In a previous post, I posed a question to Drs. John Joy and Peter Kwasniewski, as well as other likeminded individuals, asking if they’d be willing to pledge “yes” to the following as found in the Oath Against Modernism:
Do you sincerely hold the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport as these doctrines have been handed down?
It would seem that the only honest answer from persons in that camp is a resounding “no!” Clearly, the resist-the-pope crowd doesn’t sincerely hold the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church in exactly the same meaning and in the same purport as it has been handed down.
Briefly, to be perfectly clear, the indefectibility of the Church concerns (in part) the reality that she – in particular, the See of Rome, under the headship of Blessed Peter, Bishop of Rome, and his successors – can never become corrupt in faith or in morals. If this were to happen, then the gates of Hell will have prevailed.
The infallibility of the Church is very closely related. By it we mean to profess that the Church cannot teach error in faith or morals, not merely as it pertains to defining revealed truth, but also with regard to those doctrines that are closely associated with Divine Revelation, this being necessary to protect the faithful.
The entire resist-the-pope movement, however, is firmly founded on the premise that the See of Rome in our day, under a legitimate Successor of Peter by the name of Francis, is deeply infected with grave errors in faith and morals. Moreover, the “Holy See” [sic] dispenses those errors to the Universal Church on a regular basis.
Many among the resist-the-pope ranks also unabashedly insist that Vatican Council II is an act of the Supreme Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, grievous errors and all.
With this in mind, one cannot but conclude that the resist-the-pope movement itself, despite its traditional Catholic battle cries, is truly nothing other than an exercise in the very modernism it claims to oppose.
The proximate impetus for these observations was an article by John Joy in which he argued against the concept of “infallible safety” as proposed by the likes of Cardinal Johan Franzelin. Readers may recall my response, In Defense of Infallible Safety.
Despite whatever good points my response may have conveyed, it was insufficient. For instance, I wrote:
There appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Joy’s part insofar as the infallible security “thesis” (as he calls it) does not concede the possibility of “error in matters of faith or morals” in the non-infallible authoritative papal magisterium. In fact, as we shall see, numerous holy popes, saints, catechisms, and venerable theologians have consistently indicated that such is not possible.
That the infallible security thesis does not concede the possibility of error in the non-infallible authoritative papal magisterium is true, but what I failed to express is the reason, namely, the “infallible safety” of which Franzelin and others wrote does not concern, as Joy suggests, “the non-definitive teaching of the authentic papal magisterium” at all.
In fact, one will not find any discussion among the pre-conciliar theologians about the relative safety of the non-definitive authentic papal magisterium. Indeed, such has never been in question.
Rather, the “infallible safety” discussed by Franzelin et al. concerns judgments rendered by the Roman Congregations. (Please, do yourself a favor and read the excellent examination of the matter published at WM Review.)
So, long story short, Joy is taking arguments about oranges and pondering how they apply, or not, to a situation involving apples. The apples, in this case, concern the grave errors taught by Francis by way of what he insists is “authentic papal magisterium.”
Try as we might, tossing oranges on that steaming heap of heresy doesn’t bring clarity to the matter for the simple reason that they were never intended for that purpose.
Now, it must be said that John Joy and his defenders are not alone in making this mistake. I too have done it on numerous occasions, albeit in a different way, and it’s high time to set the record straight with an important correction:
The reason we can be sure that men like Francis and councils like Vatican II are not Catholic is not because they are incompatible with the promise of “infallible safety” as proposed by Franzelin, et al. Rather, we can be certain that men like Francis and councils like Vatican II are not Catholic because both are incompatible with the promises of Christ, specifically as it concerns the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church.
Faced with this reality, one has a choice to make: Either believe Christ, that the gates of Hell will not prevail, or believe that Francis is the Holy Roman Pontiff, and Vatican Council II, the manifesto by which he reigns, is Catholic, despite the harm that both are doing to the simple faithful.
NB: One of these two choices invites immediate ridicule, persecution, and cancellation, all too often leading to personal, professional, and financial loss. The other choice brings with it the promise of popularity and manifold rewards, both personal and professional.
Choose wisely.
