Why Follow the Current Pope of Rome?

Should we still be Catholic? Part 2

The future Pope Leo XIV with Pope Francis.

This is the second installment in an article series that revolves around the question, “should we still be Catholic?” Read the previous article here. This article has been re-published so that it’s free to access. I’ve decided that the rest of the articles in this series will be free as well.

Okay, so maybe there are compelling scriptural and historical-theological reasons that explain why someone like myself would follow the pope of Rome. No informed student of theology and history would declare my “papal position” to be without any merit whatsoever. However, what about the current pope of Rome? Surely nothing could justify remaining in communion with a man who openly allows sodomites to flaunt their sin in St. Peter’s Basilica, right?

Let’s think this through. If what I’ve written in the previous article is correct, then we have very good reason to believe that the bishop of the Roman Church is the divinely instituted successor of St. Peter, and the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth. This fact alone makes for a pretty good reason not to sever communion with the Roman pontiff, Pope Leo XIV. So what’s the accusation being brought forward for why the pope is no longer worth following?

On the one hand, Pope Leo,¹ and heck even Pope Francis,² affirm that marriage is the only legitimate place for sexual relations to occur, and that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. It follows from this that they both affirm, with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.”³ This is further evidenced by the fact that neither one of them has changed this section of the Catechism, even though Pope Francis did not hesitate to change the Catechism to fit his novel beliefs about the death penalty. However, on the other hand, Pope Francis and now Pope Leo have clearly contradicted this teaching in practice. From allowing homosexual couples to be “blessed” in some way, to permitting a rainbow cross to process into St. Peter’s Basilica with impunity, to not excommunicating Fr. James Martin… our pontiffs are, at the very least, true hypocrites.

So what am I to do? How should I, a Catholic layman, respond to my shepherds being blatant hypocrites? Well, like any good Christian, the first thing I try to do when faced with a difficult situation is seek counsel from our Lord Jesus. Thankfully, He seems to have given instruction for precisely this predicament:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

Matthew 23:2-4

Duccio di Buoninsegna, Christ Accused by the Pharisees.

According to our Lord Jesus, the reason why His disciples (prior to His death, resurrection, and ascension) were to “do and observe” whatever the scribes and Pharisees told them was because these authorities “sit on Moses’ seat.” Apparently, Jesus didn’t respond to the Pharisees’ claim of a kind of Mosaic succession with, “that’s not anywhere in Scripture!” Rather, He accepted their claim. What’s even more striking, though, is that Jesus didn’t believe that the Pharisees’ hypocritical actions, nor even their false teachings (cf. Matt 15:1-9), meant that His disciples were thereby permitted to denounce the teachers of the Law as illegitimate authorities and then usurp that role for themselves. It was only after Pentecost, after a new extraordinary divine mission was created, that Peter and the apostles would famously declare, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Prior to our Lord granting His apostles a new extraordinary mission (cf. Lk 24:49), the ordinary mission of the scribes and the Pharisees was respected, even in the midst of them being “children of hell” and “sons of their father the devil” (cf. Matt 23:15; Jn 8:44).

Thus, it seems we have quite strong biblical precedent for “remaining in communion” with the ordinary mission that’s governing the Lord’s people, even if that institution is being run by morally and theologically questionable men. At least, we have precedent for remaining in communion until a new prophet or apostle is extraordinarily sent by God to abolish or reconstitute the hierarchy—something not even the Protestant Reformers claimed to be doing.

Nor do we lack precedent for this in the Old Testament. If anyone ever had the right to usurp the authority of the one ruling over God’s people, or to at least seek a different ruler, it would have been King David. David quite literally had an extraordinary mission from God, through the prophet Samuel, to be the king of Israel (1 Sam 16:1-13), and the current king was trying to kill him. Yet David never attempted to use his God-given authority to displace the wicked King Saul. At every turn, David was fiercely loyal to Saul for no other reason than the fact that he was the legitimate ruler of Israel: “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 24:6). Even after Saul’s death, David continued to be loyal to this wicked king who completely rebelled against the Lord, once again citing the fact that, despite everything, Saul truly was the Lord’s anointed (cf. 2 Sam 1:14-16).

David Nobly Spares the Life of Saul.

Do I even have to mention the other wicked kings of Israel who, despite sometimes constructing and worshiping pagan idols themselves (just read 1-2 Kings), were still recognized as the legitimate rulers of God’s people? As far as I’m aware, there’s not a single biblical precedent of someone, without an extraordinary mission from God, breaking communion with the ordinary mission governing the Lord’s people and legitimately re-establishing their own. Perhaps the closest you get to this is the Maccabean revolt, however, the legitimacy of Israel’s royal and priestly lines was so confused after that point that only an extraordinary mission from God could resolve the situation. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Jesus came to be Israel’s true King and High Priest precisely when He did. At best, the Maccabees are “the exception that proves the rule” by demonstrating that, when the ordinary mission was thrown off course even by righteous men, only the Messiah Himself could re-establish order.

But since the Messiah has already come, and I’m therefore not expecting anymore extraordinary missions from God until the Day of Judgment (cf. Matt 21:33-46), I don’t see how I have any right to disrupt the ordinary mission of the Church by seeking other ecclesiastical rulers or somehow declaring myself to be one. At the very least, I don’t understand why I would have any kind of obligation to do this even if it was allowed (which I don’t believe it is). Regardless of how difficult things get, I’m quite convicted by the biblical precedent of recognizing legitimate authority.

So where does this leave me with respect to the modern popes? Thankfully, we haven’t gotten to the point where the Roman pontiff is commanding the worship of pagan gods or disobedience to the Lord under pain of death (cf. 1 Macc 1:44-50). In fact, as I’ve explained before,⁴ the dogma of papal infallibility exists to ensure that something like this could never happen. Unlike King Antiochus IV, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s impossible for the pope of Rome to command heresy or sacrilege under pain of spiritual death, i.e. excommunication or anathema. This is, quite literally, the definition of an ex cathedra papal decree: a definitive teaching that cannot be resisted without incurring severance from the Body of Christ (more will be said on this later). I simply do not believe that any of the teachings that the episcopate headed by the modern papacy definitively requires me to believe are contrary to divine revelation. I also haven’t seen any new prophets or apostles running around claiming that God wants me to leave Catholicism. I therefore don’t see any good reason to rebel against the ordinary mission that’s governing the Lord’s people in the Catholic Church.

However, despite all of this, some people just aren’t satisfied. Perhaps they intellectually agree that everything I’ve said above makes sense, but they nonetheless feel like something is still “off” about the modern Catholic hierarchy. I can definitely sympathize with this perspective, and so I’ll wrap up by leaving the reader with a biblical framework that I’ve found to be very helpful in trying to understand the current crisis in the Catholic Church. Just bear with me.

The Son of Man with the keys of Death and Hades.

As I’ve explained before,⁵ there’s good reason to believe that Revelation 20:1-3 was written with Matthew 16:18-19 in mind. We know this because these are the only two texts in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) that use the words “keys,” κλεῖδας, “bind,” δήσῃς, and “loose,” λύσῃς, all together. Indeed, Revelation mentions these keys multiple times (Rev 1:18; 9:1), and the second time they show up they’re explicitly connected to the “key of David” from Isaiah 22:22 (Rev 3:7). This is significant because, as Suan Sonna has demonstrated at length,⁶ Matthew 16:18-19 is also a direct allusion to this very text from Isaiah. Not only this, but Revelation 1:18 further identifies these keys as the keys “of Hades,” ᾅδου, which is exactly what Matthew 16:18-19 implies as well. St. Peter uses “the keys” to “bind” and “loose” in order that he might keep “the gates of Hades” at bay. Peter doesn’t just unlock the gates of heaven, he also binds the gates of hell.

I posit that this is the very image we’re presented with in Revelation 20:1-3. We see “an angel” with “the key” to Hades who, after casting “that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan,” into hell, then “binds” him there during the millennium, after which he’s “loosed” for a little while. I’ve explained before how, in Revelation, the words “angel” and “elder” are intentionally flipped.⁷ This is seen most clearly in Revelation 1:20 when St. John makes reference to “the angels of the seven churches” he’s writing to. These aren’t guardian angels, these are bishops, “elders” who watch over their respective churches. The inverse can be found in Revelation 4:4 where we see “twenty-four elders” in heaven, even though no mere human souls were yet in heaven (cf. Rev 6:10; 14:13). I believe the “angel” in Revelation 20:1 follows this same pattern. This isn’t an angelic being, but rather a bishop, likely even St. Peter himself.

The so-called “millennium,” the thousand year reign of Christ, isn’t difficult to identify either. Revelation 20:4 explicitly tells us that the millennium is that period of time during which the Saints reign with Christ in heaven. Thus, if you believe that there are currently Saints in heaven reigning with Christ, then you believe that we’re currently in the millennium. The millennium is the “age of the Church” on earth.

Benjamin, where are you going with this? Okay okay. The picture we get from Revelation 20:1-3 is that, with the keys given to Peter and the apostles, the keys with which ecclesiastical discipline is administered (cf. Matt 18:17-18), the Church will continuously bind Satan in hell “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.” However, there will come a time when those very keys will be used to “loose” the devil “for a little while,” allowing for mass deception to occur. Now, because this happens after “the thousand years were ended,” i.e. after the age of the Church, the literal fulfillment of this will be at the end of time during the reign of the Antichrist. But like most things in the book of Revelation, I believe there are microcosmic fulfillments of this pattern throughout the rest of the Church age as well.

Revelation 20:1, Key of the Bottomless Pit.

There are some eras of Church history when the successors of Peter and the apostles wield the keys of ecclesiastical discipline well. Unrepentant sinners and heretics are rightfully cast out of the Church, false doctrines are anathematized, the truth of the gospel is taught clearly, and so on. All of this “binds” the serpent and keeps “the gates of hell” at bay. Yet there are other eras of Church history when this isn’t the case. Unrepentant sinners and heretics are allowed to roam free in the Church, false doctrines aren’t clearly condemned, and even the gospel itself gets watered down. During these times, the successors of Peter and the apostles aren’t using the keys of the Church well, and so they’re letting the serpent “loose” for a little while. Of course, the gates of hell will never prevail, as our Lord promised, but they will feel close.

This is precisely the kind of era in Church history that I believe we’re in. Our shepherds in Christ, those who lawfully wield the keys of the kingdom, aren’t using their authority as they ought to. Rather than using the keys to excommunicate false teachers like Fr. James Martin, they’re instead using them to suppress and demoralize those who speak out in defense of the truth. This is a tragedy, one that’s actively allowing the devil to roam free and deceive the nations. However, it’s not a tragedy that implies that the successors of Peter and the apostles have forfeited their authority.

In Numbers 35:33-34, the Lord tells the people of Israel that shedding the blood of innocents cries out for vengeance. And if it’s not expiated through executing those who committed the crime, then the land itself will become “polluted,” it’ll get sick. Eventually, if the illness gets bad enough, the land “will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you” (Lev 18:28). This is why, throughout Deuteronomy, administering the death penalty is described with the ominous phrase, “you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7). Importantly, St. Paul uses this exact phrase in 1 Corinthians 5:13 with reference to ecclesiastical discipline. With Paul’s apostolic authority (1 Cor 5:3-5), the Corinthians were to cast unrepentant sinners out of their congregation in order to make their celebration of the Holy Eucharist more pure (1 Cor 5:6-8). As it is written, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor 5:13).

In an era of Church history when our ecclesiastical hierarchs aren’t obeying the command of St. Paul to expel unrepentant sinners, is it any surprise that we feel as though the land has been “polluted”? I think not. Of course, the new covenant is not identical to the old covenant. Whereas ancient Israel had to live in fear of being exiled from the promised land, the new covenant is defined by the permanent residence of God’s people in the land, the new Israel, the Church (cf. Amos 9:11-15; Jer 23:5-8; 32:37-41; Ezek 37:21-28; Isa 11:10-12). However, there is nonetheless a real sense in which faithful Catholics are undergoing a kind of “exile.” We’re not literally expelled from the Church, but there’s such hostility towards us that it sometimes feels like we are. Something that must be remembered, though, is that even during Israel’s literal exiles from the land, her priesthood did not lose its legitimacy. How much more, then, must the Catholic priesthood retain its legitimacy in the midst of the current crisis?

James Jacques Joseph Tissot, The Flight of the Prisoners.

Ultimately, the story told by Revelation 20:1-3 is not that the Church’s hierarchy loses the keys after the serpent has been set loose. Rather, it’s that the successors of Peter and the apostles truly can be responsible for misusing the authority entrusted to them, and when that happens, the consequences are disastrous. So disastrous, in fact, that it causes a kind of exile for the people of God. Woe, then, to those priests, bishops, and even popes who have allowed the land to become polluted by wickedness! Woe to those who wield the power of ecclesiastical discipline and yet refuse to administer it! I’m thankful that I won’t be in their shoes at the dread Judgment. However, I pray that I also won’t be in the shoes of those who abandoned the Mystical Body of Christ as she underwent her passion.

Read the next article in this series.

1. “I would remind all married couples that marriage is not an ideal but the measure of true love between a man and a woman: a love that is total, faithful, and fruitful (cf. St. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 9). This love makes you one flesh and enables you, in the image of God, to bestow the gift of life.” (Homily of Pope Leo XIV on Jubilee for Families, Children, Grandparents, and the Elderly).

2. “Rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage—which is the “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children”—and what contradicts it are inadmissible. This conviction is grounded in the perennial Catholic doctrine of marriage; it is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, proper, and fully human meaning. The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm.” (Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández, Fiducia Supplicans, 4).

3. CCC 2357.

4. See, “The Logic of Papal Infallibility - Ben Bollinger & Erick Ybarra.”

5. See my article, “Ecclesial Infallibility in Scripture.”

6. See Suan Sonna, “New Eliakim Research.”

7. See my article, “The Angels of the Churches.”