"The Indefectible Church of Rome" – A Crucial Teaching in the Age of Pope Francis

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[zippy2006]

For I am so tired...

I think you're tired because you're acting above your pay grade. Do what you can and leave the rest to God.

And you are sensationalizing. Note, for example, that I did not call you a "seminary dropout." I said that, practically speaking, lectors like you and I are those who have dropped out of seminary. Technically priests and deacons are lectors, but we do not call them that. The reason others chide you with this title is because you avert to it so often, as though it gives you a special authority in these discussions.

 

[zippy2006]

"The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: Was the Idea of a Heretical Pope Formally Excluded at the First Vatican Council?"
–Emmett O'Regan.

Scott Smith has recently written a piece addressing this directly, "A Misidentified Dogma – Misadventures in Peer Review." Further, in the comments of the previous piece I cited, Robert Fastiggi concedes, in large part, Smith's arguments about Gasser's relatio.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I think you're tired because you're acting above your pay grade. Do what you can and leave the rest to God.

Perhaps I am in too deep, but I do have a duty. So, I need to better myself...to "do what I can." And I thank you for the care you've shown me here.

And you are sensationalizing. Note, for example, that I did not call you a "seminary dropout." I said that, practically speaking, lectors like you and I are those who have dropped out of seminary. Technically priests and deacons are lectors, but we do not call them that. The reason others chide you with this title is because you avert to it so often, as though it gives you a special authority in these discussions.

I think my intentions were grievously misunderstood, and I accept responsibility for any role in that. I had no intention (nor even memory of having done so, honestly) of using my "status" as an instituted Lector/ordained Reader in order to invoke some special authority. I refer to it often precisely because I reject the notion it is some simplistic office of a bygone age. I take pride in it (not so much on my account, as to the office itself). It drives me to be a better Christian, a better Catholic (East & West), and to serve God's People as best I may. As this article recounts, Lectors are the spiritual descendants and bearers of the ancient charismatic teachers, prophets, and didaskaloi (Eph. 4:11) – although most of these have since become rare. We are not mere functionaries, you and I; we are not simply liturgical ornaments. As the Roman Pontifical reminds us at our Institution:

"As one consecrated as a Reader and herald of the Word of God, you shall lend your aid to this sacred duty. Therefore, you shall assume a distinctive office among the People of God, dedicated to the service of the Faith, firmly rooted in the Word of God. In the liturgical assembly, you shall proclaim the Divine Word, nurturing the faith of both young and old, guiding them in the dignified reception of the Sacraments, and proclaiming the tidings of salvation to those as yet unenlightened. Through this noble path and with your guiding influence, mankind shall attain comprehension of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, the One sent forth, leading them to the attainment of eternal life."

And as the Byzantine East says:

"O Lord God Almighty, elect this Thy servant, and sanctify him; and grant unto him, with all wisdom and understanding, to practice the study and reading of Thy divine words, preserving him in a blameless course of life. [...] My son, the first degree of the priesthood is that of Reader. Therefore it is fitting for you to read every day the Divine Scriptures, that they that hear, beholding you, may receive edification, and that you, in no way putting to shame your election, for by living your life temperately, in holiness and uprightness, you shall gain the mercy of God, the Lover of Mankind, and be counted worthy of a higher ministry: in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Whom be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen."

That is why I refer to it often; not to puff myself up (for I often feel unworthy to this office!), but to try to break this mentality that the office doesn't matter, or is outdated, or some other concept that it has almost no importance beyond the Church "says you can read" (as one former Dominican brother put it). Yet, perhaps I am going about it wrongly.

But, again, if I came across as arrogant or as one trying to boost my arguments simply by my office (an idea which I kind of find absurd theoretically, anyway)...I apologize sincerely, and I ask forgiveness. Even if it was not my intention, it was perceived in this way. Hence, I must apologize.

I also have some thoughts before I leave this thread be (for I have done what I can, as you say, and I will let God sort it out).

What if it's true?

What if Papal indefectibility is not limited to the extraordinary Magisterium, but rather encompasses when the Supreme Pontiff teaches authentically even in the ordinary Magisterium? What if, in our frustration with this Pope's deficiencies & what we perceive as his scandals, we have missed something important about the Successor of St. Peter? What if in our attempt to theologically justify resistance (even with the best & most filial of intentions), we end up quenching & resisting the Holy Spirit acting in the Church? What if all this theologizing & philosophic back-and-forth misses some deep point about Christ's fidelity & protection of His Church through her sacred hierarchy?

Note well that I don't have the answers to these questions. You already know my position: that the Supreme & Ecumenical Pontiff, when teaching authentically qua Pope in the ordinary Magisterium, he is Divinely guided & protected from serious error for the sake of God's People.

What if it's true? I read your post on "don't believe your own eyes" (as I recall the title), but what if our eyes deceive us? What if the Holy Spirit is doing something we cannot yet conceive or see?

Even if it is currently under my abilities to defend my position, I cannot help but recall St. Robert Bellarmine's quote, which I do not cite as either an argument or a "proof," but merely a happy memory of reading his works:

The Fourth proposition. It is probable and may piously be believed that not only as 'Pope' can the Supreme Pontiff not err, but he cannot be a heretic even as a particular person by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith. It is proved: 1). Because it seems to require the sweet disposition of the providence of God. For the Pope not only should not, but cannot preach heresy, but rather should always preach the truth. He will certainly do that, since the Lord commanded him to confirm his brethren, and for that reason added: 'I have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail,' [Lk. 22:32] that is, that at least the preaching of the true faith shall not fail in thy throne.

How, I ask, will a heretical Pope confirm the brethren in faith and always preach the true faith? Certainly God can wrench the confession of the true faith out of the heart of a heretic just as he placed the words in the mouth of Balaam's ass. Still, this will be a great violence, and not in keeping with the providence of God that sweetly disposes all things.

Perhaps it is true that Pope Francis (of all popes!) has proven St. Robert Bellarmine untrue here. Yet, I cannot help but agree with him...hence the happiness of my memory of reading that passage.

In any case, I will humbly step away and allow those with greater knowledge & erudition to lead. Thus, I now take my leave.

 

[zippy2006]

I think my intentions were grievously misunderstood, and I accept responsibility for any role in that.

Fair enough. Thank you for the reminders and I too apologize for being harsh.

What if it's true? I read your post on "don't believe your own eyes" (as I recall the title), but what if our eyes deceive us?

I find it unfortunate that so many folks have confused Fiducia Supplicans with this thread. Some clarifications:

1. I have not seen anyone accuse Fiducia Supplicans of heresy, although I am sure such people exist.
2. The video I posted says that Pope Francis is not a heretic.
3. I do not believe Pope Francis is a private heretic.
4. Fiducia Supplicans is not technically part of the papal magisterium (it is not in the forma specifica). It is a DDF document issued with papal approval.

So you ask, "What if it is true?" The answer would be, "Nothing." If we agreed with your thesis that the Pope cannot err heretically in his ordinary magisterium, our position would not change. Even if FS was in the forma specifica, our position would not change (because we do not view it as heresy). This thread really has nothing to do with FS, and it was of course published before FS. FS is objectionable and problematic, but not heretical; and even the position you have taken in this thread does not preclude FS from being objectionable and problematic.

I cannot help but recall St. Robert Bellarmine's quote, which I do not cite as either an argument or a "proof," but merely a happy memory of reading his works:

Sure, but note that this is the opinion of Pighius which Gasser distances himself from in the relatio. This is precisely what Gasser said was not being raised to a dogma. It is from Chapter VI of Book 4 of Bellarmine's De Romano Pontifice. Throughout this thread you have claimed that you are not upholding Pighius' position, and I do not claim that you are intending to uphold it, but it is the very thing you fondly cite here.

In any case, I will humbly step away and allow those with greater knowledge & erudition to lead.

I think your arguments are welcome, just that they are not authoritative.

 

[chevyontheriver]

For I am so tired...

I clearly missed something here but I do get the weariness. It wearies me as well. I take consolation in something pope John XXIII is reported to have said. "Lord, it's your Church. I'm going to bed."

 

[chevyontheriver]

How does Fiducia Supplicans affect you, personally, in your current state of vocation? How does it hurt or help what God has asked of you in your state in life?

It's effect on me is that I have never been a dissident. And now I am. Any questions I had I would investigate and the teaching of the Church held up. I could trust the Magisterium to be correct. I could give my assent to the Magisterium when something came out before even reading it. Now I can't. It's a kind of death. I never thought I would catch myself thinking of having to check out the local Orthodox churches.

And I can assure you, Courage is grateful for Fiducia Supplicans.

I read the Courage statement and it did not seem like any gushing endorsement. It was an 'OK, go read it' kind of thing. And several people with same sex attraction have weighed in on how FS has made things worse for them. Eve Tushnet tells a story about two gay men who feel called to the faith and they give up having sex. She has some insights but she didn't exactly endorse FS either. I kind of wish she, as a courageous chaste woman, would have written FS instead of cardinal Fernandez. I think it would have been a document I could have trusted.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think much of confusion is simply due to people either not reading the document ...

I have read the document a few times now.

It simply is possible to bless a couple living sinfully without blessing their sin; the goal being ultimate rejection of that sin.

One goes to confession, not yet confessed, and asks for a blessing, and gets it. If a gay couple pops up in the confessional and asks for a blessing preparatory to their confession, then who am I to complain? That's not the James Martin version though. Do we bless as in promote sin or bless as in promote conversion?

An analogy that helps me understand this is the pastoral care of addicts.

I think that analogy flops. I think my analogy to a partnership between two hitmen works better. Nobody seems to want to bless the business partnership of two hit men.

Fiducia Supplicans is in many ways a revolutionary document, but not in the sense of overturning the already existing affirmations of the Church since ancient times. Rather, it is revolutionary in the sense of the development of doctrine.

No. It is teaching that specifically undoes past teaching. It IS revolutionary but is NOT a development. It is a theological and liturgical novum. The DDF should be about providing clarity and not inventing new teachings.

In particular here, the doctrine around the concept of benedictions in a deeper Christian & Apostolic sense. This primarily however follows the Latin theological tradition, although it has a strong Biblical basis. Naturally, it is different from the East (akin to their distinction on what validates a marriage). That said, I strongly believe that this theology of benediction is not alien to the East either. But I think it will take time for the East to incorporate these theological developments. But even if they don't, it doesn't threaten Catholic unity.

Blessings are liturgical, and the invention of non-liturgical blessings makes no sense. The UGCC at least understands that. They find non-liturgical blessings too odd to accept. Thus their rejection of FS.

The most apparently problematic part of Fiducia Supplicans is a concluding passage: namely, no. 31. Let's cite it (emphasis mine):

Most everything before that was more or less OK.

Moving on, here is where both the previous doctrine is fully upheld, but also developed in a pastoral way:

No. The previous doctrine is cited, with a claim that nothing is changing, and then it changes. And I don't consider it to be all that pastoral in that it has already led to everything it has claimed should not happen.

This really is the crux of what Pope Francis desires with Fiducia Supplicans. He knows that many are turned away from blessings, even with the proper disposition, simply on the basis of irregularity. My own mother, who is divorced & remarried, has been told by the Church that she cannot participate in Catholic worship due to her irregular situation. While obviously false, this is a very common viewpoint.

The solution here is for her to be allowed to go to mass, which she is actually obligated to do as a Catholic. Where she could receive blessings as an individual and maybe a remedy. Blessing the unblessable is not a solid way of getting a priest to treat your mother as he should.

Thus, in Fudicia Supplicans there are many paragraphs that take great pains to reaffirm Catholic Orthodoxy.

The difference between the orthodox and Arian viewpoints came down to one little letter in one word in the whole creed. Point is FS can recite Catholic orthodoxy 'till the cows come home. If it sneaks in just a word or two it poisons the whole thing.

Blessings may help break this!

Like the German blessings, the Belgian blessings, the James Martin blessings, the Kentucky blessings? IF you are referring to people that want to break their addictions, a suitable blessing could be had without FS. But that's not what Jeanine Grammick and James Martin understand FS to be about. And given how tight they both are with pope Francis I think it's them who actually understand where this all goes. Not the people who bend over backwards to say nothing has changed.

 

[zippy2006]

An analogy that helps me understand this is the pastoral care of addicts.

I think that analogy flops.

I know Antonius is trying to step away from this thread, but I also think it flops. It flops because the document ignores the very first step of AA, "We admitted we were powerless — that our lives had become unmanageable." Or more simply, "We admitted that we had a problem." Fernandez in FS is falling over backwards in his attempts to exclude this as a condition for the blessing. He basically says, "Everyone who comes to a priest for a blessing is repentant of their sins. Do not ask any questions." But it's simply false that everyone who seeks a blessing is repentant. Actually, 90% of the people I know who were married in the Catholic Church in the last 10 years were openly cohabitating and not repentant in the least. Many of the priests have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but none of them are so naive to believe that just because someone requests marriage they therefore are repentant of their grievous sins. And if a couple can approach a priest for a sacrament without being repentant of grievous sins, then how much more can they approach for a blessing without being repentant!

A friend of mine who deals with same-sex attraction said, paraphrasing, "If it only means that a priest can bless people who are repentant and striving to leave behind a life of sin, then the document didn't do anything. It has always been the case that priests can and do bless such people."

 

[zippy2006]

It's effect on me is that I have never been a dissident. And now I am. Any questions I had I would investigate and the teaching of the Church held up. I could trust the Magisterium to be correct. I could give my assent to the Magisterium when something came out before even reading it. Now I can't. It's a kind of death.

I think this represents serious negligence on the part of Rome. They are creating significant confusion among the laity for no good reason. "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me..."* This is a serious sin, and it is of course what Antonius is trying to remedy. Fernandez has taken a tiny, infrequent bit of epikeia that any priest worth his salt would already know how to handle in prudence and discretion, and has raised it to a general rule at the highest level of teaching the DDF can issue. The fact is that, "Hard cases make for bad law," and the DDF has issued a law out of a hard case. A large part of the folly of the document is that it continually and naively pretends that there is nothing difficult about these cases; that there is nothing requiring circumstantial prudence or discretion. It's really a case of bureaucratic overreach, which is becoming more and more common in our world.

* "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."