Papal Infalliblity - Fought By The Rcc Of That Day

[Bruce S]

In Christian theology, infalliblity is the doctrine that in matters of faith and morals the church, both in teaching and in believing, is protected from serious error by "divine dispensation." This doctrine is generally associated with the Roman Catholic church, but it is also applied by the Orthodox church to ecumenical councils. The doctrine is widely rejected by Protestants on the grounds that only God can be described as infallible.

Roman Catholic theology asserts that the entire church is infallible (and therefore cannot err in matters of faith) when, from bishops to laity, it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. Evidently popularity produces truth. Only a few persons in the church (those who hold its highest teaching office) are believed to proclaim Christian doctrine infallibly: (1) the entire body of bishops in union with the pope when it teaches with moral unanimity; (2) an ecumenical council which receives papal approval; and (3) under certain conditions, the pope alone.

What is it?

Today, the Roman Catholic Church teaches its members that their pope is infallible "...in matters of faith and morals." To be more specific, the pope exercises an infallible teaching office only when:

he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as pastor and teacher

he speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire church to acceptance

the matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine revelation handed down from apostolic times.

So, Papal Infallibility, also called ultramontanism, is limited to when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, that is when he is speaking in his official capacity as the "pastor and teacher" of all Christians in defining matters of morals and faith.

What many don't realize is that this wasn't always the case - in fact, this doctrine is relatively recent, having been declared only in 1870 during the First Vatican Council. You might think that popes would be happy to have such dogma in their hands, but in fact before the declaration popes were quite divided on whether or not it was a good idea. The reason was because the idea of papal infallibility was originally conceived as a means of limiting papal power so that certain declarations could not later be overruled.

Popes were naturally concerned about this possibility - so although they might have appreciated the idea of some of the declarations becoming prermanent and infallible, they couldn't be too pleased at the prospect of other decisions being overruled by a later pope's infallibility. It is, then, a dangerous two-edged sword to place in the hands of the Church's leader.

And just who originally came up with the idea of papal infallibility? It was the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn't you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been in order to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280). Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

Vatican I

So things might have remained had it not been for Pope Pius IX and his Vatican I Council, called by Pope Pius IX and which met in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome 93 times between December 8, 1869, and September 1, 1870. How did he manage to get papal infallibility declared an official dogma? Catholic theologian Hans Küng, who is very critical of this dogma, recognizes four principle reasons: "Pius IX had a sense of divine mission which he carried to extremes; he engaged in double dealing; he was mentally disturbed; and he misused his office." Küng goes on to say:

...So repressive were the agenda and official proceedures; so one-sided and partisan were the selection of main theological experts and the composition of both the concilar commissions and the conciliar presidium; so numerous were the means of pressure (moral, psychological, church-political, newspaper campaigns, threatened withdrawl of financial support, harasment by the police) to which the bishops of the anti-Infallibilist minority and the Infallibilist majority were exposed; so varied were the forms of manipulation applied, at the pope's behest, to advance the definition before, during, and after the Council that...as painful and embarassing as it may be to admit, this Council resembled a well-organized and manipulated totalitarian party congress rather than a free gathering of Christian people.

Hans Küng served briefly as a parish priest in Lucerne, Switzerland, before becoming assistant in dogmatic theology at the University of Münster, West Germany. He was official theologian for the Second Vatican Council. As far as Küng is concerned, the freedom of the First Vatican Council was so severely comprimised, that the infallibility doctrine it devised simply cannot be regarded as an authentic or authoritative Catholic teaching. For writing such things, he was in 1979 forbidden from teaching theology in the name of the Catholic Church. Clearly not all Catholics agree with this Chruch dogma, and they have very good reasons for their disagreement.

Criticisms

Küng hasn't been the only critic - In 1979 Father August Bernhard Hasler, Catholic priest, historian, and former staff member of the Vatican's Secretariat for Christian Unity, published "How the Pope became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion." The portrait he presents largely matches that of Küng but differs greatly from the official version of the Church. Since he used Vatican documents which still haven't been released to the public, we should seriously consider his charges:

Pius may have been insane. He suffered from seizures his entire life and later developed memory loss and an inability to think clearly for long periods of time (by his own admission). By 1869, disease and stress had taken a serious toll on his psychological state, and people noticed that he had become unpredictable, irrational, emotional and dictatorial - sometimes acting like a megalomaniac. Historian Ferdinand Gregorovius reported that 1870:

The pope recently got the urge to try out his infallibility...While out on a walk he called to a paralytic: "Get up and walk." The poor devil gave it a try and collapsed, which put [the pope] very much out of sorts. The anecdote has already been mentioned in newspapers.

Pius may have been dishonest. He never admitted to the things he had done in his efforts to have infallibility declared an official Church dogma. Cardinal Gustav von Hohenlohe told a friend: "In my entire life, I have never met a man who was less particular about the truth than Pius IX." Other bishops, like Bishop Henir Manret, openly called Pius IX a liar, so the charge was not at all unusual or suspect.

Pius stacked the council. There were 96 consulting positions, and among them 59 were filled by Italians (his biggest supporters) and just 37 to officials from other countries. Out of those last 37, a mere 6 had any proir experience working with the Vatican. Upon later reflection, many of the inexperienced members came to believe that their ill-fated appointments occured soley so that they could more easily be outmanouvered by the pope's supporters. One, Bishop Joseph Karl Hefele wrote to a friend:

The longer I stay here, the more clearly I see the duplicity behind my appointment as consultor concilii. That was just Rome's way of hoodwinking the public with the appearance of neutrality. In reality, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing here.

Pius had the council convened in Saint Peter's Basilica. What's wrong with that? Well, that place has some of the worst accoustics possible, making it incredibly difficult for anyone to actually hear what was going on, especially for the more elderly members. Bishop Hefele wrote on this: "I now sit right next to the Secretary's desk, in the immediate vicinity of the cardinals...but often I can't hear what is being said from the speaker's platform."

As bad as this situation was, the pope exacerbated it by refusing to allow any copies of the speeches to be printed, preventing the cardinals from actually taking the time to study them carefully. Moreover, small group discussions in which issues could be debated and collectively reviewed were expressly prohibited - later, even large groups were banned. I wonder what Pius was afraid of? Finally, only committee members were given permission to reply to a speech immediately after it had been given - coincidentally, all committee members supported infallibility. All these rules were institutued by Pius before the council met and without consulting the bishops - at prior councils the bishops set their own rules for debate and discussion.

Pius drove the bishops mercilessly. The council was not permitted to postpone or recess under any circumstances, despite meeting in the harsh summer heat and in the middle of a malaria epidemic which caused a number of bishops to fall seriously ill. Upon learning of the spreading disease among the ranks of his bishops, Pius reportedly declared "Che crepino pure" (Let them croak). American business managers have apparently learned their lesson directly from Pius - in order to get your way in a meeting, make things as uncomfortable as possible so that people will want to get out no matter what.

Pius bullied the bishops directly. When one Archbishop Bathiarian of Armenia refused to support Pius' push for infallibility, Pius actually went so far as to try and get the papal police to arrest his personal secretary, sparking a small riot in the process. The other Armenian bishops were so frightened that they immediately asked permission to return home. They were denied, but two were smart enough to flee anyway.

Pius used financial pressure on the bishops. Well over 350 bishops attending the council were financially dependent upon the Vatican, without which they would be in dire straights. Pius did not hesitate to take clear advantage of this fact, threatening any who dare dissent with total cut-off from Vatican coffers. Enforcement was achieved by requiring all voting to be done in public - and this tactic worked more than probably any other.

With all of this going on, is it any wonder that many simply stopped attending meetings? Bishop Felix Dupanloupe wrote in his diary: "I'm not going to the Council anymore. The violence, the shamelessness, even more the falsity, vanity, and continual lying force me to keep my distance." Bishop Lecourtier from France, who was so discouraged that he threw his notes into the Tiber river and simply went home only to have his bisopric taken away for his trouble, complained:

An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is almost half the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which is contradicts concilar traditions. It is crushed by commissions whcih have not been truly elected and whcih dare to insert undebated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanatinos; by newspapers which have been encouraged to hunt the bishops down and to incite the clergy against them.

One estimate had Pius's support at only about 50 bishops at the opening of the First Vatican Council with about 130 opposed and the rest undecided (Of 1050 bishops and others eligible, 800 attended the council, half of them representing European dioceses, and a majority of the rest, European missions abroad. The Americas had 100 representatives).

But after Pius got done with them, 533 of the 598 left in Rome voted his preference. The two who voted against followed Galileo's eample by dropping to one knee in front of the Pope after the final tally was announced and declaring "Now I believe." In the following month, the 63 who abstained all eventually consented to the decree and the Pope became infallible through what was ultimately a unanimous vote.

Other Issues

We should make note of the fact that ultramontanism is not Pius IX's only claim to fame - a number of important changes were made during his tenure. For example, in 1854 he declared the dogma of Immaculate Conception, according to which Mary was protected from all sin, even original sin, because she had been chosen to become the mother of Jesus. This was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope had taken it upon himself to proclaim a doctrine or dogma without first consulting a council.

This pope who is regarded by many as having inaugurated the modern Catholic Church is also noted for his vitriolic reaction against many basic trends in modernity, in paritcular his creation of the Syllabus of Errors which listed 80 ideas that Catholics were forbidden to accept. Among the list were such nasty things like rationalism, communism, liberalism, freedom of speech, freedom of worship/religion, national churches without papal authority, recognition of religions other than Catholicism, democracy, marriage as a civil institution, and secular schools run by the state. The Syllabus also specifically rejected the idea that the papacy and, by extension, the Roman Catholic Church, could even be reconciled with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization. Such attitudes might appear outdated, but I've unfortunately encountered Catholics who seem to adhere to such doctrines devoutly.

Interestingly, this pope had little chance to enjoy his infallibility. Besides the subbornness of paralytics to rise up and walk, the Franco-Prussian war started on the day after the vote. Because of this, France withdrew troops protecting the Vatican from the Kingdom of Sardinia - as soon as the French moved out, Sardinian troops moved in. On September 20, 1870, all of Rome except the Vatican itself was annexed and Pius became a "prisoner of the Vatican." Pehaps that was a fitting end for a pope who worked so hard to make psychological and intellectual prisoners of the millions of Catholics who unfortunately looked to him for guidance.

Further Reading:

How the Pope Became Infallible, by August Berhard Hasler.

Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry, by Hans Küng.

This is the REALITY of the Catholic church, intimidation, money, messy internal politics, all wrapped up the pretty picture of God in chage. Hah.

Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Papal infalliblity is just another power grab.

Edited December 25, 2003 by Bruce S

[ironmonk]

Dear Bruce,

First, I want to say Merry Christ Mass!

Now, to the errors...

August and Hans could not be further from the truth. The quotes they use are worthless unless accompanied by the documents that they came from. So many anti-Catholics fabricate quotes, and I doubt that they did any real study. I would bet that they used some anti-Catholic fruitcake... i.e. something they got from another anti-Catholic without checking his sources.

The doctrine is widely rejected by Protestants on the grounds that only God can be described as infallible.

Of course it is... to be protestant is to have a religion based on protesting the Church established by Christ, for the private interpretation of a man. All prot. churches were started by ex-Catholics, of course they would reject doctrines of Christ's Church, if they didn't, they would not be able to survive. For the protestant churches (34,000 of them) to be right, then they must say Jesus was wrong... Jesus said the Church would never be overcome. The group that left the Catholic Church says that the Church lost it's way. How can that be if Jesus said it would never be overcome?

We even see the protestant spoken of in the bible....

Acts 20:30

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

2 Peter 3:15

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

Infallibility comes from the teachings of Christ. It is not a power grab. The Pope is Infallible when he speaks Ex Cathedra (From the 'chair' of Peter - it's not a physical chair - chair as in office). When the Pope makes an infallible statement it cannot contradict any teaching that has been handed down through the last 2000 years of Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

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).

Luke 10:16

"He who hears you hears me"

Matt. 18:18

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,

17 the Spirit of truth, 9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

John 13:20

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."

1 Tim 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Jesus promised that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, in Truth. The Church cannot be wrong about faith and morals, because Jesus said so. The Scriptures clearly show that the Church established by Christ will be guided by God, and will be the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.... The Pope and Church when speaking of Faith and Morals are infallible.

Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world

. . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

...

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

...

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting. . . . You wrote . . . that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men

. . . when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Firmilian

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

Optatus of Milevus

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Council of Constantinople I

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Synod of Ambrose

"We recognize in the letter of your holiness [Pope Siricius] the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and with pious care you guard Christ’s sheepfold [John 10:7ff], you that are worthy to have the Lord’s sheep hear and follow you" (Synodal Letter to Pope Siricius [A.D. 389]).

Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

...

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Augustine

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

Pope Innocent I

"If cases of greater importance are to be heard [at a council], they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See" (Letters 2:3:6 [A.D. 408]).

"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (ibid., 29:1).

Pope Celestine I

"We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf]" (Letters 17 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [so today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).

Pope Gregory I

"Your most sweet holiness, [bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]" (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

www.MoralTruth.com

[beng]

He he he

Hans Kung refuting Papal infallibility. LOL

I'll stick to that reformation thread and won't even bother with this.

Hans Kung's been refuted so many times

Enjoy the dabate tho.

Edited December 25, 2003 by beng

[hyperdulia again]

Kung isn't evenn a Christian anymore Bruce. He's a Universalist that should have his priestly faculties removed. He cannot even call his teachings Catholic Theology annymore.

[Anna]

Bruce S, I hope you read (and re-read) every word posted by our valiant Knight, IronMonk...

These Truths are beyond your flimsy challenges!

Thank you, IronMonk, for vanquishing errors against Holy Mother Church!

God Bless, and Mary's Christ Mass to you.

Pax Christi. <><

[Bruce S]

I notice AGAIN, that despite a very detailed post, all I get back is blather.

PLEASE SHOW, using the article posted, that ANYTHING in it is NOT true.

I frankly don't care what COMMENTARY Catholic men said 1700 years ago.

Papal infallibility was instituted in 1870, therefore, Catholics themselves didn't even think it was needed. And here it the most damning of all the statements from that article.

Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

So??

One earlier Pope issuing the HIGHEST LEVEL OF STATEMENT before the dubvious infalliblity claims were made, ON that issue, CONDEMNED THE VERY IDEA as heresy.

That is NOT a disinterested party.

So??

Comments?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

You have taken the Pope's words out of context. A sect of Fransiscans who went heterodox challenged that the Pope couldn't do anything about them becuase they were apporoved by an earlier Pope (before they were heretics). The statement by the Pope was condeming the Fransiscans' argument as false and that he had the authority to reverse Church legislation (this wasn't an issue of faith and morals so he wasn't undoing a Church doctrinal stance). This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Papal infallibility.

[foundsheep]

IRONMONK! :pimp:

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Welcome Back IronMonk. Nice job on the post bro. We missed ya

CatholicAndFanatical

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I frankly don't care what COMMENTARY Catholic men said 1700 years ago.

Maybe if you cared alittle more about Church History and the Early Church Fathers things would make more sense to you. Seeing how the Church Fathers did things makes it easier to determine what Church is the True Church. Can you show me writings back in Tertullian's time that claimed to be non-denominational? No you cant. Knowing Church History gives you a clear understand, actually a reality answer as to where the bible came from, instead of just thinking the Holy Spirit sat in the corner and wrote it and just happen to put it in a binder for us with all the nice footers.

The Church Fathers answer alot of questions one would have about the Church that wasnt in the Bible. Not everything is in the Bible, which is why we have Sacred Traditions. The end of Johns Gospel clearly says this.

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[ironmonk]

I notice AGAIN, that despite a very detailed post, all I get back is blather.

PLEASE SHOW, using the article posted, that ANYTHING in it is NOT true.

I frankly don't care what COMMENTARY Catholic men said 1700 years ago.

Papal infallibility was instituted in 1870, therefore, Catholics themselves didn't even think it was needed. And here it the most damning of all the statements from that article.

So??

One earlier Pope issuing the HIGHEST LEVEL OF STATEMENT before the dubvious infalliblity claims were made, ON that issue, CONDEMNED THE VERY IDEA as heresy.

That is NOT a disinterested party.

So??

Comments?

Papal Infallibility was not instituted in 1870.

When somthing goes to council it's typically beause a large group within the Church have a different opinion, or opposite teaching. The Councils are to settle doubts. Papal Infallibility was believed long before 1870.

The reason you don't care what was said 1700-1900 years ago is because you have been told not to.... who do you think knows the teachings of Christ better - men who were taught by the Apostles or men within the last 500 years?

If you don't study the beginnings of Christianity, i.e. where we got the Bible, which Church is the One Faith of the Bible... etc... then all of your study is in vain. Only someone who wants to make Christ what they want Christ to be ignores the writings of the first Christians.

You've ignored every Bible verse and everything else that was posted... Did you come to attack or dialog? If you came to attack, then you have a lot to learn about Christ. If you came to dialog, you are failing at that.

One earlier Pope issuing the HIGHEST LEVEL OF STATEMENT before the dubvious infalliblity claims were made, ON that issue, CONDEMNED THE VERY IDEA as heresy.

No they didn't. Provide the document name, date, and paragraph. If you cannot, your quote is worthless. If you can, read 3 paragraphs before and after what you find. Many quotes stated by anti-Catholics are false, others are taken out of context.

No Pope has ever condemned it.

A little Scripture for ya....

Isaiah 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where geniuses will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. Since the Catholic Church was the only Church which existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter's authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' prayer for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error.

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn't his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn't bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church's infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God's Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facst. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God's infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn't be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 - God's glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church's leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32 - Paul calls the Church a "mystery." This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. "Church" does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for over 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

Matt. to Rev. - finally, we must note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Protestants should ask themselves why they accept the Church's teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

Edited December 26, 2003 by ironmonk

[Anna]

Bruce, would you mind citing your source for the quote at the top of this thread?

Thanks.

Pax Christi. <><

[ironmonk]

I think today's reading can give us some insight into such angered replies...

Acts of the Apostles 6,8-10.7,54-60.

Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people. Certain members of the so-called Synagogue of Freedmen, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and people from Cilicia and Asia, came forward and debated with Stephen, but they could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke. When they heard this, they were infuriated, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out in a loud voice, covered their ears, and rushed upon him together. They threw him out of the city, and began to stone him. The witnesses laid down their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them"; and when he said this, he fell asleep.

Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 10,17-22.

But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.

Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Lil Red]

GO IRONMONK!

[Mateo el Feo]

I notice AGAIN, that despite a very detailed post, all I get back is blather.

Comments?

Hi Bruce S,

Iron Monk's posts seem to be relevant and I hope you read what he posted.

Regarding your complaint, I find it odd that you seem to expect so much from people because you gave us a "very detailed post." I expect that your "detailed post" demanded about two key-strokes of effort from you (Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V) to copy it from Atheism.About.com (link)..

If you paste a lengthy diatribe (complete with ad hominems against one of the popes) via cut-and-paste without a specific question, I think that it makes sense to reply with an equally lengthy reply that addresses the general question (Papal Infallibility) rather than a point-by-point rebuttal.

May God bless you during this Christmas season,

Mateo

Edited December 26, 2003 by Mateo el Feo