Posts discussing the Thesis, meaning those that point to its deficiencies, always elicit an unusually large response from readers. My most recent one is no exception.
One of the respondents is a dear priest friend whose opinions I genuinely value. Rather than reply to his comments in private, the way they were offered, I decided (and he approved) to make a post of our exchange for the benefit (God willing) of all concerned.
Initially, it seemed that the points he briefly raised could be addressed in an equally brief manner. I should have known better. The ideas expressed in the Thesis simply do not lend themselves to concise answers as each one invites even more commentary.
Below, therefore, is a limited attempt to speak to my friend’s comments. I’ll return to this exercise in a future post soon. In any case, I hope readers will find this effort worthwhile.
My friend began his message:
Recently you wrote, “the Church possesses within herself, and will continue to possess until the end of time, all of the means necessary to obtain a true pope, one who is able to exercise supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, in the name of Christ, for the good of souls.”
He continued:
While that is perfectly possible, is now the time? Could we use the example of a 21 year old male who is/was in great shape and is now recovering from any number of diseases, accidents and hardships; he has the potential and possesses within himself all that is required to run a marathon: muscles, lungs, etc. yet, we may not encourage it at this time and could quite possibly worsen his condition.
The difficulty with this analogy is that it presupposes that the enterprise presently in occupation of the Vatican, let’s call it the conciliar church, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church albeit badly wounded.
We know that can’t be true, however, for one, because the Catholic Church is infallible, that is to say that she can never invite the faithful to embrace, or even entertain, false doctrines that endanger the soul. The conciliar church, needless to say, does this with impunity.
[NOTE: For an in-depth study, I highly recommend reading WM Review’s extensive and scholarly treatment: ‘Zero Marks’ – Why the Conciliar/Synodal Church is not the Catholic Church]
So where is this infallible Church?
As an article of faith, we can be certain that she still exists. I believe that one of the better ways to express the present situation is to say that the true Church of Christ is, in a sense, being “eclipsed,” and this in an unprecedented way, still visible to those who seek her but with a considerable degree of effort.
We’re not talking about heroic effort here, but rather a degree of effort that, although achievable by all who diligently seek the true Church (as made known via her four marks, disqualifying all other claimants who lack even one of them) – is nonetheless unique to the condition of this age.
The peculiarity of the challenge lies, first and foremost, in the extended and unprecedented absence of a true pope. This terrible truth is coupled with the presence of a false church that claims (and credibly so in the eyes of many) to be the Church of Christ.
This imposter church, the conciliar church, has effectively stolen the holy Catholic name; it occupies nearly all of the Catholic Church’s physical structures; it uses many of her vestments as costumery, her sacred vessels as props, and her sanctuaries like stages in a playhouse.
This false church even ceremonially presents to the world actors who play the role of “Roman Pontiff,” albeit with a script that, for those with ears to hear, testifies to their crime.
It is in this sense that the Catholic Church is being eclipsed, i.e., it is primarily an eclipse by deception and obfuscation more so than simple obstruction.
At this, it’s important to recognize the limits of the eclipse analogy.
During a solar eclipse, he who wishes to see the sun, such as its radiance remains directly visible, may make the mistake of looking intently at the moon that he might glimpse the sun’s rays as they peek out from behind the obstructor. This is a dangerous act that can actually cause blindness.
Indeed, many treat the ecclesial eclipse in a similar fashion, as if he who wishes to see the Catholic Church does well to look intently at the conciliar church for signs of her continued presence. This too, however, is a terrible mistake. In fact, we might even say that doing so invites a danger of its own, namely, spiritual blindness.
Yes, one might reasonably argue that certain Catholic things are to be observed in the conciliar church (including persons in error who genuinely wish to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ), but similar to the heretical communities, these things are there not as properties belonging to itself, but rather as contraband taken from the true Household of God.
The church presently in occupation of Vatican, as suggested, is best understood as a deceiver. Intently gazing at the imposter in the hopes of finding what remains visible of the true Church of Christ only adds to one’s confusion and, paradoxically, makes her more difficult to find.
It seems to me that proponents of the Thesis do exactly this.
In its attempt to explain the peculiarities of the current ecclesial crisis, the Thesis shoehorns Catholic theological principles on to the non-Catholic counterfeit. Inexplicably, its proponents do so despite acknowledging that the imposter church exists to promote a false, man-centered religion that opposes the Holy Catholic faith.
With all of this said, back to the original point:
The imposter church cannot be considered the Catholic Church in distress, wounded, and weakened. Though she is under attack in an unprecedented way in our day, it seems to me that Holy Mother Church can never be wounded to the point where it is imprudent to provide, both for herself and her children, a Roman Pontiff.
As Pope Pius XII teaches:
Our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth … there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. (Mystici Corporis 40) [Emphasis added]
NB: Having a true pope, fully willing and able to govern with Supreme Authority, is the normal situation for the Mystical Body of Christ. As such, can it ever be the wrong time for the Church to return to her normal state?
I say no. Moreover, I’d argue (as does Bishop Roy) that the sacred ministers of the Church are obligated to do everything in their power to re-establish normalcy, whenever such is missing, as soon as possible.
In response to my suggestion that some Thesis proponents seem to be adopting a gnostic attitude, Father said:
I think it’s just as gnostic of Bishop Roy and friends to say, “We have jurisdiction!”
To be fair, we should consider in context what Bishop Roy actually said about jurisdiction. In a recent interview, he stated:
Another thing that we know is that the power of ordinary jurisdiction cannot disappear from the Church. Either it is in the Novus Ordo, or it is within us. And by this, I understand not so much a very precise territorial jurisdiction but rather the habitual disposition of guiding souls. We will always find shepherds who have received from Christ the ability to guide them, their souls, towards heaven.
It seems that the meaning of ordinary jurisdiction and its relationship to apostolicity plays an important role in both the Thesis and the aims of the Unam Sanctam initiative.
Even so, Bishop Sanborn steadfastly refuses to engage with the bishops (and others) who are involved in Unam Sactam, an initiative that exists first and foremost, not to convene an Imperfect General Council, but rather to meet and to aid one another in better understanding the crisis and how best to respond to it.
In other words, Bishop Sanborn’s posture indicates the belief that his understanding of the current crisis – viewed through the Thesis and its application – is utterly beyond questioning much less correction.
Bishop Roy, by stark contrast, takes a far more humble approach, clearly expressing an opposite view, writing:
Firstly, it is important for us to hear the arguments of the other sides. If anyone is able to show us that there are some flaws in the argument we present, it will be important to correct ourselves.
No, there is nothing gnostic about Bishop Roy’s posture.
As for his comments concerning jurisdiction, Thesis proponents would seem to have little cause for complaint.
Bishop Roy plainly acknowledges that bishops such as himself do not possess the territorial jurisdiction that is normally (that is, under normal circumstances) attached to ordinary jurisdiction. His suggestion that such bishops receive from Christ the jurisdiction necessary to guide souls in the midst of the present crisis is not entirely dissimilar to the argument put forth in the Thesis (see thethesis.us):
The principle invoked [as part of the Thesis] is the following: the jurisdiction necessary for the functioning of the Church as an institution is supplied by Christ when ordinary jurisdiction is lacking, since the common good of the Church requires it. Since a defect of intention prevents “Vatican II popes” from receiving ordinary supreme power, the only power “Vatican II popes” are capable of receiving is supplied power, which Christ directly grants to them for those acts which are absolutely necessary for the Church to continue existing and functioning.
The views expressed by Bishop Roy and Bishop Sanborn, although not entirely dissimilar, do differ in several important ways:
Bishop Roy believes that the power of ordinary jurisdiction cannot disappear from the Church, albeit with a broader understanding of what “ordinary” means. The Thesis, however, proposes that “ordinary jurisdiction is lacking” in the Church. (See statement above.)
While both men believe that Christ directly grants the jurisdiction necessary for the Church to continue “functioning” – and let’s be clear, her ultimate function is to save souls – they disagree when it comes to whom Our Lord grants this power.
It should also be noted that it’s not enough for “the Church as an institution” to continue existing. This, however, seems to be the nearly exclusive focus of the Thesis (despite its reference to “functioning”), as if the one function that surpasses all others in importance is having cardinals in place to designate men for the papacy, men who in turn are given the power to create cardinals and bishops, etc.
In truth, a “church” that is not saving souls, teaching and safeguarding sacred doctrine, protecting the faithful from grave error, etc., isn’t actually functioning as “the Church” at all, whether considered “as an institution” or otherwise.
This very accurately describes the failures of the conciliar church, which exists to propagate the false Vatican II religion. Bishop Sanborn evidently agrees. He said:
Vatican II is a break from Catholic tradition in all aspects of Catholicism, its liturgy, its doctrine, its disciplines, and that it is nothing less than a new religion, just like Lutheranism or Calvinism, a false religion alien to Roman Catholicism.
He is entirely correct, and no sedevacantist bishop disagrees. And yet, despite his clarity on this point, Bishop Sanborn holds that Christ supplies jurisdiction to false popes who, according to the Thesis, are determined to preach the Council’s “dogma-less humanism which is in total opposition to the Catholic religion.”
Bishop Roy, by contrast, believes that Christ supplies that power, for the salvation of souls, not to the revolutionaries of the conciliar church but rather to bishops who are fully committed to teaching and safeguarding the true faith.
Now you tell me, which position makes more sense given the Lord’s solicitousness for His Bride and for the souls in her care?
Yes, I know, the Thesis insists that Christ gives this power (and then only as necessity may require in order to keep the Church in existence) to men who are in possession of a “true title,” or at the very least, a “colored title,” as if title somehow overrides evil intent, in particular as it concerns he who enjoys material possession of the papal office, i.e., the false “Vatican II popes.”
At this, let’s engage in a little Thesis Q&A exercise:
Q: From where, according to the Thesis, did those false popes obtain their title, be it true or colored.
A: They received it from a gathering of cardinals who voted in a conclave, of course.
Q: And who created those men cardinals?
A: They were created cardinals by other false popes who did so with the power supplied to them by Christ so that the Church could continue functioning.
Do you see how the Thesis, originally conceived in the 1970s to make sense of the crisis, has since revealed itself as a blueprint for the vicious cycle that keeps, not the Church, but the crisis itself, functioning?
Now, let’s evaluate the Thesis’ claims on this point through the lens of Catholic common sense:
How exactly does making cardinals of men who intend to act, and in fact behave, in total opposition to the Catholic religion, help the Church continue functioning as the solitary Ark of Salvation for all of humankind?
I would argue that granting even limited power to such men – either the false popes or the ersatz cardinals that elected them to lead the charge – actually impedes the Church’s ability to save souls. At the very least it does so by imparting to these enemies of Holy Church a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of many; i.e., it exacerbates, rather than removes, confusion from among men who sincerely seek the true Church and who wish to exercise the childlike faith exhorted by Our Lord.
Are we really to imagine that the Good Shepherd, in supplying for the needs of His sheep, is really so inept as to add to the confusion of this wicked age?
Does He supply shepherds’ clothing to wolves who daily lead lambs to slaughter?
If indeed jurisdiction is supplied, Catholic common sense would seem to insist that it is supplied only to those sacred ministers (like Bishop Roy and others, including Bishop Sanborn) who are committed to laboring with the Church in the work of sanctification, as opposed to those who labor in total opposition to her.
