OnePeterFive, playground for Satan and his ilk, has never been content to attack Pope Francis and Vatican II, like so many other present-day heretics and schismatics. Instead, they have attacked a long list of Popes and many Councils (Vatican I and II, Lateran V, Lyons I, “and other councils you’ve never heard of”). Such an attack on the Faith itself is rare, even within the long history of heresies and schisms that the Church has seen since Her earliest days.

The latest attack on the Faith from 1P5 is this article: Leo XIII: The First Liberal Pope Who Went Beyond His Authority by José Antonio Ureta on October 19, 2021. Ureta complains about the Encyclical of Leo XIII, which you can find in English here: Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes. The encyclical itself is a cogent defense against the accusations of Ureta and 1P5, which makes the article laughable in the poverty of its lack of theological and scholarly arguments. The main thing needed to refute Ureta’s article is to read the encyclical he is complaining about.

Ureta uses the popular “storytelling” technique of attacking Church authority, which relates a long story of intrigue against Tradition by, typically, Popes, Councils, and those who assist Popes and Councils, in order to have a basis for rejecting the authority of Christ and the decisions of that authority in the Church. Ureta quotes Leo’s Au Milieu at length, and then tries to undermine it by interjecting comments [in brackets and italics]. This approach fails utterly. Example:

Pope Leo XIII: “It is not difficult to see that, perhaps because of the misfortune of the times, there are some Catholics who, not content with the submissive role the Church has assigned to them, believe they can take up one in their government. At least they imagine they are allowed to examine and judge the acts of authorities according to their own way of seeing things. That would be a serious disorder if allowed to prevail in the Church of God, where, by the express will of its divine Founder, two distinct orders have been established most clearly: the teaching Church and the taught Church, the Pastors and the flock, and among the Pastors, one who is the Head and Supreme Pastor for all. Pastors alone have been given the full power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful has been imposed the duty to follow these teachings, to submit with docility to these judgments, to allow themselves to be governed, corrected, and led to salvation.”
Ureta: [Yes indeed, this is true in matters of faith, morals and church discipline, but regarding everything else, the faithful are free to have personal opinions.]

What is laughable about the above quote from the 1P5 article is that Ureta admits, to the condemnation of many authors and articles at 1P5, that it is true in matters of doctrine and discipline that the faithful have a duty to follow these teachings and submit to these judgments — something utterly rejected by the papal accusers at OnePeterFive across innumerable articles rejecting the decisions of Pope Francis on doctrine and discipline, as well as many other Popes and multiple Ecumenical Councils. Ureta unwittingly condemns the publication in which his article appears.

As for his claim “regarding everything else”, it must be understood that in every area of human endeavor, the moral teachings of the Church apply. No human acts are free from judgment by the eternal moral law and God, nor are any human acts free from the judgment of the Church on the basic principles of morality. Certainly, the faithful are required by the Church to apply Her moral teachings to their own circumstances, and the Church will not take the role of your conscience away from you. But conscience must be formed in the light of Catholic truth taught by the Church.

As for politics, the Church has two swords, the spiritual and the temporal, and it is the infallible teaching of Unam Sanctam, confirmed by Lateran V, that the Church has authority over all nations to judge whether their decisions and actions, their laws and policies, are contrary to what is true and good, or not.

Unam Sanctam:
1. Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her, there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins, just as the Bridegroom in the Canticles proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One is her mother; elect is she who bore her.” [Canticles 6:8]. And this represents the one mystical body, whose head is Christ, and truly God is the head of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:3] In Her, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. [Ephesians 4:5] For certainly, in the time of the Flood, the ark of Noah was one, prefiguring the one Church. And She, having been completed by the measure of one cubit, [Genesis 6:16] had one pilot and helmsman, that is, Noah. And outside of Her, everything standing upon the land, as we read, had been destroyed.

2. Thus, we venerate Her as the only one, just as the Lord said by the prophet: “O God, rescue my soul from the spear, and my only one from the hand of the dog.” [Psalm 21:21] But he prayed for the soul, that is, for his very self, head and body together. And this body, which he named as the only one, is certainly the Church, because of the Bridegroom, the Faith, the Sacraments, and the love of the Church, united. She is that seamless tunic of the Lord which was not torn, [John 19:23-24] but was distributed by lot.

3. And so, the one and only Church is one body, one head, (not two heads like a monster), Christ certainly, and the vicar of Christ, who is Peter and the successor of Peter. For the Lord said to Peter himself, “Feed my sheep.” [John 21:17] He said “my” generally, not solely of these or of those. By this, it is understood that all [universas] were committed to him. Therefore, if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, “there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.” [John 10:16]

4. We are instructed in the Gospel sayings that in Her and within Her power, there are two swords, specifically, the spiritual and the temporal. For the Apostles say, “Behold, there are two swords here,” that is, in the Church. But when the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not respond, “it is too much,” but “it is sufficient.” [Luke 22:38] Certainly, whoever denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the word of the Lord, saying: “Put your sword into its sheath.” [Matthew 26:52] Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the material. But indeed, the latter is to be exercised on behalf of the Church; and truly, the former is to be exercised by the Church. The former is of the priest; the latter is by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

Note: St. Bernard (De Consideratione, Lib. iv. c. 3) writes:
“And both therefore, are of the Church, specifically, both the spiritual sword and the material. But indeed, the latter is to be exercised on behalf of the Church; and truly the former is to be exercised by the Church; the former is of the priest, the latter is by the hand of the soldier, but truly at the will of the priest and the order of the emperor.”
[My translation of the Latin found in: Dr. Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler, A Text-book of Church History, (Harper Brothers: New York, 1857), p. 351.]

5. Now one sword ought to be under the other sword, and so the temporal authority is to be subject to the spiritual authority. For though the Apostle said: “there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God,” [Romans 13:1] still they would not have been ordained unless one sword were under the other sword. And so what is inferior should be led forward by another, to what is highest. For, according to blessed Dionysius, it is a law of divine power that what is lowest is to be led forward by what is intermediate, to what is highest.

Note: Certainly, by ‘what is highest’ (suprema) is meant God Himself, for so Dionysius explicitly states in the text from which this teaching is drawn: “This, then, is the all-sacred Law of the Godhead, that, through the first, the second are conducted to Its most Divine splendour.”
[English text from: Dionysius the Areopagite, Works (1897), Volume 2, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 5, section 4.]

6. Therefore, it is not in accord with the order of the universe that all things should be led back to order equally and immediately, but rather the lowest through the intermediate, and the lower through the higher. And so, to whatever extent the spiritual power excels beyond the worldly, in both dignity and rank, we must, to the same extent, clearly admit that the spiritual surpasses the temporal. And this, nevertheless, we distinguish with clear eyes from the gift of tithes, and from benediction and sanctification, by the reception of the authority itself, and by the government of the things themselves. For truth is the witness that the spiritual authority holds the ability to establish the earthly authority, and to judge if it might not have been good. And this, concerning the Church and the authority of the Church, the prophecy of Jeremiah verifies: “Behold, today I have appointed you over nations and kingdoms” [Jeremiah 1:10] and the rest that follows.

Note: This last part of the passage is based almost word for word upon Hugo de St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II. 2, 4. — “The spiritual authority holds the ability so that it may establish the earthly authority, and holds the ability to judge if it might not have been good.”
[My translation of the Latin found in: Rev. Johannes Baptist Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, Volume 2, (Gill and Son: Dublin, 1890), p. 448-449.]

7. Therefore, if the earthly power goes astray, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual power goes astray, it will be judged by its superior; and truly, if the highest power goes astray, it will not be able to be judged by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.” [1 Corinthians 2:15]

8. But this authority, even though it may be given to a man, and may be exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine power, having been given by the divine mouth of Christ to Peter, and to him as well as to his successors, by Christ Himself, that is, to him whom He had disclosed to be the firm rock, just as the Lord said to Peter himself: “Whatever you shall bind,” [Matthew 16:19] etc. Therefore, whoever resists this authority, such as it has been ordained by God, resists the ordination of God. [Romans 13:2] Otherwise, he would be proposing two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, and this we judge to be false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and earth, not in the beginnings, but “in the beginning.” [Genesis 1:1]

9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.

Notes: Saint Thomas Aquinas, opusc. contra errores Graec. fol. 9
“For it is revealed that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation.”

Lateran V: Fifth Lateran Council: “And since it arises from the necessity of salvation that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, just as we are taught by the testimony of the divine Scriptures and of the holy Fathers, and as is declared by the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which begins ‘Unam Sanctam,’ for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, and by the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy See, and by the unity and power of the Church, his spouse, the same Constitution, being approved by the sacred Council, we renew and approve.”
(Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 19 December 1516)

By his article against Pope Leo XIII, Jose Ureta is rejecting the dogma of subjection to the Roman Pontiff. He is rejecting also the dogma that the First See is judged by no one but God. He judges Leo and condemns him. He rejects his authority as Roman Pontiff. He puts himself above the Pope to correct him, as if Ureta were more Catholic than the Roman Pontiff. He calls the Pope ‘liberal’, a term some traditionalists think is an accusation. But more importantly, he claims Leo XIII “went beyond his authority”.

The above text from Unam Sanctam, approved by Lateran V, states clearly that the Church and therefore the head of the Church, the Pope, has both spiritual and temporal authority. Notice the repeated assertions in Unam Sanctam to the authority of the Church over nations, kings, etc. And while the Church leaves the governing of nations and secular matters to the nations their rulers, the Church has the authority to judge them. “For truth is the witness that the spiritual authority holds the ability to establish the earthly authority, and to judge if it might not have been good. And this, concerning the Church and the authority of the Church, the prophecy of Jeremiah verifies: ‘Behold, today I have appointed you over nations and kingdoms’ [Jeremiah 1:10] and the rest that follows.” So it is clear that no Pope exceeds his authority by judging the laws and form of government of a nation. This dogmatic teaching of the Church is denied by Ureta.

As for the freedom of the faithful to have opinions, even in spiritual matters, the faithful are free to have opinions on open theological questions and to a limited extent in areas where the magisterial teaching is non-infallible. So this implies the same about political and other areas of human endeavor. It is not the case that any area of concern is beyond the reach of the authority of the Church; rather, the faithful take their proper roles in making decisions that are given to them by the Church, that is to say, by Christ, Who has authority over heaven and earth. And since Jesus is the King of kings, His authority is certainly over nations and politics; then the Church exercises His authority.

Ureta quotes Leo as saying: “And to fail such a sacred duty, one need not make an act of open opposition to the bishops or to the Head of the Church: it suffices to make opposition in an indirect manner, which is all the more dangerous as people seek to hide it more with contrary appearances.” But this wise saying applies today as well. OnePeterFive and Ureta attack past Popes and various Councils as a way to indirectly attack Pope Francis. They make a pretense of saying that Leo XIII exceeded his authority in his writings on politics in late 19th century France. Why does this concern them? What is the point to claiming an error from over 120 years ago?

The reason is that Pope Francis is accused of being a part of a plot by freemasons to inculcate into the Church the errors of the French Revolution. Notice, that Ureta’s article on the time period about a century after the French revolution, has a header graphic referencing “1789” and the French revolution. But the time period of Leo XIII is that of the French Third Republic, a hundred years later. The papal accusers do not care about facts. To them, the French Revolution represents “a massive shift of power from the Catholic Church to the state” [Wikipedia], which is occurring again, in a sense, in the Church herself. Conservatives used to consider themselves to be the guardians of the Faith. And then Vatican II and various supposedly liberal changes to the Church occurred, and they lost power. But with Pope Francis, the far right in the Church saw a massive shift of power from traditionalists and far right conservatives to moderate and liberal Catholics. They rightly see a parallel in this with what happened in French politics. But they wrongly make this comparison literal and claim that Francis is working from the ideas of that entire time period when the Church lost power in France.

Here is a relevant and concise summary of the situation in France from Wikipedia:

When Leo XIII became pope in 1878, he tried to calm Church-State relations. In 1884, he told French bishops not to act in a hostile manner toward the State (‘Nobilissima Gallorum Gens’). In 1892, he issued an encyclical advising French Catholics to rally to the Republic and defend the Church by participating in republican politics (‘Au milieu des sollicitudes’). The Liberal Action was founded in 1901 by Jacques Piou and Albert de Mun, former monarchists who switched to republicanism at the request of Pope Leo XIII. From the Church’s perspective, its mission was to express the political ideals and new social doctrines embodied in Leo’s 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum”.

During his pontificate, the Catholic Church in France lost a great deal of political power. Instead of trying to return the State to its past form and retain that power, Leo XIII took the position of accepting the latest form of government, even with decreased influence for the Church. He wanted Catholics in France to participate in this republican form of government.

Why do the accusers of Pope Francis take issue with Leo XIII? One reason is that they have developed an conspiracy theory that says freemasons, whom they blame for the changes in French politics that gave Catholics must less influence in society, have plotted to elect Pope Francis. This claim is found in Taylor Marshall’s book “Infiltration”, in the rants of schismatic bishop Carlo Vigano, and in various articles at OnePeterFive, Rorate Caeli, and other antipapal websites. They think that Pope Francis is basing his decisions for the Church on principles of French politics, during the time when traditional Catholics in France were progressively losing more and more influence over society. The claimed conspiracy is non-existent. But the comparison is fitting. Conservatives have lost power in the Church under Pope Francis, not because he is teaching and acting from the ideas of 18th or 19th century French politics, but because the Church is not conservative. Jesus was not conservative. The Gospel is not conservative. The true Faith includes ideas which might be categorized as liberal, and other ideas that may be said to be moderate or conservative. But to try to make the Faith into a religious reflection of highly conservative ideas is an attack on the true Gospel of Christ.

Pope Francis has a liberal point of view. But he is also like every Roman Pontiff, teaching the truth as he is guided to do by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Vatican II is the work of the Holy Spirit. The teachings of the Vatican II Popes is the work of the Holy Spirit. And the same is true for all the Popes and Councils. No Pope has ever taught heresy, nor erred gravely in doctrine or discipline. See the articles at Catholicism.io for proof beyond any doubt. Anyone who rejects any Roman Pontiff or any Ecumenical Council is a schismatic and a heretic. No explanation or story about a conspiracy behind the scenes excuses such a grave sin against the Church founded by Christ on the Rock that is Peter and his successors.

And the question then arises, if any Catholic layperson, such as Jose Ureta or Peter Kwasniewski and their peers, can judge and condemn any Roman Pontiff and any Ecumenical Council, what is left of the Catholic faith? “Tradition! We are defending Tradition,” they say. No, you’re not. The Magisterium is the sole authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture. Not the conservative or traditionalist subculture. Not any random layperson who happens to oppose a Pope or Council, and so quickly becomes a widely accepted author on traditionalist websites. The Magisterium is the Teacher of the faithful. The Magisterium decides what is truly of Tradition, and what is merely a changeable tradition of human persons.

Whoever rejects the Magisterium, rejects Tradition and Scripture. Whoever opposes any Roman Pontiff is a schismatic who has rejected Tradition. Whoever opposes any Ecumenical Council is a schismatic who has rejected Tradition. It has always been the tradition in the Church to accept the authority of every Pope and Council.

Ureta versus Leo XIII

One particular part of the article is central to the claims and errors of Jose Ureta and more broadly of 1P5:

Ureta: “Displaying centralism and authoritarianism hitherto unknown, Leo XIII added:”

Pope Leo XIII: “What one must hold on this point, then, is that in the general government of the Church, apart from the essential duties of the apostolic ministry imposed on all pontiffs, it is up to each of them to follow the rule of conduct which he deems best according to the times and other circumstances. In this, he is the sole judge, having in this matter not only special insights but also a knowledge of the general situation and needs of Catholicity, according to which his apostolic solicitude should be regulated.

Ureta: [But is the pope infallible in everything he does? If not, one can then legitimately have a contrary opinion.]

Leo XIII: “It is he who must procure the good of the universal Church, with which the good of its various parts is coordinated. All others subject to this coordination must assist the action of the Supreme Director and serve his purposes.”

Ureta: [Not if they believe in conscience that he is mistaken.]

Leo XIII: “As the Church is one, as her Head is one, so is her government, to which all must conform.”

Ureta: [The present canon law recognizes the right of the faithful to express their disagreement with due respect to pastors.]

I have separated out the comments of the article author, Jose Ureta, from the quote by Pope Leo XIII.

First, “centralism and authoritarianism” of the Roman Pontiff has been the constant teaching of the Church since Jesus declared that whatever Peter and his successors bind on earth is bound in heaven (Mt 16:18-19), and since the Lord promised to Peter and his successors the charism of truth and of never-failing faith (Lk 22:32).

Then, on the question of legitimate contrary opinions: Since Popes cannot err gravely even in what is non-infallible, the ability of the faithful to disagree is limited. Infallible teachings allow for no licit dissent; non-infallible decisions on doctrine and discipline allow for licit dissent only to the extent of the possibility of error. And since the Roman Pontiff is protected by the grace of God from grave errors in what is non-infallible (and from all error in what is infallible), licit dissent cannot accuse any Roman Pontiff of grave error in the exercise of the Keys of Saint Peter as proven here.

On the claim that conscience permits the faithful to refuse cooperation with the Roman Pontiff: This can only pertain to non-infallible decisions, and then only to the extent that said disagreement or refusal of cooperation does not accuse, nor imply a grave error on doctrine or discipline by the Roman Pontiff or by an Ecumenical Council approved by a Roman Pontiff. The one billion plus members of the Catholic Church worldwide cannot each follow their consciences, the conscience of a fallen sinner, whenever their own ideas conflict with those of the Magisterium. The Pope is the principle of unity in the Church for many reasons, not the least of which is that his decisions are not merely human but are guided by the Holy Spirit.

Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI): “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].

It is beyond the limits of conscience to publicly declare that a Pope has gone “beyond his authority” or that he has erred gravely in such a way as to gravely harm the Church or the Faith. As Pope Saint Paul VI said to schismatic Marcel Lefebvre:

“But how can an interior personal difficulty — a spiritual drama which We respect — permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal? If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance — and We hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal — they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the pope.”

An interior spiritual struggle about a teaching or decision of the Roman Pontiff does not in any way justify a public declaration that the Roman Pontiff has erred gravely and exceeded the authority given to him by Christ. Conscience may permit some limited disagreement with the Roman Pontiff. But never to the extent of telling the faithful that, by one’s own judgment made without authority, the Pope has gone gravely astray. And so many similar assertions have been made in recent years about Pope after Pope and Council after Council that it is quite clear the Church, which is indefectible, cannot possibly have erred to such a vast extent as is claimed.

Leo XIII: “As the Church is one, as her Head is one, so is her government, to which all must conform.”

Ureta: [The present canon law recognizes the right of the faithful to express their disagreement with due respect to pastors.]

The dogma that the Church is one, and that we must conform to Her decisions on doctrine and discipline, is found in the Gospels, especially in Mt 16:18-19. Then the doctrine of the two swords, found in Unam Sanctam but also taught by the Saints (see the Notes above), gives the Church authority over nations and kings, even if that authority is not the direct rule and direct decision-making that is possessed by the rulers of those nations.

As for the claim about Canon Law, this is the Canon that is referenced:

“Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.”

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

FIRST, the Canon state the duty to obey the Pastors of the Church, i.e. the Pope and the Bishops, in their decisions on doctrine (“teachers”) and discipline (“rulers”). Without this obedience, a Catholic would become a schismatic. Only the faithful have the right to make known to the Pope and Bishops their needs and desires. And then, in the third section above, the faithful have the right and sometimes the duty to “manifest…their opinion” to the Pope and Bishops. Then the right or duty to make known their opinion to the rest of the faithful requires that they not harm the “integrity of faith and morals”, that they not violate the reverence due to the Pope and Bishops (as well as the rest of the clergy and faithful), and that they be attending to the common good and the dignity of persons.

Ureta says: “The present canon law recognizes the right of the faithful to express their disagreement with due respect to pastors.” And this is a much better reference to Canon 212 than I have seen in other articles by other authors. The canon does not say “disagreement” but opinion. And while disagreements are clearly encompassed by the Canon, it is important that the term used is opinion. The faithful are not to do what Ureta and other 1P5 authors have done, which is to take their own opinions and present them as if they were factual claims of grave error by Roman Pontiffs. Ureta also repeatedly states as if fact, that — in my phrasing of it — those who support the supreme authority of the Pope are simply to be dismissed as ultramontanists.

So this article by Ureta and many others at OnePeterFive are not justified by Canon 212. They violate that Canon by presenting opinion as fact or dogma, by utterly rejecting part 1 of the Canon, by harm to faith and morals, and by harm to the common advantage of the faithful (in that they attack various Popes and Councils). Canon 212 in no way justifies the judgment and condemnation of any Pope or Council, nor does it justify treating opinions contrary to dogma as if they are a right.

Papal Authority

Pope Leo XIII wrote the encyclical Satis Cognitum, which teaches, through many quotes from Saints and Doctors and Fathers of the Church, the charisms of the Roman Pontiff: his never-failing faith, his supreme authority and the rest. So, just as the papal accusers who reject Pope Francis and Vatican II necessarily needed to attack Vatican I and Pope Saint Paul VI and Lateran V, in order to buttress their rebellion against Church authority, so also do they need to attack any other Pope or Council that stands firm against their schismatic and heretical attacks on the true Faith. And one of their chief opponents in this regard is Leo XIII.

Here are the Papal Charisms, as I summarize and prove in my online booklet, as follows:

1. each Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, and so no Pope can fail gravely in truth or in faith by apostasy, heresy, schism, idolatry, nor by teaching or committing heresy;
2. the Pope in his Apostolic See is unblemished by any grave error on doctrine or discipline;
3. the authority of the Pope over the Church is supreme, full, immediate, universal, ordinary, and without appeal;
4. subjection to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation;
5. the body of Bishops has no authority apart from, nor in opposition to the Roman Pontiff;
6. the Pope is the principle of unity in the Church, for he is one Head of the one Church with Christ;
7. the Pope has the charism to teach infallibly, by his sole authority under Papal Infallibility, or with the body of Bishops under Conciliar Infallibility or under the ordinary universal Magisterium;
8. the Pope has authority over all Councils, with the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve any Ecumenical Council or other council, synod, or gathering of Bishops.

Note that the above list is not intended to be exhaustive, and I am therefore not denying to the Roman Pontiffs charisms and authority not listed above. These are rather the main charisms which oppose the papal accusers in their attacks on Pope after Pope, Council after Council, and dogma after dogma.

The papal accusers wish to deprive all Popes of their supreme authority. But they also have rejected many different Ecumenical Councils. Then they are harsh critics of synodality. So who would be left to rule over the Church? They want the traditionalist or conservative subculture to reign supreme. But this is not the plan of Christ.

I suggest that the faithful read, a little at a time, my online booklet on the charisms of the Roman Pontiff. These quotes from Popes, Saints, Doctors, Fathers, Bishops, Cardinals, and Ecumenical Councils are simply the perennial teaching of the Church. These are the infallible teachings of the ordinary universal Magisterium on the divinely-conferred gifts (charisms) given to Peter and his successors. And these teachings utterly refute the claims of the papal accusers against any Roman Pontiff and any Ecumenical Council.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.