Papal Authority and Vatican II

Papal Authority and Vatican II

A Defense of Those who say Vatican II taught errors

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Introduction:

The very grave state of affairs in the Catholic Church and in the world today is asserted by Catholics who accept the Deposit of the Faith in the manner it has been proposed by ecclesiastical tradition, unsullied, from the death of the last Apostle, St. John, until today, as being formally caused by the novelties introduced by the documents of the Second Vatican Council. On the other hand, such Catholics are often accused of being “more catholic than the Pope” and on the other hand of being dissenters, heretics, and/or schismatics, on account of their implicit or explicit assertion that a believer is free to reject the novelties which have been imposed by the Popes and Bishops upon the entire Church since the time of the council. Such Catholics are furthermore attacked both by adherents of the Council who claim to be “conservatives” or “loyal Catholics” or “pro-Pope”, and those liberals who seek an every changing religion, as well as by Sedevacantists and other schismatics, whom Mr. Christopher Ferrara, refuted recently at great length, and with many well founded arguments, in the pages of The Remnant and Catholic Family News.

This controversy between Catholics and those who take an un-traditional (Sedevacantists) or anti-traditional (neo-Catholics, liberals, progressives) approach, touches many of the most basic, fundamental, and principal truths and dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and is caused, in the view of this author, by lack of a correct understanding of these both in themselves and in their application to this controversy, among the popes, bishops, clergy, religious and laity, during and since the time of the council.

This article is a defense of the Catholic position against the opponents of the traditions of the Church.

Preliminaries

Lest there be any misunderstanding, therefore, it behooves us all to review some of these truths, briefly, so as to understand precisely in what sense, what is to be said later in this article, is to be understood, so that the argument it advances and the conclusions it draws, will be seen to be as true as they are, and as well founded as they are.

Nature of Salvation and 3 of Its consequences:

The first great truth, which in this controversy, as well as in life, is to often forgotten today, is the very nature of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. In the centuries following the French Revolution, the suppression of the Papal States, and the rise of secularist states (whether atheistic, fascist or democratic), there is a sort of grand-conditioning of the minds and thought of believers to prescind from this consideration. This is on account of a preoccupation with temporal affairs and their controversies, on the undue acceptance of the errors of liberal thought, and of the nearly thorough diffusion of these errors in all aspects of modern life, culture, thought, entertainment, education, and institutions, both in the state and in the Church.

Now the Nature of the Salvation offered by Jesus Christ is nothing less that this: to be partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). Now God is the supreme, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, Goodness Itself, Truth Itself, Beauty Itself, the One Being, for whom to be what It is and to exist are the very same act and being. As such He is the Exemplary Cause of all orders of perfection, goodness, truth, beauty, and being. He is the Creator of all things, who has established the order of Nature and Her laws, who has created man and mankind, forming his body from the slime of the earth and creating his soul out of nothing.

Since the Nature of the Salvation offered by Christ is to partake of the Divine Nature, and since God is such as He is, a pure and eternal and incommutable Spirit, who is Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, there are, among others, several essential consequence of this offered Salvation, that are pertinent to this discussion.

The first consequence is that man cooperate in his own salvation by freely accepting and obeying this God, who has revealed Himself. This requires first, that God reveal Himself, that He manifest that He is God by signs worthy of the obligation of such a revelation, that man be capable of understanding these signs, and that these signs be made known to him, not only inasmuch as their existence is made known, but also as regards the correct understanding of these signs and their import as to his obligations in regard to God, and in virtue of this to all other creatures, and how to fulfill these obligations effectively, faithfully, and continuously.

The second consequence is that man associate and be associated with the God, who has revealed Himself to be a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Nature, and thus as the Eternal Community, who has thus willed to associate and be associated with man and men; whence it follows that it is an essential obligation of man in the acceptance of the Salvation offered by Christ to be in the created Community willed and established by the Eternal Uncreated Community of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The third consequence is that God, who is not only the First and Last Cause of all things, but also the concomitant cause of all created things, without Whom they could not remain in existence or have the power to posit any act, both in the natural order and in the supernatural order (the order of grace), establishes and sustains and intervenes in history to support, guide, lead, direct, encourage, nourish, etc. man to Him as to his Last End, and Eternal Refuge. For this reason, the very Nature of the Salvation offered to man, as well as his own feebleness, together necessitate that until the end of time, that God correspond by granting the charisms of indefectibility and infallibility to the created Community established by Him, that is, to the Catholic Church, outside of which it is essentially impossible to be saved.

The Rule of Faith:

In the traditional manuals of Catholic theology we learn that there is a Rule for right believing known as the Regula Fidei, that is, the Rule of Faith. This Rule is twofold, remote and proximate. The proximate rule for right believing is the Magisterium of the Church. The remote rule is the Deposit of the Faith, that is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We see this twofold Rule of Faith in the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council, wherein it is stated that the proximate rule of faith, the Magisterium, is itself bound to uphold the remote rule:

“The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with sacred scripture and the apostolic traditions.” (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter IV, n. 5)

And again:

“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. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (ibid., n. 6)

The content of the Deposit of Faith is inerrant, not infallible: because infallibility refers to the inability of a created intellect not to fall into an erroneous judgment, and by extension is transferred to the judgment of the truth of a proposition, such that “an infallible teaching”, is more precisely “teaching which is taught as truth, by a teacher who is protected from error by the grace of infallibility”. When we say, on the other hand, that Scripture is inerrant, we say that that which its verbal statements signify is not erroneous.

Now the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is taught infallibly by the Sacrosanct and Ecumenical Council of Trent, in its Fourth Session, April 8, 1546:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent — lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein — keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament — seeing that one God is the author of both — as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

It is important to note that at Trent, the Church not only anathematized those who do not receive the sacred and canonical Scriptures in their entirety, but who “knowingly and deliberately contemn”, that is do not accept, “the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, of from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted, as it were hand to hand”.

In this same decree of Trent we see the distinction in Sacred Tradition between those things which Christ handed down orally (Divine Tradition), and those things which the Apostles did (Apostolic Tradition). Jesus Christ being God, could not err, and hence everything He handed down orally was inerrant; likewise, after Pentecost, the teaching of the Apostles was protected from all error by a special charism, and hence Apostolic Tradition is also free from error.

Another inerrant tradition is Ecclesiastical Tradition: that is, those things which have come into being by means of the Church, by the Holy Ghost’s inspiration, in fidelity to the Deposit. That Ecclesiastical Tradition is also inerrant is clear, because, since Sacred Tradition is oral, there exists nothing to evidence its existence, except written or monumental historical examples, which evince the contents of Sacred Tradition. Among Ecclesiastical Tradition are things such as icons, the ancient rites of the Mass, the writings of the Fathers, Saints, Doctors of the Church, ancient prayers, such as the Akathist Hymn to Our Lady, etc. That ecclesiastical tradition is also inerrant, is taught infallibly by the Seventh Sacrosanct and Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea in 787 A.D.:

To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church — for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her — we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and savior, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honor these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other. So it is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received. So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr's holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. (Decree of Definition)

It is important to note, that whereas Sacred Tradition originates orally with Christ and the Apostles, (according to the Council of Trent), ecclesiastical tradition originates from the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church (according to Nicea II). For this reason, those who confound the teaching of Nicea as pertaining to Sacred Tradition, have not read closely the text of that council, for plainly, from these 2 origins, comes 2 kinds of tradition.

Authority and Magisterium:

As we continue the preliminary considerations, having considered the teaching of Trent and Nicea II on the Rule of Faith, we can now consider the definitions of Authority and Magisterium, without which the discussion which follows would be misunderstood.

“Authority” in English almost invariably today is understood as some sort of power or right to act or govern. In Latin “auctoritas” has a wider meaning, according to its usage in the Church. First, since in Latin “auctor”, from which “auctoritas” comes, means “actor” in the sense of “instigator” or “initiator”, “auctoritas” in Latin refers both to the power and right to act, as well as to that which we in English call “authorship”, and hence we have from the Latin “auctoritas”, such English words as “authoritative” and “authentic”. Finally, in Catholic Theology, a quote from any Father, Doctor, Saint, Philosopher or other noteworthy writer is called an “auctoritas”, and hence in Latin the “authorities of the Saints” [auctoritates Sanctorum] means both their authority as witnesses to the Faith, and the quotes of their writings which testify to their teachings. This sense of “authority” as “authentic” because it comes from the proper “author” or the one properly exercising the “authority”, must be kept in mind, when later we speak of the “authentic Magisterium”. Inasmuch as there can be an authority over minds as much as over hearts, so authority can regard either the authority to teach, and/or the authority to rule.

“Magisterium” is a Latin word derived from “magister”, the word for “teacher”; in English our word “master” is derived from “magister”, but we often forget that it originally meant “teacher” rather than “ruler” or “lord”. Thus when St. Bonaventure, in his famous discourse at the University of Paris proclaimed Christ as “ the One Master of All” [unus Magister omnium], he meant that Jesus was the universal Messiah, that is, Teacher of all mankind, the fount of Truth and Truth Himself. In catholic theology, “Magisterium” means: “an office of teaching”. Thus when we speak of the “papal magisterium”, we are not speaking about the Pope or the popes, but rather the exercise of their office of teaching, which they exercised as the Successor to St. Peter. Thus when the Pope speaks to you about what kinds of breakfast you prefer, the Papal Magisterium is not being engaged in any sense at all. It is important to understand that every “magisterium” or teaching office, is relative; that is, its exercise is restricted in relation to what it has the authority to teach. Thus Christ’s Magisterium was limited by what the Father had declared to Him, even as He said, “I have made known to you everything I have heard from My Father”. It contradicts the very definition of a “magisterium”, therefore to surpass the limits of the authority of the office. Thus just St. John the Baptist taught a baptism of penance to prepare the Jewish People for the coming of the Messiah, and when this was done, said both of his own person and the office he had been entrusted by the Holy Spirit to teach, “I must decrease, He must increase,” so every office of teaching is limited, and having fulfilled its purpose, has no more reason or justification to exist or act.

Truth and Teaching:

In our cynical age, which deservedly could take as its motto, that pointed question of Pontius Pilate, uttered to Our Lord in the Praetorium of Jerusalem: What is truth?, it behooves us to briefly review what is “truth”. The Angelic Doctor gives a suitably brief, but complete discussion in his Summa Theologiae, I, q. 16, art. 1:

Consequently, there are various definitions of truth. Augustine says, Truth is that whereby is made manifest that which is (On the True Religion, Bk. 36); and Hilary (of Poitiers) says that Truth makes being clear and evident (On the Trinity, Bk. V): and this pertains to truth according as it is in the intellect. As to the truth of things in so far as they are related to the intellect, we have Augustine’s definition, Truth is a supreme likeness, without any unlikeness, to its source (ibid.); also Anselm’s definition, Truth is rightness, perceptible by the mind alone (On Truth, Bk. XI); for that is right which is in accordance with its source; also Avicenna’s definition, The truth of each thing is a property of the being which has been given to it (Metaphysics, Bk.8, n. 6). The definition that Truth is the adequation of thought and thing is applicable to (truth) under either respect.

In this admirable summation, St. Thomas shows how truth, in its various correct definitions, is always tied to and limited by realty, and that at the same time the human intellect, like all created intellects, can only know truth, by knowing reality correctly. Truth is in this sense relative, because it is always a relation between reality as it is and an intellect judging correctly; but truth is absolute in the sense that this relationship is unique and unchanging, when the mind knows reality as it really is.

It follows from this notion of truth, that for “teaching” to be teaching in the proper sense, it must be “an authoritative declaration of truth”. Reason itself proves this so, for no one considers a teacher to be teaching in the proper sense of “teaching”, unless the teacher is teaching “truth” about something real. We do not say that actors are teaching, because actors are portray something that while it may signify something actual or historical, is not real. Likewise we do not say that musicians or artists or even poets, are teaching in the primary sense, because they are not communicating truth, but rather sounds, or images, or words for the sake of beauty or entertainment, and only instruction secondarily. For this reason Christ is the Teacher, par excellence, because with the highest authority, Divine Authority, He taught about the highest truth, God, who is Infinite Truth. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We also see from this definition of teaching, that without authority, no one teaches: for no one says that those who are sharing their opinions or gossip at the local pub are teaching anything, because no one does so with any claim to authority. Likewise the mass media properly should not be understood to teach anything, because even when they do speak the truth, they do not claim any authority, other than the facts themselves. For this reason, with every teacher, we presume and expect some authority to teach, either inasmuch has they hold some degree, or have received or been conferred with authority to do so, from above.

Error, Heresy and its Species:

What is not true, is false. What is not true in every sense, is in some sense false. Nothing can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. These are some self evident principles regarding truth. What is false is termed an “error” inasmuch as it is a “wandering” from the truth, because in Latin “to wander” is “errare”, “to err”. We still have this sense in English, in the phrase, “a knight errant”, that is a “free roaming knight”. Such a knight is not thereby in error, though he does err.

But “error” in the proper sense of the English and Latin words refers to a departure from the truth. An error is something false. Now just as truth has two basic senses, as “that which is a right knowledge in the mind”, and “that right relationship between a real thing and a real mind”, which is based in the thing and graspable by the mind, so error has two senses: an erroneous proposition, and an erroneous judgment or assent of the intellect. Hence an error is not a sin; because a sin is an act of the will, departing from the good, and cleaving to something evil. Yet to cleave in heart knowingly to an erroneous judgment or proposition, is a sin. It is the sin against the truth, a species of sin against the virtue of justice, which among other things, requires us in our wills to render to everyone and every thing what it its due: and just as truth deserves that the will consent to the truths assented to by the intellect, so the will that consents to that which the intellect recognizes as error, sins. This is why every liar, must bitterly defend his erroneous statement or position, not by reason, but by a certain militancy of the will; because the intellect by its very nature cannot assent to error recognized as error; it can only pretend that it is true, by force of the will. And to this extent not every consent to an error is a sin against the truth; because not every error is recognized as a error by every intellect. Some are just ignorant or stupid.

And so we come to “Heresy”. Heresy, you may not be aware, is not just a crime, not just a sin, not just an erroneous judgment, or an erroneous proposition: it is all of these, but not all of them at the same time. And so it is important to distinguish each of these. Likewise, not ever word or action that is disharmonious with the faith is a heresy or heretical. Let us here what St. Alphonsus Maria dei Liguori, C.s.S.R., says about this in this Theologia Moralis, Bk. II, tract I, ch. 4, dubium 1:

n. 17: “I respond first: Infidelity is threefold. The first kind is said to be negative infidelity, that is, the infidelity of those who have never heard anything of the Faith. This is not so much a sin, as a punishment for sin; because, if they had done what was in them, God would not have hidden the Faith from them. The second kind is said to be contrary infidelity, that is, the infidelity of those who either contemn or pertinaciously contradict the Faith, when it has been sufficiently proposed to them, and such are heretics. The third kind is said to be privative infidelity, because it is opposed in a privative manner to the Faith; and this is culpable ignorance and/or an error about a matter of the Faith (cf. St. Thomas, II, II, q. 10, a. 1 and 5, q. 11, a. 1; q. 12, a. 1).

“I respond second: Contrary infidelity, by the threefold manner of its repugnance to the Faith, is threefold, namely: paganism, which strives against the Faith not yet taken up; judaism, which strives against the Faith taken up in Old Testament types, and heresy, which strives against the Faith which was taken up in truth. — Apostasy, which recalls one from the Faith to heresy; from which it differs only in this, that heresy is an error contrary to the Faith only in part, but apostasy against the whole.”

And so we can see from this excellent division of “infidelity”, that not all non-Catholics are heretics, not even all Protestants or Orthodox are heretics, because they have never heard of the contents of the truth faith; likewise not every heretic is an apostate, though all apostates are heretics. Furthermore, that on account of ignorance, even culpable, someone in error, even an error about the matter of the Faith, can be guilty of privative infidelity, while not guilty of heresy. And that thus heresy as a sin is a conscious, knowing contradiction of a truth of the Faith, which has already been sufficient proposed to them personally; as a verbal statement heresy is an erroneous proposition contrary to the faith, as an act of the intellect it is erroneous judgment of the intellect contrary to the faith, as a crime it is that public offense imputable by canon law for the crime of heresy. The sin of heresy does not require an exterior act; nor does the heretical, erroneous judgment of the mind, require the full and perfect consent of the will; likewise, the crime of heresy does not require that one know infallibly what is in the heart and mind of the criminals, only that the approved, public judicial process justly infer this. Thus though one can be accused of heresy, without a trial, one cannot be condemned a heretic without the Church conducting such a trial. (A fact lost those Sedevacantists, who seemingly confound the error which is heresy, with the sin, the crime, and/or with the verbal statement.)

Denouncing Heretics:

It is sobering to note how far the Hierarchy and Clergy and Religious have fallen from an authentic practice of the faith, to read that St. Alphonsus teaches that when any catholic unites blasphemy to heresy, knowingly, and with full recognition, that those Catholics who are witnesses are obliged under pain of sin to denounce the blasphemer to the proper Church authorities (ibid., bk. III, tract 2, n. 123), no less than 6 days, and no more than 30 days after the event!

Some examples of those who ought to be denounced (note that “to denounce someone suspect of heresy” is a duty of very catholic, but “to judge guilty of the crime” belongs to the Church alone): one who marries, when still married in the church to another; or marries while remaining a non-laicized priest or religious; one who celebrates the Mass without a priest or bishop present; or who, not being priest confects any sacrament (v.g. other than for such cases as baptism in articulo mortis or those conceded to deacons, which do not require a priest for their validity); one who violates the seal of confession; any priest or religious guilty of sodomy or bestiality.

St. Alphonsus adds that those clergy who have the duty to make such denunciations, are to be themselves denounced for negligence (not heresy), when they fail to denounce such as these. And St. Alphonsus cites Pope Alexander VII, A.D. 1660 as teaching that not only religious superiors but all the faithful are bound to make such denunciations — an obligation which is grave, according to the common opinion of authors cited by the Saint — when the guilty party is a formal heretic and pertinacious one; but not when he is ignorant, threatened by another, careless, sloppy in speech, because in such cases he ought to be and can be corrected in private; nor are the simple folk, who upon hearing a heretical discourse, are mistakenly convinced, but lightly, to take up the error, but who being otherwise pious and faithful Catholics, are easily freed from the error with a proper explanation. (cf. ibid., bk. IV, ch. 3, dubium 5, nn. 249 ff.). Such excusing causes make one guiltless of heresy, though one may still be culpable of infidelity. On account of the widespread decadence of catholic theology today, as well as the political correctness of Vatican II, I would dare, in truth and charity, say that many of the clergy, religious, and bishops could be excused on one of these scores.

And this is a point that need to be emphasized: that there are sins against the faith [contra fidem], and sins besides the faith [praeter fidem]; heresy as a sin, is a sin against the faith: it requires some sort of contradiction of the faith; but infidelity in general is only a sin besides the faith, that is, it is a sin because the person acting, does not choose to act against the faith, but chooses to act without reference for the faith; like that catholic who gets up in the morning without any resolution to be faithful to the Faith, but does whatever he wants, with reference to only his own disordered desires. Avarice, careerism, and other kinds of immorality, can induce even popes and bishops to say, do or write things not in harmony with the faith; but that does not make them formal heretics, even though what they actually say or write, might be formally heretical, when considered as a logical proposition, in or outside of context. Because an erroneous proposition is one thing, the consent or assent to it by will or mind, respectively, is quite another. For this reason the Church has according to Apostolic Tradition (St. Paul) and Ecclesiastical Tradition, established a method of correction and trial; to depart from which, out of a personal desire to quickly condemn another, is not only not charitable, but not even Catholic. (And this exposes the novelty of the modern error of sedevacantism, because no Catholic before modern times has advocated that the Church could be bereft of the Pope, on account of his having forfeited his office by heresy, without the some sort of official, and hence canonical, recognition of such by the Bishops of the Church.)

The infallibility and fallibility of Vatican II

We have come now to the principal argument of this article: the consideration of in what manner precisely can a catholic licitly hold that the documents of Vatican II contain error. I prescind at present from any argument, for or against, whether the documents actually do contain error or not, or what kinds of error.

How to discern the infallibility or fallibility of a Magisterial Teaching:

The Church has not definitively spoken at the present time directly and precisely on this question, of whether a legitimate, general council, confirmed by the Pope, always teaches infallibly or can sometimes teach fallibly. The argument I advance here is drawn therefore from a collection of considerations based on what the Church has so far said in definitive form and from arguments drawn from that “faith which seeks understanding” (St. Anselm).

The principle of the argument drawn from ecclesiastical monuments, is this: that Vatican I taught:

“Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment, or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.” (Chapter 3: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 3, n. 8)

Now since, as stated above, it is a self evident principle of right reason, that nothing can be both true and false in the same sense at the same time, it is hence true, in virtue of this teaching of Vatican I, just cited, and this principle of right reason, that by divine and catholic faith there cannot be believed anything which, even if it were to seemingly be proposed by the solemn judgment of the church, in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, would contradict any truth contained in the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition. The key to resolving any apparent contradiction — I speak here of objective contradictions, not problems of errant consciences or of unwillingness to submit one’s judgment to Faith, or to the infallible Magisterium — is the middle term of the above, cited teaching of Vatican I, namely:

“which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed”

Hence, if there is any exercise of the Magisterium of the Church, even in solemn form, but which does not require that what is taught be believed as divinely revealed, then if it is in truth a teaching which is not contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, a catholic is not by faith bound to believe it. Likewise, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, by the very nature of the Catholic Religion, we are all bound to assent to the truth as we know it, and to refuse assent to falsehood as we know it. Furthermore, that there is no exercise of any office of teaching, wherein there is not claim to authority, or teaching of a truth; and that even truth must stand in relation to reality, and every teaching office in relation to the contents of truth it is authorized to teach. From these, it follows that whenever the Pope or a Council propose, without the requirements of both accepting it as divinely revealed and without establishing that it is coherent or contained with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, especially if it diverges from the monuments of Ecclesiastical Tradition, a catholic is in no manner bound to accept it as true; though it remains, inasmuch as it is contained in an official document, something which a catholic would be bound to make known to Church authority as non-consonant with the Faith.

In the case where the “teaching” can be found to be contained in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, but which is not proposed as such in the document in question, as divinely revealed, it is clear that in virtue of the duty to accept the contents of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, a catholic is already bound to hold it as true. The document in question, then would be an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible in virtue of its consonance with the immemorial teaching of the Church, in Her explanation of the Deposit of the Faith.

In the case where the “teaching” cannot be found to be contained in Sacred Scripture NOR in Sacred Tradition, something that will evidence itself from an examination of the monuments of Ecclesiastical Tradition, such as the writings of the Fathers of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints, the Popes, general, the other infallible and non-infallible councils, throughout all ages, it is clear that a Catholic’s obligation of faith, as per the teachings of Trent and Nicea II, as cited above, requires him not to accept such a teaching, if such teaching is not consonant with these. Because, there are truths related to the revealed teachings of the Faith, which while not contained explicitly in the Deposit of the Faith, are implicit therein; and these we must accept, otherwise, we would end up denying the contents of the Deposit of the Faith, and certainly because such truths are quasi innumerable, it can be safely assumed that with the passing of the ages, more shall become explicitly recognized.

Why Vatican II can rightly be said to teach somethings infallibly, and others fallibly

The extent to which the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended to propose the teaching contained in the Documents of Vatican II, is clearly manifested by the famous Nota Previa of November 16, 1964, which cited the conclusion of the Doctrinal Commission, taken on March 6, 1964:

Taking into account Conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.

Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledge and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the Council, which is clear form the subject matter and its formulation, following the norms of theological interpretation. (Austin Flannery ed. translation from the official appendix of the Latin version of Lumen Gentium).

It is clear from this statement that not everything was proposed by the Council fathers as binding, and hence not everything as requiring the assent of divine and catholic faith. Those who says otherwise, are misrepresenting the official teaching of Vatican II.

It is also clear from this statement, that the general norms for interpreting magisterial texts apply in such cases where there is no specific obligation of acceptance mentioned. And hence, to this extent Vatican II must be considered as any other ecclesiastical document, in regard to the question of whether the teaching is binding or infallible.

Now this part of the office of the Magisterium, which can teach both infallibly and fallibly is the Ordinary Magisterium. (cf. “The Infallibility of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium”, by Canon Rene Berthod, 1980).

However, since not everything which is not infallible, is erroneous, it remains to show that there are some official Magisterial documents which contain error, prior to Vatican II.

Magisterial Texts which by themselves, that is outside of their context, are erroneous:

Under this category are all those statements which are materially errors, reckoning materially according to the plain meaning of the propositions, apart from their context, or the customary manner of speech used by theologians, which context would excuse them of being formally erroneous, that is, contextually erroneous. (I mean “contextually” in the sense of the formal meaning of the whole sense of the writing, according to its context).

One classic example is the Bull of Union, restoring the Church in Armenia to Catholic Communion, published by the Council of Florence, during the eight session, on November 22, 1439, where in it, it teaches:

“The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ.”

Which seemingly teaches that the matter of the Sacrament is the handing over of the priestly instruments [traditio instrumentorum], and by requiring this teaching in a papal Bull to be accepted by the entire Armenian Church, lead many theologians to hold that this definition of the matter of the Sacrament of Orders was at least to be held by all the faithful.

Where as 515 years later, Pope Pius XII, in Sacramentum ordinis (AAS 40-5. Volume 3, Canon Law Digest, 1954), taught otherwise, and established infallibly otherwise:

3. All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

. . . though Pope Pius XII, clearly shows that what he teaches in Sacramentum Ordinis and what the infallible Council of Florence taught were not by intention contradictory. For the context of the Bull of Union with the Armenians, was the prior Bull of Union with the Greeks, which accepted as valid a rite of ordination without the traditio instrumentorum, even though all three documents, those of Florence and that of Pius XII imposed the acceptance of their teaching by papal authority. Note, that according to intention and context, Pope Pius XII judges that an Ecumenical Council in a Bull of Union with the Armenians, did not teach error, even though the verbal statement regarding the matter of the Sacrament of Orders, is by itself an erroneous definition. Because the manner in which a proposition is imposed, that is to say both the intention or context regarding what is taught, and the intention regarding the level of obligation, must be considered.

Other examples like this, of a material error, are the statements of Pope Innocent II and Pius IX on the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, [cited from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s website: http://www.catholicism.org/eens-popes.html]:

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)

Because, taken plainly, they damn all those who are members of those other Churches, which are not Roman, but which are Catholic, in communion with the Apostolic See: such as the Greek Catholic Church of the Ukraine, the Maronite Church of Lebanon, etc., the second of which was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church at the time of both statements, the first, at the time of the second statement. Of course no one who understands the custom of speech in the Latin Church would sanely interpret them in that sense. For here the proper interpretation is that “Roman Church” is employed in this context as a metonym for the whole Church in communion with Rome. Nevertheless, inasmuch as “outside of” the “Roman Church” includes all non-Roman Churches, these statements, in the manner said above, are erroneous propositions, if taken in their simple logical sense, outside of their particular manner of use.

Magisterial Teachings which are formally erroneous:

Formally or contextually erroneous propositions are those which in themselves and in their context are erroneous.

Such are the infamous sermons of such popes as Pope John XXII, who denied that the souls of the Saints, upon death, are immediately given the beatific vision by God. This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 had to say about the matter:

“In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming Pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the Pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favor of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the Pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the Pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the Pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.” (“Pope John XXII”, by J.P. Kirsch)

What Pope John XXII has held in a non-pertinacious manner, was condemned as heresy by his successor Benedict XII, in the Bull Benedictus Deus of January 29, 1336. It is important to note that when first contradicted, Pope John XXII threatened excommunication upon the Dominican Father who publicly rebuked him for heresy. And yet his heresy was not pertinacious, as even a leading Sedevacantist admits, for in his second sermon the Pope had stated:

“I say with Augustine, that if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the contrary determination of the Church would be shown or unless on Sacred Scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.” (Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262, as cited and translated by Rev. Anthony Cekada, “Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope”, August 2005: www.sgg.org, with my own translation of the italicized phrase).

It is thus logical, that when a Pope does not intend to impose an error by divine and catholic faith, but who explicitly reaffirms his acceptance of the otherwise definitive judgment of the Church or the prior teaching, that any even formally erroneous propositions, are not only not binding, but do not constitute that species of pertinacious heresy, which is necessary before proceeding to a formal, canonical declaration of the deposition of a Pope.

Another infamous example is the papal bull Aeterne Ille of Pope Sixtus V, published on May 2, 1590, in which he imposed the acceptance of his own Latin version of the Vulgate, though it was replete with errors, even decreeing an excommunication for those who opposed this version, and commanding all other versions (even the correct ones) to be burnt! The document arguably was only disciplinary; and the Pope, most certainly deceived by his own vainglory, thought he was publishing a version without errors. As a Magisterial teaching, the Bull has no authority. But inasmuch as it gravely attacked the peace of the Church and the Deposit of the Faith, it forebodes that there can be other disciplinary enactments of the Magisterium which can likewise attack the Deposit of the Faith or the welfare of the Church, or other Ecclesiastical Traditions, such as rites of the Mass, which are not as central to the deposit as Sacred Scripture

Another example of Papal Bulls which actually did teach error, but are in no way binding are those which teach about matters that do not pertain to the Deposit of the Faith. One famous document of this kind, is that of Pope John XXII, who issued a bull on the origin of money, including a complete history of money, from the time of Adam down to the present. But money, has been shown by archeologists to have been invented around the 7th Century B.C. in Asia Minor, some time after Adam.

Papal Prerogatives: infallibility and immunity from pertinacious heresy

The possibility of error in a magisterial document arises from the failure of the one teaching to adhere to the Faith, for whatever motives. Because just as without faith it is impossible to please God, so unless we constrain our speech and writing to the dictates of the Faith, we will err, especially in matters of religion. Now a Pope or a Council when teaching, either is motivated by the Faith, or is not; if so, he or they is accorded protection in some degree, if not, he or they are not; because evidently, if a man presumes of himself, he forfeits the grace of God: for God gives grace to the humble, but the proud man he resists. It thus follows, that since God did not promise the successors of St. Peter impeccability, there can be times when by their pride and other vices they act in a manner unfitting to the faith.

That the Pope can err as well as be infallible, is taught by St. Alphonsus Maria dei Liguori in his work Theologia Moralis, Bk I, Tract II, Dubium II, § 1:

"The fourth and common opinion, to which we subscribe, is, that though the Roman Pontiff, in so far as he is an individual person or private theologian, can err (just as he is also fallible in questions of mere fact, which depend chiefly on the testimony of men); nevertheless, when as Pope he speaks ex cathedra as a universal teacher, namely out of the supreme power bestowed upon St. Peter for teaching the Church, then we say that he, in controversies of the faith and in the discerning of morals, is entirely infallible."

However, that inasmuch as he is Pope, can, not only not err, but also not be a pertinacious heretic is taught by St. Robert Bellarmine in his work De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 4, ch. 6, says, namely:

" . . .that it can be piously believed, that the Supreme Pontiff, not only as Pontiff cannot err; but also as an individual person, cannot be a heretic by believing pertinaciously anything false contrary to the Faith."

since this is what Christ by His prayer for St. Peter's successors obtained, as Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said: "I have prayed for you Simon that your faith might not fail, and when your are converted, confirm your brethren," [Lk 22:32] according to the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great (Sermon 2, On Christmas, "At Sts. Peter and Paul’s"), St. Cyprian, (Bk. 1, Epistle 1 "To Cornelius"), Pope Lucius I, Pope Felix I, Pope St. Agatho, Pope Nicholas I, Pope Leo XI, Pope Innocent III, and St. Bernard of Clarivaux, as cited in St. Robert Bellarmine's treatise De Romano Pontifice, bk. I.

And hence it is, that a Pope, issuing a document, in which he does not exercise his office as universal teacher, can, if he does not intend to be faithful to the Faith, “promulgate” an error. Likewise, if in confirming a document of an ecumenical council, which likewise did not impose its teachings as contained in the Deposit of the Faith, or as inextricable from the truths contained therein, and hence which could have contained errors, the Pope can obviously confirm a document containing errors. In each case, this will be evident by the failure to meet the criteria for an infallible teaching, mentioned in Vatican I’s decree, namely that

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3. he defines

4. a doctrine concerning faith or morals

5. to be held by the whole church

But such Vatican II was not, because in the Apostolic Brief of confirmation, “In Spiritu Sancto” (Dec. 8, 1965), Pope Paul VI, did not impose the acceptance of Vatican II’s documents, with the obligation of faith, but rather decreed:

“Mandamus autem ac praecipimus, ut, quae synodaliter in Concilio statuta sunt, sancte et religiose ab omnibus Christifidelibus serventur ad Dei gloriam, ad Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae decus et ad hominum universorum tranquillitatem et pacem.”

Which is incorrectly translated into English on the Vatican Website, but which, in English is rather:

“We command, however, and precept, that, what has been synodally established in the Council, be holily and religiously observed by all of Christ’s Faithful, for the ornament of Holy Mother Church and the tranquility and peace of each and every man.” (my own translation)

This “holily and religiously observed” is rather the duty of showing an obsequium religiosum, that is a reverent presumption of correctness, and assent of the intellect to the teaching as in practice to be held.

This obsequium religiousum, due such documents at those of Vatican II, is classified as that level of teaching which can contain, formally, error, by such authors as Cardinal Journet, S. J. (The Church of the Word Incarnate: on the Case of Galileo), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (“Instruction concerning the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”, n. 24, May 24, 1990), and Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM Cap., in “Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 1994, pp. 64-69, who when speaking of the obsequium religiosusm due to documents of the Roman Congregations, says:

“Once more, since the Pope (John Paul II) states that these Vatican congregational propositions are non-infallible, they can possibly be in error. And, if these propositions can be in error, then it is possible for a theologian to know that they are in error. It is absurd, however, to think that God, the Author of Truth, would bind a person to submit in will and mind or intellectually assent to a speculative judgment which is an error for the sake of his salvation. One can only be bound to intellectually assent to a proposition, or a speculative judgment, that is true and certain.”

That this Apostolic Brief, In Spritu Sancto of Paul VI, concludes with the same condemnatory approbation found at the end of Papal Bulls, does in no way alter its character or free Vatican II from the possibility of error, as has been shown, above, in the Bulls of Sixtus V, John XXII, and that of the Council of Florence. It is rather the expressed intention regarding the level of teaching, as quoted in the Nota Previa of Lumen Gentium, which reflects the authentic intention of the Council Fathers, and which is confirmed by this Apostolic Brief of Paul VI, thus, exculpating both the Council Fathers from the charge of heresy, and Paul VI as well.

Finally, to confirm for those who are super-scrupulously loyal to the Magisterium, that Vatican II documents contain novelties and flaws, I need only cite one of the most eminent theologians of today, the Pope Himself, writing in his work, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, where he says of Dignitatis Humanae, that the novel teachings in the second half of the document correct the statement in the first half, that would “leave intact the traditional Catholic doctrine”, and that it was a “flaw” of the document to include that statement of continuity in the first half, because the second half offers “something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements from Pius XI and Pius XII” (Paulist Press, 1966, p. 147). To say that it is a “flaw” to state the doctrine is in continuity with the past, is to say that the doctrine, in an honest appraisal, is not in continuity with the past, and that thus it is novel and disharmonious. (Cf. Nicea II, on the duty of the Church to reject discontinuous novelties and innovations).

Dissent, Assent, Fraternal Correction

Dissent is the sin of those who refuse to accept those obligatory teachings of the Magisterium, which require the assent of the intellect and/or the assent of faith. When the Magisterium does not oblige one or the other, one can scarcely be considered to be dissenting. As much as the Apostolic See and the Council Fathers allow Vatican II to be considered an exercise of the authentic Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible, only when it reiterates the traditional understanding of the Deposit of the Faith, and which is fallible, when it proposes novelties against Scripture, Tradition and the Ecclesiastical Traditions, it is clear, that no Catholic, who opposes these latter novelties as errors, can be accused of failing in his duty as a Catholic. Rather it is such Catholics, who fulfill the duties of the faith, as taught by Nicea II, to oppose and resist and contemn all novelties and innovations, that is all alterations or foreign impositions upon the understanding and teaching of the Faith.

Furthermore, it is the apex of the Catholic Faith, to speak, write, work and dedicate one’s life to defending the Church from heresy and novelties that are erroneous. This was the path of the great saints such as St. Orosius, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Agatho, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Pius X. May we share their glory, by a similarly, devout and militant service.

If the Faith fails in many regions of the world today, we cannot stand by silent without sharing in this great tragedy by complicity; we must rather, on account to the imminent peril of the damnation of hundred of millions of souls, speak out loudly, and let our voices be heard both in our local churches, and all the way to Rome. This is true and filial piety, the apex of the virtue of fraternal correction.

Indeed, reproving an erring Pope or Bishop when he errs and utters errors, whether in word or in documents which do not bind the consciences of Catholics is an essential duty of every catholic, without which an erring Pope or Bishop would be bereft of this most necessary duty of fraternal and filial charity.