I admit, I made that word up. I formed it from 'πρόοδος' (progress, advancement, a musical or mathematical procession) and 'λατρεία' (worship, service), using the same paradigm as the formation of the word 'idolatry' the worship of idols.
Proodolatry is therefore the worship of progress, being that which lies ahead in a sequence (musical, mathematical, temporal). The worship is of the future, on the basis that the passage of time necessarily causes things to become better, people to become wiser, information to become more accurate, and anything lost through change to be a quite acceptable price for such progress.
This is founded on a fundamental error: that change is always good, that what comes after is better than what comes before, that change equals progress, and that progress in the form of such is always desirable.
This is revealed in two particular ways in the world of recovery.
The first is with reference to Bill W: he had a sequences of barnstorming spiritual experiences in his first few years. Some dramatic; others revelatory. Later in his recovery, arguably because of not continuing to work the Steps (when he wrote about them in the 1950s it is said that others suggested he take them rather than writing about them), he was depressed. This is regularly held up to suggest that his depression was a more accurate reflection of the destination arrived at through the programme than the spiritual experiences he had in his earlier recovery. It is said that the spiritual experiences were not real. The logic is this: if you come down a mountain, the mountain was not real in the first place; if you clean the kitchen and it becomes dirty, it was never clean in the first place; if you were happy in your first few years of recovery but are now miserable, you have progressed from a pink cloud into a wiser, more realistic view of the world. What comes after is necessarily truer than what came before. This is obviously nonsense.
The second is a narrative that the Big Book and its programme and principles are all well and good, but we have learned more since then, outside AA, and, this 'knowledge', by virtue of arising after 1939, is superior and supersedes it. Plato lived thousands of years ago. Bobby just wrote a book. Bobby's book is more valuable and useful because it was written after The Republic. Bobby's book may be better than The Republic, but this must be judged not by when it was written but by its content.
The truth is that progress involves going forward not in time, not in acquisition, not in accumulation, not in accretion, but towards a valid goal in a manner that is effective.
If your shoe is caked with mud, the mud, which represents a progressive addition to the shoe in temporal terms, needs to be removed. In maths, the commission of an error requires one to go backwards and then sideways to go forwards. In translation, an error in output usually comes from an error in comprehension: the translator needs to go back and undo their understanding.
Does real progress involve going backwards or forwards? Depends on what the goal is. Return to the prelapsarian state of oneness with God involves a chain of undoing, not a chain of doing. Such doing as there is is the doing of undoing. The knots must all be untied. More knot-tying can only further compound the problem. Once there is a single, unknotted string, a tug down here will be felt in heaven, and vice versa, with no dissipation of energy whatsoever.