from the article:
But, with dreary predictability, that neo-Catholic schoolmarm of post-conciliar correctness, Jeff Mirus, has called upon Father Pavone to “obey” by submitting quietly to the destruction of his apostolate and the ruin of his reputation with public innuendos of financial impropriety and accusations of egomania and disobedience. “When any of us insists on our own apostolic work against the judgment of the Church,” Mirus pontificates, “we squeeze the fire hose of Divine grace down to a few ineffectual drips. The key is to do God’s will, not our own. It is a great gift to have God’s will made clear to us by authority, a gift that Catholics should be the first to recognize and treasure.” Whatever a bishop commands is ipso facto God’s will, and we must blindly obey. This is the classic neo-Catholic nominalism that has in large measure contributed to the worst crisis in Church history. Obedience for its own sake is made into the very channel of God’s grace; it becomes a theological virtue. Mirus is brimming with inept amateur theology of this sort.
As Mirus would have it, Father Pavone must offer no resistance even if Zurek’s actions are unjust: “Now it may be that Fr. Pavone will suffer unjustly for taking this course. As I said, I do not know who is right in the questions that have been raised. But at least such a response will release a roaring cataract of grace into the Church.” A roaring cataract, eh? You mean like the roaring cataract of grace that followed “obedience” to the unjust suppression of the traditional Mass and the destruction of the Roman Rite after Vatican II? I would like to take a reading of Mirus’s grace-o-meter over the past forty years to see how many graces the Church received from the passive acceptance of its auto-demolition. And what about the scores of innocent people engaged in the work of Priests for Life? What about the babies that apostolate saves from abortion? According to Mirus, Father Pavone must have no concern for any of these people; his one and only duty is blind obedience to the irate Bishop of Amarillo.
Of course, if Saint Athanasius had followed Mirus’s “spiritual advice,” he would have ceased resisting the spread of the Arian heresy and tamely submitted to his fraudulent excommunication. Likewise, the entire traditionalist movement, beginning with Archbishop Lefebvre, would have “obeyed” the non-existent “command” to abandon the Church’s own liturgical patrimony, precisely as Mirus and his fellow schoolmarms did before Pope Benedict admitted that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated and was always permitted. Oops.
I also know of no command to abandon the Church's liturgical patrimony.
Bump & ping
And are you promoting the view that Bishop Zurek’s limitation on the activities of Fr. Pavone is of the same order, or even of the same kind, as whatever actions were taken by Pope Liberius with respect to St. Athanasius?