Is it possible to oppose the Conciliar-Synodal Church's religious revolution, and still have the standing to say that 'universal and peaceful acceptance' proves that Francis is Pope?
- He passes over important distinctions (such as commands vs. universal laws, particular vs. universal laws, and dominative vs. legislative authority—discussed this in the defence of Newman here, under 'Gladstone and Mental Slavery': https://www.wmreview.org/p/bishop-cardinal-part-i)
- He engages in the same sort of antiquarianism in doctrine and ecclesiology which we all abhor in liturgical matters (needs tidying up for substack... https://www.wmreview.org/p/theology-history-i)
- He portrays the liturgical reform as a "neutral" matter which causes harm in practice, which is not what any of us think
- He does all this without any serious referencing of his sources
- When dealing with classical theologians discussing papal heresy and schism, he doesn't even mention the question of loss of office (dealt with in the same area as those matters) and instead passes directly to the classic "resistance" texts—one of which is explicitly referring to commands rather than laws. Tourquemada, after all, thought office was lost for secret heresy. It's also axiomatic that schism works in effectively the same way as heresy and apostasy in this department.
I could say more. But the main point of my essay was this: if someone like Pink wants to engage in this kind of deconstruction of the Church's teaching and theology in the department of the secondary object, then that is their affair; although they do seem to me to be giving up the idea of a divinely guarded and guaranteed church, in favour of a sort of Anglicanism with a pope and divine promises that everything will be ok in the end.
But once someone has gone down that path, I can't see how there is any logic or integrity in his appealing to the supposed universal and peaceful acceptance of Francis as proof of his legitimacy.
Fair enough. I don't agree with Pink on everything. I just think he presents a good challenge to a certain conception of the always-rightness of papal legislation on moral matters (and I have the same hesitations in regard to liturgical matters; I see no reason why a pope could not make quite big mistakes in this area that have to be undone later). In the collection on canonizations, there are only a few chapters that argue theologically against the infallibility of canonizations, of which Msgr. Brunero Gherardini's is the best.
Prior to the present Crisis did any Pope made a “big mistake” in this area? Had the Church ever erred in such a matter? The absence of such a mistake throughout the history of the Church can only be evidence of its divine protection against such mistakes. And another blow against the assumed legitimacy of the current claimants.
"While it may appear to be the case that Francis and his recent predecessors were universally accepted as pope, we need to recognise that appearances can be deceiving, to understand what “universal and peaceful adherence” really means (and what it does not mean), and to have our certainties in order."
The above statement is what causes people like Peter Kwasniewski to bend over backwards to defend the "visibility" of the Church by saying that the Pope has to be the Pope, even if he is a manifest heretic. But what good is a visible Church if it leads the faithful astray. It would be more like a "honey trap" for the devil, which ironically, the Novus Ordo is.
The prophecies concerning an eclipsed church should make it clear that the visibility of the Catholic Church can be somewhat wanting at times, or in the End Times.
An article with many interesting points in it.
However, I think you should take up the challenge represented in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Are-Canonizations-Infallible-Revisiting-Disputed/dp/1989905641
The case against the infallibility of canonizations is much stronger than you let on here.
The same would be true for the purported infallibility of universal disciplinary decisions, as Thomas Pink has well analyzed, here for instance:
https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/papal-authority-and-the-limits-of-official-theology
Many thanks for your comments, Prof. Kwasniewski.
To give me a hint, please could you indicate which chapter/s of the canonization book represents the most relevant challenge to what was said here?
Regarding the Thomas Pink article, I'm afraid that I cannot agree that it was "well" analyzed. In fact, I found it very wanting.
If I have the time I will try to engage more substantially with it (and whichever).
But in brief:
- He introduces unwarranted classifications (the implications of the term "official theology" vs. the role of theology in the implicit/tacit exercise of the magisterium - see here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/theology-history-i and here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/honorius-de-mattei-feser-i)
- In this, he passes over the sorts of comments made by Pius XII in Humani Generis and others (see here: https://www.wmreview.org/p/theology-history-ii)
- He passes over important distinctions (such as commands vs. universal laws, particular vs. universal laws, and dominative vs. legislative authority—discussed this in the defence of Newman here, under 'Gladstone and Mental Slavery': https://www.wmreview.org/p/bishop-cardinal-part-i)
- He engages in the same sort of antiquarianism in doctrine and ecclesiology which we all abhor in liturgical matters (needs tidying up for substack... https://www.wmreview.org/p/theology-history-i)
- He portrays the liturgical reform as a "neutral" matter which causes harm in practice, which is not what any of us think
- He does all this without any serious referencing of his sources
- When dealing with classical theologians discussing papal heresy and schism, he doesn't even mention the question of loss of office (dealt with in the same area as those matters) and instead passes directly to the classic "resistance" texts—one of which is explicitly referring to commands rather than laws. Tourquemada, after all, thought office was lost for secret heresy. It's also axiomatic that schism works in effectively the same way as heresy and apostasy in this department.
I could say more. But the main point of my essay was this: if someone like Pink wants to engage in this kind of deconstruction of the Church's teaching and theology in the department of the secondary object, then that is their affair; although they do seem to me to be giving up the idea of a divinely guarded and guaranteed church, in favour of a sort of Anglicanism with a pope and divine promises that everything will be ok in the end.
But once someone has gone down that path, I can't see how there is any logic or integrity in his appealing to the supposed universal and peaceful acceptance of Francis as proof of his legitimacy.
Fair enough. I don't agree with Pink on everything. I just think he presents a good challenge to a certain conception of the always-rightness of papal legislation on moral matters (and I have the same hesitations in regard to liturgical matters; I see no reason why a pope could not make quite big mistakes in this area that have to be undone later). In the collection on canonizations, there are only a few chapters that argue theologically against the infallibility of canonizations, of which Msgr. Brunero Gherardini's is the best.
Prior to the present Crisis did any Pope made a “big mistake” in this area? Had the Church ever erred in such a matter? The absence of such a mistake throughout the history of the Church can only be evidence of its divine protection against such mistakes. And another blow against the assumed legitimacy of the current claimants.
"While it may appear to be the case that Francis and his recent predecessors were universally accepted as pope, we need to recognise that appearances can be deceiving, to understand what “universal and peaceful adherence” really means (and what it does not mean), and to have our certainties in order."
The above statement is what causes people like Peter Kwasniewski to bend over backwards to defend the "visibility" of the Church by saying that the Pope has to be the Pope, even if he is a manifest heretic. But what good is a visible Church if it leads the faithful astray. It would be more like a "honey trap" for the devil, which ironically, the Novus Ordo is.
The prophecies concerning an eclipsed church should make it clear that the visibility of the Catholic Church can be somewhat wanting at times, or in the End Times.
Pax et bonum +