In their work critiquing Sedevacantism from their SSPX “Recognize and Resist” perspective, Catholic apologists John Salza and Robert Siscoe wrote the following in response to Anthony Cekada and other Sedevacantists which shows that papal infallibility and the Catholic claims to doctrinal certainty as a result thereof is nothing but a shell-game:
Refuting Assent to Erroneous Teachings
We have seen that obedience to particular commands (both positive and negative) and to general laws does not always oblige; that a Pope can and should be resisted if he seeks to destroy the Church; and that resisting a person in the exercise of his authority does not require that we reject his authority, as such (i.e., by claiming he has lost his office).
But what about the requirement of giving religious assent to the teachings of prelates, even Popes, when such teaching is clearly contrary to what the Church has consistently taught? It is forbidden for the faithful to refuse to listen to such Popes, and to resist their novel doctrines as Fr. Cekada and his Sedevacantist colleagues suggest? We have seen that we can resist unjust laws and commands, but what about resisting erroneous teachings? For example, what if a Pope were to teach publicly that abortion is permissible? Would Catholics have an obligation to accept this teaching, or would it be licit to reject it? If a Pope were to make a public statement (as did Pope Francis) suggesting that the souls of the damned are annihilated (which would mean there is no hell), are Catholics simply required to abandon what the Church has consistently taught about hell and embrace the novelty that is contrary to Tradition? Would that be reasonable? (John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors [Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015], 641)
In the footnote to this paragraph, we read:
As we’ve seen from the teaching of Pope Innocent III and Adrian VI, and the cases of Pope Honorius and John XXII, Popes can teach heresy (certainly a false doctrine that is later declared to be heresy) to the Church [discussed by the authors in chapter 8, “Can A Pope Fall Into Heresy?” pp. 191-227]. We have also seen from Popes Vigilius and Leo IX as well as St. Thomas that heresy (“the gates of hell”) is the only thing that could theoretically destroy the Church (but which Christ prevents through the gift of infallibility). Thus, we should not think it impossible for a true Pope to teach heresy, knowing both that it is not and never will be binding upon the Church (“the gates of hell shall not prevail”) and our obligation to reject it (“We ought to obey God rather than man”), while still recognizing the Pope’s authority (“who sitteth on the Chair of Peter”). (Ibid., 641 n. 55; comment in square bracket added for clarification; emphasis added)
As this article is making the rounds (I have been sent it directly by a few people) and as I have some expertise on Catholic theology (I am one of the most informed Latter-day Saint apologists on the topic of Roman Catholicism [not boasting; just a statement of fact--see my works on Mariology, for e.g.]), here are some comments:
(1) Even if Francis did not say such, he has in the past, and this is not new-- JP II was very ambiguous at times on eternal conscious punishment.
(2) No, this is not a change to Catholic dogma-- it does not fit all the criteria outlined in the Vatican I document, Pastor Aeternus (e.g., he did not state he was speaking using his apostolic authority), unlike Pius XII's dogmatic/infallible proclamation of the Bodily Assumption of Mary in Munificentissimus Deus (1 November, 1950).
(3) Vatican I catalogued over 40 theological errors by popes that Gallicans (as well as Protestants) raised against the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff (thus pastor Aeternus adding that such infallible papal decrees are irreformable in and of themselves and not dependent upon the assent of the Church against the Gallicans, as well as the 4 stipulations that must be met for a papal statement to be infallible). Related to this is the debate as to whether a pope, in Catholic theology, can be a material heretic--the case of Honorius I is almost proof of such, and has been discussed by Dom Chapman in his 1907 book, *The condemnation of Pope Honorius*
(4) Hell and eternal conscious torment is an infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. E.g. In the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated:
And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life. And although He according to divinity is immortal and impassible, the very same according to humanity was made passible and mortal, who, for the salvation of the human race, having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. But He descended in soul, and He arose in the flesh, and He ascended equally in both, to come at the end of time, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.
Benedict XII in his Benedictus Deus (Jan. 29, 1336) wrote:
Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, “so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil” [2 Cor. 5:10].
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which falls under the teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is infallible in Catholic theology), affirms such too. In § 1035 we read:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
(5) Francis is an embarrassment. I understand why my conservative Catholic friends view his pontificate to be an example of a "bad papacy," and I can understand why some have become Traditionalists (e.g., SSPX) recognising his being the pope, but rejecting all his non-authoritative teachings en toto and those who have become Sedevacantists.
For more, see, for e.g.:
