Saturday, February 22, 2020

What If He Is?

There are people in the Catholic world who have dedicated their lives to the proposition that Pope Francis is an antipope.  This proposition is their opinion, and no one is bound to go along with it.

I myself am capable of having no more than an opinion on the subject, and nobody is required to agree with me, either.  I am on record as saying that I don’t think Francis is an antipope, and that we have had a “Spirit of Vatican II” Pope coming for a long time.  I think Benedict XVI abdicated in 2013, and I don’t buy the argument that he intended to abdicate only part of the Petrine office while retaining part.  At the time of his abdication, he called for a conclave to elect a new Pope, which seems to me a striking proof of his intent to cease being Pope.  That conclave was held, and we got Pope Francis.  Since Christ is not idle in this process, and is not Himself a manipulator, and cannot be fooled or stymied by grammatical errors or semantics games, I believe He stripped Benedict of the Petrine office and conferred the same on Francis.  I think the “antipope Bergoglio” crowd is operating on mistaken beliefs about the scope of papal infallibility.  And, I think they are in great danger of  ultimately falling into schism, and taking others with them.  Why?  In the seven years since the last conclave, Pope Francis has stacked the college of cardinals, which means the next conclave will be populated mostly — if not entirely — by his nominees.  This puts the Benedict-is-the-true-Pope people on the greased skids to sedevacantism, since, if Francis is not the true Pope, then his appointments to the college of cardinals are illegitimate, and no one these putative cardinals elect can be the true Pope.  Thus will they be compelled in the end to hold that the line of true Popes has died out, and that the Chair of Peter is vacant.

Is it possible that I’m wrong?  Of course it is.  I’m not a theologian, I’m not a canon lawyer, and I haven’t been given the gift of infused knowledge.  The same goes for some of the most strident proponents of the “antipope Bergoglio” theorem, who essentially argue it from their own authority.

What I want to know from the people who have made a full-time career out of jumping up and down screaming about this is: let’s say Francis is not in fact the true Pope.  What exactly are we in the pews meant to do about it?  What can we accomplish by dwelling on this as much as you do?  What authority do we, or you, have to remedy this?  How much good are you doing to the Church by attacking your fellow Christians who disagree with you?  Because, quite honestly, that is what you seem to devote most of your time and energy to doing.

In asking these questions, I am not taking a quietist stance.  Quietism involves failing to do what lies to hand.  We do not fall into quietism by acknowledging our limitations.  It is not clear what lies to the lay hand in this crisis, other than repentance, conversion, prayer and fasting.  But this is not nothing.  On the contrary, it is everything.  Scripture makes it pretty clear that if we want God to rescue us from disaster, we have to turn to Him with our whole heart.  It also says that if we love God, we will obey His commandments.  But when do we have time to do that if we have made a career out of sniping at other Catholics who acknowledge — not unreasonably — Francis as the true Pope?

It is possible that I am wrong about who is the true Pope.  If I am, I am in good company, because a lot of people who are holier and smarter and more knowledgeable than I am also think Francis is the true Pope.  I cannot believe that God will condemn us for being wrong about this, if we turn out to be wrong.

If this crisis is resolved on the side of Pope Francis being an antipope, I will be too busy rejoicing that the crisis has been resolved to be embarrassed about being wrong.  But I fear for the people who have so much invested in their antipope theory.  They are liable to not recognize and entirely miss out on the resolution when it comes, if it does not fit in with their expectations.  That would be a tragedy.

7 comments:

  1. "Since Christ is not idle in this process, and is not Himself a manipulator, and cannot be fooled or stymied by grammatical errors or semantics games, I believe He stripped Benedict of the Petrine office and conferred the same on Francis."

    What if:
    1) people looking close could see Wojtyla was an Anti-Pope at least since 1986?
    2) one of them rightly concluded an emergency conclave was needed and licit, even if clergy and cardinals didn't turn up and only six laymen did?
    3) and after this election, Wojtyla went more visibly astray?

    Meaning at least Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio are all Anti-Popes. For instance, all supported and those alive support Theistic Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What I want to know from the people who have made a full-time career out of jumping up and down screaming about this is: let’s say Francis is not in fact the true Pope. What exactly are we in the pews meant to do about it?"

    1) I haven't made a full time carreer on this one issue
    2) I am not jumping up and down, usually
    3) as to the question, submit to Pope Michael.

    His emergency conclave was convoked in 1990 and he is the one who got elected, 5:1 (himself the only one having voted for someone else).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If this crisis is resolved on the side of Pope Francis being an antipope, I will be too busy rejoicing that the crisis has been resolved to be embarrassed about being wrong. But I fear for the people who have so much invested in their antipope theory. They are liable to not recognize and entirely miss out on the resolution when it comes, if it does not fit in with their expectations. That would be a tragedy."

    Tell me if and when he annuls his dispensation in Amoris Laetitia and his heterodox stance on Magic wand quote!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whatever he is, he is a Pope who is not trusted by a great many of lay people , myself included. The Church is in God's hands but it sure is going through trials and scandal with the current administration, and not nearly enough accountability for the crimes of the clergy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shirley, sometimes a father is abusive. That is indeed a great trial. We have to look to God for the remedy: I don’t know what mere men can do on their own initiative that won’t make matters worse. But we have to stop offending God. Scripture is full of His promises to deliver us from calamity IF we turn to Him with our whole heart.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do not know or recognize Pope Michael.

    What are sedevacantists going to do when we get a truly saintly and holy Pope, duly elected by the cardinals in Rome? Won’t you be in the perverse position of having to reject a saintly Pope on the basis that his pontificate has been erected on a foundation of illegitimacy?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I do not know or recognize Pope Michael."

    https://www.vaticaninexile.com/

    "when we get a truly saintly and holy Pope, duly elected by the cardinals in Rome?"

    Since Pope Michael has supported the rosary for getting a good pope, among sedes, he might step back if on his view this happens. But I also think, he has a high opinion of himself as a man of destiny and might set the bars fairly high.

    By the way, how many cardinals now openly reject Evolution and Deep Time, let alone Heliocentrism?

    ReplyDelete