We shouldn’t be afraid of concluding that Francis isn’t pope: here’s why

(LifeSiteNews) — “Is Francis really the pope?” 

This is the question being asked by an increasing number of Catholics whether online, amongst family and friends, in conversations with trusted clergy, or in the privacy of their own troubled hearts and minds.  

The immediate causes of this questioning are the objective words and actions of Francis himself. Many Catholics, on considering what Francis has said and done in light of the Catholic Church’s doctrine, and the principles propounded by her theologians, have concluded that we can have moral certainty that Francis is not the pope, and that the Holy See is currently vacant. Others disagree with these conclusions. 

It is undoubtedly the case that a growing number of Catholics hold that the See of Rome is currently vacant, though there are disagreements as to when this vacancy began. 

This position is held by sincere men and women who are trying to interpret the realities they are witnessing in light of Catholic teaching, and to preserve the faith at a time of unprecedented crisis. It is right that views held by sincere Catholics should be openly and responsibly discussed by a media organization like LifeSiteNews, which is dedicated to seeking the truth about the underlying causes of the crisis in the Church and the modern world.  

There is an urgent need for faithful Catholics – all those who look to the magisterium of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith – to work together to come to a deeper understanding of what has happened in the Church in recent decades and how we ought to respond to it. This requires engaging with the Church’s teaching and seeking, as best we can, to apply it to the facts of our times; it requires openly discussing and debating opposing positions with the mutual intention of arriving at the truth.  

We will not always agree with each other, but we need to remain charitable, even when we disagree. We must not condemn others for holding positions which the Church herself does not condemn, even if we believe those who hold to them have made a mistake in the application of theological principles.  

I have expressed some of my own views in a number of articles on LifeSiteNews. I have argued that Francis is not the pope due to his public heresy and I have also summarized a number of other arguments that lead to the same conclusion. Furthermore, I have set out (here and here) why, in my opinion, arguments from “universal and peaceful acceptance” fail to prove that Francis is the pope. LifeSiteNews has also published opposing opinions in an effort to foster open debate. 

Catholics who publicly express the view that the Holy See is vacant should expect that their attempts to reach the truth will often be met with hostility and derision, rather than with openness and respect. Perhaps surprisingly, hostile reactions will often come from some of the most trenchant public critics of Francis and his recent predecessors.  

The Catholic who encounters this backlash must understand that he is entering a battlefield that has been fought over for decades, and where personal animosities have developed. This can sometimes lead to the persistent and aggressive defense of positions adopted many years ago – sometimes decades ago – and to a reluctance to reconsider these positions despite the crisis in the Church deepening with every year that passes, and despite the continued theological reflection that has been engaged in during that time.  

This is unfortunate, because the problems of 2024 cannot be adequately dealt with by the tools and arguments of the past. And those who cannot engage openly, honestly, or charitably with their interlocutors will have an increasingly diminished influence over the Catholics of the future. 

The words and actions of Francis are performed in public, for the whole world to see. The view that the Church is in a state of sede vacante and awaits the election of a new pontiff can no longer be suppressed by mockery or ridicule, any more than the courtiers in the fairy tale could stop the whisper that “the emperor has no clothes” from making its way through the crowds.  

The articles that LifeSiteNews is publishing – on both sides of the debate – are an attempt at open, serious, and respectful dialogue, which we hope will be welcomed by all Catholics who seek the truth.  

It is undoubtedly the case that one of the reasons why some people react so strongly against the idea that the See of St. Peter is vacant is an understandable fear about the possible consequences of holding this position. 

Therefore, in the rest of this article I will deal with one of the most commonly expressed of these fears, namely, whether an extended vacancy of the Holy See is compatible with the promises of Christ and the constitution of his Church.  

St. Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy 

The second chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, promulgated by the First Vatican Council on July 18, 1870, is entitled “On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs.” It teaches:  

That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time. 

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.^[1]

This section of the Constitution concludes with a solemn condemnation of the contrary error: 

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.^[2] 

A superficial reading of this anathema might lead one to conclude that there cannot be an extended period where the Church is without a pope, because then St. Peter would not have “perpetual successors.” But, as we shall see, the temporary vacancy of the Holy See – even for an extended time – in no way causes a breach in the perpetual succession of the Roman Pontiffs.   

The repeated vacancy of the Holy See is willed by Christ  

Our Lord has established that the Visible Head of His Church is the man who succeeds St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. The jurisdiction possessed by the pope – to teach, govern and sanctify the flock of Christ – is given to him directly by God. It is not conferred on him by any human authority, neither bishops nor cardinals, but by Christ Himself. Theologian E. Sylvester Berry summarizes the teaching of the Church when he writes:  

The power and authority of the Roman Pontiff is immediate in the sense that it is received immediately from Christ and not through the agency of another person or groups of persons.^[3]

And what is true of his successors was of course true of St. Peter, the first Bishop of Rome: 

In like manner the supreme power of jurisdiction was conferred directly and immediately upon St. Peter, to the exclusion even of the other Apostles. Therefore, neither the faithful nor the bishops of the Church can confer the powers of the primacy upon the successors of St. Peter, for, as the axiom says, “Nemo dat quod non habet.” [No one gives what he does not have].^[4] 

However: 

Christ ordained that St. Peter should have successors in his primacy of jurisdiction over the Church, but He did not designate the person of the successor. It is left to the Church to elect, or otherwise designate, the person who then obtains the power of universal jurisdiction by virtue of divine institution, i.e., immediately from Christ, not from those who have elected him.^[5]  

That is, when the Successor of St. Peter dies, his successor has to be chosen by the Church, and once the election has taken place the one elected as the Visible Head of the Church Militant receives his jurisdiction directly from the Divine Head, Jesus Christ. During the period between the death of one pope, and the election of another, there is no Successor of St. Peter. That is, the Church is in a state of sede vacante. It is therefore a necessary and permanent aspect of the constitution of the Church as willed by its Divine Founder Jesus Christ that the papacy will have recurring periods of sede vacante. 

This state of sede vacante always persists until a man is elected who fulfils the requisite conditions and accepts the office. The conditions are that he be male, a member of the Catholic Church, and in possession of the use of reason. Members of the Church are those who are (i) baptised, (ii) publicly profess the Catholic faith and (iii) are subject to the lawful authority of the hierarchy of the Church. Therefore, the following can never, under any circumstances, be validly elected to the Roman Pontificate: 

1. a woman 
2. an unbaptized male 
3. a boy below the age of reason 
4. a man who is permanently insane 
5. a public heretic 
6. a public apostate 
7. a public schismatic. 

The attempted election of any such person would be invalid. For more on the conditions for a valid election see this article. 

Once a suitable candidate has been elected, and has accepted the office, the See is no longer vacant. It will remain occupied until one of the following occurs:   

1. the pope dies  
2. the pope resigns  
3. the pope permanently loses the use of reason 
4. the pope ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church as a result of public heresy, public apostasy, or public schism.

When one of these events occurs, the Holy See will be vacant once more, until a new pope is elected. There have been more than 260 periods of sede vacante in the Church’s history. The Church does not cease to exist during these temporary periods when she is deprived of her Visible Head, but during these periods the supreme authority of the Church is not exercised: 

When the Apostolic See is vacant, there is no supreme authority in the Church; the bishops retain power to rule their respective dioceses, but no laws can be made for the universal Church, no dogmas of faith can be defined, no legitimate council convened.^[6] 

However:  

In place of this supreme authority, the Church has the right and the duty of selecting someone upon whom Christ will again bestow it. It is evident, then, that the Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church herself continues to exist, for although the see be vacant for many years, the Church always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then obtains supreme authority according to the institution of Christ.^[7]  

Berry remarks that the Holy See may “be vacant for many years” but that “the Church always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor” and it is for this reason that “the Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church herself continues to exist.” 

Therefore, we can see that an extended vacancy is completely compatible with the promises of Christ that St. Peter will have “perpetual successors.” What matters is that the Church continues to exist and possess the means to elect a new pope. 

Sometimes it is objected that an extended vacancy of the Holy See would lead to a situation where a new pope could not be chosen because there would no longer be any true Cardinals. This objection is wholly groundless.  

Election by the cardinals is a comparatively recent development. In the absence of the Sacred College, the right to election could be exercised by (i) a council of bishops or (ii) the clergy of the Church of Rome. It is even possible for lay people to participate in a papal election. I have discussed this subject in more depth in this article.  

There is no known limit to how long a vacancy may last 

Berry takes it for granted that the See of Rome may “be vacant for many years.” It is a standard teaching of theologians that a longer than average vacancy is possible.  

Cardinal Billot, one of the foremost theologians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and one of the great masters of ecclesiology (the branch of theology which deals with the Church) wrote:  

By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time.^[8]   

Other theologians and ecclesiastical writers have not only held that such a vacancy is possible, they have expected that such a vacancy will occur. But before proceeding to examine some of these remarkable texts which treat of future events, we will look at some historical examples where the Holy See has been vacant for a longer than average time, or where there has been an extended period of doubt about the identity of the Successor to St. Peter.  

The longest vacancy in history, prior to the present period, probably lasted for more than three years. The second longest was two years and fourth months. 

The first followed the death of Pope Clement IV in November 1268. The cause of this extended vacancy was disagreement between the cardinals, particularly between French and non-French cardinals, and was related to political and military conflict between European powers.  

It was two years and nine months until the Archdeacon of Liege, Teobaldi Visconti, was elected on September 1, 1271. It was still longer until he received news of his election and accepted the office. As far as we can ascertain from the historical record, he did not publicly accept the office until he had met with the College of Cardinals at some point in February 1272. Therefore, the See should probably be considered vacant during those five months also. He was finally consecrated a bishop and crowned as Pope Gregory X on March 12, 1272.    

A vacancy of similar length lasted between July 4, 1415 and November 11, 1417, between the resignation of the Roman and Pisan claimants to the papacy and the election of Pope Martin V. These resignations, and the consequent election, more or less resolved the Great Western Schism.  

During the Great Western Schism, which lasted between 1378 to 1415 – a period of thirty-seven years – there was widespread doubt as to which of the rival claimants was the true pope.  

In 1377 Pope Gregory XI had returned to Rome, ending a period of sixty-eight years in which the papacy had been based in Avignon due to political instability in central Italy. The following year Gregory died, and the Roman population demanded an Italian (or Roman) pope. A well-respected Italian archbishop was elected, taking the name of Urban VI. But shortly after his election, the cardinals were disturbed by what seemed to be changes in Urban’s personality and by his intemperate manner of acting towards them. The majority of the College of Cardinals then declared that their election had not been free because they had acted out of fear of the mob. They proceeded to a new election, and chose Robert of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII, and shortly afterwards established himself in Avignon, where the papacy had been based between 1309-77.  

Two papal lines thus developed, one in Rome taking succession from Urban VI and the other in Avignon taking succession from Clement VII. Because of the plausible arguments on both sides, Catholics were in a genuine state of confusion as to which claimant was the true pope. In 1410, a council of bishops at Pisa tried to resolve the problem by deposing both claimants and electing a new pope, John XXIII, thus creating a third line of succession. The crisis was only resolved when the Roman pope and the Pisan pope both resigned in 1414, the Roman pope giving authority to the Council of Constance to elect a new pope, which they did in 1417.  

For more than thirty-seven years Catholics were sincerely divided about the identity of the pope. While later it became generally accepted that the Roman line of succession was legitimate, at the time Catholics were divided due to the arguments that could be adduced in favor of the other claimants. Canonized saints are to be found on both sides of the divide. Still today there are unresolved theological questions surrounding the whole period, including the extent to which the claims of the Roman popes were weakened by the doubt that prevailed throughout much of the Church. 

Indeed, while it has become generally accepted that the Roman line of succession – Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII – was the true succession, alternative interpretations of the evidence have been proposed by Catholic theologians. The most compelling of these holds that because of prevailing doubts, both the Roman and Avignon claimants were doubtful popes and thus the true bond of relation did not exist between them and the Church.^[9] If this were true, this school argues, the council of Pisa may well have possessed the authority to depose both claimants, which would have left the College of Cardinals free to proceed to the election of John XXIII. 

In this article we do not need to resolve these historical and theological anomalies. The relevant point for us is that between the declaration of the majority of cardinals in 1378 that the conclave of that year was invalid, and the election of Pope Martin V in 1417, there was no clear and undoubted pope. This period lasted for thirty-nine years. And there were still some who remained loyal to the Avignon line for another twelve years, until the last Avignon claimant abdicated and with his remaining cardinals “elected” Martin V and finally brought the Great Western Schism to an end.  

In fact, the name “Great Western Schism” is not truly accurate. It is better understood as a period of confusion and doubt – which lasted for three generations – amongst Catholics who sincerely wished to be united but couldn’t agree on a shared interpretation of the facts confronting them. Theologian Rev. Joachim Salaverri S. J. reflected (emphasis as in the original text): 

The so-called Western Schism cannot be said to be a formal and proper schism, because, according to the ancient notion of schism which St. Thomas has transmitted to us in his Summa, more than a hundred years before the beginning of the so-called Western Schism; he says that in the proper sense ‘schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.’   

Now at that time no one refused to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and in fact everyone was trying to find out who really was the legitimate Sovereign Pontiff, so that they could be obedient to him.  

Therefore there was not a voluntary separation from unity, but merely a disagreement concerning a question of fact, namely, whether this man or that man was the true Sovereign Pontiff. This controversy surely obscured the visibility of unity, but it by no means destroyed it, because it openly revealed the desire for unity common to all.   

It was like the situation in a Kingdom, during a struggle and civil war among factions disputing about the legitimate successor, when no one says that the Kingdom itself is divided or that the visibility of unity has disappeared; rather, the situation is that the various factions of one and the same Kingdom are fighting over the legitimacy of the person who should legally be ruling over them.^[10] 

Elsewhere Salaverri writes of the “visible of unity” in the Church being “obscured” but not “destroyed.”^[11] That is, the visibility of the Church’s unity of government was obscured by doubt as to which of the rival candidates was truly pope, but it was not thereby destroyed, because all recognized the need to submit to the Roman Pontiff, even though they could not agree on a shared interpretation of events and agree on which claimant was legitimate. 

The parallels with the crisis facing the Church today should be clear. All true Catholics want to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but we do not agree on whether there is actually a pope to be subject to.  

Fr. John McLaughlin, a priest writing in the early twentieth century, expresses movingly how the “Great Western Schism” obscured the Church’s unity, without destroying it. His words also have an application to the situation we find ourselves in today: 

We concede, moreover, that there may have been occasions in the past (and such intervals may occur in the future) when, through the opposition of anti-Popes and a variety of untoward circumstances, it was difficult for individuals for the moment to tell where the right source of authoritative teaching was to be found. 

This, however, does not change the state of the case in the least; the one true Church was in the world somewhere all the same, and in full possession of all her essential prerogatives, although, for the passing hour – from transient causes – she may not have been easily discernible to the less observant.  

Just as there have been times when some dense fog or mist made it impossible for the ordinary observer to tell the exact spot the sun occupied in the sky, although everybody knew that he was there somewhere; knew, too, that he would in due course make the exact location of his presence visible to all, and that, as soon as the mist lifted, his rays would come straight to the earth again, and every one would see that he was identically the same luminous orb that had shone before.^[12]

Theologians recognized that a future crisis regarding the papacy, including an extended vacancy, could occur 

The “Great Western Schism” is an important example of what can befall the Church, and in the centuries that have followed many ecclesiastical writers have warned that such an event could happen again. For example, the great Dom Guéranger wrote: 

A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favour, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course, and, whilst it lasts, will keep up the faith of his children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.^[13] 

The foresight of Dom Guéranger and Father McLaughlin was shared by an eminent theologian of the nineteenth century, Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J.  

Fr. O’Reilly was described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by John Henry Cardinal Newman.^[14] Among other important charges he was Professor of Theology at the Catholic University of Ireland, Dublin, and Provincial of the Irish Province of the Society of Jesus from 1863-70.  

In a book entitled The Relations of the Church to Society: Theological Essays, Fr. O’Reilly stated that a vacancy of the Holy See could last for at least as long a period as the Great Western Schism. He 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.”^[15]

Furthermore, O’Reilly makes clear that we do not know what the future holds or what evils God might permit to befall His Church, provided of course that her essential constitution is not violated. He writes: 

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.   

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.   

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. 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.^[16] 

It is crucial to note however, that while we do not have a guarantee that Our Lord will not permit terrible trials to befall the Church we do “know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them.” That is why while an extended vacancy is possible, however “terrible and distressing” it may be, a “heretical pope” is not, because it is contrary to the nature of the Church that a public heretic should be a member of her visible body, and even more so that one should be her Visible Head, and Supreme Teacher of the Catholic faith. (For an explanation of this doctrine see the series which begins here, and its application to Francis here.) 

Is an extended vacancy foretold in the book of the Apocalypse? 

In the section above we have seen that (i) the repeated vacancy of the Holy See is a normal part of the Church’s life, (ii) there is no known maximum length of a vacancy, and (iii) this is not contrary to the promises of Christ to the Church.  

I will now share some texts from ecclesiastical writers who not only regarded an extended vacancy as possible, but who actually expected something of the kind would occur because they consider it to be foretold in the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation). These writers agreed that a great crisis would afflict the papacy in the last days of the Church, and some explicitly interpreted this as an extended vacancy of the Holy See.  

My purpose in sharing these extracts is not to assert that we are certainly living in these times at present, but rather to make clear that there are standard theological treatments of the Apocalypse which consider that some form of vacancy of the Holy See, or absence of the pope from Rome, is to be expected. And something which is to be expected, is certainly held to be possible. 

Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy (1861) 

In his book, The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy (1861), Henry Edward Manning, later to become the Cardinal-Archbishop of Westminster, warns that the book of the Apocalypse prophesises that great trials are to befall the Church: 

Let no one, then, be scandalised if the prophecy speak of sufferings to come. We are fond of imagining triumphs and glories for the Church on earth, that the Gospel is to be preached to all nations, and the world to be converted, and all enemies subdued, and I know not what, until some ears are impatient of hearing that there is in store for the Church a time of terrible trial and so we do as the Jews of old, who looked for a conqueror, a king, and for prosperity; and when their Messias came in humility and in passion, they did not know Him.^[17] 

In the book he traces the progress of mankind’s revolt against God from the Reformation through the revolutions brought about by Liberalism and notes the consistently anti-Roman direction of these movements. They will culminate, he asserts, in an attempt to expel the papacy from Rome, so that Rome will no longer have the presence of a pope. He writes that the sacrificial rites of the Church will be suppressed, and pagan rites will be restored in Rome. 

Manning explains that three things are to be expected in the last days, (i) the suppression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (ii) the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary, (iii) the papacy will be driven from Rome, which will return to paganism. Clearly much could be said about the application of all of these to our times. Here I can do no more than provide some extracts which are most relevant to our subject, namely those that focus on the absence of a pope in Rome.  

In the following extract Manning writes of events he expected to occur soon: 

The secret societies have long ago undermined and honeycombed the Christian society of Europe, and are at this moment struggling onward towards Rome, the centre of all Christian order in the world. The fulfilment of the prophecy is yet to come; and that which we have seen in the two wings, we shall see also in the centre; and that great army of the Church of God will, for a time, be scattered. It will seem, for a while, to be defeated, and the power of the enemies of the faith for a time to prevail.  

The continual sacrifice will be taken away and the sanctuary will be cast down. What can be more literally the abomination which makes desolate than the heresy which has removed the presence of the living God from the altar? If you would understand this prophecy of desolation, enter into a church which was Catholic, where now is no sign of life; it stands empty, untenanted, without altar, without tabernacle, without the presence of Jesus. And that which has already come to pass in the East [by means of Islam] and in the West [by means of Protestantism] is extending itself throughout the centre of the Catholic unity.^[18] 

He continues: 

And thus we come to the third mark, the casting down of “the Prince of Strength;” that is, the Divine authority of the Church, and especially of him in whose person it is embodied, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. God has invested him with sovereignty, and given to him a home and a patrimony on earth. The world is in arms to depose him, and to leave him no place to lay his head. Rome and the Roman States are the inheritance of the Incarnation. The world is resolved to drive the Incarnation off the earth and will not suffer it to possess so much as to set the sole of its foot upon.^[19]

Of this time, he writes: 

The Word of God tells us that towards the end of time the power of this world will become so irresistible and so triumphant that the Church of God will sink underneath its hand – that the Church of God will receive no more help from emperors, or kings, or princes, or legislatures, or nations, or peoples, to make resistance against the power and the might of its antagonist. It will be deprived of protection. It will be weakened, baffled, and prostrate, and will lie bleeding at the feet of the powers of this world.^[20]  

He continues: 

The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably become apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world. For what is it that makes Rome sacred, but the presence of the Vicar of Jesus Christ? What has it that should be dear in the sight of God, save only the presence of the Vicar of His Son? Let the Church of Christ depart from Rome, and Rome will be no more in the eyes of God than Jerusalem of old. Jerusalem, the Holy City, chosen by God, was cast down and consumed by fire, because it crucified the Lord of Glory; and the city of Rome, which has been the seat of the Vicar of Jesus Christ for eighteen hundred year, if it become apostate, like Jerusalem of old will suffer a like condemnation.^[21] 

He then provides extracts from the teachings of various theologians all of which set forth from the book of the Apocalypse “the apostasy of the city of Rome from the Vicar of Christ, and its destruction by Antichrist.”^[22]

After providing these extracts he writes: 

I am enabled with the most perfect certainty, from the Word of God, and from the interpretations of the Church, to point out the great principles which are in conflict on either side. I began by showing you that the Antichrist, and the antichristian movement has these marks: first, schism from the Church of God; secondly, denial of its Divine and infallible voice; and thirdly, denial of the Incarnation. It is, therefore, the direct and mortal enemy of the One Holy Catholic and Roman Church – the unity from which all schism is made; the sole organ of the Divine voice of the Spirit of God; the shrine and sanctuary of the Incarnation and of the continual sacrifice.^[23] 

As Manning brings his work to a close, he warns: 

Men have need to look to their principles. They have to make a choice between two things, between faith in a teacher speaking with an infallible voice, governing the unity which now, as in the beginning, knits together the nations of the world, or the spirit of fragmentary Christianity, which is the source of disorder, and ends in unbelief.  

This is still the choice we face today. The “infallible voice” of the true Roman Pontiffs, heard in their perennial Magisterium, or “the spirit of fragmentary Christianity” preached by Francis, “which is the source of disorder, and ends in unbelief.” 

He concludes: 

Here is the simple choice to which we are all brought; and between them we must make up our minds. The events of every day are carrying men further and further in the career on which they have entered. Every day men are becoming more and more divided. These are times of sifting. Our Divine Lord is standing in the Church: ‘His fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly cleanse His floor. and He will gather the grain into His barn, and will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” It is a time of trial, when “some of the learned shall fall,’ and those only shall be saved who are steadfast to the end.   

The two great antagonists are gathering their forces for the last conflict; it may not be in our day, it may not be in the time of those who come after us; but one thing is certain, that we are as much put on our trial now as they will be who live in the time when it shall come to pass. For as surely as the Son of God reigns on high, and will reign ‘until He has put all His enemies under His feet,’ so surely every one that lifts a heel or directs a weapon against His faith, His Church, or His Vicar upon earth, will share the judgment which is laid up for the Antichrist whom he serves.^[24]

Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Apocalypse of St John (1921) 

In his 1921 work Apocalypse of St. John, the American theologian, Rev. E. Sylvester Berry speaks also of the papacy in the end times. But unlike Manning, who simply speaks of the absence of the pope from Rome, Berry specifically interprets the prophecies of the Apocalypse as referring to an extended vacancy of the Holy See. Here are a few extracts. Once again, my primary purpose in sharing them is to show that such an extended vacancy is held to be possible, even likely, by Catholic theologians.  

In the time “before the days of Antichrist” there will be a “weakening of Faith.”^[25] There will be “internal troubles in the Church” which will be followed by “wars and persecutions.”^[26] There will be: 

[T]he defection of large numbers of bishops, priests, and faithful from the True Church.^[27] 

“Discord and laxity of Church discipline” will “prepare the way for great defections in time of trial and persecution.”^[28] These will be “great persecutions against the Church. Nations will seek to destroy the Church at all hazards.”^[29] 

Berry interprets the book of the Apocalypse as predicting:  

[U]nfaithful bishops and priests who fall from the firmament of the Church where Christ has placed them to enlighten and direct the world. By false teachings and example they poison the very sources of doctrine which should flow as pure as water from the mountain torrent… Unfortunately, many of the faithful drink from these poisoned streams and so perish.^[30] 

Tragically: 

[A] great number of Christians will fall away from the Faith in those evil days.^[31] 

In these days: 

The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell.^[32]

And:   

In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter.^[33] 

Berry continues: 

It is now the hour of the powers of darkness. The new-born Son of the Church is ‘taken to God and His throne.’ Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom.  

The ‘mystery of iniquity’ gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that ‘withholdeth is taken out of the way.’ During the interregnum ‘that wicked one shall be revealed’ in his fury against the Church.^[34]

And he remarks: 

It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come. 

The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days.  

Of this time Berry also writes:  

Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization — a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope.^[35]  

These are remarkable interpretations of the book of the Apocalypse, which admit of application to our times. Berry’s book was written more than a century ago, and he knew nothing of the events that would befall the Church over the past sixty years, yet his interpretation matches closely what has in fact occurred.  

Rev. Herman Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny (1956)  

And Fr. Berry was not alone in predicting a vacancy of the Holy See in the last times. Rev. Herman Bernard Kramer published an interpretation of the Apocalypse in 1956 in which he wrote the following:  

However, the text [Apoc 12:1-5] demands a more specific application to the definite future event to which the prophecy obviously points, and in which the Church suffers the keenest pangs passing at that time through the greatest crisis of her whole life. In that travail, she gives birth to some definite “person” who is to rule the Church with a rod of iron (verse 5). It then points to a conflict waged within the Church to elect one who was to “rule all nations” in the manner clearly stated.   

In accord with the text this is unmistakably a papal election, for only Christ and His Vicar have the divine right to rule all nations. Furthermore, the Church does not travail in anguish at every papal election which can be held without trouble or danger. But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of the logical and expected candidate by threats of a general apostasy, assassination or imprisonment of this candidate if elected.   

This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church and would cause intense anguish to the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.^[36] 

These texts have been provided to demonstrate that many of the Church’s theologians regard an extended vacancy as possible and even expected. A full analysis of the treatment of the papacy and the Apocalypse is far beyond this article.  

If you do not find the approach from interpretation of prophecy helpful, set it aside. Sober theological analysis is enough to demonstrate that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the pope, and that the Holy See is currently vacant.  

We have seen in this article that an extended vacancy of the papacy is certainly not contrary to the promises of Christ, nor does it mean the end of the Church. There is an end, a termination point, coming. But it is not for the Church of Christ, but rather for all those who have dared to oppose Him, and who have dared to deprive Rome of its Bishop, and the Church of its Visible Head. 

Let us hear Cardinal Manning: 

When, I ask, was the Church of God ever in a weaker condition, in a feebler state in the eyes of men, and in this natural order, than it is now? And from whence, I ask, is deliverance to come? Is there on earth any power to intervene? Is there any king, prince, or potentate, that has the power to interpose either his will or his sword for the protection of the Church?   

Not one; and it is foretold it should be so. Neither need we desire it, for the will of God seems to be otherwise. But there is One Power which will destroy all antagonists; there is One Person who will break down and smite small as the dust of the summer threshing-floor all the enemies of the Church, for it is He who will consume His enemies ‘with the Spirit of His mouth,’ and destroy them ‘with the brightness of His coming.’  

It seems as if the Son of God were jealous lest anyone should vindicate His authority. He has claimed the battle to Himself; He has taken up the gage which has been cast down against Him; and prophecy is plain and explicit that the last overthrow of evil will be His; that it will be wrought by no man, but by the Son of God; that all the nations of the world may know that He, and He alone, is King, and that He, and He alone, is God.^[37]