There's been a lot of chatter about our latest Pope. (If it please you, Your Holiness, I won't be referring to you as "The Bishop of Rome." I don't question your intentions in thus branding yourself, but it's too uncomfortably close to the Protestant/Eastern Orthodox mind for my Catholic soul.) I'm uncertain what effect his pontificate will have on Holy Mother Church, but the abdication of Benedict XVI and election of Francis has given me many things to mull over.
Here are a few: What is Tradition? What role does the Traditionalist Movement play in the Church? What does the term "Traditionalist" mean? Overall, how should I conduct myself as a layman who calls himself a Traditionalist?
In theory, the answers to these questions are simple and easy to grasp. A Traditionalist is a Catholic who cannot in good conscience participate in the novel experiments of the past several decades. A Traditionalist cleaves to the Church that was, in spite of the Church that is, in the hope of the Church to come. All one need to do is accept all that the Church has taught through the ages, and act accordingly. Simple, in theory.
In practice, however, it becomes a different matter. I've been on several Traditionalist chat groups and Facebook sites where the participants display a sometimes shocking lack of respect--for clergy, for bishops, and even the Pope. Other people are often subjected to derision. I can no longer reconcile this pernicious attitude with being Catholic.
Certainly, sarcasm has its place; sometimes it's the best response to something completely ridiculous. When a bishop, priest or civil official says something in a public manner that directly contradicts a doctrine of the Faith we can't participate in their sin by saying nothing. But there's a fine line being walked here, and more and more I see my comrades in spiritual warfare crossing over it to become instruments of the Enemy.
In the Winter/Spring 2013 issue of The Latin Mass, there was an interview with Fr. John Berg, FSSP. He was asked about the Fraternity's silence regarding Vatican II and the New Mass. His response was very profound and should be read in its entirety if you have the chance. He said that "[W]hen one tries to extend beyond his duty and office it can have disastrous consequences for souls. It is our duty to address these difficult passages, but in the proper manner with the Holy See or individual bishop." He also stressed that "...it is not a matter of being silent in order to have a legal status; it is a question of when and where (and to whom) one ought to speak in order to aid souls, in order to best serve the Church. I repeat, there are souls at stake. If every bishop in the Church is not 'on the same page' as us, what would it avail to shake our fists and shout 'debacle' as you suggest? It may satisfy the prejudices of a few who are outraged for a time, but at the risk of endangering the liturgical practice of unnumbered souls. And for what; what change would be brought about?"
This combines with several things I have heard Fr. Chad Ripperger say over at Sensus Traditionis about fulfilling the duties of our station in life, the vice of curiosity (yes, it can be a vice--have a listen!) and others. It's given me a new perspective on the entire situation, which henceforth I intend to reflect in my posts.
The perspective is this: I am a simple layman, with no more education on these matters than any other. I'm not a priest or a bishop. God has given me the simple grace of recognizing the nobility and magnificence of the Traditional Latin Mass. He has given me this for my sanctification and that of my family; not so that I can develop the attitude that Fr. Fryar mentioned in his farewell sermon at Christ the King parish. (The link includes the entire High Mass; the relevant part of his sermon begins at approximately 33:00.) That attitude is one that I have seen far too often on chat sites--traditionalist and otherwise--and in the comment section of blogs; an overweening arrogance that allows one to overstep the duties of station and indiscriminately hold forth on matters of which he/she has scant knowledge but plentiful opinion.
What good can come of expressing my opinion? Am I stepping beyond my "duty and office"? Am I writing for the good of souls, or for my own ego? I can't guarantee that I will never again post controversial topics; but from this day, you can expect me to answer those questions before I post.
