Debating the Relevant Issues

LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD:

How Will This Crisis End?

By Chris Jackson

Part I

Any knowledgeable Catholic recognizes that the Catholic Church is currently in a crisis, the effects of which have been staggering. If one adds up the decline in numbers of baptisms, marriages, and vocations, coupled with the silent apostasy of millions of lapsed and "former" Catholics since the end of Vatican II, the figures would be shocking.

Many words have been written about the causes of the crisis, and volumes published documenting every last detail of the destruction it has caused.

However, to my knowledge, little has been written attempting to explain how the crisis might one day successfully be resolved.

As with most Church crises in the past such as the Arian Crisis and the Great Western Schism, it was hard for Catholics living in those times to envision a way out, and indeed many died not knowing what eventual resolution might take place. History has, of course, shown us how these crises were resolved, but the crisis we face now, like all true crises, is unique and has no exact precedent. Thus, the future is uncertain.

We may be tempted, as Catholics in the past no doubt were, to think that our crisis may become permanent, to think extreme and theologically dangerous measures are needed to resolve it, or to, God forbid, throw up our hands in frustration, believing the Church has somehow failed.

In this two-part article, I will first show why various proposed solutions to the crisis are deficient or unworkable, and then I will attempt to propose what a successful resolution might eventually look like.

The Sedevacantist Solutions

As a general rule, I’ve found sedevacantist leaders and public figures do not spend much time proposing solutions to the crisis. They, are instead, more focused on converting Catholics to the sedevacantist position, which is, essentially, that all Vatican II popes have been invalid and, therefore, not "true popes." Sedevacantist apologists typically deflect the issue of resolving the crisis by arguing that any solutions outside sedevacantism necessarily require the admission of a defected Church, which, of course, is impossible. I will address this argument later. However, the question that these sedevacantist leaders must ask themselves is as follows. Let’s assume a hypothetical situation where sedevacantist apologists are wildly successful and convert 90% of Catholics to their position, what then?

Sedevacantists who attempt to explain the crisis by arguing that every pope and bishop since Vatican II has lost his office for heresy are in a quandary.

This position leaves no way to elect a new pope since there is no longer any College of Cardinals. In fact, this is the very reason why the sedevacantists do not currently elect a new pope themselves. They rightly admit that they have no such authority or designation to do so. So where does this leave the 90% of Catholics who just became convinced of sedevacantism in our hypothetical? It basically leaves them at a dead end.

The Pope in the Woods

Not wanting to give up their thesis, some online sedevacantists have come up with a conspiracy theory that has been referred to as the "pope in the woods" theory. Under this theory, a true pope has secretly existed in exile, unknown to us, perhaps being held captive, and at a future time, will reveal himself. As sedevacantist apologist Mario Derksen explains on his website:

It is possible that there has been and currently is a true Pope in hiding, one who can trace his lineage back to Pope Pius XII. Perhaps the situation will be resolved by this Pope emerging and proving his legitimacy. There is a prophecy to this effect.

Who this individual could possibly be, especially since there are a small, finite, and dwindling number of Catholic priests and bishops who were ordained and consecrated in the old rite, is never speculated upon by Derksen. Mario convincing all of the world’s Catholics to become sedevacantists only to have them wait for the "pope in the woods" with him brings to mind Linus

Continued on Page 14

How Will This Crisis End?

C. Jackson/ Continued from Page 13

convincing Sally to stay up waiting for The Great Pumpkin.

It was Francis all along!

The same type of theory is held by some sedevacantists to get them out of the jurisdiction dilemma. Since sedevacantists consider all current Catholic bishops to have lost their offices (and thus their jurisdiction) due to heresy, and with no Catholic pope to grant any new jurisdiction, some claim that out there somewhere is a true pre-Vatican II Catholic bishop who still has jurisdiction from Pius XII. Who this bishop could possibly be is never revealed.

New Revelation

Other sedevacantists, including Fr.

Anthony Cekada, have theorized that a miraculous event, such as Christ Himself coming down from Heaven and appointing a new pope, or St. Peter or St. Paul doing the same, would solve the problem.

Fr. Cekada: "You have some saints that say that one day a pope will be designated from Heaven by Saints Peter and Paul. That’s, you know, one possibility people have talked about."

Unfortunately for Fr. Cekada, the Church teaches that no public revelation binding on Catholics can occur after the death of the last apostle.

Sedeprivationist Answers

Other sedevacantists, including Bishop Donald Sanborn, hold to a different variation of the sedevacantist thesis called "sedeprivationism."

Sedeprivationism theorizes that the VCII popes were all mere "pope-elects" in that they were legitimately elected and designated to be pope by the Church, but as heretics they were blocked from receiving the authority of the office.

Under the sedeprivationist thesis, the cardinal designation and the ability to elect a pope is somehow still given to bishops that the sedeprivationists see as non-Catholic heretics. In this way, the sedeprivationists claim to have solved the problem of electing a new pope as this thesis keeps apostolic succession and the hierarchy going, albeit in a minimalist and legalistic manner. Their solution to the crisis is that, in the future a "popeelect" could convert to true Catholicism, and in doing so, he would be able to finally receive the authority of the papacy he was previously elected to. The problem for the sedeprivationist is that the future "pope-elect" would need to convert to the "true Catholicism" of sedevacantism. This means that the future hypothetical pope would need to publicly declare every pope since 1958 to have been an anti-pope and would also have to declare that the overwhelming majority of sacraments in the Latin Rite under the Novus Ordo since the mid to late 60’s, including countless priestly ordinations, Episcopal consecrations, Masses, confessions, etc., were all invalid. This would present unintended consequences for the sedeprivationist.

First, under the sedeprivationist hypothetical, Catholics would be led to a position where the visible Church of Christ had disappeared for decades, centuries, or perhaps millennia, depending on how long it took for one of the pope-elects to convert. This would destroy any credibility the Church had.

For what sort of Church founded by Christ could disappear from the earth for decades to millennia, all the while morphing into an evil imposter Church that, according to the sedevacantists, led countless souls to Hell? In addition, how would Catholics know that the new "restored" Church in this scenario wouldn’t simply morph back into an evil church once again? This "solution" would, in effect, make a mockery of Christ’s promises regarding the Church.

Second, why should the Catholic faithful trust the latest pope when he tells them that the previous (10, 20, 30?) popes were all anti-popes? What is to keep the faithful from believing that this new pope is himself an anti-pope for making such a devastating and unprecedented declaration? In addition, what if the next pope after our hypothetical converted pope, comes along and declares that his predecessor was actually an anti-pope and that none of what he said was valid?

We would end up in chaos.

For if the man in white, in the Chair of Peter, can’t be trusted to be the pope when 99.9% of Catholics recognize him to be, then you have an unworkable paradigm. Catholics would simply leave the Church in droves in the sedeprivationist hypothetical as nothing the man who is supposed to be pope says could be trusted. The next man who is supposed to be pope could simply say that the previous man was never the pope to begin with and so on.

Third, if this hypothetical converted "true pope" was later perceived by some sedeprivationist faithful to have publicly contradicted the Faith, the precedent would have already been set for them to consider their new "true pope" a merely "material pope" who had lost the authority of his office.

For the sedeprivationist thesis, like all sedevacantist theses, relies on the private judgment of the individual as to whether or not those in authority over them in the Church possess any real authority whatsoever. As you can see, any Church structure based on this system makes it entirely unworkable.

It’s a Mystery

At the end of the day, Sedevacantists admit they do not know exactly how they will get a new pope under their thesis and fall back on the explanation that it is a mystery. There are certain theological dogmas that we know are true, but, with our limited intellect, cannot fully comprehend, like the Holy Trinity. These are theological mysteries.

The sedevacantist mystery of how the Church will get a pope, however, is a "mystery" of their own making. For it is no mystery how the Church gets a new pope. She elects one at a conclave through those who have been designated with the authority to do so.

For those still trying to figure out the sedevacantist mystery of how they will get a new pope, Mario Derksen offers his advice:

Do not spend too much time trying to figure things out — it can lead to pride, vain curiosity, dangerous ideas, and a misplaced reliance on self rather than on God…

Neo-Catholic "Solutions" What Crisis?

When asked for their solution to the crisis, most Neo-Catholic apologists would simply ask, "What crisis?" As Mark Twain famously said, "Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt." The worst part is that if a Neo-Catholic apologist read my last sentence, he would most likely meticulously correct the quote to read "The Nile is not just a river in Egypt," begin a 3,000-word treatise on whether Mark Twain actually originated the saying, and completely miss the point in the process. Such are the personalities of our friends, the Novus Ordo apologists: humorless, literalist, and largely clueless as to what is happening in their own Church.

Although some Neo-Catholic writers are beginning to see the light under Francis, such as Philip Lawler, a hardcore contingent remains in public denial that any crisis is happening. Sure, these folks may admit to some minor problems here and there where Francis has been "misunderstood," due entirely to mistranslations of course, but on the whole they admit of no pressing "crisis" to be concerned with and scoff at Traditionalist assertions that the Church is in trouble.

This is because, sadly, most Neo-Catholic apologists are eternally stuck in the 1990’s. I must admit I feel badly for them since this was a depressing decade in the Church; but not for the Neo-Catholic. One can only imagine them typing their defenses of Francis’ latest whopper, their faded "World Youth Day: Denver 1993" poster still on the wall, Dana’s "We Are One Body" CD playing in their 5 disc Aiwa bookshelf stereo, George Weigel’s 1056-page JPII biography being used to prop up their one short desk leg, and a signed picture of Christopher West on their nightstand.

For the Neo-Catholic apologists have not changed their approach of defending every papal utterance since the 1990’s despite the fact that Francis makes JPII look like St. Pius X.

What Pope?

A variation of the Neo-Catholic "What crisis?" solution to the crisis is the "What Pope?" solution to the crisis made famous by Michael Voris and his website Church Militant. This solution completely ignores any papal statement, document, act, omission, etc.

that affects any doctrine or discipline of the Church negatively. Instead, the practitioners of this approach routinely and publicly chastise bishops and priests for carrying out the will of the very pope the practitioners ignore. Since the pope in this instance is the problem, this approach is ineffective. In fact, far from being a solution, this approach actually ends up avoiding a solution because of a refusal to confront the real problem. True, Voris did recently speak out against Francis’ approach to handling the sexual abuse crisis. However, Voris limits his criticisms only to personal papal behavior and not to matters of teaching and doctrine and discipline where the roots of the crisis are. Thus, the "What Pope?" strategy is just as ineffective as the "What Crisis?" strategy to resolve the crisis.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

The Neo-Catholic apologist’s first and basically only solution to any "perceived" crisis is the approach made famous by Benedict XVI, the "hermeneutic of continuity." To the extent Neo-Catholic apologists address any problematic elements of the Francis pontificate, they try to force their own private interpretation on his words until they are unrecognizable, but claim that at least the new meaning they have created is, in their own mind (through mental gymnastics), compatible with traditional Catholic teaching.

The Neo-Catholic apologist’s first and basically only solution to any "perceived" crisis is the approach made famous by Benedict XVI, the "hermeneutic of continuity."

Continued Next Page