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