Papal Infallibility is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that
makes the Pope -head of the Bishops- responsible for his edicts in
matters of faith and morals. By its virtue the Pope is considered
to be incapable to deceive or mislead in such matters. The Catholic
Church understands it as a charism enjoyed by the Pope in virtue of
his office as supreme shepherd of the faithful assisted by the Holy
Spirit. It is recognized as an implicit doctrine in the early
Catholic Church. In its most recent Catholic Church's conciliar
review, the Vatican II, the infallibility doctrine is defined and
delimited as it pertains not only to the Pope, but to the bishops
and councils of the Catholic Church. This doctrine has been
frequently put into question or misinterpreted in form and content
by outsiders of the Catholic Church. One of the most accurate
definitions for the general public according to the catholic faith
can be found on the web at
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp. Copy of
which is included in the following as of May 27, 2007 ---- 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 It means the Pope cannot be wrong when
speaking on issues concerning Faith and Morals, while addressing
the universal Christian community and acting in the capactiy of his
office as the head of the Christian Church on earth.
Excerpt from "The Catholic Catechism" by John A.Hardon, S.J.
:
It is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff when he
speaks ex cathedra, that is , when acting in the office of shephard
and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith and morals to be
held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine
assistance promised him in the person of
St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer
willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning
faith or morals; and that such definitions are therefore
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
If this still isn't clear to you, just consult the "Catechism of
the Catholic Church". It answers any questions you might have. To
it it in in its historical context "Papal infallibility" became
accepted Church teaching only in 1870 after heated debate/dissent
within the hierarchy of the Church. Prior to that the idea had been
around for some time and developed alongside the increasing power
of the papacy over the Church.