A Refutation Of The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility

• Defining Papal Infallibility:

          -The Church of Rome teaches that the Pope cannot pronounce doctrinal error when making official declarations from his chair in matters pertinent to faith and morals (i.e. "ex-cathedra"). In other words, Roman Catholicism maintains that the head Roman bishop cannot error when speaking in his fullest capacity, and not as a mere private theologian. Also, it is believed that the entire body of legitimate Roman Catholic bishops, who constitute the teaching office commonly known as the "Magisterium," cannot error when they unanimously agree on a doctrine formally defined by the their leader.

          -"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith--he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council...This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." (CCC # 891)

• Papal Infallibility Is A False Doctrine Of Roman Catholicism Because History Has Shown Us That Popes Can Officially Teach Heresy:

          -If the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is historical, then how could the Sixth Ecumenical Council officially anathematize Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) for enforcing the heresy of Monotheletism (i.e. Christ had no human will) on the entire Christian church (his heretical proclamation began with, "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ...”)?
          -"In late 357 Liberius went to Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). Supposedly dejected, he agreed to sign certain unorthodox formulas that served to emasculate the Nicene Creed (the Creed had implicitly disavowed Arianism). Liberius also agreed to sever relations with Athanasius and submitted to the authority of the emperor." (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Liberius)
          -"Also known as Zozimus, he succeeded Innocent I, and was followed by Boniface I. Although his reign was brief, it was turbulent and left a powerful impact on the papacy. Zosimus is best known for his role in the Pelagian controversy. He at first pronounced the Pelagian teacher Caelestius to be orthodox and later declared him and Pelagius both to be heretical." (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Zosimus)

           *If the pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex-cathedra, then how can these teachings be declared heretical? Further, this raises the question of when we can know the pope speaks infallibly or not. We have no infallible list as to the number of infallible statements made by the pope. Of what major value does this dogma have, since such pronouncements are incredibly rare? Is it reasonable to uphold the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility in light of the fact that the pope can officially be deemed a heretic?

• Further Objections To The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of papal infalliblilty is a circular appeal. The pope's claim is considered correct because it aligns with the beliefs of those who deem it to be correct. If he were to make an error while declaring something infallibly, what would be the method to recognize that mistake? This scenario creates a closed loop that does not allow for external verification or challenge.

          -If the pope was meant to be the infallible speaking instrument of the church by authorization of Jesus Christ, then why did so many church councils have to assemble over periods of many years to resolve doctrinal disputes? What was stopping the pope from resolving those matters once for all by simply making an ex-cathedra statement?

          -If the Church of Rome truly believed that we needed to be guided by its allegedly infallible interpretations of Scripture, then why has it dogmatically interpreted only a handful of passages throughout church history? Why did it take nearly 1,500 years for Rome to officially declare the apocrypha as canonical?

          -During the Western Schism (1378-1417), three different men delcared themselves to be pope at the same time. Which one actually possessed the gift of infallible teaching authority? 

          -If the church was meant to be infallible, then why is it that the Apostle Paul exhorted his younger companion Timothy to watch and guard his doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:14)?

          -Why is it that papal infallibility was not officially considered a dogma until 1870? Following is an excerpt from A Doctrinal Catechism, authored by Stephen Keenan, bearing the Imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic Bishops, prior to 1870: "Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible? This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church."

            *This question and answer section bears significance because it was removed from Keenan's catechism after 1870.

• Roman Catholic Teaching Is Not Reliable Because It Continually Evolves:

          -Although Roman Catholics would consider this argument to be a straw man, it is a proven fact of history that the Church of Rome has placed into effect contradictory church traditions. An example would include Pope Gelasius denying the validity of the Mary's bodily assumption. Another would be upholding the notion that no one can be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church. In modern times, however, Rome has affirmed the exact opposite of the previously listed viewpoints. Rome has referred to Protestants as "Separated Brethren." Recently decreed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church would include the immaculate conception of Mary (1854) and the assumption of Mary (1950). This at least renders the teaching authority of Rome to be questionable.