I’ve spend much time and many words defending Pope Francis and other Popes, as well as defending the papacy itself and the Ecumenical Councils. However, I want to be perfectly clear that when I refer to the non-infallible decisions of a Roman Pontiff on doctrine or discipline, such decisions can err to some extent. A non-infallible papal decision on doctrine is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. A non-infallible papal decision on discipline is a ruling (judgment or sentence) of the temporal authority of the Church. Such teachings and rulings can err; they do not meet the conditions for infallibility. However, the extent to which they can err is limited.
To defend the Pope is a holy work. To speak and act as if every word or deed of any Pope were infallible is a demonstrative heresy (a heresy put into practice). Pope’s are subject to legitimate faithful criticism in non-infallible decisions as well as in personal remarks and opinions. We must not treat any Pope as if he were always infallible in all things. Pope’s rightly expect the obedience of faith for their decisions of doctrine and discipline, even when non-infallible, but they never expect to be treated as if their every decision on doctrine and discipline were infallible.
On the other hand, we must not refuse submission to any Pope, and we must not malign, hate, ridicule, nor express malice or contempt for any Pope. We must not automatically oppose most or all of his decisions on doctrine or discipline. And his words and deeds, official or personal, must be considered in charity, not with bias or suspicion.
The Church has two types of authority, the spiritual authority, also called the teaching authority or Magisterium, and the temporal authority, which governs discipline. The latter includes those portions of Canon law that are not direct expressions of teachings on faith or morals; rules for religious orders; liturgical form; judgments of the prudential order; and the like. The Church also has, in principle, temporal authority over the whole world, including all of secular society, to judge what is good or bad in secular laws, customs, words and deeds [per Unam Sanctam]. As for the spiritual authority, the Church does in fact teach the whole world, though we know that many non-Catholics do not accept this teaching. The spiritual authority and the temporal authority of the Church are the two swords of Her authority, as explained in Unam Sanctam.
The term Magisterium only refers to the teaching authority of the Church, not including the temporal authority. However, some Church documents do use the term Magisterium more broadly, to mean the entire authority of the Church over doctrine and discipline. Concerning documents themselves, only the teachings in the document are of the Magisterium, the teaching authority; and only the rulings of the document on discipline are of the temporal authority. A document is not itself infallible; only the teachings within that meet the criteria for infallibility would be infallible, not the document per se. It is possible that a document would consist of nothing but infallible teachings, but that would be unusual. A document issued by the Apostolic See may contain teachings, rulings on discipline, as well as other remarks, exhortations, observations about society or the Church, etc. We should distinguish between doctrine and discipline, between what is authoritative, and what is not.
Dogmatic facts are infallible judgments of the prudential order, which are also essential or important to the belief and practice of the Catholic Christian Faith. These fall under the temporal authority, under discipline broadly considered. Thus, both the teaching authority and the temporal authority can teach or rule infallibly. Some persons categorize dogmatic facts under the Magisterium, even though such decisions on facts are not drawn from Tradition or Scripture. All good discipline is based on doctrine, but discipline is nevertheless an exercise of temporal authority, not teaching authority.
To what extent can non-infallible papal teachings and decisions of discipline err?
1. Not to a grave extent, as this would contradict the charism of truth and never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff, as well as the indefectibility of the Church. No infallible or non-infallible teaching of any Pope or decision of discipline can lead the faithful away from the path of salvation, lead into grave sin, harm the indefectibility of the Church, or gravely contradict Tradition or Scripture or faith or morals. If it seems that the Pope or an Ecumenical Council has erred to a grave extent, then the grave error is in your understanding. You are not infallible. You do not have the papal charisms. If you go astray, the indefectibility of the Church is not lost.
2. Not habitually. Even though a set of teachings is non-infallible, this does not imply that the teachings always or usually contain some error. Most non-infallible teachings are entirely correct, though they might benefit from additional development before being declared a dogma. Other non-infallible teachings may be entirely correct, but they are simply not important enough to be given the status of dogma.
3. Non-infallible teachings and rulings are not necessarily without any error; they are not infallible. But the extent of error in non-infallible teachings is not limited to merely trivial errors. Some real errors are possible, which will be reversed or corrected by the Magisterium in the future.
The Pope cannot go astray or lead astray. He has the charism of truth and never-failing faith and he is protected by the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. For Christ and His Vicar constitute one only head of the one Church.
It is problematic when some Catholic commentators treat every papal decision as if it were perfect and necessarily without error. (And I don’t care how many new subscribers such videos gain for your YouTube channel.) It is not a fair presentation of Catholic teaching to speak and act as if non-infallible decisions were infallible. Some decisions of discipline may be imprudent. Some teachings may need further development or clarification. Some actual errors can be found in non-infallible papal teachings.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
I agree the pope can err. However the current situation with the declaration is not an error. It is the Beginning of a new understanding of the Church on the great Love of God expressed in the Gospel and in the personal encounters of the Son of God Jesus while walking on Earth, who didn’t refuse blessing, healing, and forgiveness to Anyone, even the worst of His enemies and enemies of the Father. He called Judas a friend when Judas betrayed Him with a kiss. I don’t know the exact clothing of words that will take in the next papal documents. But that is a new line of interpretation and understanding of the infallible Gospel truth, A new Pentecost if you will, that was called for and expected from St John XXIII, St Paul VI and St John Paul II, not only on Vatican II but on following meetings including world youth days. That line was not all in vain or was it? Apparitions approved it too. The fact that the ultraconservatives reject the Sts. John XXIII and Paul VI and almost reject the great St John Paul II, doesn’t change anything. Their understanding is the wrong one, not that of the popes and most of bishops in the last 70 years. Otherwise, we would have today elected instead of pope Francis a “pope Sarah or pope Vigano”, burning of books, and shrinking the church to less than 50 million fanatics spread in pockets on all continents. And above all, that is a very erroneous understanding of the Love and Truth of God. No better than the sects and heresies of old. Maybe much worse. Because back then they barely had people to read and write, and now today we have all the knowledge of the Fathers upon the click of a button. God spoke differently through His Only begotten Son, not with the words of Vigano. I can also read what the words of Jesus are. I don’t need Vigano to tell me his absurd nightmarish vision of the world. I don’t want to live in the world of Vigano, that extended in perspective and unrepented on time would ultimately lead souls to Hell. And I wonder those who seek each half word of pope Francis to accuse him in heresy, how they don’t see the beam in their leaders’ eyes and in their own. We either absolve the Inquisition and declare that was the will of God, among bloody fraternal wars, or we move forward that is actually back to the roots of the Gospel, to Peter and Jesus. That move was already done in the recent Church history, on Vatican I and II. But some didn’t and don’t accept it. That is the problem, and not the human errors of popes. Can’t both lines be true, one of them is false, deceitful. I can’t read anywhere in the words of Jesus to Peter: “burn them all, kill them all, burn their books, send them to hell, shrink the flock to only those who accept the letter of the law unless you want me to throw you to hell too”. No, I don’t find those words. Never ever. Whoever thinks so, has to examine very deeply what it is that he actually believes in. Jesus the Son of the living God, who preached Love and forgiveness and who died so we can live? or someone and something else, a cruel god who is not god at all rather a medieval tyrant. The devil also knows the law in perfection so to be able to accuse everyone at his hour of death and bring him to hell. St Faustina has more on it. And those people pretend they know her and everything else, that they practice Divine mercy…then please stop burning people alive, start forgiving, start from yourselves. You need it, brothers and sisters. You can’t enter in the Kingdom of God unless you become like children. The children don’t blame popes and don’t burn books.
“But that is a new line of interpretation and understanding of the infallible Gospel truth, A new Pentecost if you will….”
No! The idea that a new understanding of the Gospel can be issued by the Church, or can develop over time is a heresy. Vatican I says:
“14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding [36].”
“3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”
“6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
I am sorry for my outburst at your quoting of Vatican I about the dogmas AS IF RELATED TO MY WRITING, I reacted only because I accept 100 percent all the Dogmas, new and old. You can’t just pick a line from me and throw at me dogmatic accusations when such are completely baseless! Just read all John Paul II wrote before saying that there couldn’t be a better understanding of the same Gospel truth that is unchangeable! What word can be used, if we ban the words understanding, interpretation, explanation? Just tell me so I can use that new coined word! Because those are the words I use, the priests I know use, the popes use. We don’t change the truth, we read it everyday and reflect on it, Ron! Sure we don’t change dogmas. Explanation, interpretation, reflection, is done even in the Sunday schools when you are required to read and talk about, i.e. interpret in a limited way, and find again a new source of grace at every line in the Gospel! And what is it that the priest is doing every Sunday other than explaining and interpreting the Gospel words so we understand them? With examples of today’s life? Or with elaborated interpretations of fathers such as Thomas Aquinas? What other word to use, Ron? Don’t catch me for the word, please! We call it Interpretation of the Gospel in the homily. How you call it IDK. What other word you would use instead of interpretation of Gospel in homily, in documents, in encyclicals, or maybe explanation-interpretation, IDK. I never meant changing of dogmas. Go tell the priests who teach the kids, that they should not read the Gospel and reflect on it, rather they should read the Fathers point by point fearing and trembling should any word of theirs trespasses point Number 502 in volume 53…And which fathers then if the 3rd century fathers have written before the 4th century ones, and they are before the 5th century, and so on…Does it mean I should not read St Augustine in his vast understanding and explaining the Gospel, interpreting yes not changing the dogma but explaining and interpreting the text what the modern word interpreting actually means what I put in it here? Because Augustine is SMARTER than many of the fathers before him and may have said a word or a chapter or even a book more than them that they didn’t think about before? Same goes for Thomas Aquinas and down the centuries to John XXIII. Come on, Ron, I did not expect that from you, and I demand an apology. I never ever dismissed any dogma!
The blessing of the people with gay tendencies and sins is not a heresy. i stand behind the pope on that. It is not a dogma either. If that is trespassing of a dogma, first accuse the holy father before you accuse me. I think this is not an error of the pope. The gays must be blessed one way or another. The same way an adulterous woman who had 10 abortions and counting, would go to confession and be absolved and receive holy communion. Or a doctor who performed hundreds, thousands of abortions. The homosexuality is not the ultimate sin. I think we discussed that already. Rather the opposite – the Vigano sect wants a case to accuse pope Francis of heresy, and what worse noisier and … case than accusing him of what they are accusing him for. I dont want even to repeat his blasphemies against the holy Father.
It doesn’t matter if I write more or not, actually I feel I already said everything as of now. And whether tomorrow there will be something new IDK. But I didn’t deserve after all my writings in your blog to be accused of trespassing dogmas! Because I didn’t. Others should.
Vigano must be excommunicated before doing more damage to the souls. Before we turn the page back. Vigano today doesn’t have the power to do it, but has the will to do it. What if tomorrow he gets the power too? Politics know changes. Who could imagine Hitler climbing on the world stage so quickly with such disastrous consequences? A second Hitler may see in Vigano a natural ally. Just saying.
card. Sarah already speaks of a united Africa against the pope! is the pope’s declaration so demonic? You can’t have both card. Sarah and pope Francis right on that! It is OK to bless sinners, not sin. What are we seeing happening? Hungary against the pope! Why? Because of Orban of course. All those African countries that lined up, have anti gay laws that can see imprisonment or even death sentences in extreme.
We have a politically colored revolt of dependent bishops against the pope! Sure few of them act according to their skewed consciences, whose names we all know. But for most of them it is political colored map what we see. Don’t you see it already?
The result the logical result of all that is two conclaves one valid one fake. Along the political lines.
The pope didn’t do anything heretical. Not even a mistake. Jesus blessed everyone even the adulterers, and that is not even the biggest sin in the list. But you don’t address that in my writings, you shoot at me because I am more liberal than the average poster. not so much liberal though. I refuse to be labelled as such because I am not. Anyway, the things are already said. I am not worried about my standing in your blog or in your eyes, because I stand before God and before the pope. I would be glad though if there are friends, and if I see a correction and clarification of your dogmatic review, not regarding my uninteresting views but regarding the current situation in the Church. Who actually trespasses dogmas today? Who of the top princes of the church? Because it can’t be both sides to be right. One is the guilty one. And that one is not the pope.
Ben, I was not accusing you of heresy or denying dogma. I was simply correcting that one section of what you wrote. Do not say: “It is the Beginning of a new understanding of the Church….” or “I don’t know the exact clothing of words that will take in the next papal documents. But that is a new line of interpretation and understanding of the infallible Gospel truth….” These statements, as worded, are not correct theologically. I don’t know what you meant, I was just correcting the way you worded it.
Most of what you write in your many comments on this blog are correct and helpful. So I hope you continue to contribute.
Ron, maybe I used incorrect words, hyperbolic, or with different meaning, moreover English is not my first language. I tried to clarify that I didn’t mean the change of the Gospel, the dogmas, etc.
Happy New Year!
OK, good. Happy new year!
Dear Ron,
I agree that Popes can err to some extent in non-infallible/non-definitive judgments. Sometimes, though, it takes time to see that these judgments were erroneous (even if they were made in good faith). The 1715 decision of Pope Clement XI to forbid Chinese Catholics from participating in the civic rites of veneration of Confucius and other ancestors proved to be harmful to Catholic evangelization in China. In retrospect, the earlier position taken by Ven. Matteo Ricci, S.J. (d. 1610) was the correct approach; and the Holy See vindicated Ricci’s approach in 1939. We can also think of papal attitudes towards torture. Pope Innocent I in 405 allowed for the use of judical torture by Christian magistrates. Pope Nicholas I, however, in 866 taught that neither divine nor human law allows such torture (cf. Denz.-H, 648). Innocent IV, however, approved the use of torture by the Inquisition in 1252. In 1993, though, John Paul II included torture among acts that are intrinsically evil (Veritatis Splendor, no. 80). We can look back and say that Popes Innocent I and Innocent IV were in error about torture, but they were not opposing any definitive teaching on the subject at the times when they made their judgments. Their judgments, in retrospect, were erroneous but not heretical.
Thanks, that helps.
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for this article, which is, I believe, accurate and helpful. I like the fact that you note that the words and deeds of the Pope must be viewed with charity and not with “bias or suspicion.” I would also add that we need to make an effort to understand what the Holy Father or the DDF is saying. With regard to Fiducia Supplicans, there is no approval of blessing same sex unions or of blessing sin. There is, though, the recognition that in some circumstances non-liturgical blessings can be given to people in irregular relationships who acknowledge their need for God’s help. If these people are in mortal sin, the hope is that the actual graces received from the blessing can move them towards repentance and the restoration of sanctifying grace. Catholcis can question the prudence of Fiducia Supplicans or note some omissions in emphasis. There is, though, the need to read the declaration in a spirit of charity and without “bias or suspicion.”
In terms of history, I think we need to understand that some papal teachings that might be considered “errors” were made in good faith at a time before the matter had been clarified. When Pope Nicholas I ruled in 866 that those who were baptized “only in the name of Christ” should not be baptized again, he was relying on Acts 2:38 and 19:5 as well as St. Ambrose for his judgment (see Denz-H 646). His judgment, though, was non-definitive and open to subsequent clarification. The same principle applies to Pope John XXII. It seems that he actually affirmed the position of the full beatific vision prior to the resurrection of the body in his bulls of canonization of 1317, 1320, and 1323 (cf. X. Le Bachelet, “Benoit XII” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [DTC] 2:659). John XXII’s subsequent study of Scripture (Rev. 6: 9–11), the Church Fathers (e.g. St. Augustine), and theologians such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux led him, however, to a different position, which he presented in three homilies of 1331–1332. As Joseph Ratzinger writes: “In the texts of the fathers he [John XXII] discovered the doctrine of waiting for heaven which, as we have seen, dominated the entire patristic period and could still be found, in living continuity with that period, at more than one point in the works of Bernard of Clairvaux [c.1090–1153]” (J. Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, 2nd. Ed., trans. M. Waldstein, CUA Press, 2006, pp. 136–137). John XXII’s error was made in good faith prior to the clarification of the matter by his successor, Benedict XII in 1336. Catholics can raise questions about non-definitive teachings, but it’s ultimately up to the Magisterium to clarify the issue not private individuals. Catholics, though, should avoid accusing popes of error even with respect to non-definitive teachings. This is because the accusing Catholics might themselves be in error rather than the popes.
Thanks, that is helpful, and I agree, for the most part. However, my position is that some real errors, which are less than grave, can occur in a non-infallible decision of doctrine or discipline by the Pope.
Catholics who think they have found errors in non-infallible teachings are more likely to be the ones who have erred. And this is proven by the widespread disagreements with one another, among those who are shouting that Pope Francis has erred.
This is interesting, the distinction between doctrine and discipline is helpful on the one hand, but disheartening because it leaves doctrine open to be hidden by abusive practises. Is there a limit to the separation of Doctrine and Discipline? I can see fiducia supplicans is not directly contradicting doctrine, but I have severe criticisms about its implementation.
Doctrine cannot err to the extent of leading the faithful astray. I think the criticisms of FS are valid, but usually exaggerated. Bishops and priests have discretion in its implementation. I think the next Pope is likely to reverse FS, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
12 more hours to Christmas,2023. From Sri Lanka, Wish you a happy Christmas to you all in USA and the world.
I saw a difference this year prior to Christmas after year 2010. After natural disasters like heavy rains, floods, earth slips and storms last few days with good sunshine, can see the sun, small wind, beautiful butterflies, 25 centigrade(good cool temperature), no rain and people are in happy mode. Grace from God?
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ.
God bless you, Fernando, and your loved ones.
Adultery is a sin. But can bless them.
How Jesus did to lady?
Said ,don’t do that sin again. And bless her.
If I am wrong, correct me please.
what’s pope Francis procedure?
Only bless. Don’t advise same-sex couples to Continue the sin or stop it.
Repentance?
Sinners have the free choice.
Always don’t defend pope. He is a human being. We should worship only to God.
We should venerate to saints. Higher veneration to Mother Mary.
Don’t venerate to pope Francis.
I think, highest respect, we should offer.
So, our responsibility is to think, ourselves. Conscience is given for what purpose? Not be slaves. God has given free thinking, freewill to us.
Why we white wash pope?
What we gain?
If our behaviour is like this, then in future , Anti Christ and false pope advice to take 666, Mark of the beast, what we do?