The brewing liturgical wars seem to raise a lot of questions over authority versus power in the Church. This is a direct result of the Modernist heresy.
One of the aspects of Modernism that tends to be overlooked these days is its tendency to view all aspects of political and legal interaction through the Americanist lens. Of course, Dignitatis Humanae at the Second Vatican Council basically canonized post-Enlightenment, freemasonic notions of American constitutional jurisprudence, but that’s not exactly what I am talking about here.
What I am talking about is how Modernist legalists tend to understand the role of sovereign authority. Real quick civics lesson here. If a law-making body, such as Congress, passes a law (an Act) and is signed by the President, it takes effect and is recorded in a code of statutes and may supersede or replace older laws in conflict. Many times, such acts will clearly amend or repeal a prior law. When that happens, the current version of the law applies, and whatever existed in the past is no longer considered good law and must be ignored.
This is true for court decisions as well. In 1923, “separate but equal” segregated classrooms based on race were permitted constitutionally, but if a public school tried that now, it would suffer grave consequences because the Supreme Court has since changed its mind (see Brown v. Board of Education). The Court now declares “separate but equal” unconstitutional, when a century ago it was constitutional—at least according to the Court’s opinion at the time.
The law works this way today because of our modern understanding of legal jurisprudence that recognizes absolute sovereign power to legislate and enforce the law. This notion is a post-enlightenment liberal understanding of how the law is supposed to work—in every society exists an all-powerful sovereign entity whose will must be obeyed and is exercised through sheer raw power.
Unfortunately, this is the lens through which most Americans, including Catholic Americans, and Church authorities, view the Church’s magisterial teaching authority after the Second Vatican Council.
The Difference Between Authority and Power
The source of the problem is confusion over the difference between authority and power. Power is simply the ABILITY to do or perform something without regard to rights or duties. Whereas authority is the RIGHT to expect compliance with achieving a shared goal or purpose.
We learn from Holy Scripture that all authority ultimately comes from God, but others may properly exercise authority if properly in possession of such faculties. (Romans 13:1). Power, on the other hand, can derive from any source. Examples of power sources include a loaded gun pointed at your head, threatening to terminate someone’s job, or just simple emotional manipulation. Power can come from any means and is used by one person to coerce another into compliance.
Modernists, natural right (classical) liberals and progressive liberals, tend to reject this notion that authority comes from God. They will claim that all authority comes not from God but from the collective consciousness or “the People.” In which case, when they talk about a government official commanding others to do or believe something, they are talking about the exercise of power not authority.
While you may be coerced into complying with the will of a government official acting on behalf of the sovereign because of the power that official has to force his will upon you, if you are subject to proper authority, you have a duty to comply—not just because the one giving the command has power but because that person has proper authority and the command falls within that scope of authority.
The difference between power and authority is key if you want to understand what your obligations with respect to the object of those commands involve. One has a duty to comply with commands given by those who hold proper authority and the command falls within the scope of that authority, while you have no duty to comply with the commands of others just because they hold power over you. (See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 104, Art. 5.)
Christians in centuries past used to have a good, healthy understanding of this difference between authority and power. In our post-enlightenment world, however, where God has been removed from the culture and His authority openly rejected, the notion of authority has been lost to the idea of power. In other words, our political debates and disputes we see in our world today are over who controls the levers of power, not over who rightfully exercises proper authority consistent with their mandate ultimately given by God.
The confusion over authority versus power is just another example of the poisonous Modernist heresy injected into the Church and society—and as almost is always the case—results from placing the rights of man over the rights of God.
Power as Pure Legislation
In the post-enlightenment, American style of jurisprudence, “law” as we typically understand it binds us through the enactment of legislation, which takes the form of statutes or administrative regulations. Legislative “acts” or “statutes” (passed through the legislative process) or rules (by an administrative bureaucracy) take the form of written texts binding those subjected to the control of that particular government.
As discussed above, the key feature of this type of law-making is that any act or administrative rule can repeal, or override enactments previously passed. This type of lawmaking is the mechanism by which the sovereign authority expresses its will and does so through an exercise of POWER, which is completely divorced from whatever the will of the sovereign may have been in the past.
Let’s look at a quick example, that is also relevant to current affairs in the Church. If the State of California passed a statute of limitations in 1950 requiring victims of abuse to file a lawsuit within 5 years of the crime, but then changed the statute of limitations to 30 years in 2020, which law would apply today? The answer is easy, the 30 year limitation period would apply today and any victims who were abused anytime in the last 30 years could file a lawsuit (even if they could not have done so before the 2020 change) because the current government repealed and replaced a prior act of the government.
The point is that our modern world view of how power is exercised is based on sheer will and compliance with the will of that sovereign, and at any time, the sovereign could change its will, and force compliance with that changed will through an exercise of power.
Authority Versus Power in the Church
Modernist Catholics, and those influenced by Modernism without knowing it, typically understand Church Tradition the same way they understand secular sovereign power as described above. While they may use the phrase “magisterial authority” or dress it up as “revealed by the Holy Spirit” to justify Modernist teachings, what they really mean in “magisterial power.”
They will tell you that a current pontiff, general ecumenical council, and/or synod (eye roll) can “change” or “modernize” Church teachings as an exercise of the present magisterial authority, which necessarily binds all Catholics to follow. For the Modernist, an ecumenical council might as well be Congress, and the Pope is the President that issues executive orders whenever he sees fit. The new declaration then effectively (or formally in some cases) amends the Catechism or “official” Church teachings.
A good example is Francis Bergoglio’s purported attempt to modify the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. The Church has always taught that the death penalty, as a matter of justice, could be utilized by proper government authorities when the situation warranted. John Paul II began to chip away at this concept, and now Francis Bergoglio tells us the death penalty is “inadmissible” as a matter of faith and morals!
Putting aside the issue of whether Francis really is the Pope, let’s assume he is, as a matter of faith and morals, how could the Church teach 500 years ago that the death penalty is admissible and now teach it is not admissible, in principle? Morality does not work that way. Sure, the applicability of the principle depending on the circumstances may change, but the moral principle itself cannot. Yet, that’s what Francis is trying to tell us and bind Catholics in conscience to accept this new teaching.
After this new declaration is made, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, originally created in 1992, is amended to reflect the new teaching. This is why we are stuck with the Modernist version of a catechism where the faithful are forced to pay attention to what year or version you are looking at because you never know which one currently “applies.”
My friends, this is NOT how Catholicism works. This is how modern post-enlightenment; freemasonic, American legal jurisprudence works. The Modernist treats declarations of the will of the sovereign (Francis, Councils and/or synods) as subject to change, amendment and manipulation at any moment, and then will hold you liable as “schismatic” or “disobedient” should you dare question the will of the sovereign issuing diktats without any support in Tradition.
Contrast this with real Catholicism, not the Modernist heretical perversion, where Tradition consists of what has been handed down, often over many centuries. Once it has been handed down, it has been—HANDED DOWN and cannot be simply changed, or euphemistically, “developed” into the total opposite of what was handed down. By definition, that’s not Tradition because you would be handing on something different than what you received.
In sum, and perhaps to put it another way, Holy Tradition is an organic process guided by the Holy Ghost for preserving the deposit of faith but does not change the deposit of faith itself. Modernist legal theories of power maintain no such notion and allows the current sovereign, the one alive and breathing, to confirm, amend, or destroy according to his unlimited will.
Authority Versus Power in Liturgical Wars
It is with regard to the liturgical wars currently being waged in the Church where this difference between authority and power is going to become very important.
There are many professional Catholics right now preaching on their YouTube channels as well as priests from the pulpit claiming that Catholics must faithfully obey whatever the Vatican commands concerning matters of liturgy, even if it results in the destruction of the Traditional Latin Mass. Failure to do so, they claim, means you are schismatic and reject Church magisterial authority.
For them, the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is just another piece of legislation that is subject to the whims of whoever may hold the power to change it at any time. When you view the exercise of power the same way as the modern world does, then this makes perfect sense.
However, if those who hold the reigns of power, let’s just say it is Francis Bergoglio, is not acting within the proper scope of his proper authority, but rather issuing diktats as an exercise of arbitrary power, then disobedience is not just warranted, but may be morally required. The question is not whether Francis Bergoglio or others in the Vatican CAN shut down the Traditional Latin Mass, the question is whether they have authority to do so. Will refusal to comply be required to save the Traditional Latin Mass?
The Modernist may then argue that replacing the entire rite of the Ancient Roman Mass with one objectively inferior (i.e. the New Mass of Pope Paul VI) does fall within the Supreme Pontiff’s rightful authority as declared by the First Vatican Council to govern the Church. To hold this position, they must reduce the Mass itself to a simple matter of Church discipline or governance, since this authority of which they speak does not apply to arbitrarily changing the deposit of faith. This will be difficult for them to prove.
Regardless, this is the battlefield being prepared. We must be vigilant and prepare to wage this war for God, His Church and the salvation of souls—because that is what is at stake.