On Papolatry

Catholic Family News ^ | December 1999 | William Marra

[Mershon]

On Papalotry

by Dr. William Marra

Editor's note: This is edited transcript of a portion of the speech “Alternative to Schism” given at the Roman Forum Conference in August, 1995. In this presentation, Dr. Marra presents a clarification that will help Catholics to think critically and correctly, when confusing and contradictory statements emanate from even the highest authorities in the Church.

Belief and Obedience

My great teacher, Dietrich von Hildebrande wrote four outstanding books on the present crisis in the Church. Recently, his latest book, The Charitable Anathema was published. I wish we could mail a copy to Rome. A chapter in this book contains one of the most important lectures he ever gave to the Roman Forum. It concerns the difference between belief and obedience. He called it the critical difference. It was masterful.

The point is this: if there is a problem on a question of truth, and there’s a big dispute, and finally Rome speaks (invoking its infallible authority) and says, “This statement must be believed de fide”. Then this is the end of the dispute. Roma locuta causa finita. Rome has spoken, the case is finished. That is the end of it. Therefore, we owe assent of belief to statements of truth.

However, practical decisions of Churchmen, even the highest authorities; the Pope, bishops, priests are something quite different. We do not say, for example, that a command of a Pope or decision of a Pope to call a council is true or not. We can say that it is wise or not ... it is opportune or not. Such a decision in no way asks us to assent to its truth. It asks us to obey the command or commands that pertain to us. This is what von Hildebrande meant by difference between belief and obedience. And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost.

The Limits of Divine Protection

There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.

We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. (And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de fide, Ed.)

The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to define truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its sacraments are efficacious and so on. But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?

Some Clarifications

Let’s look at certain practical decisions of any Pope.

A Pope could command the suppression of a religious order. That happened a few centuries ago, the Pope suppressed the Jesuits. He was a little premature, I think they should have waited. This type of suppression concerns obedience, not belief.

For all practical purposes, Paul VI suppressed the Roman rite. We have no Roman rite. Pope Paul VI thought he had the liturgical power to do this. Von Hildebrande called it the greatest blunder of Paul VI’s Pontificate. So to suppress a religious order, to suppress a rite, to name a bishop is a matter of obedience, not belief, and it is not protected by the Holy Ghost.

We have 2,600 bishops in the Church. Does that mean the Holy Ghost picked all of those? That is blasphemy, friends. Do you want to blame the Holy Ghost for Archbishop Weakland?

As already mentioned, to call a council is a practical decision of the Pope. A person may piously believe that God inspired it. But no one can say that this is an object of faith.

Also, we must not believe that whoever becomes Pope is the man God wants to be Pope. This is a play on words that “this is the will of God.”

Every theologian has always understood there are two senses to the will of God. The positive will of God and the permissive will of God.

Now, we know that God positively wants holy people in the Church ... “this is the will of God, your sanctification”. But when evil is done, this is through the permissive will of God. It is not something that God directly wills, but something that He permits when men exercise their free will.

Before any conclave which elects a Pope, the electors are supposed to pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit. Now, if they are truly men of God, and they really pray, it is to be expected that the Holy Spirit will give them the right choice. But if they’re willful, ambitious, carnal men, and they are not truly opening themselves to inspiration, an unworthy candidate of their own choosing may be the result. That doesn’t mean that the man elected ceases to be Pope. That doesn’t mean that he loses the protection of the Holy Spirit when he teaches faith and morals. But it could be that this Pope will end up to be a disaster.

Now how do I know this? Well, not because I know that any of the modern Popes have been a disaster, this is too controversial. But in Church history, there are many instances of disastrous Pontificates.

We Learn From History

Dr. John Rao is a good friend of mine. He is a professor of Church History. He is very unhappy with the so-called conservative people who, when they do their doctor’s degree in history, they will document all of the disastrous decisions of the past Popes. They will write about all the disastrous things that happened. But when it comes to the present situation, they’re mum. They believe that everything must be right. But if everything must be right and perfect in present Pontificates, then why do they write their doctoral dissertation on the disasters of Pope Honorius, Pope Liberius, Pope Alexander VI or anyone else?

So, Rao insists that we learn from history, and that in no way can we say “ ‘X’ was elected Pope therefore that is the will of God”. No, it may be either the positive will of God or merely the permissive will of God. But it could be that the man selected to be Pope may be the worst candidate for the office.

It is as if God says, “you carnal electors and you carnal people in the Church who did not pray enough will get what you deserve.” The Papacy is still protected, and will never teach with its infallible authority something as true that is false, but everything else is up for grabs. The given Pope might do every type of abomination ... his personal life might be a disaster, he might be self-willed, and so on. It could be that he is a horrible person.

He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person.

The Papacy is not protected from such a calamity. And this is a point on which we ought to have a real dialogue with the so-called conservatives.

Reprinted from the December 1999 edition of Catholic Family News MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302 905-871-6292 * cfnjv@localnet.com

[Mershon]

On the nature of true obedience. Written by Dr. William Marra, a disciple of Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called a 20th Century "doctor of the Church." But then again, Pope Pius XII is no longer part of the "Living Magisterium," right?

[Mershon]

ping

[Maximilian]

Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called a 20th Century "doctor of the Church."

This sounds like an apocryphal quote. I'd like to see a source on that one. The only source I've ever seen is his wife, Alice von Hildebrand, who seems to be making it her life's work to push for her deceased husband's canonization. But it seems highly unlikely that she will ever succeed, and I really question the idea that Pope Pius XII called von Hildebrand anything of the sort.

What was the occasion? What was the context? Is there any written proof of such a statement?

I've noticed that for many years Bernard Haring was always referred to as "the greatest living moral theologian." It was like a Homeric epithet. They even put quotes around the phrase. But it was never clear who they were supposed to be quoting.

[bornacatholic]

that wasnt about obedience.

the Living Magisterium must be obeyed - not theologians, famous or not.

and who coined the word "papalotry" which, imo, is a sly way to excuse disobedience to an Ecumenical Council and/or the Living Magisterium. To me, Papalotry would seem to involve worship of the Pope

This was very poorly written and poorly reasoned; it is very confused thinking and results in many readers (the cfn gang, for example) thinking they can disobey with impunity - just like the liberals they ape

[AskStPhilomena]

"He can also be a disaster for the faith even if he is a good person."

The Pope John Paul the Great crowd are not going to enjoy statements like that.

[bornacatholic]

St. Thomas Aquinas: “We must abide rather by the Pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures.”(Quodlibetum IX,Q.8, Quaest. Quodlibetales)

I guess Dr. Marra and DVH know better?

[bornacatholic]

(1) "{W}e {cannot} pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that 'without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.' But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864)]

*scratch a traditionalist reveal a modernist

[Mershon]

Perhaps you can explain to me in details what you think was poorly reasoned and not understandable, and then perhaps I could couch it in language you might be able to decipher.

[Mershon]

For once, I would like like to discuss the contents of the article. Do you have any assessments?

[Mershon]

Didn't you post this on another thread? What is with the bold? Do you have a seeing problem?

This has nothing to do with the contents of the article. Do you have any constructive assessments of the details of the article, or are you simply going to go from post to post with your two most favorite paragraphs. No faithful traditionalist Catholic denies the quotes you posted. Next...

[Mershon]

"Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."

From Ecclesia Dei Aflicta, written by current reigning Pope John Paul II. He calls upon THEOLOGIANS to explain those points of doctrine, PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW, which have not been well understood by some sections of the Church.

So in this Motu Proprio, the Pope refers us to the theologians on the specific doctrinal clarifications of Vatican II in light of Tradition. It looks like we're being obedient to the Pope by referring to the theologians. Now what?

[Maximilian]

I would like like to discuss the contents of the article. Do you have any assessments?

You are the one who brought up the quote about von Hildebrand. Now you want to run away from it.

My assessment of this article is that Marra is trading on von Hildebrand's name for authority. But von Hildebrand is a very questionable authority. He was busy promoting personalism, both before and after the council. After Vatican II he was willing to admit that other people had made mistakes, but he never retracted his own contributions to the mess. His widow is still busy going around promoting personalism, and trying to pretend that it is compatible with traditional Catholicism.

As far as the hair-splitting on papalotry, I have to agree with the neo-Catholics on this one. The pope can't go around making indefensible decisions, even on prudential matters. His every word should be carefully measured, and his every silence, for that matter. Catholics should be able to trust that he is acting for their best interest in all matters, not just questions of dogma. I'm afraid that trust has been shattered, at least for the time being.

[bornacatholic]

in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition...

*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition.

The piece by Marra was pure B.S. I posted the Tradition illustrating it was BS because Marra was inventing words to provide an escape clause for those unwilling to be obedient to the Living Magisterium

[gbcdoj]

*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition.

Mershon's masters' thesis was on the compatibility of Dignitatis Humanae with preconciliar teaching: "Dignitatis Humanae & Vatican II Reaffirm the Traditional Teaching of Christ’s Kingship Over Hearts, Minds and Wills, Families and Societies". See here.

[gbcdoj]

He was busy promoting personalism, both before and after the council ... His widow is still busy going around promoting personalism, and trying to pretend that it is compatible with traditional Catholicism.

Why is personalism incompatible with Catholicism?

[Tantumergo]

"*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition."

I'll take up the challenge and cite Vatican II as being consistent with Holy Tradition in denying the possibility of new doctrine pertaining to the deposit of faith:

From LG n.25:

"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) BUT A NEW REVELATION THEY DO NOT ACCEPT AS PERTAINING TO THE DIVINE DEPOSIT OF FAITH(47*)"

Here it is exactly in line with the Vatican I Constitution Pastor Aeternus.

Unfortunately the Holy Father does not appear to be aware of this as he suggests Vatican II violates both itself and Vatican I. To requote the passage that Mershon quoted:

"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in POINTS OF DOCTRINE which, perhaps because THEY ARE NEW, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."

As Vatican II and Vatican I both testify, "new doctrine" cannot pertain to the deposit of faith and therefore there is no obligation on any Catholic to accept it.

So either:

A) The Holy Father is right, VII contains "new" doctrine which the faithful are not obliged to accept because VII itself says this cannot be part of the deposit of faith.

or

B) The Holy Father is wrong, VII contains no "new" doctrine in which case there is no justification for any post-conciliar changes which were premised on the existence of putative "new" doctrine.

In either case the Novus Ordo version of the Church is shown to be built on sand and will eventually self-destruct due to its own inherent internal inconsistencies.

Looks like Vatican II will come out on the side of tradition after all.

;)

[gbcdoj]

New points of doctrine is not an equivalent statement to "new revelation".

It is equally certain that the doctrine of justification defined at Trent was, in some sense, new also. The refutation and remedy of errors cannot precede their rise; and thus the fact of false developments or corruptions involves the correspondent manifestation of true ones. (Cardinal Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 58)

[Tantumergo]

"New points of doctrine is not an equivalent statement to "new revelation"."

Then why did the Council Fathers approve the footnote which emphatically does refer to "new doctrine?:

Pastor Aeternus Ch 4 n.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."

Also the VI Fathers took a fairly dim view of Newman's idea of doctrinal development and circumscribed the notion with these:

On Faith & Reason Ch 4 n.14:

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

On Faith & Reason Canon 3:

"If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema."

While Newman said, "It is equally certain that the doctrine of justification defined at Trent was, in some sense, new also.", you surely cannot be implying that he meant anything other than the mere phrasing of the doctrine?

Or do you think he meant some doctrine that was unknown to the Apostles?

[gbcdoj]

Of course there is no new revelation or new doctrine revealed by revelation. The Pope agrees on this. "New points of doctrine" is not equivalent to "new revelation" or "new revealed doctrine". It means what Newman said: it was new in the sense that it was a development of doctrine.

CCC 66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

[Maximilian]

Why is personalism incompatible with Catholicism?

Just off the top of my head: it's not part of Catholic Tradition, and the magisterium has definitively stated that Thomism must remain the philosophy of the Church. Personalism is based on Jewish and atheist sources. It begins with radically different presumptions, and ends up with radically different conclusions.

Personalism was introduced as part of the anti-Tradition nouvelle theologie. Personalist philosopy has never existed in traditional Catholicism. Therefore, anyone who wishes to believe and practice the Catholic faith of all time will have nothing to do with personalism.

Personalism is the underlying philosophy of the entire Vatican II revolution. Therefore, anyone who wishes to join the Vatican II revolution against the Catholic faith will be attracted to personalism, but anyone who wishes to avoid the "spirit of Vatican II" will stay far away from any taint of personalism.