In a recent post on her Substack newsletter, Sarah Cain made a statement that, although predictable and already common in such difficult times, always gives us pause for thought: “Pope Francis was the biggest impediment to my conversion. I know that I’m not alone in that.”
Clearly, Cain is not the only one who has had to overcome such a difficulty. Terrible problems and doubts have confronted all those converts to Catholicism who, like myself, embraced—out of ignorance or excessive enthusiasm—a hyper-papalist interpretation of Pastor Aeternus, the famous dogmatic constitution from the First Vatican Council. Without a doubt, this type of purification of our Faith is one of the most painful imaginable.
Putting aside for now the discussions about “good popes/bad popes” and all the consequences of disastrous pontificates (especially when, at least through ambiguity, our faith is put at risk), many of those who have found themselves facing the walls of hyper-papalist Jericho still believe in the authority of the hierarchical structure of the Church as ordained by God and in the necessity of the papal office.
Unfortunately, there are also many Catholics who have not passed the test. If I mention only the names Rod Dreher and Michael Warren Davis, I am sure you will immediately understand whom I am referring to. These are all those who, scandalized by the ambiguity of the pontificate that has just ended, not only left the Catholic Church but went so far as to deny the very existence of the papal office.
It is tragic that such former Catholic thinkers and authors claim to be “orthodox” while denying a teaching—the dogma of infallibility—which is a Truth of faith confessed by saints like Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Theodore the Studite. A careful reading of the section titled “La Monarchie Ecclésiastique fondée par Jésus-Christ” (“The Ecclesiastical Monarchy Founded by Jesus Christ”) from Vladimir Solovyov’s work La Russie et l’Église Universelle (Russia and the Universal Church) might help them discover some of those testimonies of the Holy Fathers—Greek and Latin—who recognized both the primacy and the infallibility of the Apostle Peter and his successors.
In any case, I hasten to add that the denial of the pope’s infallibility on the part of the “orthodox” does not stop there. In the end, it leads to the rejection of the very existence of the papal office. It is as if an “orthodox” scandalized by the sins of a certain metropolitan or bishop were not only to criticize that particular hierarch but to deny the very function itself. He might do so directly, but more often—and this is usually what happens—he does it indirectly, by denying the main prerogatives of the office.
The Protestants took things to the extreme: they denied any form of sacramental hierarchy in the name of the “universal priesthood” of all the baptized. Naturally, such an attitude—especially from those of our brethren who have left the Church—cannot leave us indifferent.
It is true that my special sensitivity to this subject stems from the fact that I converted to Catholicism precisely because I discovered (thanks to the brilliant Russian philosopher—himself a convert to Catholicism—Vladimir Solovyov) that there is no Church without the pope. Yes, the Holy Father is the visible head of the Church, the “reflection” of its absolute and invisible Head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
In other words, the Christian faith that is truly orthodox also has an ecclesiological dimension: the belief in the hierarchy instituted by our Savior Christ, which includes, as the visible head of the Church and “servus servorum Dei,” the Supreme Pontiff. My Ancient Greek professor, passionate about Christian sacred symbolism and translator of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, taught us that the hierarchy existing in the Kingdom of Heaven—whose head is God Himself—is mirrored by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Militant Church—whose visible head is the pope.
Despite the debatable pontificates of recent decades, not for one moment has this conviction of mine wavered. Today, in such troubled times, we must work more than ever to strengthen this faith. Of course, we should not do this in the hyper-papalist spirit so well captured in an anecdote told by the historian of religion at the University of Chicago, Mircea Eliade.
He heard a meaningful joke from a Jesuit priest and noted it in his journal. It is said that a cardinal, speaking enthusiastically about conversion to Catholicism and the essential condition for recognizing and validating such a decision, asked rhetorically and casually: “Does he believe in the Pope? Yes? Then it’s good. He is a true convert. If he believes in the Pope, that’s enough! Who cares if he believes in God or not?”
Although it is just a joke, it clearly contains a jab aimed at the convictions—so widespread in our times—of those Catholics who regard the pope as a kind of superman or oracle who can never be wrong under any circumstance, whether speaking ex cathedra or merely expressing a personal opinion. Let us remember it only as a joke.
