OUR LADY OF FATIMA  CATHOLIC CHURCH

Seventeen Traditionalist Myths Exploded 

Most Reverend Terence R. Fulham I.H.M.

From time to time I encounter hackneyed clichés that have circulated amongst traditionalists for decades. Many of these common beliefs actually contradict Church Teaching. The purpose of this article is to once and for all explode these myths in a logical and consistent way. Bear in mind that all quotations are from Popes, Ecumenical Councils, Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, reputed theologians and the Saints. None of the sources is my own. All citations are given full references so they can be verified if necessary. The myths are numbered to distinguish them from the teaching of the Catholic Church.

MYTH 1/ Vatican II was an ecumenical council and taught errors such that the universal body of bishops with a few exceptions lost the Catholic Faith.

Bishop Vincent Gasser
(Expert Theologian at Vatican I)

“Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church, at any rate in this sense, that we do not exclude such co-operation and such concourse of the Church. The end is the preservation of truth in the Church, generally when some controversy arises, and some question is referred to the Holy See for settlement. Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope's infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is bound by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it; and such means are Councils, or the counsel of bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. These means will be different in different cases; and we ought piously to believe that in the divine assistance given to Peter and his successors by Christ there is included a promise as to the means necessary and apt for making an infallible judgement by the Pope.

Finally, we do not in the least separate the Pope from the consent of the Church, provided that consent be not put as a condition, be it antecedent or consequent consent. We cannot separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent can never be withheld. As we believe the Pope to be by divine assistance infallible, we thereby believe also that the assent of the Church. can never be wanting to these definitions; as it is not possible that the body of bishops can be separated from their head, nor can the universal Church fail.”

The Vatican Council Volume 2, Dom Cuthbert Butler OSB, New York, 1930 pp 136 & 7

So an Ecumenical council, since it consists in the gathering together of the Church's bishops, cannot teach error because the universal Church cannot fail. This idea is echoed in another work: 

The mission of the Holy Ghost is so to guide the leaders of the Church that they do not fall into error, and with them the whole Church of Christ. They are not, however, thereby in the smallest degree released from their duty to think, and a General Council (at which is presented the teaching of the Church as a whole) does not make its decisions at random, as might some Delphic oracle, nor work in a sort of trance. The preparations for such a Council follow a perfectly businesslike and matter-of-fact course.

Bishops from all over the world, accompanied by their theologians, meet together, and only after much prayer, and study, and discussion, do they come, under the guidance of the Pope, to some final conclusion: that is to say to a considered judgment of the Church as a whole.

On such an occasion one may be infallibly assured of the presence of the Holy Ghost, since otherwise it would be possible for the entire Church to fall into error. When reached, such a final conclusion, which is usually expressed in a short, clear formula, is called a dogma.

A declaration of this kind is never a matter of surprise to the Faithful for, as has already been said, the germ of every dogma of the Church is already contained in divine Revelation. Thus a newly formulated dogma has necessarily already been a matter of general belief within the Church. It is however possible, of course, that some people still had an open mind upon the subject; but, after a solemn pronouncement of this kind by the Pope, either alone or in conclave with the bishops, every doubt is removed. Should anyone, after such a formal statement, still obstinately and against his better judgment, continue to deny the truth of that dogma, he would be called a heretic and place himself outside the communion of the Faithful.

The Triptych of the Kingdom - A Handbook of the Catholic Faith
Dr. S.G.M. Van Doornik, Rev. S. Jelsma, Rev. A. Van de Lisdonk,
Glasgow 1954, p 122

Indeed another great theologian makes a rather similar observation:

205 PROPOSITION. The college of bishops, whether gathered in an ecumenical council, or dispersed throughout the world but morally united to the supreme pontiff, in its teaching on matters of faith and morals, is infallible.  

This proposition is of faith.

In the analysis of this proposition, keep in mind the principles laid down above (see nos. 77-99) about the object, nature, and conditions of infallibility.

The first part of this proposition states that the college of bishops is endowed with the charism of infallibility when it is assembled together somewhere in an ecumenical council. What is required to constitute an ecumenical council will be explained in detail below (no. 207). Here we emphasize simply one point: there cannot be an ecumenical council without the consent and cooperation of the supreme pontiff (CIC 222).

The second part of the proposition states that the college of bishops is also endowed with infallibility when dispersed throughout the world, but morally united with the Roman pontiff. In other words, when the individual bishops, residing in their home dioceses, unanimously propose the same doctrine as the pope and impose that doctrine in unqualified fashion, they are infallible.

The doctrinal agreement of the bishops dispersed throughout the world can be discerned in a variety of ways: for example, from the catechisms they allow to be published for the instruction of the faithful; from the pastoral instructions the bishops issue to oppose some erroneous doctrine which is beginning to spread; from the decrees of local councils held in various parts of the world; from the fact that a given doctrine is normally preached throughout the entire Catholic world in sermons to the people, or is found regularly in prayerbooks possessing episcopal approbation, and so forth.

It hardly needs stating that the unanimity of the bishops does not have to be mathematically universal, as though the dissent of one or two bishops would cripple the teaching power of the rest of the episcopal college. What suffices is a morally universal unanimity which in most instances will not be difficult to determine, even though it is impossible to fix mathematically the minimum requirements for such unanimity. On the other hand, no matter how unanimous the agreement of bishops might conceivably be, such unanimity would never suffice for infallibility if the Roman pontiff were to be in opposition to it. We deliberately use the phrase, "might conceivably be," because the more probable opinion of theologians maintains that factually it could never happen that a majority of the bishops would depart from the doctrine of the pope.

Even though the proposition as laid down above has never been explicitly defined, it is a dogma of faith in both its parts. For ecumenical councils have really been proclaiming their own infallibility every time they exercised it; and they have exercised it every time they have handed down a definitive decree condemning heresies. As for the second part of the proposition, the infallibility of the episcopal college dispersed throughout the world was implicitly asserted by the Vatican Council when it stated: «By divine and Catholic faith must be believed all those matters which are contained in the written or handed-down word of God and which are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, whether she does so by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium" (DB 1792).

Proof:

Proof of the proposition is contained in all the arguments given previously (no. 79 ff.) to prove the infallibility of the Church's magisterium; for the magisterium of the Church, viewed concretely, is the body of the bishops united to their head.

The following three brief theological arguments will pinpoint the reasons why the Catholic episcopate, when united to the pope, is endowed with infallibility in teaching matters on faith and morals. Although these arguments speak formally of an «ecumenical council," they are equally applicable to the college of bishops dispersed throughout the world.

1. It has been proven: (a) Christ instituted an infallible magisterium in the apostolic college; (b) this magisterium was to be perpetual or continued in the legitimate successors of the apostles;  (c) the apostolic college is continued by the episcopal college; (d) but an ecumenical council is the episcopal college together with its head. Consequently we have present in an ecumenical council the infallible magisterium instituted by Christ.

2. If the teaching Church in an ecumenical council could fall into error, the universal Church would also err in believing. But the universal Church cannot err in believing, otherwise (contrary to the promise of Christ), "the gates of hell would prevail against her."

3. If an ecumenical council were to err, so too would the pope speaking ex cathedra. But the pope when speaking ex cathedra cannot err, as was previously demonstrated. The conclusion is clear.

First of all, then, the Roman Catholic episcopate exercises infallibility when assembled in conciliar fashion, for a definition by an ecumenical council is the clearest and most solemn way in which the magisterium instituted by Christ can exercise its prerogative. That is why St. Athanasius stated in reference to a decree of the Council of Nicaea: "The word of the Lord expressed through the ecumenical Council of Nicaea will remain forever" (Epistula ad Afros 2); and St. Gregory the Great stated: "For just as I accept and venerate the four books of the Holy Gospel, so, too, do I accept and venerate the four councils. And I likewise equally venerate a fifth council [i.e., should there be a fifth council]" (Epistulae i. 25).

Second, the Roman Catholic episcopate exercises its infallibility when dispersed throughout the world. For Christ's promise of divine assistance to the magisterium of the Church was given in unqualified fashion. Consequently there are no grounds whatsoever to support the restriction of Christ's promise exclusively to the extraordinary case of an ecumenical council. Indeed, in saying: "And mark: I am with you at all times," Christ declared in very plain terms that His help would primarily pertain to that daily and ordinary exercise of teaching power carried on by the episcopacy dispersed throughout the world.

    Dogmatic Theologogy Vol II - Christ's Church
Monsignor G. Van Noort, Cork, 1958 pp 330-32

MYTH 2/ I am free to disagree with the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Bishop Josef Fessler
(Expert Theologian at Vatican I)

Bishop Fessler wrote that if an individual bishop (or several) has / have a problem with what a Council teaches, it is his / their duty to study the question and conform his / their mind to the Council. Now that was precisely what happened at Vatican I. Some bishops disagreed with Papal Infallibility, but once it was passed and ratified by the Pope it was Catholic teaching to which intellectual assent was required.

If even up to this point in the last General Congregation before the Solemn Session a bishop is not satisfied as to all his difficulties, or if he thinks it better that the decision should not yet be pronounced on such and such a doctrine, he may in the interval between the last General Congregation and the Solemn Session acquire a full conviction on the subject by discoursing with other theologians, by study of the subject, and by prayer, and may thus overcome his last difficulties, and see that it is well that the definition should be made. Nay, even if he cannot attain this full conviction and insight into the matter by any exertion of his own, he will wait for the decision of the Council with a calm trust in God, without himself taking part in it, because up to this point he lacks the necessary certainty of conviction. When, however, the Council by its decision puts an end to the matter, then at length his Catholic conscience tells him plainly what he must now think and what he must now do; for it is then that the Catholic bishop, whom hitherto unsolved difficulties have kept from participation in the public session and from the solemn voting, says: ‘Now it is undoubtedly certain that this doctrine is revealed by God, and is therefore a portion of the Catholic faith, and therefore I accept it on faith, and must now proclaim it to my clergy and people as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The difficulties which hitherto made it hard for me to give my consent, and to the perfect solution of which I have not even attained, must be capable of a solution; and so I shall honestly busy myself with all the powers of my soul to find their solution for myself and for those whose instruction God has confided to my care.’ Then those bishops who in the last General Congregation voted with the non placets, only because they really thought it was not a good thing, not necessary, not for the benefit of souls in countries well known to them, and who for this reason abstained from taking part in this decision, may, after the solemn decision, if they think it advisable, represent to the faithful of their dioceses the position which they previously adopted towards the doctrine, in order that their conduct may not be misunderstood. But they must now themselves unhesitatingly accept the doctrine which has been decided, and make it known to their people in its true and proper bearings, without reserve, and in such manner that the injurious effects which they themselves apprehended may be as much as possible obviated and removed; for it is not permitted to the bishop, as the divinely-appointed teacher of the clergy and people, to be silent about or to withhold a doctrine of the Faith revealed by God, because he apprehends or thinks that some may take offence of it. Nay, rather it is his business so prudently to bring it about in the declaration of that doctrine, that its true sense and import may hereafter be clearly represented, all erroneous misrepresentations of it be excluded, the reasons for the decision of the doctrine brought out plainly, and all objections to it zealously met and answered.

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 19-21

Once a Council has decided a point, those Council Fathers with difficulties must resolve them in favor of the Council and accept them.

MYTH 3/ Ecumenical Councils solve doctrinal problems they don’t cause them !

“When the Council of Nicaea declared that the doctrine, ‘The Son of God is very God,’ was a dogma of the faith, all difficulties were so far from being cleared away, that during four whole centuries, in which period flourished the greatest teachers of doctrine the world has ever known—Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose—those theologians had to put forth their whole strength in order to solve these difficulties. This has been the case with subsequent General Councils; and it is the excellent and all-important task of the science of theology, after the authority of the teaching Church has solemnly and formally declared the truth revealed by God, to solve the difficulties which present themselves in respect of each particular doctrine, to aid every man to acknowledge the truth himself, and to help to obtain a victory for that truth in the world at large. After each dogmatic definition there have ever been found in the Catholic Church men, on the one hand, who contested the truth of the definition, and who enhanced its difficulty; and men who, on the other hand, have done their best to defend it, and who in the end have happily solved all difficulties which stood in the way of its general acceptance. The former have long since been subjected to the judgment of history and to the just judgment of God; the latter, the Catholic Church names through all ages with honour, and these, too, have had their reward with God.”

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 17 & 18

A key point to understanding what has happened in the wake of Vatican II.

MYTH 4/ The Mess in the Church is too far-gone – God cannot fix it.

God has willed it and ordered it that in His Church Pope and Bishops should teach and govern, and that the laity should obey.  If a layman rebels against the Pope or against the Bishops, because, as he says, the good of the Church is of a higher order of good than the momentary pleasure of the Hierarchy, and that he has no fear if his conscience is not alarmed, then I am compelled to make the remark that we Bishops too, and the Pope have a conscience, and that this doctrinal definition respecting the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff has been long and maturely weighed before God in prayer, and after long and earnest study has been declared with a quiet conscience; and I also declare it to be my firm belief that those Bishops who, in supplement to the Council, declared their adhesion to the doctrine, and gave their reasons in excellent pastorals, acted simply according to their own consciences.  Lastly, as regards the good of the Church, which Dr. Schulte professes he thinks imperiled by the momentary perversion of the Hierarchy, I ask, who can imagine that things are come to such a pass that in this nineteenth century of the Church of God has come to be betrayed by the Pope and Bishops, and that our opponent, Dr. Schulte, should be the man chosen by God to take the Church under his protection?  Are, then, the Pope and Bishops so forsaken by God that He should let them sink into so dangerous an error in doctrine?  Has the Lord forgotten His promises?  Can he ever forget them, and give over His Church a prey to destruction?

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 p. 31

ROME THE ETERNAL

Allocution to Roman students, January 30, 1949.

On the contrary, when we stand before the witnesses of the Christian past we always feel something immortal: the faith which they reveal still lives, and is multiplied indefinitely in the number of those who profess it; the Church still lives to which they belong, and she is always the same through the centuries. She is the Church of Christ, today, in what concerns her visible aspect, more perfect, more complete, more developed than in the dawn of her nativity and the first ages of her external mani­festation. Today the Church, with her more than 350 million faithful spread over the face of the earth, needs quite another cohesiveness, different bonds of organization and laws, a more effective guidance by means of a central government, than in primitive times when Christians numbered only a few thousand, and, with very rare exceptions, belonged to the very State and civilization of the Roman Empire itself. But the structure of the Church in its essential characteristics and in its interior life was then, as always, the same, even more in certain points than historical research would have led us to expect. In her maturity which knows no enfeeblement, the Church has not changed the expression of her face; her voice, keeping its own unalterable tonality, has acquired still more vigor and force.

With this affirmation we find ourselves once more at Rome near Peter's Chair. Because Christ has realized his will to found a Church, one and indestructible, and to do so by the promise, made to Peter, by the institution of the primacy, or, what is the same thing, the Papacy. The Church established on Peter and his successors, and she alone, must be the Church of Christ, one in herself and destined to remain until the end of time by means of submission to a personal and visible Head.

It was a disposition of divine Providence that Peter chose Rome as his episcopal See. Here, in the circus of Nero - we possess incontrovertible archeological proofs of this - he died as a confessor of Christ; beneath the central point of the gigantic cupola was, and is, the place of his entombment. His successors, the Popes, have continued his mission to the present day.

In the succession of Roman Pontiffs there are many who, like the Prince of the Apostles, have sealed with their own blood their fidelity to Him whose visible representatives they were. Many were great by reason of their sanctity, their genius, their learning, the authority of their person. There were others whose purely human qualities corresponded less accurately to the dig­nity of their supreme pastoral office. But the most formidable tempests unleashed from the time of the Apostle Peter down to our own have not been able to shake the Church or prejudice the divine mission of her Rulers. Each Pope, in the very moment in which he accepts his election, receives it immediately from Christ with the same power and with the same privilege of in­fallibility.

If there should ever come a day -We say this as a matter of pure hypothesis - when the physical reality of Rome were to crumble; if ever this Vatican Basilica, the symbol of the one, invincible, and victorious Catholic Church, were to bury be­neath its ruins the historical treasures and the sacred tombs it enshrines, even then the Church would not, by that fact, be overthrown or undermined; the promise of Christ to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy would continue unchanged, as well as the one, indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at that time.

Thus it is: Rome the Eternal in the Christian and supernat­ural sense, is superior to the Rome of history. Her nature and her truth are independent of the historic City.

And such, beloved sons and daughters, should your faith be, too; unshakable, because it has for foundation the rock on which the Church is built. Proclaim it and bear it, this faith of yours, among your associates and your fellow students, with clear-sight­ed vision, with profound conviction, with a courage certain of victory. And pray for the Pope, that the Lord, who has willed him to be the shepherd and bishop of your souls, may grant him to help by word and example those whom he rules, and with them to attain life everlasting.

Pope Pius XII Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 para 1245 - 49

  MYTH 5/ Vatican II contradicts the infallible teaching of previous papal documents like Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors.

On our part, we find that it is the view of Catholic theologians that there are two marks of an ex cathedrâ utterance, and, moreover, that these two marks must both be found together—viz. that (1) the objectum or subject matter of the decision must be doctrine of faith or morals; and (2) the Pope must express his intention, by virtue of his supreme teaching power, to declare this particular doctrine on faith and morals to be a component part of the truth necessary to salvation revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole Catholic Church, he must publish it, and so give a formal definition in the matter (definire).  These two marks must be found together.  Any mere circumstance do not suffice to enable a person to recognize what a Pope says as an utterance ex cathedrâ, or, in other words, as a de fide definition.   It is only when the two other marks just mentioned are acknowledged to be present that the circumstances of the case serve to support and strengthen the proof of the Pope’s intention; and this intention will be made known by his own words.

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 51

For the rest, Dr. Schulte assumes that the Syllabus, with all its eighty propositions, is one of those Papal definitions of doctrine of which the Vatican Council speaks in its fourth session.  This assumption he has failed to prove.  Dr. Schulte assumes it to be so as a fact, whilst the truth of the matter is, that this fact is called in question by the gravest theologians.  Their doubt is founded especially upon this, that the form of the Syllabus is quite different from that which the Pope usually adopts when he delivers a solemn definition de fide.  In order to convince himself of this, Dr. Schulte need only peruse the Bull of Leo X. against Luther, the Exsurge Domine, which he himself adduces as a Bull speaking ex cathedrâ, p. 27 of his book; or the celebrated Bull of Pius VI. Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794. In these and in similar documents the intention of the Pope is expressed in the most decided manner, either at the beginning or at the end, that certain propositions must, by virtue of his supreme apostolical power, be regarded s incompatible with the Catholic doctrine on faith or morals.  Now it is true that the propositions of the Syllabus are designated in the title of the document as ‘Errors of our time which the Holy Fathers have on different occasions denounced;’ but then it is certain that many of the documents in which a special error is denounced, and from which the propositions are drawn, are not utterances ex cathedrâ.  But it may be said, perhaps, that the Pope, by requiring that the Syllabus should be made known to the whole Episcopate, desire to raise all his utterances on the errors contained in the Syllabus to the position of doctrinal definitions, such as would be, according to the definition of the Vatican Council, utterances ex cathedrâ.  This many theologians think may be assumed to be doubtful, until a fresh declaration is made on the subject by the Holy See.  For, as the Syllabus stands, neither the introduction nor the conclusion is sufficiently clear upon this point.  It is true the Bishops had an authentic announcement made to them through a letter of the Cardinal Secretary that the Syllabus was arranged and sent out at the command of the Holy Father, but the reason for this is given, and it comes to no more than this, that perhaps many persons would not be able to meet with the printed documents from which the propositions of the Syllabus are drawn.  Certainly in the Papal Encyclical Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864, which was promulgated with the Syllabus, it is said that Pius IX. has often raised his voice during his Pontificate against the principal errors of our time; but in that Encyclical there is nothing to show absolutely that the Pope in any one single word thought of the Syllabus.

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 91-93

MYTH 6/ The Pope is infallible in Faith and morals. The Pope is always teaching about Faith and morals. Therefore the Pope is always infallible even when teaching in an ordinary fashion.

Cardinal Newman on the Limits of Papal Infallibility

[In] “The “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” (…) [Newman] there states (p. 320) that the Church “has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of propositions” of which she demands reception simply on her own word as God’s representative. And in fact the “range” of the Pope’s infallibility is most materially contracted by the conditions attached to it by the Vatican definition (p. 325); on this Newman quotes “the Swiss bishops”: “The Pope is not infallible as a man, as a theologian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his political views, or even in his government of the Church”, since in none of these cases are the definition’s conditions verified.

Again, it will hold of the Pope, as it holds of a Council, that he is not infallible in the reasons by which he is led, or on which he relies. Nor is it necessary to hold that he is directly and actually exercising his infallibility in the “prefaces and introductions” to his definitions (p. 326).

Of the Pope, again, as of a Council, it is true that his infallibility in its actual exercise requires not a “direct suggestion of divine truth” (an inspiration or a special revelation) but “simply an external guardianship, keeping [him] off from error and saving him “as far as [his] ultimate decisions are concerned, from the effects of [his] inherent infirmities” (p. 328). “What providence has guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma” (ibid.).

“From these various considerations it follows that Papal and Synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith, are of rare occurrence; and this is confessed by all sober theologians. Father O’Reilly, for instance, of Dublin , one of the first theologians of the day, says:

‘The Papal Infallibility is comparatively seldom brought into action. I am very far from denying that the Vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the fulfilment of his sublime office,.., that he is continually guided from above the government of the Catholic Church. But this is the meaning of Infallibility…’

 “This great authority, ... I am sure, would sanction me in my repugnance to impose upon the faith of others more than what the Church distinctly claims of them; and I should follow him in thinking it a more scriptural, Christian, dutiful, happy frame of mind, to be easy, than to be difficult of belief… To be a Catholic a man must have a generous loyalty towards ecclesiastical authority, and accept what is taught him with what is called the pietas fidei.

“I end with an extract from the Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, a Pastoral which has received the Pope’s approbation.

‘It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society…

John Henry Cardinal Newman “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk” as quoted in 
The Church and Infallibility  B.C. Butler , Abbot of Downside, Catholic Book Club, 1954 pp 70 - 72

Background to Vatican I

“The Council of Constance (1414-17), in an endeavour to bring the Western Schism to an end, declared that a “General Council, as representing the Universal Church, held its power immediately from Jesus Christ . . . and that every one, even the Pope, was bound to obey the Council in matters concerning the faith, the extinction of the schism, and the reform of the Church in its head and members; and that the Council had authority over the Pope as well as over all Christians.” This is the theory of theological (as distinct from political) Gallicanism, and the acts of this Council were approved by the Pope “saving the rights, dignity, and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See”.

Theological Gallicanism found a home in France, where the great Bossuet (seventeenth century) was one of its spokesmen, and though its famous “Four Articles” had in 1690 been declared by the Pope to be ‘‘null and void”, it was taught ‘‘in France and elsewhere”, up to the Revolution. (…)

Meanwhile, the other, and ultimately victorious explanation of the relation between bishops (or Council) and Pope, had been systematically set forth by St. Robert Bellarmine in 1586. This is the theory known as Ultramontanism: “The Pope is the supreme judge in deciding controversies on faith and morals. When he teaches the whole Church in things pertaining to faith, he cannot err.”

The nineteenth century, however, witnessed the rise of a movement of thought to which the name New Ultramontanism, or “Neo-Ultramontanism”, has been applied. After the French Restoration in 1815 “there were now strong Ultramontane currents running among the younger clergy and the educated Catholic laity” in France, and the “principal Catholic Organ, the Univers”, under the editorship of Louis Veuillot, became a mouthpiece of political and extreme theological Ultramontanism. Its intransigence “split the French Catholics into two vehemently opposed camps that lasted until the Council” and the school of thought opposed to the New Ultramontanism came to be described as “Gallican”. But, says Butler, “the liberal Catholics “, that is to say the party opposed to the political intransigence of the Univers, “were not, as such, Gallicans “—that is, they did not, as such, maintain the theological Gallicanism of Bossuet. Their great leader was Montalembert, who declared that he detested Gallicanism and its official formularies; “nor, as we shall see, was the foremost leader of the party, Bishop Dupanloup, a Gallican, though freely called such.”

In England, Ullathorne may be taken as a typical case of a man educated on the lines of the old theological Gallicanism who, by the date of the Vatican Council, had evolved into a supporter of the moderate Ultramontanism canonised in that Council’s definition of faith. Newman, the greatest of the Oxford converts, stated after the Council, as we have seen, that he had held this theological opinion ever since his conversion a quarter of a century earlier. But the great layman convert W. G. Ward, editor of the Dublin Review since 1863, was an ardent advocate of extreme theological Neo-Ultramontanism:

“He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to their formal definitions, but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of the Roman Congregations, if adopted by the Pope and published by his authority, thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short, ‘his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost’ . . . Ward’s attitude to encyclicals and allocations was much like the Protestant attitude to the Bible . . . He insisted . . . that his view was the only Catholic one ... only invincible ignorance excusing [those who rejected it] from mortal sin.” [ E. C. Butler, Life of Bishop Ullathorne, ii, 41-4, quoted in The Vatican Council, i, pp. 73f.]

It can be well understood that such an extreme position, advocated with force and ability, by a theologian like Ward, “a man of great intellectual power, an original and profound thinker in matters of philosophy and ethics”, aroused the greatest anxiety in more moderate men such as Newman, with a deep knowledge of Christian history and a sense of those “fine distinctions” which looked like treachery to Ward (…). And Veuillot, a journalist without theological training, actually wrote from Rome during the progress of the Council: “Does the Church believe, or does she not believe, that her head is inspired directly by God, that is to say infallible in his decisions regarding faith and morals?” He is further responsible for saying: “We must affirm squarely the authority and omnipotence of the Pope, as the source of all authority, spiritual and temporal. The proclamation of the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope has no other object.”

It will thus, I take it, be seen that it is altogether mistaken to suppose that the line which separates the minority at the Council from the majority must be the same as the line dividing those who held, from those who rejected, the opinion that the Pope as pastor of the flock of Christ is superior to any Council lacking his ratification, and that he is therefore infallible. There were those who held this opinion as theologically true, but feared either the extreme position of the Neo-Ultramontanes or the effect of even a moderate definition upon governments and upon non-Catholics, and the danger that it would lead to an undesirable “centralization” and a diminution of the rights and status of the other diocesan bishops. In fact, as we can now see, the Neo-Ultramontanes did not prevail at the Council, democratic governments have found it possible to maintain diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and the bishops had their authority secured to them in the Canon Law of the Latin Church. Unfortunately, many non-Catholics continue, like Salmon, to imagine that Neo-Ultramontanism is now the official creed of the Catholic Church.

The Church and Infallibility  B.C. Butler,
Abbot of Downside, Catholic Book Club, 1954  p 89 - 93 

“(Wilfrid) Ward, in discussing the period leading up to the Vatican Council, writes of a “determined group of neo-Ultramontanes” with a policy tending to “extreme centralisation”. “It was not Ultramontanism in its time-honoured sense but an ecclesiastico-political movement practically abrogating the normal constitution of Church and State alike.” A leader of this group, Veuillot, the editor of 1’Univers, had written concerning the Pope: “We must unswervingly follow his inspired directions”, although what the Church claims for the Pope is not inspiration, but merely Providential assistance. W. G. Ward in England had gone so far as to affirm that “in a figurative sense Pius IX may be said never to have ceased from one continuous ex cathedra pronouncement.””

Now Newman held that such men were trying to commit Catholic theologians to an entirely new view, ascribing infallibility to a Pope’s public utterances which were not definitions of faith or morals. “He could not forget such Popes as Liberius and Honorius. The action of these Pontiffs could, no doubt, in his opinion, be defended as consistent with Papal Infallibility”, but only by careful distinctions which Veuillot and W. G. Ward repudiated.

The Church and Infallibility  B.C. Butler,
Abbot of Downside, Catholic Book Club, 1954 pp 11 & 12

The Definition of Papal Infallibility and the Catholic Understanding of this Dogma

“[The Pope is infallible] when he speaks ex cathedra [i.e. from his apostolic throne], that is when, exercising his function of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a piece of teaching, concerning faith or morals, to be held by the Church as a whole.”

In the interpretation and practical application of the above definition there are two principles of great importance to be observed.  (1) No such definition must be taken as affirming more than it plainly does affirm. (2) If there is substantial disagreement among qualified interpreters as to the scope of such a definition, we cannot in practice enforce upon others more than what it is agreed is contained in it.

Bearing these two principles in mind, we shall say that the definition requires us to believe that when the Pope is clearly speaking, not simply as Bishop of the local See of Rome, nor simply as “Patriarch of the West”, but as the universal Pastor of the whole Church of God; when it is clear that he is freely and deliberately exercising his functions, as a universal pastor, to define once for all a point of faith or a point relating to Christian morals, then he speaks the truth.’ It should be added that external pressure brought to bear upon a Pope to “bully” him into a definition is sufficient to cast doubt upon the question whether he is freely exercising his defining power.

The Church and Infallibility  B.C. Butler ,
Abbot of Downside, Catholic Book Club, 1954 pp 69 & 70

“The dogma of Papal Infallibility means this, that the Pope of Rome, by virtue of a special supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to St. Peter and his successors, is not liable to error when, as Supreme Teacher of the Universal Church, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole body of the faithful.

You see, then, what the conditions essential to an infallible decision are. There are many scientific limitations. First, as regards the person defining, it must be the Pope, not in his private capacity, not merely in his official character, but as supreme teacher. Secondly, as regards the matter defined, it must concern faith or morals. Thirdly, as regards the form of the definition, the judgment must be delivered with the manifest intention of commanding intellectual assent. Fourthly, as regards the persons for whom the definition is given, they must be the whole body of the faithful, the Church Universal.”

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 p 15

MYTH 7/ “Real Popes don’t issue Novus Ordos”.

Then in the fourth chapter, entitled ‘On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pope,’ the Council treats exclusively of the teaching power of the Pope—matters, that is, of the first and second class, faith and morals, not matters of the third and fourth class, i.e. discipline and government.  Accordingly, it is only as regards definitions of the Pope upon faith and morals, that the Council defines, as a proposition revealed by God, that they possess infallible certainly by virtue of the unerring divine assistance promised to the Pope in St. Peter, i.e. as the successor of St. Peter.  Cardinal Bellarmine had already made this distinction, speaking of the doctrine on morals as follows (De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. cap. v.): (…) What he then says further in this place refers to discipline: It is not erroneous to say that the Pontiff can err in other laws, either by establishing a law which is completely unnecessary or less prudent... but that he (that is to say, the Pontiff) might command something which although it is not good or evil in itself, or against salvation, is nonetheless useless. or that he might command that thing sub gravi...&c. *  and other theologians follow Bellarmine on this point. (… ) Since, then, it is here expressly said that those definitions on which the Infallibility of the Pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows, as matter of course, that all those laws which are issued from time to time by the Pope in matters of discipline, and which are alterable, are, by the very reason that they are alterable, not included in the de fide definition of the Vatican Council.

(* Latin Original: ‘Non est erroneum dicere Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum superfluam legem condendo vel minus discretam, &c.  Ut autem jubeat (sc. Pontifex) aliquid quod non est bonum neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed tamen est inutile, vel sub pœnâ nimis gravi illud præcipiat, non est absurdum dicere posse fieri,’)

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 44-45 & 47

How Are We to View Bad Laws ?

“The principle to guide us is of practical simplicity. As regards both the Church and the State—each in its own order— the rule is that obedience is to be yielded. And, in doubtful cases the presumption is in favour of authority. If anything were ordered, which is clearly seen to be contrary to, or incompatible with the Law of God, whether natural or revealed, then, of course, it would possess no binding force, for the Apostle warns us that— “We must obey God, rather than man—but, so long as we remain in a state of uncertainty, we are bound to give a properly constituted authority the benefit of the doubt—and submit.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 pp 93 & 94 

"The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that he cannot sin; it does not mean that he cannot err in matters of science; it does not mean that he cannot err in political matters; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal theological views; it does not mean that he cannot err in his private theological utterances relating to faith or morals; it does not mean that he cannot err in his personal decisions; it does not mean that he cannot err in his measures concerning the discipline and practice of the Church, for example: sanctioning or dissolving an Order, precepts of worship, ecclesiastical rules etc."

Illustrations for Sermons and Instructions,
Rev. Charles J. Callan O.P., New York, 1916, page 147

MYTH 8/ The Pope is always right and must be obeyed.

Papal Infallibility and Other Issues

The following are excerpts from approved authors and theologians demonstrating the true notion of papal infallibility and that a true Pope can err in faith and morals and still remain Pope.

“For with this Church [ Rome ], on account of her more powerful Supremacy, it is necessary that every Church (that is, the faithful everywhere dispersed) should be in Communion.”

St. Irenaeus, AD. 178.Contra Haer. Lib. III. C. 3 (Migne. PG., vol. 7, col. 847).

The Pope as Source of Ecclesial Unity

“Every true Catholic throughout the world, who hears his voice, is intimately conscious that he is hearing the voice of Christ Himself, “who heareth you, heareth Me” (Luke x. 16); so, on the other hand, every true Catholic likewise knows that all who refuse to obey his ruling, and who despise his warnings, are despising and disobeying Christ Himself. “Who despises you, despises Me” (Luke x. 16). Thus, the Sovereign Pontiff, as the infallible source of religious truth, becomes at the same time the strong bond of religious unity for, just as error divides men from one another, so truth always and necessarily draws them together. In this way the Pope becomes the connecting link which unites over 250,000,000 of men: and the foundation stone (or petros—Peter) of the mystical building erected by God-incarnate (“Upon this rock will I build My Church,” Matt. xvi. 18). He is the foundation, that is to say, which supports it, and keeps its various parts together, in one harmonious and symmetrical whole, and against which the angry surges rise, and the muddy waves of error for ever beat, yet ever beat in vain: for “the gates of hell [Satan and his hosts] shall not prevail against it “. Who doubts this denies the most formal and unmistakable promises of the Eternal Son of God, and makes of Him a liar.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 Pp 36 & 37

The Church Cannot Err

“First:  How is it possible for the Church to go astray, if God the Holy Ghost is really guiding? Second: How is it possible for the Church to wander away into error, if this same Spirit be leading her into all truth? Will some one kindly explain that, without at the same time denying the veracity of God?”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 Pp. 74

The Pope The Guarantor of Ecclesial Unity

“However, granting the absolute truth of Christ’s promises, we may now proceed to inquire in what way this divine and (because divine) infallible guidance into all truth is brought about’? Is it by the Holy Spirit whispering to each individual priest or to each individual Bishop? Emphatically not. Why not? Because if that theory were well founded, then every priest and Bishop would believe and teach precisely the same set of doctrines, without any need of an infallible Pope to guide him. For, clearly, the Spirit of Truth could not whisper “yea” to one, and “nay” to another, nor could He declare a thing to be “black” to one person and “white” to his neighbour. In fine, we have but two alternatives to choose from. We must confess either that the promises themselves, so solemnly made, are lies (which were blasphemy to affirm), or else, that God directs His Church, and safeguards its truth, through its head, or chief Pastor; just as we regulate and control the members of the physical body through the brain. We must either renounce all belief in Christ and His promises, or else admit that His words are actually carried out, and that the prayer has been heard which He made for Peter, and for those who should, in turn, exercise Peter’s office and functions, and should speak in his name.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 Pp. 74 & 75

A Lesson from the past for Today’s “Traditional Movement”

“At the Lambeth Conference of 1897 the Bishop of Missouri declared that in his own diocese there were one hundred and forty - three denominations. A sect had been formed called the “ Feet-washing Church ,” to carry out our Lord’s command: “If I, being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” But soon there was a split. One party maintained that it was enough to wash one foot. The other party pointed to the text and argued for both feet. So the “ Feet-Washing Church ” split up into two new Churches, called respectively “The One-Foot Church” and “The Two-Foot Church.””

Tablet, July 10, 1897, p. 54.
Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 p 43 

A Distinction: The Pope always Supreme not always Infallible

“It may be well here to draw a distinction between the Pope, considered as the supreme ruler, and the Pope, considered as the infallible ruler. The reigning Pontiff, whosoever he may be, is always the Supreme Ruler, the Head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ; but he is not, on all occasions, nor under all circumstances, the infallible ruler.

To guard against any mistake as to the meaning of our words, let us explain that infallibility is a gift, but not a gift that the Pope exercises every day, nor on every occasion, nor in addressing individuals, nor public audiences, nor is it a prerogative that can be invoked, except under special and indeed we may certainly add, very exceptional circumstances. And further— unlike other powers—it can never be delegated to another. The Pope himself is Infallible, but he cannot transfer nor communicate his Infallibility, even temporarily or for some special given occasion, to anyone else who may, in other respects, represent him, such as a Legate, Ambassador, or Nuncio.

“Neither in conversation,” writes the theologian Billuart, “nor in discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has defined, nor in  answering letters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible.” He is not infallible as a theologian, or as a priest, or a Bishop, or a temporal ruler, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his political views, or even in the government of the Church: but only when he teaches the Faithful throughout the world, ex cathedra, in matters of faith or of morals, that is to say, in matters relating to revealed truth, or to principles of moral conduct.

“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that, alongside religious society, there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested, in their own domain, with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.” (footnote reads: “from a Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, which received the Pope’s  approbation”)”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 pp 77 - 80

The Limits of Papal Infallibility

“Suppose, during your summer holidays, you were to travel to Rome and were to ask the Pope’s opinion, let us say, about South African politics, or Bimetallism, or Sunday Closing, or the Income Tax, or the Death Dues, or the relative merits of English and Australian mutton, or whether a certain well-advertised patent medicine really is “worth a guinea a box”; would not the Pope’s answer (you ask) on these points, if he gave an answer, he regarded as infallible? Most assuredly not. The Pope knows less about many of these things than you do. The Pope is only infallible when, among other conditions, he treats of faith or morals; and the points you have touched on concern neither faith nor morals. (…)

Suppose, during the same tour to Rome , you heard the Pope preach in St. Peter’s on some question relating to faith or morals; and you did not agree with the preacher’s view; and you wrote to him to say so; and the Holy Father condescended to reply to you in a private letter. You ask again :—“ Would not such sermon and such letter have to be considered infallible?” Not a bit of it. The Pope in his private capacity, even when treating of faith and morals, is no more infallible than you are. It is only when the Pope speaks as Pope, that is, “ex-cathedra,” officially, judicially, as interpreter of God’s revelation, as Vicar of Christ, as addressing the Universal Church —it is only then that he speaks infallibly. (…)

Non-Catholics ask how the Pope can be infallible since all men are liable to sin. (…) The objection, of course, confuses infallibility with impeccability. Infallibility, that is, freedom from liability to teach error, is confounded with impeccability, that is, freedom from liability to practise error. John the Baptist, whom while yet unborn God confirmed in grace, was impeccable but not infallible. The Roman Pontiff is infallible but not impeccable. The two gifts are as different as water is different from wine, or as fire from snow, or as the north pole from the south. The two gifts are different both in meaning and in purpose. Infallibility is for the benefit of the Church. Impeccability is for the benefit of the individual. Infallibility is an official gift. Impeccability is a private gift. Among the 258 Popes who have sat in Peter’s chair, most have been holy men, many have been glorious saints; but a few—a very few—you can count them on the fingers of one hand—have been, alas, a scandal to the Church and a stumbling-block to the faithful. But how did their evil life touch the question of their “infallibility.” Infallibility excludes error in the interpretation of the law. Impeccability excludes error in the observance of the law. You might as well argue that Judas the Apostle had no supernatural gifts because he sold his God. You might as well argue that David the Royal Psalmist had no supernatural gifts because he was an adulterer and assassin. You might as well argue that neither Balaam nor Caiphas, neither Samson nor Solomon, had supernatural gifts because they all of them spurned the commandments of God. Must a barrister be a bad interpreter of the law if he sometimes fails to observe the law? Must a lawyer be a bad judge if he be guilty of assault and battery? The fact is that infallibility in no sense depends on the Pope’s personal qualities, but on the promise and assistance of God who can choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and the weak things of the world to confound the strong. And thus Our Lord warned His followers to distinguish between the official acts and the personal unworthiness of His ministers when He said: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not.” (…) The wickedness of some of the Popes proves the divine character of the Church. A merely human institution must necessarily have perished with such men for its leaders.

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900  pp 16 - 18

Obedience to Papal Authority

“It must be clearly understood that whether speaking ex cathedra or not, the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ and the divinely appointed Head of His Church, and that we, as dutiful children, are bound both to listen to him with the utmost attention and respect, and to show him ready and heartfelt obedience. Anyone who should limit his submission to the Pope’s infallible utterances is truly a rebel at heart, and no true Catholic.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 p 81

When  the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, and defines any doctrine concerning Faith or Morals, we are bound to receive his teaching with the assent of divine faith: and cannot refuse obedience, without being guilty of heresy. By one such wilful act of disobedience we cease to be members of the Church of God , and must be classed with heathens and publicans: “Who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. xviii. 17). But the Holy Father rarely exercises his prerogative of Infallibility, and therefore the occasions of these special professions of faith occur but seldom—not once, perhaps, during the course of many years.

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 p 87

Two Kinds of Assent Required

“It is evident enough that assent is of two kinds. There is firstly the assent of Divine Faith; and secondly there is the assent of religious obedience. Neither can be dispensed with. Both are binding. All we affirm is that the one is not the other, and that the first must not be confused with the last. A special kind of assent, that is to say, the assent of Divine Faith must be given to all those doctrines which are proposed to us by the infallible voice of the Church, as taught by Our Lord or the Apostles, and as contained in the original deposit [Fidei Depositum]. They comprise (a) all things whatever which God has directly revealed; and (b) whatever truth such revelation implicitly contains.

These implicit truths are deduced from the original revelation, very much as any other consequence from its premises. For example. It is a truth directly revealed, that the Holy Ghost is God. But, since God is to be adored: the further proposition :—the Holy Ghost is to be adored; is also contained, though only implicitly,

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 p 82

Extent of Papal Authority

“The Pope, whether speaking ex cathedra or not, is always our lawful superior in all matters appertaining to religion, not only as regards faith and morals, but also as regards ecclesiastical order and discipline. His jurisdiction, or authority to command in these matters, is supreme and universal, and carries with it a corresponding right to be obeyed. He is the immediate and supreme representative of God upon earth; and has been placed in that position by God Himself. And since the Primacy is neither in whole, nor even in part of human derivation, but comes directly and immediately from Christ, no man or number of men, whether kings or princes or individual Bishops, nor even a whole Council of Bishops, have any warranty or right to command him in religious or ecclesiastical concerns.’ The Council of Florence declares that: “To him, in Blessed Peter, was delivered by Our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of ruling and governing the Universal Church .” Now this “full power” accorded by Christ cannot be limited except by the authority of Christ.

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 pp 88 & 89

“Further, it is generally held that even when not speaking ex cathedra, “the Vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the fulfillment of his sublime office; that he receives great light and strength to do well the great work entrusted to him and imposed upon him, and that he is continually guided from above in the government of the Catholic Church.” [Words of Father O’Reilly, S.J., quoted with approval by Cardinal Newman, p. 140.] And that supplies us with a special and an additional motive for prompt obedience.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910  p 92

The Pope Can Err

“We may say, speaking generally, the Roman Pontiff has, in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, the same authority that secular sovereigns and their Parliaments have in worldly and political matters. They command and issue laws not only as regards what is necessary for the welfare of their subjects, but also as regards whatever is lawful and expedient. It is not contended that they never make a mistake. It is not asserted that their ruling is necessarily, and in every particular, always wise and discreet, but even inexpedient orders, if not unjust, may be valid and binding, even though they might have been better non-issued.”

The Purpose of the Papacy, Bishop John S. Vaughan D.D. Herder 1910 p 93

  MYTH 9/ “We don’t need the Pope” - the Church can survive without him.

Membership in the Catholic Church is effected by:

a) Intellectual adherence to a common system of belief (the teaching of the Catholic Church) by an act of faith on the part of the believer.

b) The reception of the Sacrament of Baptism.

c) The willingness to share unity with other believers under the authority of the Chief Shepherd, the Pope.

Pope Pius XII taught as follows:

Papal Teaching: "In the Church they alone are to be counted as members who have received the baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith, who moreover, have not had the misfortune to separate themselves from the assembly of the Body, or been excommunicated by the legitimate authority by reason of very grave faults."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Pontifical Teachings 1022

It is not enough to maintain that by Baptism and the common profession of faith that one is a Catholic. We must also be united with the visible Head of the Church, the Bishop of Rome also known as the Pope. The Pope is the immediate shepherd of the entire Church. Bishops are only the local administrators of his authority. The First Vatican Council (1869-70) had this to say on the question of the Pope’s immediate jurisdiction over each Catholic:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. (...) In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith, the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. (...) This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. (...) Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. (...) if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, (...) or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful let him he anathema.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ July 18, 1870 Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

From this it follows that every baptized Catholic who professes the teachings of the Catholic Church and is in union with the Church has the Pope for his immediate shepherd and teacher.

The Second Vatican Council stated the matter this way:

"This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.

"Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who -- by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion -- are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

Lumen Gentium # 14

Union with the Papacy is strictly necessary for salvation and especially if people want to call themselves Catholic as Pope Pius IX wrote:

"In fact, it is contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See. For it is necessary for all the other churches, that is, for all the faithful of the entire world, to be in agreement with this See by reason of its sovereign primacy, and he who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion.

"All these declarations are so emphatic that we must conclude from them that a man who has been declared schismatic by the Roman Pontiff must cease absolutely to claim the name of Catholic so long as he fails to recognize and does not expressly revere that Pontiff’s power in its fullness."

Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873 Pope Pius IX
Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 p. 226

Thus, union with the Pope is the essence of Catholicity, withdrawal of union is the serious sin  of schism. This is precisely why, in the Canon of the Mass, priests are obligated to mention the name of the Sovereign Pontiff as a sign of the intercommunion of all Christ's Faithful with their visible head on earth and a fortiori with each other.

The Church is a visible structure not a loose association of people sharing similar ideas ! The continuance of the Sacramental rites does not mean the Catholic Church is present. The sign of unity is adherence to a common profession of faith in union with the head of the Church and with each other. Absent a head - absent the Church quite simply !

MYTH 10/ Jesus Christ (alone) is the Head of the Church

The Scriptural Origin of Papal Primacy

1/ Change of Name foretold

“When our Lord, at their very first meeting, promised to change the name of Simon, the fisherman, into that of “Cephas “—which we translate “Peter,” but which means “rock “—we know at once from Scripture usage that Simon was thereby marked, out and chosen by God to become hereafter, in some conspicuous way, all that the promised name of Cephas signified, the rock or foundation of the Christian Church. And ‘remark that this name of Cephas, Peter, Rock, designates also a prerogative of Christ Himself. Our Lord is several times in Scripture spoken of as the Stone, the Rock, the Foundation; as when it is said of Him, “This is the Stone which the builders rejected, which is become the head of the corner.” Hence the promise to Simon of the new name of Cephas, Peter, Rock, meant this: that Simon in the future was to be endowed with a prerogative of Christ Himself. That prerogative was Supremacy and Infallibility.”

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 p 72

2/  Change of name fulfilled

“At our Lord’s first meeting with Simon, the Master promised His disciple the name of Cephas, Peter, the Rock. More than a twelvemonth afterwards that promise was, fulfilled and the new name was imposed. “And to Simon He gave the name Peter.” I need not dwell on this text further than to call your attention to the formal, deliberate, and solemn manner in which our Saviour was step by step constituting Simon, son of John, to be the Cephas, Rock, or Foundation, of the Christian Church; of that Church which was to become, in St. Paul’s words, “the pillar and ground of the truth.” During the three years of Simon’s intercourse with Jesus, our Lord was gradually fitting His disciple to be the supreme and infallible mouthpiece of the Catholic Church. For what else but Supremacy and Infallibility is that foundation, that ground of unity, that principle of stability, symbolized by St. Paul under the metaphor of “the pillar and ground of the truth”?

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900  p 73

3/ “Upon this Rock”

“We have seen already how our Lord at His first meeting with Simon—even before this disciple had uttered one single word—formally promised him that significant name of Cephas, Peter, or Rock, which symbolized the supreme and infallible power which was to be entrusted to him and to his successors to the end of time. We next saw how, more than a year afterwards, that promise was fulfilled and a new name was bestowed. In this passage from St. Matthew, Christ next promises to bestow upon Simon the power which that new name of Peter signified.

In this classical passage it is narrated how Simon the fisherman made a magnificent act of faith in the Divinity of Jesus, the Carpenter of Nazareth, and how as a reward our Lord first confirmed him in his mystic name Peter, and then went on to make this promise, namely, to bestow upon him at some future time the dignity and power which that name Peter signified.

Our Divine Master in this passage uses the metaphor of a house and its foundations, because what a secure foundation is to a house, that Infallibility is to the Church. The foundation joins the various parts of the house into one whole; it gives them unity; it gives them stability. Just in the same way, Infallibility is the principle of unity and stability in the Church. As then the rains may fall, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and they may beat upon a house, yet it will fall not if built upon a rock; so, in like manner, the prince of darkness may strive to corrupt the-doctrines of the Church, and the wickedness of bad men to explain away her dogmas, and the unstable Private Judgment of good men to foist false interpretations upon her faith; yet the Church that is founded on the rock of Infallibility will be stirred not by these “winds of false doctrine,” as St. Paul calls them. Under the guidance of the living and unerring voice of her visible Head, the Bishop of Rome, she will remain ever unshaken—ever the same, yesterday, today, and for ever—ever the same, unchanged, unchanging, and unchangeable. On the contrary, a Church without a living and infallible voice cannot be other than a theatre of clamorous disorder, a mere babel of discord and disunion. Void of a principle of stability, such a Church is like a house built upon a shifting sand, and swift and sure shall be the fall thereof.”

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 pp 74 & 75

4/ Christ Prays for Peter at the Last Supper

In the great passage from St. Matthew which we have just studied, Christ promised to Simon the future gift of Headship and Infallibility. Here in St. Luke, our Lord in the most striking manner confirmed that promise. As the devil had once sought and obtained leave from God to tempt holy Job, so here again it is narrated how he had sought and obtained leave to tempt the Apostles. “Behold Satan hath desired to have you—you in the plural—-you, all of you, all the Apostles, that he may sift you, all of you like wheat.” Satan was about to attack their faith, to draw them if possible into that worst of all sins, the sin of unbelief, the sin of apostasy. And our Lord, who loved His Apostles so dearly, what protection in this dread conflict with Satan does He offer them? Listen to His words:“But I have prayed for thee,” for Peter alone. Why but for one? Why for Peter alone? The faith of all was about to be assailed, yet to safeguard them all Christ prays but for one. “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Now realize what momentous issues depended on the perseverance in the faith of those twelve Apostles, chosen instruments as they were to carry the torch of Christianity through the whole wide world, to enlighten the nations that sat in darkness and in the vale of the shadow of death. Yet dear as they were to Christ, precious as they were to the Church, Jesus prays but for Peter alone. “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Why, then, for Peter alone? Because in praying for Peter, Christ was in the best possible manner praying for all. In securing Peter, the Rock and Foundation, Christ was securing the whole edifice built upon that foundation. Peter’s unshaken faith was to keep their faith unshaken. Peter’s Infallibility was to be the principle of stability to them. Peter after his fall and repentance was to be endowed with Infallibility wherewith to confirm their faith and the faith of- the whole world. “And thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.”

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 pp 78 & 79

5/ St Peter’s Triple Confession of Faith

It is interesting to notice that as Peter had thrice in public denied, and emphatically denied, Christ, so he is now required thrice in public to profess, and emphatically to profess, his love, his exceeding love, for Christ. By this profession St. Peter stands out pre-eminent above the other Apostles. As in St. Matthew, it is narrated how Peter made a sublime and surpassing act of faith in Christ, so here in St. John it is narrated how Peter made a sublime and surpassing act of love of Christ. Such faith and such love were, of course, extraordinary supernatural gifts of God, amazing graces bestowed on Peter in that greater measure which corresponded to the greater excellence of his exalted office.We may further note that, as told by St. Matthew, our Lord had first likened Himself to a Builder and His Church to a House built by Himself, whereof Peter was laid as the visible foundation; and in a second metaphor had compared Himself to a King, and His Church to a Kingdom, whereof the Viceroyalty—under the symbol of the Keys—He entrusted to Peter; so here, as told by St. John, our Lord likens Himself to a Good Shepherd, and His Church to a flock of sheep, the guidance of which He commits to Peter as Head Shepherd under Himself. As Christ is the Shepherd - King, like David his prototype, so Peter is the Shepherd-Prince commissioned by the King to feed the whole flock. Again, in a flock the lambs are under the immediate charge of their natural parents the sheep, as all the sheep are under the rule of the one shepherd. So like-wise in the Church the laity are under the immediate charge of their spiritual parents the bishops, as all bishops are under the rule of the one Supreme Shepherd the Pope. The bishops are the sheep, the laity are the lambs. The bishops indeed have charge of the laity, each in his own diocese; but Peter has charge - of all dioceses, and rules both bishops and laity. The bishops are themselves Fathers and Pastors; but the Pope is the Father of Fathers and the Pastor of Pastors. The Church of Christ is one flock, and the principle of unity of that vast flock is the one Supreme Shepherd, who is to feed not the lambs only but the sheep also.

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J., Catholic Truth Society, 1900 pp 81 & 8

MYTH 11/ I feel that I can judge the Pope…

Principle of Logic: To form a conclusion based on observations = to judge !

Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, who tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for such acts belong to a superior.

Saint Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Church "De Romano Pontifice" Book II, Chapter 29

“The first or primatial see is subject to no one’s judgment. This proposition must be taken in the fullest extent, not only with regard to the object of infallibility. For in matters of faith and morals it was always customary to receive the final sentence from the Apostolic See, whose judgment no one dared to dispute as the tradition of the Fathers demonstrates. Neither was it ever allowed to reconsider questions or controversies once settled by the Holy See. But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes. (…) “God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.” No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid sentence. Hence nothing is left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His Church and its head.”

A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law Vol VII
Rev. P.C. Augustine O.S.B., Herder, 1923 Pp 11 & 12

MYTH 12/ I can write and say bad things about the Pope

"Any person who in public periodicals, speeches or pamphlets has injured (i.e.. calumniated) either directly or indirectly the Roman Pontiff, the Legates of the Roman Pontiff, the Sacred Congregations in Rome, the Tribunals of the Apostolic See and their major officials, or his proper Ordinary, or who has excited animosity or hatred against their acts, decrees, decisions or sentences, shall - not only at the instance of the party, but also ex officio - be compelled by the Ordinary even with censures to make satisfaction, and shall be punished with appropriate penalties and penances in proportion to the gravity of his guilt and the necessity of repairing the scandal." 

Code of Canon Law (1917) Canon 2344

 “The" injuriae" of Canon 2344 include all offensive, insult­ing remarks, all slanders and revelations of secret faults or defects, and finally all agitation against the official actions of the above-mentioned ecclesiastical authorities. Private conversation injurious to the person or office of the said dignitaries is not mentioned in Canon 2344, but, if through the often-repeated guilty conversation such talk becomes public, the Ordinary has the right to proceed against such persons, even though their offense does not fall under the terms of Canon 2344 "public periodicals, speeches or pamphlets"”

A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Vol 2,
Woywod & Smith, New York, 1963 p 621

  MYTH 13/ “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ” words attributed to Our Lady at La Salette.

  When she appeared at Fatima, Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia to be made by the pope in union with the bishops of the world.

  July 13, 1917

"I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honor of our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you." "Continue to come here every month. In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe." "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially whenever you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." Our Lady showed hell to the children. 

 "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that He is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.  

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated .. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world." 

June 13, 1929:

"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.  There are so many souls whom the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray."

August 1931 (at Rianjo):  

(Our Lord) "They did not wish to heed my request.  Like the King of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars, and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer."

If there is no more pope, it would follow that both Our Lord and Our Lady were mistaken when they foretold that the consecration will be done, but late.

MYTH 14/ In the matter of whether the Pope is the Pope or not: who decides ? You do !

“When then Dr. Schulte says, ‘Neither Pope, nor bishop, nor parish priest, can bring me to heaven by his prayers, if I live not as a Christian and believe in Christ,’ no doubt he states perfectly correctly that no one goes to heaven by another’s prayers, if he does not believe in Christ and live according to his faith.  When, however, he adds, ‘Just as little can I, or any one who wishes to know what is right, trust my salvation to the responsibility which a third person may be willing to assume,’ this is a proposition with a double sense, one of which senses is true, and the other false.  It is perfectly true, if it is a question of the transgression of a law which I may have had the misfortune to commit, which transgression a third person may, perhaps, say he will take upon his own shoulders; as if a person were to say, ‘If you commit such and such a murder, such and such an adultery, such and such a theft, such and such an act of fraud, I will take upon myself the responsibility of the deed.’  In such matters assuredly the responsibility which another person takes upon himself, will in no wise avail me before God.  In this sense, then, the proposition is true.  But if any one wishes to extend the application of this proposition, so as to say that I must not accept a Catholic doctrine on faith when the teaching Church declares it to be faith, because I myself do not find the doctrine in Scripture, the Fathers, or other genuine ancient sources of Church doctrine, then this proposition is used in a false sense, by the substitution of the act of the individual’s subjective belief for the objective truth declared by the Church, which truth is based upon the infallible teaching office of the holy Catholic Church.  What an amazing difference, then, is there between these two propositions!  In one case, a man offers to bear for another the consequences of an act of every-day life, be it of belief or unbelief, be it of a good or bad action, and in the other case, a Catholic Christian, relying on the authority of the teaching Church, on which God has Himself taught him to rely, ‘he that heareth you heareth Me, ‘ accepts a doctrine as a truth revealed by God, because the teaching Church, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, has declared it to be so.  If a man is not to be required to believe such a declaration as this, then all difference between an infallibly teaching Catholic Church and Protestantism in all its forms, with the unlimited right of private judgment, is at an end.  Assuredly he says truly, ‘God will some time call every one to a reckoning for his conduct during life.’  Certainly He will call our once-Catholic opponent, and will say to him, ‘I gave you the grace to be born and bred up in the Catholic Church; you both might have learnt and you ought to have learnt that there resides in the Catholic Church an infallible teaching authority, to which, in matters of faith, every Catholic is bound to submit.  From the man who rebels against an authority and rejects her decision will I demand an account, and an account twofold and threefold more severe from him who, in his capacity of public teacher, misleads from the Faith the youth who have been intrusted to him, and causes them to rebel against the authority of the Church, and who, for this reason, will have the guilt of the shipwreck of those souls on his conscience.’

The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, Dr. Joseph Fessler, London, 1875 pp. 24-26

MYTH 15/ There doesn’t always have to be a Pope.

 "When, as the Gospel has just told us, the Lord asked his disciples whom they believed him to be (since many held various views on the question) and blessed Peter had answered saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, the Lord said, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. But the dispensation of truth perdures, and blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he has received, has not relinquished the position he assumed at the helm of the Church. For daily throughout the Church Peter says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue that confesses the Lord is imbued with the teaching of that voice. This faith vanquishes the devil and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. This faith plants in heaven those who have been uprooted from the earth, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. For it is armed in such solid strength that heretical depravity can never corrupt it nor pagan belief overcome it. And so, dearly beloved, we celebrate today's festival with reasonable obedience, that in my humble person he may be acknowledged and honored who continues to care for all the shepherds as well as sheep entrusted to him, and who loses none of his dignity even in an unworthy successor."

Pope St Leo I Sermon 2 on the anniversary of his elevation.

From the Haydock Bible

The English text is from the 1899 Douay Rheims Bible with the imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons:

St John Chapter 11:47-53

11:47. The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council and said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles?
11:48. If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation.
11:49. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
11:50. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not.
11:51. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
11:52. And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God that were dispersed.
11:53. From that day therefore they devised to put him to death.

Fr. George Leo Haydock's commentary on the above account reproduced from the 1859 edition:

VER. 49. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest, &c. He said not this, says the evangelist, of himself, but as the high priest of that year. The spirit of prophecy was given him, and he foretells that Jesus was to lay down his life both for the nation of the Jews, and for all mankind. The gift of prophecy itself does not make a man holy. It was also given to the wicked Balaam. Num. a. xxiv. Wi.--It is supposed that he exercised the sacrificial office alternately with his father-in-law, Annas, who, as we have seen in Luke iii. 2. was also high priest. V.

VER. 50. How great is the power of the Holy Ghost? From a wicked mind he brings forth the words of prophecy. And how great is the power attached to the pontifical dignity ! For Caiphas having become high priest, though unworthy of that dignity, prophesies, not knowing indeed what he says. The Holy Ghost makes use of his tongue only, but touches not his sinful heart. S. Chrys. hom. lxiv. in Joan.

VER. 51. The same words have an impious and sacrilegious sense in the intention of the high priest, the enemy of Jesus Christ: and a divine and.prophetic sense, in the intention of the Holy Ghost. V.--We here behold the privilege of the office and order, though in a wicked person: and as we have the assistance of God for the utterance of truth, which Caiphas neither meant nor knew, we may rest satisfied that Christ will not leave Peter’s chair; (Luke xxii. 32.) whose faith he promises should never fail, though the occupants be as bad as their enemies describe them.

At this point I followed the reference in footnote 51 which refers to Luke 22:32 where we read:

22:32. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Haydock's commentary states:

VER. 32. That thy faith fail not. The faith of Peter, established by the coming of the Holy Ghost, hath never failed, nor can fail, being built upon a rock, which is Christ himself; and being guided by the spirit of truth, as Christ promised. Jo. xv. 26. and xvi. 18.--And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, even all the other apostles and bishops, over whom I have made and constituted thee and thy successors the chief head, that such a head being appointed by divine authority, all occasions of schisms and divisions might cease, says S. Jerome. Wi.--Admire the superabundance of the divine patience. That the disciple might not lose courage, he promises him pardon before he has committed the crime, and restores him again to his apostolic dignity, saying, confirm thy brethren. S. Cyril.

Thirdly, I also firmly believe that the Church, the guardian and teacher of God's revealed word, was directly and absolutely instituted by Christ Himself, the true Christ of History, while He lived among us; and that the same Church was founded on Peter; the prince of the apostolic hierarchy and on his successors to the end of time.

Oath against Modernism

Vatican I

[Canon]. If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema. [Denz 1825]

Sedevacantists in their defense cite passages like the following:

Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions— opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by pro­posing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, fol­lowed by Suárez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too he never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church.

Dogmatic Theology - Volume II Christ's Church,
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Mercier Press, Cork , 1958 p 294

Here Monsignor Van Noort (a Doctor of Sacred Theology) writes about the theological opinion that a pope might possibly fall into error. He clearly shows that the theologians are in dispute about such a possibility and that the “big gun” theologians like Suarez and Bellarmine hold God “never will permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic.”

Sedevacantists maintain that a Pope can become a heretic (as some theologians hold) and, by advancing what they claim are examples of heresies taught by Paul VI, John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI, conclude that these men were / are not Popes. The problem is that a theological opinion is now declared to be a fact, nay even a dogma. Some of those who hold extreme forms of this opinion declare those in union with these Popes to be outside the Church with them ! Fortunately opinions do not become dogmas, especially where they are contradicted by de fide Church teaching like the quotation from Vatican I above. The same Monsignor Van Noort proceeds in the same book to explain the notion of perpetual successors in the primacy:

PROPOSITION 2: It was Christ's will that the primacy, begun with St. Peter, should continue forever.

It is true that the primacy can be called in a certain sense the personal prerogative of St. Peter, since it was conferred on him alone rather than on the other apostles. But it is not a personal prerogative in the sense that when Peter died, it died with him; it is a permanent office which must, in accordance with Christ’s will, go on forever, as long as the Church itself continues to exist. This thesis is a dogma of faith. The Vatican Council declared: "If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself or of divine right that St. Peter has an everlasting line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church, let him be anathema” (Constitution De ecclesia Christi, chap. 2 DB 1825).

Proof:

1.From the nature and purpose of the primacy, assuming as proven the Church’s indestructibility.

Primacy by its very nature is a permanent or ordinary office, for it is connected, not with the establishment of the Church, but with its conservation and government. Besides, it is intimately bound up with the very constitution of the Church, and this con­stitution was certainly not to be changed once the apostles had died. The purpose of primacy, as can easily be proved by the words of our Lord in Matthew 16, is to secure and preserve the Church’s unity. But this purpose must always be pursued; after the apos­tolic age its realization is harder because charisms have ceased and the Church is more widespread. The conclusion is evident.

2. From the words of Christ. The whole question can be summed up as follows: When Christ promised and conferred the primacy, did He address His words to Peter as to an individual who was soon to die, or to that same Peter as to a man who was to go on living in an unending line of successors? Not the former but the latter alternative is definitely the one to he maintained.

a. The words of promise. Peter is to do for the Church what a foundation does for a house. But the foundation supports a house not only when it is first built, but continuously: as long as the house lasts. In like manner, Peter is to support the Church by his authority as long as the latter shall last. But Peter as a physical person cannot do this; so he must do it as a juridical person living on in his successors.

Again, by his authority, Peter is to make the indestructibility of the Church a reality; for the words, and “the gates of hell shall not prevai1 against it” are joined in a causal relationship with the preceding words. But it is impossible for anyone to make a society indestructible simply  through the influence of his rule, unless he unceasingly exercises that influence.

b. The words of bestowal. Peter is charged with the duty of feeding Christ’s lambs and sheep, and this means all His lambs and sheep. But the faithful and the bishops of succeeding generations certainly belong to the flock of Christ just as truly as those who were living at the time of the apostles And so, Peter is to feed them too, by living on in his successors .

(...)

PROPOSITION 3. Peter’s primacy lives on in the Roman pontiff.

The object of this proposition is to determine precisely where the primacy, once conferred on Peter with a view to its perpetual continuance, is now factually preserved.

Strictly speaking, the primacy could have been preserved with­out being tied to an episcopal see, in such a way, for example, that the whole business of selecting a successor in the primacy, each time that this should prove necessary, would be the task of the whole episcopal college. But such a procedure, aside from the fact that it would be quite awkward, is in fact not followed. As matters actually stand, the primacy is connected with a particular see, that of Rome , so that whoever is legitimately elected bishop of Rome receives, by that very fact, primacy over the universal Church. It will be indicated later by what right this bond was effected and whether it could ever possibly be undone.

The present proposition has often been defined by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. For example, the Vatican Council asserted: “If anyone says that the Roman pontiff is not St. Peter’s successor in the same primacy [as was his], let him he anathema’ (Constitution De ecclesia, chap. 2; DB 1825; see the Council of Florence, DB 694).

Proof:

1. Argument of exclusion: by a process of elimination. Since Christ decreed that Peter should have a never-ending line of successors in the primacy, there must always have been and there must still be someone in the Church who wields his primacy. But aside from the Roman pontiff, no one has ever seriously, or with any semblance of truth, put himself forward as Peter’s successor; and no one else has ever been acknowledged as such. Therefore one must admit either that the Roman pontiff wields Peter’s primacy, or else that this primacy, contrary to Christ’s will, has passed out of existence.

Dogmatic Theology - Volume II Christ's Church,
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Mercier Press, Cork , 1958 pp 72 - 75

In a series of evening sermons at St Wilfrid’s Church, Preston, Lancashire , England , the Jesuit theologian Father Charles Coupe explained Church teaching on various aspects of the papacy with a view to refuting some common Protestant objections. Writing on the subject of the permanency of Papal Primacy until the end of time he opines in a similar fashion to Monsignor Van Noort above:

“The Church on earth in a very true sense is also a body, a body politic. Moreover, it is a visible body, and consequently it must have a visible head. To make the Church a visible body without a visible head is to turn it into a monstrosity. In the mind of Christ there was not only a double but a triple foundation of the Church. The lowest and chief foundation is Christ Himself, who is so by virtue of His Nature: He is, as we may say, the rock which supports the whole erection. The secondary foundation is Peter, who holds this position not by right of nature, but of appointment; he is a rock by participation of Christ’s Infallibility freely bestowed upon him. The tertiary foundation is that of the Apostles. “And the walls of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”  And again: “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” As the primary foundation, Christ is independent. As the secondary foundation, Peter is dependent on Christ, and on Christ alone. As the tertiary foundation, the Apostles are dependent both on Peter and on Christ.

Christ, then, is the invisible head. The Pope is the visible head. Christ is principal and independent. The Pope is Christ’s Vicar, Viceroy, Plenipotentiary, Representative. And I repeat that such a representative is a sheer necessity. For as the Church of Christ is a visible society of visible men, it needs a visible ruler just as much as any other human society. Therefore the spiritual power conferred by Christ on Peter is no more derogatory to Christ than the temporal power conferred by the Queen on the Viceroy of India is derogatory to the Queen. For Christ rules the Church through His representative the Pope far more truly than the Queen rules India through her representative the Viceroy.”

“Moreover, the argument developed in these Lectures proves the gift of Infallibility to have been conferred not on Peter only but also on Peter’s successors. For the prerogative of Infallibility in Peter was not a personal but an official gift. It was bestowed on Peter, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. It was attached to his office. For just as the Church from the beginning is morally one Body, so also the Popes who are the Head of that Body are morally one Head. Hence when Peter’s office passed on to his successors the Infallibility which accompanied that office also, passed on to his successors. And that such was the intention of our Lord is obvious even from a superficial consideration of the classical texts already quoted. For if we consider again the metaphor of the Rock or Foundation by which in St. Matthew Infallibility was symbolized, it is plain that the foundation of a building must last at least as long as the building itself; and as that building we call the Church will last to the end of time, so also must the gift of personal infallibility which - is its foundation remain- with Peter, in his successors, till the end of time. Again, in St. Luke, the solemn duty imposed on Peter of infallibly confirming his brethren in the faith, must endure for Peter in his successors, so long as there remain brethren to be confirmed, that is, to the end of time. Once again, turning to St. John and to our Lord’s metaphor of feeding the flock, it is clear that the task there imposed on Peter of infallible teaching must continue with St. Peter, in his successors, so long as there remains a flock to be fed, that is, to the end of time. And as with Peter so-with Peter’s successors; if a Pope as Pope could ever fail, the promises of Christ would fail also, the gates of hell would prevail, the Spirit of Truth would not abide in the Church for ever, the Church would not be the pillar and ground of the truth. Nay, I go further; and I say that if the gift of Infallibility was necessary to Peter himself for the preservation of unity in the infant Church which numbered comparatively few souls, unspeakably more necessary must that gift be to Peter, in his successors, for the preservation of unity in the adult Church, which numbers more than two hundred and fifty millions of every age and race and nation under the sun.

There must, therefore, always be somewhere in the true Church a successor of St. Peter who is supreme and infallible. Who is that supreme and infallible successor? Can he be determined or not? If not, then Christ the God of infinite wisdom has appointed for His Church a supreme ruler and infallible mouthpiece that can nowhere be found. If not, then contrary to the express promise of Christ, the visible Head of the Church has vanished utterly from the Church! Who, I ask again, is that infallible successor? From the earliest times the great Fathers and Councils of the Church in a long list have declared that successor to be the Bishop of Rome. For nineteen centuries the Catholic world has declared that successor to be the Bishop of Rome. For nineteen hundred years the Bishop of Rome has claimed to be that successor, and none other has made that claim. If then, the Bishop of Rome be not Peter’s successor, who is? No one can answer that question. From the beginning of Christianity even until the present day the government of the whole Church by the Pope has existed, and at this hour exists, as the only form of true ecclesiastical government which is realized as a substantive fact. (…) Therefore, if evidence means anything at all, the Pope of Rome has been in the past, is now, and will be to the end of the world, the infallible mouthpiece of the Catholic Church.”

Where is the Church ? Rev Charles Coupe S.J.,
Catholic Truth Society, 1900 pp 86 & 87

The requirement that the Church must always have a Pope by virtue of her Divine constitution “upon this rock…” is sufficiently proved and those that say the contrary have tacitly admitted that Our Lord lied to us when he said the “gates of hell will not prevail”; or, since the primacy must exist until the end of time with perpetual successors, then time itself has ceased and the General Judgment has already been held !

MYTH 16/ It is not necessary to be subject to the Pope to be Catholic.

Although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked" for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed by him (Lk. 22:32); and to Peter as well was committed the care of "feeding the sheep" (In. 21:15); and also to him did the Lord hand over the "keys to the king­dom of Heaven" (Mt. 16:19). If, however, anyone believes contrary to this, let him know he is con­demned and anathematized. Consider, therefore, that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. Those not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God cannot abide with God. For the Church of God is established a­mong those known to preside over the Apostolic Sees, and whoever separates himself from these Sees is manifestly in schism.   

Pope Pelagius II Denz 246 & 7

Remember and understand well that where Peter is, there is the Church; that those who refuse to asso­ciate in communion with the Chair of Peter belong to Antichrist, not to Christ. He who would separate himself from the Roman Pontiff has no further bond with Christ.

Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII, Acts of Leo XIII, Rome, Vatican Press, 1896

It is necessary for salvation that all the faithful of Christ be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

V Lateran Council Sacrorum Concilium, Archbishop John Mansi, Florence, 1759

It is absolutely necessary that the Christian com­munity be subject in all things to the Sovereign Pontiff if it wishes to be a part of the divinely-established society founded by our Redeemer.

Orientalis Ecclesiae, Pope Pius XII, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 36:129, Rome, Vatican Press

No one is found in the one Church of Christ, and no one perseveres in it, unless he acknowledges and ac­cepts obediently the supreme authority of St. Peter and his legitimate successors.         

Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 para 873

If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (In. 10: 16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself    

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, Denz 468

It is an error to believe that a man is in the Church if he abandons the See of Peter, the foundation of the Church. 

St. Cyprian, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol III, Pt. 1 p. 207

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

St. Ambrose The Faith of the Early Fathers, Rev. William Jurgens, Collegeville, 1979 para 1261

To be Christian, one must be Roman, governed by Christ's Vicar on earth. The Church does not rest on Christ alone, but also on Peter. That Christ and His Vicar constitute only one single Head is solemn teaching. Therefore, those who think they can ac­cept Christ as the Head of the Church without ad­hering faithfully to His Vicar on earth are in dan­gerous error.

Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XI Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 para 1040 &41

No man outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved. All who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and died in fi­nal impenitence have been damned, and gone down into Hell.

Super Quibusdam, Pope Clement VI, Denz. 570

It is an absolute necessity to submit to the Supreme Pastor, to whom it is absolutely necessary for salva­tion to remain subject.

Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII, Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 para 484

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is ab­solutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII, Denz 469

Blessed Peter received the keys of the kingdom in such a way that all may understand that whosoever shall cut themselves off in any way cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is the doorkeeper whom I will not contradict lest, when I come to the gates of Heaven, there should be no one to open them, since he will be my adversary who is proven to have the keys.

St Bede the Venerable Readings in Church History, Vol 1 Rev. Barry Colman OSB, 1965, p.273

Christ Jesus left you this sweet key of obedience; for He left His Vicar, whom you are all obliged to obey until death. And whoever is outside his obedience is in a state of damnation.

St Catherine of Siena Mary Help of Christians, Rev. Bonaventure Hammer OFM, New York, 1909, p.374

Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Roman Pontiff cannot obtain eternal salvation.

 Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Blessed Pope Pius IX, Denz 1677

All Catholics agree that it is possible for the Pope, even as Pope with an Ecumenical Council, to err in controversies of fact which depend on human testi­mony; secondly, that it is possible for him, even in universal questions of faith or morals, to err as a pri­vate teacher from ignorance, which happens to other teachers. Next, all Catholics agree that the Pope, with an Ecumenical Council, cannot err in framing decrees of faith or morality; secondly, that the Pope, when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether by himself or with his own particular Coun­cil, whether it be possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful.

De Romano Pontifice, Pt. 5 St Robert Bellarmine

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend them­selves by boasting: "They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!" But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.

St Catherine of Siena St Catherine of Siena, Johannes Jorgensen, London, 1938, pp. 201-2

It would be possible to multiply indefinitely citations from the best witnesses, all of whom clearly declare the attachment, veneration, submission, and obedi­ence which must be accorded the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff by those who wish to belong to the one, true, holy Church of Christ in order to ob­tain eternal salvation.

Amantissimus, Blessed Pope Pius IX, Papal Teachings – The Church, St Paul Editions, 1962 para 236

MYTH 17/ It is not necessary to be subject to the hierarchy of the Church to be Catholic

We ought to keep our minds ready to obey in all things our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church. We ought always believe that what seems to us white to be black if the hierarchical Church so de­fines it. I ought to be like a corpse, which does not have either free will or understanding; or like a staff in the hands of an old man who uses it as may please him.       

St Ignatius Loyola Spiritual Exercises, Monrovia, 1982 no.84, col 1.

Do not let those who have refused to obey the bis­hops and priests imagine that the way of salvation is still open to them. Heresies and schisms all have their origin solely in the refusal to obey the priest of God.

St Cyprian The Faith of the Early Fathers, Rev. William Jurgens, Collegeville, 1979 para 568

The people united to the priest, and the flock cleav­ing to the shepherd: this is the Church. The bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop; so that, if a man be not with the bishop, he is not in the Church.

St Cyprian Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol III, p. 732

Does a man think he is with Christ when he acts in opposition to the bishops of Christ and cuts himself off from the society of His clergy and people? An enemy of the altar, he gives up faith for perfidy, reli­gion for sacrilege; an undutiful son, despising the bishops and deserting the priests of God, he tries to set up a new altar.

St Cyprian The Faith of the Early Fathers, Rev. William Jurgens, Collegeville, 1979 para 573

Therefore, follow the bishops and priests. Apart from them, there is nothing that can be called a church. Anyone outside is impure; he is worse than an infidel. In other words, anyone who acts apart from the bishop and the priests and deacons does not have a clean conscience. For, all who belong to God and to Jesus Christ are with the bishop. Make no mistake about it: no one who follows another in­to schism inherits the kingdom of God.

St Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Romans – The Apostolic Fathers, Vol 1. Funk, 1956, p. 82

Copyright© Our Lady of Fatima Spring Hill, 10401 Spring Hill Drive, Spring Hill, Florida, 34608, USA