Replies

I think there's a third option: 3) a faithful Catholic dissenting with a Papal view which is not de fide. That is to say, I am not obliged to submit to the Pope except when he is either (a) speaking ex cathedra, or b) repeating something that has always been part of the Deposit of Faith (Public Revelation, which has not changed since Apostolic times)

The problem I see with your 3b option is that the "Deposit of Faith", defined by the CCC as Sacred Scripture and Tradition, is a huge body of doctrine that has never been precisely defined by the CCC (the undefined element being Tradition, of course). Therefore, if a lay Catholic presumes to judge the Pope's statements against this standard, massive interpretation must be applied; interpretation of both the Pope's ambiguous statements and thousands of years of Tradition. Tradition which Church Scholars and Canon lawyers spend their lives debating and coming up with different opinions. Tradition, which from this Protestant's perspective, has been often contradictory. I understand you would dispute that, but at the least, the sheer volume of that body of doctrine and the subtleties ingrained therein make the concept of a lay Catholic judging a Pope, in the absence of formal action by the courts of the Church to be, well, not "Catholic". Look at it this way. If you judge that the Pope's statements conflict with the Deposit of Faith and therefore feel freed from submission to him, you are taking an action that the Magesterium has not seen fit to take. That would seem to reflect your opinion of the Magesterium more than anything else. It also makes you a de facto sedevacantist, it would seem to me.

Your views of things, or or views somewhat like them, can be heard all over the Catholic world these days. I don't quite know what to make of it, since we'd properly go back in our history to look for precedents, and we've never been in quite this situation before.

Nowadays everyone identifies the rule of Francis as in some sense Peronist. The Catholic Church explicitly does NOT teach that a pope is an oracle of God and a fount of new doctrine or religious knowledge. The Church explicitly identifies a pope as a conservator of the Deposit of Faith, seen as a stable thing, which indeed can develop (be deepened, be made more elaborate as its inner logic is applied to new situations or to answer new questions)--- but which cannot be self-contradictory.

But as mentioned before, Jorge Bergoglio runs the papacy like a Peronist, a man who is entirely free to contradict Scripture, or Tradition, or his predecessors or even himself. This is not at all what Catholicism means by the Papal Magisterium.

It's chaos. The cat's run wild.

But who will bell the cat?

It seems to me that one of three things will have to happen. Papal authority being what it is, Francis' heresies must be denounced by either a past pope, the present pope, or a future pope.

A past pope: obviously I have only one man in mind,Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He could either reveal something that proves his own abdication was invalid; or the conclave that elected Francis was invalid; or that Francis has fallen into unambiguous, persistent and obstinate heresy somewhere in his pontificate.

The present pope: Francis could repent of his heresy; or he could abdicate; or maybe he could be pressured into abdicating by an open revolt by the Cardinals: that wouldn't have the authority to depose him, but he might self-depose if he saw he could in practice no longer govern.

A future pope: whoever gets elected after Francis could denounce him posthumously. It's happened before.

Christ will get this sorted out as He always has in the past: by raising up saints. Things were pretty desperate during the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) --- but it took 40 years to sort it out.

So we may have extended pain ahead.

So long as my parish has a valid Mass and my bishop is in communion with Francis, I guess that makes me in Communion with Francis, de jure. Can't chase me out with a stick.

THis will get sorted out. But as the Western Schism should have taught us: it will be in God's time, not necessarily ours. Patience conquers all ("La paciencia todo lo alcanza", St. Teresa of Avila).

And as the esteemed Doctor of the Church Teresa also said: "All times are dangerous times."

Tradition, is a huge body of doctrine that has never been precisely defined

A big part of it has been "precisely defined" -- that's what ecumenical councils are good for. We can further look at "what the church has always taught" versus "various specific heresies through history".

Teaching that Christ was not bodily raised from the dead is Docetism, not Catholicism. There is no vagueness or ambiguity or lack of precise definition about it.