Is There a Pope in Rome?
January 8, 2014
JAMES N. writes:
Your recent posts on the question of the papacy are quite provocative. I have a couple of things for you to consider.
Since I was a Protestant for 59 years, you could say that I recognize Protestant thinking coming and going. To me, the Protestant paradigm falls over the issue of authority, specifically, authority to govern the Church and to speak with authority about the meaning of Scripture.
I believe it is true that Catholics believe, trusting in several promises Christ made near the conclusion of His earthly ministry, that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, and, reasoning by logical extension of Christ’s promise to Peter, that the Holy Spirit would guide the successors of the apostles in providing a leader of the bishops who could not teach error.
Protestants, although almost all of them want to be disciples of Jesus and want, to varying degrees, to strive for the kingdom through that discipleship, are famously unable to agree with each other about the application of these wishes to the concrete matters of the flesh and the world. Protestants disagree with each other about many things, you could almost say about everything, but each of them who takes their positions seriously will cleave to some element of Scripture, as they understand it, to prove that they are right.
It seems to me that perhaps the sedevacantist position, substituting adherence to magisterial utterances rather than scripture, may be committing the same error. It IS internally consistent to say, “a heretic cannot be the pope, Jorge Bergoglio is a heretic, ergo, he is not the pope”, but this position holds up only because the sedevacantist, exercising private judgment (just like you-know-who) places Bellarmine, or a council, or a statement of Innocent III in a position superior to and therefore voiding the actions of the College of Bishops and the Cardinal electors who, according to eternal belief are guided by the Holy Spirit, in accordance with Christ’s promises on the matter.
It is equally internally consistent to say, “Bergoglio was validly elected by validly chosen electors, he is therefore the pope and by definition cannot teach error, SO, my understanding of apparent conflict with what the Church teaches or believes may be wrong.”
Notice that the internal consistency of either of these propositions does not tell us which one is true. But they cannot both be true. The selection of WHOSE statements guide our understanding in this matter is the exercise of private judgement, is it not?
I write to you about this because, as I understand it, your choice in this matter is profoundly consequential. Here is a link to a critique of sedevacantism which I find well thought out.
Laura writes:
Thank you for writing.
For readers who are new to this issue, sedevacantism is the view that the papal see is empty (sede is Latin for “seat”) because the man elected pope is a heretic or apostate. Most sedevacantists hold that by virtue of their explicit apostasies all of the popes since Pope John XXIII have been false popes. I accept this position too.
The idea that persons within the Church, even popes and bishops, can defect does not contradict the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope. I realize that’s a difficult point, but it does make sense. Papal infallibility, for one, must reasonably apply to a pope who is an actual member of the Church.
It is simply not true, as Anthony Layne, the blogger you quote, mentions, that no pope has ever taught that it is possible for a pope to be a heretic and thus by virtue of that fact lose his authority. See the Rev. Anthony Cekada’s history of the issue in his essay, “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.” Cekada was ordained to the priesthood in 1977 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He is a sedevacantist and is unaffiliated with Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X.
Pope Innocent III wrote in 1198:
To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against the faith that I may be judged by the Church. For ‘he who does not believe is already judged. Sermo 2: In Consecratione PL 218:656
You are the salt of the earth … Still less can the Roma Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather, he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. For he who does not believe is already judged. Sermo 4: In Consecratione PL 218:670.
Pope Paul IV wrote in 1559:
Further if ever it should ever appear that any bishop (even one acting as an archbishop, patriarch or primate), or a cardinal of the Roman Church, or a legate (as mentioned above), or even the Roman Pontiff (whether prior to his promotion to cardinal, or prior to his election to be Roman Pontiff), has beforehand deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into heresy, [We enact, decree, determine and define]:
— Such promotion or election in and of itself, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinal, shall be null, legally invalid and void.
— It shall not be possible for such a promotion or election to be deemed valid or to be valid, neither through reception of office, consecration, subsequent administration, or possession, nor even through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff himself, together with the veneration and obedience accord him by all.
— Such promotion or election, shall not through any lapse of time in the foregoing situation, be considered even partially legitimate in any way …
— Each and all of the words, as acts, laws, appointments of those so promoted or elected — and indeed whatsoever flows therefrom — shall be lacking in force, and shall grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever.
— Those so promoted or elected, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration shall be deprived of any dignity, position, honor title, authority, office and power. Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 16 February 1559.
St. Robert Bellarmine was not a pope but he was an important theologian and he maintained that “all the ancient Fathers” taught that manifest heretics could exist in the highest office and that they would by that fact alone automatically “lose all jurisdiction.”
From an authoritative commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, again quoted by Cekada:
Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinion, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. [J Corridan et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (New York: Paulist 1985), c. 333.]
As Cekada wrote:
The principle that a heretical pope automatically loses his office, therefore, is widely admitted by a great variety of Catholic canonists and theologians.
Again, I recommend Cekada’s essay for a fuller examination of the issue. In sum, in answer to your question, the sedevacantist is not Protestant.
— End of Initial Entry —
James N. writes:
I’m going to renew my question. Granted that (in theory) a Pope can become apostate, and if he does, he can lose his authority.
Aren’t you exercising private judgement that those circumstances have occurred?
I’ll try to expand on this thought when I’m not working.
Laura writes:
And if the Pope told me that God didn’t exist, would I be exercising private judgment in arriving at the conclusion that he is a heretic and non-believer? Or would I be making a judgment based on what I know of Catholic doctrine, which has been formulated and taught for more than 2,000 years?
I suspect you would say no, I would not be relying purely on private judgment.
That certainly has not happened. No pope has plainly denied the existence of God. But we have seen denials of basic Catholic doctrines. Certainly there are many issues that I, as a lay person who is not a theologian or a canon lawyer, am not qualified to judge, but when the pope imputes to the Mother of God the thought that God is evil, as Francis recently did, I can rely on the sensus fidelium and what I know of basic doctrine to conclude that this is blasphemy. By the way, as a member of the people of God, isn’t my judgment, and the judgment of the many people who have the same sense that Vatican II is not Catholic, infallible? Now, if it was a question of one or two irregular statements then it would be wrong to be alarmed. But there has been systematic and pervasive denial of Catholic doctrine.
If a Pope kisses the Koran, as John Paul II did, would I be remiss in concluding that he does not believe Islam is a false religion?
If several popes institute or countenance mass desecration of the Body of Christ, in the form of Communion dispensed in the hand, am I making a private judgment in concluding that they do not truly believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation and in the divinity and transcendence of Christ?
If several popes countenance the stripping of altars by instituting a liturgy that is very similar to that used by Protestants, am I making a private judgment in coming to the conclusion that they have accepted Protestant theology?
Returning to this conversation recounted by Spadaro, here is another statement by Francis:
There are Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. monks at Taizé…. They all live a real life of brotherhood together. They are an impressive apostolic role model for young people. The fraternal community has an enormous power to call people together. The illnesses of the community, on the other hand, have power that destroys. The temptation against fraternity is that which is the most disruptive to progress in consecrated life. Saint John Berchmans used to say that his greatest penance was precisely community life.
Am I exercising private judgment in coming to the conclusion that “Pope” Francis believes there is no significant difference among the beliefs of Catholics, Calvinists and Lutherans and that this view is contrary to basic Catholic teaching? Well, yes, I am exercising private judgment but it is based on what I know of the Church. Am I wrong in concluding that the “illnesses of the community” and “temptations against fraternity” to which he refers are in fact Catholic truths?
Laura writes:
The bottom line is, a Catholic is obligated to obey the Pope and to possess a spirit of allegiance to him. If one is in a constant state of resistance to the Pope, one possesses the spirit of the Protestant. In contrast, a sedevacantist honors the papacy.
Once again, let me defer to Father Cekada, who writes these basic points about sedevacantism:
- Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
- Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
- It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
- Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
- Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
- Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority.
- Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority.
James N. writes:
Thanks for your replies. They certainly provide food for thought.
When you refer to the “teaching of the Catholic Church” as that which cannot change, what do you include?
Obviously, your de minimis example of denying God is correct (a Pope who denied God would cease to be the Pope). It is seemingly correct that a Pope who denied the catechism would be an heretic.
The internet has revealed, and continues to reveal, more teachings given by bishops, priests, religious, synods, and councils, not all of which harmonize well with each other.
Do you regard all of these teachings as indefectible? If you don’t, do you have a way (other than obedience) to tell the difference?
Yes, there is a way to tell the difference. Or at least one way to tell the difference.
Church doctrines cannot change. They have never changed since Christ handed the keys to St. Peter. They have been clarified. They have been amplified. They have been further revealed by God and more fully understood by the light of human reason, but they have never changed.
So wherever you find contradiction, you find error.
Paul writes:
Thank you for your erudite discussion of sedevacantism, which is something Catholics should be thinking about.
Catholic radio discusses conflict within the Church openly, although I have yet to hear about sedevacantism, probably because I have not listened enough. Catholic radio is more absorbing than TV. It requires concentration. And at the conclusion, the experience is somehow much like leaving a movie theater. Catholic radio can be gotten for free in most metro areas. Otherwise, you will need something such as Sirius (which has a phenomenal 60s channel).
You are correct in that the Church should not be constantly changing with ever increasing nuances issued by Popes. Already we must read the Apostles’ Creed in Church because it changes from parish to parish. Below is the pre-Vatican II Creed from the Baltimore Catechism. They have gone and changed it again in 2011 and in between. For goodness sake, what is so hard to understand about it that it needs to be continually tweaked? A mnemonic is twelve apostles and twelve assertions. We don’t change the Act of Contrition, for example; and the Act is an essential prayer no less than the Creed.
1) I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth;
2) and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord;
3) who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
4) suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified: died, and was buried.
5) He descended into hell: the third day He arose again from the dead:
6) He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty;
7) from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
8) I believe in the Holy Ghost
9) the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints,
10) the forgiveness of sins,
11) the resurrection of the body,
12) and the life everlasting. Amen.
Catholic radio said the Church will be issuing a new English language Bible “next year.” A major reason is the New American Bible supposedly went too far trying to make the Bible easy to read rather than trying to adhere to the original text. Let us hope it does not mislead based on Vatican II. To be safe, I read the Douay-Rheims version, my confirmation Bible.
