A preliminary heresy that must be stated is shared by ideologists on the left and right who mimic each other, always. Neither are of Tradition but rather push their own agendas. They both dismiss the availability of Sacred Scripture as a viable source of Revelation. The filthy left says that it is out of date because we’re nice and we live today. The right, who I nickname the ultra-tradition-al-ism-ists, blaspheme the Holy Spirit to say that Sacred Scripture is utterly useless, that we can use Saint Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Tradition with already established solemn interventions of the Sacred Magisterium, things that have been believed everywhere and by all, while meanwhile ignoring Sacred Scripture as idiocy. The problem for both is that when the Holy Spirit is blasphemed and the Sacred Scriptures thrown out, there can be no understanding of the Living Truth. Mind you, I’ve heard some of the very best theologians (you know, the orthodox crowd at the top of their game) openly blaspheme in this way. No, really. For a really pedantic examination of what is in Sacred Scripture, which I’ve never seen anyone else do, see my article:
That article is the basis for which I state that the following are some of the heresies over against papal infallibility:
- The Pope, when speaking not as a merely private individual but in fact as the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, pronounces and declares upon faith or morality to the universal Church especially in deciding a controversy, can fail in his infallibility. The “right” thinks he has done this with Amoris laetitia even though it is said in the very document to be a mere dialogue and not any kind of teaching. The left thinks he can can fail in infallibility on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, women’s ordination, and so on. That infallibility can fail is a heresy. Neither the Pope nor God can change the truth. God is truth. The pope is the servant of Truth. To think and do otherwise, making up the truth as one goes along (ignoring the word “dialogue” etc), so as to effectively make oneself pope, is rather self-referentially congratulatory.
- The Church is “indefectable” over against the Pope who can fail in his infallibility, and that makes it all good in the long run, because, you know, Jesus is nice. This is the heresy of disgraced “Catholic” “Theologian Father Hans Küng. Mind you, his thoughts on this were taken up explicitely by an ultra-tradition-al-ist crowd in Winona, Minnesota, years ago, with their publishing of a super-fancy, super-clever, fold-up poster providing apologetics for their place in the Church. Hey! they said, We’re with Hans!” That the Church is “indefectable” over against the Pope who can fail in his infallibility is a heresy. The arrogance, the mockery is stunning.
- It is actually the not the Pope, but a council against the Pope, which is infallible even while it excludes the Pope, so that the members of that council can take the Pope to task and simply declare him to be an anti-Pope after he fails in his infallibility. This is to ignore that Jesus chose Peter alone over against the other Apostles to bear the burden of infallibility. This is to reject Jesus. That the successors of the Apostles can take over the infallibility which falls only to the successor of Peter is a heresy. The right falls into this heresy continuously as does the left. Examples of both are rife. The ignorance and rejection of Jesus is stunning.
The list could continue. The examples are innumerable and jaw dropping, and scandalous.