Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Misa de Diálogo - CXXII

Los ataques de Francisco contra el 'clericalismo'

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

La evidencia que acabamos de examinar, tomada de entre representantes de una amplia franja de líderes de la Iglesia católica, revela que se ha declarado una guerra contra el “clericalismo” por parte de aquellos que quieren eliminar la Tradición que todavía sobrevive a nuestro alrededor. Su objetivo era degradar la grandeza del sacerdocio ordenado en el sentido de hacerlo parecer no sólo menos importante en la Iglesia y, por lo tanto, indigno de la deferencia y el respeto debidos a ella, sino también positivamente perjudicial para los derechos de los laicos. – y, por lo tanto, un enemigo contra el cual luchar enérgicamente.

Su narrativa anticlerical había estado burbujeando durante décadas después del Concilio Vaticano II en varias partes del mundo antes de que el Papa Francisco subiera el fuego, al embellecer dicha narrativa como veremos, con contribuciones propias de alto perfil. El resultado fue que la tapa se desprendió de la olla hirviendo, extendiendo una ola de sentimiento anticlerical que ganó un impulso y una escala más allá de lo visto en la época de sus predecesores inmediatos.

Puede parecer más que un poco irónico que esta narrativa tan sesgada haya sido engendrada y difundida por sacerdotes y obispos católicos progresistas que, por sus propias razones, estaban habitualmente dispuestos a pensar mal de su propio sacerdocio. Pero es seguramente el colmo de la paradoja que, al promover el anticlericalismo, estuvieran dañando los valores católicos fundamentales y exponiendo a los fieles al ataque desprotegido de los enemigos de la fe.

Los progresistas se inspiran en los reformadores protestantes en sus ataques contra el clero

La conclusión obvia es que, desde el Vaticano II, el clero neomodernista continúa la narrativa iniciada en el siglo XVI. Para probar la concordancia de los sentimientos anticlericales entre entonces y la actualidad, podemos consultar un resumen de la situación escrito por el p. Charles Augustus Whittuck, vicario anglicano de la parroquia de St. Mary, Oxford, a principios del siglo XX. Proporciona una plétora de citas históricas de eclesiásticos protestantes contra el “clericalismo” dondequiera que se encuentre, ya sea en la Iglesia Católica o en la Iglesia Anglicana.

Para tomar algunos ejemplos, estos incluyen referencias al "clericalismo" como

El “predominio exclusivo del orden clerical”;
Un “despotismo espiritual ejercido por una casta sacerdotal”;
La “tendencia de auto-engrandecimiento de la clase clerical”;
Su “asunción de superioridad”;
Su “tendencia separatista” y “distanciamiento de la comunidad”;
Su promoción de “los intereses exclusivos del clero a expensas de los laicos”;
Su "tono antipático y poco conciliador" (que ahora se denomina "rigidez");
Su “ceguera a los signos de los tiempos”;
Su rechazo de la “pura Palabra de Dios”, es decir, el Evangelio (tesis de Lutero);
Un "veneno" lento y una "enfermedad moral". (1)

Si hacemos una rápida comparación entre estos comentarios hostiles y las críticas expresadas por el establishment liberal post-Vaticano II en los artículos anteriores, surge un paralelo interesante: el ataque al sacerdocio católico se expresó exactamente con las mismas palabras y en exactamente el mismo espíritu de los polemistas protestantes del siglo XVI y sus herederos. La única diferencia fue que el término “clericalismo”, que fue una invención posterior, no fue utilizado por los primeros reformadores, pero tuvo su equivalente histórico en el uso protestante de los sustantivos “sacerdotalismo”, y “papismo”. junto con los adjetivos "monkish" y "romish".

Los reformadores católicos progresistas se apropiaron y explotaron no solo palabras individuales, sino temas anticlericales completos, originarios de los reformadores protestantes del siglo XVI y perpetuados por sus herederos. Es obvio para todos que estos temas se corresponden tan estrechamente con los sentimientos expresados en la lista anterior, que son indistinguibles de ellos.

De hecho, cuando el Papa Francisco aborda los mismos temas, se podría perdonar que se piense que habla un protestante bastante fanático o un neomodernista católico, lo que viene a ser lo mismo. Porque, como veremos, estos temas anticatólicos fueron introducidos por primera vez en la Iglesia por el principal defensor del Modernismo a principios del siglo XX, el P. George Tyrrell, SJ.

Fueron suprimidos por el Papa Pío X, resucitados por los “nuevos teólogos” de mediados del siglo XX, y filtrados a través de los documentos del Vaticano II, de donde fueron vomitados a la población católica de todo el mundo por los Papas del Concilio.

Francisco se une a los neomodernistas

Desde el comienzo de su pontificado, el Papa Francisco ha estado complaciendo la narrativa predominante sobre el "clericalismo" proveniente principalmente de clérigos con una aversión abiertamente expresada al catolicismo preconciliar en todas sus manifestaciones: doctrinal, litúrgica, constitucional y de vestuario. El Papa Francisco no solo ha permitido que la narrativa manipulada se propague sin ser desafiada, sino que ha facilitado su difusión poniendo combustible para cohetes detrás de ella en forma de su respaldo personal.

P. George Tyrrell, S.J.

Ahora veremos algunos ejemplos de cómo el Papa Francisco usa la expresión “clericalismo”, notando la convergencia exacta de sus ideas con las de los puntos de vista protestantes, modernistas y progresistas actuales del sacerdocio católico que fueron el tema de los artículos anteriores. (aquí, aquí, aquí y aquí). También notaremos la convergencia de estos puntos de vista con los del p. Jorge Tyrrell.

Para mayor comodidad, podemos agrupar las ideas del Papa Francisco en tres categorías principales:

"Dominación",
"Superioridad",
"Rigidez".

¿Gobernar o servir?

Cerca del comienzo de su pontificado, el Papa Francisco expuso su punto de vista sobre la autoridad gobernante del obispo de la manera más negativa, es decir, desde el punto de vista de aquellos que buscan poder sobre los demás y precedencia en la Iglesia. Él afirmó:

“Es triste cuando vemos a un hombre que busca este cargo y hace todo lo que puede para conseguirlo y cuando lo consigue no sirve, sino que se pavonea y vive solo para su vanidad”. (2)

Eso es cierto hasta donde llega, pero no hace falta decirlo, porque Santo Tomás de Aquino ya había expuesto la enseñanza constante de la Iglesia sobre este asunto en términos más caritativos:

“[El] que entra en el estado episcopal es levantado para velar por los demás, y nadie debe tratar de ser levantado así, según Hebreos (5:4): Tampoco alguno toma el honor de sí mismo, sino el que es llamado por Dios; y Crisóstomo dice: “Querer la supremacía en la Iglesia no es ni justo ni útil””(3).

Pero, como siempre con el Papa Francisco, su significado depende del contexto de su mensaje que, en este caso, favorecía la Colegialidad sobre el ejercicio individual de la autoridad de un Obispo en su propia Diócesis. Dijo:

Un Francisco melodramático ataca a los sacerdotes tradicionales como promotores del clericalismo

“Obispos, con el Papa, expresan esta colegialidad y buscan siempre ser mejores servidores de los fieles, mejores servidores en la Iglesia”. (4)

La implicación del mensaje fue que la autoridad del obispo debe ser colegial, no personal e individual, un punto clave del Vaticano II que contradice la enseñanza tradicional de la Iglesia. Y entrelazada en este mensaje está la afirmación de que el obispo no debe gobernar, es decir, dominar a los fieles, sino ser su servidor.

Una vez más, el Papa Francisco insiste:

“El clericalismo surge de una visión elitista y exclusivista de la vocación que interpreta el ministerio recibido como un poder a ejercer más que como un servicio gratuito y generoso a dar. Esto nos lleva a creer que pertenecemos a un grupo que tiene todas las respuestas y ya no necesita escuchar ni aprender nada. El clericalismo es una perversión y es la raíz de muchos males en la Iglesia: Debemos humildemente pedir perdón por esto y sobre todo crear las condiciones para que no se repita. (5)”

Sutilezas jesuíticas no demasiado sutiles

No hay premios por adivinar qué miembros de la Iglesia están siendo señalados explícitamente por tener una “visión elitista y exclusivista de la vocación”. Han sido ridiculizados muchas veces por los progresistas, y pueden identificarse inequívocamente como el clero formado tradicionalmente y aquellos que simpatizan con ellos. Aquí, el Papa Francisco los señala para la crítica pública y los denuncia como traficantes de poder, así como como sabelotodos autosuficientes que carecen de cualquier preocupación pastoral por sus rebaños.

Continuará...

C.A. Whittuck,‘Clericalism and Anti-Clericalism’, ed. James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: vol.3, 1928, pp.690-692.
Francis, General Audience of 5 November 2014 § 2.
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 185, a.1.
Francis, General Audience of 5 November 2014 § 3.
Francis, ‘Address to the Synod Fathers at the Opening of Synod 2018 on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment.’

Publicado el 7 de enero de 2023

______________________

Temas de Interés Relacionados

______________________

Obras de Interés Relacionadas

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition

Traditionalist Issues

Dialogue Mass - CX

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

When we compare the traditional view of Minor Orders with the treatment they received at the hands of liturgical reformers in the 20^th century, it becomes evident that the two positions stand in dire contrast to each other. To illustrate this point in greater depth, let us turn again to the exposition of Minor Orders made by Fr. Louis Bacuez who modestly introduced his magnum opus as follows:

Starting the whittling away of respect
for the Minor Orders...

“This little book is a sequel to one we have published on Tonsure. God grant that those who make use of it may conceive a great respect for Minor Orders and prepare for them as they should! The dispositions with which they approach ordination will be the measure of the graces they receive, and on this measure depends, in a great part, the fruit that their ministry will produce. To have a rich harvest the first thing necessary is to sow well: Qui parce seminat parce et metet; et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. (2 Cor. 9:6)” (1)

Little did he realize that when he wrote these words every vestige of respect for the Minor Orders would be whittled away by the concerted efforts of progressivists with a negative and dismissive attitude towards them; and that the Liturgical Movement, which had just begun when he published his book, would be dominated by influential liturgists discussing how to overturn them.

Long before the term “Cancel Culture” was invented, they presented the Minor Orders as a form of class-based oppression perpetrated by a clerical “caste” and as a form of spiritually empty legalism, and they went to great lengths to make them look ridiculous.

Far from showing due respect, this involves quite a considerable degree of contempt, not only for the generations of seminarians who were formed within this tradition, but also for the integrity of the great institution of Minor Orders that had served the Church since Apostolic times. In fact, so great was their animosity towards the Minor Orders that they could hardly wait to strip them of their essential nature as functions of the Hierarchy and turn them into lay ministries.

A tree is known by its fruits

These, then, were the hate-filled dispositions that inspired the progressivist reform, and would determine the graces received and the fruit to be produced by those who exercise the new lay “ministries” as opposed to, and in place of, the traditional Minor Orders.

Fr. Bacuez, who wrote his book in the pontificate of Pius X, could never, of course, have envisaged the demise of the Minor Orders, least of all at the hands of a future Pope. He was concerned lest even the smallest amount of grace be lost in the souls of those preparing for the priesthood:

Blighted fruits from a sick tree

“We shall see, on the Last Day, what injury an ordinand does to himself and what detriment he causes to souls by losing, through his own fault, a part of the graces destined to sanctify his priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father: Modica seminis detractio non est modicum messis detrimentum. (St. Bernard)” (2)

We do not, however, need to wait till the Last Day to see the effects of a reform that deliberately prevents, as by an act of spiritual contraception, the supernatural graces of the Minor Orders from attaining their God-given end: “to sanctify the priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father.” For the evidence is all around us that the tree of this reform produced blighted fruits.

First, we note a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church and a blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity; second, a “contraceptive” sterility resulting in vocations withering on the vine and below replacement level, seminaries and churches closing down, parishes dying, and the decline in the life of the traditional Catholic Faith as seen in every measurable statistic. The conclusion is inescapable: those who planted this tree and those who now participate in the reform are accomplices in a destructive work.

Advantages of the Minor Orders

A substantial part of Fr. Bacuez’ exposition of the Minor Orders is devoted to the inestimable benefits they bring to the Church. These he divided into the following three categories:

The honor of the priesthood;
The dignity of worship;
The perfection of the clergy.

It is immediately apparent that the Minor Orders were oriented towards the liturgy as performed by the priest and his ministers. In other words, they existed for entirely supernatural ends invested in the priesthood.

A significant and entirely appropriate omission was any mention of active involvement of the laity in the liturgy. Fr. Bacuez’ silence on this issue is an eloquent statement of the mind of the Church that the liturgy is the preserve of the clergy.

We will now take each of his points in turn.

1. The honor of the priesthood

“A statue, however perfect, would never be appreciated by most people, unless it were placed on a suitable pedestal. Likewise the pontificate, which is the perfection of the priesthood, would not inspire the faithful with all the esteem it merits, if it had not beneath it, to give it due prominence, these different classes of subordinate ministers, classes inferior one to another, but the least of which is superior to the entire order of laymen.” (3)

Toppling statues has become popular today:
above, Fr. Serra in central Los Angeles, California

It is an example of dramatic irony that Fr. Bacuez unwittingly chose the theme of a statue supported by a pedestal to illustrate his point. He was not to know that statues of historical figures would become a major source of controversy in the culture wars and identity politics of our age.

Nor could he have foreseen that toppling monuments – both metaphorical and concrete – was to become a favorite sport of the 20^th-century liturgical reformers, their aim being to exalt the status of the laity by “active participation” in clerical roles. And never in his wildest imagination would he have suspected that a future Pope would join in the iconoclastic spree to demolish the Minor Orders about which he wrote with evident pride and conviction.

'Don’t put the priest on a pedestal'

However, the revolutionaries considered that esteem for the Hierarchy and recognition of its superiority over the lay members of the Church was too objectionable to be allowed to survive in modern society. The consensus of opinion among them was that clergy and laity were equals because of their shared Baptism, and placing the priest on a pedestal was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the interests of the laity.

“Don’t put the priest on a pedestal” was their battle cry. It is the constant refrain that is still doing the rounds among progressivists who refuse to give due honor to the priesthood and insist on accusing the Church of systemic “clericalism.”

But the fundamental point of the Minor Orders – and the Sub-Diaconate – was precisely to be the pedestal on which the priesthood is supported and raised to a position of honor in the Church. When Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam dismantled the institutional underpinnings of the Hierarchy, the imposing pedestal and columns that were the Minor Orders and Sub-Diaconate were no longer allowed to uphold and elevate the priesthood.

The biblical underpinnings of the Minor Orders

Fr. Bacuez made use of the following passage from the Book of Proverbs:

“Wisdom hath built herself a house; she hath hewn out seven pillars. She hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table.” (9: 1-2)

An ordination to the minor order of exorcist, one of the seven columns

He drew an analogy between “the seven columns of the living temple, which the Incarnate Wisdom has raised up to the Divine Majesty” and all the clerical Orders (four Minor and three Major) that exist for the right worship of God. In this, he was entirely justified. For, in their interpretation of this passage, the Church Fathers concur that it is a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed, as St. Augustine said, by “the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchisedek.” (4)

In the 1972 reform, no less than five (5) of the seven columns were brought crashing down from their niches in the Hierarchy to cries of “institutionalized clericalism,” “delusions of grandeur” and “unconscious bias” against the laity.

To further elucidate the affinity of the Minor Orders to the priesthood, Fr. Bacuez gave a brief overview of the cursus honorum that comprised the Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest before going on to explain their interrelatedness:

“These seven powers successively conferred, beginning with the last, are superimposed one upon the other without ever disappearing or coming in conflict, so that in the priesthood, the highest of them all, they are all found. The priest unites them all in his person, and has to exercise them all his life in the various offices of his ministry.” (6)

After Ministeria quaedam, however, these rights and powers are no longer regarded as the unique, personal possession of the ordained, but have been officially redistributed among the baptized. It was not simply a question of changing the title from Orders to “ministries”: the real locus of the revolution was in taking the privileges of the “ruling classes” (the representatives of Christ the King) and giving them to their subjects (the laity) as of “right.”

The neo-Marxist message was, and still is, that this was an act of “restorative justice” for the laity who had been “historically wronged.” For the liturgical progressivists, 1972 was, apparently, the year of “compensation.”

Continued

Louis Bacuez SS, Minor Orders, St Louis MO: B. Herder, 1912, p. x. “He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.”
Ibid., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermon on the Psalm ‘Qui habitat,’ Sermones de Tempore, In Quadragesima, Preface, § 1: “If, at the time of sowing, a moderate amount of seed has been lost, the harm done to the harvest will not be inconsiderable.”
Ibid., p. 6.
St. Augustine, The City of God, book XVII, chap. 20: "Of David’s Reign and Merit; and of his son Solomon, and of that prophecy relating to Christ, which is found either in those books that are joined to those written by him, or in those that are indubitably his."
These were the four Minor Orders and the Major Order of the Sub-Diaconate.
L. Bacuez, op. cit., p. 5.

Posted December 10, 2021

______________________