Public adoption of the internet is entering its fourth decade, and a chief lesson this constant interconnectedness has taught us is that instant global mass communication was a mistake.
Nobody learned that lesson faster than online Catholic theologians. For the first 1960 years of the Church’s history, most of the faithful had no clue what the Holy See was up to. And they were happier and in sounder spiritual health for it.
Even after the dawn of radio and TV, laymen who wanted the latest from Rome had to wait for legacy media to do actual investigative reporting and deliver those reports on the nightly news. There was still bias and speculation – journalism has always been a carnival act – but the slower rate of news production gave the truth more time to get its boots on.
Some may object that the internet gave dissenters a way to make an end run around the old media monopoly and challenge the official narrative. That’s true, but the rapid and largely amateur nature of alternative media gave rise to other problems.
America was colonized by politico-religious exiles who understandably conflated politics and religion. So Americans have always had difficulty maintaining a healthy distance between the two categories. The Left errs by conjuring a separation of church and state that banishes Christianity from the public square. The Right tends toward the opposite but equal error of reducing religions to just another set of political parties.
Extremely online life has amplified that politicizing vice in a particular way. The internet’s effect on counterculture movements was on display as early as Sad Puppies and #GamerGate. Grassroots resistance to some excess of the Pop Cult would be organized online. It would build momentum, but before long demagogues would show up to split the parade or lead the whole column down a blind alley.
It could be argued that the Trump anomaly was the culmination of all those early-mid 2010s consumer revolts. Con Inc. must have been paying attention to GG et al. Because they have the parade jumping act down pat.
A telltale sign of demagogues at work is the division into sides along binary lines corresponding to persons or products. Imagine you’re a cupcake baker involved in a group of cupcake connoisseurs. One day you read online that, say, Betty Crocker will be frosting all of their cupcakes in rainbow colors in celebration of butt marriage. This move scandalizes you as a Christian with orthodox views on sodomy. Adding insult to injury, Betty Crocker announces the firing of a minor celebrity chef who’d appeared in their commercials because she objected to the rainbow frosting.
This new outrage sparks a flurry of online activity. The hosts of a dissident cooking stream take up the fired chef’s banner and organize a boycott. Emails are sent and calls are made, costing Betty Crocker $12.5 million in catering contracts with Christian organizations.
Sensing money to be made, a food critic from The Blaze launches a new streaming series in alleged solidarity with the boycott. But what he really does is spread wild conjecture and start flame wars with folks who rose to minor e-celebrity thanks to #FrostingGate. The drama drives clicks and sales of the host’s based balloon whisks (drop-shipped from India). Some original boycott participants call out the streamer’s grifting, which gets them smeared for “shooting right.” The host uses their objections to gin up more eDrama, featuring his detractors as villains-of-the-week. Some of his nominal adversaries even get in on the act and play the heel for attention and superchats.
Now the movement is divided into two camps: Pro and Anti-Balloon Whisk Man. Never the twain shall meet, except to trade NPC and midwit memes on Twitter while sniping at each other from opposing YouTube and DLive chats. Each side tars the other as traitors to the cause.
Meanwhile, the celebrity chef settles a breach of contract case with Betty Crocker, who discontinue rainbow-frosted cupcakes only to introduce trans acceptance gingerbread persons. A new government contract to supply Meta and Alphabet’s cafeterias boosts their earnings to record highs.
All that is to give warning that if you find yourself hating someone due to the products he buys or the e-celebs he follows, odds are you’ve fallen victim to this con.
Take it from a former mark.
That’s how I spotted the same pattern repeating in the latest outbreak of Francis Derangement Syndrome.
Let me level with you. Bishop Strickland is by all appearances a standup guy and a model hierarch. I don’t know him, but what I’ve heard, I like. I pray that his apostolic visitation goes well.
But even if the Dicastery for Bishops ordered him hanged, drawn, and quartered in St. Peter’s square, it would not justify me or anyone breaking communion with Pope Francis and Rome.
Scripture, the preponderance of consent of the Fathers, and the Magisterium leaves no wiggle room on this point.
If you know the Catholic Church is true, and you knowingly and willingly die outside of communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and her head on earth, the successor of St. Peter, you will go to Hell for all eternity.
Not my rule. I didn’t make that call. God did.
Here are the receipts:
The office of the papacy and the power of the keys prefigured in the Old Testament
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim,* son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open. I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house; (Is 22:20-23)
Christ’s Church is visible on Earth
You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. (Mt 5:14-16)
Peter made the Rock of the Church and given the Keys by Christ
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mt 16:16-19)
Christ’s affirmation that the hierarchy speaks with His authority
He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (Lk 10:16)
Those citations alone prove that God established a prime minister-like office under the Davidic King, and the symbol of that office was the key of the royal residence. Furthermore, this vice-regent would be a father to God’s people. They also make it absurd to deny that Jesus, the new and greater David, was renewing that office and investing Simon Peter with it. That not only made Peter the foundation of the Church, but the beacon by which all men could find the One, True Faith. To drive the message home, Jesus identified His priests’ authority with His own and cursed those who reject them.
That does leave open to questions the claim that the Popes are Peter’s successors in that divinely established office to which every creature owes submission.
But the Church Fathers sure thought so.
“On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
-Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, AD 251
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute”
-Clement of Alexandria, AD 200
“it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority”
-Irenaeus of Lyon, writing about the Church of Rome, AD 180
“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger”
-Clement of Rome, AD 96
And the Magisterium concurred, as defined by infallible ex-cathedra teaching in Unam sanctam:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
-Boniface VIII, 1302
Even Vatican II reaffirms this teaching:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
-The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 14, from the documents of Vatican II, quoted in CCC #846
Now, Lumen gentium does make allowance for those who don’t know about the Gospel through no fault of their own. But another upshot of the internet age is that the kind of invincible ignorance required to be excused from membership in the Church is well nigh impossible.
So to sum up:
- Religions aren’t beer brands
- The Church is not a political party
- Her hierarchs are not to be fanboyed over like e-celebs.
Too many, Americans in particular, think of belonging to a church the same way they decide which streaming service to subscribe to or which candidate to vote for. That is a grave category error.
The football team you follow will not save you.
You were not baptized into your favorite carbonated corn syrup brand.
Cheering for the Generals to beat the Globetrotters will not assure you of eternal life.
The only Name by which we are saved is Christ Jesus.
He founded one, visible Church with Peter as its earthly head and principle of unity.
And we have Christ’s guarantee that His vicar will never bind all the faithful to grave error in matters of faith and morals.
That’s it.
Jesus didn’t promise that every Pope would be a world-class theologian. Or an electrifying public speaker. Or even a good man.
Peter started his pontificate by denying his Lord three times. Why did God allow that abominable lapse?
A good reason, in light of later and current events, might have been to show that even the greatest apostle could commit the worst sins and still not invalidate his office.
That means as long as Pope Francis isn’t rejecting Jesus in public, he hasn’t messed up as bad as his sainted first predecessor. The first Christians didn’t abandon the fledgling Church due to Peter’s colossal screw-up. How much less justification do we have for reviling or forsaking the faith of our grandfathers because we deem it insufficiently based?
There’s your warning. Having read this post, you can no longer plead ignorance. The rest is between you, your confessor, and Jesus.
Now go log off and read about giant robots.
Nothing to add except one minor point of expansion: I don’t know much about the apostolic visitation of Strickland’s see (I haven’t done deep research, and only skimmed the Pillar’s writeup on it), but there is one thing I’m confident in, despite the claims of excitable sorts online, and despite my specialty being in matters closer to Lateran IV than Vatican II: This had nothing to do with his leading protests over the LA Dodgers’ celebration of sin and blasphemy. The Vatican simply doesn’t move that fast.
Peter wasn’t pope yet when he denied our Lord three times. This thrice denial would have been impossible after Pentecost, when he did become pope, as the Petrine Promises assure us he would have been under the protection of the Holy Ghost.
Questioning the person or office of pope, ontologically, is not schism. If you believe, for instance, that Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid under canons 188 and 332.2, and therefore remained the one and only living pope until December 21, 2022, and we are now interregnum, you are not in schism.
Was Saint Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, in schism when she disputed the person of the putative pope?
Thank you for all you do here.
The Holy Ghost only guarantees that the Pope will never solemnly bind all the faithful to a grave error in a matter of faith or morals. It does not preserve the Pope from personal sin.
Re: Benevacantism, think again.
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Francis is the current Supreme Pontiff, so thinking that we are in an interregnum would constitute refusing to submit to him, which barring the exceptions from Canon 1323, would incur latae sententiae excommunication.
The precise theological term for thinking Benedict’s resignation invalid is “wrong” or “gravely erroneous” or better still “ridiculous”.
If Benedict didn’t intend to resign, he let someone he knew was an antipope rule in his stead for a decade. Coerced or not, that scenario would make him a far worse pontiff than the worst caricatures of Francis.
If Benedict did intend to resign but neglected to use the proper procedure. Continually. Thus allowing an antipope to reign in his stead for ten years, he was criminally ignorant of his own office and a worse pontiff than any caricature of Francis.
So Benevacantists, while claiming to honor our late Holy Father, are caught between the frying pan of calling him incompetent and the fire of calling him cowardly. Both of which may well constitute blasphemy for one so likely to be a saint.
You’re welcome.
“The Holy Ghost only guarantees that the Pope will never solemnly bind all the faithful to a grave error in a matter of faith or morals.”
Bergoglio promulgated heresy in Amoris and backed it up by inserting his response to the South American bishops in the AAS… thus solemnly binding all the faithful to a grave error in a matter of faith or morals. This was the moment I knew he wasn’t just a bad pope, but rather no pope at all, since such a thing is impossible for a true pope.
The Bergoglian “magisterium” cannot be the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I’ll not clog your combox further.
Pope Francis did not promulgate heresy in Amoris. How could he? As Michael Lofton pointed out, there are many ways in which you could understand the footnote in an orthodox way. For example, if you are in a situation where you have repented but your “wife” threatens to break up your family and ruin the lives of your children if you don’t act as husband and wife.
Not to mention the Holy See is divinely protected from error. You should no more assume heresy from something so vague than two seemingly contradictory Bible verses.
But that’s just the thing… it’s not my interpretation, it’s Bergoglio’s. The bishop’s conference read it the heretical way, wrote to Bergoglio asking for clarification, and he confirmed the heresy was correct. Then he entered the whole exchange into the AAS, making it part of the Magisterium. Which is impossible.
Actually, unless he promulgated it ex cathedra, it is quite possible. All we would need is a way to read it in an orthodox manner. Examples of this abound in history.
Vatican I gives the necessary criteria. For a papal teaching to enjoy the protection from error of the Petrine charism, the Pope must:
1) speak ex cathedra, defining as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine that …
2) concerns faith and/or morals and …
3) is to be held by the whole Church.
All 3 criteria must be met to qualify, and Amoris Laetitia fails to do so.
This is Dr. Feser’s argument, and unfortunately it is poor. I am, to be clear, VERY MUCH not a Benevacantist. Popee Francis is the Pope and those in denial are in grave error.
The problem with this argument is it misunderstands the motivation of sedes as “honoring the holy father”. But this is simply false. Nearly every Benevacantist I have ever spoken to is nearly as contemptuous of him as Francis. Most would quickly and easily grant your points about Benedict.
The point about Sainthood fails for two reasons. First, he is not a Saint (me speaking personally with no magisterial authority, I really don’t see why her should be canonized). Second, even if he was a Saint, he’d be canonized under an illegitimate pontiff, so who cares?
The apologist John Salza, if I am recalling the name right, has also argued that since the canonization ceremony was altered it no longer has the charism of infallibility anyway – something I have seen many rad-trads weaponize.
BTW, read John Salza. He completely and utterly torpedoes all Benevacantist and sedevacantist claims. His website is trueandfalsepope .com.
Part of our problem is that Pope John Paul II was a good pope and a very long lasting pope. He was then followed up by one of the most scholarly popes we’ve ever had.
I have no direct experience of the Church before Pope John Paul II, and that is true for most people reading this. Even if you are a Baby Boomer born in 1948, you would have to go back to before your 30’s to know another Church.
As a result of this, we have multiple generations of Catholics who think that this is the norm, i.e. that popes will always be good men and also genius theologians. A cursory glance of history shows that this is not the case, but most people don’t look into history.
So in some ways we need a pope who is a bad communicator, weak willed, etc. It demonstrates to us that it is the Holy Spirit who preserves the Church, not good popes.
Well said. The concerted effort to memory hole anything before the late 60s has done us no favors. We are a people without memory.
And as good as they were, JPII and B16 weren’t without their detractors. I’m old enough to remember people accusing JPII of being a commie and B16 of being a Nazi. No one brings it up now, but they tried to pin the Hitler mustache on Francis in his first couple of years.
Nothing new under the sun.
I’m old enough to remember that many of those who were critical of JPII and BXVI have now gone Neo-Ultra-Montanist for Francis. 🙂
Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you, does this post deal with those who use the current scandals with Pope Francis as an excuse to commit apostasy and leave the True Faith? (I refer to Ron Dreher as a example of leaving the Church.) Or only to those who would fall into the heresy of Sedevacantism?
Many thanks for your reply.
Fair question. I suppose this post was something of an extended subtweet.
For context, another bout of Francis Derangement Syndrome swept through Catholic Twitter over the weekend. This time the Holy Father’s assumed crime was ordering an investigation of Bishop Joseph Strickland for picketing a baseball game.
Some of us applied the “Wait 24 hours before reacting to any story about the Pope” rule. And sure enough, somebody traced the uproar to a hatchet job by one of the usual suspects in the “recognize and resist’ industry.
Now it turns out the Dicastery for Bishops was looking into diocesan finances, not Strickland’s activism. We now know the investigation started before he protested at Dodger Stadium.
Gell-Mann amnesia is a hell of a drug.
I haven’t looked into the recent mud slinging contest concerning Bishop Strickland. The only thing I understand is he’s disagreeing with the Pope on something important or so it sounds like.
Frankly, my attitude towards such things pretty much sum up your blog post. I’m not going to try and complicate things in my spiritual life. The worst thing I can do is overthink things or let myself get swept up in affairs like this. I’m not going to play politics with my faith. I just want to stay the course of being the best catholic I can be so I’m let into heaven.
No matter what befalls the church, she’s proven she will outlast anything, no matter how scandalous or stupid it may be.
Praise God for prudence and humility. It’s now come out that the investigation’s main concern is Strickland’s diocesan finances. Note that the Bishop himself is not casting aspersions on Francis’ legitimacy.
Today is a big day in my diocese; our new bishop is being installed. Please say lots of prayers that he will be a strong warrior for Christ and not a ‘go-along-to-get-along’ type who will kowtow to the politicians when crunch time comes.
Our Lady, Mother of the Church and St. Joseph, Protector of the Church, pray for His Excellency!
I did a brief post on my blog about the installation, including the livestream of the entire mass (available on Youtube). However, there were a couple of things I didn’t mention in the blog post. First, the Apostolic Nuncio and the Bishop’s old boss from the Diocese of London who attended both fell asleep during the homily. Well, they’re old men now, so that’s understandable. Plus, it was a hot, muggy day in Charlottetown, and St. Dunstan’s Basilica lacks air conditioning.
However, I paid close attention to the Nuncio during the mass. And what struck me was that other than his few brief lines, he was really disconnected from the entire proceedings. He rolled his eyes during the Gloria, didn’t even respond to the Psalm, and didn’t open his mouth during the Creed. In fact, he looked bored through the entire thing. We had a pretty good vantage point, only a few rows from the front, and I had a clear view of the Nuncio throughout the installation.
I realize that he is the Pope’s direct representative to Canada, and he may be devout in his heart, but he most definitely did not show any signs of that. The other fourteen bishops (including two non-RC bishops, possibly a Maronite or even an Orthodox bishop) and thirty-eight or so priests in attendance certainly did, but not the Apostolic Nuncio of Canada. To me, that is a troubling sign.
Still, it was a breathtaking event, and I’m so glad we went. I pray that Bishop Dabrowski will be the kind of shepherd we need in these days; it’s going to be a rough, rough road ahead.