It would be wrong to hold that the reign of Pope Francis affirms certain dogmatic objections against the Latin conception of the papacy, though it does serve as a disconcerting reminder when thousands, nay, millions of persons are desperate for surety. In modern times, the person holding the Petrine office, not the office itself, has served as a rickety “proof” that Catholicism possesses some comparative advantage over both Eastern Orthodoxy and the thousands of Protestant sects strewn across the globe. This might have seemed all well and good when John Paul II—a world-historical figure of great importance to the last century—was sitting on the throne; it seems like anything but now that a liberal Jesuit whose words are often as clumsy as they are misleading is actively trying to impose his will recklessly throughout the universal Church of Christ. This hard truth has not dissuaded the professional Catholic commentariat from either apologizing for, or covering over, Francis’s most scandalous words and deeds. Layer on top of that the reality that so many people’s faith is so rickety that it might indeed be taken down with too many harsh words against the Holy Father and what you have is an old-fashioned pickle. Traditional Catholics (and an increasing number of conservatives) may think they are doing the Church a great service by pointing out every misstep, mistake, and malicious act carried out by Francis, but what they seldom realize is that by impeaching the man on Peter’s Throne they are simultaneously undercutting one of the primary reasons people remain Catholic. If Catholics can’t trust the pope, who can they trust?
Traditional Catholics are typically quick to point to the “indefectible teachings of the Church,” as if they are either well known by the general Catholic populace or completely unambiguous. The idea of tradition in contemporary Catholicism is fraught with hermeneutical difficulties which far too many traditionalists ignore at their own peril. It’s not that the Church hasn’t spoken decisively on a range of doctrinal and moral matters; but contextualizing those teachings and applying them to the present situation is not a simple game of connect-the-dots, or at least it doesn’t seem that way to me. Add to that the fact that some traditional Catholics tend to absolutize certain periods in Church history or certain theological movements which have not been dogmatized and the meaning of “official” or “infallible” Church teaching starts to become a bit murky. Some things are perfectly clear, of course. Marriage is indissoluble; contraception is absolutely forbidden; Jesus Christ is One Person with Two Natures; it is meet and right to call the Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos; and so on and so forth. Other matters, ranging from priestly celibacy to the deference which ought to be accorded to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, are not quite as clear cut, much to the chagrin of certain traditionalists.
There’s something to be said for trusting in the bishops of the Church as well, or at least those brave souls who have chosen to remain orthodox in an environment where heterodoxy runs free. Lest we forget, they, too, are successors to the Apostles—a simple point which sometimes drives traditionalists to start screaming the C-word. (Collegiality.) Even if they are few and far between, the Church—East and West—does still have a number of faithful and holy bishops at her service, doing what they can to lead Christ’s flock to the gates of Heaven. Unfortunately, it seems that there is still a mentality in the Church which holds that all bishops—good and bad—are simply adjuncts to the pope, lacking in any particular authority or mission unless it is assigned to them by the Man in Rome. It is not only accepted but expected that whoever holds the papal office will spend his days busily micro-managing the Church, playing politics with various bishops conferences while trying to stock the College of Cardinals with as many likeminded lackeys as he can find. Why would anyone with even a shred of common sense rejoice in such a spectacle? What soul except a demented one can take comfort in this?
As I noted in my previous post, none of this is going away anytime soon. Even if Francis exits the throne (or this earth) within the next six months (i.e., before he has time to do any more serious damage), the next pope won’t be able to rollback everything that he has done. In fact, it may be next to impossible to roll back much of anything without causing strife and schism. Too many movers-and-shakers in and around the Church have a vested interest in Francis’s reforms, hard and soft. If what we have heard of Vatican politics and intrigue is true (and a great deal of it most likely is), then what we are looking at is for the Catholic Church to be saved not be some “messiah pope” (the fact anybody would hope for one is a scandal) but by the lay faithful, good priests, and the holy bishops willing to lead them through dark times by the light of Truth. The return of Christendom—if it is ever to return before the eschaton—will not come by way of top-down reconfiguration and renovations, but by the same route it came before: Prayer, penance, and perseverance from all strata of the Church and society. Can it happen? Dare we hope? Or should we remain paralyzed in a perpetual state of scandal and righteous indignation? Heaven forbid.
January 25, 2016
Gabriel, you hit upon what is the really hard aspect of all this for me in your discussion of the difficulties in determining and following tradition. If we are left to following the faithful bishops and the like, well, is that anything more than choosing to follow one set of well founded opinions? Is there assurance of truth in that? This by no means to suggest that we must default back to the problematic pronouncements of the current pontiff, however. If I am forced to choose among well founded opinions, why should I choose Latin ones rather than Orthodox ones?
January 25, 2016
You’ve basically hit on what I think is the heart of the problem in a pluralistic society where few today are reared in a dominant faith tradition but are other exposed to several at once. People can make their various pitches why Catholicism is the “one true Church” and Orthodoxy is not (and vice versa), but such arguments are often made for personal-emotive reasons and not because of a serious exhaustion of the historical, ecclesiastical, theological, etc. sources. I suppose I am refraining from supplying “magic answers” to that conundrum and taking a greater interest in seeing others work through it.
January 26, 2016
I would find this pontificate exhilarating if there were signs that the instability was weaning the conservatives off their studies of the latest encyclical for the “right views” to hold, prompting a rediscovery of tradition among the traditionalists, a return to patristics for theology and worldview, and a repudiation of the prima facie reversal of lex orandi, lex credendi in Mediator Dei.
January 26, 2016
Can you expand a tad on what you mean about Mediator Dei?
January 27, 2016
Unless I have misunderstood Mediator Dei, it reads as if Pius XII is saying that liturgical traditions are judged by and may be reformed by the teaching office of the Church & explicitly states that it would be more accurate to say that the law of faith is the law of prayer than vice versa. It doesn’t seem entirely insignificant that MD comes just before the re-writing of the ancient propers for Assumption, followed by the Holy Week reforms. To me it reads as if MD is setting the scene for a revision of rites based upon (1) liturgical expertise and (2) theological judgment by means of papal fiat. Now it is not wrong to say that certain liturgical accretions should be pruned etc. but the whole thrust seems to me wrong (and based upon the notion that we can have “scientific” knowledge of liturgical development), and what is missing worryingly, in retrospect, is an explication of how certain liturgical traditions bind the Pope and the theological/liturgical experts. Simply to reverse lex orandi, lex credendi without massive qualification seems to me a massive mistake. Unless traditionalists get to grips with this document, and of course the problematic “reforms” of Pius X to the breviary, they are not going to be able to get onto what I would see as the right footing as regards Tradition vs. papal authority. There is no point in traditionalists sitting out this papacy and waiting for a better – there is a huge root problem here, and a critical examination of the issue may receive a sympathetic ear from churchmen who are irked at present.
January 26, 2016
‘Condoms are bad’ has the same standing as Chalcedon?
January 26, 2016
It seems like you are trying to trivialize condoms, but in effect you are trivializing Chalcedon.
January 26, 2016
You’ll have to excuse him; he doesn’t even believe what his own confession preaches. Moving on…
January 26, 2016
I agree the post trivialized Chalcedon, and Ephesus, too.
I’ll have to reflect on where my confession and I part ways. Not sure that’s accurate, but our critics are our best friends.
January 26, 2016
Don’t be daft, Christopher. It’s not good for you.
January 27, 2016
Scandalous to believe in a messiah pope? Why is it inherently scandalous to believe top-down restoration/reform is more (likely, beneficial, prudent) than bottom-up or “everybody-at-once”?
Top-down has converted plenty of nations and families, and shows well the excellence of creation in reflecting God’s unity. Restoration has many times come from the monks, who are clerics and have the highest vocation even among clerics. Neither of those are the same thing, but I’m probing at the source of your negative judgment there.
January 27, 2016
What was King Josias other than a messiah pope?
January 27, 2016
No, King Josiah was a king. Think about it.
January 28, 2016
I like to. Why is his example, as a king, unsuited to a pope? I see in King Josias an example for any authority; fathers as well.