The True Colors of Schism in Self-Styled “Traditionalism”

The self-proclaimed “traditionalist” movement is showing its true colors more and more. I think they have probably always had schismatic tendencies, but in the past they seem to have been more subtle in their argumentation.

This could very well be why the Holy Spirit chose Pope Francis for this era. Francis is forcing them to be more explicit, and the more explicit they become the more they expose their error-ridden theology.

This recent article at Crisis Magazine is a good example of how poisonous the self-proclaimed “traditional” movement is (and how far Crisis Magazine has fallen from whatever repute it may have had in the past). Pretty much everything said in this article is non-Catholicism presenting itself as Catholicism, which is what all heresies do.

The author (someone named Aaron Seng) began with two questions:

“(a) Does the Roman Pontiff have authority to prohibit the offering or attendance of the traditional Roman Rite? (b) If the pope were to declare such a prohibition (validly or not), would the faithful be obliged in conscience to comply, per the virtue of holy obedience?”

The answers to both these questions are easy: Yes! The pope has the authority and we must obey.

Seng thinks “No” for both.

Question A: Does the Pope and Magisterium have the authority to change the liturgy?

Yes.

The Council of Trent says,

“It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.” (21st session)

In Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine Mass in 1570, Pope Pius V said,

“We order them [priests, bishops, cardinals] in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.”

(Apparently “ancient” or “traditional” practice is not a criteria in and of itself. Obedience to the pope and Magisterium certainly is a criteria.)

Pius XII in Mediator Dei 58 said, 

“It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

There is an endnote referencing the 1917 Code of Canon Law 1257, which says

“It belongs only to the Apostolic See to order sacred liturgy and to approve liturgical books.”

Current 1983 Code of Canon Law 838 says the same thing:

“The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.”

Mediator Dei continues with an interesting comment:

“Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God.”

(The Church balks at the temptation toward private interpretation.)

Question B: Must we the faithful comply?

Yes.

Refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff is the very definition of schism (Canon Law 751). Schism incurs automatic excommunication (Canon Law 1364). That’s the same penalty as abortion, by the way (Canon Law 1397).

This shows just how important this issue is. Schism is a very big deal. To dabble in dissent is like smoking a cigarette while playing with fireworks in a house with a gas leak. The odds of things turning out well are pretty much non-existent. It is quite impossible if one follows the reasonings of men like Aaron Seng.

The dogma of the First Vatican Council states,

“Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”

Liturgy involves all of those things: faith, morals, and disciplines. Liturgy has the whole shebang! We are most definitely bound to comply in obedience.

The Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium 25 says,

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

Notice how the language actually strengthens the papal magisterium. We must submit in mind and will. This is more than simple outward compliance. There is also a submission of mind, of intellect.

If the pope “bans” the 1962 Missal, we the faithful must submit. Refusal to submit and comply is the very definition of schism which would render us unworthy to receive the Eucharist.

Personally, I’ll take Jesus any day over any of my liturgical preferences.

Note on Sources

Notice something about all the sources I used above. They are Magisterial. They are authoritative. They are the law and belief of the Church. The answers to both of Seng’s questions are clearly “Yes!”

In order to skirt the clear magisterial teaching, Seng must avoid referencing Magisterial sources, and must also use falsehoods as evidence to promote his other falsehoods.

Falsehoods to Promote Falsehoods

Seng treats Magisterial Authority as if it were just like any other authority. He says, “…we must respectfully comply with the commands of all legitimate superiors in the family, state, and Church unless they are inducements to sin.”

That’s correct on the a certain level. An authority (like a priest or policeman) cannot order us to give sexual favors, or something like that.

But obedience to Magisterial Authority is completely different from obedience to other authorities in our lives. I’ve not found even one Magisterial statement that suggests we’re free to disobey the Magisterium, and especially the pope, even when the issue is non-dogmatic or non-definitive. Whatever is Magisterially authoritative we must obey.

It would be like dissenting against the authority of Jesus’ commands with the excuse that the Roman Emperor abused his authority. This argument is quite stupid. It’s also extremely poisonous for a Catholic.

Seng must think that the Magisterium changing the liturgy can be an inducement to sin. The Council of Trent speaks directly against this too.

“If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.” (Session 22, canon vii)

Note the lack of disclaimer: nothing about how it might happen in the future, or how it was a possibility in the past but just didn’t happen to occur. Rather, it boldly states that whatever the Church uses for its Mass is not an inducement to sin.

There is even an anathema attached to the (seeming) belief of Aaron Seng.

To see Seng’s error of equating the Magisterium with all other authorities that may be in our lives, consider how he uses his sources.

He cites a catechism by St Peter Canisius, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St Thomas Aquinas, a catechism by Fr. Joseph Deharbe, and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Literally none of these quotes are talking about disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church and Her authoritative promulgations. Three of these sources aren’t even authoritative for a Catholic. (Aquinas is a big deal, but he is not magisterial.)

Of the two magisterial sources, Seng can’t even cite these correctly.

Seng quotes the Catechism of the Council of Trent falsely. He applies his quote to “wicked pastors”. But the section he cited has to do with obedience to civil rulers. In this page, look under the heading “The Honour Due to Civil Rulers” for the quote cited by Seng. This section has nothing to do with the Magisterium and our obedience to its promulgations.

Seng makes the same error quoting the current CCC. The parts he quotes (1902 & 1903) are within the section of living within civil society. This section has nothing to do with the Magisterium and our obedience to its promulgations.

Seng then has to double-down on his falsehoods in order to make his own false case. He does this by citing Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book Credo and calling it a “canonically-approved catechism”.

Now, I don’t know what Seng means by “canonically-approved” and he doesn’t explain: a big red flag that he’s stacking the deck to make Credo sound super-authoritative. The closest Seng gets is to mention the Imprimatur of the book. (I wonder if Seng would be as equally impressed with an Imprimatur from Cardinal Cupich or Cardinal McElroy.)

The fact is that Bishop Schneider’s “catechism” is completely non-authoritative. Catholics are bound to the Magisterium of the Church, not Schneider’s personally written “catechism” which is full of statements contradictory to the Magisterium.

Others have already done a lot of work pointing out the errors in Credo. See some examples here and here. Even Larry Chapp*, who would normally tend toward the “side” of guys like Seng and Schneider, wrote about the errors here.

Conclusion

Nothing of Seng’s argument is orthodox or even factual. He misuses sources, promotes non-authorities as authoritative, and promotes heresy and schism against the pope and Magisterium of the Church.

Catholics who wish to remain in good standing with Christ and His Church should stop taking seriously men like Seng, Bishop Schneider, and the publishers of their material.

If you’re curious, I’ve begun collecting Magisterial teachings about the Magisterium here.

For non-magisterial teachings about the Magisterium, see here.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?id=100064653701254&story_fbid=3103169649727000

---

* Update July 26, 2024: I should clarify that by my ambiguously worded description that Chapp would ‘tend toward the “side” of guys like Seng and Schneider’, I mean that Chapp is very much not a fan of Pope Francis. Otherwise, from what little I’ve read from Chapp I don’t get the impression that he attends the TLM or is a particular fan of Schneider or Crisis Magazine either. Perhaps I should have merely said “Even Larry Chapp, who is also not a fan of Pope Francis….” or something like that. The capital point is that Chapp cannot be accused of being a “liberal”, “progressive”, “Church of Nice” type of Catholic.