- 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, he cannot err when speaking in his fullest capacity, not as a mere private theologian. Further, it is believed that the entire body of legitimate Roman Catholic bishops, who constitute the teaching office known as the Magisterium, cannot err when they unanimously agree on a doctrine formally defined by the pope.
-"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 Because History Has Shown That Popes Can Officially Teach Heresy:
-One of the most striking historical challenges to papal infallibility is the case of Pope Honorius I, who was officially condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for promoting the heresy of Monothelitism—the belief that Christ had only one will. His endorsement of this doctrine was not a private opinion but a formal theological position that influenced the church’s teaching. The fact that a pope could be anathematized by an ecumenical council for doctrinal error directly contradicts the claim that the papal office is divinely protected from heresy when teaching on faith and morals.
-During the Arian controversy, Pope Liberius signed creedal statements that weakened the Nicene position on Christ’s divinity and excommunicated Athanasius, a key defender of orthodoxy. These actions were not merely political concessions but had significant theological implications. Even if made under pressure, the fact remains that Liberius officially compromised core doctrine, demonstrating that papal leadership is not immune to error.
-Pope Zosimus further illustrates the fallibility of the papal office. Initially, he declared the Pelagian teacher Caelestius to be orthodox and demanded that African bishops accept his judgment. This endorsement of Pelagianism—a heresy that denies original sin and the necessity of divine grace—was later reversed after widespread backlash. Zosimus’s doctrinal reversal, made through formal papal correspondence, shows that even in his official capacity, a pope can misjudge theological truth.
-Pope John XXII publicly taught that the souls of the righteous do not experience the beatific vision until the Last Judgment, a view that contradicted long-standing church teaching. He preached this doctrine repeatedly in sermons, causing widespread confusion and scandal. Although he eventually retracted the teaching and it was later condemned by his successor, the episode demonstrates that a pope can persistently teach error on a matter of salvation, even in a public and authoritative manner.
- Further Objections To The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility:
-The Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility is a circular appeal. In other words, 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, which 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 pronouncement?
-During the Western Schism (1378-1417), three different men declared themselves to be pope at the same time. Which one actually possessed the gift of infallible teaching authority? 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?
-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)?
- Papal Infallibility Lacked The Official, Binding "De Fide" Status Until The First Vatican Council:
-Why is it that this idea 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.
- On The Rarity Of Ex-Cathedra Pronouncements:
-The extreme rarity of ex cathedra pronouncements—only two in over a century and a half—raises serious questions about their practical significance within Roman Catholic doctrine. If papal infallibility were truly essential to guiding the faithful, one would expect it to be exercised more frequently, especially in times of doctrinal confusion or moral crisis. Instead, its near absence suggests that the Church either lacks confidence in invoking it or finds it largely unnecessary. This infrequency undermines the claim that infallibility is a vital tool for spiritual leadership and instead portrays it as a symbolic relic—invoked sparingly, disconnected from the evolving challenges of contemporary faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment