PSA: not all traditionalists are cranky holier-than-the-popes

The last few days have been a whirlwind, no?

We went from the close of Benedict XVI's papacy through the emptiness of sede vacante to a relatively swift election of a new pope - all in just 2 weeks.

And now in the last 48 hours, not only is the news media having its hay day with our new pontiff but he is also now the source for (more) in-fighting among Catholics. While the largest majority of Catholics are rightly celebrating the election of Pope Francis, some radical traditionalists - who on the far fringe I might add - have unabashedly decried him as an anti-pope.

le sigh...

They've been repeatedly called out on their behavior and admonished as well they should.

In Catholic circles, traditionalists are being referred to as pot-stirrers. Rabble-rousers. Whiners. I even saw a reference that they are responsible for all the dirt being dug up surrounding the dirty war in Argentina. It seems now that ANY reference I've been seeing now about Pope Francis and traditionalists has been negative. As though Pope Francis and traditionalists are antithetical to each other. The implication seems to be - thanks to the crazies - that all traditionalists are vile-spewing Francis-haters and think the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina was a mistake by the college of cardinals this week.

Now for the sake of clarity, by traditional I mean those who have a preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy or otherwise an attachment to all the old traditions (music, devotions, decorum, posture in prayer, etc.) I personally think this is silly nomenclature because really...if we are all Catholic then by definition we are universally all traditionalists since we all claim membership of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which has been passed down to us for 2000 years. However there is a deep division among Catholics who prefer the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo prayed in English or local vernacular) of the Mass and those who prefer the Extraordinary Form (centuries old Mass prayed in Latin). For lack of better terminology, the term "traditionalist" is forever associated with the latter group.

And for the record, I count myself as a card-carrying traditionalist. 

Sadly, it's the radical traditionalists - the kind that are more Catholic than the pope - that give the rest of us a bad name. The very mention of the Latin Mass in casual conversation among fellow Catholics seems to induce lips puckering. It labels you instantly as a nut-job. Why would anyone want to attend Mass in a language you can't understand? So do you...like...cover your head too? (The answer to those questions is for another post.)

But I speak to you as one who does happen to have a preference for the old ways and attends the EF regularly. So here's a little PSA:

PLEASE DON'T LUMP ALL 

TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS TOGETHER

I am just as appalled and ashamed of what you are seeing in the com boxes by those radical traditionalists (aka Rad Trads/Angry Catholics). Unfortunately, those with the biggest mouthpieces are often the only ones who are usually heard. So here I am now with my own (albiet tiny) mouthpiece to say: 

Most traditional Catholics are thrilled to have a new pope and look forward to getting to know him better. 

Whatever the reason, however justified they think they are, it is never appropriate to speak ill of the Vicar of Christ, let alone any priest or religious. The Rad Trads are totally out of line. Period.

If there has been slowness to warm up to our new holy father, it rests on two points:

1) He is largely unknown to the world

For the first time in 30 years, we have a pope with very little paper trail to tell us who he really is. We can gather that in choosing the name of Francis and seeing images of him kissing the feet AIDS patient that he has a profound compassion for the poor. Reports of his unassuming nature, proclivity to public transportation over limousines and his humble appearance on the Vatican balcony on Wednesday can only lead one to believe he is a deeply spiritual man. This all speaks volumes about the man who lead the Catholics of Buenos Aires. But he is still largely an enigma. We need time to get to know him. Time for him to lead. Time for him to write (or have his previous writings translated from Spanish).


2) We are still mourning the loss of Benedict XVI

This is no understatement. When Joseph Ratzinger walked out onto the balcony 8 years ago, we KNEW him. Everyone did. Most could guess his passions and perhaps predict his agenda. He was already a prolific author and served in the Roman Curia during the pontificate of John Paul II. Within two years of his pontificate, Benedict XVI issued his motu proprio giving universal permission for the Latin Mass (which he re-named the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy...the term "Traditional Latin Mass" is now antiquated) to be offered universally around the globe. Previously, it had been suppressed and only permitted with a special indult and only in certain dioceses and with certain bishops. He was a champion not just for the Latin Mass but for ushering back a return to tradition. How I will miss those red shoes and hat! He was and is a deeply intellectual and theological man who certainly had the chops for the job. Losing him last month was nothing short of devastating. And I will admit, it rocked me deeply. We still need time to greave.

Let me say again that I reject and abhor the reaction I have seen expressed by some in the traditional camp. It's downright sinful. Pope Francis is our holy pontiff and I swear my allegiance to him unreservedly. There is much to be admired about what we know of him so far and good reason to be encouraged by how he will lead. I trust that the Holy Spirit was working through the cardinals in electing him. God bless him and help him to shoulder this heavy burden that has been placed on his shoulders.