Let’s start with a different dogma, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. At no time in her life did the Blessed Virgin Mary have sexual relations, neither with Joseph, her husband, nor with any other person. This is dogma, and the contrary is heresy. We believe this based on faith.

It should be evident that this belief must be based on faith, as we cannot prove, in the sense of a court-case-like argument and evidence, this truth. For such an approach would use prudential judgment, exercised by the minds of fallen sinners, who can err gravely in evaluating evidence and arguments.

And we know that some Christians, largely Protestants and some heretical Catholics, claim that Joseph and Mary had marital relations, based on their personal interpretation of Bible verses referring to the “brothers” of Jesus. This term “brothers” is interpreted by the Magisterium as referring to more distant relatives of Jesus, such as cousins. But they do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium on faith; they follow their own understanding.

These persons contradict the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity by an argument based on reason — the reason of fallen sinners, which is subject to the possibility of grave errors. They say that Joseph and Mary were married, and that it is only reasonable to consider that they had marital relations, as do other spouses. Of course, the Bible does state that Jesus was not conceived of Joseph, but of the Holy Spirit [Mt 1:18, 20, 23] and that Mary was a virgin [Lk 1:27, 34-35]; even so, some Christians do not accept all that the Bible teaches, as their faith is weak.

So we see in the case of this dogma about the Blessed Virgin Mary that only by faith can we fallen sinners believe what the Church infallibly teaches. Certain truths are accessible to reason alone, but due to the fallen state, even those truths are sometimes not accepted by those who live by reason alone. Therefore, God teaches in divine revelation, both the truths that are only accessible by faith in revelation and the truths that are in principle acceptable to reason (but difficult for fallen sinners to attain and to accept firmly.)

Those Christians who use only reason to consider the subject, easily fall into grave error. The prudential judgment of fallen sinners, who therefore are relying on the faculty of reason injured by concupiscence, personal sins, and the sinfulness of others, can err gravely. Therefore, we must rely on faith to believe the teachings of the Church, rather than reason alone. Now faith and reason cooperate together in the faithful of the Church, but faith must be placed above the reason of fallen sinners, so as to avoid grave error.

The same is true for other dogmas. The dogma of the charism of truth and never-failing faith given to Peter and his successors is based on the Bible verse Luke 22:32, in which Jesus says the following:

{22:32} But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may confirm your brothers.”

The Popes, Councils, Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church have always understood these words spoken by Jesus as referring to a special charism (a divinely-conferred gift) given to Peter and his successors. See the many sources for this teaching on never-failing faith here. And the First Vatican Council, by a definitive act, has proclaimed this charism of truth and never-failing faith [Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4, n. 6-7] as the true interpretation of these words of Jesus and as the ancient and constant teaching of the Church. Therefore, this teaching is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium and the First Vatican Council; it is a dogma of the Catholic Christian Faith.

Now apostasy, heresy, schism, and idolatry are gravely contrary to the charism of never-failing faith. And since this gift is a charism of truth as well as faith — the truths of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium, which must be believed with the virtue of faith — in addition to securing the faith of the Pope, his teachings under the Magisterium and decisions of discipline also cannot err gravely. And this explanation of the charism of truth and never-failing faith is confirmed by the many sources for this teaching on never-failing faith here. For a grave error even in a non-infallible decision on doctrine or discipline would be harmful to the faith of the members of the Church and would harm the indefectibility of the Church. So the charism of truth and never-failing faith prevents this.

Therefore, it is certain that no valid Roman Pontiff has ever failed gravely in faith, nor erred gravely on doctrine or discipline. Excluded by this dogma is every type of heresy by a Roman Pontiff, such as that he taught material heresy or that he has committed formal heresy, whether publicly or even only in his heart and mind. This is a matter of faith. It is not refuted by a prudential judgment from the reasoning of fallen sinners, reviewing claims about one particular Pope or another that he allegedly taught or believed heresy. This type of judgment can err gravely. Anyone who accuses any Roman Pontiff of heresy, since the definitive proclamation of the First Vatican Council on the charism of truth and never-failing faith, is asserting material heresy, and may be guilty of formal heresy, if they knowingly and deliberately reject this dogma.

It is a dogmatic fact that Pope Honorius I did not teach material heresy, nor commit formal heresy. The claims and alleged evidence against him can be refuted by faith and reason. But regardless of that type of argument and its alleged evidence, the never-failing faith of every Pope is a dogma. If the argument or evidence appears to contradict the dogma, then the dogma must still be believe by faith and the argument and its evidence must be rejected.

Vatican I, Dei Filius: “6. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

7. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

8. Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit.

9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.”

The same is true for the accusations of heresy against Pope John 22, and any other Pope. Some even accuse Vatican I and Vatican II of heresy or grave errors, contrary to the charism of truth and never-failing faith. For that charism applies not only to each and every Roman Pontiff, but also to any Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff and to the ordinary universal magisterium, which always includes the teaching and approval of the Roman Pontiff.

These Popes and Councils are accused of heresy and other grave errors by those who have fallen away from the true Faith. They fell away because the Popes and Councils do not teach the distorted version of the Faith found in their sinful minds and in the erroneous subculture of conservatism or traditionalism or liberalism to which they adhere instead of adhering to the Magisterium of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

But the papal accusers do not accept any argument which defends the charism of truth and never-failing faith or the Magisterium of Popes and Councils. They have malice toward Pope Francis, and they are determined to accuse him of grave failings of faith. And so, in order to seemingly prove that he could be or is guilty of heresy, they accuse many Roman Pontiffs of heresy and grave failings of faith. Since this accusation is contrary to the teachings of Vatican I (and other Councils), they also attack the Ecumenical Councils.

It is useful to use reason and arguments to defend Popes and Councils before the members of the Church who have faith, and also before those who may have been misled by false or misinformed teachers. But it is futile to present explanations and arguments, based on faith and reason, to the papal accusers. They have rejected the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels on Peter and his successors and on the indefectibility of the Church. They have rejected the myriad of teachings throughout Church history on the papal charisms. They either have lost the infused theological virtue of faith (implying that they are not in the state of grace), or their faith is so weakened by their own sins and the sins of others that they fail to believe what the Church definitively and plainly teaches. May God correct them.

All accusations of papal heresy are heretical and schismatic. For anyone who thinks that a Roman Pontiff teaches heresy or is a heretic will certainly refuse submission to that Pope. And this heresy and refusal of submission, with their consequent additional sins, are clearly seen in those Catholics who openly express malice, hatred, contempt, and ridicule toward Pope Francis. Such expressions are gravely contrary to the infused theological virtue of charity (love), and therefore would be an actual mortal sin, if committed with full knowledge and full deliberation.

If you disagree with the Roman Pontiff on a non-infallible point of doctrine or discipline, maybe you are right and the Pope has erred, to a limited (non-grave) extent. But if you commit sins of hatred, malice, contempt and ridicule against the Vicar of Christ, because you are convinced that you are right and he is wrong, you could end up in Hell, if you do not repent, despite being right.

On the other hand, if you accuse any Pope or Council of grave errors on doctrine or discipline, or of grave failures of faith, you cannot be correct as the accusation itself contradicts the dogmas of the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith, which is shared by the body of Bishops when they decide matters of doctrine or discipline with the Roman Pontiff. The Popes and Councils are protected from all error when deciding matters infallibly, and are protected from all grave errors when deciding matters non-infallibly.

Ronald L Conte Jr