The problem with this thread, besides the fact that we’re repeating ourselves, is that there is an a priori assumption that the Church is wrong and that the individual is right. Just because one writer or several writers say that the Church is wrong, doesn’t make it so. These are their opinions. However, when it comes time to follow rules, the opinion of this or that writer is not what we follow.
I realize that some people feel a fondness for Archbishop Lefebvre. But we have to put things into proper perspective. Archbishop Lefebvre is not an authoritative source. He had an opinion on this subject. We should show his opinion the utmost respect, because he was a bishop. Respect and assent are not the same thing. Assent is only given to the person who has legitimate authority to govern.
The Church and the popes have spoken on this matter rather extensively. It is to the popes and those ecclesial bodies that the Church recognizes as authoritative to whom we must assent. There is no rule in the Church that says that we must agree with what is decreed. The rule is that we must assent to what is decreed. The Catholic Church is one of those governments that governs without the consent or the appreciation of the governed. She does not need our permission to govern us and tell us what to believe and what to do. That has been given to her by Christ. She does not need our appreciation to do it. We may not appreciate what she says, but we must assent to what she says.
If we went down the rout of consenting and appreciating as a prerequisite for valid authority, we would have no Church. On certain issues, there are as many opinions as there are Catholics. Just look at birth control, which was never declared an infallible teaching. However, the Church demands full assent.
I believe that many of us Catholics are beginning to show signs of entitlement when it comes to the Church. “We are entitled to an explanation,” or “We are entitled to be heard on every issue and every opinion that we have.” On this subject, we are showing the same false sense of entitlement. “We are entitled to have a satisfactory explanation for clerical celibacy in the Roman Church.” The truth is that we are not entitled, because we do not belong to a democratic Church. We are only entitled to those things that the Church says we may have. If she does not say that we may have it, then we’re not entitled to it and a satisfactory explanation is very subjective. What satisfies one person may not satisfy another. The Church has no obligation to offer explanations that satisfy everyone. The reason is simple. She has no obligation to do the impossible. You can’t offer an explanation that will satisfy two billion Catholics today and for the next 1,000 years. That’s a lot of people.
I’m a superior now, but I was in formation work for a long time. I always reminded those who came to inquire about our life that they were not entitled to join the community. They often came with the attitude that they had a vocation, because they believed that Christ was calling them. We had to set the record straight. One believes that Christ is calling and one does the best he can to respond. However, one will only know if Christ is truly calling, if the Church says so.
Ultimately, Christ’s speaks authoritatively through the Church, not through our feelings or our desires. Our feelings and our desires can be right on the money or can be way off the mark too. We will only know when the Church tells us. If the Church says that you may enter, you have your confirmation from Christ. If the Church says that you may not enter, you also have your confirmation from Christ. You are not entitled to enter a diocesan seminary or a religious community, because you believe. You are only entitled to enter, if Christ wants you to enter. That will only be known when the Church speaks. That’s how he communicates authoritatively. There is no other means of authoritative communication between Christ and man.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
