Dealing With A Wolf

 I wanted to talk some today about something that happened at the school where I teach.  The CFO who is there, a semi-retired lawyer with extensive fundraising experience which is why the school enlisted his services, was speaking what were frankly some weird ideas about sacramental theology a couple of months back.  Today, in the faculty lounge, I ran into this guy, and what I heard from him was unsettling.  Let me get into the gist of his conversation. 

This man, who is also a graduate of Georgetown University, more or less enunciated a view of the Eucharist that was so Protestant-sounding that if he were a Baptist, it probably could have been easily rationalized.  However, this man claims to be a practicing Catholic.  Let me give you the gist of his theology.

He basically said that anyone and everyone should receive the Eucharist, regardless of who they are - that is not his decision to make, as it is contrary to Catholic Eucharistic theology.  When I confronted him on that, he more or less said that the Eucharist was not Christ, and that it was metaphorical language that should not have been taken literally - he was equating the institution of the Eucharist in the narrative of the Lord's Supper with the language in the parables, as if they were one and the same.  The argument has several flaws - first and foremost, the biggest flaw is his confusion of context.  The institution of the Last Supper was not the parables - the context was different, and the wording was quite clear.   Secondly, he tries to protest against Church authority and doctrine by saying the sacraments came centuries later, and that only the Roman Pontiffs promoted them.  He seems to forget about actual disciples of the original twelve Apostles, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who were talking about things like the Real Presence and Apostolic succession as early as the first century.  He also seems to forget that it is not just Roman Catholics who profess these truths - the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Churches, and even some Protestant traditions such as the Lutherans and Anglicans do as well. Even the more "memorialized" version of Communion that is observed as an "ordinance" by Baptists, Pentecostals, and other Evangelicals is taken so seriously enough that one has to be a baptized Christian to partake of it.  So, for this "educated fool" to say this was just so profound that I am still in shock.  I had heard the statistics - Catholics in name only who don't believe the Real Presence, and who don't even believe Christ was God.  But, to hear someone actually say it still shocks me. And this is why I call such a person a "wolf," because they are truly wolves in sheep's clothing.  Professing Catholics who believe like Protestants - this is why so much is going on in our Church too.  Reform needs to happen, and soon. 

The CFO is not the only wolf in the sheepfold there - we have an infestation of them in all honesty.  They are one reason as well why the school is having so many problems I believe, as they are inviting some adverse spiritual forces to influence that school - in an Ephesians 6 "principalities and powers" sense too.  This type of theological and spiritual rot also exists in many Catholic parishes, and I have seen it - when supposed Knights of Columbus members for instance are outright sympathetic to socialism and are pro-abortion, which I saw in a church a few years back.  Where faith is misappropriated like that, it leads to a demise of spiritual communion, and eventually moral compromise as well - take a look at so many "Uncle Teddys" over the past several years that almost bankrupted whole dioceses.  And then, when the Pope's second-in-command is a perverted man by the name of Cardinal "Tucho" Fernandez, we see fruits, rotten bitter fruits.  It has led me to ponder many things in the past few years, and I want to get into that now.

I am 100% Catholic - I believe the historic Magisterium, I uphold the Deposit of Faith, and I believe the faith as it has been passed down through the centuries.  Also, being an active Catholic educator, a Templar, and a Knight of Columbus, I believe in the proper defense and propagation of our faith as well.  But, the older I get, the more I see that two different Churches exist parallel to each other.  Jesus talked about this very thing in the parable of the wheat and tares, when he said that tares will infest the wheat and even choke it out - the Church therefore has a garden infested with the weeds of dissent and heresy.  This man, the CFO at our school, is evidence of the tare patches in the wheatfield, and in some sectors of what in Polish is called rola Bozha (God's field), the tares are overtaking the wheat.  When that happens, it compels some who wish to be faithful to face some difficult decisions - can I stay in this particular faith community that seems to label me an enemy?  This is why I will always maintain that true Catholic faith is not necessarily exclusively Roman - in many ways, I was more devoutly Catholic in a traditional Anglican parish for several years in all honesty.  And, the last couple of Popes don't leave much to be proud of either, and I want to state something here.  I believe that the Pope is indeed the successor of St. Peter, and as such he is also a vicar of Christ too.  However, let's clarify that terminology.  A vicar does not mean "in place of," which actually is what the term "Antichrist" means.  Rather, a vicar is an ambassador in much the same way a foreign dignitary represents his king or President.  Christ is the King (or Cristos Rex, to use the Latin), and the Pope is the viceroy of his Church on earth (or at least is supposed to be).  This means, however, that the Pope is not Christ, nor does he have any divine attributes - the Pope is a fallible human being just like the rest of us, and history has witnessed many bad Popes.  Also, the Church is not the Pope either - the Pope is actually accountable to the Magisterium, which embodies the Holy Tradition and teaching of the Church since Apostolic times.  If the Pope says or does anything that violates the Magisterial teaching of the Church, then the Pope is in error.  Popes can do this unwittingly sometimes - I don't think, for instance, that our current Pope Leo XIV is a bad guy at all, but I also don't think he correctly states things at times either, and he has made some bad mistakes in judgment - this is even more true of his predecessor Francis, who in recent times is probably the worst occupant of the Chair of Peter.  Another misconception that many Protestants (and even some less-informed Catholics) make is that every word out of a Pope's mouth is gospel truth - no it isn't.   The only time Papal infallibility can be invoked - the ex cathedra aspect of the Papal office in other words - is when it is consistent with Magisterial teaching.  If it contradicts it, then it is just a personal opinion of said Pontiff or at most maybe a pastoral declaration if it is written out.  Come to find out too, the ex cathedra authority of the Pope is rarely invoked, and many knowledgeable theologians can count on their fingers the number of times those encyclicals have been issued.  The vast majority of Papal documents and statements are pastoral in nature, meaning that the reader has a choice of whether or not to accept it or not.  What that means for the reader then is the responsibility to weigh such Papal communications in light of Magisterial teaching -  accept what aligns, and throw out what doesn't.  The Pope is not divine, he is not a prophet, nor is he a direct mouthpiece of God - most Popes were insightful enough to understand that.  It is often less-informed laypeople, or some cleric with an agenda, that tries to make such things more than what they are.  That being said, it is OK to disagree with the Pope - as a matter of fact, in many cases it may be the right choice!  It would eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion if people just understood that. 

Will a schism eventually happen in the Catholic Church?  Many saints and visionaries saw it coming, and to be honest, I am seeing fracture lines in the infrastructure of the Church myself.  So, what do we do should that happen?  Personally, I have come to a peaceful conclusion within myself to always err on the side of orthodoxy - the sound,orthodox part of a split is the Remnant, and the dissenters, even if they are a majority, are the actual schismatics.  So, if that eventually means the Church does schism in my lifetime, I will stay with the part that upholds truth, Magisterial truth, and also teaches the authentic Deposit of Faith.  What that looks like also remains to be seen too - it could be something completely new, or the orthodox remnant could unite with more orthodox and conservative groups such as the SSPX, the Continuing Anglicans, the Polish National Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox as a completely Western Orthodox tradition (which actually already exists, I might add - there have been Western-Rite Orthodox parishes for as long as there have been Eastern-Rite Catholic parishes).  I would be OK with any of those, and I would not be honest if I didn't admit that I have already began exploring options recently.  This is a topic that at some point I will explore in depth later as a teaching, as I need to refresh my memory regarding those writings of saints and visionaries who saw a Great Schism coming. It is highly possible we could be closer to that than we think, so we will see.  And, that whole topic intersects with other things, such as the prophecy of the Great Catholic Monarch, the eventual conversion of the Jews, etc.  But, as I am actually feeling somewhat drained and exhausted now, that is a discussion for another day. 

Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you next time.