Every oppressive regime, which can flourish only by ever greater measures to suppress human freedom, contrives loyalty tests and advances its agenda only by doubling down on strictures which ensure uniformity. True human freedom always stands as the mortal enemy of all inhuman regimes.
Vatican II-ism is a disease which demands everything be modernized and constantly changed to conform to ever-changing volition of whatever persons happen to be in power. Authentic service of humans and free will is lost.
The mortal sin of suppressing the sacred in search of a uniformity based on unilateral will to power is rumored to be forthcoming in a new power grab by overreaching curial officials in Rome. If it comes to pass it will violate canon law which decrees that no priest can be forced to concelebrate, the greatest goal of Vatican II-istic liturgy. Less Masses and more conformity. The principal celebrant decides how all the other priests celebrate.
Demanding that every priest also celebrate the Vatican II liturgy, as it is rumored the new document will command, is a petty loyalty test which reveals the increasing awareness of the fragile condition of Vatican II innovations, and their ever more tenuous standing among that ever-decreasing number of sincere Catholics who still practice the integral Faith, on the part of those who still cling to them. Such remains the purpose of existence for many who want to claim the ancient Faith without submitting to all of its obligatory commands.
Here we see that even a heretic, Karl Rahner, understood it is a sin to suppress authentic liturgical freedom and enforce uniformity out of a will to power:
“Imagine that the Pope, as supreme pastor of the Church, issued a decree today requiring all the uniate churches of the Near East to give up their Oriental liturgy and adopt the Latin rite….The Pope would not exceed the competence of his jurisdictional primacy by such a decree, but the decree would be legally valid.
“But we can also pose an entirely different question. Would it be morally licit for the Pope to issue such a decree? Any reasonable man and any true Christian would have to answer “no.” Any confessor of the Pope would have to tell him that in the concrete situation of the Church today such a decree, despite its legal validity, would be subjectively and objectively an extremely grave moral offense against charity, against the unity of the Church rightly understood (which does not demand uniformity), against possible reunion of the Orthodox with the Roman Catholic Church, etc., a mortal sin from which the Pope could be absolved only if he revoked the decree.
“From this example one can readily gather the heart of the matter. It can, of course, be worked out more fundamentally and abstractly in a theological demonstration:
1. The exercise of papal jurisdictional primacy remains even when it is legal, subject to moral norms, which are not necessarily satisfied merely because a given act of jurisdiction is legal. Even an act of jurisdiction which legally binds its subjects can offend against moral principles.
2. To point out and protest against the possible infringement against moral norms of an act which must respect these norms is not to deny or question the legal competence of the man possessing the jurisdiction.”
(Studies in Modern Theology, Herder, 1965, pp. 394-395)
No comments:
Post a Comment