Pope Benedict: Progressive Traditionalist (just like Jesus)
At a recent address on the liturgy, Pope Benedict said the following:
The liturgy, … lives a proper and constant relationship between sound ‘traditio’ and legitimate ‘progressio’, clearly seen by the conciliar constitution Sancrosanctum Concilium at paragraph 23. … Not infrequently are tradition and progress in awkward opposition. Actually though, the two concepts are interwoven: tradition is a living reality that, in itself, includes the principle of development, of progress.
This idea of the relationship – and tension – between tradition and progress has been a theme of Pope Benedict’s for his whole ecclesiastical career. We see it in his most recent book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, in which BXVI notes that Jesus himself was also a progressive traditionalist – adhering to the Law (“I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it”), yet also taking no issue with going beyond calcified ideas of how to follow God.
This has been the great internal struggle of the past 100 years in the Church. The first half of the 20th century saw the end of an era in which the practice of the Catholic Faith had become stale and even ritualistic. Then Vatican II unleashed a host of forces which wanted “progress” simply for the sake of progress. Throughout his life, however, Pope Benedict has consistently urged a progressive traditionalism, in which we stay in continuity with the faith of our spiritual forefathers, yet develop it more deeply to address the issues of modern man. To the world, this makes him appear inconsistent: he was a “progressive” before Vatican II, and then a “traditionalist” after the Council. Yet it is BXVI who has been consistent while the world around him sways to the latest fad.
We too must strive to be progressive traditionalists. We do not want change simply because the world demands it, yet we also should not be reactionaries who simply reject change because some want it. Instead, like Pope Benedict (and like Jesus), we embrace our traditions, yet realize that they develop over time so that we can more deeply draw closer to our Lord.
“The first half of the 20th century saw the end of an era in which the practice of the Catholic Faith had become stale and even ritualistic.” Really?
Or maybe Benedict XVI changed his mind. What evidence do you have that the practice of the Catholic faith had become “stale and even ritualistic?”
“Throughout his life, however, Pope Benedict has consistently urged a progressive traditionalism, in which we stay in continuity with the faith of our spiritual forefathers, yet develop it more deeply to address the issues of modern man. ”
That isn’t progressivism, traditoalism, or progressive traditionalism. That is simply the Catholic Faith.
Ditto David’s comment. Please say more about this assertion. It strikes me as one of those bits of conventional wisdom that have little if any basis in fact and become accepted as axiomatic.
I’ve lived plenty of years and I’ve seen this struggle between tradition and progressive liturgy upfront. I can understand exactly what Pope Benedict XVI was saying in this address.
It saddens me to see members of our Church bicker back and forth as to what the “proper” liturgy should be. I believe that Jesus often spoke out against the rigidity of some of the Jewish practices of ritual, but He also showed respect for those rituals which honored His Father. It’s not always black and white and I think this is what the Pope was trying to tell us.
What you wrote, “Instead, like Pope Benedict (and like Jesus), we embrace our traditions, yet realize that they develop over time so that we can more deeply draw closer to our Lord.” was very well said.
Great post! Thank you.
Hi Eric: Once again, I find myself *in agreement with you * until you take another ignorant swipe at Traditional Catholicism. You are correct that the Holy Father champions the promotion of organic vs. mechanical changes in the Mass. But consider this. This past Sunday I attended a TLM under Summorum Pontificum at a parish that has 3 Ordinary Form Masses each wkend. The Mass was sublimely beautiful and not stale/rigid at all. At the end of the Mass, my 10-yr old daughter crowned the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary after a lenghthy procession to all the church’s Marian shrines… it was a transcending encounter with Our Lady and her Son. That evening, I brought my 12 yr old son to the Ordinary Form of the Mass at a progressive parish. On the way home, I had to instruct him why he should disregard Father’s pandering homily on “God as Mother” and “The Church’s need to apologize for oppressing women.” Yikes! I experienced a flashback to my Fall ’82 “required” Religious Studies course at a “Catholic” college in the northeast. God Bless, Mike
@Mike—calling God as mother is not progressive, it is subversive.
Mike,
You make the mistake of thinking my criticism of things in the past is simply a criticism of the outward forms involved.
The use of the TLM today is not the same thing as the problems that faced the Church in the pre-Vatican II days. Today, the TLM represents a return to reverence in response to the loopiness of the past few decades. As such, I think it is a great thing. But just because today’s TLM is beautiful and involves ardently faithful clergy and laity does not mean that this was the case in the years before Vatican II.
For example, if I told you that today there was a religion that outwardly appeared strong, but in a decade would lose vast numbers of its clergy and even more of its laity, would you say that it is healthy? Of course not, yet that is exactly what happened to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church – it took little time to be practically dismantled.
Furthermore, I would argue that catechesis in pre-Vatican II days was sorely lacking. All the way through seminary students were taught memorization, but without always including a real analysis and critique of opposing beliefs (which partly explains why so many people so quickly left the Church in the 1960′s).
But please do not think that I believe the post-Vatican II era was any better – it just went to the opposite extreme. Most leaders in the Church abandoned any sense of the sacred and thought memorization was only for the simple-minded.
Our problem is that most of us want to either exalt the pre-Vatican II church or the post-Vatican II church. Yet both had serious problems. And I think this is where we see the wisdom (and holiness) of Pope Benedict XVI – before Vatican II he criticized the calcification of Catholicism, and after Vatican II he criticized the desacralization of it. Yet in both cases he had a positive message: that we must embrace our tradition yet develop it to address the issues of contemporary man. Before Vatican II many wanted to just do the former, and after Vatican II others just wanted to do the latter.
So, like Pope Benedict, I heartily embrace the return of the TLM and other forms of pre-Vatican II piety. But I do not think we should simply return to the status quo of the pre-Vatican II church in all things, either, as that is not progressive traditionalism, but instead dead traditionalism.