John S. Daly shares his thoughts on one of the most controversial issues of our day – whether one can legitimately attend a Mass in which a false pope is named in the Canon.
“In fact it is precisely because we do not see with infallible certitude the conclusions implicit in the data of faith that we need an infallible pope to guide us and that in his absence we cannot claim to replace him by attributing to this or that conclusion the status which it can only obtain by virtue of magisterial confirmation.”
That’s a point which is continuously overlooked amidst the warring polemics of the various crisis orientations, but it ought instead become an operative principle governing all such debates. If it were, the mutual anathemas would decrease, and charity would increase, and the result would be better disposition to the reception of truth for everyone.
NB: As an aside, it occurs to me that the same argument could be adduced in favor of my sede-doubtism (howsoever much the doubt seems to be dissipating).
Mr. John Daly Is such a clear and logical thinker, he clears away the overgrowth of confusion and exposes the basic theological reasons behind this issue, and at the same time refutes the NUC position.
Thank you for posting this article and the one posted previously by Michael Hudson on the same subject, also very well written and reasoned.
Powerful analysis. It has never bothered my conscience to attend Masses where the current "pope" is mentioned. The whole question is too thorny for me to be able to conclude anything. And I was convinced that Francis was an antipope, I suspect the same for Leo, and looking back, I am troubled by much of what John Paul II taught and did. But the final call is really over my head. And I am happy that it is, since the Eastern Rite Ukrainian Catholic church I attend prays for the "pope" once silently and four times out loud every Mass.
Thanks for sharing this, nice to see John on substack.
Hat tip to the gents of The WM Review for sharing!
John Daly said:
“In fact it is precisely because we do not see with infallible certitude the conclusions implicit in the data of faith that we need an infallible pope to guide us and that in his absence we cannot claim to replace him by attributing to this or that conclusion the status which it can only obtain by virtue of magisterial confirmation.”
That’s a point which is continuously overlooked amidst the warring polemics of the various crisis orientations, but it ought instead become an operative principle governing all such debates. If it were, the mutual anathemas would decrease, and charity would increase, and the result would be better disposition to the reception of truth for everyone.
NB: As an aside, it occurs to me that the same argument could be adduced in favor of my sede-doubtism (howsoever much the doubt seems to be dissipating).
Thank you for this. It helps a lot!
Mr. John Daly Is such a clear and logical thinker, he clears away the overgrowth of confusion and exposes the basic theological reasons behind this issue, and at the same time refutes the NUC position.
Thank you for posting this article and the one posted previously by Michael Hudson on the same subject, also very well written and reasoned.
Great content per usual.
Very clearly & persuasively explained. Thank you.
Powerful analysis. It has never bothered my conscience to attend Masses where the current "pope" is mentioned. The whole question is too thorny for me to be able to conclude anything. And I was convinced that Francis was an antipope, I suspect the same for Leo, and looking back, I am troubled by much of what John Paul II taught and did. But the final call is really over my head. And I am happy that it is, since the Eastern Rite Ukrainian Catholic church I attend prays for the "pope" once silently and four times out loud every Mass.