When obedience does not serve God or man, it is not obedience, it is the sin of servility.

 

As I recall, Jesus said he came not to be served, but to serve. Where in Scripture or Tradition do you find this “sin of servility”?

 

People like Shawn and most people on this board think by citation, that is, they let Church documents or their interpretation of them do their thinking for them. Don’t you fall prey to their modus operandi.

 

It seems to me that the alternative to letting the Church define the faith is that I get to define it myself. As heady and exciting as that may be, it doesn’t sound even remotely Catholic.

 

It has also always seemed eminently reasonable to me that the Vatican, not my Personal PreferenceTM, gets to regulate the corporate worship of the Church.

 

Reasonable, sure. Infallible, no. Meaning, we MUST judge her regulations just as Luther correctly judged her deregulation of indulgences.

 

Judge them all you want, disagree with them all you want, but don’t jump ship to some schismatic group because you think their liturgy is better. Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

 

Really, unless I have misunderstood you (a distinct possibility), your above advice sounds like it could have come directly from one of the Protestant Reformers, thus unwittingly confirming my growing suspicion that “Traditionalism” is simply a domestic species of Protestantism.

 

That this advice “sounds like it could have come directly from one of the Protestant Reformers” is sad. That you have a “growing suspicion that ‘Traditionalism’ is simply a domestic species of Protestantism” is depressing.

 

It’s depressing to me, too, but I was a Protestant for many years, and I recognize the mentality. It’s easy to mistake yourself for Athanasius when you’re really Donatus. It’s easy to perish in Korah’s rebellion.

 

Protestants & New Catholics Reject Catholic Tradition. Traditionalists Accept Catholic Tradition.

 

Part of Catholic Tradition is to be obedient to lawful ecclesiastical authority.

 

We have an eminently rational Faith. When we lose sight of that we must descend into the mash pits of citation slingers. Don’t go that way.

 

We also have a centralized authority that defines and protects the Faith, and regulates the corporate worship of the Church. When we lose sight of that we must descend into the mash pits of Protestant sectarian chaos.

 

Now to your question, the sin of servility derives from Natural Law which dictates that means must conform to ends. If your well-formed conscience informs you that the ends of your goodly obedience is bad, you must not obey.

 

My conscience, and my Catholic faith, tells me that I must obey lawful ecclesiastical authority, unless it commands me to do something immoral. Is this what you’re talking about?

 

There is no alternative to letting the Church define our Faith or our Morals. Submission to her definitions in those areas are the defining principle of Catholicism.

 

Sounds like we agree on that. Luther’s error was that he went from criticism to rebellion. For him, it was “my way or the highway.” Please, I beg you, don’t be like that. Endure the bad decisions the Church may sometimes make, endure them as a form of martyrdom.

 

The Church’s dereliction in that all too fallible area of her jurisdiction allowed, once again, for the house of God to be turned into a den of thieves.

 

Then by all means, complain. But persevere and endure and remain in the unity of the Church. If this is the cross our Lord asks you to bear, will you refuse it?

 

I submit to Rome on all matters dogmatic and moral. I resist Rome, as is my conscientious duty, on most matters pastoral.

 

But do you obey while resisting? That’s my only question, and I don’t know your answer. If you do, my hat’s off to you. More power to you, and may God help you to make a difference in the Church. But if you don’t obey, for whatever good reasons, I fear that you are in spiritual danger. A good end can never justify bad means.

 

I can have my cake and eat it too. I’ve separated myself only from the Church’s pastoral over-reaching, not her dogmatic/moral authority.

 

I don’t know what this means. Are you obeying in those areas in which the Church says you must obey? What do you mean when you say you’ve “separated yourself”?

 

Now, as my mortality is knocking on the door, I feel I owe it to my God to attend Mass for what’s left of my life without wondering what heresy the homily is leading to, without dreading the next irreverent innovation, without receiving communion to the incessant banal accompaniment of the guitar strumming female on the altar.

 

Again, I’m not sure what this means. If mortality is knocking on your door (and I pray not), then I would think that this is the time above all times to be sure you’re obeying those whom God has placed over you. Nearing the judgment would be a bad time to be rebellious, it seems to me.

 

After enduring Circus Catholicism for 20 years, don’t you think it’s time Jesus Himself wants me to receive him in silence? In the Novus Ordo, I could shut my eyes (in fact that was the only way I managed it for as long as I did) but not my ears. Not one moment of silence do they grant us, for fear that we will be bored, I suppose.

 

I’m not unsympathetic to your concerns, not by a long-shot. If you can find a good Tridentine Mass, or even a respectful Novus Ordo (yes, they do exist), I hope that you will. But it seems to me that in the great balance of life, obedience to God-ordained authority must outweigh personal preference for worship style, no matter how much you may think God agrees with your preferences. That’s how I see it, anyway.

 

I’d carry that cross to my grave if I could believe the Lord wanted me to. For 20 years I honestly did feel that it was His will. Now I honestly feel that He too has had enough of the nonsense and wants me to attend Mass where I do not have to be constantly angered and feel He is being disrespected. He had more than His fair share of that on the cross.

 

What makes you think that “He too has had enough of the nonsense” just because you have? Please be careful not to project your own feelings onto the Lord, and to use that as a pretext to disobey those whom he commanded you to obey. There is no end to the things that could be justified that way (“I honestly feel that the Lord has had enough of this male-dominated Church, and he too thinks it’s high time we had some female priests.”)

 

My short response to this is that it is no more lawful for the Church to tell us how to celebrate the Mass than it was for her to tell us how much to pay to gain an indulgence for dear dead uncle Don. She has every RIGHT to tell us how to celebrate the Mass, what to vote for, or why murderers should not be executed, and when to sew identifying badges on Jews. And we have the obligation in these pastoral matters to resist her to her face should our conscience convict us that she is wrong.

 

I don’t think your examples hold. I don’t think anyone would claim that Jesus empowered His Church to decide when to sew identifying badges on Jews, but he certainly did empower her to regulate her own corporate worship. But tell me, if you feel free to disregard the Church telling you how to worship, do you also feel free to disregard the Church telling you when to worship? Do you feel free to miss Mass on a day that the Church has declared is a holy day of obligation? If not, why not?

 

I do sympathize with you, perhaps more than is evident from my writing, but I fear that in your honest pursuit of a good end, you may have embraced a bad means to that end. Sometimes, the hardest thing to do is to be patient, and wait for the Lord to act. Luther couldn’t do it. Can you?

 

I obey by accepting all Church dogma and morality while separating myself from my local diocese and attending Traditional Masses offered by a traditional priest. And if he dies, I am prepared to go to the SSPX for Mass.

 

Is this “traditional priest” in communion with Rome? Is he in communion with the bishop of your diocese? If not, and if you yourself are a schismatic, does that not concern you, given your knowledge that there is no salvation outside the Church? I would not presume to judge the salvation of anyone, but it seems to me that if there’s anyone in the world who has no excuse to be outside the Church, it is the Catholic “Traditionalist.” Of all people, he should know better.

 

You seem to imply that disobedience per se, is automatically an evil means to what may be a good end. Obedience is a second-tier virtue in that its value is contingent upon the goodness of that whom one obeys or that which is commanded. Obedience is not universally virtuous, in contrast to, say, love or Faith. Conversely, disobedience is not necessarily a vice, or as you imply, an evil means to a good.

 

Not necessarily, no. Disobeying the Nazis would have been a good thing. But we’re not talking about the Nazis here, we’re talking about the Church. This is the Bride of Christ, whom you have been commanded to obey by Christ himself. In that case, disobedience to its lawful commands is not a good thing. Please remember, dear friend, that our leaders will be judged by God for how well they led, but you and I will be judged for how well we followed.

 

Do you doubt that the bishops and the Pope are fully capable of unlawfully demanding our obedience?

 

All of them at the same time? No, I don’t think that’s possible. I do think it’s possible that an individual bishop, even the Pope, might try to command us to do something immoral. If that ever happens, I’ll not criticize you for disobeying. But that isn’t the case here.

 

They do just that when they force me to go to schismatics to receive the Mass and the sacraments that are my birthright as a Catholic.

 

Yeah, just like they forced Luther and Calvin to become schismatics, too, so they could have the pure doctrine that is their birthright a Christian. Come on, friend, no one’s forcing you to do anything. You’ve made your own decision, and given that there is no salvation outside the Church, it is an extremely dangerous one.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that we are morally obliged to avoid doubtfully valid sacraments. The new sacraments and the New Mass are doubtfully valid. Ergo, it is not only my right, but my obligation to drink from another stream.

 

If you give me the context of Aquinas’s warning, I’ll read it. But off-hand, I very much doubt that he was concerned that the whole Church could be deprived of valid sacraments. I very much doubt that he believed the bishops in union with the Pope could institute an invalid Mass and force it upon the universal Church. I’d bet that his warning concerned either schismatic sects that may not have valid sacraments, or a disobedient or fraudulent priest who may not offer a valid sacrament.

 

At any rate, if you believe that the bishops in union with the Pope are capable of instituting an invalid Mass and depriving the whole Catholic Church of valid sacraments, then you obviously do not believe in the indefectability of the Church.

 

You say that I should go to the Novus Ordo Mass out of “obedience to God-ordained authority.” Their authority does not extend to pastoral matters.

 

Huh!? Where do you get that idea? It’s true that the Church’s infallability doesn’t extend to pastoral matters, but its authority certainly does. You said yourself that you do have to go to Mass on a holy day of obligation. But why? Jesus Christ never commanded that we must attend Mass on the feast of the Assumption, for example. That was a pastoral decision of the Church. Why do you consider yourself bound by that decision, when at the same time you deny that the Church’s authority extends to pastoral matters?

 

If Simon tells you to pray with your hands on your head, will you? H**l no. I’ll pray the way I want to, thank you.

 

Then it seems to me you have no room to criticize those who stand during the consecration, or perform “liturgical dance,” do you? If you are free to disobey the Church’s pastoral mandates and “pray the way you want to,” so are they.

 

If you consider that disobedient to “God-ordained authority,” then it’d be fair for you to call me a Protestant while I call you a papist.

 

You are a Protestant. Your complaints against the Church may be different than those of the sixteenth-century Protestants, but the principle is the same. You both believe that the Church failed in a critical aspect of its mission, so much so that you must separate yourselves from her communion and worship elsewhere, in the backwaters and caves with the rest of the “faithful remnant.” The Protestants believed that the Church had corrupted her doctrines; you believe she has corrupted her sacraments. In both cases there is a lack of faith in the indefectability of the Church.

 

You called my obligation to avoid doubtfully valid sacraments a “personal preference for worship style.” It’s more than personal; it’s logical. There are logical reasons to doubt all the new sacraments, but you said you prefer to keep this on a conceptual level. So would I.

 

I’m sure you have all sorts of reasons why the Church has failed. So do the Protestants. I imagine the only difference between you is that you would point to old encyclicals and other Church documents, where they would point to Scripture. Either way, I’m just not impressed. My faith is in Jesus Christ, and I believe him when he says the Church will not fail. I believe that it has been, and continues to be, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which is something I could no longer believe if I thought its sacraments were a fraud.

 

This is why so-called “Traditionalism,” in its schismatic form, makes no sense to me. Why pretend to be Catholic while denying one of the core doctrines of Catholicism, the indefectability of the Church? Why not become Eastern Orthodox or high-church Protestant? At least that would make some sense, if indeed the Church has failed.

 

I tell my son to mow the lawn and even how to mow it. He mows it, but in a way different than I instructed. Has he disobeyed me? I think not. He has appropriately exercised his judgment over my judgment. I applaud, rather than resist, my son’s behavior for I want him to grow up to be a human being, not a robot. Would that my Church would treat Traditionalists as myself the same.

 

How old is your son? If he’s twenty-eight, then obviously he’s an adult and he can take your mowing instructions as mere advice. But if he’s twelve, then he’s still fully under your authority, and it is not a good thing for him to disobey your instructions. God says, “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord”(Col. 3:20). Yet you would encourage your son’s disobedience? I’m dismayed. Not only is that attitude not Catholic, it’s not even Christian.

 

One final thing: obedience is not robotic. A robot does only what it’s programmed to do. In other words, it does only what comes naturally to it. But there are times when obedience is the hardest thing in the world to do, and it takes an enormous effort of the will, assisted by grace. It is much more “robotic” to obey only when you feel like it, for that is merely taking the course of least resistance. That is merely doing what comes naturally, for nothing comes more naturally to a fallen sinner than pride and disobedience.

 

Haven’t you heard? That doctrine [no salvation outside the church] has been grown into something far more inclusive. Nowadays, Protestantism is our sister Church and even Hinduism qualifies as a religion wherein we can find some of the Truth we seek and lack as Catholics.

 

I find it hard to believe you could be this badly misinformed, so I assume you’re just being sarcastic. Obviously, neither Hinduism, nor any other religion, has any truth that we lack. But they do have some bits and pieces of the truth that we already have in its fullness. That’s just common sense, friend. Whenever a religion says the same thing the Catholic Church says, it’s right. When Islam, for example, says that there is only one God, they’re right. Obviously, they’re not right when they say the one God is not a Trinity, but they are right when they say there’s only one God. Truth is truth, no matter who says it.

 

If Protestants who don’t have 1/10th of Catholic faith that I have in my baby finger are consider sister churches, then Traditionalism must be the Catholic Clone Church. If God is able to detect any difference between my Church and yours, I’m afraid it’ll be counted against yours.

 

There is only one Church, friend, and yours ain’t it. Hear the words of St. Augustine:

 

Since we are inquiring where the Church of Christ is to be found, let us listen to the words of Christ Himself, who redeemed it with His own blood: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.” You see then who it is with whom a man refuses to communicate who will not communicate with this Church, which is spread throughout all the world, if at least you hear whose words these are. For what is a greater proof of madness than to hold communion with the sacraments of the Lord, and to refuse to hold communion with the words of the Lord? Such men at any rate are likely to say, “In Thy name have we eaten and drunken,” and to hear the words, “I never knew you,” seeing that they eat His body and drink His blood in the sacrament, and do not recognize in the gospel His members which are spread abroad throughout the earth, and therefore are not themselves counted among them in the judgment. (Answer to the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, Book II, chap. 55).

 

You are making a god out of the concept of what is lawful. You fail to realize that law is in the service of God and man, not the other way around. That is why Jesus broke the LAWFUL religious commands of His day, to illustrate this principle. Our pope is fond of pointing to a hierarchy of truths; you, my friend, are blind to my pointing out the hierarchy of laws. Church laws are capable of being unwise, and even evil. You obey such Church laws at your peril.

 

On the contrary, you disobey the Church’s laws at your peril. I see no moral excuse for disobeying Church laws you merely think are imprudent, but I do agree that a law that is evil must not be obeyed. If you find such a law, be sure to let me know. However, it seems to me that you are too quick to label as evil that which is merely different and distasteful to you. I hope I’m wrong about that, but that’s my impression so far. And if I make a god out of obedience, what have you done but made a god out of disobedience? Personally, I would much rather be too quick to obey those whom our Lord commanded me to obey, than to be too quick to disobey.

 

The worst, most amoral, ugly, spineless statement you made is, “Our leaders will be judged by God for how well they led, but you and I will be judged for how well we followed.”

 

Come on, friend, don’t mince words: what do you really think? :-)

 

You are so incredibly wrong about this that even if I were to accept your attitude as the truth incarnate it itself proves itself wrong.

 

If God points to someone and says, “Obey him,” I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that He, who will judge my every thought and careless word, will also judge how well I obeyed the one he told me to obey. Scripture says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” (Heb. 13:17). You have, it seems to me, all sorts of arcane, hair-splitting, legalistic rationalizations to excuse yourself from that command. So far, I am not convinced by your arguments, and I should warn you that I’m much easier to convince than he whose command you are flouting.

 

For example, if what you said is true, then to the degree our leaders successfully led us astray, the greater their damage to the Church, the more severe will be God judgment. Even in hell there are worse places. So we should be duty-bound to mitigate their temporal or eternal punishment by NOT FOLLOWING their led, by militating against their success in leading the Church astray.

 

Welcome to Protestantism. How do you like it so far? One problem you may eventually discover, a problem that has plagued the Protestants who have gone before you, is that not everyone is likely to agree with your estimation of what constitutes “going astray.” They, of course, would then be duty-bound to mitigate your temporal and eternal punishment by not following your lead.

 

The Church is indefectable, friend. It cannot teach falsely, so I am not concerned about it going astray in its teachings. But the Church does have authority in some areas in which it is not infallible. In those areas, it can screw up. Personally, I think the decision to allow “altar girls” was a bad move. I disagree with it strongly. However, the Church is not obligated to follow my judgment in pastoral matters, and I am obligated to at least accept the Church’s judgment in those areas. So I do so, and yes, I think that’s a virtuous thing. It’s certainly much harder than simply insisting on getting my own way all the time.

 

You said that you think it is possible for the Pope or my Bishop to command me to do what is immoral, “But that isn’t the case here.” It is precisely the case here! My well-formed and constantly re-formed conscience convicts me of the immorality of substituting the New Mass for the Old Mass.

 

But, friend, this is precisely what I said could not happen. Yes, this or that bishop, or even a pope, could tell you to do something immoral, but they can’t all do it at the same time. The Church is indefectable in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, it is impossible for the bishops, in union with the pope, to err on a question of morals for the universal church. And since the “New Mass” is offered by the bishops in union with the pope, it is impossible for it to be immoral or invalid. If you think it is, then you have lost faith in the indefectability of the Church. God help you.

 

You say you won’t criticize me for disobeying an immoral command if it were the case. Just because it is not the case for you gives you no right to criticize me for disobeying when it IS the case for me. We can argue why it shouldn’t be the case for me, but please don’t criticize me for the fact that it IS the case for me.

 

Friend, if I sound overly critical, please forgive me. I am not presuming that you are acting in bad faith, or going against conscience. On the contrary, I assume that you are following your conscience, but that your conscience is poorly formed on this question. That’s why I’m stating my case forcefully and with candor. I’m treating you as an intelligent equal, and doing my best to explain why I think you have erred. If I am offending you, please let me know, and we can discontinue.

 

You do not ’sound overly critical.’ I’m the one who is sounding shrill, even to myself.

 

Frustration will do that to the best of us. Hang in there, brother. We’ll get through this together.

 

I’m so disgusted by the dearth of concern on this board over the Catholic Church’s potentially invalid sacraments that, for the fifth time, I’m on the verge of leaving. Pax, a fellow Traditionalist, doesn’t even answer my posts. Shawn is too busy.

 

There is also a dearth of concern on this board over the Catholic Church’s potentially erroneous doctrines. I suspect that the reasons are one and the same in both cases. It is simply inconceivable to me (and therefore, I assume, to most Catholics) that the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to invalidate the sacraments. It seems to me that is far more important than His protection of arcane doctrinal formulations about the number of wills Christ has, for example. Whether Christ has one will or two really doesn’t impact our daily lives much, does it? Yet this falls under the category of faith and morals, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error here. If He’s not willing to safeguard the sacraments themselves, our very life, then why bother to protect the Church at all? That’s how I see it, anyway.

 

You are the only one who is willing to engage me, and the only reason I’m still here. If you had not answered my last post, I was going to say goodbye to the board today. You are the last reason I have for staying.

 

I’ll try not to let you down.

 

I don’t want to repeat myself with you, not knowing how many of my prior posts, mostly with Shawn, you’ve read.

 

I’ve mainly just scanned them. See, two years ago, I was a quasi-Baptist Evangelical Protestant, so most of your discussions with Shawn seem arcane to me. But maybe that makes me a good person to talk to, since I tend to take a “big picture” approach to this question, without getting bogged down in minutia, as you and Shawn often do. Indeed, when I do read your discussions with Shawn, I have the same problem with them that I have with some of the overly-technical, hair-splitting theological arguments Protestants make against the Church. It seems to me that you have to be a theologian and a canon lawyer to understand these arguments. Therefore, if your arguments are true, one has to be a theologian and a canon lawyer to find the truth, and I have a problem with that. See, I’ve noticed that most Christians throughout the ages have been simple, uneducated folks, who are completely incapable of evaluating a theological argument. These are the people who make up the bulk of the Church, and always have. Christianity has to work for them, otherwise, what’s the point?

 

Jesus, when he looked out on the crowds, had pity on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd. His solution was to give them shepherds, and to create a Church to which they could turn for the truth, and for the sacraments he instituted. In my opinion, if the Church has compromised either the truth or the sacraments, it has failed. Since I believe the Church cannot fail, I therefore believe it has not compromised the truth or the sacraments. I don’t doubt that persuasive and plausible arguments can be made against the Church. I’ve read many of them from Protestants. I’ve also read some of the ancient defenses of Arianism and other such heresies, and it seems to me that there has never been a heresy that didn’t have a plausible defense. How could the unsophisticated but faithful believer know who was right when doctrinal controversies arose? How could a Macedonian shepherd possibly know whether Christ was homousios or homoiusios? He couldn’t. He simply had to trust the Church.

 

Suffice it to say that I don’t like thinking that the new sacraments are doubtful. If you can rid me of that weight I will be eternally grateful. If you can’t rid me of it, I hope to burden you with it as I am burdened with it. Perhaps if we together along with enough others suffer under the load of such awful doubts, God in his mercy may do something to lift them.

 

What are brothers for? Of course, I’m glad to help you carry this load, if I can.

 

Yes, I was being sarcastic about our sister Hindu Churches. Your view of what truth they posses is my view. However, it is not the Church’s view if we are to judge her plain words (I believe in VCII) which state that our ecumenical efforts are to be as with equals.

 

And yet the Church condemns Indifferentism. It’s not our two religions that are equal, it’s our people as people who are equal. I think that’s what the Church is trying to say. In other words, we’re not the “master race.” All people are created in the image of God, and are of equal dignity in His sight. But we who are Catholic have been blessed with the fullness of truth, while others have only scraps of it, often mixed with considerable error.

 

I was also being sarcastic (sorry) about you being in the evil twin sister of my Cloned Catholic Church. I fervently want to believe and do believe and hope you will believe that I am still Catholic.

 

I firmly hope that you still are. And if you aren’t, I firmly hope that God will lead you back into Catholic unity.

 

My crime AS A CATHOLIC, as a Traditionalist Catholic, is my unlawful adherence to an un-abrogated valid Catholic rite. That is my position. It seems yours is that my unlawful attachment to this rite, by breaking my communion with my bishop, makes me a schismatic. Let’s choose our words well. Do you really believe that?

 

According to my dictionary, schism is defined as “separation from a church or religious body.” If you have associated yourself with a church that has separated from the local bishop, how can that be anything but schism? I don’t want to beat you over the head with terminology, friend, so if you have a different definition of schism, under which you are not in schism, I’d like to hear it.

 

I think you expressed the kernel of our argument when you said: “I see no moral excuse for disobeying Church laws you merely think are imprudent, but I do agree that a law that is evil must not be obeyed.”

 

If a law is imprudent, it lacks the virtue of prudence. Lacking that virtue, those that follow that law will by definition be acting imprudently. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches what common sense collaborates, i.e., that an action lacking in even one virtue is evil and to be avoided. For an act to be virtuous, it must be completely virtuous. For example, everything about loving my wife is virtuous. But if I committed that act in public, that one negative aspect of the otherwise good act, that single defect in the virtue of modesty, would render the entire act evil and something that should be avoided.

 

I’ve explained my “moral excuse for disobeying Church laws” that are imprudent. Please explain why you see no moral excuse for disobeying them. I feel certain, this is the heart of our issue. Please respond to this.

 

That is an interesting argument, and since you see this as the heart of the thing, l don’t want to give a quick or ill-considered response. Let me give it some thought and come back to it, okay? Perhaps it would be a good question to throw out to the entire board.

 

You ask, “If you find such a law (immoral Church law), be sure to let me know.” That’s what’s so ironic, as I posted here a few weeks ago, there IS NO Church law, only Church example. Thus, the Church can have her indefectibility cake and eat it too. She doesn’t get the rap for having legally promulgated something evil, and yet she gets to have successfully promulgated something evil. Catholics simply follow the lawless example of their bishops and their pope.

 

I’ll turn your question on you. If you find such a law (one that abrogates the Old Mass and old sacraments that I cling to), be sure to let me know. If such a law exists, then I would agree with you that I am schismatic and a Protestant. Until then, I am merely in hell on earth.

 

I hope to bear some of that pain for you, and to help you through it. I don’t think the “old Mass” has been abrogated (and I don’t know what “old sacraments” are), but even if it had been, doesn’t the Church have the right to do that? Didn’t the Church suppress a number of rites at the Council of Trent and insist on the Tridentine Rite? I wonder how the “Traditionalists” of that era reacted to that.

 

I apologize for the “spineless” thing. Thank you for not allowing my indiscretion to anger you. I’ll do better.

 

Don’t give it another thought. I try not to take offense when someone’s in obvious anguish.

 

As you say, the scriptures say: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” (Heb. 13:17). I do, in all that my conscience tells me is not immoral. Did you not agree with me that you, too, would disobey the pope if your conscience convicted you with the conclusion that his command was immoral?

 

It depends. If I thought it was immoral to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived, I would have to reject the Pope’s ex cathedra statement that she was, in fact, immaculately conceived. But since I believe that the Pope is graced with the charism of infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra, I would have a conflict, wouldn’t I? In that case, I would have to either cease to believe in the infallibility of the Pope (and hence, cease to be Catholic), or I would have to conclude that I am mistaken to think that the doctrine of the immaculate conception is blasphemous and immoral. In this case, since the distribution of the sacraments is one of the fundamental functions of the Church, I do not believe the Church can invalidate them. If she can, then she is not what she claims to be, and I don’t see how I could continue to be Catholic.

 

You said, “The Church is indefectible, friend.” Of course. This is not our issue.

 

Isn’t it?

 

You said, “Personally, I think the decision to allow ’altar girls’ was a bad move.” Good. We agree again. If your daughter wanted to be an altar girl, would you allow her to? No? Then you’d have to explain to her that what the LAWFUL authority of the Church permits, you deny. Then you’d be acting exactly as I am acting as a Traditionalist. No?

 

No. The Church permits my hypothetical daughter to be an altar girl, it does not require it. Nor does it require that I agree with the wisdom of its decision in that matter, only that I abide by it, which I do. I’m not fond of the idea of extraordinary eucharistic ministers, either, and I try to receive from a priest or deacon whenever possible. But if I have no choice, I will receive from a eucharistic minister. The Church permits it, therefore, it is valid, if somewhat offensive to me.

 

You say that your theoretical acceptance of this “bad move” regarding altar girls is “a virtuous thing. It’s certainly much harder than simply insisting on getting my own way all the time.” It was also a harder thing for Huss to accept his burning at the stake than to recant his heresies. Surely you realize that hardness is no guarantee of virtue. I assume you were being flip here.

 

Not really. Going against a powerful authority is always difficult, but I think that obedience to legitimate authority, especially when it’s difficult, is a more virtuous than stubbornness is.

 

You said, “since the ‘New Mass’ is offered by the bishops in union with the pope, it is impossible for it to be immoral or invalid.” Man, have I got indulgences for sale for you! In pastoral matters, the pope in union with his bishops have done many immoral things. Do you disagree?

 

I’m speaking of things pertaining to the life of faith and morals to which the bishops in union with the pope have bound the universal church. I am not speaking of common practices and attitudes that may simply have been nearly universal in past times, and to which bishops and popes may have subscribed simply as creatures of their era. Maybe you can give me an example of what you’re talking about.

 

Thank you for continuing this investigation with me.

 

I’ll be here for you as long as you need me. “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!” (Eccl. 4:9-10).

 

You are right to imply that no one but the Church can declare on the validity of the sacraments. It is not to us to judge in that absolute sense. Thus, I do not say that the new sacraments are invalid, only that they are far more likely to be because they have all been made more ambiguous.

 

You say that only the Church can declare on the validity of the sacraments, and then you proceed to declare them questionable. The Church says they aren’t questionable, but are entirely valid. If, as you say, only the Church can declare on their validity, shouldn’t you accept their declaration?

 

This ambiguity pertains not just to the ceremony surrounding the sacraments, but to the actual form and matter as well. When ambiguity reigns, intention drifts. (A few months ago I read where a bishop referred to Jesus IN the Eucharist, a heresy)

 

Oh, please be careful here, friend. It’s all too easy to see heresy behind every careless word, or every figure of speech. Does not the “Old Mass,” after the consecration, refer to the Eucharist as “Panem sanctum vitae aeternae” (holy Bread of eternal life)? Is this heresy? Is this a denial that the bread is no longer bread, but has become the flesh and blood of our Lord? Of course not.

 

It seems only natural that well-intending priests are un-intentionally intending all sorts ill-intended things that are not what the Church really and Traditionally intends.

 

So what? Are we Donatists? The Church accepts Protestant baptisms, even those performed by Protestants who specifically do not intend to confer regeneration and the forgiveness of sins. It is enough that they intend to baptize, whatever they may personally think about baptism. Likewise, it is enough that a priest intends to celebrate Mass, and does so in accordance with the directives of the Church, regardless of what he may personally think about it. I’d hate to think I have to become a mind reader, and guess at the orthodoxy and state of mind of every priest who offers me the Eucharist, before I could be sure I was getting a valid sacrament.

 

Our priests’ defective intentions come from the ambiguous changes in the words of the sacraments and as a result from those words, loosed from their moorings in Latin, being in constant flux.

 

The Church, the only one who can declare on the validity of the sacraments, says the language is valid. Therefore, it is. At every Mass I’ve ever attended, the priest says, “This is my Body,” and elevates the Host. He then takes the chalice and says, “This is my Blood.” That is not ambiguous, and the Church is quite plain about what this is intended to accomplish.

 

If you believe statistics, a minority of Catholics believe in transubstantiation and only about 70% of priests do. If you are going to a New Mass and the priest is one of those 30%, are you receiving the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ?

 

Yes. We’re not Donatists, friend. This question was settled in the fourth century. The personal righteousness of the priest (including his orthodoxy) is not a factor in the validity of the sacrament. It is enough that he intends to celebrate Mass, and that he does so in the approved fashion. Whatever may be running through his mind at the time is of no consequence, and that’s a good thing, because his thoughts and intentions are something we’ll never know.

 

I mean, suppose your priest is not only unorthodox, but a liar? Suppose he tells you he believes in Transubstantiation, but really, he doesn’t? Will you receive a valid sacrament? Talk about ambiguous! If the validity of the sacrament depends on the orthodoxy of the priest’s thoughts and intentions, only a Vulcan doing a mind-meld could be sure he was receiving a valid sacrament.

 

Can’t reasonable people be excused for doubting it when the priest himself who confects the sacrament doubts it?

 

Do you doubt the validity of a baptism performed by a Baptist minister? Do you doubt that it confers regeneration and the forgiveness of sin, even if the minister doubts it? Do you insist that a person baptized by a Baptist minister must be rebaptized upon entry to the Catholic Church?

 

Must those of us who doubt validity be branded heretics and schismatic Traditionalists simply because we are attempting to avoid this evil?

 

The Donatists also doubted the validity of sacraments offered by unrighteous priests, and they separated from the Catholic Church in order to avoid that evil. How were they branded? Why are you any different?

 

The words of the New Mass have been so stripped down of their dogmatic precision that Lutheran ministers are on record for saying that they are willing to say our Mass!

 

And Baptists are willing to say our baptismal formula! Oh my goodness! It must also be invalid!

 

My point (please pardon the sarcasm) is that the Mass is not supposed to be a theological treatise on Transubstantiation versus Consubstantiation. We know what the Church means when she directs her priests to say, “This is my Body,” and “This is my Blood.” If Lutherans intend a different meaning when they say it, what is that to us?

 

They believe the Eucharist is only a symbol, and we supposedly don’t believe that.

 

Actually, Lutherans do not believe it’s only a symbol. They believe that Christ is really, physically present. The difference is that we believe the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ; the Lutherans believe the Body and Blood of Christ becomes truly, physically present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

 

But our words are ambiguous enough that they can say them with no contradiction. Is it any wonder that our priests are already doubting transubstantiation?

 

Would you deny that it is a valid baptism if the priest does nothing more than pour water on someone while saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? Does it bother you that a Baptist can say these same words?

 

The ancient Roman maxim applies: legem credendi statuat lex supplicandi (the law of praying determines the law of believing). In this context, the post-conciliar laws of saying our sacraments determine our present-day lack of believing in them.

 

There were people who did not believe in Transubstantiation long before Vatican II. What was the cause of their unbelief? It is simply post hoc fallacy to say that if unbelief increased after Vatican II, it must have been caused by Vatican II. The Church is not ambiguous at all in what she intends the Mass to accomplish. If the Mass itself lacks the theological precision of a doctoral thesis, so what? That doesn’t make it invalid, it just makes it more necessary for our people to be better educated about what the Mass is all about. How wordy do you think the first Mass, celebrated by Christ in the upper room, was?

 

When this lack of belief extends as far up the spiritual food chain as to our bishops, then in one generation, we will be bereft of a priesthood and of sacraments. Thus, I am depressed.

 

Lack of belief is always depressing, especially when it infects those who are supposed to be our shepherds. But take heart, the Church has always had to deal with unfaithfulness in her members. Just be thankful you didn’t live during the hayday of Arianism. You think you’re depressed now! But the lesson to learn from history is that the Church is indefectable; she cannot fail. So don’t you be the unbelieving one! Just remember that Christ constituted the Church to offer us the light of the Gospel, and the Bread of Life.