The ‘buck’ starts here.

Consider a few points, in no particular order.

  • Traditionis custodes and the Dubious Dubia (TC&DD) are an incoherent mess.
  • TC&DD are founded on faulty theological grounds: that Vatican II is the lens through which all doctrine and discipline of the past must be reinterpreted.
  • TC&DD are excused with a lie: that the bishops of the world thought that Summorum Pontificum had created problems of unity.
  • A law that cannot be enforced in no law at all.
  • This is not 1982, when there was no alternatives in Catholic media. Now we have the internet, etc.
  • Even though conservative priests have a strong inclination to obedience, priests with whom I have had contact have said that they will continue to use the older Missale Romanum and Rituale Romanum no matter what.

At Catholic World Report there is a piece by Fr. Peter Stravinskas which helps to identity the status quaestionis regarding the long-term viability of Traditionis custodes, Francis’ “Plessy v. Ferguson” legacy document.

Stravinskas makes a point that we all know only too well.   It bears repeating, however, especially in this present context of the pogrom against the Catholic faithful who desire traditional doctrine and worship (liturgy is doctrine).   The point is: While conservatives tend to obey, and then get the stuffing kicked out of them, liberals disobey and defy and wind up getting their way, being rewarded for their bad behavior.

Let’s pick up in the CWR piece…

[…]

[A]n Irish witticism: “The willing horse gets flogged the most.”

Where am I going with all this?

Yes, the prelates in question have made a presumption, based on the theological convictions of their intended audience. That is, that “conservatives” obey. However, “conservatives” are not ahistorical; they have witnessed for more than half a century that “liberals” have never obeyed any liturgical authority, and have done so with impunity. Actually, more to the point, “liberal” disobedience and disregard for liturgical norms most often resulted, not only in no punishment, but in having their disobedience enshrined in law!

Let but a few examples suffice.

[…]

He goes on to list several practices that were obtained through flagrant disobedience, such as Communion in the hand, multiplication of “extraordinary” ministers, female service at the altar, etc.

Now, Francis and Roche and Cupich, etc., are flogging the willing horse.

I would observe that the ‘buck’ starts here.

I do not think that they are going to win, in the end.  There are too many people who want traditional worship and too many young priests and seminarians who want it as well.

This time, I think the proper distinctions will lead more and more people to conclude that the suppression of tradition is quite simply appalling and harmful for the Church.   Reasonable people who don’t even care to attend the TLM can see how dreadful this is, how ideologically twisted.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Be The Maquis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Comments

  1. Pingback: Post Title – Via Nova Media

  2. With my ordinary’s permission, I offer the Traditional Latin Mass “privately” once a week at 5:45 am. Since Traditiones Custodes, the attendance just keeps rising.

  3. roma247 says:

    All true. And very tempting.

    However…

    1. Does any truly pious Catholic have any respect for that modus operandi?
    2. Does God respect that modus operandi?

    Martyrdom carries the power it does because it places the will of God before every other consideration of human expediency. The stories of the saints abound with periods in which they had to put the will of their religious superiors above the will of God as communicated directly to them in visions, etc. In many instances, God rewarded them for obeying their superiors even when they were wrong!

    Flagrant disobedience might solve the problem in the short term for some. But if we want God to fight on our side, we have to fight His way, even if it means in the short term that we get crushed. Disobedience is the way of the enemy; that’s why “liberals” use it, and why they get away with it.

    If this is God’s church, He has a solution, and we have to have faith that He will lead us toward it. Until then, beware resorting to the tactics of the enemy. They’re like The Ring of Power, they only serve him.

    “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it.”

  4. misanthrope says:

    Following is a very imperfect parallel between the Church today, and modern Judaism:

    I once had two Jewish partners; one was Orthodox (previously Conservative) and the other Reformed (the latter basically irreligious). I often thought of the Catholic Church since VII similarly divided – Trads, ‘faithful Catholic’ NO attendees, and NO ‘modernists’.

    I have met many faithful NO Catholics who were not particularly fans of TLM, but horrified over the state of the Church and pained by the many liturgical abuses of the NO. Recently, particularly post TC, some of these faithful souls are lamenting greatly the Pope’s position and re-thinking their attitudes around TLM. I asked my Orthodox partner why he moved from ‘Conservative’ to ‘Orthodox’. His answer was essentially that he couldn’t justify not going all the way to the true faith of his fathers.

    Meanwhile, attendance at our VO parish continues to grow, despite the hierarchy’s best efforts to thwart it. Like my former partner, are some thinking it’s time to go all in on the faith of their predecessors?

  5. @roma247: For my part, I am fully prepared to stand before the Just Judge and affirm that I deemed it right to ignore the will of Jorge Bergoglio. For as Hama said, “In doubt a man of worth will trust to his own wisdom” (The Two Towers).

    @misanthrope: On “conservatives” becoming “orthodox:” I have heard similar things too, and it makes sense, as in the end there are only orthodoxy and heresy; “tertium non datur.”

  6. MissBee says:

    We are painfully close to having the one TLM in our new diocese removed. I came from an FSSP church, and before that the Institute. I am pained that this is happening.

    My husband suggests that we take our tithing envelopes and add one dollar weekly with the following note: “Regular tithing will resume with the restoration of the TLM”.

    I’d add: “and sacraments”.

  7. iamlucky13 says:

    “However, ‘conservatives’ are not ahistorical; they have witnessed for more than half a century that ‘liberals’ have never obeyed any liturgical authority, and have done so with impunity.”

    I have raised this point half jokingly in a few contexts since the Dubia were published. The more I think about it, though, the more it strikes me as a viable form of civil disobedience:

    “No, your excellency, the rumors that I celebrated Mass according to the Missal antecedent to the reforms of the 2nd Vatican Council are completely false. I celebrated Mass according to the liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, with certain adaptations to accompany the pastoral needs my congregation has shared with me out of their lived experience.”

    “Why yes, as a matter of fact, those adaptations did include the use of Latin, joining the congregation in facing the Lord, and changing some of the words in a way that just happened to match the pre-Vatican II cycle of readings. Of course, in consideration of what you, as ‘guardian of the whole liturgical life’ of our diocese have already have been accepting as ‘decorum and fidelity to the liturgical books’ as instructed by Pope Francis, I knew you could have no objection to the much more minor adaptations I made.”

  8. Dave P. says:

    1) Fr. Stravinskas has well described the modus operandi of the Progressive Element regarding rules and laws: when in charge, make ’em; when not, break ’em. And be ruthless and unremitting in both instances

    2) I encourage people to use the term “Progressive Element” to describe the current factions in power – civil, ecclesial, and cultural. It is taken from CS Lewis’ novel That Hideous Strength. If you’ve ever read it, you will know why.

    3) Speaking of how the Progressive Element operates – have you seen what His Eminence has done regarding the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius stationed in Springfield?

  9. kurtmasur says:

    Yes, the more strict and convoluted Bergoglio’s anti-TLM decrees become, and as long as all of the liturgical abuses going on at the NO (such as the St. Sabine group in Chicago), the easier it will be to break them. I fathom that in the long run, both trads and libs will become too fatigued to be keeping up with all of the liturgical “abuses” happening at all TLMs (by “abuses”, I mean traditional confirmations, ordinations, confessions, binations, TLM times publicized, whether a post-TC ordained priest has “super faculties” from the Vatican, and the list goes on, and on, and on), etc., that everybody will stop paying attention and even caring what comes from Bergoglio (while he’s still around) and Roche. It’s all just so much to keep track of (regardless of which side one’s on).

  10. JabbaPapa says:

    TC&DD are founded on faulty theological grounds: that Vatican II is the lens through which all doctrine and discipline of the past must be reinterpreted.

    This is precisely a “hermeneutic of rupture”, of the sort that Pope Benedict XVI warned against.

  11. rtjleblanc says:

    Obedience is certainly a virtue. But I don’t believe unquestioning, uncritical obedience in all things is in any way a part of our faith at all. We have our own rule of law by which we are not required to obey unjust laws or imprudent or arbitrary commands that exceed the authority of the one giving the command. If any prelate were to command me to jump off a bridge “just because” I would be well within my rights to disobey. We owe obedience only to laws justly enacted and to orders given that fall within the authority and competence of the one giving the orders. Beyond that we have freedom. For this reason, we cannot be dispensed of the obligation and responsibility to exercise discernment with respect to the justness and the legitimacy of laws and orders given or to act accordingly. This is especially true for lay people who are not under the kinds of vows of obedience that clergy are under. We cannot morally relinquish our responsibility in these matters.

    Note. I am not talking about sheer wilfulness or truculent and petulant disobedience. We should be quick and eager to be obedient towards just laws and to commands given within the competence of the one giving the commands, even when we might disagree with the prudence of the commands, even if we feel the obligation to register our concern about the prudence of the commands. But we should always be ready to resist unjust laws, and commands given, that exceed the competence of jurisdiction of the one giving the commands. Proper balance between legitimate authority and authentic freedom, between rule of law and proper autonomy, as well as proper exercise of one’s own responsibility, are among the things that distinguish a valid religion from a mere cult. Only in cults do we find the need to give unquestioning obedience to the leader or leaders or to surrender our own responsibilities to those leaders.

  12. rtjleblanc says:

    Obedience is certainly a virtue. But I don’t believe unquestioning, uncritical obedience in all things is in any way a part of our faith at all. We have our own rule of law by which we are not required to obey unjust laws or imprudent or arbitrary commands that exceed the authority of the one giving the command. If any prelate were to command me to jump off a bridge “just because” I would be well within my rights to disobey. We owe obedience only to laws justly enacted and to orders given that fall within the authority and competence of the one giving the orders. Beyond that we have freedom. For this reason, we cannot be dispensed of the obligation and responsibility to exercise discernment with respect to the justness and the legitimacy of laws and orders given or to act accordingly. This is especially true for lay people who are not under the kinds of vows of obedience that clergy are under. We cannot morally relinquish our responsibility in these matters.

    Note. I am not talking about sheer wilfulness or truculent and petulant disobedience. We should be quick and eager to be obedient towards just laws and to commands given within the competence of the one giving the commands, even when we might disagree with the prudence of the commands, even if we feel the obligation to register our concern about the prudence of the commands. But we should always be ready to resist unjust laws, and commands given, that exceed the competence of jurisdiction of the one giving the commands. Proper balance between legitimate authority and authentic freedom, between rule of law and proper autonomy, as well as proper exercise of one’s own responsibility, are among the things that distinguish a valid religion from a mere cult. Only in cults do we find the need to give unquestioning obedience to the leader or leaders or to surrender our own responsibilities to those leaders.

  13. Kathleen10 says:

    If obedience has no limits, then everything is up for grabs, everything. Under the guise of obedience, what can’t destroyers do? There’s nothing they can’t do, they have carte blanche to wreck it all. We’ll give them no trouble, after all, obedience.
    It’s all already absurd, but to take it further, if tomorrow they decide to raze all cathedrals and put up Boy Scout tents, why not, after all, obedience. If they decide Holy Communion is to be shot out of a T-shirt cannon to the assembled, why not. Obedience. You have to take obedience to the extreme. We should all realize, at some point, it doesn’t. These are not minor points they are making, it’s not a matter of a small change. This is the rite by which we worship our God, which has been so since the very beginning. It is ours. We have a right to it that no man can take away. Francis does not have the authority to do it.
    He does not have the authority, because God gave that authority to no one.

    They don’t care if Catholics leave. If Catholics go to SSPX, they will be excommunicated at some point. I wonder if he imagines that Catholics will come running back with tears. We wouldn’t. We’d consider it an unwanted honor. At this point, at least in our house, we are forever bonded to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. We are bonded to Our Lady, the Roman Rite, the saints, scripture, authentic Catholic teaching, and whatever Cardinals, bishops, and priests that teach, and give us, Catholicism. Anybody that doesn’t, is to us anathema, their words and actions have been rendered unimportant to us. They are no longer viable, but have presented themselves as opposed to God, so all relationship is broken. It is they who have been disobedient. We are under no obligation to hear them.
    No obedience owed, to such men.

  14. Lurker 59 says:

    —>TC&DD are founded on faulty theological grounds: that Vatican II is the lens through which all doctrine and discipline of the past must be reinterpreted <—-

    It is really "The Spirit of Vatican II" as the lens, not the actual Council itself. That is the BS in TC. TC doesn't want people to follow the Council but rather "The Spirit of VII". Important distinction if one is to be forced to "sign an oath of fidelity to the Council" — it is an easier to hold mental reservation.

  15. roma247 says:

    @Kathleen10: Duly noted. As far as arguments go, I don’t disagree.

    Of course, the devil is in the details…

    What does a post-obedience Church look like? To what authority does it appeal? Who solves disputes about how to interpret things, or which way to go? What’s to stop this little group of Catholics from going their own way, while another group goes another way? Shall we appoint Vigano our Pope? What of those pesky vows that our priests took? Do we really just go set up our own Church?

    I seem to recall that’s what the Protestants did. And what the Orthodox did. And what the SSPV did. And you might be right…Or not… A betting man would carefully hedge his bets though, especially when we’re talking about souls here. We err on the side of caution.

    This reminds me of the scene in A Man for All Seasons, when Thomas is debating with Will Roper about going after Richard Rich…

    “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

    Our path is made nearly impossible due to its muddiness and the darkness and the thick fog. These aren’t men’s laws we are up against. But if you start down the path of thinking you know better where the Church is, the likelihood that you will get lost in the woods is far greater.

    Either there is a true Church, and God is allowing this to happen for a reason, and He knows what He’s doing and will fix it in His way and His time, and we have to suffer until then…or it’s all a waste of time anyway.

    I hate it as much as everyone else here. But this ain’t the Titanic, it’s the Barque of Peter, and even though it’s as obvious as the nose on your face that the Vatican is under Satan’s control, you will have to pry my cold dead hands off the railing before I’m going to jump ship and swim.

  16. Kathleen10 says:

    @roma, agreed, all valid concerns. It may happen just that way. We should never underestimate man’s ability to muck things up. However, at some point each Catholic has to use his or her sense of discernment, it just comes down to it.
    Each person has to decide, every day, which way to go. I won’t say when my point was reached, but it was sometime back. I’m with the true church, the Latin Rite, for as long as I have it. I’ll go SSPX if I have to. But my obedience and my fidelity and my love, goes to Jesus Christ and to Him alone. If I absolutely have to, I’ll sit home, but I won’t participate in an ongoing goat rodeo and call it holy church. I would feel I was betraying Christ if I did that, and that’s what the church looks like at this point in time.

  17. robtbrown says:

    Nb: Obedience and Blind Obedience are not the same thing. The latter flourished in the Church for about 400 years.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    robtbrown :

    Obedience and Blind Obedience are not the same thing. The latter flourished in the Church for about 400 years.

    Not sure which 400-year period you’re referring to, though it strikes me as wrong — willing to consider your claim properly of course, but would you provide any more detail to it ?

  19. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

Comments are closed.