A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s article, published on September 3, 2025, in Chicago Catholic, titled “Tradition vs. Traditionalism,” (Tradition vs. traditionalism - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic) offers a thought-provoking reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, its living dynamism, and its distinction from what he describes as traditionalism. Drawing on the insights of historian Jaroslav Pelikan and the theological legacy of St. John Henry Newman, 

Cardinal Cupich articulates a vision of tradition as a vibrant, evolving force in the life of the Church, contrasting it with traditionalism, which he characterizes as a stagnant adherence to past practices. The article is a compelling contribution to ongoing discussions about the Church’s relationship with its past and its mission in the present. Its strengths lie in its theological depth, its grounding in historical and ecclesial perspectives, and its alignment with the Church’s call to engage the modern world while remaining rooted in its living faith. 

However, while the article makes a strong case for embracing the development of doctrine and liturgical reform, Cardinal Cupich’s generalization about traditionalists risks oversimplifying a diverse group of faithful Catholics, including myself, who cherish tradition without idolizing it. Below, I offer a critique of the article, highlighting its merits while addressing this concern and situating my perspective as a Catholic who loves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass.

 Theological Depth and Historical Grounding

One of the most commendable aspects of Cardinal Cupich’s article is its theological depth, rooted in the distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism” as articulated by Jaroslav Pelikan: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This quote, which serves as the article’s cornerstone, is a powerful lens through which to view the Church’s ongoing mission. Cardinal Cupich uses Pelikan’s insight to frame tradition as a dynamic, Spirit-guided process that allows the Church to adapt and grow while remaining faithful to its apostolic roots. By invoking Pelikan, a respected historian of Christianity, the Cardinal grounds his argument in a scholarly tradition that resonates with both theologians and lay readers. This appeal to intellectual authority strengthens the article’s credibility and invites readers to engage with the concept of tradition as something alive and responsive to the needs of each age.

The article’s reference to St. John Henry Newman, recently declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo, further enhances its theological richness. Cardinal Cupich highlights Newman’s understanding of the development of doctrine, noting that Newman recognized the organic growth of Catholic teachings over time. For example, Newman observed that Protestants accepted doctrines like the Trinity and Christ’s divinity, which developed historically, but were inconsistent in rejecting other doctrines, such as purgatory or those related to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which also emerged through the Church’s reflection. By drawing on Newman, Cardinal Cupich underscores the legitimacy of doctrinal development, a concept central to Catholic theology since Vatican II. This reference not only honors Newman’s legacy but also situates the article within a broader theological conversation about how the Church discerns truth over time. It is a reminder that the Catholic faith is not static but grows through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a point that resonates deeply with the Council’s teachings in Dei Verbum.

 Alignment with Vatican II and Papal Teaching

Cardinal Cupich’s article shines in its alignment with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its emphasis on liturgical reform and the Church’s mission to engage the modern world. He cites Pope Francis’s 2022 remarks, where the Holy Father critiqued those who “call themselves traditional” but are “looking to the past, going backward.” This papal perspective reinforces the article’s central thesis: true tradition is forward-looking, enabling the Church to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that accepting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is essential to understanding what it means to be a Church of tradition. This point is particularly compelling in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s constitution on the liturgy, which called for a renewal of worship to make it more accessible and participatory for the faithful. By connecting the liturgical reforms to the Church’s broader mission, Cardinal Cupich presents a vision of Catholicism that is both rooted and adaptive, capable of speaking to contemporary challenges while drawing on the wisdom of the past.

The article’s emphasis on the Church’s capacity to “go deeper into the tradition in order to move forward” is a particularly inspiring articulation of this balance. Cardinal Cupich frames reform not as a rejection of the past but as a deepening of the Church’s engagement with its living faith. This perspective is a powerful antidote to the polarization that often characterizes debates about liturgy and doctrine. By presenting tradition as a dynamic process, the Cardinal invites Catholics to see change not as a threat but as an opportunity to live out the Gospel more fully. This aligns with Pope Francis’s vision of a Church that is “on the move,” responsive to the signs of the times and open to the Spirit’s guidance.

 A Call to Mission and Engagement

Another strength of the article is its emphasis on the Church’s mission to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that true reform allows the Church to communicate the faith effectively in diverse cultural and historical settings. This missionary impulse is a hallmark of Vatican II’s vision, as seen in documents like Gaudium et Spes, which calls the Church to engage with the modern world. By framing tradition as a tool for evangelization, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to move beyond nostalgia and embrace the Church’s call to be a living presence in the world. This is particularly relevant in an era marked by rapid cultural and technological change, where the Church must find new ways to proclaim the Gospel without losing its identity.

The article’s focus on mission also resonates with the universal call to holiness articulated by Vatican II. Cardinal Cupich’s reference to the Church’s ability to “witness to the Gospel in new contexts” underscores the role of every Catholic—clergy and laity alike—in carrying forward the faith. This inclusive vision is a reminder that tradition is not the exclusive domain of theologians or liturgists but belongs to the entire People of God. By emphasizing this communal aspect, the Cardinal fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the Church’s mission, encouraging Catholics to see themselves as active participants in the unfolding of tradition.

 Addressing the Critique: Generalization About Traditionalists

While Cardinal Cupich’s article is a robust defense of the Church’s living tradition, it falters in its generalization about traditionalists. The Cardinal’s characterization of traditionalism as “the dead faith of the living” risks painting all those who cherish traditional practices with too broad a brush. As someone who loves tradition and serves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass, I find this generalization problematic. I deeply appreciate the beauty of traditional vestments, lace, incense, bells, Latin, and devotions, but I do not deify them or turn them into idols. These externals are man-made aids that enhance our sensory experience of worship, helping us to focus on God, but they are not intrinsically connected to the divine nature. I understand that the Church has authority over the liturgy and its traditions (sacramentum ordinis), and that the liturgies of one period are no more or less efficacious than those of another. The Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, whether celebrated with ornate vestments or simple ones, is the same sacrifice of Christ, and its value does not depend on external forms.

Cardinal Cupich’s critique of traditionalism is valid when applied to those who elevate rubrics and customs to the level of idols, treating them as essential to the validity of the Mass or the Sacraments. For example, some traditionalists insist that the Mass must be in Latin or that Communion must be received only on the tongue from a priest for it to be valid. This mindset mirrors the Pharisees’ legalism, as Jesus critiqued in Mark 7:13, where human traditions were used to nullify the word of God. When Catholics—clergy, laity, or religious orders—treat man-made rules as indispensable, they risk turning the Sabbath into an idol, as if the purpose of worship were to serve the rules rather than to lead us to God. In this sense, Cardinal Cupich’s warning about traditionalism as a “dead faith” is apt, as it highlights the danger of reducing the richness of the Catholic faith to a set of rigid practices.

However, not all traditionalists fall into this trap. Many, like myself, cherish traditional practices because they are powerful aids to worship, not because we believe they are inherently superior or necessary for salvation. The Extraordinary Form, with its reverence and solemnity, can inspire a profound sense of the sacred, while the Ordinary Form offers accessibility and participation that resonate with modern sensibilities. Both forms are valid expressions of the same Eucharistic mystery, and I serve them with equal devotion, recognizing their role in drawing the faithful closer to Christ. By generalizing traditionalists as backward-looking, Cardinal Cupich overlooks the vibrant faith of those who embrace tradition as a living, breathing part of the Church’s heritage, not as a museum piece to be preserved unchanged.

 The Role of Devotions and Liturgical Practices

Another area where Cardinal Cupich’s approach could be nuanced is his apparent skepticism toward certain traditional devotions and practices. While he does not explicitly mention these in the article, his broader critique of traditionalism could be interpreted as dismissive of practices like altar rails, the St. Michael prayer, or the Hail Mary prayed after Mass. These devotions, when understood properly, are valuable aids to the spiritual life of Catholics. For example, altar rails can foster a sense of reverence for the Eucharist, signaling the sacredness of the sanctuary, without implying that their absence diminishes the Mass’s validity. Similarly, prayers like the St. Michael prayer or the Hail Mary can deepen devotion to the saints and the Blessed Virgin, provided they are not treated as magical formulas or mandatory rituals.

The key, as with statues or other sacramentals, is to use these practices as tools for meditation and spiritual growth, not as ends in themselves. A statue of a saint can help us reflect on their virtues or the mysteries of the faith, but if we insist that it must look a certain way or be placed in a specific location to be “valid,” we risk falling into the idolatry Cardinal Cupich critiques. This is where some traditionalists err, but it is not true of all who value tradition. By occasionally taking a hard line against practices like altar rails or post-Mass devotions, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating faithful Catholics who find these practices meaningful without idolizing them. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the spiritual benefits of these traditions while cautioning against their misuse.

 The Danger of Legalism in Traditionalism

Cardinal Cupich’s article rightly highlights the danger of legalism, which can manifest when traditionalists treat rubrics and customs as ends rather than means. This is a critical point, as it echoes Jesus’s teachings about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). When Catholics insist that the Mass must adhere to specific forms—such as Latin, specific vestments, or Communion on the tongue—to be valid, they risk elevating human traditions above the divine reality of the Eucharist. The Church’s teaching is clear: the validity of the Sacraments depends on proper form, matter, and intention, not on external customs, no matter how venerable. By drawing attention to this, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to focus on the substance of the faith rather than its external expressions.

This critique is particularly relevant in light of debates surrounding Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s 2021 motu proprio that restricted the use of the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Cupich’s support for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II aligns with the Pope’s call to prioritize the Novus Ordo as the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” While this position has sparked controversy, it reflects a commitment to the Church’s unity and its mission to evangelize in the present age. The article’s emphasis on the development of doctrine and liturgy serves as a reminder that the Church has always adapted its practices to meet the needs of the faithful, from the adoption of pagan elements in early Christian worship to the reforms of Vatican II.

 A Personal Perspective as a Traditionalist

As a Catholic who loves tradition, I find much to admire in Cardinal Cupich’s article, particularly its call to embrace tradition as a living reality. However, I believe the Church benefits from a diversity of liturgical expressions, including both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. My love for vestments, incense, bells, and Latin stems from their ability to elevate the soul toward God, not from a belief that they are essential to the faith. I serve both forms of the Mass with joy, recognizing that each offers unique gifts to the Church. The Extraordinary Form’s reverence and mystery can inspire awe, while the Ordinary Form’s simplicity and accessibility invite active participation. Both are valid, and both can lead souls to Christ.

I also appreciate the Church’s authority over the liturgy and its traditions. The sacramentum ordinis grants the Church the power to regulate worship, ensuring that it serves the spiritual needs of the faithful. The liturgies of one era are not inherently superior to those of another; the Tridentine Mass of the 16th century and the Novus Ordo of the 20th century are equally efficacious when celebrated with reverence and faith. By acknowledging this, I align with Cardinal Cupich’s broader point about the need to avoid idolizing specific forms. However, I believe he could strengthen his argument by recognizing that not all traditionalists are rigid or backward-looking. Many of us are committed to the Church’s mission and open to the Spirit’s guidance, even as we cherish the beauty of tradition.

 Conclusion

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s “Tradition vs. Traditionalism” is a masterful reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, offering a compelling case for its dynamic, Spirit-led character. By drawing on Pelikan, Newman, and Vatican II, the Cardinal articulates a vision of the Church that is both rooted in its apostolic heritage and responsive to the needs of the present. His emphasis on the development of doctrine, the importance of liturgical reform, and the Church’s missionary call is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Catholic in the modern world. However, his generalization about traditionalists overlooks the diversity of those who love tradition, including myself, who serve both forms of the Mass and value traditional practices as aids to worship, not as idols. By occasionally taking a hard stance against devotions and practices like altar rails, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating those who find these traditions spiritually enriching. Nevertheless, his article is a valuable contribution to the Church’s ongoing discernment of how to live out its faith in a changing world, and it invites all Catholics to embrace tradition as a living, breathing reality that leads us closer to Christ.