Just in time for your Annunciation Observed meditation, His Holiness and His Eminence have released a new document, “Dignitas Infinita.” In its press release, Tucho “Heal me with your Mouth” Fernández is already taking shots at the laity from his castle atop the clericalist iconoclast regime of Francis. Before we even begin to digest and analyse the document, it is absolutely vital that we take a step back and realise what’s happening, making important concessions of nuance and understanding the dangers, in order to exercise the virtue of caution.
What is the Clericalist Iconoclast Regime?
Clericalism may be defined as the thinking of “the Church” as only the clergy. Or, in hyperüberultramontanism (which is merely a species of clericalism) only the Pope. No, the Church is not the Pope and the Pope is not the Church. A fortiori, the Church is not the clergy and the clergy are not the Church.
Believing Is Seeing: A...
Best Price: $3.96
Buy New $12.39
(as of 01:21 UTC - Details)
Rather, we can say emphatically (and quote Vatican II, by the way, to prove this), that the Church is the community of all the baptised. Period.
One of the most important areas where clericalism wreaks havoc is in the de facto suppression of the dogma non definitum known as the Two Swords doctrine. This dogma is summed up well by Canonist Stephen of Tournai (1128-1203) who echoes centuries of this traditional dogma this way:
In the same city, and under the same King, there are two people and two authorities. The city is the Church, the King is Christ, the two peoples are the clergy and the laity… and the two authorities are the priesthood and the monarchy.[1]
This is why we should abandon the phrase “Church and State.”
The State is merely the lay rulers of the Church who govern the temporal order according to the temporal sword (Rom. xiii). These are the fathers (and sometimes mothers acting as noblewomen and queens) who are defending their children against the enemies of Christ. Nobility was born when men of God unsheathed their swords against the pagan, Viking, Muhammadan, et al. invasions. Then families realised they could rally around these men of God for protection, and that’s how feudalism began. But this anthropological process is how it is set up in every culture (at least according to the natural law process, to say nothing of other reasons men seize power for other ends).
Clericalist Iconoclasm Began before Vatican II
As we have attempted to show elsewhere, this clericalist iconoclasm predates Vatican II. The problems with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are merely a symptom of issues which were already latent at that time. This regime was created when Bl. Pius IX broke with centuries of traditional lay nobility at Vatican I. It was strengthened when St. Pius X broke centuries of tradition by removing the veto power of the Holy Roman Emperor. It reached a zenith when the Vatican of St. Paul VI broke with centuries of tradition in attempting to impose American-style religious liberty on Catholic nations following Vatican II while attempting to suppress the ancient Roman Rite.
This clericalist iconoclast regime was weakened insofar as the work of Joseph Ratzinger helped restore the Roman Rite to its rightful place as the primary cultus of western civilisation. But even he seemed to waver in the face of the Liberalism that was unleashed after the Council. Nevertheless he correctly defended the dogma of the Two Swords when he said that Catholic politicians could disagree with St. John Paul II regarding the death penalty.[2]
Pope Francis’s New Clericalist Iconoclasm
Under this pontificate, the dogma of the Two Swords has suffered greater defeats and the clericalist iconoclast regime has been strengthened more than ever. This came first especially with the de facto imposition of the heresy regarding the death penalty. The death penalty is the most conspicuous domain of the laity, since it is literally the temporal sword. Kwasniewski noted the ramifications rightly in a crucial essay:
Either (A) Pope Francis is attempting to change the constant teaching of the Church—or, more precisely, of Scripture and Tradition—that the death penalty is not intrinsically immoral, and indeed is justifiable and justified under certain circumstances; or (B) He is “merely” stating that there is no longer any possible prudential situation in the entire world in which the death penalty may be justified in order to defend the common good of society from malefactors.
Old School Grit: Times...
Best Price: $1.98
Buy New $13.94
(as of 09:26 UTC - Details)
If we prescind from (A), Kwasniewski draws the other conclusion:
However, if (B) is the correct interpretation, he is equally in error, because not even the most extreme ultramontanist imaginable ever maintained that the papacy is endowed with a political prudence superior to and inclusive of the political prudence of all princes, presidents, prime ministers, parliaments, legislatures, and courts of the entire world, such that he is capable of knowing, in detail, what is right and just in every possible social circumstance.
In other words, with hyperüberultramontanism, the Popes (beginning in the 19th century), attempted to be the bishop of every diocese. But with Pope Francis, he has now attempted with the death penalty heresy to be the king of every country too.
This situation obviously got immeasurably worse when Pope Francis attempted to suppress the ancient Roman Rite. But with Fiducia Supplicans, the cards are laid on the table in a much more strident way, where Francis is not only the king of every country, but also the Social Justice Warrior of every legislature. Libera nos, Domine!
