(LifeSiteNews) –– LifeSiteNews is currently giving voice to both sides in the debate over whether or not Francis is the pope.
As part of this ongoing debate an article was recently published by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Bishop Schneider has earned great respect over the last decade for his steadfast opposition to the heresies of Francis, and for his clear profession of truths of the Catholic faith which Francis has denied. Bishop Schneider has been equally clear in his insistence that we must regard Francis as the pope. In his most recent piece, he continues to defend this position.
As I argued in an earlier piece, it is important that every aspect of the crisis in the Church is openly explored, so that we can understand how we have arrived at this point, and to discern what concrete actions we may be called upon to take. This involves the critical examination of ideas, in an ongoing debate, to advance ever closer to the truth.
For this reason, I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be eight critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s recent article.
Bishop’s Schneider’s approach
Schneider’s article is mainly directed against those who reject the claims of Francis to the papacy because of (a) questions about the abdication of Benedict XVI and/or (b) the papal conclave which apparently elected Francis. However, Schneider reaches a conclusion which is much broader than simply refuting what has been called the “benevacantist” (“Benedict was still pope”) position. He asserts without qualification that “Pope Francis is certainly the valid Pope.”
This conclusion does not follow from the arguments which he makes in this article. His arguments may have some force against the “benevacantist” position, but they are not adequate to address the position which eschews consideration of resignations, conclaves, and conspiracies, and instead bases its argument for the current vacancy of the Holy See on theological principles rather than contingent events.
There are, I contend, eight critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s argument, seen from this perspective:
- He prioritizes history over theology in resolving a question which is primarily theological in nature
- He fails to distinguish between what is of human law and what is of divine law in the law concerning papal elections
- He denies that the Holy See can be vacant for a “considerable time”
- He appears to deny that there can be temporary doubt over the identity of the pope
- He appears to make “the wish the father of the thought” in denying the possibility of a vacant see because of the evil consequences that would follow from it
- He assumes that it is certain that new ordinaries cannot take up office if the Holy See is vacant
- He encourages the faithful to make a profession of faith directly opposed to the teachings of the man whom he holds to be the pope, and thus the man who is “the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact” (Cardinal Billot).
- He categorizes the errors and heresies of Francis as “ambiguities.”
I will now explain each of these critical flaws in Bishop Schneider’s article, and their significance, in more detail.
Flaw one: Prioritizing history over theology
In his article, Bishop Schneider has recourse to historical examples to demonstrate that if a man is universally and peacefully accepted by the Church, he is truly the pope, even if there were problems in the process of election, including those which might cause the election to be invalid.
This argument, which has some weight against arguments contingent on particular events – such as what happened behind closed doors at a conclave – is nonetheless powerless against arguments grounded in certain theological principles.
Bishop Schneider writes:
The safest guiding principle in the crucial question regarding the validity of the papacy of Pope Francis is the prevailing practice in the history of the Church, with which were resolved cases of presumed invalid papal renunciations or elections.
He emphasizes the position he gives to history later in the piece when he writes:
The history of the Church is a sure teacher in this matter.
And with reference to what the Church has always done he writes:
The surer way (via tutior) and the example of the constant practice of the great tradition of the Church must be followed also in our present case.
However, this approach, which favours history over theology, is not a sound approach to the question at hand.
The Catholic Church is a supernatural entity and the truths about her nature were revealed to her directly by God. Therefore, if we wish to resolve questions concerned with the papacy and the nature of the Church, our first recourse must be to the doctrinal teaching of the Church and to her theological tradition.
Matters such as (i) who can be elected pope, (ii) whether a pope can fall into heresy, and (iii) whether such a pope would lose office and how, are all theological questions, and must be resolved primarily by the science of theology. The science of history cannot resolve such questions, though it can bear witness to what the Church has taught and practiced.
Insofar as Bishop Schneider is using historical arguments to illustrate a theological argument against the “benevacantist” position, the approach has validity. However, such an approach fails when confronted with a theological approach.
The great theological tradition of the Church stands squarely against his assertion that Francis is the pope. This tradition holds that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, and that consequently no public heretic can hold office in the Church.
I have explained this doctrine in a series of articles which begins here and I have applied the argument to Francis here.
Dr. John Lamont has also published an in-depth study of this question here.
No historical example has been found which contradicts the doctrine set out in the articles above. The study of history may throw up a few ambiguous cases (such as that of Honorius), but these doubtful cases cannot be made the basis for rejecting conclusions of theology which flow from divinely revealed principles.
Both theology and history are true sciences, with their own subjects, objects, and appropriate methodologies. But theology is the supreme science, and we can be certain that the lesser sciences, when pursued according to their correct methodologies, will never reach certain conclusions which are in conflict with the conclusions of sacred theology. And, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught:
Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: “Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). [1]
Flaw two: A failure to distinguish between human and divine law
Bishop Schneider writes:
The principle of legality applied ad litteram (to the letter) or that of juridical positivism was not considered an absolute principle in the great practice of the Church, since the legislation of the papal election is only a human (positive) law, and not a Divine (revealed) law.
This is only partially correct. The law regarding papal elections has some elements which are of human law, and some which are of divine law.
It is of divine law that to be elected to the Roman Pontificate a person must be:
- A member of the male sex
- Possessing the use of reason
- A member of the Catholic Church
The members of the Church are those who:
- Have received baptism
- Publicly profess the Catholic faith
- Are in lawful obedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
This means that, by divine law, the following can never be elected to the papacy:
- A member of the female sex
- A boy below the age of reason
- A man who is permanently insane
- A man who is not baptized
- A man who is a public heretic
- A man who is a public schismatic
- A man who is a public apostate.
This doctrine explained in more detail here.
Bishop Schneider continues:
The human law that regulates the assumption of the papal office or the dismissal from the papal office must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of the visible head of the Church and the certainty of this existence for all the body of the Church, clergy and faithful.
This argument fails because it is impossible for a public heretic to be pope and nor could such a thing ever be for the “greater good of the whole Church.” This is because the pope is the “living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact”. [2] If the Church took a public heretic to be the pope, she would follow a false rule of faith. But this is contrary to the promises of Christ.
As Cardinal Billot writes:
To 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. [3]
Therefore, it is impossible for the pope to be a public heretic.
This doctrine, and its implications, are explained in more detail here and here.
Flaw 3: Denying that the Holy See can be vacant for a ‘considerable time’
Bishop Schneider writes:
The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd, without the successor of Peter […]
This is directly contradicted by Cardinal Billot who writes:
By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time.[4]
This is a standard opinion among theologians. Rev. Sylvester Berry writes that the Holy See might be vacant for “many years” and Rev. Edmund O’Reilly S.J., in the context of discussing the Great Western Schism, writes that it is by no means manifest that “an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ.”[5] That is, there could be a vacancy of the Holy See which would last for decades.
The theological arguments in favor of the possibility of a vacancy of considerable length are examined in more detail here.
Flaw 4: Denying the possibility of doubt concerning the identity of the pope
The fourth critical flaw in Bishop Schneider’s argument is found in this statement:
This visible existence of the head and the certainty about it are required by the very nature of the Church.
It is true that the existence of the papacy is required by the very nature of the Church, but it is not necessary that there be a pope at every moment. This is evident from the fact that the see is vacant every time a pope dies. There have been more than 260 vacancies during the history of the Church.
The question which then arises is how long the Church can be without a pope. As seen above, according to many of the Church’s most esteemed theologians, such as Cardinal Billot, such vacancy could last a “considerable time.”
Furthermore, while it is certainly true that permanent doubt about the identity of the pope would be contrary to the nature of the Church, this does not render a period of temporary doubt impossible.
Indeed, in denying the possibly of doubt, Bishop Schneider is denying the very thing to which he has earlier appealed, namely the history of the Church, for the Great Western Schism was itself a period of doubt. During this period Catholics were divided over the identity of the pope for more than forty years.
Finally, we must note that many of us are not in any doubt about the identity of the pope. We have moral certainty that the See of St. Peter is vacant, because we can see clearly that it is impossible that a man should at one at the same time be a public heretic and thus severed from the membership of the body of Christ, and at the same time also be its visible head and supreme teacher.
Flaw five: ‘Making the wish the father of the thought’
Bishop Schneider writes:
Those dispensations and indulgences that only the Roman Pontiff, all for the spiritual good and eternal salvation of souls, also depend on this existence and this certainty.
And later in the piece he asserts:
For the past eleven years, all appointments of Apostolic Nuncios, diocesan bishops and cardinals, all pontifical dispensations, and all indulgences granted and used by the faithful would have been null and void and brought harmful consequences to the spiritual good of souls (illegitimate bishops, invalid episcopal jurisdictions, etc.). All the cardinals nominated by Pope Francis would be invalid, that is, they would be non-cardinals, and this would apply to most of the current College of Cardinals.
In all of these passages Bishop Schneider points to negative consequences that follow from an extended vacancy of the Holy See. Some of them could be disputed, but there is no doubt that terrible consequences do indeed follow from the prolonged vacancy of the Holy See.
However, he is mistaken in concluding that because evil consequences follow, the thing itself can’t possibly have happened.
His argument, taking the examples from the first quotation, could be formulated like this:
If there is no pope, then there are dispensations and new indulgences that cannot be granted, but this has terrible consequences, therefore Francis must be the pope.
The illogical nature of this claim becomes clear if we look at some other examples of the same form of argument:
If my house is burning down, then I will lose everything, but this has terrible consequences, therefore my house is not burning down.
If my bank is failing, then I will lose all my money, but this has terrible consequences, therefore my bank is not failing.
If my car is running out of gas, then I will break down, but this has terrible consequences, therefore my car is not running out of gas.
In each case what actually matters is whether the house is really burning down, whether the bank is really failing, or whether the car is really running out of gas.
If any of those things are true, we must face up to it and deal with the consequences. The same is true as regards the question of the papacy.
If the Holy See is vacant for a prolonged period of time, negative consequences will indeed follow. Negative consequences have followed, and they are evident to all of us. But God has not promised that the Church will not endure terrible trials, only that she will not fail in her essential constitution and mission.
On the possibility of such trials, the nineteenth century theologian Rev Edmund O’Reilly movingly wrote:
But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.
All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.[6]
According to theologians, an extended vacancy of the Holy See is possible and may happen, and indeed I would argue that we are now living through it. We cannot argue that it won’t happen simply because it is “terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”
However, some things are not possible, because they are contrary to the very constitution of the Church as founded by Jesus Christ. It is impossible that a public heretic should be the pope because a non-member cannot be the head. Indeed, as Pope Leo XIII taught, “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” But it is exactly this impossible thing which Bishop Schneider regards as more probable than that the see should be vacant for an extended period.
Flaw 6: Denying the possibility that ordinaries can take office without a pope
In the section already quoted above, Bishop Schneider asserts as a fact that if the see is vacant, no diocesan bishops (ordinaries) could take up their sees.
This is a frequently expressed position, but like many common positions used to bolster Francis’s claims, it is mistaken or, at least, far from certain.
The pope is indeed the source of all episcopal jurisdiction. But this does not mean that the pope must personally appoint every bishop, or that it is impossible for bishops to take up sees in the absence of a pope. Indeed, for much of the history of the Church, and in various locations at various times, the pope was not directly involved in the appointment of bishops. This is not contrary to the truth that the pope is the ultimate source of all jurisdiction in the Church.
This subject is explored by theologian Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton here.
Ordinary jurisdiction is attached to an office by the law itself. This jurisdiction was attached to the office when it was created. It can be argued that if a Catholic cleric were to take up a see during an extended vacancy, he would exercise the ordinary jurisdiction attached to the office by the pope at an earlier date.
For a more in-depth treatment of this aspect of the topic see here.
Therefore, Bishop Schneider is mistaken in asserting without qualification that the absence of a pope necessarily leads to the conclusion that there can be no new legitimate diocesan bishops.
Flaw 7: The faithful should adopt a different rule of faith than that professed by the man they regard as pope
This the gravest of the flaws in Bishop Schneider’s article. He writes:
The way to react to the confusing behavior of Pope Francis is to admonish him publicly regarding his errors. That said, one must do this with all due respect. Then one must make a profession of faith by specifying those truths which Pope Francis has contradicted or undermined by his ambiguities.
Here Bishop Schneider specifically states that one must make a profession of faith which is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the man one regards as the pope.
This position is untenable.
As I have previously explained at length, the Catholic Church is perpetually united in the profession of the Catholic faith. This is a permanent characteristic which she can never lose.
All Catholics profess the same faith. This miraculous unity of faith is one of the marks by which she is identifiable as the true Church of Christ. Any society which lacks this mark of unity is certainly not the Catholic Church. These are fundamental theological principles.
How is this miraculous unity, never attained by any other society, brought about in the Catholic Church?
It is brought about by the fact that the entire body of the faithful submit themselves to the same rule of faith. This rule of faith is the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops who govern the Church in union with him.
Furthermore, this unity is brought about not by seeking out the content of divine revelation in Scripture and Tradition – the remote rule of faith – but by submitting to what the teaching authority of the Church (the magisterium) proposes for our belief in the present – the proximate rule of faith.
It is not permissible for Catholics to appeal against the proximate rule of faith to the remote rule of faith. This is the practice which characterises heretics and schismatics in every age. But unfortunately – and with no doubt the best of intentions – this is what Bishop Schneider is now recommending to the Catholic faithful.
Bishop Schneider has this counsel into practice himself. He has issued a catechism, which directly contradicts the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which is proposed to the faithful as a “sure norm of the faith” and has been officially amended by Francis to contradict Catholic teaching on capital punishment.
Now, as regards this disputed doctrine, Bishop Schneider upholds the teaching of the Catholic Church and Francis opposes the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Bishop Schneider’s mistake is not his adherence to the truth against the heresy of Francis. This is his duty. His mistake is in identifying Francis as the proximate rule and then simultaneously urging the faithful to reject his teaching. This is contradictory.
The legitimate ground for rejecting the teaching of Francis is to recognize that Francis, as a non-Catholic, has no claim to be the proximate rule of faith.
Bishop Schneider also states:
One must also ask God for the grace of Pope Francis’ conversion and for the Divine intervention to resolve this unprecedented crisis. Nevertheless, Pope Francis is certainly the valid Pope.
This passage expresses the contradiction of Bishop Schneider’s position quite clearly.
If Francis needs converting to the faith, he is not a Catholic. But if he is not a Catholic, he is certainly not the pope.
It is an act of charity to pray for the conversion of Francis to the Catholic Church. But we must not at the same time contradict ourselves by declaring that he is the Visible Head of the very body to which we desire him to convert.
Flaw 8: calling errors ‘ambiguities’
In the passage cited above, Bishop Schneider accuses Francis of ambiguity.
And later in the piece he writes:
Our Lord Jesus Christ holds the rudder of the boat of the Church in His hands even during the heaviest storms, which could include the papacy of a doctrinally ambiguous pope.
However, Bishop Schneider knows full well, and has said as much many times, that Francis is guilty of professing errors directly contrary to the divine and Catholic faith.
For example, he has said that Fiducia Supplicans “directly and seriously contradicts Divine Revelation” and that Francis’s comments on all religions leading to God are “against Revelation.”
Why therefore, does he seem to backtrack now and use the terms “ambiguous” and “doctrinally ambiguous” in this piece?
Conclusions
What is needed in the Church today is for all those who desire to be faithful to the magisterium of the Church to come together to find solutions and deepen our understanding of what has taken place.
Bishop Schneider has rendered a great service to the Church by his public resistance to the heresies of Francis and by his defence of true doctrines which have come under sustained attack.
However, by defending Francis’s claims to hold the papacy, while simultaneously urging that the faithful make an opposing profession of faith, he involves himself in a profound contradiction.
And, as we have seen, in order to provide a defense of this position, he is led to make arguments that simply will not stand up to close examination.