REASON & THEOLOGY

Can We Trust the Official Magisterial Teachings of the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter?

I. Introduction: The State of the Question

During recent years, especially in the Pontificate of Pope Francis, a number of Catholics, including a good number who would self-identify as “traditional”, have come to develop in their hearts a spirit of distrust towards the Papacy, especially towards that of Pope Francis.  Many criticisms and suspicions have arisen in Catholic circles—and, again, especially among those who identify as conservative or traditional– of the Holy Father’s, Pope Francis’, various actions and words, both his non-Magisterial and even his Magisterial teachings.  This, again, has caused no small amount of angst, fear, and distrust in the hearts of many Catholics with respect not only to Pope Francis, but, at least for some, towards the Papacy itself, and, by extension, towards the Catholic Church herself.  This is no small matter.

While it will be of some benefit to look at these particular criticisms and suspicions with respect to the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, we will need to save such an effort for a later treatise.  For now, we will look at a more general question, one that goes beyond the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, but instead deals with the Papacy in general.  The question is this: Can we trust the Official Magisterial Teachings of the Roman (Supreme) Pontiff, i.e., the Pope, the Successor of Peter?  Again, this question is meant to be applied not merely to the current Roman Pontiff, Francis, but to any Roman Pontiff, both those that came before and those that will come after the current Holy Father, Pope Francis.  (Note: the terms, “Roman Pontiff”, “Supreme Pontiff”, “Pope”, “Successor of St. Peter”, “Bishop of Rome”, are all synonyms).  

Before we really delve into this question, some initial important distinctions are to be made, implicit in the precise formulation of this question as given above, i.e., can we trust the Official Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff?

The first distinction implicit in the way this question is worded is that between the actions of a Roman Pontiff and his teachings.  In this question, we are not considering his actions, but, rather, his teachings; and not even all of his teachings, but only certain teachings of his.  

For, secondly, there is also implied, in this question, a second important distinction, and that is between the non-Magisterial (or non-Official) teachings of a Roman Pontiff and the Magisterial (or Official) teachings of a Pope.  What is meant by the “Magisterial” (or “Official”) teachings of a Pope?  What is meant by this is the teachings of a Pope that are intended to be given to the entire Church and given to the Church precisely as official Catholic teaching.  This distinction is extremely important, because not every teaching of a Roman Pontiff is intended by him to be an Official, Magisterial teaching of his; in fact, many/most of his teachings are not intended to be of this kind.  Thus, for example, interviews that a Pope gives with a member of the media are generally not Magisterial.  Even homilies of a Pope are, in general, not Magisterial, they are not intended to be given as official Catholic teaching (to which, as we will see later, Catholics would be bound to give some kind of intellectual assent).  A Pope will generally make it clear when he is intending to give a teaching that is intended to be a teaching for all Catholics to be held as official Catholic teaching (either as definitive official Catholic teaching or as non-definitive, but still official, Catholic teaching; more on that in a bit).  This is to say, he will make it clear, generally speaking, when he is teaching as Pope, as Pastor of the Universal Church, as opposed to teaching in some lesser capacity, eg., as a private theologian, as a bishop of his own diocese (Rome), as an individual Catholic, etc.

So, this last distinction is the most important: we, here, will be considering whether or not the Official, Magisterial teachings of a Roman Pontiff (whether of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, or any other Roman Pontiff past or future) are trustworthy.

One other distinction, to which allusion as already been made, before we move on: even among Official, Magisterial teachings of the Popes, we can make a distinction between those that are definitive and those that are not definitive.  We will discuss the differences between these later, but we do well, at the outset, to point out that there is this distinction.  For, this means that our question, “Can we trust the Official Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff?” includes considering both the definitive as well as the non-definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiffs (and, as we will see later, it is the non-definitive teachings that we especially need to consider when replying to this question of ours).

All this said by way of introduction, let us move on to giving a reply to this question, “Can we trust the Official, Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff?”

II. General Considerations on the Nature of the Papacy: The “Causes” of the Papacy

In order to prepare ourselves to give an educated answer to our question at hand, we do well to first consider the nature and purpose of the Papacy; or, to use philosophical language, the “causes” of the Papacy, i.e., the agent, the final, the material, and the formal causes of the Papacy.

A. The “Agent Cause” of the Papacy: Who Created It?

First, we must consider the “agent cause” of the Papacy, which is to say, we must consider who created the Papacy.  The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ (and, to be even more precise, and something worth noting here in this Glorious Easter Season, it was the Risen Lord Jesus Christ who created the Papacy).  The Holy Scriptures make it very clear that it was Christ Our Lord, the God-Man, who created the Papacy.  

For, we read in Matthew 16:18-19, that Christ told St. Peter (the first Pope), “You are Peter, and on this rock,” i.e., on Peter himself, “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.  And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Mt. 16:18-19)  This, of course, is the most famous and important passage with regard to the Divine Institution of the Papacy (as well as its purpose, which we will discuss in a moment).  

But, besides Mt. 16:18-19 (as well as its “pre-cursor” verse of Isaiah 22:22, which sheds even more light on Mt. 16:18-19, eg., it points to the fact that Peter and his Successors, the Popes, will be spiritual fathers to the members of the People of God, the New Israel, the Catholic Church), we do have other verses which reveal to us the Divine Institution and purpose of the Papacy.  Thus, we have Luke 22:32, in which Christ Our Lord tells St. Peter, “I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail you.  And, when you have returned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Lk. 22:32)  This verse has long been seen in the Church as applying to the Roman Pontiffs, the Successors of Peter; thus, for example, when Pope St. John Paul II definitively declared that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women (in his document, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), he referenced Luke 22:32, declaring that, in giving that particular definitive teaching, he was acting in such a way as to confirm the brethren in his precise role as Successor of Peter.  

There is one other passage in St. Luke’s Gospel worth briefly mentioning here, and that is Luke 10:16, in which Our Lord tells His disciples, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Lk. 10:16)  This is deserving of a brief mention since, later in the Church’s history, Venerable Pope Pius XII will apply this verse in a particular way to the teachings, even the non-infallible (non-definitive) teachings, of the Roman Pontiffs.  More on that later, though.  

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have John 21:15-17, which verses are generally seen as the precise institution of the Papacy (as opposed to the previous verses which were merely predicting the institution of the Papacy that we find actually fulfilled here in John 21).  Here, as we recall in this Easter Season, it is the Risen Lord Jesus who, in commanding Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep…feed my sheep,” is establishing Peter as the visible head of His flock, i.e., the Church (the Catholic Church).  

So, in conclusion, in answer to the question, “Who created the Papacy? (Who is the ‘Agent Cause’ of the Papacy)?”, the answer is the God-Man, Jesus Christ, and, indeed, the RISEN Lord Jesus Christ (thus, the office of the Papacy is a living testimony to the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ)!  This fact alone should give us the greatest confidence that the Papacy will surely fulfill the role it was designed by the Risen Christ to fulfill.  Which now begs the next question…

B. The “Final Cause” of the Papacy: For What Purpose Did the Risen Christ Create It?

…For what purpose did the Risen Christ create the Papacy?  Well, we have already seen the answers to this question in the previous Scripture verses, namely, to protect the Church from the gates of hell, to strengthen the faithful in the faith, to give spiritual nourishment to the faithful.  In a word, to preserve the unity of the Church, and to do so by providing trustworthy teachings on Christian doctrine, providing helpful governance to the Church, and properly distributing the means of sanctification, eg., the Sacraments, regulations on worship and prayer, to the Church.  Thus it is that Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, perhaps the most important document on the Papacy in the entire history of the Church, authoritatively and clearly summarized the purpose of the Papacy by stating the following:

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles. Indeed, their Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable Fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox Doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’ (Luke 22:32)

“This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.6; July 18, 1870)

So it is that we have Christ the Lord, the God-Man, after His Resurrection, establishing the Papacy for the sake of preserving the Church in her unity (and, of course, this unity can only be preserved by sound teaching, prudent governance, and helpful administration of the means of grace to the faithful, eg., the Sacraments, sound worship, etc.).

C. The “Material Cause” of the Papacy: In What/Whom Does the Papacy Exist?

Now, how is it that the Lord Jesus intended to achieve this intended purpose?  That is, what is the precise nature of the Papacy so that it attains this end of preserving the unity of the Church (and, in the process, as Vatican I stated, avoiding schism)?

Well, first of all, we need someone to be the Pope, someone to fulfill the office of Successor of Peter, of Roman Pontiff: thus it is that Christ Himself chose the Apostle Peter to fulfill this role and then, by sending the Holy Spirit upon the Church, Christ has continued to fill that office with other men who have taken on the role of being the Successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff.  So it is that we have the “material cause” of the Papacy: the “material cause” of the Papacy is the man himself, each man who has ever take on (or will ever take on) the role of being the Successor of St. Peter.  

Now, one thing of somewhat important note for today (insofar as there are some Catholics, or at least those who go by the name of “Catholic”, who deny the following), is this: apart from the temporary vacancies of the Chair of Peter which occur between the transition of the Papacy from one Pope to another, i.e., the vacancy that occurs in the Papacy after a Pope dies or resigns the Papacy, there will always be a Pope, a man who is Pope, until the end of time.  Not only can one, utilizing Divine Revelation (and what has already been said), reason to this, i.e., if the Papacy was instituted by Christ as a necessary means to preserve Church unity then it necessarily follows that there must be an actual Pope, this has also been explicitly taught by the Church.  Thus, for example, we have the following statement from, once again, Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus: 

“That which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Shepherds and Great Shepherd of the sheep, established in the Blessed Apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain forever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 2.1)

Thus, we can see the error—the extremely grave and deadly error—of the “sedevacantists”, i.e., those who hold that the Chair of St. Peter, i.e., the Papacy, is now vacant, and will remain so indefinitely.  This is contrary to Catholic doctrine and, again, is a deadly, poisonous error that has nothing whatsoever to do with actual Catholic tradition, despite the fact that many who hold to this error self-identify as “traditionalist” (in holding to “sedevacantism”, they are departing quite clearly and gravely from authentic Catholic tradition).

Now, in considering the “material cause” of the Papacy, i.e., the man himself who sits in the Chair of St. Peter, we can see that, like all material causes, this “material cause” of the man who holds the Papacy is actually the least important of all the causes of the Papacy.  That is, who the person is who sits in the Chair of Peter, while certainly being an important consideration, is, still, of all these considerations being had here, the least important!  Many think it is the most important, but it is, again, actually, the least important of these “four causes” of the Papacy which we are presently examining.  In other words, though it is significant that, say, the man who was Pope St. John Paul II sat in the Chair of St. Peter, or that the man who is Pope Francis now sits in that same chair, or that whoever follows Pope Francis will then sit in that Chair, still, again, the significance of it being these men who sit in the Chair of Peter is actually less significant than all of these other considerations on the Papacy, i.e., that it was Christ Himself (after His Resurrection) who established the Papacy, that He did so for the preservation of the unity of the Church, and that He, through His Holy Spirit, as we shall now see, has graced this Office with special charismatic graces.  So, while it is important to consider the man who is (or will be) Pope, it is more important to consider the fact that it was Christ Himself who created the Papacy, that He created it for the purpose of preserving the Church in her unity, and that He, through His Spirit, gifts each Pope with the following special graces.

D. The “Formal Cause” of the Papacy: In What Manner Does It Exist?  What Powers (Graces) Does It Have?

Lastly, with respect to looking at the “causes” of the Papacy, having already considered the “agent cause” (the one who made the Papacy, namely, the Risen Lord Jesus), the “final cause” (the purpose for which He made it, namely, the preservation of the unity of the Church), and the “material cause” of the Papacy (i.e., the men who have, do, or will hold the Office of Successor of Peter which will last until the end of time), we must now consider what is something like the “formal cause” of the Papacy, i.e., what is it that “gives life” to the Papacy or makes the Papacy to be what it is, the special abilities/powers given to the Office (and the man that holds the Office) in order for it to fulfill its purpose of preserving Church unity?  We can answer this by pointing to the following special charismatic graces given by the Holy Spirit to the Office (and the man who holds the Office) which enable any given Roman Pontiff to preserve the Church in her unity:

First, there is the charism of infallibility.  Many Catholics, and even many non-Catholics, have heard of this charism.  But, what exactly is this charism?  Going back again to Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, we read the following description of this special charism known as Papal infallibility:

“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Cristian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.9)

Vatican II reiterated this teaching by stating thus:

“This infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.  And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith…To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25)

Furthermore, Pope St. John Paul II, of recent happy memory, once gave a very enlightening Wednesday General Audience on the charism of Papal Infallibility.  The following are some pertinent paragraphs from that teaching:

“The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is a theme of considerable importance for the life of the Church. It therefore seems appropriate to make some further reflection on the conciliar texts, to better clarify the meaning and extension of this prerogative. First of all, the Councils assert that the infallibility attributed to the Roman Pontiff is personal, in the sense that it derives from him with the personal succession to Peter in the Roman Church. In other words, this means that the Roman Pontiff is not the simple bearer of an infallibility belonging, in reality, to the Roman See. He exercises the magisterium and, in general, the pastoral ministry as ‘vicarius Petri’ (vicar of Peter): this is how he was often called in the first Christian millennium.  In him, that is, there is almost a personification of Peter’s mission and authority, managed in the name of the one to whom Jesus himself conferred them. And yet it is clear that infallibility is not given to the Roman Pontiff as a private person, but insofar as he fulfills the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians. Furthermore, he does not exercise it as having the authority in himself and by himself, but ‘by his supreme apostolic authority’ and ‘by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter’. Finally, he does not possess it as if he could have it or count on it in every circumstance, but only ‘when he speaks from the chair’, and only in a doctrinal field limited to the truths of faith and morals and those that are strictly connected to them.

“The conciliar texts also reveal the conditions for the exercise of the infallible magisterium by the Roman Pontiff. They can be summarized as follows: the Pope must act as ‘pastor and teacher of all Christians’, pronouncing on truths concerning ‘faith and morals’, with terms that clearly demonstrate his intention to define a certain truth and request definitive adherence to it of all Christians. This is what happened – for example – in the definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, about which Pius IX stated: ‘It is a doctrine revealed by God and must, for this reason, be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful’; or even in the definition of the Assumption of the Most Holy Mary, when Pius XII said: ‘With the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with our own authority, we declare and define it as divinely revealed dogma… etc. .’  Under these conditions we can speak of extraordinary papal magisterium , whose definitions are irreformable ‘in themselves, not by the consent of the Church’.  This means that these definitions, to be valid, do not need the consent of the bishops: neither a previous consent, nor a consequent consent, ‘having been pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him (to the Roman Pontiff) in the person of Blessed Peter, for which they do not need any approval from others, nor do they admit any appeal to any other judgment.’”  (Pope St. John Paul II, Wednesday General Audience, March 24, 1993; nos. 1, 3) 

Now, picking up on this wonderful little expose on Papal Infallibility given by Pope St. John Paul II, though the Holy Father, John Paul II, was focused on the charism of infallibility in this teaching, he did also reference another charismatic grace, besides the charism of Papal Infallibility, given to the Successor of Peter, a grace which needs greater attention in our day (especially as it is often, either implicitly or even explicitly, denied by many Catholics today), a grace which he called the “charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit” which are given to even the non-definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiff.  In the words of the Holy Father, Pope St. John Paul II, himself:

“Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there exists the charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit, granted to Peter and his successors so that they do not err in matters of faith and morals and instead give good enlightenment to the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but embraces to varying degrees the entire exercise of the magisterium.”  (Pope St. John Paul II, Wednesday General Audience, March 24, 1993; no. 4)

This statement from Pope St. John Paul II is extremely important and has the potential to plant a seed of very important development of doctrine within the Church concerning the kind of protection from the Holy Spirit that is given to the Popes when they are giving non-definitive teachings to the Church.  For, contrary to what many believe today, the Holy Father, John Paul II, is stating that, even when a Roman Pontiff is teaching in a non-definitive (non-infallible) manner, he is still given some special assistance, a special grace/charism from the Holy Spirit, to protect him from erring in matters of faith and morals but, rather, to aid him in giving sound guidance to the faithful.  Again, it must be emphasized that he is referring here to non-definitive teachings.

To summarize what Pope St. John Paul II is teaching here, there are (at least) two special charisms given to the Roman Pontiff (which, in a manner of speaking, can be considered as a kind of “formal cause” of the Papacy, to continue our use of traditional philosophical language): 

(1) the charism of infallibility (with regard to definitive teachings)

(2) the charism of “assistance of the Holy Spirit” (with regard to non-definitive teachings)

Now, what is the precise difference between these two charisms (after all, they may, at first glance, seem to be the same)?  The Magisterium, with the aid of theologians, will likely need to specify precisely these differences.  

But, one very reasonable theological explanation which aims to distinguish these two charisms is the following: whereas the charism of infallibility protects the Roman Pontiff from any error whatsoever (when the charism is employed), the charism of “assistance of the Holy Spirit” does not guarantee that the Roman Pontiff will not fall into some kind of error, but it does protect him from falling into grave error on matters of faith and morals (as Pope St. John Paul II seemed to be teaching), that is, error that would lead souls into ruin, i.e., damnation, were his teachings to be followed.  Thus, a Roman Pontiff, even when teaching non-definitively but still Magisterially, would be protected from the error of heresy or anything close to heresy.  

To understand this distinction, it must be known that, just as not all Catholic teaching is of the same weight, eg., some are dogmas, others doctrines, others of lesser weight, so, too, not all error is of equal gravity: some error would lead souls into damnation, eg., denial of the Trinity, denial of the Incarnation, etc. while other errors, though still being errors, would not have such drastic results (eg., if one were to assert that, say, Judas received Communion at the Last Supper when, in fact, it turns out to be the case that he did not, that would not be error that would lead one to spiritual ruin, as heresy would).

So, that is one very reasonable theological explanation to distinguish these two Papal charisms about which Pope St. John Paul II spoke, namely, the well-known charism of Papal Infallibility and this second, lesser-known, but still real, charism of “assistance of the Holy Spirit” (or, as some are calling it, a “charism of safety”, i.e., a charism that guarantees that all Papal Magisterial teachings will at least be safe insofar as they will be protected from falling into grave error, even if there is no guarantee that the non-definitive teachings will be protected from some error but which are not grave, will not lead souls to damnation).

Now, it must also be known that this teaching on the “charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit” for non-definitive teachings of which Pope St. John Paul II spoke is not simply a “one off” from him, i.e., this is not the only time we see such an idea taught by the Church on the non-definitive teachings of a Roman Pontiff.  Rather, there are other instances of teachings along these lines, including the following:

First off, Pope St. John Paul II himself, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), in an earlier 1990 document entitled, Donum Veritatis, also taught similar to what he taught in this General Audience, namely, “It would be contrary to the truth, if…one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.” (Donum Veritatis, 24)

Likewise, we have the following quote from that great teacher, Pope Leo XIII, who declares that the Roman Pontiff is a “safe guide” for the faithful even in his non-definitive teachings (and, thus, he declares that obedience and assent is owed to even these non-definitive teachings, as we shall explore more later):

“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the (First) Vatican Council declared are to be believed ‘with Catholic and divine faith.’  But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the Supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.” (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 24; October 1, 1890)

To give just one more quote from the Magisterium on the trustworthiness of the Popes even when they act or teach in a non-infallible/non-definitive manner, we have the following statement from Pope Gregory XVI:

“[Certain men] insolently slander the Church and falsely accuse her of error, and their shamelessness should be deplored even more. They claim that the Church, by ordering annual confession, allowing indulgences as an added condition of fulfilling confession, and permitting private Eucharist and daily works of piety, has weakened that salutary tradition and subtracted from its power and efficacy. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?” (Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 10; March 13, 1826)

Thus we see that, as Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiff a “safe guide” even in his non-definitive teachings, so too, here, Pope Gregory XVI, in referencing non-infallible/non-definitive acts of the Roman Pontiff, declares that the Roman Pontiff, even in these non-definitive acts, would never lead souls into ruin and destruction.  In other words, like Pope Leo XIII, he is implicitly teaching that the Roman Pontiff is, even in his non-definitive acts, a “safe guide” for souls.  Thus, too, is essentially what Pope St. John Paul II taught above, as we have seen.

Furthermore, in addition to these Magisterial statements on the protection given to the Roman Pontiff even when he teaches or acts in a non-definitive manner, we have the previous statements from Vatican I declaring that the Papacy was instituted by Christ in order to protect the Church from schism, i.e., to preserve the unity of the Church.  Though Vatican I’s decree, Pastor Aeternus, was focused on the charism of infallibility, from the principles laid down in Pastor Aeternus, as well as the reasoning given by these other Papal teachings, one can reason to the conclusion that there must also be some kind of special protection given to the non-infallible teachings of the Popes in order for the Papacy to fulfill its end of preserving the Church in her unity and preventing her from falling into schism, and that reasoning can be done in the following manner (using the following “proof by contradiction” or reductio ad absurdum argument):

Suppose that no such special protection were given to a Roman Pontiff in his non-definitive teachings.  If no such special protection were given to a Pope in giving non-definitive teachings, then it would follow that it would not only be possible, but, indeed, likely that, at some point in time, a Roman Pontiff would err and gravely so in a teaching on faith and morals.  Now, in so doing, he not only would not be a protector and guarantor of Church unity, as he has been taught by the Church to be (again, see Vatican I), but he, indeed, would be an occasion of leading the Church into schism!  

Now, if this were the case (following this reductio ad absurdum argumentation), this would lead to some serious and dreadful practical consequences for the Church: given the fact that the great majority of Papal teachings are given in a non-definitive manner– and thus, despite that protection that is given by the charism of infallibility, any Roman Pontiff could very well lead the Church into grave error and schism in his non-infallible/non-definitive decrees– the charism of infallibility, and, indeed, the Papacy itself, would be rendered practically useless!  What point would there really practically be in having the special charism of infallibility which protects the Church from error and schism, especially when that charism is utilized so infrequently, when, in between the rather rare infallible statements, Popes could be rendering gravely erroneous statements—and perhaps numerous ones– that could very well split the Church into countless pieces?!  Would the Papacy truly be that “safe guide” for the faithful, as Leo XIII described it, if this were the case?!  

If even one soul were to be led into hell precisely because of her following the teaching of a Roman Pontiff (and, again, if no such special protection were given to the non-definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, this would likely be the case at some point in time), then how would it not be the case that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church??  For, if even one soul went to hell precisely for her assenting, as she was told to do, to a teaching of a Roman Pontiff, then it sure seems to be the case that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church, contrary to the Promise that Jesus Christ gave to protect the Church from hell and to do so precisely through Peter (and his Successors; for, as Pope St. John Paul II, among others, taught, Peter “lives on”, so to speak, in his Successors).

Also, we do have the statement from this same Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus that the Roman See has been kept safe from all error, a statement that merely re-echoes previous Magisterial teaching on the Roman See (as well as reiterates the statement from Bishop Vincent Gasser in his famous Relatio at Vatican I, the document which served as an “interpretative key” for Pastor Aeternus and which states that the Roman See would never become a See of “pestilence and error”).  It is difficult to see how such statements can be reconciled with the idea that the non-definitive teachings of the Roman See could not only contain error, but the error of heresy or close to heresy.

So, the truth must be otherwise, as indeed the Church, in the aforementioned statements, has taught: it must be the case that special protection is given to the Roman Pontiffs even when they teach in a non-infallible (but still Magisterial) manner precisely because of the fact that the very purpose of the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, is to preserve the unity of the Church by, among other duties, protecting the deposit of Faith and, thus, preserving the integrity of the Christian Faith, so as to be that “safe guide” for souls, as Pope Leo XIII describe the Roman Pontiff to be.

III. Conclusion: Can We Trust the Official Magisterial Teachings of the Roman Pontiff?

So, we conclude by returning to our question, “Can we trust the Official, Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff?”  From the foregoing, we can now answer with a resounding, “Yes!”  Both the definitive and the non-definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiffs can (and should) be trusted by the Christian faithful.

For, we have seen that by both reasoning upon the Divine Revelation (and the needs of the Church for a safe guide, even in her non-definitive teachings) as well as looking at the teachings of the Magisterium itself (the Popes themselves), even in the non-definitive teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, the faithful not only can, but should, trust the Official, Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiffs (whether definitive/infallible or not).

For, once again, the Papacy was instituted by the supremely trustworthy Jesus Christ, after His Resurrection.  The Risen Lord instituted this office for the sake of preserving the Church in her unity, which would require, among other things, preserving her in the true Faith.  This being the case, Jesus Christ has guaranteed that the Church will always have a man to hold the Office of the Successor of Peter and that this man will be given special charisms/graces in order for him to fulfill this end of preserving the Church in her unity (including, as we have seen, the charism of infallibility, for definitive teachings, and the charism of “assistance of the Holy Spirit”, for non-definitive teachings).  Thus, since Jesus Christ is trustworthy, and He it was who founded the Papacy for a specific purpose (of keeping the unity of the Church), we can and should trust the Official Magisterial teachings of the Roman Pontiff, precisely because we trust Jesus Christ, the Creator (and Protector) of the Papacy.  As that great man, Fr. John Hardon, SJ, once said, one real test of our faith is whether or not we trust the teachings of the Roman Pontiff: for, we trust those teachings not, properly speaking, because of the man who happens to hold the Office of the Papacy, but, rather, because we trust JESUS CHRIST who established the Papacy as a sure guide for His Holy Bride, the Catholic Church!  Amen!

In our next discussion (prior to considering specifics on the teachings and actions of the current Holy Father, Pope Francis), we will consider some follow-up questions to what has been said here, including the following questions: What sort of response is required by Catholics in response to an Official, Magisterial teaching of a Roman Pontiff?  What sort of responses are not allowed by Catholics?

In doing so, we will consider the different kinds of intellectual “assent” required by Christians to any given Papal teaching (a definitive teaching will require one kind of assent, a non-definitive another kind), as well as whether or not any kind of “dissent”, either public or private, is allowed (as a sneak preview for now, we shall see that, despite widespread public dissent, from both “the left” and “the right” within the Church, in the last several decades against various Papal teachings, including in recent years and months against the teachings of Pope Francis, this public dissent has not only not been allowed by the Church, but it has been consistently and strongly condemned by the Church in her Magisterium).

I. On the Authority of the Pope and Magisterium

Vatican II, Dei Verbum: On the Exclusive Teaching Authority of the Magisterium

“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 10; November 18, 1965)

Pope St. Paul VI: On the Authority of the Church to Discern Authentic Tradition

“It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!” (Pope St. Paul VI Allocution May 24, 1976)

Pope St. Paul VI: On the Authority and Divine Assistance Given to Conciliar Documents

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I,  Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Pope St. Paul VI, at the end of every Vatican II document, 1963-1965)

II. On the Trustworthiness of the Church and Her Magisterium

Pope St. John Paul II: On a Special ‘Charism of Assistance’ for Even Non-Infallible Papal Teachings

“Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit, granted to Peter and his successors so that they do not err in matters of faith and morals and instead give good illumination to the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but encompasses the entire exercise of the magisterium to varying degrees.” (Pope St. John Paul II, Wednesday General Audience, March 24, 1993)

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) Under Pope St. John Paul II: On the Special Divine Assistance Given to the Magisterium (Even in Non-Infallible Decrees)

“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.” (Donum Veritatis, 24; document of the CDF written by Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) and approved by Pope St. John Paul II; May 24, 1990)

Pope Leo XIII: On the Trustworthiness of the Roman Pontiff and Obedience Due to Him

“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council (Vatican I) declared are to be believed ‘with Catholic and divine faith.’  But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.” (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 24; October 1, 1890)

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus: On the Purpose and Trustworthiness of the See of St. Peter

“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.’ (Luke 22:32)

“This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away from the poisonous food of error by them, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of Hell.” (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.6; July 18, 1870)

Pope Gregory XVI: On the Trustworthiness of the Church

“[Certain men] insolently slander the Church and falsely accuse her of error, and their shamelessness should be deplored even more. They claim that the Church, by ordering annual confession, allowing indulgences as an added condition of fulfilling confession, and permitting private Eucharist and daily works of piety, has weakened that salutary tradition and subtracted from its power and efficacy. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?” (Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 10; March 13, 1826)

Theologians Who Taught of a Kind of “Safety” for Even Non-Definitive Papal Teachings (i.e., a safety that guarantees– or, for some theologians, at the very least gives a very high level of confidence– that there is nothing destructive to souls in even the non-definitive Papal teachings)

• Cardinal Johann Franzelin
• Fransen 
• Ratzinger
• Van Noort
• Joachim Salaverri

III. On the Assent Owed to Even Non-Infallible Teachings

See Pope Leo XIII’s Sapientiae Christianae, 24 (Above)

Venerable Pope Pius XII: On the Assent Owed to Even Non-Infallible Papal Teachings

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’ (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

“It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition…This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: ‘in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.’” (Venerable Pope Pius XII, Human Generis, 20-21; December 8, 1950; emphasis added)

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium: On the Assent Owed Even to Non-Infallible Papal Teachings

“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25; November 21, 1964)

Pope St. Pius X: On the Love and Obedience Due to the Pope

“The Pope is the guardian of dogma and morality; he is the custodian of the principles that make the family honest, the nations great, the souls holy; he is the counselor of princes and peoples; he is the leader under whom no one feels tyrannized, because he represents God himself; he is the father par excellence who brings together in himself everything that can be loving, tender, divine.  It seems incredible, and it is painful, that there are priests to whom this recommendation should be made, but unfortunately in our days we are in this harsh, unhappy condition of having to say to priests: love the Pope!…

“And how should we love the Pope? Not by word nor language, but by work and in truth.  When you love a person you try to conform in everything to his thoughts, to carry out his wishes, to interpret his desires. And if our Lord Jesus Christ said of himself: si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servibit (if anyone loves me, he will keep my word), so to demonstrate our love for the Pope it is necessary to obey him…

“Therefore, when you love the Pope, you do not have discussions about what he orders or demands, or how far obedience must go, and in what things one must obey; when you love the Pope, you don’t say that he didn’t speak clearly enough, almost as if he were obliged to repeat to everyone’s ears that will clearly expressed so many times not only orally, but with letters and other public documents; his orders are not questioned, citing the easy pretext of those who do not want to obey, that it is not the Pope who commands, but those around him; the field in which He can and must exercise his authority is not limited; the authority of the Pope is not placed before that of other people, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who if they are learned are not saints, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. 

“To remove the misunderstanding that certain newspapers are creating among the clergy and faithful, it is declared that the Holy See does not recognize them as compliant with the pontifical directives and the norms of the Letter of His Holiness to the Lombard Episcopate, dated 1 July 1911, the following newspapers: L’Avvenire d’Italia, Il Momento, Il Corriere d’Italia, Il Corriere di Sicilia, L’Italia, and others of the same kind, regardless of the intentions of some esteemed people who direct them and they help.” (Pope St. Pius XII, Address to priests (November 18, 1912))

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Approved by Pope St. John Paul II

“23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

“When the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.

“When the Magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively’, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.  This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.  The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule” (CDF, Donum Veritatis, 23-24)

St. Ignatius of Loyola: On the Obedience and Assent Due to the Church, Harm of Dissent

“First Rule (of Thinking/Feeling with the Church). The first: All judgment laid aside, we ought to have our mind ready and prompt to obey, in all, the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our holy Mother the Church Hierarchical.

“Ninth Rule. Finally, to praise all precepts of the Church, keeping the mind prompt to find reasons in their defence and in no manner against them.

“Tenth Rule. We ought to be more prompt to find good and praise as well the Constitutions and recommendations as the ways of our Superiors. Because, although some are not or have not been such, to speak against them, whether preaching in public or discoursing before the common people, would rather give rise to fault-finding and scandal than profit; and so the people would be incensed against their Superiors, whether temporal or spiritual. So that, as it does harm to speak evil to the common people of Superiors in their absence, so it can make profit to speak of the evil ways to the persons themselves who can remedy them.

“Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.” (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, “Rules for Thinking with the Church”)

St. Catherine of Sienna: On Obedience to the Pope (Regardless of His Personal Virtue) Out of Love for God

“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, as quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)

Or, another translation/version of that quote:

“If God has declared war on you because of the wrong you have done your father, his vicar, you are weak indeed, having lost his help. It’s true that many do not believe they are offending God by this. It seems to them they are offering sacrifice to him. If they persecute the Church and its pastors they defend themselves by saying, “They are bad, and they are doing all kinds of evil.” But I’m telling you that God wills , and has so commanded, that even if the pastors and Christ on earth were devils incarnate (rather than good kind fathers), we must be submissive and obedient to them-not for what they are in themselves but out of obedience to God, because they take the place of Christ, who wants us to obey them.” (Catherine, and Suzanne Noffke. The Letters of Catherine of Siena.  Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, V. 203.Tempe AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001, 138, 141)

St. Anselm of Canterbury: The Principle of Credo ut Intelligam

“I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand. For I believe even this: that unless I believe, I shall not understand.” (St. Anselm, Proslogion, 1; this principle is applied to Scripture but can also be applied to teachings of the Papal Magisterium)

IV. On the Harm & Sinfulness of Public Dissent Against the Papal Magisterium

Pope Leo XIII: On the Destructive Nature of Disobedience and Dissent Against the Pope

“Your filial letter addressed to Us, a letter filled with the most refined feelings of love and sincere devotion, has soothed with sweet comfort Our spirits, which have been afflicted by a recent and heavy sadness. You well know that nothing can more grievously concern us than seeing the spirit of harmony among Catholics disturbed, the peace of souls shaken, trust emptied, and the submission befitting children to the fatherly authority that governs them discarded. Consequently, at the very first sign of this disaster, we cannot help being sorely vexed and having a care to prevent danger straightaway.

“Therefore, the recent publication of a certain written work, from a source that had been less expected and which you also deplore, the stir that arose out of it, and the comments that it caused, enjoin me to remain by no means silent on a matter, the consideration of which, even if perhaps it may turn out to be unpleasant, will still for this reason not be less useful both in France and even elsewhere.

“By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics – doubtless as a result of current evils – there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of “subject” which is theirs in the Church, think themselves able to take some part in her government, or at least, think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties: the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the head and the Supreme Shepherd of all.

“To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

“And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

“Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

“On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

“When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

“In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

“That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend.

“Your innermost thoughts, which we well know, and the discreet way in which you have valiantly conducted yourself in these very difficult times have moved us to discuss these matters with you, beloved Son, apart from the advantage they may have there in France. Ever firm and courageous in those matters of religion that are of importance and in preserving the sacred rights of the Church, you have, on a certain recent occasion that offered itself, vigorously protected them and fought in their defense with your distinguished and mighty voice. And what is more, you have adroitly coupled together with fortitude a calm and peaceful way of comportment worthy of the cause that you defend, maintaining a spirit free from disordered emotions and devoted completely to the mandates of the Apostolic See and to Us.” (Pope Leo XII, Epistola Tua, Letter to the Archbishop of Paris, June 17, 1885)

Pope St. Paul VI: On the Harm of Dissent, the Role of the Papacy to Preserve Unity

“The internal conflicts that pertain to the various areas of ecclesial life, if they are solidified as a state of rebellion, lead to the fact that a plurality of ‘dissenting institutions or communities’ are opposed to the one institution and community of salvation, which in no way correspond to the nature of the Church. Indeed, if sects and factions opposing each other are created in it, which remain in insurmountable opposition, it itself loses its structure and constitution. Then there arises the polarization of dissent, as they call it, by the force of which that which is of interest is directed entirely into various groups, who are in reality autocephalous, each of whom thinks that he owes his obedience to God. This state of affairs entails and, as far as it is concerned, sows the seeds of disintegration into the ecclesial communion.

“…But we who, as the Successors of Peter – not by Our merits, but by the grace of the apostolic office entrusted to Us – are the visible principle and foundation of the unity of both the sacred Shepherds and the multitude of the faithful, apply Our exhortation to that greatest good of reconciliation, either with God or in to us, or to be reintegrated among ourselves, so that the Church may be able to be an effective sign in the world of union with God and of the unity by which all his creatures are united.

“…This, of course, is demanded by our faith, which we have in the Church itself, which we profess in the Symbol to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic48. We implore all of us to love her, to follow her, to build her up, using the same words of St. Augustine: Love this Church, be in such a Church, be such a Church.” (Pope St. Paul VI, Paterna Cum Benevolentia, 5-6; December 8, 1974)

Pope St. Pius X: On the Gravely Sinful Nature of Public Dissent (Even Against Non-Infallible Papal Teachings)

“Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.” (Pope St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907)

The CDF (Under Pope St. John Paul II): On the Harm of Public Dissent

“27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

“28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

“Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

“29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

“30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

“In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

“31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him.  Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

“For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

“The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia, Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos.  In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called ‘dissent’…” (CDF, Donum Veritatis, 27-32; May 24, 1990)

“Let it be presupposed that every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor’s proposition than to condemn it.  If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.” (St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22; N.B.: If this principle applies to understanding any Christian, a fortiori does it apply to properly interpreting statements from the Papal Magisterium)

Also see St. Ignatius of Loyola’s “Rules for Thinking with the Church” (Above in section III)

In the Risen Lord Jesus and His Joyful Mother Mary,

A priest of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church