October 2008 by Most Reverend Robert F. McKenna, O.P.
 

"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place - he that readeth let him understand. Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." (Matt. 24:15-16)

        With the lapse of a generation since the Second Vatican Council and the corruption of doctrine, discipline, and worship it occasioned continuing unabated, the question that increasingly forces itself on the Catholic conscience, and which cannot be escaped, is whether or not Benedict XVI and his predecessors of the Council are actually or truly Popes. If, as at the Passion of Christ, the sheep have been scattered, is it because the shepherd has again been struck (Matt. 26:31)?

        A question we say that cannot be avoided, lest for not being clearly resolved, one act with a doubtful conscience in a matter so critical for his salvation. If the Popes of Vatican II Ecumenism are not in fact true Vicars of Christ, then those Catholics adhering to them are in a new church and are Catholic only in name, albeit in good faith. There is no denying that the Conciliar Church - its own prelates have referred to it by this name - is radically different from the pre-Conciliar Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo Mass alone, drafted with the collaboration of Protestant ministers, attests to that.

        On the other hand, if the Vatican II Popes are in fact the Vicars of Christ, then it follows that those traditionalists who oppose them and the reforms of the Council oppose Christ Himself. "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). The First Vatican Council demands submission to the Pope not only in matters of faith and morals but even in matters of the liturgy. "The law of praying is the law of believing" (and vice versa).

        It is not the papacy itself that is in question but its occupant. The throne of Peter is as lasting and indestructible as the Church herself. "I am with you all days" (Matt. 28:20). But Popes come and go. When one Pope dies, it is hardly heresy to deny there is a Pope. It is simply a matter of fact. A successor has to be elected.

        The answer to the question is, "Yes and no." The Popes of Vatican II are Popes in one sense of the word, but not in another. No contradiction. It is failure to make necessary distinctions that is at the root of the confusion that characterizes the Church today and that troubles the minds of those sincerely striving to "keep the faith" (II Tim- 4:7) and be Catholic.

        While the present Benedict XVI is Pope legally speaking, he is not so morally speaking. As were his Conciliar predecessors John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and John XXIII, he is - to all appearances anyway and until proven otherwise - the legally elected head of the Church, which is a legal entity or moral person publicly recognized. As such he has the power, as does the head of any purely civil organization or corporation, to oversee its day-to-day functioning and to fill its offices (mainly the bishoprics) as they become vacant. In so doing he keeps the Church legally or structurally intact - the same visible institution that Christ founded. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18).

        This, however, is the exercise of authority on the human or natural level. But on the supernatural plane a Pope functions as the Vicar of Christ, the invisible Head of the Church, His Mystical Body. He rules the clergy and faithful in Christ's name with divine authority. 'Feed my lambs... feed my sheep" (John 2l:16-17). While the Catholic Church is indeed as much a legal entity as any purely human corporation, it is primarily and essentially a divine institution, founded by Christ the Son of God. In this respect, namely as Christ's Vicar, Benedict XVI is not Pope. For preaching, as did his four predecessors, the new Vatican II Gospel of Ecumenism - the very confederation of religions or sects condemned by Pius XI as contrary to the doctrine of the one true Church - he sets himself, as they themselves did, in opposition to Christ and does not role in His name. "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). Not to mention the wholesale corruption of the Mass, sacraments, and Catholic discipline precipitated by the Council and unchecked to this day. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matt. 7:16).

        In the terms of traditional Catholic philosophy and Theology, these Conciliar Popes are Popes only "materially" or potentially speaking, but not in actuality or “formally" speaking. While in view of their election, by the conclave of Cardinals they occupy the papacy "by right" – de jure - they do not hold that Chair of Peter in actuality - de facto. They are not Popes morally speaking but only physically - juridically - and therefore are not Popes in the strict sense of the word. To say, "Benedict XVI is the Pope" is not true as it stands. To speak precisely – therefore in strict truth - one must qualify the word "Pope", saying he is Pope "materially" (physically, legally, potentially) but not Pope absolutely speaking; that is to say, without the qualification being added.

        This said, it should be evident enough that it is only to a Pope absolutely speaking - to one in strict truth the Pope - that obedience is owed. To hold that it is owed to anyone not Pope "in the full sense of the word" is, to say the least, something, to be proved. "Not Ecumenism but Catholicism" must be the stand of every true Catholic. No supposed Pope who teaches in a matter of faith and morals anything contrary to the Popes before him and to the infallible Magisterium of the Church can be a Pope any more than physically speaking. Certainly not morally the Pope.

        If it be asked how is it possible for someone to be apparently only "half Pope, the answer is that it in fact happens every time one is elected. A man's election to the papacy does not give him the authority of the office until (and unless) he formally accepts the election. In the meantime - however brief the interval - he is not Pope absolutely speaking but only materially - "Pope elect", not yet having, the jurisdiction of the office. He is but the Cardinal singled out and designated for the papacy.

        To be sure, the Vatican II Popes each accepted his election and in doing so became in turn head of the Church juridically. But one who accepts a charge verbally - in this case a supernatural and not merely natural responsibility - but proceeds to act contrary to it has not consented to it objectively speaking - in reality. Authority by its nature is for the common good and never conferred by God (from Whom all authority flows) for the harm of, or to the detriment of; those subject to it. "Which (power) the Lord has given us," the Apostle says. "unto building up and not tearing down" (II Cor. 13; 10). One can have a position of authority, then, without having the authority of the position.

        Even apart from the issue of Ecumenism - in actuality religious indifference - Pope Paul VI, addressing the UN and extolling that godless assembly as mankind's "last hope" for peace, presented it with the papal tiara, the Pope’s triple crown. While ostensibly an alms for the poor, what did it amount to in reality but a public and solemn, if tacit, abdication of the divine authority of his office? "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt 11-15). Following in his footsteps, his successors, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, logically refused to be crowned as Popes. The human authority of the papacy the four were willing enough to retain - none of them declined or resigned the papacy itself - but its divine authority, the very essence of the office, they were evidently ready enough to sacrifice for the sake of Ecumenism and the apparently better One World Church to which it is inexorably leading, and the consummation of which was clearly enough John Paul II’s dream for the Millennium. In this we have graphic confirmation of the distinction between the two levels of authority in the papacy and of the difference between being Pope materially and formally.                                                                        

In a word and by way of analogy, Benedict XVI is Pope in body but not in soul. While he serves (if perhaps in spite of himself), as did his Conciliar predecessors to preserve the Church structurally intact, he does not rule it spiritually - as the Vicar of Christ. We must "look for (await) another" (Matt. 11:3).

       Nor is any of this a matter of presuming to "judge me Pope", but rather men's claim to, or the nature of their claim to, the papacy. Even a Pope has to have his credentials.