|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On the 5th of April in the year of Jesus Christ’s reign, 1419, St. Vincent Ferrer went to his eternal reward. His feast was ten days ago. It is remarkable how little this wonder-working saint is known in the Church, since he worked some of the greatest miracles that have been seen since the time of the Apostles. From the recent article by Matthew Plese:
Vincent traveled widely preaching and performing miracles around Europe and the Near East. He brought many Muslims and Jews into the Church… [He] is known to have raised more than thirty people from the dead.
The Old Catholic Encylcopedia elaborates:
[I]n September, 1398… an attack of fever at this time brought Vincent to death’s door, but during an apparition of Christ accompanied by St. Dominic and St. Francis he was miraculously cured and sent to preach penance and prepare men for the coming judgment. Not until November, 1399, did [antipope] Benedict [XIII] allow Vincent Ferrer to begin his apostolate, furnished with full powers of a legate a latere Christi.
For twenty years he traversed western Europe, preaching penance for sin and preparation for judgment. Provence was the first field of his apostolate; he was obliged to preach in squares and open places, such were the numbers that flocked to hear him.
…While preaching at Alexandria he singled out from among the hearers a youth who was destined to evangelize Italy, Bernadine of Siena. Another chosen soul with whom Vincent came in contact while in Italy was Margaret of Savoy. During the years 1403-4 Switzerland, Savoy, and Lyons received the missionary. He was followed by an army of penitents drawn from every rank of society, who desired to remain under his guidance. Vincent was ever watchful of his disciples, and never did the breath of scandal touch this strange assemblage, which numbered at times 10,000. Genoa, Flanders, Northern France, all heard Vincent in turn.
It would be difficult to understand how he could make himself understood by the many nationalities he evangelized, as he could speak only Limousin, the language of Valencia. Many of his biographers hold that he was endowed with the gift of tongues, an opinion supported by Nicholas Clemangis, a doctor of the University of Paris, who had heard him preach (my emphasis).
Did you notice something about this great saint? He was not in communion with the true Pope. As many saints and faithful believed at that time, God was punishing His People for its sins. First, with the great plague of the Black Death (which peaked 1346-1353 but continued into the time of Luther!), and then with the Hundred Years War (1337–1453), and most acutely with the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) and later the fall of New Rome (1453). (By the way did you notice the parallel with our own era? The Spanish Flu plague with the World Wars, and then an ecclesiastical crisis called Neo-Modernist Neo-Iconoclasm.)
St. Vincent Ferrer, perhaps the greatest saint of this era, made a mistake about the true pope. He lived during all this time adhering to what was technically a schism, and all the while working miracles, converting thousands and the Church has celebrated him ever since.
Even when St. Vincent Ferrer was forced to disobey the man whom he believed to be Pope, he still believed he was Pope!
Vincent was one of the most resolute and faithful adherents of [antipope] Benedict XIII, and by his word, sanctity, and miracles he did much to strengthen Benedict’s position. It was not until 1416, when pressed by Ferdinand, King of Aragon, that he abandoned him. On 6 January, preaching at Perpignan, he declared anew to the vast throng gathered around his pulpit that Benedict XIII was the legitimate pope, but that, since he would not resign to bring peace to the Church, Ferdinand had withdrawn his states from the obedience of Avignon. This act must have caused Vincent much sorrow, for he was deeply attached to Benedict. Nevertheless, it was thought that Vincent was the only person sufficiently esteemed to announce such a step to the Spanish races. John Dominici was more fortunate in his attempts to pave the way for reunion, when he announced to the [Ecumenical] Council of Constance the resignation of Gregory XII. Vincent did not go to the Council of Constance; he continued his apostolic journeys through France, and spent the last two years of his life in Brittany, where consciences without number were reformed and instructed in a Christian way of life.
The man whom he adhered to, Antipope Benedict XIII, was formally deposed by the Council of Constance, and the Church recognises that the new Pope Martin V was elected in 1417 while antipope Benedict was still alive. Benedict XIII maintained his claim to the papacy after St. Vincent’s life and he died shortly after the saint in 1423.
The brief sources I looked at do not indicate how St. Vincent reacted after the election of Martin V, but the old Catholic Encylopedia implies that St. Vincent, even though he was Dominican priest, did not concern himself with these “clerical questions” as much as finishing his life preaching penance to the lay faithful: “Vincent felt that he was the messenger of penance sent to prepare men for the judgment.” (If any readers can send me the sources about St. Vincent’s final years, we should all ask the question – did he die in communion with the true pope or not? Given the context, does it even matter?)
Lay People Cannot Excommunicate Each Other about Clerical Questions
What’s the point of all this? We can see from the immense sanctity of St. Vincent’s life and his canonisation that God Almighty did not hold it against him that he made an error about the true Pope. Therefore, in a time of confusion about the Papacy, lay people cannot and should not excommunicate each other like they so often do.
A lay person does not even have excommunication power, but lay people tend to excoriate each other within the same Church when one lay person fails to adhere to the same opinion as another. One lay person reads a few books and gets puffed up with knowledge, then, considering himself to be judge, jury, and Magisterium, he calls his brother a “heretic” about one of the questiones disputatae.
If a lay person does not know the difference between dogmata and questiones disputatae, he has no business setting himself up as the Magisterium. In fact, even if he knows the difference, he has no business at all claiming clerical power like that, because he’s not a cleric!
I don’t know about you, but I would rather not take upon myself the responsibility of being a “lay inquisitor” because that means my particular judgement will be more severe, as it is written: Do not be too eager, brethren, to impart instruction to others; be sure that, if we do, we shall be called to account all the more strictly (Ja. iii. 1 Knox).
Yet more, The merciless will be judged mercilessly (Ja. ii. 13 Knox). Therefore Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (Mt. v. 7).
God has shown His mercy to St. Vincent Ferrer, and thus the Church has shown him mercy and exalted him to our altars. Do we, who are great sinners, think that we will obtain mercy at our judgement who have not repented a day in our life compared to the austerities and great works of St. Vincent?
Indeed, as the Blessed Apostle declares, Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth (I Cor. viii. 1) and again, Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself (I Jn. iii. 15).
So the first point to draw from the example of St. Vincent is that mercy triumphs over judgment (Ja. ii. 13). Because of St. Vincent’s great penance, God was merciful to his error about the pope. Indeed, he was respected by all during his own lifetime, and many adhered to the wrong pope because of him. But if St. Vincent was wrong about the pope, who am I to mercilessly attack my brother on the internet if he entertains pious doubts about Pope Francis? Or if he believes in his conscience that he must resist Pope Francis? Or if… (oh the horror!) he defends Pope Francis as being entirely orthodox?
To me, any of these positions are about as bad as St. Vincent believing that Pedro de Luna was Pope Benedict XIII. Yes, I do believe that defending Pope Francis at this point is irrational. But who am I to judge my brother when someone who is much more pious and smarter than I (I’m thinking of a particular name here), still defends Pope Francis because he piously believes that Vatican One teaches the sententiam of Pighius?
On the other side, who am I to judge my brother who, having a piously formed conscience, does his best to hold fast to the Faith (and is far more theologically astute than I), and comes to the conclusion that Pope Francis has lost his office?
Thankfully, I’m not the judge. Let God Himself see, and judge.
Not I.
It is not for the lay people to judge clerical questions. Those are for the clerics to decide. I don’t need to worry about those, thanks be to God.
Sure, I’m the editor of OnePeterFive. I’m going to share my opinion. I’m going to publish the opinions of lay theologians. But I’m not going to be rigid about disputed questions. The only thing I will be rigid about is the dogmata. That’s the only thing that I can truly “judge” since I have to know these dogmata in order to save my soul and be the “first preacher of the faith to my children” (Lumen Gentium, 11).
But in reality, these dogmata do not need to be “judged” by anyone, since they have already been publicly declared to be dogmata by the Church (either definita or non definita). They have been passed down to me, a lay leader, and I am trying to pass them to down to my children, and to you, dear reader.
Dogmata are not judged or questioned by anyone who is Catholic. They are simply passed down. This is why it is controversial that the Roman Pontiff appears to be questioning dogmata. Thus our contirbuting editor Dr. Mike Sirilla said concerning the Correctio Filialis way back in 2017:
this is not a matter of private judgment regarding Mt 5 and 1 Cor 11 since the Church has publicly and definitively affirmed the interpretation that divorce and unworthy reception of Communion is gravely sinful (e.g., Trent, Vatican II, Familiaris Consortio, etc.).
So dogmata are the possession of all the faithful, lay and clerics, because he who knowingly denies a dogma will not be saved. We have to save our souls, so we must know the dogmata (again, either definita et non definita).
It’s not the same with questiones disputatae. These things are not the domain of the laity. It’s not my job to determine the intricacies of the De Auxiliis controversy, the locus of transubstantiation with Blessed Scotus, the Nature & Grace controversy, nor the “Disputed Teachings of Vatican II” nor even the dubia of Vatican One.
All of these things and more are questiones disputatae. No lay person is responsible for figuring them out in order to save his soul. That’s the responsibility of the clerics. We, as lay people (especially those of us who are not theologians, like me), can certainly give our opinions on these matters, but we should do so with reverence for the clerics, and not foolishly think we can excommunicate each other. We have no authority to do that.
The SSPX is a “Clerical Question”
I wrote recently how the question of the SSPX being in schism is by definition a “clerical question”:
I do not concern myself with “clerical questions” like whether the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction or not; or if Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was valid or not. Those are for the clerics to work out. That’s “above my pay grade” as we say in the States.
If you are a Catholic priest, celebrating a Catholic rite, in communion with Pope Francis and the local bishop, and you are preaching the Catholic Faith, I will commune at your Mass and avoid the Mass nearby which is desecrating the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament and teaching my children to do the same.
The SSPX has those things, so I will commune with them. In fact, because of those things, every Catholic already communes with them at their own Mass, of whatever rite. They are Catholic, whether you like it or not.
Why make it any more complicated than that? As a layman, that’s all there is to it. But I respect a priest who conscientiously objects.
Recently I did a podcast for the Mass of the Ages donors involving two Trad views on the SSPX: one from Eric Sammons, who opposes the 1988 Consecrations, and one from Mr. Nicholas Cavazos, who defends the 1988 Consecrations. The podcast turned out very well I think, not because of me, but because both of these men are pious and erudite. (Become a donor to access these and other such podcasts.)
But in preparation we read the recent exchange which took place between the clerics of the SSPX and the FSSP/FSVF.[1] It started with a theological treatise by the SSPX priest Jean-Michel Gleize against the FSSP, and Fr. Joseph Bisig, FSSP (with Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières, FSVF) responded with a charitable treatise against the SSPX.
It was a charitable exchange of views between clerics on the questiones disputatae.
But let me be honest with you, as we say in the States: as a layman, it was Greek to me.
The good reverend fathers wrote treatises against each other about the nature of the episcopate, jurisdiction, and other such things that I do not (and need not) understand or have any strong opinion about.
Obviously these indeed are important matters, but I know enough to say that the nature of the episcopate and jurisdiction is itself one of the questiones disputatae which was changed by Vatican II. Changed in what way, I cannot explain, since this is disputed.
But the nature of this dispute is the very essence of this debate between clerics.
All I know are these two things:
- the 1962 (or pre-55) Missal is a Catholic rite.
- in year of the reign of Jesus Christ 2025, all SSPX priests are in communion with the local bishop and Pope Francis.
These two central facts are undisputed. I don’t have to “judge” these things with my private judgement.
Moreover, the Pope himself is in communion with every SSPX priest – who am I to refuse to commune with an SSPX priest? In order to refuse communion with SSPX priest like this, I would have to make myself my own Pope (but I’ll return to that in a moment).
Anything more than these two facts brings me into places for which my catechism did not prepare me. Anything more than this is disputed by clerics with PhDs. I don’t have any authority to have any strong opinion on the matter, much less excommunicate a lay person or much, much less judge a cleric about such things!
So I will commune at the SSPX because, unless I have manifest evidence otherwise, the SSPX priests and bishops do everything they can to not only remain in communion with the local bishop and Pope, but operate under his jurisdiction. Thus in some places the SSPX is more or less in “full communion” (i.e. canonical jurisdiction). Even the (then) local bishop of St. Marys, Kansas conceded that the faithful can “canonically” attend the largest (new) Catholic Church in North America for their Sunday Mass… even though it’s SSPX.
There are Sedes who Make Themselves the Pope
Recently our contributing editor Peter Kwasniewski explained that he would not engage with “Novus Ordo Watch”:
People are asking me if I will respond to Novus Ordo Watch’s attempt at refuting my position on the permissibility of praying with the pre-55 Roman Rite (and, more generally, my position on the limits of papal authority with regard to liturgical tradition).
My answer is no: I do not engage sedevacantists.
Their understanding of papal authority is dominated by the approximately 150-year period since Vatican I (they rarely cite documents prior to “Pastor Aeternus”), i.e., the period of peak ultramontanism, which has tended to morph into a hyperpapalism contrary to both faith and reason.
If the price of “perfect obedience to the all-powerful pope” is the necessity of holding that the See of Rome has been empty since Pius XII, then I’m not remotely interested.
It is not I but Novus Ordo Watch that has effectively founded a new “Catholicism without the Pope” (or a “Catholicism only with a Pope of our own tailor-made specifications,” which, I would submit, amounts to the same thing), and I will have nothing to do with it.
(And yes, I’m well aware that my comments will unleash a further barrage of anti-Kwasniewski posts; I’m not sure what such entities as Where Peter Is and Novus Ordo Watch—extremes that paradoxically meet—would do for ideas if I ever stopped writing!)
Now, first of all, I do not know a thing about Novus Ordo Watch, except that they are Sedes who believe Papa Roncalli was not elected validly, and all subsequent Popes are antipopes. By its own admission, it is a “lay-led internet apostolate.”
Ok, so in other words, this is a bunch of lay people who have excommunicated Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I.
Where is their pope? I know some Sedes have actual popes, but this particular group of Sedes at Novus Ordo Watch, instead, prays for a true pope to one day reign again.
Obviously I understand that there’s all sorts of nuance here. And further, I do not condemn these or any Sedes as “not Catholic.” They are indeed my Catholic brethren, and as far as I know, and they are doing their best to be Catholic and keep the Faith in a time of confusion, same as me and same as you.
But from the looks of things, isn’t it true that they are becoming their own Pope? Do they attend a Mass which commemorates the local Bishop and Pope Francis? By all appearances, they do not (correct me if I’m wrong by email, Mr. Novus Ordo Watch).
So what this amounts to is lay people excommunicating clerics and finding other clerics who will set up altars which do not commune with the local bishop or the Pope.
If you take this action, you are saying that you have the authority to judge a disputed matter more than the clerics. If you take this action, you are setting yourself up as the Pope and the worldwide episcopate.
And if I understand him correctly, this is why Peter Kwasniewski does not “engage with sedevacantists.”
It’s hard, as a lay person, to talk to someone who acts like he’s the Pope but denies that he acts like this.
If I have a conversation with a fellow Catholic, and he de facto excommunicates me with all his citations from his Papal encyclicals, what is my answer to that? I simply do not have the authority to judge that any Pope has lost his office. The only thing I can do is proclaim the dogmata, like I said. The concept of a Pope losing his office is itself one of the questiones disputatae.
As I wrote about when Fr. Altman went Sede, “The Question of a Heretical Pope Has Not been Definitively Resolved.” And that’s a fact. I challenge every Sede right now to produce a manifestly definitive act of any pope or council which has bound all the faithful to any opinion about this disputed question.
They cannot produce such a text, so therefore they have to make themselves the Pope. I quoted Kwasniewski then and I’ll quote him again:
I do not believe that the ordinary faithful are competent to adjudicate when God has stripped a pope of the papal office owing to formal heresy… It is one thing to raise doubts and difficulties about Benedict XVI’s abdication and Francis’s apparent heresies, leaving the final determination to a future pope or ecumenical council; it is quite another to decide, on one’s own, or as a part of a small “remnant,” that one may cease to recognize as pope the one who is virtually unanimously and universally recognized as pope.[2]
So you’ve made yourself the pope to judge this disputed teaching that previously popes have failed to definitively resolve? No thanks, I don’t want to engage with you. I’m only a layman and I can’t argue with you, since you’re acting like the Pope, and yet you can’t see that you’re acting that way.
The Case of John Lamont and Edmund Mazza
Now, let me contrast this with Dr. John R. T. Lamont and Dr. Edmund Mazza, both of whom we’ve published here at OnePeterFive. I first met Dr. Mazza several years ago and found out that he maintained doubts about Francis’s pontificate. At that time I asked him: “where do you commune?” He said he attended the Norbertine TLM in Orange County, which is in communion with the local bishop and the Pope. Therefore, he has pious doubts, but he submits his judgment to the clerical authority who alone has the competency to judge that. He has not gone off and set up his own altar and foolishly excommunicated any cleric.
Same with John Lamont. I asked him a few months ago when we published him where he communed. He confirmed he also communed with the local Mass which is in communion with his local bishop and Pope Francis. (He gave me permission to share publicly this private email exchange). So Dr. Lamont, even though he believes Pope Francis has lost his office, also does not go off and build his own altar and get his own cleric and excommunicate the Bishop and the Pope.
This tells me that Lamont and Mazza, despite being lay people themselves, are leaving the definitive judgment of this matter where it belongs – with the clerics. For me, I’m not convinced by Lamont and Mazza’s arguments, but I acknowledge that they build a reasonable and pious case for sedevacantism. Nevertheless, who am I to judge that the Pope has lost his office? As I said recently: “Unless something definitive happens – like the death of Pope Francis, an ‘Imperfect Council,’ or some other act of God – we will still accept Pope Francis as the Roman pontiff.”
Lay people can rest assured that we don’t need to work all this out for our salvation. Yes, it is important to investigate these things, but it’s not like Novus Ordo Watch seems to say: you have to get a PhD and form a definitive opinion about these questiones disputatae or you will go to hell! (Dear Mr. Novus Ordo Watch: forgive me if I’m straw manning your position. If I am, I’m honestly not doing it intentionally. I really am not familiar with your work. This is merely what your work appears to say!).
Do you think God rigorously judged all the faithful who were confused about the Pope during the Great Western Schism because they picked the wrong Pope? Of course not. That’s a clerical question. Let the faithful move on to pray, do penance, and save their souls, and leave the clerical questions to the clerics.
In the meantime, we as lay people need to keep the bond of charity between ourselves, not excommunicate each other. Otherwise, no matter how perfect our Latin Mass is, if it is offered without charity for our brother, it is a stench in the nostrils of God Almighty (Is. i).
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift (Mt. v. 22-24).
T. S. Flanders
Editor
Holy & Great Tuesday
[1] Jean-Michel Gleize, “Pie XII et l’épiscopat,” et al. in Courrier de Rome 655 (July-August, 2022); Joseph Bisig & Louis-Marie de Blignières, “A Look Back at the Consecrations of June 30, 1988,” Sedes Sapientiae (Arouca Press, 2024), no. 2, 88-95.
[2] Peter A. Kwasniewski, The Road from Hyperpapalism to Catholicism (Arouca Press, 2022), vol. 1, xiii, xiv.