The Pope is not the pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
I want to preface this post by saying I was, for many years, a big fan and ardent reader of Fr. Z. Since the election of Pope Francis, I have become gradually more disenfranchised with his blog. I’ve seen increased divisiveness, sensationalism, and right-wing politics taking the forefront. For quite some time now, I’ve seen the occasional post or comment from readers that either directly or indirectly advocates the schismatic position that +Francis is not the true Pope. Tonight I see this blog post… The Mazza Hypothesis: Benedict resigned as Bishop of Rome but not Vicar of Christ. Wherein Fr. Z ponders with a heavy heart. | Fr. Z's Blog

Is anyone else as disturbed by this post as I am? Its framed in nuanced and “layered” terminology…but for a priest in good standing…a respected, lauded, highly praised priest with a HUGE following…to come out and say, in black and white text, the Pope living at the Vatican may not really be the Vicar of Christ, is disturbing. How is this not a huge deal? This priest commands the absolute respect of a huge number of faithful Catholics. Isn’t this HUGE?

To be clear, I absolutely dismiss the hypothesis the reverend Father is putting forward…but that such a popular and respected priest can put it forward just disturbs me…
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it’s right to use this forum as a springboard for an attack on a priest in good standing with whom you disagree.
 
I asked a sincere question. Is it normal and routine for a priest in good standing to propose that the Pope is not actually the Vicar of Christ? That’s the core of my question. Where do you draw the line? I’ve seen a lot of blatant attacks on Fr James Martin on this forum (and some on Fr Z’s blog). Do you also condemn those who question Fr Martin’s more controversial positions? Is asking questions now to be equated with an attack?

Let me conclude with a simple question. If I told you a decade ago, during the reign of Pope Benedict, that a priest in my area was openly challenging whether the Pope was the true Vicar of Christ, how would you have responded? Would you have called me out for questioning a priest in good standing? Please search your heart and answer that sincerely.
 
My pastor isn’t really the parish pastor. The previous pastor relinquished the role of parish administration, in obedience to the bishop, but in reality he remained the true pastor. The current priest in the parish may be the administrator but he’s not the the pastor.

No matter my logic or arguments, it would be both scandalous and dangerous for me to even suggest such to my fellow laity…no?
 
Last edited:
No. If your arguments are sound they deserve to be heard.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think Francis is the Pope, along with almost all traditionalists including the SSPX.

But I have reviewed Ann Barnhardt’s arguments ( to which Fr Z refers) and they are by no means lightweight or frivolous. They deserve to be considered, even if ultimately rejected.
 
I followed your link and read the first few paragraphs, as far as the words of a song lyric, “Oh twice as much ain’t twice as good." By that time Fr. Z had not yet mentioned either of the terms quoted in the title, neither “Vicar of Christ” nor “Bishop of Rome.” It was all just waffle, quoting a few lines from pop songs, and then more waffle. It looks as though Fr. Z lost interest in the subject he was going to write about.
 
twf said:
Is anyone else as disturbed by this post as I am?
Click to expand...
I’m not. The idea he speaks of is a model of inanity, but the proper response to inane ideas isn’t necessarily to ignore them.

The silliness of the argument is illustrated by the statement that “There is a strong argument to be made that Benedict might have intended to renounce the active ministry (office of the Bishop of Rome) while retaining the spiritual ministry (Successor of Peter).” It’s total rubbish, there’s absolutely no evidence for that.

The argument is that the Pope has the authority to sever the office of Bishop of Rome from that of Supreme Pontiff, and since Benedict didn’t say that he wasn’t trying to do that, then maybe he was. It takes gold-medal mental gymnastics to give any credence to sophomoric poppycock like that.
 
Last edited:
It is disturbing indeed.

By the way - there ARE NO MERITS to the arguments… As if Christ established two Petrine ministries (spiritual and juridical) - or a “munus” and also a “ministerium” which could be “cut up”… For crying out loud, use your brain as informed by faith. As has been pointed out, NOBODY who is making these claims would have made them if Francis was less controversial. NOBODY.

The canonical arguments are totally bunk (including the one about the supposed plausibility of an invalidated conclave - as if private crimes these days could invalidate juridical acts)… It’s all stupefying. As for “he was pressured!” well, every pope has pressure to resign. Think about it.

Someone will no doubt issue a very public rebuttal of his very unfortunate peddling of this insane theory. Let’s pray for him.

-K
 
Last edited:
I am disturbed by this thread.

So churches have shut for what ?

Two months and the mice are already playing and causing havoc , whilst the cats away. Please stop this.
 
Maximian said:
I don’t think it’s right to use this forum as a springboard for an attack on a priest in good standing with whom you disagree.
Click to expand...
Oh, isn’t that kinda like a priest using his blog to attack a pope with whom he “disagrees” or sees as being irregular somehow?
 
Not if it’s his own blog, no isn’t.

The op is free to say whatever he likes on his own blog too.
 
Pope Francis is exactly what the Church needs right now. I hope he becomes a Saint one day. End of story. Period.
 
Very weird and worrying for anyone who buys into that overwrought theory, especially a priest. This is “churchcraft” navel-gazing at its worst. Focus on spreading the gospel, not dissecting the papacy. And Benedict is still alive, which is apparently the problem and the solution at the same time: rather than confuse and scandalize the faithful, if they really take this analysis seriously (really?) it would be prudent to just ask him.
 
These theories keep getting more elaborate…

I will defend Pope Francis as the Head of the Roman Catholic Church. These are my arguments in his defense.

PART 1

I think there are two simple yet effective arguments against those who claim Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is still the head of the Church.

1 - In moral theology, coerced intention is still an intention. So, it doesn’t matter whether he was forced to renounce. Besides, Benedict XVI was very clear when he let go the See of Rome, that is, when he gave up the government of the Church. So he still is Bishop of Rome, but he doesn’t govern it anymore. This means he isn’t the head of the Church anymore.

2 - Just as there are Bishop Emeritus everywhere, there can also be a Bishop emeritus of Rome. Obviously, some people got confused because it is the first time we deal with this in regards to the this Bishop. Yet, as it is possible for a Bishop to lose government on the one hand and still administer the Sacraments and teach (preach the gospel) at a certain diocese, so too can the Bishop of Rome. The key factor here is to know that the head of the Church is the one who holds both the seat AND the government of the ROMAN Catholic Church. And Pope Francis is the one who has them by the will of God, glory be to Him.

Argument 2 was contested by Mazza. He says it is possible for the Pope to detach himself from the See of Rome because Saint Peter did it so when he was preaching the Gospel at other places and he himself moved from one place to another (he founded the See of Antioch and didn’t remain there, for instance).
 
Last edited:
PART 2

Well, as I said, the head of a see is the one who holds the title of bishop of a see AND its government. Furthermore, I leave you with quotations from three different councils on this matter.

Council of Trent
A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter’s successors.
Click to expand...
How do we know who the successor of Saint Peter is? Easy. Just look at who the Bishop of ROME is. If one changes the see which we have as our only reference to know who Saint Peter’ successors are, we are doomed to uncertainty and chaos because now we will have to track a moving Bishop. As we all know, disorder is not godly.

First Vatican Council
And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [i.e. , ‘from the chair’], … ; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. “[Canon.] But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.*
Click to expand...
Notice the highlighted texts. It is the ROMAN PONTIFF who speaks ex cathedra. Why him? Because he is the successor of Saint Peter. And his definitions are unalterable. And who presumes to contradict this definition of this council, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (God forbid).

Second Vatican Council.
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and the whole company of the faithful.*
Click to expand...
This couldn’t be more crystal clear. I will even repeat it: The ROMAN Pontiff, as the SUCCESSOR of Peter, is the PERPETUAL and VISIBILE source and foundation of the Church.

Summing up. POPE FRANCIS IS THE BISHOP OF ROME, SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER, AND HEAD OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Thus, we must obey his government (as long as it doesn’t contradict Dogmas and Tradition) and pray everyday for him.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so because it’s his own blog that makes it okay? No, sorry.

The internet is a springboard for all, not just those that have blogs. To suggest that the OP has no right to post is the same as limiting his speech. This site is full of threads, posts, and links that we may or may not agree with. People have a right to speak, unless what they are saying is truly offensive or against forum rules.
 
twf said:
Since the election of Pope Francis, I have become gradually more disenfranchised with his blog. I’ve seen increased divisiveness, sensationalism, and right-wing politics taking the forefront.
Click to expand...
This is true for me, as well. I simply don’t read his blog any longer.

A few thoughts:
  • There is nothing wrong with criticizing something (eg an argument or theory) that a priest writes - that is not equivalent to attacking the priest.
  • The location of a priest on a political (left - right) or theological (liberal - conservative) continuum is no guarantee of their accuracy on any given subject.
  • No priest in the world is criticized for things he says (AND is attacked personally as a result) nearly as often as our Supreme Pontiff, Francis, Pope of Rome!
In the final analysis, follow what you learned (or should have learned) in Philosophy 101: Attack the argument, not the man.

Deacon Christopher
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top