From the book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The attack of the “biblical Christians” on “Romanism”.
Chapter XVIII: Papal infallibility
Let us assume, for a moment, that the Pope is infallible, not only in matters of morality and faith, but also in trigonometry. You are then presented with an exam consisting of one hundred trigonometry problems. What is the smallest number of problems that he can answer correctly?
It may be that someone who understands trigonometry would say, “one hundred,” but such a person does not understand infallibility any more than the average non-Catholic does. The correct answer is: zero. Even if he were infallible in trigonometry, the Pope may not solve any of the problems. Being infallible in trigonometry then means being unable to give incorrect answers instead of being able to answer each question correctly. The answer sheet can be left blank, and in fact, should be left blank if the Pope has not prepared in advance to answer them.
The same thing happens in real life. Under the watchfulness of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is guaranteed not to teach errors regarding faith and morals (assuming, of course, that he intends to make an ex cathedra statement and is not speaking privately and merely as a scholar). The Pope cannot teach that something is true unless he himself first knows that it is indeed so, and let us remember that he learns things the same way we learn them.
Catholics who fail to understand this test can at least appreciate why most fundamentalists cannot understand infallibility. These do not understand what infallibility means. The vast majority hear the word “infallibility” and think “sinlessness.” Fundamentalists think that Catholics believe that the Pope cannot sin.
Others who do not make this elementary error imagine that the Pope is like Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism who declared that he once had the Urim and Thummim that are mentioned in the Old Testament. Smith claimed to have used this artifact to translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates, or at least that is what he said to have done, and many non-Catholics think that the Pope relies on some kind of amulet or magical root when it is necessary to make an infallible definition. Considering this then, it is to expect too much of the average fundamentalist to understand the fine details of infallibility. The first thing he would have to perceive (after it was made clear to him that the issue consists of the absence of error and not the absence of sin) is that infallibility belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in moral unity, they teach a doctrine as truth. “He who listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16); “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).
The Second Vatican Council expresses it this way:
Although each of the prelates does not possess the prerogative of infallibility, however, if all of them, even though they are dispersed throughout the world, but maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Successor of Peter, agree on the same opinion as authentic teachers who expound as definitive a doctrine in matters of faith and customs, in that case they infallibly announce the doctrine of Christ. the universal Church, and its definitions of faith must be accepted with submission. This infallibility that the Divine Redeemer wanted his Church to have when he defined the doctrine of faith and customs, extends to everything encompassed by the deposit of divine Revelation given for faithful custody and exhibition.
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the Pope as head of the bishops (Matthew 16:17-19; John 21:15-17) and therefore (the same document continues):
This infallibility is the responsibility of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the Episcopal College, by reason of his office, when he proclaims as definitive the doctrine of faith or customs in his capacity as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful whom he must confirm in the faith (cf. Lk., 22,32). Therefore, it is rightly said that his definitions by themselves and not by the consent of the Church are irreformable, since they have been proclaimed under the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in St. Peter, and thus do not need any approval from others nor do they admit appeal to any other court. Because in these cases the Roman Pontiff does not give a ruling as a private person, but as supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom uniquely resides the charisma of the infallibility of the Church itself, he expounds or defends the doctrine of the Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church also resides in the body of Bishops when they exercise the supreme magisterium together with the successor of Peter. The assent of the Church can never be lacking in these definitions through the action of the Holy Spirit by virtue of which the entire flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in the unity of faith.[1]
The infallibility of the Pope is certainly a doctrine that has developed over time, but it is not something that suddenly came out of nowhere in 1870 but is implicit in the following Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (“feed my sheep“); Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you so that your faith does not fail“); Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter…”). Christ instructed the Church to preach the good news (Matthew 28:19-20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit.”to guide you in all truth” (John 16:13). That command and that promise guarantee that the Church would never depart from its teachings (1 Timothy 3:15), even if certain individual Catholics could do so. The Church’s inability to teach error is itself infallibility and is a passive protection. It means that what is officially taught cannot be wrong. It does not mean that official teachers will have the intelligence to stand up and teach the right thing whenever something needs to be taught.
As the concepts of the Church’s magisterial authority and papal primacy became clearer to Christians, so did the notion of papal infallibility. This occurred early in the history of the Church. In 433 Pope Sixtus III declared that “To agree with the decisions of the Bishop of Rome is to agree with Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail.“. [2]
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing around the year 256, asked: “Would heretics dare to approach the same seat of Peter from which the apostolic faith is derived and from which no error can emanate?” [3] Saint Augustine of Hippo summarized this ancient concept by remarking, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed“[4]
Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the notable priests of American radio from two generations ago, present it this way:
Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know that they were infallible with the same certainty of faith that later popes came to have. But in fact they were infallible. The gift of papal infallibility is an essential part of the Church and not the definition of the gift itself. You wonder why it was only defined in 1870. The fact is that definitions are not given unnecessarily. If any point is not discussed and no one disputes it, then there is no need for a definition. However, in the 17th century the question of the pope’s doctrinal authority came to the fore, until in 1870 the Vatican Council was called to resolve the issue once and for all. The time had come for the Church to fully recognize itself in this regard.[5]
An infallible papal pronouncement is made only when a doctrine is questioned. There has been no doubt on the part of the vast majority of Catholics regarding most such pronouncements, yet in almost any era one could find someone who denied a given belief. Look at the Catechism and see how many doctrines there are that have never been formally defined by an ex cathedra papal declaration. In fact, there are few topics in which a Pope could issue an infallible decision without seconding infallible pronouncements from some other source, such as an ecumenical council or a unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church. [6]
At least the outline, if not the textual references in the preceding paragraphs, should be familiar to well-trained Catholics, to whom this matter should be reasonably clear. It’s another thing with fundamentalists. For them, papal infallibility is something obscure because the idea that they themselves have of the matter is obscure.
Joseph Zacchello, who was ordained a priest in Italy and sent to the United States to serve the Italian-American community, converted to so-called “biblical Christianity” in 1944. Four years later he published “Secrets of Romanism” (Secrets of Romanism). Due to the recent resurgence of anti-Catholic sentiment, the book has been reprinted. Zacchello argues against papal infallibility on the grounds that “it lacks the power to prevent divisions. There are popes who have anathematized other popes, councils that contradict other councils, and doctors of theology who have violently opposed other doctors.” Furthermore, he tells us, “the Church of Rome frequently had two popes; and on one occasion there were three rival popes at the same time (the Great Western Schism 1378-1417).” [7]
This is confusing and inaccurate. Never has a Catholic claimed papal infallibility”would prevent divisions“Yes, it is true that certain popes have contradicted other popes, in their private opinions or in regard to disciplinary norms; but there has never been a Pope who officially contradicted what a previous Pope officially taught in matters of faith and morals. The same can be said of ecumenical councils, which also teach infallibly. There has not been an ecumenical council that contradicted the teaching of a previous ecumenical council in matters of faith and morals. Has there been “doctors of theology who have violently opposed other doctors“Of course, but Catholics do not claim that doctors of theology are infallible, so disagreements among them are irrelevant, and certainly the fact that they may disagree with each other neither takes away nor adds anything to the issue of papal infallibility.
Consider Zacchello’s misleading comment about the Great Western Schism. It happened like this. In 1378 Urban VI was legally elected Pope. Some cardinals judged that he had not been appropriately chosen, so they chose another man, Clement VII. There were good men on both sides, who supported each aspirant to the papacy honestly thinking that they were supporting the true Pope. Nobody imagined that there could be two popes at the same time. To resolve the dispute, another group of cardinals exceeded their rights and elected a third Pope, Alexander V. During all this time, Urban VI was the authentic Pope. Eventually he died as well as his rivals. Urban’s third successor was Gregory XII. To end the confusion, which by then had lasted almost forty years, a council was called and Gregory XII resigned. The successors of Clement and Alexander were declared improperly elected and a new Pope, Martin V, was elected. In all those years the fact that there was more than one Pope was never questioned; There was only confusion among the faithful regarding who was the legitimate successor of the Prince of the Apostles.
Equally wrong is what Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion, says. He says, “People naturally question how infallibility can be associated with the papal office when some of the popes have been such poor examples of morality and integrity.”. However, he immediately recognizes that he is confusing infallibility with impeccability and that is why he cuts things off by saying, “And if infallibility were applied only to the doctrines pronounced by popes, why is it that some popes disagree with other popes?”[8] This author wants to win at both ends, his argument works better if the reader thinks that infallibility and impeccability are identical, but he leaves room for some reader who can know the difference.
After recounting the case of Pope Formosus (we admit that it is a truly macabre case), whose body was unearthed and put in the dock during a posthumous trial, Woodrow claims that “such sharp disagreement between popes is certainly an argument against the ideal of papal infallibility”.[9] This is evidence of a basic confusion, since the issue must always be expressed this way: Have two popes officially disagreed on questions of faith and morals? The case of Pope Formosus had nothing to do with any teaching or disagreement of that kind.
Formoso was the bishop of Porto (Portugal), and was elected Pope at a time when the transfer of a bishop from one diocese to another was considered improper. This was merely a disciplinary rule and does not invalidate his election. His second successor, Stephen VII, at the behest of Emperor Lambert, found it politically expedient to declare that Formosus had come to the papacy by improper means and that the ordinations made by him were, consequently, invalid. Hence the aforementioned judgment arises. Formosus was found “guilty” and his ordinations were declared void. So, there was certainly a disagreement (if such a thing were possible) between Formosus, who was dead by then, and Stephen; However, the posthumous trial, no matter how repugnant it may seem to us, had nothing to do with a definition of faith or morality, so the question of papal infallibility does not apply to this case.
Woodrow goes on to point out that “Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared authentic. Two years later Pope Clement VIII declared that it was full of errors and ordered another one to be made!“[10] and adds “When we consider the hundreds of times and ways in which popes have contradicted themselves over the centuries, we can understand why the idea of papal infallibility is difficult for many people to accept. While it is true that most papal pronouncements are not made within the limited confines of the 1870 definition of ‘ex cathedra’, yet if popes have erred in so many other ways, how can we believe that they have been guaranteed divine infallibility for a few moments in case they decide to speak ex cathedra”[11]
We are not surprised that Woodrow ends his chapter on papal infallibility with an exercise in numerology, noting that “as early as 1612 it was noted, as Andreas Helwig says in his book ‘The Roman Antichrist’, that the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ has a numerical value of 666.” When ‘Vicar of the Son of God’ (Vicarius Filii Dei) is written, the letters add up to 666, if Roman characters are used. The number reminds us of Revelation 13:18 of course, ‘Let him who has understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and their number is six hundred and sixty-six.'”
There are several things wrong with this argument. Vicarius Filii Dei has never been used as a title by any Pope. The Pope’s full title is Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ (or simply Vicar of Christ, Vicarius Christi), Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province of Rome and Sovereign of Vatican City.
Latin, like many other ancient languages, used letters to represent numbers. The letters of Vicarius Filii Dei certainly add up to 666. Not so the letters of Vicarius Christi. The anti-Catholic wiseguys, unable to advantageously use Vicarius Christi—the true title of the Pope—replace it with a similar title and voila!—they conclude that the Pope is the beast of the Apocalypse.[12]
In this, opponents of Catholicism leave aside an important reality. The last book of the Bible was written in Greek and not Latin. We should expect that the “number of the beast” will manifest itself numerologically in Greek and not in Latin. The name or title that adds up to 666 should be based on the Greek language. There is a way to bring Latin into this matter but it does not favor the anti-Catholic argument.
At the end of the second century manuscripts were in circulation that gave the number of the beast as 616 instead of 666. Why the discrepancy? Apparently some copyists were confused and this confusion leads us to believe in the generally accepted theory about the identity of the beast that would correspond to Nero Caesar.
Nero’s name in Greek, when written with Hebrew characters, is NRWN QSR. Each letter is understood as a number (the corresponding sum is 50+200+6+100+60). Adding the letters together gives you 666. The Latin form of his name, written in Hebrew characters, is slightly different: NRWQSR. The latter adds up to 616, which corresponds to the alternative reading of the manuscripts. It must have been the most natural thing for the copyists whose language was Latin, and who knew that Nero was being referred to, to assume that 666 was an error and that 616 must be the correct number. In this way we see in the first manuscripts the form 666 and in later ones—copied when Latin had become the lingua franca of the Mediterranean—we find the form 616.
Not only does Nero’s name correspond with this arithmetic, the evidence in the same manuscripts also identifies him with the beast; and also its historical profile coincides with the context of the Apocalypse. He was the first emperor to persecute Christians and would have been the best to represent the beast. His persecutions had been so vigorous that Nero was rumored to have been brought back to life by one of his successors, Domitian, who was also a persecutor. Domitian was known as Nero Redivivus, Risen Nero.
Anyway, whatever the real identity of the beast, Ralph Woodrow gives no good reason to connect the number 666 with the papacy. The best thing you can do is use a ruse as evidence. Like many other anti-Catholics, he is so desperate to identify the beast with the papacy that he does not care to stick to the facts.
Woodrow and his arguments are very easy to dismiss. A better fundamentalist attack is presented, as usual, by Loraine Boettner in her book Roman Catholicism. As we mentioned in the previous chapter, he made a major mistake (even bigger than what we are used to). “It is not claimed that every declaration of the Pope is infallible” tells us, “but only those in which he speaks ex cathedra, that is, sitting in his papal chair, the chair of St. Peter, and speaking in his official capacity as head of the church.”[13] At this point there is an asterisk that takes the reader to one of the footnotes and states that the chair venerated as being that of Peter comes from the 9th century and is of French origin. “It is not an antiquity from the first century”, the point he apparently wants to make is that, even if papal infallibility were theoretically possible, it is not possible in practice since today’s popes cannot sit in the true chair of Peter.
Chair or no chair, the popes continue to publish their decisions and Boettner must face that reality. “It is interesting to note that the popes, when issuing their decrees or declarations, do not identify them as ex cathedra or non ex cathedra. We can be sure that if such power were a reality they would not hesitate to label them, and that in fact it would be advantageous if they did so. Surely it would be of inestimable value to know which declarations are ex cathedra and which are not; which are infallible and authoritative and which are merely observations and therefore fallible like everyone else’s.”[14] Boettner’s ability to appreciate human nature is rather modest. If the note were inserted in every non-infallible statement “this is not ex cathedra” It would be inviting everyone to make the same mistake as Boettner; believing that the Pope’s non-infallible teachings are “therefore fallible like everyone else’s.” Precisely because the Pope “does his homework” and as a result of the way he prepares his statements, and because he is who he is, these statements are less likely to be fallible, wrong, than those made by other people. The Pope does not speak the first thing that comes to mind but expresses himself within a right tradition of teachings.
The author of Roman Catholicism can’t resist quoting a famous Catholic historian: “How true are the words of Lord Acton of England, himself a Roman Catholic, who after visiting Rome and seeing in person the workings of the papacy wrote ‘All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'”[15]
To begin, Boettner cites the most common of misquotations. Acton actually said: ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’“This he wrote in a letter to an Anglican bishop, Mandell Creighton, on April 15, 1887, quite some time after the First Vatican Council. Secondly, Boettner imagines that Acton was scandalized in the same way that Martin Luther supposedly was scandalized when, as a monk, he visited Rome for the first time. However, Acton was familiar with the place from a long time before. Apart from this, his aphorism does not refer only to the popes, but also to kings and all men in positions of authority. To imply that the comment is limited to the papacy, to suggest that it indicates a rejection of papal infallibility, is to give a false impression of what Acton said.
In any case, Boettner is much more precise than Woodrow; “The doctrine of infallibility does not mean that the Pope is infallible as a man. It is not related to his personal habits. It does not mean that he is sinless. Nor does it mean that he is inspired as the apostles were in such a way that he can be the author of the Scriptures.” So far he is correct. But he is wrong immediately afterwards, although not as egregiously as others have done: “Rather it means that in his official capacity as a teacher of the church, he has the guidance of the Holy Spirit in such a way that he can clearly and positively interpret and declare the doctrines that are alleged to have been part of the heritage of the church from the beginning.”[16] Boettner fails to understand what infallibility really entails. He does not understand that it is passive protection and that a Pope who was too lazy in “doing his homework” would not be able to make an infallible decision on anything. The charisma of infallibility does not help the Pope to know what is true, nor does it inspire him to teach what is true.
Boettner also errs, in a slightly more subtle way, by saying that “For centuries before the doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted there were many differences of opinion as to where exactly infallibility resided… But in 1870 it was declared that it resides only in the Pope and that every good Catholic is now obliged to accept this view.” [17] The First Vatican Council did not say that infallibility resides only in the Pope, for the good reason that it also resides in the bishops who teach in union with the Pope.
Wanting to give a biblical example of the fallibility of popes, Boettner presents this: “That Peter, who is alleged to be the first pope, was not infallible as a teacher of faith and morals is evident from his conduct in Antioch when he refused to eat with Gentile Christians so as not to offend certain Jews in Palestine (Galatians 2:11-16). Instead he would have adhered to the ritual obligations of Judaism to the new Christian church. This would not have been a problem for him if he had had the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church of Rome claims for the Pope.“[18] Here Boettner imagines infallibility to be something akin to inspiration and, like other fundamentalist writers, he never seems to apply the guidelines of the First Vatican Council to any particular case. This may be because, like his followers, he confuses doctrine and morals with discipline and customs. Peter’s conduct at Antioch was not an attempt to teach formally on matters of doctrine or morals.
Boettner caps his attack with a comment from John Henry Newman “It is well known that Cardinal Newman was strongly opposed to the promulgation of the doctrine of infallibility.” So far this is true, but in the next sentence Boettner deviates. “But having left the Church of England to join the Roman Church and having paid it such high praise, he lacked the power to prevent the change and had not the courage to leave it… This was a bitter pill for Newman to swallow, but he submitted and recognized papal infallibility.” [19] There are two things wrong with this analysis (or psychoanalysis). First, the implication that doctrine was being changed. The doctrine was not being changed, it was being made explicit. We can let this point pass. The slander of Newman is something else entirely. Boettner apparently never read, and if he did, he promptly forgot, the seventh part of Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua, the part titled “General response to Mr. Kingsley”. It is here that Newman examines infallibility. He wrote it in 1864─six years before the First Vatican Council gave its definition─on a problem with which he had to contend before his conversion in 1845.
Boettner would have us think that Newman had no suspicion that papal infallibility could be a fact and that, when it seemed that it was going to be proclaimed, he found that he had converted to a worse religion. Even if this were a true version of Newman’s thinking, which it is not, why didn’t Newman leave the Catholic Church if infallibility seemed nonexistent to him? After all in 1845 he had left an acceptable, secure and socially established church, so in England it was the insignificant and disdained Roman Catholic Church. Converting back to Anglicanism would have been easy by comparison, especially if some papal usurpation could have been referred to. Why didn’t he do it? He did not do so because he not only accepted papal infallibility, but also came to believe in it─and had since become a Catholic. He did not object to the content of the definition given at the First Vatican Council, but to the promulgation of the definition at that time; He thought the promulgation was untimely but not inaccurate.
Like many other anti-Catholic writers, Boettner cites a number of “pope mistakes“. Regarding what he identifies as doctrinal matters, he lists a dozen instances, most of which have nothing to do with what is at issue. For example: “Zosimus (417-418) pronounced Pelagius an orthodox teacher but later reversed his position at the insistence of Augustine.” [20] This proves nothing more than that Augustine provided Zosimus with additional information regarding Pelagius, so that the Pope could more fully appreciate the man’s doctrines. As an aside, declaring an individual to be Orthodox or non-Orthodox is not an attempt to exercise infallibility. Continuing, Boettner asks, “How is it that the decree of Clement XIV (July 21, 1773) suppressing the Jesuits can be harmonized with the contrary decree of Pius VII (August 7, 1814) restoring them?” [21] Again, no decree has anything to do with teaching faith or morals, in each case it is a disciplinary matter.
Boettner’s argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius and Honorius, the only cases in which all opponents of papal infallibility are corrected because they are the only ones that do not fall apart even if they are well presented. None of these instances fit the 1870 definition.
Boettner claims “Liberius, in 358, adhered to the Arian heresy with the object of gaining the bishopric of Rome under the heretic emperor Constantius.” [22] Whether Liberius did this which, apparently, he did not do, proves nothing, because adhering to a heresy before being elected Pope has nothing to do with the exercise of papal infallibility. Infallibility is not retroactive. Election to the papacy does not validate a man’s previous teachings.
Most commentators who bring up Liberius, we must say, make a different charge than Boettner. They say that Liberius accepted the heretical formula when he was already Pope. In fact, they say, he signed an ambiguous document that could be understood in the orthodox way or the heretical way. When he did so, he was not free, since he had been forcibly sent into exile by the emperor. Even if the document had been strictly heretical and had not admitted an orthodox interpretation, the issue of infallibility would not have yet arisen because he signed the document as a private theologian and thus was not signing something that was presented as a teaching to which every Christian should adhere. What was required for it to be a case of infallible papal teaching simply did not occur.
Vigilius, says Boettner, “he refused to condemn certain heretical teachers at the time of the Monophysite controversy and refused to attend the Fifth Ecumenical Council which met at Constantinople in 553. When the Council proceeded without his presence and threatened to excommunicate and anathematize him, he submitted to the opinions of the Council, confessing that he had been used as a tool of Satan.” [23] This loses sight of what really happened. Emperor Justinian issued a decree condemning the writings of three long-dead men. These writings were known as “The Three Chapters” and they adhered to the Nestorian heresy, which declared that in Christ there were two conjoined persons. (The orthodox doctrine is that in Christ there is one person, the divinity, but two natures.) Justinian’s decree was designed to please the Monophysites. Monophysitism was a heresy that arose as a reaction to Nestorianism; declaring that in Christ there is only one nature, the divine. The decree was signed by the patriarchs of the East, however other bishops objected, saying that the decree weakened the Orthodox position by giving the appearance of favoring Monophysitism by default. At first Vigilius refused to condemn “The Three Chapters”, but in 548 he did so, at the same time affirming the orthodox position. He later recanted his original conviction. The Council condemned “The Three Chapters” and finally Vigilius surrendered, joining the conciliar condemnation. While all this was happening he always supported the orthodox position. This controversy concerns the appropriateness of condemning certain writings and judging three men who had long ago been judged by God. Vigilius attempted to condemn only what “The Three Chapters” contained what was condemnable, not what was orthodox in them. The prolonged incident is certainly confusing, but it does not lend support to the arguments of those who oppose infallibility because Vigilius never claimed that this heretical belief should be accepted as truth.
The last of the three most common cases arrives. Boettner quotes a certain authority on the matter who says: “The greatest scandal of this nature is Pope Honorius who specifically taught the Monothelite heresy in two letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople.” [24] (Monothelism arose as a reaction to Monophysitism. It affirmed that in Christ there is only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that in Him there are two wills, the divine and the human, and that both are in perfect agreement.)
In reality, Honorius chose not to teach anything at all. Ronald Knox, in a letter to Arnold Lunn that is published in their book “Difficulties“(“Difficulties”), put the matter in these terms: “And Honorius, instead of pronouncing an infallible opinion on the question of the Monothelist controversy, “refused in a rather extraordinary manner“ (as Gore used to say) to make any decision at all. The best that his human wisdom could conclude was that the controversy should be left unresolved for the greater benefit of the peace of the Church. In fact, he was an opportunist. We, wise after the fact, say that he was wrong. But no one, I believe, has affirmed that the Pope is infallible in failing to define a doctrine.” [25]
In short, Knox asks Lunn, “Has it occurred to you how few so-called ‘flaws of infallibility’ are? I mean, if someone were to propose in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you wouldn’t murmur. ‘Oh, well, there are those who say certain unpleasant things about Jane Shore… and the best historians think that Charles II of England spent too much time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here we have these popes who have fulminated anathema followed by anathema for centuries in the certainty that the human probability is to contradict themselves or each other again and again, instead what we get is a paltry harvest of two or three quite questionable failures!”[26] Here he argues that this does not prove infallibility but that it makes the argument against infallibility appear rather weak.
After examining what he alleges are flaws related to definitions of faith, Boettner looks at “infallibility in the moral sphere” and immediately stumbles. He forgets what he has cited from the First Vatican Council in previous pages and considers cases that are expressed not against infallibility but against impeccability. He cites certain well-worn instances of papal immorality, naming Popes John XI, John XII, and Alexander VI, but does not mention a single incorrect papal statement on matters of morality. If a Pope proclaims ex cathedra that lying is a sin and immediately afterwards tells a lie, infallibility is not proven false although the impeccability of such Pope would be. To prove infallibility false, Boettner would have to show an ex cathedra definition that states that lying is morally good. He does not offer any examples of that style because none exist.
The rejection of infallibility by fundamentalists emanates from their point of view of the Church. They do not think that Christ established a visible Church, which means that they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the Pope. It is beyond the purpose of this writing to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. It is enough to note that the New Testament shows the apostles assembling, according to the instructions of their Master, a visible organization and that every Christian writer of the first centuries – indeed almost every Christian until the time of the Protestant Reformation – took it for granted that Christ had formed an organization.
If He did it, He must have provided that it would continue; that it would be easily identifiable (so it had to be visible to be found) and, since He was to be absent from the earth, it must also provide some means of preserving all of His teachings intact. All of this is effected through the apostolic succession of bishops and the preservation of the Christian message, in its entirety, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility of the Church as a whole, but primarily as exercised through the temporal head of the Church, the Pope.
The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from officially teaching error, and this charisma necessarily arises from the very existence of the Church. If the Church is to do what Christ said it should do and not the opposite of what Christ decreed, for example, that the gates of hell prevail against it then it must teach infallibly. He must demonstrate that he has stable and perfect guidance regarding matters necessary for salvation. There is no guarantee that any particular Pope will not miss opportunities to teach the truth, or that he will be a sinless man, or that the mere disciplinary decisions he makes will be made intelligently. It would be convenient if the Pope were omniscient or sinless, but if he is not, it will not subvert the Church. But he must be able to teach correctly, because such is the function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what they must believe. They must have a perfectly stable rock on which to build when it comes to official teachings, and that is where papal infallibility exists.†
Author: Karl Keating
Translator: Carlos Caso-Rosendi
Notes
[1] In this case we have not translated Mr. Keating’s quote into English (Lumen Gentium 25) that summarizes the main points of the infallibility of the body of bishops in matters of faith and morals. For the reader’s benefit we quote here the entire paragraph from the encyclical Lumen Gentium that refers to papal infallibility. The parts cited by Mr Keating in English are therefore contained in our extended quotation together with the rest of the relevant paragraph. Translator’s Note.
[2] Quoted by Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies (Rockford Ill.: TAN Books, 1979). 3:95.
[3] Epistulae 59 (55), 14. From San Cipriano.
[4] Sermons 131, 10. From Saint Augustine.
[5] Replies, 3:96. From Rumble and Carty.
[6] An example could be the papal encyclical of Paul VI Humanæ Vitæ. The encyclical may not have met the requirements of the First Vatican Council, however the doctrine enunciated is nevertheless taught infallibly. An infallible doctrine can be repeated in a document that is not entirely infallible.
[7] Joseph Zacchello, Secrets of Romanism (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1948), 10-11. Of course, there were never three rival popes at the same time. The problem was, at that time, determining which of the three candidates was the true Pope.
[8] Babylon Mystery Religion, 100. By Ralph Woodrow
[9] Babylon Mystery Religion, 101. By Ralph Woodrow
[10] Babylon Mystery Religion, 102. By Ralph Woodrow
[11] Babylon Mystery Religion, 102-3. By Ralph Woodrow
[12] Martin Luther’s name, if written in its Latin form, also adds up to 666, as do numerous other names.
[13] Roman Catholicism, 235. by Boettner.
[14] Roman Catholicism, 236. by Boettner
[15] Roman Catholicism, 238. by Boettner.
[16] Roman Catholicism, 236. by Boettner
[17] Roman Catholicism, 241. by Boettner
[18] Roman Catholicism, 239. by Boettner
[19] Roman Catholicism, 243. by Boettner
[20] Roman Catholicism, 248. by Boettner
[21] Roman Catholicism, 250. by Boettner
[22] Roman Catholicism, 248. by Boettner
[23] Roman Catholicism, 248. by Boettner
[24] Roman Catholicism, 249. by Boettner
[25] Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1952), 126-27.
[26] Knox, Difficulties, 127.
