Roman Catholicism’s Official Stance on Papal Infallibility
“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. 418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (CCC 891)
The Catholic Catechism and the Vatican II writings state that the office of Roman Pontiff (the Pope) has divine revelation and infallibility when it comes to interpretation and proclamation doctrinal matters. Vatican II further explains how the doctrine of infallibility applies to clergy as follows:
“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively.
This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25)
While lesser bishops do not have infallibility, they have a higher understanding of spiritual matters by virtue of their priesthood and when gathered together as a council that greater understanding then becomes the same brand infallibility given to the Pope.
Papal Infallibility is Blatantly and Unequivocally Rejected in the Scripture
Infallibility is a heavy concept. To be infallible is to be without error, so to be infallible is to be perfect. Speaking of infallibility, the clergy wielding the infallibility that comes with Magisterium stated that Peter immediately became infallible in matters of faith, doctrine, and the church, the moment he was christened “Petros” by Jesus in Matthew 16:
“Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.” (The First Vatican Council, chapter 1)
I am a little concerned about the biblical literacy of the gentlemen behind this supposedly perfect and unchallengeable proclamation. If Jesus really made Peter the first Pope when He gave him the keys, and the Pope possesses a divinely attuned and perfect understanding on spiritual matters, then Peter surely wouldn’t have done the following:
- Tried to prevent Jesus’s capture by Judas, which would have effectively obstructed God’s plan to have Jesus sacrificed on the cross, nullifying the complete fulfillment of the Gospel:
Matthew 16:21 From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
John 18:8 “I told you that I am He,” Jesus replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.” 9 This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.”10 Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11“Put your sword back in its sheath!” Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?”
2. Reject Jesus as His Leader 3 times during His trial, where His position as being the Messiah was being questioned.
Matt 26:69: Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you mean.” 71 And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72 And again he denied it with an oath: “I do not know the man.”
73 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74 Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
3. Struggled with grasping God’s revelation that salvation was to be available to the Gentiles. Peter shied away from his calling and returned to Jewish cliques, to the point where Paul had to openly rebuke him and take his duty to preach to the Gentiles for himself.
This is not an issue of impeccability, the charge was that Gentiles had to follow Jewish rites to be Christians. If Peter was the Pope, his actions would echo God’s will, so he would be endorsing the Jewish practices over the Gentiles. In fact, Paul says right there in scripture that Peter is leading the Jews in the church astray.
Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Following his christening as “Petros”, Peter was obviously still pretty fallible. Peter was a wonderful man, and a wonderful Christian, who did great things for the Church. However, he was still a sinner on a lifelong journey of sanctification and spiritual struggle, just like everyone else. Which makes these decrees of the Vatican Council and Peter’s infallibility all the irredeemably foolish:
“Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.” (The First Vatican Council, chapter 4)
To recap, Roman Catholicism claims Peter was immediately bestowed the power of the Papal office upon Jesus christening him as Petros. One of the powers of the Papacy is doctrinal infallibility and perfect faith. Above I have three examples of post-christened Peter being fallible in matters of doctrine and faith. This is why Christians boast in God, not in men.
If Peter was the Infallible and Undisputed Head of the Church, Why Did He Cede Matters of the Church with James and Paul?
If Peter was the Sovereign Pope, it would be his legal and spiritual duty to preside over the other apostles (especially during the establishing founding principles of the Church). So why did he allow Paul and James to assert any sort of equality with him or authority over him? Why would Peter speak fourth in the council Jerusalem and allow James to make the final judgment in a council he was in charge of?
Acts 15:19 It is my [James] judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
As the person who would possess the highest degree of doctrinal infallibility, it would be Peter’s spiritual and ethical obligation to speak for the church. Furthermore, why would he commend Paul’s ministry in 2 Peter when Paul claimed to be laying his own part of the Church’s foundation?
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Paul’s epistles have been the bane of many Catholic arguments for centuries, they were quoted frequently by Luther, Calvin, and Erasmus. Peter could have shut all of this down by himself by asserting authority over Paul. Instead, Peter equates Paul’s letters with scripture. Peter was a humble man who knew that Paul was a fellow Apostle who shared his charge of building the church. See how he ends this letter?
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Peter charges the church to grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus. Then he proclaims that the glory be to Jesus forever, implying totality. The glory is singular, and that singular glory is going to Jesus. No glory is meted toward himself or the church hierarchy. Peter is not Holy; the church power structure is not to be glorified. Soli Deo Gloria indeed, Peter.