Papal minimalism and more

• We Catholic traditionalists are papal minimalists as Jeff Culbreath once articulated for me, the opposite of what most people think (if you're so Catholic, and the Pope is unique to Catholicism, you must be enthusiastic about the Pope's person and his exercise of power, right?), so what's the difference between us on one hand and on the other the Orthodox (and Lesser Eastern churches) and the Anglicans? Gabriel Sanchez brings this up in a post on the SSPX's (they do so much good but overestimate the state of emergency in the church) reaction to the planned historic meeting of the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow. What's the difference if any between us and, I understand, Vatican II on collegiality? The Anglicans recognize the Pope as "the Bishop of Rome" and Patriarch of the West (thus still, in theory, their patriarch) but say he doesn't have universal jurisdiction nor does he share in a charism of infallibility held by the church; they deny church infallibility too (Article XXI). (And their theology became Reformed so they historically hold that we're Catholics like they claim to be, but we're in grave error, and they think the Orthodox are Catholic too but corrupt, meaning superstitious, as the Anglicans believe of us.) The Orthodox only recognize their own orders per se (we're outside the Byzantine world so we're outside the church; thus our orders are absolutely null and utterly void per se); if we dumped our post-schism definitions of doctrine and asked to join them, they'd agree with the Anglicans on the Pope's scope. Traditional Catholics have loudly condemned the “papalotry” which has emerged during the modern era of the “celebrity pope” and the idea that the pope is unlimited in what he can do with respect to faith, morals, liturgy, and so forth. I don’t think the Orthodox (particularly the Russian Orthodox Church) would disagree with this in the slightest. Right; the papolatry is actually what Western liberals believe, that he can change anything so they're mad at him for not approving abortion and gay marriage, for example. We don't! Where the SSPX and the Orthodox likely disagree is how far the pope can reach into the affairs of other patriarchal churches. The reason the Orthodox left: the Roman Empire became entirely Catholic (the beauty of Byzantium to this day) but that made the surviving eastern Roman Empire think it WAS the church, in full; once the Pope was outside the empire, they thought he couldn't tell them what to do. (The emperor is God's vicar on earth!) And let's look logically at this alleged interference. First, also practically because travel and communication were so hard in olden times, we Latin Catholics have long run ourselves largely by custom just like the Christian East. The Pope normally doesn't get involved in the daily running of the diocese (the church's basic unit since the apostles: the local Christian community gathered around its "apostle," its lawful bishop). We don't normally write new services for example (but as with the Novus Ordo, the church has that authority). That's as it should be. And let's look at the Pope's powers: he can't invent or change our doctrine; he's a caretaker as I understand Benedict XVI the Great put it. Since the 1800s, what has he proclaimed ex cathedra? Mary has been all-holy since her conception and she was assumed into heaven, things Catholics Eastern (the Assumption story came from the East) and Western have always believed! Given these facts both in principle and practice, there is no problem with papal authority. Again, part of church infallibility, something the Orthodox claim for themselves too. The Russians, still having a big empire (11 time zones spanning Europe and the width of Asia) with nukes, as a true Byzantium Jr. think they're the church so they don't need us. The SSPX...lamenting the Catholic Church’s rejection of two Orthodox bishops which wished to enter into communion with her in 1989. That sounds like a mistake per our teachings. We are not trying to break up the Orthodox (what our churchmen mean by "not using Uniatism" to proselytize); rather, we are trying to bring them all in at the same time, but a reason Eastern Catholic churches exist is, given our true-church claim (all ancient churches claim it), of course we accept individual conversions. Last century before Vatican II the Russian bishop of Bryansk, Paul, converted. Balamand is not doctrine; the very few "Orthodox in communion with Rome" Catholics denying our doctrine (not to be confused with unlatinized practice, which has our full support, including mine), are laboring under a delusion (prelest' as the Russians say).
• From what I can tell, unsurprisingly, I don't think John and his crew of Orthodox lay evangelists are of Eastern European or Middle Eastern stock. Those groups are more live-and-let-live, proud of being name-the-ethnicity but they understand when you're proud of your tradition. Denominational in a way, which doesn't square with their teachings or ours, but nice. Their rare conversions are usually for marriage; more "So you met a nice Macedonian girl. Welcome! Being Macedonian is great! You'll love it!" than trying to preach to Catholics on our turf, for example. (Since we're not tied down to one set of cultures, the world is our turf, and the church alone has fulfilled the Great Commission.) The convert boomlet is just that and seems to have peaked.
• Things that remit venial sins: the traditional liturgy is full of them. A myth about pre-conciliar Catholicism is that it fuels the neurosis of scrupulosity. ("You must not know many Italians or Spanish.") No, and this distinction between mortal and venial sins is conforting for well-meaning people with delicate consciences. Do penance (Jesus fasted and said "When YOU fast..."), but God is all-loving and merciful, giving grace in so many ways, a good thought for Shrove Tuesday. Enjoy your Mardi Gras, Carnival, Fastnachten and pączki!