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

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:56 pm by Dave Armstrong

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes 2026-06-05T23:56:50-04:00 Dave Armstrong

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

The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man (or even an ecumenical council)

The thesis of this paper is simple and easily understood:

Various papal bashers and critics such as Abp. Vigano, Bp. Schneider, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Phil Lawler, Henry Sire, Peter Kwasniewski, and a host of reactionary sites such as One Peter Five, The Remnant, Lifesite News, Rorate Caeli, Church Militant, and even (very sadly) an increasing number of otherwise orthodox Catholics and otherwise orthodox apostolates, claim that Pope Francis is a heretic, or that (at a minimum) he is spreading serious theological and/or moral errors that undermine the traditional Catholic faith.

Catholics are bound to give assent and obedience to what the magisterium requires them to accept about theology and faith, including teaching concerning the authority and indefectibility of the pope.

The Catholic magisterium specifically teaches that popes and the Roman See — under the special protection of the Holy Spirit — cannot and will not in fact ever defect from the faith and teach binding error, and that therefore, that the pope cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man (or, for that matter, even an ecumenical council).

I shall now proceed to detail the assertion in #3 from magisterial sources: utilizing Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum (the standard source for the dogmas of the Catholic Church: 43rd edition from 2012, edited and translated in part by my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi): particularly the very clear teaching from Vatican I.

*****

[T]he tradition of the Fathers attributed so much authority to the Apostolic See that no one dared to challenge its judgment and has always preserved it through canons and regulations . . . such great authority belongs to Us that no one could argue again with Our decision, . . . (Pope Zosimus: Letter Quamvis Patrim to the synod of Carthage, March 21, 418; pp. 81-82, D #221)

[T]here is to be no review of our judgment. In fact, it has never been licit to deliberate again on that which has once been decided by the Apostolic See. (Pope Boniface I: Letter Retro maioribus to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica, March 11, 422; p. 85, D #232)

No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the apostolic eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him. (Pope Boniface I: Letter Manet beatum to Rufus and the Other Bishops in Macedonia, etc., March 11, 422; p. 86, D #235)

Neither by the emperor nor by all the clergy nor by kings minor by the people will the judge be judged [footnote: “These words are cited as those of Pope Sylvester I”] . . . “The first See will not be judged by anyone . . .” (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael, September 28, 865; p. 219, D #638)

[C]ertainly it is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one . . . the judgment of the Roman bishop being no longer open for reconsideration . . . (Pope Nicholas I: Letter Proposueramus quidem to Emperor Michael, September 28, 865; p. 219, D #641)

[W]hether you have believed and do believe that the supreme and preeminent authority and juridical power of those who were the Roman pontiffs, We who are so, and those who will be so in the future have been, are, and will be such that they and We were not, are not, and in the future will not be able to be judged by anyone; but that they and We have been, are, and will be reserved in judgment by God alone; and that it was not possible, is not possible, and will not be possible for Our decisions and judgments to be appealed to any other judge. (Pope Clement VI: Letter Super quibusdam to the Mekhithar (= Consolator), Catholiciso of the Armenians, September 29, 1351; p. 310, D #1056)

19. An ecclesiastic, even the roman pontiff, can legitimately be corrected, and even accused, by subjects and lay persons. (Pope Gregory XI: Errors of John Wycliffe, Condemned in the Letter Super periculosis to the Bishops of Canterbury and London, May 22, 1377; p. 318, D #1139)

[note: translations of the following come from Wikisource: ecclesiastically approved translation by Henry Edward Cardinal Manning. Occasional alternate translations from Denzinger, 43rd edition will be interjected in brackets and blue font, with Denzinger reference numbers. What follows is from the First Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus on the Church of Christ: Session 4: July 18, 1870: the same magisterial proclamation that declared papal infallibility to be a dogma on the highest level: i.e., unable to be dissented against by any Catholic. Bolding is my own, in order to highlight the most significant portions]

[Prologue] And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation laid by God’s own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrow the Church: We, therefore, for the preservation, safe keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church; and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors so hurtful to the flock of Christ. [“proscribe with sentence of condemnation the contrary erroneous opinions so detrimental to the Lord’s flock”: p. 610: D #3052]

[Chapter 3] And since, by the divine right of apostolic primacy, one Roman Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal, but that none may reopen the judgement of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgement. [“the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision”: p. 613: D #3063]

Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgements of the Roman Pontiffs to an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

[Chapter 4] And because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these things which have been said are proved by events, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled, and her well-known doctrine has been kept holy. [“. . . has always been preserved immaculate and sacred doctrine honored”: p. 614: D #3066] Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of this See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. . . .

To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long established custom of Churches and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired where the faith cannot fail. [“where the faith cannot suffer impairment, the injuries to the faith might be repaired”: p. 615: D #3069] . . .

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.” [“this See of Peter always remains untainted by any error . . .”: p. 615: D #3070]

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 by them from the poisonous food of error, 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 in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.

*****

The choice is yours: dear reader (those of you who seek to follow Holy Mother Church; the One True Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: the Holy Catholic Church, headed by Pope Francis, and popes in perpetuity and succession). Do you wish to follow mere men, who clearly lack the faith to accept the crystal-clear declarations above: that the pope is singularly guided by the Holy Spirit and will in fact remain free — in his official teachings — from all doctrinal and moral error, and cannot and must not be judged or overruled by anyone whatever?

Do you wish to follow what this outrageous, unCatholic dissent is in essence: mere arbitrary traditions of men?:

Matthew 15:3, 6 (RSV) He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . [6] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. (cf. Mk 7:9, 13)

Do you choose to abide by the long, fabled, diabolical tradition of “itching ears” and following our own private inclinations, rather than apostolic tradition?:

2 Timothy 3:4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Do you desire to reject the plain, obvious example given by St. Paul as to how the Catholic is to regard and approach spiritual authority? He acted in this way in relation to the Jewish high priest. How much more ought we to give deference to the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church: the pope?:

Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'”

Do you want to discount and ignore the clear example of King David, before he was king: expressing extreme deference to King Saul, who never repented of his sins and apostasy, and was running around trying to kill David, who refused to kill him when he had the chance? David was soulmates with Saul’s son Jonathan, too. How did David react when Saul essentially killed himself after a failed battle, after he had fallen into deep rebellion against God?:

2 Samuel 1:17-19, 23-24 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and Jonathan his son, . . . [18] . . . He said: [19] “Thy glory, O Israel, is slain upon thy high places! How are the mighty fallen! . . . [23] “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. [24] “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, . . .”

2 Samuel 2:5-6 David sent messengers to the men of Ja’besh-gil’ead, and said to them, “May you be blessed by the LORD, because you showed this loyalty to Saul your lord, and buried him! [6] Now may the LORD show steadfast love and faithfulness to you! And I will do good to you because you have done this thing.

David acted in this was simply because Saul was “the LORD’s anointed”:

1 Samuel 24:5-7, 10 And afterward David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt. [6] He said to his men, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD’S anointed, to put forth my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD’S anointed.” [7] So David persuaded his men with these words, and did not permit them to attack Saul. . . . [10] . . . `I will not put forth my hand against my lord; for he is the LORD’S anointed.’ (cf. 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16). A

He was acting according to what his son Solomon expressed: “Even in your thought, do not curse the king” (Ecc 10:20).

All of this for a king who had fallen into apostasy and who rejected God. . . . In other words, even if Pope Francis were supposedly wicked or a heretic, the Bible still gives no basis whatever for treating him as he has been by these impious, loudmouthed critics.

But the fact is that he is not a heretic; has not taught any heresy at all, and would not ever be allowed to do so, by the virtue of the Holy Spirit’s protection, as expressed in binding dogma in Catholic magisterial documents (see above). These men who are doing this are, therefore,

lying and bearing false witness (mortal sins),

lacking in faith that the Catholic Church, especially in the Roman See, is indefectible (and flat-out rejecting the proclamations that assert this),

Disobeying crystal-clear magisterial injunctions as to how the pope is never to be judged in his teaching by any man,

Failing to express the reverence due to not only the pope in particular, and above all, but that which is due to all spiritual superiors in the Church. St. Peter, the first pope, wrote: “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor [at that time, Nero!]” (1 Pet 2:17). St. Paul added, “in humility count others better than yourselves” (Phil 2:3). And these men dare to treat a pope in this manner?

These actions and thoughts are — without question — unCatholic, schismatic in spirit (if not yet canonically), outrageous, scandalous, slanderous, impious, catachetically and theologically ignorant and groundless, and so ought to therefore cease at once, for the sake of their own souls and those with itching ears who tragically follow them into these damnable errors.

Again, dear [Catholic] reader, the choice is yours. I gain little by telling you the truth. Most of the “big money” and exposure and “fame” is currently on the side of the papal bashers. They’re getting “all” the “hits” in their pathetic videos and articles and talks. I’m just a poor apologist, following my calling and doing what I’ve always done: defending Christianity and specifically Holy Mother Church and her teachings. I tell you this wholly because it’s true and out of love for you and desire for your salvation.

If you want to learn more about how the charges against Pope Francis are systematically false, see these two collections, with over 400 articles:

Replies to Critiques of Pope Francis [173 of my own articles]

Pope Francis Defended: Resources for Confused or Troubled Folks [232 articles from others]

***

Photo credit: Church fathers altar (Kirchenväteraltar): Saint Augustine and the devil (bet. 1471-1475), by Michael Pacher (1435-1498) [public domain / Wikipedia]

***

Papacy & Infallibility

Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries

Catholic magisterium

papal indefectibility

papal infallibility

Pastor aeternus

Pope Francis & heresy

Vatican I

Previous Post

July 22, 2020

Debate: Trump, Sexual Misconduct, & the Christian Vote

Next Post

July 24, 2020 Jay Dyer: Intellectual Limbo Re Catholic Belief in Limbo

Browse Our Archives

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

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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz