+
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 Franci’s 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.
He 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 an 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.
[Insert img002]
Grades of Theological Uncertainty and Censures
I have pulled together two different sections of Ott’s explanation on Grades of uncertainty and the corresponding censures. Only they don’t quite match up – so I’ve done my best to sync them up.
Degree and Censure
De fide definita, fides divina and fides catholica
The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
The highest degree of certainty applies to dogmas, for instance the Blessed Trinity or the two natures of Christ. Dogmas are truths which the Church declares to have been revealed directly by God. Our belief in dogmas is founded first of all on the authority of God, Who reveals them: therefore they are of divine faith, fides divina. Since the Church teaches us these dogmas are contained in Revelation, our certainty is also founded on the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica). If a truth has, moreover, been solemnly defined by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council, it is de fide definita.
A proposition that contradicts a dogma incurs the theological censure of heresy against divine faith.
Fides ecclesiastica
Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
These are truths which have not been directly revealed by God, but which are closely linked to Divine revelation and have been infallibly proposed by the teaching authority of the Church ex cathedra: for example, the lawfulness of Communion under one kind. These doctrines are to be accepted on the sole authority of the Church, de fide ecclesiastica. Since the infallibility of the Church is a dogma, one who denies a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith is implicitly denying a dogma.
A proposition that contradicts a doctrine of ecclesiastical faith incurs the theological censure of heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Sententia fidei proxima
A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation. but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
Truths of Divine Faith are revealed by God but not formally promulgated as such by the Church in a special act: for example, the fact that Jesus claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messiah.
A proposition that contradicts a truth of Divine faith is censured as an error in Faith.
Note: Promoting Heresy: Certain propositions might not be directly in contradiction with a dogma but lead to a practical denial or abandonment of it. This note applies more to a practical teaching than a theoretical one.
Catholic Doctrine
A Catholic doctrine is a truth taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation, for instance the validity of Baptism conferred by a Protestant.
A contradiction of Catholic doctrine is censured as temerarious (a more severe censure may apply in some cases).
Theologica certa
A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
Teachings which pertain to the Faith and are theologically certain (sententia fidei pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) are doctrines on which the teaching authority of the Church has not yet pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed because they are logical conclusions drawn from a proposition that is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain. For example, the possibility of the demonstration of the existence of God is theologically certain.
Propositions contradicting theologically certain doctrines are censured as errors in theology.
Teachings that are "Safe"
Teachings that are safe have been affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations. Contradiction of a safe teaching may be censured as unsafe, or as temerarious.
Sententia communis
Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
Truths that are certain, also known as common teachings (sententia communis) are truths unanimously held by theologians, derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning: for instance, that God can create intellectual beings without ordering them to the Beatific Vision (cf. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis paragraph 26). These teachings sometimes overlap with theologically certain teachings.
Denial of a truth that is certain is censured as temerarious.
Sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata
Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata). which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
Less certain theological opinions may be classed as probable, more probable, or well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Pious opinions (sententia pia) are considered in agreement with the consciousness of the Faith in the Church. The lowest degree of certainty is opinio tolerata, weakly founded but tolerated by the Church. There are no censures attached to contradicting such opinions.
Reference
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/10/everything-you-wanted-to-know.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/11/magisterium-and-levels-of-assent.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-are-theological-notes.html#more
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2013/02/heresy-plain-and-not-so-simple-part-2.html
Discussion
Grades of Heresy
In my experience, people have a habit of screaming heresy when it is in reality a lessor error. As previously noted there are grades of heresy that correspond to each grade of certainty.
The key is this:
A statement is Heretical in the clear sense that the proposition goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide;
Proving it requires a legitimate body that has the authority to make a judgement.
In the case of Pope Francis, that hasn't happened. Nor has he said something that is a clear, that is explicit, contradiction of the above. Everything that I’ve read to date has been, "You said this ... do you mean this?" or “He said this and if it means this then …”. In all cases that matter Pope Francis has not replied. So we don't "know" that Pope Francis has committed the sin of Heresy.
This is an important point, the difference between 'Knowing', 'Believing', and 'Hoping'.
Believing involves holding a conviction or acceptance of something as true, even in the absence of concrete evidence.
Knowing refers to having factual information or evidence about something that is true and verifiable.
Reference:
https://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-knowing-and-believing/
https://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-knowledge-and-wisdom/
So let's make certain we understand.
Knowing is based on evidence, facts. What is a fact?
A thing that is known or proved to be true
information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
something that actually exists; reality; truth
Ref: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/fact
Belief, from my perspective, is based on one of two things:
Trust: You trust someone who has examined the facts and evidence and made a judgement about a matter. A good example of this would be whether or not the Earth orbits the Sun or vice-versa
Emotions: I sometimes wonder if it is possible to decouple Emotion from Trust. Here's my thoughts ...
In the absence of facts and understanding, people lock on to people who they either trust or repeat and support what they already believe. This came to light during the Pandemic as so called experts opined on the media. There was so much noise that the separating Fact from Fiction, Truth from Lies, Half-Truths from Half-Lives. I ended up having a heated discussion with someone because I wouldn't listen to a YouTube 'expert' who claimed that I would die within three years because I received an mRNA vaccine. I'm well beyond the three year mark.
In the absence of understanding, people latch on to anything that reduces the confusion and / or mental pain. Here's the thing, people don't like uncertainty as much as they don't like change. That's where the emotional side comes in. People want and some need, to be right. They want this so much that the irrational appears, to them, rational. One reason, is the comfort in a group of like minded people. Humans don't like being out on the limb by themselves. They want to have company in numbers and that's where you get confirmation bias.
It's pre-programmed.
Given enough time, from a cultural perspective, these beliefs move to assumptions. Anything that violates an assumption creates an emotional response. When people "go emotional" rationality goes out the window. The worst thing about this state is that any rational argument will make the mental pain worse and deepen the person's emotionally drive irrationality.
So, what to do?
I don't know.
Pope Francis is one of those topics where people simply can't believe that God could allow someone so obviously unworthy of the office of Vicar of Christ to happen let alone remain the office wreaking havoc for years.
Just like the crisis of the Church many wait and yearn for God to intervene. Forgetting that we all have our part to play. I wonder if it isn't justice they seek but revenge. Revenge for the wrongs and pain caused to the Church for this decades long civil war.
In my direct experience, when faced with the facts of Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, people look for excuses to ignore them.
That’s a very dangerous game.
Did Pope Francis Committed the Sin of Heresy in the True Sense
How would you know?
Someone with the proper authority would have to make a judgment.
Only the See of Peter is judged by no one.
It appears that the only precident is for later Popes or a council in union with a reigning Pontiff to make a judgment.
All theories to the contrary remain just that theories, so we are in new ground on this one. So - unless someone can show me where Pope Francis explicitly stated something that is actually heretical - I treat it as nothing.
Because it is nothing .. or as my American friends call it a Nothing Burger.
If it didn't happen - then they have no way of knowing (in the true sense) that Pope Francis committed the sin of heresy in the truest sense.
... and even if he did, they also have no way of knowing if he repented and was forgiven through the power of Confession.
People aren't statues frozen in time. They can repent. They can change and more often than not they do change for the: Better or Worse. I have seen no statements that Pope Francis or any of his predecessors have made that are explicitly heretical. Let me be clear ... if you have to make an inference about what was said, you're making a private judgment that has zero weight in the argument. We need facts, not wishful thinking and weak hopes.
Inference: a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
The Dangers of Sede-Vacantist thinking
Once someone drinks the liberal coolaid and thinks that they have the authority to judge their superiors (in the true sense) - they are on a slippery slope.
After that step is taken, all authority is subject to their judgement. This is a critical error - in the moment we can judge an order and make a decision to obey or not - and I've written a whole series on my studies on the topic. Here: https://tradicat.blogspot.com/search/label/Collection%20-%20Obedience
Our Superiors are just that, our superiors. They are human and don't lose their position because they are sinful. If this were the case, then many many would have lost their authority.
No, the reality is that a person is given authority from above and that is either removed by the person who granted the authority or by the person removing themselves from it by a wilful act. To think otherwise undermines all authority and would be the end of the Catholic Church. Thank God we have Dogmas and Doctrines to serve as guardrails against this type of thinking.
So - if you think Pope Francis is a Heretic - make certain that your thinking agrees with the Dogmas of the Catholic Church - and in this case - those pertaining to the Papacy.
Church Teaching on the Papacy and Church
Dogmas
The following excerpts summarize what I think are the key teachings of the Church for these times concerning the papacy and the Church. As noted above a Dogma is something that must be believed by all Catholics. To deny a Dogma, like that of the Assumption, is to commit the sin of heresy.
Papacy
Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time (DeFide) Ott p274
Christ gave His Church an hierarchical constitution (DeFide) Ott p276
The Powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops (DeFide) Ott p278
Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primary of jurisdiction (DeFide) Ott p279
According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time (DeFide) Ott p282
It is Dogma that the Catholic Church will always have a Vicar of Christ, so to deny this is to commit the Sin of Heresy.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council (link) Chapter 2 Art 5: if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome (DeFide) Ott p282
The Pope possesses full and surpreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (DeFide) Ott p285
The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (DeFide) Ott p286
The Church
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world (Sent. Certa) Ott p296
In the final decision on the doctrinces concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible (DeFide) Ott p297
Vatican 1: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
Summary
So - what do we know?
It is Dogma that the Catholic Church will always have a Vicar of Christ.
We also know from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church Teaching on the Four Marks - that the Pope is one half of the mark of Oneness of the Catholic Church
Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica)
Because Ott only briefly outlines Dogmatic Facts (see below), I will add additional references. Suffice to say, that because something is related to a revealed truth, it establishes a Dogmatic Fact the receives a degree of certainty.
Key Points
Ott: Dogmatic Facts (facta dogmatica).
By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed,
but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example
the legality of a Pope or of a General Council
Complete Quotation: By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with reveal truth, for example the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Pere. The fact that a defined text does or does not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Faith is alos, in a narrower sense, a “dogmatic fact.” In deciding the meaning of a text the Church does not pronounce judgement on the subjective intention of the author, but on the objective sense of the text (D 1350: sensum quem verba pare se ferunt). (Ott pg 8)
Hunter
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope;
according to the Catholic faith ... communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops
if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ...
it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud;
it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope,
since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.
But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
Van Noort
Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching.
Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas).
So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”
For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Billot
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope heretic], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself.
It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and “Behold I shall be with you all days”. For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later.
God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.
For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
Let this be said in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter broadcast that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of Alexander.
Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff.
For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction.”
Doctrine: Infallible Dogmatic Facts vis-a-vis the election of a Pope
Bishops universal acceptance of a newly elected Pope, establishes with infallible certainty the legitimacy of the election of the prelate to the Papacy.
Hunter: if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.
Van Noort: ... skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.
Bishops and members of the Church universal acceptance of a newly elected Pope, establishes with infallible certainty the legitimacy of the election of the prelate to the Papacy.
St. Alphonsus de Ligouri: “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, ... by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.
Billot: ... at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. ... For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows, as will become even more clear by what we shall say later. … He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately. Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.
Summary
If an event or action would cast doubt upon the validity of the election to the Pontificate, acceptance of the newly elected as Pope by – at least by the Bishops – or by the Bishops and Faithful together, establishes an Infallible Dogmatic Fact that these acts did not invalidate the election and that the newly elected is the Pope.
References
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/08/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/09/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy-ii.html
https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/09/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy-iii.html
Conclusion
Now putting Doctrine together with the Dogma what can we conclude?
The Catholic Church has a history of Great, Good, Bad and Awful Popes. That the unworthy and mediocre outnumber the Great is without question ... and in itself a proof of the Divine Origin of the Catholic Church.
Inspite of all that has occurred in the last hundred years, the Catholic Dogma's still stand the same as do the doctrines. There has been discipline that has been bent into ambiguous shapes - such as the Novus Ordo Missae, the Creed etc. Yet ambiguity is not Heresy in the true sense of the word.
What we know from Church Teaching:
The Catholic Church remains the institution of salvation.
There will always be a Vicar of Christ
We know we can identify the Catholic Church by Her Four Marks
We know where the four marks exist
We know that the Pope is part of the mark of Oneness ie. unity
The Church "Teaching" - meaning the hierarchy in this case - accepted Pope Francis at his election. Therefore at that time he was the Vicar of Christ.
What people believe in the absence of knowledge:
Now the question becomes did he remain the Vicar of Christ from his election to his death? Welcome to the noise. A number of theologians think that he has committed heresy and the consequences if truth are related to a number theological theories.
Here’s the crux of the matter, all of the theories about the loss of the Papacy remain just that theological theories. Nothing has been defined by the Church - so all we have is ... well assertions. While I have no doubt that they are well intentioned assertions nothing can change the fact that they are no truths. Even the theories of Saints don't provide a clear path to deciding when a Pope has 'lost' the papacy.
This brings us back to the difference of knowing vs believing. We can't 'know' that Pope Francis at some point lost the Papacy just as we can't know that any of his predecessors did. Until, in the absence of a official method, an authority informs us of this fact.
From my perspective there are two such authorities.
First, the bishops of the Catholic Church. Up to his death, they still regarded Pope Francis has being the Pope.
Second, Pope Francis. He never was clear on the matter and the Dubia remain unanswered (3136 days as per Canon212). Meaning he didn’t make a statement and take an action that was incontrovertibly and explicitly heretical in the pure sense of the word.
So people can believe Pope Francis wasn’t the Vicar of Christ as much as they want. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a belief and not knowledge. Acting on that belief has, in the past and I'm certain in both the present and future, will cause people to take actions that are unsupported by the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Catholic Church.
These would be the sedevacantists. I have known some personally and watched them follow the sedevacantist theory to its logical conclusion: That the Catholic Church has failed or is hidden. So and so was elected Pope by his family and friends. The list goes on …
Surprise! This contradicts and denies a Dogma of the Catholic Chruch and more than a few doctrines. Thus making them guilty of the crime that they accuse about a dozen or so Popes. Yes, I know at least one group that judge that the last valid Pope was Leo XIII … at least the last time I saw them publish their thoughts online.
Then you have the ones that focus only on Pope Francis. They feel that he is so unworthy to be Vicar of Christ that they insist that he can't be and then look for any semblance of a reason to support their belief. For their righteous indignation they risk becoming heretics themselves.
So the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and Pope Francis is, sadly, the Vicar of Christ that we are stuck with for a little more of the future. (I wrote this early in the morning - unaware the Pope Francis had died a couple short hours earlier.)
Pray for him [for the Cardinals of the Conclave and the next Pope] as any good Catholic should and don't be bitter children railing at the sky for being born in a time such as this.
I was taught that we are all born in a time best suited for us to work out our salvation.
The Church Dogmas and Doctrines are guideposts along the way, don't cast them aside because the Vicar of Christ is unworthy of his office. Everyone one is ... some just less so than others.
P^3
Below is the map that I made as I performed my research and pulled together references.
Comments
Post a Comment