Monday 20 January 2014

Labels of Liberal, Conservative and Traditional; Laity, Prelates and Popes (updated)

On more than one occasion in seminary I was described by fellow seminarians as “ultramontane”. I received the label as willingly then as I do today -and just as easily as I accept being labelled a sinner, since I can say hand on heart with St Paul that “I do not do the good which I will, but the evil which I hate.” (Rom.7:15). I also accept the label Traditionalist, but not the label of Conservative or Liberal (no one would apply the latter to me anyway, I suspect), and while I regret the fact that we engage in the use of labels today, the reality is that we do have Catholics in our pews whose beliefs are diametrically opposed and clergy in our sanctuaries whose teachings are diametrically opposed. They are not usually opposed to one another in their underlying charity and mutual respect (though heated words can stray from charity), but in their understanding and values as Liberal, Conservative and Traditional Catholics. That said, what follows is simply my opinion.

A Liberal is one who seeks to change Church teaching or pastoral practice in order to accommodate the changing values of the world, such as artificial contraception, cohabitation and homosexual pairings. In reality they exchange the teaching of Christ for the theories of Rogers, Freud, Marx etc. Such a person has fallen into moral heresy, abandoning Gospel morality as taught for 2000 years under the guidance the Holy Spirit.

A Conservative is one who is loyal to Rome no matter what. Be they laity or prelates, they are blind ultramontanes; those who change their teaching and pastoral practice because Rome has said so –and without asking whether Rome was entitled to make the change. This form of ultramontanism is most dangerous because it appears loyal, but it is erroneous in that it is loyal only to the Pope of the day and not to the whole history of papal and Conciliar teaching.

A Traditionalist is one who is loyal to the Pope of the day as long as that Pope’s teaching is consistent with that of previous Popes and Councils. There can never be a ‘good Pope’ who changes doctrine or allows doctrine to be sidestepped for pastoral concerns, since doctrinal change is renunciation of previous teaching and a pastoral sidestep creates a lex vivendi which gives impetus to a change in the lex credendi. A Pope who changes doctrine or sidesteps it in practice cannot be a safe, good or loyal Pope, because his task is simply to defend and promote the Deposit of Faith. He may develop it in application to new situations, but he cannot distort it or discard it in order to accommodate new situations.

Doctrinal change and/or pastoral sidestepping are what liberals expect of Pope Francis, and at the end of the day I cannot see him obliging them. Certainly some of his off-the-cuff remarks have given a hope to liberals and in that sense they are to be regretted, but unless he has the arrogance of assuming that for two thousand years the Church has been wrong; that he alone has correctly perceived the mind and will of God who is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb.13:8) and in whom “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (Jas.1:17), Francis simply cannot oblige liberal desires.

Moreover, it is only 23 years since the Bishops worldwide and their theological experts were consulted for the production of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in a process overseen and presided over by one of the Experts at the Council, Joseph Ratzinger); a Catechism promulgated to provide a sure norm of faith in the light of Vatican II by a bishop of the Council (Karol Wojtila: Pope John Paul II). If these two participants at Vatican II –and two of the greatest thinkers of our time- did not know what the Council was saying, who did? Is Francis really expected to abandon such authentic teaching?

In expecting him to so oblige, liberals actually ascribe to Francis a devilish arrogance; one that does the work of the father of lies by abandoning long-held teaching and practice. It is understandable that non-Catholics expect Francis to change Church teaching since they have no concept of a Sacred Deposit guarded by a Magisterium; they live in a world of change and democracy, both of which are inconsistent with the practice of Catholicism (God does not change and the Church is not a democracy), but Catholics of any description should know better. Liberals who expect Francis to make such changes thus do him no favours. Rather, they typify those who “will not endure sound doctrine but having itching ears, heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts.” (2 Tim.4:3).
_________________________________________________________
*Ultramontane: one who places maximum importance on the authority of the Pope. This label is often applied erroneously, since the sound Catholic is always ultramontane: one who gives maximum importance to the authority of the Pope without diminishing the importance of other factors (Councils etc) though these are always subjugated to the supreme authority of the Pope as affirmed by Vatican II.

15 comments:

  1. God bless for reminding me that God knows He's doesn't conform to the 'spirit' of the age. and speaking against the magisterium of the 'media' which seems to have the 'reported' Pope in it's snare.

    Christ prayed we would have one mind. As a convert it can take years of shepherding by God's grace to conform with the mind of the Church only to get there and find many Catholics seem believe that God and/or the Church got it wrong for centuries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment.
      It is such a shame that we can't simply be Catholic...
      It is especially distressing for converts who have come into the Faith to find there are many who do not value the Truth with which they have been blessed.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete
  2. Father, what do you think is meant by progressives? I hear this label a lot too.
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment, Paul.
      I can only say how I understand ‘progressive’, which is that there are two kinds.
      First, there are the genuine progressives; those who progress by applying orthodox doctrine to new situations (such as Blessed Pius IX and his encyclical Rerum Novarum, which came with the advent of the industrial revolution).
      Second, there are false progressives; those who seek to progress with the world and leave authentic teaching.
      The former are in fact traditional Catholics; the latter are actually liberal catholics.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for this post Father,Not an easy one to write I suspect!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment.
      You are right; it was not easy in the sense that I do not really like labels, but it is dishonest to pretend there are no several kinds of 'Catholic' in our Churches today. The saddest aspect of that is that i suspect they all have a genuine heart and are saying and doing what they believe to be right, but many are like the Emperor in his new clothes: hoodwinked.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete
  4. There is only one Deposit of Faith to be safeguarded by the Magisterium. One either submits to it or one does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Lynda.
      Yes, it really is as simple as accept it or not!
      God Bless

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment Neil.
      I’m afraid there are more labels than those of which I am usually conscious; “reactionary” is one. We are all meant to be reactionary in the sense that we are to react /act in response to the authentic teaching of Popes and Councils. Traditional however, isn’t reactionary; it is stability.
      Let me say that I fully understand you attending the TLM for the reverence, though I hope that even at Novus Ordo Masses priests teach the truth (it cannot be guaranteed when attending either Form but is probably more likely with priests who are happy to step into the Church’s liturgical tradition and celebrate the TLM).
      As a convert I too experience a protestant feel to most concrete celebrations of the N.O., though such a feel probably does not arise when the N,O. is celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, with Holy Communion distributed on the tongue to kneeling communicants. Some places (such as the Oratorians) would probably not give you the same feeling of having stepped back into a religious community it was no doubt difficult to decide to leave.
      Are you off the plantation or moving in the right direction? I would say the search for Truth and reverence is always the right direction; it is just a shame we cannot get it more frequently in concrete celebrations of the N.O. I truly believe that if Rome were to follow the letter of Vatican II and decree that in the future the N.O. is to celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, with Holy Communion distributed on the tongue to kneeling communicants, then all opposition to the TLM would come to a grand halt. Why do i think that? Because from all the conversations I have ever had on this subject, it is not the New Missal that people support, but the vernacular, Communion in the hand and watching the celebrant perform his task rather than have him face God with them.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete
  6. Father,

    Interesting. I’m not sure what label to claim. Not Trad, Heavens forbid, and certainly not Lib. Perhaps, a “Two Thirds Catholic”. I refer to the pew position at Mass. Only the happy clappy fanatics go to the front, but on the other hand, they are a most peculiar lot further back. They look puzzled or just plain blank.

    As for my other “Two Thirds” friends, we all think the Church is going rapidly down the plug hole, by whatever measure, the New Mass, in whatever version, is banal, or worse, just plain boring, and the six mandatory mainly Protestant hymns, excruciating. We often speculate what the Church did to deserve five recent Popes, including the one who looked promising for a while, but jacked it in for a rather comfortable retirement in pleasant surroundings. Won’t say which one, “no names, no pack drill”! But then you won’t be familiar with that expression.

    Yes, I know we’ve been here before, having just finished my History of the Popes, a tongue-in-cheek Christmas present from my children.

    It’s all rather difficult. The correct label, I mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment, Jacobi.
      Yes, finding the correct label for oneself is very difficult, though others can be very quick to label their neighbour and 'box him in'.
      I think Lynda has it right: there is a Deposit of Faith folk either accept or reject; they (we) choose to be Catholic or not.
      God Bless

      Delete
    2. Jacobi, if you kneel towards the front, you won't see the others!!

      Delete
  7. How come you only mention the "hot button" political issues in which Catholics get in bed with Republicans? A single act of masturbation will land you in hell as quickly as a single act of homosexual sodomy, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this comment.
      You are right that masturbation too is a sin on par with contraception, homosexual acts etc. Indeed mortal sin is not restricted to the sexual sphere of life; many non-sexual acts cut us off from the life of grace.
      The "hot button" topics I mentioned are simply those which involve another person; they have a social dimension to them so that they are impacted by legislation. Masturbation being a solitary act, it does not have the same potential for having political impacts upon it.
      God bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.