Debate is being held on a controversial issue of the Church
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition". It does not mean that the pope cannot sin or otherwise err. This doctrine, defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, is claimed to have existed in medieval theology and to have been the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.
The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma, that of papal supremacy, whereby the authority of the pope is the ruling agent as to what are accepted as formal beliefs in the Catholic Church. The use of this power is referred to as speaking ex cathedra. "Any doctrine 'of faith or morals' issued by the pope in his capacity as successor to St. Peter, speaking as pastor and teacher of the Church Universal [Ecclesia Catholica], from the seat of his episcopal authority in Rome, and meant to be believed 'by the universal church,' has the special status of an ex cathedra statement. Vatican Council I in 1870 declared that any such ex cathedra doctrines have the character of infallibility (session 4, Constitution on the Church 4)."
Before 1870, belief in papal infallibility was not a defined requirement of Catholic faith.
Examples of Catholics who before the First Vatican Council disbelieved in papal infallibility are French abbé François-Philippe Mesenguy (1677–1763), who wrote a catechism denying the infallibility of the pope, and the German Felix Blau (1754–1798), who as professor at the University of Mainz criticized infallibility without a clearer mandate in Scripture.
In the Declaration and Protestation signed by the English Catholic Dissenters in 1789, the year of the French Revolution, the signatories state:
We have also been accused of holding, as a Principle of our Religion, That implicit Obedience is due from us to the Orders and Decrees of Popes and General Councils; and that therefore if the Pope, or any General Council, should, for the Good of the Church, command us to take up Arms against the Government, or by any means to subvert the Laws and Liberties of this Country, or to exterminate Persons of a different Persuasion from us, we (it is asserted by our Accusers) hold ourselves bound to obey such Orders or Decrees, on pain of eternal Fire:
Whereas we positively deny, That we owe any such Obedience to the Pope and General Council, or to either of them; and we believe that no Act that is in itself immoral or dishonest can ever be justified by or under Colour that it is done either for the Good of the Church, or in Obedience to any ecclesiastical Power whatever. We acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope, and we neither apprehend nor believe, that our Disobedience to any such Orders or Decrees (should any such be given or made) could subject us to any Punishment whatever.
Under King George III, Catholics who wished to take office had to swear an oath of allegiance. The oath was particularly aimed at foreswearing that the Pope could infallibly order or forgive regicide. The oath was required in Ireland from 1793. A similar article was operative in England. Part of the oath stated "It is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible." The Irish bishops repeated their acceptance in a 25 January 1826 pastoral address to the Catholic clergy and laity in Ireland, stating: "The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath [...] that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible, and that they do not hold themselves 'bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral', though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto."
In 1822, Bishop Baine declared: "In England and Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the Infallibility of the Pope."
In his 1829 study On the Church, Delahogue stated: "Ultramontane theologians attribute infallibility to the Bishop of Rome considered in this aspect and when he speaks, as the saying is, ex cathedra. This is denied by others, in particular by Gallicans."
Professor Delahogue asserted that the doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, even when he speaks ex cathedra, is possessed of the gift of inerrancy or is superior to General Councils may be denied without loss of faith or risk of heresy or schism.
The 1830 edition of Berrington and Kirk's Faith of Catholics stated: "Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council or acceptance of the Church, oblige no one under pain of heresy to an interior assent."
In 1861, Professor Murray of the major Irish Catholic seminary of Maynooth wrote that those who genuinely deny the infallibility of the pope "are by no means or only in the least degree (unless indeed some other ground be shown) to be considered alien from the Catholic Faith."
Following the 1869–1870 First Vatican Council, dissent arose among some Catholics, almost exclusively German, Austrian, and Swiss, over the definition of papal infallibility. The dissenters, while holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of papal infallibility, and thus a schism arose between them and the Church, resulting in the formation of communities in schism with Rome, which became known as the Old Catholic Churches. The vast majority of Catholics accepted the definition.
Before the First Vatican Council, John Henry Newman, while personally convinced, as a matter of theological opinion, of papal infallibility, opposed its definition as dogma, fearing that the definition might be expressed in over-broad terms open to misunderstanding. He was pleased with the moderate tone of the actual definition, which "affirmed the pope's infallibility only within a strictly limited province: the doctrine of faith and morals initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition."
Critical works such as Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909) by W. J. Sparrow Simpson have documented opposition to the definition of the dogma during the First Vatican Council even by those who believed in its teaching but felt that defining it was not opportune.
Sparrow Simpson, an Anglican, notes that "All works reprinted since 1870 have been altered into conformity with Vatican ideas". For example:
The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
In the 1895 revision:
(Q.) But some Catholics before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism.
(A.) Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation – "in so far as they could then grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions."
A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they did not know.
A few Catholics in recent times, such as Hans Küng, author of Infallible? An Inquiry, and historian Garry Wills, author of Papal Sin, have refused to accept papal infallibility as a matter of faith. Küng was sanctioned by the Church by being excluded from teaching Catholic theology. Brian Tierney agreed with Küng, whom he cites, and concluded: "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it." Garth Hallett, "drawing on a previous study of Wittgenstein's treatment of word meaning," argued that the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless; in practice, he claims, the dogma seems to have no practical use and to have succumbed to the sense that it is irrelevant.
In 1995, the Catholic feminist writer Margaret Hebblethwaite remarked:
If in 1995 no one pays much attention when Rome bangs its fist and says "This is infallible", then what can we conclude? We can conclude that we are witnessing what may be the biggest decline of papal authority in real terms ever seen in history.
Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler (d. 3 July 1980) wrote a detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, presenting the passage of the infallibility definition as orchestrated.[60] Roger O'Toole described Hasler's work as follows:[103]
It weakens or demolishes the claim that papal infallibility was already a universally accepted truth, and that its formal definition merely made de jure what had long been acknowledged de facto.
It emphasizes the extent of resistance to the definition, particularly in France and Germany.
It clarifies the "inopportunist" position as largely a polite fiction and notes how it was used by Infallibilists to trivialize the nature of the opposition to papal claims.
It indicates the extent to which "spontaneous popular demand" for the definition was, in fact, carefully orchestrated.
It underlines the personal involvement of the pope who, despite his coy disclaimers, appears as the prime mover and driving force behind the Infallibilist campaign.
It details the lengths to which the papacy was prepared to go in wringing formal 'submissions' from the minority even after their defeat in the council.
It offers insight into the ideological basis of the dogma in European political conservatism, monarchism, and counter-revolution.
It establishes the doctrine as a key contributing element in the present "crisis" of the Roman Catholic Church.
Mark E. Powell, in his examination of the topic from a Protestant point of view, writes: "August Hasler portrays Pius IX as an uneducated, abusive megalomaniac, and Vatican I as a council that was not free. Hasler, though, is engaged in heated polemic and obviously exaggerates his picture of Pius IX. Accounts like Hasler's, which paint Pius IX and Vatican I in the most negative terms, are adequately refuted by the testimony of participants at Vatican I."
Those opposed to papal infallibility such as Geisler and MacKenzie say that it is contrary to Scripture and to the teaching of the early Church.
On linguistic grounds and their understanding that Peter's authority was shared, James Robert White and others say that Matthew 16:18 does not refer to Peter as the Rock. They argue that in this passage Peter is in the second person ("you"), but that "this rock", being in the third person, refers to Christ, the subject of Peter's truth confession in verse 16, and the revelation referred to in verse 17, who is explicitly affirmed to be the foundation of the church. White cites authorities such as John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo as supporting this understanding, with Augustine stating, "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."
They understand "keys" in the Matthean passage and its authority as primarily or exclusively pertaining to the gospel.
They see the prayer of Jesus for Peter, that his faith fail not (Luke 22:32) as not promising infallibility to a papal office, which they hold to be a late and novel doctrine.
While recognizing Peter's significant role in the early church, and his initial brethren-type leadership, they contend that the Book of Acts manifests him as inferior to the apostle Paul in his level of contribution and influence, with Paul becoming the dominant focus in the Biblical records of the early church, and the writer of most of the New Testament (receiving direct revelation), and having authority to publicly reprove Peter (Galatians 2:11–14).
Geisler and MacKenzie also see the absence of any reference by Peter referring to himself distinctively, such as the chief of apostles, and instead only as "an apostle" or "an elder" (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1) as weighing against Peter being the supreme and infallible head of the church universal, and indicating he would not accept such titles as Holy Father.
They say that the revelatory function connected to the office of the high priest Caiaphas (John 11:49–52) does not establish a precedent for Petrine infallibility, since (among other reasons) they infer from Revelation 22:18 that there is no new revelation after the time of the New Testament, as held also by Catholics.
Likewise, they hold that no Jewish infallible magisterium existed, but the faith yet endured, and that the Roman Catholic doctrine on infallibility is a new invention.
They see the promise of papal infallibility as violated by certain popes who spoke heresy (as recognized, they say, by the Roman church itself) under conditions that, they argue, fit the criteria for infallibility.
They say that at the Council of Jerusalem Peter was not looked to as the infallible head of the church, with James exercising the more decisive leadership, and providing the definitive sentence; and that he is not seen elsewhere as the final and universal arbiter about any doctrinal dispute about faith in the life of the church.
They hold as unwarranted on scriptural and historical grounds the idea that monarchical leadership by an infallible pope is needed or has existed; that the infallible authority is the scriptures rather than an infallible head. and that church leadership in the New Testament is understood as being that of bishops and elders, denoting the same office, rather than an infallible pope.
They argue further that the doctrine of papal infallibility lacked universal or widespread support in the bulk of church history, 486ff and that substantial opposition to it existed within the Catholic Church, even at the time of its official institution, saying that this testifies to its lack of scriptural and historical warrant.
Chapter 7 of Lytton Strachey's biography of Cardinal Manning in Eminent Victorians includes a discussion of papal infallibility and some possible objections.
The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma, that of papal supremacy, whereby the authority of the pope is the ruling agent as to what are accepted as formal beliefs in the Catholic Church. The use of this power is referred to as speaking ex cathedra. "Any doctrine 'of faith or morals' issued by the pope in his capacity as successor to St. Peter, speaking as pastor and teacher of the Church Universal [Ecclesia Catholica], from the seat of his episcopal authority in Rome, and meant to be believed 'by the universal church,' has the special status of an ex cathedra statement. Vatican Council I in 1870 declared that any such ex cathedra doctrines have the character of infallibility (session 4, Constitution on the Church 4)."
Before 1870, belief in papal infallibility was not a defined requirement of Catholic faith.
Examples of Catholics who before the First Vatican Council disbelieved in papal infallibility are French abbé François-Philippe Mesenguy (1677–1763), who wrote a catechism denying the infallibility of the pope, and the German Felix Blau (1754–1798), who as professor at the University of Mainz criticized infallibility without a clearer mandate in Scripture.
In the Declaration and Protestation signed by the English Catholic Dissenters in 1789, the year of the French Revolution, the signatories state:
We have also been accused of holding, as a Principle of our Religion, That implicit Obedience is due from us to the Orders and Decrees of Popes and General Councils; and that therefore if the Pope, or any General Council, should, for the Good of the Church, command us to take up Arms against the Government, or by any means to subvert the Laws and Liberties of this Country, or to exterminate Persons of a different Persuasion from us, we (it is asserted by our Accusers) hold ourselves bound to obey such Orders or Decrees, on pain of eternal Fire:
Whereas we positively deny, That we owe any such Obedience to the Pope and General Council, or to either of them; and we believe that no Act that is in itself immoral or dishonest can ever be justified by or under Colour that it is done either for the Good of the Church, or in Obedience to any ecclesiastical Power whatever. We acknowledge no Infallibility in the Pope, and we neither apprehend nor believe, that our Disobedience to any such Orders or Decrees (should any such be given or made) could subject us to any Punishment whatever.
Under King George III, Catholics who wished to take office had to swear an oath of allegiance. The oath was particularly aimed at foreswearing that the Pope could infallibly order or forgive regicide. The oath was required in Ireland from 1793. A similar article was operative in England. Part of the oath stated "It is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible." The Irish bishops repeated their acceptance in a 25 January 1826 pastoral address to the Catholic clergy and laity in Ireland, stating: "The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath [...] that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible, and that they do not hold themselves 'bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral', though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto."
In 1822, Bishop Baine declared: "In England and Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the Infallibility of the Pope."
In his 1829 study On the Church, Delahogue stated: "Ultramontane theologians attribute infallibility to the Bishop of Rome considered in this aspect and when he speaks, as the saying is, ex cathedra. This is denied by others, in particular by Gallicans."
Professor Delahogue asserted that the doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, even when he speaks ex cathedra, is possessed of the gift of inerrancy or is superior to General Councils may be denied without loss of faith or risk of heresy or schism.
The 1830 edition of Berrington and Kirk's Faith of Catholics stated: "Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council or acceptance of the Church, oblige no one under pain of heresy to an interior assent."
In 1861, Professor Murray of the major Irish Catholic seminary of Maynooth wrote that those who genuinely deny the infallibility of the pope "are by no means or only in the least degree (unless indeed some other ground be shown) to be considered alien from the Catholic Faith."
Following the 1869–1870 First Vatican Council, dissent arose among some Catholics, almost exclusively German, Austrian, and Swiss, over the definition of papal infallibility. The dissenters, while holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of papal infallibility, and thus a schism arose between them and the Church, resulting in the formation of communities in schism with Rome, which became known as the Old Catholic Churches. The vast majority of Catholics accepted the definition.
Before the First Vatican Council, John Henry Newman, while personally convinced, as a matter of theological opinion, of papal infallibility, opposed its definition as dogma, fearing that the definition might be expressed in over-broad terms open to misunderstanding. He was pleased with the moderate tone of the actual definition, which "affirmed the pope's infallibility only within a strictly limited province: the doctrine of faith and morals initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition."
Critical works such as Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909) by W. J. Sparrow Simpson have documented opposition to the definition of the dogma during the First Vatican Council even by those who believed in its teaching but felt that defining it was not opportune.
Sparrow Simpson, an Anglican, notes that "All works reprinted since 1870 have been altered into conformity with Vatican ideas". For example:
The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
In the 1895 revision:
(Q.) But some Catholics before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism.
(A.) Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation – "in so far as they could then grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions."
A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they did not know.
A few Catholics in recent times, such as Hans Küng, author of Infallible? An Inquiry, and historian Garry Wills, author of Papal Sin, have refused to accept papal infallibility as a matter of faith. Küng was sanctioned by the Church by being excluded from teaching Catholic theology. Brian Tierney agreed with Küng, whom he cites, and concluded: "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it." Garth Hallett, "drawing on a previous study of Wittgenstein's treatment of word meaning," argued that the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless; in practice, he claims, the dogma seems to have no practical use and to have succumbed to the sense that it is irrelevant.
In 1995, the Catholic feminist writer Margaret Hebblethwaite remarked:
If in 1995 no one pays much attention when Rome bangs its fist and says "This is infallible", then what can we conclude? We can conclude that we are witnessing what may be the biggest decline of papal authority in real terms ever seen in history.
Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler (d. 3 July 1980) wrote a detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, presenting the passage of the infallibility definition as orchestrated.[60] Roger O'Toole described Hasler's work as follows:[103]
It weakens or demolishes the claim that papal infallibility was already a universally accepted truth, and that its formal definition merely made de jure what had long been acknowledged de facto.
It emphasizes the extent of resistance to the definition, particularly in France and Germany.
It clarifies the "inopportunist" position as largely a polite fiction and notes how it was used by Infallibilists to trivialize the nature of the opposition to papal claims.
It indicates the extent to which "spontaneous popular demand" for the definition was, in fact, carefully orchestrated.
It underlines the personal involvement of the pope who, despite his coy disclaimers, appears as the prime mover and driving force behind the Infallibilist campaign.
It details the lengths to which the papacy was prepared to go in wringing formal 'submissions' from the minority even after their defeat in the council.
It offers insight into the ideological basis of the dogma in European political conservatism, monarchism, and counter-revolution.
It establishes the doctrine as a key contributing element in the present "crisis" of the Roman Catholic Church.
Mark E. Powell, in his examination of the topic from a Protestant point of view, writes: "August Hasler portrays Pius IX as an uneducated, abusive megalomaniac, and Vatican I as a council that was not free. Hasler, though, is engaged in heated polemic and obviously exaggerates his picture of Pius IX. Accounts like Hasler's, which paint Pius IX and Vatican I in the most negative terms, are adequately refuted by the testimony of participants at Vatican I."
Those opposed to papal infallibility such as Geisler and MacKenzie say that it is contrary to Scripture and to the teaching of the early Church.
On linguistic grounds and their understanding that Peter's authority was shared, James Robert White and others say that Matthew 16:18 does not refer to Peter as the Rock. They argue that in this passage Peter is in the second person ("you"), but that "this rock", being in the third person, refers to Christ, the subject of Peter's truth confession in verse 16, and the revelation referred to in verse 17, who is explicitly affirmed to be the foundation of the church. White cites authorities such as John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo as supporting this understanding, with Augustine stating, "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built."
They understand "keys" in the Matthean passage and its authority as primarily or exclusively pertaining to the gospel.
They see the prayer of Jesus for Peter, that his faith fail not (Luke 22:32) as not promising infallibility to a papal office, which they hold to be a late and novel doctrine.
While recognizing Peter's significant role in the early church, and his initial brethren-type leadership, they contend that the Book of Acts manifests him as inferior to the apostle Paul in his level of contribution and influence, with Paul becoming the dominant focus in the Biblical records of the early church, and the writer of most of the New Testament (receiving direct revelation), and having authority to publicly reprove Peter (Galatians 2:11–14).
Geisler and MacKenzie also see the absence of any reference by Peter referring to himself distinctively, such as the chief of apostles, and instead only as "an apostle" or "an elder" (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1) as weighing against Peter being the supreme and infallible head of the church universal, and indicating he would not accept such titles as Holy Father.
They say that the revelatory function connected to the office of the high priest Caiaphas (John 11:49–52) does not establish a precedent for Petrine infallibility, since (among other reasons) they infer from Revelation 22:18 that there is no new revelation after the time of the New Testament, as held also by Catholics.
Likewise, they hold that no Jewish infallible magisterium existed, but the faith yet endured, and that the Roman Catholic doctrine on infallibility is a new invention.
They see the promise of papal infallibility as violated by certain popes who spoke heresy (as recognized, they say, by the Roman church itself) under conditions that, they argue, fit the criteria for infallibility.
They say that at the Council of Jerusalem Peter was not looked to as the infallible head of the church, with James exercising the more decisive leadership, and providing the definitive sentence; and that he is not seen elsewhere as the final and universal arbiter about any doctrinal dispute about faith in the life of the church.
They hold as unwarranted on scriptural and historical grounds the idea that monarchical leadership by an infallible pope is needed or has existed; that the infallible authority is the scriptures rather than an infallible head. and that church leadership in the New Testament is understood as being that of bishops and elders, denoting the same office, rather than an infallible pope.
They argue further that the doctrine of papal infallibility lacked universal or widespread support in the bulk of church history, 486ff and that substantial opposition to it existed within the Catholic Church, even at the time of its official institution, saying that this testifies to its lack of scriptural and historical warrant.
Chapter 7 of Lytton Strachey's biography of Cardinal Manning in Eminent Victorians includes a discussion of papal infallibility and some possible objections.
26-30, F
