Thanks for this! I like that last line. What every Catholic prelate should fear hearing when he dies: "You were an effective administrator, so you'll be in charge of reorganizing the legions of Hell..."
On Pope Leo, what you read as banal statements I want to see as a skillful balancing act, trying to keep the factions in the Church together as long as possible. Yes to synodality, without specifying what that means in terms of continuity or discontinuity with Francis; honoring the task of journalists, while challenging them to tell the unvarnished truth and not be satisfied with mediocrity; endorsing outreach to those who do not now believe in God, while warning that even many Christians are subject to a "practical atheism" that treats Jesus as a good man of the past (shades of Cardinal Ratzinger's "dictatorship of relativism"). Am I giving him too much credit? Perhaps. Better that than the opposite at this stage, I think.
I think this sort of optimistic reading is befitting a good Catholic.
I also don't think "banal" and "balancing act" are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I suspect much public speaking is rendered banal precisely *because* of the balancing of competing concerns! In this sense, banal can indeed be a good sign, especially after a period of turmoil.
I was going to update that comment after finishing the full article — which I now have — but I might as well answer you and continue this dialogue.
As usual, compliments are in order. Thank you for another thoughtful and well-argued piece. I err more on the hopeful side regarding Leo XIV’s papacy, as of now, but I felt that your nuanced opinion helped me adjust my priors ever so slightly.
Regarding footnote 4, I would love to hear more from you about what other definitions should be considered ex cathedra besides the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
As a side note, have you ever heard the rumor that has been circulating again here in Brazil — that Cardinal Lorscheider received enough votes to be elected Pope in the 1978 conclave and declined the papacy due to poor health? I suspect this is more of a patriotic factoid spread by Frei Betto, of Liberation Theology fame, and I couldn’t find anything about it in English-language sources.
It befits a Catholic to err on the side of hope! And thank you.
On the side note: I have never heard that rumor! The rumor I have heard is that Cardinal Colombo was picking up steam as a compromise candidate in that conclave when he announced that, if elected, he would decline due to ill health. This is close enough to the story you've heard that I wonder whether they are versions of one another. (Which one came first, I don't know, but I see the Colombo story in Andrew Greeley's somewhat sensational The Making of the Popes 1978: https://archive.org/details/makingofpopes100gree/page/214/mode/2up?q=%22Lorscheider%22 )
On ex cathedra teachings: Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I taught:
>> We teach and define... that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
This sets four conditions for the ex cathedra infallibility of a definition (remembering always that DEFINITIONS are infallible, not entire DOCUMENTS):
* The pope must be speaking as Pope, nearly always (maybe always always?) with an explicit invocation of his supreme Apostolic authority.
* The pope must be presenting the teaching to the universal Church.
* The pope must propose the teaching as to be held *definitively*. It's a conclusion, nearly always on a disputed topic, and, by the language of the definition and of the surrounding document, the definition *settles* the dispute.
* The pope's teaching must be on a matter of faith and morals. (What exactly is meant by "faith" and by "morals" is a rich topic in itself, explored most notably by Bellarmine in his writing on the councils.)
This happens, not often, but fairly regularly throughout the history of the Catholic Church, and of course it does. The Council Fathers of Vatican I were extremely clear that they believed, and indeed the doctrinal stability of their theory of infallibility *depended upon* the fact that, the popes had in fact taught ex cathedra numerous times throughout Church history.
Indeed, a number of theologians, including then-Cardinal Ratzinger, have put together various "partial lists" that are never intended as comprehensive but merely to give an idea of what sorts of things are infallible from both councils and popes. Some pre-Vatican I things that commonly appear on those lists:
* The "Tome of Leo" (although I am really not convinced that this isn't actually an exercise of conciliar infallibility)
* The 680 Letter of Pope Agatho to the Council denouncing dyotheletism, sometimes called Considerante Mihi
* Benedictus Deus of 1336, teaching immediate particular judgment and the beatific vision after death
* Cum Occasione, 1653, condemning Jansenism
There is much more, when you dig into it. I have translated for this blog Saepe Sanctam Ecclesiam, which I believe contains a couple of ex cathedra definitions. I have no doubt that Pope Vigilius's Constitution on the Three Chapters contains a number, although they are incredibly repetitive. (Turns out a pope can condemn the same heresy dozens of times in slightly different words!)
Given what I have said, it will not surprise anyone to learn that I emphatically side with the camp which holds that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis's definition on women's ordination is ex cathedra infallible, not a mere description of the ordinary & universal magisterium (although most/all ex cathedra definitions also reflect the o&u magisterium). That point is made by Ed Peters here: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-dr-feser-99-953 and argued by John Joy (whom I don't know outside this article series, but I quite liked this series) here: https://onepeterfive.com/disputed-questions-papal-infallibility-part-4/
Again, though: the DOCUMENTS are not infallible. Only the definition is infallible, and only what it actually defines is infallible (not its explanation, not even its intention, if what the pope intended is beyond what the text holds -- which matters a lot for a document like Unam Sanctam, whose last sentence is definitely infallible but also definitely does not bind Catholics to believe what Pope Boniface seemed to think we should believe). This is essential, too, when dealing with things like Quanta Cura, as Newman explained here: Newman's Commentary on Quanta Cura is essential: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html
Okay, I'm just throwing stuff at you now. Gotta run to a movie! This but scratches the surface of the full infallibility project, but I hope it is useful and interesting all the same!
Thank you very much for the insightful response. I was aware of the four conditions and that the definitions ate infallible, not the whole document, but I was under the - I assume general - impression that, nevertheless, those conditions had been met on just a few occasions.
I’ll read the material you linked, and for sure hope to read more from you later! Many thanks!
"[...]The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
[...]for example, the development in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility, prior to the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council. The primacy of the Successor of Peter was always believed as a revealed fact, although until Vatican I the discussion remained open as to whether the conceptual elaboration of what is understood by the terms 'jurisdiction' and 'infallibility' was to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or only a logical consequence. On the other hand, although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the beginning, and was subsequently held to be definitive; however, only in the final stage – the definition of Vatican I – was it also accepted as a divinely revealed truth.
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."
So a thing a pope can do and that John Paul II meant to do and therefore did in Ordinatio sacerdotalis is to "reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively" because "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium", "while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition".
Similar for many other texts, and while the two most famous definitions are not the only two papal dogmatic definitions they are in fact the last two papal dogmatic definitions so far.
I don't know that I would go as far as calling this the "mainstream" view, but it is certainly the contrasting view to the one I described, and it has many adherents.
One of the greatest mysteries of the JP2 papacy was his palpable terror at the possibility that anyone would accuse him of ever actually exercising his infallible teaching authority, to the point of just adding epicycles to Pastor Aeternus like this specifically to *increase* the amount of doubt people could justifiably place in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
After all, if what +Ratzinger says here is taken to mean what most people take it to mean, then JP2's conclusion that women's ordination is barred by the ordinary and universal magisterium is not, in fact, a definitive conclusion, and therefore can be doubted and debated like any other putative tenet of the O&U magisterium that has not been formally defined!
(The fact that he nevertheless concludes that all Catholics must adhere to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as a matter of belief and not merely discipline, makes me think that +Ratzinger is being more subtle, and taking a view closer to mine, than most people are giving him credit for.)
>> while the two most famous definitions are not the only two papal dogmatic definitions they are in fact the last two papal dogmatic definitions so far.
Not quite! Even if we assume that this theory is correct, whereby popes can essentially tamp down their own teaching authority through CDF commentaries disclaiming ex cathedra authority in a teaching that otherwise has the ex cathedra character, AND we assume that this theory applies to every apparent ex cathedra teaching issued by John Paul II... that still seems to leave Humanae Vitae's definition against abortion/sterilization/contraception in place, because Paul VI's Holy Office did *not* issue an accompanying note disclaiming ex cathedra authority.
Of course, there are other arguments against HV's infallibility, but I think they are mostly distinct from the exceedingly subtle argument Cardinal Ratzinger makes with respect to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evanglium Vitae.
(...despite my further comments, I do think it was wise and prudent for you to post this alternative view, and I think you also chose the highest and clearest authority for expressing it.)
James, Traditiones Custodes was issued for ecclesiological reasons, not liturgical reasons. The reason the Tridentine Mass was restricted was because the SSPX and other groups hijacked Summorum pontificum to spread the Lefebvrist heresy around the Second Vatican Council. It wasn’t just “liberal” bishops and cardinals who were expressing concern about that, with either. “Conservative” bishops, including Bishop Robert Barron, were also concerned about that, and Cardinal Roche, a conservative-leaning cardinal who used to privately celebrate the Tridentine Mass himself before T.C., is the head of the Dicastery at the Vatican that is responsible for T.C. and its implementation.
Now you can have criticisms about how it was implemented and the lack of safeguards to prevent hostile bishops from abusing their authority to regulate the Tridentine Mass, but the situation around the Tridentine Mass was real and Pope Francis did have to do something to curb the hijacking of Summorum pontificum by the Lefebvrists.
I certainly don’t think T.C. was perfect, but something had to be done, and I wish Pope Francis had responded just as harshly to the modernist heretic bishops and laypeople over in Germany.
I can attest from my own personal experience with attendees of the Tridentine Mass that I have seen every single problem with a decent chunk (but definitely not all) of the attendees there, especially rejection of Vatican II and the Magisterium of every Pope after Pope Pius.
People attending the Tridentine Mass who accept Vatican II and the validity of the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the post-Pius XII Magisterium are not who the target of T.C. was, they just unfortunately got caught in the crossfire between the Holy See and the Lefebvrists, and my heart goes out to them. They are in a difficult spot.
Mike, I love ya, and "this is all for ecclesiological reasons" was certainly the Vatican's official story, and I suppose it is not a terrible thing for a Catholic to believe the Vatican's official story.
However, personally, don't believe it for a microsecond.
A first way to deduce the purpose of a law is by ignoring the prefatory text ("ecclesiological reasons" and so on) and look at the actual provisions. Remember Smith's Third Law of Statutory Interpretation: the purpose of any bill is usually to do the opposite of what its title proclaims. T.C. was marketed as a response to resistance to the Council, but what it actually did obviously had nothing to encouraging reception of the Council.
It opens with a bizarre and unprecedented expression of what I can only call liturgical supremacy, and then rapidly proceeds to simply and straightforwardly level the Traditional Latin Mass -- all of it, faithful and less faithful alike -- with all the subtlety of an Israeli ultra-orthodox bulldozer in the West Bank. Article 3 Section 2's abolition of the TLM from parishes cannot conceivably be a remedial measure, a "powerful medicine and nourishment to the weak" as Francis liked to invoke in other contexts. It was an act of segregation, designed to make the TLM isolated, difficult, and miserable. By cutting off new groups (Art 3.6) and even denying new priests participation in the ancient liturgy (Art 4) -- all while DENYING authority to diocesan bishops to do anything else -- T.C. ensured that the TLM would be choked out with this generation. Not helped, not healed, not redeemed, not restored to health: killed off. In the process, it was willing to usurp the proper authority of local bishops and immiserate the faithful.
A second way to deduce the purpose of a law is by the attitudes of those who created the thing. Yes, the Vatican said it was for ecclesiological purposes, and that it had *nothing to do at all* with the fact that it was pressed for by a clique that has despised everything about the Latin Mass for generations, not because of Lefebrvism, but because it is a sign and contradiction to whiggish progressive theology. Obviously they had to come up with some kayfabe rationalization for why they were crushing the TLM, and the rise of the SSPX gave them one, but the canny observer shouldn't ignore the fact that this was something they'd wanted to do since long before any of that happened.
A third way to deduce the purpose of a law is by its effects. T.C. has indeed immiserated faithful TLM-goers, but it has not weakened the Lefebrvists or its adherents one single bit. Indeed, I think T.C. did more to *strengthen* the SSPX than anything since Lefbrve himself (I'm spelling that wrong but I don't respect him enough to look up the correct spelling). After all, *they* were already operating in schism and were going to keep holding TLMs no matter how many nastygrams Rome sent. (I know we're not supposed to admit it's a schism, but one of the items on my Papal Agenda is to admit it's a schism.) It was the faithful Catholics who leaned traditional who were assailed by T.C.. T.C.'s sole effect was to tell *those faithful Catholics*, in no uncertain terms, that *they* were enemies of Rome, and that *their* parishes and communities must either enter schism or be destroyed. It told the weaker Catholics, those who were already tempted by the siren song of schism, to get off the fence and join the SSPX rebellion -- which they appear to have done in considerable numbers.
It was obvious from the get-go that this would be the only "ecclesiological" consequence of T.C.. No one would be reconciled to the Council by T.C., but many would be driven *away* from the Council because of an imperious Rome telling them their Masses were cancelled and their children would not be allowed to grow up with their parents' liturgy. I am confident Pope Francis *knew* this would be the consequence of T.C., because he would have to have a lower I.Q. than a box of Double-Stuf Oreos *not* to. I'll not disrespect Pope Francis by suggesting he was that stupid.
I cannot accept the excuse that Pope Francis's intentions were pure, but that they were abused or hijacked by individual bishops or by his Vatican apparatchiks. Francis knew how to design safeguards against hijacking, because he wrote many safeguards into T.C. -- in order to *prevent* local bishops from ministering to their TLM flocks. He not only left out all the safeguards that might have protected TLM-goers, but he routinely made it clear through his personnel decisions that he strongly approved of the worst "abuses." (As you note, he was far more indulgent of the German demi-schismatics, which is another piece of evidence that Pope Francis's interest in destroying the TLM was never ecclesiological.)
The purpose of Traditiones Custodes was what it did, and what it did was destroy, without mercy. I think you are innocently but completely mistaken when you say that faithful Catholics who attended the TLM were not the targets, but were simply "caught in the crossfire." They *were* the targets. Everything about T.C. was designed to *make* them the targets. The Vatican simply lied to you about it. That's okay, the Vatican lies a lot, and sometimes it fools all of us.
Now, you may very well be *right* that there was a real problem here that needed a response. I know lots of trads who need to have a come-to-Jesus about Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate, and John Paul II's ecumenical dialogues. However, T.C. was not that response. As an unaffiliated bystander who loves the New Mass, I can only understand T.C. as a deliberate act of cruelty by a Holy Father who *despised* some of his children.
I know you personally looked up to and connected with Francis in a way that you did not with other popes. All fathers have some blind spots, and I am glad that you were able to look at Francis's face and see the abundant kindness that was there for some of his children. That kindness may yet be his saving grace. I have always said that Pope Francis may very well beat me to Heaven by a country mile, and I still do. However, after T.C., I was never again able to look on Francis without seeing his demonstrable malice. Malice is not something I remember seeing in even JP2's and Benedict's harshest rebukes to dissenters, so I, ever after, found it difficult to love Pope Francis as a son should.
P.S. I do not think it is justified to refer to +Roche as a liturgical conservative, either now or in the past. Despite the good work of the ICEL translation he led, Roche attacked and subverted Summorum Pontificum from the day it came out, and so was a natural candidate for the job of reversing it.
Thanks for this response, James, and I didn’t know that Roche said that attitude about Summorum pontificum. I do know that Word on Fire published a book by Roche titled The Gardens of God that supposedly is very good, and Ed Condon from The Pillar said in a livestream that Roche celebrated the Tridentine Mass himself privately, so on the basis of those things is why I thought he was traditional or “conservative”-leaning.
And actually, Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope I’ve felt the deepest connection with so far in my lifetime, and JPII the least, with Francis somewhere in the middle.
Also, JD Flynn and Ed Condon and the other The Pillar writers say they think it is very unlikely that Pope Leo will reverse Traditiones custodes, because it was issued for ecclesiological reasons (in their words, and that is where I got that phrase), although he might tweak it a bit.
I think there's a decent chance T.C. will remain in full force in this papacy, without tweaks, but not for ecclesiological whatnot. It would be politically very awkward for Pope Leo to repeal one of his predecessor's most prominent decisions while still claiming the mantle of continuity with Francis. Perhaps he will find a way to tweak it into a non-cruel document. That seems like the most hopeful outcome.
I did read that The Gardens of God was very good, and +Roche certainly seems to be morally conservative enough to talk often about abortion (I checked his pseudonymous twitter feed), but he just doesn't seem to be liturgically conservative.
I consider myself near the border of "Traditonal" and "Traditionalist" Catholics. Back in college (after the election of Pope Francis), I heard good solid arguments from people whose judgement I respected to the effect that the SSPX either had the right of things or were maliciously betrayed by Rome (at least partially through the FSSP and how it was created). (I no longer remember the essence of these arguments.)
Upon exposure to both the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI, I have never again believed that they were the same rite. While I admit that they are both valid, they are not the same rite, and the older rite is superior in the same manner that a filet mignon is superior to baby food, and to roughly the same extent and for largely the same reasons. SP had already been in effect for a while before I was paying attention to such things on my own thinking, and we had moved a few years prior from a strong and thriving parish in a strong diocese to a nigh-heretical and dying parish in a diocese that probably counts as missionary territory due to lack of vocations, so I wouldn't have seen any direct impacts at that time anyway...
I am saying this to set up that I definitely viewed TC as not only a direct attack on me, but also (and in a stronger way) on those whom I thought (both then and now) were better Catholics than I. Coupled with his refusal to come down harshly on openly heterodox/heretical clerics (e.g. James Martin) or on blatant abuses of the Novus Ordo (e.g. liturgical dance, clown masses), this was blatant, intentional malice from one to whom I owed loyalty. I have been dealing with a lot of problems with my faith over the last decade or so, and a Pope whom I believed (with evidence) hated my mere existence is a reason why. (there are other reasons, and they are more to blame than this, but this definitely DID NOT HELP!!!)
If Pope Leo were to separate out the Pauline and Tridentine Rites into separate hierarchical structures, a la Maronite and Byzantine Rites, I suspect that the Pauline Rite Church would die out within 3 generations and the Tridentine Rite would double in size every 10 years or so for at least a century.
Because I am incapable of simply accepting a compliment with good grace, I must note that, while I obviously agree that T.C. was cruel, some of the things you say *do* suggest that Pope Francis was right to think that there are serious problems in the trad community. Just as T.C.'s opening with a declaration of the Novus Ordo's liturgical supremacy was bizarre, so too are declarations of the TLM's liturgical supremacy quite misguided. But we agree that T.C. was a fully counterproductive way to address this problem.
Also, the College of Cardinals report was put together by Sophia institute press, which published Taylor Marshall’s Lefebvrist diatribe against Holy Mother Church, so it is important to weigh that bias when assessing the info it contains.
The College of Cardinals Report was put together by a team under Ed Pentin, who has never led me wrong, and whose reputation is, AFAIK, sterling. Sophia Institute Press was only the bankroll.
When you don't know a work's author, but you do know its publisher, it makes sense to judge the product based on the publisher's reputation. For example, if the New York Times published a conclave explainer that purported to explain the biography and positions of every papabile, I would be very skeptical, because the NYT's reporting on Catholicism is often laughably inaccurate. However, if the person they hired to run the project was JD Flynn, I would trust the results implicitly, because I trust JD Flynn, and I would be grateful that the NYT had the good sense (for once) to hire someone who actually knows something about Catholicism to write about Catholicism.
Likewise, I'm glad Sophia Institute Press had the good sense to hire Ed Pentin. When you know the author, you needn't consider the publisher's reputation very much anymore.
For this reason, I tend to trust the CCR.
The second reason I tend to trust the CCR is because it cites all its sources, so it's easy to check if one of their claims seems wrong! So far, that hasn't happened to me.
The third reason I tend to trust the CCR is because all its rivals (like Conclavoscope) are quite a bit worse.
I'm quite interested in the power of network analysis for papacy prediction. I was following this effort: https://www.the-new-pope.org/predictions.html, although it didn't pan out all that well this time.
I saw the Rizzo paper on Twitter, but I have two big caution notes about it:
1. Can you find an actual paper detailing their methodology and showing their data tables? I can't.
2. They published hours *after* the conclave elected Pope Leo, which, the candid observer must confess, is very suspicious.
It's a promising avenue; I'm just not sure how much weight to put on this one.
"Once you discard the obviously false (but very common) belief that there have only ever been three ex cathedra definitions,"
I don't think I've ever seen someone say there were three. I've certainly seen people say there were two--the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary--but I don't think I've ever seen someone say three before. I assume two of the three were the ones I stated, but what is the third one you had in mind?
I don't know... I never asked! I was thinking of a specific person when I typed that. It never occurred to me to wonder whether that specific person had really just misheard or misremembered "two" (which is, indeed, the other common number often mentioned, for the reasons you mention).
Possibly the person meant Evangelium Vitae? But, now that you mention it, it does seem more likely that this person just erred.
In fairness to this person, I also routinely see it said that ex cathedra has been invoked "just two or three times" in history, which is clearly just people who have heard a number, know it's a small number, but aren't quite sure where it comes from.
"If you were reading The Pillar, you weren’t surprised by this outcome."
I beg to differ. I read The Pillar, I had heard Cardinal Prevost mentioned as papabile, but I was still surprised to hear the newly elected Pope was American. (My exact reaction: "Holy cow!")
Thanks for this! I like that last line. What every Catholic prelate should fear hearing when he dies: "You were an effective administrator, so you'll be in charge of reorganizing the legions of Hell..."
On Pope Leo, what you read as banal statements I want to see as a skillful balancing act, trying to keep the factions in the Church together as long as possible. Yes to synodality, without specifying what that means in terms of continuity or discontinuity with Francis; honoring the task of journalists, while challenging them to tell the unvarnished truth and not be satisfied with mediocrity; endorsing outreach to those who do not now believe in God, while warning that even many Christians are subject to a "practical atheism" that treats Jesus as a good man of the past (shades of Cardinal Ratzinger's "dictatorship of relativism"). Am I giving him too much credit? Perhaps. Better that than the opposite at this stage, I think.
I think this sort of optimistic reading is befitting a good Catholic.
I also don't think "banal" and "balancing act" are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I suspect much public speaking is rendered banal precisely *because* of the balancing of competing concerns! In this sense, banal can indeed be a good sign, especially after a period of turmoil.
James, running the risky of antecipating your infallibility project, would you kindly expand on footnote 4?
Yes. The real risk is that, once I start, I won't stop! What are you thinking about?
I was going to update that comment after finishing the full article — which I now have — but I might as well answer you and continue this dialogue.
As usual, compliments are in order. Thank you for another thoughtful and well-argued piece. I err more on the hopeful side regarding Leo XIV’s papacy, as of now, but I felt that your nuanced opinion helped me adjust my priors ever so slightly.
Regarding footnote 4, I would love to hear more from you about what other definitions should be considered ex cathedra besides the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
As a side note, have you ever heard the rumor that has been circulating again here in Brazil — that Cardinal Lorscheider received enough votes to be elected Pope in the 1978 conclave and declined the papacy due to poor health? I suspect this is more of a patriotic factoid spread by Frei Betto, of Liberation Theology fame, and I couldn’t find anything about it in English-language sources.
It befits a Catholic to err on the side of hope! And thank you.
On the side note: I have never heard that rumor! The rumor I have heard is that Cardinal Colombo was picking up steam as a compromise candidate in that conclave when he announced that, if elected, he would decline due to ill health. This is close enough to the story you've heard that I wonder whether they are versions of one another. (Which one came first, I don't know, but I see the Colombo story in Andrew Greeley's somewhat sensational The Making of the Popes 1978: https://archive.org/details/makingofpopes100gree/page/214/mode/2up?q=%22Lorscheider%22 )
On ex cathedra teachings: Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I taught:
>> We teach and define... that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
This sets four conditions for the ex cathedra infallibility of a definition (remembering always that DEFINITIONS are infallible, not entire DOCUMENTS):
* The pope must be speaking as Pope, nearly always (maybe always always?) with an explicit invocation of his supreme Apostolic authority.
* The pope must be presenting the teaching to the universal Church.
* The pope must propose the teaching as to be held *definitively*. It's a conclusion, nearly always on a disputed topic, and, by the language of the definition and of the surrounding document, the definition *settles* the dispute.
* The pope's teaching must be on a matter of faith and morals. (What exactly is meant by "faith" and by "morals" is a rich topic in itself, explored most notably by Bellarmine in his writing on the councils.)
This happens, not often, but fairly regularly throughout the history of the Catholic Church, and of course it does. The Council Fathers of Vatican I were extremely clear that they believed, and indeed the doctrinal stability of their theory of infallibility *depended upon* the fact that, the popes had in fact taught ex cathedra numerous times throughout Church history.
Indeed, a number of theologians, including then-Cardinal Ratzinger, have put together various "partial lists" that are never intended as comprehensive but merely to give an idea of what sorts of things are infallible from both councils and popes. Some pre-Vatican I things that commonly appear on those lists:
* The "Tome of Leo" (although I am really not convinced that this isn't actually an exercise of conciliar infallibility)
* The 680 Letter of Pope Agatho to the Council denouncing dyotheletism, sometimes called Considerante Mihi
* Benedictus Deus of 1336, teaching immediate particular judgment and the beatific vision after death
* Cum Occasione, 1653, condemning Jansenism
There is much more, when you dig into it. I have translated for this blog Saepe Sanctam Ecclesiam, which I believe contains a couple of ex cathedra definitions. I have no doubt that Pope Vigilius's Constitution on the Three Chapters contains a number, although they are incredibly repetitive. (Turns out a pope can condemn the same heresy dozens of times in slightly different words!)
Given what I have said, it will not surprise anyone to learn that I emphatically side with the camp which holds that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis's definition on women's ordination is ex cathedra infallible, not a mere description of the ordinary & universal magisterium (although most/all ex cathedra definitions also reflect the o&u magisterium). That point is made by Ed Peters here: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/i-agree-with-dr-feser-99-953 and argued by John Joy (whom I don't know outside this article series, but I quite liked this series) here: https://onepeterfive.com/disputed-questions-papal-infallibility-part-4/
Again, though: the DOCUMENTS are not infallible. Only the definition is infallible, and only what it actually defines is infallible (not its explanation, not even its intention, if what the pope intended is beyond what the text holds -- which matters a lot for a document like Unam Sanctam, whose last sentence is definitely infallible but also definitely does not bind Catholics to believe what Pope Boniface seemed to think we should believe). This is essential, too, when dealing with things like Quanta Cura, as Newman explained here: Newman's Commentary on Quanta Cura is essential: https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html
Okay, I'm just throwing stuff at you now. Gotta run to a movie! This but scratches the surface of the full infallibility project, but I hope it is useful and interesting all the same!
Lots of homework for me!
Thank you very much for the insightful response. I was aware of the four conditions and that the definitions ate infallible, not the whole document, but I was under the - I assume general - impression that, nevertheless, those conditions had been met on just a few occasions.
I’ll read the material you linked, and for sure hope to read more from you later! Many thanks!
Probably nothing new to you here, but I am hereby hijacking the pulpit to record the correct mainstream position for the benefit of other commenters.
Ratzinger-as-the-CDF helpfully explained it here: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
"[...]The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgement on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
[...]for example, the development in the understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility, prior to the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council. The primacy of the Successor of Peter was always believed as a revealed fact, although until Vatican I the discussion remained open as to whether the conceptual elaboration of what is understood by the terms 'jurisdiction' and 'infallibility' was to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or only a logical consequence. On the other hand, although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in the First Vatican Council, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the beginning, and was subsequently held to be definitive; however, only in the final stage – the definition of Vatican I – was it also accepted as a divinely revealed truth.
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."
So a thing a pope can do and that John Paul II meant to do and therefore did in Ordinatio sacerdotalis is to "reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively" because "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium", "while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition".
Similar for many other texts, and while the two most famous definitions are not the only two papal dogmatic definitions they are in fact the last two papal dogmatic definitions so far.
I don't know that I would go as far as calling this the "mainstream" view, but it is certainly the contrasting view to the one I described, and it has many adherents.
One of the greatest mysteries of the JP2 papacy was his palpable terror at the possibility that anyone would accuse him of ever actually exercising his infallible teaching authority, to the point of just adding epicycles to Pastor Aeternus like this specifically to *increase* the amount of doubt people could justifiably place in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
After all, if what +Ratzinger says here is taken to mean what most people take it to mean, then JP2's conclusion that women's ordination is barred by the ordinary and universal magisterium is not, in fact, a definitive conclusion, and therefore can be doubted and debated like any other putative tenet of the O&U magisterium that has not been formally defined!
(The fact that he nevertheless concludes that all Catholics must adhere to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as a matter of belief and not merely discipline, makes me think that +Ratzinger is being more subtle, and taking a view closer to mine, than most people are giving him credit for.)
>> while the two most famous definitions are not the only two papal dogmatic definitions they are in fact the last two papal dogmatic definitions so far.
Not quite! Even if we assume that this theory is correct, whereby popes can essentially tamp down their own teaching authority through CDF commentaries disclaiming ex cathedra authority in a teaching that otherwise has the ex cathedra character, AND we assume that this theory applies to every apparent ex cathedra teaching issued by John Paul II... that still seems to leave Humanae Vitae's definition against abortion/sterilization/contraception in place, because Paul VI's Holy Office did *not* issue an accompanying note disclaiming ex cathedra authority.
Of course, there are other arguments against HV's infallibility, but I think they are mostly distinct from the exceedingly subtle argument Cardinal Ratzinger makes with respect to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evanglium Vitae.
(...despite my further comments, I do think it was wise and prudent for you to post this alternative view, and I think you also chose the highest and clearest authority for expressing it.)
James, Traditiones Custodes was issued for ecclesiological reasons, not liturgical reasons. The reason the Tridentine Mass was restricted was because the SSPX and other groups hijacked Summorum pontificum to spread the Lefebvrist heresy around the Second Vatican Council. It wasn’t just “liberal” bishops and cardinals who were expressing concern about that, with either. “Conservative” bishops, including Bishop Robert Barron, were also concerned about that, and Cardinal Roche, a conservative-leaning cardinal who used to privately celebrate the Tridentine Mass himself before T.C., is the head of the Dicastery at the Vatican that is responsible for T.C. and its implementation.
Now you can have criticisms about how it was implemented and the lack of safeguards to prevent hostile bishops from abusing their authority to regulate the Tridentine Mass, but the situation around the Tridentine Mass was real and Pope Francis did have to do something to curb the hijacking of Summorum pontificum by the Lefebvrists.
I certainly don’t think T.C. was perfect, but something had to be done, and I wish Pope Francis had responded just as harshly to the modernist heretic bishops and laypeople over in Germany.
I can attest from my own personal experience with attendees of the Tridentine Mass that I have seen every single problem with a decent chunk (but definitely not all) of the attendees there, especially rejection of Vatican II and the Magisterium of every Pope after Pope Pius.
People attending the Tridentine Mass who accept Vatican II and the validity of the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the post-Pius XII Magisterium are not who the target of T.C. was, they just unfortunately got caught in the crossfire between the Holy See and the Lefebvrists, and my heart goes out to them. They are in a difficult spot.
Mike, I love ya, and "this is all for ecclesiological reasons" was certainly the Vatican's official story, and I suppose it is not a terrible thing for a Catholic to believe the Vatican's official story.
However, personally, don't believe it for a microsecond.
A first way to deduce the purpose of a law is by ignoring the prefatory text ("ecclesiological reasons" and so on) and look at the actual provisions. Remember Smith's Third Law of Statutory Interpretation: the purpose of any bill is usually to do the opposite of what its title proclaims. T.C. was marketed as a response to resistance to the Council, but what it actually did obviously had nothing to encouraging reception of the Council.
It opens with a bizarre and unprecedented expression of what I can only call liturgical supremacy, and then rapidly proceeds to simply and straightforwardly level the Traditional Latin Mass -- all of it, faithful and less faithful alike -- with all the subtlety of an Israeli ultra-orthodox bulldozer in the West Bank. Article 3 Section 2's abolition of the TLM from parishes cannot conceivably be a remedial measure, a "powerful medicine and nourishment to the weak" as Francis liked to invoke in other contexts. It was an act of segregation, designed to make the TLM isolated, difficult, and miserable. By cutting off new groups (Art 3.6) and even denying new priests participation in the ancient liturgy (Art 4) -- all while DENYING authority to diocesan bishops to do anything else -- T.C. ensured that the TLM would be choked out with this generation. Not helped, not healed, not redeemed, not restored to health: killed off. In the process, it was willing to usurp the proper authority of local bishops and immiserate the faithful.
A second way to deduce the purpose of a law is by the attitudes of those who created the thing. Yes, the Vatican said it was for ecclesiological purposes, and that it had *nothing to do at all* with the fact that it was pressed for by a clique that has despised everything about the Latin Mass for generations, not because of Lefebrvism, but because it is a sign and contradiction to whiggish progressive theology. Obviously they had to come up with some kayfabe rationalization for why they were crushing the TLM, and the rise of the SSPX gave them one, but the canny observer shouldn't ignore the fact that this was something they'd wanted to do since long before any of that happened.
A third way to deduce the purpose of a law is by its effects. T.C. has indeed immiserated faithful TLM-goers, but it has not weakened the Lefebrvists or its adherents one single bit. Indeed, I think T.C. did more to *strengthen* the SSPX than anything since Lefbrve himself (I'm spelling that wrong but I don't respect him enough to look up the correct spelling). After all, *they* were already operating in schism and were going to keep holding TLMs no matter how many nastygrams Rome sent. (I know we're not supposed to admit it's a schism, but one of the items on my Papal Agenda is to admit it's a schism.) It was the faithful Catholics who leaned traditional who were assailed by T.C.. T.C.'s sole effect was to tell *those faithful Catholics*, in no uncertain terms, that *they* were enemies of Rome, and that *their* parishes and communities must either enter schism or be destroyed. It told the weaker Catholics, those who were already tempted by the siren song of schism, to get off the fence and join the SSPX rebellion -- which they appear to have done in considerable numbers.
It was obvious from the get-go that this would be the only "ecclesiological" consequence of T.C.. No one would be reconciled to the Council by T.C., but many would be driven *away* from the Council because of an imperious Rome telling them their Masses were cancelled and their children would not be allowed to grow up with their parents' liturgy. I am confident Pope Francis *knew* this would be the consequence of T.C., because he would have to have a lower I.Q. than a box of Double-Stuf Oreos *not* to. I'll not disrespect Pope Francis by suggesting he was that stupid.
I cannot accept the excuse that Pope Francis's intentions were pure, but that they were abused or hijacked by individual bishops or by his Vatican apparatchiks. Francis knew how to design safeguards against hijacking, because he wrote many safeguards into T.C. -- in order to *prevent* local bishops from ministering to their TLM flocks. He not only left out all the safeguards that might have protected TLM-goers, but he routinely made it clear through his personnel decisions that he strongly approved of the worst "abuses." (As you note, he was far more indulgent of the German demi-schismatics, which is another piece of evidence that Pope Francis's interest in destroying the TLM was never ecclesiological.)
The purpose of Traditiones Custodes was what it did, and what it did was destroy, without mercy. I think you are innocently but completely mistaken when you say that faithful Catholics who attended the TLM were not the targets, but were simply "caught in the crossfire." They *were* the targets. Everything about T.C. was designed to *make* them the targets. The Vatican simply lied to you about it. That's okay, the Vatican lies a lot, and sometimes it fools all of us.
Now, you may very well be *right* that there was a real problem here that needed a response. I know lots of trads who need to have a come-to-Jesus about Dignitatis Humanae, Nostra Aetate, and John Paul II's ecumenical dialogues. However, T.C. was not that response. As an unaffiliated bystander who loves the New Mass, I can only understand T.C. as a deliberate act of cruelty by a Holy Father who *despised* some of his children.
I know you personally looked up to and connected with Francis in a way that you did not with other popes. All fathers have some blind spots, and I am glad that you were able to look at Francis's face and see the abundant kindness that was there for some of his children. That kindness may yet be his saving grace. I have always said that Pope Francis may very well beat me to Heaven by a country mile, and I still do. However, after T.C., I was never again able to look on Francis without seeing his demonstrable malice. Malice is not something I remember seeing in even JP2's and Benedict's harshest rebukes to dissenters, so I, ever after, found it difficult to love Pope Francis as a son should.
P.S. I do not think it is justified to refer to +Roche as a liturgical conservative, either now or in the past. Despite the good work of the ICEL translation he led, Roche attacked and subverted Summorum Pontificum from the day it came out, and so was a natural candidate for the job of reversing it.
Thanks for this response, James, and I didn’t know that Roche said that attitude about Summorum pontificum. I do know that Word on Fire published a book by Roche titled The Gardens of God that supposedly is very good, and Ed Condon from The Pillar said in a livestream that Roche celebrated the Tridentine Mass himself privately, so on the basis of those things is why I thought he was traditional or “conservative”-leaning.
And actually, Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope I’ve felt the deepest connection with so far in my lifetime, and JPII the least, with Francis somewhere in the middle.
Also, JD Flynn and Ed Condon and the other The Pillar writers say they think it is very unlikely that Pope Leo will reverse Traditiones custodes, because it was issued for ecclesiological reasons (in their words, and that is where I got that phrase), although he might tweak it a bit.
We’ll see what happens.
I think there's a decent chance T.C. will remain in full force in this papacy, without tweaks, but not for ecclesiological whatnot. It would be politically very awkward for Pope Leo to repeal one of his predecessor's most prominent decisions while still claiming the mantle of continuity with Francis. Perhaps he will find a way to tweak it into a non-cruel document. That seems like the most hopeful outcome.
I did read that The Gardens of God was very good, and +Roche certainly seems to be morally conservative enough to talk often about abortion (I checked his pseudonymous twitter feed), but he just doesn't seem to be liturgically conservative.
Thanks for the good conversation! 🙂
I second this analysis.
I consider myself near the border of "Traditonal" and "Traditionalist" Catholics. Back in college (after the election of Pope Francis), I heard good solid arguments from people whose judgement I respected to the effect that the SSPX either had the right of things or were maliciously betrayed by Rome (at least partially through the FSSP and how it was created). (I no longer remember the essence of these arguments.)
Upon exposure to both the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI, I have never again believed that they were the same rite. While I admit that they are both valid, they are not the same rite, and the older rite is superior in the same manner that a filet mignon is superior to baby food, and to roughly the same extent and for largely the same reasons. SP had already been in effect for a while before I was paying attention to such things on my own thinking, and we had moved a few years prior from a strong and thriving parish in a strong diocese to a nigh-heretical and dying parish in a diocese that probably counts as missionary territory due to lack of vocations, so I wouldn't have seen any direct impacts at that time anyway...
I am saying this to set up that I definitely viewed TC as not only a direct attack on me, but also (and in a stronger way) on those whom I thought (both then and now) were better Catholics than I. Coupled with his refusal to come down harshly on openly heterodox/heretical clerics (e.g. James Martin) or on blatant abuses of the Novus Ordo (e.g. liturgical dance, clown masses), this was blatant, intentional malice from one to whom I owed loyalty. I have been dealing with a lot of problems with my faith over the last decade or so, and a Pope whom I believed (with evidence) hated my mere existence is a reason why. (there are other reasons, and they are more to blame than this, but this definitely DID NOT HELP!!!)
If Pope Leo were to separate out the Pauline and Tridentine Rites into separate hierarchical structures, a la Maronite and Byzantine Rites, I suspect that the Pauline Rite Church would die out within 3 generations and the Tridentine Rite would double in size every 10 years or so for at least a century.
Because I am incapable of simply accepting a compliment with good grace, I must note that, while I obviously agree that T.C. was cruel, some of the things you say *do* suggest that Pope Francis was right to think that there are serious problems in the trad community. Just as T.C.'s opening with a declaration of the Novus Ordo's liturgical supremacy was bizarre, so too are declarations of the TLM's liturgical supremacy quite misguided. But we agree that T.C. was a fully counterproductive way to address this problem.
Also, the College of Cardinals report was put together by Sophia institute press, which published Taylor Marshall’s Lefebvrist diatribe against Holy Mother Church, so it is important to weigh that bias when assessing the info it contains.
The College of Cardinals Report was put together by a team under Ed Pentin, who has never led me wrong, and whose reputation is, AFAIK, sterling. Sophia Institute Press was only the bankroll.
When you don't know a work's author, but you do know its publisher, it makes sense to judge the product based on the publisher's reputation. For example, if the New York Times published a conclave explainer that purported to explain the biography and positions of every papabile, I would be very skeptical, because the NYT's reporting on Catholicism is often laughably inaccurate. However, if the person they hired to run the project was JD Flynn, I would trust the results implicitly, because I trust JD Flynn, and I would be grateful that the NYT had the good sense (for once) to hire someone who actually knows something about Catholicism to write about Catholicism.
Likewise, I'm glad Sophia Institute Press had the good sense to hire Ed Pentin. When you know the author, you needn't consider the publisher's reputation very much anymore.
For this reason, I tend to trust the CCR.
The second reason I tend to trust the CCR is because it cites all its sources, so it's easy to check if one of their claims seems wrong! So far, that hasn't happened to me.
The third reason I tend to trust the CCR is because all its rivals (like Conclavoscope) are quite a bit worse.
Fair enough
https://x.com/LnrdRizzo/status/1920783054181728701?s=19 points to a study which used social network analysis of the Cardinals and predicted +Prevost as a top candidates.
Actual paper at https://www.unibocconi.it/en/news/network-conclave
I'm quite interested in the power of network analysis for papacy prediction. I was following this effort: https://www.the-new-pope.org/predictions.html, although it didn't pan out all that well this time.
I saw the Rizzo paper on Twitter, but I have two big caution notes about it:
1. Can you find an actual paper detailing their methodology and showing their data tables? I can't.
2. They published hours *after* the conclave elected Pope Leo, which, the candid observer must confess, is very suspicious.
It's a promising avenue; I'm just not sure how much weight to put on this one.
"Once you discard the obviously false (but very common) belief that there have only ever been three ex cathedra definitions,"
I don't think I've ever seen someone say there were three. I've certainly seen people say there were two--the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary--but I don't think I've ever seen someone say three before. I assume two of the three were the ones I stated, but what is the third one you had in mind?
I don't know... I never asked! I was thinking of a specific person when I typed that. It never occurred to me to wonder whether that specific person had really just misheard or misremembered "two" (which is, indeed, the other common number often mentioned, for the reasons you mention).
Possibly the person meant Evangelium Vitae? But, now that you mention it, it does seem more likely that this person just erred.
In fairness to this person, I also routinely see it said that ex cathedra has been invoked "just two or three times" in history, which is clearly just people who have heard a number, know it's a small number, but aren't quite sure where it comes from.
"If you were reading The Pillar, you weren’t surprised by this outcome."
I beg to differ. I read The Pillar, I had heard Cardinal Prevost mentioned as papabile, but I was still surprised to hear the newly elected Pope was American. (My exact reaction: "Holy cow!")