A question from a reader about the texts from Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, and whether Catholics can simply ignore the Pope.
Introduction
Over the summer, we have been publishing a number of texts from Fr Domenico Palmieri relevant to the “recognise and resist” movement. These touched on the following issues:
The distinction between the Holy See and the man Seated upon it
Whether a Pope can fall into heresy, and whether he is ‘stripped of jurisdiction by God’
The proper response to the exercise of the Pope’s non-infallible magisterium
Do we need an infallible list of infallible propositions? Fr Palmieri responds
Prompted by the fourth part above, a reader sent the following question:
“Can I just politely ignore what the Pope says, especially since recent Popes have the irritating habit of pronouncing grand opinions about everything under the sun? Becoming the Pope is not a sort of magical transformation of one’s basic personality. One does not suddenly acquire a monopoly on all wisdom, human or divine.”
This question deserves a response in full. I am happy to have given it first at Integrity Magazine, and am now making it available here.
Side note
I note that since this article was originally published “Lord”1 Timothy Flanders said something very similar to Eric Sammons on the Crisis Point podcast:
“It’s OK to ignore the Vatican, it’s OK. Just… it’s OK to just live a very traditional Catholic life.”
As we shall see, there is a truth to what “his Lordship” says – but this truth is used in an equivocal way, in order to convey a falsehood.
(In passing, given the positions advocated by these two men and their outlets, one cannot help wondering if the Crisis Point podcast should not be renamed the No-Crisis, No-Point podcast.)
I also addressed aspects of this question previously, in the following article:
The subtext of the question
With respect to the originaly questioner, it seems fair to point out that this question is asked as a means of solving or avoiding the problems that have arisen over the last sixty years. The questioner refers to the post-conciliar claimants “pronouncing grand opinions about everything under the sun,” but the only reason that this could be described as an “irritating habit” is that the pronouncements in question are so often gravely wrong, and contrary to the Catholic faith and to morals. If we had been facing sixty years of strong interventions on behalf of the Catholic faith and morals, nobody would be complaining about that.
Thus, let us name the central problems:
The Roman Pontiff is infallibly assisted in his definitive teaching, and cannot promulgate a universal disciplinary law which is evil or harmful to the faith. But Vatican II taught error in a definitive manner, and the post-conciliar claimants have repeatedly enjoined universal disciplinary laws which are evil and harmful to the faith.
The Roman Pontiff enjoys the habitual assistance of the Holy Ghost in leading the Church Militant. But the post-conciliar claimants show absolutely no sign of this habitual assistance; quite the contrary.
To hold office in the Church, one must be a Catholic. But the post-conciliar claimants reveal through their frequent interventions, regardless of authority, that they are not Catholics.
Let us proceed to each.
Definitions assisted with the charism of infallibility
It is important not to conflate different modes of speaking – because the answer to the question raised is in the affirmative for some, depending on the circumstances, and in the negative for others.
For example, everyone is aware that one cannot “politely ignore” the Pope when he says something like the following:
“[F]or the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory …
“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”
This is, of course, the definition of Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, of 1950. Such statements, as indicated by the language, are an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, and a solemn dogmatic definition. Among Catholics, nobody believes that such statements can be “politely ignored.”
The Pope is not limited in how he can issue a dogmatic definition. He may issue it in writing or in speech; he may do it in Rome, or elsewhere. There is nothing about an airplane which precludes the Pope issuing a dogmatic definition in the course of an in-flight interview – although even the post-conciliar claimants have not attempted to do this.
But dogmatic definitions are not the only type of definition. In addition we could consider the definitions of theological conclusions and the canonization of saints, which are also considered to be assisted with the charism of infallibility – and thus cannot be “politely ignored.”
Further, the Church herself has taught that her universal disciplinary laws are assisted by infallibility – not in the sense that they are irreformable (as with propositions) or are the most perfect possible dispositions, but in the sense that they cannot contain anything contrary to the Gospel and right morality. The theologian Van Noort explains why this is so – with the key section italicized:
“[T]he Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above – and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls …
“The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life …
“But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life …
“It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine (emphasis added) …
“It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life …
From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as ‘at least erroneous’ the hypothesis ‘that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism.’”2
As the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope is capable of making universal disciplinary laws himself. When he does so, they cannot be “politely ignored.” Thus, while Catholics agree that solemn ex cathedra dogmatic decrees cannot be “politely ignored,” the reality is that the assistance of infallibility extends a little further than is commonly acknowledged today – and over certain acts which are definitely problematic. For example:
The definitions of religious liberty at Vatican II.
The promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass and many other evil universal laws.
It might be tempting to say that we can “ignore” such measures – but this is simply “to hope that they go away.” In fact, they cannot be ignored; they must be faced head on, and their consequence recognized. That consequence is the impossibility of the men responsible for such acts being true Roman Pontiffs.
Merely authentic magisterium
Next, let us look at what Pope Pius XII said about our attitude towards what is taught outside of such definitions, in the Pope’s “ordinary” or “merely authentic (authoritative)” magisterium:
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me;’ and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”3
Similarly, in his encyclical Casti Connubii,4 Pope Pius XI teaches the following:
“[I]t is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty […]
“Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”5
In other words – and as Fr. Palmieri and others teach – we are not to “politely ignore” what the Roman Pontiff says when exercising his merely authentic magisterium.
Our questioner rightly points out that “[b]ecoming the Pope is not a sort of magical transformation of one’s basic personality” and that he “does not suddenly acquire a monopoly on all wisdom, human or divine.” But our conclusions never had anything to do with the “personality” of the Pope; they refer to his office, and to Christ’s promise “to be with” him. What he does acquire is authority; and when the Pope is exercising his magisterium, he is authoritative, even if he is not assisted with the charism of infallibility.
As with solemn and dogmatic definitions, there is nothing about an airplane which precludes the Pope from teaching authoritatively. Whether what he says in an in-flight interview or sermon (or any other means of communication) constitutes authoritative teaching will turn on the facts, the mode of expression, the manifestation of his intention, and so on. It may be made clearer if the address is later promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, but even this is not necessary.
The Fr. Palmieri article which prompted this question already addresses the question of potential errors in such non-infallible teaching acts. If such an error were to occur, the proper response might be something like the questioner suggests – at least in the sense that it may become necessary, for a certain class of persons, to suspend assent, whilst seeking clarity from Rome, whilst also retaining an obediential silence.
Such is the case for the hypothetical case of an isolated error. But our problem is not one of an isolated error, but sixty years of habitual error. Even if it were conceded that all these errors fall below the censure of heresy, this habitual erring is a demonstration of the absence of the habitual assistance which the Roman Pontiff necessarily enjoys from the Holy Ghost, by virtue of Christ’s promise “to be with” the Church.6 Once again, this raises problems for the legitimacy of the men claiming to have been the Roman Pontiffs over the last sixty years.
Non-authoritative statements
Finally, let us turn to what the Pope might say when not exercising his papal authority.
The Papacy does not prevent the person of the Pope teaching as a private doctor. One famous example is Pope Benedict XIV’s republication of his work On the Beatification and Canonization of Saints.
As a private doctor, it is generally the case that the person of the Pope enjoys a high authority. Nonetheless, one is not obliged to follow his opinions: here, even more than above, the questioner is right in pointing out that the Pope “does not suddenly acquire a monopoly on wisdom, human or divine.” With all proper respect to the Pope’s office and person, it does seem possible that some hypothetical circumstances might call for us to “politely ignore” him. This might be the case if a true Pope were, hypothetically, to publish a book or preach about botany, double glazing windows, the best football team in the British Premier League, or the merits of a carnivore diet.
Such treatments may be riddled with errors – the consequence of which might be limited to making the Papacy look ridiculous.
Our questioner refers to “the irritating habit of pronouncing grand opinions about everything under the sun.” But this is not quite true: the post-conciliar claimants have been pronouncing grand opinions about religious matters.
The Pope may publish works relating to faith and morals as a private doctor, and we are similarly free to disagree with the opinions which he may express in such works (providing, of course, that they are indeed merely his opinions). For example, a Pope may write such a work advocating a particular position on a disputed question, such as Molinism, or that even secret heretics cease to be members of the Church. What he writes may be erroneous, and contain errors; we are free to think so, and we are free to “ignore” what he writes, if one wishes to put it that way.
But if he were flagrantly professing errors which were heresies, this could not be “politely ignored.” The public profession of heresy, if clearly pertinacious, has consequences for one’s membership of the Church – and, as a result, for one’s ability to hold office. Such a scenario would either result in the Pope losing office automatically, or (according to some) needing to be declared to have lost office. Neither situation can be ignored – nor can such a one be treated as if he retains authority, lest souls be led into heresy themselves.
We do not “politely ignore” those who seriously say that they are going to go on killing sprees, or otherwise hurt others – even if they are “off duty” when they say so. On the contrary, such words call for a response. When John XXII preached, under correction and in a specifically non-authoritative way, discourses which contained errors on the state of the soul after death, the world sat up and responded. It seems quite wrong to suggest that we should “politely ignore” worse errors spread at greater frequency and publicity.
And in fact, these post-conciliar claimants have not even limited themselves to the profession of this or that heresy. Instead, they have been resolutely focused on issues relating to a naturalistic replacement for the Catholic religion, often using Catholic language and ideas as a means of promoting what is, essentially, apostasy.
Conclusion
All in all, the question posed can only offer any kind of solution to our current situation if we equate “what the Pope says” with a wide variety of modes of speaking – some of which authoritative to different degrees, and some of which non-authoritative but on different subjects.
But this is simply a tempting equivocation. By contrast, the arguments for a vacant See are really quite “minimalist.” Our opponents (among whom I do not count the questioner) wish to characterize us as treating every word of the Pope as divinely inspired, and so have a very easy straw-man to attack; but this is certainly not the case.
So can we “politely ignore” a Pope? Yes, and no.
Yes: for a variety of hypothetical things that a Pope might say, we can.
No: this does not help us with the current crisis in the Church, because the problems cannot be reduced to a generic notion of “what the Pope says.”
There really is no way out of the current crisis except acknowledging that the Holy See has been vacant since at least December 1965. One can seek any number of ways of avoiding this conclusion, but the only way out is through.
This topic has been addressed on several occasions on this website in the following texts:
‘Undoubtedly Magisterial Acts’? Pope Honorius and Roberto de Mattei
What kind of assent is owed to the different papal statements? Fr Anton Straub SJ
The Pope is ‘not to be publicly contradicted’ – Fr Palmieri on the non-infallible magisterium
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
The distinction between the Holy See and the man Seated upon it
Whether a Pope can fall into heresy, and whether he is ‘stripped of jurisdiction by God’
The proper response to the exercise of the Pope’s non-infallible magisterium
Do we need an infallible list of infallible propositions? Fr Palmieri responds
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
The honorific “Lord” is owed to Timothy Flanders due to his assumed position as a member of what he has called the “Lay Nobility”. For instance:
“An immediate question arises: what if the local bishop (or God forbid, the Pope himself!) is a heretic or his liturgy is a desecration of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus? If this is the case, we do what we can to resist these evils and protect our children as members of the lay nobility.”
And:
“Meaning of Catholic is ‘reclaiming this right of Christian noblemen which has always been approved of and valued by the hierarchy of the Church.’”
We who live in nations that enjoy an actual nobility understand it to be a matter of blood and law; however, it appears to be otherwise in the fantasy land of “Lord” Flanders. There, one becomes a noble simply by opening a publishing house and talking about matters which you later admit you did not understand at all.
This may also explain the strange R&R obsession with Emperor Karl of Austria, and “Lord” Flanders’ condemnation of Pope St Pius X for finally ending the “Imperial veto” for papal elections: perhaps “his Lordship” sees the crisis ending (if he still admits there is one) through his “noble” intervention at a future conclave.
Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church,’ Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II. 1957, Trans. Castelot and Murphy, The Newman Press, Westminster Maryland, n. 91, pp 115-6.)
The passage continues:
“But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
This passage is sometimes treated as directly clarifying what preceded it, although there are reasons for suspecting that it actually begins a new thought – since “what is expounded in Encyclical Letters” generally is not equivalent with the “purposeful passing of judgement.” So, in order to steel-man our interlocutors’ position, we omit this second sentence above.
This encyclical is a good example of what was mentioned in the preceding footnote. Pope Pius XI is generally considered to have “purposely passed judgement” in Casti Connubi, in the following terms (no. 56):
“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Ibid., n. 104.
Cf. the explanation of Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC:
“The Authority in the Church, on the contrary, ‘IS WITH’ Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ ‘IS WITH’ it habitually and daily. For which reason the Authority realizes the good and the end of the Church habitually and daily: the Mission confided by the Father to Christ, and by Christ to the Church (“As the Father hath sent me, I also send you: Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them…”).
“Except for the case of extraordinary Magisterium, it is not impossible that by a single act, the Authority can carry some defects. It is impossible, on the contrary, that the Authority which forms a single thing with Christ would not guarantee the Good of the Church habitually.”
In support of this, he cites Mgr Guérard des Lauriers:
“We present an obvious fact, namely that the Authority in the Church is divinely instituted, and that, in the end, it is exercised – even though mediately – by Him who is the Truth. It is therefore impossible that the Authority as it is in the Church HABITUALLY does not accomplish those functions which are INTRINSICALLY those of the Authority. Such a hypothesis is contradictory, and against the principle of non-contradiction which is in play not only in the natural order, but also in the order the permanent principle of which is the Incarnate Word.
“So if the authority’ habitually does not accomplish the functions which are inherently those of the Authority, it follows that the ‘authority’ is not the Authority; for, if the ‘authority’ were the Authority, it should, in virtue of the ‘being with’ which was promised to it, accomplish habitually the functions which are proper to it…”
Fr Francesco Ricossa, ‘Pope, Papacy and the Vacant See’, fn. 100, citing Cahiers de Cassiciacum I, n. 22-3. From Sodalitium n. 66, translated by seminarians of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, available here.
I appreciated this very much. Thank you. I appreciated the discussion of a pope writing as a private doctor, which calls to mind "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtyla. That book has been twisted from a private work to "papal magisterium", and even Amazon and Wikipedia attribute the book to JPII.
Need to read the article a bit more carefully to see how that statement can be true and false in different respects.