Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 09

Continued....

Conclusions

The

sedevacantist’s

provides another important distinction. The authentic teaching which must be adhered to must consist in judgments. A judgment is a final conclusion of truth or falsity. Thus, the aspects of the authentic magisterium which require adherence do not include speculations, opinions, hypotheses, personal reflections, or expository explanations but only judgments. Not only is the pope capable of errors in such statements lacking judgments, but Catholics are not even required to adhere to them. Once again we find a vast area of papal statements and teaching which can be erroneous and hence harmful to the Faithful seeking to know the truth.

Again Vatican I’s explanation of papal primacy and privileges offers an extremely helpful guide to distinguishing among these categories. The power of the papal office was given for the purpose of "religiously guarding" the previously defined Faith, not for the purpose of introducing novel teaching. A power or function is always circumscribed by its end or purpose. Just as the marital embrace is limited by its primary end, the procreation of children, so are all the powers of the papacy limited by this clear purpose of preserving truth and not promulgating novelty.

Thus, whenever a pope’s statement contains novelties, it is a sure sign that he speaks outside of the august powers, faculties and gifts of the papal office. Such speculative and discursive statements can be harmfully erroneous, are amendable, and are not demanding of adherence by Catholics.

major premise thus lies in tatters. Clearly a pope who refuses to exercise his divinely given authentic teaching authority to render judgments is capable of uttering many errors and thereby harming the Church. The apparent appeal of the major premise is a result of the accidents of history. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Church experienced a long line of popes who judicially restrained their public acts to

ex cathedra

definitions or authentic magisterial judgments. They did not opine personally or offer personal subjective reflections. They did not give off the cuff interviews to atheist journalists. They did not write meandering, expository, tentative and speculative encyclicals and exhortations of over 50,000 words. They succinctly and clearly judged and reaffirmed the previously taught doctrine. Thus, Catholics became accustomed to associating papal utterances with either

ex cathedra

definitions or authentic magisterial judgments. They became accustomed to treating all papal utterances accordingly.

Yet, a vast sea change in papal behavior initiated with John XXIII. All popes since have pursued dialogue rather than judgment, speculative and tentative and pastoral ambiguity rather than authentic magisterial judgment. All of the subsequent popes have been infected with a Modernist way of understanding knowledge and truth. I do not say that all of these popes were Modernists. That statement involves a judgment as to their interior disposition which only God can make. Objectively, however, from John XXIII through Francis, these popes have acted consistently with a Modernist conception of truth as non-definitive, changeable, evolving and elusive. As a result they have embraced dialogue as an exchange of tentative views among those still seeking an elusive and changing truth.

Such an attitude toward truth renders the holder incapable of pronouncing authentic magisterial judgments. Thus, in contrast to the pre-conciliar period, the Church has lived through a line of popes who act almost exclusively outside the scope of

ex cathedra

definitions and authentic magisterial judgments. Such a dramatic difference will require a different approach on our part than our predecessors could have toward the popes of the preconciliar

period.

Our attitude must be informed by the teaching of LG 25. We must first not confuse recognition of the fact that postconciliar popes have chosen to abstain from exercising their power to define

ex cathedra

and to render authentic magisterial judgments with a claim that they lack these powers.

Essentially, this is the fundamental error of the

sedevacantist

position. They equate an abstention from use with a lack of the power.

Because these men do not use the authentic authority given them by God on the throne of Peter, they are not on the throne of Peter. Rather, the more reasonable position is that they sit on the throne of Peter and abstain from making use of the authority accompanying it.

Secondly, we cannot bind the pope to continue to act as he has for the past three fourths of a year. The power to invoke the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost resides in his office. We must thus show a reverence for the divinely instituted authority and powers he possesses even though he himself refuses to make use of them and rather dabbles in vague and useless dialogue. We must continually acknowledge his potential to exercise that which he neglects. We cannot simply dismiss him or pay no attention to him. We must follow the advice of the traditional teaching and examine what he says to determine if he has chosen to reverse the post-conciliar path of dialogue and elusive speculation or begin once again to authentically teach. If he does we must adhere to his authentic teaching judgments and accept without qualification any

ex cathedra

definitions.

We must not obliterate our potency to react in this way, even if it is never actualized in the pontificate of Francis. Although its occasion was rare, postconciliar popes have occasionally rendered authentic judgments to which we should adhere. Paul VI and John Paul II, although refusing to act ex cathedra, did authentically judge that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and that women were improper matter for ordination. Although these occasions were rare, they still existed.

Is it likely that a man who daily shows a great enthusiasm for the general papal abstention of his recent predecessors will return to the restrained and judicious path of the pre-conciliar popes and restrain his utterances to such authentic magisterial judgments? Humanly speaking, the answer is obviously no. Pope Francis, humanly, seems committed to expanding the scope and breadth of non-authentic nonmagisterial chatter. We must accurately judge these signs of the times and not be lured into the errors that lurk in such dangerous free-wheeling stream of consciousness.

Yet, in reading the signs of the time we must not preclude the possible. We must adhere to what Francis authentically teaches when he religiously guards the deposit of Faith (even if such occasions turn out to be very rare), reverently and respectfully refuse to adhere to any novel doctrine he may tentatively and speculative pour forth. Our fundamental guide to distinguish the two is the principle of Vatican I: "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles," a formulation every Catholic should commit to memory as it is so critical for our times.

Why would God allow so many popes for so many decades to cause such harm to the Church by choosing to live in the world of speculative dialogue rather than in the world of authentic Magisterium? As Bishop Fellay has repeatedly noted, the answer to this question is a great mystery. Mysteries are hard to accept. It is hard to accept that God would allow this line of popes virtually to abdicate their responsibility and lead the Faithful astray through these vagaries of speech.

We cannot approach a hard mystery, a chastisement sent by God to try our Faith by looking for an easy way out. The sedevacantist opt-out of this effort may appear to offer an easier course. Pope Francis could simply be ignored as an imposter. Yet, as we have seen this easy way out is bought at the price of a flawed major premise that overstates the actual guaranties given to the papal office. It finds an easy way at the expense of truth.

Thus, its temptations are understandable. Yet, we have not been called to find an easy solution to the crisis of our times, but rather the true solution. That true solution requires prudence and judicious discernment. It also requires that we know our Faith and educate our children in that Faith with more rigor than did the generations preceding the Council. They could rely on a presumption that they would not be misled by their popes who limited the scope of their utterances prudently and judiciously. We do not have such an historical luxury. We cannot presume such security. We must know the perennial doctrine so as to be able to sift the grains of wheat from the flood of chaff. ■