A Disordered Disarray of Papal Accusations at OnePeterFive

and the chief papal accuser at 1P5 — apart from the schismatic Bishops who use that web portal as their bullhorn — is Peter Kwasniewski.

In his recent post at OnePeterFive, Peter Kwasniewski made a remarkable claim: “Of several popes who flirted with heresy, only two seem to have crossed a line: Honorius and John XXII.” The assertion that only 2 Popes crossed the line into heresy is remarkable because of a previous set of claims by Peter K. listing many Popes who supposedly committed heresy, and condemning multiple Ecumenical Councils.

In the article, Lessons from Church History: A Brief Review of Papal Lapses, Peter K. lists these Popes under “Popes Who Connived at Heresy or Were Guilty of Harmful Silence or Ambiguity” — the Apostle Saint Peter, Pope Saint John Paul II, Honorius, Liberius, Vigilius. But the more recent article claims only Honorius crossed the line into heresy. This implies a retraction of his previous claims against Liberius, whom many authors have wrongly accused of Arian heresy; of John Paul II, whose teachings on other faiths is much like that of Pope Francis; and Vigilius, who was a manifest heretic while he was antipope, but was blameless in adhering to the true faith once he became true Pope.

The contradiction between the two articles is bizarre. How can someone with a degree in (whatever he has a degree in, I don’t feel like looking it up right now), make very severe accusations against many Popes, and then decide, arbitrarily to reduce the accusations to 2. Notice how easily the papal accusers make extreme accusations against one Roman Pontiff after another, only to toss those accusations aside in favor of a different schema at the shifting of the wind. Which is it, PK? Which Popes are you accusing of heresy, 1P5?

Peter K.’s accusation against Saint Peter is particularly malicious, heretical, and blatantly false. He accuses Peter of “shamefully compromise on the application of an article of faith”, specifically: “the equality of Jewish and Gentile Christians and the abolition of the Jewish ceremonial law.” In fact, as Tertullian states

Tertullian: “But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived with the Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect for persons, surely this was a fault in his conversation, not in his preaching.” [Willis, Teaching of the Church Fathers, p. 172]

Peter did not connive at heresy; he was not guilty of harmful silence or ambiguity. And to put silence or ambiguity in the same category as to connive at heresy, which connotes a certain malice in the heresy, as opposed to material heresy by ignorance, is gravely erroneous. It permits PK to accuse any Pope of the very grave sin of conniving at heresy, and then defend himself by claiming he only meant silence or ambiguity, the latter two of which is not really a grave sin. Anyone might be silent, when someone else thinks they should have spoken. Consider Christ, who spoke before Pilate, but was silent before Herod. Who is to judge whether a Pope is correctly imitating Christ when he speaks or when he is silent? Only God. Not some arrogant online commentators, who put themselves above every Pope and Council to judge and to condemn, as if they were gods.

And now, in the latest article from PK (a moniker which is used not with disdain, but because it is easier to type than Kwasniewski), he claims only Honorius and John 22 crossed the line into herey.

Vigilius was an antipope and manifest heretic. Then he became true Pope and he steadfastly upheld Catholic truth, renounced his past heresy, and withstood the threats from the emperor and empress. Vigilius, far from being an example of a Pope conniving at heresy is proof of the teaching of the First Vatican Council that every Pope has the charism of truth and of never-failing faith. For Vigilius was a manifest heretic, and when he became next the true Pope, the grace of God vanquished all heresy and all grave failures of faith from him. This is historical proof that Vatican I and Saint Robert Bellarmine are correct that no Roman Pontiff has ever taught or committed heresy. The ordinary universal Magisterium teaches the same doctrine, as proven here.

Peter Kwasniewski goes on, in the article on “Papal Lapses”, to list “Popes Who Taught Something Heretical, Savoring of Heresy, or Harmful to the Faithful” as follows: Pope Paschal II, Pope John XXII, Pope Paul III (one of 5 Popes who presided over the Council of Trent and the one Pope who called the Council), Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II (listed twice now), and Pope Francis.

Notice again that this list has the same extremes as the previous list, whereby Popes who supposedly “taught something” which was either heretical or which savored of heresy, whatever that vague term means, or who taught something “harmful to the faithful”. On the latter point, an example of someone who taught something harmful to some of the faithful is Jesus in John 6, where Jesus teaches on the Eucharist, in terms that state His followers must eat flesh and drink blood, something that seemed anathema to devote Jews, and which caused many to no longer follow Jesus:

{6:61} Therefore, many of his disciples, upon hearing this, said: “This saying is difficult,” and, “Who is able to listen to it?”
{6:62} But Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this offend you?
{6:63} Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?
{6:64} It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh does not offer anything of benefit. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
{6:65} But there are some among you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who were unbelieving and which one would betray him.
{6:66} And so he said, “For this reason, I said to you that no one is able to come to me, unless it has been given to him by my Father.”
{6:67} After this, many of his disciples went back, and they no longer walked with him.

Similarly today, the Church teaches difficult sayings, and persons like Peter Kwasniewski and Steve Skojec and Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Carlo Vigano, murmur against the Church, shout about how offended they are, and no longer walk with the Lord or His Church. They commit public exceedingly grave objective mortal sins. They betray the Church, just like Judas. The violate the teaching: The First See is judged by no one. They commit schism openly rejecting the authority not only of Pope Francis, but of a long list of Popes. They commit schism by openly rejecting Vatican I and II. Why? because the Church sometimes teaches difficult sayings, just as Her Lord does, and they are not willing to put aside their pride in their own intelligence to accept Church teaching with faith.

Why is Pope Saint Paul VI accused by Peter K. in the list of “Popes Who Taught Something Heretical, Savoring of Heresy, or Harmful to the Faithful”??? It is because he approved of Vatican II. Why is Pope Saint John Paul II accused in the same list, and also in the previous list? It is because he taught the teachings of the Lord Jesus at the Second Vatican Council and he lived by those teachings, such as in his example at Assisi (praying with all those who are believers of good will).

In a past post, titled The Second Vatican Council Is Now Far Spent, Peter K. rejects the First Vatican Council, accusing the Council of needing an exorcism. The teachings of the Ecumenical Councils are the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Never has any teaching on faith or morals of any Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, been in error. All these teachings are infallible and therefore of the Holy Spirit. “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you everything whatsoever that I have said to you.” (Jn 14:26). Yet Peter K. accuses Vatican I of needing an exorcism, as if its teachings were of devils. That accusation is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. PK states: “the spirit of Vatican I, which it will take a mighty exorcism to drive away.” Why? because of the Council’s infallible teaching that each Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and of never-failing faith, and that the Apostolic See is unblemished by any error. PK commits heresy by rejecting that teaching, among many others.

PK also suggests rejecting Vatican II as well as “Lyons I, Lateran V, and other councils you’ve never heard of”. The standard he proposes for which Ecumenical Councils to accept is the ones that you have heard of, and the ones whose teachings conservatives agree with. That is not faith. These are the words of a schismatic and heretic, who has decided to put himself above every Pope and Council, even above Saint Peter, to reject whatever seems incorrect in any way to his own mind.

And now suddenly, PK has seemingly retracted all of these accusations, to leave only Honorius and John 22 as accused of heresy. Some authors accuse Pope Marcellinus of apostasy. Peter K. has not mentioned this Pope. Some accuse Liberius of Arianism. PK seems to have rejected that accusation. Who is accused of the greater errors, Marcellinus, Liberius, John 23, Paul 6 or John 22? For the record, it is historically false to claim that John 22 exercised the magisterium when he taught on the Beatific Vision prior to an infallible decision of the Magisterium by his successor on the question. He only spoke on this in sermons and informal conversations. He permitted theologians to argue to the contrary. He intended to hear from all sides, to assemble a group to consider the matter, and to eventually reach a magisterial decision. It is certainly not heresy and also not an act of the Magisterium to opine on a matter which, at that point in time, was an open theological question.

As for all the accusations against all the Popes, including Pope Francis, it is a matter of dogma under the ordinary universal Magisterium and the First Vatican Council that every Pope has the charism of truth and of never-failing faith. Therefore, no Pope can ever be guilty of any grave failure in faith, no matter how it is phrased, and no Pope can ever teach grave errors on faith or morals under the Magisterium. The innocence of Pope Honorius has been proven by many authors, Saint Robert Bellarmine and others. See my article here.

Did an Ecumenical Council condemn Honorius for heresy? Nothing is of a Council unless approved by the Roman Pontiff. The Pope who ruled over the Council, Pope Saint Agatho, taught the Council fathers in a letter that no Pope can teach grave error or fail in faith. The Council accepted that letter, which is therefore a part of the Council’s acts and teachings. Then when Agatho died, and some Council fathers again rose against Honorius, Pope Saint Leo II changed the charge against Honorius from heresy to negligence. This is seen in the three letters that Leo wrote approving of the Council. Since the Pope clearly did not approve of the accusation of heresy, as is clear from his three-fold declaration that the true error was negligence, Honorius was not guilty of heresy.

It is a matter of faith that no Pope can teach grave error under the Magisterium, and that no Pope can commit apostasy, heresy, or schism, idolatry, sacrilege, or blasphemy. But what the papal accusers always overlook is that their own “teachings” are not preserved from grave error; their own faith is not preserved from grave failure. The papal accusers are guilty of heresy and schism, to an extreme degree, so much so that little is left of the true faith. Having rejected many Popes and Councils, having put themselves above even those Popes they do not accuse, deciding as they have to accept only what seems right to their own minds, they have committed complete full apostasy. Nothing is left of faith, since they only accept what their own minds tell them is true, just as an atheist does. They accept nothing on faith.

If therefore they lack the theological virtue of faith, then they would not have love or hope either, and would be devoid of the state of grace. And this lack of love is shown in the malice with which they accuse the Popes and Councils. The slightest departure from what the papal accusers think is true results in the most extreme accusations against Pope-Saints and Councils. They are on the path to Hell. IF they do not repent, they risk eternal punishment with severe active punishments as well.


Peter Kwasniewski made severe accusations against many Popes, from Peter to Pope Francis, from Pope Saint Paul VI (whom PK denies is a Saint) to Pope Saint John Paul II (whom PK denies is a Saint). And then suddenly, he states that only Honorius and John 22 are guilty of the sin of heresy. This implied retraction of all the other accusations is bizarre. But it is common for heretics and schismatics, being blown about like a dried up leaf in the wind, to constantly change what they claim is true.

Another very strange point is that, of all the Popes falsely accused of grave failures of faith, Marcellinus is one of the worst, standing accused of apostasy and worshipping idols, but PK never mentions him, except to point out this: “Forty-six saints are mentioned by name in every celebration of the traditional Latin Mass of 1962…. Marcellinus”

Of course, OnePeterFive founder and heretic-in-chief Steve Skojec does accuse Marcellinus here, but he also notes the accusation is alleged, and that, if so, he in any case repented and died a martyr. The truth about Marcellinus is that the emperor wanted to encourage Christians to give up Christ and worship idols, so he falsely claims that their saintly leader, Pope Marcellinus had done so. False claims are so very common in politics — and the papal accusers of today are always complaining that the accusations against Trump are false claims — and yet if a Pope is accused, they treat the accusation like a dogmatic Canon of the Council of Trent. We know by faith that Marcellinus, a Saint and martyr, could not have committed apostasy due to the charism of never-failing faith given to every Pope. So the accusation is simply false. Perhaps the emperor expected the Pope to be too afraid of martyrdom to let everyone know that the claim of offering incense to idols was false. He was wrong.

I must also point out that John F. Salza, in an article at OnePeterFive, “Pope Francis Refuses To Answer the Dubia — What Happens Next? Part II“, tells a completely fictitious story about Pope Marcellinus. First, Salza does not, as most other authors do, consider the possibility that Marcellinus was innocent. He assumes his guilt. Pope Marcellinus could not have committed apostasy or idolatry, as this is contrary to the dogma of Vatican I (which Salza openly rejects).

In addition, it is factually historically false to claim, as Salza does, that an imperfect Ecumenical Council — and Ecumenical Council without the Roman Pontiff as its head — was gathered to judge the Pope. These claims come from forged documents which are accepted as fictitious by almost all Church historians. Here is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia states, my emphasis added:

“At the beginning of the sixth century, rather later than this “passio Marcellini”, a collection of forged documents appeared, which were manufactured in the dispute between Pope Symmachus and Laurentius. Among them are also found apocryphal Acts of an alleged synod of 300 bishops, which took place in 303 at Sinuessa (between Rome and Capua) in order to inquire into the accusation against Marcellinus that he had sacrificed at Diocletian’s order. On the first two days Marcellinus had denied everything, but on the third day he admitted his lapse and repented; however the synod passed no sentence on him “quia prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam”. When Diocletian learnt of the occurrence, he had the pope and several bishops of this synod executed (Hefele, “Konziliengeschichte”, I, 2 Aufl. 143-45). The spuriousness of these acts is almost certain. The forger has made the most of the rumour of Marcellinus’s lapse for his own purposes in a different way from the author of the “passio”, which crept into the “Liber Pontificalis”. These apocryphal fragments cannot by themselves be considered as historical proofs, any more than the rumours in Donatist circles in Africa. It is accepted as certain that the pope did not comply with the imperial edict by any overt act, such as the surrender of the sacred writings, or even the offering of incense before the statue of a god. Such an apostasy of a Roman bishop would without a doubt have been given the greatest prominence by contemporary authors. Eusebius has not made use of the above mentioned idea. And later, Theodoret was still less in a position to state in his “Church History”, that Marcellinus had been prominent in the persecution ton ‘en tô diogmô diaprépsanta (Church History I.2). And Augustine also would not have been able to assert so curtly in answer to Petilian, that Marcellinus and the priests accused with him as traitors and “lapsi” were innocent.”

Salza treats the accusation against Marcellinus as certain and treats the above-described forged documents as if certainly true. The extreme intellectual dishonesty of certain papal accusers is itself an objective mortal sin. And such things are welcome at OnePeterFive, as long as they support the false narrative there that many Popes have committed grave failures of faith and have taught grave error. The purpose of accusing so many past Popes, often on very thin ice, is so that they can next accuse Pope Francis. Thus, one sin leads to many others. It is like when a politician commits many more crimes in order to cover up one crime. They wish to sin gravely by falsely accusing Pope Francis — the falsity of the accusations being proven by the dogma of Vatican I, which is also misrepresented by all the papal accusers. In order to open the way to accusing Francis, they make grave false accusations against a long list of Popes, including Saint Peter, and against past Councils (as PK in particular has done). This makes their sins all the more worse. If only the accused Pope Francis and no other Pope or Council, they would suffer much less once God punishes them.

So which is it, PK? OnePeterFive? Which Popes are you accusing of what? The website is just a hodgepodge of any and all accusations against any Pope or Council they wish, all in a desperate bid to accuse Pope Francis of grave sin for failing to worship the idol of the conservative Catholic subculture that his accusers all worship.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A Disordered Disarray of Papal Accusations at OnePeterFive

  1. Thomas Mazanec says:

    Yet Peter K. accuses Vatican I of needing an exorcism, as if its teachings were of devils. That accusation is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

    I thought Blaspheming the Holy Spirit was final impenitence.

    • Ron Conte says:

      Yes, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is final impenitence. But things that are proximate to final impenitence are also called by the same term. Examples:
      * accusing the Church of being infiltrated by Satan; how can you be saved if the sole Ark of Salvation is considered by you to be led by evil?
      * refusal to admit that sin exists and that people should repent
      * accusing the work of the Holy Spirit of being the work of Satan; how can one be led to repentance and salvation, if one cannot distinguish between good and evil

  2. On heretics, Pope Blessed Pius IX taught:

    “They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the [First] Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.” – (Etsi Multa, on Further Heresies).

Comments are closed.