Papal Infallability

[Todd]

According to the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic teaching Magisterium is infallible when officially defining faith and morals for believers. This is popularly known as the infallibility of the Pope which was pronounced a dogma in 1870 at Vatican 1.

Infallibility is defined as immunity from error, protection against either passive or active deception. Persons are agencies are infallible to the extent that they can neither deceive or be deceived.

Catholics acknowledge that the Pope is not infallible in everything he teaches but only when he speaks as the official interpreter of faith and morals.

Vatican 1 firmly rejects as a necessary condition for infallibility the consent of the whole church. The Pope is not infallible when pronouncing on matters that do not pertain to faith and morals. The Pope is infallible but not absolutely so, that is the province of God alone. Infallibility entails irrevocability; the Pope cannot for example declare void previous infallible pronouncements of the church.

Argument from Scripture.

Matthew 16:18

Roman Catholics use this statement by Jesus to Peter that says “upon this rock I will build my church” to say that it was upon Peter that Christ built his church.

The question is who Jesus was referring to when he spoke of this “rock?”

1) Whenever “Peter” is referred to in this passage it is in the second person but “this rock” is in the third person – an indication that Peter was NOT being connected to “this rock”.

2) Peter is a masculine singular term on rock is feminine singular hence they do not have the same referent - another indication that Peter was NOT being connected to “this rock”.

3) What is more the same authority Jesus gave to Peter in 18:16 is given later to all the apostles in verse 18.

4) Though Peter is not singled in Matthew 16:18 he is singled out five verses later in verse 23. Jesus christ's famous “Get behind me Satan” rebuke. The juxtapostion is stark. An unclear reference to Peter and the Roman Catholics give him primacy in authority. A clear reference to Peter and the RC do not give him a primacy in evil.

Some Catholic authorities agree with the interpretation. Augustine wrote “On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I would build my Church for the rock (Petra) is Christ; in on this foundation was Peter himself built.

Even if Peter was the rock referred to by Christ he was not the only rock in the foundation of the church as many early church fathers point out. Whatever MT 16:16 may mean Jesus gave all the apostles the same power, the same “keys” to bind and loose that he gave to Peter. These keys were not some mysteries power given to Peter alone but the power granted by Christ to his church by which, when they proclaim the gospel, they can proclaim God’s forgiveness of sin to all who believe. Even if one believes Jesus was speaking of a non salvific binding of a brother in sin it was still given to all the apostles.

Furthermore the scriptures affirmed that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophet and that Jesus Christ himself as the Capstone Eph 2:20

All the apostles not just Peter are the foundation of the church and only one was given a place of uniqueness and prominence and that was Christ the Capstone. 1 Peter 2:7.

Peters’ role in the New Testament falls short of the Catholic claims that he was given unique authority among the apostles. While Peter did give the initial sermon on Pentecost his role in the rest of Acts is scarcely that of the chief apostle, he is best described as one of the prominent apostles 2 Cor 21:11

By God’s inspiration Paul taught that no apostle was really superior 2 Cor12:11

No one reading Galatians can come away with impression that any apostle including Peter was inferior to apostle Paul because Paul claimed to get his revelation independently of the other apostles Gal 1:12, 2:2, to be on the same level as Peter (Gal 2:8) and even used his revelation to rebuke Peter in Gal 2:11-14


The fact that both Peter and John were sent by the apostles on a mission to Samaria reveals that Peter was not the superior apostle Acts 8:4-13 otherwise he would not have been sent in fact he would have been doing the sending.

Although Peter addressed the first council (Acts 15) he exercised no primacy over the others. The decision came from the apostles and the presbyters in agreement with the whole church (Acts15:22-23) Many scholars believe that James not Peter presided over the council since he was the one who gave the final words (Acts15 13-21)

By Peters own admission he was not the pastor of the church but only a fellow presbyter or elder (1Peter 5:1-2) and while he did claim to be in apostle nowhere did he claimed to be the apostle or the chief apostle he certainly was a leading apostle but even then he was only one of the pillars (Gal 2:9)

There’s absolutely no reference to any alleged infallibility that Peter allegedly possessed. The word infallible never occurs in the New Testament. When parallel words or phrases do occur they refer to scripture alone not to any persons or institutions ability to interpret it. Jesus said, for example, “Scripture cannot be set aside (John 10:35) and “Until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or smallest part of a letter will pass from the law” (Matt 5:18)


John 21:15-17

In this passage Jesus says to Peter, “Feed my lambs and tend my sheep and feed my lambs. Roman Catholic scholars believe this verse shows that Peter and only Peter was given infallible authority to be the pastor of the whole Christian church. Whether this passage should be understood to be speaking of Peter alone or of all the disciples there’s absolutely no reference here to any infallible authority

Feeding is a God given pastoral function that even non apostles had in the New Testament (Acts 20:28, Eph 4:11-12, 1 Pet 5:1-2) One does not have to be an infallible shepherd in order to feed his flock properly.

If Peter had infallibility (i.e. the ability to not mislead in faith in practice) why then did he mislead believers and have to be rebuked by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2? The infallible scriptures accepted by Roman Catholics declare that Peter clearly was wrong. Peter acted hypocritically with the result the even Barnabas was led astray. It is difficult to exonerate Peter from the charge that he led believers astray, something that an infallible pastor of the church would never do. The fact is Peter cannot be both in infallible guide for faith and morals and at the same time mislead believers on an important matter of faith and morals of which Galatians speak.

The overall meaning of the passage in John 21 speaks more to Peter’s weakness and the need for restoration then to his unique authority. The reason Peter is singled out for restoration is because Peter denied Jesus three times. So only Peter needed to be restored. Thus Jesus was not exulting Peter above the other apostles here but was bringing him back up to their level.


John 11:49-52

The reasoning is that because in the Old Testament the high priest had an official revelatory function connected with his office is therefore to be expected that there will plead an equivalent New Testament figure (i.e. namely the pope)

This is merely an argument from analogy and is not based on any New Testament affirmation that this would be the case. There is no intrinsic connection between cause and effect.

The New Testament affirmations made about the Old Testament priesthood reject this analogy for they say explicitly that Old Testament priesthood was abolished. The writer to the Hebrews declared that “there is a change of priesthood” from that of Aaron (Heb 7:12) The Aaronic priesthood has been filled in Christ was a priest forever after the order of Melchizeek (Heb 7:15-17)

Despite the common creedal and doctrinal heritage of Catholics and Protestants there are some serious differences. None of these is more basic than the question of authority. Catholics affirm the infallible teaching authority of the Roman church as manifested in the Pope. But what Catholics affirm concerning infallibility and the Pope, Protestants deny. This is an irresolvable road block to any ecclesiastical unity between Roman Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. No talk about first among equals will solve the problem. For the very concept of infallible teaching Magisterium is contrary to the basic protestant principle of Sola scriptura, the bible alone. Here we must agree to disagree. For while both sides believe the bible is infallible, Protestants deny that any church or the pope has an infallible interpreter of the Bible.

[Daniel]

Been doing some reading on this topic as well going back to Trent and Galileo being accused of going against the teachings of the pope.  Interesting stuff.  Considering though that you can't disagree with him or the church whether he's speaking "from the chair" or not, I find the idea that he's only infallible when he's "from the chair" to be little more than word games.  Even if you technically describe it as "Authoritative but noninfallible", when you REQUIRE full submission of intellect and will to it, there isn't much difference.  It's either "do it because I can't be wrong, or do it because I'm right."  If it walks like a duck....

[Lisa Robinson]

Catholics affirm the infallible teaching authority of the Roman church as manifested in the Pope. But what Catholics affirm concerning infallibility and the Pope.

 

Actually, it is only when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra that is considered infallible.   It is not the Pope himself, but the office.  The same goes for the Magisterium, which is a council of Cardinals.  The premise of the infallibility of the office is that it carries the same level of "inerrancy" as we ascribe to scripture (because they include scripture plus Sacred Tradition).  It is not as though these are men who just wake up one day and speak for God.  They are seriously trained in the Christian tradition, beyond what most evangelical Protestants are.  So the idea that Catholic dogma rests on the shoulders of one man is incorrect.

 

But you are right, we Protestants would not assign  the infallibility of apostolic succession to the magisterial office, we ascribe it to the apostolic teaching, i.e. scripture.

[Harry]

The Lutheran Confessions has a lot to say on this subject:

 TREATISE ON THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE

¹ The Roman bishop arrogates to himself the claim that he is by divine right above all bishops and pastors.¹ ² Then he adds that by divine right he possesses both swords, that is, the authority to bestow and transfer kingdoms.² Finally, he declares that it is necessary for salvation to believe these things, and for such reasons the bishop of Rome calls himself the vicar of Christ on earth.³

⁴ These three articles we acknowledge and hold to be false, impious, tyrannical, and injurious to the church. ⁵ In order that the ground of this our assertion may be understood, we must at the outset define what the papists mean when they say that the Roman bishop is above all bishops by divine right. They mean that the pope is the universal bishop or, as they put it, the ecumenical bishop. That is, all bishops and pastors throughout the ^(tr-505) whole world should seek ordination and confirmation from him because he has the right to elect, ordain, confirm, and depose all bishops. ⁶ Besides this, he arrogates to himself the authority to make laws concerning worship, concerning changes in the sacraments, and concerning doctrine. He wishes his articles, his decrees, and his laws to be regarded as articles of faith or commandments of God, binding on the consciences of men, because he holds that his power is by divine right and is even to be preferred to the commandments of God. What is even more horrible is that he adds that it is necessary to salvation to believe all these things.

[Testimony of the Scriptures]

⁷ 1. First of all, therefore, let us show from the Gospel that the Roman bishop is not by divine right above all other bishops and pastors. In Luke 22:24–27 Christ expressly forbids lordship among the apostles. ⁸ For this was the very question the disciples were disputing when Christ spoke of his passion: Who was to be the leader and, as it were, the vicar of Christ after his departure? Christ reproved the apostles for this error and taught them that no one should have lordship or superiority among them but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals and exercise the ministry of the Gospel in common. Accordingly he said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as one who serves.” The antithesis here shows that lordship is disapproved. The same thing is taught by a parable when, in a similar dispute concerning the kingdom, Christ put a child in the midst of the disciples, signifying thereby that there was to be no primacy among ministers, just as a child neither seeks nor takes pre-eminence for himself.

⁹ 2. According to John 20:21 Christ sent his disciples out as equals, without discrimination, when he said, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” He sent out each one individually, he said, in the same way in which he had himself been sent. Wherefore he granted to none a prerogative or lordship over the rest.

¹⁰ 3. In Gal. 2:2, 6 Paul plainly asserts that he was neither ordained nor confirmed by Peter, nor does he acknowledge Peter as one from whom confirmation should be sought. From this fact he expressly argues that his call did not depend on the authority of Peter. But he should have acknowledged Peter as his superior if Peter had been his superior by divine right. He says, however, that he at once preached the Gospel without consulting Peter. “What they were who were reputed to be something,” he says, “makes no difference to me” and again, “Those who were of repute added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6

[matthew]

Romans 3:4:  ...let God be true, but every man a liar

This is true Bible doctrine since from the Bible alone it shows that no man is infallible.

 

Mark 7:9: And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 

Mark 7:13: Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

John 12:43: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

This is true of the Magisterium even today.

 

Matthew 15:6: Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

By these very Words of Christ Jesus (and Paul), it is evident that no one speaks for God as an infallible man, seat, council, organization. Hey, the Pharisees we men, held the chief seat, were a council, and a religious organization; all the same things the Catholic Church professes to hold: Pope (man), seat, council, organization. What a remarkable parallel!

 

Todd - you did an excellent presentation on Arguments from Scripture that prove the Pope (man) cannot declare infallible pronouncements; and Jesus and Paul prove that no seat, council, nor organization can Biblically and legally declare infallible pronouncements.

Romans 3:4:  ...let God be true, but every man a liar

[Sean Williams]

Just to make a slight correction, the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is only infallibility when it comes to issues of faith and morals ex cathedra. Outside of this I believe we can questioned his opinion.

[Daniel]

Actually, Sean, that is not correct.  At least it isn't FULLY correct.  While believing that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, it is also required that you accept it as truth any other time as well.  You can't question his opinion in any kind of skeptical way, for instance.  Wiki has a nice chart on the topic.  The Council of Trent got into this in some degree.  It is OK to present some hypothetical that opposes church teaching on something, but you can't actually suggest that the church is wrong.  You must submit to it with "Religious submission of intellect and will".

[Sean Williams]

Actually I must strongly disagree with you Dan as according to my profs at school, who have PhD's in Theology and Ministry, all state that this is the case or at least is suppose to be. If you look at H. Wayne House's Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine p.3 under "Revelation" It states: "The Bible, including the Apocrypha, is recognized as the authoritative source of revelation as well as tradition and church teaching. The pope also makes authoritative pronouncements ex cathedra (from the chair) on issues of doctrine and morals; these pronouncements are immune from error. The church is the mother, guardian, and interpreter of the canon." -(House, 3)

[Daniel]

I'm open to being wrong about this, but last time it came up I actually went and found the references to it in the Catholic catechism.  I'm not arguing that the Pope is ALWAYS infallible.  I'm arguing that one can't really oppose him or challenge him, but must agree with him and the magisterium.  To me, there isn't much difference between having to believe it because it is infallible or having to believe it anyway.

[Sean Williams]

Personally, I don't care since I'm Protestant, but I do study study these things in great depth. Just like to put in my two cents for the purpose of discussion.

[Daniel]

I'm protestant as well.  And I think that being protestant is a good example.  Were Luther's complaints just opposing church teaching and beliefs, or were all those things "from the chair"?  And how well did that work out for him?  Same with Galileo.  Had the Pope spoken "from the chair" about cosmology?  No.  Yet he faced the inquisition for disagreeing with what the church believed.