should first be that the superior is correct, particularly when that superior is the pope, but if we cannot convince ourselves in conscience that the pope is right, then we must resist him. Thus the position of the Archbishop, the true traditionalist position, is pragmatic. We must look around us, we must look at the fruits of the reform. Are they good fruits or are they bad? If they are bad then, while remaining formally within the Church, we must resist them—"not in a spirit of rebellion, but of fidelity to the Church."

The conservative Catholic cannot accept this position due to an exaggerated emphasis on one particular duty of a Catholic: obedience to lawful authority. He thus accepts any change approved by a pope, whatever its effects.