top of page
Search

Does questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ Pontificate cause confusion and division in the Church?

Estefanía Acosta

Before resolving the preceding question, we must necessarily attend to this other one: what are unity and clarity in the Church based upon, how are they made possible?


Simple: our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Papacy, and granted its ownership to the Apostle Peter –and in him, to his legitimate successors, in perpetuity, who would be His supreme representatives on earth (“Vicars”)–, as a guarantee of ecclesial communion[i] –not in vain the name Peter: this the (unique, singular) stone on which the unity of the entire Church is founded[ii]–. And how can the Papacy/the Pope be guarantors of ecclesial communion? Again, simple: the Pope is the supreme “guardian of effective obedience” to the Word of God[iii], to Revelation in its entirety, in everything that refers to doctrine, sacraments and government of the Church. Thus, the obedience and fidelity of the Roman Pontiff to the Word of God, and the obedience and fidelity of the other Church members to the person of the Roman Pontiff and to his works and teachings as Vicar of Christ, is what makes unity and clarity in the Church possible.


Where, then, do division and confusion in the Church come from? We could propose two hypothetical scenarios: either from the disobedience and infidelity of the Roman Pontiff to the Word of God, or from the disobedience and infidelity of one or more Catholics to the person of the Roman Pontiff, or to the works and teachings that he develops as Vicar of Christ.


But, would it be logically, ontologically possible for a Pope to implement, propagate and even impose –using his various powers– generalized disobedience and infidelity to the Word of God? Could Peter, the guarantor and foundation stone of ecclesial communion, be at the same time the instrument of destruction of the treasures whose custody has been entrusted to the Church, and consequently, the instrument of destruction of the Church Herself? Note that we are not asking whether Peter can err, or even commit heresy –at least material heresy–, on one or another point of doctrine[iv]; we ask if he can be the destroyer of the building of faith. To this question we answer with a resounding NO: “A” can never be equal to “not-A”.


At this point some will say –or in fact, they have already said it–: “Very well, Peter is especially assisted by the Holy Spirit in the task of confirming his brothers in the faith[v], but this assistance must be voluntarily accepted, it does not come imposed by force, since God respects free will”. The weakness of this objection gushes through its pores: is the fulfillment of our Lord’s promises conditioned by human will? Do not we know that God’s promises and plans are fulfilled with, without, and even against men? If this objection were true, not even the charism of papal infallibility, as dogmatically delimited in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus, would be possible, since it necessarily involves the (free) human participation –from the Roman Pontiff that proposes to speak ex cathedra–. For Catholics it is very clear that God –only God– finds the means so that His plans and promises might be fulfilled without violating the sacred gift of free will. How come, throughout the two-thousand-year of Church history, and in spite of human weaknesses and miseries –and even of so many questionable Popes from the moral point of view–, a single ex cathedra magisterial statement that violates the Sacred Deposit of Faith has never been issued? This has been possible in the same mysterious way that –only– God can guarantee that, whoever His Vicar on Earth is, he will be a true stone of unity and not of destruction[vi].


So, what will we say about our first scenario? Quite simply, that persistent and widespread disobedience and infidelity to the divinely revealed Truths of Faith, and subsequent ecclesial confusion and division, can never come from a true Pope, canonically appointed and consequently recognized by Heaven. Whoever, from the Chair of Peter, raised such a situation, would undoubtedly be an anti-Pope, a usurper of the throne.


This conclusion, together with our second scenario –according to which the division and confusion in the Church may come from the disobedience and infidelity of one or some Catholics to the person of the Roman Pontiff, or to the works and teachings that he develops as Vicar of Christ–, whose veracity is self-evident, close the framework of the theoretical reflections that we have believed necessary. Let us now address the practical aspect.


What is it that is causing confusion and division in our Church today? From whom do disobedience and infidelity to the Word of God or to the Roman Pontiff come?


Under the active pontificate of Benedict XVI, these disobedience and infidelity became visible even from sectors of the clergy, who explicitly demanded “reforms” contrary to the doctrine of the Church on matters of sexual morality and the sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist[vii], and also evidenced a scandalous disrespect for the person of the Pontiff[viii]. Thanks to the good Lord, Pope Benedict, in addition to overcoming such disrespect with exemplary humility, categorically rejected the “reforms” thus proposed, even warning that the Church lacked the authority to debate such matters[ix]. However, we know that –not coincidentally– these proposals have been to some extent endorsed by Francis[x], and that he, in turn, has gone even deeper into the path opposite to that indicated by the Deposit of Faith –in matters that, due to their abundance and notoriety, allow us here just a brief reference: the rejection of the intrinsically absolute and radical character of the Decalogue[xi] and of the due doctrinal clarity, through epithets such as “self-defensive rigidity”, “legalism”, “Phariseeism”, “individualism”, “hedonism”, “fear of freedom”, “Gnosticism” (?), “Neo-Pelagianism”, “egocentric and elitist complacency deprived of true love”, “obsession with the law”, “self-referentiality” etc.[xii]; the “sympathy” for the Lutheran doctrine of justification[xiii]; the conceptual identification of impenitence with mere fragility (which has allowed him to vindicate the figure of Judas as that of a “poor repentant man who did not know what to do”, perhaps comparable to great martyrs such as Saint Stephen and Saint Joan of Arc[xiv]); the relativization of the consubstantial requirements of the sacrament of confession[xv]; the claim that disordered sexual tendencies are traceable to the positive will of the Creator[xvi]; the questioning of Jesus Christ’s divinity, through authentic accusations against His person and His work, tending to distort His character as sovereign and immaculate, as well as His supernatural power (such as that “Jesus does not fulfill the law, does not complies with morals”[xvii], or that pagan blood runs through His veins[xviii], or that due to His “adventure” in the Temple He had to ask for forgiveness[xix], or that “He did no magic” –He did not do a miracle– by multiplying the loaves and fishes[xx], or that He became a devil[xxi], or that the Cross was His failure[xxii]); the obscuring of various Marian dogmas[xxiii]; the prevailing interest in temporal problems, and the relegation of matters concerning eternal salvation[xxiv]; the affirmed convenience of, in certain cases, maintaining objective situations of mortal sin over time[xxv]; the welcoming gestures towards homosexuality (the appointments and cover-ups of recognized pedophiles[xxvi], the Vatican nativity organized in 2017[xxvii], the support for the legal recognition of “civil coexistence” between homosexual couples[xxviii] etc.); the attacks against orthodoxy in matters of sexual morality at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family[xxix]; the undenied denial of hell[xxx]; the impulse of globalism, ecumenism, environmentalism, humanism and the promotion of human health and well-being from typical postulates of Freemasonry and New Age[xxxi]; the mutilation of doctrine in the name of an “evangelization” based on “service” and the “encounter culture”[xxxii]; religious indifferentism[xxxiii]; the enthronement of the Pacha-mama idol in the Vatican[xxxiv] and an endless etcetera[xxxv]–.


Given the reality described, we can affirm that the division, which was already present in Benedict XVI’s pontificate, not only continued and worsened under Francis, but also changed its axis: while, until February 2013, disobedience and generalized infidelity to the Deposit of Faith took place against the Pope, after this date they happened to take place together with the “Pope”, under his discursive and governmental endorsement. To put it better: before March 2013, disobedience to Revelation and disobedience to the Pope went hand in hand, but got bifurcated when, in that same month, a (proven and authentic) disobedient came to the throne of Peter. Thus, the (true) “obedient” of yesterday (those who welcomed both Revelation and the person of the Pope) became the so-called (although not true) “disobedient” of today (those who, out of love for Revelation, were forced to at least ignore the words of the new “Pope”).


But, in addition to reversing the axis of the (pre-existing) division, the arrival of a “Pontiff” disobedient to Revelation, an enemy of Revelation, caused obvious confusion. The fact is that, as we already said, a true Pope, set by Christ to be the stone of unity in the defense of the Faith, cannot at the same time be its destroyer. The question, then, was inevitable: is Francis a true Pope, or is he instead an anti-Pope?[xxxvi]


What has been said so far shows that neither division nor confusion in the Church are the fruit of those who depart from Francis’ works, nor of those who –rightly– question the legitimacy of his “pontificate”. Both are the fruit, naturally, of the generalized and persistent disobedience to the Word of God, pre-existing to Francis’ “pontificate” and institutionalized by him.


Now, there is certainly an additional source of confusion in this matter, which began, in a somewhat subtle way, before Francis’ “pontificate”, and has been extending more and more visibly during it, up to the present day. It is nothing less than the famous Declaratio, the document of “resignation from the pontificate” prepared by Benedict XVI.


Suffice it here to allude, without developing, to the well-known doubts and perplexities that such a document caused among not a few faithful, even jurists and theologians, who in fact came to warn, before the 2013 conclave itself, of the possible advent of an anti-Pope[xxxvii]. But, in addition to the uncertainty that the Declaratio raised in terms of its juridical validity, Benedict’s subsequent behavior only witnessed his permanence –albeit in a new way– on the papal throne –cf. the preservation of the name Benedict XVI, of the appellation His Holiness, of the acronym P.P. (Pontifex Pontificum/Pastor Pastorum) in his documents, of the residence in the Vatican and of the impartation of apostolic blessings; the adoption of the (unprecedented and anti-canonical) title of Pope Emeritus; the occasional but forceful and authoritative interventions in cases of crisis and/or doctrinal, liturgical and moral abuses during Francis’ “pontificate”; the “inexplicable” refusal to affirm emphatically and categorically that it is not him, but Francis, the only true Pope etc.–[xxxviii].


We see, then, how the confusion around the identification of the true Pope comes from an apparent “papal diarchy”, due, on the one hand, to the supposed occurrence of a logical and ontological impossibility –which is that Francis, who presents himself as “Reigning Pope” and, in this sense, “Rock of the Church”, acts as the main agent of destruction of the Faith–, and on the other, to a “declaration of resignation” elaborated by Benedict XVI in such a way that, not only did it not present as its object the papal “charge” or “office” itself (remember that the object of said “resignation” actually consisted of some of the ministries or functions associated with that charge), but also turned out to be denied, in practice, by its own author.


Now, pointing out the proven situation of division and confusion, trying to overcome the confusion through a rigorous canonical investigation aimed at identifying the true Pope (since by divine law such a “papal diarchy” is unthinkable), and offering elements of judgment, in accordance with the faith, on the “side” that in the midst of the existing division every faithful Catholic should adopt... is all this the cause of said division and confusion?


To answer in the affirmative is to completely distort the logical and chronological order of the matter.



 
Notes

[i] Cf. Encyclical SATIS COGNITUM “On the Unity of the Church” (Leo XIII): “[…] the heavenly ideal, and the divine exemplar, of the constitution of the Christian commonwealth, namely: When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and center, as it were, of this unity”. “These, then, are the duties of a shepherd: to place himself as leader at the head of his flock, to provide proper food for it, to ward off dangers, to guard against insidious foes, to defend it against violence: in a word to rule and govern it. Since therefore Peter has been placed as shepherd of the Christian flock he has received the power of governing all men for whose salvation Jesus Christ shed His blood. […]And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith” (http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html).


[ii] “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets”. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16, 13-18).


[iii] Pope Benedict XVI beautifully says: “The Pope… should… be the guarantor of obedience, that the Church does not do what she wants. Not even the Pontiff himself can say: “I am the Church”, or “I am tradition”, but on the contrary: he is obliged to obey, he embodies that commitment of the Church. If temptations arise in the Church to do things in a different, more comfortable way, he has to ask: “Can we do it?” Thus, the Pope is not the organ capable of proclaiming a different Church, but rather the containment dam in the face of arbitrariness”. Free translation from Spanish: RATZINGER, Joseph. Dios y el mundo. Una conversación con Peter Seewald. Las opiniones de Benedicto XVI sobre los grandes temas de hoy. Barcelona: Debols!llo, 2005. p. 358.


[iv] If, according to Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (Vatican Council I), the charism of infallibility is recognized to the Roman Pontiff only under certain conditions, one might well think that, outside of them, the Pope may commit errors or even heresies (at least material heresies).


[v] “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Lk, 22, 31-32).


[vi] It is convenient to clarify that the ecclesial unity entrusted to Peter is not related to the morality or immorality that he assumes in his personal life, but to the integral preservation of the divinely revealed Truths of Faith.





















[xxvi] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bishop-zanchetta-returns-to-work-at-the-vatican-amid-abuse-trial-in-argentina-95785; https://apnews.com/article/5a2904f21a664229a006f3b9ead429b7; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42949250; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32004240; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42780327; https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618825779/pope-francis-accepts-resignations-of-3-bishops-over-chilean-abuse-scandal; https://www.ncregister.com/news/vaticanista-publishes-lurid-tale-surrounding-vatican-bank-appointee; https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction; https://www.vaticannews.va/es/papa/news/2021-03/proteccion-menores-vaticano-juan-cruz-incorpora-comision.html.










[xxxv] However, there is no shortage of those who argue that if Liberius, Honorius, John XXII did not cause as much damage to the Church as Msgr. Bergoglio has done, it is because Twitter did not exist in their times. No comments.


[xxxvi] Careful! It is not that Francis is an anti-Pope because he has dedicated himself to destroying the faith from the Chair of Peter; the other way around: that he has dedicated himself to destroying the faith from the Chair of Peter is possible only because he is an anti-Pope. That is to say: that Francis is a destroyer of the faith is a sign, but not the reason, by which he can be recognized as an anti-Pope.



[xxxviii] Even Cardinals Brandmüller and Pell pointed out, not without some annoyance, this testimony of permanence. Cf. http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351340bdc4.html?eng=y; https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/cardenal-injustamente-encarcelado-publica-diario-de-prision-33513.

bottom of page