CathInfo.com

Resisting An Infallible Pope?
July 15, 2026
Source: FSSPX News


Resisting An Infallible Pope?

How can we reconcile the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, his infallibility, and the numerous texts of traditional theology which affirm that it may be necessary, in certain exceptional circuмstances, to resist him?

Through the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Francisco de Vitoria, John de Torquemada, Palmieri, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other great theologians, this video examines the Catholic principles of papal authority, obedience, and infallibility.

It shows how theology distinguishes between the obedience owed to the Pope and the absolute obedience owed to God, and why all these eminent Church theologians considered the possibility of legitimate resistance to certain papal decisions.

The objective is not to challenge the papacy, but to better understand, in the light of Catholic doctrine, how the Society of Saint Pius X positions itself in the face of the current crisis in the Church.


The Accusation of Inconsistency

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur. The First See is judged by no one. It is with these words that the law of the Catholic Church reminds us that no one has the right to judge the Pope. Indeed, one is always judged by a superior; but the Pope is the supreme authority in the Church: he has no superior on this earth. It is therefore logical that he is judged by no one. In the next world, he will of course be judged by Jesus Christ, like everyone else, but not on this earth.

This supreme authority of the Pope was recalled in the most solemn manner by Pope Boniface VIII in the famous bull Unam Sanctam in 1302: "We declare, say and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This is a dogma of faith.

Added to this is the solemn proclamation, in 1870, by the First Vatican Council, of the dogmas of the primacy of the Pope and of his infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

In short, the Pope:

    is not judged by anyone;
    is the supreme authority, necessary for salvation;
    And it is infallible.

These are well-known truths, which can be found simply in a catechism like that of Pope Saint Pius X. "Where Peter is, there is the Church," summarized St. Ambrose of Milan.

However, following Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of Saint Pius X, which places itself under the patronage of the Pope of the same catechism, St. Pius X, claims, on the one hand, to recognize the current Pope, Leo XIV, but, at the same time, openly disobeys him. And this, according to the Society, is for the salvation of souls. Souls are supposedly endangered by a pope who is destroying the Church.

It's all well and good to want to save souls, but... a pope who cannot be judged, who must be obeyed, who is infallible, and who... destroys the Church? Isn't that absurd?

Disobeying the Pope for the salvation of souls, when obedience to the Pope is necessary for the salvation of the soul? Yet another absurdity!

The newly consecrated bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X swore obedience to the Pope even as they were consecrated against his authority. Isn't this a blatant contradiction? A major inconsistency within the Society of Saint Pius X? A theological impossibility?

It is tempting, for some, to make such a judgment, seemingly logical. Seemingly…


On Resisting the Pope

Yet, a saint, a cardinal, a renowned theologian, and even a Doctor of the Church explicitly envisioned a pope who would seek to destroy the Church and whom it would be necessary to resist and disobey. This was St. Robert Bellarmine.

St. Robert Bellarmine was an Italian cardinal and theologian, who died in 1621, was canonized in 1930 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1931 by Pope Pius XI. He belonged to the Jesuit order, an order known for emphasizing obedience, and especially obedience to the Pope, dear to its founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Bellarmine is known as a great defender of the papacy. While Protestants at the time produced the Magdeburg Centuries, a large-scale work seeking to attack the historical and theological foundations of the Catholic Church, it was Bellarmine who used his talents to offer a brilliant refutation in his famous Controversies. Within the Church itself, Bellarmine also positioned himself against certain theologians who minimized the power of the Pope. On the contrary, he defended the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility in terms very close to those of the future First Vatican Council, several centuries in advance.

Yet, in a major work of theology devoted entirely to the subject of the Pope, De Romano Pontifice (“On the Roman Pontiff”), Bellarmine tells us this, speaking of the Pope: “Just as it is permitted to resist the pontiff who attacks the body, it is permitted to resist one who attacks souls or disturbs public order; and it is even more permitted to resist him if he destroys the Church. It is permitted, I say, to resist him by not doing what he commands and by preventing the execution of his will; but it is not permitted to judge him, punish him, or depose him, for that is a matter for a superior.” [1]

A doctor of the Church is therefore explicitly telling us here to resist, to disobey a pope who would attack souls, or even seek to "destroy the Church."

And if you think this is an isolated oddity of St. Robert Bellarmine, think again. The same thing can be found in the writings of other leading theologians.

Francisco de Vitoria was a great Spanish theologian, who died in 1546, of the Dominican order, an order often in rivalry with the Jesuits, such as Bellarmine, and founder of an important school of theological thought: the School of Salamanca. In his Relectiones theologicæ , he addresses the same hypothesis in these terms: “When the commands or acts of the Pope tend toward the destruction of the Church, they can be refused, and the execution of these orders can be prevented [...] for it belongs to everyone to repel injustice, to prevent it from occurring, and to defend themselves.” [2]

In support of his conclusion, Vitoria quotes a leading Dominican theologian, Cardinal Thomas de Vio, known as Cajetan, who in turn asserts that: "We must resist, even directly, the pope who is publicly destroying the Church." [3]

Some might argue that this only concerns theologians of past centuries and that with the proclamation of papal infallibility in 1870, this thesis became obsolete. But Saint Robert Bellarmine and Cardinal Cajetan already explicitly believed in papal infallibility. Therefore, this changes nothing.

Let us nevertheless consider a masterful work from 1891, De Romano Pontifice by the Jesuit theologian Domenico Palmieri, then a professor at the Roman College, which poses the question: "Is it ever permissible to resist the Roman Pontiff?"

To which he replies: "It is not permissible to resist the Pontiff teaching ex cathedra, for he does not err."

This concerns infallible pronouncements. But Palmieri continues: "In the event that the Pontiff behaves badly, unjustly inflicts harm, and persecutes the Church, it is permissible to resist the Pontiff."

And Palmieri cites Bellarmine in support, in a passage from another work, De Conciliis , where Bellarmine repeats: "It is permissible, while maintaining the respect due to the Pope, to admonish him, to correct him with moderation, to resist him even by force and by arms if he wants to destroy the Church. Now, to resist, even with force, no authority is required."

And Bellarmine in turn quotes yet another great theologian, John of Torquemada, whom we have already quoted in another video.

But let's stop this avalanche of quotes here. We apparently have a problem: either all these theologians are as inconsistent and illogical as the Society of Saint Pius X, or even opposed to dogma, which is inconceivable, or the question is more subtle than it seems.

Obviously, St. Robert Bellarmine and other theologians knew and adhered to the dogmas of the Church. But precisely because they knew them so well, they also knew their exact contours and all their subtleties.

Quotations are necessary in theology because faith is founded on the argument from authority. But this is not always sufficient, because one must also have an understanding of quotations to truly grasp what they say precisely... and also understand what they leave unsaid and ambiguous.

Human language often condenses complex ideas into short, but imprecise formulas for convenience, like the famous phrase: "Where Peter is, there is the Church." It is a condensed version that cannot claim to explain all the subtleties of the doctrine and its exceptions.

If theology were as simple as a children's catechism lesson, we wouldn't understand why theologians write lengthy treatises about the Pope's powers. His role would be quickly summarized: "Supreme leader, obey him or be damned, never make a mistake, end of story."


“Judging the Pope”: What Are We Talking About?

What we are going to look at now are the clarifications that need to be made regarding the authority of the Pope:

– the Pope is not judged by anyone on this earth, in the legal sense of the term, but not in the sense of a moral judgment;

– submission to the Pope is necessary for the salvation of the soul, but only insofar as the Pope does not command evil;

– the Pope is always infallible under the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council, but he is not always infallible outside of those conditions.

First, the formula, "The First See is judged by no one" is canon law: it therefore has a legal meaning. It means that no court is above the Pope. No judge can pronounce a criminal sentence against the Pope, because only a superior judge can pronounce a sentence on someone who is subject to his authority; and the Pope has no superior on this earth. It is for this reason that St. Robert Bellarmine says that it is not permissible to punish or depose the Pope.

On the other hand, simply saying, "Pope Alexander VI behaved immorally" or "Pope Pius IX was a good Pope," are not legal judgments; they are not punishments, but simply value judgments, moral judgments, whether good or bad. And this is not forbidden. St. Robert Bellarmine clearly states that "no authority is required" to resist the pope. It is therefore logical to be able to judge, first and foremost, this duty of resistance.

Cardinal Cajetan reiterates this distinction between the two forms of judgment. Speaking of the Pope, he says: “Resisting a tyrant [...] is permitted to everyone [...], but acting with the authority to do so is legitimate only for a superior. [...] This kind of argument [...] does not show that the one who acts in this way has the authority of a judge to be able to inflict punishment, but that every individual has the right to resist their aggressor.”

Of course, when making a negative value judgment about someone, one must always be mindful of another principle, a moral principle worth reiterating, especially now: one must guard against rash judgment, under penalty of sin, sometimes even grave sin. That is to say, one must not judge someone negatively based on insufficient evidence; one must not accept as certain what is doubtful; and one must not even accept as doubtful what has no basis whatsoever.

This principle applies to judgments made about anyone, which includes the clergy and faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, whatever one may think of them, but it applies all the more so when it concerns authority. This principle recommends prudence and moderation in judgment, but it does not preclude negative judgments, provided that one always maintains profound respect for the office of the Pope.

But we can add another distinction: it is better to judge actions than people. For example, authorizing the blessing of same-sex couples—I know that this is not a Catholic act. I care little about Pope Francis's personal culpability in this matter. I leave that judgment to God. I simply know that I must reject this act because it goes against the faith.


Obeying the Pope

Secondly, Boniface VIII stated that submission to the sovereign pontiff is necessary for salvation. "Submitted" comes from the Latin submittere, meaning "to place" or "to send below." To be submitted to someone, therefore, is to acknowledge their hierarchical superiority and, consequently, the duty of obedience that flows from it.

Every Catholic knows how fundamental obedience to the Church hierarchy is. Obedience is not a secondary element, but a constitutive dimension of life in the Church, to the point that it is inconceivable to reject the very principle of obedience.

“It is right to prefer obedience to sacrifices,” said St. Gregory the Great. [4]

But we must ask ourselves: does obedience have limits? Must we always obey our superiors? Any order whatsoever?

Saint Thomas Aquinas poses precisely this question in his Summa Theologica . He answers: no, relying on a quotation from the first pope, St. Peter, who said: "We must obey God rather than men." [5]

“Now,” St. Thomas observes, “the orders of superiors are sometimes contrary to those of God. Therefore, we should not obey them in everything.”

He adds this ancient illustration: “If the commissioner gives an order, must you carry it out if the proconsul orders the opposite? And if the proconsul gives one order, and the emperor another, is it not obvious that, while disregarding the first, you must obey the second? Therefore, if the emperor gives one order, and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” [6]

In other words, in case of conflict between the orders of N+1 and N+2, one must follow N+2, that is, the highest authority. But only God is the supreme authority. Only He can demand absolute obedience.

Note: this is obviously not to say that one should only obey if one agrees with the orders, or to rely solely on one's own subjective judgment. If one doesn't feel like it, one obeys anyway. If one believes that the superior is ill-advised and that their decision is imprudent, one obeys anyway.

But if an order opposes God's commandments or leads to the ruin of the Church, then one must disobey man, even if he is the pope, in order to obey God.

“In that case,” says St. Thomas, “not only is one not obliged to obey one’s superior, but one is even obliged not to obey him, just as the holy martyrs faced death rather than obey the impious orders of tyrants.” [6]

In a war, if a lieutenant orders one of his soldiers to execute a manifestly innocent man, the soldier must disobey his lieutenant; by doing so, he is actually obeying a higher authority.

On the other hand, if a soldier executes an innocent person out of obedience, he is guilty before divine law, and even before human law. His fault will be less serious than that of the one who gives the order: he is merely carrying it out. This is a mitigating circuмstance, but not an excusing one; blind obedience is wrong and punishable.

Some people sometimes say, "I'd rather be wrong with the Pope than right against him." But this is to forget that blind obedience can be harmful to the soul.

Holy Scripture itself gives us an example of opposition to the Pope. In his Epistle to the Galatians, Saint Paul recounts: “When Cephas [that is, St. Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” [7]

St. Thomas Aquinas comments on this passage, saying: “If there were a danger to the faith, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even publicly. Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason.” [8] This passage clearly shows that one can be subject to the authority of the Pope and yet publicly oppose him.

This is what the Society of Saint Pius X does: it recognizes the authority of the Pope, and in this sense is subject to him; but it refuses obedience to anything that tends towards the destruction of the Church.

Does this mean that the Society now only retains an abstract principle of obedience, a pure idea, without ever obeying concretely, except in the rare cases where it suits them, as some caricature it?

No, on the contrary, we usually and concretely obey the Pope.

Because obeying the Pope is not about following the words he utters when getting off a plane or in a homily in Lampedusa; it is about obeying a legislative power, laws, and therefore canon law.

When canon law requires priests to observe celibacy, to recite their breviary, to follow spiritual retreats, to have a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, to live as much as possible in community, to wear the ecclesiastical habit, to pursue their sacred studies, to follow the rules of administration of the sacraments, etc., the Society does so, out of obedience to the Church and therefore to the Pope.

That is why our bishops were able, in all truth, to swear obedience to the Pope.

On the other hand, one can question the sometimes approximate respect for canon law outside of traditionalist circles.

In summary, the Society's position is as follows: to recognize the Pope; to obey him insofar as his commands are not wrong; but not to follow the prescriptions that lead, in practice, to the ruin of the Church. It is therefore clear that the SSPX is not schismatic according to canon law, which speaks of a refusal of submission.


What Papal Infallibility Really Means

All of this then raises a new question: is it simply possible for the Pope to impose an obedience that tends towards the destruction of the Church? This is the question of papal infallibility.

This infallibility is a dogma of faith to which every Catholic must adhere. It is defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council, in 1870.

However, this text is very precise; it expressly states the conditions of this infallibility.

The three conditions are met when the Pope: [9]

    speaks as pope (and not simply as a man, priest or bishop, as when he gives a speech, gives an interview or publishes a book);
    expresses himself in matters of faith or morality (he is therefore not infallible in his government or when he speaks only of science, literature or in judicial matters, for example in a sentence of excommunication);
    defines a doctrine. This is the key word, which appears three times in the dogma.

Many theologians add a fourth condition: that the Pope has "the intention of obligating the whole Church." But this point actually relates to the third, since it is precisely the act of definition.

If these conditions are met, the Pope is said to speak ex cathedra . He is then infallible. But what do we mean by "defining" a doctrine, that is, by this third condition?

I leave the answer to a renowned Dominican, Fr. Thomas Pègues, who wrote in the prestigious Revue thomiste in 1904, during the pontificate of St. Pius X: "It is therefore when the Pope defines, that is, when he decides definitively and with the formal intention of closing all discussions or preventing them; it is then, and only then, that he is infallible and that his decision is binding on all as an article of faith. [...] If it concerns a point of doctrine relating to the deposit of Revelation, we should not, even then, hasten to appeal to Infallibility and to faith.” [...] The Pope, even as Pope and in a docuмent where he intends to speak to the universal Church, may very well address a point of doctrine that touches on revealed truth [...] not to settle and definitively close the debate, but simply to enhance the discussion, or to guide and direct it. In this case, and although it concerns a point of doctrine pertaining to Infallibility, although the Pope acts and speaks as head of the Church, intending [...] to teach, in a certain way, the world, nevertheless we will not speak of Infallibility, because we do not have the third essential condition required for Infallibility to be involved. The Pope, in fact, does not proceed by way of a definitive doctrinal pronouncement; he does not intend to definitively settle the debate: he does not define." [10]

In his Great Catechism of 1905, St. Pius X specified that the Pope is infallible "only" [11] when he defines.

However, definitions are rare. They became virtually nonexistent with Vatican II, which expressly rejected any definition. Paul VI stated that the council "avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas bearing the mark of infallibility." [12]

There was a desire not to define, because the idea of an immutable truth displeases the modern mentality.


Doctrinal Error by the Pope? Historical Precedents

In fact, there have been rare cases in the past of errors in non-infallible statements.

A little-known case is that of a decretal letter from Pope Celestine III, entitled Laudabilem, in which Celestine III misinterpreted St. Paul by ruling that a real marriage [13]  between two Catholics was dissolved as soon as one of the spouses fell into heresy.

He had allowed a woman to remarry and remain with her second husband, even after her first husband had renounced his heresy. This text had normative value for similar cases. Innocent III, successor to Celestine III, set things right by ruling precisely the opposite. Later, Gregory IX had this decretal censured.

Finally, the Council of Trent definitively settled the matter: such a marriage can absolutely never be dissolved for any reason whatsoever.

This case was known to St. Robert Bellarmine, who admitted that it was indeed an erroneous decretal, but rightly argued that it was not a definitive pronouncement, and therefore not an infallible teaching. Cardinal Cajetan and Palmieri, already mentioned, reached the same conclusion, as they too were familiar with this case.

Even if it was not, at the time, a heresy, it was nevertheless an error concerning the validity of a sacrament, with the serious moral consequence of authorizing permanent situations of adultery.

Of course, the current situation is different, particularly in terms of the duration and frequency of the errors. These events can be explained theologically by a new and flawed understanding of the Magisterium itself. Since Vatican II, we have been confronted with a new mode of teaching in the Church that seems to contradict the very notion of the Magisterium. But this issue, like many others, goes far beyond the scope of this video.

What is important here is to understand that the life of the Church is far from being a smooth, tranquil journey. Many surprising situations have arisen during its turbulent history, without theology or canon law having clearly anticipated them.

This is, for example, the crisis of Arianism, where a large number of the world's bishops fell into heresy, while the Pope excommunicated St. Athanasius. It is also the Third Council of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius for heresy. There is also the crisis of the Great Western Schism, where there were three popes without knowing which was the true one. Not to mention the problem of the Council of Constance, which proclaimed a heresy.

However, be warned: serious and detailed theological work has demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that none of these situations calls into question the infallibility of the Pope or his authority, contrary to what the Gallicans and other groups have argued.

Similarly, the Society of Saint Pius X, even in the current situation, has never questioned these dogmas.

We know with absolute certainty that the Church can never be destroyed. The gates of hell will not prevail against it: this is a promise of Christ. Some have therefore concluded rather hastily that it was impossible for a pope to seek to destroy the Church, forgetting that a Doctor of the Church explicitly affirmed the contrary.

What is true is that no one, not even the pope, will succeed in destroying the Church. But that doesn't mean that no one will try, nor that no one will be able to cause serious damage.


Preserving the Deposit of Faith

All this shows that we should not have a naive view of obedience or infallibility; we must understand that there are distinctions and subtleties that escape too hasty an analysis.

But beyond theological subtleties, what matters more to an ordinary Catholic, who is not a theologian, is that there are also obvious realities. When we see a pope allow the blessing of same-sex couples, say that the diversity of religions is a wise will of God, reverse his position on the death penalty, or deny the traditional titles that a dozen popes have bestowed upon the Virgin Mary; when we observe the serious consequences of religious freedom or the ecuмenism of Vatican II, we clearly see that there is a serious problem.

The important question, then, is not to try to resolve all the problems of the current crisis and of the papacy theologically—something we are quite incapable of doing at our level, except through our prayers—but more simply to ensure the salvation of our own souls and those around us. And for this, we need points of reference: sound doctrine and a sound liturgy. This is what the Fraternity strives to preserve, even if it means resisting the authority of the Pope.

Faced with an extraordinary situation, extraordinary measures must be taken to safeguard the deposit of faith that St. Paul speaks of to Timothy: “Guard the good deposit entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).