"No True Traditionalist": Purity Testing in Traddydom

Photo courtesy of G Photography and Films

This next trip around the sun will mark twenty years of writing in the Trad Catholic space. In that time I have seen a lot, and it's kind of amusing how certain patterns will repeat over time. For example, every now and then traditional Catholic discourse gets an outbreak of the "YOU'RE NOT A REAL TRAD!" diatribe. This usually happens after there has been some big setback or divisive event: something bad or controversial happens, Trads get divided on how to deal with it, and disagreement turns to infighting. One faction starts trying to gatekeep the entire movement by insisting that this particular way is the only path forward and they make their position into a purity test—if you refuse to affirm their particular point or strategy or pet issue then you are "not a real Trad." 

It is always obnoxious when this argument breaks open, as it is always ridiculous, certainly counterproductive, and often hurtful to the people who get cold-shouldered. I experienced this myself many years ago, not long after Francis's election when everything was up in the air and we were just starting to get a taste of Francis's lío. Back when blog rolls were a thing (remember those?) I got removed from the blog roll of a very prominent Trad Catholic blog and blacklisted from the site because I hesitated to publicly call Cardinal Kasper a racist. The (notoriously bitchy) blog owner told me, "We are in a war. If you're not helping us you're helping the enemy." If even the most trivial deviation from one's own preferred approach is construed as "helping the enemy," I think it's a sign you might be attributing a bit too much self-importance to your place in the big picture. 

Yes, we Trads have some recurrent problem with No True Scotsman-ing one another into the dirt, and I think we are in such a moment now over the question of the SSPX consecrations. Few issues are as divisive in the traditional world as the SSPX, and in my twenty years I have learned to accept that traditional Catholics are going to have varying approaches to this issue. I have my own thoughts on the July 2026 consecrations (which you can find here), and beyond this, I don't really care to delve much deeper, other than to say that, from the hindsight of several months now, I do not think the 2026 consecrations were justified, just as I was never convinced the 1988 consecrations were justified. But I know many Trads do, especially among my audience. The last thing I would ever do is try to suggest that persons who disagree on this are not "real" Trads. At most, they are Traditional Catholics with whom I have a disagreement—a disagreement that is entirely within the borders of the broader Traditional movement.

I do, however, see a lot of diatribe currently emanating from the pro-SSPX side trying to gatekeep the Trad movement—to say, in essence, to be Traditionalist is to be pro-SSPX. While I acknowledge there is overlap between these positions, I vehemently reject the total identification of one with the other. Apart from the more general point that there is room for disagreement on prudential matters, I could never see how affirming an act of formal disobedience against the successor of Peter could be construed as a litmus test for orthodoxy. Say what you want about the consecrations—maybe you believe they were necessary, maybe they weren't; at times formal disobedience very well might be necessary, we can agree to disagree—but to make the affirmation of such things into a Trad purity test is, frankly, insane. 

Back in 2015 I wrote a short article called "No Trad Magisterium" which touched on many of the same points, insisting on rejecting of any kind of Trad gatekeeping, especially if tied to the status of the SSPX. I wrote a statement then that I stand by even more so today:

There are many, many differences among trads, and with them all comes a variety of opinions on a whole host of matters. And our Tradition allows room for these sorts of diversifications. It's not that these differences are inconsequential; I have very strong opinions on most of these points, but I am not so certain in them that I would accuse those who don't agree with me of being subpar traditionalists. What I reject...is the idea that there is some sort of Traditionalist "magisterium" that can authoritatively define what a Catholic traditionalist ought to look like and proclaim those who do not adhere to this version of traditionalism to be "unacceptable."

Something I see alot from the pro-SSPX side these days is a critique relating to faith and liturgy as they intersect in the different strands of traditionalism. The critique is that only the SSPX understands that the crisis is about more than just liturgy; it's about faith itself. Rome, so it goes, is problematic not merely because of the suppression of the Traditional Mass, but because of theological novelties introduced into the faith. There can, therefore, be no place for the traditional liturgy under the current Roman regime. The FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan Latin Masses are all unacceptable because, at the end of the day, they purchase the old Mass at the price of silence, accepting the liturgy as a concession from the very authorities who are promoting the doctrinal errors that caused the crisis in the first place. They become, in a certain sense, complicit. This is why the Society will not reconcile unless Rome first "converts."

I find this critique ridiculous, for many reasons, chiefly that other non-SSPX traditionalists are certainly not ignorant that there are profound theological and philosophical problems at the heart of the crisis. The critique is somewhat of a strawman; it sets up as a foil the smells-and-bells Trad who just wants his nice liturgy but is entirely unaware or uncaring of modern doctrinal perversions. I don't think most Trads fit this description at all. We are all well aware of the doctrinal issues. We are all aware that Rome is in need of purification; it's just that we do not conclude that these doctrinal problems justify becoming canonically irregular. I am here reminded of the late James Larson, whose life's work was dedicated to stressing the doctrinal and philosophical roots of the current crisis but who nevertheless insisted on formal communion with Rome and vehemently rejected both the SSPX and Sedevacantism. Trads outside the SSPX are neither ignorant of nor silent about the doctrinal issues at stake; we merely cannot accept that the defense of tradition can be carried out from outside the ordinary structures of the Church that tradition itself established. But the Society has concluded that their own actions are the only logical response—that if you truly understood what was going on, you'd adopt their approach. In thinking this way, the SSPX becomes like the intransigent liberals who accuse you of "not caring about the poor" just because you do not accept their particular program for dealing with poverty. They are so thoroughly convinced of the iron-clad logic of their own actions that they entirely identify themselves with the remedy and can scarcely fathom the existence of other legitimate avenues of redress.

Twenty years in, I am more convinced than ever that there is no Trad magisterium. No blogger, no podcaster, no priestly society, however venerable, has the authority to draw the borders of the traditional movement and expel those who fall outside them. 

But surely, you say, the nomenclature "Traditional Catholic" must have some definition, yes? Otherwise it is a meaningless concept. I agree. So what, then, is a Traditional Catholic? I have always considered a Traditional Catholic to be a very broad category: one who loves the Church’s tradition (her liturgy, her doctrine, her devotions, her intellectual patrimony), who recognizes that much of it has been obscured, neglected, or outright attacked since the Council, and who has resolved to recover it, live it, and hand it on. That’s really it, and it's a pretty darned big tent. You will find people who think the 2026 consecrations were heroic and people who think they were a grave mistake. You'll find people who will never set foot in a Novus Ordo and people who still are deeply enmeshed in that world. They will argue (sometimes bitterly) about strategy, canonical status, how hard to push back, and when to hold their tongues. Those arguments are fine and reflective of a healthy movement with a great diversity of thought. But what we cannot afford is to turn every one of these disputes into a referendum on who belongs. The crisis is very real, and it is large enough to need every Catholic who loves tradition, even if we are working at it from different perspectives. And if that makes me "not a real Trad," well, whatever. You can go ahead calling me part of "Trad, Inc."; I can go on calling you gay. We can keep on calling each other names and retrenching ourselves into smaller and more exclusive subgroups until we become (even more of) an absolute joke. 

Or we can drop the stupid gatekeeping and just focus on defending the good, the true, and the beautiful aspects of our Tradition, each according to his means, while striving for holiness in trust that the Holy Spirit will sort everything out in His own good time.