Papal Infallibility
The Holy Spirit descending on Pope Gregory I
Misconceptions?
Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation. Peter Kreeft observes that the Church should not be mistaken for a political body because it is an organic body and no organic body can be a democracy. It must have a head. Christ gave the Church a head.
What is the gift of infallibility?
The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most "examples" of papal "errors" emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)
Biblical Basis and Tradition
The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops.
The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). When bishops of the world meet together summoned by the papacy, they meet in ecumenical council, which if held at the Vatican is referred to as a Vatican council. They are usually called infrequently only at times of pivotal or critical moments in the life of the Church.
For example, the Council of Jerusalem about 50 A.D. discussed in Acts of the Apostles, chapter15 was a precursor of later councils. After that Council made its decision to not require Gentile Christians to be circumcised as desired by the Judaizers, it wrote to the Church that " . .it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden . . ." The first formal ecumenical council was that of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which condemned the Arian heresy and declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father.
The Nestorian and Pelagian heresies were condemned at Ephesus in 431 A.D. and Mary was formally given the title "Mother of God." Thus Councils are called to decide matters of doctrine and discipline for the whole Church. It was St. Paul who described the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution of the Church puts it this way: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively" (Lumen Gentium, 25).
Authority in Virtue of the Office
Infallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.") Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church, to"feed my lambs…tend my sheep." [Note: The Greek word for "tend," poimanao, means "to rule." The same Greek word is used in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus himself.] Together with the apostles he enjoys the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven. Vatican II puts it this way: " [Infallibility] is something he enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith. (Luke 22:32 "…but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
Doctrinal Understanding over Time
The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded." In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, "who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail." Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that:
"Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point" (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).
Infallible papal pronouncements are few because they could not be made without merely endorsing earlier infallible pronouncements from other sources, namely ecumenical councils or the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. An example of an important papal document that is not infallible would be Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical on human life does not meet the strict requirements for an infallible pronouncement, but it nonetheless teaches infallible truths because they can be enunciated in a document that is not itself infallible. Infallible teachings are not defined by the Holy Father unless they are already in the deposit of faith, either in Sacred Scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition and there is an evident need. For a greater understanding of papal infallibility provided by Catholic Answers, Click Here.
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
Although the two radio priests stated that the early Popes did not know they were infallible with the same certainty of faith as later Popes, some might believe, that the popes, as well as others, did understand their own authority in the Church. The following passages are a testimony to this:
Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).
As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility. For example, quoting from the early Church Fathers:
Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nation . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…"), and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit (John. 16:13). That command and Jesus’ promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from His teachings, even if an individual Catholic might. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad examples. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from formally teaching as the "truth" something that is not. It does not help him know, what is true, he has to do his homework the way we all do to find this out. "It doesn’t even guarantee that the pope, when he does teach, will be as effective or persuasive, or as clear as he should be in what he teaches (Madrid, p. 138, Pope Fiction)." A pope’s private personal or theological opinions are not infallible.
Many incorrectly think that the popes are given a special power that helps them in teaching infallibly. This is confused with "inspiration". "While inspiration gives information, infallibility protects information. It doesn’t provide the Pope with the information he needs to teach, that comes from his own efforts to study and understand the deposit of Faith. It does make sure that when he formally teaches the doctrines of Faith, he’ll do so without error. The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Peter. All the other popes who followed Peter and sat in his chair, had to do their teaching the hard way— studying and then learning it first!" (Madrid, pp. 139-140, Pope Fiction).
Cases against Infallibility?
Now let’s turn to history and point out some favorite cases cited against papal infallibility.
What about Peter’s conduct at Antioch, certainly this would be a perfect example of papal infallibility being non-existent.
Remember Peter’s conduct at Antioch, when he refused to eat with the Gentile Christians in order to not offend certain Jews (Gal. 2:11-16). Paul reprimanded him, not because of his lack of papal infallibility, but because Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. It was Peter’s actions that were being brought into question, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter was well aware of the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15-16), the problem was that Peter wasn’t living up to his own teachings! "Another example of this is found in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus points out the Jewish leaders and reminds all that they possessed a God-given authority to teach, even though many of them were corrupt. Jesus later calls them ‘hypocrites’ and ‘a brood of vipers’ but that they nonetheless had an office with authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples saying, "‘The Scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do, and observe all the things, whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.’" Through God's providence there have only been a few bad apples in the papacy, these bad popes stand out so much because they are so rare. Even so, infallibility has nothing to do with sin. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of popes have been very holy men. Some unfortunately, were very heavy sinners, who lived horrible lives, but they were prevented by this grace of the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error to the Church." (Madrid, pp. 132-33, 139, Pope Fiction)
"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)
"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).
"How can the Catholic Church claim infallibility when it officially condemned Galileo for heresy when he declared that the Earth revolves around the sun? Add to this fact that Galileo was cruelly imprisoned and force to recant under pains of torture. Modern science show that Galileo was right and the ‘infallible pope’ was wrong." (Madrid, p. 178, Pope Fiction)
"Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer who’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, true, but his ideas were also contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought which was accepted by all contemporary scientists of his day." (Madrid, p. 179, Pope Fiction) Interestingly another scientific peer, Johannes Kepler, a Protestant, was vehemently condemned 10 years earlier by a Protestant University of Tubingen, for advocating the very same theory, and we don’t hear the same blown-out-of proportion stories, that Galileo has led us to. Actually for many years, Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman officials, and his work received high honors from three successive popes. So why was he condemned?
"First of all, is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although completely opposed by theologians, wasn’t the real source of his difficulties with the Church. Actually it was a presumption to teach that God was merely accidental, and not substantial. Galileo confused truths with scientific discoveries by saying that in the Bible ‘are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly…’. Thus it was Galileo’s attack on theology that brought about the heated response from the Church." (Madrid, pp. 181-82, Pope Fiction) Even with all of this the Church neither violated nor compromised the doctrine of infallibility. Remember that in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must offically be defining a doctrine relating to faith or morals—the pope is not infallible when it comes to science or any other field of thought, furthermore, the other two conditions to pronounce an infallible doctrine were not present.
As Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies explain: "All his [Galileo] arguments [of the day] gave probability only. In the present state of general education we all know that there is no doubt on the subject, and that the movement of the Earth is in no way opposed to Sacred Scripture, rightly understood. But people did not know that then, and they were not ready for the new knowledge. It’s general publication could result only in widespread disturbance due to a lack of preparatory knowledge . . . the conservatism of the Church was prudence itself in the face of these novelties not yet proved."
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned and brutally tortured to get a confession from him? He was imprisoned but there is no evidence that he was tortured because he provided a retraction of his original statements against the Church regarding his scientific theories.
"The Galileo story when wrongly understood seems to stain the credibility of the Church, but when understood correctly, it proves nothing, except that the Catholic Church is very serious in her efforts to safeguard the flock from error or scandal. Throughout the Galileo ordeal, the Pope Urban VIII, was not acting in his capacity of teacher, but of protective guardian. So as disturbing as this case was it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic teaching of infallibility." (Madrid, pp. 188-89, Pope Fiction).
"What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error." (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)
Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica." Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."
Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments. He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others. They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."
Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.
Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . " If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).
The reason for the gift
"The rejection of papal infallibility by non-Catholics stems from their views of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. It should be enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after the Master’s instruction, a visible organization. Every Christian in the early centuries until the Reformation took for granted, that Christ set up an on-going organization" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Doubtless, our Lord also set up a means, once he ascended into heaven, by which the teachings he provided could be preserved.
"All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of the popes, and the preservation of the Christian message, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility. If the Church is to do what Christ said it would do, and not do what he said it would not do, such as have the gates of hell prevail against it, it must be able to teach infallibly The Church cannot teach heresy, or it ceases to be Jesus’ church. As Paul stated "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". The Pope must be able to teach rightly. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. And that is why papal infallibility exists" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Click Here to read more from Catholic Answers.
Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation. Peter Kreeft observes that the Church should not be mistaken for a political body because it is an organic body and no organic body can be a democracy. It must have a head. Christ gave the Church a head.
What is the gift of infallibility?
The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most "examples" of papal "errors" emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)
Biblical Basis and Tradition
The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops.
The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). When bishops of the world meet together summoned by the papacy, they meet in ecumenical council, which if held at the Vatican is referred to as a Vatican council. They are usually called infrequently only at times of pivotal or critical moments in the life of the Church.
For example, the Council of Jerusalem about 50 A.D. discussed in Acts of the Apostles, chapter15 was a precursor of later councils. After that Council made its decision to not require Gentile Christians to be circumcised as desired by the Judaizers, it wrote to the Church that " . .it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden . . ." The first formal ecumenical council was that of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which condemned the Arian heresy and declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father.
The Nestorian and Pelagian heresies were condemned at Ephesus in 431 A.D. and Mary was formally given the title "Mother of God." Thus Councils are called to decide matters of doctrine and discipline for the whole Church. It was St. Paul who described the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution of the Church puts it this way: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively" (Lumen Gentium, 25).
Authority in Virtue of the Office
Infallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.") Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church, to"feed my lambs…tend my sheep." [Note: The Greek word for "tend," poimanao, means "to rule." The same Greek word is used in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus himself.] Together with the apostles he enjoys the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven. Vatican II puts it this way: " [Infallibility] is something he enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith. (Luke 22:32 "…but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
Doctrinal Understanding over Time
The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded." In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, "who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail." Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that:
"Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point" (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).
Infallible papal pronouncements are few because they could not be made without merely endorsing earlier infallible pronouncements from other sources, namely ecumenical councils or the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. An example of an important papal document that is not infallible would be Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical on human life does not meet the strict requirements for an infallible pronouncement, but it nonetheless teaches infallible truths because they can be enunciated in a document that is not itself infallible. Infallible teachings are not defined by the Holy Father unless they are already in the deposit of faith, either in Sacred Scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition and there is an evident need. For a greater understanding of papal infallibility provided by Catholic Answers, Click Here.
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers
Although the two radio priests stated that the early Popes did not know they were infallible with the same certainty of faith as later Popes, some might believe, that the popes, as well as others, did understand their own authority in the Church. The following passages are a testimony to this:
Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).
As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility. For example, quoting from the early Church Fathers:
Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"
Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nation . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…"), and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit (John. 16:13). That command and Jesus’ promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from His teachings, even if an individual Catholic might. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad examples. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from formally teaching as the "truth" something that is not. It does not help him know, what is true, he has to do his homework the way we all do to find this out. "It doesn’t even guarantee that the pope, when he does teach, will be as effective or persuasive, or as clear as he should be in what he teaches (Madrid, p. 138, Pope Fiction)." A pope’s private personal or theological opinions are not infallible.
Many incorrectly think that the popes are given a special power that helps them in teaching infallibly. This is confused with "inspiration". "While inspiration gives information, infallibility protects information. It doesn’t provide the Pope with the information he needs to teach, that comes from his own efforts to study and understand the deposit of Faith. It does make sure that when he formally teaches the doctrines of Faith, he’ll do so without error. The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Peter. All the other popes who followed Peter and sat in his chair, had to do their teaching the hard way— studying and then learning it first!" (Madrid, pp. 139-140, Pope Fiction).
Cases against Infallibility?
Now let’s turn to history and point out some favorite cases cited against papal infallibility.
What about Peter’s conduct at Antioch, certainly this would be a perfect example of papal infallibility being non-existent.
Remember Peter’s conduct at Antioch, when he refused to eat with the Gentile Christians in order to not offend certain Jews (Gal. 2:11-16). Paul reprimanded him, not because of his lack of papal infallibility, but because Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. It was Peter’s actions that were being brought into question, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter was well aware of the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15-16), the problem was that Peter wasn’t living up to his own teachings! "Another example of this is found in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus points out the Jewish leaders and reminds all that they possessed a God-given authority to teach, even though many of them were corrupt. Jesus later calls them ‘hypocrites’ and ‘a brood of vipers’ but that they nonetheless had an office with authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples saying, "‘The Scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do, and observe all the things, whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.’" Through God's providence there have only been a few bad apples in the papacy, these bad popes stand out so much because they are so rare. Even so, infallibility has nothing to do with sin. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of popes have been very holy men. Some unfortunately, were very heavy sinners, who lived horrible lives, but they were prevented by this grace of the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error to the Church." (Madrid, pp. 132-33, 139, Pope Fiction)
"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)
"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).
"How can the Catholic Church claim infallibility when it officially condemned Galileo for heresy when he declared that the Earth revolves around the sun? Add to this fact that Galileo was cruelly imprisoned and force to recant under pains of torture. Modern science show that Galileo was right and the ‘infallible pope’ was wrong." (Madrid, p. 178, Pope Fiction)
"Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer who’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, true, but his ideas were also contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought which was accepted by all contemporary scientists of his day." (Madrid, p. 179, Pope Fiction) Interestingly another scientific peer, Johannes Kepler, a Protestant, was vehemently condemned 10 years earlier by a Protestant University of Tubingen, for advocating the very same theory, and we don’t hear the same blown-out-of proportion stories, that Galileo has led us to. Actually for many years, Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman officials, and his work received high honors from three successive popes. So why was he condemned?
"First of all, is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although completely opposed by theologians, wasn’t the real source of his difficulties with the Church. Actually it was a presumption to teach that God was merely accidental, and not substantial. Galileo confused truths with scientific discoveries by saying that in the Bible ‘are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly…’. Thus it was Galileo’s attack on theology that brought about the heated response from the Church." (Madrid, pp. 181-82, Pope Fiction) Even with all of this the Church neither violated nor compromised the doctrine of infallibility. Remember that in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must offically be defining a doctrine relating to faith or morals—the pope is not infallible when it comes to science or any other field of thought, furthermore, the other two conditions to pronounce an infallible doctrine were not present.
As Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies explain: "All his [Galileo] arguments [of the day] gave probability only. In the present state of general education we all know that there is no doubt on the subject, and that the movement of the Earth is in no way opposed to Sacred Scripture, rightly understood. But people did not know that then, and they were not ready for the new knowledge. It’s general publication could result only in widespread disturbance due to a lack of preparatory knowledge . . . the conservatism of the Church was prudence itself in the face of these novelties not yet proved."
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned and brutally tortured to get a confession from him? He was imprisoned but there is no evidence that he was tortured because he provided a retraction of his original statements against the Church regarding his scientific theories.
"The Galileo story when wrongly understood seems to stain the credibility of the Church, but when understood correctly, it proves nothing, except that the Catholic Church is very serious in her efforts to safeguard the flock from error or scandal. Throughout the Galileo ordeal, the Pope Urban VIII, was not acting in his capacity of teacher, but of protective guardian. So as disturbing as this case was it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic teaching of infallibility." (Madrid, pp. 188-89, Pope Fiction).
"What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error." (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)
Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica." Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."
Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments. He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others. They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."
Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.
Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . " If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).
The reason for the gift
"The rejection of papal infallibility by non-Catholics stems from their views of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. It should be enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after the Master’s instruction, a visible organization. Every Christian in the early centuries until the Reformation took for granted, that Christ set up an on-going organization" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Doubtless, our Lord also set up a means, once he ascended into heaven, by which the teachings he provided could be preserved.
"All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of the popes, and the preservation of the Christian message, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility. If the Church is to do what Christ said it would do, and not do what he said it would not do, such as have the gates of hell prevail against it, it must be able to teach infallibly The Church cannot teach heresy, or it ceases to be Jesus’ church. As Paul stated "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". The Pope must be able to teach rightly. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. And that is why papal infallibility exists" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Click Here to read more from Catholic Answers.
