Every now and then I like to leave the bubble and get some air with a brisk walk to the other side of the fence. It may involve reading an article at the Huffington Post, interacting with a secular neighbor, or watching a clip at CNN. Why? Perspective. I realize that the way we think and act as homeschooling, Latin-Mass attending, all-in Catholics is a very thin slice of the cultural pie, and it doesn't hurt to keep tabs on how people think and act outside of our circle.
A book I'm reading right now is The Christians As The Romans Saw Them by Robert L. Wilken. We take for granted the fact that Christendom colors everything since we are now more than two thousand years after the birth of Christ, and Christianity is one of the predominant religions in the world. But in the first century AD, it was still more or less an esoteric cult operating in a traditionally established culture (in this case, the Roman Empire). Dr. Wilken attempts to portray pagan criticism of Christianity from those pagan sources directly. "I am convinced that the perceptions of outsiders tell us something significant about the character of the Christian movement,” he writes, “and that without the views of those who made up the world in which Christianity grew to maturity, we will never understand what Christianity was or is."
From the writings in the first chapter of Pliny, a young middle-management Roman bureaucrat and provincial governor, we see that many Romans in the first and second century with an outsider's view of Christianity regarded their own handed down worship (paganism) the "traditional (civil) religion," and regarded Christanity as a "foreign cult of superstition."
According to Plutarch, the superstitious person does not use his intelligence in thinking about the gods, but instead creates fearful images and horrible apparitions that lead to bizarre and extreme behavior (61). For pious Romans of the day, to be "religious" or "religiously conservative" (as they considered themselves to be) was to be respectable and decent...accepting practices handed down by tradition. Christianity was none of these things, at least during these early centuries.
Pliny carried out his civic duty as governor of Bithynia-Pontus--that is, of keeping order in his jurisdiction--with a mind towards fairness and appropriate justice. Often, this resulted in execution of Christians for simply being Christians. "Whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakable obstinacy (contumacia) ought not to go unpunished" (23). Contempt and defiance of a magistrate was sufficient grounds for punishment.
Already, we see the character of some of the early Christians from these outside sources emerging. They were a "problem," a kind of new infection in traditional Roman society that officials felt were a threat to the existing (conservative) social order and had to be "dealt with." The "self-righteousness and arrogance" of the martyrs offended them.
As modern Christians today we tend to view sympathetically the martyrs and followers of Christ in those early centuries...heroes in a way. From the Romans' perspective, however, Christians were not scapegoats of Nero but were legitimately punished because of their "hatred of the human race...their aloofness and disdain for the ways of others" (Celsus). The Christians "wall themselves off and break away from the rest of mankind" (Cels 8.2), and the words of their leader (Jesus) are seditious, since this factionalism is an apostasy from Judaism, as they saw it.
"Celsus is speaking about a revolt against the institutions of the Greco-Roman world, against the customs and traditions in the cities, against the wisdom which had been handed down for generations by wise men of old. Christians had contempt for these ancient and hallowed ways" (118)
It is in this context that I would like to speculate about why not only the world and the culture at large, but many invested in the post-conciliar Church, have such disdain for Traditionalists. Ironically, we can look at the words of our own Holy Father just a week ago, to surmise the sentiment and charge leveled against Traditional Catholics:
"'Traditionalism' is a form 'of a Pelagian selfishness that puts our own tastes and plans above the love that pleases God, the simple, humble and faithful love that Jesus asked of Peter." [It was the Council (the Second Vatican Council) which] rediscovered the living river of Tradition without remaining mired in traditions"
Traditionalism--or 'looking backwards'--that longs for a bygone world are not evidence of love, but of infidelity"
(homily at St. Peter's Basilica on the 60th Anniversary of Vatican II, 10 October, 2022)
To the establishment Church--that is, the post-conciliar Church in which the last 60 years of novel and heavy ecclesiastical investment has been made--traditionalists are, to use the language of the Holy Father, "unfaithful." To transfer the language of the first century Romans, traditional Catholics are "superstitious," "contemptuous," "stubborn," "obstinate," "factional"...a "problem" that the Holy See feels the need to "deal with."
Superstitious...because they believe in miracles, in the power of sacramentals, in transubstantiation, in the messages of the Virgin Mary.
Contemptous..because they resist the "Dictatorship of Relativism" (to quote then Cardinal Ratzinger) and teach their children to do the same.
Stubborn and obstinant...because they refuse to apostatize or compromise with sin and hold to the truth faith at great cost, up to and sometimes including torture, imprisonment, and death.
Factional...because they wish to worship the One True God not in anthropocentric novelty, but according to the faith of their tradition that they have been taught (2 Thes 2:15).
A problem...not because of heterodoxy, but an orthodoxy that is an indictment to the offenders of Truth. Not because they do not believe, but because they do.
The charge of infidelity--to be unfaithful--leveled against traditional Catholics by their holy father is curious. What does it mean to be "unfaithful?" Is it possible to be "unfaithful" to the (post-conciliar) Church while faithful to Christ? Isn't this what Martin Luther sought to do? Are Traditionalists the "new Protestants" while Catholics such as our President and House Speaker represent the "faith of (their) fathers?"
It's all so bizarre, isn’t it? Christians who love the Lord, who want to give him the first fruits of worship, and do not compromise with sin have suddenly become despised for their obstinacy, become objects of contempt, and charged with being too superstitious. Maybe it is because they hold up a mirror, simply by their living and worship, to not only the culture (which is blind to its deformity), but the post-conciliar Church (whose prelates recognize a threat when they see one). For that reason, it should not be surprising that the words of our Lord should come to pass:
"You will be hated by everyone because of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved" (Jn 15:18). For "friendship with the world is enmity with God" (Ja 4:4)
I've found that most of the hatred of tradition comes from personal emotional reactions among older people. They associate tradition with the harsh discipline they received as a child (often at the hands of nuns), or the poverty they experienced within their traditional family growing up, or because when they came of age the authorities of the day taught them to fear and dislike tradition.
ReplyDeleteWhen such people see young folks attached to tradition, it triggers a fear that nuns slapping children with rulers and the misogyny of the 50s is all going to come rushing back. It's very difficult to break that association.
Reaction against tradition among younger people is mostly because it seems so foreign to them (why would a priest face away from the people during Mass?) or because they have bad personal experiences with individual traditionalists or communities.