What Are the Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement? (Trad Godfathers, Pt. II)

Mr Flanders continues his series on Trad Godfathers with a look at the "godfathers of the godfathers", the early heroes who stood against modernity before the 1960s.

From One Peter Five

By Timothy Flanders, MA

Trad Godfathers: a New Conversation
Part I: Traditionalism at Sixty
Part II: What are the Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement?
Part III: Who are the Clans of Tradition?

Part II: What are the Non-Negotiables of the Trad Movement?

Important Predecessors to the Trad Movement

With that historical introduction, let’s discuss some of the Trad godfathers which will help us get into the essentials, and then the clans. First, we need to mention the “godfathers of the godfathers.” These are churchmen who formed the vanguard for the Faith after the Masonic conspiracy of the Vatican in 1773.[1] As our editorial stance puts it:

OnePeterFive represents the anti-Liberal effort that began before Vatican II. Its fundamental basis was the spiritual sword wielded by the popes against modern errors going back to Pius VI in 1794 and later the strength and orthodoxy of St. Pius X. It was the subtle mind of Newman and the precision of Franzelin.

Counter-revolutionaries and lay leaders rose up: the Vendée, O’Connell, de Maistre, Veuillot, and others with the Carlists and Ninth Crusaders and later the Matt family in the United States.

But the soul of the movement has always been liturgical—exemplified in the piety of Guéranger—and its heart aesthetic—the beauty of composers, painters, sculptors, and architects (like Pugin) working within the great tradition, and later the worlds of Tolkien.

Our Lady appeared at Fatima to call modern man to repent, lest the wrath of God fall upon him, and this became the rallying cry for the movement.

These proto-Trad figures include members of the Two Swords: both popes and emperors, clerics and noblemen. Among the greatest of the former is our patron, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and among the greatest of the latter is our patron, Blessed Emperor Karl. However we also need to mention Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who, with his fellow OPs, initiated a scholastic debate with the nascent Nouvelle théologie in the 1940s.

But none of these men could properly be called “traditionalist,” historically speaking, since the New Iconoclasm had not yet begun (despite the 1955 proto-Novus Ordo reform of Pius XII). This is what brings us to our essentials.

What are the Trad Movement’s Non-Negotiables?

Here I’m going to attempt a perilous task: find the common denominators which unite all those who call themselves “traditional Catholics.” Now, this is not going to satisfy everybody, but I hope it will summarise our work here at OnePeterFive (although, as I said, this article is my private opinion as opposed to an editorial statement from our online journal – so we might publish a contrary view from a member of our board). This will then lead us to define who are the “clans of Tradition” in which different Trad godfathers found themselves.

First of all, our editorial stance names three non-negotiables which unite Trads with other non-Trad Catholics:

1. We accept Pope Francis as the reigning pontiff
2. Vatican II is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church
3. The New Mass and Sacraments are valid

These three are merely in place to state what are the boundaries of the traditionalist publishing that we will do here at OnePeterFive. Recently we have published more content entertaining pious doubts about #1 in this list, but this is not to build any case to definitively deny that Francis is the Pope, but merely to speculate about what might be happening under this pontificate. Unless something definitive happens – like the death of Pope Francis, an “Imperfect Council,” or some other act of God – we will still accept Pope Francis as the Roman pontiff.  

But none of these things define a traditionalist qua traditionalist, but merely say what a traditionalist is not. In other words, a traditionalist is not a sedevacantist. (I understand that sedevacantists are traditional in many ways, and I do not deny that my sede brethren deserve the name “Catholic.” But OnePeterFive promotes the “Recognize & Resist” (Papal Minimalist) view, and thus does not promote the sedevacantist view, which is typically coming from presuppositions which are Hyperpapalist or Papal Maximalist.)

So let’s move from the first non-negotiables to a second set of three points in which we will define those specific non-negotiables which unite all Trads. These are organized in order of their importance to the Trad movement, which stems not from their metaphysical value as such, but from how historically new they are (and thus historically connected to the year 1964, a year we will explain in its proper place).

1. A traditionalist Catholic defends the Latin Mass (and the other monuments of our forefathers) against the New Iconoclasm occasioned by Vatican II[2]
2. A traditionalist Catholic takes the Oath against Modernism: he defends all traditional doctrines of faith and morals (and all traditional devotions) against Modernism and Neo-Modernism[3]
3. A traditionalist Catholic believes that “Liberalism is a sin,” heresy or at least an error against the Catholic faith and therefore resists all Liberalism promoted by Popes, Bishops or Priests.

Against the New Iconoclasm

First of all, it is important to note that when a Trad adheres to point #1 he already has the presupposition of the “Papal Minimalist” camp. (He is not, and must not be, in the Neo-Jansenist camp. This seems to lead to the dead-end of sedevacantism.) From our article on the “Dubia of Vatican I”:

Theological Schools Following Vatican I

1. Hyperpapalist – the pope can never be in error or heretical, and his will is the will of the Holy Spirit, and thus anything less than blind obedience to him is schismatic (Tolerated Opinion)
2. Papal Maximalist – the pope’s infallibility extends beyond ex cathedra statements, but he can only be disobeyed if and only if he commands something that is manifestly and intrinsically sinful (which is possible, as history shows). Therefore, he enjoys absolute power over the liturgy, keeping only the form and matter of the Sacrament intact. Public resistance to ecclesiastical authority is a scandal to the faithful and per se leads to schism (Pious Opinion).
3. Papal Minimalist – the pope can become a heretic and err outside his ex cathedra statements (although this can only happen rarely, due to the general protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit). The pope is bound to Tradition in his liturgical acts, and thus he can be disobeyed even in things not manifestly sinful but only according to a well-formed conscience. Public resistance to ecclesiastical authority can only be justified for a manifestly grave cause (Probable Opinion).
4. Neo-Jansenist[4] – the pope (and the Magisterium in general) can be ignored, dismissed and disobeyed in all their acts which fail to achieve infallible authority, and the faithful possess carte blanche to mock, ridicule and insult ecclesiastical authority publicly (Rash, dangerous, contrary to Catholic teaching).

For many Trads, being a “Papal minimalist” goes without saying. You have to be a Papal Minimalist if you defend the Latin Mass against the New Iconoclasm. What is the New Iconoclasm? The New Iconoclasm is really “Third Iconoclasm” after the First, which took place among the Greeks (726-842) and the Second, which took place among the Latins (1517-present; Protestant revolt). The New Iconoclasm now seeks, above all, to abolish the Latin Mass forever.

But this also includes a defence of the monuments of our fathers – traditional architecture, sacred art, sacred music, literature – against the ugliness imposed upon the faithful by the Iconoclast regime occupying (or at least tacitly permitted by) the Vatican. (Ratzinger was a Papal minimalist, but he seems to have agreed with Cardinal Frings in criticising the crusade against Modernism and did not take a strong stand on any of these points. Nevertheless his work on the liturgy against the New Iconoclasm provides a great deal of authoritative principles to justify #1.[5])

Why is this the most important non-negotiable of the Trad movement? First, as I said it is most closely associated with the year 1964, the year that Una Voce was being organised (since the other two predate this by a few generations). Second, it is the most simple and ubiquitous thing which united the faithful traditionalists. Any faithful Trad laymen will agree with #2 and #3, but they might not be able to explain those points with any degree of scholarship. But there’s no confusion when it comes to the Latin Mass. They know in their bones that the Latin Mass is the inheritance of their forefathers and cannot be abolished without sin. And therefore a traditionalist will resist this effort as far as his Catholic conscience will take him.

Against Neo-Modernism

After this, #2 basically assumes what our contributing editor Dr. John Joy has claimed, namely that the Oath Against Modernism is infallible. If the decree is not infallible, all Trads at least believe every word of it, and see the things that happened at and after Vatican II as some form of Neo-Modernism attacking our doctrines of faith and morals, along with all traditional devotions. (In fact, even Pope Paul VI called Neo-Modernism “Modernism,” citing Pascendi.[6])

However, there are various schools of philosophical and theological thought which diverge among the clans as we will see. And of course, everybody has their favorite traditional devotion. The point is, the overthrow of traditional faith, morals and devotions is the aim of Neo-Modernism (which forms but another wing of New Iconoclasm) and therefore the traditionalist Catholic resists this with all his strength, defending the Faith in order to pass it down to his children.

Against Liberalism

Finally, there is the opposition to Liberalism as “sin, heresy, or at least an error.” This is what connects the Trad movement with the “Anti-Liberal” movement of the 19th century. This is summed up by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who reviews the various Magisterial interventions on this topic, defining Liberalism as follows:

Inasmuch as it is distinct from the indifferentism that we discussed above, liberalism, which was admitted by Catholic liberals who were disciples of Felicité de Lamennais, defends the civil freedom of any form of worship, not as an intrinsically [in se] disordered condition of society, but rather, as something conformed to the spirit of the Gospel and indeed of great use [to society]. Although liberal Catholics admitted that the Catholic Church was divinely instituted, they did indeed teach that full freedom must be condeded it, though nothing more is owed to it beyond that. “For the true religion,” they said, “will spread and flourish solely by way of persuasion. It will be embraced by many, and indeed, with all the more freedom (and, therefore, with greater trust and love) to the degree that the coercion of believing is less, since the truth always prevails over errors.”

The Church says: “What worse death is there for the soul than the liberty of error… Thus human nature, already inclined to evil as it is, is now headlong [to its ruin]” (Gregory XVI, Mirari vos, 14). For not all men (indeed, not many) take interest [sunt cultores] in truth and virtue. And having granted freedom to teach errors that flatter passions or pride, the greater part of men will not be able, without great difficulty, to discover the truth that saves.

Such liberalism can be defined as follows: the doctrine holding that the civil and social authority is not bound to receive divine revelation that has been sufficiently proposed to it, but instead can remain neutral between true and false religions without submission to supernaturally revealed divine positive laws. It is a kind of social naturalism: Temporal society is not bound to subordinate its own proximate end to the supernatural end (Leo XIII, Libertas, 23-24).[7]

After this definition the “sacred monster of Thomism” reviews the Magisterial interventions against Liberalism and concludes with his assessment of the theological censure attached to its condemnation:

From these various condemnations, the following judgment of the Church is clear: Indifferentism (which is also often called liberalism) is a heresy against the dogma “outside the Catholic Church no salvation is possible for anyone” (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; Council of Florence, Cantate Domino; Pius IX, Singulari quadam). However, liberalism in the form in which it is admitted by Catholic liberals as something distinct from indifferentism, if not a heresy, is a theological error, and it is numbered by Pius IX among those doctrines that, as he himself says, “must be thoroughly held by all the children of the Catholic Church as rejected, proscribed, and condemned” (Quanta cura, 6; cf. “Libéralisme,” Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, col. 1840).

There are some Catholics who love the Latin Mass and attend it, but would not take the Oath against Modernism. Other Catholics might love the Latin Mass but they would reject what I just quoted from Garrigou-Lagrange. These Catholics would be key allies to the Trad movement, but they might not identify themselves as “traditionalist,” and I do not want to promote such views at OnePeterFive, insofar as they diverge from these traditionalist non-negotiables.

The Lay Domain

The thing about anti-Liberalism is that it is the particular domain of the laity. Whereas the defence of the Latin Mass has been lay-led since 1964, lay people have no power over the liturgy. It’s the domain of the clergy. All the laity can do is try to convince the clerics to defend the Latin Mass. No layman can put on a chasuable and begin “In Nomine Patris…”

Anti-Modernism blends the domains of the clergy and the laity, since the clergy must preach and the laity must catechize their children. We might say that the clergy are the “public preachers” in the parish church and the laity are the “private preachers” in the domestic church – both preach against Neo-Modernism, quoting Vatican II (“In [the domestic church] parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children[.]” Lumen Gentium, 11).

But with Anti-Liberalism, now we’re talking about the specific domain of the laity, where the clergy should not meddle, except ratione peccati. This is because Liberalism is concerned with the Kingship of Christ over the temporal order, which is the domain of the laity, again even according to Vatican II.[8] It is the laity who more perfectly participate in the Kingship of Christ, being monarchs over their families and monarchs and noblemen (or at least politicians) over villages, cities, and nations (the clergy, for their part, more perfectly participate in the priesthood of Christ, which is objectively higher than the laity’s temporal sword, according to the doctrine of the Two Swords[9]).

But even though Vatican II seemed to confirm an anti-Liberal stance in the opening paragraph of Dignitatus Humanae, the same document seemed to open the door to Liberalism, and practically all bishops everywhere (including the Vatican) quickly interpreted this as giving carte blanche to the American-style, heretical Liberalism or as Archbishop Lefebvre called it “state Atheism without the name.”[10] So the Vatican pressured lay rulers like Franco in Spain to uncrown Christ and impose an American-style Liberalism on their domains. Because of the influence of nineteenth century clericalism (imposed especially by Pius IX’s innovation at Vatican I), pious lay people thought they should obey these misguided political orders from clerics, and they laid down their spiritual weapons in front of the political firing squad of Marxism – Soviet, Western, or otherwise. Then immediately followed the Second Sexual Revolution of the 1960s worldwide, quickly disarming the warriors for Christ the King and toppling His Throne in every post-war society.[11]

The Trad lay people involved in politics and social reform – with all the other faithful Catholics as well – have been trying to catch up in the “culture wars” ever since.

Part III to follow.

Photo by Allison Girone.

---

[1] In my book I date Modernity from suppression of the “SJ Fathers” throughout Christendom in 1773. This was a form of spiritual patricide which paved the way for the patricidal Liberal revolutions which immediately followed and targeted the Monarchs. See Flanders, City of God vs. City of Man (Our Lady of Victory Press, 2021), 275-283.

[2] For an extensive discussion of the phrase “New Iconoclasm,” and why this term is necessary, see Flanders, op. cit., 433-471.

[3] As Pius XII put it: “Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic” (Humani Generis, 30). The Neo-Iconoclasm and Neo-Modernism occasioned Vatican II indeed intended to “overthrow” everything that came before: faith, morals, devotions, monuments and liturgy. Moreover, Paul VI himself called it “Modernism, which is still with us today,” citing Pascendi (allocution of Jan 19, 1972) printed in E. Kevane, Creed and Catechetics (Westminster, MD:  Christian Classics, 1978), 205-208.

[4] I term this attitude “Neo-Jansenism” as opposed to “Neo-Gallicanism” because Jansenism was a dispute with Papal authority about the Faith contained in the Fathers (specifically St. Augustine) whereas Gallicanism was a dispute with Papal authority about the role of the Catholic temporal authority. Further, it is not “Old Catholic” since Old Catholics rejected Vatican I, and are thus formally heretics. Since no Trads today claim Catholic temporal authority in their dispute with the Magisterium, nor do they refuse assent to Vatican I, it seems this impious attitude among Trads is more properly compared to Jansenism in that movement’s bad faith dealings with ecclesiastical authority.

[5] Joseph Ratzinger had difficulty getting his dissertation published because his work on St. Bonaventure was suspect of Modernism. It appears, however, that this was a result of the period being, more or else, “No Salvation Outside Thomism,” rather than the traditional openness to truly traditional and scholastic debate between Thomism, Scotism, etc. To his credit, Ratzinger maintained a Christian attitude toward his critic Schmaus at the University. See Milestones,  103-114. For more on the context, see Kirwan & Minerd, The Thomistic Response to the Nouvelle Théologie (CUA Press, 2023), 1-88. See also my essays on the Pre- and Post-Vatican II decline and collapse of theology (here and here).

[6] Allocution of Jan 19, 1972, printed in E. Kevane, Creed and Catechetics (Westminster, MD:  Christian Classics, 1978), 205-208.

[7] Brackets and emphasis in the original English translation by Matthew Minerd. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, On Divine Revelation, trans. Matthew Minerd (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2022), vol. II, 556-557.

[8] “In the course of history, the use of temporal things has been marred by serious vices. Affected by original sin, men have frequently fallen into many errors concerning the true God, the nature of man, and the principles of the moral law. This has led to the corruption of morals and human institutions and not rarely to contempt for the human person himself. In our own time, moreover, those who have trusted excessively in the progress of the natural sciences and the technical arts have fallen into an idolatry of temporal things and have become their slaves rather than their masters. … The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation. Led by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church and motivated by Christian charity, they must act directly and in a definite way in the temporal sphere. As citizens they must cooperate with other citizens with their own particular skill and on their own responsibility. Everywhere and in all things they must seek the justice of God’s kingdom. The temporal order must be renewed in such a way that, without detriment to its own proper laws, it may be brought into conformity with the higher principles of the Christian life and adapted to the shifting circumstances of time, place, and peoples. Preeminent among the works of this type of apostolate is that of Christian social action which the sacred synod desires to see extended to the whole temporal sphere, including culture” (Apostolicam Actuositatem, 7). “What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. It is true that those in holy orders can at times be engaged in secular activities, and even have a secular profession. But they are by reason of their particular vocation especially and professedly ordained to the sacred ministry. Similarly, by their state in life, religious give splendid and striking testimony that the world cannot be transformed and offered to God without the spirit of the beatitudes. But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven… Because of the very economy of salvation the faithful should learn how to distinguish carefully between those rights and duties which are theirs as members of the Church, and those which they have as members of human society. Let them strive to reconcile the two, remembering that in every temporal affair they must be guided by a Christian conscience, since even in secular business there is no human activity which can be withdrawn from God’s dominion. In our own time, however, it is most urgent that this distinction and also this harmony should shine forth more clearly than ever in the lives of the faithful, so that the mission of the Church may correspond more fully to the special conditions of the world today. For it must be admitted that the temporal sphere is governed by its own principles, since it is rightly concerned with the interests of this world. But that ominous doctrine which attempts to build a society with no regard whatever for religion, and which attacks and destroys the religious liberty of its citizens, is rightly to be rejected [citing Leo XIII’s anti-Liberal encyclical Immortal Dei]” (Lumen Gentium,31, 37).

[9] Pope Gelasius to the Schismatic Eastern Emperor: “There are two swords, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will” James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European History (Ginn and Co., 1904), vol. 1, 72-73.

[10] See his “Summa”: They Have Uncrowned Him (Angelus Press, 1988).

[11] The First Sexual Revolution occurred during the 1920s. See Flanders, City of God vs. City of Man, 377-395.