+
JMJ
Who’s in Charge?
During this crisis of the Catholic Church, I know people who have been scandalized to the point where they ask “Who’s in charge of the Church, but it sure isn’t Pope so-and-so.”
The goal of this article is to provide an solid answer by looking at Church Dogma and Doctine.
N.B. I wrote the majority of this article before – and it turns out even during – Pope Francis’ last agony. So while Pope Francis no longer holds the office of the Vicar of Christ and the See of Peter is truly vacant, the interregnum will be of short duration – inspite of the Sede-Vacantists who claim that the Interregnum has lasted decades or even over a hundred years.
Introduction
So, who's In Charge?
Ultimately God is in Charge and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has a Visible Head on Earth and that person is the Pope. Pope Francis's papacy has been a seminal moment for the Catholic Church and the SSPX. When Pope Benedict almost regularized the SSPX, he experienced the full wrath of the world by picking up the block of plutonium (i.e. Bishop Williamson – RIP), yet he still resisted excommunicating the SSPX, lifted the excommunications and issued Summorum Pontificum.
Francis was a Pope who did what he wanted - irregardless of what others say and the SSPX still has world wide jurisdiction for confession, and the ability for Bishops to give SSPX priests jurisdication for weddings.
So, on the one side he has done more for the SSPX than any other pontiff.
On the other he has enabled the persecution of the Traditional Catholics
Suffice to say, Pope Francis was a complex person, like all other humans. Just because he didn’t operate as we would like doesn't change that. Just like it doesn't change that he was the Vicar of Christ, an unworthy one in my opinion, but who is truly worthy of that office.
This leads us to today's question that many find an unthinkable possibility - that Pope Francis was the Pope.
My approach to this question has been based on the simple premise that if a Sedevacante theory contravenes a Church Dogma or Doctrine - then it has to be rejected. No matter how much we emotionally want this to not be ... it is ... we just have to deal with the reality.
Why?
Dogma's are infallible and if a theory or thesis contradicts this level of teaching, to accept it is to commit the sin of heresy that many ascribe to Pope Francis. So our first goal should be to seek alignment between the Dogma's and that uncomfortable reality .
The same goes for the established Doctrines.
This forces us to seek to understand the teachings of the Church as the Church understands them and not as we pridefully, selfishly and emotionally want to do otherwise. To want to force God to our will is nothing less than the pride of the modernists.
Just as all Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. In a same way All Dogmas are Doctrine, but not all Doctrines are Dogmas. So the first question is to understand the grades of uncertainty, followed by the relevant Dogmas and Doctines (ie. Teaching of the Catholic Church).
As usual, my primary reference for this will be Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott (Imprimatur 7 October 1954). While there are, I believe, a couple more recent editions, I am relying on the imprimatur that there are no substantive errors.
Comments
Post a Comment