In a world drowning in Modernism, the faithful adherence to time-honored and Church-ratified Tradition is hard, isn't it? The liberalization of Catholicism via the Nouvelle Théologie and the Novus Ordo has become an entrenched institution in which the historic and dogmatic affirmations of previous Councils and Popes haven't simply been questioned, they've been jettisoned.1
Thankfully, I don't require admonishment from progressive apologists to understand the larger ecclesiological issues at stake. Fruitful discussion of these matters is hindered, however, by the fact that the conflicts of opinion arise from diametric worldview assumptions.
Therefore, it's a bit refreshing – albeit surprising – to read that there are a few liberals who admit “stubbornly opposing what the church has actually decreed... [is] a very serious matter.”
Indeed.
But, before proceeding further, we have to ask themselves: Is it impermissible to “stubbornly oppose” what the Church has decreed at any time, or only since 1965?
Take a single example. Pope Gregory XVI condemned – as “absurd and erroneous” – the proposition that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.”2
Doubtless, in a 21st-century context almost entirely shaped by the fallout of 1776 and 1789, it's not easy to believe that this is true. But when has profession of the true Faith been easy?
The literal “...[preaching of] Christ crucified” has always been “unto Jews a stumbling block and unto Gentiles foolishness.”3
Despite these doxastic difficulties, however, one hopes it's not difficult to see that Pope Gregory's statement is the antithesis of religious indifferentism and liberalism.
It's puzzling, therefore, to read, in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, issued by the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by Paul VI, that people are “...not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to ...conscience. Nor ...[are they] to be restrained from acting in accordance with ...conscience, especially in matters religious.”4
Did the drafters of this Vatican II document share our principle that “stubbornly opposing what the church has actually decreed... [is] a very serious matter”?
Or did Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical have an occult “sunset clause”?
It didn't seem so to Pope Pius IX who, in Quanta Cura,5 reiterated the judgment of his predecessor.
We may imagine a fictional 1864 article from the International Catholic Reporter titled: “As Pius IX Reinforces Limits on Religious Liberty, It's Time to Embrace the Syllabus of Errors.”
Must we now reject these solemn pronouncements as “outdated”?
On what basis would we reject Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX that wouldn't, by extension, underwrite a rejection of Francis? Is the operative principle “never mind what I said, listen to what I say now”?
Through historical transmutation, theological liberals became “conservatives” over night simply by seeking to preserve their revolutionary “reforms.” Thus, Joseph Ratzinger – progressive by pre-Vatican-II standards – became the “conservative” Benedict XVI in the post-Vatican-II church. Presto!
This is the ecclesiastical alchemy of adopting a new theology and a new liturgy.
If you find yourself cheer leading the universal adoption of “innovations” and “reforms” minted in the radical 1960s, you yourself just might be the “Protestant.”
The distinctive features of genuine Catholicism include the antiquity of its beliefs and practices.
Speaking socio-culturally, it's never “past time” for the Church's immemorial Tradition. Speaking individually and personally, things are relevantly different.
In view of mortality, defenders of this venerable Faith invite you to embrace it – before it's too late.
Notes:
1Of course, I'm replying in a sarcastic idiom. Dissecting and rebutting Winters' several factual errors or oversights would make for more tedious reading. Still, it is worth saying something about them. For example, when he writes that “...the liberalization of access to the old rite that Pope Benedict XVI had granted in 2007 had become a movement, even an ideology, in which the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council was increasingly questioned”, he ignores or dismisses the bulk of the Traditionalist movement, going back to Fr. Gommar Depauw and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. (Of course, in turn, they were preceded by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani – not to mention every faithful lay Catholic and prelate over the last two millennia.) As an illustration of his errors (not to mention the bad faith of his mindset), I would point to Winters' flippant side remark starting with: “if I ever need an annulment...”. Of course, a decree of nullity is supposed to be the result of a juridical process that determines whether or not one's apparent marriage was a true marriage. This judgment – ideally – has exactly nothing to do with the petitioner's or the respondent's desires or wishes. The “need” that is addressed is the need to conform to the truth and to live one's life in accordance with right standards of conduct. It's unsurprising that Winters apparently finds this perspective alien.
2Mirari Vos, 1832, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm.
31 Corinthians 1:23, Douay-Rheims.
