Some Further Thoughts on Traditionis Custodes and the Current State of Traditionalism:

There is not much more to say about supposed traditionalism than what I have said in recent weeks when responding to the predominant reaction from these circles to Traditionis Custodes. The responses of that nature can be read here:

Thirty Pieces of Evidence In Support of the Decision in Traditionis Custodes (circa October 17, 2021)

On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)

Reason, logic, and documented evidence however expansive can only get you so far. The reason? Experience has shown that for those of a cultic mindset, it is akin to a conspiracy theorist insofar as like the latter, reason and logic are usually not the roads taken into such endeavours. For this reason, expecting them to take those paths out can not infrequently be disappointing. There are emotional factors at play here and when someone is guided by emotions, their reason and logic can become very foggy if non-existent. So for those kinds of folks, consider the following analogies:

---The Tridentine liturgy is akin to the plump juicy animals King Saul spared from the Amalekites to make sacrifices to God. What did God think of King Saul's actions? From the words of Samuel the prophet:

Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in heeding the voice of the Lord? Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, being attentive is better than the fat of rams. Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, arrogance like the evil of idolatry. [1 Samuel xv,22-23]

Those who think the Lord is pleased with their purported resistance to Pope Francis' restrictions on the Tridentine liturgy are no different than King Saul and in like manner, God is not pleased with them.

---The Tridentine liturgy is analogous to the Bronze Serpent, made by command of God:

The Lord sent seraph serpents among the people. They bit the people, and many of the people of Israel died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord so that he might save us from the serpents.” So Moses prayed for the people. The Lord said to Moses, “Make a seraph serpent and put it upon a pole. Whoever has been bitten and looks upon it will live.” [Numbers: xxi,6-8]

Even if some today would claim that the Tridentine liturgy was commanded of God{1}, so too was the Bronze Serpent. And what was the fate of the Bronze Serpent?:

Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, the king of Judah began to reign during the third year of the reign of Hoshea, the son of Elah, the king of Israel...He eliminated the high places and he broke down the pillars. He cut down the Asherah and he broke into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for up to those days the Israelites had burned incense to it and they called it Nehushtan. [2 Kings xviii,1;3-5]

In other words, even if Pope Francis was abolishing the Tridentine liturgy{2} and even if the Tridentine liturgical form was literally decreed by God{3} there is biblical precedent for such an action. For Pope Francis is acting similar to King Hezekiah and restricting what has become a source of literal idolatry in the traditionalist movement by a not-insignificant number of those folks. They have become like the modernists who according to Pope Pius X sought to "try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself."{4} Or as St. John Henry Newman noted of the defect in faith of Protestants in one of his Discourses to Mixed Congregations not long after his conversion:

[I]n spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? Is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? Is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves?{5}

This is the reality of what we are seeing here: a movement that whatever value it may have had at one time is shot through with serious problems including the problem of idolatry. If it was only an issue of serenely observing the pre-reformed liturgy, then Pope Francis would not have had to do what he did. But far too often there is a discernible pattern that takes place over time amongst those of a traditionalist inclination. It starts with mere preference for the Tridentine liturgical form. From there it inexorably moves towards denigrating the revised Roman liturgy, speaking contemptuously of the Pope who promulgated it{6}, often moving onto his predecessor{7} and successors prior to Pope Francis{8} to say nothing of what they have done to Pope Francis the past eight years, running down the last ecumenical Council in various ways{9}, and not infrequently lionizing schismatics{10}, and eventually at some point along the way, imbibing forms of antisemitism.{11}

The suppression of the Tridentine liturgical form by Pope Francis{12} in other words did not happen in a vacuum. It is being done to chasten those with a superficial understanding of the faith. They are spiritual infants who whine and cry over external liturgical forms whereas those with the eyes of faith see Christ in every mass because the externals are literally the least important factor.{13} And rejection of the so-called "Novus Ordo" by those traditionalists who do so is a rejection of Jesus Christ himself{14} and that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} Which it was not.

{2} Which he is not.

{3} Which it is not.

{4} Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42 (circa September 8, 1907) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Postings On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020) and On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd (circa December 5, 2019)

{5} St. John Henry Newman: Excerpt from his Discourse On Faith and Private Judgment (circa 1849)

{6} Pope St. Paul VI

{7} Pope St. John XXIII

{8} Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

{9} For example, the attempt to create a dichotomy between the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as a "pastoral council" and other synods as "dogmatic councils." I first dealt with this false dichotomy nearly twenty years ago but it is still a tired canard trotted out by the theologically ignorant.

{10} For example, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, other clerics given prominence by movement partisans, as well as various and sundry writers for traditionalist themed websites and periodicals.

{11} I could fill a footnote with link upon link involving traditionalist groups and the obsession not a few of them have with antisemitic views, both overtly as well as covertly. Rather than take up too much time with that, I will note here only a few of many such examples which could be noted:

Italian bishop condemns “anti-Semitic regurgitations” in Church after “traditionalist” Catholic unveils blood libel painting

Saint Simon of Trent (1475)

Traditionalist SSPX leader calls Jews "enemies of the church"

The traditional Latin Mass is not the problem with traditionalist communities

Traditionalists' Expert on Pope Francis Is A Holocaust Denier

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 1)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 2)

The Synthesis of All Catholic Conspiracy Theory (Part 3)

Non Possumus

{12} It is worth noting that nothing in Traditionis Custodes annuls any of the privileges that Pope Francis has granted to the SSPX. Nor does this text appear aimed at the FSSP who have long had good relationships with many of the local ordinaries.

{13} [T]hey have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense. [St. John of the Cross: From The Dark Night of the Soul, Book I (circa ante-1582) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Note On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation (circa October 21, 2021)]

{14} The revised Roman Missal was promulgated by Pope Paul VI who possessed the power of binding and loosing. And that "Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same" (Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis Christi §40), this teaching has not insignificant ramifications for the current situation. For as "Christ and His Vicar constitute only one Head", logically "[t]hey, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth" (Mystici Corporis Christi §41). Concretely, what Peter in the person of the Pope binds or looses is bound or loosed by Christ. So those accusing Pope Francis of immorality in issuing Traditionis Custodes are engaging in a form of blasphemy toward Christ. 

To be clear, disagreement with a decision is not an issue of course as long as that disagreement does not denote either disobedience or treating the judgment with contempt. However to those traditionalists who have spent years running down in various ways the revised Roman Missal, they run afoul of Church teaching which expressly condemns such conduct. For "the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority" (Pope Gregory XVI: Mirari Vos §9). Those who in any way try to diminish Traditionis Custodes or treat the so-called "Novus Ordo" with contempt are only treating with contempt the Vicar of Christ but Christ as well. This is why Pope Leo XIII cited with his approval the following words of St. Maximus the Confessor:

He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See. [Pope Leo XIII: Excerpt from the Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum §13 (circa June 29, 1896) as Quoted in the Rerum Novarum Points to Ponder series (circa October 14, 2021)] 

Points to Ponder:

Do you really believe what you are proclaiming? Do you live what you believe? Do you really preach what you live? The witness of life has become more than ever an essential condition for real effectiveness in preaching. [Pope St. Paul VI: From Evangelii Nuntiandi (circa 1975)]

Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
(Part III of III)

Part II is viewable HERE
Part I is viewable HERE

3. Specifically, what do We ask of you?

A.—First and foremost, a declaration that will rectify matters for Ourself and also for the people of God who have a right to clarity and who can no longer bear without damage such equivocations.

This declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and to all its documents—sensu obvio—which were adopted by the Council fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority. For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the Church, since the beginning, in the matter of ecumenical councils.

It must be clear that you equally accept the decisions that We have made since the Council in order to put it into effect, with the help of the departments of the Holy See; among other things, you must explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo Missae, and our right to require its adoption by the entirety of the Christian people.

You must also admit the binding character of the rules of canon law now in force which, for the greater part, still correspond with the content of the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, without excepting the part which deals with canonical penalties.

As far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations which you have publicly leveled against Us, against the orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge as the successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.

With regard to the bishops, you must recognize their authority in their respective dioceses by abstaining from preaching in those dioceses and administering the sacraments there: the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc., when these bishops expressly object to your doing so.

Finally, you must undertake to abstain from all activities (such as conferences, publications, etc.) contrary to this declaration, and formally to reprove all those initiatives which may make use of your name in the face of this declaration.

It is a question here of the minimum to which every Catholic bishop must subscribe: this adherence can tolerate no compromise. As soon as you show Us that you accept its principle, We will propose the practical manner of presenting this declaration. This is the first condition in order that the suspension a divinis be lifted.

B.—It will then remain to solve the problem of your activity, of your works, and notably of your seminaries. You will appreciate, brother, that in view of the past and present irregularities and ambiguities affecting these works, We cannot go back on the juridical suppression of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. This has inculcated a spirit of opposition to the Council and to its implementation such as the Vicar of Christ was endeavoring to promote.

Your declaration of November 21, 1974, bears witness to this spirit; and upon such a foundation, as Our commission of cardinals rightly judged, on May 6, 1975, one cannot build an institution or a priestly formation in conformity with the requirements of the Church of Christ. This in no way invalidates the good element in your seminaries, but one must also take into consideration the ecclesiological deficiencies of which We have spoken and the capacity of exercising a pastoral ministry in the Church of today. Faced with these unfortunately mixed realities, We shall take care not to destroy but to correct and to save as far as possible.

This is why, as supreme guarantor of the faith and of the formation of the clergy, We require you first of all to hand over to Us the responsibility of your work, and particularly for your seminaries. This is undoubtedly a heavy sacrifice for you, but it is also a test of your trust, of your obedience and it is a necessary condition in order that these seminaries, which have no canonical existence in the Church, may in the future take their place therein.

It is only after you have accepted the principle that We shall be able to provide in the best possible way for the good of all the persons involved, with the concern for promoting authentic priestly vocations and with respect for the doctrinal, disciplinary and pastoral requirements of the church. At that stage, We shall be in a position to listen with benevolence to your requests and your wishes and, together with Our departments, to take in conscience the right and opportune measures.

As for the illicitly ordained seminarians, the sanctions which they have incurred in conformity with Canon 985, 7 and 2374 can be lifted, if they give proof of a return to a better frame of mind, notably by accepting to subscribe to the declaration which We have asked of you. We count upon your sense of the Church in order to make this step easy for them.

As regards the foundations, houses of formation, “priories” and various other institutions set up on your initiative or with your encouragement, We likewise ask you to hand them over to the Holy See, which will study their position, in its various aspects, with the local episcopate. Their survival, organization and apostolate will be subordinated, as is normal throughout the Catholic Church, to an agreement which will have to be reached, in each case, with the local bishop—nihil sine Episcopo—and in a spirit which respects the declaration mentioned above.

All the points which figure in this letter and to which We have given mature consideration, in consultation with the heads of the departments concerned, have been adopted by Us only out of regard for the greater good of the church. You said to Us during our conversation of September 11: “I am ready for anything, for the good of the church.” The response now lies in your hands.

If you refuse—quod Deus avertat—to make the declaration which is asked of you, you will remain suspended a divinis. On the other hand, Our pardon and the lifting of the suspension will be assured you to the extent to which you sincerely and without ambiguity undertake to fulfill the conditions of this letter and to repair the scandal caused. The obedience and the trust of which you will give proof will also make it possible for Us to study serenely with you your personal problems.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and guide you towards the only solution that would enable you on the one hand to rediscover the peace of your momentarily misguided conscience but also to ensure the good of souls, to contribute to the unity of the Church which the Lord has entrusted to Our charge and to avoid the danger of a schism.

In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct: is it not therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange a time and a place of recollection which will enable you to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?

Fraternally, We put you on your guard against the pressures to which you could be exposed from those who wish to keep you in an untenable position, while We Ourself, all your brothers in the episcopate and the vast majority of the faithful await finally from you that ecclesial attitude which would be to your honor.

In order to root out the abuses which we all deplore and to guarantee a true spiritual renewal, as well as the courageous evangelization to which the Holy Spirit bids us, there is needed more than ever the help and commitment to the entire ecclesial community around the pope and the bishops. Now the revolt of one side finally reaches and risks accentuating the insubordination of what you have called the “subversion” of the other side; while, without your own insubordination, you would have been able, brother, as you expressed the wish in your last letter, to help Us, in fidelity and under Our authority, to work for the advancement of the Church.

Therefore, dear brother, do not delay any longer in considering before God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn adjuration of the humble but legitimate successor of Peter. May you measure the gravity of the hour and take the only decision that befits a son of the Church. This is Our hope, this is Our prayer.

From the Vatican, October 11, 1976.

PAULUS PP. VI

Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
(Part II of III)

Part I is viewable HERE

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit—the deposit of faith—and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the Church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the Church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. “Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church. . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls” (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the Church and in particular with the Council of Trent or the affirmations of Our predecessors. These are for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modern world…

It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of its nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties. Absolutely secure counselors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God’s enlightenment, and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.

But how can an interior personal difficulty—a spiritual drama which We respect—permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal? If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance—and We hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal—they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the pope. It is the ecclesial sense that is at issue.

In effect you and those who are following you are endeavoring to come to a standstill at a given moment in the life of the Church. By the same token you refuse to accept the living Church, which is the Church that has always been: you break with the Church’s legitimate pastors and scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge. And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the pope, or by the suspension a divinis, as you lament “subversion” in the Church.

Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties? Moreover, you hold that the suspension that you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly introduced into the Church, which you go so far as to call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction when you administer the sacraments according to the formulas of the past and against the established norms (cf. 1 Cor 14:40).

From the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating Mass called that of Saint Pius V. You know full well that this rite had itself been the result of successive changes, and that the Roman Canon remains the first of the eucharistic prayers authorized today.

The present reform derived its raison d’être and its guidelines from the Council and from the historical sources of the liturgy. It enables the laity to draw greater nourishment from the word of God. Their more active participation leaves intact the unique role of the priest acting in the person of Christ. We have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring that it be adopted by all Catholics.

If, in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesiastical community, because, for Catholics of the Roman Rite, the Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity. It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a warped ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood.

We cannot accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.

Of course there is room in the church for a certain pluralism, but in licit matters and in obedience. This is not understood by those who refuse the sum total of the liturgical reform; nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of his sacrifice. In the same way there can be no question of a priestly formation which ignores the Council.

We cannot therefore take your requests into consideration, because it is a question of acts which have already been committed in rebellion against the one true Church of God.  Be assured that this severity is not dictated by a refusal to make a concession on such and such a point of discipline or liturgy, but, given the meaning and the extent of your acts in the present context, to act thus would be on Our part to accept the introduction of a seriously erroneous concept of the church and of tradition. This is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We say to you, brother, that you are in error. And with the full ardor oimf Our fraternal love, as also with all the weight of Our authority as the successor of Peter, We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the Church of Christ.

To be continued...

Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

(Part I of III)

When We received you in audience on last September 11 at Castel Gandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion. After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: “A common point unites us: the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.”

How must these few words to which your response is limited—and which in themselves are positive—be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion—words and gestures that you have never retracted! You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divinis. You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See—and this constitutes the basis of the problem—and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend. Ambiguity results from the duplicity of your language. On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.

1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.

Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention. Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics, or the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense change in today’s world affects believers at the edge of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic concern for those “who are far away.”

But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name “conciliar” those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious. But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reforms that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself.

Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise our Voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.

Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.

But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself—which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency”—and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.

2. Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Ecône. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points.

What is indeed at issue is the question—which must truly be called fundamental—of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.

Is it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in the episcopate and moreover—a fact that obliges you to remain even more closely united to the See of Peter—that you have been named an assistant at the papal throne? Christ has given the supreme authority in his Church to Peter and to the apostolic college, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops una cum Capite.

In regard to the pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19); “…feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17); “…confirm your brethren” (Lk 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: “The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty or hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor. Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).

Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: “…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18). And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised.

Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock. But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing…cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.

You say that you are subject to the Church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted.

To be continued...

Points to Ponder: 

(From the Archives)

[Vladimir] Soloviev was one day a guest at a monastary and had talked very late with a pious monk. Wishing to return to his cell, he went into the corridor onto which opened cell doors all exactly similar, and all shut. In the dark, he could not identify the door of his own cell. Impossible, on the other hand, in this dark, to return to the cell of the monk he had just left. Nor did he wish to disturb anyone at night during the strict monastic silence. So the philosopher resigned himself to spending the night walking slowly, absorbed in his thoughts, up and down the corridor of the monastery suddenly become inhospitable, mysterious. The night was long and tiring. But finally, it was over. And the first rays of dawn allowed the philosopher to identify without difficulty the door to his cell, in front of which he had passed so many times without recognition. And Soloviev commented "It is often like this for those who seek truth. They pass quite close to her during their vigils without seeing her until a ray of sunlight..." Had I a single critical remark to make, I would say that the philosophers who I have known believe they opened the door in their youth, and by no means resign themselves to wait for the light. [Pope Paul VI to Jean Guitton: Taken From Dialogues of Paul VI with Jean Guitton by Jean Guitton (c. 1966)]

Vatican report tracks McCarrick’s rise despite allegations of abuse and misconduct

I may have more to say on this subject after familiarizing myself more with the contents of the report. 

Points to Ponder:

The work of evangelization presupposes in the evangelizer an ever increasing love for those whom he is evangelizing. That model evangelizer, the Apostle Paul, wrote these words to the Thessalonians, and they are a program for us all: "With such yearning love we chose to impart to you not only the gospel of God but our very selves, so dear had you become to us."{1 Thess 2:8; cf. Phil 1:8.} What is this love? It is much more than that of a teacher; it is the love of a father; and again, it is the love of a mother.{Cf. 1 Thess 2:7-11; 1 Cor 4:15; Gal 4:19.} It is this love that the Lord expects from every preacher of the Gospel, from every builder of the Church. A sign of love will be the concern to give the truth and to bring people into unity. Another sign of love will be a devotion to the proclamation of Jesus Christ, without reservation or turning back. Let us add some other signs of this love.

The first is respect for the religious and spiritual situation of those being evangelized. Respect for their tempo and pace; no one has the right to force them excessively. Respect for their conscience and convictions, which are not to be treated in a harsh manner.

Another sign of this love is concern not to wound the other person, especially if he or she is weak in faith,{Cf. 1 Cor 8:9-13; Rom 14:15.} with statements that may be clear for those who are already initiated but which for the faithful can be a source of bewilderment and scandal, like a wound in the soul.

Yet another sign of love will be the effort to transmit to Christians not doubts and uncertainties born of an erudition poorly assimilated but certainties that are solid because they are anchored in the Word of God. The faithful need these certainties for their Christian life; they have a right to them, as children of God who abandon themselves entirely into His arms and to the exigencies of love. [Pope Paul VI: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi §79 (December 8, 1975) as Quoted in a Rerum Novarum Posting On the Double Effect Principle in Ethical Argumentation (circa December 30, 2004)]

Points to Ponder:

[T]he very exercise of authority becomes, in the context of this dialogue, an exercise of obedience, the obedient performance of a service, a ministry of truth and charity. By obedience We mean the observance of canonical regulations and respect for the government of lawful superiors, but an observance and respect readily and serenely given, as is only to be expected from free and loving children.

By contrast, a spirit of independence, bitter criticism, defiance, and arrogance is far removed from that charity which nourishes and preserves the spirit of fellowship, harmony, and peace in the Church. It completely vitiates dialogue, turning it into argument, disagreement and dissension-a sad state of affairs, but by no means uncommon. St. Paul warned us against this when he said: "Let there be no schisms among you." (1 Cor 1. 10.) [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §115 (c. 1964)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Dialogue)

The dialogue...supposes that one listens to the other, and in the divine sense of this word listen, as Jesus the child listened to the doctors, or the risen Christ listened to the pilgrims of Emmaus, or the man listens to Revelation, or God listens to man's prayer. Let yourself listen, I say, with the hope that the other's point of view will teach you something new, will complete your thought, or will allow you to expand it, to purify, subliminate, deepen it. An objector, contradictor, critic are unsuspecting aids, for in every objection there is a part of the truth, which allows us to better express what we think, to forestall confusion, to give relief and contour to our opinions. St. Thomas began by presenting what went against his thesis. He leaned on the obstacle, on the apparent negation he built his discreet affirmation, filtered, tested, simple, and sure. And Laecorde, in the same spirit, said: "I do not try to convince my adversary of error, but to join him in a higher truth." [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI With Jean Guitton pg. 163 (circa 1967) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's Commentary on the Intricacies of Dialogue (circa 2003)]

"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Dialogue)

The following was originally planned as a column for Where Peter Is when I was still involved in that project.{1} It seems appropriate at the present time to revisit it with a few minor tweaks considering the material to be forthcoming on this humble website in the coming months. Without further ado

[It] seems appropriate before delving into the most controversial material that I have involved myself in for some time the importance generally speaking of how dialogue should be conducted yet almost never is -even among those of good faith. The principles are ones we can all benefit reflecting upon particularly when the matters of discussion are ones where emotions can override reason and logic: a problem that in this day and age is nearly an epidemic both within and without the Church.

With those factors in mind, the following is a flashback to the archives and material from a Joint Statement on Dialogual Principles that preceded a written dialogue on a controversial subject matter back in 2008...

---

It is with no small degree of chagrin that we take a jaded view of the lacuna in modern life of genuine dialogue. The latter when properly understood is both difficult and also potentially rewarding. Most definitely it is not aimless bantering or a series of monologues as much of what passes today for "dialogue" actually is. Instead, dialogue properly conceived and carried out contains a dynamic constituent to it. 

As Catholics we are the beneficiaries of ancient truths which to some extent admit of variations in application depending on particular times, circumstances, etc. However, there are also core principles which do not admit of an expiration date and which sadly we see given little if any accounting these days in much of what passes for public discourse. The degree of ignorance of people (some of whom considering what they claim for themselves should know better) of fundamental principles of proper conduct is appalling. There are however two ways to deal with this. We can either curse the darkness or try and light a few candles. With this statement of joint principles as well as the dialogue to follow, we intend to aim at the second approach. 

We have an interest both for ourselves individually as well as to assist the common good generally in handling this matter in accordance with principles that are at the core of how Catholics should conduct themselves when confronting another person with opposing views. But these are not principles which are strictly speaking matters of faith only. We believe faith and reason cannot contradict and that reason is a natural light given to us all by the Creator as one way we are made in His image. It is therefore a crime to denigrate reason the way many people do and sadly, not a few Catholics fall prey to this. 

We intend in this dialogue to show a proper respect for the rigours of proper logic and reasoning while doing our best to set an example for others of how a dialogue should be conducted. We trust that readers will see if they are of good will that in the sources about to be cited, while of an authoritative character for Catholics, the principles being touched on are and should be by logical extension universal. For example, there should be a general principle of what is and is not a dialogue and how one is properly conducted. We intend to propose one in this thread which will serve as a point of reference for us in the following undertaking but which has an applicability which we believe is universal. 

The ancient concept of dialogue was codified by Pope Paul VI in his inaugural encyclical letter as "[the] internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity" (Ecclesiam Suam). It therefore must have charity at its core which St. Paul declared was "patent, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, seeks not its own interests, is not quick tempered, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, does not brood over injury, does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (cf. 1 Cor. xiii,4-6). 

So if dialogue has at its core charity and all that term encompasses, this by logical extension means that the parties actually listen to one another. Clarifications if requested by one party are complied with by the other. If in the process, someone encounters a principle, an argument, an approach to something different than what they have seen before, it involves considering that information and seeking as far as possible to assimilate it into the matrix of their own view to the extent they can. It may even require modifying one's view either in part or wholly. 

Dialogue is indeed all too rare today because it takes genuine effort and shuns the kinds of strawman caricatures, sound-bytes, etc. that play into what passes for much of modern discourse. Pope Paul noted that the following characteristics should accompany a dialogue and we note them here as principles that we will endeavour to follow at all times on the subject before us as much as any other. 

First of all, dialogue requires by its very nature clarity or as Pope Paul noted "the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We will strive at all times to be intelligible to both each other as well as the readers of what we will present. 

Second, dialogue requires a degree of humility because as Pope Paul noted "[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). 

We will certainly strive to persuade others to give consideration of our positions as they will be outlined. We will also in recognizing these principles not make a demand on each other or others -viewing what we will say and how we shall say it as either standing or falling on its own merits or lack thereof. 

Third, dialogue requires a confidence by both parties "not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We expressly recognize in each other the good will to dialogue and would ask of those reviewing what we will present the same courtesy as well. 

Fourthly, dialogue requires adaptation to the characteristics of the audience or "allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). This is a difficult areas to navigate because people's understanding can vary significantly; we will however do our best which is all anyone can do really. Having noted the principles and procedures we intend to follow, a bit needs to be said on the subject of criticism itself. 

Society today has an overly critical component to it that often seems to want to criticize as if the latter is an end in and of itself instead of a means to an end. Fundamentally and in principle, neither of us has a problem with criticism -indeed we intend to criticize the positions of the other on the subject in question. But we do not intend criticism for the sake of criticism as that is of no value. In a dialogue, criticism can suit a useful purpose to enable people to explain themselves better, to account for weaknesses in one's position, etc. and therefore be of a constructive nature. It can also give people cause to reassess their views and (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) "question a bit of their own infallibility."

We are both willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong and indeed it would seem strange for us to expect either each other or anyone reading what we write to reconsider their views where ours may be different if we somehow were unwilling to do the same thing ourselves. 

Another problem of modern life is the loss of a habit of mind that allows differentiation of arguments from quarrels with the result that disagreements or attempts at correction tend to be destructive rather than constructive. This is a trap we intend to avoid to the best of our abilities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 10, 2008)]

The above material can be viewed as a formalization of how I approach the subject of dialogue on all subjects now as it serves to weed out a lot of pretenders who merely talk about these matters but have no intention of actually engaging them in a rational and ethical manner.

Note:

{1} On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder:

"Perhaps the Lord has called me and preserved me for this service not because I am particularly fit for it, or so that I can govern and rescue the Church from her present difficulties, but so that I can suffer something for the Church, and in that way it will be clear that he, and no other, is her guide and saviour." [Pope St. Paul VI]

On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To begin with, this situation has been on my mind since nearly the very beginning of my involvement at Where Peter Is. And as I sketched some of this out in my introduction column at Where Peter Is (WPI), I will use what I said there to explain why I have decided to with this posting formalize my decision concretely at the present time. To wit:

Many years ago, I was involved in apologetics but I have been distancing myself from that for about fifteen years now. Fundamentally this was due to the limitations involved in mere apologetics. However, there was also the factor of too many involved in that endeavour revealing a disturbing degree of intellectual dependence on the Church’s magisterium to try and navigate complex subject matter. There is also an equally disturbing tendency of not a few folks to try and dogmatically impose an artificial uniformity onto others which creates unnecessary divisions. This is hardly in line with “the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors…recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity” (Pope St. John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram); ergo, I want nothing to do with that crowd.{1}

What I outlined above are areas that I believe should be well understood by all but indeed they are not. Even among those who can cite the relevant texts, understanding is usually lacking because merely citing a text does not mean its actually understood very well. Much as the Bible is used as a prooftext-fest for not a few of our brethren (separated and otherwise) against one another, the same is the case with magisterial interventions by Catholics. I begin seeing very early on these same problems in the manner whereby WPI was operating. But in keeping with the title of the column{2}, I sought to explain the alternative which is what I intended to focus on after getting my feet wet with a few columns first. I made reference in the inaugural column to both general areas of interest{3} as well as problems I had seen over the years{4} both methodological{5} as well as attitudinal{6} in the various Catholic spheres I had inhabited over the past twenty years. It was hoped that touching on these matters at the get-go could help alert site participants to look for them in their own writings and attitudes but this does not appear to be the case. Therefore, my involvement even as a silent lurker would appear to give a tacit approval to the very same problems I had outlined in the inaugural column.

There is also the issue of the general thrust of the way the site had been operating. Even apart from some of the specific columns that I found profoundly problematical{7} is the general atmosphere as presented on the site and on the message thread. I made my good friend Pete Vere aware of some of these matters very early on in an email communication:

I have been doing a lot of pondering on this writing relationship with the group page Where Peter Is (WPI). When I came aboard, it looked very promising. Since that time, I have only seen things that lessen my motivation for being involved there. I do not like the idea of having to wait for many days for simple columns to post. When I joined that was not an issue but over the past week it has become one. I also do not like basically being told what to write about or when to publish something.

I support Pope Francis but that does not mean I support every sentence that comes unformed from his mouth -particularly when it is in areas that fall outside of his divinely vested competence. However, I also have serious problems with the attitude of so many who take issue in the latter areas in the manner they far too frequently do so. And the free passes folks on all sides give to their chosen comrades to engage in detraction, calumny, and general belittling of chosen "outcasts" while excoriating "the other side" for the same offenses: this too does not meet with my favour.

Also, I am not even remotely interested in the political-themed stuff I am seeing with greater frequency on the group messenger. It is too similar to what I see in virtually every other sphere and as I am reducing significantly my involvement in that stuff in other places, I am hardly going to take on more of it [here]...

It appears that the aim of WPI is to act as a general apologetics site for all things Pope Francis. However, I have no interest in general apologetics whatsoever. It is too simplistic and too divisive. I went over this in the inaugural column so my stance on this should not be surprising. I was also told in a more veiled way that material needs to be shaped for a pro-Francis audience or something like that. I operate under the assumption that the dialogue that Pope Francis and his predecessors have spoke of going back explicitly to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI is one they take seriously and furthermore, that they want Catholics to take part in. I do not see how that can be the case if the goal is just to create an echo chamber of nodding yesfolk who take turns complaining about what the yesfolk of other echo chambers say and vice versa.

This is a serious problem today: too many echo chambers and far too few who try to bridge these chasms in a productive fashion. That is what I saw myself doing as a member of WPI. I am interested in helping build bridges, not helping destroy them. There is a reason I started the inaugural column with that passage from Fr. Taft. I am not interested in creating unnecessary conflict but instead to help find ways to resolve it. It does not seem to me that WPI and I in that respect are on the same page and the goal of members of the former seem to be the antithesis of what I aim to do.{8}

For his own reasons, Pete has decided to part ways with WPI as well as the rest of public social media. Apart from what I thought WPI could be as enunciated in my inaugural column, I got involved in the project to collaborate with an old friend as we used to in the old days when we wrote web content as well as columns for periodical publications. We may be able to resume collaboration in the coming year but obviously that will not be happening at WPI. I therefore for the reasons specified above formally resign from Where Peter Is as of this column's publication and its notation on the messenger thread of its site participants. I thank them for the original opportunity but in the end, it simply is not the right fit for me; therefore, I wish them well and bid them adieu.


“The world is full of people who are bridge destroyers. They want to destroy the bridges that already exist. That’s not me.” [Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Fr. Robert F. Taft, SJ]

Notes:

{1} Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)

{2} Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness

{3} Among the ecclesial areas I have done a fair amount of study in are the areas not often familiar to apologists or indeed many theologians. For example, what is involved in the principles of authentic dialogue? (It is one thing to throw the term around and another to actually understand what it involves!) What is and is not involved in a magisterial intervention and what is and is not considered (properly speaking) “magisterial”? What are the general norms of theological interpretation involved in properly understanding the theological qualifications of magisterial interventions? What are the situations where someone can take issue with magisterial interventions and the recognized methodology thereof? And furthermore, what sort of spiritual dispositions should be involved in all such endeavours? These are areas worth delving into... [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

{4} I have observed over the years that there is a greater frequency of coarseness in discourse in society generally speaking. What is even more disappointing is that I see it just as prominent among Catholics who should know better. To quote the words of a soon-to-be canonized saint, “[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness” (Bl. Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam). While I will at times bluntly call out such things when I see them, that is as a rule not how I have preferred over the years to go about these or other matters. [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

{5} See the material from footnote one.

{6} I have also seen a growing coarseness in discourse among Catholics with the proliferation of labels intended to stigmatize others. [Excerpt from Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (circa June 16, 2018)]

I unfortunately in following the private messaging thread of WPI seen this sort of thing proliferate there as well as some of it creep onto the site itself.

{7} It is not my interest to go into this matter in any depth. Suffice to say, I hope bringing this matter to the attention of others on the site will make them more attuned to what they write and the manner in which it is presented in the future.

{8} Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa June 24, 2018)