Source: Lew Rockwell | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
Lower the Vexilla Regis. Raise the white of flag of surrender. The Synodal Church has arrived.
Where Christ once declared victory in the red blood of His Cross, the Synodalists bleat in the pastels of accommodation. Their white flag was a shameless admission that the Church of 2024 no longer has anything to say. Of course, much was said. And said. And said again. But it was “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 17).
Sad that the whole world should witness the once mighty Roman Church reduce itself to such self-parody. Rather like a grown man reverting back to thumb-sucking. The Synodalists were engaged in the serious business of reducing the Church to irrelevance. Inured by decades of such failed rapprochement with the pieties of the age, most Catholics stopped listening decades ago.
Proof abounds. Diocese after diocese is announcing the closure and mergers of more churches. They correctly announce that Catholics are no longer coming. One wonders if for one fleeting moment they might consider that vapid religious education and impotent liturgies for sixty years might have something to do with it. Apparently not. So, the dance with irrelevance continues.
Still, enough Catholics are content to applaud this waltz with insignificance. It is, after all, a no-fault Catholicism where one can have one’s cake and eat it too. Enough high-ranking prelates protect it as though it were the sancta sanctorum, happy to deepen the paralysis of an already paralyzed church. These are men who prize process over certitude, the bien pensant over truth, diversity over excellence, and the zeitgeist over tradition.
The roots of this paralysis run deep, stretching back to the early twentieth century. Then, a wildly popular Sorbonne professor named Henri Bergson thought he was toppling the idols of a sterile scientism with his free spirited “intuition.” So alluring was this untethered “intuition” that it even captured the intellectually-starved Raissa and Jacques Maritain, until they discovered the richly oxygenated air of St. Thomas Aquinas. Other Catholics were not so fortunate.
Blondel’s L’Action and Pierre Rousselot’s L’intellectualisme de Saint Thomas pushed more strenuously the assault on truth, seeing it as insulting, with its strutting as something quite definite and propositional. In Blondel’s world, truth was a straitjacket to the élan vital of “action.” Rousselot proposed that the Church’s doctrinal expression of sacred revelation was stifling and should yield to the fresh formulations of each age. These are not to be cast aside as figures of an inconsequential academic debate. They are the tendons upon which was fashioned the leviathan being experienced today.
For the Synodalist, the call to sanctity is displaced by the call to action. (Historical footnote: this was the name of a de rigueur experiment of the late 1970s, eventually cast into the landfill of failed experiments.) The Church’s traditional firmament of piety and devotion is replaced by political fervor, and humble submission to the will of God collapses before a careful attention to the Self.
Relativism reigns supreme. The Synodalist’s functioning rubric casts the whole of the Church’s doctrinal and spiritual tradition aside as outdated and harmful. The recent purges of the Traditional Mass are proof of their zealotry. Its increasing ferocity only proves how much of a mortal danger it is to their project. Just as the Jacobins erased history with the adoption of a new calendar, so the Synodalist’s earnest desire to have the Church’s beginning be 1965. The problem with relativism is that in due course today’s relativism falls victim to relativism. When truth disappears, so does the steadiness of any position. Even false ones. All are eventually cast into the devouring fires of the Relativist Moloch.
In the Synodalist world, justice must bow to an all-devouring authoritarianism. It is always amusing to watch men who detest authority wield it so lustily. With the abandonment of truth, its gentle sway is no longer an incentive—only the sheer exercise of power. Nietzsche recognized this with unflinching candor. So did Machiavelli. In both instances, men must be compelled to conform, whether by the lash of The Prince or of the Übermensch. Rousseau put it succinctly in The Social Contract: “Sometimes men must be forced to be free.”
Contrast this with the elegant formulation of the great Dominican Thomist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange:
The Church is intolerant in principle, because she believes; but is tolerant in practice, because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle, because they do not believe; but are intolerant in practice because they do not love.
