The Church Is Not a Human Project

Why both progressivism and traditionalist rupture fail to trust Christ’s governance of His Church

The Church issued forth from the open side of Christ on the Cross (John 19:34) and was borne forth into the world on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). She is not first a human project that later acquires divine assistance, but a divine reality that continually invites human cooperation. If the Church were merely a human thing, it would have lasted a week at most.

It seems to me that both so-called “traditional Catholics” (whom I will refer to as “trads” for brevity) and progressives often deny this foundational reality, either implicitly or explicitly. In different ways, both adopt a hermeneutic of rupture with regard to the Second Vatican Council. Against this, I follow Pope Benedict XVI’s insistence on a hermeneutic of reform in continuity, which alone does justice to the Church’s divine constitution and historical life.

Progressives tend to err on doctrinal grounds by treating the Church as a vehicle for various activist causes. When this happens, doctrine is relativized, worship is instrumentalized, and the sacred is diminished. The result is a flattening of the Church’s liturgical and sacramental life, where transcendence gives way to utility and divine initiative is overshadowed by human agendas. These errors must be named clearly and resisted, and in many places they already are.

The traditionalist reaction, however, presents a more subtle danger. While professing belief in the divine constitution of the Church, many trads operate as though human initiative has successfully obscured the Lord’s presence in His Church for the past fifty years. The implicit claim is that the Church has become so confused, compromised, or malleable that ordinary Catholics can no longer trust her worship, her discipline, or even her teaching without qualification.

Yet if the Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ, then such a prolonged and near-total eclipse of truth and sacramental life should not be possible. Christ’s kingship is not so fragile, nor is the Holy Spirit so easily thwarted. To suggest otherwise is not a defense of tradition but a quiet denial of ecclesial indefectibility.

The Catholic Church is one Church, expressed through a legitimate diversity of rites, theological accents, and disciplinary forms. In both East and West, the Church has always allowed for plural expressions of the same faith, provided they remain in communion with the successor of St. Peter and the bishops in union with him.

The increasingly common claim that the Roman Rite has been divided into two opposing realities, the so-called “Latin Mass” on the one hand and the “Novus Ordo” on the other, is therefore theologically incoherent. It implies not organic development but rupture, not reform but replacement. Some within traditionalist circles, including certain priests and bishops associated with groups like the SSPX, go so far as to suggest that the Church after Vatican II is distinct from the true, preconciliar Church. Such claims are historically unsustainable and doctrinally indefensible.

At the same time, it must be said clearly that not all attachment to the usus antiquior reflects this mentality. Ecclesia Dei communities such as the ICKSP and the FSSP offer legitimate and beautiful pastoral care to stable communities, exercising the Roman Rite in its older form with full permission and oversight from the Holy See. There is nothing inherently suspect about reverence for older liturgical forms when that reverence remains ecclesial rather than ideological.

The real danger lies not in Latin or chant or traditional vesture, but in a schismatic spirit that treats suspicion as fidelity and rupture as guardianship. That spirit, whether explicit as in sedevacantism or implicit in certain corners of traditionalist culture, cannot be allowed to take root among the faithful. Communion with the Church cannot be selectively affirmed. One cannot claim to defend Christ while quietly withdrawing trust from the Body He promised to sustain until the end of the age.

Both progressivism and traditionalist rupture stem from a loss of confidence in Christ’s active governance of His Church. There is a fear of disorder or a fear of irrelevance which becomes the rally cry for dissent from the reality of the continuity of the Church, safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. By either innovation or retreat, a desire to seize control is understandable psychologically, but not theologically. Human certainty cannot become a substitute for theological trust in the promise of Christ of a prevailing Church.

Authentic reform must presuppose continuity because it presupposes fidelity to Christ. Reform is not a replacement; in every legitimate, historical instance of reform in Church History it is a purification. Any ideological baggage associated with the Second Vatican Council will die with its adherents. Growth in the Church has always been organic. Any attempt to graft on something that is not of God results in correction, pruning, and stability over time. Authority, centered in the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him, serves communion rather than the suppression of legitimate and healthy diversity.

There has been real confusion in recent decades. That is undeniable. But times and instances of poor leadership do not negate the divine life of the Church. Crises have arisen in every age of the Church and we are still here. Sin in the Church and the failure of the Church are the result of human weakness, not the action of the Lord. Ecclesial endurance is not measured in triumphalism or human achievement, but in the Cross of Christ.

The credibility of the Church rests not in aesthetic purity but in sacramental reality. The valid sacraments are acts of Christ, regardless of which Missal is being used. Grace is not dependent on the ideological alignment of the minister or recipients but on the desire to do as the Church intends. Participation is far more about reception of grace and cooperation with that grace than any notion of control.

Catholic fidelity means remaining inside the Church even when those within the Church wound, disappoint, or confuse us. Obedience in trust is not passivity. There is no issue with charitable correction, calling out issues, or admonishing sin. In fact, these are spiritual works of mercy. But tradition is a living inheritance which must be received from Holy Mother Church in every age, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, and guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ’s promise to remain with His Church is perennial. Any ideology which suggests otherwise, even implicitly, should be firmly rejected: on either side of the ideological spectrum.