Infiltration
Page 19
Around 1980, a handful of priests and some laity began to wake up to the fact that the Catholic Church had existed in an interregnum without a real pope for twenty years! Moreover, this sudden ecclesial crisis was not signaled by a proximate Marian apparition, miracles, prophesies by holy priests, or signs and wonders. Even Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, who spoke regularly with Jesus, Mary, the saints, and the holy souls, failed to learn that John XXIII and Paul VI were antipopes! So much for the sedevacantist narrative of origin.
The second problem with sedevacantism is that it lacks a means for restoring the papacy on earth. If there has not been a valid pope since 1958, then there are no valid cardinals walking the earth. Hence, the canonical process that elected Pope Pius XII in 1939 and his successors previously is no longer an option. Any future papal conclave in accord with canon law is now an impossibility.
When you press sedevacantists on how the current ecclesial crisis will be resolved with a new pope, they present a variety of speculations. Some say that it is the end times and there shall never again be a valid pope. Others say angels or the Holy Ghost shall descend on a man, and this will indicate to the Church that he is the true pope. Some appeal to private revelations that claim that Saint Peter and Saint Paul shall appear from heaven and personally delegate a man as pope. Yet none of these resolutions are found in Scripture or the Tradition of the Catholic Church. The clergy of Rome have always elected the pope, and the cardinals are the electing titular clergy of Rome. Some sedevacantists resort to teaching that the clergy of Rome will one day elect a future pope and yet they teach that the entirety of the clergy of Rome are Modernists with invalid ordinations. Consequently, since sedevacantists cannot produce a consistent origin narrative and cannot provide a means by which the current crisis will be resolved with a future valid and orthodox pope, it is an untenable theological position. It is broken at both ends. One might wish it to be true, but that does not make it so.
Accept the Resignationist Position: Is Benedict Still Pope?
Since Ratzinger chose to retain the title of pope and continues to dress and bless as pope, many faithful have concluded that Pope Benedict remains pope and that Pope Francis is an antipope without the charism and protection of the papacy. This is why the pontificate of Francis is so far off the rails.
This resignationist theory finds adherents going back to the election of Pope Francis in 2013. This position is much more palatable and socially acceptable than the raw sedevacantist position extending back to 1958. Moreover, the position is not sedevacantist at all, since it holds that Pope Benedict is still currently the true reigning pope on earth.
Two versions of the resignationist hypothesis exist. The most popular version is that Pope Benedict XVI was placed under duress or blackmail in 2012 in the context of the Vatileaks controversy, which I described previously. Canon 332, paragraph 2, states a pope must resign freely: “If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested but not that it be accepted by anyone.” Also, Canon 188 states: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.” Here again we have an explanation that a resignation made from grave fear is invalid. Hence, if it could be shown that Pope Benedict did not resign freely, but under duress or grave fear, his resignation would be invalid.
A second version of resignationism cites Canon 188 with respect to the fact that “substantial error” alone renders a resignation invalid. This version claims that Ratzinger, prior to his papacy, falsely believed that the papacy could be expanded or shared by more than one occupant, and that the ministerium (ministry) of the papacy is divisible from the munus (office) of the papacy. Despite formally resigning, they cite the pope’s words that he sought to retain a portion of the papacy:
My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.175
The resignationist argues that Benedict resigned from the ministerium of the papacy but wrongly believed that he still retained the munus of the papacy. He remained inside “the enclosure of Saint Peter.” Since he held “substantial error” about his resignation regarding ministerium and munus, Canon 188 kicks in and renders his resignation invalid. He remains pope whether or not he realizes it. Many resignationists claim that Benedict only pretends not to know it, but that he craftily wears the papal white cassock to affirm his continued status as pope and bishop of Rome.
My response to both versions of resignationism is that we do not know whether Benedict resigned under duress or fear. He claims that he did not and without knowing anything more, we cannot claim it be so. The second version that looks to Canon 188 and “substantial error” is more compelling. This hypothesis, however, wrongly assumes from the beginning that the false division of ministerium and munus in the mind of Ratzinger is a real ontological division. It is not. The ministerium of the papacy is one and the same with the munus of the papacy. Even if Benedict subjectively maintained at the moment of his resignation a false doctrine that holds a division between munus and ministerium, we cannot prove it. We can only allege it.
Yet even if Benedict did hold this false dichotomy of papal munus and ministerium at the moment of his resignation, it still would not invalidate the resignation. Canon 188 does refer to interior mental substantial error, but to substantial error in the actual resignation itself. One may read Benedict’s resignation, and he clearly resigned the ministerium, and, in Catholic theology, the Petrine ministerium and the munus are one and the same office. He may have subjectively thought otherwise, but objectively on paper, he presented a valid resignation from the ministry of the papacy. He receives an A+ for clearly describing that office from which he resigns. There is no subjective error in the objective resignation document of Benedict:
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce (renuntiare) the ministry (ministerio) of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant (vacet) and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Here Benedict renounces the ministry of “Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter entrusted to him by the Cardinals” that he received on the date of his election. He is precise about what he is giving up: the office he received on 19 April 2005. He also explicitly states that “the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter will be vacant.” If he believed himself still to be pope somehow, then the See of Saint Peter would not be vacant but filled. Within his resignation document, Benedict uses the term munus twice and ministerium thrice. It is obvious in the document that the words refer to one and the same reality — that office he held from the date of his election as pope. The resignationist hypothesis does not correspond to the objective text.
Resignationism also creates two more ecclesial problems that cannot be resolved. First, Pope Francis has stacked the college of cardinals with his own appointments. When Benedict and Francis die, how will a valid conclave elect a new pope if Francis, as antipope, has invalidly appointed a majority of the cardinals? Resignationism renders all those Francis cardinals as invalid cardinals. A conclave including invalid cardinals would itself be invalid.
Secondly, Catholics are obliged to attend only those Masses that commemorate the true pope and their local bishop. Any Mass that does not commemorate the true pope and the local bishop is de facto schismatic. Resignationism wrongly places on the conscience of the faithful the arduous
task of discovering Masses in which Francis is either not named or in which Benedict is named. This is a practical impossibility, and it forces Catholics to unite themselves to a Mass in union with a false antipope, which is repulsive to Catholic piety and tradition. Pope Benedict presented a clear and valid resignation, and without evidence that he was forced to resign under duress, we must conclude (with all the living cardinals) that Pope Benedict is no longer a true pope.
Accept the Recognize and Resist Position
The “recognize and resist” position goes back to the 1960s in the persons of Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre. They and others recognized that the pope and bishops of their time were valid, but that they had fallen into error on several topics. Since no pope since 1950 has exercised his extraordinary magisterium by declaring anything infallibly ex cathedra, the Catholic may in good faith and conscience resist errors spoken by a pope on Twitter, on an airplane, or even in a papal document.
This position of “recognize and resist” applies to Vatican II as well. As explained previously, Pope Paul VI, at the closing of Vatican II, explicitly stated regarding the Council: “The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements.”176 Months later Paul VI taught, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.”177 Since Vatican II did not bear the mark of infallibility or the extraordinary magisterium, a Catholic can claim without impiety that the Council may have contained mistakes.
The terminology of resistance derives from the Latin Vulgate version of Saint Paul’s language in his Epistle to the Galatians 2:11: Cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam, in faciem ei restiti, quia reprehensibilis erat. “When however Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted (restiti) him to his face because he was to be blamed.” Here Saint Paul recognizes the authority of Cephas (Saint Peter) as a valid and true pope but still resists him in defense of the Gospel.
The “recognize and resist” position comes in a variety of shades. One observes conservative diocesan bishops who celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass and sometimes praise Vatican II, but who also resist certain statements and actions of the pope. Prelates such as Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Brandmüller, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider represent this moderate “recognize and resist” position with reverence for the pope and the Chair of Peter.
Perhaps more strictly, there are traditional priests and laity who subscribe to the “recognize and resist” position by attending the 1962 Latin Mass at diocesan parishes or at parishes served by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, or other canonically approved bodies. In these circles, there are frank discussions and debates about problems with certain phrases or documents of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent papal statements. These traditionalists are usually supportive and enthusiastic about the witness of men such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider and seek to cooperate with them. The most strident example of “recognize and resist” is that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who pioneered the position into a global movement after Vatican II. Controversially, Lefebvre resisted as far as papal censure and excommunication — denying his status as excommunicate on canonical grounds until the day of his death. Pope Benedict XVI did much to rehabilitate the legacy of Lefebvre and regularize his Society of Saint Pius X, but without success. To the surprise of many, Pope Francis has granted privileges and faculties to the SSPX well beyond those of Pope Benedict in order that they might be fully and canonically regular.
I trace out each of these positions in charity with the firm belief that this final “recognize and resist” position is the only solution that conforms to Scripture, Tradition, and our contemporary crisis. The Catholic Church has been infiltrated all the way to the top. We have a valid pope and valid cardinals, but we have received the mantle of Saint Athanasius and Saint Catherine of Siena to call, respectfully and reverently, certain spiritual fathers back to Christ and the unadulterated Apostolic Faith.
174 For a thorough explanation and refutation of the sedevacantist position, see John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors (Dillwyn, VA: Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2016).
175 Benedict XVI, General Audience, 27 February 2013.
176 Pope Paul VI, Discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December 1965.
177 Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January 1966.
33
Spiritual Weapons against Demonic Enemies
Holding to a reverent “recognize and resist” position is not enough. This is the diagnosis, not the medicine. Our vocation is to fight spiritually and rebuild that which has been destroyed. Pope Saint Pius X observed: “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men.”178 Good men must throw off cowardice and weakness and stand under the banner of Christ with their hands readied for battle. We are reminded of the story in Nehemiah of the warriors who both built the city and bore arms while doing so.
When our enemies heard that it was known to us and that God had frustrated their plan, we all returned to the wall, each to his work. From that day on, half of my servants worked on construction, and half held the spears, shields, bows, and coats of mail; and the leaders stood behind all the house of Judah, who were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were laden in such a way that each with one hand labored on the work and with the other held his weapon. And each of the builders had his sword girded at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me. And I said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “The work is great and widely spread, and we are separated on the wall, far from one another. In the place where you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us.” (Neh. 4:15–20)
Our enemies are not chiefly Freemasons, Communists, Modernists, Küng, Schillebeeckx, or the Sankt Gallen Mafia. Our enemies are Satan and his demons, who do not die. As in Nehemiah, “when our enemies hear that it was known to us” — when our enemy realizes that we know his plan of attack — we will need to protect ourselves. Pope Francis may say that “building walls is not Christian,” but Nehemiah disagrees. The City of God requires a wall because we are daily under attack.
“Half of my servants worked on construction, and half held the spears, shields, bows, and coats of mail.” The servants of God — our bishops and priests — are building (on the foundation of Christ) this defensive visible wall, brick by brick, through the breviary, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, preaching, and the sacraments. The laity must provide them cover to accomplish their work, and we do this by taking up the humble weapons for spiritual battle: the Rosary, the Scapular, prayer, fasting, abstinence from meat, novenas, almsgiving, Advent and Lent, ember days, vigils, First Fridays, First Saturdays, sexual chastity, modesty, regular catechesis of children, and rigorous study of the theological sources of our Catholic Faith. We must also attack with sound Catholic doctrine and be on guard against all heresy and schism within our ranks. Saint Francis de Sales once affirmed:
The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: “Here is the wolf!” when it enters the flock or anywhere else.179
“And each of the builders had his sword girded at his side while he built.” The Rosary, then known as Our Lady’s Psalter consisting of one hundred fifty Hail Mary’s, is the weapon that the Blessed Mother gave to Saint Dominic, and along with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is our most powerful weapon against the “wickedness and snares of the devil.” When Pope Leo XIII saw demons gather on Rome, he did not institute new congregations or policies. He instituted more prayer to the Mother of God and to Saint Michael, the Prince of the Heavenly Host — daily. Demons scoff at policies. They tremble before the Mother of God and Saint Michael.
Saint Joseph, terror of demons, patron of the Church, pray for us.
This book is consecrated to Christ through Mary ad majorem Dei gloriam.
If you benefited from this book, please share it with family and friends, and review it on Amazon.
Please pray a Hail Mary for the author of this book.
178 Pope Pius X, Discourse at the Beatification of Saint Joan of Arc, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1 (1908): 142.
179 Saint Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, pt. 3, chap. 29.
Appendices
Who’s Who in This Book
Angeli, Rinaldo. Monsignor. Private secretary of Pope Leo XIII. It is reported that Leo XIII received a mysterious vision of demonic spirits assembling in Rome. It is said that this vision inspired the pontiff to write the prayer to Saint Michael.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von. 1905–1988. Cardinal elect, theologian, writer. Swiss. He is considered one of the greatest theologians and writers of the twentieth century. He was influenced in his early years by theologians, such as Heni de Lubac, who turned away from neo-Scholaticism in favor of the teachings of the Church Fathers. He made the controversial assertion that Christ descended into hell, not as a victor over Satan, but to experience the suffering of separation from God the Father.