No Holiness In Dissension From the Pope
Recent days have seen much media attention focused upon the words and person of the Holy Father, Pope Francis. Not a little bit of this commentary has been disconcerting, not only from those who would twist his words to fit a secular agenda, but also from those who are supposedly faithful but seem to want to instruct the pope on how to “pope.” It is unfortunate that, in this day and age, when the Church must be strong and united against the secular and, frankly, demonic forces at work in the world we have Catholics willing to tear down the pope because he is not made in their image and likeness. There seems to be a type of “subtle Protestantism” that sees the substitution of one’s private judgment for that of divinely established office of the Roman Pontiff.
Of course distinctions must be made. I will trust my own wits to that of the pope if he declares that the Cubs are going to win the World Series. But regarding matters that touch upon faith and morals, we are to give him our “religious submission of intellect and will” (Lumen Gentium, 25). Blessed John Paul II elaborated on this point in an address to American bishops on December 6, 2004, indicating that a teaching of the “authentic Magisterium…upon a matter of faith and morals,” even if not proclaimed “by definitive act,” must be given “religious submission of intellect and will,” requiring the faithful to “avoid whatever does not accord” with it. Indeed, even to the decisions made by the pope for the governance of the Church and her ordering, we are to show a filial obedience. These distinctions are important and the right use of our intellect is a must in these matters. Yet, there arises, not infrequently, today a mentality that will split hairs with scholastic exactitude as to the bare minimum that is required for one to be loyal to the pope. This mentality can, in some instances, lead towards a schismatic trajectory . Now, do not misunderstand, I am not calling for a cult to the pope nor a fideistic attitude. But what is needed and demanded by our Catholic Faith is a recognition of his authority, docility to his teaching, and the courage to accept the Supreme Magisterium’s teaching whole and entire.
One cannot separate Christ from the Church He established. In other words, one cannot have Christ without the Church, and one cannot have the Church without Christ. Per the divine institution, the locus of authority on earth is the Roman Pontiff. The person of the Pope, willed by Christ Himself, is an essential and visible sign of the universal authority of Christ. It is unfortunate that the mentality that I speak of occurs not only with the usual suspects (i.e., materialists, rationalists, secularists, etc.) but also among those who would be considered among the faithful. Two current examples: certain Catholic blogs continue in a posture of attempting to unmask a tradition-minimizing Papa Bergoglio by pointing out that he eschews the trappings of the papal office or prefers the Roman Missal of 1970 (see an early commentary on this: “Jesus Wasn’t Good Enough for them Either, Pope Francis“); the musings of a popular and learned Catholic commentator on Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in veritate, where he presumed to explicate for the faithful what in the encyclical was worthy of assent and what was debatable. Indeed, this commentator’s arrogance went so far as to compare the document to “a duck-billed platypus.” Hardly the words of one who shows docility to the Supreme Magisterium. This is not to say that there cannot be debate, argument, comment, and a seeking to understand the words and decisions of the Roman Pontiff. The faithful should; but they should in a way that gives reverence to his person and office and in a forum that would not further the erosion of the faith and an indifference to authority. Docility to the pope is docility to Christ.
It is human nature to have favorites and preferences, but a basic principle of our faith is that the deposit of the faith doesn’t change as the Church is guaranteed divine protection and assistance. A legitimate question that might be posed is whether the standard that we follow is one that rests on this conviction, or one that is of our own judgment as how a pope ought to “pope.” Frank Sheed put it well:
Our faith is rooted in Christ, not in the human instruments he uses. In a given age, a Catholic might revere the reigning pope and rejoice in his policies, and this would be an extra stimulation. On the other hand, he might find the pope’s life disedifying or his policies unpleasing: and that would be depressing. But whether the pope’s personality and policy stimulate him or depress him, the substance of our Catholicity is something distinct from them: what primarily matters is what we find in the Church of which the pope is the earthly ruler—the grace of the sacraments, the offering of the Sacrifice, the certitude of the truth, the unity of the Fellowship, and Christ, in whom all these are. (Theology and Sanity, p. 309-310)
In the end, are we striving for holiness or striving to win an argument? Maybe Pope Francis is making people uncomfortable just as Pope Benedict XVI similarly made people uncomfortable—to call them back to the fundamental truth of our existence and where our faith ought to be. Perhaps Catholics of all walks of life—myself included—ought to take to heart the words of St. Pius X:
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 695).
Our job, as commanded by Christ, is to love God and love one another. In this consists holiness. Part of this means being docile to the pope and his authority–and loving him too!
This article, No Holiness In Dissension From the Pope is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
https://bellarmineforum.org/no-holiness-in-dissension-from-the-pope/
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.
It’s hard to chastise someone when he is only doing what his bishop does.
In a similar vein, this is a good piece on letting the pope be the pope:
http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-are-catholics-so-worried-about-pope.html
I am not sure if you intended this, but it sounds like you believe that the Pope is effectively speaking ex cathedra non-stop. I very much doubt we are bound to give “religious submission of intellect and will” when the Pope says something on a matter that simply “touches upon faith and morals.”
History shows that giving blind religious submission of intellect and will to every word said by the Holy Father touching on faith and morals is not always advisable, and might even be bad. Take for example, Pope Honorius I, who was condemned by name in the sixth general council in 680 as a heretic. Giving Honorius’s views “religious submission of intellect and will,” as some did, would have surely led to anathamization. Consider also Pope John XXII, who preached in several sermons that the blessed do not experience the Beatific Vision until the last Judgment. His views were widely regarded as heretical, and some members of the University of Paris openly changed John XXII with heresy, along with other members of the French hierarchy at the time. Or what about the Papal Schism in the 1300’s where you had St. Catherine of Sienna supporting one Pope and St. Vincent Ferrer supporting another- and both Popes claiming to be the authentic successor of Peter.
In short, my understanding is that we are not required to disengage our intellect every time the Pope says something about faith and morals. Absolute assent of intellect and will is only required in specific circumstances concerning dogma that is defined as requiring assent of will and intellect. Papal utterances must be carefully evaluated to determine the weight and level of submission that is required. That is my understanding.
Certainly the intent of the article is to lay out basic principles. You are right to note that papal utterances must be carefully evaluated to determine weight and level of submission required. In 1998, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a such clarifications for the faithful’s “religiosum obsequium” in the accompanying doctrinal commentary on the Papal Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem. You can read it here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
The basic point of the article is to combat an all-too common phenomenon in conservative and traditionalist circles: a mentality which has the ultimate effect of diminishing the authority of the Pope. Per Lumen Gentium 25, we are to give our “religiosum obsequium” whenever the Roman Pontiff exercises the ordinary Magisterium–even if in a non-definitive way (cf. the Doctrinal Commentary cited above especially regarding those items that fall in the third paragraph outlined by Ad tuendam.). This doesn’t extend to policy decisions or those that are prudential decisions (e.g., girl altar boys in the Roman Rite, the desirability of World Youth Days, etc.). Yet, even there we owe “filial obedience” a phrase I use to mean that we ought not “crusade” against the decisions of the Holy Father or if we are to criticize, they should be respectful and in a forum that is appropriate (which probably excludes the polemical language, personal insults and assumptions). I also said very clearly in the article that ours should neither be a cult towards the pope nor the cultivation of a type of fideism. However, in this age where the world suffers from a crisis of understanding true authority, it behooves us to follow the Roman Pontiff show both deference and respect for his person and decisions.
Again, all of this is based upon an intellectual faith in Christ and the structure he set up for the Church–an assent to His Godhead and
authority. Assenting to this fact and living in obedience to the Roman Pontiff does not exclude suffering in this world. Indeed, sometimes the situations are blurry and the issues complex, but we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the Supreme Pontiff and not look to “out-pope” him.
Thanks for your excellent comments.
Thank you for this article. The first time I read it–a few weeks ago–I had a very different reaction. Then a friend of mine became a sedevacantist, and my perspective on everything changed.