Does Bryan Need to Talk to John and Francisco?

Published on by D. G. Hart

The way the Callers discuss infallibility you’d almost think that apostasy for the visible Roman Catholic Church is impossible. If truth is what the infallible magisterium determines, if a system of truth does not stand over the magisterium to which they need to conform, if Christian truth depends on the determinations of popes and councils of bishops, how could the Roman church ever be wrong?

But another strain of conservative Roman Catholicism doesn’t construe the truth the way Bryan does. John Zmirak, in fact, sounded very different from Bryan, even to the point of echoing Luther:

These men who are fracking the Church to produce the current “earthquake of mercy” are hungry for recognition and legitimacy. They want to be seen as leaders — which is why they dash out in front of every crowd, wherever it’s headed. But legitimacy is precisely what the bishops and even the pope will sacrifice if the Synod ends up approving the radical proposals that are before it.

If the pope permits divorced couples who now live in extramarital relationships to receive Holy Communion without repenting and promising celibacy, he will be sanctioning one of two things: adultery or polygamy. Marriage is, by Christ’s command, indissoluble. That was taught infallibly by the Council of Trent. If the pope denies that doctrine, if he re-shapes one of the seven sacraments so radically, he will be proving something that the Orthodox have been saying since 1870: That he is not infallible on matters of faith and morals.

That might not sound like such an enormous sacrifice; the Church got along quite well without that doctrine right up until Vatican I. But by flouting the Council of Trent, and proving that Vatican I was in fact mistaken, the pope would be doing much more. He would be demonstrating that such Councils themselves lacked divine authority — that they were not like Nicaea or Chalcedon, the early Councils that built up Christian doctrine. Instead Councils such as the Lateran, Trent, and Vaticans I and II, would be merely local Western synods, exactly as the Orthodox have been insisting since 1054. In other words, the pope would be proving that Roman Catholic assertions of papal authority are grossly exaggerated, and that the Eastern Orthodox have the better claim as the heirs of the twelve apostles.

There’s an irony here, since the Orthodox have permitted the quasi-polygamous “Kasper option” for more than 1,000 years. But the Orthodox make no pretense of wielding infallible authority. They accept the early Councils of the Church (which took place well before 1054) and argue among themselves over how to apply them. They could be wrong.

And on marriage, the Orthodox are wrong. But Rome has no such wiggle room. The claims of the papacy are brave, expansive — and empirically falsifiable. If Rome adopts the Orthodox practice of marriage, that will falsify them. The mouse will have died in the maze.

If this happens, it would not prove that Luther or Calvin were right. Instead it would show that papal claims are false, that God has not left the Church with a central authority for the interpretation of doctrine, and that the Orthodox model is the only viable choice for sacramental Christians.

In point of fact, such an outcome would prove Luther and Calvin correct because they made Christ and his word, not the bishops of the church, the standard for proclamation and ministry. The Protestant outlook on biblical authority winds up being so commonsensical.

Francisco Jose Soler Gil piles on with a reminder that popes can be “calamitous”:

When can we say that a Pope is calamitous? Of course, it is not enough for it that the Pontiff support false opinions on this or that issue. Because a Pope, as any other man, will necessarily ignore many matters, and have erroneous convictions on many others. And therefore it could happen that a Pope who is an aficionado on stamp or coin collecting could make grave mistakes regarding the value or date or certain stamps or coins. When rendering his opinion on matters that are not of his competence, a Pope has greater possibilities of erring than of being right. Exactly like you and me, dear reader. Therefore, if a Pope showed some inclination on making public his opinions on the art of pigeon-breeding, ecology, economy, or astronomy, the Catholic expert on such matters would do well in enduring patiently the outlandish blurbs of the Roman pontiff on matters that, naturally, are alien to his Cathedra. The expert will naturally lament the eventual errors, and more generally the lack of prudence that some declarations make evident. But an imprudent and loquacious Pope is not for this reason alone a calamitous Pope.

On the other hand, [a Pope] is, or can thus be, when he, by word and deed, causes damages to the treasure of the faith of the Church, temporarily obscuring aspects of the image of God and of the image of Man that the Church has the duty to defend, transmit, and deepen.

But can there be such a case as this?… Well, in fact it has happened already several times in the history of the Church. When Pope Liberius (4th cent.) – the first non-canonized Pope – gave in to strong Arian pressures, he accepted an ambiguous position regarding this heresy, leaving in the lurch the defenders of the Trinitarian dogma, such as Saint Athanasius; when Pope Anastasius II (5th cent.) flirted with the defenders of the Acacian schism; when Pope John XXII (14th cent.) taught that the vision of the God by the just does not occur before the Last Judgment; when the Popes of the period known as “Great Western Schism” (14th-15th cent.) excommunicated each other; when Pope Leo X (16th cent.) not only intended to pay for his luxuries with the selling of indulgences, but also to theoretically defend his power to do so, etc, etc, a part of the treasure of the faith remained obscured for a more or less lengthy period due to their actions and omissions, therefore creating moments of huge internal tension within the Church. The Popes responsible for these must be properly called “calamitous”.

One thing that is striking about Gil’s advice is how much it sounds like Machen’s counsel to conservative Presbyterians during the 1930s:

(7) Do not follow the instructions of the Pope in that which deviates from the treasure of the Church.

If a Pope would teach doctrines or would try to impose practices that do not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church, summarized in the catechism, he cannot be supported nor obeyed in his intent. This means, for example, that priests and bishops are under the obligation to insist on traditional doctrine and practice, rooted in the deposit of the faith, even at the cost of exposing themselves to being punished. The lay faithful must likewise insist on teaching traditional doctrine and practices in their area of influence. Under no circumstances, not even out of blind obedience or fear of reprisals, is it acceptable to contribute to the spreading of heterodoxy or heteropraxis.

(8) Do not financially support collaborationist dioceses.

If a Pope would teach doctrines, or would impose practices, that do not correspond to the perennial teaching of the Church, summarized in the catechism, diocesan Pastors should serve as a wall of contention. But history shows that bishops do not always react with sufficient energy when faced with these dangers. Even worse, they at times endorse, for whichever reasons, the efforts of the calamitous pontiff. The lay faithful who lives in a diocese ruled by such a Pastor must therefore remove his financial support to his local church while the inappropriate situation persists. Obviously, this does not apply to aids that are directly destined to charitable ends, but it does apply to all the rest. This also applies to any kind of collaboration with the diocese, whether it be for example some kind of volunteer work or institutional position.

Of course, Bryan could be right and John and Francisco wrong. But he sure seems to be outnumbered.

31 thoughts on “Does Bryan Need to Talk to John and Francisco?”

  1. Darryl,

    Of course, Bryan could be right and John and Francisco wrong. But he sure seems to be outnumbered.

    First you would need to show that something John and Francisco say here contradicts something I said.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  4. Bryan,
    Do you agree with the advice, “(7) Do not follow the instructions of the Pope in that which deviates from the treasure of the Church.”?

    Like

  6. Bryan, so you agree with John and Francisco?

    Nothing you can say can falsify my agreement with John and Francisco.

    Gotta hand it to you DG for staying on top of all the dissents from the non magisterial riff raff.
    JFGil’s is hilarious: “Ten tips on how to survive a calamitous Pope and remain Catholic”. Indeed.
    Good thing we don’t just watch the Faux version over at CtC, one would have never guessed what was boiling under the lid of the one truly united visible church.

    Like

  7. Bryan Cross never contradicted John and Francisco because he never proposed any If-then arguments. I mean arguments that might prove the RCC is not Christ’s Church. Roman Church apostasy is impossible because Christ founded the Church with the Pope as head.

    If the RCC becomes apostate, then it’s not Christ’s Church.

    There is one thing that sets Bryan apart from those brave if-then folks. He never aims for a private conclusion that can be construed as magisterial. All praise and honor to him ! Brave believer vs. Not-Brave believer is what we have and that is no contradiction.

    Like

  8. The Protestant outlook on biblical authority winds up being so commonsensical.

    What, common sense poll resutls, regarding that most valuable of all books? Sola Scriptura, yo.

    Like

  9. I think Bryan did say that if the Pope changed longstanding Catholic doctrines on marriage then things that Bryan has said about the Papacy would be falsified (or something along those lines). I recall being rather shocked (and impressed) with that.

    How this doesn’t involve some degree of private judgment on Bryan’s part is my question.

    How can you be all in on the Papacy and a potential critic of the Pope at the same time? Maybe he’s still working this out in his own mind. Francis caught everyone by surprise.

    Like

  12. More flexibility from the Vatican on marriage:

    The Vatican has lifted its ban on the ordination of married men to the priesthood in Eastern Catholic churches outside their traditional territories, including in the United States, Canada and Australia.
    Pope Francis approved lifting the ban, also doing away with the provision that, in exceptional cases, Eastern Catholic bishops in the diaspora could receive Vatican approval to ordain married men. In recent years, however, some Eastern Catholic bishops went ahead with such ordinations discreetly without Vatican approval.

    Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, signed the decree June 14. It was published later online in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official periodical through which Vatican laws and decisions are published.

    The new law says the pope concedes to Eastern Catholic bishops outside their traditional territory the faculties to “allow pastoral service of Eastern married clergy” and “to ordain Eastern married candidates” in their eparchies or dioceses, although they must inform the local Latin-rite bishop in writing “in order to have his opinion and any relevant information.”

    “We are overjoyed with the lifting of the ban,” Melkite Bishop Nicholas Samra of Newton, Mass., told Catholic News Service in a Nov. 15 email.

    The Vatican decree explained that in response to the “protests” of the Latin-rite bishops in the United States, in 1890 the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples prohibited married Ruthenian priests from living in the United States. And in 1929-30, the Congregation for Eastern Churches extended the ban to all Eastern-rite priests throughout North America, South America and Australia.

    The 1929 prohibition, known as Cum data fuerit, had significant repercussions for the Eastern Catholic churches in the United States. Sandri’s decree noted that soon after the law was promulgated, “an estimated 200,000 Ruthenian faithful became Orthodox.”

    Ruthenian Bishop John Kudrick of Parma, Ohio, said Nov. 16 that he sees the end to imposed celibacy for Eastern priests in the diaspora as an acknowledgement of the Eastern churches’ “obligation to maintain their integrity” and “of the right of the various churches to equal responsibility of evangelization throughout the world.”

    Like

  13. What exactly is your charge, DG Hart? Now, it seems to me that Bryan Cross gave you a very specific challenge. He said:

    First you would need to show that something John and Francisco say here contradicts something I said.

    But you dodged it. Why is that? Because you know that you have no foundation for your post, is that it?

    Otherwise, why haven’t you provided the comment from John and Francisco which contradicted Bryan? Oh, what? have you got another snappy question? Or perhaps you’ll respond with your ghetto affectations. Provide the evidence and quit posturing. That’s all your ever good for. What have you got but false allegations and unsubstantiated claims? Nothing.

    Like

  14. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 18, 2014 at 6:23 am | Permalink
    More flexibility from the Vatican on marriage:

    The Vatican has lifted its ban on the ordination of married men to the priesthood in Eastern Catholic churches outside their traditional territories, including in the United States, Canada and Australia.
    Pope Francis approved lifting the ban, also doing away with the provision that, in exceptional cases, Eastern Catholic bishops in the diaspora could receive Vatican approval to ordain married men. In recent years, however, some Eastern Catholic bishops went ahead with such ordinations discreetly without Vatican approval…..

    And that’s a bad thing? Why? Did you not know that the provision for an unmarried clergy is merely a discipline?

    Oh, I know, its another one of your empty insinuations. You insinuate that there’s something wrong and uninformed and uneducated people will fall for your ruse.

    But, here’s what you need to do in order to be taken seriously. Prove that the Catholic Church does not have the right to reverse the provision for an unmarried clergy. And, if you claim to be Protestant, prove it from Scripture.

    Like

  17. DG Hart,

    Yeah, Pope Francis loves you. But you’re insinuation is proven false by the mere fact that you don’t even know the difference between the Doctrine of Priestly celibacy and the Doctrine of Matrimony.

    Like

  18. Here is how conservatives who stand in a different proximity to the Vatican sound:

    So far, Pope Francis’ most significant internal opposition has come from conservative Catholics alarmed over what they see as playing fast-and-loose with Catholic doctrine. This week, however, an all-star lineup of conservatives gathered in Rome has come to the pope’s defense.

    “I am a conservative politically,” said Princeton University law professor Robert P. George, considered one of America’s most prominent Catholic commentators. “But I’m a Pope Francis Catholic, which is simply to say that I’m a Catholic.”

    Harvard law professor and former US Ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon echoed the point.

    Saying she dislikes ideological labels, Glendon nonetheless acknowledged that she fits the spectrum of “conservative,” yet said she’s never doubted for a minute Pope Francis and where he’s leading the Church.

    “He’s said from the beginning, ‘I’m a son of the Church’. I believe he’s a very honest man who speaks from the heart,” Glendon said. “And his heart is in the right place. What you see is what you get.”

    Glendon was named to a supervisory board for the Vatican bank by Pope Francis.

    Like

  21. How Do You Solve a Problem Like DeMaria: Otherwise, why haven’t you provided the comment from John and Francisco which contradicted Bryan?

    Erik: That would require reading everything that Bryan has written and that’s not happening, but I will provide you with some England Dan & John Ford Coley as a companion to John and Francisco.

    “John and Francisco” sounds like a gay couple shacking up clandestinely in Vatican City.

    Like

  22. How Do You Solve a Problem Life DeMaria: Yeah, Pope Francis loves you. But you’re insinuation is proven false by the mere fact that you don’t even know the difference between the Doctrine of Priestly celibacy and the Doctrine of Matrimony.

    Erik – You guys barely know (and disagree on) your Rube Goldberg machine that is Catholicism. And you expect us to get it right?

    Like

  23. Erik Charter
    Posted November 23, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
    How Do You Solve a Problem Like DeMaria: Otherwise, why haven’t you provided the comment from John and Francisco which contradicted Bryan?

    Erik: That would require reading everything that Bryan has written and that’s not happening,….

    And so you admit that there is no basis for dg’s claims.

    Like

  24. Erik Charter
    Posted November 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
    How Do You Solve a Problem Life DeMaria: Yeah, Pope Francis loves you. But you’re insinuation is proven false by the mere fact that you don’t even know the difference between the Doctrine of Priestly celibacy and the Doctrine of Matrimony.

    Erik – You guys barely know (and disagree on) your Rube Goldberg machine that is Catholicism. And you expect us to get it right?

    You’re projecting your lack of knowledge upon us. We understand Catholicism. You don’t.

    Like

  25. D. G. Hart
    Posted November 23, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
    De Maria, who are you to judge?

    I am merely noting the obvious. Bryan asked you to provide evidence. You didn’t.

    Like

  26. De Maria, Bryan’s call is to an abstract communion. Thousands of Roman Catholic blogs and websites everyday provide evidence that Bryan’s claims are merely theoretical. You can’t prove otherwise.

    Like

  27. De Maria
    Bryan said that as long as nothing he said is false, he cannot be validly charged with being intellectually dishonest. I disagree. Following Feynman’s definition of honesty in his famous speech on Cargo Cult Science, I consider the CtC schtik cargo cult philosophy (and history and sociology and theology and…).

    In outline the case conservative apologists make for the church does a poor job of accounting for:
    1) Historical case for petrine primacy relies on questionable (I’m being generous) historical analysis.
    2) The superiority of RC unity over prot sectarianism fails over the fact that by Bryan’s own criteria the overwhelming majority of RC aren’t actually in union with rome because they dissent on doctrine.
    3) Your cardinals are exceedingly corrupt (e.g. the celebration of that miscreant Law. If your hierarchy had any integrity he would be in the US facing justice. In stead the Vat is giving instructions on how to lie to auditors in order to protect their assets from lawsuits.) If I can’t trust your Cardinals and Bishops to put the spiritual needs of the people raped by their priests over their privilege, why should I trust those liars about anything.
    4) Which brings me to the supposed superior infallible magisterium. Who is to interpret it for me? Who do i trust if I can’t read it for myself? If I can, why not juat read the bible? Bryan calls it a dead letter in need of living breathing updates, I call it the living and active word of God.
    5) The failure of practice. The more RC a country is the more likely it is to support ssm and divorce. In the US RCs are to the “left” of mainline prots. It is the gauche evangelicals that actually believe an orthodox Christology (we’re talking virgin birth, human and divine, etc…)

    You’re a true believer uninterested in reconsidering you religion…i don’t expect to convince you or the ctc gang. I respect that, but the failure to address the points above (or sweep them under the carpet) makes you cargo cult apologists and I don’t respect that. Your call may ensnare wannabe intellectuals looking to join a bigger team, and I find that disappointing. It won’t end well (exhibit A. The drunk ex-pastor).

    Like

  28. How Do You Solve a Problem Like De Maria – You’re projecting your lack of knowledge upon us. We understand Catholicism. You don’t.

    Erik – Who is We and does We include Pope Francis or Cardinal Burke…

    Like

  29. DM, if Darryl, or anyone of the readers at this illustrious blog do not understand Roman Catholicism, then I pose the question to you that I posed to Tom. Where should we go to learn?

    Like

  30. Do Jason and the Callers know that they are on the fringe of RC life?

    The rightwing fringe is getting noisier and even more aggressive. First, Pewsitter does not like the appointment of Bishop Bob McElroy to San Deigo and aks if he is really Catholic? Rorate Caeli is similarly upset. To which I say: Congratulations Bishop McElroy. This is the crowd that attacked Cardinal O’Malley for presiding at the funeral of Sen. Kennedy, that thinks the communion rail should be turned into a redoubt in the culture wars, and really, really does not like the Holy Father. Being attacked by them is like being called ugly by a frog.

    The fringe is not only attacking +McElroy. They are training their sights directly on Pope Francis. How else to explain this article in Crisis entitled “Can a Pope Be a Heretic?” Either you have way, way too much time on your hand or you write such an article because the subject came up in conversation. I confess, such a question does not come up in my conversations.

    Heck, Called to Communion isn’t even part of the conservative wing.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.