S
stevusmagnus
Guest
There is an argument against Traditionalists that goes something like this. Those are to be avoided who are dissenters, whether they be on the right or the left. On the right, so the argument goes, there may be those who are very holy and very eloquent but who are not in communion with the universal Church nor the Pope. Examples are given of certain groups in Church history, supposedly on the right, who simply did their own thing and did not ask permission of the Pope or superiors. They simply “knew better”. You often hear this argument against the SSPX. Their priests are “illicit” and thus, in some way, not “fully” united to the Church and are to be avoided.
Then you hear about those “dissenters” on the left. Those priests and Bishops who are ambivalent to or disregard Church teachings on faith and morality. For example, the priest/ president of Notre Dame who hosted President Obama as well as Fr. Richard McBrien (who thinks Jesus could have been married), etc. These people are not in communion with the universal Church or the Pope either and thus, are to be avoided as well.
The problem with this argument is that it is self-contradictory. It opposes the Traditionalist, Society priest because he has, in effect, had his faculties suspended and thus there is a legalistic argument that these priests are in some sort of “imperfect communion” with the universal Church. So ecclesiastical sanction is a brightline rule of whether a priest is unorthodox. Ok. Let’s see where this rule takes us.
As we know, the president of Notre Dame as well as Fr. McBrien, and all sorts of other liberal “dissenters” are not “illicit”. They have not been sanctioned, suspended, warned, censured, nor have they even in the least bit been discouraged by Church authority. This being the case, don’t we need to use our own private judgment to determine that these Catholics are “dissenters” and to exclude them from the universal Church? Indeed how can we exclude these leftists and liberals from communion, when the Church Herself has not in any way excluded them from communion? The Pope has not excluded them from communion nor has He disciplined them in any way. Thus our excluding them from communion is contradicting the Pope and the Church and is thus “dissent” in its own right.
The moral of the story is that indeed the liberals do separate themselves from the Church because they separate themselves from the faith, regardless of ecclesiastical sanction. So therefore, ecclesiastical sanction cannot be a sure guide for who is inside or outside of the Church or faith. In this manner those on the “right” Traditionalist priests, who are “illicit” for nothing more than wanting to practice and believe the Catholic faith as practiced and believed for 1960 + years prior to VCII, are indeed united, even if Rome currently says “imperfectly”, to the universal Church and the office of the Pope since they have the faith.
In the end, we can not have it both ways. If we want to use ecclesiastical sanction as a rule of orthodoxy we will find it is a double edged sword. For, if this is the case, the orthodox Catholic and the liberal are, in the eyes of Rome, of equal orthodoxy. And this is the tragic situation in which we find ourselves today. Truth and error allowed to co-exist inside the Body of Christ.
Then you hear about those “dissenters” on the left. Those priests and Bishops who are ambivalent to or disregard Church teachings on faith and morality. For example, the priest/ president of Notre Dame who hosted President Obama as well as Fr. Richard McBrien (who thinks Jesus could have been married), etc. These people are not in communion with the universal Church or the Pope either and thus, are to be avoided as well.
The problem with this argument is that it is self-contradictory. It opposes the Traditionalist, Society priest because he has, in effect, had his faculties suspended and thus there is a legalistic argument that these priests are in some sort of “imperfect communion” with the universal Church. So ecclesiastical sanction is a brightline rule of whether a priest is unorthodox. Ok. Let’s see where this rule takes us.
As we know, the president of Notre Dame as well as Fr. McBrien, and all sorts of other liberal “dissenters” are not “illicit”. They have not been sanctioned, suspended, warned, censured, nor have they even in the least bit been discouraged by Church authority. This being the case, don’t we need to use our own private judgment to determine that these Catholics are “dissenters” and to exclude them from the universal Church? Indeed how can we exclude these leftists and liberals from communion, when the Church Herself has not in any way excluded them from communion? The Pope has not excluded them from communion nor has He disciplined them in any way. Thus our excluding them from communion is contradicting the Pope and the Church and is thus “dissent” in its own right.
The moral of the story is that indeed the liberals do separate themselves from the Church because they separate themselves from the faith, regardless of ecclesiastical sanction. So therefore, ecclesiastical sanction cannot be a sure guide for who is inside or outside of the Church or faith. In this manner those on the “right” Traditionalist priests, who are “illicit” for nothing more than wanting to practice and believe the Catholic faith as practiced and believed for 1960 + years prior to VCII, are indeed united, even if Rome currently says “imperfectly”, to the universal Church and the office of the Pope since they have the faith.
In the end, we can not have it both ways. If we want to use ecclesiastical sanction as a rule of orthodoxy we will find it is a double edged sword. For, if this is the case, the orthodox Catholic and the liberal are, in the eyes of Rome, of equal orthodoxy. And this is the tragic situation in which we find ourselves today. Truth and error allowed to co-exist inside the Body of Christ.