Readers often write to me asking what my exact position is on a particular aspect of the faith. My answer is straightforward: I hold the Catholic position. The same question inevitably arises in relation to the papacy, and again my response is the same—I adhere to what Catholicism itself teaches. The Catholic faith provides us with the necessary principles, and together with our God-given intellect, equips us to judge matters prudently in view of our salvation.>For this reason, I am not going to frame things in terms of “my position,” as I have often found that such labels tend to obscure rather than clarify. Instead, as I did in my recent articles The Question About the Crisis We All Eventually Have to Face and Is This the Sanest Position for Faithful Catholics to Hold Regarding Post-Conciliar Popes?, I aim to present some of the Catholic teachings and arguments that have informed my conclusions. My hope is that this will assist in bringing greater clarity to the question of the validity of the problematic papal claimants of the past sixty-odd years.>Be aware that what follows is a lengthy essay, but I trust it will offer a few more pieces to this important and complex puzzle. As you read, I encourage you to keep a sheet of paper nearby and honestly assess figures such as Bergoglio and Prevost, considering whether, according to the demands of the Catholic faith, they can be regarded as true popes.

Originally published in Radical Fidelity. Read original article