Is Francis Pope? A Priest’s Reply to John Lamont

Fr Harrison is the author of "A Heretical Pope Would Govern the Church Illicitly but Validly" written years before Francis was elected.

From One Peter Five

By Fr Brian Harrison, OS, STD

Dr. John Lamont is a theologian well known in traditional Catholic circles for his eloquent and incisive analyses of the many critical doctrinal controversies that have arisen during the pontificate of Pope Francis. Readers of OnePeterFive who have seen Dr. Joseph Shaw’s recent essay will be aware that Lamont has recently added his quite weighty voice to that of Archbishop Viganò and others who unequivocally affirm that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not pope, so that the See of Peter is currently vacant. I offer these reflections in support of Shaw’s reply to Lamont, adding some further points that can be made which I think are especially relevant for priests like myself and many other ordained readers of OnePeterFive.   

John Lamont’s argument, following the view of St. Robert Bellarmine, can be expressed as the following syllogism:

• Major: A pope who is a notorious heretic ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore ipso facto falls from the papal office. 
• Minor: Francis/Bergoglio is a notorious heretic. 
• Conclusion:  Francis/Bergoglio has fallen from the papal office and the See of Peter is vacant. 

First of all, the major, even if true in itself, seems to me canonically inapplicable to the case of Pope Francis even if Lamont’s minor premise also turns out to be true. Canon 194 §1, no. 2 of the Code of Canon Law does indeed provide that “a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith” is “removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself”. And this ecclesiastical law also embodies divine law, because someone who through heresy or apostasy is no longer even a member of the Catholic Church could not possibly hold office within her with God’s approval. 

However, c. 194 §2 goes on to say, “The removal mentioned in §1 no. 2 . . . can been enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” This is a purely human, ecclesiastical law; but it applies here because it imposes a limitation not on the pope’s power but on that of the lesser authorities who would have competence in this case, namely (if we follow Bellarmine), the remaining Catholic bishops. Since they have never issued any declaration that Pope Francis has publicly defected from the Catholic faith and so has lost office, neither the bishops nor anyone else at this stage would have the power to enforce his removal and proceed to convoke a conclave for a new papal election. And in the meantime, even though through his (putative) notorious heresy Francis would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication the instant after losing the papal office, his continuing acts of papal governance would still be valid, even though illicit. Why? Because according to c. 1331, §2, no. 2, those acts, unlawful though they be, will be invalid only after his excommunication has been declared by the competent authority. 

In short, even supposing Francis has indeed lapsed from office as a notorious heretic, all faithful Catholics, paradoxically, will still be obliged to treat him as pope for all practical purposes for as long as our other shepherds, the college of bishops, do so. For as long as they do not declare and enforce Francis’s removal from office, we, like they, will be obliged to obey his just commands, assent to his orthodox magisterial statements, and recognize the validity of his appointments and other acts of church governance.

That brings us to the minor premise: is Francis indeed a notorious heretic? Dr. Lamont unpacks that question as meaning, “Is there publicly available evidence that confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that he pertinaciously rejects one or more teachings that he knows to be taught by the Church as divinely revealed?”. He answers ‘Yes’ to this question; but I remain unconvinced by his argumentation, and have italicized certain words above to indicate key points on which I think Lamont’s interpretation and evaluation of what Francis has said is not at all conclusive. However, I won’t go into these points now. For it struck me as I was pondering these rather recondite points of theology and law (especially the question of due process) that focusing on them may risk losing sight of the wood for the trees. 

Instead, I found myself asking, What is the big picture here? How are the countless millions of ordinary lay Catholics in the pews to prudently decide this question, given that they don’t have the theological and canonical formation necessary to weigh and evaluate the respective arguments of Dr. Lamont and the scholars who disagree with him? Indeed, how about the ordinary priest, who is not a specialist in these matters? He probably hasn’t had time to read much theology since he left seminary; and in any case his seminary courses would definitely not have dealt with the difficult and complex issue of whether, and if so under what conditions, a pope can fall from office through heresy – and be known to have so fallen. Every priest, unlike lay Catholics, is faced with the stark alternative every day of either saying or not saying, in the Canon of the Mass, the words, “Una cum Papa nostro Francisco“. Unlike the laity, he can’t sit on the fence or suspend judgment. He either utters those solemn words, thereby affirming Francis’ status as true pope and his own submission to him, or he doesn’t, thereby separating himself from Francis and committing the grave crime of schism if he errs in doing so. (I saw on a Catholic news outlet a few weeks ago that an Italian Carmelite priest who publicly denies Francis is pope is now being threatened with expulsion from the order and excommunication for schism unless he recants within a week or two.)

So what is the prudent and devout Catholic with only an average knowledge of faith and morals to do? Since he will realize that he’ll have to be guided by some authority who knows more about these things than he does, it seems to me that, even if he has traditionalist leanings, he will be quite reasonable if he argues to himself along these lines: 

“Well, I see that Archbishop Viganò, John Lamont, Matthew McCusker, Edmond Mazza, the writers at ‘Novus Ordo Watch’ and some other intelligent scholars are now saying Francis is not a true pope. But on the other hand, not one other Catholic Successor of the Apostles that I know of, among the 4,000 or so who now govern God’s Church, denies Francis’ status as the true Successor of Peter. Bishop Schneider assures me Francis is pope; Bishop Strickland accepts him as pope – as do all the SSPX bishops. And the entire College of Cardinals accepts him as pope, including my heroes of orthodoxy Cardinals Burke, Müller, Sarah and Brandmüller. Could it be that God has not only allowed the Successor of Peter to lapse from office through notorious heresy, but has also allowed the entire College of Cardinals and all the Catholic bishops bar none to remain blind to Bergoglio’s pertinacious heresy and so continue to recognize a faithless impostor and antipope as true pope? Doesn’t that scenario look like the gates of hell prevailing against Christ’s Church? Won’t I be prudent, therefore, to follow the maxim securus iudicat orbis terrarum – ‘the judgement of the whole world is safe’ – and so continue to recognize Francis  as pope (and therefore, if I’m a priest, continue to pronounce his name in the canon of the Mass)?

“Also, if Viganó, Lamont etc., are right, how will things play out in a few years’ time when Francis dies? Since Lamont claims – in opposition to all the cardinals and virtually all the bishops – that Francis lapsed from office some time after his election in 2013 and has no valid claim on our obedience, he owes it to us to tell us when, precisely, he lapsed, so we will know which of the cardinals he appointed (if any) are true cardinals possessing the right to elect a new Pontiff. But in any case, since the names of those who voted for this or that candidate during a conclave are never made known publicly, and since after the December 2024 consistory 80% of all voting cardinals will have been appointed by Francis, there will be an overwhelming probability that whoever is elected will owe his election partly to the votes of men who, having received their red hats after Bergoglio lapsed from office, are not true cardinals.

“In short, if Lamont, Viganó et al are right, the next man elected to the See of Peter at the next conclave will almost certainly not be a true pope. And since the cardinals he appoints will also not be true cardinals, and since the bishops he appoints will have no true jurisdiction over the faithful in their dioceses, there will be no foreseeable future way out of this rabbit hole. The Church as a recognizable, visible entity will have ceased to exist, because no future conclave will have certainly valid papal electors. And the ecclesiology implied by affirming that the entire college of bishops could ever be, and has in fact been, seduced into following an antipope is surely heterodox. It implies the Protestant ecclesiology that the true Church is invisible, that it needs no recognizable earthly head, and that it consists of all those scattered individuals who hold orthodox Christian belief. This runs up against the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church and the dogma, defined by Vatican I, that Blessed Peter will have perpetual successors i.e., right up till the Second Coming.

“In view of all the above considerations, I will respectfully demur from Viganó, Lamont and their allies. I will trust that the promises of Christ imply that he will never permit a calamity to the Church as grave as that which they say has now befallen her. That means I will continue to hold that Francis is the true pope. In spite of his many shortcomings I will profess my union with him in the canon of the Mass (if I’m a priest), feel bound to obey his just commands, and recognize the true jurisdiction of the bishop Francis has appointed to govern my diocese, as well as the cardinals he has appointed to elect his successor.”