Let’s engage in a little thought experiment by imagining that it’s 1928 and Pope Pius XI has just recently issued Mortalium Animos, a document that everyone understands to be a non-infallible act of the papal magisterium.
There’s a Catholic layman, let’s call him Pete, who for some time has been taking part in an interfaith assembly with non-Catholics. There, the participants talk about and explain those matters of doctrine upon which they disagree, while also rejoicing in their shared beliefs in Christ.
Meetings such as these aren’t exactly uncommon in the United States, and Pete’s intentions are good. He’s genuinely hopeful that his charitable witness will win converts to the Catholic faith.
One day, Pete’s pastor calls him to a meeting. He informs Pete that the bishop has instructed him to tell Pete that he is henceforth to cease taking part in the interfaith meetings.
“Why,” Pete asks?
“Well,” the pastor replies as he hands Pete a copy of Mortalium Animos, “the Holy Father’s recent encyclical spells it out rather clearly.”
“Here,” the pastor said, “take this home and read it prayerfully. We can talk about this more next week.”
Several days later, the pastor is flipping through a local Catholic newspaper and he sees a “Letter to the Editor” written by Pete. It was about the pope’s new encyclical.
“Although I am in communion with the Holy Father,” Pete wrote, “I must obey Jesus and Sacred Scripture first and foremost.”
Pete went on to cite the words of Christ, “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold” (John 10:16), and St. Paul, “How shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard” (Romans 10:14).
“As such,” Pete concluded, “My convictions demand that I continue preaching the Catholic faith to my Christian brothers and sisters at the interfaith assembly.”
Stunned, the pastor pulled out a highlighter and began underlining the most disturbing parts of Pete’s letter, which read:
I just, literally, today saw an article that was, basically, saying that Americans have a hard time with Pope Pius XI, because they can’t adjust their thinking to him, which is implying we’re supposed to adjust.
The pope’s not going to be able to bind people to error permanently. That’s what is guaranteed. Everything else, as far as I’m concerned, is fair game. So, what does this mean? This means that Pope Pius XI could have an exaggerated notion of the implications of his own authority.
It’s never a healthy thing to simply pin yourself 100% to the program of a particular Pope, which includes a lot of non-infallible material, a lot of opinions, a lot of theological opinions.
I mean, in other words, if Pope Pius XI is not going to teach ex cathedra, then his opinion is his opinion. And if the opinion is one that on the face of it makes sense, there’s nothing in it that rubs against what Catholics know to be true from other prior authoritative sources, then of course you could go along with it.
Reductive Catholics exalt magisterium—and, practically speaking, the papal office—above Scripture and Tradition, so that it becomes the sole principle by which we know truth. It becomes, in a sense, all truth, so that it would never be possible to challenge assertions of the Magisterium, (e.g., Mortalium Animos).
The fact is that there is a conception of what it means for the Pope to have full authority and for Catholics to be obliged to follow him, that is a distorted conception. But there’s a distortion in the understanding of who Pope Pius XI is, what his office entails. What is his relationship with tradition, with Scripture, with preceding magisterium?
But there are times when Pius X says things that make it seem as if he is saying, “I am the only authority in the Church, and no one can question me for any reason whatsoever.” Well, that’s actually false.
We have other sources of teaching besides the Pope.
Let’s pause our thought experiment for a moment to reflect on the following:
– What do you think about Pete’s claims concerning Pope Pius XI and his magisterium?
– What do you think of his approach to the papal magisterium in general, and taking it upon himself to decide what parts of Mortalium Animos are opposed to the faith and which are not?
– What do you make of his claim that he remains in communion with Pope Pius XI, even as he flatly, and very publicly, rejects his magisterium?
Certainly, the great majority of regular readers of this space – as well as many sincere tradservatives – would say that Pete’s attitude is outrageous, and worse, it’s inarguably Protestant.
At this, I want you to know that all of the text in boldface above, every word of it, is a direct quote from one of tradservatism’s most popular spokesmen, Peter Kwasniewski. The only exception is that wherever you see “Pope Pius XI,” he was referring to Francis, and wherever you see mention of “Mortalium Animos,” he was referring to Amoris Laetitia. (See HERE and HERE for the sources.)
Given that you now know that Pete’s comments were directed at Francis, has your opinion about his attitude changed?
For some, I have no doubt that it has, but it shouldn’t.
Let’s now return to our thought experiment, only this time, imagine that it’s 2035. We know not the Roman Pontiff’s name, nor the magisterial text in question, but Pete’s attitude is unchanged: If the pope isn’t going to teach ex cathedra, then his opinion is his opinion. If there’s nothing in it that rubs against what Catholics know to be true, then of course you could go along with it…
How does this new set of circumstances impact your assessment of Pete’s posture toward the pope? Does it matter one way or the other? It shouldn’t.
Here’s the point:
It’s very easy to look at a “Pope Francis” and believe that we have the right, and even the duty, to evaluate and, ultimately, to reject his official magisterium if we decide that doing so is necessary in order to remain faithful. It’s also very easy to see how that shoe doesn’t even come close to fitting a Pope Pius XI and his magisterium.
And what exactly is the difference?
It’s not that the former taught doctrines that are false and misleading while the latter is a good father, teacher, and guide. No. The real difference is that Bergoglio does not have the Catholic faith, he isn’t a member of the Church at all, and he is not now and never has been, therefore, the Roman Pontiff. If he were, his magisterium would be safe to embrace.
As for the futuristic twist on our thought experiment, I doubt that men like Peter Kwasniewski or any of the other high-profile figures that espouse a similar point of view – including, no small number of priests – have ever stopped to consider the tragic impact of their program moving forward.
The fact of the matter is, however, that they are training a generation of people who sincerely wish to be Catholic to believe that measuring the magisterium of the pope against their own understanding of the faith, keeping what seems reasonable and rejecting what does not, is an authentically Catholic activity. They are also training these poor naïve persons to imagine that it’s a Catholic attitude to distrust the Church.
Before responding with, But, but, Francis… answer honestly:
What is to stop any of those who embrace the tradservative approach to Francis from applying it to a future pope who just might be a truly holy father, a dependable teacher, and a sure guide on the way of salvation? Fallen men who are drawn to sin such as all of us are, what do you think these people will do when a future pope issues a beautiful, important, but personally difficult to embrace, teaching?
Those of us to whom God has granted a public voice have a grave duty to lead the confused to a deeper understanding of the faith as it has always been taught, most especially as it concerns ecclesiology – e.g., the eminent trustworthiness of the Church in her magisterial teachings, even those that are non-infallible – and the tremendous gifts and prerogatives afforded by Our Lord to the Roman Pontiffs.
In other words, the correct reaction to the Bergoglian apostasy, or any assault against the true faith, is as old and as dependable as the Church herself: Tradition unadulterated.
The exact wrong approach is twisting the faith to fit the apostasy, e.g., suggesting (as Peter Kwasniewski does) that the teachings of the pre-conciliar theologians and popes – even the likes of Garrigou-Lagrange and Pope St. Pius X – were somehow imbued with certain excesses that now need to be pruned.
As it is, the tradservative movement – the good intentions of its leaders aside – is nothing more than a breeding ground for a new generation of Protestants.
