The Pope is not the pope?

[stpurl]

Why are you upset with Father Z? He does not advocate this himself. It is a theory that is ‘out there’ and frankly, any theory like this needs to be put out by a respected priest precisely because it is disturbing.

If Father Z ignored it, he would lose credibility for not addressing ‘tough issues that are upsetting Catholics’.

If he discredited it, again, “He’s toeing the party line.’

By putting it out and in I believe his own words letting people judge for themselves he is acknowledging both that Catholics ARE pondering this. . .and thus not letting it be a hidden or gnostic issue. . .AND that he isn’t afraid of having people see these things. He is not treating the laity like people who need to be told things for their own good, OR to have things ‘kept from them’.

Because even if most people think, “Of course Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ”, if even a few are doubtful, isn’t it BETTER for them to have all the facts so that they’re more likely to move to the RIGHT conclusion instead of sticking to fringe areas where they could be further led astray?

Please give Fr Z some credit here.

He is in fact doing exactly what Pope Francis recommended; going to the peripheries and meeting people where they are.

Why is this only OK in SOME areas and not in others?
Think about it.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

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.

How is it an “attack”? OP wants to discuss something this priest wrote on his (public) blog, presumably because he wanted people to read and discuss it.

 

[BartholomewB]

The theory that Pope Francis is somehow not the Pope reminds me of the “#notmypresident” movement in the U.S. after Trump won the 2016 election.

Did anyone ask them, “Who is your president?”? If so, what was their answer?

 

[kapp19]

It seems that it is not the role of clerics to be “putting it out there” and “letting people judge for themselves” about who the Roman Pontiff is in a case such as this, when there is nothing even close to ambiguity… This is not the 14th century, nor do we even have a real duel - as Benedict clarified (unlike many rival “anti-popes” of the past, who would insist otherwise). The “party line” in this case is, well, the line between sanity and schism.

-K

 

[kapp19]

How do we know who the successor of Saint Peter is? Easy. Just look at who the Bishop of ROME is.

That would seem to be at odds with the first argument you put forward. Rome does not have two bishops…

 

[stpurl]

It seems. Those are the operative words. Your perception says one thing; the perceptions of others, something Else.

And it still surprises me that some people seem to think that acknowledging that a THEORY (I.e. something unproven) is out there equates to proposing or promoting said theory.

There’s racism out there. Should I be silent and not bring up disturbing posts or ideas? Gee, we all saw how well that worked out didn’t we.

 

[puer.dei]

The theory that Pope Francis is somehow not the Pope reminds me of the “#notmypresident” movement in the U.S. after Trump won the 2016 election.

Don’t forget all the Republicans who said “not my President” about Obama.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I looked at the Fr Z blog post and I can only guess that Fr Z has had too much time on his hands lately. Whole thing is TL; DR and has no impact on my life.

If Fr. Z is having some crisis of faith or enjoys running around thinking Pope Francis is an antipope, we’re in the last days and Satan is mounting attacks on the church, all I can say is we’ve been in the last days with Satan attacking us since the time of the Apostles, there is nothing special about now, only God knows the day and the hour, and perhaps it would be best if I just prayed for Fr. Z.

I’m not bothered by blog posts. St. Teresa of Avila said “Let nothing disturb you…God alone suffices”. When I go getting disturbed it’s usually by something in my own life that is going haywire, not because somebody wrote something on the Internet. Also, if I got bothered every time a priest started going off the rails or said something questionable, I would have been bothered every week for decades now. Life’s simply too short. I give it to God, let him take care of whatever doubts Fr. Z seems to have an inordinate amount of time to dwell upon.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The theory that Pope Francis is somehow not the Pope reminds me of the “#notmypresident” movement in the U.S. after Trump won the 2016 election.

I agree. If Pope Benedict XVI’s successor had been some big conservative, nobody would be blogging about whether that successor was “the true Pope” or not.
This is all because Pope Francis bugs them.

 

[kapp19]

Yes - but you could say much the same about a priest who says, “Some Catholic moralists think contraception is just fine/some clergy think Vatican II is sufficiently modernist that it justifies consecrating our own bishops/some other issue “du jour”/etc.”

Letting people think the question of “who is the pope” is “up in the air” is, well, not helpful. I will leave it there.

 

[stpurl]

Just because a person does not find something insightful or worthwhile doesn’t mean it isn’t.

It’s good I just came from church —FINALLY was able to attend and what a blessed event it was—because I was able to focus in on your prayer for Father Z and kind of dismiss the rest of the post. Because when it comes right down to it, I’m trying to do what I would expect people to do reading a priest’s blog, or a priest’s letters in a bulletin, or whatever—to focus on good.

We (general we) can and do disagree about what may be good, what to focus on and what to ignore—and hopefully we express our opinions as children of God should.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is an opinion forum, and if I do not find someone’s blog insightful or worthwhile, I fully expect others to vary in their judgment of it. When it comes to priest’s blogs, I prefer to give an honest opinion and not put on rose colored glasses because the man is a priest, especially when it’s a “celebrity priest” and an experienced blogger with a big following, instead of some priest writing something for his own parish.

I have said many times on here that Fr. Z writes good posts sometimes and I think he does a great job of promoting the Latin Mass and making certain prayers and rituals accessible to the public. However, I do believe that this post on the Pope was not one of his good moments.

I’m not sure how your making a big point of “dismissing the rest of my post” fits in with you having just came from church or any of that. It comes off as passive-aggressive to be honest. Have a nice day, I am muting this thread.

 

[Genesis315]

Fr. Z should know better. The fundamental office of the “Pope” is Bishop of Rome. There are not two different offices. From the Church’s own Code of Canon Law:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The First Vatican Council puts this “theory” to rest:

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

By definition, when Pope Benedict resigned the Roman See, he resigned the primacy as well, since the two are one and the same.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add to my post above, here’s some more on this point directly from the document governing the election of Roman Pontiff (which has had a couple updates, but nothing touching on this fundamental point):

St. John Paul II, Universi Domini Gregis:

The Shepherd of the Lord’s whole flock is the Bishop of the Church of Rome, where the Blessed Apostle Peter, by sovereign disposition of divine Providence, offered to Christ the supreme witness of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. It is therefore understandable that the lawful apostolic succession in this See, with which “because of its great pre-eminence every Church must agree”,1 has always been the object of particular attention.

And some additional sources:

St. Paul VI Ecclesiam Suam

We bear the responsibility of ruling the Church of Christ because we hold the office of Bishop of Rome and consequently the office of Successor to the Blessed Apostle Peter, the bearer of the master keys to the Kingdom of God, the Vicar of the same Christ who made of him the supreme shepherd of His worldwide flock.

St. John XXIII, Aterna Dei Sepienta

1. St. Leo, therefore, maintained that the Bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor and Christ’s Vicar on earth, is the focal center of the entire visible unity of the Catholic Church.

Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge

1. Faith in the Church cannot stand pure and true without the support of faith in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Catechism of St. Pius X

51 Q. Why is the Roman Pontiff the Successor of St. Peter?
A. The Roman Pontiff is the Successor of St. Peter because St. Peter united in his own person the dignity of Bishop of Rome and that of Head of the Church; by divine disposition he established his Seat at Rome, and there died; hence, whosoever is elected Bishop of Rome is also heir to all his authority.

There are plenty more examples giving testimony to the primacy of the bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome. There are also tons and tons of examples using the term Roman Pontiff, which is equivalent to bishop of Rome, or using the term Apostolic See, which is equivalent to See or Church of Rome. I focused on those specifically using “bishop of Rome” to avoid any (completely unfounded and baseless) doubts that somehow Roman Pontiff is a different office than Bishop of Rome or the “Apostolic See” is somehow different than the Roman See.

 

[goout]

I find it odd when noisy traditionalists don’t know what basic obedience is.
So then it’s not really Tradition…it’s modernist American individualism.

 

[pnewton]

A priest cannot be criticized, but the Pope can be undermined? I guess I still thought the C in CAF stood for Catholic.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I’m a freedom of speech sort of guy so I don’t mind the conversation. Nevertheless, the theory mentioned in Fr. Z’s post seems to make, unnecessarily, a very simple scenario extremely complicated. I don’t see why it is at all complicated.

Dan

 

[twf]

xamples giving testimony to the primacy of the bishop of Rome and the Church of Rome. There are also tons and tons of examples using the term Roman Pontiff, which is equivalent to bishop of Rome, or using the term Apostolic See, which is equivalent to See or Church of Rome. I focused on those specifica

From an ecumenical standing, it just ocurred to me what a nightmare this proposal would be for discussions with the Orthodox. We have some common ground when it comes to the Patristic witness that the Bishop of the Church in Rome holds primacy over all the Churches of God. If we now try to argue that the Vicar of Christ may be a separate person from the Bishop of Rome, any progress we’ve made in these ecumenical talks is out the window…

 

[Genesis315]

From an ecumenical standing, it just ocurred to me what a nightmare this proposal would be for discussions with the Orthodox. We have some common ground when it comes to the Patristic witness that the Bishop of the Church in Rome holds primacy over all the Churches of God. If we now try to argue that the Vicar of Christ may be a separate person from the Bishop of Rome, any progress we’ve made in these ecumenical talks is out the window…

Yeah, it’s an utter novelty. There is zero justification for some see-less bishop to have primacy over all the other bishops, including the bishop of Rome himself. Typing that out made it sound even more crazy.

 

[Genesis315]

One more important citation is found in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, which states the following to be in error:

There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. — Ibid.

The citation is to the Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” dated Aug. 22, 1851. That letter condemns certain errors found in a couple professors’ manuals and this one is pretty much word for word what is in the Syllabus (“nihil vetare alicuius Concilii generalis sententia, aut universorum populorum facto, Summum Pontificatum ab Romano Episcopo , atque Urbe ad alium Episcopum, aliamque Civitatem transferri”).

Clearly, if a General Council cannot sever the primacy from the bishopric of Rome, neither can the Pope alone, since both exercise the same supreme power (a General Council necessarily includes the Pope).

Put it this way, if the Pope could transfer the papacy to another city, then it would have been transferred back and forth between France and Rome on multiple occasions when the papacy had become a key political position fought over by the Italians and French. The Popes hiding out in Avignon would not have been a scandal. St. Catherine would not have urged the Popes to return to Rome, etc., etc. It could have been transferred to a more friendly city when the Popes were made “prisoners of the Vatican,” by the Italian king, etc., etc.