For more than half a century, we have heard the drumbeat of “the spirit of Vatican II,” which has caused the Church incalculable trouble. In this essay, I would like to focus on “the spirit of Vatican I”–not often spoken of, but which has also caused the Church incalculable trouble in its “creeping infallibilism.”
St. John Henry Cardinal Newman was among the “inopportunists” in the lead-up to the Council. That is, while believing strongly in papal primacy, he considered a dogmatic definition to be imprudent in the moment, and probably also unnecessary. When the teaching was dogmatically defined at the Council, he was actually quite pleased with its moderate claims. However, he was deeply concerned that a certain penumbra would develop, almost deifying both the person and acts of a pope.
Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of the Church’s infallibility1 was followed by the loss of the Papal States, causing the pope to become a “prisoner of the Vatican,” so that a protective wall was built up to support him, a kind of aura culminating in the pontificates of Pius XII and John Paul II. Make no mistake, I deeply admired and loved John Paul; however, the personality cult that grew up around him helped bring us to the present moment. Young priests, taking their cue from him to right the course of the ship of a Church nearly sunken, when asked why they were doing certain things all too often answered, “Because the Holy Father does this.” Wrong answer: I do something because it is right, not because a pope does it.
It is quite amusing that those on the left side of the ecclesiastical aisle give competition to W. G. Ward, the quintessential Ultramontanist, who exclaimed, “I should like a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast.” Austin Ivereigh is the ultimate apologist for the Bergoglian mode of governance, while the disgraced Father Thomas Rosica could even utter this shameless assertion in 2018: “Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is free from disordered attachments. Our Church has indeed entered a new phase. With the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture.” Now, that is blasphemy.
However, something rivaling the papolatry of Ivereigh and Rosica has come to my attention somewhat belatedly, namely, a “pledge of loyalty” to Pope Francis (a kind of parody of the canonical “oath of fidelity”). It seems the text was introduced in 2018 by Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle when he was Archbishop of Manila. It is recited immediately following the Creed on the Vigil of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. It must have caught the attention of Francis because the next year Tagle was brought to Rome to head the very important Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (its prefect is nick-named “the Red Pope” because of the power he wields over all the missionary territories of the Church).
I offer the full text because excerpts could never convey the full flavor; frankly, on first reading, I was left speechless. Truth be told, even Ward may well have been breathless at the depths of its sycophancy:
PLEDGE OF LOYALTY TO THE HOLY FATHER
The Presider leads the assembly in the Pledge of Loyalty to the Holy Father.
Presider:
God the Father omnipotent,
God the Son of wisdom,
God the Holy Spirit of love, we ask you,
deign to listen to our pledge of loyalty.We are your children
firmly believing in your
divinity and eternal providence,
redeemed by the blood of the Son,
vivified by the all-embracing
grace of love eternal,
and sustained on earth
through the powerful intercession of Mary,
our Queen and Mother:
Hail to you, O God!
Hail to you, O Blessed Trinity!All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!Presider:
And to Peter, the very first mortal
who ever exclaimed with deep faith and trust:
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
And to all his successors,
we say with conviction and joy.
“Blessed are you, Simon Peter,
the rock of the living Church.”All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!Presider:
To Francis, our Pope the Vicar of Christ on earth,
visible head of the Church,
doctor and the teacher of all the faithful,
guardian of apostolic tradition:
To you, Pope Francis,
we pledge our love!All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!Presider:
To the Supreme Pontiff of the Church,
courageous leader of the nations,
the very personification
of the spirit of Vatican II
and upholder of the dignity of holy priesthood:
To you, Pope Francis, we pledge our obedience!All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!Presider:
To His Holiness, the Pope,
tireless defender of the sanctity of the home,
of the innate priceless value of human life
and of the dignity of persons:
To you, Pope Francis, we pledge our hope!All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!Presider:
To the visible head of Christendom,
indomitable teacher,
leader and father of all the faithful,
steadfast in truth in the midst of errors
and misunderstanding,
unyielding in courage
in the midst of danger,
and a most reliable beacon
of spiritual light and consolation:
To you, Pope Francis,
we pledge our undying
loyalty and filial veneration,
now and for ever.All sing the response:
Christus vincit!
Christus regnat!
Christus, Christus imperat!
Certain phrases simply refuse to trip off the tongue: “guardian of apostolic tradition” and “steadfast in truth in the midst of errors and misunderstanding” (some cardinals are still awaiting a response to their dubia); “courageous leader of the nations” (even John Allen at Crux has suggested that papal influence in the geo-political sphere may be at its very nadir at present); “the very personification of the spirit of Vatican II” (that should not be regarded as a compliment); “upholder of the dignity of holy priesthood” (as priests are regularly insulted by this Pope, many clerics would find that line hard to swallow); “visible head of Christendom” (most historians would maintain that the last vestiges of “Christendom” disappeared in the wake of the Protestant Reformation). I am told that the latest recension of the “loyalty pledge” even has a verse in praise of the “synod on synodality”–perhaps an instantiation of “development of doctrine” or “aggiornamento”?
What we see in this apotheosis of Francis is the very thing Newman feared and what Vatican I (and Vatican II) obviated by very nuanced declarations as the Petrine office evolves (devolves?) into an ad personam glory. If anyone had dared to compose such a paean to Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI, he would have been laughed to scorn. In fact, I don’t doubt that the “divinized” pope would be called upon to repudiate the hymn of exaltation.
In Newman’s 1874 Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, he declared, without fear of contradiction: “But a pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it be observed that the Vatican Council has left him just as it found him here.” Yes, the dogmatic definition did; however, “the spirit of Vatican I” brought us to the absurdity of the present Ultramontanism.
An interesting aside: Tagle’s “pledge of loyalty” does have not appear to have been reciprocated by the Pope for, since 2022, Tagle has been removed from both his prominent positions.
Endnote:
1It is the Church’s infallibility, please note, not the pope’s. The pope can exercise that charism under certain clearly defined circumstances, but it is not his personal attribute.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
It is predictable that sycophants will eventually be destroyed by the very same idols they once worshiped. Be very careful of worshipping anyone or anything other than God Himself. I hope our hierarchs are heeding this warning. If not, they will be consumed by their false gods. It’s only a matter of time.
I’m certain that only a few short years ago Theodore McCarrick thought he was untouchable, invincible, shielded from any loss of rank or privelege, could get away with almost anything and that his hubris set him apart from all others. He’s now a broken man unless he has confessed to his wrongdoings. But his case should be carefully noted by others in similar situations in the Church.
Thank you, Father Stravinskas, for keeping in your mind the sometimes painful to recall details of the history of the Catholic Church since Vatican I.
It took me too long to realize that “the spirit of Vatican II” was the unorthodox Catholic version of Madison Avenue’s claim of “New! Improved!”
Who wrote that text? Unbelievable. And unbelievable that Archbishop Tagle let it through. And he was at one time considered papabile. Heaven help us.
Um, thank you. That was disturbing. The sycophancy song makes satire superfluous. Can you imagine what St. Jerome would have said about it on Twitter?! I want it peeled off of brain. It immediately produced a vision of Tagle softly sobbing getting the sack as the Pope whispers: “I must tell you friendly in your ear, sell when you can, you are not for all markets.”
Distressing to say the least. One would expect to see this type of thing written in Jones Town just before all there drank the poisoned Kool-Aid, not with reference to the Pope who is supposed to embody the original declaration “You are the Son of the Living God”!
Good to know. Enlightening discussion.
To me, the bishops and cardinals are overseers, shepherds not “royalty”. Which also applies to whomever the sitting pope is. I so wish they would not wear outfits that make them look as if they think they are royalty. It makes them look unapproachable. They are ordained to perform a special job. Back in 1944, I was confirmed. Got into trouble as I refused to kiss the bishops ring. All I could think of was that I didn’t believe Jesus would like that. Still think the same.
How then read Francis’ dismissal of the papolatrous Tagle if not another clever ploy to obscure his own, perhaps benevolently perceived messianism?
When Pope John Paul II was reigning and Stravinskas deeply liked the Polish Pope it was desirable for him to have ultramotanist ideas and actions. Now that he dislikes and hates Pope Francis ultramontanism has become a bad word and heretical for him and lobs the word at the lovers and defenders of the reigning Pope to poison their well.
I hope you’re not comparing Bergoglio to Pope John Paul II.
That’s Pope Francis to you and the Church. The same Holy Spirit chose both men to be Peter. Have some respect Deacon.
“The same holy spirit” . . . (mmm, I wonder about that). Surely, one must ask if it has been the same Holy Spirit who chose the last 4 Popes, one would think that there would be some semblance of symmetry among them with respect to the place given to the basic Truths of the church and the moral teachings that have been handed down throughout her 2,000 year history. This man seems to be cut from a different cloth all together. If the HS helped elevate this man, he seems to have turned his back on the HS in the basic duties of his Papal office. It might even be that in the last enclave the Lavender Mafia (not unlike the German Progressives of V2) worked to highjack the last conclave and employed the use of identity theft to ascribe to the HS the elevation of this man. (Yes, he is the pope. Yes, he is my pope. What God allows (not approves), I can be faithful enough to accept. That said, I long for the days of Pope Benedict 16th, God rest his faithful soul.)
This Deacon’s disdain and contempt for Pope Francis can be called “dismontanism.” This example of Dismontanism consists in this ordained who waves his title of ordination as an identity and entitlement and yet does not appropriately address and call the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ by proper title and name. It’s not only dismontanism but also clericalism.
LOL. Aldo, don’t commit the mistake of calling this pope the “Vicar of Christ”. He’s not fond at all of that title. He’ll reprimand you. The Deacon would be in his good graces by NOT referring to him as the “Vicar of Christ.”
I never lionized JP2 and felt quite comfortable in criticizing what I considered to be mistakes of his (e.g., altar girls, not taking liturgical reform in hand, going easy on too many bad bishops). Check your facts before making accusations.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, leave the Filipinos alone. There’s nothing in the NO that says this prayer for the Pope violates the rubrics. It is a part of their Prayers of the Faithful, recited after the Creed.
For most of their Catholic history, Filipinos did not know the names of the Popes. All they knew, there was a Pope somewhere on the other side of the globe, and they should love him and be loyal to him because he represented Christ, their Lord and their God. They didn’t know anything about ultramontanism if it hit them on the head.
Tracing their Catholic history from the mid-16th century and for many years on, the only way they knew a Pope had died and a new Pope had been enthroned was by ships crossing the Atlantic from Seville, Spain to Vera Cruz in Mexico, by land to Acapulco (no Panama Canal yet), then across the Pacific by the Galleon ships to Manila, if pirates did not get at them first. Generally, the news reached Manila about five years after a Pope’s death, and sometimes, even after the next Pope had died. Yet whoever he was, they loved him and remained faithful to him.
Now that news travels instantaneously, the tradition-imposed love for the pope is still deeply etched in the hearts of Filipinos. The biggest crowds that welcomed Pope John Paul II in his travels were in the Philippines. Can you blame them if they love Pope Francis as much as they did JPII, or even Paul VI (the first pope to ever visit the Philippines)?
I remember my pre-Vatican II school days in the Philippines: Every day after morning prayers and the flag-raising ceremony, we used to sing:
” Long live the Pope! His praises sound
Again and yet again:
His rule is over space and time;
His throne the hearts of men:
All hail! the Shepherd King of Rome,
The theme of loving song:
Let all the earth his glory sing,
And heav’n the strain prolong.
Let all the earth his glory sing,
And heav’n the strain prolong.”
Was that ultramontanism? If that was so wrong, why was that song written at all?
Dear Margarita,
“Violation of the rubrics?” You mean the fact that the NO Church disregarded the Council Fathers and eliminated Latin, Gregorian Chant, allowed for Eucharist on the hand and standing, inclusion of eucharistic lay ministers and readers? You mean THOSE rubrics which are in clear violation of the wishes of the Council Fathers?
Hello, Mark. I love you, but I refuse to deal in whataboutism. Sorry.
Countries with the largest Catholic population.
1. Brazil
2. Mexico
3. Philippines
4. United States
Dear Margarita,
If you won’t deal with “whataboutism”, you embrace hypocrisy . . . not a good thing. As someone who loves you, too; deal with “whataboutism”. It’s far better than being a hypocrite.
One doesn’t have to examine the thoughts of Fr. Stravinskas but the very actions of the Frank-en-Pope himself to reveal which has the greater contempt for the Papal office (By the way, I don’t believe Fr. Stravinskas has ANY contempt for the papal office to be sure). For example, call Bergoglio the “Vicar of Christ”, and he will rebuke you to your face. Don’t like him residing away from the Papal residence? Too bad. He’s not comfortable there. Rather he use the “Pope Mobile” for his transportation? LOL. Thank again. Imagine he’s offering the Sacrifice of the Mass at the High Altar of St. Peter? Nope. He hasn’t done that since he placed the Pacha Mama on the sacred stone. Try to kiss his papal ring? Get ready to be roundly badgered and battered. No, my friend. This pope has more contempt for his own office than any critical writer who, might I add, are all justified condemning his far-less-than-papal and bizarre behaviors. The farther the man distances himself from the Chair of St. Peter, the more he becomes his own sedevacantist. One must honestly ask: Is there REALLY a pope navigating the Barque of St. Peter?? It appears more and more that the Barque has a man of mutiny at the wheel and with a glint of contempt in his eye is intentionally steering for the shallow waters and rocky shoreline.
With respect to Father Stravinskas’s stress on “the spirit of Vatican I”–not often spoken of, but which has also caused the Church incalculable trouble in its “creeping infallibilism” —
According to a Vatican document, copiously titled the “Vatican’s Synod 2023 Preparatory Document: For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission,” it appears that a strange form of “infallibility” is being asserted for all the Vatican-II-tainted input into the currently ongoing Synod on Synodality. In the document’s words, “the authority of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God … is infallible ‘in credendo’.”
As authority for this entrusting of a remarkably curious in-credendo form of infallibility to the entire People of God, the Vatican document only cites paragraph 119 of an Apostolic Exhortation (Evangelii Gaudium), issued by Pope Francis back in 2013. These are Pope Francis’s words in the Apostolic Exhortation:
“In all the baptized, from first to last, the sanctifying power of the Spirit is at work, impelling us to evangelization. The people of God is holy thanks to this anointing, which makes it infallible in credendo. This means that it does not err in faith, even though it may not find words to explain that faith. The Spirit guides it in truth and leads it to salvation. As part of his mysterious love for humanity, God furnishes the totality of the faithful with an instinct of faith – sensus fidei – which helps them to discern what is truly of God. The presence of the Spirit gives Christians a certain connaturality with divine realities, and a wisdom which enables them to grasp those realities intuitively, even when they lack the wherewithal to give them precise expression.”
The foregoing passage from Pope Francis’s Apostolic Exhortation, in turn, draws its authority from paragraph 12 in Chapter 2 of the “infallible” teachings in the Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium.
Apparently, according to Pope Francis, God the Holy Spirit gives baptized Christians as a group (“the people of God”) a certain “connaturality” with “divine realities, and a wisdom which enables them to grasp those realities intuitively” but He withholds from those same baptized Christians “the wherewithal to give them precise expression.” God the Holy Spirit, one presumes, entrusts the “precise-expression” wherewithal to the sensus fidei of the Pope and his Vatican bureaucracy.
I found your comment stunning, Raymond, not having read the documents themselves, so I went to read the original. So the pope quotes himself to make this startling point. Hmmm. That said, May I suggest that there’s a difference between the baptised and the faithful? It strikes me that while all the baptised are called to a life of holiness, it is the faithful that seem to have taken the call seriously. I still don’t know about their inerrancy (much depends on formation) but another caveat may rest on this statement: “God furnishes the totality of the faithful with an instinct of faith…” Since the opinions folded into the synodal documents thus far have represented a feedback level of somewhere around 1% (?) we are not even within a galaxy’s distance to “totality of the faithful.”
Point well made, Genevieve. How many of us parents have baptized children who have disavowed any interest in pursuing the Faith with vigor? (Synderesis gone awry?) There is just too much ambiguity surrounding these things, i.e. the subject matter treated in the documents of V2, to be decisive in what would hope might end in a universalist application – cutting across ALL souls in need of salvation. When the Church abandoned the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas (and the infused grace evident therein), it seems to have adopted a sort of subjective immanentism the universal application of which leads only to imposition, confusion and chaos. One would think that the pursuit of Truth would lead to unity and clarity, not cacophony.
Agreed. I wonder what the Angelic Doctor would say about our current trajectory …
I’m pretty sure he’d be just as confused (if not more so) than we are.
If Francis believes that the Holy Spirit gives intuition to the ‘people of God’ but denies them the ability of precise expression, Francis needs to review scripture.
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
The very definition of prophesying is to speak, to utter, to give expression to….
Francis would do well to read a dictionary, to pray to God that he knows and remembers scripture, and to beg the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit so he may responsibly perform the job he was given and took upon himself to do.
The prophet Joel also prophesized that old men would dream dreams, and Peter in the verse from Acts, reiterates that. As a ‘person’ of God, I too do believe and second that prophecy: Old men are full of dreams.
The scripture is Acts 2:17-18.
While papal infallibility was very important to define and was a tactical masterstroke against the irreligious, the main thrust of this article is well-taken.
The fact is that nuance has been lost when it comes to this dogma, and it wasn’t by accident. It is likely that … Francis (and probably … John Paul II) has been purposefully “built up” to act as a “guide” for the consciences of those who identify as Catholics and follow him.
Centralization is always very important in consolidating power. All that it takes for evil people to win is to secretly somehow get “their man” in a highly centralized position of power. Then the attitude described in this article becomes the “engine of destruction” as the gullible end up following a “pied piper” because of his betrayal of their trust.
On the other hand, Ultramontanists rely/relied on the pope as the most likely to be completely orthodox. (My understanding is that good spiritual directors can be relied upon by the scrupulous to help them overcome their spiritual ailment.) So long as they didn’t HERETICALLY believe that the pope was personally infallible with regards to faith and morals at all times, their attitude wasn’t irrational. Also, it appears, at least retrospectively, as though God was especially helpful with regards to the orthodoxy and wisdom of the writings of the popes from Pope Pius IX (maybe as early as Pope Pius VII) through Pope Pius XII.