Note: This article was actually originally published on my OLD, defunct blog, by mistake. I only caught it because I got an email ping that somebody liked it.
Vox Day asks this:
But, speaking of Roman Catholics, I do find myself wondering how the non-sedevacantists can bring themselves to defend this observably wicked man, whose actions are obviously reprehensible even in the eyes of heretics and pagans. And if the satanic rainbow flag is flying over Rome, in what sense have the gates of that particular church not fallen.
Conceding for the sake of argument that Pope Francis is observably wicked – and I probably wouldn’t concede that point – the question remains in light of the fact that we have had observably wicked popes.
My answer to this is that who the particular person of the Pope is, is simply not that important. The role of the Pope is important, he does have real authority, but the faith is far bigger than merely the Pope. The Church is not set up in such a way that one human man could destroy it even if he wanted to. Pope Francis in his time as Pope has not bound Catholics to believe in heresy and has served his principle function as visible head of the Catholic Church under which Catholics unite as one body. Everything else he does, good or bad, while certainly impactful in the moment ultimately don’t affect my Catholic faith overmuch.
In what sense have the gates of Hell not prevailed against the Roman Church? Because the Church is a 2000 year old institution with defined teachings, and under Pope Francis that is what the Church still is. She still has the sacraments and still proclaims the fullness of truth approximated by the other Apostolic Churches and Protestants.
As for the point about building a theology on a metaphor – I would argue that the Church is built on the observable historical continuity down to Jesus Christ, not one metaphor about Simon Peter.
The Mechanical Dragon 