12 Ways For a Catholic to Stay Calm & Not Freak Out Every Time Pope Francis Speaks

[Original text, a sermon, had no title/headline. The above headline was tacked on by the BeautySoAncient Blog]

Homily preached by the Reverend Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., on 3 July 2016, the external Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (Extraordinary Form), at the Church of the Holy Innocents, New York City.

“On this past Wednesday, the Church Universal (all 23 of her rites) and the Orthodox Churches as well celebrated the Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul. This morning, we are observing its so-called “external” solemnity for the benefit of those who were not able to participate in the Sacred Liturgy on the feast proper. Naturally, our thoughts turn to Rome, referred to in the ancient hymn for Vespers as “O Felix Roma” (O Happy Rome) because her origins were consecrated by the blood of the martyrs Peter and Paul. Furthermore, Rome is the “apostolic see,” par excellence, what St. Ignatius of Antioch, the second-century Father of the Church, would call “the church that presides over all the churches in charity.” That notion then turns our attention to the occupant of that seat or chair, the Bishop of Rome.

We Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome has unique authority and unique responsibilities conferred on Peter and passed on to all his successors down the centuries. We know the scriptural basis of these claims very well. In Matthew 16, Jesus accepts with gladness Simon’s acknowledgment of Him as Messiah and Son of God and declares that this understanding of Simon’s is not of human origin but from divine revelation, with the result that Jesus renames Simon, making him the Kepha/Petra/Rock on which He would build His Church. Luke 22 records Christ’s directive that Peter “strengthen” his brethren in the faith – once he recuperates from his own failure in courage and fidelity. John 21 likewise contains a painful reminder to Peter of his triple denial of his Lord, undone by his threefold affirmation of love, thus causing the Risen Christ to commission Simon Peter as the “substitute shepherd” of His flock. Confirmation of the Church in faith and promoting ecclesial unity are the primary tasks of the Bishop of Rome. No pope in history has ever fulfilled these tasks perfectly – for no human being is perfect. Some came very close to doing so, while others fell considerably short of the mark.

As I speak, I cannot help but notice the nervousness of not a few of you, so let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room by asking where Pope Francis fits into the scheme of things. Unlike many of his modern predecessors – and especially his two immediate predecessors, who were truly extraordinary – he is not particularly endowed with gifts of culture, languages and broad horizons; nor was his philosophical and theological training very profound. And as the humble man he wishes to be, he has said all this on many occasions. It would be dishonest not to admit that the clarity of the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI has a yielded to some very unfortunate confusion. I suspect that some of you are most uncomfortable in voicing such an observation; yet others may be very vocal in criticism. Permit me to try to offer a path through the Scylla and Charybdis of denial on the one hand and vitriol on the other – a dozen thoughts for life in the Church of today.

1) The via negativa: Pope Francis has not spoken heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines heresy as “the obstinate denial” of one or more truths of the Catholic Faith (canon 751). That has not happened. Lack of precision is regrettable, but it is not heretical.

2) It is not disloyal, let alone sinful, to question church authorities (including the Pope) on the performance of their solemn duties. Indeed, the Code of Canon Law is quite clear in asserting that the faithful may actually have an obligation to do so, that is, if they have both the necessary knowledge and good will (cf. canon 212.3). One need only think of someone like St. Paul who brags about confronting St. Peter (cf. Gal 2:11). Or, St. Catharine of Siena, who harassed the Pope of her day into compliance, yet never failed to address him as “my dear sweet Christ on earth.” Catharine’s Dominican brother, St. Thomas Aquinas, is quite pointed in this regard. Thus we find this line in his Summa Theologica: “There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”1

3) Vatican I’s declaration of Petrine primacy and infallibility (and its reassertion in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium) was a necessary doctrinal development in light of the intellectual and political climate of the day, saving the Church from both faithless academics and meddling civil authorities and, equally, from a thousand bishops functioning as mini-popes. We have only to look at the dismal situation of the Orthodox Churches and their flailing council, held hostage to extreme nationalism and petty power plays. That said, an unintended but real consequence of papal primacy has been a kind of deification of the person of the Pope, exemplified by William George Ward (the nineteenth-century English convert and writer), who declared that he wished to be able to read a new papal bull every day with his Times at breakfast! That mentality eventually caused Cardinal Newman to remind all of the primacy of conscience with his would-be dinner retort: “If I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, – still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”

4) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 85), citing Dei Verbum 10 makes clear that the Magisterium is not above the Word of God but its servant. That includes the Pope and, actually, in a preeminent way precisely as the servus servorum Dei. As William F. Buckley reminded his audience on “Firing Line” after Pope John Paul’s first pastoral visit to the States in 1979, the Pope is the most constricted man on the planet – all he can do is repeat what has been taught from time immemorial.

5) A corollary of our previous point follows: The Pope is a member of the Church before anything else, and he won’t be a Pope in eternity. As such, he lives under the same Gospel imperative as all of us. Hence, Pope Francis constantly reminds us: “I am a loyal son of the Church!” St. Augustine put it well when he asserted: “For you I am a bishop, with you, after all, I am a Christian. The first is the name of an office undertaken, the second a name of grace; that one means danger, this one salvation.”

6) We must disabuse ourselves of the idea that the election of every Pope is the work of the Holy Spirit and the direct will of God. If that were the case, we would be hard-pressed to explain the Borgias. No, the whole Church prays that the Holy Spirit guide the College of Cardinals in their choice, but there is no guarantee that the cardinals will respond appropriately. In this regard, I would venture to say that the present pontificate might be a gift of the Holy Spirit to cause a correction to an unhealthy and unbridled ultramontanism that prevailed in many quarters as the “papolatry” I mentioned earlier. Psalm 146 cautions us: “Put not your trust in princes”; our ultimate trust is in Christ, not in his at-times very human vicars.

7) “Because, the Pope!” Not a few serious Catholics over the past three decades, when quizzed as to why they did or did not do something, had fallen into the trap of “sealing the deal” by saying that they did so “because the Holy Father does it” (or doesn’t). That is a very weak rationale. I don’t engage in a particular practice because the Pope does it; I do it because it is the right thing to do. It is wonderful if the Pope also does it, but it is not essential. In fact, Our Lord gave some very salient counsel on this score in regard to the religious leaders of His day (Mt 23:3): “Do whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example!”

8) Catholics don’t have to like every Pope, but the lack of fondness ought never descend into carping or, worse, hatred. However, we must love him, above all, willing his eternal salvation. One’s love for one’s natural father does not blind one to his inadequacies or failures, nor does it demand silence in the face of problems. That said, never allow disappointment to diminish your own faith, hope and charity. At all costs, avoid extremism and progressive polemic. Remember: Luther started out condemning genuine abuses in the Church but ended up denying doctrines of faith. In our own day, we have seen how the Society of St. Pius X had its spin-off into that of Pius V. What’s next, Pius the Two and a Half? Cardinal Newman came to a position of intense dislike of Pius IX, even referring to the pontificate at its end as “the climax of tyranny,” encouraging his closest friends to pray for an end of the reign; however, he never doubted the divine institution of the papacy. And a caveat from St. Francis de Sales: “While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal – who allow scandals to destroy faith – are guilty of spiritual suicide.”

9) Don’t look for trouble. Some “uber” Catholics have made a cottage industry of trying to find missteps of Francis and even succumbing to acceptance of made-up ones. St. Ignatius Loyola teaches us always to seek to place the most benign interpretation possible on a superior’s teaching or directive. That helps ensure honesty and good will on our part; it also makes any legitimate criticism we make all the more credible.

10) Any displeasure or discomfort experienced with the present Pope might be an opportune occasion to repent of the ingratitude or grousing directed at his predecessors. I myself not infrequently bemoaned the weak governance styles of John Paul and Benedict – all the while admiring their razor-sharp intellects and direct, effective modes of communicating the truth. Every leader has assets and liabilities. God can punish us for highlighting the negative to the exclusion of the positive.

11) We have the duty to pray for the Pope’s growth in wisdom and holiness. Popes change. Pius IX morphed from being an open-minded individual to being quite reactionary, while Paul VI started out as rather given to change and ended up a stalwart proponent of Catholic doctrine, at great personal expense.

12) Never forget the Church is always in need of reform – Ecclesia semper reformanda. The Council of Trent boldly demanded the reform of the Church in her head and members. Many of us want a hierarchical Church of perfection, but fail to realize that the members of the hierarchy come from the ranks of the lay faithful. If you want a reformed and holier Church, you must commit to becoming a reformed and holier member yourself. As a matter of fact, there has never been an effective reform of the Church which was a top-down movement; it has always been from the bottom up.

Today, then, commit yourselves to a renewed faith in Christ, proclaimed by Peter as the Son of the Living God. Pray for Peter’s successor. And pray for your own spiritual peace. And keep emblazoned in your mind and heart: Christus vincit. Christus regnat. Christus imperat. Christus!”

Oh, so there’s simply a magic loophole that allows Catholics to not have to face and proclaim that we have an anti-pope in our lifetime?

On the other hand, we have a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that the man is a heretic, as well as a correction to the thesis that confines nullifying heresy to the “canonical definition” only.

Part of a pertinent discussion is pasted below:

________________________________________________

B. Focus on the SIN of Heresy. Hitherto, the R&R camp, following the arguments of Michael Davies, has insisted that no one, especially a pope, can be considered a heretic unless all the principles and procedural rules in the Code of Canon law pertaining to the crime of heresy are punctiliously observed. Thus, one must have official warnings, the accused must be given an opportunity to mount a defense, some sort of tribunal must be convened, the excusing causes canon law provides must all be carefully considered, etc.

But note: the canonists quoted in section III explicitly state that it is divine law that prevents a public heretic from being validly elected. This means that the sin of heresy suffices to prevent someone from becoming a true pope. There is no requirement that he first be convicted under ecclesiastical law of the canonical crime of heresy before the impediment applies.

In the case of heresy, warnings and the rest of the canonical rigmarole come into play only for the crime. These are not required as a condition for committing the sin of heresy against divine law. The canonist Michel draws the clear distinction for us:

“Pertinacity does not of necessity include long obstinacy by the heretic and warnings from the Church. A condition for the sin of heresy is one thing; a condition for the canonical crime of heresy, punishable by canon laws, is another.” (Michel, “Héresie,” in DTC 6:2222)

If meeting all the canonical criteria were a requirement, rest assured that Wernz-Vidal, Coronata, Badius, Cocchi and Sipos would have explicitly told us so in the passages quoted above by qualifying the word “heretic” with the precise canonical terms employed for someone formally convicted of that canonical crime. Instead, they simply said heretic.

C. The “Pope-by-Default” Objections. Defeated by an unassailable general principle that leads to a logical conclusion, the R&R camp will no doubt continue to offer the usual “Pope-by-default” objections, implying these can somehow turn a heretic into a true pope by default. “The Church must have one, and who else is there?” Here are the common ones, together with responses, based on the teachings of various pre-Vatican II theologians:
1.Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)
2.A long vacancy would change the nature of the Church. The monarchical nature of the Church “does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head.Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (Dorsch, de Ecclesia 2:196–7)
3.How could we then get a true pope one day? The various theories are direct divine intervention, the material/formal thesis and an imperfect general council, the latter of which is taught by the theologian Cajetan. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)
4.Sedevacantism destroys the visibility of the Church. There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth,” Lk 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body.
5.The universal acceptance of the post-Conciliar popes confirms that they are true popes. Circular argument: Heretics, who are outside the Church, confirm as head of the Church another heretic who is outside the Church. Well, nice if you can manage it! And besides, sedevacantists reject the post-Vatican II popes. What are we? Chopped liver? So the acceptance is clearly not universal.
6.It is impossible that so many Catholics could be wrong and only the sedevacantists right. “There seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (Berry, Church of Christ, 155)

Look closely at each of the objections again. None of them even pertain to — still less defeat — the underlying principle for the sede thesis: That a public heretic who lacks the faith of Peter cannot by divine law obtain the authority of Peter.

V. Just Apply the Principle to What Is Obvious

This principle makes for a very straightforward and easy-to-understand argument that Bergoglio is a false pope. All one need do is apply it to what is now clear as day. It should be obvious to anyone who has the Catholic faith that Bergoglio did not have it, and that when he was elected, was already a heretic, if not a total apostate

How else could a supposed cleric assert there is no Catholic God, doctrinal security exists no more, he who claims to have all the answers does not have God within him, proselytism is nonsense, atheists can go to heaven, etc. — declarations that blow away the meaning of the Creed, the nature of God, the possibility of arriving at doctrinal truths, the divine mission to convert others to those truths, and faith as a requirement for eternal salvation?

How else could a cleric assert that moral teachings (on the 6th and 9th commandments) are a disjointed multitude of doctrines that cannot be imposed insistently, one must not obsess about such matters (abortion, gay “marriage” and contraception), what is objectively adultery admits of a “pastoral solution,” who am I to judge, each one has his own vision of good and evil, spiritual interference in personal life is impossible, etc. — declarations that portray mortal sins as trifles, trivialize adultery, reprove moral judgments, enthrone the conscience as autonomous and supreme, and effectively renounce the right of the magisterium to tell the individual conscience anything?

Are we supposed to believe that Bergoglio suddenly began to profess these heresies during his walk from the Sistine Chapel to the Loggia of St. Peter’s on March 13, 2013?

Or should we not rather say that his statements thereafter merely confirm the modernist heresy Jorge Bergoglio already publicly professed in Argentina long before his election — his adherence to a system that rejects the possibility of religious truth and the objective moral law, that rejects proselytizing those who are atheists, that rejects “judging” such persons, that “cannot say what [God] is,” that classifies “as arrogant those theologies… that had the pretense of saying who He was,” that believes “there is another life because we have already begun to feel it,” that denies Church moral teaching on suicide, that speaks of adulterers as “those who live on the margin of what indissolubility and the sacrament of marriage require of them,” that says “the religious minister does not have the right to force anything on anyone’s private life,” and that insists, contradicting the teaching of all the Church Fathers and even St. Peter himself, that “the Jewish People can no longer be accused of killing God”? (See Bp. Donald Sanborn’s analysis of On Heaven and Earth, which Bergoglio co-authored in Argentina with a rabbi, in Most Holy Trinity Seminary Newsletter, May 2013)

Faced with this mountain of evidence, can we really still take seriously the objection of the R&R camp — Bp. Williamson, SSPX, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, countless bloggers, and moonlighting contract, tax and personal injury lawyers — that the cardinal-adherents to the heresies of Vatican II and John Paul’s 1992 Catechism must give Jorge Mario Bergoglio two warnings, and then launch their own trial before we can dare say out loud that their companion in heresy is not a real pope?

The teachings of the canonists we have quoted give us the answer: We are not obliged to engage in such exercises in pretzel thinking and pseudo-Suarezian legal rigmarole before arriving at a conclusion.

A man who is not a Catholic — is a public heretic — cannot become a true pope and the rule is a matter of divine law. Bergoglio is a public heretic, so he cannot be the pope. It’s as easy as that. Bergoglio never got the papacy in the first place — so he’s got nothing to lose.

For complete article with visuals, visit:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

Salvation, I'm addressing this to you, not because I have a dispute with you (far from it!) but because to me you represent the "Faithful and Well Informed Catholic" faction. :o)

What I would like our faithful Catholics (and others) to understand, is this:

Much damage can be done to the church by upper-middle and upper-upper hierarchs and popes and so forth who are guilty of omissions, ambiguities, plausibly-deniable equivocations, etc.

BUT
for a canonical charge of heresy to stick, thee has to be a positively clear heretical statement, and obstinate persistence after the offender has been plainly admonished. That's probably not going to happen with Pope Francis, simply because he proceeds by omission and ambiguity, not clear doctrinal statements even of the false kind.

Second, on the question of anti-popes. An anti-pope is not simply a bad pope, a pope who sins, one who makes disastrous errors of governance, or even one who has heretical opinions. An anti-pope is a man who opposes, as rival, a legitimately elected pope.

In other words, for there to be an antipope, there has to be a living, legitimately elected pope against whom the antipope is in open struggle and competition. The situation results from rival conclaves, and therefore involves rival groups of bishops/cardinals backing different candidates.

The Encyclopedia Britannica correctly defines "antipope" this way:

"One who opposes the legitimately elected bishop of Rome, endeavors to secure the papal throne, and to some degree succeeds materially in the attempt."

Some of the sedevacantists think there has been no legitimate pope since 1958 (the death of Pius XII) and therefore, at this point, there could be never a legitimate pope NOR an anti-pope, ever again, because there has no been a legitimate conclave in 58 years. Therefore there are also no legitimate cardinals, since the ones alive in 1958 are now dead, and all of the ones we've got now were consecrated or appointed by supposedly illegitimate popes.

In other words, this faction-of-a-faction --- I'm speaking of the most excruciatingly alienated wing, think Christ's promises were bunk. They are fueled by nonstop anger and exposed to the danger of ultimate despair. So, let us love them, pray and sacrifice or them, and for the whole Church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.