Starting a Schism: So Easy It’s Not Funny

"Supposing Francis did formally adhere to heresy, we would need men with the competence to declare this before the universal Church."

From Crisis

By Dom Pius Mary Noonan, OSB, STD

To deny that Francis is the true pope requires either divine revelation or a very special competence to discern this. Those who make this claim have neither.

Several weeks ago, LifeSiteNews kindly published my article titled “Francis Has Given Us Two Keys for Understanding His Pontificate.” My principal goal in that brief article was to caution the voices of those who have seemingly reached the definite conclusion that, due to heresy, the Apostolic See is vacant. Unfortunately, a number of individuals misunderstood my intentions and reacted negatively. Here, I would like to clarify a number of points and respond to particular criticisms.

Lay theologians

Contrary to what some seem to have deduced from my article, I am a fan of lay theologians and count some very competent ones as friends. I do not think anything I wrote in my preceding article can be construed as leading to a contrary conclusion. I did not take issue with those who genuinely have theological competence. There were no “jibes” against them, nor did I “mock” them, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary. 

When I wrote that some of our present-day writers “seem to consider themselves somehow endowed with a charism similar to that of the medieval University of Paris, whose master theologians certainly carried weight in the Church of their day,” I was simply pointing to the fact that both civil and religious authorities of the time formally requested the judgment of these masters in theology, whose opinion carried weight because of their exceptional qualifications that would shame every living theologian in our day. I do not see this happening today. 

However, lay theologians’ capacities were not at all my point. I would have written the same thing if the writers had all been priests. So, let’s come to the crux of the matter, which is that a number of laymen have publicly written that, due to their research, it is clear that Francis cannot be the pope. This is the matter at stake, and I do think that a fair and honest reading of my first article makes that clear. 

To be an expert in theology is to be a faithful son or daughter of the Church, which means taking into consideration not only the doctrines themselves but also the specific role of those who teach it. The only ones in the Church with a divine mandate to teach the faith are the pope for the universal Church and the bishop in one’s diocese. This latter teaching office is shared by divine right with priests, as the ancient Roman rite of priestly ordination makes clear with the words doctores fidei in the consecratory preface. 

I mean to say that having competence in theology at any level does not give one the right to lay out before the eyes of all theories that are not theologically certain and publicly verifiable, especially when they contradict the judgment of the universal episcopate. In particular, it certainly gives no one the right—were he a new Aquinas—to declare the Apostolic See vacant.

No Competence to Judge the Pope

One of my critics writes that the “most important task before us is to discover the truth.” Agreed. However, it is true that the particular truth we are talking about here is not discoverable with the eyes of flesh. When asked who the pope is, anyone in the world would reply, “It’s Francis, of course.” Therefore, in order to “discover” that this is not true, one would need either a divine revelation or very special competence to discern this. Now, to my knowledge, none of the gentlemen who have declared Francis a heretic have claimed a divine revelation. As for the special competence, we must divide it into two parts. 

The first would be the competence to decide that Francis is a public formal heretic. To do this, one would need to ascertain that he truly holds the false doctrines he is said to profess or truly denies the true doctrines he is said to deny. Have any of these gentlemen had the opportunity to sit down with Francis and actually ask him if he rejects, for example, the existence of Hell, or if he truly believes that the Lord condemns capital punishment in the Gospel, or that one need not be in a state of grace to receive Holy Communion (all of which are regularly attributed to Francis)? I doubt they have. If they have, they should make their investigation and the pope’s answers public. Even Church authorities do not pass such judgment on a person without allowing him the opportunity to explain himself. 

The second is, supposing Francis did formally adhere to heresy, we would need men with the competence to declare this before the universal Church. This competence my critics do not have, for, like myself, they do not belong to the hierarchical Church. We must conclude that these gentlemen cannot “discover” this truth. They have neither the competence to make this judgment nor to pronounce it before the Church. 
Many theologians have demonstrated that there is no divinely appointed tribunal to examine and judge the pope. My critics do not contest this. I am well aware that they affirm that the pope has judged himself by teaching error and, therefore, cannot be the pope. This is sophistry. 

Even if we follow those theologians (mainly Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas) who teach that a heretical pontiff would lose his office, there still has to be, at the very minimum, a declaration of this loss by the Church as a whole, and this can only be made by the universal episcopate united in council. Otherwise, all you will have is a schism. No individual theologian (clerical or lay) has competence in this matter. The proper place for their competence is to make their thoughts known to the bishops, who do have some say in the matter.

This is why I insisted that these matters must be brought to the cardinals and bishops. Some seem to think this is unnecessary because it has already been done and has been fruitless. This is debatable; but even if it is correct, all that means is that further efforts must be made. For example, the article published by LifeSite on August 12, 2024, titled “Is Francis the Pope? The argument from public heresy suggests not,” should have been sent to all the cardinals and all the bishops of the Catholic Church instead of being published. One does not know the effect it might have had on them. 

If I were a bishop and had received this article in private correspondence, I would have given it solemn thought and made contact with the author. To throw it out there to everybody, letting the whole world know that you have concluded that he’s not the pope, just like that, seems to contradict the text of St. John Henry Newman: “I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious.” Without judging interior dispositions here, which only God can judge, and with all due respect for persons, I suggest it may come across to many as a bit rash and disputatious—if not arrogant—to put forth as the truth a conclusion that is opposed by the universal praxis of the episcopate: every diocesan bishop in the world names Francis in the Canon of the Mass and therefore acknowledges him to be the pope.

This being so, unless and until the hierarchical Church recognizes that the pontiff is in error and formally challenges him to recant, it can only be the status quo until the universal Church declares him to have lost the papacy. Francis was acknowledged as pope by the universal Church. He is still alive, he has not abdicated nor been declared a heretic by those who could potentially do so. Therefore, we must accept him as the pope and not publicize opinions to the contrary, even though we have every right and duty (assuming we have some competence in the matter) to make our findings known to the hierarchy.

So, what shall we do? What we have always done. Parents have the duty to teach their children; priests, their congregation; and bishops their diocese. Complaints to the contrary notwithstanding, parents do have a “working model,” namely the catechism. In response to my initial article, it is claimed that while the advice to pray and persevere in fidelity is indispensable, “it is not sufficient in assisting lay people to fulfil their very real familial and social responsibilities.” This seems to mean that the laity has responsibilities that are greater and more difficult than those of the clergy regarding family and society. 

While it seems reasonable to admit that there are a number of practical matters the laity must deal with that the clergy are spared (though how this matters in the context is far from evident), it seems to ignore the difficulties encountered by the clergy themselves. As in many historical situations, the reality is that the lower clergy and the laity are in the same boat under bad leaders. 

Our Blessed Lord had warned us of these troubles, which ultimately stem back to the Incarnation. God took flesh and established a Church composed of men who were weak and sinful. Just as His crucifixion scandalized many, many are now scandalized by His ongoing crucifixion by unworthy leaders. But His word stands: “Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me” (Matthew 11:6).

Prudence is Required in Pointing Out Errors

Can we never point out the errors of the pope and bishops? Of course we can. Sometimes, we must, but always with care and prudence, as the saints and doctors teach us. In the 16th-century context of the Catholic counter-reformation, one of its greatest proponents, St. Ignatius of Loyola, gave us a fundamental and simple rule on this matter, all the more helpful in that the Church in his day knew turmoil and strife similar to ours. In the “Rules of Thinking with the Church,” he writes: 

We should be more ready to approve and praise the orders, recommendations, and way of acting of our superiors than to find fault with them. Though some of the orders, etc., may not have been praiseworthy, yet to speak against them, either when preaching in public or in speaking before the people, would rather be the cause of murmuring and scandal than of profit. As a consequence, the people would become angry with their superiors, whether secular or spiritual. But while it does harm in the absence of our superiors to speak evil of them before the people, it may be profitable to discuss their bad conduct with those who can apply a remedy. (Spiritual Exercises, 362)

Now, I am well aware that the letter of this rule seems to apply in a context in which certain orders or recommendations would not have been publicly known, and the advice is that it is better to keep it that way to avoid scandal. And yet, it undoubtedly applies to our present situation. It is not permissible to assume that, in our day, everyone knows everything and, therefore, everything can be written about in public. This was the point I made initially about discussing things behind closed doors with those who are competent. 

Today, the media indeed spreads information in no time at all, and those interested can find out everything the pope is saying and doing without delay. Nevertheless, when some ambiguous teaching is put forth, the Catholic reaction should not be to condemn the authority but rather to, first of all, see if there is a valid way of understanding the phrase in a Catholic way. (“We should be more ready to approve and praise…than to find fault.”)

If this is not possible, we must point out that the Church has never taught the pope to be impeccable. So he can, therefore, fail in the faith and in the moral life like everyone else, including in his teachings, since there have been other examples of this in history. In doing this, one must take care not to scandalize the weak by assuming every Catholic in the world knows what you are talking about (otherwise, one “would rather be the cause of murmuring and scandal than of profit…the people would become angry with their superiors…it does harm in the absence of our superiors to speak evil of them before the people”). 

It is also crucial to carefully distinguish the level of the teaching (a private letter, an interview, an exhortation, a document of a congregation approved by the pope, etc., all cases in which nuances matter). On this note, just a couple of weeks ago, an Australian archbishop was summoned before a parliamentary commission to answer so-called harassment charges because the Church does not hire practicing homosexuals. When challenged with the remark that Church teaching has changed since Pope Francis has done many things to promote homosexuals in society, the archbishop answered rightly in sum that the teaching has not changed, for those words of the pope do not have the level of authority of the catechism, and not everything the pope says is part of Church teaching or policy. 

This is the proper way to deal with error as it is expressed by any authority. Sure, it is unpleasant. We would all like to have a Church where everyone does exactly what they should and never causes confusion. It’s not any different from the condition of a family whose father gives scandal or abuse. He remains the father and deserves respect, even if sometimes, in extreme cases, respect requires us to distance ourselves for a time, all the while not losing our internal respect and veneration for the man who gave us life, according to the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue (which, by the way, also concerns superiors, both civil and religious, and therefore the pope). Family life is sometimes messy; life in the Church is sometimes messy. Such is life in this world, which is why we look forward to Heaven, where we will leave all the confusion behind.
One of my critics points out that some clergy hide behind prudence as “a way of justifying their passivity.” This may very well be true in some cases, but of course, this is not true prudence. I would offer consideration, however, that among the members of the hierarchy, some have been quite outspoken, and yet have never gone so far as to suggest we have no pope. Perhaps these eminent cardinals and bishops have a bit more under their hats than gray hair. And one of the reasons for this is history. 

It is so easy to start a schism it’s not funny. Men of the Church know this. And often, they bide their time, knowing that one can easily complicate a matter by speaking out too quickly. I meant this by referring to some clergy who “remain helpless to do anything about the situation.” The higher the authority, the more circumspect he must be before he makes any public announcement. The laity has little to lose in speaking out; the clergy risk not only their place but more—they risk causing a schism, for the simple reason that they will always have some followers.  

The Church is a Visible Society

One of the fundamental errors of the Reformation was that the true Church is invisible and includes only the pure who are known to God alone. The Catholic Church has always condemned this, declaring that the Church on earth, whose invisible Head is Christ Himself, is a visible society with a visible universal head (the pope) and visible local heads (the bishops). Just as there are visible sacraments that are the channels of grace, there are visible men who distribute these sacraments. 

Just as we offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a visible manner, we do so in communion with the visible guardians of the Faith, which is why in each Mass, we do not just mention the pope and the bishop, but we say their actual names. It’s not enough to be in communion with just any bishop or with just any pope of the past; one must be in communion with the pope and the bishop we have at the moment over our heads. “Thou hast set men over our heads” (Psalm 66:12). In their very persons of flesh and blood, they are the visible signs of a unity which they themselves may not possess interiorly because they may not be in God’s grace or even entirely share the fullness of faith. Being in communion with a visible head who is sick spiritually does not make us spiritually ill, nor does it compromise the integrity of our faith.

St. Augustine amply demonstrated this in his controversies with the Donatists. These schismatics were adamant, contrary to the custom of the Church, that only faultless priests could administer valid sacraments. But Augustine launched back with his famous: “When Peter baptizes, Christ baptizes; when Judas baptizes, Christ baptizes.” He also stressed the visibility of the Church and the irrelevance of a holy life for validly ministering to God. He wrote, 

Just as there are pastors who hold Sees in the Church for the good of Christ’s flock, so there are others who do so in order to enjoy temporal dignities and the goods of this world. Amidst the deaths and births which happen each day, and even to the end of the world and the judgment of God, it is necessary that there be found two kinds of pastors in the Catholic Church... The Lord has commanded us to live with the goats in the same flock, but He has reserved to Himself the care of separating them; for this separation must be done by the One who cannot be deceived. That’s why the proud servants who dared to do so before the time set by the Lord, separated themselves from Catholic unity. How could they have a spotless flock when they have made themselves impure by their schism? (Letter 204, 2-3)

The visible head is essential to a body. The head can be sick, very sick, but if it dies, the body dies. The efforts of sedevacantists to try to explain how the office of the papacy could be “perpetual,” as Vatican I defined it, and yet disappear for a space of over two generations are not only unconvincing—they are contrary to the Faith. They stem from the refusal to accept that the Church comprises saints and sinners, good fish and bad fish, wheat and tares, even in the hierarchy until the end of time. 

Another fundamental vice of the sedevacantist position is that, according to their theories, we must ultimately rely on some divine intervention to recover a true pope. No, the divine intervention has already taken place 2,000 years ago. Christ gave His Church all the means to face all the challenges to her unity and endurance that she will need till the end of time. We are not in some sort of new economy, as numerous heretics in history, including the modernists, have posited. But then again, we mustn’t be surprised. It has often happened that one error led to its opposite error being professed by opposing camps who were unable to see the truth with all its nuances.

“It Must Needs Be That Scandals Come” (Matthew 18:7)

Many insist on the scandals caused by Pope Francis. Scandals there have always been and always will be. Several Medieval and Renaissance popes gave grave scandal by their actions and words. This is actually one of the causes of the Protestant Reformation. Luther came to the conclusion that it is simply not possible that the man who entertains concubines, gives bishoprics to sodomites, and sells indulgences could be the vicar of Christ. By refusing the Church as Christ founded it, he stepped out of the Church and lost God’s grace. 

Pointing to the fact that the pope may be leading people into sin is irrelevant. Popes have done this before, and they will again in the future. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are truly pope but everything to do with the fact that they are mortal men. They have neither impeccability nor infallibility in their every word.

Here we come to one of the most disturbing aspects of how some people today read events. They read equivocal events as if they were univocal. For example, one of my critics writes: “Francis has used his apparent occupation of the papal office to profess doctrines, and to establish practices, contrary to the Catholic faith. He has done this intentionally, and with planning and forethought.” 

This is one conclusion that may be drawn from certain words and actions of the pope. It is not the only one. For example, one could say that the pope, due to his liberal formation, sincerely thinks he is promoting something good and in conformity with the Catholic Faith. Here, we have a classic case of “rash judgment,” which is passing judgment upon someone based on inconclusive evidence (and in this case, we must add without having any title whatsoever to judge). That’s not serious scholarship. It’s actually scandalous in the strict sense, in that it incentivizes others to make similar grave rash judgments, for which they will have to give account before God.

Being Confused and Not Being Confused

A lot of people are confused today. It’s inherent in any society with a weak authority who sends mixed messages. When people voice their confusion, that’s fine. When, however, they are no longer confused, we have an entirely different problem. If a layman comes to me and says he’s confused because the pope said this or did that, and they don’t understand how a valid pope can do these sorts of things, I tell him that he’s not the only one to be confused. Sometimes, superiors scandalize their subjects, and this was already the case with the apostles. As mentioned above, we have our path cut out for us: follow the catechism, stay in the Church, and keep the commandments (not forgetting the fourth).

But when anyone, layperson or cleric, is no longer confused, meaning that they make public the fact that they know now for sure that we have no pope, we have a completely different scenario. If it’s alright to be confused, it’s not alright to be clear when that clarity includes the conviction that the man acknowledged as pope is not the pope. There is no competence in the matter. None. Therefore, there is no right to give voice to, let alone publish, such declarations. Objectively speaking, this is an egregious attack against Church unity, which harms charity and the respect owed not only to superiors but to the other members of the Church worldwide.

I want to add here an observation concerning another matter that is increasingly mentioned of late, especially in sedevacantist circles: the requirements for the validity of a sacramental rite. Many traditionalists since Vatican II have pointed out the weaknesses of the new sacramental rites. To point out that the ancient sacramental rites should not have been modified or that the new rites are not as clear in their expression of the Faith is one thing. To pronounce on the validity of the rite is another. 

Any high school student can compare the rites and point out that the old ones express the Faith with greater abundance and greater clarity. There is only one man on the earth, however, who can decide what is required for the valid administration of a sacrament, and if we are Catholic, we all know who that man is. This is why when Paul VI promulgated the new rites for the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, and Anointing, in which he made changes to the sacramental formulae themselves, he gave, by apostolic authority, final judgment on the matter of validity, having recourse on this occasion to formal language declaring its essential elements, by means of an apostolic constitution. It is a case of Roma locuta, causa finita. 

The competence of all the laity together on this point is nil. The competence of all the priests together is nil. The competence of all the bishops taken individually is nil. So, while it’s perfectly permissible and praiseworthy to work for the restoration of the ancient rites, it is not permissible to go around casting doubt on the validity of the new ones when celebrated according to the actual promulgated books. The Faith is of one piece. Either you accept it all, or you lose it. By denying the pope, you lose it because the pope is an essential foundation stone in the edifice that Christ built.

Weeping for the Pope

As I write these lines, the Holy Father’s health is cause for concern. Perhaps his time has come, perhaps not. In any case, he will die. I, for one, will weep at the death of Pope Francis, not because I have been one of his fans, far from it. In my preaching, I have often had to explain dogmas that he has muddled or even apparently denied. Such is my role as a father of souls. If I had children and my own father were teaching them errors, I would explain the truth to them while continuing to respect my father and making sure my children respect him as their grandfather. 

I will weep for Pope Francis because he is the Vicar of Christ on earth, our father in the Faith, and every truly Catholic heart knows that when your father dies, part of you dies with him. But I will also weep because I truly fear for his salvation. Some of the saints who saw visions of Hell tell us that they saw priests, bishops, and popes there. The responsibility is crushing. To bear the burden of all the Church and to have—in spite of his intentions which no one can judge—caused scandal, perhaps leading many souls to leave the Church or continue in sin, is nothing short of terrifying. All the more reason to storm Heaven that he dies in the Lord’s grace. And, of course, that a worthy pope be elected to succeed him. 

A final word to all those prelates, priests, or faithful who have come to the conviction that Francis is not pope—you bear a very grave responsibility. You will have to give an account before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ as to how, with your limited wisdom and knowledge, you were able to discover a truth that has escaped the hierarchical Church. Stay in the Church. As soon as you proclaim that you do not recognize the pope, you cease to be a member of the Church. As a non-member, you can say anything you want, but nobody cares. Stay in the Church, and there, even though it’s uncomfortable, much like the stable of Bethlehem, you can make a profound contribution to the renewal of the Church by helping point out the way forward.

You have good intentions, I know. But good intentions are not good enough. Every false church on the planet started with good intentions. The fact of the matter is that if you formally deny the Vicar of Christ, who is acknowledged as such by the universal episcopate, you are, ipso facto, outside of the Church and therefore outside of the path to salvation, for it is of solemnly defined Catholic faith that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).