Mark 3:29 Vs Uncompromising Catholics: Another Modernist Inverted Accusation

Those guilty of the charge are those who, having known the traditional doctrine of the Church, now claim that truth evolves, that error can have rights, and that all religions lead to God — doctrines anathematized by past Councils and Popes: the very accusers! 

Prologue:

It is not a new phenomenon for heretics to quote scripture against Catholics, accusing them of one crime or another. How frequently they twist or misapply the Sacred Scriptures to support their errors while accusing the true Church of being intolerant, harsh, or uncharitable! 

They certainly have been taught by their father who quoted scripture to bolster his temptations for Our Blessed Lord. 

In a reply to a post I shared on "X" a notorious modernist enthusiast quoted a passage from the Gospel insinuating that uncompromising Catholics to-day, myself included, are guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?! For what reason? And how justified is the accusation? That is the point of this entry. 

The accuser of Uncompromising Catholics at work... 

The Chapter And Verse 

The quoted text is as follows:

 "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin." (Mark 3:29)

The words of Our Lord here are among the most severe warnings in all of Sacred Scripture. 

Like many others, this verse has often been misunderstood or misapplied. A classic example is the case of this Modernist enthusiast and defender of Vatican II's aggiornamento invoking it against uncompromising Catholic clergymen.

Why do they find in this verse a formidable arsenal?  The charge is that sedevacantist priests reject the legitimate authority of the post-conciliar Church and therefore resist the Holy Ghost Himself. Are Sedevacantists, clergy and lay, guilty as charged? Let us explore the charge, scratching beyond the surface. Appearance can be grossly deceptive for sure!

The Biblical Context of Mark 3:29

The accusation of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost arises in the context of Our Lord casting out devils. The scribes from Jerusalem claimed that Christ cast out devils by the prince of devils (Beelzebub), and not by divine power. 

In response, Christ shows the absurdity of such a claim and warns them that their sin is not merely mistaken but malicious:

 "Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30).

Thus, the sin in question is the willful attribution of divine works to Satan, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary. It is a sin of obstinate malice.

The Nature of the Sin Against the Holy Ghost

According to the Church’s theological tradition, especially St. Thomas Aquinas (STh II-II, q. 14), the sin against the Holy Ghost is not a particular act but a category of sins characterized by resistance to divine truth.

 St. Thomas identifies six sins traditionally associated with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost:

1. Despair

2. Presumption

3. Impenitence

4. Obstinacy

5. Resisting known truth

6. Envy of spiritual good

What category is relevant to our discussion here? 

• Perhaps,  a species of "obstinacy"?  This would cover: refusal to accept liturgical changes, rejection of doctrinal aggiornamento; adherence to pre-Vatican II traditions; rejection of modern theological interpretations; insistence on traditional Catholic teachings. The crime would consist in failing to adapt to the guidance of the  "Spirit of the council".

• Or “resisting known truth"? This involves a conscious, malicious rejection of divine truth when it has become sufficiently evident.

Misuse of the Passage by Modernists and their Enthusiasts

Now, when Modernists or Novus Ordo apologists invoke this verse against sedevacantists, their typical argument is that  that rejecting the post-conciliar hierarchy or papacy is equivalent to rejecting the Holy Ghost’s guidance of the Church. It is their conviction that such resistance constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and therefore places traditionalist clergy in a state of spiritual peril.

It is easy to see that this interpretation is flawed on multiple grounds:

• It presumes that the post-Vatican II claimants to ecclesiastical office are certainly legitimate and guided by the Holy Ghost.
• It ignores the doctrinal and liturgical novelties that contradict the perennial Magisterium.
• It confuses theological disagreement or prudential conclusions with malice against divine truth.

These three points must be seen in the light of the theological foundation for the Sedevacantist position.

The Theological Foundation of the Sedevacantism In Brief.

Any intellectually honest student of contemporary Church history knows that Sedevacantist clergy and faith do not deny the visibility or indefectibility of the Church. On the contrary, their position is based on protecting these very attributes. The argument can be reduced to these points:

• The Catholic Church cannot promulgate error or heresy through her universal ordinary Magisterium.
• Manifest heretics cannot hold office in the Church, particularly the papacy (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II.30).
• Post-conciliar reforms (e.g., the New Mass, religious liberty, ecumenism) contradict prior infallible teachings.

It is difficult to see how anyone can debate this theological judgement successfully without suffering the shipwreck concerning the Faith. Be that as it may, this theological judgement cannot in any way be made equivalent to obstinate resistance to known divine truth. Rather, it is an attempt to remain faithful to what the Church has always taught and practiced. No doctoral degree is required to discern this, is it?

The Danger of Modernist Projection

Ironically, the more fitting application of Mark 3:29 could be turned toward the Modernists themselves. Or could it not?

Pope St. Pius X, in his landmark encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), described Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies" and denounced the Modernist tendency to reinterpret dogma, deny objective truth, and exalt subjective religious experience. These characteristics include:

• Denial of the fixity and immutability of dogma

• Rejection of traditional theology and metaphysics
• Promotion of religious indifferentism and syncretism

Now, by knowingly undermining the Deposit of Faith and substituting it with human novelty, Modernists risk committing the very sin they accuse others of: resisting the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17), or do they not? 

Summing Up: 

To accuse Sedevacantists, clergy and lay, of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because they resist Modernist claimants to authority is to commit a grave injustice. 

One may disagree with the sedevacantist conclusion, - though it is difficult to see how such disagreement could be consistently sustained without suffering the shipwreck concerning the Faith; but it must be understood as a position born of fidelity to the Faith and love for the unchanging truth revealed by God. It is not born of malice, nor of rejection of truth known as such.

On the contrary, the grave sin warned of by Our Lord is more accurately found in those who, having known the traditional doctrine of the Church, now claim that truth evolves, that error can have rights, and that all religions lead to God — doctrines anathematized by past Councils and Popes.

In the final analysis, fidelity to the Holy Ghost is found in fidelity to the truths He has revealed through the Church of all ages, not in submission to Modernist novelties that contradict them. 

As for the Modernists and their Enthusiasts, oh that they may not continue resisting the Holy Ghost, being "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart" (Acts 7:51)