Is The Pope Catholic?

It’s an interesting question, and it turns out that the first person to ask it was boxer Max Baer, Jr., back in 1959. But lately more than a few people have been asking the same question.

Today Rod Dreher recounts his visit to the famous Marian shrine near Częstochowa in Poland: Jasna Góra. He writes of how moved he was by the open Catholic devotion of the Poles he met there, and …

The comfort I took from being among Polish Catholics, and the admiration I have for how their faith brought them through so much suffering, only exacerbates the incomprehension I have over how Pope Francis and the bishops seem so dead-set on destroying the Catholic faith -- or if not destroying it, per se, then on turning it into something it never has been.

The maniacal crusade Francis has against the traditional Latin mass is simply bizarre. Relatively few Catholics today attend the Latin mass, but those parishes where it is offered are almost always vibrant and full. It is certainly true that you can find some bitter, cranky people around Latin mass communities, but you can find pushy, obnoxious people everywhere in the Catholic Church, and indeed in all churches. During the thirteen years I was a Catholic, I visited the Latin mass a few times. I never became a regular attendee, but it was easy to see the appeal, and I was glad that Catholics who found depth and beauty there had it as an option. I was no longer a Catholic when Pope Benedict XVI gave universal permission for the Tridentine mass ("Latin mass") to be said everywhere. Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI) once said:

Of course he was right, and is right. Yet his successor, Francis, has moved to suppress the old rite. What was once the Catholic Church's holiest and highest possession is now forbidden in FrancisChurch, by order of the Pope himself. And, as Ratzinger foresaw, this calls the community's being into question.

It's not that God prefers to hear prayers in Latin. That's not the point. The point has to do with the authority of the Pope, and of the Church's governing class. How can Francis's crushing of the Latin mass be defensible? That is to say, having done this, and ordered his bishops to do this, the Pope radically undermines his own authority, largely for the reason present in the Ratzinger quote.

To be clear, it’s not really the “Latin Mass” that Sr. Bergoglio hates so much, it’s the Traditional Roman Liturgy, centered around the Roman Canon—the Gregorian Mass that dates in pretty much its present form back to the time of Gregory the Great in the sixth century.

Dreher goes on to quote a very angry Steve Skojec:

The pope and the bishops and many of the priests hate the faithful they exist to serve, and they hate the faith they exist to protect. And according to Catholic theology, God has placed them in authority over both.

And adds:

To be clear, by quoting him here, I'm not approving of everything Skojec says. I think, though, that he speaks for more than a few Catholics. The behavior of the Catholic bishops over the course of my lifetime calls to mind the historian Robert Conquest's great line: “The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”

It seems to be a common misconception—certainly shared by Skojec, among other misconceptions he labors under—that Catholic theology teaches that God somehow decided to force those who place their faith in Him to subject themselves to non-believers in matters of faith and church governance. That’s actually a relatively recent distortion of Catholic faith. For a more authentic view, which eliminates the scandal caused by the daft notion that God would subject His flock to the care of wolves:

Is Pope Francis Catholic? Extended version

Professing the faith is a requirement of being a member of the Church, a Catholic.

They’re not kidding when they say Extended Version. However, it’s possible to give an idea of the principles involved here without getting into the details:

Is it not obvious that Francis himself is the great obstacle to evangelization, and the great standing dissuasion for those looking for answers?

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that there is a growing interest in Christianity – especially amongst young men disillusioned with events since 2020. Some have returned to the Church after years elsewhere – and some are even being baptized from no Christian background at all.

But in most cases, this is in spite of the obstacle posed by Francis. …

Some are appalled by Francis’ agenda, manifestly shared with the princes of this world. There are those who want Christ, but conclude – based on the scandal of Francis – that the Catholic Church cannot be the Church of Christ.

So what should we make of all this?

As it happens, there’s a straightforward way to address this dilemma. It involves asking a question that, while not necessarily simple, is susceptible of a clear answer:

We must answer the question, “Is Francis a Catholic?”

Requirements of being a Catholic

Another common phrase today is “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.”

As a colloquialism, meaning that it’s hard to throw off a Catholic upbringing, or that it’s quick and easy for such persons to return to the sacraments, this phrase is true.

But as a statement of theology, about the actual membership of the Church, it is false.

If we want to answer this question in relation to Francis, we first have to know the criteria which determines whether someone is a Catholic, a member of the visible Church – and in reality – and not just by desire.

These criteria are relatively unknown today, but they were taught authoritatively by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

To summarise, the members of the Church are those who:

• Are baptised

• Profess the faith

• Have not separated themselves from the body

• Have not been excluded by legitimate authority.

Obviously, when dealing with a person whom we know to have been baptized, and who now occupies—to outward appearance—a position of authority in the Church, much will hinge on the second criterion:

The Church is a visible society – She is “the congregation of the faithful.” As such, Her members are visible, and identifiable as such – at least in most cases. But this would be impossible if the criteria for membership did not pertain also to visible, verifiable, or knowable things.

The character of baptism is invisible; but the rite itself is visible. Open separation from the body is visible – such persons are no longer “congregated.” Similarly, the profession of faith must be visible too. But the virtue of faith is invisible – except insofar as it is professed externally.

Further, the Church is also identifiable by Her possession of the four notes of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. The mark of unity means, among other things, that She is visibly united in faith.

If those who visibly and deliberately profess a different faith are somehow still members of the Church, this unity of faith would be lost. That means: the Church would no longer be one body. She wouldn’t be professing one faith. She wouldn’t be united. In fact, She wouldn’t be visible: She’d be invisible. (3)

But this wouldn’t be the Church that Christ established. One might be able to locate a certain structure with various official institutions and a material continuity with the Church, but it would not be the Church of Christ according to classical theological criteria.

This is pretty important stuff. It’s so basic that it can be found in more or less every traditional catechism – as can be seen by consulting, once more, the Tradivox series. Let’s consider, then, the three main ways by which we profess the faith. They are:

• Our ordinary conduct

• Not denying the faith

• Directly affirming it under certain circumstances.

And so the author goes on to discuss these matters, under each subheading. At the link.