If you have read my first post, Protestant as Samaritan, you may have noticed I avoided using a certain word. This omission was for a few reasons. Firstly, I am not yet a catechized Catholic; what right have I to choose sides in such a deep controversy in the Church? (And yet, I don’t seem to be able to avoid choosing!) Secondly, I find the idea of joining the Church via a fringe Catholic community disquieting. Again, if you read my first post, you will know that I come from Protestant obscurantism, spent some time in the main of the mainstream Protestant sects, the Anglican church, and now desire to enter the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The idea that my entry into the Church would be through an obscurantic remnant of the ancient Catholic Church, does not, in itself, engender confidence. I was born into a radical Protestant community that understands itself as the later day remnant of the people of God. So, I am well formed for this identity. Yet, I have worked hard putting this notion out of my head; and came to find it absurd to think some little group holds the one true faith. When I think of the Catholic Church I think of something immense, solid, certain, and arcing constant over two millennia, not a fringe community struggling to sort out what’s up, holding the least of all evils, that the Chair of Saint Peter is vacant, as its delineation from other faiths.
Nevertheless, and I would be very happy to be substantially corrected, as I understand it, after considering arguments from sources, ancient to contemporary, and a few years of contemplation on the issue, Sedes hold no new doctrines against the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, along with a living traditional faith (and because of this) Sedes hold the conviction that we live in a historical anomaly, that either by personal heresy, apostacy, or invalid election, the Papal claimants since and including John 23 have been invalid. Whereas the ecclesial community which these men have been the visible head of, has introduced continuous innovation in doctrine, liturgy, practice and discipline. Those who remain in the post Vatican 2 Novus Ordo church, both traditionalists who resist the reforms, and progressives who embrace them (and push for even more) each say the Sedes are rejecting Church teaching—that the visible Church is manifest in the Chair of Peter, and, so, to doubt the validity the occupant of the Chair is to go the way of the Protestant, the schismatic, or the secret society. Yet, no historic Protestant restoration movement is exactly analogous to Sedevacantism. (There, I said it; I’ll wait for the Lavender Mafia Inquisitors to kick in the door.) Yet, the underlying intuition is not entirely different than Protestantism, for most Sedes also say, that which claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ has apostatized, and those who want to be faithful to God must separate themselves from this Church in order to preserve the faith and guard their salvation. The difference is that Sedevacantists mean to keep the perennial tradition of the Catholic Church, not to reform it, for it sees the Novus Ordo church as intramural Protestant rebellion1. Yet, we must separate the diagnosis, that the Chair is empty, from any response we might make to this recognition. For, to be accurate, in assessing the various responses to the Vatican 2 reforms, many who remain in the Novus church headed currently by Jorge Bergoglio, consider the Seat operationally vacant, because they resist almost everything that comes out of ‘the Jorge’s mouth’. Perhaps this should be more accurately be called Vestemvacantism: a stuffed cassock sits in the Chair of Saint Peter.
We must lay some groundwork to sort out what is going on in the Church after Vatican 2, to determine if the changes can conform to a reasonable continuity with the previous millennia of the Church, or if the Council proposed dogma or discipline which contradicts ancient Church teaching. After, we need to determine what an appropriate work of faith would be in response to our determination. So firstly, if we find that the church which continued after Vatican 2 is a true continuation of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, then we most obviously should remain in that Church, and we can safely assume that if any parish church is in communion with Rome it is in the Catholic Church. This claim for historical continuity can take two general forms. One, that there are no significant changes offered by Vatican 2. And two, that the changes given at Vatican 2 are divinely inspired, the so called Church of the “new Advent” that John Paul 2 refers to four times in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis. He further claims, there, that the Church has become conscious in of itself in “an utterly new way”, using the metaphor of a plant establishing new roots. As root=radical this is not merely a quaint metaphor. This second position, that the changes are revolutionary and yet are within the one and the same continuing Catholic Church, is held by none other than the most popular and charismatic papal claimant in history. In this encyclical at the start of his claim to that office John Paul 2 established boldly that he meant to continue doing the ‘new thing’ started by John 23 and Paul 6. The entire quote is worth reading, as it expresses both the naïve hopefulness of novelty and the sober admission of the great tumult that ran through the Church over the thirteen years since the Council reforms went into affect.
3. Trust in the Spirit of Truth and of Love
Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council, which John XXIII convened and opened and which was later successfully concluded and perseveringly put into effect by Paul VI, whose activity I was myself able to watch from close at hand. I was constantly amazed at his profound wisdom and his courage and also by his constancy and patience in the difficult postconciliar period of his pontificate. As helmsman of the Church, the bark of Peter, he knew how to preserve a providential tranquillity and balance even in the most critical moments, when the Church seemed to be shaken from within, and he always maintained unhesitating hope in the Church's solidity. What the Spirit said to the Church through the Council of our time, what the Spirit says in this Church to all the Churches8 cannot lead to anything else-in spite of momentary uneasinesses-but still more mature solidity of the whole People of God, aware of their salvific mission. (Emphasis mine)
We will return to consider the position, held commonly among traditionalists, that the council implied no substantial change, later in this post when we look at the significant differences between the first and second Councils on the Papacy. It is clear from the above, John Paul 2 held that the innovations of Vatican 2 were good and he confirmed this by his later public actions and preaching. As one made Cardinal by Paul 6, John Paul 2 is deeply invested in the revolution, even justifying its disruptions as necessary growing pains toward a “more mature solidity” of the People of God. Not only can we say the changes the Council offered were new in themselves, but that the very notion of such ‘newness’ is new to the Church. Even newer is that changes to long established dogma, practice and liturgy is toward the good, and results in an extension of salvation, or at least a growth in awareness of our saving mission. What is even further novel is his inclusion of “all the Churches” and the invocation of the ‘body’ of “the whole People of God”, assuming a fundamental unity of all Christian sects, at least, under an ecumenical “salvific mission”. So we have not only a general positing of newness but a concrete example of it, if obliquely stated.
There is another means by which certain conservatives attempt to quarantine themselves from the pronouncements of Vatican 2. It is admitted that the Council made changes to doctrine and practice. Yet these changes are taken as non binding because the edicts of the Council were only pastoral in nature and as such, not dogmatically binding. We will look at this claim specifically in a future post. In a modification of this attempt at quarantine, there are some who claim that the Council’s edicts were not presented with the solemnity of Ex Cathedra pronouncements. This too we will look at in more detail later in this post when we consider the extended conditions of Papal Infallibility made in Lumen Gentium. For now, though, we can state clearly that all the post Conciliar papal claimants held the reforms as valid, good and binding on the Church, and that it was their solemn duty as successors of Saint Peter to enact them into the Body of the Church. We see this from Paul 6, the man who solemnized the documents of the Council, putting into effect their changes to doctrine and practice by reforming the liturgy of the Mass along with the ordination rites. Continuing through John Paul 2’s first encyclical cited above, including many of the words and actions of his reign, and on to Benedict 16, who required the SSPX, in order to be restored to full communion, to accept the validity of the Council, acknowledge all its subsequent Papal claimants, and honour their pronouncements and canonizations. And this spirit has only accelerated and become broader in its interpretations under Bergoglio, who is the first true child of the revolution become pope, as all of his ordinations were under the new rites promulgated by Paul 6. If you are in the post conciliar Inertial Catholic Church2, you are under its ‘Popes’, their pastoral care and doctrines. If you resist them as valid occupants you are in schism. Vestemvacantism is itself a stuffed shirt theology.
The true state of the Church is primarily determined by the status of the validity of the occupant of Saint Peter’s Chair, as it should be. So our next goal is to determine the status of the last six Papal claimants: the ‘Conciliar Popes’. By this it follows implicitly that we will be articulating a standard by which to asses the validity of any Papal claimant. This assessment is not strictly forbidden by the Church, as is popularly implied by lay internet defenders of the most recent claimant. There are precise conditions for validity, and these must be met and be clearly demonstrable to affirm a Papal claim. If the See of Peter is judged by none on Earth, then a man who claims to hold that office must be there beyond doubt. It is not a magic chair, granting power to whomever manages to sit in it, like an ecclesiastical game of ‘King of the Castle’. the Papal throne a seat of authority to exercise sacred duty. And this duty is to maintain the integrity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith through the vicissitudes of human history. The duty is enacted through decrees of moral discipline, both temporary and perennial, and in doctrinal pronouncements which are eternal. No Pope is at liberty to innovate doctrinally, to make changes to the moral rule, or to dissolve, or expand Papal duties. There is a seeming paradox in these conditions, that the Pope is judged by none, while the Pope must conform to very set conditions to maintain his validity. Yet, for a man on the Seat of Peter to publicly fail in his duty, like no other Christian, manifestly and immediately falls into heresy, schism, or apostacy. And these conditions all place him outside the Catholic Church he is meant to be the head of. By an early pronouncement of Pope Celestine, “He who is outside the Church cannot govern the Church”. Which is of course only an obvious law, both natural and spiritual. This does not mean that a Pope must be moral or even faithful, so long as these, even mortal faults, are not publicly manifest as pronouncements for others to obey. The Pope can be a doubtful moral hypocrite; he can’t be manifest apostate or heretic.
The statement that the See of Peter is judged by none is a formal legal statement of jurisdiction. It does not mean that even the laity cannot ask questions of Papal statements formal and private. A hermeneutic of suspicion would be sinful, naturally. Yet, if we hear or read something from a Pope which seems to contradict the established teaching of the Church we have a duty to investigate, for, we will not be excused by our Lord for going along into error, even when following a ‘Pope’. As Saint Paul wrote so plainly “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8)3. This establishes a very important foundation of our faith, that it is founded on more than sentiment, or primarily on community only loosely defined, and so should be adaptable to changes in the world, or in the ideas of its members. That is, we cannot put agreement as a good in itself, and thus choose our doctrines and moral rule to suit the most, and by this means attempt to make unity. The idea that we should surrender to a fixed set of dogma is never readily received. Yet by now, we have grown so used to having freedom of conscience in our beliefs since the maturing of the Protestant Rebellion, that such unity of thought is uniformly anathematized by secular Modernity. (Well, unless it is in accord with the global monolith that is currently forming, but I will avoid that diversion for now.)
Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgement. I Corinthians 1:10
This unity in the Spirit is established on and by Jesus Christ. He is the Incarnate Word of God, the very Truth itself. That this foundation of the Church should be replaceable, or even changeable is absurd. The unchangeable nature of the Church and its doctrines is well established in Scripture and the early Church doctrinal controversies and the doctrinal clarifications that came from these. The bold yet painstaking effort of Saints Athanasius and Basil to maintain the doctrine of the full divinity of Jesus Christ within the Trinity are robust examples of how Christian doctrine has clarified over time. These are consistent integral additions to already held teachings, not novel developments, as in the striking of new roots.
The First Vatican Council formalized Papal authority at a time when the status of the office in the social economy of the world was challenged, in fact, it was soon under siege. The Council did not invent this primacy, and none but the most ignorant Protestants and secularists would claim such. However, restating the infallibility of the Chair of St Peter in Rome in the mid 19th century rather than going along with the liberalization of the ascendant Modern era, amounted to an effective reinvention of the office, and a bulwark of resistance against Modernity, as it called upon all Catholics, clerical and lay alike, to be bound to a radically different political intention than that of the various revolutionary movements flowing over formerly Catholic lands. Yet, what was radical about this counter-revolution was a simple and firm restatement of the Papal office, and the supreme unquestioned authority which is both its duty and privilege. A secular autocrat would have taken new powers to himself, Pius IX and the Council entrenched the duty of the Holy Father of the Church to maintain the integrity of the faith once delivered, as well as establishing its authority over the Church unmediated by the secular powers.
Let’s consider a few passaged from Decrees of the First Vatican Council:
SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ, Chapter 2, section 8:
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received. (Emphasis mine)
A further statement of the continued duty and privilege of the Papacy from its institution by Christ is found in Chapter 4, section 2, quoting the Council of Lyons (undated); we see the historical confirmation of Papal primacy, and its principle duty of “defending the truth of the faith”.
The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled. (Emphasis mine)
And in Chapter 4, section 4, we have a statement that this is not merely a human power, but is the charism of the Holy Spirit to ensure the integrity of the Apostolic faith through time.
This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing.
We should note that this discernment is not exclusive to the Roman Pontiff, but that he is “above all” in infallibility. Most concisely we have the intention of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon Peter’s successors in Chapter 4, section 6:
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. (Emphasis original)
Our faith was founded in real events and by real gifts of the Spirit through the sacraments. Wandering from this solid rock of Apostolic faith means wandering from the path of Life into the wide way that leads to destruction. Such is the teaching on the doctrines and spiritual practices of the Church over two millennia. It is a miracle that the doctrine was so faithfully preserved through so many challenges over the ages. And, not until the Second Vatican Council do we have what could be called true contradictions in doctrine or practice against what came before.
Let’s now look at some of the Vatican 2 pronouncements on the Papacy. It is my opinion that while the second Council affirmed the first on Papal primacy and infallibility, its statements actually extended the range of context of infallibility, if it did not in truth invent, the authority of the person of the Pontiff. At the same time it mitigated his duty as preserver of the faith transmitted from the Apostles by not clearly repeating this duty as held by the Roman Pontiff. In seeming contradiction to this last statement, in Dei Verbum of Vatican 2 we have from Chapter 2, section 10, an orthodox statement of the duty of the “teaching office” of the Church, of which we must assume the Pope to be the head.
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (Emphasis mine)
This is good news indeed as it provides an internal litmus for the other pronouncements of the second Council. For, though this statement is about Scripture and Tradition specifically, both of these are the basis of all doctrine and discipline. It would be a strain to say that conciliar and Papal pronouncements on, or participation in, pan ecumenical worship, say, would escape this limitation on usurping the authority of the word of God.
Now we will look at some of the pronouncements on Papal primacy from Vatican 2 to see how they measure up to this standard. From Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3, section 18 we have a broad acceptance and restatement of all the pronouncements of the first Council on the Papacy.
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. (Emphasis mine)
We must remember that this is not merely a normative descriptive statement, but is a restatement of material duties and obligations we saw above from the first Council and any others that are contained in its documents. Yet, we see already an explicit statement of the “sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium”, but only an implicit reference to the Papal duties of fidelity to the past under “the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy”. Still, what is written is written, and the document clearly takes “all this teaching” from the first Council unto itself. In Section 22, paragraph 2 we have a statement of tradition, but primarily in reference to authority:
Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved. (Emphasis mine)
For several sections the primacy of the Pontiff is elaborated on and I present a few of these statements as they appear in order in chapter 3. Section 22 paragraph 2:
The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.
And later in the same paragraph:
A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.
Section 23 from the first paragraph:
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.
Section 24, paragraph 2:
The canonical mission of bishops can come about by legitimate customs that have not been revoked by the supreme and universal authority of the Church, or by laws made or recognized by that the authority, or directly through the successor of Peter himself; and if the latter refuses or denies apostolic communion, such bishops cannot assume any office. (Emphasis mine)
After a careful reading of the sections regarding Episcopal authority in the Church and the Papal primacy in this authority, I found no clear references to the preservation of the Apostolic deposit of faith in Lumen Gentium. Rather we see an assumption of the power of the office preserved through tradition without clear reference to the duty to preserve the faith. Stating that it is the duty of the bishops “to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church” (S 22, p2), is a managerial mandate without specific content objectives. Who defines what is “common”? The Pope of course has the final say, but has he no parameters to these definitions? This is the question at the heart of this whole matter. And more, as we hinted at before, if the Pope fails at the ‘content objectives’, in the old parlance, if he is or becomes a manifest heretic, he is unfit to rule the Church he cannot be a member of.
These critiques of Lumen Gentium so far have been general, about sins of omission. In our next entry things seem to take on an intention that is quite different form the first Council’s pronouncements. Pardon the large quotes, I do not want to be accused of cherry picking. We are made to wonder, too, why so much needs to be said above what the first Council said in far fewer words and with greater precision, that in an era of flowery prose. We are mindful of our Lord’s admonition, “Let your yes be yes; your no, no. Whatever is more than this comes from evil”. We have next the entirety of paragraph 1 from section 25, on the teaching authority of Bishops generally, and an enigmatic expansion of the magisterium of the Pontiff, making his various other pronouncements, if only potentially, on par with those made Ex Cathedra.
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (Emphasis mine)
We see a shift from the Pontiff as keeper of a deposit of faith, to being an innovator who by his own “frequent repetition(s)” can establish precedence for magisterial teaching. The vagueness of this reverence due to all papal utterances grants him with something like a ‘personal magisterium’. And transforms the occupant of Peter’s Chair into a perpetual oracle, the exact caricature that Protestants make of the Papacy. The vague parameters of the last few sentences of this paragraph are confounding in their range. Such a condition bound up in a man makes the first Council’s pronouncements on infallibility comparatively circumspect. In that Council the duty of the See of Peter is clearly established prior to statements of infallibility, as exampled in Section 6 of Chapter 4.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. (Emphasis mine)
And this is followed by a clear definition as to when the Roman Pontiff can and does make infallible pronouncements in sections 9-10 of Chapter 4,
9 Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
10 So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine)
A question arises from the pronouncement in 10 immediately above, do the Vatican 2 extensions of Papal infallibility “reject” those of the first Council? Not by negation, it must be admitted. Whether the addition of the ‘oracular persona’ of the Holy Father amounts to a positive rejection by addition to the Ex Cathedra persona prompts a subtle debate over scope, rather than the principle of non contradiction, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because this whole business becomes a muddle, and the whole reason for the Papacy, by its divine intention, is to bring clarity to the faithful. Instead we have uncertainty leading to the justification of the cult of persona of John Paul 2, striking new roots of Church awareness.
Still, the Vatican 2 extensions allow for a very broad critique of all subsequent papal pronouncements and actions, as all of them must be seen as potentially infallible true expressions of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. That we need to determine this without clear conditions of utterance for the papal claimant as to when he is speaking infallibly and when not, we must choose to either obey every word from his mouth and hand as infallible, or question each to test if it is or is not divinely inspired. This is madness. Many self professed conservatives who have remained in inertial material church2 after the Novus Order Reformation want to use the first Council to asses the papal claimants who are of and after the second, and so, avoid these vagaries of Lumen Gentium. Yet, if you accept Paul 6 as a valid claimant, you must accept this confounding extension of Papal infallibility to include the alchemy of the “character of (his) documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (Emphasis mine). Define “character”, “frequent”, or “manner”, surely such uncertainty is of the devil, a mockery of the simple legitimacy of the office of Saint Peter. There is no such reference to ‘his magisterium’ in the first Council’s documents, only the divine, and the universal and ordinary magisterium. The first Council repeats the long held assumption of those who hold office in the Church, that they are custodians of a sacred institution which is greater than its human occupant.
It is noteworthy that as Vatican 2 so extends the personal authority of the Pope ecclesiastically, at the same time it admits near total deposition of the Chair from material political authority. Maintenance of this authority was a fairly large part of the first Council’s definitions. By the post Vatican 2 church the social reign of Christ through His vicar is effectively reduced to a vassal of secular political movements, while being a custodian of freedom of religion . Had the Chair still claimed temporal material authority over secular state matters it would never have been able to make such an ill defined condition of authoritative pronouncements. So, we can see in the Vatican 2 definitions of the Papacy a new divine-human entity. and he is meant to be the head of an altogether remade church. At once relinquishing its ancient divine mandates, and so presenting itself, in the words of Paul 6, as “more human”; while at the same time, spiritually, the Novus Ordo papacy has taken to itself a divinity before unthinkable: it now has an implied real-time indefectibility, attending its infallibility. when I continue in the following posts of this inquiry I will consider the theological implications of the papal infallibility extension in more detail.
We live in revolutionary times, and this revolt, through the eyes of faith, can be understood as rebellion against Divine order. The revolution got into full swing after Vatican 2. From a secular view, this follows because the Church, as a merely human institution, would follow along on the Hegelian banter of the zeitgeist. I am bold to ask if we can see that this transformation sets the stage for the man of sin4: “Meanwhile, the conspiracy of revolt is already at work; only, he who checks it now will be able to check it, until he is removed from the enemy’s path” (Knox). From a continuous traditional Catholic vantage, who is he that “checks it” and can also be “removed” but a valid occupant of the Papal throne?
Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposes, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:3-5
I am aware that this is dismissed as an old Protestant wag at the Papacy. I most certainly reject that the office in itself, even in its claim to infallibility, is a usurpation of Divine authority. On the contrary, the legitimate papal office is an extension of divine authority, and for reasons of Church unity in doctrine and discipline over time the papacy has proven to be a Divinely guarded institution. Yet, something unprecedented happened at Vatican 2. And as we have seen this was not just by use of the infallible authority of the papal office, but by a change in the office’s definition, and a change in the perception of the persona of the occupant of St Peter’s Chair. It should be noted that such authority over the souls of the faithful has always been, from a purely human perspective, precarious. So we see from the first Council’s definitions repeated reference to the duty of preservation of what was received from Apostolic times. The duty of the office is clearly defined because the authority is so absolute and integral to the Body of Christ. From the second Council forward we see a predilection to novelty, as testified by the quote from Redemptor Hominis we started this exploration with. And these innovations have come upon a spirit of Modern gnostic smugness common to the secular social revolutions of our time.
I do feel unworthy to make these assessments. So, it may be fairly asked, then why do I make them. I am compelled to get to the root of this matter so I can in clear conscience enter the Catholic Church. If I had been raised in the Novus Ordo church, my question would be tainted with the guilt of rebellion, or rejection. As I am yet to enter, these are simply questions of discernment for me. I cannot be expected to choose to submit to the authority of Francis with many legitimate questions about his doctrine and practice. “Shut up and obey the Holy Father”, is a most unsatisfying insistence for anyone in my place. Especially when Francis often says Protestants like me have no need to enter his church, thus “from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine” this must be an infallible dogma of the Novus Ordo sect. Even less satisfying is the idea that I should join the Novus Ordo church with no intention of obeying Francis as the Holy Father, at least not without great reservation. The Lord has certainly put us into a time of trial. For now I will continue to pray, meditate on the Rosary, read the old books and papal pronouncements of the Church, and look over the old catechisms. I do trust, in time, the Lord will make the way clear for us all, if we are prepared to receive it. For now it seems our conviction is being tested: will we continue to watch and wait, strengthening the things which remain, until the day of the Lord’s deliverance?
Please pray for me,
William Scott
I have, to my knowledge, coined the notion of Inter- and Intra-mural Protestantism to differentiate between those who at the 16th century Rebellion went outside the walls of the Catholic Church, and the contemporary protest against the integral arc of the Gospel happening within the walls of the Church.
I use Inertia or Inertial to describe the ‘Church’ that continued on after the council. The transformation was not immediate but over time through the changes in rites, doctrine and practice, what were the Catholic Church’s institutions, buildings and imprimatur, were transformed to the Novus Ordo sect founded by Vatican 2. To the world this sect is the Catholic Church. As to the world and the worldly of that sect, change and transformation is good and necessary to adapt to Modernity and Post Modernity, to keep relevant. By the constant teaching of the ancient Church through time, such changes are the mortal error of apostacy
All Scripture quotes are from Douay-Rheims, with slight changes toward contemporary language usage (eg: saith to says). unless otherwise noted.
I owe the awareness of this prophetic interpretation to Brothers Michael and Peter Diamond of Most Holy Family Monastery. I only add in this essay that we may be able to see the stage for the man of sin was prepared in the extension of papal infallibility in the second Council documents.
"we will be articulating a standard by which to asses the validity of any Papal claimant. This assessment is not strictly forbidden by the Church, as is popularly implied by lay internet defenders of the most recent claimant."
That's the thing. The conciliar apologists do not merely say that faithful Catholics are not allowed to dissent from magisterial teaching (something no Catholic would dispute) but that they are literally not *able* to dissent since they cannot truly apprehend what is under discussion -- only the Pope possesses that charism. So no Catholic can claim to discern if a putative Pope is acting contrary to the prior magisterium and hence is not a true Pope. But if that is the case, the Catholic is no more able to properly assent than he is to dissent. If he cannot properly apprehend what is offered for his assent, that assent cannot be held to be a rational act. If a sedevacantist by necessity lacks the qualifications to decide that the Pope is a heretic (and therefore no Pope), a sedeplenist equally lacks the qualifications to decide that the Pope *is* in fact the Pope. How can the sedeplenist make that judgement when he no more possesses the magisterial Petrine charism of discernment than the sedevacantist does? Only the Pope has the ability and therefore the right to say that he is the Pope! On what grounds, then, should we recognise his authority?