It has now been about two weeks since my conversation with Theo Howard on the Vendee Radio YouTube channel was published. Since then, I’ve scanned the comment section from time to time in search of thoughtful arguments against my stated position, with the aim of addressing them here.
Many commenters, regardless of their own position, expressed their gratitude for the effort, thanking Mr. Howard for graciously hosting someone who holds an opposing view. That “we need more discussions of this nature” was a common theme, a sentiment with which I agree entirely.
As for counterarguments that merit a response, one commenter suggested that my position reflects a need “to have definite answers to a mystery.”
Evidently, and for whatever reason, the commenter missed the part where I made the exact opposite point, plainly stating that there are aspects to the current crisis that are a genuine matter of mystery and, furthermore, we must have the humility to recognize that there are certain questions to which none of us really knows the answer.
At the same time, I made the point that we must focus on, and apply, that which the Church has always taught, i.e., things that we know for certain to be true. This, I propose, is the only way to preserve one’s faith despite the presence of certain unanswerable questions. As for how that process plays out on a real world, practical level, consider the following.
Another commenter suggested that while the Resist-the-Pope position – whereby one is encouraged to weigh the proposals put forth in authoritative papal magisterium, deciding for oneself whether or not they are compatible with the true Faith – is nowhere to be found in the Church’s tradition, it may also be said that individual laity have likewise never been encouraged to determine for themselves whether or not a man widely accepted as the Roman Pontiff is truly the pope.
This same argument has been posed from time to time even by persons who are sympathetic to the sedevacantist theory. It, therefore, certainly merits a thoughtful response.
Let’s begin by considering the former proposition:
Not only is it the case that the Church has never encouraged the faithful to ferret through authoritative papal teaching in search of error, picking and choosing what to accept and what to reject, the exact opposite has been taught. For example:
It is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed. (cf Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua)
Recall one of the first responses to Amoris Laetitia offered by the leaders of the Resist-the-Pope movement:
They set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff (John Paul II, BXVI) and another (Francis).” In other words, despite their “traditionalist” claims, they did precisely what the traditional papal magisterium plainly denounced as a display of disobedience and a denial of the “rights and duties” proper to the papacy.
Pitting one or more popes of tradition against the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy is one of the primary activities of the traditionalist movement, e.g., when confronted with the Mass of Paul VI they point to Pius V, in opposition to the ecumenism of John Paul II they claim recourse to Pius XI, etc.
The above from Pope Leo XIII is just one of many citations from which one might choose, indicating that the faithful haven’t the right to “arrogate to themselves the right of judging the actions of authority even to the extent of ridiculing them” (cf Pope Pius X, Con Vera Soddisfazione).
If one was to truly embrace what the popes have consistently exhorted regarding the faithful’s docility in relation to papal teaching, then participation in the Resist-the-Pope enterprise would be out of the question.
As for the latter proposition concerning the sedevacantist position:
It is true that the Church has never (to my knowledge) explicitly instructed the faithful to scrutinize the papal claims of men merely posing as true popes. That does not mean, however, that she has been silent on the matter of discerning hirelings from shepherds and wolves from sheep.
What the Church has consistently taught throughout the centuries is that membership in the Mystical Body of Christ requires one to visibly manifest the true faith (see Pius XII, Mystici Corporis). Scripture itself instructs the faithful to treat those who preach a false gospel as anathema, that is, outside the society of the faithful (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:8-9).
NB: When St. Paul warns of “an angel from heaven” preaching a false gospel, obviously he is not suggesting that the holy angels might actually do such a thing. Rather, he is referring to those false teachers who might give the appearance of authority.
As such, when one simply observes the false faith that is repeatedly, obstinately, and unapologetically manifested by Jorge Bergoglio and concludes that he isn’t a member of the Church at all, and then proceeds to treat him as such, that person is merely embracing and applying what the Church has always exhorted the faithful to do, namely, to avoid such a one (cf Titus 3) and to look upon him as a heathen or publican (cf Matthew 18).
Note very well that in so doing, one is not presuming to exercise an authority that is not their own, as if pretending to issue an official declaration that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-pope.
By way of analogy: Imagine witnessing two of your neighbors arguing over a parking spot as one of them brandishes a pistol and proceeds to kill the other in cold blood. Observation alone would tell you, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that the shooter is a murderer and you must treat him as such (e.g., warning those around you, fleeing from his presence, shielding your children, etc.)
By doing so, clearly you wouldn’t be usurping the place of those who exercise civil authority. Rather, you would merely be acting upon what you know for certain to be true.
Moreover, it would be absurd for anyone to suggest that you must await the assailant’s arrest, his trial, and his conviction as conducted by those in authority before you draw the obvious conclusion that the man is a murderer.
The same logic applies to ordinary laity who cannot help but recognize that Jorge Bergoglio isn’t a member of the Catholic Church at all. How can we be so sure? Our certainty is based upon observable reality viewed in light of what the Church has plainly and consistently taught about the nature of membership, its requirements, and how to recognize it, i.e., we are merely acting upon what we know for certain to be true.
In short, the difference between those who ply the Resist-the-Pope trade and those who hold that the man presently claiming possession of the Papal Office isn’t a Catholic at all, is that the latter are merely acting in concert with what the Church has always encouraged, whereas the former are actively doing what the Church has always denounced.
The question you might ask yourself, dear reader, is this:
Who would you rather be, one who does what Sacred Scripture and the Church has always encouraged, or one who does what she has always denounced? Before you answer, understand what is at stake. It’s not just a matter of attempting to make sense of the current crisis, it’s about preserving one’s faith in the midst of said crisis.
Those who shy away from behaving as Scripture itself exhorts us to behave in relation to false teachers, choosing instead the more widely accepted and comfortable route of doing what the Church condemns – namely, arrogating to themselves the right to judge which papal teachings to embrace and which to ridicule – are doing the exact opposite of preserving their Catholic faith, rather, they are inculcating within themselves the attitude of the Protestants who serve as their own personal rule of faith.
In conclusion…
These are unique times. No one with any sense can possibly deny that there are certain questions relevant to the current crisis that no one can answer definitively; there are matters about which one can only speculate.
Evidently, however, many seem tempted to overstate the reach of the present darkness, casting shadows of doubt even on matters that are not truly speculative, as if mystery abounds even with regard to questions long since answered.
Put another way, there are some aspects to the present crisis that give every appearance of being genuinely complex, and yet there are others that are exceedingly simple. For whatever reason, many, apparently, are tempted to imagine that concepts once understood as straightforward (e.g., the Biblical exhortations concerning the lot of false teachers) are presently riddled with complexity though they are not.
Why so many sincere persons seem to fall into this trap, I do not know, but I do know this:
It is not of God, but rather is it the work of the Master Deceiver, he who ever labors to make the poisonous appear good, the objective, subjective, and the certain, confusing.
