Does Michael Lofton know what is meant by the word 'tradition'?
Tradition is not that which is old, but rather that which has been passed on and received. By referring to antiquated practices as 'traditional,' Michael Lofton raises questions as to his competence.
“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.”
The Decretals, cited by St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia-IIae, Q. 97 A. 2
In this piece…
– What is tradition?
– Can abandoned or forbidden practices be called “traditional”?
– What is the problem with antiquarianism?
– Is there a culture of victim-blaming?
– Is the term “radical traditionalist” much more than a meaningless insult?
– What is the actual status of Holy Communion under both kinds?
– Some closing thoughts on situational awareness.
In an October 2022 video on his YouTube channel Reason & Theology, Mr Michael Lofton made the following claims about those whom he calls “radical traditionalists,” and their attitude towards the Novus Ordo Mass:
“If you have some misimpressions on what is traditional you might not actually appreciate some of the traditional aspects to the Novus Ordo, such as the restoration of the Chalice.”[1]
Unfortunately – as with his treatment of membership of the Church – it is Mr Lofton himself who appears to have “misimpressions” about the matter at hand.
His comment implies an equivalence between the words “traditional” and “old.” This is quite a common misunderstanding today, and this remark provides an opportunity to clarify these ideas.
What is tradition?
Something is not “traditional” because it is ancient – rather, something is traditional because it has been delivered and received, and has been established for some period of time.[2] This is clear in the etymology of word – in this context, the Latin word tradere means “to deliver.”
When theologians discuss the concept of tradition, they often are focused on that which has been divinely revealed. This is not what we have in view here – rather, we are considering those “ecclesiastical traditions” and rites mentioned in the pre-conciliar Profession of Faith, solemnly made in the sanctuary by converts, and by professors, priests and bishops (with their hands on the Gospels):
“The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace. […]
“I also receive and admit the accepted [receptos – “received”] and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid sacraments.”[3] (Emphasis added)
Even if “merely” ecclesiastical traditions are not what theologians primarily have in view when they discuss tradition, their treatment shows the truth of the definition given above. For example, Bainvel states in The Catholic Encyclopaedia:
“The word tradition (Greek paradosis) in the ecclesiastical sense, which is the only one in which it is used here, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission.”[4] (Emphasis added)
Van Noort, talking of strictly divine tradition, asks the question with the same assumptions, “Where does the Church get its doctrine?” Here is his answer:
“… The only possible answer is that this doctrine comes to them from preceding generations by way of tradition. […]
“The term tradition may be understood in a variety of ways. Objectively it signifies the doctrine which has come down to us from antiquity. Actively, it indicates the act or series of acts by which that doctrine has been handed on. Used in its full connotation, it can mean both the doctrine which has been handed down and also the process of handing down that doctrine.”[5] (Emphasis added)
Agius makes the same point:
“The word Tradition, considered in its object, means whatever is delivered or transmitted: In this sense it Is called objective tradition. If we consider, however, the act, or the way and the means, by which an object is propagated and transmitted, this is called active tradition.”[6] (Emphasis added)
In the set of lectures published as The Present Position of Catholics in England, Cardinal Newman reaffirmed part of a description of the Catholic view of tradition which he had written as an Anglican. It further expresses the same ideas:
“By tradition they mean the whole system of faith and ordinances, which they have received from the generation before them, and that generation again from the generation before itself. […]
“Tradition is uniform custom. It is silent, but it lives. It is silent like the rapids of a river, before the rocks intercept it. It is the Church’s… habit of opinion and feeling, which she reflects upon, masters and expresses, according to the emergency.”[7]
As a comment on these words, Newman wrote: “I see nothing to alter in these remarks, written many years before I became a Catholic.”[8]
This is sufficient to show that Mr Lofton’s understanding of what constitutes “tradition” is at best unhelpful in these debates.
However, let’s dig a little deeper into the Church’s relationship with tradition – and examine the “otherising” moniker used by Mr Lofton and others, viz. “radical traditionalist.”