Monday 7 November 2016

Sede vacante?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend Pope Francis, since although he has not tried to officially teach anything contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith and cannot therefore be accused of formal heresy, his homilies and talks do seem to include questionable statements, and his acts do seem to lack prudence and consistency with our doctrine. Someone said to me recently that they think the ‘sede vacante’ folk may be right; that there is no Pope on the throne of Peter.  I have never held that position, but yes, I can see where they are coming from. Indeed a lady said to me last week that Paul VI spoke of the smoke of Satan entering the Church, and that she sees it in Francis; that she is very disturbed by Pope Francis, having returned to the full practice of her Faith only 14 years ago during the papacy of John-Paul II.

Looking at things as they stand today, Francis can be said to have followed a programme that is anything but Catholic. As the New York Times recently reminded us:

Francis is a Jesuit, and like many members of Catholic religious orders, he tends to view the institutional church, with its parishes and dioceses and settled ways, as an obstacle to reform. He describes parish priests as “little monsters” who “throw stones” at poor sinners. He has given curial officials a diagnosis of “spiritual Alzheimer’s.” He scolds pro-life activists for their “obsession” with abortion. He has said that Catholics who place an emphasis on attending Mass, frequenting confession, and saying traditional prayers are “Pelagians” — people who believe, heretically, that they can be saved by their own works.

Such denunciations demoralize faithful Catholics without giving the disaffected any reason to return. Why join a church whose priests are little monsters and whose members like to throw stones? When the pope himself stresses internal spiritual states over ritual observance, there is little reason to line up for confession or wake up for Mass.

We cannot overlook the fact that Francis has permitted, according to Schonborn and Kasper (even if in only a few circumstances) for those in objectively grave sin (adulterers) to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, and said that seeking to convert others are is grave sin -see Lifesite News (that is., those who actually follow the command of the Lord to ‘Go, teach all nations’ are grave sinners). When he hear that Francis’ heart is in the right place we cannot help but agree but also hear the voices that cry out ‘yes but to ease their temporal pain his is endangering their immortal souls;. his thinking seems stuck (fossilised) in the theories of the 1960’s and 1970’s’ (that being, of course, the time of such confused teaching it brought the Bishops of the Extraordinary Synod to call for a Catechism of Vatican II.)

In discussion with those who think the sedevacantists may be right, a dreadful possibility arises: that Francis has accepted the authority of the papacy, but not its responsibility of defending the Faith, which papal authority exists only to serve. I cannot help but think of St Paul here: that  epsicopal authority is given ‘unto edification, and not unto destruction’ (2 Corinthians 10:8). By undermining the Church’s previous stance on conversions; by celebrating heretics and by allowing those who are objectively speaking in grave sin to receive Holy Communion, Francis cannot be surprised to find himself accused by many of destroying rather than edifying; of abusing papal authority to remake the Church to his own liking. Where does one go with this? Does one see Francis as a wilful subversive, or as a good man making imprudent remarks and setting up imprudent pastoral approaches? For many, only the former fits in the light of his appointments to the College of Cardinals, which he appears to be filling with men who are not known for their fidelity to our Sacred Tradition.

Since Christ is in charge of His Church and has already defeated Satan the Father of Lies, faithful Catholics should take heart that a future pope will correct the oddities of Francis. After all, if Francis can turn 2000 years of teaching and practice on its head, a future pope can turn the teaching and pastoral programme of Francis on its head.  No Pope -including Francis- can, as he and his admirers might like, set a course for the Church that is unchangeable, no matter how slowly he goes so as to achieve that end, since his papacy must be seen in the context of 2000 years of teaching and practice -and where he deviates, be can be and ought to be rebuked.  Sadly, most bishops are not doing as St Paul did and ‘confronting him face to face’ (Gal.2v11); they too seem to think ‘pastoral care’ means alleviating temporal pain to the loss of eternal peace. 

Whether one wants to say Francis is a good man who makes imprudent judgements, or a man who is deliberately subversive, one cannot easily say that Francis has shown himself clearly and unquestionably loyal to the previous 2000 years of teaching and pastoral practice; indeed the very reason he is lauded by many is that he is leaving the more difficult bits of the Faith behind.  It is not insignificant that Cardinals such as Burke and Sarah (‘Either God or Nothing’, Fayard publishing, France) and the hierarchyof Poland through the President of their Episcopal Conference, appear at odds with Francis simply because they are holding to that 2000 years -as must we all if we want to remain faithful to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. We cannot be ultramontanists who tie themselves to whoever happens to inhabit the See of Peter; we must be tied rather to the Deposit of Faith.

18 comments:

  1. Thank you Father for your brave comments which echo what many of us are thinking and worrying about.

    I have been lucky to meet many retired missionary Priests over the last few years who served in French West Africa and have been in awe as to what they sacrificed to bring the Gospel to the people there.

    Pope Francis comment on it being a grave sin to try and convert others horrified me. What must his comment have done to all these brave Priests who have dedicated their lives to 'trying to convert others?'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Pelerin.
      The denouncing of the missionary imperative of the Lord is a direct result of false ecumenism, which sees all religions as equally good simply because the intentions of those following them are good. This is wrong. If I sit down to a steak meal and wine and leave my neighbour to a diet of rice and water I am not doing him any good. An ecumenism which does not seek to share the fullness of faith is deficient, and leaves souls malnourished. Missionary endeavours are not about looking down on people but noting the deficiencies of their spiritual diet and offering them the full fayre.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  2. "We cannot be ultramontanists who tie themselves to whoever happens to inhabit the See of Peter; we must be tied rather to the Deposit of Faith."

    Absolutely, Father. In fact, this papacy has forced me to read about our Deposit of Faith, and ignore Francis. I pray for him every day, but I ignore anything he says, preferring to use my time to study up on my faith.

    To that end, I thank you for recommending F. Sheed's Theology for Beginners, and Theology and Sanity. I am actually reading them together, a chapter from one, and then a chapter from another. Edifying, very edifying, especially compared to what is coming from the Vatican these days.

    Thank you for recommending these books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Geneticallycatholic.
      Indeed, the Pope is expected to be tied to the deposit of Faith and when he is, we must give him our complete support; he is not expected to tie himself to the latest trends. As Hebrews 9 reminds us, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings'. Those who embrace strange teachings seem to do so because they think anything new is progression. Well, not all that is new is good: new growths are often malignant (cancerous). Many may have a bad taste in their mouth about Pope VI but he seems to have hit the nail on the head in saying (December 7, 1969) “The Church finds herself in a period of anxiety, of self-criticism, one could say of self-destruction." Is that not what malignancy does?
      God Bless.

      Delete
  3. "We cannot be ultramontanists who tie themselves to whoever happens to inhabit the See of Peter; we must be tied rather to the Deposit of Faith."
    Very true but my Bishop will reply that he has made an oath of allegiance to the Roman Pontif. He needs courage to follow sacred tradition . .up to now he won't and won't budge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Paul.
      Of course we are all obliged to give filial respect and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, and in that your Bishop is correct -but he does first have to give his allegiance to Christ and not to His Vicar, who is to be obeyed only as long as he himself remains faithful to Christ. Would you Bishop expect his Vicar General to divide the Diocese against their Bishop? The Pope is indeed the Vicar of Christ; but he is not Christ Himself.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  4. Father,

    Do remember that we have had good, indifferent, bad, and thoroughly bad Popes within the 266 Popes we have had so far.

    Sede Vacante does not apply and we should pray for Francis's intentions as Quam Singulari suggests and if we wish an indulgence for our sins.

    Whatever Francis has said, or is reported to have said by reporters or by translators, remarried and divorced are in a state off mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

    Now take it easy, as we approach this 6th Sunday remaining after the Epiphany in the Church's year, which is also our Remembrance Sunday, OK!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Jacobi.
      I hope everyone who is expressing concerns is indeed taking it easy, but that they do not let that slide into inactivity in the face or errors or ambiguity. Yes, we have had difficult popes before, but the people of the day reacted to those popes, and that is what people of today are doing, I think. When even secular outlets are saying how Francis is turning things upside down, we cannot just sit back and leave it all to God; when the people are wondering about the occupancy of the papal throne, it speaks to the disturbance in the Church, and if that disturbance is not noted and settlement sought, we allow the Church to sink deeper and deeper into the mud.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  5. You know Father that, having read 'Rorate Coeli' blog, we must pray for a quick rapprochemont with the SSPX otherwise faithful Catholics may feel that the only True Church is outside of Rome. I know of many (including some very good priests) who occasionally attend SSPX Masses here in our diocese - and I have difficulty blaming them! However, we must look at a situation where priests now celebrating the EF Mass could be moved away from those who seek that Mass whereas staying with the SSPX gives stability. It concerns me that those diocesan priests placed in this situation will be deprived of providing the EF Mass if their new parishioners don't support them (& we've seen a great deal of that already - & still do). Are these priests going to be placed in the situation of joining the SSPX (when reconciled) or are they simply going to be deprived of the great love of providing the EF Mass for parishioners who don't recognise it? Whatever happens I can only see an even greater shortage of good priests to serve the laity & they will be left with those who simply follow the current fad. God save us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you David.
      i don;t think the true Church can ever be outside of Rome, the rock established by Christ as an unfailing defence against Satan, but the rock can wobble and it is for the faithful to bring that wobble to the attention of those responsible for securing it. I would not be unhappy if the SSPX stay as they are for a while -a thorn in the side of Rome. I am very pleased their faculties for Confession are staying.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  6. Putting into writing what many of us feel Fr. We live in disturbing times. Much prayer needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Kenny.
      Indeed, if prayer and sacrifice can move mountains, they can certainly stabilise the Rock of St Peter.
      God Bless

      Delete
  7. Francis. Is a meodernist antipope, with Benedict XVI as the real pope. You can see how Francis continually undermines the faith very consistently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you R C.
      It is because Francis undermines the faith so often without actually teaching contrary to it that so many are disturbed by him and fearful for the future. But there are voices being raised, and we can assist them with prayer and sacrifice and the raising of our own voice.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  8. Thank you father. A well written, lucid and - with relief, respectfully accurate article, Words that so many of us wish we could say with sounding defensive or angry. You did it very well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anna.
      God Bless you and yours this advent.

      Delete
  9. Thank you, dear Fr. Dickson, for your careful but honest response to these comments. I keep you in my daily Rosary, across the pond in Oregon, and I pray for great graces for you and for us all in these times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Mary.
      God Bless you and yours this advent.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.