Rebelling Against the Magesterium: Right or Wrong?

This post is in reply to Laramie Hirsch, who has written a post on his blog, "The Hirsch Files" in response to this blog. Laramie's post is entitled, "St. Catherine of Siena Does NOT Warn Traditionalist Catholics."

My debate with Laramie started when he read a couple of my blog posts. Laramie is a Catholic traditionalist who, not surprisingly, does not agree with my opinion that Catholics should not judge the Magesterium of the Church. Laramie has given very reasoned and well thought-out responses, not just hit-and-run attacks that I so often receive from traditionalists. He has given a very detailed response on his blog, and I direct the rest of this post to him.

Dear Laramie:

I am happy that you have enjoyed reading Noffke's translation of the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena. If nothing else comes from our cyber encounter, at least that is a good thing. I am also very impressed with all of the research and detail that you put into your post. I seldom see this much effort in any blogging. I don't know if I can respond to every point you made, but I will do my best.

I have no doubt that you will disagree with every point I am about to make, but I'm going to put it out there anyway.  I do find it kind of amazing that those of us who defend loyalty to the Magesterium of the Church are labeled as heretics by those who see themselves as the only true and faithful Catholics.  Ironic, to say the least.

I would first like to take exception to your statement that I have taken a "vitriolic stance against Traditional Catholicism." I love traditional Catholicism. I attended the traditional Latin Mass almost daily for several years. I love the TLM and everything associated with it. I love all of the rich traditions of our religion.

My problem is with traditionalists.  Having been a traditionalist for several years, I know the mindset, and I know what I read on their blogs.  Traditionalists have basically set themselves up as the Magesterium of the Church.  They believe that everything they say and do is 100% correct and cannot be questioned, and if anyone - laity, priest, bishop or pope - disagrees with them, that person is a heretic. That has been borne out in spades with the just-ended Synod on the Family.   Many traditionalists now consider themselves at war with the mainstream Church, which they, in their great judgment and wisdom, no longer consider to be the Church.

Laramie, you still have not answered the points I have made on my blog but have centered all of your arguments around my discussion about St. Catherine of Siena, most particularly the statements she quotes from God the Father that He considers attacks against priests - His "christs" as He calls them - to be the greatest sin.  You accuse me of taking the following quote out of context.

'Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect. . . . These are my anointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture, "Dare not touch my christs." Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers.'

You correctly point out that this portion which I omitted contains the statement, "Civil law has no power whatever to punish them; this right belongs solely to the one who has been appointed to rule and to serve according to divine law"  You also point out Noffke's footnote which says this passage refers the Church-state relationship in the Middle ages.

You are correct in your statement, Laramie.  But do you honestly believe that God the Father was referring only to civil government entities in this passage?  If that is the case, who is the Father referring to when he says, "I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine"?  Your implication is that the Father is saying that it is wrong for civil authorities to oppose the priesthood, but Catholic laypeople are free to treat priests in whatever manner they choose.

If that is what you believe, you are reading something into this passage that is simply not there. God the Father plainly says that laypeople are to respect priests "regardless of how good or evil they may be."  There is nothing to indicate here that this is referring only to civil authorities. This is further borne out in a passage which you omitted in your next point, as I will show.

In your second point, you continue to push your erroneous position that God the Father is talking only about civil authorities.  You state:

These words from God to St. Catherine are discussing how His ministers—his christs—are not to be subject to the secular authority. God's ministers are not to be either punished or persecuted by them. 

You then make a very confusing statement:

Now, what did these persecutions of priests by secular authorities resemble? Well, we know that they lost an appreciation for the reality of the Eucharist. God expresses great concern that His children have turned away from that sacrament:

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the government's persecution of the Church resulted in a loss of "appreciation for the reality of the Eucharist" and caused "His children" to turn away from the sacrament.  I think you are saying that this is why God the Father was so upset with the persecution of the Church.  Where do you get that from?  It just makes no sense to me.

You try to prove your point by using this partial quote from the Dialogue:

"It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church. For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned."

You accuse me of taking statements out of context, but here you have shown us how it is really done. First of all, if the Father was talking about civil authorities, he would use the word "they" instead of "you."  He is clearly talking to anyone - be they laity of the Church or civil authority - who reads His words to St. Catherine.  Your explanation of this partial quote is as follows:

So, the civil authority is lessening the importance of the priests' ability to consecrate the Eucharist.

That really makes no sense.  Where do you read that because the Church was being persecuted, the laity no longer saw the importance of the Eucharist?  You must be reading a different book than Noffke's translation.  

The partial quote you have used is from Section 116, page 216. The entire quote paints a much different picture than you portray:

And if you should ask me why I said that those [civil authorities] who persecute Holy Church is graver than any other sin, and why it is my will that the sins of the clergy should not lessen your [St. Catherine and all other laypeople in the Church] reverence for them, this is how I would answer you.  Because the reverence you [talking to St. Catherine and all lay people] pay to them is not actually paid to them but to me in virtue of the blood I have entrusted to their ministry.  If this were not so, you should pay them as much reverence as to anyone else, and no more.  It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them and come to them, not for what they are in themselves, but for the power I have entrusted to them, if you would receive the holy sacraments of the Church.  For if you refuse these when it is in your power to have them, you would live and die condemned.  

As can be plainly seen when the two sentences you reference are put into context, it is clear that God the Father is talking about lay people in the church as well as civil authorities.   God the Father does not say only "civil authorities" should reverence priests.  When the Father commands reverence to the priests, He uses the term "you", meaning St. Catherine and everyone else.  Laramie, either you did not read the entire quote, or you are being disingenuous and deceptive.

After quoting only the last two sentences of the above-referenced paragraph, you state:

These words from God to St. Catherine are discussing how His ministers—his christs—are not to be subject to the secular authority. God's ministers are not to be either punished or persecuted by them. 

When put into context, it is quite obvious that your assertion is completely false.

In your third point, you accuse me of making an out-of-context statement when I wrote:

"Through St. Catherine of Siena, God the Father then gives three reasons why persecution of His christs is worse than any other sin: 'The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me.'

You try to prove your point with the following:

If you had simply quoted the leadup to this 3-part list of God's reasons, people would see that there is a bigger picture, as is evident here:

"There are many reasons that make this sin more serious than any other, but I will tell you of three principal ones. The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me."

So, when God says "reasons that make this sin more serious," we ask "what sin is God talking about?" The answer: Irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist. Again, there is a difference between a priest's priestly ability and his mortal, sinful inclinations.

Again, Laramie, I have no idea how you come up with this conclusion, because the context doesn't bear it out at all. How does "reasons that make this sin more serious" translate to "irreverence towards the priest's ability to consecrate the Eucharist"? Where does God the Father say this? What the Father is saying is that the reason He considers his "christs" to be special is because He has given them the ability to consecrate the Eucharist. That is very different from the point you are attempting to make.

In your fourth point, in answer to the quote from the Dialogue: "The first is that what they do to my ministers they do to me", you point to Noffke's footnote, which references Letter 377 to the rulers of France. However, you conveniently omit the other reference in this footnote. That is Luke 10:16, which says:

The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

Laramie, do you really expect us to believe that this refers only to civil authorities and not to every person on earth, including, and maybe most especially, the laity of the Church?

Then you actually write the following:

I have yet to see any Traditionalist Catholic publication encourage this kind of smug practice towards any prelate. I would most definitely say that the Florentine officials on that day were "irreverent persecutors" of the Holy Father, Pope Gregory XI.

Laramie, I know you read the traditionalist blogs.  You said so in your comments to me.  You know that Louie Verrecchio has accused Pope Francis of hating the Church and trying to destroy it.  You know that Mundabor calls Pope Francis an evil clown and also accuses him of trying to destroy the Church.  You know people like Michael Voris are constantly attacking the bishops and priests of the Church, calling them wicked and quite literally condemning them to hell.  Just read Pewsitter.  The entire purpose of that site is to link to the Catholic bloggers who make the most vicious attacks against the Church.

Knowing all that, you actually write the following:

Traditional Catholics do their best to exercise charity towards both God as well as their neighbors by informing society of the constant Modernist heresies exercised by clergy in the various levels of the Church's hierarchy—since so many priests are modernists and do not warn their flock about such dangers. In fact, it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy when Traditionalist Catholics attempt to right the wrongs of Modernist priests.

In fact, I daresay, the Traditionalist Catholic is fulfilling several spiritual works of mercy when attempting this kind of duty. Consider them: instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, admonishing sinners, bearing wrongs patiently (as I do from your posts), to forgive offences willingly, comforting the afflicted, and praying for the living and the dead.

Do you see what you are doing? You are setting up the traditionalists as the Magesterium of the Church. You are telling people that if they are looking for spiritual guidance, then they need to forget about the priests, bishops and pope. Those guys don't know what they are talking about. They are evil modernists who are out to destroy your soul. Look to the traditionalists - only they can lead you to Jesus Christ.

You mention the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas. Traditionalists always twist this quote. This is the entire quote:

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith.  But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

Traditionalists make the judgment that every time they perceive a wrong in the church, that means the faith is endangered and they, therefore, have a right to condemn Church authority. As. St Thomas points out here, this is to be done only in rare instances. Certainly there are times to point out wrong and scandalous behavior on the part of the clergy. As I told you, I did it when Cardinals Pell and Burke endorsed a radical traditionalist who denounces Vatican II and the "Novus Ordo" Mass. By endorsing this radical traditionalist, Cardinals Pell and Burke were pointing the laity to a man who would lead them out of the Church. That is a danger to the faith.

But contrary to the code of the Traditionalists, it is not our job as laity to point out each and every misstep or even sin of the clergy.  As I have tried to tell you, we are fallible human beings who see, at best, only a small portion of the picture.  We as laity have not been given special graces to understand every situation and see exactly how Christ is working in the Church and the world.  Christians walk by faith, not by sight.  As I have told you, traditionalists walk by sight, judging everything by their own standards and their own limited understanding, accepting nothing on faith that is not in complete accordance with what they personally believe.

I think the responses I have made above answer the rest of your post as well, since you basically reiterate the same talking points. You tell us that traditionalists are the best of Catholics, have a superior understanding of the Faith, and are just stronger and better Christians than the rest of us, who are too weak to deal with the reality of the Church today. These are the same talking points I read on all traditional Catholic blogs, and it gets very tiresome after a while.

I find it interesting that you do not use this statement from God the Father as recorded by St. Catherine of Siena (Section 116, page 216)

For this reason, no one has excuse to say, "I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sin of evil pastors." Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness. They see well enough, but they pretend not to see so as to blunt the pricking of conscience. If they would look, they could see that they are persecuting not these ministers but the blood. It is me they assault, jut as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. For I have said and I say it again: No one is to touch my christs. It is my right to punish them and no one else's. 

Laramie, we know that a priest can validly celebrate Mass, consecrate the Eucharist, give us absolution and perform his other priestly duties no matter what the state of his soul.  That is because the priest is not doing it.  Jesus Christ is doing it through him.  That is why God the Father says that when you persecute the priest, you are persecuting Him because you are persecuting His Son who is working through the priest.

I end by pointing you to the quote from St. Catherine of Siena at the top of this post.  You can read the entire quote here:

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him."