In Defense of the Moderate Position on Papal Jurisdiction: John Lamont Replies to José Ureta

In Defense of the Moderate Position on Papal Jurisdiction: A Reply to José Ureta

John Lamont

My article “On the Papal Deposition of Bishops,” published at Rorate Caeli, was occasioned by Mr. José A. Ureta’s article at OnePeterFive, “Why a Good Bishop Should Not Ignore but Obey his Unjust Deposition by the Pope.” There, Ureta advanced an historically standard view among Catholic theologians to the effect that because all bishops receive their jurisdiction immediately from the pope, they can be removed from their diocese at the will of the pope, regardless of the justice of this removal. His argument was a topical one, because it was applied by him to Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who was first asked to resign from his diocese by Pope Francis and then, having refused to do so, was removed from the diocese without a just cause. I had argued that this theological position was wrong in itself and was no longer an option for Catholic theologians, because of its rejection by the Second Vatican Council. Mr Ureta endeavored to refute me in two responses, also published at Rorate Caeli (here and here).

Because of the importance of the subject, an answer to Mr. Ureta seems to be called for. At the same time, many of the arguments he advances in his response are in fact addressed in my original article; when this is the case, the reader is best advised to compare this article and Mr. Ureta’s response and decide for himself. This answer will limit itself to new questions that arise from Mr. Ureta’s response, while referring the reader to the original article to complete the exposition of the position being argued for here. The reader may find some of the necessary but detailed rebuttals of Mr. Ureta’s claims to be less than enthralling, but it is hoped that some substantial contribution to this important issue will be achieved.
 

On the Papal Deposition of Bishops — Dr John Lamont

Rorate is pleased to publish this detailed study by John Lamont on the question of whether a pope has the authority to depose bishops “at will.” After comparing the two theological positions on papal power (a strong view that sees that pope as absolute monarch and the sole source of authority in the Church, and a moderate view that sees both pope and bishops as having authority from their office), Dr Lamont refutes the strong view from accepted Catholic theological principles. A PDF of this entire essay may be found here.

On the Papal Deposition of Bishops

John R.T. Lamont

José Antonio Ureta recently published an article in OnePeterFive entitled ‘Why a Good Bishop Should Not Ignore but Obey His Unjust Deposition by a Pope’. The article was an attempt to refute Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s claim (here and here)[1] that a pope does not have the power to simply remove a bishop at will and that a bishop should refuse to go along with an unjust attempt by the pope to remove him from office. Dr. Kwasniewski’s claim was made in the context of reports that Bp. Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, was to be removed from his see, despite the absence of any evidence of his having failed in the exercise of his office, or of any other good reason for removing him. Mr. Ureta argued, against Dr. Kwasniewski, that the pope has the power to legally remove any bishop from his diocese if he so chooses, and hence that a bishop should accept his removal by the pope regardless of whether or not this removal was justified.

The question is a topical one, because on Nov. 11th 2023 Pope Francis announced that Bp. Strickland has been removed from his office as Bishop of Tyler, without giving any explanation for this action. Mr. Ureta, unlike Pope Francis, has provided a theological argument for the Pope having the right to take such an action. This argument needs to be addressed in order to understand whether or not this is the case. Its importance is not limited to the power of the pope to remove bishops; it concerns the fundamental nature of papal power.

Pope Francis as Public Heretic: The Evidence Leaves No Doubt — by Dr. John Lamont

Editorial Note: Rorate Caeli’s position is that Francis is the pope and that sedevacantism or any of its variants is mistaken. For the sake of enriching the public debate, we publish this study by frequent contributor Dr John Lamont concerning heresies in documents signed by Pope Francis (PDF here for those who prefer that format; the link is now correct). While Dr. Lamont agrees that Francis is the pope, he considers that the questions that the pope's heretical statements raise need to be addressed in order to prepare theologians and prelates for what is to come.

Pope Francis as Public Heretic: The Evidence Leaves No Doubt

Dr. John Lamont

Pope Francis has recently published answers to two sets of dubia submitted to him by members of the College of Cardinals: one set submitted by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Sandoval, Sarah, and Zen on July 10, 2023, and the other set submitted by Cardinal Dominik Duka on July 13, 2023. Pope Francis responded to the dubia of the five cardinals on July 11 and made this reponse public on October 2. On September 25, 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith responded to dubia proposed by Cardinal Dominik Duka; the response was endorsed by the Pope. On November 1, 2023, Pope Francis issued, motu proprio, the apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam to accompany revised statutes for the Pontifical Academy of Theology. His answers to these dubia and his apostolic letter openly and unmistakably contradict the Catholic faith (see Annexe II for the texts in question).

Russia and the invasion of Ukraine: why are so many "Conservatives" agreeing with Extreme Marxists and Communists?

by John Lamont

At the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, opinions in the West were virtually unanimous in condemning the Russian attack and supporting aid to Ukraine. As the war continues, however, dissonant voices have emerged on the conservative side. They have alleged that Russia’s attack was not a pure act of unprovoked aggression but was motivated by legitimate security concerns, and that the military aid to the Ukrainians should cease. This position of some conservatives is a further burden and risk for the suffering Ukrainian nation which is fighting for its life.  It is also – a much lesser consideration – a problem for conservatives and for many Catholics, who have given ear to this anti-Ukrainian stance or have even accepted and promoted it. The problem is a problem of moral integrity and moral credibility. Those Catholics who have bought in to the anti-Ukrainian line have lost both. It is for this reason that this anti-Ukrainian line needs to be addressed in a Catholic forum.    

The case for this line depends on not addressing or mentioning essential facts. The best way to respond to it is to describe the main features of Russia’s goals and actions in Ukraine.  

Lamont responds to Harrison & Fastiggi on the Eucharistic teaching of Pope Francis

On November 17 and 24, 2022, the American Catholic newspaper The Wanderer published articles by Fr. Brian Harrison about the statement ‘The Teaching of the Catholic Faith on the Reception of the Holy Eucharist,’ concerning Pope Francis’s Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi (DD). The statement in question was signed by 56 Catholic clerics and scholars, and was issued on September 16, 2022. It accused Pope Francis of teaching heresy in the Apostolic Letter, as follows:

"Putin's Attack on Ukraine" - by Dr. John Lamont

St. Andrew's ("Bernardine Monastery"), Lviv, Ukraine

Although wars are a temporal phenomenon, they often have religious repercussions or arouse religious passions and disputes. The Russian attack on Ukraine is no exception. One of its religious effects has been to provoke divisions among Catholics. Most of them have backed the Ukrainians in their self-defence against invasion. Some vocal Catholic traditionalists have however taken the Russian side to a greater or lesser extent – certainly to the extent of arguing that the Ukrainians should not be given assistance by other countries in their fight against the Russians, a step that would doom them to defeat. This argument is not framed in purely political terms. The pro-Russian side sees the Ukrainians as aligned with the anti-Christian order that dominates the West, and the Russians as defenders of Christianity and traditional values. This makes it important to get at the truth of the nature of this conflict, in its temporal aspects as well as in its inevitable religious dimensions. This essay will attempt to do so.

Follow-up Article - Paul VI: The Infallibility of Canonizations and the Morals of the Faithful

Last August, Rorate posted an original article by Dr. John Lamont on the infallibility of canonizations.

The article generated considerable debate, which prompted Dr. Lamont to write the following piece on canonizations and the morals of the faithful. Scrupulosity has never been a Catholic virtue.

---

The infallibility of canonisations and the morals of the faithful

John Lamont

A number of discussions of the infallibility of canonisations have appeared recently in connection with the canonisation of Paul VI. Some of these, including a discussion of my own,^[1] have argued that the act of canonisation is not necessarily an infallible pronouncement, and therefore that the canonisation of Paul VI does not require Catholics to believe that he is a saint in heaven if they have serious reasons for holding that he was not a saint. This conclusion has been rejected by many Catholics who consider themselves to be conservatives or even traditionalists. The basis for this rejection has not been a conclusive proof of the heroic virtue of Paul VI, but rather the assertion that canonisations are always infallible. This rejection is not theologically well-informed, but it is presented with an air of authority that can take in Catholics who are not familiar with the theological issues involved. It is thus worthwhile to provide in more detail the theological reasons that establish that not all canonisations are infallible, and that Catholics are not required to accept that canonisation is necessarily an infallible act of the magisterium.

We should begin by explaining the scope of the infallible teaching authority of the Church. This authority extends to all divinely revealed truths that form part of the deposit of faith, and also to all those truths whose acceptance is necessary in order that the deposit of faith can be effectively defended or proposed with sufficient authority. The latter category of truths are termed the secondary object of the infallibility of the Church.

Next, we should define the question being addressed. It is beyond question that the  sanctity of some individuals is infallibly taught. It is divinely revealed, for example, that the good thief is a saint in heaven. Other canonisations can undoubtedly be judged to belong to the secondary object of infallibility. The teaching that St. Paul lived a life of heroic virtue after his conversion and is now a saint in heaven is necessary for the credibility of the inspired teaching that the Church has received from him, and hence forms part of the secondary object of infallibility.

Important Guest Essay: "The Meaning of Amoris Laetitia According to Pope Francis." - by Dr John Lamont

The meaning of Amoris laetitia according to Pope Francis

John R. T. Lamont

            The teaching of the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia has been the subject of a great deal of debate since the promulgation of that document. Various interpretations of this teaching have been presented, and the differing interpretations have been used both to denounce the document as heretical and to defend it as in harmony with the teaching of the Church. Pope Francis has recently acted to clarify the meaning of the most contentious section of Amoris laetitia through a statement in the October 2017 issue of the Acta apostolic sedis, the journal that publishes the official acts of the Holy See (the title of the journal is generally abbreviated as AAS). The meaning and consequences of this clarification are of the first importance, and need to be carefully and accurately examined.

The meaning and authority of the AAS statement

            The statement in the AAS has three components: i) a letter from Pope Francis to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region concerning their pastoral degree on the application of Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia, ii) the pastoral decree itself, and iii) a statement by Cardinal Parolin, the Secretary of State, asserting that the Supreme Pontiff has ordered the publication of the two preceding components in the AAS as statements of the authentic magisterium. The letter from Pope Francis is given the title of ‘Apostolic letter’ in the AAS statement, a title it did not bear when originally issued.

            The statement in the AAS has a high degree of authority. The term ‘authentic magisterium’ is explained in para. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, and in canon 752 of the Latin Code of Canon Law. The exercise of the authentic magisterium is not infallible, and hence does not require the assent of faith from Catholics, but it does require the religious submission of mind and will, a submission that includes sincere adherence to the assertions being taught. The covering statement by Cardinal Parolin, the publication of the above documents in the AAS at the command of the Pope, and the new title of ‘Apostolic letter’ given to Pope Francis’s original letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, confirm that the relevant contents of the documents are teachings of the authentic magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is a rather roundabout way of conveying an official teaching of the Church, since  this teaching is given in a letter about a letter about an apostolic exhortation, but this form of expression is not entirely without precedent or unsuitable in itself. There are precedents for a Pope issuing a teaching by endorsing a statement previously made by bishops. It does however mean that the statement needs to be carefully analyzed in order to identify the content of the teaching it conveys.

Kwasniewski and Lamont on the Roman Rite — Double Lecture at St. Mary's, Norwalk, on Tuesday, June 27

As we near the tenth anniversary of the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, the Society of St. Hugh of Cluny is pleased to announce a special event at St. Mary's Church in Norwalk, Connecticut, on Tuesday, June 27, starting a 5:30 pm, namely, traditional Vespers, a lecture by me and a lecture by Dr. John Lamont, a Q&A period, and a reception with refreshments.

In addition, Angelico Press will be on hand for the launch of my new book: Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of Ages. Copies will be available for purchase at a 20% discount. I'm looking forward to meeting the attendees and will be happy to sign or inscribe a book for anyone interested.