How Can The Pope Be Infallible?

[Monica]

How can the Pope be infallible? That seems one of the traditions of men, as Jesus is the only infallible person there ever was.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Especially since some of those "infallible" Popes were great sinners.

Please explain.

[ironmonk]

You must first understand what Infallible means...

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. inDouche, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, 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, by an ecumenical council, or by the constant teaching of the Church’s magisterium through the centuries—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 by an official papal statement. There are, in fact, few topics on which it would be possible for a pope to make an infallible decision 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. 2:15–16). 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. 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 the 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 the main 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).

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

Also, please read this page...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Everything that it is, and it isn't.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[jasJis]

Have you noticed that Monica doesn't reply or ask questions to the replys she gets?

What's up with that?

[Uncle Gus]

Maybe she's pondering these things in her heart.

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

Monica,

Please be aware that yes, all Popes sin. But they have never taught heresy. Notice that the teachings of the chuch follow a continuity. They can be better understood or defined with time, but they never change. For Christ has said "I will be with you until the end of time." And our Lord entrusted the keys of his Church to Peter and assured us that the gates of Hell WOULD NOT prevail against his church.

[cmotherofpirl]

How can the Pope be infallible? That seems one of the traditions of men, as Jesus is the only infallible person there ever was.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Especially since some of those "infallible" Popes were great sinners.

Please explain.

Monica is you think about these quotes they are generalities, not absolutes.

Jesus didn't sin.

[ironmonk]

Monica,

You might want to stick with one topic at a time until you fully understand what is meant. You will learn more that way. Some topics overlap in the explinations.

Jumping from topic to topic might cause some confusion and cause you to get sidetracked in your task.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

Monica, there is a difference between infallibility and impeccability. The former is a charism of the Papacy. The latter is not.

[jbliss145]

How can the Pope be infallible? That seems one of the traditions of men, as Jesus is the only infallible person there ever was.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Especially since some of those "infallible" Popes were great sinners.

Please explain.

Monica,

I'm curious about something because I have seen it mentioned by you a few times. It is the "traditions of men" statement that you seem to use as a means of reducing some Catholic Tradition as irrelevant or wrong.

I think the important thing is that you realize the difference between the traditions of men and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not of men, it's of God. There is a huge difference and the Bible rightfully warns us to be watchful of the traditions of men.

[jbliss145]

How can the Pope be infallible? That seems one of the traditions of men, as Jesus is the only infallible person there ever was.

Monica,

I'm curious about something because I have seen it mentioned by you a few times. It is the "traditions of men" statement that you seem to use as a means of reducing some Catholic Tradition as irrelevant or wrong.

I think the important thing is that you realize the difference between the traditions of men and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not of men, it's of God. There is a huge difference and the Bible rightfully warns us to be watchful of the traditions of men.

I'll ask a question that I've asked many of my protestant friends by first showing some scripture:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." 1 Cor. 11:2

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter." 2 Thess. 2:15

What Traditions handed down by word of mouth does your church hold firmly to? It is obvious from the Bible that they exist, does your church maintain them? Please don't think I'm being sarcastic or condescending. I am truly curious. You are right to be cautious of the traditions of men. Sacred Traditions, however, are not traditions of men and they DO exist. They are traditions of Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church.

God Bless,

Joe

[Seatbelt Blue]

How can the pope NOT be infallible? After all, what good is an infallible book without an infallible teacher?

[jbliss145]

Sorry about the double post there. :(

[littleflower+JMJ]

can't say that you don't believe in tradition because....

well one very important tradition that im sure you follow is the bible.

that is a tradition from the Catholic Church.

who else decided what books were to be used and what not?

and to think! your using it !!

oh dear!!

your welcome.

+JMJ

God bLess!

flowery

[Uncle Gus]

For the church to still be around today, with an unbroken succession of Popes, 2000 years later, with still the same teachings, defies all logic. There must be something else, something divine at work.