Now the Church does not teach faith without reason, but rather that faith is above reason. For when you put your faith in the teachings of the Church, as I do, reason becomes enlightened by Divine wisdom and by Divine grace, and then those teachings are understood in much greater depth and breadth than even what the Church teaches. For the faithful, in believing whole-heartedly what the Magisterium teaches, are then able to reach new insights into the Deposit of Faith by faith and reason cooperating together. And the result is sound theological opinions, which support the teachings of the Popes and Bishops.
The claims of those who accuse the Popes and Councils are, just as the Council taught, a misunderstanding of dogma, a wrong explanation of Church teaching, and unsound opinions mistaken for the conclusions of right reason. Yes, the papal accusers are often presenting arguments and explanations proposing that the Popes and Councils have gone astray from the truth. But we know from the teaching of the First Vatican Council that the teachings of the Magisterium are our sure guide, and anything contrary is to be rejected as error, even if it seems reasonable to the minds of fallen sinners.
Dei Filius: "8. Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [Col 2:8]."
Dei Filius: "9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth."
The Scripture passage referenced above is this:
[Colossians]
{2:8} See to it that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty falsehoods, as found in the traditions of men, in accord with the influences of the world, and not in accord with Christ.
The Lord Jesus Christ gave the Church, founded on Peter and his successors, the authority and charism to teach the truths of the Faith. The Pope, the body of Bishops, and the Councils speak for Christ. And since the Holy Spirit guides them in their teachings, they cannot err gravely in any teaching, and they cannot err at all when the teaching is infallible. Otherwise, the Church would not be able to condemn "what wrongly passes for knowledge" or to keep the flock of Jesus Christ from being led astray.
The idea that the Church can err to any extent, even to teaching grave heresies, except when teaching infallibly, is absurd. Though the Church is not infallible at all times, the Church is indefectible at all times. The Roman Pontiffs and the body of Bishops, as the successors to the Apostles, continually possess the right and duty to teach and correct. Did Christ say that the Church is only indefectible when teaching under infallibility, and otherwise is to be treated with great caution, like a dangerous animal? The Church is always the body of Christ. The Church is always led by the Spirit. Therefore, at no time, are the Popes or the Bishops to be treated with distrust. And their authority and ability to preserve the Faith exists both when teaching infallibly and when teaching in the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.
Those who accuse the Magisterium, the Popes, and the Councils of grave error are deceiving the faithful through vain philosophies, through arguments based on unsound premises and falsehoods, which are from the traditions of men, not from Sacred Tradition, as they claim. For if their ideas were of Sacred Tradition, then these would be in agreement with the teachings of the successors to the Apostles. Does not Sacred Tradition teach that the true Church is Apostolic? Then how is it that the accusers reject the teachings of multiple Popes and Councils, and the body of Bishops? They are the Apostles who make the Church Apostolic. And they cannot go astray because the Church is indefectible.
Most heresies occur due to the influences of the world. For example, the Arian heresy occurred in a time when the surrounding culture believed in many gods and goddesses. So imagining Jesus as a lesser separate deity from the Father seemed better to persons who lived in that culture; it fit the idea of many gods that was pervasive in society at that time.
Similarly today, the culture teaches us to politicized everything; to join with persons who have similar ideas online; to treat those with opposing ideas with great animosity; to set one's own ideas above ideas from authority; that conservatives should oppose liberals; that each side should view the other's side as harmful to society; to judge everything and everyone; and finally to idolize yourself as if your own understanding should be the measure against which everything else is judged. All these influences from modern society have resulted in a group of self-idolizing Catholics. They imagine that they are acting according to religious ideas, but their errors are the same as those found in the world around them.
Dei Filius: "13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a Divine Deposit committed to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated."
"14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
The papal accusers often propose explanations from human intelligence, as if they were more insightful than the Roman Pontiff. They explain what a Pope or Council has supposedly misunderstood, according to their own faulty judgment. But the entire approach lacks faith. They put their own reasoning above the teachings of the Church.
The Holy Spirit teaches through the Church in the Popes and Councils. For the doctrines taught by the Popes are a Divine Deposit, and not the work of the intellect of each Roman Pontiff. And they teach as the Spouse of Christ, in the grace of the Spirit. The ability of the Church to teach infallibly is admitted, even by the papal accusers. But how does the Church teach infallibly, if not by the Spirit? What they misunderstand is that the Holy Spirit does not only dwell with the Church when She teaches infallibly, but at all times. Her non-infallible teachings are free from every grave error, and her infallible teachings are free from every error whatsoever. For the Spirit is with the Bride of Christ, in protecting and preserving the Deposit of Faith at all times.
Dei Filius: "If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God: let him be anathema."
The above stated dogma is implicitly rejected by the papal accusers. They place their own reason above faith, refusing to believe any teaching of Pope Francis or other Popes, of Vatican II or other Councils, unless their own fallen human reason agrees.
Can God command us to believe by faith, what is contrary to our own fallen reason? Yes, for our reason can err, but the Church teaches through the Holy Spirit, who preserves Her teaching from grave error.
Cannot God command us to believe by faith, what is contrary to the peer group or religious subculture to which we have chosen to belong? The unstated assumption of those who oppose the Pope or a particular Council is that they themselves could never teach or commit heresy. But if God were going to give such a charism to fallen men, would He not give it to the Roman Pontiffs and the body of Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles? Why would God give father so-and-so, who has a large following on social media, the charism to be free from every grave error, instead of giving that gift to the successor of Peter?
The papal accusers protest that what Pope Francis and Vatican II have taught is heresy, which is contrary to faith. But that is a judgment of their fallen human reason. True faith is to accept what the Popes and Councils teach, even when the teaching seems to be grave error or seems to be heresy, according to the judgment of our own fallen reason. Consider the teaching of Jesus to His followers, most of whom were raised as Jews: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you" (Jn 6:54). Many of the disciples of Jesus were offended. But Jesus continued the teaching, and then He explained: "no one is able to come to me, unless it has been given to him by my Father" (Jn 6:66). Unless the Father gives you the infused virtue of faith, no amount of explanation to your fallen human reason about the mysteries of God will be acceptable to you. So as long as the papal accusers judge the teachings of Popes and Councils by their own minds, they will no longer walk with Jesus and with His Vicar (cf. Jn 6:67).
When the Roman Pontiff teaches, we are obligated by faith to believe. For as Vatican I teaches, faith is commanded by God. We are obligated to believe the teachings of the Church by exercising the gift of the infused virtue of faith. No matter what our faculty of reason may tell us, faith is commanded of us by God. And human reason is not so independent of the Church that we can refuse to believe what the Popes and Councils teach. The Church teaches with the authority of God, and we do not have the authority to judge that Her teaching is contrary to faith.
Dei Filius: "If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema."
This is another one of the implicit heresies of the papal accusers. The refuse to accept that the teachings of Popes and Councils exercises the authority of God and is therefore required belief. Instead, they use their own natural faculties of reason and knowledge to judge those authoritative teachings, and to reject them. They refuse to believe based on the authority of God who reveals the teaching, and instead rely upon their own reasoning and judgment.
We faithful believe what the Popes and Councils teach, and what the Bishops dispersed in the world, in union with the Pope, teach, based on the authority of God. What the papal accusers believe, in contradiction the the authority of the Church, is from their own reasonings; from natural knowledge and intellect. It is required by God that we believe the revealed truths proposed by the authority of the Church. And it is the Roman Pontiffs and the body of Bishops and the Councils which exercise that authority, from Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
The papal accusers treat the teachings of the Popes as if they were merely the ideas of men. Not so. The teaching of the Pope is the teaching of Jesus Christ, through His Church, in the Holy Spirit. And the teaching authority of the Church is the authority of God. Revealed truths must be believed by the authority of God who reveals it, in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and who confirms the correct understanding of that revelation through the successors to the Apostles. A few dissident Bishops cannot withstand the authority of God in the Apostolic Church.
Dei Filius: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
The papal accusers claim that the Second Vatican Council and the Popes from that time forward: Pope Saint John XXIII, Pope Saint Paul VI, Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis have all assigned a new sense to the dogmas of the Church, which is different from that which the Church has long understood. If true, that would be a grave heresy, which would fall under the anathema of the Council. How shall we judge such a grave claim?
The Church is indefectible. She can never go astray. Since the accusation proposes that the Church has gone astray, contrary to the promise and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 16:18), it must be a false accusation. We must always remember that Christ gave His authority to Peter and his successors, and to the successors of the other Apostles. And He sent His Spirit upon the Church, with particular charisms given to these successors, who exercise the Magisterium of that Church. Only the Church has the authority to judge what is and is not the correct sense of a dogma, of Tradition, or of Scripture. And the Church cannot go astray.
Neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor any Roman Pontiff has ever taught grave error, or changed the meaning of a dogma from truth into error. The Holy Spirit prevents such a failure in the Church and in Her Roman Pontiff, and in Her Bishops as a body. But individual Bishops can go astray. So if you are following a few Bishops, who accuse Popes and Councils of grave error, you have gone astray.
If an Ecumenical Council and you disagree, YOU are the one in error. How is this so hard to believe? Did Christ say that YOU are the Rock on which the Church is founded? Are YOU and your online followers and a scattered group of bloggers, scholars, theologians, priests and a few Bishops an Ecumenical Council? And no teaching of any Council is formally "of the Council" unless approved by the Pope, who is the successor of Peter, the Rock on which the Church is founded. These approved teachings cannot err gravely, nor at all, because they are approved by the Rock on which the Church is founded, and that Church is indefectible.
I understand that if one Pope teaches something non-infallibly, you might consider that he has erred. And he could err, though only to a limited extent. Popes are not entirely without error in all of their magisterial teachings, unless teaching infallibly. But when an Ecumenical Council and a succession of Popes, including Pope-Saint after Pope-Saint teaches one and the same doctrine, along with the body of Bishops -- as is the case with the teaching of Vatican II -- then either they are all heretics OR YOU ARE. And since the Church is indefectible, it must be you who is the heretic. It is amazing the lengths to which human pride will go to avoid admitting error.
If you were to approach any Pope and express the idea that perhaps that Pope had occasionally erred in his non-infallible teachings, though not to a grave extent, he absolutely would agree. And then he could say, "So, what about you? Have you ever erred?" The assumption of ALL these papal accusers is that they themselves cannot possibly have erred at all. On each and every point, no matter how large or small, they assume that their own ideas cannot err in the least, and that any Pope or Council who disagrees must be in error.
At this point, there are Catholics claiming that the Church is in an extremely dire situation, with grave heresies being taught many times over, from Vatican II and thereafter. They claim the Church has fallen into many heresies, and has gone almost entirely astray from the true faith, and has turned into a false Church. They think the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, is an apostate, heretic, and an idolater. And why do they think this? How did they reach this conclusion? It's because the only other possibility is that they themselves have erred gravely, that they themselves are heretics. In their pride, they are so certain they themselves cannot be heretics, that they are willing to believe the whole Church has gone astray and is leading everyone through the gates of Hell, rather than admit they themselves may have erred. That is pride.
Pope Pius IX, Dei Filius: "And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and savior, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labor to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the Church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith."
"But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or lesser degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See."
Notice that the Roman Pontiff has the authority, expressed above, to command belief and to decide what is and is not heresy. And we have the duty to obey. Otherwise, we are the ones who fall into heresy, not the Pope or the Council. And a Pope could only be given that authority, to decide what is and is not heresy, if he himself were, by the grace of God, absolutely immune from teaching or committing heresy. Only someone with never-failing faith can be given by God the role of deciding what is and is not heresy for the whole Church.
Questions and Answers on indefectibility
Q 1. Is the Church indefectible as long as She continues, in some form, until the Return of Christ?
A 1. To persevere to the end is only one part of indefectibility. The Church not only continues until the Return of Christ, She also continues in the same form: with Roman Pontiffs who have the same authority and the same charisms to be free from grave error and to be never-failing in faith; with the body of Bishops, in communion with each Pope, who remain also indefectible as a body; with the faithful following the Popes and the Bishops in each generation. The indefectible Church continues to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Therefore, the successors to Peter, the Apostle, cannot go astray; nor can the successors to the other Apostles, the Bishops, go astray as a body; for then the Apostolic Church would have defected.
Q 2. Can the institutional Church go astray, while the true Church continues, indefectible, as a remnant of the faithful?
A 2. No, that is contrary to the true indefectibility taught by the Lord Jesus and His Church. The Church is one, holy, Catholic (meaning universal) and Apostolic. She cannot be a remnant in opposition to the Popes and most Bishops, as then She would not be Apostolic. She cannot be a small subset of the Bishops, for then She would not be universal (catholic). And there can possibly be more than one small subset of the Bishops, so such a group, not being necessarily one, is not the Church. The Pope and the body of Bishops are the leaders of the true Church. There is no other.
Q 3. Can the Pope and the body of Bishops go astray for a time, only to be corrected later by a holy Pope or a new Council?
A 3. No, this is contrary to indefectibility. For the Church to be indefectible, She must be indefectible continuously. It is not correct to say that the Church would still be indefectible, if She went astray for a time, and was corrected later on. The gates of Hell cannot prevail, not for a few years, not for a few Popes, not at all. And the reason is that the Church is the body of Christ, with the Holy Spirit as Her soul, continuously, not intermittently. And the Church has the authority of Christ, and teaches through the Holy Spirit, continuously, not intermittently. Therefore the indefectibility of the Church is unceasing.
Q 4. The Church has had many antipopes in the past, so can the current Pope be invalid or an antipope, yet the Church remain indefectible?
A 4. No. The past antipopes were never accepted by the body of Bishops. At worse, some antipopes had a following of some Bishops, or it was uncertain who was the valid Pope. But no antipope has ever been accepted by the body of Bishops, and no antipope has ever actually controlled and led the universal apostolic Church. So any Pope accepted by the body of Bishops, as is Pope Francis, must be the valid Roman Pontiff, whether you like his teachings or not, whether you agree with his decisions or not. The Pope accepted by the body of Bishops is the true successor of Peter and the true Roman Pontiff, as a dogmatic fact, due to the indefectibility of the Church. If the body of Bishops followed a false head, an antipope or an invalid Pope, then the Church would have defected, which is impossible.
Q 5. Can the Church be crippled by the behavior of the Pope and many Bishops, so that the indefectibility of the Church is harmed, but not completely extinguished?
A 5. No. The Church is the immaculate Bride of Christ. She cannot be figuratively maimed, crippled, sullied, or go astray in any substantial way, not for any length of time. The virgin Mary is a figure of the Church, so ask yourself if such things can happen of the virgin Mary, and you will have your answer as to whether they can happen of the Church.
Q 6. Pope Liberius and 300 Bishops went astray into Arianism, and only Athanasius remained faithful. Does that not prove that the Pope and the body of Bishops can go astray, only to be corrected by a single faithful priest or bishop?
A 6. That is a false account. Pope Liberius fought against Arianism, before, during, and after his exile. On one occasion, the emperor forced over 300 Bishops and the Pope to gather before him, at which point he drew his own sword and threatened them with imprisonment, torture, and death if they did not agree to sign a statement in favor of Arianism. Liberius simply walked out. Some Bishops rebuked the emperor verbally and refused to sign, including Bishop Hosius. Most signed under threat of death -- but that is not heresy. So it is not true that a majority of Bishops went astray into Arianism.
The sin of formal heresy must be obstinate and fully deliberate. If you are forced to sign a document under grave duress, your signature is not valid in any court. And it is certainly not an act of heresy. None of those Bishops who signed were heretical. Perhaps they should have refused to sign and accepted martyrdom. That is for God to judge. But heresy is not signing a document against your will under threat of death. The Bishops also had to fear a massacre and a long deadly persecution of the faithful, if they did not sign. Since their signatures would not be valid under grave duress, their signature may have been prudent -- may God judge them with mercy.
As for Pope Liberius, he withstood the heretical emperor, was forced into exile, and remained in exile while an antipope reigned from Rome against the will of the Pope and the Bishops. Finally, for the good of the Church, Liberius was able to convince the emperor to accept his signature on a document which was vague and could be interpreted in different ways. In this manner, the Pope used mental reservation to free himself from exile. He then continued to oppose Arianism. See the example of mental reservation by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John 7:8. "I am not going up to this feast day, because my time has not yet been fulfilled."
Liberius did permit the supporters of Arianism, who had made accusations of immoral behavior against Saint Athanasius, to send him into exile. It is for God to judge whether this was or was not a sin by Liberius. The situation was this: the extensive support Arianism had in politics meant that, if he declined to allow Saint Athanasius to be sent away, more harm would be done to the Church than good; thus, the Pope may have been morally required to allow the lesser of two evils. Since he only allowed it, and did not himself condemn Athanasius, perhaps he did not sin. He had to protect the poor and weak flock of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the case of Liberius and the 300 Bishops is not an example of the Pope or the body of Bishops acting contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. As proven in subsequent chapters, no Pope has ever gone astray into apostasy, heresy, or idolatry, and no Pope has ever taught grave error on faith or morals.
Summary
What the First Vatican Council taught, as discussed above, is that the Church cannot go astray or lead astray. She has the authority to teach and correct. She is the firm foundation of our salvation. She teaches with the authority of God. The Church is the supreme teacher of the Christian Faith, and She teaches without grave error. Those who reject Her teaching, She can and does anathema. For the Church teaches with the authority of Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit.
You can argue all you want to, but the authority of Christ was given to the Church, specifically through the successors to the Apostles. Those who reject the teaching of the Church, reject the teaching of Christ. Those who oppose the authority of the Church, oppose the authority of Christ.
Ronald L Conte Jr
Hi Ron! Would you mind clarifying something for me? I was listening to a Sedevacantist definition of their belief: “ We believe that the Church is indefectible, but that the Vatican ll church has defected, therefore there have been no valid popes since 1958.” But as the Church is indefectible, where is it in their system? And how can it be restored if there are no validly ordained Bishops left? Also, they refer to the recent popes as “antipopes”, but doesn’t that term imply someone who is is opposition to a real, existing Pope? Shouldn’t they use the term “false pope”?
And is it just me, but aren’t Archbishop Vigano and Dr. Marshall basically teaching the Sedevacantist position, without actually admitting it?
Hi Ron! I have another question, which is suited to your blog, but, as you know, I can’t seem to post comments there. Recently I was on a livechat on a Catholic YouTube channel, and I mentioned that I am an Eastern Rite Catholic. To my surprise, someone told me that I am a heretic, because ( he said) my church does not accept the filoque, and because we pray to Eastern Orthodox saints not recognized by the Church. Now, it is true that “ ...and the Son” is in brackets in our creed, and is optional, but I have never noticed, and I think no-one cares, which parishioners say it, or not. As to the saints, I don’t know exactly what he is referring to. But surely calling me a heretic is not correct?
I notice that there is an enormous interest at the moment on Youtube theology channels about the topic of Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox. Michael Lofton recently mentioned that he has noticed that the constant criticism online by the Papal accusers is actually pushing people to leave the Catholic Church and become Eastern Orthodox. (Interestingly, he himself converted to RC from Protestantism, says he was then scandalized by Amoris Laetitia, became Eastern Orthodox for a while, then came back to the Roman Church). I also have noticed many people discouraged by the Papal accusers and their extreme criticisms, (even going so far as to imply that the Church is full of Satanists), looking to Eastern Orthodoxy as a less scandal-plagued Church. It would be very helpful if you could address on your blog the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, and some advice on how to discuss this with those who are hovering in indecision over which church to belong to.
Thanks!