Introduction

In his Catholic World Report article, When do popes teach infallibly?, Dr. Edward Feser argues that the non-infallible teachings of the ordinary papal magisterium can err to almost any extent. Then he reviews the positions of Emmett O’Regan and Stephen Walford, who hold that the ordinary papal magisterium has very limited possibility of error. Feser rejects their views as too close to infallibility, as if there were little to no difference between infallible and non-infallible exercises of the papal magisterium. But this argument by Feser sets up a false dichotomy, as if there were only two choices: error to any extent, even heresy; or near infallibility, in the non-infallible papal magisterium.

[Edited to add: It seems clear now that Dr. Feser misrepresented the views of Emmett O’Regan (and therefore, perhaps also Walford). See the Comments after the article.]

But I’d like to make it very clear that Dr. Edward Feser is NOT in the category of far right opponents of Pope Francis, who find grave errors in nearly everything Pope Francis says and does. Feser holds that grave errors, even heretical errors, are possible in non-infallible papal teachings, but he is not quick to accuse any Pope. He does not present a long list of Popes who allegedly committed heresy or other grave failings of faith. Neither does he accuse Ecumenical Councils of grave error or heresy, as some opponents of Pope Francis have done. And his complaints about Pope Francis are not the exaggerated and harsh claims of the far right.

Instead, his position is generally faithful to Popes, Ecumenical Councils, and the body of Bishops dispersed in the world. He speaks about Pope Honorius I and the allegation of heresy against him in his recent article, and considers he may have been guilty of some lesser but still grave error. However, Feser does link to two of his own blog posts on Honorius, in which he does opine that Honorius committed heresy.

Dr. Feser’s main point seems to be that Popes are capable of errors on faith and morals, to almost any extent, when not teaching under Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, or the ordinary universal Magisterium. He then attempt to refute the views of O’Regan and Walford, who hold (as far as I can tell) that the deficiencies possible in non-infallible teachings on faith and morals are very limited, and can never reach to the extent of an actual positive error being taught.

My position differs from the aforementioned authors. I hold that Popes can err to a greater extent that O’Regan and Walford claim, but that Popes cannot err gravely on doctrine or discipline, as Feser claims. And I find ample evidence in the teachings of Church Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes, and Councils that no Pope can err gravely in any non-infallible exercise of the Keys of Saint Peter over doctrine and discipline. Certainly, infallible teachings under Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, and the ordinary universal Magisterium cannot err at all; neither can dogmatic facts (which I categorize under discipline). But the issue here is the extent of possible error in the ordinary non-infallible Papal magisterium.

The Main Problems with Feser’s Position

First, there are many sources from Popes, Councils, Fathers, Doctors, and Saints throughout the history of the Church teaching that Peter and his successors have the charism of truth and never failing faith. See this compilation of quotes and sources here. If a Pope were to teach material heresy, or any grave error on faith or morals, this would contradict the charism of truth. If a Pope were to fail in faith by formal heresy (or apostasy, schism, idolatry, etc.), this would contradict the charism of never-failing faith. The charism is one divinely-conferred gift with two aspects: truth and faith. Any grave error on faith or morals, even in a non-infallible teaching, would be incompatible with that charism. Vatican I confirmed this “charism of truth and never-failing faith” in Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, n. 7, as an authoritative interpretation of Luke 22:32. And the teaching of the Church from ancient times has always interpreted that verse as a promise of never-failing faith to Peter and his successors, which excludes the teaching of heresy and the commission of heresy by any valid Pope.

Second, Feser assumes that the only other position, apart from his own, is to think that the Pope cannot err on faith and morals at all when teaching under the magisterium. That is (nearly) the position of Walford and O’Regan, with a few differences between them, positions Feser rejects. I think Feser is right to conclude that, if the degree or types of errors possible in what is called non-infallible is too slight, it is essentially just infallibility. And Vatican I solely applies Papal Infallibility to those papal teachings which meet all of the criteria stated in the dogma. If one or more criteria is not met, the papal teaching cannot be infallible.

A third position, which Feser does not seem to consider, is that papal teachings under the ordinary magisterium are neither infallible (or nearly infallible as some describe it), nor subject to any degree or type of error at all. Instead, the non-infallible teachings of the papal magisterium have a limited possibility of error. Non-infallible papal teachings cannot err gravely on faith or morals, nor can the theological virtue of faith of any successor of Peter fail by heresy or any other grave failure. But some errors are possible. These extend beyond merely deficiencies in the form or completeness of the teaching. These possible errors are not mere trivial points or minor discrepancies. However, the charism of truth and never-failing faith, and the indefectibility of the Church, prevent grave errors on doctrine or discipline in the papal exercise of the Keys of Peter.

For if the Pope were to defect from the faith by teaching or committing heresy, or even by teaching grave error inadvertently, then the indefectibility of the Church would be gravely harmed or lost. For the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the Church, and the Rock on which the Church is founded. His role as Rock is stated in the very Gospel passage on the indefectibility of the Church (Mt 16:18). That Peter is the Rock on which the Church is founded, and that the Church is indefectible, since the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, are stated in the same breath by Christ the Lord.

Origen, quoted first by Saint Robert Bellarmine, then by Pope Leo XIII:

Origen, 184-253: “It is manifest, even if it were not expressed, because the gates of Hell can prevail against neither Peter, nor the Church, for if they prevailed against the rock on which the Church was founded, they would prevail against the Church.” [Mt 16:18] [4]

Origen, 184-253: “neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church, shall the gates of Hell prevail.” [5]

And it is this third position, that of a limited possibility of error in non-infallible papal teachings, that I have been advocating for years now. It stands between the two extremes: on the one hand, as if non-infallible teaching were essentially infallible with no positive errors expressed, and on the other hand, as if the errors possible were without any limit and could include even heresy. Both of these positions are, in my view, incorrect. However, the positions of O’Regan and Walford each do little harm to the faithful. It is the position of Feser that is harmful, in that he tells the faithful that Popes cannot be trusted to always avoid heresy and grave error in their teachings.

Other Problems

One problem is that, even if a Pope, by himself, teaches heresy, the Church would lose Her indefectibility. As the navigator and pilot of the sole Ark of Salvation[1], how could the Pope guide the Ark to go astray, to run aground, or to crash upon the rocks, while teaching non-infallibly, and only guide the Ark of Salvation aright when exercising infallibility? Such a plan for salvation would be foolish. The Church must always be guided by the Pope at least well enough to avoid grave errors on doctrine and discipline; otherwise, the salvation of the whole world would be endangered and many souls would be lost by the very teaching of the Vicar of Christ, contrary to the plan of Christ and the universal salvific will of God.[3]

Also, it is not always clear if the Pope is teaching non-infallibly, or participating in the infallibility of the ordinary universal Magisterium. Priests and theologians disagree, and there are continually many contrary voices commenting on whatever the Roman Pontiff is teaching from the Apostolic See. Some argue that the condemnation of contraception is still not an infallible teaching under the ordinary universal Magisterium. But Germain Grisez and others have argued that this teaching was already infallible under the ordinary universal Magisterium before Humanae Vitae.

I argue that every exercise of the Keys of Saint Peter by the Roman Pontiff is protected from every type of grave error on doctrine and discipline, even though only that which is infallible has the full protection from all error. I would consider this protection to be an extension of infallibility, just as the assent required for non-infallible teachings is not the full assent of faith required for infallible teachings, but rather religious assent “which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”[2] Lesser assent, lesser protection from error — not no protection from error.

It would be contrary to truth and faith, if the faithful were required to give religious assent to non-infallible papal teachings, which could err gravely, even to the extent of heresy. You can reply by saying that heresy would therefore not require assent, but the faithful often cannot tell heresy from doctrine. Many priests and theologians, as well as a few Bishops, also seem unable to make that distinction.

Also, I object strongly to the claim that only theologians have the ability to faithfully dissent from a possible less-than-grave error in a non-infallible teaching or decision of discipline. The Church gives no such special permission to theologians over the rest of the faithful. Just as theologians cannot exercise the Magisterium at all, unless they are also Bishops, so also they have the same obligations to assent to Church teachings, whether infallible or non-infallible.

If Popes could err gravely, the faithful would be put in the position of having to judge continually every teaching of the Roman Pontiff: Is it infallible under Papal Infallibility or a participation in the ordinary universal Magisterium? Is it a non-infallible teaching that errs gravely? Is it heresy? The Pope would then not be suitable to be, what the Church infallibly teaches that he is: the Supreme Shepherd of the whole flock; the father and teacher of all Christians; the Vicar of Christ; the Supreme Judge of all the faithful; and the sole person on earth who can judge and then reject or confirm the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, whether it teaches infallibly or non-infallibly.

Feser cites certain past examples of Popes who supposedly taught heresy or at least erred gravely in magisterial teachings: Honorius and John 22. But many opponents of Pope Francis have attempted similar accusations against a long list of Popes and Ecumenical Councils. The problem here is that any evaluation of a particular case is subject to error on the part of the person accusing that Pope (or Council). Consider how many Catholics have accused Vatican II of grave error or heresy! Every particular case proposed by a member of the faithful is subject to error in its evaluation by that person. How often the accusers of Popes assume themselves to be the ones who are infallible, while undermining the protection from error given to the Pope, whom they accuse. But Honorius and John XXII are easily defended, and have been defended by many since the time of their alleged heresies.

At one point, Feser cites “approved theological works of undeniable orthodoxy.” This is a laughable basis for accusing the Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Christ of heresy. If the Supreme Shepherd who is the visible Head of the Church, and the Rock on which the Church is founded, who alone can approve or reject an Ecumenical Council or any of its particular teachings, can err to the extent of heresy, then such “approved” works by theologians can also err to that extent. If one can deny a teaching of a Roman Pontiff, because it is supposedly gravely erroneous or heretical, how can such “theological works” have an “undeniable orthodoxy”? And do you not know that Arianism was widely “ecclesiastically approved” by individual Bishops, local groups of Bishops, and various priests and authors? But the Roman Pontiff Liberius did not fall into that error, nor did the Bishops as a body. Theologians, in any number, have no charism of truth and never-failing faith, nor are they successors to the Apostles chosen by Christ.

The theological works of theologians and priests are, in general, useful to the Magisterium. But they are not above the Magisterium to declare that the papal non-infallible magisterium has erred gravely, nor can they possibly be used to prove that the Magisterium can err to such an extent. For if the papal Magisterium could err to the extent of heresy or grave error, as Feser maintains, then what prevents theologians from the same degree of error? Is it their number, or their credentials, or their own self-opinion?

But instead, Christ said to Peter that his faith would never fail, and neither would the faithful of each successor of Peter, as the Church has continually taught from ancient times, as proven here.

Feser continues with his assertion that Popes can err gravely by adding “such works were ecclesiastically approved and widely used for the education of priests and theologians.” This type of expression turns the authority of teaching in the Church upside-down. An imprimatur does not guarantee an absence of moral or doctrinal error, despite the very wording of that declaration. For the granting of an imprimatur is not infallible, and falls under discipline, not doctrine. A Bishop, in granting an imprimatur, does not teach what the book teaches, but only rules that the book may be printed: “imprimatur” means “let it be printed”. And “nihil obstat” means “nothing stands in the way”. Neither is an exercise of the Magisterium. And even if it were, the individual Bishop can err to any extent, as Pope Leo XIII points out in Satis Cognitum 15. But the Church has always taught the never-failing faith of Peter and his successors, beginning with the words of Christ in Luke 22:32.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote and published a book entitled, “Jesus of Nazareth: from the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration.” In the preface of that book, he writes:

“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. xxiv.)

It “goes without saying” because any book of theology, even one written by a present-day Roman Pontiff, can err. And therefore “ecclesiastically approved and widely used” books by theologians do not require assent, even when these books express the supposed majority opinion of theologians. Everyone is free to contradict them. But everyone is not free to contradict the non-infallible teachings of the Roman Pontiff, as such teachings require religious assent. This assent can be required because of the protection of such teachings from grave error. The non-infallible teachings of the papal magisterium as a set are necessary to the path of salvation, and cannot err gravely, so they require assent. If such teachings could err gravely, even to the extent of heresy, it would not be right to require the assent of the faithful.

Elsewhere, Dr. Feser continues the error of raising the opinions of individual theologians or groups of theologians to the level of the Magisterium. Feser refers to “the ordinary magisterium of the Church – the everyday teaching of popes, bishops, and ecclesiastically-approved theologians as they convey the Faith in encyclicals, sermons, books, and the like,” — as if these “ecclesiastically-approved theologians” could exercise the infallible teaching authority given by Christ the Lord only to the successors of the Apostles. That claim is a grave error. All the faithful are called to spread the Gospel, each in his or her own way, and to whatever extent the providence, grace, and abilities of each one allow. But theologians do not exercise even the ordinary non-infallible magisterium, let alone participate in the ordinary universal Magisterium. No or set of theologians, however learned they may be, has the same teaching authority (non-infallible when teaching on their own) as a Roman Catholic Bishop, nor as the Roman Pontiff, nor as the body of Bishops led by the Roman Pontiff.

Dr. Edward Feser, in his previous Catholic World Report article, takes a teaching of the Second Vatican Council — “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief” — and attempts to apply it to theologians as a body: “What is true of the faithful as a whole is also true of theologians as a whole.” Wrong. NOTE WELL that the Church has never taught that theologians as a whole “cannot err in matters of belief”. And it is sad to see Feser attempt to give infallibility to the body of theologians, while claiming that Popes can err gravely, even to the extent of heresy. Also, which theologians are “ecclesiastically-approved” is a matter of disagreement and uncertainty. Recently a Bishop accused a Cardinal, publicly, of heresy. Is the Cardinal and that Bishop not ecclesiastically-approved? Many theologians now openly oppose the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, and many have opposed the Second Vatican Council.

Feser quotes Tuas Libenter by Pope Pius IX on this claim. But Pius IX was merely saying that the ordinary universal Magisterium, exercised by the Roman Pontiff and the body of Bishops dispersed in the world, is able to be recognized in its particular infallible teachings through the work of theologians. Pius IX was not adding theologians to the body of Bishops as those who can exercise that infallible magisterium. Neither was he detaching the infallibility of the ordinary universal Magisterium from the Pope and all Bishops, assigning it to the body of ecclesiastically-approved theologians. This claim, read from time to time in different author’s works, is contrary to the teaching of the Church on the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops, which is from their place as successors to the Apostles chosen by Christ. But the Lord did not choose a group of theologians, to add to the Apostles, who would also have the teaching authority of Christ.

The Teaching of the Church

Feser is correct that non-infallible papal teachings can err, to some extent. And I would disagree with O’Regan and Walford that such errors as are possible are very limited, for several reasons.

1. When Pope Honorius I was accused by some fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople, Pope Saint Agatho intervened with a letter accepted into the acts of the Council (action XVIII), making his teaching on the never-failing faith of Popes the teaching of the Council.

What does Pope Saint Agatho say? Due to the guidance of the Pope, the Church “has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error.” And he says that the whole Church and the Ecumenical Councils follow the Roman Pontiff. Then Saint Agatho says that the Church “has received the Christian faith” from the Popes, who are “the princes of the Apostles of Christ”. And that this faith therefore remains “undefiled unto the end”. He also teaches that the “uprightness of the orthodox faith” has been established upon Peter and that “by his grace and guardianship” the faith “remains free from all error”. Thus, no grave errors are possible by any Roman Pontiff, nor can a Roman Pontiff fail in faith.

Then Agatho also teaches: “since it is the Lord and Savior of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing….” Thus, no Pope can fail in faith by committing heresy, not even as a private person.

And after Agatho died, when some Council fathers again rose up against Honorius, despite the teaching of Agatho, Pope Saint Leo II, in the three Latin letters approving of the Council, also changed the sentence against Honorius from heresy to negligence.

Catholic Encyclopedia: “Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence.”

Pope Leo II to the Bishops of Spain: “Honorius, who did not immediately extinguish the flame of the heretical teaching, as would befit the apostolic authority, but supported it by his negligence”.

Pope Leo II to the king of Spain: “Honorius of Rome, who allowed the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition that he had received from his predecessors to be stained….”

Pope Leo II to the Roman emperor: “And, we in like manner, anathemized the inventors of the new error, namely, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Phyrrus … and also Honorius, who did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather he allowed the immaculate [Church] to be stained by profane treason.”

From the example of Honorius, we see that Popes can err in a substantial way, such as by negligence in defending the Faith from heretical error. But it is also clear that claims that Honorius actually taught or committed heresy are refutable.

Pope Paul IV, in his well-known document “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”, did not, as many wrongly claim, asset that Popes could be heretics. Rather, the Roman Pontiff is not mentioned in the long list of persons who might commit heresy (except that a man might commit heresy before becoming Pope). However, Paul IV does propose that the Pope might deviate from the faith to some lesser extent:

Paul IV: “the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God, and of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted, if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

This deviation from the Faith cannot be that of apostasy, heresy, or schism, as Paul IV considers all manner of persons who might commit such sins, such grave failings of faith, but never the current valid Roman Pontiff. So when Paul IV says a Pope might deviate from the Faith, he means a lesser deviation. Then, when Pope Saint John Paul II, citing Pope Innocent III, both say that the Pope cannot deviate from the Faith, they mean grave errors and grave failings of faith:

John Paul II: “In foretelling the triple denial which Peter would make out of fear during the passion, Jesus also predicted that he would overcome the crisis of that night: ‘Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail, and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers’ (Lk 22:31-32). With these words Jesus guaranteed Simon a special prayer for the perseverance of his faith, but he also announced the mission entrusted to him of strengthening his brothers in the faith.”
…
“This is what Innocent III wrote in the Letter Apostolicae Sedis Primatus (November 12, 1199), citing the text of Luke 22:32 and commenting on it as follows: ‘The Lord clearly intimates that Peter’s successors will never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but will instead recall the others and strengthen the hesitant’ (DS 775). That medieval Pope felt that Jesus’ statement to Simon Peter was confirmed by the experience of 1,000 years.”

So we see that Popes can err to some lesser extent, even so much that Pope Saint Leo would accuse a predecessor of negligence in defending against heresy, or that Pope Paul IV would accuse a hypothetical Pope of possibly deviating from the Faith. But ample other sources in Church teaching here also establish that Popes cannot fail gravely in faith (Lk 22:32) and cannot err gravely in exercising the Keys of Peter.

So Dr. Feser is right to criticize Emmett O’Regan and Stephen Walford for their position which makes the non-infallible teachings of the papal magisterium not much different from infallible teachings. However, Feser fails to consider that the Lord Jesus, in His solicitude for souls and their salvation, would protect Peter and his successors from failing in faith and from grave error, for the sake of the Church and the path of salvation of those whom the Church is tasked by Christ to save.

Ronald L. Conte Jr.

1. per Unam Sanctam
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church 892
3. All are offered salvation, but not all accept that offer.
4. Bellarmine, Robert. On the Roman Pontiff, vol. 2: Books III-V (De Controversiis) (p. 160). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
5. Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii; quoted by Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 12.