Traditional Worship and Practices are Nothing but Optional ‘Pious Little Legalisms’, says Popular Catholic Apologist
Unfortunately he diminishes Traditional practices and worship to an “option” that the participant uses to signal his or her elitist factionalism.
In recent years, few figures within “mainstream” Catholic discourse have attracted as much debate as Jimmy Akin. Critics have accused him of advancing doctrinal confusion on issues ranging from predestination to intrinsic evil, prompting strong reactions among those concerned with the boundaries of orthodoxy.
Yet the theological disputes that surround Akin are only part of a larger pattern in which his wide-ranging speculative interests—particularly in topics like extraterrestrial life—regularly spark controversy of their own. Akin has, for example, publicly entertained hypothetical moral questions about interspecies relationships, including the morality of sexual relations with an intelligent alien being, a line of inquiry that some observers view as needlessly provocative or pastorally unhelpful.
Akin is also the longest serving staff member of that bulwark of Catholic orthodoxy, Catholic Answers. (I am being sarcastic about the “orthodoxy” part. Catholic Answers is of course nothing but a tranquilizer for conservative Novus Ordo Catholics to stupefy themselves into thinking they are orthodox).
With close to 120,000 subscribers to his podcast, numerous books to his credit, and the privilege of being a regular guest on popular platforms, Mr. Akin could have been a valued soldier in the fight to defend Traditional Catholicism. Sadly, the video he posted earlier this week revealed that he not only harbors an unhealthy predilection for intersecting bizarre pursuits with the Faith, but that he is, wittingly or unwittingly, nothing more than a useful modernist tool against Tradition.
In Akin’s recent commentary on Fr. Casey Cole’s claim—that Catholics should avoid personal prayer after Communion and immediately rejoin the Communion hymn—he rightly identifies this invention as a man-made rule and as spiritually problematic. Unfortunately, Akin then goes on to diminish Traditional practices and worship to an “option” that the participant uses to signal his or her elitist factionalism.
(By the way, Cole is a pro-Alphabet Franciscan “priests” who peddles a whole set of his own despicable modernist Anti-Catholic ideas on YouTube).
Akin’s critique of Cole’s claims rests upon assumptions characteristic of the post-conciliar liturgical chaos. These assumptions reveal deeper issues that weaken his otherwise correct judgment regarding Fr. Cole’s overreach. Akin’s response highlights not merely minor disagreements but a fundamentally different understanding of liturgical theology, tradition, and reverence.
To begin, Akin approaches the question of post-Communion behavior primarily through the lens of what the law permits or requires, frequently appealing to rubrical silence as justification for a broad pluralism of practices. While this legal approach succeeds in exposing Fr. Cole’s error—there is no law mandating congregational singing immediately after receiving the Eucharist—it fails to recognize that the Church’s tradition itself provides a hierarchy of liturgical fittingness beyond what minimal legislation stipulates. For centuries, saints and popes have taught that the moment following Holy Communion is a privileged time for interior silence, recollection, and thanksgiving. This is not merely a personal preference but a tradition embedded in the very structure of the Roman Rite. By treating silent thanksgiving and communal singing as interchangeable “options,” Akin inadvertently flattens the spiritual priorities that Catholic tradition has always clearly ranked.
This flattening reveals a deeper anthropological shift. In traditional Catholic liturgy, the primacy of interior participation is axiomatic. Active participation is first and foremost the deep engagement of the intellect and will with the sacred mysteries. In many post-conciliar interpretations, however, this interior primacy is weakened in favor of constant exterior activity. Fr. Cole’s insistence on singing by every communicant is only an extreme example of this misunderstanding. Although Akin identifies the extremism, he never critiques the faulty premise beneath it—the notion that visible, audible, uniform action is the principal measure of participation. His argument remains on the surface of legal permissibility rather than engaging the underlying spiritual anthropology that Traditionalists believe has distorted modern liturgical reform.
Most problematic in his podcast critique of Cole is his use of the term “pious little legalism” in the following section of his video:
“What Father Cole is advocating is what I call a pious little legalism. This is a term I coined years ago to refer to situations where one person or a group of people propose a rule and insist that others follow it if they are among the truly pious.
Specifically, Father Cole has made up a rule that is nowhere stated in the text, to the effect that every single person needs to be singing the Communion hymn if it is physically possible for them to do so.
Obviously, they can’t do so when Communion is in their mouths, but otherwise they need to be singing. As he says in his second video:
“It is important that everyone sing. It is not just a concert for the choir. It’s not just an opportunity to hear beautiful music, but rather, by raising our voices, they become one, further symbolizing what we’re receiving.”
So that’s the rule that Father Cole is making up, because the text nowhere says that every single person in church needs to sing this. That’s his pious little legalism.
Pious little legalisms happen in all kinds of contexts, both Catholic and non-Catholic. The reason is that pious little legalisms are a way of reinforcing solidarity with particular groups. They serve as tribal identity badges that indicate you’re with the really spiritual people.
In a non-Catholic context, a Calvinist might say that if you don’t accept all five of the five points of Calvinism, then you aren’t truly spiritual and have a man-centered gospel. And a non-Calvinist might say that if you do accept all five of the five points of Calvinism, so that you hold that God picks certain people to go to heaven for no discernible reason and lets everybody else go to hell, then you have a monstrous view of God and a defective sense of true spirituality.
Those two views at least concern matters of doctrine that can be either true or false. But the same attitude appears when it comes to disciplines rather than doctrines.
In a Catholic context, pious little legalisms occur like, if you prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, you’re a troglodyte who isn’t thinking with where the Church is now. Or if you don’t prefer the Traditional Latin Mass, you have abandoned true spirituality.
Or, a step down from that, if you receive Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue, you’re not truly spiritual. Or if you receive Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand, again, you’re not truly spiritual.
Pious little legalisms abound because they’re a way of signaling your solidarity with a particular tribe. They are also ways of making yourself feel good by looking down on other people.
They thus violate the ethic that Jesus taught us, whereby we need to love our neighbor, not look down on them just because they’re doing something different than we do.”
This introduces another difficulty. While he applies it to Fr. Cole, the term itself carries a dismissive tone long used against those who seek deeper reverence and fidelity to tradition. For decades, traditional Catholics were accused of “rigidity” simply for kneeling for Communion, preferring silence, or adhering to longstanding practices. The phrase “pious little legalism” echoes the rhetoric of progressivist liturgists who dismissed traditional devotions as spiritually immature or nostalgic. Because Akin casts both progressive micromanagers and certain traditional attitudes under the same umbrella of “tribalism,” he inadvertently creates a false equivalence. Zeal for reverence, continuity, and fittingness is not legalism but fidelity to the organic development of worship that shaped the Roman Rite for centuries.
Further, Akin’s presentation treats traditional and modern practices as if they were merely variations of personal taste. He compares preferences for the Latin Mass versus the Novus Ordo, or reception on the tongue versus in the hand, as though these choices were parallel expressions of equally valid spirituality. This relativism misses entirely the theological weight of these issues. The Traditional Latin Mass embodies a doctrinal clarity regarding sacrifice and sacredness that developed over many centuries. Communion on the tongue reflects a universal practice rooted in profound doctrinal convictions regarding the Real Presence. These are not aesthetic or cultural preferences; they are expressions of the Church’s lex orandi, organically grown and theologically rich. Treating them as equivalent to diabolical modernist innovations that destroy reverence, introduced within living memory, obscures the difference between the organic continuity of tradition and the experimental nature of post-conciliar reforms.
Akin’s focus on legal minimalism also obscures another truth.The law does not determine what is spiritually optimal; rather, the law establishes boundaries within which tradition, reverence, and piety flourish. What is allowed is not always what is best, and the Church has always distinguished between the two. By framing the entire debate around what the documents do or do not strictly require, Akin implicitly adopts a positivist mindset that reduces the liturgical life of the Church to a matter of compliance rather than cultivation of reverence. The deepest concerns of traditional Catholics—the loss of silence, the overemphasis on communal self-expression, the neglect of vertical worship—cannot be addressed by appealing merely to rubrics.
He then ties it all up with a neat little “love-is-all-that-matters” bow, which serves as the ultimate Great Neutralizer employed by modernists who seek to undermine any push for Tradition. Akin states, “They thus violate the ethic that Jesus taught us, whereby we need to love our neighbor, not look down on them just because they’re doing something different than we do,” implying that, in the end, all this “traditional reverence stuff” is immaterial—as long as we are “nice” to each other.
Thus, although Akin’s critique of Fr. Cole’s rigidity is correct in its narrow scope, it avoids confronting the broader liturgical mentality that produced such claims. The modern tendency to see exterior uniformity as the essence of participation, the undervaluing of traditional piety, the reduction of liturgical theology to subjective preference, and the legalistic reliance on post-conciliar documents as the final word—all these factors shape Akin’s response as much as they shape Fr. Cole’s mistake. Akin’s argument succeeds in defeating a particular error but remains contained within the very framework that gave the error life.
In the end, the traditional approach is not an example of “pious little legalism,” nor is it a mere matter of taste or personal sentiment. It is a vision grounded in the Church’s perennial understanding of worship: that what is most fitting is not simply what is permitted, and that the liturgy is not a field for experimentation or self-expression but the sacred inheritance of the Church. The centuries-long practice of silent thanksgiving after Communion reflects this inheritance. It is not a tribal badge but the natural flowering of Eucharistic faith. A truly Catholic liturgical renewal must look beyond the minimalism of the rubrics and rediscover the depths of reverence taught by tradition—not because it is old, but because it is true.
C’mon, Mr. Akin, surely you can do better? Maybe leave the Luminara Expanse where sentient nebulae, quantum nomads, and rogue star-forges reshape reality, and beam down to the planet of good old-fashioned Traditional Catholicism!
Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…
Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…
Viva Christo Rey!
Also Read:
Pope Claims Christians and Muslims Worship Same God at Interfaith Spectacle in Beirut
Believing in the God You Just Vomited
New Apostolic Letter Calls for Abandoning Doctrinal Clarity in Favor of Unity
Glory to Jesus Christ!
After his conversion, did Akin follow newly-converted St. Paul's example and disappear for a while before hanging up his shingle? Did the other Catholic Answers converts?
As a cradle Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic who's never left the Faith, I think not. A fellow REALLY needs to know and live the Faith well before presuming to teach it to others. In my 63 years of life (Am 3 years older than Akin.), I find converts, however well-meaning and enthusiastic, generally are not as well-informed as they think they are.
Our Mother of Perpetual Help, aid us!!!
I find many of the Novus Ordo practices are, to me, actually distractions from "active participation".