Any blind acceptance of a pope's authority, as if he were morally infallible in his personal declarations and conduct, contradicts the true nature of papal infallibility and sacred obedience.
By Fr. Mario Alexis Portella
Crisis Magazine
April 1, 2026
When Cephas [Peter in Syriac] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
These are the words recorded by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (2:11-13) during his encounter with St. Peter in Antioch, the place where the followers of Christ were first referred to as Christians (Acts 11:26). This location was a crucial center of early Christianity, where Jewish and Gentile Christians often interacted with each other. Peter, also known as Cephas, had been dining with Gentile believers, which was a significant act of fellowship and acceptance. However, when certain individuals from James, representing the Jewish Christian faction, arrived, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, fearing possible criticism from the circumcision group.
Paul's challenge to Peter was not simply a matter of personal disagreement; it was a defense of the fundamental message of the Gospel: salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, independent of the works of the Law. By distancing himself from the Gentiles, Peter's behavior suggested that compliance with Jewish customs was essential for complete acceptance within the Christian community, which was in direct conflict with the Gospel's doctrine of justification by faith alone.
I have frequently encountered the assertion in certain conservative Catholic circles that "It is better to be in error with the pope than to be correct without him." It is not our place to judge the Roman Pontiff, as that obligation, like all others, belongs to God and to God alone. However, when the Successor to St. Peter asks for compliance with something that contradicts the teachings and practices of our Church, should we adhere to his directives as obedient Catholics or not, particularly since obedience is what maintains our unity as Catholics ? In other words, is our obedience to the Roman Pontiff or any superior within the Church unconditional?
"That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church," Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre once said. For, he added:
Obedience presupposes an authority which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it.
To fully grasp papal authority, it is essential to understand the authoritative essence of the depositum fidei (deposit of faith). Jesus Christ, who embodies the entirety of Revelation, entrusted the complete truth to His bride, the Church. The fullness of His Revelation constitutes the singular depositum fidei, which is infallible, immutable, and relevant across all cultures and ages and serves as the fountain from which all doctrines and definitions of the faith emerge.
To maintain unity of faith, the magisterium of the Church is tasked with interpreting the deposit of faith and applying it to particular times and situations. The teaching office of the Roman Pontiff, the magisterium itself, is empowered to issue, when deemed necessary, a definition regarding matters of faith or morals. Such acts offer absolute assurance that the teaching is part of the depositum fidei. In this, one is not being obedient to the pope but to the article of faith he is defining necessary for our salvation. This is because, as canon 331 of the Code of Canon Law states:
The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
The standoff between St. Paul and St. Peter was one of discipline, keeping in mind that we as Catholics are still to render obedience to the pope. Yet, as St. Thomas Aquinas said in his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, any form of public resistance aimed at the pope or a prelate's exercise of authority, similar to Paul's actions toward Peter, is licit if there is a threat to the faith.
Indeed, St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Jesuit theologian, Doctor of the Church, and one of the greatest defenders of Catholic theology during the Counter-Reformation, in his De Romano Pontifice, wrote:
As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior.
This had occurred during the notorious case of Pope John XXII (r. 1316-1334), who rejected the notion of the beatific vision for the faithful departed and publicly taught this in his sermons and letters. At the behest of the College of Cardinals and theologians, he rescinded from his erroneous teaching at his deathbed.
No pope has the authority to impose upon a Catholic anything that could undermine his or her faith; nor can any bishop or religious superior impose such a burden on those within their jurisdiction. In fact, individuals are obligated to resist any influence that may jeopardize their faith. This situation is analogous to a physician who is directed by civil authorities to conduct an abortion or execute a surgery to alter an individual's biological sex or risk losing their medical license. In this instance, the doctor not only has the right to decline but also bears a moral responsibility to refuse.
Any blind acceptance of a pope's authority, as if he were morally infallible in his personal declarations and conduct, contradicts the true nature of papal infallibility and sacred obedience. His infallibility is not associated with his personal character but with the office he occupies.
This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.
Fr. Mario Alexis Portella, J.D., J.C.D. is a priest of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy, as well as a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute in Budapest, Hungary, and a Visiting Professor at ITI Catholic University in Trumau, Austria. He holds a doctorate in canon law and civil law from the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome.