Reply to “Placidus” on the Papacy of Francis

Dr Lamont has been answered by much more qualified men than I am, but I have to wonder what part of Canon 1404 he doesn't understand. It reads, "The First See is judged by no one"  It's not a post-Vatican I thing. It goes back to at least the time of Pope Gelasius I (reigned 1 March 492 - 19 November 496).

From OnePeter Five

By John R.T. Lamont, BA, DPhil, STL

I thank ‘Placidus’, the pseudonymous monk of the order of St. Benedict, for doing me the courtesy of examining the case I have made for Jorge Mario Bergoglio no longer being Pope as a result of his notorious heresy.[1] I do not think that his examination disproves my case.

‘Placidus’ correctly summarizes the argument I make as follows:

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

He rejects the conclusion of my argument because he rejects the premise that Francis is a notorious heretic. He does not address the concrete evidence that has been provided by myself and others for this premise. Instead, he argues against the premise:

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

He supports his minor premise by a theological assertion:

The universal teaching of all bishops who are in full communion with the Holy See regarding all matters of faith, whether of “theological faith” concerning Church dogma or of “ecclesiastical faith” concerning dogmatic facts, is infallible. But the identity of the reigning pontiff is a matter of ecclesiastical faith.

I am happy to agree with this assertion, which, as ‘Placidus’ points out, is the common teaching of theologians and is supported by conclusive arguments. However, in order to apply this common teaching to the case of Francis, it must be the universal teaching of all Catholic bishops that Francis is in fact the pope. ‘Placidus’ claims that this is the case: ‘But that Francis is the reigning pontiff is the universal teaching of all bishops who are in full communion with the Holy See (the excommunicated archbishop Viganò and the few other sedevacantist bishops outside of full communion being excluded).’

The trouble with this claim is that the Pope is a bishop of the Catholic Church, and in order for a dogmatic fact to be taught infallibly by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, it must be taught by the Pope with his apostolic authority as binding upon all Catholics. This Catholic teaching is stated by the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium: ’25. … The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.’ So if the claim that Francis is the true pope is taught as a dogmatic fact, it must be taught by the Pope together with the other bishops of the Church. A dogmatic fact cannot be taught by all the Catholic bishops except for the Pope. Francis must therefore be the Pope if his being Pope is to be a dogmatic fact universally taught by the bishops of the Catholic Church. The claim that the Church infallibly teaches that he is the Pope thus begs the question at issue, which is whether or not he is the Pope. Since ‘Placidus”s argument begs the question by assuming that Francis is the Pope, it has no probative force.       Arguments that beg the question are logically valid, because their conclusion undoubtedly follows from their premises – since it is included in the premises! But they cannot be cited as reasons for accepting their conclusion.

The same point can be made about ‘Placidus”s assertion that no bishops in full communion with the Apostolic See deny that Francis is the Pope, and that the only bishops who deny that Francis is the Pope are ‘the excommunicated archbishop Viganò and the few other sedevacantist bishops’. But of course  Archbishop Viganò’s excommunication is only valid if Francis is the Pope, and the other sedevacantist bishops who assert that Francis is not the Pope because of notorious heresy are only ‘not in full communion with the Apostolic See’ (whatever that means) if Francis is the Pope. And that is the question at issue.

This is pertinent to ‘Placidus”s Argument IV, which states:

• Major premise: If Francis is not the true pope, then Christ has abandoned the Catholic Church, for Christ has manifestly abandoned any church if all its bishops adhere to a false head as pope. But all bishops in communion with the Holy See adhere to Francis as pope and head of 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.

This argument depends on the question-begging assertion that all the Catholic bishops of the world adhere to Francis as the Pope. ‘Placidus’ bases this assertion on the claim that those bishops who deny that Francis is the Pope are not Catholic bishops in communion with the Holy See, and his reason for holding that they are not Catholic bishops in communion with the Holy See is that they have denied that Francis is the Pope.

This circular reasoning is an unfortunate example of what can happen if one is determined to disregard the evidence. It does nothing to undermine the strength of the case for Francis having fallen from the papal office due to his notorious heresy.

Editor’s note: we will not publish any further replies on this debate. An editorial reflection will follow reflecting to this debate in light of our editorial stance. -TSF

---

[1] My case was made here and here.