Roman Catholicism Part 4: Papal Infallibility and the Crisis of Authority

In the previous article, we traced the growth of Rome’s claims concerning the papacy; we now turn to the doctrine that places those claims beyond meaningful correction—the alleged infallibility of the Pope.

Formulation and Faux Pas

Pope Benedict XVI readily admits that ‘only in 1870 was it [i.e., the doctrine of Papal infallibility] given its definitive conceptual formation,’ but he argues that the idea the Pope could speak infallibly in matters of doctrine and morals had been asserted and implied previously. When in 1870, the Vatican Council in Rome defined Papal infallibility under the auspices of Pope Pius IX, it was effectively made retroactive to all past popes when speaking ‘ex cathedra,’ that is, from the chair of St. Peter, to all Christians – which, it should be added, is a literal chair dated to the late ninth century.

One example of the arrogation of infallible teaching authority to the ‘vicar of Christ’ prior to the Vatican Council of 1870 is found, as noted above, in the work of Pope Pius IX himself, who defined the Immaculate Conception as an infallible dogma in December 1854, through his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.  This was not an uncontroversial thing to do since over fifty of Rome’s Bishops opposed the move to make a theological speculation a mandatory and binding doctrine of their church. 

Although from the eleventh century in the West a feast was introduced celebrating the conception of Mary, there is nothing remotely biblical about the idea that Mary was without sin or free from original sin from the moment she was conceived. Even Thomas Aquinas had pointed out the problematic notion that if Mary was free from all sin, then she did not need the redemptive work of Christ!  But in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there was always a medieval scholastic on hand to invent a concept to get around such inconvenient problems. John Duns Scotus came to the rescue with his concept of ‘preventative redemption’ whereby God must have applied the power and merits of Christ’s redemptive work to Mary at the moment of conception, keeping her from all inherited or indwelling sin and enabling her to live a sinless life.

Another example is, of course, the assertion of papal infallibility itself, which involved the Roman Catholic church in a viciously circular argument – in short, the Pope is infallible because he and his bishops say so infallibly! The Roman bishops, despite considerable opposition to the idea, were eventually carried along after much cajoling and lobbying. The council which eventually ratified the infallibility decree was packed in favor of the Jesuit-controlled papal party, including over-representation from the tiny Italian papal states. Before the final vote, 162 bishops petitioned against the dogma.  American and Canadian bishops, in particular, were deeply skeptical of the decree. The Roman Catholic British historian, Lord Acton, writing in defence of the bishops in the United States, argued that the Americans rightly ask how they are to live under the free constitutions of the Republic after committing themselves to the principles attested by papal infallibility which included things like religious persecution, the coercive power of the church, and the claim of Catholicism to the exclusive mastery of the state.  Not to mention the Pope’s alleged right to dispense from oaths and the subjection of all civil power to his supreme dominion.

When the vote was finally taken, most opposed to the decree absented themselves so as not to be officially on record against it. Anathemas were attached to the decree, and all bishops were required to consent or be excommunicated. Interestingly, some very significant Catholic theologians, like the German scholar Dollinger, opposed it on the ground that it lacked all three key criteria: Universality, Antiquity, and Consent. He was excommunicated in 1871. 

Another important illustration of the problem of infallibility, especially for Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, is Pope Pius XII’s ex cathedra decree on Mary’s bodily assumption in 1950.  This dogma claims that the Virgin Mary did not die but was taken up into heaven body and soul.  This so-called infallible teaching is unquestionably related to the previous dogma of the immaculate conception. Given Mary’s sinless state in the teaching of the papists, the avoidance of natural death appears almost inevitable for Mary, the mother of Jesus. If sinners like Elijah and Enoch were taken up bodily into heaven, surely the sinless Mary must have been accorded that honor. 

This papal decree of 1950 is the only time since 1870 and the formulation of the dogma of papal infallibility that this unique power and authority has actually been used. The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus states:

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

This remarkable claim is without any foundation in the bible whatsoever. And no church Fathers from the first three centuries taught such a dogma. It was in fact the fifth century before an explicit teaching of this nature began to appear.  Apocryphal stories gradually became extra-biblical teachings, though never universally accepted by the church.  

Interestingly, despite the duly established claim of papal infallibility being church dogma, Pope Pius XII found it necessary to survey the entire global Roman Catholic communion to ask the bishops if they agreed with the idea of the bodily assumption of Mary and if their people and clergy wanted and supported it becoming a formal dogma.  Only twenty-two bishops had reservations, with six challenging the idea that it is a matter of divine revelation. With this great Roman referendum returning such an overwhelmingly favorable response, the Pope went ahead.  

One is forced to ask, in all this: if the Pope requires the support of his bishops, clergy, and people before making an infallible decree, what is the point of the dogma in the first place? It certainly helps explain why, in over one-hundred-and-fifty years, only one infallible, ex-cathedra dogma has ever emerged from the Roman Catholic Church, despite all the times of crisis and cultural upheaval when infallible assurance and teaching would have been most welcome to the Roman Catholic faithful.

The Root of Division in the Western Church

The central difference between the reformed-evangelical faith and papist Christianity is very well illustrated in the dogma of papal infallibility we have been considering, because what divides us always comes back to the central question of authority. Roman Catholicism works from two sources of final authority – scripture and an evolving tradition within the Romanist Church; a church which alone claims the right and authority to interpret scripture for everyone. The Council of Trent (AD 1546) declared that the Word of God is contained in both the bible and tradition and they have equal authority, whilst for the reformed-evangelical tradition, scripture alone is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). This gives the Bible a singular and unique authority and although human traditions have value, may bring valid insights, and can deepen our understanding, they do not have the same kind of authority as God’s own Word.

This is how and why the Reformational and the Roman Catholic theologians reach such different doctrinal conclusions.  For the reformed-evangelical community, epistemic priority is with the Scriptures by which the words of all men and their traditions, whether Popes or councils, must be judged. The perspective of Rome, on the other hand, tied to its view of priesthood and authority, is that epistemic priority is with the institutional church, which controls both tradition and the interpretation of Scripture. For this reason, the Bible was often forbidden to the people by the Church of Rome and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia (Southeastern Spain) in 1229. It resulted in the persecution of the Waldensians. This ban was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546), prohibiting access to Scripture without written permission from an ecclesiastical superior.  Four Popes in the eighteenth century pronounced against giving the bible to people in their own language.  And yet while the church of Rome has so often tried to keep Scripture to itself and its pastoral interpreters, no ‘infallible’ official interpretation has ever been offered by the papacy to a single chapter in the Bible – not one!  What good to the church or society is infallibility if it cannot bring clarity to a single passage of scripture and is almost never used? This is very good evidence that no such ecclesiastical infallibility exists.  

At this point it is relevant to state that the Newer Testament was produced during the first century and assumed its present form organically over decades, being recognized as a received authority by the churches, long before the Roman Catholic church developed its characteristics – scripture was not created, produced or given to mankind ‘by the church institute’ let alone by Roman Catholicism. The Council of Carthage in AD 397 put its seal of approval on those books recognized by the churches as Scripture. And of course, Rome had nothing whatever to do with Older Testament canon.  Furthermore, with regard to fundamental doctrine and the preservation of orthodoxy against heresy, at the first great ecumenical council of Nicaea (AD 325) dealing primarily with the divine nature of Christ against the Arian heresy, the bishop of Rome was not even present but sent a couple of deacons. Most of the bishops were from the Eastern churches.

In addition, the idea that a parallel authority of the tradition, upheld by the Pope, has been sustained by a supposed unanimous consent of the “Fathers” is simply a myth. Origen’s teachings fuelled Arianism, and Arius had strong support from the Bishop of Alexandria. Some of the early church Fathers taught Christ’s imminent return and thousand-year reign in Jerusalem, whilst both Origen and St Augustine wrote against that view. The early Fathers clearly promoted the reading, study and free use of Scripture by ordinary people, whilst later ones restricted or banned it. The early Fathers condemned the use of images in worship, while later ones approved their use. The immaculate conception was denied by Anselm, Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas – three of Rome’s great theologians.  Whilst we can identify a creedal orthodoxy from the early centuries shared by all true Christians rooted in the Apostles’ doctrine, there is simply no developing, unified, universal tradition that can be held up as a parallel received authority to that of Scripture. 

In the end, Christ is building and protecting His Church, and it is the Holy Spirit alone who is the infallible interpreter of His Word.  Whilst traditions can be helpful guides, it is ultimately the Spirit of God who leads and shepherds his people into all truth (Jn. 16:13). This means there is always an appeal above and beyond Popes and councils, as the great reformer Martin Luther recognized, and that appeal is to the Word of God.  Without such an appeal, the church institute becomes a tyranny.  For Rome, theoretically, if most of the world’s Christians disagreed with the Pope’s ex-cathedra conclusions, it is they, not the Pope, who are in error. And yet, we had Pope Zozimus (AD 417-418) pronounce Pelagius orthodox and then reverse his position. We’ve had heretic Popes like Honorius (AD 625-638), excommunicated and condemned by church councils and Popes for 800 years.  Pope Hadrian (AD 867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid, then Pius VII (AD 1800-1823) condemned them as invalid. One infallible Pope, Eugene IV (AD 1431-1447), condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch, while Pope Benedict XV went on in AD 1919 to declare her a saint!  Popes Paul V and Urban VIII condemned Galileo and Copernicus as heretical, and Galileo was imprisoned and tortured, but in 1992, after a thirteen-year investigation, Pope John Paul II officially vindicated Galileo.

Sinful, erring, finite men and their traditions cannot be infallible any more than the Pope’s being seated in a ninth-century chair makes his decrees infallible.  In short, all Christians are subject to the infallible authority of the Word of God alone. In the words of the prophet:

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20)