Traditionalists-as-Jansenists: A Misplaced Charge – Part 1

Two Young Scholars Renew an Old Charge

In an article that is both informative and frustrating, “A Rival Magisterium” (Commonweal), Jansenist scholars Shaun Blanchard and Richard T. Yoder set out to explain “[w]hat today’s traditionalists have in common with the Jansenists.” Blanchard, for his part, is the author of The Synod of Pistoia and Vatican II: Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform (Oxford University Press 2020). Pistoia, which was a 1786 Italian diocesan synod, was condemned by Pope Pius VI in 1794 for issuing a series of decrees which, inter alia, sought to introduce the vernacular into the liturgy; limit the calendar of saints; and abolish all monastic orders except those following the Rule of St. Benedict. Blanchard argues that Pistoia was not only a forerunner of the Second Vatican Council, but a sort of “culmination” of incorporating certain Jansenist reforms into the life of the Church.

Yoder, along with Blanchard, have also curated Jansenism: An International Anthology (Catholic University of America Press 2024). This collection of Jansenist (or Jansenist-related) texts covers roughly 150 years of Church history, spanning geographically from the Vallée de Chevreuse southwest of Paris, France to Beirut, Lebanon. It also contains an extensive introduction on the history of Jansenism by the pair, which is largely repeated in condensed form in their polemic against traditional Catholicism. While it is not feasible to rehearse this history here, it is enough to say that Blanchard and Yoder have done a service to historical scholarship by tracing Jansenism (named for Bishop Cornelius Jansen—a bishop and theologian whose controversial tome on St. Augustine’s thought helped engender the movement) from a dispute about grace and predestination to a disparate, but connected, series of movements that called into question the scope of papal authority; the nature of Church governance; the structure and service of the liturgy; popular devotional practices; and certain strands of moral theology and praxis. Finally, their work adds to the small but growing corpus of Anglophone literature that sees certain strands of Jansenism foreshadowing the 20th century Nouvelle théologie and the reforms of Vatican II.

Laudable though this all is, for reasons that remain obscure, the two authors take their learned understanding of Jansenism and turn it back on traditional Catholicism is an unimpressive and superficial manner. While not all their stumbles are cataloged here, some of their more egregious slipups are.

Traditionalists and Primitivism

Recalling the Australian Dominican (now Archbishop) Anthony Fisher’s rhetorical question whether “Lefebvrism” (a derisive term for the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)) was “Jansenism revisited,” Blanchard and Yoder speculate that “the most fundamental reason that the Jansenist and traditionalist movements have so many similarities is that both appeal to a prior, pristine state of affairs in the Church.” The main difference between the two is not that they are both allegedly backwards looking, but rather where they fix the “pristine” moment. For Jansenists, it is the early centuries of the Church, culminating in St. Augustine’s massive oeuvre; for traditionalists, it is the height of “Christendom” (though Blanchard and Yoder are silent on when exactly this period reigned).

As both men have suggested in their previous work (and other scholars have also latched onto), one of the hallmarks of Jansenism is a type of “primitivism” that sees the Church’s doctrinal and spiritual heights attained in the earliest centuries before beginning a steady descent into corruption. Indeed, similar charges can be found within the walls of numerous Protestant sects as well. It is ironic that traditionalists should also be burdened with this accusation when they routinely repair to Pope Pius XII’s 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei to reject primitivism, particularly in the context of the liturgy. It is this type of primitivism that traditionalists have found lurking beyond the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms and arguably inspired certain Jansenists to call for comparable revisions in their own day. 

None of this is to say that traditionalists do not look to over nineteen centuries of ecclesiastical history to support of their two-front critique of the liturgical reforms and doctrinal deviations that have occurred within the Church over the past sixty years. However, the “periods” or “moments” that traditional Catholics often latch onto for sustenance are as varied as St. Athanasius’s fight against the Arian heresy (4th century); the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century); the Council of Trent (16th century); and the pontificate of St. Pius X (20th century). If this makes traditionalists the kinfolk of Jansenism, then everyone from contemporary theologians who call for a return to the (ancient) sources of Church doctrine to legal originalists on the U.S. Supreme Court who seek to unpack the Constitution’s meaning from history are Jansenists, too.

If everyone is a Jansenist, then nobody is.

The Eucharist

One of the most well-known facets of early Jansenism as it manifested itself in 17th century France at or around the Port-Royal-des-Champs abbey is fierce Eucharistic piety. Rejecting the opinion that attrition (i.e., sorrow spurred by fear of damnation) sufficed to receive valid absolution in the confessional, Jansenists insisted that perfect contrition out of the love for God was necessary. Without perfect contrition for one’s sins, no one could receive the Eucharist worthily and without damning their own soul. As such, it was not uncommon for Jansenist adherents to only approach Communion sparingly, and sometimes only after long periods of severe penance.

It rings strange, then, that Blanchard and Yoder rhetorically equate this rigorism with the Eucharistic piety found among traditional Catholics today. Nowhere do they cite a single traditionalist figurehead who has called for such severity. This is no doubt due to the fact that most traditionalists, particularly those associated with the SSPX, follow St. Pius X’s 1905 decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus, which recommends frequent—even daily—Communion so long as the recipient is in a state of grace and possesses the proper intention. 

There is a wide chasm between Jansenist rigorism and traditionalist admonition that those who receive the Eucharist should do so without the stain of mortal sin on their souls. That is hardly an “extreme” position; rather, it is the longstanding teaching of the Catholic Church that remains in force today. To align traditionalists with Jansenists simply because they reject the abysmally lax Eucharistic practices found currently in the Church is risible. Conservative Catholics who have little-to-no sympathy for the traditionalist movement, particularly the SSPX, frequently draw attention to the disrespect toward Our Lord’s Body and Blood in most modern liturgies, even if they have fewer qualms concerning reception in the hand or the absence of kneeling.

It appears that in Blanchard and Yoder’s mind, any Catholic adhering to Church law regarding proper reception of the Eucharist shares common cause with Jansenists.

Conclusion

While the second and final part of this article will delve deeper into Blanchard and Yoder’s anodyne assessment of traditionalist views of the Church’s magisterium in the light of Jansenist disobedience, it should already be apparent that their attempt to tar n’ feather traditionalists-as-Jansenists is both inadequate and ironic.

It is inadequate because it is painfully superficial. They paint so broadly with the Jansenist brush that a great expanse of individuals and groups both within and outside the Church are covered. 

It is also ironic that two scholars who have tried so hard to draw renewed sympathy for the Jansenist movement (broadly understood) would use it as a bludgeon against Catholic traditionalism—a movement they clearly find toxic.