This post is about present-day mild to moderate criticisms of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis. I’ve already written at length about the severe critics of the Pope, many of whom have fallen into schism and/or heresy openly. But even when criticism of the Pope is not schismatic or heretical, and is not severe, it can be disordered.

What I’m reading, without pointing a finger at anyone in particular, among the mild to moderate critics of the Pope, is a common assumption. The critic speaks as if his or her own opinion is an inarguable conclusion. So in each criticism of Pope Francis, the assumption is that the Pope is certainly wrong, and the position of the critic is certain or obvious or entirely well-established. Such critics often clearly state that they are not accusing the Pope of heresy or other severe accusations. That is all well and good. But it is a sin of pride, in each of several, even many criticisms of any Pope, to assume that one is always right and the Pope is always wrong, point after point.

Even when we are talking about the Pope’s personal opinions, or off-hand remarks to the press, in which there is no question of an act of the magisterium or an exercise of the Keys of Peter, it is arrogant to assume that the Pope is wrong merely because your personal opinions differs.

Then when it comes to official non-infallible decisions of the Pope on doctrine or discipline, under the Keys given to Peter and his successors by Christ, these critics continue the same assumption, that the Pope must be wrong whenever it seems so to the critics. Their excuse is that the Pope is not exercising infallibility, and therefore he can be wrong. But these critics are never able to exercise infallibility. Even an individual Bishop or Cardinal cannot exercise infallibility, but can only possibly participate in the infallible Magisterium, for example in an Ecumenical Council or in the ordinary universal Magisterium. So the excuse that the Pope is exercising the Keys of Peter non-infallibly is absurd. The fact that the Pope can possibly err to some extent in what is non-infallible in no way establishes or even supports the claim that these critics are right and the Pope is wrong, especially when this assumption extends across many different points on doctrine and discipline.

First of all, what are the odds. Suppose a Pope is retired, so he no longer exercises the Keys of Peter, and he can err to any extent, theoretically. Even then, what are the odds that on every questions of doctrine and discipline, such a hypothetical retired Pope would err on every point, and every one of his critics would be right on many different questions regarding the Church? The odds are laughably large, making it clear that such critics are full of themselves. They are infected with a severe pride, which makes them imagine that, in some cases, every Pope and Council which they criticize on non-infallible matters is wrong whenever the Pope or Council differs from their own opinion. When did Christ promise indefectibility to anyone who raises themselves up to criticize a Pope or Council? Never. Only Peter was promised the papal charisms. Only Peter is the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church, the Rock on which the Church is founded — only Peter and his successors, every one of them. Then the body of Bishops shares in some but not all of the papal charisms, only as a body and only when led by the Roman Pontiff. When the Council of Chalcedon attempted to claim that Constantinople (“New Rome”) was in some ways equal to Rome within the Church, the Bishops at the Council approved that Canon, which was rejected by the two priests who were the papal legates and of course later rejected by the Roman Pontiff. All the Cardinals and Bishops put together cannot oppose the Roman Pontiff on any matter, infallible or non-infallible.

Another serious error of these mild to moderate critics of the Pope, in addition to the pride of assuming that their own conclusions are inarguable, is the claim that the Roman Pontiff, when exercising the Keys of Peter non-infallibly, can err to any extent. Even when these critics are not accusing the Pope of heresy, they tend to assume that the Pope can err to any extent short of heresy. But this is not true, and the ancient constant teaching of the Church refutes such a claim.

The Pope is the pilot and navigator of the Ark of Salvation. He is the Vicar of Christ, and Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head of the one Church. The Pope cannot be habitually wrong on doctrine and discipline, as this would endanger the course of the Ark and so endanger the salvation of the many souls depending on that Ark. And it is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church for the Pope, or the body of Bishops led by the Pope, to err either gravely on doctrine or discipline, or instead to err to a limited extent, but so often as to constitute, altogether, a grave error as a set. Any such grave errors or set of errors joined together cannot occur as this contradicts the dogma of indefectibility and the dogma of the papal charisms.

Even when the Pope is merely expressing his opinion, it is foolish and arrogant to assume that he is wrong merely because you think otherwise. Many of these critics have gained a large following on the internet, and have spent years explaining their version of the Gospel to that large group. And when suddenly a Pope arises who is contradicting what such critics have taught for many years, mistakenly taught I would say, as the truths of the faith, they assume the Pope is wrong. They have forgotten that they are merely assistants to the successors of the Apostles, and assistants to the Vicar of Christ, in proclaiming the Gospel. They have long presented themselves as pseudo-authoritative teachers of the Faith, and their main connection to the Magisterium is presenting their own interpretation. But the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and of the body of Bishops led by the Roman Pontiff is the sole authoritative interpreter of Tradition and Scripture.

If you think that a Pope is contradicting Tradition or Scripture, that is not truth; it is merely what you think. Don’t confuse infallible Tradition and Scripture with your personal interpretation of the same. You critics of the Pope can mildly to moderately criticize any Roman Pontiff, if you have a theological argument based on Tradition, Scripture, or the Magisterium. But you cannot assume that your conclusions are certain. And if you disagree at every turn with the Pope, it is certain that you are mistaken, just as it is certain that Christ never ceases to assist the Pope, the body of Bishops, and the Church as a whole in continuing on the path of truth and eternal life.

Ronald L Conte Jr