Wednesday, November 16, 2016

On Working Inside the System

The recent news that Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner have submitted a formal series of Dubia concerning the proper interpretation and implementation of Amoris Laetitia is causing a major stir in the traddy world and a minor shrug among the rest of the Catholic world. Nonetheless, this move has the potential to back a lot of powerful people into an uncomfortable corner, especially with the four cardinals going public and giving interviews.

Many people, myself included, have criticized clerics like Cdl. Burke for responding weakly or ambiguously to scandalous actions from within the Vatican. Laity who are willing to face the reality of Roman dissimulation often desperately need the solidarity of pastors who are willing to face and speak openly about these scandals. Otherwise, the average traddy layman is all too likely to “rad trad” all the way into sedevacantism or just into a perpetual state of anger. Sheep need good pastors, not hired hands who tell them that everything’s all right when it’s not.

The split between those who work on reform within the system and those who condemn the problems more or less from without is a cause of much vitriol. Abp. Lefebvre’s actions put him and his followers on the outside looking in, and his priests became more bold as a result. The expulsion of Bp. Williamson from the Society has pushed him outside the outsiders. The FSSP was heavily criticized by many traddy groups as being compromisers for refusing to operate without local episcopal approval. Indeed, this decision may have forced its priests to tone down their sermons, which, depending on your perspective, could be a good thing. Outsiders are accused also of prophetic pretensions, of claiming to be divine messengers when they may just be a bunch of cranky farts. Sometimes it is difficult to prove otherwise.

Recently I’ve been rewatching the old science fiction television series Babylon 5 (1993-98). The reasons for this indulgence are neither here nor there, but one aspect of the show’s plot is of some relevance. The command staff of the titular space station become more and more aggrieved at the actions of Earth’s rising totalitarian government, and finally decide to break away as an independent military force. After retaking Earth in a final showdown, the station’s captain is heavily criticized for going rogue, for refusing to work through proper channels from within, and for creating the seeds of a civil war in the wake of his actions. He is described as doing “the right thing in the wrong way,” and it’s not clear that he was indeed in the right.

Are the Society and similar groups doing the right thing in the wrong way? It is a complex movement of many parts and perhaps only a future generation can judge it with clarity. The four cardinals, though, are making the most of working within the system. One might say that their actions are more striking than melodramatic actions by outsiders, because they are refusing to break away unless they are pushed out. That four princes of the Church are making such a statement within the accepted channels, and after having first attempted to clarify matters privately, speaks a great deal to their resolve and restraint.

I have few predictions about how the publication of the Dubia will end. Ignoring the gauntlet they threw down in private has backfired quite badly for the pope and his entourage. Those with mere pretensions to humility cannot bear to be humiliated. Pray to the cardinals’ guardian angels. These four insiders may find themselves to be outsiders, soon.

"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it." —Lizard Man

33 comments:

  1. Are the Society and similar groups doing the right thing in the wrong way?

    No.

    One can not find a single Church Father who ever taught a schism was justified under any circumstance.


    The SSPX were like the draft dodgers who went to Canada and paraded around there in their fatigues. Unlike the draft dodgers who came back when Carter game them clemency, the SSPX refuses to come home.

    The SSPX are protestants in Fiddlebacks, draft dodgers extraordinaire (was that too churlish?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except the juridical status of the SSPX from 1975 onwards is complicated and not all of their own doing, nor necessarily done according to the law.

      Delete
    2. Anyways, according to Bishop Fellay, the Personal Prelature seems to be more or less in place now, according to Rorate Caeli; just a matter of small details.

      Delete
    3. Anyways, I also haven't changed my mind that the SSPX aren't schismatics! Just on what evidence do they deny the authority of the Pope? And even if they do, they aren't Protestants, who deny doctrine; they would be more like the Eastern Orthodox (which I, of course, dispute).

      Delete
    4. They obey the Pope when he takes a decision they agree with and oppose him when he takes a decision they disagree which means they are the supreme authority which means they are they are protestant in their praxis

      One good way to measure the authenticity of any Catholic is to see if he will obey the Pope when the decision taken is contrary to his will.

      I don't want to get too deep into this but the SSPX has serious problems with heresies which was only to be expected because schism is proximate to heresy

      O, and protestants also recognise that Franciscus is the Pope and some even pray for him

      Delete
    5. Well, I still am unconvinced and believe the opposite.

      Delete
    6. Also, you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room: that the SSPX is more or less nearly done about the negotiations and will be normalilzed Catholics once again. I'm with Fr. Hunwicke and Zuhldorf; the SSPX isn't schismatic, Protestant, or whatever dissidents.

      Delete
    7. Well, they are objectively schismatic and heretical in opposition to Infallible teaching

      Vatican 1:

      "Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world." (Session 4, Chapter 3, n 2)


      Like Luther before him, Mons Lefebvre thought and taught otherwise and the SSPX's heretical teachings on when it will or will not obey is opposed to Infallible Doctrine and the entirety of Catholic Tradition.

      Now, as to what the magisterium of the moment does or says is another matter, isn't it ?

      Delete
    8. No, that's your erroneous interpretation. Nowhere do the Popes Paul VI to John Paul II call the SSPX heretics. Nowhere!! And that end part can be interpreted wrongly, if you mean that the Pope can interfere in ordinary matters of the Eastern Catholic churches, like Latinizations and the such, or if the Pope imposes a rite in opposition to Tradition and forbids the traditional rites.

      Delete
    9. Funny how you call the SSPX heretics when Bishop Schneider calls them Catholics and even celebrated Mass at their seminary. Seems to me you're the only one who calls them heretics!! Even John Paul II only called them schismatics.

      Delete
    10. ABS could go further than the following (he won't) citations from Tradition which teaches the Lefevbre schism resulted in he and his followers going to Hell

      ++++++++++++++++
      The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church,... and schismatics, can ever have a share in eternal life, but that they will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels unless before death they shall have entered into the Church; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those abiding within this unity can profit from the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal reward for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may be, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV)

      He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may otherwise seem, will not be saved. (Pope Gregory XVI)

      Not one man of those outside the faith and obedience to the Pontiff of the Romans can finally be saved. (Pope Clement VI)

      Whoever does not preserve this unity does not preserve the law of God, does not preserve the faith of the Father and Son, and does not have life and salvation. (Pope Pius XII)

      We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved. (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori)

      Outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation. (Ven. Pope Pius IX)
      This is the Holy Church, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting against all heresies! He will not have God for his Father who refuses the Church for his Mother. No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church, you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities, you can have Sacraments, you can sing "Alleluia," answer "Amen," have the Gospels, have faith and preach it, too. But never can you find salvation except in the Catholic Church(St. Augustine)
      No one can be saved outside the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Council of Florence)

      Outside this communion, as outside the Ark of Noah, there is absolutely no salvation for mortals; for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: that man will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his Mother. (St. Peter Canisius)

      However, the schism of the right is now considered to be holy

      C'est la vie.

      Lefevbre was a liberal of the right

      Delete
    11. Oh, it's hopeless. You're just citing quotations and just expecting us to believe you that the SSPX in schism, Protestants and going to Hell without any evidence!! C'est la vie, indeed. The SSPX always protested that they never left the Church. You are smarter than Fr. Hunwicke, Fr. Z, and Bishop Schneider?!! Give me a break!! I'd dare say they know more about doctrine than you or me, and they would be better informed about the status of the SSPX.

      Delete
    12. And you still dodge this development that the SSPX will be canonically regularized sooner or later, according to Rorate Caeli: that the structure is already in place and only some fine-tuning of details is required! Oh my goodness; alleged "heretics" and "schismatics" being reintegrated into the Church!

      Delete
    13. I don't expect you to believe me. I did expect you to respect Tradition and apply it to those you admire and not only to those whose agenda you oppose.

      But, Tradition does not apply to those whose faux tradition is treasured because, it seems, we are all liberals now in the sense that Nixon said we are all Keynseians now

      Delete
    14. I never said I agree with everything the SSPX says, only that they're not schismatics. In what way do I not respect Tradition?

      Delete
    15. BTW, ABS, I don't see how you can make these attacks, now on me, without any evidence, except your saying so, and expect to be believed at all. And also antagonizing me!

      Delete
    16. ABS, I am done with your belittling of me and the SSPX, and your wrong understanding of Tradition, heresy, and liberalism, whatever that is. You can have the last word if you want, if that makes you feel you win, are superior, etc.

      Delete
    17. ABS, I enjoy your opinions. However, St. Hippolytus the Antipope of Rome and Father of the Roman Church would like to have a word with you. The good Catholics of the 11th century who expelled Benedict IX probably take issue with it as well.

      The Vigilante actually considers himself far more "radical" than the SSPX where the pope and tradition are concerned (and somewhat sympathetic to von Dollinger). I believe we need to sweep aside the "Spirit of Vatican I" by finally driving a lance into the heart of the ultramontanist dragon (St. George, Pray for us!).

      And Frankie might be just the man to unintentionally start the events that lead to this end.

      Delete
    18. Why do you, ABS and EV, refer to yourselves in third person?

      Delete
    19. It's just a frivolous rhetorical affectation that ABS initially did just for his own amusement but the more objections to the practice he received the more the praxis became annealed.

      ABS really loved it when Bob Dole did that and was mocked for doing that by Norm McDonald on SNL

      Delete
  2. It occurs to me that someone is going to come along and "drain the swamp". Admittedly, the Church is not Washington DC, but the same movement is welling up. The polarisation frightens me, but there had to be something new in your country - and in Europe. Pope Francis seems to be almost part of the same system as Mrs Clinton!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Whether or not the Society is or was schismatic is not a judgment I care to make. My point about outsider-ness extends to clerics and religious in unambiguous canonical good standing, who yet find themselves on the "outside" because of their outspokenness and their cynicism about using official channels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liberal popes are totalitarian in their praxis and that is to be expected but too few stop to think the conclave knew who Jorge was and what he believed and what he did prior to electing him and so we know a sizable majority is jake with the jerk.

      Delete
    2. Hello ABS,

      Actually, I'm not so sure how well all the 2013 conclave electors knew Jorge Maria Bergoglio. Certainly *some* did - his merry band of St. Galen followers who worked hard for his election.

      But Bergoglio only speaks (Argentine) Spanish and an eclectic Italian. He rarely ventured out of Buenos Aires, even to Rome for the various congregations he was posted to. He was not a published theologian or philosopher. I think it's far from clear that, say, North American, Asian, African cardinals or even many European cardinals who all voted for him on the last ballot really knew just exactly what they were getting. After all, most of them literally could not converse with him without an interpreter.

      Whereas with Joseph Ratzinger, you had someone who was about as much of a known quantity to all and sundry as you could manage. He spoke nearly all the major languages fluently, was one of the most published late 20th century theologians, and as CDF Prefect over the previous 24 years, met regularly with all bishops who came to Rome for their ad limina visits. Not since Eugenio Pacelli has a future pope been so well known to so many of his colleagues.

      There is much that can and will still be said about these two conclaves, and what cardinals really thought they were voting for. But I do know there's a good deal more discomfort out there in many episcopates with this pontificate than is known publicly, and this suggests to me there's been some buyer's remorse. And likewise, it is also true that Bergoglio is, alas, a depressingly more fitting representative of the post-conciliar Church than his two predecessors were - which I think gets to the point you are trying to make.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Athelstane. ABS was, as usual, making apparently unwarranted assumptions based upon the conclave that elected Ratzinger; didn't Jorge finish in the top four in that conclave?

      Delete
    4. According to many reports, he finished in second place to Ratzinger, with over 40 votes on his best ballot. Progressives, it is said, shifted over to him as a more acceptable compromise once it became clear that Martini had no shot.

      But from what I have heard from at least one prelate who was in Rome at the time, Bertone did such a masterful job rounding up votes that Ratzinger was pretty much a foregone conclusion, and Bergoglio never had a shot even if (as it is reported) he had not insisted to supporters that he didn't want the job.

      Delete
  4. Slightly off topic but where are you able to watch Babylon 5 episodes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can purchase them digitally through iTunes or Amazon. I don't believe the series is streaming on any of the major outlets.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hahaha, this reminds me of a question, all public figures were asked after 1989 in my post commie country - "what have u been doing for the 5 past years?" And there was this answer, usually used in stand up comedies.."I was weaking the Party (communist - my note)...from within."

    ReplyDelete
  7. With Russia mentioned so often in Catholic Prophecy, it is a fun exercise to try and figure-out what in the heck is happening there.

    ABS reads this guy and even though he disagrees with him more than a few times, The Saker is well worth reading;

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/putin-is-finally-purging-the-medvedev-government/

    ReplyDelete