Words are powerful things. A word
ought to mean one thing and only that thing. When used in such a way
they facilitate communication and allow a reasoned discussion to take
place. Words can also be used as blunt instruments whose meaning is
hidden behind the force of their impact. We are all aware of words whose
primary purpose is to end the discussion and label the other party as
something really bad. This marks the end of the discussion and is the
signal for retreat. The first person to use the epithet "Nazi!" in an
argument loses - though, if socially "superior" they may win an initial fleeting superficial "victory". Such may be the case in powerful news organizations mocking the Holy Father on issues of morality.
"Modernist" has become such a word. It required the document Lamentabili from the
Holy Office and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis from Pius X to
define it. Lamentabili defines 65 separate propositions as heretical and
Pascendi consisted of 30+ pages of some very heavy reading. Clearly
this is no ordinary word, yet it is thrown about like a convenient lump
of mud. I seriously wonder how many have even read these documents. Its meaning has degenerated to an insult to be flung at anyone whose liturgical taste is more avant-garde than traditional.
"Radical
traditionalist" or "rad-trad" is a more recent derogatory phrase which has been used
to describe a very ill defined segment of traditionalists. The term was
coined by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a rather loose category of
Catholics. They don't really hate all Catholics... just the bad ones who hate Jews. The trouble is neither they nor anyone else have put much
thought into this. Their definition of "radical traditionalist" is a two
page essay and their listing of groups leaves me somewhat confused.
Some people are not deterred in the slightest by the lack of definition
because all they wanted was a way to score an emotional hit. It does not
have the benefit of any real definition but it certainly rolls off the
tongue. After all, when you're scrambling about for a lump of mud to
throw, having a catchy epithet that even rhymes is always handy. It works too because traditionalists can be a little touchy about these things.
The
essence of modernism is its immanantist, subjectivist nature. Rather
than subjecting one's own thoughts to some external standard of truth a
modernist uses his own experience and point of view as the standard
against which the external world is to be judged. If the subjective
standard is a progressive, liberal one perhaps the word "modernist"
makes some sense. What if the subjective experience and point of view is
of a more historical, conservative nature? The word "modernist" then
becomes a bit of an anachronism. While a pope may be relied on to use it with the proper nuance, most Catholics do not have the background to do so. What are we to make of someone who has
abandoned the magisterium in favor of a subjectivist point of view, yet
whose outlook is not forwards but backwards?
Sedevacantists,
conclavists and schismatics will continue to exist, but perhaps we ought
to call a thing by its proper name. Relativism, secularism,
indifferentism, subjectivism, historicism and liturgical innovation
continue to be problems in the Church but it may be useful to be a
little more specific in discussing these things. Both the progressive and conservative heresies are united in that they have substituted a subjective, personal vision for the living magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Our contention is that the words modernist and radical traditionalist have
degenerated so much in the public mind as to be completely useless in
normal conversation. They merely serve as useful conversational
truncheons with which to bludgeon one's opponents. In fact we would go so
far as to say that the definition of rad-trad and modernist in the
minds of most is entirely subjective.
The Catholicism of the pope being neither reformable nor acceptable another Catholicism will have to come into being, a humane Catholicism, in no way conditioned by the pontifical institution or the traditional forms of Roman Catholicism. (Alfred Loisy, 1931)
These subjectivists, whether of the progressive or conservative variety, have abandoned the Catholicism of the pope in favor of their own personal vision of the way the Church ought to be. The tragedy is one of refusal to submit to anyone outside of oneself. We live in a very individualistic culture that nearly deifies the autonomy of the person. If I am god and judge how then can I bend my knee to another. Hence, the Church's Magisterium is the bone of contention for both the progressive and conservative subjectivist. While they may pay him lip service, they in fact reject the Pope, and by extension the Church, creating in their mind a false Christ.
As Pope Benedict emphasized during the Year of Faith: religion is primarily about a true encounter with a Person: Jesus Christ. Then, secondarily, it is about dogmas, morals and liturgy. Because I have met Jesus Christ, I want to know more about Him. I want to know how I should live - I want His truth, so I seek his morals. Dogma, liturgy etc, only make sense in meeting the real, living Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we are creating idols. We see this idol-worship all around us - "I love Jesus but I don't need his Church". True encounter with Jesus is obedience to His will. "When we do not profess Jesus Christ...we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic wordliness... profess the one glory: Christ crucified. And in this way, the Church will go forward" (Pope Francis, Homily, Sistine Chapel, March 14, 2013).
"...they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme magisterium" (Pius IX)
Freyr and Barona
No comments:
Post a Comment