How Do We Address the Fact that Francis is Only One Heretical Bishop Among Many?

Skip to comments.

Posted on 01/05/2025 5:21:15 PM PST by ebb tide

For understandable reasons, there is growing debate about whether Francis is the pope. One common argument that he has either lost the papacy, or never had it, posits that a non-Catholic cannot possibly be the pope, and Francis is not Catholic — as such, Francis cannot possibly be the pope. As interesting as that line of reasoning may be, it raises another question that receives far less attention: how do we address the fact that Francis is only one heretical bishop among many?

To begin to answer this latter question, we should first consider who belongs to the Catholic Church. In his 1946 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII affirmed that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and that membership in the Church requires profession of the true faith:

“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.”

Those who do not profess the true faith are not members of the Catholic Church and, as such, are not Catholic.

Our “Francis problem” would not be so challenging if he was not merely one heretic among so many others identifying as Catholic bishops.

To better understand what it means to “profess the true faith,” we can look to Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 encyclical on the unity of the Church, Satis Cognitum:

“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is ‘that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived’ (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ‘Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all’ (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Anyone who rejects a single point of divinely revealed truth rejects the entire Catholic Faith. As such, we cannot “profess the true faith” unless we accept every point of divinely revealed truth.

We get to the crux of the question, then, if we consider those points of divinely revealed truth that are most commonly rejected by many of those who identify as Catholic. As we have good reason to believe based on observation, most bishops, priests, and laity appear to reject one or more of the following infallible (De fide.) truths, among others, from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

• “The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.”
• “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision.”
• “Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.”
• “God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the Divine Commandments.”
• “The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.”
• “There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.”
• “The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith.”
• “Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith if he be in the state of grace.”
• “The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.”
• “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.”

Because this latter truth has been so thoroughly attacked by false ecumenism, it is worth considering the additional detail provided by Dr. Ludwig Ott:

“As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: ‘By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain is it to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.’ This last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.”

Those who suffer from “invincible ignorance” are not saved by their ignorance, as though invincible ignorance was some mystical shield from damnation. To save their souls, everyone (including the ignorant) must die in the state of sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is lost by every mortal sin. Accordingly, the possibility that those who “suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion” can achieve salvation is far from an assurance that many people in such a condition actually do. And, yet, the entire false ecumenical movement teaches us otherwise.

While we have little real hope that the problem of the papacy will be solved without God’s direct intervention, all of us can work toward addressing the more foundational problem of rampant heresy.

Some sincere Catholics may fail to accept one or more of these truths through inculpable ignorance rather than any deliberate rejection of dogma. However, this excuse does not work for the bishops and priests. By their formation — as bad as it may be — and the fact that they have taken upon themselves the formal responsibility of forming souls in the true Catholic Faith, they cannot legitimately claim ignorance if they teach errors contrary to the infallible truths of the Church.

Going back to the considerations from Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII above, it seems that we can reasonably conclude that Francis and a large percentage of his fellow clerics do not “profess the true faith,” and therefore are not members of the Catholic Church. Moreover, this has almost surely been the case for several decades.

Some may dismiss all of this as far less important than the fact that Francis so egregiously rejects the Faith. But Francis’s ostentatious offenses against Catholicism are, paradoxically,  less dangerous than the comparatively subtle and persuasive attacks on the Faith that have prevailed since Vatican II. This is the case because we are more inclined to reject ideas that are clearly wrong, whereas most Catholics are more easily misled by less obvious errors.

Our “Francis problem” would not be so challenging if he was not merely one heretic among so many others identifying as Catholic bishops. As discussed in previous articles, the possibility of an imperfect council to remove and replace Francis exists, but this would require bishops (and perhaps only Cardinals) with the unadulterated Faith to take action. In lieu of that, are we to hope that heretical Cardinals will elect a somewhat less heretical pope next time?

While we have little real hope that the problem of the papacy will be solved without God’s direct intervention, all of us can work toward addressing the more foundational problem of rampant heresy. It is easier to convert sincere but misled souls than it is to convert the pope. And if enough nominal Catholics can return to the true Faith, then we will have more spiritual weapons directed to solving the crisis in the papacy.

To combat the rampant heresy plaguing the Mystical Body of Christ, though, we must part ways with the disastrous approach of “conservative Catholics” who have defended the Vatican II revolution for the past sixty years. Bishop Joseph Strickland’s recent letter praising Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre included the archbishop’s famous 1974 Declaration, which shows us the way to fight:

“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8). Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church. It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church. This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation. That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.”

For fifty years, this has been the best approach to combatting the evils afflicting the Church. And for fifty years, so-called conservative Catholics have attacked Archbishop Lefebvre and his ideas, while defending the Vatican II revolution. These same so-called conservative Catholics who wonder today how we have ended up with Francis occupying the papacy should follow Bishop Strickland’s example in taking a prayerful look at the 1974 Declaration. If more sincere Catholics had accepted it fifty years ago, we would not have the problems we face today.

If we are looking for a resolution to make for 2025, fighting for the Mystical Body of Christ with the charity and fortitude of Archbishop Lefebvre is among those that would be most profitable to the Church, and our own souls. If we refuse to do that, then we have no right to complain about Francis. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.

1 posted on 01/05/2025 5:21:15 PM PST by ebb tide

To: Al Hitan; Fedora; irishjuggler; Jaded; kalee; markomalley; miele man; Mrs. Don-o; ...

2 posted on 01/05/2025 5:21:58 PM PST by ebb tide (I don't engage with hypocritical habitual liars.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson