A good confirmation of what Hilary White is teaching here is found in a casual reading of just about any classic devotional book from the Church's history. Take Introduction to the Devout Life for example. You can read this great work from cover to cover and perhaps not be aware that there even is a sovereign pope if you didn't otherwise know.
Is this to be taken as evidence of St. Francis de Sales' disregard of, or possible disobedience to authority? It would seem to be so if we go only by the current day treatment of the pope and his bearing on life in the Church. The mind of the current day Catholic becomes anxious and impatient - it wants to know where you stand on the pope! De Sales didn't pledge fidelity to the pope as part of his method, not even once, why is he even Catholic?
Thank you for this history and analysis. I appreciated the contextualization of the facts all the more because I am French. The Republic is the only official religion I have ever known. And that is why I like to think of myself as an ultramontanist.
Not out of any firm conviction, nor out of posturing or ideology. Simply because the intermediate structures (although still active) are not very accessible to people like me, returning to the faith without belonging to the traditional Catholic categories (Scouts, private schools, farmers, etc.).
So, without rejecting those structures, I see the Pope as a point of reference for those who have no other landmarks. The pomp of the Vatican and the Roman Tradition are not ultimate ends in themselves, but rather a cradle for boats under repair.
And coming together around a man (who remains a man, and is understood as such) seems to me, in any case, far more useful to the New Evangelization than the debates (interesting as they may be) that divide our Church.
Hilary correctly rejects the idea that a pope can make contradictions true, but she stops one step before the decisive conclusion. A true pope may err privately, prudentially, or outside the conditions of infallibility; he cannot use the Apostolic See to bind the universal Church to false doctrine, false worship, or disciplines destructive of souls.
That protection is not papolatry—it belongs to the Church’s indefectibility. If the revolution truly came from the top, the answer is not to reduce the papacy until the revolution fits inside it, but to examine whether the revolutionaries ever possessed lawful papal title.
The machinery established to guard Tradition did not dismantle Tradition. Men claiming its controls did. The unanswered question remains: were they truly sent and lawfully seated—or merely materially occupying the apparatus?
Hilary, labeling the conclusion silly is easier than answering the argument. I accepted Pastor Aeternus as Catholic dogma and asked how its protections can be reconciled with the Apostolic See allegedly imposing false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline.
That is not trying to sell you anything; it is following your own historical thesis to its ecclesiological consequence. If your British reserve intentionally left that consequence unstated, then we may be nearer than you think. If not, the question remains unanswered.
In either case, Never mind is not much of a theological refutation.
Americans tend to think that a point isn’t being made if they’re not being hammered over the head with it. Stopping short of making the point is a way of showing respect for the intellectual abilities of readers to reach the obvious conclusion themselves. It’s a British thing, understatement, letting the punchline be unspoken… reserve.
Likewise for the Orthodox, guardianshipnof tradition is not centralized in just one man or office, but in the Church as a whole. Can you imagine, say, the Patriarch of Constantinople declaring that he's changing the Liturgy of St John C or St Basil? He'd be laughed at, ignored, or be stoned depending on the location. That would be our manifestation of the sensus fidelium, not "let's survey the laity about their feelings re: contraception." If anything, that centralization process of the Papacy Hilary describes had many negative effects, not the least of which was an emasculation of the sensus fidelium. The laity were taught to outsouce completely their guardianship co-responsibilty to the priestly, managerial class and hierarchy. Clericalism and papal centralization atrophied the ownership muscle of the laity of their own liturgical patrimony (over the centuries separated from us) to the point that, by Vatican II, "pay,pray and obey" was all they were told they had to do. Hence, very little fuss when the NO was imposed upon them. And they had no recourse, because of the new faith requirement to submit to the Pope at Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus and confirmed at Vatican II. And it's a canard tonspeal of PA putting limits on the Pope, just read it. Pastor Aeternus had, as an acorn grows into the oak, all the DNA to develop into the progressive Papalotry machine we have today. Hilary, you give PA a pass, you whitewash it. If PA was truly dogma, would you have all this disastrous fruit?
I don’t give anything “a pass”. I think I made the connection between Pastor A. and our current troubles perfectly clear and central to the discussion. I didn’t get into the details, because I wasn’t ready to write another 8000 word essay on it.
What I’m not qualified to do is make a judgement of whether it was “dogma” or not. It is the accepted dogma of the Catholic Church. That’s just a historical fact. This is not polemical work in which I set myself up as a judge of the rightness or wrongness of any of it. I have no authority to say PA was not dogmatic. What would be the point? Should I just set up my own personal church?
I’m not Orthodox, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to become Orthodox. If you can’t or won’t accept the parameters of the discussion - PA is formally declared dogma of the Catholic Church - I don’t see the point in a comment like this. I’m writing a historical survey of what happened, not how things ought to be in my own personal fevered imagination.
I don’t think it’s a simple case of ‘disastrous fruit’ of a single declaration in 1870. The whole point of writing all three of these essays, taking it back to the 17th century, was to show there is a long painful root to it all, going back centuries. PA was just one decision, the most recent, along the way, a reaction to a culmination of 300 years of immense pressures.
If you’ve got a personal bee in your Orthodox bonnet about infallibility or Pastor Aeternus or anything else, I suggest you do your own writing on it. This isn’t about you.
Well, I certainly don't mean to offend, and apologize for having done so. I can't disassociate myself from my opinions, and if I posit that I am open to be persuaded in this space to something other or more refined or accurate than what I hold right now, I assume others are as well. I appreciate the opportunity to learn, dialogue and influence in this space, and am grateful for your analysis, hard work and willingess to engage.
Hilary, I do not dispute that Pastor Aeternus is Catholic dogma, nor am I proposing an Orthodox alternative or a personal church. My point proceeds precisely from accepting the definition.
Your historical account may explain how centralized machinery enabled a revolution to spread. What it cannot explain is how the true Apostolic See could become the authoritative instrument for imposing false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline without contradicting the Church’s indefectibility.
That is why the claimant’s title matters. If the revolution truly came from the top, the Catholic question is not whether Pastor Aeternus went too far, but whether the men operating the machinery were truly the protected subjects of its definition. That is an application of Catholic dogma, not a rejection of it.
Hilary, that is a verdict, not an argument. I presented a precise Catholic contradiction: either the Apostolic See imposed false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline upon the Church, or the men responsible were not protected subjects of the papal office they claimed.
Calling the second conclusion irrational does nothing to reconcile the first with indefectibility. You traced the revolution to the top; I merely asked whether the revolutionaries lawfully occupied it. If reality refutes that question, demonstrate how. Dismissing it only confirms where your historical analysis stops.
Ah yes, Sede "reasoning". Listen to and agree with my fevered bloviating or you're in denial. Not playing along. Arguing with a sede is playing chess with a pigeon.
Are you sure that photo of JP2 with that crowd is not him performing at Glastonbury, promoting his latest album: Abbà Pater (1999), an album of symphonic and new-age music featuring the late Pope reciting prayers and passages.
The first time a Pope really became a global Popestar. Globalism: ecclesial-style.
The pontificate of John Paul II, the alleged 'Great' as some wanted to style him, was a disaster and a 100% con job. I say that as one who spent half of my life falling for it, and spent another decade learning how to admit to myself that I had been completely bamboozled.
It’s amazing how one can be proclaimed Saint by bypassing the usual protocols. Remember that it was JP2 who streamlined the canonization process. He did a lot of streamlining. The streamlining pope.
Making saints: how does the canonisation process work?
Excerpt from article: The procedures defined by the 1917 Code of Canon Law remained in place until Pope Paul VI modified them in March 1969 in his motu proprio Sanctitas clarior, simplifying the norms for beatification. Instead of repeating the informative process on both episcopal and Roman levels, the pope called for the diocesan bishop to initiate the process once it received approval of the Holy See.
While the canonisation process has seen significant development over time, the work of St John Paul II (r. 1978–2005) not only produced the largest number of beatified and canonised individuals of any papacy in history, but also further streamlined the canonisation process, with a comprehensively revised and simplified system introduced in 1983.
You’re not the only one who fell for it. One should have known something was not right, just due to the amount of attention and media coverage he was given. You can clearly see the established media was promoting him. Why? Why would secular global media promote any pope on that scale? What’s the point? His whole election, then getting shot at the same time as Reagan, his being touted as a politically influential and effective pope. All that just looks as though he is serving an agenda, and not a holy one at that.
Of course, one did not have the information they do now, to see what was going on or to at least have some doubts. Anyway, that’s just me.
People now don't appreciate just how much JP2 was propped up by the secular media back then. I remember Carl Bernstein, the guy who helped bring down Nixon of all people, writing this glowing biography of him back in the '90s that sold the idea that he had brought down Communism. Then you had a famous Saturday Night Live moment where Sinead O'Connor burned his picture and got backlash like you wouldn't believe. Then Joe Pesci goes on the next week and burns a picture of Sinead O'Connor, and everybody cheers. It was crazy. And it was all entirely canned and fake. Nobody was being converted to Christ. In fact quite the opposite.
It could be kind of a mixed bag with him. I guess I was really young then, but what what I remember is that during the Reagan eighties he didn't get all that much negative coverage. When it seemed to change, at least in my opinion, is with the cultural shift of the ‘90s to the New Left running everything in the US. The Cold War ending, Bill Clinton coming into office, and the entire media/Hollywood/Democratic party political apparatus turning fanatically in favor of all abortion all the time, along with the early stages of aggressively promoting homosexuality. That's when the tide turned against him. But that's just me.
Speaking of insane things professional internet pope-splainers have said, one has claimed that Catholics would be obliged to assent to a papal teaching that the Trinity has four members (yes, that's Palmarian levels of heretical nonsense) or to admit that Catholic Faith is false. Another has claimed that Catholics would be required to assent to women's ordination to the priesthood. Andrew Likoudis and Mike Lewis respectively.
HIlary, thank you for your series. It's a fascinating study that fills in a lot of gaps of things I've picked up, thought about, etc. in bits and pieces over the years. The real money question at this point, though, is: where on God's green earth do we go from here??
Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat for most of his early life and political career before officially switching to the Republican Party in 1962.
Early Democratic Years
Supported Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal
Campaigned and voted for Democratic candidates through the 1940s and 1950s
Served as head of the Screen Actors Guild, leaning liberal on many domestic labor issues at the time
As governor of California, Ronald Reagan made UC Berkeley a primary target. He campaigned on a promise to "clean up the mess at Berkeley", cracked down on anti-war and student activists, cut university funding, and deployed the National Guard to suppress campus demonstrations.
Political Campaign and Rhetoric
The 1966 Campaign: Reagan launched his successful run for governor by condemning student activism against the Vietnam War draft, civil rights demonstrations, and counterculture movements, calling them "rioting" and "anarchy" rather than free speech.
Blaming Faculty: He accused university leaders and professors of failing to maintain moral standards and allowing campuses to descend into lawlessness.
Policy Actions and Confrontations
Budget Cuts: As governor, he pushed for strict budget cuts to the University of California system and attempted to impose tuition fees to curb what he viewed as idle student radicalism.]
Firing of Clark Kerr: He pressured the regents of the University of California, Berkeley and supported the ouster of UC system president Clark Kerr, whom Reagan felt was too soft on protestors.
The People’s Park Crackdown (1969): During massive protests over People’s Park—which blended anti-war sentiment, counterculture, and free speech—Reagan sent in 2,300 National Guard troops, highway patrol officers, and military helicopters that dropped tear gas on the campus.
One wonders what the way out of the morass looks like. The Church is ever tempted towards centralizing power, either for itself directly and independently of secular powers, or through alignment with secular powers who help impose a top-down order. This temptation is natural, given the way the secular world often preys on the Church. If the centralizing leaders are otherwise virtuous and aligned with Christ, this can be beneficial so long as those leaders are alive and using their power to remove genuine rot within, but no leader is ever perfect (JPII chose not to see things he did not want to see), and a flawed or corrupt leader can later take those mechanisms and do immense harm instead.
Those who then seek to undo that harm often then fall into the trap of romanticizing the notion that they must get "their man" or "their people" back in charge of the machine, without suspecting that the machine itself may be the bigger problem - this only magnifies the problems of centralization and turns reform attempts into power battles. Or else they veer into revolutionary madness and try to raze everything to the ground (and we've seen too often where that leads). What are the odds on getting reformers who are willing and able to unwind power?
I seriously don’t know. I know we’ve reached a dead end on the current trajectory. And I intuit that whatever the solution is, it won’t be possible without East/West reunification. The Vulcans and the Romulans have to get back together or we’re all doomed.
That's a difficult subject unto itself, in no small part because of the different ways the Orthodox view authority, the bridging of which is going to be key to any re-establishment of communion (the other theological matters are of course significant too, but your series has focussed on authority so I'll stick to that).
Very often the Roman Catholic case can be reduced to some form of "recognize Rome as the head of the Church". To which the Orthodox response is some form of asking "what exactly do you mean by that?" The answers to that question have been unhelpful. Your series has shown some reasons for the concerns with regards to Papal centralizations, but there's also the issue that authority itself, in the Orthodox churches, functions very differently just in itself, and even between episcopal jurisdictions.
As a case in point, there was a story I heard recently about a prior Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV.
I’ll spare the long setup, but for context the Orthodox churches are decentralized, especially outside of their historic territories, and in North America we have several jurisdictions, each under a different Patriarch.
The Antiochian Church acquired a large tract of land in Pennsylvania in the 1970s, then built up a youth camp, and later added a conference center for other gatherings (basically a big hotel). Patriarch Ignatius IV was invited to the opening of the conference center. When he arrived, he noticed that the hotel had, in addition to other vending machines for guests, a cigarette vending machine too (this was the early 80s after all). He was not pleased, and said as much. The presiding local bishop said “I’m so sorry, but if you instruct, I’ll remove it immediately.” Ignatius shook his head and shrugged, then replied “I am not the bishop here, this is not my see, I do not have that authority.” He was the Patriarch, essentially the “Pope of Antioch”, yet said he lacked the authority to tell one of his bishops what to do in that bishop’s own territory.
And that very different concept of authority, writ large, is part of the obstacle to a restoration of communion. Authority is understood very differently.
Skip, I think the first distinction is between excessive administrative centralization and the papal authority Christ placed in the Church. The former is prudential and may become dangerous; the latter is part of her divine constitution and cannot be treated as a defective machine requiring dismantlement.
The real problem is not that Peter possesses too much authority, but that men without Peter’s lawful title can capture the machinery and exercise power without its divine protection or limitations. The answer is therefore neither getting our man in charge nor unwinding the papacy. It is restoration of demonstrably lawful authority—bound to guard the deposit rather than empowered to revise it.
The way out is not less of the Church’s constitution, but the constitution restored in truth: lawful mission, real subsidiarity, and authority understood as custody rather than sovereignty.
I would disagree that the administrative centralization has been prudential. Historically, the Church was significantly more conciliar, with the understanding that bishops had much more actual discretion within their own territories, and likewise could gather to oppose Papal abuses or foolishness. By what means can "men without Peter’s lawful title" be discerned and removed or resisted?
"The answer is therefore neither getting our man in charge nor unwinding the papacy. It is restoration of demonstrably lawful authority—bound to guard the deposit rather than empowered to revise it."
In that context I ask, what exactly does a "demonstrably lawful authority" look like, practically speaking? I ask because I'm not sure how that works aside from going back to the "getting the right people in charge".
Skip, I agree that administrative centralization has often exceeded what prudence required; my point was that its degree is prudential, not that every historical increase was prudent.
Demonstrably lawful authority means more than getting people we prefer into power. It requires public juridical title: a pope lawfully elected and accepted according to the Church’s constitution, professing the Catholic Faith; and bishops possessing canonical mission derived through him. Personal orthodoxy, valid orders, popular support, occupation of buildings, or practical usefulness cannot substitute for that title.
As to how false claimants are removed or resisted: Catholics may recognize public contradictions with the Faith and refuse participation in false worship, but they cannot create a tribunal, hierarchy, or replacement pope from below. I do not claim to know the precise historical means by which lawful authority will be restored. Our inability to produce that mechanism does not authorize us to manufacture jurisdiction now.
So restoration does require the right men in office—but men who acquire office by the Church’s lawful constitution, not simply our men taking control of the machine. That difference is the entire question.
Excellent, vibrant, east to read! Vintage, classic Hilary White. Thank you for this.
A good confirmation of what Hilary White is teaching here is found in a casual reading of just about any classic devotional book from the Church's history. Take Introduction to the Devout Life for example. You can read this great work from cover to cover and perhaps not be aware that there even is a sovereign pope if you didn't otherwise know.
Is this to be taken as evidence of St. Francis de Sales' disregard of, or possible disobedience to authority? It would seem to be so if we go only by the current day treatment of the pope and his bearing on life in the Church. The mind of the current day Catholic becomes anxious and impatient - it wants to know where you stand on the pope! De Sales didn't pledge fidelity to the pope as part of his method, not even once, why is he even Catholic?
Thank you for this history and analysis. I appreciated the contextualization of the facts all the more because I am French. The Republic is the only official religion I have ever known. And that is why I like to think of myself as an ultramontanist.
Not out of any firm conviction, nor out of posturing or ideology. Simply because the intermediate structures (although still active) are not very accessible to people like me, returning to the faith without belonging to the traditional Catholic categories (Scouts, private schools, farmers, etc.).
So, without rejecting those structures, I see the Pope as a point of reference for those who have no other landmarks. The pomp of the Vatican and the Roman Tradition are not ultimate ends in themselves, but rather a cradle for boats under repair.
And coming together around a man (who remains a man, and is understood as such) seems to me, in any case, far more useful to the New Evangelization than the debates (interesting as they may be) that divide our Church.
Hilary correctly rejects the idea that a pope can make contradictions true, but she stops one step before the decisive conclusion. A true pope may err privately, prudentially, or outside the conditions of infallibility; he cannot use the Apostolic See to bind the universal Church to false doctrine, false worship, or disciplines destructive of souls.
That protection is not papolatry—it belongs to the Church’s indefectibility. If the revolution truly came from the top, the answer is not to reduce the papacy until the revolution fits inside it, but to examine whether the revolutionaries ever possessed lawful papal title.
The machinery established to guard Tradition did not dismantle Tradition. Men claiming its controls did. The unanswered question remains: were they truly sent and lawfully seated—or merely materially occupying the apparatus?
Ohhhhhh I see…
You’re a sede, and you’re trying to sell your silly idea. Never mind.
Hilary, labeling the conclusion silly is easier than answering the argument. I accepted Pastor Aeternus as Catholic dogma and asked how its protections can be reconciled with the Apostolic See allegedly imposing false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline.
That is not trying to sell you anything; it is following your own historical thesis to its ecclesiological consequence. If your British reserve intentionally left that consequence unstated, then we may be nearer than you think. If not, the question remains unanswered.
In either case, Never mind is not much of a theological refutation.
Americans tend to think that a point isn’t being made if they’re not being hammered over the head with it. Stopping short of making the point is a way of showing respect for the intellectual abilities of readers to reach the obvious conclusion themselves. It’s a British thing, understatement, letting the punchline be unspoken… reserve.
Likewise for the Orthodox, guardianshipnof tradition is not centralized in just one man or office, but in the Church as a whole. Can you imagine, say, the Patriarch of Constantinople declaring that he's changing the Liturgy of St John C or St Basil? He'd be laughed at, ignored, or be stoned depending on the location. That would be our manifestation of the sensus fidelium, not "let's survey the laity about their feelings re: contraception." If anything, that centralization process of the Papacy Hilary describes had many negative effects, not the least of which was an emasculation of the sensus fidelium. The laity were taught to outsouce completely their guardianship co-responsibilty to the priestly, managerial class and hierarchy. Clericalism and papal centralization atrophied the ownership muscle of the laity of their own liturgical patrimony (over the centuries separated from us) to the point that, by Vatican II, "pay,pray and obey" was all they were told they had to do. Hence, very little fuss when the NO was imposed upon them. And they had no recourse, because of the new faith requirement to submit to the Pope at Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus and confirmed at Vatican II. And it's a canard tonspeal of PA putting limits on the Pope, just read it. Pastor Aeternus had, as an acorn grows into the oak, all the DNA to develop into the progressive Papalotry machine we have today. Hilary, you give PA a pass, you whitewash it. If PA was truly dogma, would you have all this disastrous fruit?
I don’t give anything “a pass”. I think I made the connection between Pastor A. and our current troubles perfectly clear and central to the discussion. I didn’t get into the details, because I wasn’t ready to write another 8000 word essay on it.
What I’m not qualified to do is make a judgement of whether it was “dogma” or not. It is the accepted dogma of the Catholic Church. That’s just a historical fact. This is not polemical work in which I set myself up as a judge of the rightness or wrongness of any of it. I have no authority to say PA was not dogmatic. What would be the point? Should I just set up my own personal church?
I’m not Orthodox, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to become Orthodox. If you can’t or won’t accept the parameters of the discussion - PA is formally declared dogma of the Catholic Church - I don’t see the point in a comment like this. I’m writing a historical survey of what happened, not how things ought to be in my own personal fevered imagination.
I don’t think it’s a simple case of ‘disastrous fruit’ of a single declaration in 1870. The whole point of writing all three of these essays, taking it back to the 17th century, was to show there is a long painful root to it all, going back centuries. PA was just one decision, the most recent, along the way, a reaction to a culmination of 300 years of immense pressures.
If you’ve got a personal bee in your Orthodox bonnet about infallibility or Pastor Aeternus or anything else, I suggest you do your own writing on it. This isn’t about you.
Well, I certainly don't mean to offend, and apologize for having done so. I can't disassociate myself from my opinions, and if I posit that I am open to be persuaded in this space to something other or more refined or accurate than what I hold right now, I assume others are as well. I appreciate the opportunity to learn, dialogue and influence in this space, and am grateful for your analysis, hard work and willingess to engage.
Hilary, I do not dispute that Pastor Aeternus is Catholic dogma, nor am I proposing an Orthodox alternative or a personal church. My point proceeds precisely from accepting the definition.
Your historical account may explain how centralized machinery enabled a revolution to spread. What it cannot explain is how the true Apostolic See could become the authoritative instrument for imposing false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline without contradicting the Church’s indefectibility.
That is why the claimant’s title matters. If the revolution truly came from the top, the Catholic question is not whether Pastor Aeternus went too far, but whether the men operating the machinery were truly the protected subjects of its definition. That is an application of Catholic dogma, not a rejection of it.
Sede'ism is irrational fantasism, having no relation to history because having no relation to reality.
Hilary, that is a verdict, not an argument. I presented a precise Catholic contradiction: either the Apostolic See imposed false doctrine, false worship, and destructive universal discipline upon the Church, or the men responsible were not protected subjects of the papal office they claimed.
Calling the second conclusion irrational does nothing to reconcile the first with indefectibility. You traced the revolution to the top; I merely asked whether the revolutionaries lawfully occupied it. If reality refutes that question, demonstrate how. Dismissing it only confirms where your historical analysis stops.
Ah yes, Sede "reasoning". Listen to and agree with my fevered bloviating or you're in denial. Not playing along. Arguing with a sede is playing chess with a pigeon.
Are you sure that photo of JP2 with that crowd is not him performing at Glastonbury, promoting his latest album: Abbà Pater (1999), an album of symphonic and new-age music featuring the late Pope reciting prayers and passages.
The first time a Pope really became a global Popestar. Globalism: ecclesial-style.
Here’s the Pope’s discography, 31 albums.
https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/pope_john_paul_ii
The pontificate of John Paul II, the alleged 'Great' as some wanted to style him, was a disaster and a 100% con job. I say that as one who spent half of my life falling for it, and spent another decade learning how to admit to myself that I had been completely bamboozled.
It’s amazing how one can be proclaimed Saint by bypassing the usual protocols. Remember that it was JP2 who streamlined the canonization process. He did a lot of streamlining. The streamlining pope.
Making saints: how does the canonisation process work?
https://melbournecatholic.org/news/making-saints-how-does-the-canonisation-process-work
Excerpt from article: The procedures defined by the 1917 Code of Canon Law remained in place until Pope Paul VI modified them in March 1969 in his motu proprio Sanctitas clarior, simplifying the norms for beatification. Instead of repeating the informative process on both episcopal and Roman levels, the pope called for the diocesan bishop to initiate the process once it received approval of the Holy See.
While the canonisation process has seen significant development over time, the work of St John Paul II (r. 1978–2005) not only produced the largest number of beatified and canonised individuals of any papacy in history, but also further streamlined the canonisation process, with a comprehensively revised and simplified system introduced in 1983.
The Magic Pope Wand can do anything.
You’re not the only one who fell for it. One should have known something was not right, just due to the amount of attention and media coverage he was given. You can clearly see the established media was promoting him. Why? Why would secular global media promote any pope on that scale? What’s the point? His whole election, then getting shot at the same time as Reagan, his being touted as a politically influential and effective pope. All that just looks as though he is serving an agenda, and not a holy one at that.
Of course, one did not have the information they do now, to see what was going on or to at least have some doubts. Anyway, that’s just me.
People now don't appreciate just how much JP2 was propped up by the secular media back then. I remember Carl Bernstein, the guy who helped bring down Nixon of all people, writing this glowing biography of him back in the '90s that sold the idea that he had brought down Communism. Then you had a famous Saturday Night Live moment where Sinead O'Connor burned his picture and got backlash like you wouldn't believe. Then Joe Pesci goes on the next week and burns a picture of Sinead O'Connor, and everybody cheers. It was crazy. And it was all entirely canned and fake. Nobody was being converted to Christ. In fact quite the opposite.
And it’s a funny thing, bcs I remember that they also hated and villified him.
It could be kind of a mixed bag with him. I guess I was really young then, but what what I remember is that during the Reagan eighties he didn't get all that much negative coverage. When it seemed to change, at least in my opinion, is with the cultural shift of the ‘90s to the New Left running everything in the US. The Cold War ending, Bill Clinton coming into office, and the entire media/Hollywood/Democratic party political apparatus turning fanatically in favor of all abortion all the time, along with the early stages of aggressively promoting homosexuality. That's when the tide turned against him. But that's just me.
You could just write your own articles, instead of spamming mine.
Speaking of insane things professional internet pope-splainers have said, one has claimed that Catholics would be obliged to assent to a papal teaching that the Trinity has four members (yes, that's Palmarian levels of heretical nonsense) or to admit that Catholic Faith is false. Another has claimed that Catholics would be required to assent to women's ordination to the priesthood. Andrew Likoudis and Mike Lewis respectively.
HIlary, thank you for your series. It's a fascinating study that fills in a lot of gaps of things I've picked up, thought about, etc. in bits and pieces over the years. The real money question at this point, though, is: where on God's green earth do we go from here??
Cannot comment Ms Hilary has blocked me. She thinks that the murders of Forrestal and Mccarthy are spamming, as too the ousting of Nixon.
Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat for most of his early life and political career before officially switching to the Republican Party in 1962.
Early Democratic Years
Supported Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal
Campaigned and voted for Democratic candidates through the 1940s and 1950s
Served as head of the Screen Actors Guild, leaning liberal on many domestic labor issues at the time
As governor of California, Ronald Reagan made UC Berkeley a primary target. He campaigned on a promise to "clean up the mess at Berkeley", cracked down on anti-war and student activists, cut university funding, and deployed the National Guard to suppress campus demonstrations.
Political Campaign and Rhetoric
The 1966 Campaign: Reagan launched his successful run for governor by condemning student activism against the Vietnam War draft, civil rights demonstrations, and counterculture movements, calling them "rioting" and "anarchy" rather than free speech.
Blaming Faculty: He accused university leaders and professors of failing to maintain moral standards and allowing campuses to descend into lawlessness.
Policy Actions and Confrontations
Budget Cuts: As governor, he pushed for strict budget cuts to the University of California system and attempted to impose tuition fees to curb what he viewed as idle student radicalism.]
Firing of Clark Kerr: He pressured the regents of the University of California, Berkeley and supported the ouster of UC system president Clark Kerr, whom Reagan felt was too soft on protestors.
The People’s Park Crackdown (1969): During massive protests over People’s Park—which blended anti-war sentiment, counterculture, and free speech—Reagan sent in 2,300 National Guard troops, highway patrol officers, and military helicopters that dropped tear gas on the campus.
Do you get it now?
No. I don't.
Nevermind. Some people never get it, and some do. That's just the way it goes.
Well ok then.
I wish the problem could be fixed without something apocalyptic happening to the machine, but I just don't see it. Excellent article. Thank you.
One wonders what the way out of the morass looks like. The Church is ever tempted towards centralizing power, either for itself directly and independently of secular powers, or through alignment with secular powers who help impose a top-down order. This temptation is natural, given the way the secular world often preys on the Church. If the centralizing leaders are otherwise virtuous and aligned with Christ, this can be beneficial so long as those leaders are alive and using their power to remove genuine rot within, but no leader is ever perfect (JPII chose not to see things he did not want to see), and a flawed or corrupt leader can later take those mechanisms and do immense harm instead.
Those who then seek to undo that harm often then fall into the trap of romanticizing the notion that they must get "their man" or "their people" back in charge of the machine, without suspecting that the machine itself may be the bigger problem - this only magnifies the problems of centralization and turns reform attempts into power battles. Or else they veer into revolutionary madness and try to raze everything to the ground (and we've seen too often where that leads). What are the odds on getting reformers who are willing and able to unwind power?
I seriously don’t know. I know we’ve reached a dead end on the current trajectory. And I intuit that whatever the solution is, it won’t be possible without East/West reunification. The Vulcans and the Romulans have to get back together or we’re all doomed.
That's a difficult subject unto itself, in no small part because of the different ways the Orthodox view authority, the bridging of which is going to be key to any re-establishment of communion (the other theological matters are of course significant too, but your series has focussed on authority so I'll stick to that).
Very often the Roman Catholic case can be reduced to some form of "recognize Rome as the head of the Church". To which the Orthodox response is some form of asking "what exactly do you mean by that?" The answers to that question have been unhelpful. Your series has shown some reasons for the concerns with regards to Papal centralizations, but there's also the issue that authority itself, in the Orthodox churches, functions very differently just in itself, and even between episcopal jurisdictions.
As a case in point, there was a story I heard recently about a prior Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV.
I’ll spare the long setup, but for context the Orthodox churches are decentralized, especially outside of their historic territories, and in North America we have several jurisdictions, each under a different Patriarch.
The Antiochian Church acquired a large tract of land in Pennsylvania in the 1970s, then built up a youth camp, and later added a conference center for other gatherings (basically a big hotel). Patriarch Ignatius IV was invited to the opening of the conference center. When he arrived, he noticed that the hotel had, in addition to other vending machines for guests, a cigarette vending machine too (this was the early 80s after all). He was not pleased, and said as much. The presiding local bishop said “I’m so sorry, but if you instruct, I’ll remove it immediately.” Ignatius shook his head and shrugged, then replied “I am not the bishop here, this is not my see, I do not have that authority.” He was the Patriarch, essentially the “Pope of Antioch”, yet said he lacked the authority to tell one of his bishops what to do in that bishop’s own territory.
And that very different concept of authority, writ large, is part of the obstacle to a restoration of communion. Authority is understood very differently.
Skip, I think the first distinction is between excessive administrative centralization and the papal authority Christ placed in the Church. The former is prudential and may become dangerous; the latter is part of her divine constitution and cannot be treated as a defective machine requiring dismantlement.
The real problem is not that Peter possesses too much authority, but that men without Peter’s lawful title can capture the machinery and exercise power without its divine protection or limitations. The answer is therefore neither getting our man in charge nor unwinding the papacy. It is restoration of demonstrably lawful authority—bound to guard the deposit rather than empowered to revise it.
The way out is not less of the Church’s constitution, but the constitution restored in truth: lawful mission, real subsidiarity, and authority understood as custody rather than sovereignty.
I would disagree that the administrative centralization has been prudential. Historically, the Church was significantly more conciliar, with the understanding that bishops had much more actual discretion within their own territories, and likewise could gather to oppose Papal abuses or foolishness. By what means can "men without Peter’s lawful title" be discerned and removed or resisted?
"The answer is therefore neither getting our man in charge nor unwinding the papacy. It is restoration of demonstrably lawful authority—bound to guard the deposit rather than empowered to revise it."
In that context I ask, what exactly does a "demonstrably lawful authority" look like, practically speaking? I ask because I'm not sure how that works aside from going back to the "getting the right people in charge".
Skip, I agree that administrative centralization has often exceeded what prudence required; my point was that its degree is prudential, not that every historical increase was prudent.
Demonstrably lawful authority means more than getting people we prefer into power. It requires public juridical title: a pope lawfully elected and accepted according to the Church’s constitution, professing the Catholic Faith; and bishops possessing canonical mission derived through him. Personal orthodoxy, valid orders, popular support, occupation of buildings, or practical usefulness cannot substitute for that title.
As to how false claimants are removed or resisted: Catholics may recognize public contradictions with the Faith and refuse participation in false worship, but they cannot create a tribunal, hierarchy, or replacement pope from below. I do not claim to know the precise historical means by which lawful authority will be restored. Our inability to produce that mechanism does not authorize us to manufacture jurisdiction now.
So restoration does require the right men in office—but men who acquire office by the Church’s lawful constitution, not simply our men taking control of the machine. That difference is the entire question.