The Catholic Churchs 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. 18:1
.
Vatican IIs 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 Christs 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 Peters 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. 16:1719; John 21:1517). 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 21:1517 ("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 Christs Mandate
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt.
28:1920) 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 popes infallibility. This
development of the faithfuls 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 pronouncementwhether made by the pope alone or by an
ecumenical councilusually 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 wont 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 popes 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
dothrough studythough, 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 Peters conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with
Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from
Palestine (Gal. 2:1116). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this
demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all.
Peters actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with
issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peters actions, not his teaching.
Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching
(Gal. 2:1213). The problem was that he wasnt 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 infallibilitythey 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 hereany good history of
the Church will supply the factsbut 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 thats 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 faiththeir 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 centuriescertain 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 Knoxs 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 Masters instructions, a visible organization, and that every
Christian writer in the early centuriesin fact, nearly all
Christians until the Reformationfully 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 wont "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 thats 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 Pauls 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 Gods 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).
- taken from Catholic .com
