Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Did Pope Francis Succeed St. Peter? Reply to Steve Ray

Did Pope Francis Succeed St. Peter? Reply to Steve Ray

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:53 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Did Pope Francis Succeed St. Peter? Reply to Steve Ray 2026-06-06T00:53:10-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo Credit: cover of my self-published book from 2014.

My good and esteemed friend and apologist-colleague and fellow Michigander Steve Ray wrote in a public Facebook post (2 May 2025): “We don’t need a successor of Pope Francis; we need a successor [of] St. Peter.” Then in the combox, he wrote, “Oh, I’m very clear. There’s a deeper meaning than the surface text. Think about it.”

After thirteen hours, this post has received 706 likes and 34 shares (sadly, par for the course for this sort of thing).

So I did think about it, and this is my reply:

. . . which of course Pope Francis was, so it’s a bit of self-contradictory reasoning. For the point (at least if taken literally) to be successful, one must presuppose the falsehood that Pope Francis was not a successor of St. Peter, which is pseudo-sedevacantism, or a lousy pope who bound the faithful to false teaching (which would be contrary to the very high level Vatican I teaching of papal indefectibility).

If Pope Francis in fact did not bind the faithful to heresy or even non-heretical error, then it seems to me that the entire point is null and void. If he did, then I request that we all be shown where this occurred. Even pope-basher Phil Lawler, author of the hit piece, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I eviscerated in many critical reviews, denied that anyone has demonstrated that Pope Francis was guilty of any heresy. He wrote on 3 May 2019:

Is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars. . . .

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . .

See my article on this view of Lawler’s, with many links. In a follow-up letter of 16 May 2025, Lawler wrote: ““the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .” Now, he may have changed his mind in the meantime, and adopted the brain-dead schismatic or quasi-schismatic mindset of Taylor Marshall or the excommunicate Vigano et al, but that’s what he thought then, at any rate. And he was correct.

So I respectfully dissent from my respected friend and fellow apologist and Michigander Steve. I simply couldn’t let a statement like this pass by without comment.

The anti-papal rhetoric — generally speaking now — will continue with the next pope: I have predicted for several years now. And it will because in my opinion as an apologist and longtime observer of the Christian community, it’s a quasi-Protestant and Americanist attitude of hyper-individualism and nitpicking the pope whatever he does, which is highly reminiscent of both Martin Luther and theologically liberal dissident Catholics. It incorporates fundamental errors of both the far right and the far left of the ecclesiological spectrum. We either have a pope whom we respect and follow or not.

That’s not to say that we must agree with absolutely everything he said: up to what color socks to wear (as I have often joked about). I respectfully disagreed with Pope Francis on a few political issues, such as immigration, the use of nuclear energy, and climate change. But that’s just it: those things aren’t faith and morals and not areas where the pope is infallible or even particularly an expert. The Holy Father himself drew this distinction in his great encyclical Laudato si (5-24-15), where he wrote, “the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics” [188].

I’m not an ultramontanist in the sense that St. Cardinal Newman opposed. I am an orthodox Catholic, who follows the pope as the infallible and indefectible vicar of Christ on earth, and yes, the successor of St. Peter. What has happened in the last twelve years among his nattering nabob critics is an absolute disgrace and a scandal. I have done my best to counter these grave errors, with 241 articles defending the pope (now it’s 242) and proving that his critics were mistaken, and also a collection of 342 articles from others doing the same thing. But no one can be convinced by something that they refuse to read or seriously consider, even if they do read it.

“You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink,” in other words . . . Jesus said several times, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Lk 14:35). He was criticizing the refusal to hear, or obstinacy. Many Catholics today refuse to consider any defense of Pope Francis because they have bought all of the propaganda and the false narrative. The only winner here is the devil. He has divided and conquered once again and we have been stupid and blind enough to let him do it.

And the saddest thing of all is that it will continue in the next papacy, because nothing satisfies this sort of critical, unCatholic spirit . . .

Now, when I generalize about an error as I am doing here (putting on my “Catholic sociologist” hat) the danger is that some people may think that I am assuming low motives or bad faith in those who hold the position, and that I am engaging in personal attacks. THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. A person can hold an erroneous position in completely good faith and sincerity, thinking they are doing good and on the side of the angels. I think this is true, for example, of Luther and Calvin. At the same time it can be in fact an objectively false and dangerous belief. The effect is the same. The well-intentioned person spreading what is a grave error produces the same bad fruit.

I know Steve (friends for 43 years) and I know his heart and his motivation for what he does. A person (like Steve) can do a tremendous amount of good work (as he has: which I immensely admire), but still simply be wrong on one point. In other words, it’s not a matter of overall character (a “good” or “bad” person) but (usually) of a good person who is simply wrong about a specific matter; has received erroneous teaching and accepted it. It’s not a matter of good vs. evil but of right vs. wrong thinking (lacking facts, logic, internal cohesion and consistency, etc.).

So I say that the vast majority of folks who follow this line of thought have simply fallen victim to bad thinking and analysis and perhaps also in some cases the enticements of the “bandwagon.” If a lot of people are saying a particular thing, then it’s very difficult to dissent from it and to not be one of the crowd. The anti-Francis bandwagon became very large indeed and infiltrated many otherwise respectable and helpful institutions and Catholic circles. We all like to be accepted and we don’t like controversy. I hate the latter myself. But my job requires me to be involved in it at times.

I try to always do so without any personal enmity whatever, as in this case.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo Credit: cover of my self-published book from 2014 [see book and purchase information]

Summary: Was Pope Francis a legitimate or worthy “successor” of St. Peter? The title of a Facebook post from my good friend & fellow apologist Steve Ray suggested otherwise & I replied.

Papacy & Infallibility

papal indefectibility

Previous Post

May 2, 2025

Martin Luther's Excommunication: 13 (of 50) Reasons

Next Post

May 3, 2025 The Myth of Luther's "Snow-Covered Dung Hills"

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And obeisance doesn't mean "worship". It means "respect", "obey", or "submission". Very weird that you ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"Many of these scriptures you have noted have been taken out of context. With Daniel, ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Protestants often point out that Jesus is now triumphant in heaven and object to Catholics ..."

Anthony

Three More Anti-Catholic Lies About Catholicism ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz