Severity Isn't Sanctity

 

One of the most unusual saints of the Church was St. Simeon Stylites the Elder. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 has this to say about him:

 Simeon the Elder, was born about 388 at Sisan, near the northern border of Syria. After beginning life as a shepherd boy, he entered a monastery before the age of sixteen, and from the first gave himself up to the practice of an austerity so extreme and to all appearance so extravagant, that his brethren judged him, perhaps not unwisely, to be unsuited to any form of community life. Being forced to quit them he shut himself up for three years in a hut at Tell-Neschin, where for the first time he passed the whole of Lent without eating or drinking. 

This afterwards became his regular practice, and he combined it with the mortification of standing continually upright so long as his limbs would sustain him. In his later days he was able to stand thus on his column without support for the whole period of the fast. After three years in his hut, Simeon sought a rocky eminence in the desert and compelled himself to remain a prisoner within a narrow space less than twenty yards in diameter. But crowds of pilgrims invaded the desert to seek him out, asking his counsel or his prayers, and leaving him insufficient time for his own devotions. 

This at last determined him to adopt a new way of life. Simeon had a pillar erected with a small platform at the top, and upon this he determined to take up his abode until death released him. At first the pillar was little more than nine feet high, but it was subsequently replaced by others, the last in the series being apparently over fifty feet from the ground.

Many Traditionalists make the mistake of equating severity of mortification with holiness. They believe that more austere your live your life, the more holy you become; this is false. Certain Catholics of certain temperaments may reach sanctity with such mortification, but only very rarely and usually under strict supervision by a spiritual director.   

This idea equating being holy with being strict has another dangerous consequence. Some people of the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd will use this notion to "prove" past popes were "liberal" and introduced practices harmful to the Church. The reason these practices were allegedly "harmful" was because they were not as strict as before.

I came across a blog entitled A Catholic Life, run by a man named Matthew who is a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect and a a Third Order Dominican from Chicago who considers himself "an expert on Catholicism." The post was entitled, How St. Pius X & the 1917 Code of Canon Law Liberalized Fasting, Abstinence, and Holy Days of Obligation. It may be read in full here:

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-st-pius-x-1917-code-of-canon-law.html.

In his conclusion to that post, he writes:

Saints are not perfect. While we can certainly praise many of St. Pius X's actions, it would be imprudent to endorse all of them - and conversely to always dismiss any modern churchmen by the fact that they are not from before Vatican II. Discernment and critical thinking is necessary with anything. As it concerns Holy Days of Obligation, fasting, and abstinence, St. Pius X introduced liberal practices that only accelerated the collapse of Catholic practices. The practices in place under St. Pius X are shadows of former times, and those practices were weakened quickly so that by 1962 they were even weaker! (Emphasis mine). 

That saints are not perfect, I concede. That a true pope can "introduce practices that accelerate the collapse of Catholic practices," I deny.  It would mean that Pope St. Pius X, introduced "liberal" practices that were not truly Catholic. However, this is impossible. 

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258; Emphasis mine).

Therefore, to be infallible in this sense means that the Church cannot give that which is erroneous, evil, or an incentive to impiety. It does not mean that once a certain ceremony or practice has been adopted by the Church it cannot change; rather, the new ceremony or practice will also be infallibly guaranteed to be free from error, evil, and impiety. Logical corollary: If the Pian changes involving Holy Days of Obligation, fasting, and abstinence were approved by a true pope (Pope St. Pius X), then it must be just good, holy, and Catholic as it was prior to those changes. 

The logical corollary to Matthew's position is that, if a true pope can introduce things in the Church that lead to/accelerate the "collapse of Catholic practices," and can still be a true pope (and a saint), the same would hold for Roncalli (John XXIII) through Bergoglio (Francis). 

This post will address the error that "severity = sanctity."

In Defense of Pope St. Pius X

Matthew's post opens thus:

Pope St. Pius X is regarded as a champion by traditionalists for good reasons. There is no doubting his personal sanctity and the motivations that inspired some of his actions (e.g., lowering the age for First Holy Communion and recommending frequent - even daily - reception of our Lord in Holy Communion). His crusade against modernism and his actions for the liberty of the Church and for the spread of Christ's reign are certainly praiseworthy.

But we who have the luxury of seeing how history unfolded can observe how this holy pope's actions in regards to holy days of obligation, fasting, and abstinence sadly led to a collapse of Catholic practice. We would do well to keep the practices before St. Pius X, which had already been eroded by dispensations and changes for several centuries. St. Pius X merely helped accelerate this erosion.

At issue in "accelerating the collapse of Catholic practice" (allegedly going on for centuries under many preceding true popes), is Pope St. Pius X's Supremi disciplinæ in 1911 which reduced the number of Holy Days of Obligation in the Universal Church, and relaxed the laws of abstinence and fasting. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (begun under St. Pius and promulgated when finished under Pope Benedict XV) is also a universal disciplinary law of the Church and protected by the Holy Ghost from giving anything evil or erroneous to the Church. It incorporated changes to those same topics and is also the subject of Matthew's scorn.

Why did Pope St. Pius X make such changes? Were the changes non-Catholic, or a danger to the Faith? There is a book written by theologian Hilling in German that addresses these questions. Published in 1912, it is entitled  The Reforms of Pope Pius X : In the Field of Canon Law Legislation. (I had it translated from German to English). Here's what he wrote regarding these reforms just one year after they were made:

The Church's ordinance of feast days is an important subject of religious duties, which, like annual confession and communion, are included in the catalog of the commandments of the Church. It was therefore to be expected from the outset that the general revision of canon law would also deal with the question of feast days. A well-founded reason to improve the existing ordinance of feast days was given in particular by the fact that (1) the great differences in the ecclesiastical disciplinary regulations in the individual countries were felt to be increasingly burdensome as a result of modern transportation conditions and (2) the industrial and economic situation of the present day, namely the increase in prices for living expenses, made it desirable in many regions to reduce the number of feast days. As a result, the Holy See has repeatedly received requests to reduce the number of official feasts, especially in recent years.

Pope Pius X therefore felt compelled to take account of the needs of the times and the wishes of the bishops in the motu proprio "Supremi disciplinae" of July 2, 1911, and to reduce the number of feast days. Having previously sought the advice of the Congregation of Cardinals for the Codification of Canon Law, he made the following provisions...

The most important provision of the motu proprio "Supremi disciplinae" is undoubtedly the reduction of the ecclesiastical order of feast days to the eight feast days mentioned... In my opinion, it cannot be denied that the selection of the feasts which will henceforth be valid according to universal law has been made with a careful and happy hand. Of the feast days of the Lord, of course, Holy Easter (Sunday), Ascension Day and Pentecost (Sunday) form the iron foundation of the ecclesiastical year, which has probably never been thought to be diminished. In addition, the feasts of the Circumcision and the Transfiguration of the Lord were retained. Presumably, civic reasons were decisive for the preservation of the first and historical reasons for the second. Both motives are important enough to be approved by everyone....

It is probably the fate of all great reform undertakings that they arouse fierce opposition from their enemies, but are sometimes received with some astonishment by their friends and supporters, and sometimes celebrated with exaggerated enthusiasm. This experience was also confirmed anew with the reform laws of Pius X. The battle that has been waged by the faithless sons of the Catholic Church and the outside representatives of unbelief and religious liberalism against the powerful proclamations of the Apostolic See is still raging with all its strength. On the other hand, the antagonisms among Catholics, who, although all on the ground of the papal decrees, have nevertheless criticized some of the practical measures, have fortunately been mitigated. 

In the interest of a happy implementation of the papal reform provisions, it is to be hoped that all fearful and anxious minds will regard the new regulations of our Holy Father with love and benevolence. (pgs. 196-198; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Hilling outlines all the changes decreed by Pope St. Pius. He includes the following principles to fully understand the import of papal decrees:

Bishop Adolf Bertram of Hildesheim recommended the following rules of conduct to his diocese, which also apply to other dioceses, and deserve to be heeded. "When new noise arises about papal decrees, keep the following rules in future. First: above all, we must have the sure, correct text in faithful translation. Secondly, we must know what prompted the Holy Father to issue new decrees, and what the purpose of his decree is when interpreted intelligently. Thirdly, wait and see what practical application your bishops give to the decrees. - Act according to these sound principles. Refuse to believe all inflammatory attacks. Confront them with the awareness of your Christian dignity...Above all this, keep your confident trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose assistance is promised to the pastoral office of our Church for all times!"(Ibid; Emphasis mine).

We see that the pope, after careful deliberation and consultation with cardinals/theologians, amended the Holy Days and fasting/abstinence rules to comport with the spiritual and civil needs of Catholics. Needing to work more due to secularization, and needing strength to work, His Holiness did what was needed under the protection of the Holy Ghost. Remember too, that the pope was not forbidding anyone from attending Mass on any given day, nor was he prohibiting anyone from voluntarily fasting and abstaining from meat.  If I were able to go to Mass daily, I would do so out of love of my Lord Jesus Christ and to receive Him in Holy Communion, not because it is a sin. Imagine the problems and burdening of consciences if the Church had required daily Mass attendance under pain of mortal sin. 

The wisdom of Bishop Bertram can likewise be seen in applying those wise principles to a true pope (exonerating any charges of error or evil) and a false pope like Bergoglio, which serves to prove his non-papacy. 

Pope Pius XII on Fasting

Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) bore the brunt of  unjust criticism of his reforms in the 1950s. While this was the first time I saw Pope St. Pius X excoriated, Pope Pius XII is routinely on the receiving end of harsh criticism for his Holy Week changes and shortening of the Eucharistic fast from midnight before Communion, to three hours. Hopefully, everyone can now see how unfounded those charges are, and how absurd is the allegation that the reforms of Pope St. Pius X "led to" the changes that became Vatican II. 

Pope Pius XII allowed for evening Mass to accommodate those needing to work in an ever more secularized world. To keep the Eucharistic Fast from midnight until Mass at 8pm, would require someone to go without food for approximately 21 hours. Most people could not sustain such a fast without serious hardship on their daily work and causing physical health issues. That wise mitigated fast is there to be used, but if someone wants to fast from midnight (and can physically do so) they certainly can. To suggest this "led to" Montini's one hour "fast" where you can walk up to the Vatican II sect "Eucharistic minister" on a Saturday evening (while belching up your dinner) to get a cracker placed in your hand and chew it like cud is absurd. 

The correct view on fasting was given by Pope Pius XII on Nov. 2, 1950, in an address to the Cardinals and Bishops present in Rome for the solemn proclamation of the Assumption.

In order to react against this lack of restraint [lack of the spirit of sacrifice and mortification], We exhort and urge all and every one to freely take up the spiritual warfare under the banner of Christian mortification and of the generous desire to go beyond what is strictly prescribed by the moral law—each one according to his strength, according to the invitations of God’s grace, according to what his work allows him to do. (Emphasis mine). 

Fasting is only a means of sanctification when united to the spirit of charity. If you're only fasting because it is a sin not to do so, you are lukewarm in the practice of the Faith. What did Jesus Christ say about being lukewarm? So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of my mouth. (Apocalypse 3:16). 

Here's what the Church Fathers said about fasting:

St. Cesariaus of Arles wrote:

Fasting is good, almsgiving is better… If one cannot fast, almsgiving is sufficient… But fasting without almsgiving is no good, unless one be too poor to give; in which case the good will suffices

Pope St. Gregory the Great writes in his Regula pastoralis:

Fasting is recommended only because of the other virtues which accompany it; hence Joel says: "sanctify your fast"… Those who fast, therefore, should be warned that their abstinence will be pleasing to God, only if they give to the poor the food of which they deprive themselves.

Conclusion

It is against both Catholic teaching (and common sense) to attack the reforms of a true pope. When fasting and abstaining, always do it with charity. Severity is not sanctity. As a matter of fact, Pope St. Pius X recommended to us the easiest way to get to Heaven:

Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven. There are others: innocence, but that is for little children; penance, but we are afraid of it; generous endurance of trials of life, but when they come we weep and ask to be delivered. The surest, easiest, shortest way is the Eucharist. (Emphasis mine).