CATHOLICS NOT BOUND TO OBEY A DOUBTFUL POPE

 

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Not if you're a troll. Not even a troll with a ghostwriter.

 

Study after Velázquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X by Francis Bacon (1953)

If anything gets a Catholic hot under the collar these days, it's the Society of St Pius X and its 'disobedience to the Pope'. To suggest it's not 'disobedience' is 'pure gaslighting!'

A reader typifies SSPX Derangement Syndrome by claiming that "every great saint who merrited (sic) extreme graces for the Church during  times of trial refused to disobey the Church.' Like many of the Catholic commentariat she puts the episcopal consecrations  down to pride and neo-Lutheranism. The SSPX, she says, think that they, 'other than the ones given the authority to guide the Church by Jesus Himself, know what's best for the Church.' 

She quotes Scripture. 'Jesus told us to do and practice whatsoever the scribes and pharisees tell us because they sit on the seat of Moses. He tells us how terrible the scribes and pharisees are. But we still MUST OBEY THEM.' 

'So after you die, you can try to justify to Jesus your disobedience to His Church. In over 2000 years, the Church has never failed, but you think that now YOU are right and the Church is wrong!? Dang, that takes some nerve. Or complete stupidity.'

Ah, well. The Church herself is indefectible and can never be wrong, because Christ promised her the guidance of the Holy Spirit for ever and always. But our Lord made no such promise as to her office holders, legitimate or otherwise. Jorge Bergoglio, for example, was illicitly elected while Benedict XIV (having failed in his attempt to 'resign' the papacy) was still living). So in other words, Bergoglio was an antipope. 

Robert Prevost, his protege, was elected in a conclave inflated by 'Pope Francis' with 108 of the 133 cardinal electors being his choice, and like him, Modernists, i.o.w. heretics, as defined by successive pre-Vatican II popes. Prevost has and is publicly committed to Bergoglio's Modernist agenda. So as a heretic himself cannot possibly possess the authority invested by Christ in the leader of His Church.

The thing is, our reader's analogy of the Scribes and Pharisees (today's Leo, Tucho, etc) as being those invested by Christ with 'authority to guide the Church' falls over when one considers that the Scribes and Pharisees - in spite of being 'terrible' actually taught the law of Moses. As the website Radical Fidelity states in the essay below: 

The scribes and Pharisees did teach the Jewish law to the letter but did not follow it themselves. Therefore Jesus instructs His listeners to observe what they say (the legitimate Jewish law) but not to do what they do (namely, not following the law they teach).

 

This is not the case with the Synodal religion and its alleged popes. They do not teach and advance authentic Catholicism while merely failing to obey it themselves. No, they are teaching a whole new religion that is not Catholicism.

 

The Society of St Pius X doesn't disobey the Church. It is the Modernists in the Vatican who disobey the Church in her Tradition, her Magisterium and her liturgy.  

"All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."(Mt 23, 2)

Christ warned his disciples not to imitate the Scribes and Pharisees in their ambition. He denounced their hypocrisy and blindness. He told us to follow their GOOD DOCTRINE (the Jewish law) but not their bad example.

If the Scribes and Pharisees gave a bad example while teaching the Mosaic law, then the Vatican and especially 'Pope Leo' give a very much worse example in pushing the Vatican II envelope of heresy ever further and further. They  give Catholics every reason to doubt the validity of this papacy. As Radical Fidelity puts it:

A Catholic owes obedience to a true and certain pope. If the Catholic is genuinely uncertain, though, as many rightly are here in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, he is not bound to obey and recognize him as pope.

If he does obey and recognise a pope who gives scandal, the Catholic is liable to incur the punishment enunciated by Christ as "a millstone tied around his neck" and being "drowned in the depth of the sea". (Mt 18:6–7) If the Catholic recognises the scandal, then by not calling 'Pope Leo' out, he/she is damaging the dignity of the papacy.  If a Catholic says  Bergoglio and Prevost were/are legitimate popes, he/she is saying that Christ is, vicariously through them, leading the faithful astray. 


That goes a long way towards explaining why Bergoglio publicly rejected the title "Vicar of Christ". How bad does Prevost have to get before he repeats Bergoglio's repudiation?

Note also that, after excoriating the wicked Scribes and Pharisees of His day, Jesus went on to say: 

"Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city"- as in, excommunicate. 

As in, the Society of St Pius X.

 

self-explanatory

   

From Radical Fidelity:

 

The Serious Implications of Legitimizing a False Pope

 

Recognizing a false pope as legitimate therefore denies that the pope is the visible principle of unity, the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the supreme teacher of the universal Church.

 

One of the positions I hold that I receive the most criticism for, as well as the most related questions about, is my, shall we say for the sake of sensitive souls, skepticism about the validity or legitimacy of the postconciliar papal claimants.

 

Recently I once again received a message from a reader saying that he can clearly see that at least the last two “popes” are advancing heterodoxy and heresy and leading souls astray, but that he was still concerned about doubting their legitimacy or not recognizing them as valid popes.

 

I gave the person a short basic answer, and although I have addressed the issue on various occasions, I will do so once again here. This is both for the sake of the person who contacted me and because I realize that, as the Synodal Church’s flagrant attempts to destroy Catholicism intensify, more decent, normal Catholic folk are facing the unavoidable conclusion that this cannot be the Catholic Church, and these cannot be Catholic popes.

 

This time around, rather than only giving reasons as to why you can at least doubt their validity (I am not here to push any specific position), I would also like to look at the very serious consequences and implications of the alternative, namely recognizing an imposter, usurper, or false pope as a legitimate Vicar of Christ.

 

For the sake of this essay, I am going to assume that the reader, or “sede-curious” person, agrees that at the very least Jorge Bergoglio and Robert Prevost are doing extreme damage to the reputation of the Catholic Church, are promulgating heresies explicitly and implicitly, and are therefore leading souls to hell.

 

If you haven’t reached this conclusion yet, you are either very naïve or willfully choosing to put your head in the sand, and I am seriously imploring you to research the subject.

 

But assuming you do agree, let’s continue in as logical a fashion as possible.

 

The beautiful and important Catholic doctrine of the papacy is based on two Scriptural foundations: firstly, Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and secondly, Luke 22:32, which guarantees that St. Peter’s faith will not fail. The latter also implies the same of the successors of St. Peter.

 

Using these two promises, theologians have repeatedly argued that a Roman Pontiff cannot impose heresy on the universal Church nor advance a religion (in our case, Modernism and Synodality) that is destructive of the faithful’s salvation.

 

Italian Novus Ordo bishop Derio Olivero at the "Mass in the Valley" on July 19, 2026

This does not refer to a pope falling into private heresy, but is seen as a guarantee that the papal office itself is protected by God Himself from becoming an instrument of doctrinal corruption.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, to whom we will return shortly, famously wrote that “the Pontiff not only cannot err as Pope, he cannot even be a heretic by pertinaciously believing something false against the faith” (De Romano Pontifice), which he based on Luke 22:32.

 

According to St. Bellarmine, a pope who became a manifest heretic would automatically cease to be pope, since he would no longer be a member of the Catholic Church.

 

Based on this, the reader should then conclude that, if Modernism is indeed the synthesis of all heresies and Synodality is merely its latest manifestation, then all the postconciliar popes who have actively been advancing these heresies to the detriment of the Church and the souls of the faithful are, at the very least, doubtful claimants.

 

A second great theologian, St. Francis de Sales, argued in a similar vein to St. Bellarmine. According to him, a pope could sin personally and even govern poorly, but what a pope can never do is teach heresy to the faithful.

 

Need I remind the reader of Francis’s claims that all religions are paths to God? Or the countless examples of Prevost subtly and implicitly advancing similar heretical ideas?

 

In his work The Catholic Controversy, St. Francis de Sales wrote that “when he is explicitly a pastor and teacher of all Christians... then God so assists him that it is impossible for him to err.”

 

 

 

There were other theologians who did entertain the theoretical possibility that a pope might be a heretic but still insisted that he could not formally bind the Church to heresy. (Keep in mind that the faithful are obligated to obey both the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium, and therefore saying he didn’t teach ex cathedra is not a get-out-of-jail card.)

 

One such theologian was Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, who said that a heretical pope should be denounced as such by the Church and thereby lose his office. What Cardinal Cajetan obviously did not foresee was that a time would come when almost the whole institution claiming to be the Catholic Church would have descended into heresy, heterodoxy, and, in many cases, full-blown apostasy.

 

Another theologian who argued a similar case was John of St. Thomas. In his work Cursus Theologicus, he argued that the Church could depose a heretical pope by declaring that, through his manifest heresy, he had ceased to be pope.

These conclusions finally developed into dogma at the First Vatican Council, which declared in the document Pastor Aeternus that the Holy Ghost was promised to popes “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 handed down through the Apostles.”

 

KINDLY DONATE HERE IF YOU VALUE MY WORK

 

At this stage of the essay, we can hopefully agree that, according to Catholicism, a pope cannot be a manifest heretic, teach heresy, or advance a religion that leads the faithful astray.

 

Once you have come to the conclusion that something is rotten in Rome and suspect that the postconciliar “popes” might be illegitimate or invalid, you may now wonder whether a Catholic is even allowed to doubt them.

 

Let’s take a look at what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say on the matter.

 

According to this great Doctor of the Church, a Catholic owes obedience to a true and certain pope. If the Catholic is genuinely uncertain, though, as many rightly are here in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, he is not bound to obey and recognize him as pope.

 

St. Bellarmine did argue, however, that if at some future point in time the legitimacy of the pope in question is established, then a skeptical person is bound to obey and recognize him as such.

 

John of St. Thomas refined St. Bellarmine’s hypothesis by saying that until the Church acts as the authoritative witness who removes the uncertainty for the faithful, Catholics may prudently suspend judgment while the matter remains unresolved, provided that such suspension is based upon genuine and objective doubt rather than personal preference or dissent.

 

Here, of course, one has to decide whether the Synodal Church is the actual Catholic Church that has the authority to make such a call.

 

If, at this stage of the essay, you are still doubtful, let us take a look at the implications of the alternative: recognizing a usurper, false pope, or antipope.

 

Firstly, you are causing scandal. Scandal is the sin of being the occasion, through one’s words, deeds, or silence, of another’s fall. Nowadays it seems that Catholics are hardly aware of this sin, misunderstand it, or do not realize how serious it is. This is what Jesus Christ Himself says about the sin of scandal:

 

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.” (Matthew 18:6–7)

 

If you therefore recognize a “pope” who teaches heresy and leads souls astray as if he were a legitimate pope, you are participating in confirming those he leads astray in their sin.

 

 

Let us take homosexuality as an example. The Synodal Church is pushing this agenda onto the faithful and onto the world. A gay person will join the Synodal Church and therefore argue that the “Catholic Church and its Pope condone homosexuality.”

 

If you then agree that he is indeed the pope and that the Synodal Church is the actual Catholic Church, then you are enabling the usurper who is leading the sinner astray. According to our Saviour, that is a sin deserving of having a millstone tied around your neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

 

The second very serious implication regards the principle of the pope being the Vicar of Christ. If, say, Bergoglio and Prevost are legitimate popes, it means that Christ is, vicariously through them, leading the faithful astray.

 

I do not even think I need to explain this further. Ask yourself whether the rightful Vicar of Christ can, for example, deny that Christ is the only Way of Salvation or claim that a certain people have their own covenant and are saved through this covenant rather than through Christ.

 

Thirdly, by not speaking up, you are actually harming the dignity of the papal office. Saying that you are, at the very least, skeptical of the legitimacy of a demonstrably doubtful papal claimant does not mean you have a low view of the papacy, but rather the opposite.

 

To reject a usurper’s claims shows that you hold the papacy in the highest esteem, whereas legitimizing a false pope destroys the Catholic Church’s teaching that the papacy is Christ’s divinely established office, instituted to preserve the Church in unity and truth.

 

Recognizing a false pope as legitimate therefore denies that the pope is the visible principle of unity, the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the supreme teacher of the universal Church.

 

You are then effectively saying that Christ’s promises to St. Peter have failed because the postconciliar popes have indeed become the source of a new religion and have corrupted the apostolic faith. To claim or imply this is a heresy and makes you a heretic.

 

Personally, I, for one, do not want to be guilty of heresy and I am not willing to say that an actual pope can lead the faithful into doctrines harmful to salvation. To acknowledge as pope a man who publicly teaches doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith and who promotes religious practices previously condemned by the Church is the ultimate injury to the dignity of the papacy.

 

I want to address one last argument that the reader is bound to encounter when expressing doubt as to whether the person in the Seat of Peter might be a usurper or no pope at all. Often defenders of the Synodal religion and its “popes” will bring up Matthew 23:2–3.

 

In this passage Our Lord tells the disciples and the multitudes that, “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

 

They will then argue that, just as “the chair of Moses” should be obeyed despite the Pharisees and scribes, so Catholics have to submit to the “Seat of Peter” despite a questionable pope. This is an erroneous argument and a dishonest strategy.

 

The scribes and Pharisees did teach the Jewish law to the letter but did not follow it themselves. Therefore Jesus instructs His listeners to observe what they say (the legitimate Jewish law) but not to do what they do (namely, not following the law they teach).

 

This is not the case with the Synodal religion and its alleged popes. They do not teach and advance authentic Catholicism while merely failing to obey it themselves. No, they are teaching a whole new religion that is not Catholicism.

 

Jesus did not tell the audience to follow some false religion the Pharisees were promoting, but to follow the actual Jewish law. He was merely warning against their hypocrisy in not practising what they preached.

 

The Synodal heretics both “preach” a new religion and do not follow true Catholicism. This argument therefore does not apply.

 

 

 

Finally, I want to leave you with a Scriptural warning that is much used, but only because it is so true and applicable to our time. In Galatians 1, St. Paul expresses the following warning, which is as valid now as it was then and remains the ultimate and simplest litmus test:

“...There are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema...”

 

I strongly doubt you have to recognize an anathematized usurper as a legitimate pope.

 

I hope this essay has brought you closer to playing your part in defending the rights of Christ and His Church and in the restoration of the dignity of the Seat of Peter.

KINDLY DONATE HERE IF YOU VALUE MY WORK

 

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!

https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/the-serious-implications-of-legitimizing

 

 

St James the Greater (El Greco)

St James, Apostle, please pray for the Church