Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility: it is a dogma of the Latin Church; belief in it is necessary if one is to be orthodox. It is a settled matter, and rejection or disagreement concerning it can entail serious consequences (e.g. the removal of Hans Kung's teaching faculties at a Catholic university). It is to be believed by all Catholics, but is it really understood by all Catholics? Is it even understood by the ones who proclaim and continue to proclaim it as dogma?

Orthodox Christians have long contested inflated papal claims as alien to the Church of the first millennium, when East and West were one. Protestant Christians, although on different grounds and for different reasons, have likewise rejected papal claims, even going so far as to reject what the Orthodox do not: the Petrine Primacy associated with the Papacy. (The Orthodox are willing to acknowledge a Petrine Primacy, although in the sense of priority and equality amongst the other Apostles.) Latin Catholic scholars approach the Papacy from two major vantage points. One group of scholars feels it necessary to identify and prove, from early Church history and from the New Testament writings themselves, that the bishop of Rome exerted a superior authority, and even a universal jurisdiction, over the bishops of the other early Christian churches. Another group, more sensibly in my opinion, admit that examples of papal superiority and universal jurisdiction are wanting in the early centuries of the Church. Whereas the first group takes the view that the Papacy "was a'll there" in fullness of power in the beginning, and only needed time to more fully manifest its true nature, the second group takes the Papacy from the angle of development. There is development according to the first group, yes, but the chief difference seems to me to be this: whereas the first group seems to think that papal powers were fully understood by the earliest of the bishops of Rome, the latter seem to think of these same papal powers as only partially known by the earliest bishops of Rome, including Peter (believed to be the first bishop according to Latin Catholics). Pope Pius IX, in the 55th section in his (in-)famous Lamentabili Sane, which was written to combat Mondernism, especially as it affected matters of Biblical theology, condemns the following proposition: Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him. (source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df07ls.htm) This condemnation is interesting, since it does not pinpoint what exactly is meant by primacy. Orthodox Christians could even say that Peter recognized he had a certain primacy amongst the Apostles. But if one takes "primacy" in the sense it has acquired by Roman decisions, then it would seem that Rome condemns anyone who rejects the notion that Peter fully knew that he had a superior authority--that is, one above and over the other Apostles.

Theological niceties aside, Papal Infallibility only creates more confusion than it solves. Now: ask any reasonable Latin Catholic and he or she will tell you that the confusion comes from poor catechesis, and indeed there is some legitimacy in this argument. Many Catholics today, in the U.S. and elsewhere, barely known the essentials of the faith. Catechesis is heavily needed amongst Latin Catholics today. Yet, this reality aside, there is another reality: infallibility is too often wrongly equated with inerrancy. What is the difference? In Latin Catholic teaching, infallibility is a grace given by God to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Infallibility therefore applies to the college of bishops as a whole, and more precisely, to the Roman Pontiff who heads them. Infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals. It does not apply to matters of personal preference. The Pope and the College of Bishops cannot with infallibility declare, "God roots more for the Steelers than for Broncos," since this has really nothing to do with what must be believed and what has always been believed. Inerrancy applies to no human person or group of human persons. Jesus Christ, a divine person, is inerrant: he never made or will make an error. The Holy Scriptures are inerrant because the Scriptures are the Word of God, and God speaks and reveals only the Truth. But, while no reasonable person will reject this distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, what does one find in the Latin Church, but the tendency to affirm inerrancy in defense of infallibility. In my opinion, this is best seen in the Latin Catholic apologetic of pointing to the historic bishops of Rome and their long track of orthodoxy.

While it is true that the vast majority of Roman bishops of the first millenium were orthodox, not all were always orthodox as Roman bishop; at least one fell into the grievous error of Monothelitism: Pope Honorius. Yet, the tradition continues: the Roman bishops never taught error. The Roman Pontiffs were preserved by the Holy Spirit from publically teaching error. This never has been declared as dogma, and yet it is a tradition no less potent than papal infallibility. The Pope is infallible because of, or dependent on, his own inerrancy in matters of faith and morals. He speaks the truth and not error because within himself, and at all times, the Catholic beliefs are safeguarded from heresy.

Of course, there is a counter-current in today's Catholicism: ultra-traditional Catholicism--independent Catholics and to a lesser extent, the SSPX, who believe the Pope can fall into heresy, or at least grievous error. In fact, the platform for many of these Catholics today is just that: Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI affirmed that which was non concurrent with the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, and so far as I'm aware, the SSPX to this day still distinguishes true obedience (to the inerrant truths of the Catholic Church) from a false obedience (to false traditions pushed on people in the pews by erring Popes).

As a final note: the Papal Infallibility claim is, like many things in Latin Catholicism, unnecessary. If the Church has always and everywhere believed it, then why the need for a declaration? Unless, of course, it was never really believed in the first place, or believed in a "less-developed" sense that now needs an updated confirmation from on high to be believed properly, as the Church understands it. Some Latin Catholics say: Papal Infallibility is not superfluous; it's necessary, for without the Pope there would be so much confusion and uncertainty concerning what the Church believes. I always enjoy hearing this, because on the outside it does make sense: any good institution needs a good CEO. BUT, the Church of Christ is not an institution modeled after the empire, but the mystical body of Christ. One does not side with the emperor, but with the Truth that continues to be taught by the bishops of the Orthodox Churches. It would be easy if all we had to do was side with one bishop forever; it would be easy if we could all "be saved" and not fear the possibility of Hell. Yet, this was not the reality of the early Church; it is not the reality of the Church today. True Christianity, the Church, and the battle for it against heterodoxy has and always will be a great struggle, albeit one guaranteed by the words of Christ himself: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.