The Infallibility of the Catholic Church: Concept, Nature, and Scope

1)    The Concept of Infallibility

Infallibility means immunity from error.

It may be understood in two senses:

a)    Inerrancy: The immunity from all possibility of error, and from all error in fact (de facto).

b)   Infallibility: Exemption or immunity from error or failure.

 In the strict sense, it can be divided into:

i)      Essential: pertains properly to God alone.

ii)   Participated: communicated by God to rational creatures according to His will.

iii) Supernatural: an immunity to error that exceeds natural human capacity.

2)    The Fact of infallibility

a)    The Church possesses, by divine right, the office of safeguarding revealed doctrine

'For the Church, from her divine institution, has the duty both to hold most diligently to the deposit of faith, whole and inviolate, and to watch continually with great earnestness over the salvation of souls, and with the greatest care to remove and eliminate all those things which can be opposed to faith or can in any way endanger the salvation of souls.'  (Pius IX, Gravissimas inter, 11 December 1862, D.1675)

'The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter so that, by His help, they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.' (Vatican council, Fourth Session, Chapter 4, D. 1839)  

b)   The Church teaches infallibly

Further, the Church has also the right and duty of proscribing "knowledge falsely so called" [I Tim. 6:20], "lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit" [cf. Col. 2:8; can. 2]. Therefore, all the faithful are strictly forbidden to hold opinions that are contrary to the Catholic faith and have been condemned by the Church. (Ibid., Session III, Chapter 4, D. 1798)

The doctrine of faith has been entrusted to the Church as a divine deposit, to be faithfully preserved and infallibly interpreted. Consequently, sacred dogmas must be understood in the same sense in which Holy Mother Church has defined and declared them. (Ibid., Session III, Chapter 4, D. 1800)

3)    The Subject of infallibility

God alone is essentially infallible, while man, by nature, is subject to error. However, the infallibility ascribed to the Church is both participated and supernatural. It is defined as 'a privilege granted by Christ to the Church, by which, in matters of faith and morals, she can neither be deceived nor deceive.'

a)    Passive infallibility (in credendo): This belongs to the universal Church, which is therefore called the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and built upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18).

b)    Active infallibility (in docendo): This is held by the pastors and teachers whom Christ appointed for the edification of His Mystical Body.

i)      The Roman Pontiff: The Bishop of Rome, when he speaks ex cathedra on questions of faith or morals, has infallible divine assistance. His definitions are irreformable even before the consent of the Church. The Popes have never erred in matters of faith or morals. Assent and obedience are due even to his non-definitive teachings.

ii)  The Body of Pastors United with Him:

(1) Individual bishops—excluding the Roman Pontiff—do not possess infallibility.

(2) Collectively: Infallibility may be ascribed to them solely as a Corpus pastorum, that is, the body of apostolic successors taken as a whole.

 This body of pastors may be understood either as:

(a)  Individual bishops, when taken collectively but separated from the Roman Pontiff, do not possess infallibility.

(b) Pastors In union with and subordinated to the Roman Pontiff: The college of bishops, united with the Pope, possesses infallibility.

Ecumenical Councils, when confirmed by the Pope, represent the universal Church and are assisted by the Holy Spirit; they are therefore infallible in matters of faith and morals (D.1723).

In contrast, diocesan and national councils do not possess infallibility; their judgments on faith and morals are therefore not irreformable.

4)    The Nature of Infallibility

Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, by which the teaching Church, when defining matters of faith and morals, is preserved from all error.

a)    Assistance: This gift does not entail a new revelation; rather, it is a special act of divine providence by which the Church is preserved from error.

b)    In defining doctrines of faith and morals: The Vatican Council teaches (Dei Filius, Chapter 3): 'By divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written Word of God and in Tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church—either by a solemn declaration or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium—as divinely revealed.'

5)    The Object of Infallibility

The Vatican Council teaches that the Roman Pontiff 'is endowed with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.' Therefore, the object of infallibility is doctrine concerning faith or morals.

a)    Direct object of infallibility: This refers to all revealed truths which, whether explicitly or implicitly, are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are to be believed with divine faith.

This infallibility extends to the following:

• The canon of Sacred Scripture: Since the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth, she must likewise be infallible in determining which books belong to Holy Scripture.
• The authentic sense of revealed truth: The Church is infallible both in teaching and interpreting divine revelation.
• The condemnation of errors that contradict revealed truth.
• The interpretation of divine laws and precepts, as well as the Evangelical Counsels.

b)    Indirect Object of Infallibility: This refers to those truths which, though not themselves revealed, are so intimately connected with divine revelation that their denial would jeopardise revealed doctrine.

It extends to the following:

i)      Theological conclusions: That is, truths which necessarily follow from one revealed premise and one premise known by reason.

Christ is a true man (revealed truth)

Man is composed of body and soul (known by reason)

Therefore, Christ has a human body and a human soul (theological conclusion)

ii)   Truths of the natural order: These are truths known by reason which are intimately bound to revealed dogma, such as:

• The spirituality of the soul.
• The possibility of divine revelation and miracles.
• The doctrine of transubstantiation.

iii) Dogmatic facts: Historical facts intrinsically linked to revealed truth, such as:

• The legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
• Whether a particular book or statement is heretical or orthodox.

iv)  Disciplinary matters: Infallibility also extends to certain aspects of the Church’s general discipline, including:

• The norms of divine worship.
• The approval of religious orders.
• The canonisation of saints.
• The authentication of relics. 

The Hermeneutic of Absurdity

Jérôme Ferrier (also known as 'Archidiacre') and his associate—writing under various pseudonyms such as 'semper papiste', 'catholique lorrain', 'quiche lorraine', and 'domino fidelis'—are well-known opponents of both sedevacantism and traditionalism. They are staunch proponents of the so-called Hermeneutic of Continuity, a theological position which aims to interpret the Second Vatican Council in continuity with Catholic Tradition.

This article outlines principles demonstrating the incompatibility of this position with Catholicism.

The Magisterium cannot be subject to private Interpretation

The Church has received from Jesus Christ the commission to infallibly interpret the deposit of faith and instruct the faithful with clarity and certitude regarding its content and scope.

By its very nature, the Magisterium is a clear and authoritative exposition of the sacred deposit of faith. As the proximate rule of faith, it cannot—under any circumstances—be subjected to private interpretation without rendering its authority meaningless. The very raison d'être of this living authority is to provide the faithful with a definitive, directive, and authoritative norm of belief, to be received in its plain and manifest sense as the teaching of God Himself.

Consequently, the primary and most fundamental principle of the hermeneutic of continuity—namely, that the Magisterium must be understood in a particular sense—is utterly false, absurd, and contradictory. For, if its true meaning depends on an act of private judgment, there could be as many "correct interpretations" of the Magisterium as there are "hermeneuts of continuity."

The Problem of Ambiguity in Vatican II

The Church condemns not only heresies but also obscure or vaguely worded propositions. The theological censures applied to such formulations include: ambiguous (ambigua), captious (captiosa), evil-sounding (male sonans), and offensive to pious ears (piarum aurium offensiva).

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: 

'A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith.'

How many propositions of Vatican II do not fall under at least one of these censures? If this were not the case, how could we explain that most conciliar Catholics adhere to a heretical interpretation of Vatican II? To assert that the infallible Magisterium of the Holy Church—assisted and guided by the Holy Spirit—could promulgate propositions so inherently ambiguous, misleading, or malicious as to place the majority of the faithful in immediate danger of misinterpretation would be both an affront to God and contrary to the negative infallibility inherent in the acts of ecclesiastical authority. Such a claim would undermine the credibility and divine protection promised to the Church.

The very existence of the hermeneutic of continuity is problematic

The Church has always considered its current teachings to be in harmony with those of the past. The very need for a hermeneutics of continuity is evidence of the discontinuity introduced by Vatican II.

Human Reason Can Know Certain Truths Without Requiring an Authority

Archidiacre's position implicitly assumes that, without a living authority, human reason is insufficient to discern religious truths.

In contrast, the Church has repeatedly anathematised those who deny that certain religious truths can be known by reason alone, particularly in opposition to modernist agnosticism.

The Catholic approach to error is not primarily to exhort submission and the abandonment of reason, but rather to demonstrate the intrinsic credibility of Catholic doctrines (and not merely the credibility of ecclesiastical authority) and to refute errors at their logical foundations.

Our hermeneuts invert this natural order: they begin by pronouncing anathemas and calling for submission to the Church, only afterwards attempting to justify it with hypotheses about the true meaning of Vatican II or the intrinsic credibility of its teachings.

Their main argument establishes that Vatican II represents authority and thus demands submission, rather than demonstrating that the conciliar doctrine is defensible (a far more challenging task and less likely to impress their audience).

It is Not Pious to Piously Interpret Manifestly Wrong Actions

Archidiacre and his supporters often speak of the 'duty of pious interpretation' regarding the actions of the conciliar "popes", which involves assuming, as far as possible, an honourable motive behind a questionable act. The opposite of this approach is rash judgment or suspicion, which attributes a malicious intent to an insignificant or objectively good action. Thus, they consider it their duty to interpret Bergoglio's indefensible actions and words in a perfectly Catholic sense, as though he were an honourable defender of the faith who merely commits blunders. 

First, it is sheer hypocrisy to defend a pious interpretation while simultaneously insulting traditionalists by bluntly labelling them as heretical and schismatic—extremely grave accusations that imply malicious intent.

Second, the moral obligation of pious interpretation applies only to actions that are objectively good or whose wrongfulness is fundamentally doubtful. Rash judgment involves attributing perverse motives to an innocent, morally neutral, or minor act. For instance, stating that two individuals living in adultery are habitually in a state of mortal sin is not rash judgment; it is a necessary conclusion. To suggest that a churchman who publicly kisses the Qur'an could have any intention other than to convey the impression that the Catholic Church approves of Islam—an utterly impious and repugnant act that would horrify all the saints and popes of past centuries—is to deny reality, for such a gesture cannot reasonably signify anything else.

The Majority of Conciliar Catholics Do Not Accept this Position

The hermeneutic of continuity could be refuted simply by citing conciliar authorities. They present their arguments as if their stance were the official position of the Catholic Church. But it is far from the truth:

the majority of the faithful and the hierarchy, including Bergoglio and his predecessors, are way more 'progressive' than our hermeneuts are willing to admit.  They boldly acknowledge a contradiction between Vatican II and the prior Magisterium. To quote just one such authority, and not an insignificant one:

 'In connection with the texts on religious liberty and world religions, Gaudium et Spes is a revision of Pius IX's Syllabus, a kind of counter-Syllabus, insofar as it represents an attempt at an official reconciliation of the Church with the world as it has become since 1789.' (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology).

The Contradiction Between Vatican II and the Church's Magisterium Is Not Merely Apparent

Returning to the initial premise of the hermeneutic of continuity—namely, the attempt to reconcile  'apparent contradictions' between the Second Vatican Council and Catholic dogma—one must observe that this approach is not only logically untenable but also factually wrong. The drafters of the conciliar texts recognised this reality.

Yves Congar, for instance, who openly expressed his disdain for the Syllabus of Errors and the anti-modernist pronouncements of the pre-conciliar popes, acknowledged in his memoirs that he could not establish any foundation for religious liberty in divine Revelation, despite the claim within the conciliar documents. Likewise, Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed that Gaudium et Spes was a 'counter-Syllabus' 

Any competent historian or sociologist recognises that Vatican II marked a radical departure in the Church's posture towards the modern world. This modern world, defined by Enlightenment-inspired principles and doctrines, was the very object of repeated condemnation by the popes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Vatican II, however, sought—explicitly or implicitly—to accommodate many of these very principles. It is not a matter of interpretation but of historical fact.

A reliable method for discerning the true meaning of the conciliar texts is to examine how the hierarchy has applied them in practice. For example, the Holy See pressured Franco's Spain to permit public non-Catholic worship in the name of the so-called 'right to religious liberty.' Similarly, the 1984 concordat between the Holy See and the Italian Republic introduced the principle of religious neutrality into a nation that had previously recognised Catholicism as the state religion, explicitly citing Vatican II and its doctrine on religious liberty as the rationale for this revision.

Conclusion: What Are the Practical Consequences?

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' One can serve the devil while sincerely believing oneself to be doing good. Certain pious souls have fallen into this delusion, much as Saul believed before his conversion, he was rendering service to God by persecuting Christians. In like manner, such individuals now imagine they serve the Church by persecuting the last defenders of the faith and of sacred Tradition in an age of widespread apostasy. Their ultimate goal is to bring these remaining faithful under the sway of the modernist hierarchy, thereby rendering them indistinguishable from the indifferent liberals they are expected to become.

Indeed, one cannot sincerely submit to the conciliar authorities without gradually acquiescing to shocking, grotesque, dangerous, or immoral acts and teachings—accepting them, over time, as matters of secondary concern. Prolonged contact with such authority progressively weakens the sensus fidei, which, in many cases, may ultimately be extinguished. One might ask: what will the so-called 'hermeneuts' not eventually accept, under the pretext of fidelity to the conciliar hierarchy? Have they not already urged the faithful to accept, without protest, that a canonised pontiff publicly kissed the Quran?

Shall we soon see these same individuals justifying acts of idolatrous prostration before demonic images in the name of 'respecting the good' these idols purportedly symbolise? In any case, they have already accepted such occurrences, as witnessed in the Vatican gardens, and employ every imaginable semantic contortion to render them palatable through 'pious interpretation.' Also, by continued association with the conciliar system, one becomes lukewarm, desensitised, and morally complacent in the face of intellectual and ethical aberrations of the modern world, not to mention the errors of false religions and heresies. The only target of unwavering condemnation remains the dreaded 'sedevacantist heresy,' the one transgression not to be tolerated under the current regime.