From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
A hypothetical: Let’s suppose Pope F decides to resign but for some reason (war, political/religious ) there will not be a conclave. For the time being, could be years , no conclave is in sight. The chair is empty. How are catholics to respond? Are the avenues for catholics open i.e. attending any TLM, up and including sspv etc types. Follow pre vatican ii norms or post vcii? In other words, is it permissible for catholics to follow their consciences.
There are different aspects to consider.
As I have mentioned before many times, for a very long time in the life of the Church your average Catholic and a lot of the clergy didn’t know who was Pope.
For centuries, news travelled at about 5 mph. Not all news travelled everywhere at equal speeds and accuracy.
It was entirely possible that people would learn of the death of, say, Pope Sixtus V (on 27 Aug 1590) and Urban VII elected after the death of of the same Urban VII (27 Sept 1590) and election of Gregory XIV (on 5 Dec 1590). Or they learned about Sixtus or Urban even after the same Gregory XIV had died (on 16 Oct 1591) and Innocent IX elected, who in turn died (30 Dec 1591) and Clement VIII elected (30 Jan 1592). Get it?
In that sort of scenario, priests would be saying the name of Sixtus in the Canon of the Mass when the Pope was actually Urban, Gregory, Innocent or Clement. Priests in different places would be reading different names of the Pope at the very same hour.
And the Church didn’t crumble into rubble.
I remember an older priest who, even toward the end of the 26 year reign of John Paul II, still occasionally slipped into saying “Paul our Pope”.
So, today, would it make a huge difference if a priest would say “Benedict” rather than “Francis”? Or leave out the name? Or during the “sede vacante” period by habit say the name of a Pope who had just died? Or the name of the Pope who had resigned?
Come to think of it, after the EMP or Second Carrington Event, it would be pretty handy were a string of Popes to take the same regnal name…. like Clement XIV the II, followed by Clement XIV the III, and Clement XIV the IV, and Clement XIV the V. And each one could, anew, suppress the Jesuits! WIN WIN WIN etc.
Repetita iuvant.
What difference would it make for most Catholics if there were no Pope for a while?
Frankly, we would have lot less rambling to wade through. Blood pressure would fall worldwide. Far fewer distractions would pull us from good spiritual reading.
We wouldn’t have monthly “intentions of the Roman Pontiff” published.
On that score, this month’s intention from Francis is for people suffering from depression, “We pray that people who suffer from depression or burnout will find support and a light that opens them up to life”.
Gee whiz. I can think of one thing Francis could do to help people who are depressed about the Church!
Back on point, there are also the traditional “Pope’s intentions” that were perennially designated.
Because we are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists, and we love our old dependable compendia of theology with their sober and thorough analyses, we turn to the manual by Prümmer. Prümmer says that the intentions of the Holy Father for which we are to pray have a tradition of five basic categories which were fixed:
1. Exaltatio S. Matris Ecclesiae (Triumph/elevation/stablity/growth of Holy Mother Church)
2. Extirpatio haeresum (Extirpation/rooting out of heresies),
3. Propagatio fidei (Propagation/expansion/spreading of the Faith)
4. Conversio peccatorum (Conversion of sinners),
5. Pax inter principes christianos (Peace between christian rulers).
These five categories were also listed in the older, 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is now superseded by the 1983 Code.
They remain good intentions, all. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether or not the more recent intentions in any way resemble the classic intentions. But we wouldn’t have to fret over intentions about not cutting down trees or bovine flatulence changing the climate, etc.
As far as the present legislation about the Vetus Ordo is concerned, that would, I suppose, stay in force until another Pope dealt with it.
HOWEVER, the other angle here is that laws that aren’t received aren’t really laws at all. This is “reception theory”.
Reception theory states that a law, in order to be a law, a binding law, must be received by the community for which it is intended. If they community does not receive it, that is, they reject it outright or it fails to have any effect on how they live, the presumed law is non-binding and is really no law at all.
This doesn’t apply to moral law, because it flows from above reception or rejection by mere human beings. Reception theory does not apply to moral teaching, but it can apply to certain of the Church’s disciplinary law, which includes liturgical law.
Libs falsely and maliciously tried to apply this to Humanae vitae in the 60’s and 70’s. Even now at places like Fishwrap and Amerika they still are. But the problem is that HV deals with moral law, not positive law, such as liturgical law.
An example of non-reception of positive, liturgical law is when in 1535 Paul III published a new Breviary which departed from tradition. It was criticized and ignored and in 1568 Pius V withdrew it.
See what I mean?
Let’s have a mind exercise and think about reception theory in view of Traditionis custodes (Taurina cacata). If priests were simply to ignore TC with its cruelty and incoherent diktats, and endure patiently but publicly the threats and punishments meted out by rigid and blinkered bishops, the whole thing would just dissolve into a vapor that would, for a while, leave a rather unpleasant but dissipating stink.
What difference would it make for most Catholics if there were no Pope for a while?
Would a long period of sede vacante allow us to go to Sedevacantist chapels?
Hmmm… clever.
I think not.
As far as the conscience question is concerned, I think we have to take into consideration also the concept of sensus fidelium. Conscience does not have absolute freedom, permitting a person to do just anything. A conscience must be properly formed according to right reason and good authority. Error doesn’t have rights, that is, once adequately corrected we must move from error to truth. The tricky thing about sensus fidelium, is that for someone to have that sensus he has to be faithful. It is, after all, the “sense of the faithful” not the “notion of the dissenter”.
What difference would it make for most Catholics if there were no Pope for a while?
A period of time when there is no Pope. Positive? Negative? Neutral?
In some periods people suffered when there was no Pope or no sure way of knowing who was the real Pope. In other periods people suffered when there was a Pope and everyone knew him!
Look at it this way. Without a Pope for a long time, we wouldn’t have wonder reflections like those of Leo XIII on the Blessed Mother, or theological insight like that of Benedict XVI. We also wouldn’t have kissing the Koran, putting demon idols on altars, and cruel attempts to snuff out a thousand years and more of sacred liturgical worship for the sake of personal animus disguised as concern for unity.
In an idea world, we would know who the Pope is, but we would barely have to hear about him.
Think about it.
The role of the Pope, like that of a father, is mainly to say “No!” and also to provide a visible reference point for unity in the Church and then to strengthen (teach, correct) when problems arise. But in an ideal world, not so many problems arise and there is unity. Hence, a Pope could – as We shall when We are elected and take the name of Clement XIV II – disappear into the Vatican Library for periods so long that people shall wonder if We have died. After Our election, occasionally We shall be borne upon Our sedia gestatoria to the central loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, with or without forewarning, with much finery and those large ostrich plume fans. We shall read something briefly, give the Apostolic Benediction to the City and to the World, and then drop a single sheep of double-spaced Latin text to flutter to the ground, an encyclical on a topic that interests Us or that must be addressed with urgency (rare).
What difference would it make for most Catholics if there were no Pope for a while?
Catholics love their Popes. Sometimes we don’t like them very much, but we try to love them.
Love doesn’t mean we can’t object to certain things that Pope’s might do. It doesn’t mean we have to cling to them as if they were the ninth apparition of Vishnu.
Let’s not make Popes into what they are not, which has been a problem in the last century or so.
In troubling times, perhaps it’s best simply to tune out of certain frequencies and channels.
I’m from a small population diocese that often serves as a step for bishops to move up the ladder. Never does the diocese run so smoothly as when that seat is empty.
“Taurina cacata”. Just about busted up. That gets MY gold star for the day! Up there with useful phrases such as “Charlie Foxtrot” or “Bass-Ackwards”. All three of which might well be applied to TC.
And the silver trumpets, Faddah. Don’t forget the silver trumpets.
On the plus side, the ideological liberals at Where Peter Is will disappear too.
Pingback: Zap Big Pulpit – Big Pulpit
like Clement XIV the II, followed by Clement XIV the III, and Clement XIV the IV, and Clement XIV the V. And each one could, anew, suppress the Jesuits! WIN WIN WIN etc.
LOL Great line, Father, just wonderful. There is a beautiful symmetry to having pope after pope suppress them, given that they have defied pope after pope in their heresies.
Thanks, Father! Much finery, flabella and the occasional encyclical dropped from the loggia – and the silver trumpets mentioned by jaykay – would be such a sweet relief after all the taurina c—-a.
Please that intention is a joke right? I’m not sad dammit! I don’t need a light that opens me up to life. How disgustingly condescending. If only amputees would try a little harder they’d be able to walk on air.
If only that was the dumbest thing to come out of Rome.
You mean that there is a pope now? ?
Thanks for addressing my questions Fr. Z. I wasn’t really concerned about the pope per se but the whole post vcii mentality. Personally, the popes for the last 60 years have gotten in the way…It wasn’t my intention to sound like a sede. If there is chaos (as i believe there will be) then catholics will be left to fend for themselves and that was the gist of my question. You stated: “If priests were simply to ignore TC …” can we apply this to VCII mentality, just by ignoring it…make it go away, yes?
It matters what the pope is saying, or not saying. A few easy examples:
During the years of JPII I saw that those involved in pro life work (incl working the phones) were buoyed by the pope’s concern for the unborn.
On the other hand, a few months after the election of Francis, I spoke with an old friend who had worked with Birthright for many, many years. The pope had already rebuked Catholics for “obsession” with abortion, instead recommending “concern” for the poor. She was baffled. “Doesn’t he realize that most of the girls we deal with are from poor families?”
The answer is no, he doesn’t.
The danger of having no pope is that CNN would treat Fr. James Martin as the pope, or Cupich
robtbrown: An excellent point. The commander sets the tone and sets a moral example. He should understand those people in his charge, keep them informed, provided with clear guidance, and promote their welfare.
Isn’t the letter from John Paul II “Universalis Dominici Gregis” meant largely to prevent a long interregnum? I suppose forces external to the Vatican, such as (you suggest) war, could cause issues. Do you think internal issues in your church making for an extended vacancy at all likely? I’m sincerely curious.
[YOUR Church! There are provisions intended to break deadlocks after a certain number of ballots. But that doesn’t deal with, for example, disruptions and the scattering of the College. A Zoom conclave? Hard to imagine. And, frankly I wouldn’t want anything like that to happen. Too risky, vulnerable to corruption and undue influence.]
During an interregnum, how do bishops-elect become approved for consecration so we can continue the episcopacy, ordination to the presbyterate and diaconate, etc.? As I understand it, the administrative functions of the Curia don’t end with the death/resignation of a Pope, but weighty matters are deferred until the election of a new Pontiff. Would the approval of new bishops fall under this same category?
“In an idea [sic] world, we would know who the Pope is, but we would barely have to hear about him.”
Hmmmm….I’ve never thought about it this way. In fact, has there ever been a period like this in the entire history of the Church?
Regarding ajf1984’s post above, I suppose a sede vacante period would be the ideal time for more episcopal ordinations for FSSP/SSPX?
“In an idea [sic] world, we would know who the Pope is, but we would barely have to hear about him.”
Hmmmm….I’ve never thought about it this way. In fact, has there ever been a period like this in the entire history of the Church?
Regarding ajf1984’s post above, I suppose a sede vacante period would be the ideal time for more episcopal ordinations for FSSP/SSPX?
Semper Gumby,
I wasn’t referring to the tone. Two simple rules:
1, Never discourage good people from doing good work.
2. Never reverse yourself out of the blue. E.g., JPII and altar girls
There can be doubt as to who is Pope, eventually things get sorted out in a way that is definitive to all but the stubborn non-habited types sitting in the bus with the flat tires singing Haugen’s hoedowns.
Think back to John XXIII or Paul VI as examples. There certainly are those who believe neither was a legitimate Pope and that there hasn’t been one since Pius XII. The theory may have been tenable for a while, but eventually it became impossible to hold once it was no longer possible to elect a new Pope under the laws in force when the Holy See supposedly became vacant. The Petrine office cannot fail, any theory which leads to that means it’s time to stop and re-think.
Francis not being pope is tenable since Benedict is still alive and there are still cardinals eligible to vote from before 2013 – and we do have the precedents of Innocent II and the competing papacies of the 15th century. If we are in 2041, Benedict has passed without naming new cardinals, no eligible pre-Francis cardinals remain, and the line from Francis has continued without break, then such a theory is a dead-end.
robtbrown: “I wasn’t referring to the tone.”
Note that tone is in fact applicable.
My Ganganelli beer stein always does good service for tea. It’s good and strong.
I suppose there’s plenty who hold to the theory there has been no Pope for fifty plus years. I don’t see anything extraordinary happening at the next conclave, except there is a hope that many Francis appointees (most are themselves local nominations confirmed by him) will see his direction is very harmful. No Pope means no patronage, no promotions, no goodies.
“The role of the Pope, like that of a father, is mainly to say “No!” and also to provide a visible reference point for unity in the Church and then to strengthen (teach, correct) when problems arise.”
Indeed. At this point in time it may be best to have no pope for awhile and dismantle the 1984 Lib ministries of “mercy” and “walking together.” And reconsecrate St. Peter’s. There’s been highs and lows for twenty centuries, another low point is here.