Apologetics
CANON LAW, NECESSITY OF SACRAMENTS, THE GREAT MONARCH, AND MORE
Common errors that are easily answered which keep good people outside the Church.
By Robert Robbins
The problem today in discussing or debating the present crisis of the Holy See—the crisis, in sum, simply being that the Chair is empty—is intellectual laziness.
Nine out of ten disputants who are really just naysayers in disguise hurl their “arguments” at us like stones at Saint Stephen because they are too lazy to look them up and see that they are not stones but myths made from the stuff of dreams and as artificial, unsubstantial and airy as styrofoam.
I cannot dwell upon the reasons for this laziness which produces this effect, because I have to at least not be lazy myself and answer the objections (however easy it may be), but I would speculate that it has something to do with the operation of error spoken of by Saint Paul, as far as supernatural causes are concerned, and, according to the order of natural causes, it has undoubtedly something to do with the way democracy has ruined the intellect of democratic people.
People don’t think anymore because they think they know. They get a bit of education in the schools, like how to read (barely), how to calculate (usually with the aid of a calculator), and the of rest their time in school is filled up with fables about democratic modern man and his glories, lauds, and honors due him because he discovered America, discovered penicillin, discovered the North Pole, or discovered that democracy doesn’t actually work but communism looks pretty good.
What they don’t get, or if they do, they are the few in Ivy League schools presently running the show, is a rudimentary grounding in the principles of logical and sustained thought. This is the kind of thing that the Trivium and Quadrivium used to teach children and young scholars which is still possible through homeschooling—but that is for another post.
However we have gotten here where a debate or a good conversation about real things is impossible, we are here, so the question is what to do? If the individual is sincere there is hope of conversion. If the person is lazy as I think they probably are, there probably isn’t. But there is always prayer.
I turn now to those fluff and stuff objections.
Objections
The following objections were sent to me by a reader who wants to convert her childhood friend from the Recognize and Resist (R&R) position, and asked me if I could point her in the right direction on this site for posts to help her answer the objections, because (lamentably) I did not and do not use tabs, though I think I shall moving forward.
Canon Law Says the Pope is Pope
“He is, by Canon Law, the Pope, yes, and it is our duty to resist all evil things that come from his mouth, not just leave his flock. He is liable to err, as all human beings do.”
There are a number of issues with this objection. The first is, there is a distinction between fact and law. A law may forbid murder but the law cannot point out who murderers are. I know, common sense. But that is what this objection is saying in effect. But that is false, not only because canon law actually says the opposite, but that canon law cannot really say anything apart from facts, which our intrepid interlocutor actually assumes in the first place, namely, that the man who “canon law says is pope” must be resisted.
The fact that the man must be resisted is evidence that he is not the pope, because the reason for his being resisted is heresy, but heresy, according to canon law, makes one lose one’s office by the act of heresy itself. This is basic canon law which all the Novus Ordos know but ignore or deny which perplexes me to Andromeda, but there you go.
I could go on with this one objection, but I have others to get to. Let me address the last bit about the pope being capable of error.
Proofs
Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?
A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.
The pope is infallible when he proclaims a doctrine to the faithful on matters of faith or morals when the conditions are met:
Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?
A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:
1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.
The pope is not infallible in every utterance.
Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?
A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything, but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.
All these being true axiomatically because the catechism teaches them, we must understand that, just because the pope is capable of error when he is not deciding a matter of faith or morals does not mean that he is capable of leading souls into error by acts other than ex cathedra. The idea is simply legalistic, absurd and contrary to the rule of faith which says that the Roman pontiff is the teacher and ruler of Christ’s Church. Were he capable of deceiving the elect into sin and damning their own souls through false teaching which falls short of doctrine, like communion for the divorced and remarried, blessings for homosexual couples, or praying with infidels, the office of the pope would be rendered meaningless and even pernicious because absolute spiritual authority would be coupled with total corruption—which is actually a really good definition of Antichrist.
Q. 528. How do you know that the Church can not err?
A. I know that the Church can not err because Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible.
But all that is fiddling while Rome is burning, which happened over sixty years ago at Vatican 2, when error and false doctrine was solemnized and promulgated ex cathedral via the universal ordinary magisterium of the would-be Catholic Church, only the See of Peter was vacated at the time so nothing actually issued from a pope.
The Vatican 2 church did err, many times in fact, promulgating heresies like the true Church of Christ subsists in but is not equal to the Catholic Church, or Muslims worship the same God as Christians, which is the denial of the Holy Trinity.
Either you deny that these are heresies, which is impossible, or you deny that the Church promulgated them. R&R deny the Church promulgated them, saying that they were not definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiff. But BC 530 states that the Church teaches infallibly when the pope and bishops are united in general council. V2 was a general council. Therefore the teachings should be trustworthy and infallible, but if you believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and Holy Trinity, you must reject Vatican 2 as heresy.
Sacramental Necessity
“We need the Sacraments.”
It is true we need the sacraments. There you can read some common questions answered. I also link to an article which discusses the sense of necessity of the sacraments and which are in fact necessary for salvation.
That article is long and tied up with a controversy that may slow things down a bit. The take away is that the Church teaches the sacraments are necessary for salvation but that, when not available, there are substitutes. There is spiritual communion for the Eucharist, spiritual confession and perfect contrition for Penance, even the ardent desire for baptism and the love of God and hatred of sin for God’s sake perfectly annihilate sin and the guilt of sin—that’s in the Summa Theologica.
The Great Monarch Will Save Us
“So you think you can’t listen to the Pope? That’s such a hopeless position! Because if there’s no possibility of electing a new pope, how long will this go on for before the world ends? No, I think the Great Monarch is coming.”
To be blunt, this is just ridiculous. I have read a book or two on prophecy and have heard of the myth of the Great Monarch but anyone who does the same and bases their belief on who is pope or not on whether there is to be an establishment of a world peace occasioned by a man on a white horse riding onto the global scene calling himself a monarch (are there even any monarchical blood lines left in the West?) is living in a Disney cartoon. The idea in the modern world is patently absurd. And this, not because I dislike monarchies! I think monarchy is the best form of government. Rather, because the objection rests on the idea of a deus ex machina, and a false one at that and one which is incongruous with how political power is structured today through democratic super powers and nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers. Anyone waiting for the “Great Monarch” would need to wait a good deal before democracies lose their hold on the world.
The true deus ex machina is not the Monarch on the White Horse but the Ancient of Days on the white clouds of glory coming to judge the living and the dead. This thing we’re living through is nothing short of the Apocalypse. I have written about it before, but perhaps readers should watch the documentary I made instead.
Even Antipopes Can Be Saints
“Did you not hear of St. Hippolytus? Goes to show even an anti-pope can be a Saint!”
This objection really got me thinking how intellectually lazy people are. It took me about three minutes to locate, read, and conclude that Saint Hippolytus was not both an anti-pope and a saint. Rather, after relenting of his idiocy and dying on the island of Sardinia afterward in penance and exile, he was then and only then honored as a saint. The account of his deeds can be read here.
The point is, Hippolytus repented of his schism and was reconciled with the Catholic Church before his death. I suppose R&R think St. Hippolytus would be on their side, “resisting Peter to his face” and all that, but that only shows that R&R people are actually at their hearts schismatics, since they identify, not with Hippolytus the Saint, but Hippolytus the Schismatic, since that is presumably why they mention him in the first place.
Hippolytus did not resist Pope Pontianus but was buried on the same day as he and honored by the Church as a fellow martyr, the proof that Hippolytus was not R&R—at least not when he became a saint.
No Priests, No Church
“You have no priests! Where’s your hierarchy? The Gates of Hell have prevailed against your “church”!”
This is one of my favorite objections because I get to actually engage in some metaphysics and quote Aquinas more than I should—I try to keep things around here BC. The argument is based upon the belief that the Church is constituted by the hierarchy, which is absolutely true. And it further depends on the way in which a Vatican Council document is read, which teaches that shepherds and teachers will exist until the end of time. I think I do a good job at addressing that argument here.
Final Thoughts
I think I do a good job of at least beginning to answer these objections, but the truth is conversion happens through prayer, study and having good conversations with people we trust. Hopefully the links I provided will get people like my reader’s R&R friend to start thinking about their position. But the best argument I can think of against R&R is simply that the position is schismatical and so heretical, because it is a denial of the dogma of Papal Primacy.
Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are.
A. The different classes of unbelievers are:
1. Atheists, who deny there is a God;
2. Deists, who admit there is a God, but deny that He revealed a religion;
3. Agnostics, who will neither admit nor deny the existence of God;
4. Infidels, who have never been baptized, and who, through want of faith, refuse to be baptized;
5. Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith;
6. Schismatics, who have been baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but do not submit to the authority of the Pope;
7. Apostates, who have rejected the true religion, in which they formerly believed, to join a false religion;
8. Rationalists and Materialists, who believe only in material things.
Catholic Eclipsed 