What is Papal Minimalism?

So it would seem I am disliked by both Pope-splainers and Sedevacantists. This is because I hold to the position of St. John Henry Newman, Doctor of the Church, in that I’m a papal minimalist. That means I believe the pope is only guaranteed infallibility when he speaks on matters of faith and morals — ex cathedra (from the chair).  This Catholic teaching, which every Catholic is required to believe, comes to us from Scripture (Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-34) and Pastor Aeternus, First Vatican Council in 1870 (English version here). It’s the ex cathedra part that is most important, because that is a very rare event that almost never happens. The last time it indisputably happened was in 1950 with the Apostolic Constitution entitled Munificentissimus Deus which made the Church doctrine of Mary’s assumption into heaven a dogma of Catholic Faith. Whereas Pope St. John Paul II came very close to an ex cathedra decree in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis forbidding the ordination of female priests, he seemed to stop just short of completing the usual formula often associated with ex cathedra decrees. It doesn’t really change anything, as women cannot be ordained as priests, and this has always been the bi-millenial and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. That is what St. John Paul II said. The Church (including the pope) simply does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. Whether we believe John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter was ex cathedra or not, the point is that infallible decrees by the pope are extremely rare. 

That means that popes can error in matters of faith and morals outside of ex cathedra decrees. It’s not common, but it occasionally does happen, and under the pontificate of Pope Francis (2013–2025) it happened more often than most people were comfortable with. Admittedly, I was uncomfortable with it too. Nevertheless, I affirmed his papacy as legitimate (as far as any of us knew), and simply refused to go along with any of his statements or decrees that appeared to blatantly contradict known Catholic teaching. The following is a short list of such controversial teachings touching on the major issues…

• Atheists can go to heaven. (Open Letter to Eugenio Scalfari, 9-4-2013)
• Holy Communion can be given to Catholics who are divorced and remarried without an annulment. (footnote 351, Amoris Laetitia, 2016)
• God wills the plurality of religions. (Abu Dhabi Declaration, 2019)
• The Church may bless same-sex couples together (as a couple) without affirming same-sex “marriage” or homosexual relations. (Fiducia Supplicans, 2023)

These four highlights are not an exhaustive list of the problematic statements and decrees made by Pope Francis during his pontificate. They are rather just the most controversial things that seemed to cause the most problems. There were other issues that caused significant problems as well, such as Traditionis Custodes in 2021 for example, which reversed Pope Benedict XVI’s decree Summorum Pontificum in 2007, liberalizing celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, otherwise known as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, the Vetus Ordo, or the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). Technically, this is not a doctrinal issue and does not pertain to the subject of this essay. The pope does have legitimate authority over these matters, even if he abuses it. Many traditionally-minded Catholics hope for a correction of this matter by the current Pope Leo XIV, myself included, but nevertheless, making such a decree (petty as it was) does not contradict Catholic teaching.

Papal Minimalism

Under papal minimalism, which is the position I adhere to as a Catholic, consistent with the teachings of St. John Henry Newman (AD 1801–1890), Doctor of the Church, such problematic doctrinal statements made by the pope (listed above), either in writing or verbal comment, are a nuisance to be sure. Nobody likes it when the pope errs. However, it does not constitute a crisis of faith. Such errors don’t constitute a crisis for me because, as a papal minimalist, I believe the pope can err, and still be the pope, just so long as he’s not doing so ex cathedra.

This isn’t the first time a pope has made such problematic errors. A few examples from history include St. Peter himself (AD 30–67), who hypocritically acted in a way as if there was still a difference between Jews and Gentiles in the Church (Galatians 2:11-21) even though he himself taught against this notion. I wrote about this extensively in my essay When Peter Has Fallen. Another example would be Pope Honorius I (AD 625–638) whose actions promoted the Monothelite heresy, which denied the existence of two wills in Christ. He was later posthumously condemned as a heretic by the ecumenical Third Council of Constantinople in AD 680. Pope Saint Leo II, confirmed the decrees of the Council by adding: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, [Sergius, etc.] and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by a sacrilegious treachery permitted its spotless faith to be sullied.” A third example would include Pope John XXII (AD 1316–1334) who espoused the heretical belief that the souls of the righteous did not enter into the Beatific Vision of Heaven immediately after death, but instead they must wait in a state of anticipation until the Last Judgment. He later repented of this heresy before his death. None of these examples present a theological problem for the papal minimalist, because we acknowledge that popes can (and do) occasionally err, even in the administration and teaching of the papal office. It’s rare, but it does happen. In such cases, it is every Catholic’s job to know his own faith well enough to live it out as normal, unchanged, without being led astray by a pope (or bishop or priest) who is teaching something that contradicts it.

Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine (AD 1542–1621) put forth four popular opinions (in his time) to help explain this. He proposed them as follows…

1. The pope could teach heresy in the extraordinary and ordinary and universal Magisterium, even when assisted by a general or ecumenical Council.
2. The pope could be a formal heretic and teach heresy acting alone, without the assistance of a general or ecumenical Council.
3. The pope could never in “any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter.”
4. “The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of all Catholics.”

Bellarmine went on to conclude:

“From these four opinions, the first is heretical, the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The Fourth is very certain and must be asserted and we will state a few propositions so that it can be understood and confirmed more easily.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice’s Book 4, Chapter 2

Essentially, what Bellarmine is describing here in the fourth opinion, centuries before the First Vatican Council defined it dogmatically, is the subject of ex cathedra decrees. The pope cannot err on such decrees, which as I mentioned above, are extremely rare in frequency. Bellarmine held to the notion that a pope simply could not be a formal heretic, which is a matter of semantics, simply because in order to be a formal heretic, one must be formally corrected by a competent authority. And Church teaching is very explicit on this. Nobody can authoritatively correct a pope, except a future pope…

The First See is judged by no one.

Code of Canon Law, 1404

So the only person who can make a formal decision, about a pope being a formal heretic, is another pope himself. And that isn’t going to happen until some time after the heretical pope has either died or resigned. Such judgement as not for ecumenical councils, synods, bishops, priests, deacons or laypeople. When a pope appears to have erred on matters of faith and morals, it is the duty of every Catholic to simply resist such an error, by continuing to practice the Catholic faith as always and previously defined, encouraging others to do the same. A future pope will settle the matter, formally and definitively, through a future papal decree on the problematic pope. Until then, Catholics are to continue living their faith as they always have, praying for the errant pope the whole time. St. John Henry Newman put it this way…

From these various considerations it follows, that Papal and Synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith, are of rare occurrence; and this is confessed by all sober theologians. Father O’Reilly, for instance, of Dublin, one of the first theologians of the day, says:—
“The Papal Infallibility is comparatively seldom brought into action. I am very far from denying that the Vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the fulfilment of his sublime office, that he receives great light and strength to do well the great work entrusted to him and imposed on him, that he is continually guided from above in the government of the Catholic Church. But this is not the meaning of Infallibility … What is the use of dragging in the Infallibility in connexion with Papal acts with which it has nothing to do,—papal acts, which are very good and very holy, and entitled to all respect and obedience, acts in which the Pontiff is commonly not mistaken, but in which he could be mistaken and still remain infallible in the only sense in which he has been declared to be so?” (The Irish Monthly, Vol. ii. No. 10, 1874.)

St. John Henry Newman, A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation

It makes logical sense that this is the case, since Canon Law itself tells us that not all teachings of the Church are automatically considered infallible…

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Code of Canon Law 747 §3

So likewise, if not every doctrine of the Church is understood as defined infallibly, it only stands to reason that not every doctrinal pronouncement of the pope, on faith and morals, is to be understood as defined infallibly. As recorded by St. John Henry Newman and St. Robert Bellarmine, both doctors of the Church, papal infallibility is to be understood as a rare event. Thus, it is possible for a pope to err on any pronouncement that is non-infallible (not ex cathedra). It’s rare, but it can happen.

Papal Maximalism or Hyperpapalism

There is another position, however, sometimes called papal maximalism, but more often referred to as hyperpapalism, which holds to the notion that the pope can never err on matters of faith and morals, whenever he teaches in any official capacity, whatsoever. This comes from an extreme misinterpretation of Pastor Aeternus from the First Vatican Council in 1870 (see above). About half of all those who identify as Catholics subscribe to the Church teaching that the pope cannot err (is infallible) when he speaks ex cathedra. They are correct in believing that, because the Church teaches you must believe that in order to be Catholic. However, among them, a small percentage believe that the pope is always infallible, whenever he teaches on faith and morals in any official capacity. To be clear, Pastor Aeternus did not teach that, but a small percentage of those Catholics who believe in papal infallibility hold to that position. For some, it’s more nuanced than that. Some hyperpapalists may hold to the position that it is possible for a pope to err on matters of faith and morals, but that he cannot obstinately hold to those errors or else he becomes a formal heretic. This, however, presupposes that there is some competent authority who can judge the pope on such matters, and correct him accordingly. As mentioned above, in Canon Law 1404, no such authority exists so long as the errant pope remains on the Chair of Peter. The nuance is irrelevant because it contradicts Canon Law. Thus, hyperpapalism remains, nuance aside, and it is an error. As a result, whenever people subscribe to a doctrinal error, it usually results in them splitting into more doctrinal errors, and such is the case with hyperpapalism. The hyperpapalists will then divide into three groups…

1. The Papal-Relativist: These are hyperpapalists who subscribe to the false notion that truth can change depending on who the pope is. So if a latter pope contradicts a previous pope, ecumenical council, catechism or the sacred scripture, they believe we are to ignore the previous teaching as no longer true, and just follow the newer teaching of the latest pope. Under this understanding, the pope becomes an oracle of truth, similar to a demigod wherein truth changes depending on what he says.
2. The Pope-splainer: This is a relatively recent phenomenon wherein some newer and younger Catholic apologists hold to the hyperpapalist position that the pope cannot err on any official statement of faith and morals. Therefore, those who say he has erred (such as older Catholic apologists like me) have either misunderstood him, or else they are maliciously trying to spread lies about him.
3. The Sedevacantist: This is a common position among some (a small minority of) traditional Catholics, who hold to the notion that since the pope cannot err on any official teaching on faith and morals (hyperpapalism), if a pope does err then he’s not the pope at all. He is rather an impostor, and antipope, and the Chair of Peter is vacant — sede vacante (or vacant chair).

Error begets more errors. That’s the basic rule of thumb, and as in the case of hyperpapalism (papal maximalism), which is the error that the pope can never err at all, whenever he makes any official statement on faith and morals, it begets three more errors: (1) papal-relativism, (2) pope-splaining and (3) sedevacantism.

Papal minimalism, however, the position of St. John Henry Newman, and the position I adhere to myself, simply states that it is possible for the pope to err on decrees that are not ex cathedra. It doesn’t result in more errors, because it’s not error in and of itself. Papal-minimalists, like myself, are not divided into more groups, nor do we have different takes on what happens when a pope errs, or when people point out papal errors. We just remain papal-minimalists, with no change. It’s annoying when the pope errs. It’s frustrating. We don’t like it. We do resist such errors by not going along with them. We may even speak out against them. However, we never deny the legitimacy of a pope over such errors, nor do we assert that truth has somehow changed, and we don’t attack the sincerity of people who disagree with us. We’re just Catholics who believe what the First Vatican Council taught on papal infallibility. Which is that it is real, but it is also very rare. Beyond that, we accept papal teaching with docility, submitting to it in totality, except when it obviously appears to contradict previous Church teaching. That’s a pretty rare event, and aside from Pope Francis, one is hard-pressed to find other examples in recent times. I’m sure if one searches hard enough, examples can be found among other recent popes, but it would likely be rare and usually very minor.

Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books and he is an Evangelical convert to the Catholic Church. His articles have been featured on LifeSiteNews, The Remnant Newspaper, Forward in Christ, and Catholic Online. You can read Shane’s books at ShaneSchaetzel.Com