Whether Francis and his predecessors have been legitimate Roman Pontiffs?

It is certain that Francis and his recent predecessors (Benedict XVI, John Paul II, and Paul VI[1]) have not been true popes.  For if they were, the Church would have lost her visible unity, and defected.  But this is impossible.

The Catholic Church is a visible institution, identifiable by her Four Marks. As Wernz and Vidal say, “the visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognised and discerned, especially on the part of her legitimate officers.”[2]

The First Mark of the Church is her Unity, which includes her Unity of Faith.  This Unity of Faith means that “[i]n the Roman Catholic Church all the faithful of the whole world are subordinate to and obey the one supreme power of the Holy Roman See in the doctrine of the faith, in government and worship, and they do so perfectly and manifestly”[3].  

Moreover, as Rhodes says: “Though they may be utter strangers to each other in the flesh, and divided in temporal position as far as men can be divided from their fellow-men, there will be found one and the self-same faith, one and the self-same rule of morals, the self-same sacraments, and the self-same belief respecting those sacraments; there will be found but one mind, one heart, and one voice, as regards all the doctrines and commandments of the Church. This is unity, and it is divine; it is no mere human coincidence or contrivance. The finger of God is here, reversing the confusion of Babel. It is the unity of God’s one Church throughout the universal globe; and it has been her unity through more than eighteen centuries and a half. It is a matter to be looked to, and a test to be applied, for the absence of such unity denotes the absence of God.”[4]

Now the Roman Pontiff is by definition the principle or source of this unity.  As Pope Gregory XVI explains, “Jesus Christ conferred on His Church the supreme power of administering religion and governing Christian society. This is not subject to the civil authority. In his letter to the Ephesians the apostle teaches that Christ established this ecclesiastical power for the benefit of unity. And what is this unity unless one person is placed in charge of the whole Church who protects it and joins all its members in the one profession of faith and unites them in the one bond of love and communion? The wisdom of the Divine Lawgiver ordered that a visible head be placed over a visible body so that ‘once so established, the opportunity for division might be removed.’”[5]

But this is not a description of Francis and his predecessors, or of the institution they have led.  

Francis and his predecessors have not elicited or preserved Unity of Faith.  Instead, they have allowed heresy and error to run rampant for more than fifty years, doing nothing to halt the most catastrophic plague of infidelity in the history of the world. 

Compare what has happened in the last several decades to what Pope Leo X says in Cum Postquam: “You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.”[6]  Can it be said with a straight face that the “Church” of Francis and his predecessors “does not permit errors”?  To ask the question is to answer it.

In this institution, not only is there not unity in truth – there is not even a unity in error.  Instead, as a general rule, its members believe whatever they want with complete impunity.  

Men with entirely different religions are regarded as members in good standing, and the putative hierarchy takes no action to ensure conformity.  

To say that this institution is, taken together, the Catholic Church, would be to say that Athanasius Schneider and the most radical German ‘bishops’ share “the self-same faith, one and the self-same rule of morals … one mind, one heart, and one voice, as regards all the doctrines and commandments of the Church”[7].  But this is absurd.  

Therefore, this institution, taken together, is not the Catholic Church.

The only coherent and orthodox explanation for this disunity is to point out that many supposed Catholics are not in truth Catholics.  That is, they are not members of the Catholic Church.  They have departed from her by their own act, as Pius XII has stated is possible: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”[8]

As Mura explains, “Heresy like schism, and even more than schism, is contrary to the unity of the Mystical Body. However, it does not destroy this unity. It simply excludes itself from it, and by that very fact allows the full unanimity of the faithful to subsist in the matter of the profession of faith.”[9]

Since the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity, and Francis and his predecessors have not been the principle of unity, they have not been legitimate Roman Pontiffs.

Objections and Replies:

Objection One.  It would seem that Francis and his predecessors have been legitimate Roman Pontiffs.  For the universal and peaceful acceptance by the Church of a papal claimant is an infallible proof of his legitimacy.  But the entire Church has accepted Francis and his predecessors as true popes.  Therefore, they have been true popes.

Objection Two.  Theologians teach that the Church’s Mark of Apostolicity requires that there must always be legitimate successors to the Apostles alive in the world.  Now the successors to the Apostles are the diocesan bishops, who receive their jurisdiction from the pope.  But if Francis and his predecessors have not been legitimate popes, the normal appointment of bishops has been interrupted, meaning there would be either no successors of the Apostles alive today, or only a few extremely aged ones remaining (depending on when we mark the start of the vacancy).  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been legitimate popes.

Objection Three.  The First Vatican Council taught that St. Peter shall have perpetual successors in the primacy.  Therefore, an extended vacancy of the Holy See is impossible, and Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Four.  Those who argue that Francis and his predecessors have not been true popes say these men are ineligible for the papacy on account of being public heretics.  But many approved theologians taught that a public heretic would remain pope until deposed by the Church.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Five.  Those who argue that Francis and his predecessors have not been true popes say these men are ineligible for the papacy on account of being public heretics.  But we as laymen are unable to know if a man is a public heretic without some declaration by an authority, and no authority has ruled on the cases of Francis and his predecessors.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Six.  Those who argue that Francis and his predecessors have not been true popes say these men are ineligible for the papacy on account of being public heretics.  But no one is a public heretic unless they have been given the two warnings spoken of by St. Paul.  But the two warnings have not been given here.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Seven.  Those who argue that Francis and his predecessors have not been true popes say these men are ineligible for the papacy on account of being public heretics.  But it is said that there were other heretical popes in the past, such as Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Eight.  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a learned and pious man, and one of the few to recognize the crisis in the Church.  It would therefore be wise to follow his example and opinions.  Now, Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the proposition that the papal claimants in Rome were illegitimate.  Therefore, we should consider Francis and his predecessors to have been true popes.

Objection Nine.  It is not proper for laymen to judge the pope, for the first see is judged by no one. Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Ten: At the very least, we must assume Francis and his predecessors have been legitimate popes unless some authority says otherwise.

Objection Eleven.  Our Lord recognized Caiaphas as the High Priest.  Therefore, we should recognize Francis and his predecessors as true popes.

Objection Twelve.  Our Lord said, “the gates of hell shall not prevail”[10] against the Church.  But if Francis and his predecessors have not been true popes, then the gates of hell have prevailed.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Thirteen.  Francis and his predecessors are analogous to bad fathers.  Now, a man does not stop being a father merely because he is evil or a heretic.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

Objection Fourteen.  It is said that there have been bad popes in the past.  Therefore, there is historical precedent for Francis and his predecessors, and they have been true popes.

Objection Fifteen.  If there has been a decades-long vacancy of the Holy See, there would be no way to elect a new pope.  But the Church will always be able to elect a pope.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have been true popes.

On the contrary: “I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.  But postulating that Francis and his predecessors have been legitimate Roman Pontiffs implicitly denies the Oneness of the Church.  Therefore, Francis and his predecessors have not been legitimate Roman Pontiffs.

Reply to Objection One.   The principle of universal peaceful acceptance is premised on the fact that the whole Church cannot adhere to a false rule of Faith.  Because the pope is the Church’s living rule of Faith, the Church cannot peacefully adhere to a false pope.  As Billot says, “[t]o be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later.”[11]

But since the whole Church has not adhered to Francis and his predecessors as its living rule of Faith.  While nearly every Catholic says that these men have been true popes, very few act as if they have been true popes, and they have certainly not been the Church's living rule of Faith.

Wilhelm and Scannell explain the meaning of the rule of Faith as follows: 

"I. THE nature and dignity of the Word of God require that submission to it should not be left to the choice of man, but should be made obligatory. The Church should put it forth in such a way as to bind all her members to adhere to it in common, and with one voice and in all its fulness, as a public and social law.

"II. The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.

"III. The fact that all the members of the Church actually agree in one Faith is the best proof of the efficiency of the Catholic Rule of Faith. This universality is not the Rule of Faith itself, but rather its effect. Individual members are indeed bound to conform their belief to that of the whole community, but this universal belief is produced by the action of the Teaching Apostolate, the members of which are in their turn subject to their Chief. Hence the Catholic Rule of Faith may be ultimately reduced to the sovereign teaching authority of the Holy See. This was asserted long ago in the Creed drawn up by Pope Hormisdas: “Wherefore following in all things the Apostolic See and upholding all its decrees, I hope that it may be mine to be with you in the one communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which is the true and complete solidity of the Christian Religion; and I promise also not to mention in the Holy Mysteries the names of those who have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church—that is, those who agree not with the Apostolic See.””[12]

Francis and his predecessors have neither extracted from the faithful "a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed", nor united the Church in perfect unity of Faith.  Consequently, Francis and his predecessors have not been the Church's living rule of Faith, and they therefore have not been universally and peacefully accepted as popes in the relevant sense.

Reply to Objection Two.  It is a non sequitur to assert that because all jurisdiction comes through the Roman Pontiff, that therefore every single diocesan bishop must be directly appointed by him.  As Fenton says, “The teaching of Pope Pius XII on the origin of the episcopal jurisdiction is not a claim that St. Peter and his successors in the Roman See have always appointed directly every other bishop within the Church of Jesus Christ.”[13]

Moreover, under Canon 209 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church supplies jurisdiction to certain acts in cases of common error.  Francis' claim to the papacy is a common error of fact, and it therefore is at least plausible that the attempts by him and his predecessors to appoint diocesan bishops could attract the supply of jurisdiction, at least in certain cases.  Therefore, a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See does not necessarily imply the extinction of the hierarchy.

Reply to Objection Three.  Perpetual succession does not exclude a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.  Writing after the First Vatican Council, Dorsch said the Holy See could be vacant for many years[14], and O’Reilly said that a vacancy could last at least the length of the Western Schism – about thirty-nine years – and that we “must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit”[15].

Reply to Objection Four.  It is true that many approved authorities have held that a publicly heretical pope would retain office until removed.  However, the much more common view by the twentieth century was the contrary position, held by Bellarmine and his school.  One reason for this is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the former with the condemnation of Gallicanism by Vatican I. Moreover, it is simply unable to explain the present crisis, and for that reason it must be rejected.  Finally, one should remember that the primary argument against Francis and his predecessors is not that they are public heretics and therefore ineligible for the papacy.  It is rather that their claims to the papacy are incompatible with the Church's Mark of Unity.

Reply to Objection Five.  We do not need authority to notice if a man is a member of the Church, and no one has presented any evidence to show that we do.  We reach our conclusions by using our God-given faculties, comparing abstract ideas (e.g., “Pope”, “Catholic”) to the individuals before us (Francis, etc.), and observing that the individuals are not in accord with the abstract ideas.  This is completely proper procedure.

Reply to Objection Six.  St. Paul does not say two warnings are the only way to know if someone is a heretic, and Cardinal de Lugo – ranked by St. Alphonsus as the greatest theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas[16] – says two warnings are not strictly necessary. 

“So the common and most true judgement of theologians teaches that there is no need for this warning, or for length of time or delay, for someone to become a heretic and incur the penalties of heretics, but that it is sufficient for him to embrace error with full deliberation and express what he sees to be at odds with the understanding and definition of the Church. This is taught by Suarez [reference given], Cajetan, Vasquez, Valentia and countless others quoted and followed by Sanchez [reference given] and Diana [reference given] who, on the authority of others whom he quotes, well remarks against Alciatus and others that not even in the external forum is a warning and preceding correction always required for someone to be punished as pertinacious and that this is not observed in the practice of the Holy Office. For if it be certain by some other means – for example, if the doctrine in question be well known, or if it be obvious from the kind of person and other circumstances involved – that the accused person could not have been ignorant of the opposition of his doctrine to that of the Church, he will automatically be judged a heretic. The reason he is asked in his trial whether he knew that his view was contrary to the doctrine of the Church, is that, if he admits that he did, he will already be thought sufficiently to have confessed heresy and pertinacity.”[17]

Reply to Objection Seven.  No legitimate pope has been a public heretic, and the accusations against Liberius, Honorius, John XXII, et al. have been refuted by Bellarmine[18] and numerous other Catholic writers.

Reply to Objection Eight.  Even canonized saints may be mistaken about the identity of the pope.  During the Western Schism, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer adhered to opposite papal claimants.  Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was open to the possibility that Paul VI and John Paul II might not be true popes after all[19].

Reply to Objection Nine.  Nothing prevents laymen from judging whether a particular man is really the pope.  On the contrary, this exact judgment is implicit in every recognition of a papal claimant.  For if a man recognizes Francis as pope, he implicitly judges that every other man on Earth is not the pope.

Reply to Objection Ten:  A pope must only be recognized if his claim is certain.  As Wernz and Vidal say, [“I]f a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful; and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated, for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal jurisdiction.”[20]

Reply to Objection Eleven.  The Catholic Church differs from the “church” of the Old Testament precisely in that the Church is an ecclesia, a called-together assembly of diverse men, by faith.  That is, the Church is bound together primarily by the common profession of the faith of Christ.  The “church” of the Old Dispensation was a nation, bound primarily by blood.  For this reason, heresy did not result in loss of office in Israel.  Under the New Law, however, public heterodoxy is directly opposed to the first of the bonds of unity of the Church.  A public heretic is not a member of the Church, and one cannot be head of that of which one is not even a member. 

Reply to Objection Twelve.  Indeed, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, but this does not exclude the possibility of a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See.  It does however exclude the possibility of heresy or dangerous error prevailing over the Catholic Church.  As Haydock explains:

“The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner)”[21]

Reply to Objection Thirteen.  The papacy is not analogous to biological fatherhood in this sense, for the papacy can be resigned, whereas biological fatherhood is inalienable.

Reply to Objection Fourteen.  Even if there have been bad popes before, there cannot be a Non-Catholic pope.  Moreover, the “bad pope” hypothesis is incapable of explaining the present crisis.

Reply to Objection Fifteen.  Under ecclesiastical law, the cardinals are the papal electors.  If the college of cardinals is extinct – and I do not concede that it is – then according to St. Robert Bellarmine, the right to elect the pope devolves back to the other clergy of the Diocese of Rome, “with some dependence on a general council”.[22]

[1] At least from c. late 1964 onward.

[2] Wernz, Francisco Xavier. and Vidal, P. Petri, Ius Canonicum ad Codicis Normam Exactum, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 1938.  

[3] Joachim Salaverri, On the Church of Christ, trans. Kenneth Baker (Ramsey, NJ: Keep the Faith, 2015), quoted in S.D. Wright, “The Visible Unity of the Church II – More on What It Means for the Church to Be ‘Visibly’ One,” The WM Review, January 11, 2022, https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/06/10/visible-unity-of-the-church-ii/.

[4] M. J. Rhodes, in The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church Maintained Against Opposite Theories (London, 1870), p. 35, quoted in S.D. Wright, “The Visible Unity of the Church III – Reconciling the Church's Teachings About Her Own Unity with the Current Crisis,” The WM Review, February 5, 2022, https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/06/10/visible-unity-of-the-church-iii/.

[5] Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus, 1835, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16commi.htm, quoted in “The Catholic Teaching on the Papacy,” Novus Ordo Watch, https://novusordowatch.org/the-catholic-papacy/.

[6] Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger, in Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum Et Declarationum De Rebus Fidei Et Morum, par. 740(b), http://denzinger.patristica.net/denzinger/.

[7] M. J. Rhodes, in The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church Maintained Against Opposite Theories (London, 1870), p. 35, quoted in S.D. Wright, “The Visible Unity of the Church III – Reconciling the Church's Teachings About Her Own Unity with the Current Crisis,” The WM Review, February 5, 2022, https://wmreview.co.uk/2021/06/10/visible-unity-of-the-church-iii/.

[8] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html.

[9] Ernest Mura, The Nature of the Mystical Body (St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1964), p. 279.  Translated from French; originally published in 1936).  Emphasis added.

[10] Matthew 16:18, Douay-Rheims American, 1899.

[11] Louis Billot, in Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, 5th ed. (Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927), pp. 623-636, https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/.  Translated by Novus Ordo Watch.

[12] Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannell, "The Rule of Faith considered generally; and also specially in its active sense" in A Manual of Catholic Theology (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1909).  Retrieved from https://www.ecatholic2000.com/theology/manual.shtml#_Toc417821999.

[13] Joseph C. Fenton, “Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See,” American Ecclesiastical Review, April 1949, pp. 337-342, quoted in “Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Roman See (Fenton),” Bellarmine Forums, September 12, 2006, http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=207.

[14] Mark Pivarunas, “Answering the Objections to the Sedevacantist Position,” CMRI, https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/answering-the-objections-to-the-sedevacantist-position/.

[15] John Daly, “Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, S.J.: On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See,” CMRI, https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/fr-edmund-james-oreilly-s-j-on-the-idea-of-a-long-term-vacancy-of-the-holy-see/.

[16] Joseph de Ghellinck, “John De Lugo,” in Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9 (New York, NY: Robert Appleton Company, 1910).

[17] John de Lugo, in Disputationes Scholasticae Et Morales, Disp. XX, De Virtute Fidei Divinæ, n. 5, https://romeward.com/articles/239752519/cardinal-de-lugo-on-heresy.  Retrieved from https://novusordowatch.org/2019/09/catholic-family-news-peace-crisis-3/.

[18] Robert Bellarmine, Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith, trans. Ryan Grant (Post Falls, ID: Mediatrix Press, 2015).

[19] John Lane, “Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis,” http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf.

[20] Francis Xavier Wernz and P. Petri Vidal, “Scholion 454,” in Juris Decretalium, vol. II, 1898.  English translation from http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?p=10049&sid=a02f5b06f39fe85a1de995f2890d390c#p10049.

[21] George Leo Haydock, “Matthew 16,” in The Holy Bible: Translated from the Latin Vulgate, Diligently Compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and Other Editions in Divers Languages: The Old Testament, First Published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609: And the New Testament, First Published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582: With Useful Notes, Critical, Historical, Controversial and Explanatory: Selected from the Most Eminent Commentators, and the Most Able and Judicious Critics (New York, NY: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1859), https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment18.shtml.

[22] Robert Bellarmine, ed., “De Clericis, Book I, Chapter 10,” in Controversies, translated by James Larrabee, quoted in James Larrabee, “Bellarmine on Extraordinary Papal Elections,” http://strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm2.html