Rorate Caeli has a new article, which is just a rehash of the same tripe over and over again: “We’re traditionalists, following (what we fallibly judge to be) tradition, so we are always right, and anyone who disagrees (Popes, Saints, Councils) must be wrong.” That is their unspoken, yet clearly expressed attitude.
There’s a nice article on Rorate about Pope Francis listening to the concern of Bishops on Traditionis Custodes and the Latin Mass. Nice, until the ending:
“We deeply thank Archbishop Olivier de Germay, of Lyon, Primate of the Gauls, for speaking up in favor of Traditional Catholics. Thank you! On the other hand, Abp. Aupetit is obviously itching to be named a Cardinal: shame on you! La honte! [Shame!]”
Day after day, article after article, the opponents of Pope Francis, of Vatican I and II, of other recent Popes, prove Pope Francis right in restricting the Latin Mass. There’s nothing wrong with what Pope Francis and the Bishops say and do as described in the article. And yet, at the end, the writer has to praise the Bishop whose words support the traditionalist point of view and shout “shame on you” against the other Bishop, whose view is not favored by the traditionalist subculture. This proves Francis correct in instituting Traditionis, in order to correct a traditionalist subculture that never accepts teaching, correction, or decisions on doctrine or discipline from the Church, but only from the subculture. This is idolatry! Judging Bishops and also judging the Pope based solely on whether their words and deeds are for or against a subculture is a type of worship of that culture. There is no accounting of the will of God, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, the authority of the Pope and Bishops or anything else. And they are willing to abandon multiple Councils and oppose innumerable Popes and Bishops to follow that subculture as if it were the Christ.
“We know very well that among those who are attached to the Extraordinary Form, there is a risk of separation for some,” said Abp. Olivier de Germay. “But this is not the case for all.”
The risk of separation is actual separation for anyone who puts the traditionalist subculture, and its decisions on doctrine and discipline above the Church and Her decisions on doctrine and discipline. Have you never heard what Christ taught, that you cannot have two masters? You will either hate the one and love the other…. And now we clearly see open hatred against anyone who contradicts the traditionalist subculture.
When Vatican II teaches them, they say: “Non-infallible! Pastoral!” And yet every little decision of the subculture on doctrine, discipline, liturgical form, society, politics, medicine, dress they accept as dogma. Truly some of the traditionalists, and it seems most of their leaders (especially the ones that are most vocal) reject anything and everything from the Church founded by Christ if it is contrary to the subculture. That is worship of the subculture, not worship of Christ.
Why is Bishop Aupetit “shamed” by the article? For no good reason. He simply supported having both forms of the Mass and instituted some restrictions on the Latin Mass:
“When asked by Abp. Aupetit if a parish where both forms of the rite were celebrated could continue to exist, the Pope also answered in the affirmative. The Parisian prelate acknowledged that the Pope’s “decree” had “put things in order” and had allowed him to realize the existence of clandestine actions in his diocese.”
Shouting shame at a Bishop for agreeing with the Pope is gravely sinful, and yet it is supported and applauded by many on the far right. And these traditionalist and conservative media outlets, the ones that openly fight against the authority, per se, of Pope Francis (and therefore fight against Christ) welcome any article by any person who is taking their point of view. They care not whether the article is itself shameful, or false, or schismatic or even in some other cases heretical. The persons who run these media outlets will be judged by God.
How will you be taught or corrected by the Church, if every teaching or decision is judged by you and rejected based on your own assessment? That is not faith.
Another Rorate Caeli article asks “Can a Catholic Have “Doubts” about Vatican II?” Why is doubts in quotes? The better question is, Can a traditionalist have doubts about ANYTHING the traditionalist subculture teaches? If you have doubts about Vatican II and no doubts about anything the trad subculture teaches, you risk the sin of idolatry. It’s not a question of whether Vatican II has anything non-infallible and possibly reformable. It’s a question of whether you are a Catholic who follows the Church, but you happen to be traditionalist, which as Olivier says is not a problem for all — or whether you never follow the Church against the subculture. In the latter case, that is schism and idolatry. Following the Church is not idolatry because the Church is the body of Christ with Christ, the Son of God, as Her head.
Timothy Gordon broke with the traditionalist subculture on a particular question by accepting the teaching of Vatican II, even though he is a strong traditionalist. When Latin Mass is not available, he attends the Novus Ordo. Those are both good examples for traditionalists. Gordon is clearly not idolizing the traditionalist subculture. I would disagree with him on some important points. But if all trads were like Gordon, there would never have been a Traditionis or restrictions on the TLM. (And I use the term “trad” with respect as a shorter expression.)
Ronald L Conte Jr
The problem seems to be that there are several VII’s. One of rupture, one of the spirit of the council, and one of the Hermeneutic of Continuity. Benedict said there was one of the media too. Which one should we follow because it does not seem as though the popes can agree on this. Both Benedict and JPII were active participants at VII. Francis was not. Yet Francis appears to go against the Continuity take of the council that Benedict held. How’s that work? Sort of like the founders of the US being told by others what they really meant to write in the Constitution. Oh wait, we do have that happening there too! Until this is worked out we will have lay people, and priests struggling to explain just what we are to accept. It’s not as simple as you describe. Maybe it’s not all our fault there are issues with this. Maybe it’s a symptom of a more serious problem. Just trying to be fair.