Tridentine Mass and Gnosticism: "Gnostic Traditionalism"

I have met Catholics like those described in this article and it seems to be another form of religious superiority and Protestant type fundamentalism though the opposite extreme from a Catholic liturgical ecclesiology. Now, I say this as one who loves tradition and has a great love and appreciation for the Tridentine Latin Mass. When done properly with devotion, it is a Mass that celebrates the beauty and the dance of the undivided Trinity. Our Eastern friends speak of it as the perichoresis of the liturgical dance. But, the warnings in this article should be heeded as we see a culture of polarisation of "conservative" and "liberal" identities being touted. Something to honestly consider. Read it all here. I have recently moved to the Santa Cruz, Calif., area, where there is no officially approved, weekly Tridentine Mass within a reasonable and convenient distance, and with three small children, convenience is not an inconsiderable factor. At first, I was quite upset at this situation, but over time, I have realized that regularly attending a well-celebrated Novus Ordo -- as well as the Byzantine Mass and an Indult Tridentine Mass on occasion -- has been a good thing for me and my family, spiritually speaking. Indeed, I believe it has produced more abundant fruit in my spiritual life than if I were still attending, by choice, a weekly Indult Tridentine Mass. What I have just said, of course, is outright heresy for the traditionalist. Well, this suggests the problem I will be describing. In the traditionalist milieu in which I lived before I moved, I had developed what I now see as an ideological and neurotic consciousness of being a "traditionalist," as distinct from just being what I now see that I am and always have been since my reversion, just an ordinary Catholic who loves the Tridentine Mass and the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Through circumstances outside of my control, I was enabled to see a large deformation in my spiritual consciousness and to begin the process of healing. I call this deformation gnostic traditionalism. In general, gnosticism is the attitude that leads one to believe he possesses an irrefutable insight into the truth of matters of great importance, whether natural or supernatural. It is irrefutable, because legitimate authority, external evidence, or basic logic can affect one's certainty in the judgment of its truth. The strength and sincerity of one's conviction is the only magisterium. Worst of all, the gnostic feels in his heart of hearts, though he may not recognize it, that he somehow deserves to know what he knows. Gnosticism is the temptation of the modern world, afflicting everyone, even traditionalists who define themselves as anti-modern. Allow me now to try to describe precisely what I mean by "gnostic traditionalism." As I see it, it is the unwillingness or incapacity to take a step back, to adopt a Socratic stance toward one's commitment and allegiance to the traditionalist narrative and critique of the post-conciliar Church, which may be a true narrative and accurate critique, but, nevertheless, is a narrative and critique that doesn't come to us from the Magisterium, and so does not require submission by divine Faith. Having some Socratic distance from it is not a sin, but the gnostic traditionalist thinks it is. Traditionalist narratives, explanations, criticisms, attitudes, etc. are founded on nothing more certain than fallible judgments on concrete historical and ecclesial particulars. If you combine this kind of unwillingness and incapacity to take a step back, this absolutely unyielding stance regarding one's traditionalist allegiance, as opposed to simply having the ordinary allegiance to the Catholic Church, which, of course, can and should include being committed to the Tridentine Mass as a vastly superior rite, with an a priori and intractable unwillingness to attend even just an occasional well-celebrated, reverent Novus Ordo (for, attendance at a Novus Ordo, regardless of the quality of its celebration, constitutes "spiritual contamination," à la Donatism), you have the recipe for the spiritual poison of gnostic traditionalism. Of course, one can exclusively attend the Tridentine Mass, but only because it is an approved option that one chooses in obedience. It is not the case, as the gnostic traditionalist thinks, that those with different approved commitments are somehow less Catholic, or that one's commitment to the traditional Mass doesn't depend entirely on the Church's pleasure to permit and endorse such a commitment, but merely on one's own gnostic insight that this is what "true" Catholics do. Such an attitude reflects Donatism, not Catholicism, and in today's ecclesial situation, it can be called gnosticism. The essential mentality of the gnostic traditionalist attitude is "No salvation outside of us." Now, one asks, has any bona-fide traditionalist group, outside of the sedevacantists, ever claimed such a thing? Of course, true heretics and schismatics rarely make explicit such damning heretical and schismatic confessions. Perhaps the most fanatical and prideful of them do, but the average heretic and schismatic tends to hold such sentiments in. However, heresies and an absence of charity are often hidden implicitly in words and actions, and a good theological dialectician can draw them out. Is there not some evidence of a no-salvation-outside-of-us mentality in the various independent traditionalist movements and personages? And even within the Indult milieu? For example, if one does not happen to buy a certain historical, political, or ecclesial narrative wholesale -- one that is, at best, debatable, and certainly not de fide! -- then, well, one is not a real Catholic, even if he happens to attend the Tridentine Mass, defend the social reign of Christ the King, and show forth abundant fruits of holiness in his life. Again, certain "traditionalist" writers say that anyone who attends Indult Masses is duped, a useful idiot of the modernists, and just not authentically Catholic. I have witnessed many Indult Catholics make their intense moral disapproval known if you attend a Novus Ordo, no matter how reverent and orthodox it may be, and no matter the legitimacy of one's reasons. They may not declare the Novus Ordo invalid, but their practice speaks louder than their words. What these traditionalists are missing, in my opinion, is the deeply personal and prudential nature of the judgment as to how intensely and absolutely one should embrace a particular traditionalist, historical, and ecclesial narrative and practice, for such narratives are inherently fallible, and such practices are not morally obligatory -- neither comes with a magisterial mandate. Like one's embrace of a particular theological school, one is morally free in one's choice in these matters, as long as one remains within orthodoxy and orthopraxis. One may not like Benedict XVI's theological preferences, but that doesn't make him a heretic!