19 January 2022

Ecclesial disorders


"If the word had not come to have as offensive a sound for many as 'clericalism' itself, the old term 'sacerdotalism' might well be used to describe the reconciling principle of the primitive church, so dear to S Paul, 'that there are diversities of ministries, many members, yet but one Body', in which they find their hierarchic unity; and that all are necessary to the perfection of the Church, the Body of Christ. Clericalism, I take it, means in itself simply undue exaltation of the person and importance of the minister, whether he claims priestly character and special sacramental power, or not. 'Sacerdotalism', on the other hand, means simply the belief that certain men are given by God certain priestly powers on behalf of their fellows, which their fellows have not got. These are not the same thing ... the pre-Nicene Church was certainly not 'clericalist', but it was profoundly 'sacerdotalist'."

So wrote Dom Gregory Dix; he went on to quote I Clement XLI, with its emphasis on the Bishop, presbyters, deacons, and laics having each their own tagma. He loved to point out that the Puritan liturgical drafts which were promoted as replacements for the Prayer Book were profoundly clericalist, with page after page of ministerial monologue.

(En passant, I must protest against the dishonest, thoroughly mendacious, implication in the disgraceful documentation accompanying Traditionis custodes, that affection for the Authentic Use of the Roman Rite is fomented by self-seeking clerics. Quite the opposite is the truth. Traddidom is lay-based, lay-driven, and lay-dominated. Most of its academic writers seem to be lay men and lay women, and very fine scholars they are, too. Perhaps clergy are too scared ... now ... tell me ... why should that be?)


Just as Clericalism and Sacerdotalism need to be distinguished because they are so often and easily confused, so the Petrine Ministry, and Bergoglian Ueberhyperpapalism, need to be kept carefully separate because they are so radically different. The just and proper exercise of the Petrine Office as a remora against novelty and a guarantee of the unchanging Apostolic Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, is a million miles from the wicked corruption memorably described by Joseph Ratzinger as "the impression that the pope really can do anything".

The other day, I read on the internet about an Orthodox Metropolitan, Stylianos of Australia, who, I gathered, demanded that if the Catholic Church wished to have an honest and respectful dialogue with Orthodoxy it must first "dissolve the Uniate bodies". (Does he also advocate the extermination of "Western Orthodoxy"? And the great Mone of Grottaferrata ... could it be that the stylianoi want to get their covetous hands on that? In my more sinful moments, I even wonder if the time has now come to suppress the See of Constantinople and ban for ever any clerical assumption of any title including the term "Ecumenical".)

What a hideous ecclesiological corruption is being advanced here, and by a Separated Byzantine! Such a person should know better. The Pope, apparently, perhaps with his collaborating cronies, should have the power, according to Stylianism, to "dissolve" entire groupings of autonomous and sui iuris particular Churches!! 

Pope Ming the Merciless is thus being held up as the aim of Ecumenism!!!

A single waggle of the Bad Fairy's wand, and millions of laics and clerics could, apparently, be required to choose between latinising, or joining a Separated Jurisdiction.

Beam them up, Scottie!

No wonder the Patriarchate of Moskow is so carefully on the look-out for signs of the heresy of "Papism" in the behaviour of the See of Constantinople. I am 100% with Moskow on this particular issue.

I regard the Stylianist misunderstanding of the Papacy as nothing short of monstrous.

This sort of superultrapapalism needs to be rooted out wherever it raises its ugly head.




Gaius said...

So there's an argument I've been toying with re: Traditionis Custodes, and I was wondering what people here make of it.


To live a holy Christian life, you need a stable prayer life.

If the Pope can abrogate long-standing liturgies, it's difficult, if not impossible, to have a stable prayer life, because you have no idea whether you'll still be allowed to use the same prayers in future as you now use. (NB this applies even if the Pope doesn't actually avail himself of this power -- the Sword of Damocles is still a threat even if the thread happens not to break.)

Therefore, if the Pope has the power to abrogate long-standing liturgies, it's difficult, if not impossible, to live a holy Christian life.

But it's absurd to suppose that Jesus would institute an authority which makes it difficult, much less impossible, to live a holy Christian life.

Therefore, Jesus did not give the Pope the authority to abrogate long-standing liturgies.


Any thoughts? I just threw this down on the page, so no doubt some of the wording needs tightening up, but what do people think about the gist of it?

Chris Jones said...

Does he [Abp Stylianos] also advocate the extermination of "Western Orthodoxy"?

A couple of points about this. First, within Orthodoxy the Greeks are not known for their warm feelings towards Western Rite Orthodoxy; it is quite possible that Abp Stylianos would have been perfectly fine with its abolition. (Abp Stylianos reposed a few years ago.)

My main point, however, is that Western Rite Orthodoxy isn't really the same kind of thing as Eastern Rite Catholicism. First of all, it's tiny. In a Church of hundreds of millions, Western Rite Orthodox number a few thousands. Secondly, there is no such thing as a sui juris (or, in Orthodox parlance, autocephalous) Western Rite Church -- or even a diocese or eparchy. There are only scattered congregations under the jurisdiction of Eastern-rite hierarchs. Almost all of them are mainly former Protestants.

It's so different from Eastern-Rite Catholicism that treating them as somehow corresponding or equivalent is a category error.

E sapelion said...

Popes certainly claim the right to amend the Roman Missal. Despite the strong words in Quo Primum the 1570 Missal was modified in 1604, and on several occasions subsequently, such as 1920 and 1962. And it was also amended in 1965, and probably in 1967. Pope Paul VI quite explicitly claims that his 1969 Roman Missal is an amended version of its predecessor. And decreed that when it had been translated it would replace the antecedent (1967) version.
In each case up to and including 1965 the decree of promulgation gives a specific date after which the preceding missal is no longer to be used. Giving a specific date becomes impossible once vernacular missals are in use, because translation of the changes takes different amounts of time. For example he 2002 Missale Romanum was emended in 2008, before the English version appeared in 2011.
So the official claim is that the edition of the Missal has been abrogated and replaced, not that the Roman Liturgy per se has been abrogated.

armyarty said...

Aquinas defines a law as "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated." Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator.

As the Bible has it: By me do kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things. JUST things.

Not UNjust things.

The Papacy is a Monarchy, not a Dictatorship. Francis cannot just demand obedience to his every whim. Besides, Francis is not the only person who has authority. Parents, presidents, parish priests, bishops, schoolteachers, employers, the governors of prisons, military officers, and a host of others are responsible for protecting the morals of those in their care.

If my child, or student, or prisoner, or a soldier under my command, or whomever was being led astray, I would do what I reasonably could do to lead them onto the correct path. Even if my advice was contrary to some papal document. This is not schismatic, or heretical, or disobedient. It is a reflection of the sorry state of affairs that currently exists, that injustice emanates from heretofore unimpeachable places. This although I affirm the divine origin of the One True Church, and of the Papacy.

PM said...

The Usus Antiquior is much less 'clericalist' than its replacement. The celebrant has far fewer options in the rite which come down to his personal choice, and is not the centre of attention. He certainly has no room to carry on like a stand-up comedian or television game-show host, as too many NO celebrates do. He simply walks on and dutifully says and does what the Missal tells him, no more and no less.

Gaius said...

So the official claim is that the edition of the Missal has been abrogated and replaced, not that the Roman Liturgy per se has been abrogated.

Isn't that contradicted by Benedict XVI's statement in Summorum Pontificum that the older liturgy had never been abrogated?

Though I'm not sure it really makes all that much difference: if the Pope can change the Liturgy beyond recognition, that raises the same problems re: prayer life, and the stability or instability thereof.

PM said...

... 'celebrants', not 'celebrates' Autocorrect strikes again!

E sapelion said...

Gaius, I have no idea how "never abrogated" squares with the plain statement of the decree Nuper edita Instructione in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) 27 January 1965 that the new edition would be effective from the First Sunday of Lent 1965 and replace the preceding edition "so that the rules contained are observed by all". I am quite sure that in England the indult known as the "Agatha Christie" indult is explicit that it is permitting the Missal "published again by the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (27 January 1965), and with the modifications indicated in the Instructio altera (4 May 1967)". And that in England that was the position until SRC changed the rules in 1984.
Note that very few words of the text of the Mass were changed between these editions, they are almost entirely concerned with rubrics. (the formula spoken to communicants; dropping Ps 42))

PM said...

Meanwhile, here is Roche invoking naked papal power to justify Traditionis Custodes and the suppression of the traditional liturgy:


Presumably, then, if Pius XIII emerged from a conclave announcing that the liturgical reform had been a huge mistake and the Western Church was returning forthwith to the status quo of 1955, Roche and Cupich would be demanding the same submission.

What if Francis II emerged to proclaim that there were four, not three, persons in the Trinity?

frjustin said...

This article is cited by Michael Kakooza, a Ugandan Catholic who discovered the Traditional Latin Mass while studying in the UK (see Una Voce Scotland Newsletter, 19th April 2019, pp. 5-6). He is a member of the Traditional Latin Mass Community in Kampala which is ministered to by the Institute of the Good Shepherd. Dr. Kakooza holds a PhD in Communication and Ideology from the University of Wales; his doctoral thesis was on the topic of ideological anti-Catholicism in modern English identity.

He writes:"Ivereigh purports to propose Fr Bergoglio’s essay for inclusion in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This would constitute an absurdity that cannot be justified by the pretensions of even the most extreme votaries of what Fr John Hunwicke humorously describes as Bergoglian Ueberhyperpapalism".