At The Nag's Head

Rev. Fr. David Sherry, District Superior, March 2025

‘It is the mark of an educated man to not seek more certainty than the nature of the subject admits.’ (Aristotle)

According to Saint Luke, all the nations of the Earth were present in Jerusalem on the day of the first Pentecost. On Pentecost — and on all other days — you can find all the nations of the Earth at the Nag’s Head in Holloway, near the church of Saints Joseph and Padarn.

Some years ago, I met a Cockney there who tried to persuade me that there was no God because we all came from the stars. When I asked him where the stars came from, he shook his head pityingly and said that they always were. More recently, I met a Belfast man who assured me that he himself was Jesus Christ. I told him I didn’t believe him, but that if he did want to meet Jesus Christ, I would be very happy to arrange an introduction in the confessional at Saint Joseph’s at any convenient time. Most recently of all, I bumped into a sedevacantist. Having identified me as a ‘Lefebvrist’, it was not long until he exposed his certainty that Francis is not the Pope. ‘Bergoglio is a heretic,’ he said ‘and no heretic is a member of the Church. Therefore, Bergoglio cannot be pope.’ Moreover, as charitably as he could, he accused me and the Society of being formally disobedient and closet-sedevacantists: ‘because,’ he said ‘while you purport to believe that Francis is the Pope, you disobey him by not following his every command while knowing that obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation.’ (He himself, by the way, is formally obedient to the Pope because he will obey him once he decides that he is the Pope).

I was not in a rush and he seemed willing to listen, so I took him on. I told him that the pivotal and providential man in the crisis since Vatican II was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and he had very seriously considered the possibility of the Chair of Peter being vacant. His conclusion was that it was impossible to conclude with certainty that the Pope was not the Pope because the Church has never defined in what circumstances a Pope could be deposed. One could say that it is possible but that’s just another way of saying that it is not certain. In that case, the principle to apply is ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law’ or, in other words, he who appears to be Pope enjoys the benefit of the doubt if any doubt there be.

Now, it is indeed incontrovertible that Francis utters heretical things. Whenever he says that 'good atheists go to heaven’, or that ‘it is morally permissible to live in adultery in certain circumstances' or that 'all religions lead to heaven’, he is uttering heresy.

However, the fact that he utters heresy is not enough for us to conclude that he is not a member of the Church. How so? Because, to separate oneself from the Catholic Church by the sin of heresy, one must hold the heresy knowingly. Just as full knowledge is necessary to commit a mortal sin, so full knowledge is necessary for heresy.

Furthermore, as no man can see another’s soul, the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, only judges based on what is external. For a prelate to lose his authority because of heresy, he must be judged by his superior by a legal process.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that, in the course of my (no doubt very interesting) sermon next Sunday, I happen to say that Hell does not exist. This would be a heresy. Will I have immediately lost my authority within the Catholic Church? The answer is that it cannot be assumed that I have lost it, it will have to be proven that I said these words knowing that I was deviating from the one true Catholic Faith. The scandalised Mass-goer will have recourse to my superior, who alone has the right and duty to demand an account of me. Based on my reply to him — ‘I'm sorry Father, I was up too late watching England lose in Dublin’ or, God forbid, ‘I don't believe in Hell, a loving God would never send people to a place of punishment, blah, blah, blah’ — he will make a legal judgement on whether or not I am a knowing heretic.

If he judges that I am a knowing heretic, all will know with certainty that I have no authority. If, on the other hand, through overwork or for any other reason, he does not make a judgement, it will not have been proven that I have lost my office.

If I continue uttering heresy, people full of common sense should certainly avoid me as they know for certain that my mouth does not speak the Catholic Faith.

But no one can conclude that I have lost my authority because it hasn't been legally proven that I am knowingly heretical.

In the case of the Bishop of Rome, to be certain that the Pope has lost his authority, he who has the power to judge the Pope should demand an account of him and come to a conclusion whether the Pope is simply crazy, a knowing heretic, or something else.

But, here’s the thing, the Pope has no superior on earth and therefore it never has been proven that the Pope is a knowing heretic. We may suspect he is, and we may be right, but we do not have certainty. In those circumstances, our common sense and our sense of the Faith will tell us to avoid a man who attacks our faith by his nonsensical utterings; but in the question of whether he is the Pope, we cannot come to a certain conclusion that he isn’t.

Regarding the point that obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation, and that we refuse him such obedience, I allowed myself the excess of telling my interlocutor that this was the most meaningless drivel I had ever heard. (At least, since the local council announced that they were going to increase the hourly parking charge by £1.20 ‘to improve the parking experience’). Obedience is a virtue by which we obey our lawful superior in all things that he can lawfully command us, except sin. If my boss tells me to steal money to keep the shop open, I am not being disobedient when I refuse, but he remains my boss. If my father teaches me to sacrifice to Moloch, I am not being disobedient when I say 'No, Daddy’, but he remains my father.

Similarly, if the Pope invites me to Assisi to hug snake-worshippers and kiss the Koran, I am not being disobedient when I decline. Just as a teenager obeys his parents in all matters except sin, we obey the Pope in all matters which involve no deviation from the Catholic Faith. When he attempts to compel us to engage in protestantised Masses or dodgy ecumenism, or to do anything which is against that immutable Catholic Faith transmitted to us from Christ through the Apostles, we must refuse. I am not being disobedient and he remains the Pope.

The position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the hero of the Vatican II crisis, and by extension, the position of the Society that he founded is very simple. There is a crisis in the Church precisely because the authority is not defending the Faith, it is attacking it. In this crisis, we must stay calm and carry on. This means keeping the rule of Faith for time of crisis: hold fast to what was always believed every-where by everyone. What we cannot know for certain, we can safely leave to the future judgement of the Church.

May God bless you,

Fr. David Sherry

View all articles from Ite Missa Est.