Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Catholic.com ^

Posted on 05/31/2008 5:23:06 AM PDT by NYer



The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.



Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



 

Vatican II’s Explanation



Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "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. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).



Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "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), 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."



The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



 

Based on Christ’s Mandate



Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.



As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



 

Some Clarifications



An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.



Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.



At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.



Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)



Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.



Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.



What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.



 

Peter Not Infallible?



As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.



Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.



Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.



Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).



 

Their "Favorite Case"



According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.



But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."



Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.



The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view 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.



This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.



One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).



If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.



All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).



It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.



Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.



But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.



Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).



NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004


IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; History
KEYWORDS: evangelical; fundamentalist; infallibility; pope

1 posted on 05/31/2008 5:23:07 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Clarification ping!


2 posted on 05/31/2008 5:24:38 AM PDT by NYer (John 6:51-58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ottofire
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur ping.
3 posted on 05/31/2008 5:26:01 AM PDT by NYer (John 6:51-58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

In all my years I've never heard or read of any non-Catholic stating that they believe the pope uses amulets or magical incantations. Has anyone else?

4 posted on 05/31/2008 5:30:32 AM PDT by Hazwaste (Vote! Vote for the conservative local, state, and national candidates of your choice, but VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hazwaste

Yes.


5 posted on 05/31/2008 5:35:15 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Good morning! Good to see you here. Getting ready to run some errands. Hope you can hang around a while. Enjoy your day.


6 posted on 05/31/2008 5:40:27 AM PDT by NYer (John 6:51-58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

adding to my list.....


7 posted on 05/31/2008 5:44:50 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’ll be in and out. Got some yard work to do and stuff.


8 posted on 05/31/2008 5:48:24 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
[The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church.]

The Roman Catholic church has been teaching heresy for some 1000 years now and preaches a false salvation gospel which condemns all them that believe in the gnosticism and myths and fables that are contrary to the doctrines of God.
When the rapture occurs, most church of Rome members will be left behind and partake of the wrath of God for the seven years prophesied {followed by the return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign over the whole earth for the Kingdom millennial rule, also prophesied in the scripture) and will probably condemn the bible believers who Christ raptured and attend the Roman church services the following Sunday.

9 posted on 05/31/2008 6:03:44 AM PDT by kindred (I am now a third party conservative and glad conservative Bob Barr will be on the ballot..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred

are you Tim LaHaye?


10 posted on 05/31/2008 6:14:17 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: kindred

Please respect the Ecumenical tag of this thread.


12 posted on 05/31/2008 6:22:00 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kindred

If people like you are going to be in heaven it’s going to be one hell of a place.


13 posted on 05/31/2008 7:01:02 AM PDT by Radl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hazwaste

Yes, I have. There are Protestants out there who believe the pope uses magical words - really these are just anti-Catholics speaking derisively of the idea that the pope is expected to state an infallible teaching in certain terms.


14 posted on 05/31/2008 7:48:41 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kindred

What heresy did the Catholic Church supposedly start teaching 1000 years ago?


15 posted on 05/31/2008 7:50:44 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998

filioque?


18 posted on 05/31/2008 8:40:49 AM PDT by ichabod1 (If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

I hope kindred will respond. Also, filioque is not a heresy,and is more than 1000 old.


19 posted on 05/31/2008 9:16:56 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kindred
The Roman Catholic church has been teaching heresy for some 1000 years now and preaches a false salvation gospel which condemns all them that believe in the gnosticism and myths and fables that are contrary to the doctrines of God.

Who says? I mean who told you this is true and why should you believe him?

20 posted on 05/31/2008 11:52:46 AM PDT by RobbyS (Ecce homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I was being semifacetious, but the great schism was all I could think of that happened about a thousand years ago, and I think all the ferocious debate over the filioque is rather ludicrous. How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?


21 posted on 05/31/2008 3:32:03 PM PDT by ichabod1 (If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer
With all due respect, I see nothing in this article that tells me what papal infallibility means or how the doctrine actually developed within the Church. For the reader's sake here is a very brief history of the development of the doctrine of papal infallibility:


22 posted on 05/31/2008 5:32:57 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Thank you for this good post. I believe Cardinal Newman was also against the idea.

But it's important to understand that the idea pertains not to the person but to the office. We are not saying that Popes are not sinners or are not afflicted with the same injuries that afflict all sinners, faithful or not.

We are saying that while God lets us as individuals mess up incredibly awfully, he still provides us with reliable testimony to His truth. The doctrine, from the point of view of the Catholic, is about the love of God for his poor confused people, not about some guy in Rome.

23 posted on 05/31/2008 7:25:22 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

You wrote:

“How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?”

Fascinating question. This is something of a hoax. Dorothy Sayers spent a great deal of time trying to find a single instance of this question ever actually being debated in the Middle Ages, but failed. Why is it such a commonly held belief that scholastics in the Middle Ages “wasted time” debating this question? Apparently it was made popular as a one sentence condemnation of medieval scholasticism by Rev. Chillingworth - a 16th-17th century Anglican with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church.

A medieval professor I had in graduate school, however, opened my eyes about this issue. He once said that it made perfect sense to ask the question because it is about space and corporality. Do incorporeal beings occupy space? Angels have no bodies. They are pure spirits even though they are given physical attributes in the scriptures. How can an angel sing, however, if it is a pure spirit since that would require physicality (a voice box)? The question about angels dancing on the head of a pin is actually an excellent question. Can more than one incorporeal being occupy a certain physical space at a time? How would you come to your answer without being able to see an example of such or performing any kind of experiment? A medieval scholastic could only use logic, scripture and philosophy.

Every once in a while I really appreciate what my old professors taught me.


24 posted on 05/31/2008 8:13:32 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

“How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, anyway?”

Any Baptist, well some Baptist know that angels loyal to God don’t dance./Sat


25 posted on 05/31/2008 8:19:33 PM PDT by ThomasThomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I can’t diasagree with you. I love theology, and I think we can learn a lot about God and his will for us by studying it. However, as a wise priest once told me, we can know everything about God through theology except for the really important things. So, I say we discuss whether there is a rock too heavy for God to lift, or whether angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we don’t go to war over it, we don’t have schism over the wording of a document. In the end the only answer is that it’s a mystery and we’ll find out sooner or later. It’s a mystic religion, and i like it.


26 posted on 06/01/2008 7:27:16 PM PDT by ichabod1 (If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I can’t diasagree with you. I love theology, and I think we can learn a lot about God and his will for us by studying it. However, as a wise priest once told me, we can know everything about God through theology except for the really important things. So, I say we discuss whether there is a rock too heavy for God to lift, or whether angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we don’t go to war over it, we don’t have schism over the wording of a document. In the end the only answer is that it’s a mystery and we’ll find out sooner or later. It’s a mystic religion, and i like it.


27 posted on 06/01/2008 7:27:36 PM PDT by ichabod1 (If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson