Certain Truth, or Mere Probability? Reply to Lamont and Harrison

It is far above my paygrade (and that of all "Facebook theologians") to decide whether Francis is Pope or not, but it is an ongoing debate amongst the actual, trained theologians.

From One Peter Five

By a Benedictine Monk

“Can one maintain ecclesiastical communion with the Pope of Rome, even though he appears to teach heresy in a notorious manner?” Perhaps some of us are caught in the throes of conscience, not knowing whether Pope Francis is still the true Vicar of Christ, or whether he has lost the papal office on account of his apparently held heretical views.

Dr. John Lamont has given a potent argument for the second of these options, in which he concludes that Francis cannot be the true Pope, and he urges all bishops to distance themselves from him and to elect a new successor to the See of Peter. Fr. Brian Harrison, on the other hand, has given a powerful rebuttal in support of the first of these options, in which he seeks to allay the consciences of priests and lay people, arguing that Francis is, indeed, still the true pope of Rome, and so we can be confident in maintaining ecclesiastical communion with him and praying for him in the Canon at Mass, despite any heresies that he may proclaim.

There is merit to each of these arguments, and one can understand why anyone would push one side or the other. Each side manifestly desires the truth and seeks to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which necessarily entails being in communion with the See of Rome and the true Vicar of Christ on earth, whoever he may be. However, there is an apparent problem, in that neither side seems to acknowledge the full force of the opposing position, and perhaps ascribes more necessity and power to their own view than is merited. Perhaps this is out of fear of the apparent consequences if their position should prove false, or at least not necessary. No true Catholic wants to believe that the Church has defected from Christ, nor that Christ has abandoned his Church and left it fully in the power of an evil man.

But fear should not hold us back from seeking out the truth and, if the truth is not found by us, acknowledging that we do not yet know for certain what we should hold. It is in such a spirit that I re-present the arguments of Dr. Lamont and Fr. Harrison in the form of concise logical syllogisms, after which I propose to give a response to each side. I do this in a spirit of fraternal charity, recognizing my own inadequacy and knowing I am one who would rather learn than teach.

ARGUMENT I (Dr. Lamont)

• Major premise: No true pope is a notorious heretic.
• Minor premise: But Francis is a notorious heretic.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Francis is not a true pope.

Proof of major premise:

No true member of the Church is a notorious heretic, since all theologians hold that a pope is necessarily separated from the Church when he notoriously teaches heresy. Likewise, Scripture, which is inerrant, teaches that all notorious heretics are to be separated from the Church without exception. Yet, no one who is separated from the Church is a true member. Therefore, no true member of the Church is a notorious heretic. 2. But all true popes are true members of the Church, since what belongs to the members with regard to their ecclesial communion belongs to the head all the more, for the gift of ecclesial communion flows from him. Therefore, no true pope is a notorious heretic.

Proof of minor premise:

Any one who holds that “God positively wills all religions” in a manner that cannot be “concealed by any clever subterfuge or excused by any legal argument” is a heretic by notoriety of fact. 2. But Pope Francis holds that God positively wills all religions in a manner that cannot be “concealed by any clever subterfuge or excused by any legal argument.” Therefore, Francis is a heretic by notoriety of fact.

RESPONSE:

The main argument (a categorical syllogism of the type CESARE) and its supporting syllogisms (of the type CELARENT and BARBARA) follow necessarily according to their form, however, the major premise of the main argument is a theological opinion, not magisterial, for it is not taught everywhere, nor always, nor by everyone, but only by some and during a certain time, that is, by the vast majority of theologians from the 12th century until the 20th century. Also, neither any pope, nor any Church Council, nor any official of the Holy See has ever made an authoritative declaration on this opinion. This premise, then, is only probable, not necessary. But since many eminent theologians (saints and doctors of the Church among them) have affirmed this position, even if not all, and since it has not been condemned by Church authority, it can therefore be held as a legitimate, theological opinion. Hence, it is probable that a heretical pope is removed from his office, de facto, or by the action of Christ, though this is not a necessary conclusion.

Also, the scriptural admonition to break communion with heretics is not universal, since it does not appear to pertain to the head of the Roman Catholic Church (cf. Mt. 16:15-20), but only to those who are subordinate, or at least coordinate in ecclesiastical hierarchy. Therefore, it does not follow necessarily from this that one must break ecclesiastical communion with the Pope of Rome, the current occupant of the See of St. Peter, if he happens to fall into heresy.

But a conclusion follows only probably and not necessarily from any argument if even one of the premises in that argument is probable and not necessary. Thus, that “Francis is not the true Pope” follows from this argument as something probable and not a necessary fact, contrary to the apparent force of Dr. Lamont’s conclusion.

ARGUMENT II (Fr. Harrison)

• Major premise: If Francis is not the true pope, Christ has abandoned his church. For Christ has manifestly abandoned any church that is incapable of continuing the Apostolic succession. Yet the Catholic Church is incapable of continuing the Apostolic succession if the majority of Cardinal electors are appointed by a false pope. Therefore, if Francis is a false pope, Christ has abandoned the Catholic Church.
• Minor premise: But Christ has not abandoned the Catholic Church. (Cf. Mt. 16:18, 28:20).
• Therefore, Francis is the true Pope.

RESPONSE:

The form of this conditional syllogism follows necessarily, and the minor premise is certain, being based on Scripture. However, the major premise is not certain, for there are many other ways that a pope can be elected besides being appointed by cardinal electors, as history itself has shown. It does not matter in the end whether he is elected by valid cardinals, invalid cardinals, civil authorities, laymen, laywomen, or a mixture of these, for as long as he is accepted by the universal Catholic Church, which cannot err in its universal, ordinary magisterium, then he is a true and valid pope, and the Apostolic succession continues. The universal acceptance amends any irregularities in the election itself and gives infallible assurance that he is the true pope at that moment. Christ, then, has not abandoned his Church, even if all the cardinal electors are appointed by one who is not the true pope.

But, if any of the premises in an argument are not certain, the conclusion that follows from them is not certain. Therefore, that “Francis is the true Pope” is not a certain conclusion from Fr. Harrison’s argument, as given above.

Now, the minor premise in Fr. Harrison’s argument, namely of Christ not abandoning his Church, turns out to be the same that is assumed by Dr. Lamont and many other sedevacantists. The premise that any pope who notoriously teaches heresy loses the office of the papacy de facto and is expelled from the Church by Christ rests on the reduction to absurdity that Christ would necessarily have abandoned his Church if such a heretical pope were not expelled. This argument also appears to underlie the arguments that St. Robert Bellarmine presents in support of this theory.

ARGUMENT III (Possibly presumed by Dr. Lamont and other sedevacantists)

• Major premise: If Francis is the true Pope, Christ has abandoned his Church. For Christ has manifestly abandoned any church that officially teaches heresy by notoriety of fact. Yet the Catholic Church officially teaches heresy by notoriety of fact, if the true head of the Church is Pope Francis, for he himself teaches heresy by notoriety of fact. Therefore, if Francis is the true Pope, Christ has manifestly abandoned the Catholic Church.
• Minor premise: But Christ has not abandoned the Catholic Church. (Cf. Mt. 16:18, 28:20).
• Therefore, Francis is not the true Pope.

RESPONSE:

Once again, the form of this conditional syllogism follows necessarily and the minor premise is certain, being based on Scripture. Yet the major premise is not certain. This time, however, it is because “official Church teaching” is not equivalent to the “teaching of Pope Francis,” that is, the ordinary magisterium of the current pope. Official Church teaching is narrower than that, for it consists in what is taught always, everywhere, and by all the Fathers, theologians, and Doctors of the Church to be contained in or follow from divine revelation, or is upheld by the universal Tradition of the Church, or which is solemnly defined as such by the Pope or Church Councils approved by him. Hence, although the Pope might teach heresy in his ordinary magisterium, that does not make his heresy official Church teaching. Therefore, that the current Pope teaches heresy does not mean that Christ has abandoned his Church, and so the reduction to the absurd conclusion does not follow.

We can see, then, that each of these arguments listed above appear to commit a fallacy of scope or universality, seeking to make certain what is rather uncertain. The first (Dr. Lamont’s) unduly widens the number of theologians who taught that a heretical pope loses his office de facto, or by an act of Christ, from “some” theologians to “all” theologians, thus seeking to make a likely theological opinion into Church dogma. The second (Fr. Harrison’s) inordinately restricts the way a man can be elected to the papal office. The third (possibly presumed by Dr. Lamont or other sedevacantists) excessively broadens the notion of official Church teaching to contain anything taught by the current Pope, including his non-infallible ordinary magisterium. Hence, each arguments fails to conclude necessarily, and so they do not prove that Francis either is or is not the Pope. At best, they can be construed as probable arguments, differing in probability according to the number and authority of the Catholic theologians who espoused each argument.

Let us now consider the final argument made by Fr. Harrison.

ARGUMENT IV (Fr. Harrison)

• Major premise: All current bishops and cardinals in communion with the Holy See teach that Francis is the true pope.
• Minor premise: But the unanimous teaching of the current bishops and cardinals of the Church is certain.
• Therefore, it is certain that Francis is the true Pope.

RESPONSE:

This is, indeed, a potent argument, and could be enough to settle the conscience of anyone who wishes to name the pope in their private prayers or in the Canon at Mass. However, it does not appear at face value to attain to a level of certainty such that one can declare, “I am now utterly certain that Francis is the true pope.” For there have been other times in Church history when all but a few bishops held to the heresy of Arianism, or when most of the Catholic world adhered to a false pope. Given this precedent, what would prevent a similar or worse crisis from repeating itself today? In the face of Francis’s apparent and stubborn heresy, should the common testimony of modern bishops be adamantly followed, who teach that Francis is still the pope, regardless of whatever heresy or blasphemy he may proclaim, or whatever apparent idolatry he may perform? What of the fact that many of these bishops who maintain Francis as pope appear to agree with his heresy, if not explicitly, at least tacitly by not speaking out against it? Can they then be trusted to know the difference between a true shepherd and a hireling, or even a wolf? Or should we rather look to the opinion of the orthodox theologians from the 12th until the 20th century, who taught that a manifestly notorious heretic would be deprived of his papal office de facto, or by Christ himself? Are these theologians more trustworthy as witnesses of orthodoxy than many of the current bishops of today? On the other hand, there are a number of apparently orthodox bishops, named by Fr. Harrison, who have spoken out against Pope Francis’s heretical views, and who nevertheless uphold that Francis is still the pope. The question, then, that would need to be resolved is this: do these living successors of the apostles have the dogmatic authority to condemn the theory that a pope loses his office de facto, or by the action of Christ, when he teaches heresy notoriously?

Perhaps such a question is better pondered in humble prayer and brought in suffering to Our Lord on the Cross, rather than given an adamant, hardened answer based on human judgment alone. For if two propositions that necessarily exclude one another can be held by Catholics as legitimate theological opinions (i.e. “a notoriously heretical Pope is automatically removed from office by Christ” vs. “a notoriously heretical Pope is not automatically removed from office by Christ”), then the tenacity with which one holds either opinion must be tenuous indeed, if one would still preserve communion with those who hold the opposite proposition. The tension created by such disagreement could be the greatest trial ever given to the Church. And yet, in the face of such perplexity, we ought to finally realize that this crisis cannot be remedied by merely human strength, action, or reasoning. We might perhaps become certain one day which of these propositions is true when, in a time of ecclesiastical peace and orthodoxy, a future pope were to either confirm or anathematize one side or the other. But until we have such a period of peace and clarity, and have been given such an orthodox pope, we must ardently pray for the bishops and beg Christ himself to intervene, to enlighten the obscurity and confusion of these dark times, and to strengthen Peter so that he might turn and confirm the brethren.

Come, Lord Jesus!