Who would you want writing about "Dead Faith" more than an expert on dead faith, dying parishes, and general societal decay?
That is why we know we can fully trust the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich (once referred to by a friend as 'Ugly on the outside, uglier on the inside'), to speak about the "dead faith" of Traditionalism. It's hilarious that he starts his piece by quoting Pelikan, a known revert to devout Eastern Orthodoxy, who would have no good words for the destruction of the ancient rites of the Church. Latin Traditionalism, whatever one wishes to call it, was always quite alive and vibrant in its prayers and arts and music and practices because it was never separate from Western culture (so in a sense quite different from the Byzantine options).
It is also hilarious that Blase "Dead Faith" Cupich would quote Newman of all people, whose faith was nourished by the Traditional Latin Mass and Divine Office more than by any other thing.
Let these be Cupich's parting words.
Tradition vs. traditionalism
September 3, 2025 [SOURCE - main excerpts]
The late Jaroslav Pelikan, a historian of Christianity, made an important distinction that is helpful to remember: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
That quote came to mind as I reflected on the recent decision of Pope Leo to declare Cardinal John Henry Newman a doctor of the church. A key factor in his decision to join the Catholic Church was his understanding of the development of doctrine. He observed that while Protestants readily accepted some doctrines that developed over time, such as the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Christ, they were inconsistent in rejecting the analogous developmental history of other Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory and those related to Our Lady. ...
I am convinced that the bishops approached the reform of the liturgy as an exercise in taking responsibility for the correct development of church teaching as manifest in the way we worship. In many ways, the reform was a recovery of truths of the faith, which over time were obscured by a series of adaptations and influences that reflected the church’s expanding relationship with secular power and society.
Particularly prominent during the Carolingian (seventh to ninth centuries) and baroque (17th to 18th centuries) periods, many adaptations were inserted in the liturgy that incorporated elements from imperial and royal courts, transforming the liturgy’s aesthetics and meaning. The liturgy then became more of a spectacle rather than the active participation of all the baptized in the saving action of Christ crucified.
One could easily read the bishops’ Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” as a correction of these Carolingian and baroque liturgical adaptations through a restoration of the liturgy’s original emphasis on active participation by the laity and a noble simplicity. These reforms were a direct response to the centuries of development that erroneously had transformed the Mass from a communal event into a more clerical, complex and dramatic spectacle.
What is at stake in accepting the liturgical reforms of the council, then, is our very understanding of what it means to be a church of tradition. On his flight back from Canada in 2022, Pope Francis observed that: “A church that does not develop its thinking in an ecclesial sense is a church that is going backward. This is today’s problem, and of many who call themselves traditional. No, no, they are not traditional, they are people looking to the past, going backward.”
In a word, the true understanding of Catholic tradition provides the church with the capacity to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. True reform is the church’s way of going deeper into the tradition in order to move forward.
Indeed, “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
