Fr. Z's Blog

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?

Click for Clement XIV swag!

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.