Papal Infallibility
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
|
[TOP]
