Wherein Fr. Z offers advice to liberals

TwitterMany liberals now openly foment revolt against Pope Benedict and the goals of his pontificate.  They are quite worried about, inter alia, the new translation of the Roman Missal.  

I have a suggestion for these Vatican II Spirit defending "Vat-trads".

It’s time to get organized!

Since you seem to want to be Anglicans, leave that closet and ask Archbishop Rowan Williams for your own Ordinariate. 

You could get your own "Vat-trad" corner safe from Rome and its interference!

Within your "Spirit of Vatican II Ordinariate" you will enjoy your most cherished traditions.  Think of all the ceramic, guitars, hip music, big puppets and, above all, an English liturgy loaded with perpetually revised dynamic equivalence. 

After all, the old lame-duck ICEL translation has been in use for almost 40 whole years! That certainly constitutes a tradition worth fighting for, doesn’t it?

If the Pope wants priests to "turn back the clock", to turn their backs on the people, turn your backs on him, I say!

"Hell no! Let’s just go!"  See?  Slogans are easy!

"Why don’t we just say ‘Anglican’?"  There’s another.

I encourage these Lefebvrists-of-the-Left to walk the labyrinth together and journey to a safe haven amongst the Anglicans.

Freedom from Roman encroachment can be yours!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Wherein Fr. Z offers advice to liberals

  1. Oneros says:

    You jest, but I think this would actually be just fine. Within reason, let people do what they want (but, make them go out of their way to get it). Most Catholics won’t bother, and those die-hards…will be isolated in a few places and marginalized.

  2. david andrew says:

    Several weeks ago while visiting another parish to play for a funeral, I had a rather unpleasant conversation with a “Black Franciscan” (OFMConv.) who said, out loud, that all the priests he knew were going to openly defy Rome and not implement the new translation. He further said that he hoped the American Bishops would stand together and refuse to accept the new translation “being forced on them.” I replied, “after all, defiance is so very important, isn’t it.” He employed the “old saw” that nobody speaks the way the new translation is written and that the words were “too hard to pronounce, let alone understand.” I told him that it was a shame that he thought people were too stupid to grasp mystery.

    His final missive was, “What’s Rome going to do about it if they don’t use the new translation?” I said that I hoped Rome would properly punish defiant bishops, to which he wrinkled his nose in scorn.

    Finally, I said that if he didn’t like what Rome was doing, there was always the Episcopal church.

    His response? “What a self-righteous thing to say.”

    I think that just about sums up what these folk are about.

  3. “I encourage these Lefebvrists-of-the-Left to walk the labyrinth…”

    No insult to decent Lefebvrists everywhere, right? : )

    We should only be so fortunate as to see your tongue-in-cheek suggestion come to pass, Father, but a renegade Catholic-turned-Anglican will have sacrificed their most valued treasure; the attention that comes from being a progressive in a repressive Church.

  4. viennaguy says:

    All good. Except leave off the Lefebvrists. They’re half your readership.

  5. I agree with Louie Verrecchio. They’ll never do it. They’d just be run-of-the-mill and uninteresting, whereas they get lots of publicity in the Catholic Church.

  6. vienna: Except leave off the Lefebvrists. They’re half your readership.

    That means half the readers here will get this!

    o{];¬)

  7. benyanke says:

    HA!!

  8. Rob Cartusciello says:

    “I had a rather unpleasant conversation with a “Black Franciscan” (OFMConv.) who said, out loud, that all the priests he knew were going to openly defy Rome and not implement the new translation.”

    I’m sure that all the priest he knew were against the new translation. Much like the apocryphal writer who couldn’t believe that Nixon won because she didn’t know anyone who voted for him.

    Anyone who feels compelled to express their opinions this vocally is dealing with a lot of issues. I will pray for him.

  9. AnnaTrad51 says:

    I love , love it , love it. I can’t stop laughing. Vat-Trads, I’ll never use the word liberals again.

  10. TJerome says:

    Funny, about the Black Franciscan. Several priests I have spoken with under the age of 55 are very excited about the new translations. This guy sounds
    like a petulant child, definitely a case of arrested development. It’s really rather sad. Tom

  11. pewpew says:

    YAY!

  12. Leonius says:

    “I had a rather unpleasant conversation with a “Black Franciscan” (OFMConv.) who said, out loud, that all the priests he knew were going to openly defy Rome and not implement the new translation.”

    Birds of a feather flock together.

  13. TNCath says:

    I’ve been advocating for quite some time now that the LCWR-member religious orders go on and “swim the Channel” over to the Anglicans. Think about it: they would easily get “ordained,” be given parishes, and get the power they have wanted for so long. They would take England and our buddy Archbishop Rowan Williams by storm!

  14. Martial Artist says:

    An excellent suggestion Fr. Z. And I am sure that +Cantuar knows enough Latin to name his offer Romanorum Coetibus, thereby finding a (not so subtle) way to signal his displeasure to the Holy Father. And not only that, it seems that it would also be likely to maintain the apparent tradition of seeing the orthodox priests move Romeward, and the others in the opposite direction. As a former Episcopalian, I think it an eminent solution to the questions of priestly vocations for both communities.

    ;-)

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  15. MargaretC says:

    While I’d love the idea of a wholesale exchange between the Catholic and Episcopal churches — it would be a logical move for women who claim to want to be priests — I have to agree with the commenters who say that the “Vat-Trads” would never give up the notoriety they get as “defiant” Catholics.

  16. Clinton says:

    Fr. Z., I know you jest, but there are those out there who seem to be serious about culling their flocks…

    During this past Christmas season, I was at a party with a friend whose uncle is an (in)famously heterodox Episcopalian bishop (rhymes
    with ‘Bong’). My friend doesn’t speak with his uncle that often, but had recently had a phone conversation with him and had needled
    him about the Pope’s recent decision to set up the Anglican-use Ordinariate. His uncle responded with gales of laughter, explaining
    that if the Pope wanted all of ‘his’ homophobes, neanderthals and misogynists, he was welcome to them and good riddance. He looked
    upon the Pope’s offer as a Godsend, and felt that his brother bishops were of like mind.

    It is a strange shepherd that is happy to see any part of his flock wander off.

  17. MargaretC says:

    David Andrew — About how old was this “Black Franciscan”? My own priest, an energetic fellow in his mid-40s, is very excited about the new translation.

    Of course, he also likes to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin whenever he gets an opportunity…

  18. There are no “Lefebvrists” of the Left. What Archbishop Lefebvre did over his lifetime — from his missionary work in Africa to saving the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass — is astonishing.

    If he had spent that time on ecclesial gossip and other nonsense, we would be in a truly desperate situation.

    Very unfortunate remark, Father Zuhlsdorf.

  19. ipadre says:

    Amen, Fr. Z! They have been the source of spiritual death to so many souls.

  20. Cavaliere says:

    Vat-Trads, I’ll never use the word liberals again.

    I’m afraid that after just finishing an article over at the Natl. Catholic Dissenter that ‘Vat-Trad’ isn’t encompassing of all liberals. The article was written by one of their “Young Voices” Kate Childs Graham called “I’m Over Vatican II.” Young Kate is a board member of the Women’s Ordination Conference and Call to Actions Next Generation Leadership Team and she thinks Vatican II was a good start but didn’t go far enough. I would never want to go 40-plus years back in time, especially to a time that afforded fewer people fewer rights. And judging by the posted comments there are quite a few people young and old who agree with her.

  21. JonM says:

    I think in the not so distant future, Catholics in rebelion will be directed to either stop it or be the recepients of this kind of message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-5B54wXgI4&feature=related

  22. Catholicdude15 says:

    I have just five words for the “Spirit of Vatican II” Catholics: The Episcopal Church Welcomes You!

  23. The people who are further left than the “Vat-rads” could be called the “Progres-sedevacantists”.

  24. JosephMary says:

    No. In spite of the fact of the incredible havoc wreaked on the Church by dissenters, I would rather hope for their conversion. Maybe they do not believe or accept or fully live the sacramental life but I would not ask any Catholic to turn their back on it.
    In some ways they are also ‘separated brethren’ except they did not physically leave!

  25. mdillon says:

    “Vat-trads” LOL! You’re killing me!

  26. jt83 says:

    “They’ll never do it. They’d just be run-of-the-mill and uninteresting, whereas they get lots of publicity in the Catholic Church.”

    I think there is a lot of truth to this. Well said, Father.

  27. FrCharles says:

    all the priests he knew were going to openly defy Rome and not implement the new translation.

    I can almost say the same thing, and I’m a chestnut Franciscan.

  28. Johannes says:

    Dear Father, this is an interesting question which you have raised. It’s even more topical given one of the stories on BBC news tonight about the General Synod of the Church of England.

    As someone who has left the Anglican Communion to be received into the Church, I have never really understood those Catholics who are at odds with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church and yet stay and cause trouble. Why don’t they just join the Episcopal Church?

    I would have thought that the genius of Roman Catholicism (over against Anglicanism) is that there is a locus of authority which sets the mind of the Faithful at ease: you don’t have to work it all out for yourself from scratch as if there was no revelation and no Church which operates according to the mind and will of Christ according to his special promise. (If we could understand the Divine Mind and work everything out for ourselves we would be God, and we are clearly not.) Similarly, there is a requirement made of each Catholic that he/she (if they want to be a catholic) should give their assent to the teaching of the Church and live accordingly.

    That said, (much as I have a need to look at your blog almost every day and ponder thereon), I am sometimes disturbed by the “Lefebvrist” tenor of some contributions. If the Roman Catholic Church is what it believes itself to be, then Lefebvre (God rest his soul) was actually a Protestant as are all those who believe that Vatican II was heresy.

    Many developments since Vatican II are clearly not in accordance with the Tradition of the Church. The Council must be interpreted and applied according to the hermeneutic of continuity. However, those who would label Blessed Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI heretics are clearly out of sympathy with the Church herself and I, for one, am as happy to do without such people as I am with happy to do without those “Liberals” who would made the Catholic Church into a form of Modernist Anglicanism.

    The surest guide to Truth is the Holy Father and the Magisterium rather than schismatics. God Bless Benedict XVI!

  29. AnnaTrad51 says:

    Thanks for the heads up “Cavaliere” I will have to rethink my renaming
    but the article still has me laughing.

  30. Jono says:

    Father, by chance did you read “Holy Resistance” over at PrayTell? I read that rant right before coming over here, and they seemed to fit really well together. :)

  31. Son of Trypho says:

    Fr Z does make a good point indirectly with the reference to Lefebvre.

    Regardless of his other faults the man actually walked the walk and set up his own group apart from Rome.

    The liberals don’t have half of his integrity to do the same despite their ongoing groanings and lamentations concerning the Church – and on topics which were far more corrosive of the Faith than his. [And that is what will make that title faaaar more galling to them. And we shouldn’t have to explain this stuff.]

    They would be better off with the Anglicans but don’t want to lose the security which comes with staying in the institution – what other job can you endlessly criticise your boss, refuse to obey directions/rules, drive away most of the customers and indulge your own whims at will and still get paid at the end of the day for years without too much trouble?

  32. smallone says:

    “Lefebrists of the left” is also alliterative and catchy!

    When I was a Protestant I used to wonder why dissident Catholics didn’t join or start other churches. Which I realize is kind of a Protestant attitude in and of itself. But if one deliberately strays into heretical territory, isn’t one out already?

    On a related note…how many “splinter” Catholic churches have their own hierarchy? I know about the sedevacantists, etc. But what about those strange groups like the “Free Catholic Church” et al.? Or have they simply dispensed with hierarchy?

  33. smallone says:

    That was supposed to be “Lefebvrists” of course. Oops.

    No disrespect intended.

  34. Fr Martin Fox says:

    There was an article at National Catholic (sic!) Reporter about the holy father’s MC, and the “Reform of the Reform.” The comments were an incessant wail, filled with sturm und drang about the awful, terrible things “this pope” is doing to Vatican II…I felt guilty about all the pleasure I took in reading it.

    One commenter said: “can’t we have a Vatican II ordinariate?” I think someone else did suggest the Episcopal Church, but no one took up the offer.

    Seriously, I agree with JosephMary–this is funny, but I still hope for their conversion.

  35. Fr Martin Fox: Delicious, isn’t it?

  36. JonM says:

    As one of those converts who becomes known for adopting a hardline approach, I have a theory on why so much dissent is occuring and how it can be addressed.

    Johannes mentions the great peace offered by knowing there is a hierarchy and 2000 years of tradition; we don’t have to rationalize every moral question we encounter since we have the Church to guide us. Indeed in time we come to see why these positions are good in a natural sense, but that comes only with faith and submission; that is, coming to God like a child.

    In fact I think people need authoritative leaders. We are socially organized and need top down structures. The liberalization of the 1950s-~2005 even if just allowed smashed at least two generations in viewing their bishops as authorities.

    I mean, if a bishop is so weak so as to advice against converting others to the one true faith, if bishops are more concerned about (anti-Christian) state directed welfare programs, if bishops reject Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and allow horrible abuses of the liturgy, well then of course there is going to be dissent!

    The sheep without a shepherd will reject the rules because no one seems to care much about them. Then, they must recreate rules to govern themselves.

    When the USCCB is caught time after time after time doing things so harmful to the Church, a flag has to go up that a top to bottom house cleaning is in order. It is far more serious an offense to fail at leading a sheep than to be a dumb sheep bleeting on nonsense.

    Fix the bishops, the flocks will follow.

  37. Nan says:

    We were told over a year ago that they were working on a new translation and it would be a few years and they’d have to properly catechize us on the changes. Then again, the priest is faithful to the church and the bishop tries only to do as the church asks him to do.

  38. edwardo3 says:

    I’ll start chilling a bottle or two of the “Widow”. [Good job!] Speaking of Franciscans; I had an interesting discussion with a theology student the other day from a Franciscan university that made me very sad for him, becasue he has bought all of this 1960/1970’s rot hook line and sinker. There was even a thinly veiled accusation made that I was a Sede Vacantist because of my support for the real teachings and liturgical practice of the Church.

  39. catholicmidwest says:

    Actually, there appears to be increasing energy around “intentional communities” in these groups, leading to the formation of “home churches.” It’s my belief that eventually people who feel strongly enough about all this will drift away in groups and join the other “catholic” autocephalous churches, of which there are already literally hundreds (and that’s in the USA alone).

    The problem here, with what you suggest, Fr Z, is that dissident progressives coming out of the Roman Catholic Church don’t identify with the tradition, sensibility and concerns of the Episcopalians, even very liberal ones. [For one thing, they’re not “high church,” and the most liberal Episcopalians are. The Episcopalian church has the liturgy-doctrine thing inverted from a RC perspective.] [Did you read the top entry? Could there have been any irony involved?]

    Our dissidents are more likely to align themselves with the likes of Spiritus Christi, an apostate parish in Rochester NY or with married (ex)-priest organizations and the like. They also have aligned themselves with religious orders in advanced stages of charism drift. The Franciscans and some other orders, particularly women’s orders, are having these problems.

  40. catholicmidwest says:

    There is no doubt that the new translations may play a role in hastening this development, but honestly, I think it’s going to occur anyway and the new translations cannot be faulted for what’s going to happen anyway.

    A significant proportion of the hardcore members of organizations leading dissenting drives have been attending homemade liturgies, presided over by “married priests” and “women priests” (using the term very lightly) for so long, they’re not really catholic anymore and they’re not coming back. The mindset is completely someplace else, to be honest. Yet they will always think of themselves as somehow catholic. It’s a bit of a shocker for most regular catholics, who no matter how poor their catechesis has been or how wacky their ideas are, don’t think of themselves in those ways.

    Regular catholics will either accept the translations or not; most will. Some will be confused, but that’s always the case with any changes. A few will wander off in a daze or in anger, also always the case. But they will not leave in organized droves. The far left knows this now, to their amazement and disgust and we should too. It’s just not going to happen.

  41. Maltese says:

    *Within your “Spirit of Vatican II Ordinariate” you will enjoy your most cherished traditions. Think of all the ceramic, guitars, hip music, big puppets and, above all, an English liturgy loaded with perpetually revised dynamic equivalence.*

    LOL! And spot on, although I would have swapped “equivalence” with “equivocation”!

  42. catholicmidwest says:

    And of course, it’s quite likely that if we straighten up and worship as if we meant it, we might draw new people hungry for serious Christianity. The translations are a tremendous boost in this area.

    Catholics may not realize the kind of lore and aura that surrounds the Catholic church, even in the general culture, and even in this day and age. We shouldn’t decry that, or be ashamed of it (as many Catholics are). It’s an enormous evangelization tool, and can be a very, very effective impetus for getting people to learn more about Christianity and how they work as human souls, which can lead to faith. Catholics need to take this far more seriously than they do.

  43. winoblue1 says:

    Myself being a +Lefebvre supporter, I would say that the analogy isn’t quite accurate
    because +Lefebvre [You realize, of course, that only a bishop with JURISDICTION can use use the “+”. None of the SSPX bishops can claim that. No “+” for them.] didn’t deny any dogma and didn’t break any liturgical rubrics. [Never mind the whole thing about separating himself and followers from the Holy See because he lacked the pontifical mandate according to the mind of the Lawgiver.]
    In fact his position on the Traditional Mass has been vindicated with SP.
    Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread, but I agree the liberal heretics
    and modernists should come clean and leave the Church physically, which they have already
    left in spirit long ago.
    That will be one of the novelties of Heaven, to find out who was really a Catholic
    and who wasn’t.
    We might be especially surprised by who is conspicuously absent.

  44. catholicmidwest says:

    “We might be especially surprised by who is conspicuously absent.”

    On that, winoblue1, I think you are correct. A lot of people may be in for some big surprises.

  45. Breck says:

    May I offer a superficial amendment to the label Vat-trads? How about Vatty-two-trads? It has a nursery rhyme ring to it, don’t you agree?

  46. Just remember to repeat to your liberal friends: “Lefebvrist of the Left”.

    Grind it in.

  47. Fr Martin Fox says:

    Fr Martin Fox: Delicious, isn’t it?
    Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 9 February 2010 @ 9:21 pm

    Yes, Father–I confess I love Schadenfreude served scalding hot!

  48. Sam Urfer says:

    “‘We might be especially surprised by who is conspicuously absent.’

    On that, winoblue1, I think you are correct. A lot of people may be in for some big surprises.”

    That may have been too subtle…

  49. chonak says:

    Oh, dear. I’m going to have to give up Schadenfreude for Lent: well, except on feast days and Sundays.

  50. Fleeb says:

    I heard Karl Keating the other day with a memorable quote (paraphrased):

    “Everyone in Heaven is Catholic, because they’re all Saints. Everyone in Purgatory is Catholic, and everyone in Hell is Catholic, because they now know the Truth.”

    On another note, is it not a grave sin for a Catholic to reject the Church’s teachings, and is not encouragement to sin (i.e.: recommending anyone to leave the Church for the Anglican sect) just as grave?

    I for one, pray for these souls; I’d not want to try to explain to the Good Shepherd why I did nothing (or worse…actively encouraged schism) while some of His flock wandered through a broken fence…

  51. The-Monk says:

    At least Martin Luther possessed the courage of his convictions. Most uberliberal catholics get angry when asked why, if they truly believe what they opine, they don’t leave the Roman Catholic Church.

  52. Roland de Chanson says:

    winoblue1: In fact his position on the Traditional Mass has been vindicated with SP.

    If you mean that there would have been no SP without Lefebvre, I agree.

    Lefebvre did not leave the Church, he was excommunicated by JP2. Even Küng only lost his ticket to teach! With the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops Lefebvre consecrated, presumably he himself would have been included were he still alive. When the history of the post-V2 catastrophe is finally written, Lefebvre will be acknowledged both literally and figuratively to be among the Church Triumphant, while Bugnini will be just another skull littering the landscape of hell.

    Brick by brick? Levebvre laid the first brick.

    Save the Liturgy, save the world? Levebvre saved the Liturgy. Only He can save the world.

    Marcel, répare ma maison, qui est tombée en ruine.

  53. Just remember to repeat to your liberal friends: “Lefebvrist of the Left”.

    Grind it in.

    I love that term. I think it was Cardinal George who first used it, in addressing an annual USCCB meeting, maybe ten or so years ago. The term was NOT well received. LOL [Exactly. It was a retort to H.E. Bp. Trautman who was objecting to the newly released Liturgiam authenticam.]

  54. Supertradmom says:

    Where my friend’s son goes to seminary, the NO men call the trads “Trad-rats”, which causes division…sad.

  55. PatrickV says:

    Believe or leave

  56. Jordanes says:

    Wasn’t “Lefebvrists of the Left” coined by George Weigel? [Nope. Card. George.]

    Roland said: Lefebvre did not leave the Church, he was excommunicated by JP2.

    No, John Paul II did not excommunicate him. It was an automatic excommunication. By consecrating bishops schismatically, he separated himself from the Church’s communion. [We are NOT going to argue this through again.]

    Levebvre saved the Liturgy. Only He can save the world.

    I hope by “He” you mean Jesus or God, not Lefebvre, who is certainly not the sole Savior of the World.

  57. Agnes says:

    Spot on, Z. As a convert feeling put off by all the stupidity and division in the Church, I would huff, “If you don’t like it, start your own, dagnabbit!” But… isn’t that sort of leftovers of my Protestant upbringing? If it gets too hot in the kitchen, leave?

    Wheat and chaff, my friends.

    ~ Agnes, foundress of the “Church That Likes Stripes Better Than Polka Dots”

  58. RuariJM says:

    “There are no “Lefebvrists” of the Left…”

    I think you are right(!), Mr Mulligan. I haven’t come across any accused of being on the ‘left’ in the Catholic Church suggest that the Holy See isn’t actually Catholic, that it’s in the hands of the Masons, Illuminati, Rosicrucians or whoever, nor allege that the Pope openly carries suppposedly satanic images.
    They may grumble about the New Missal but they don’t go that far…so no, definitely no Lefebvrists on the Left!

  59. Roland de Chanson says:

    Jordanes: I hope by “He” you mean Jesus …

    Your hope rests on firm ground. Mais sacré bleu, you took the majuscule for a typo? ;-)

    You are right about the CIC detail. It isn’t germane to my point though.

  60. SimonDodd says:

    While my instinct is to agree with AnnaTrad51, I worry that to apply the label “Vat-Trads” to folks who (it seems to me) are actually athwart the council is to implicitly concede the council to them.

  61. Marcel, répare ma maison, qui est tombée en ruine.

    Wait a minute, Ronald — did you just compare Lefebvre to St. Francis’s rebuilding of God’s Church?

    Indeed, I’d have to disagree with this statement. Lefebvre may have had good intentions to restore the Tridentine Mass and the holiness of the Church (emphasis on intention), but he used the canonically wrong way to do it and thus got excommunicated.

    And in this same analogy, this could explain Fr. Z’s usage of “Lefebrvists of the Left”. Indeed, the “Vat-trads” wanted to get the laity involved in Church life (which is in itself a good intention) but used canonically wrong ways to do it like married priests, women priests, and the “We are Church” movement.

    Therefore, the liberals got excommunicated too for the same reasons as Lefebvre.

    However, if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. God bless to all of you.

  62. Again… we are not going to re-argue the excommunication of the late Archbp. Lefebvre. That rabbit hole is closed.

  63. Jordanes says:

    [Nope. Card. George.]

    I had the wrong “George.”

  64. Roland de Chanson says:

    J-T Delacroix: Wait a minute, Ronald—did you just compare Lefebvre to St. Francis’s rebuilding of God’s Church?

    Good Lord, not at all! St. Francis, in his vision of the Crucifix, was merely instructed to repair the particular church of San Damiano; Levebvre, scorned and shunned by the institutional Church, with his vision of the traditional Liturgy as the true re-enactment of Calvary, by his generous and beneficent self-oblation will repair the entire Roman Catholic Church. Do I hear a Santo subito?

    The rapier of Zuhlsdorfian irony thrusts both ways! :-)

  65. Supertradmom says:

    true holiness is obedient and patient

  66. Desertfalcon says:

    I’m thinking some people do not understand “irony” from a few of the posts here…

  67. MichaelJ says:

    I do not want to get into the whole “Lefebvre was a saint” vs. “Lefebre was a sinner” debate – I think anyone can make a reasonable guess as to where I stand on that issue – but blanket statements such as “true sainthood lies in obedience to legitimate authority” disturb me.

    I think it reasonable to say that Pope John XII, for example, was the “legitimate authority” at the time but that some of his commands or directives were rightly disobeyed (or should have been).

    Please, I am not saying that Pope John Paul II’s command against the consecrations was such an unlawful commad. I am just saying that simply stating that “Lefebvre disobeyed the Pope and was therefore wrong” is insufficient.

  68. Rob Cartusciello says:

    I cannot advocate schism.

    I can, however, ask that those who don’t like it to please stop teaching, preaching or exercising other positions of authority in the Church.

    “Defecting in place” is not an acceptable option.

  69. Perhaps in the model of sports drafts and trading, we can swap the modernists, er ah Lefebvrists-of-the-Left, to the Anglican ecclesial community and take the conservative Anglicans in their stead? After all, that should increase the Anglican head count more than we would receive, so Rowan might take us up on that.

  70. An American Mother says:

    For one thing, they’re not “high church,” and the most liberal Episcopalians are.

    I would disagree, and since I was in that madhouse for about 45 years, I speak from bitter experience. The most liberal Piskies are the “broad churchers”. Think Spong, Robinson, and the ‘Presiding Bishopess’ (whatever THAT is, it isn’t ‘high church’.)

    You do have a few high churchers who are liberal, but they tend to be the ‘theatrical’ types who are into the fancy vestments and doo-dahs but only for the spectacle.

    Our former diocese is traditionally ‘low’, and the few high church parishes tended to be very orthodox theologically. The problem is that the incremental changes caused the orthodox to leave piecemeal rather than all together. We got out in ’03.