Reply to Matt Gaspers: Public heresy gives certainty that Francis isn’t the pope

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

— Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, No. 22

(LifeSiteNews) — In a recent article I called for charitable debate over the question of whether Francis truly holds the papal office.

I am delighted that Matt Gaspers has taken up this challenge and I welcome his two articles (here and here) which challenge my conclusion that Francis is not the pope.

I will now respond to Gaspers’ objections and show that they do not succeed in vindicating the claims of Francis. A thorough response, which deals with each objection in sufficient detail, will necessarily take a number of articles to accomplish.

In this first article I will respond to the objections Gaspers poses to the more common opinion of theologians that all public heretics, including those whose sin is material, are severed from the Church. I will show that he has not succeeded in weakening the case for this opinion and that an argument of the kind he puts forward is, in any case, incapable of securing the claim of Francis to the papacy.

Material vs formal heresy

Throughout this series I will try to avoid unnecessarily repeating concepts that have been explained in more detail elsewhere. However, it will be helpful to define the basic categories of heretics here.

There is not absolute uniformity in the terminology used by theologians, but a standard division gives us the following four kinds of heretics:

• Formal public heretics – who openly and guiltily refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium
• Material public heretics – who openly but innocently refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium
• Formal occult heretics – who secretly, but guiltily, refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium
• Material occult heretics – who secretly and innocently refuse submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.

Gaspers did not dispute this categorization of heretics; the difference in opinion between us concerns the effect of each kind of heresy on a person’s membership of the Catholic Church.

Who is severed from Church membership?

It is held by Catholic theologians to be certain that formal public heretics are not members of the Church, and it is the more common opinion of theologians that material public heretics are also not members.

Monsignor Gerard Van Noort writes:

Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. ^[1]

He continues:

It is certain that public, formal heretics, are severed from Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. ^[2]

Joachim Salaverri S.J. expresses the same position:

That formal and manifest heretics are not members of the body of the Church can well be said to be the unanimous opinion among Catholics. ^[3]

And

That merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is defended by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others. But the contrary opinion is more common. ^[4]

The reason why the majority of theologians hold that material public heretics are not members of the Church, is because they consider that the membership of material public heretics is incompatible with the visibility of the Church, a theme to which I will return later. However, Gaspers rejects the majority position, arguing instead “material heretics… must necessarily remain members of the Church.”

Matt Gaspers’ objections

Gaspers quotes an extract from Mgr Van Noort, which I myself had quoted:

It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church. ^[5]

He then states his objection to this passage:

With all due respect for Msgr. Van Noort, it seems to me that material heretics – those ‘who externally deny a truth … or several truths of divine and Catholic faith … ignorantly and innocently,’ in his words – must necessarily remain members of the Church, given that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense. If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.

Gaspers is alleging that not just Van Noort, but the majority of Catholic theologians, have gone astray in their understanding of heresy. He holds instead that material heretics “must necessarily remain members of the Church” because “pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense.”

The implication is clear: Van Noort, and presumably the other theologians who share this opinion, have not understood something as simple as the fact “that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense” and this has led them into a false position on material heresy and its consequences for membership.

Setting himself against such a strong theological consensus, supported by some of the most renowned experts in ecclesiology, such as Cardinal Louis Billot, should have raised alarm bells in Matt Gaspers’ mind – he ought to have asked himself whether it was possible that, in fact, there was something which he, not they, had misunderstood.

What has Matt Gaspers misunderstood?

The nature of Gaspers’ misunderstanding of Van Noort, and the theological consensus, becomes clear as he proceeds in his argument.

Immediately after the statement quoted above he writes:

If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.

This is the first misunderstanding. Gaspers conflates two separate concepts, (i) the sin of heresy in itself, and (ii) the sin of heresy as a canonical crime. He assumes that to be a “true heretic” is to be a heretic “canonically speaking”.

The second misunderstanding is manifested a few paragraphs down. Gaspers writes:

St. Thomas Aquinas observes in his Summa Theologiae that ‘it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error’ (ST II-II, q. 5, art. 3). Such reasoning is no doubt why, according to Salaverri and Nicolau, the position that ‘merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is defended by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others.’

In fact, this statement of St. Thomas is in no way contrary to the position that material public heretics are separated from the Church. That Gaspers thinks it is reveals that he has fundamentally misunderstood the meaning of the term material heretic and the proper distinction between a material heretic and a mistaken Catholic. In fact, material heresy necessarily involves a deliberate willed choice, but not formal sin and personal moral culpability.

The theologians on whom I build my case are perfectly well aware that heresy is a choice, both as a sin and a crime. In rejecting the opinion of these eminent theologians in this manner, Gaspers would seem to reveal that he has not understood their argument.

Let’s now look at both of these misunderstandings in more detail.

Heresy in itself severs a man from the Church

In paragraph 22 of his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII teaches (my emphasis):

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. ^[6]

And in the following paragraph he teaches:

Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. ^[7]

In this text Pope Pius XII clearly teaches that heresy is sufficient in and of itself to sever a man from the Mystical Body of Christ. In paragraph no. 22 the Supreme Pontiff teaches that there is a distinction between those who have been “so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body” and those who have been “excluded by legitimate authority.” And in paragraph 23, the Supreme Pontiff makes clear that “heresy” is one of those sins which “of its own nature” will “sever a man from the Body of the Church.” It is important to note that Pius XII speaks specifically of the sin of heresy, not the crime of heresy.

This teaching of Pius XII reflects the theological tradition of the Church, which teaches that the public profession of the faith is necessary for membership of the Church, and that as a consequence those who have committed the sin of public heresy are not members of the Church. There is no dispute among theologians as to whether the sin of heresy, in and of itself, severs a man from the Church. The question under dispute is whether this sin must be formal in order to have that effect, or whether material sin will also cause the loss of Church membership. This is why the theologians Gaspers takes issue with do not address the question in canonical terms. It is the sin in and of itself, not the crime, which severs a man from the Church.

Hence, Van Noort, the theologian to whom Gaspers addresses his objection, clearly states the following (my emphasis):

Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors – baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy – pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership of the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.’ ^[8]

Gaspers finds fault with Van Noort, and by implication other theologians, for not dealing with heresy “canonically speaking” in the context of a heretic being severed from the Church. However, their reason for not doing so is obvious and straightforward. It is the sin in and of itself, not the crime, which severs a man from the Church. This is why the theologians discuss the subject without any reference to Canon Law. It is not these noted theologians who have misunderstood their subject.

Material heretics vs confused Catholics

Gaspers’ second misunderstanding is that he sees a conflict between the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, which he cites above, and the opinion that material public heretics are not members of the Church.

This is clearly mistaken.

Confusion often arises about the meaning of the term material heretic. Some understand a material heretic to be anyone who holds an opinion contrary to the Catholic faith, without being morally culpable. This is perhaps how Gaspers understands it. But this is not how the term is used by the most eminent defenders of the doctrine which Gaspers rejects, nor is it how I use the term. In more than one of the articles to which Gaspers is responding I define a material public heretic as someone “who openly but innocently refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.”

Thus, I define a heretic as someone who “refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium,” or as St. Thomas puts it, someone who “is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things.” A person who is simply mistaken about a particular doctrine is not a material heretic according to this definition, they are simply, as St. Thomas says, “no longer in heresy but only in error.”

Indeed, if we look at the sentences immediately before and immediately after those quoted by Gaspers, we will see that St. Thomas makes this statement precisely in the context of heresy as a refusal to assent to the rule of faith proposed by the Church:

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will. (ST II.II q.5. a.3)

A person who chooses not to assent to what the Church teaches is a heretic. If this choice is subjectively sinful, the sin of heresy is formal, if this choice is not subjectively sinful, the sin of heresy is material. If they have not in fact chosen a different rule of faith, but are merely in error as to what the Church teaches, they are not a heretic at all.

“For,” as Cardinal Billot writes:

[I]f by a material heretic we understand someone who professes that he accepts the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, while at the same time he denies something defined by the Church because he does not know it was defined, or holds some opinion which is contrary to Catholic doctrine because he falsely believes it is taught by the Church, then it would be evidently absurd to say that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, but the very meaning of that term would be completely changed. ^[9]

A heretic is not someone who holds an erroneous opinion but rather a person who chooses to take his rule of faith from something other than magisterium of the Church, regardless of whether that choice be subjectively sinful:

According to the origin of the term and the constant sense of all tradition, someone is properly called a heretic who after receiving Christianity in the sacrament of Baptism, does not accept the rule of what must be believed from the magisterium of the Church, but chooses from somewhere else a rule of belief about matters of faith and the doctrine of Christ: whether he follow other doctors and teachers of religion, or adheres to the principle of free examination and professes a complete independence of thought, or whether finally he disbelieve even one article out of those which are proposed by the Church as dogmas of Faith. ^[10]

Rev. Sylvester Berry expresses the same position:

Therefore, the correct way of distinguishing between a material heretic and a mistaken Catholic, is as follows:

• The material heretic, in good conscience, chooses to take his rule of faith from something other than the magisterium, for example, an invincibly ignorant Protestant may, in good conscience, take “scripture alone” as his rule of faith
• The mistaken Catholic, on the other hand, takes the magisterium as his rule of faith but has innocently misunderstood some aspect of the doctrine that was proposed to him, or he doesn’t realise that he holds an opinion contrary to it. He remains submissive to the magisterium and will immediately adopt the true opinion as soon as he becomes aware of what the magisterium proposes. For example, a Catholic might attend a catechesis on the Holy Trinity with the intention of believing whatever the Church proposes for his belief, but due to the complexity of the subject matter he misunderstands and in good faith holds an opinion contrary to the faith. He will immediately abandon this error when he is corrected because his will is submissive to the magisterium.

In the first case, the sincere Protestant is a material public heretic, and is not a member of the Catholic Church, because, in good conscience, he does not take the teaching of the Catholic Church as his rule of faith. (If he were not invincibly ignorant, or in good conscience, he would be a formal public heretic.)

In the second case, the confused Catholic is not any kind of heretic, and remains a member of the Catholic Church, because he assents to whatever the Catholic Church proposes for his belief, even though he has misunderstood a particular point of doctrine.

Therefore, the correct distinction lies in whether a person takes the magisterium as their rule of what to believe, or takes their doctrine from some other rule, including their own subjective judgement.

But note well: a person who makes a verbal profession of taking their doctrine from the magisterium, but simultaneously rejects what he knows it proposes, is a heretic and not a Catholic. Billot says that a man who denies “even one article out of those which are proposed by the Church as dogmas of Faith” is a heretic. ^[12] A verbal recognition of the magisterium is not enough if this is contradicted by public rejection of it in fact.

If a Catholic refused to accept a truth that they knew was proposed by the magisterium, they would become a heretic. For as long as they kept their refusal to themselves, or it was only known by a very small number e.g., within their intimate domestic circle, they would be an occult heretic. If they expressed it to others, outside such an intimate circle, they would become a public heretic. If they were in bad faith, or if their ignorance of the need to submit to the magisterium was vincible, they would become a formal public heretic. But, if they refused to take the magisterium as their rule of faith in good conscience, or they were invincibly ignorant of their obligation, they would become a material public heretic.

I have seen it suggested that someone who publicly professes that they are a Catholic could not be invincibly ignorant in this regard, and therefore never become a material public heretic but only a formal public heretic or remain a Catholic who was sincerely mistaken. This view would restrict the category of material public heretic to those who were raised in heresy.

However, it seems clear that we must uphold, at least theoretically, the possibility that someone might in good conscience refuse to submit to the magisterium, or be invincibly unaware of their obligation to submit, while maintaining a semblance of outward communion with the Catholic Church.

Today, as result of the decades-long crisis in the Church, there are many putative Catholic who are in fact separated from the unity of the Catholic faith because they have no intention of accepting “the rule of what must be believed from the magisterium of the Church.” They choose for themselves what to believe without regard to ecclesiastical authority. Their religious beliefs are a collection of opinions which they personally find acceptable; they do not give assent to a body of revealed truths received by faith, on the basis of them having been proposed by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the very nature of the crisis in the Church is fundamentally a crisis of the heresy of Modernism, whose adherents are able to make a verbal profession of Catholic dogmas while holding that these are religious ideas which arise from within man, rather than being revealed by God and proposed for belief by the Church. The Modernist does not take his rule of faith from the Church, even while he repeats formulae which sound Catholic, and attempts to do so within putative Catholic structures. (I have explained the Modernist underpinnings of Francis’s doctrine here and here.)

A person invincibly ignorant of the obligation to submit to the magisterium would be material heretic. He does not look to the magisterium for his rule of faith; therefore, he is a heretic, and not a mistaken Catholic. On the other hand, if he is invincibly ignorant and in good faith, he cannot be a formal heretic.

According to the more common opinion of theologians, public material heretics, as we have seen above, are not members of the Catholic Church. Therefore, men and women in the above category, if their heresy is sufficiently public, will not be members of the Catholic Church. Their sincerity in refusing to take the magisterium as their rule of faith is immaterial here – members of the Orthodox churches, Protestants, etc may also be sincere.

Under ordinary circumstances, in the presence of the Catholic hierarchy, it would be impossible to conceive of invincible ignorance on this scale, and the existence of a large number of non-Catholics claiming the Catholic name unchallenged would also be unthinkable. The fact that so many non-Catholics consider themselves to be Catholics, and are taken as such by others, arises from the nature of the crisis in the Church, namely the mass defection of much of the putative hierarchy from the Catholic Church.

This lengthy explanation was necessary to show where Gaspers goes wrong. He holds that the theological position that material public heretics are not members is contradicted by the statement of St. Thomas Aquinas which he quoted. But once we understand that heresy always involves a choice to follow a rule of faith that is not the magisterium, and that the distinction between material and formal heresy relates to whether that choice is subjectively sinful in a given individual, we will also understand that the statement of St. Thomas is not in contradiction to the more common opinion of theologians. Furthermore, it is important to emphasis that the “choice” referred to here is not a choice to knowingly reject the magisterium, but rather a choice to take a rule of faith from something which isn’t the magisterium. For example, our sincere Protestant described above may never have heard of the obligation to submit to the magisterium, but he nonetheless freely takes “scripture alone” as his rule of faith. He could choose to take his rule of faith from somewhere else, or not make any form of Christian profession at all.

St. Thomas, and the other theologians to which I have referred, hold heresy to be the refusal of assent to the rule of faith proposed by the Church. The man of whom St. Thomas says “if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error,” is a mistaken Catholic such as we discuss above, not a material heretic in the sense intended by Billot. St. Thomas’s man who “is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things” is the heretic. This passage of St. Thomas simply cannot be used, as Gaspers attempts to do, to counter the opinion of later theologians regarding material heresy and Church membership. Indeed, in this article of the Summa, St. Thomas is not even engaging with the question under discussion in this debate, but with a different subject entirely, namely the relationship between heresy and the loss of the theological virtue of faith.

Objections to the minority view left unanswered 

If Gaspers has failed to put forward a credible argument in defense of the minority opinion, he has also failed to answer any of the credible arguments raised against it.

He has, as we have already seen, quoted some of the objections summarized by Van Noort but he has not made any attempt to provide an answer to the many challenging questions that this theologian asks.

Yet, these questions must be answered. One cannot credibly reject the more common opinion of theologians, without engaging with the very arguments which have led to it becoming more common.

Theology is a science, and theologians are the practitioners of this science. They do not hold opinions because they like them, or because they like their consequences, but because they hold them to be true. And the theologians have very good reasons for holding that material heretics are severed from the Church.

It would not be a legitimate way of proceeding for Gaspers to act as though the minority opinion were true simply because he thinks it provides a useful argument to defend the claims of Francis. One hopes that, on the contrary, Gaspers really holds it to be true because he has studied the arguments and has concluded that the majority of theologians are wrong, and that he is right.

If this is the case, he will be able to explain where they (and I) have gone wrong and he will be able to answer their objections.

Therefore, I will restate the case in defense of the more common opinion here and invite a response.

The visibility of the Church and public heresy 

The Catholic Church was founded for the salvation of mankind, and everyone is called to become a member of this supernatural society. By uniting themselves to the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, they will find union with its Divine Head, in faith, hope and charity. All who persist in that charity until death will enjoy forever the beatific vision of God.

Outside this Church there is no salvation. She is the one Ark of Salvation, and all who die outside of her will spend eternity separated from God.

Our Lord Jesus Christ desires that no one should be lost. Therefore, he has made it as easy as possible for all men and women of good will to recognize His Church amidst all the counterfeits that Satan raises up against her. He has given her Four Marks, which she can never lose, and by which she can always be known, these are the marks of Unity, of Sanctity, of Catholicity, and of Apostolicity. The true Church of Christ, and she alone, is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

These marks ensure that no-one who seeks the Ark of Salvation will fail to find her. It is necessary that the Church be sufficiently visible and sufficiently recognizable that she will be recognized by men and women of every condition, every state of life, every level of education, and so on.

It is therefore essential to the visibility of the Church that her members are generally visible to all who exercise reasonable discernment. If it was not possible to identify the members of the Church, it would not be possible to know where the Church was, and where she was not.

For this reason, all the criteria for membership of the Church are outwardly discernible: (i) the visible rite of baptism by which a person is made a member of the Church, (ii) the visible, public profession of the Catholic faith, and (iii) the visible, public submission to legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

These three conditions equate to the threefold unity of the Church – that of faith, worship, and government – under the threefold authority of Christ – that of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. The unity of faith, which is most relevant to us here, is brought about by the submission of every Catholic – without exception – to the rule of faith proposed by the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops who govern the universal Church in communion with him.

If material public heretics (and material public schismatics, for the same argument applies) are members of the visible body of the Church, then all baptized persons would be members of the body of the Church if they were invincibly ignorant. This would mean that all invincibly ignorant Protestants, all invincibly ignorant adherents of the Orthodox Churches, and so on, would actually be true visible members of the Catholic Church.

But if these men and women – who to reasonable observers have no external appearance as being members of the Catholic Church – are actually members, what would that to do the doctrine of the Church’s visibility as outlined above?

This insuperable problem has led to the majority of Catholic theologians rejecting the opinion that material public heretics can be members of the Catholic Church.

Van Noort states, as Gaspers quotes:

[I]f public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church. ^[13]

And Cardinal Billot also strongly asserts, for the same reasons, that the minority opinion is not compatible with the visibility of the Church. He writes:

For if, as we proved in Question 3, the unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. For then there would be a division in the profession of faith, and division is contradictory to unity. But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism. ^[14]

And he proceeds to argue that:

In fact, the Fathers teach sufficiently that even material heretics are outside the visible Church when they exclude all those who have been seduced by heresiarchs and belong to their congregations in any way, and the Fathers make no distinction between those who are participants in their crimes, and those who possibly in good faith follow those who are outside. ^[15]

By the eve of the Second Vatican Council, the consensus against the minority position was so strong that Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his short theology manual Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, didn’t even allude to it, even though immediately afterwards he mentions the minority opinion against the membership of occult heretics. He simply states:

Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is, the legal commonwealth of the Church. ^[16]

And Berry similarly states:

And an interesting passage from Karl Rahner, recently shared by Dr. Edmund Mazza, also shows how strong this consensus was by the later 1940s:

Even those public heretics and schismatics who either cannot be proved to be, or in fact, are not in heresy or schism through formal sin or subjective guilt are outside the Church. In short, even heretics and schismatics in good faith…do not belong…to the visible Church…

It was the almost universal teaching of theologians even before 1943, and…it follows from the very nature of things, that even material heretics and schismatics do not belong as members to the visible Church. For if those who are outside the Church by a non-imputable, but nevertheless public and juridical act, belonged…to the Church, then the visible Church could no longer be one in respect of her visibleness.

Rahner’s reference to the year 1943 is a reference to the teaching of Pope Pius XII that we have already examined:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. ^[18]

And the Holy Father continued:

It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. ^[19]

Despite the “almost universal consensus” that material public heretics are not members of the Church, Gaspers nonetheless professes to hold the opposite opinion and uses it defend the papal claims of Francis.

I invite him to explain how he resolves the difficulties posed by the theologians cited above.

Is Francis at least a material public heretic in the sense described above?

Gaspers correctly notes that I did not base my argument on the assertion that Francis is a formal heretic, but rather on the conclusion that Francis is a public heretic. This is because I wanted to show that even when one bases oneself on the weakest possible argument, and presents Francis in the best possible light, you still come to the conclusion that he is not the pope.

It can be clearly shown that Francis is a public heretic in the sense indicated above, that is, that he openly takes his rule of faith from something other than the Sacred Magisterium of the Catholic Church. His objective public words and actions reveal that he does not take his rule of faith from the Catholic Church, but deliberately sets that rule aside to propose one of his own.

A good example of this is his substitution of a new doctrine of capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in place of what the Church has always taught. It is not possible at one and the same time to (i) propose the rule of faith handed down by the magisterium – that under certain conditions the state can have recourse to capital punishment, and (ii) profess a different rule of faith – that under no circumstances can the state have recourse to capital punishment. There is a direct contradiction between (i) and (ii).

We know that Francis knew what the magisterium proposed because he had to deliberately remove it from the catechism in order to propose the new doctrine. Unlike our confused Catholic above, who might not be aware of what the Church taught, Francis could not possibly have explicitly substituted one doctrine for another without being aware both of the previous doctrine and the new doctrine. The very nature of his act gives us the certainty that he knew that he was substituting the doctrine proposed by the Church with another which contradicted it.

In the same way, the entire purpose of Amoris Laetitia was to replace the doctrine proposed by the magisterium with a contradictory doctrine. It would be contrary to reason to suggest that Francis worked systematically for two years to change a doctrine that he didn’t know existed. On the contrary, we know from many public words and statements that Francis was fully aware of the doctrine that had always been proposed by the magisterium, and knew that it had been so proposed, and that he was fully aware that he was substituting a new doctrine in its place.

Therefore, his actions show that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Francis is certainly a public heretic, and not a mistaken Catholic.

Indeed, the reader at this point may be concluding that, in fact, it is apparent from what we have said that Francis is a formal heretic, that he cannot possibly be considered invincibly ignorant.

Maybe so, but as stated above, my intention is to show that Francis is not the pope, even in the unlikely circumstance that he is only a material public heretic. That is, even if he is, somehow, actually invincibly ignorant of his obligation to profess the Catholic rule of faith, and is doing everything in good conscience, he is still not the pope.

A doubtful pope is no pope

Matt Gaspers seems to be under the impression that by defending the minority position that only formal public heretics are separated from the Church, he is defending the claims of Francis to the papacy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If Gaspers actually refuted theologians like Billot and established a new consensus in favor of his position he would perhaps take step closer to that goal. But in fact, as we saw above, Gaspers has not put forward a single credible argument, nor has he answered the formidable arguments against the minority position.

The more common opinion of theologians, that all public heretics are severed from the Church of Christ, holds the field.

However, even if we lack certainty on this point, as long as there are strong arguments, well-founded in reason, for considering that Francis is not the pope, it is the most prudent course of action to refuse to accept him as pope, according to the ancient dictum “papa dubius est papa nullus,” “a doubtful pope is no pope.”

Canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal explain that:

[J]urisdiction is essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is plain from the nature of the relationship. ^[20]

The exercise of authority over another person is an act of reason and to obey is also an act of reason. It is contrary to reason that a person should submit to the authority of a purported superior, if there are well founded reasons for thinking that the person claiming the authority does not legitimately possess it.

An obligation to obey doubtful authorities would undermine the exercise of power by legitimate authorities; it would be fatal to authentic freedom; and it would lead to the tyrannous exercise of illegitimate power by usurpers.

This truth is of the greatest importance when it comes to the papacy. The pope has the authority to teach such that we are bound to give internal assent to his teaching, and he makes laws in matters pertaining to our eternal salvation. The consequences of assenting to false teaching, or conforming our lives to evil disciplines, would be catastrophic. Therefore, it is rash and imprudent to accept a man as pope if there are well founded doubts about his legitimacy. Wernz and Vidal state that if there are doubts about whether a man has been legitimately elected to the papacy he should not be accepted: “it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law.” ^[21] And they conclude:

[I]f a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject. For the law, ‘Obedience is owed to the legitimately-elected successor of St Peter,’ does not oblige if it is doubtful. ^[22]

Doubts about whether a man is the pope can arise in two ways. First, doubts may arise, as Wernz and Vidal explain, regarding the validity of the papal election at the time at which the election takes place. Such doubts cannot arise later, if the pope has since “been received as certain and undoubted by the whole Church.” Secondly, doubts may arise later in a pontificate, concerning a different question, namely whether a true pope has lost office at some time after his election. Such doubts can arise because there are a number of ways in which a true pope may cease to be the pope:

• he resigns
• he becomes insane
• he becomes a public heretic
• he becomes a public schismatic
• he becomes a public apostate.

One cannot appeal to the validity of a papal election to argue that this second category of doubts cannot arise. This is because they relate to a factor that may arise after that election has been completed. For example, a pope may reign as undisputed pope, and then choose to resign or he may become insane. It would be absurd to say that resignation, or the development of all illness which causes insanity, were rendered impossible by the fact that in the past he had been validly elected pope. In the same way it cannot be argued that doubts cannot arise due to a fall into heresy, schism, or apostasy, even after a legitimate papal election.

Francis is a doubtful pope

We can now apply this doctrine to Francis. On the one hand, the opinion that material public heretics remain members of the Church seems, as Van Noort states, to lack “intrinsic probability.” On the other hand, it is a probable opinion that public material heretics are not members of the Church. This opinion is more probable than the opposing opinion because of the very strong arguments in its favor; these have led to it becoming the more common opinion of theologians.

If it is probable that a material public heretic is not a member of the Church, it is probable that Francis is not a member of the Church. If it is probable that he is not a member of the Church, it is also probable that he is not the pope. But if it’s probable that he is not the pope, it is doubtful that he is the pope.

Further, the doubt cannot be removed by those who doubt. This is because Francis persistently refuses to retract his errors and profess the Catholic faith. He has refused to clarify or retract his false doctrine even when explicitly asked to do so, for example, by the Dubia of the four cardinals. The doubts caused by Francis’s public profession of heresy could only be resolved by his public profession of the Catholic faith, and the retraction of his errors. Until then, the doubt will remain.

Wernz and Vidal relate the question of a doubtful pope to that of the visibility of the Church. They write in the context of a doubtful election, but we can apply the underlying principles to doubts which arise later. They write:

The same conclusion is confirmed on the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognised and discerned, especially on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ. ^[23]

Unity in the public profession of the Catholic faith is one of those “identifying marks” by which the Catholic Church is known. Yet, after “diligent examination” we can neither recognize nor discern that Francis shares in this public profession, despite it being one of the essential characteristics of membership.

It is clearly taught by Catholic theologians that the pope has to be a member of the Catholic Church. For example, Billot states:

For someone outside the body of the Church is made incapable by that very fact of any ordinary jurisdiction, such as that of a bishop. The reason is that he who has ordinary jurisdiction, even episcopal jurisdiction, has the dignity of the head, and no one can be the head even of a particular church, if he is not a member of the Church. For what was ever a head which was not a member? For even though not every member is a head, nevertheless every head is a member. ^[24]

A man cannot be the head of a society to which he does not belong; to deny this is contrary to reason. (See here for more on this topic).

Therefore, whether the more common opinion ultimately be true or not, we must conclude that Francis is, at best, a doubtful pope, and “such a doubtful pope is not the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ.”

Conclusions

Matt Gaspers rejects the more common opinion of theologians that material public heretics are severed from the Church of Christ and instead adheres to the minority opinion that formal heresy is necessary. Yet he neither defends the minority position by credible arguments, nor answers the formidable objections that have been raised against it.

And, even if Gaspers is right, and the minority position is actually true, it will do nothing to save the claims of Francis. As a result of his objective words and actions, Francis has demonstrated that he is a public heretic. This alone raises sufficient doubt about his membership of the Church to destroy his claim to be the pope, her visible head.