I.) The Pope
At the apex of the human hierarchy within the Roman Catholic Church, sits the appointed “Vicar of Christ”, the Pope. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, the term, ‘Vicar’ is derived from the Latin word, ‘vicarivs’ or ‘substitute’ (Allen 1989) and the word, ‘Pope’, comes from the Latin, ‘papa’, or the Greek, papas, which means ‘father’ (Allen 1989) . From his title, the impression one is given, is that he is the ‘substitute father’ within the Church.[8]
Even without delving deeper, one may surmise that the man who holds this office, is highly regarded. In order to maintain the integrity of this paper, however, the time will be invested to research and report the findings of this postulation, using primarily documents written by the Catholic Church itself.
In the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church, one finds some surprising assertions, with respect to the Vicar of Christ. Of those, one of the most interesting claims may be found in paragraph 882:
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994). [my emphases]
Certainly, this is a startling contention. According to this document, the Pope, by virtue of his office, is the head pastor of the Church Universal and is able to exercise his power over it unhindered.
A.) Mouthpiece For Christ
Although it must be said that the Vatican Council II also asserts that Christ is the Head of the Church (Flannery 1981), as well as its foundation (Flannery 1981) and the Pope is simply His ‘mouthpiece’ to those things which Christ taught, the dogmas seem to indicate something altogether different. A case in point; in paragraph 890 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is said that the job of the Magisterium is to bring the Truth in its entirety to the faithful:
[I]t is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. . . . . (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994) . [my emphasis]
While no one would deny that it should be the job of pastors to “preserve God’s people from deviations and defections”, and to “guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error”, the fact remains that all pastors are still human and capable of leading their flock astray, regardless of posturing, such as that found in the quote above. The Catechism in effect, tells its adherents that Jesus Christ gave the gift of infallibility ‘in matters of faith and morals’ to (presumably) Peter and his line of successors.
B.) What is Infallibility, Anyway?
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English says this about the term, ‘infallible’:
[I]ncapable of erring; (of Pope) incapable of erring in matters of doctrine expressed ex-cathedra [9]; infallibility (Allen 1989).
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is further expressed that believers are not infallible in their “subjective interpretation of her [the Church’s] teaching”, but the Church is infallible in “her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals.” It also asserts that neither “is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value” (Toner 1998).
Moreover, it is expressly stated that infallibility is neither inspiration nor Divine revelation. According to the article, an infallible document is completely human, but the author has the “exemption from liability to error” (Toner 1998) [my emphasis], whereas an inspired document is one where the human writer essentially becomes an amanuensis [10] for God Almighty -- the document is God-breathed in this case. The author also notes that an infallible document is not a revelation, since a revelation is, “the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed” (Toner 1998). [my emphasis]
In essence, it is claiming that when a Pope or an Ecumenical Council has defined a doctrine and has proclaimed it ‘infallible’, they are saying that “its [the doctrine’s] inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching” (Toner 1998). [my emphasis]
Finally, in order to ensure that there may be no misunderstanding, they further assert that:
a.) [I]nfallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption
from the possibility of error; that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; [S]inful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
and:
b.) [T]he validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. (Toner 1998). [my emphasis]
Again, these assertions need to be examined and weighed against the Word of God, in order to ascertain the integrity of the claims in question.
1.) Would Infallibility Require Holiness of Life?
If the belief of infallibility were valid, would this predicate a holy lifestyle from its benefactors or not? While one cannot discount the fact that God has and continues to use the actions of unlawful or rebellious men and women to accomplish His purposes,[11] it must also be said that the Bible consistently shows that only men and women who came to the Lord in obedience, were used to write down or herald a doctrine of any kind. Not once in scripture, did God use the mouths or pens of those who refused to follow Him, in order to declare one of His teachings.[12] Furthermore, while none of the people used to proclaim doctrine in the Bible were perfect or completely free of sin, (with the notable exception of Jesus Himself, of course), they all had one thing in common; holiness of life.
a.) Holiness
According to the study notes made from the course, “Salvation and Sanctification”, holiness (agioV) and sanctification (agiazo) have a common root word. Persons or things are made holy, by being set apart through a mediator designated by God. These mediators between man and God have included the Temple, the Torah (The Law), Prophets, Priests, and Kings, as well as Christ Himself (Mealy 1998).
b.) A Mediator
In the Old Testament, the focus was on the Temple as the mediator. In the New Testament, however, Jesus became the Mediator. Through Him and His finished work on the cross, believers have become holy, but this wondrous happening only occurs, once they agree to have a relationship with Him. After that has happened, Jesus begins to conform His followers to His own image (Mealy 1998). It is at this point - or afterward - that God may use a person to begin to teach others about His goodness. (This would include the act of proclaiming an infallible utterance, should this type of utterance even exist.)
c.) The Doctrine of Hypocrisy
To teach or proclaim a doctrine that one is not personally following is hypocrisy. In countless verses, the followers of Christ are taught that this is a VERY unacceptable practice. Matthew 7:15-24 is an example of this teaching:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock . . . . (Matthew 7:15-24 KJV). [my emphasis]
Here, Jesus admonishes His people not to believe or listen to the counsel of men or women who have not bothered to live the life they speak about; He tells us we will know them by their ‘fruit’. What ‘fruit’ is He speaking of? He is referring to the fruit of the Spirit [13] and the many fruits of service, which are borne out of a relationship with Christ. Ungodly or wicked people are not capable of consistently exhibiting these fruits. The character of the individual reveals his or her allegiance.
d.) Is God Double-minded?
If then, this is the ‘official’ teaching of the Master Himself, would He change His mind and decide that the teachings of hypocrites and double-minded people are to be heeded? The resounding answer is, ‘no’. According to Scripture, the Lord's Nature never changes.
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8).
And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent (1 Samuel 15:29).
They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:26 - 27).
e.) A Contradiction
The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that infallibility does not include the revelation of ‘new truths’, but merely expands on existing truths found in scripture. Nevertheless, it seems to proclaim a ‘revelation of God’, by virtue of the intimation that the Lord uses wicked men to make infallible proclamations (Toner 1998).
Bearing in mind, God clearly taught that wicked men were not to be heeded AND His nature remains the same, this would seem to be a bit of a contradiction, at the very least.
2.) Are Proclamations Made Through Strife Really Infallible?
Although the doctrine of infallibility was not formalized until the first Vatican Council in 1870 (McBrien 1996), according to its own documents, the Catholic Church believes that all infallible proclamations are simply the clarification of existing doctrines that have been taught from Biblical times onward (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994). How then, does this dogma fare, when compared to the actions the Church has taken in times past?
In order to ascertain whether the statement made by the Church is valid, one must look into the history of the Church, to see whether it has always applied this rule or whether it has done so only arbitrarily.[14]
Throughout the Church’s history, there have been many Councils and synods held. For the most part, little has transpired in the realm of real strife; assent and ‘harmony’ within the members of these summit-like meetings occurred, although there were many times of heated disagreement.
However, there was at least one notable exception to this case: The Council of Constance. In this situation, the participants were trying to control the damage wrought by the schism of the church, through the use of ‘official’ proclamations [15] and governmental action [16], ratified by the group in question.
During the Council of Constance, the three popes who were serving, were either deposed or coerced to resign. In their place, a new Pontiff, Martin V, was crowned. Additionally, many who voiced opinions different from those of the Holy See, were literally burned at the stake for their trouble. Doubtless, this whole council experienced a level of discord or strife which few other synods have had to deal with.
Sometime during the Council, a paper was issued,[17] which claimed that the Council was called and approved by Christ and that it had supremacy even over the Popes themselves.[18] The Cardinals who were involved in the Council of Constance managed to bolster the support of the newly elected pope Martin[19] in every action they had performed, including the formation of the document, “Haec Sancta”. Although he was not elected until November of 1417, he was quoted as saying that he was in agreement with all of the proclamations and documents drawn up by the Council from the beginning of the convocation of the Council itself.
The aforesaid lord our pope said, in answer to these proposals, protestations, requests and suggestions, after silence had been imposed on all (since some were saying much and causing a disturbance), and by way of replying to the aforesaid points, that he wished to hold and inviolably observe, and never to contravene in any way, each and every thing that had been determined, concluded and decreed in a conciliar way, in matters of faith, by this present sacred general council of Constance. The pope approves the things done thus in a conciliar way, and he ratifies all things about matters of the faith that were done in the council in a conciliar way and not otherwise or in some other way (Tanner 1990).
Interestingly, the Vatican II claims that, as long as the Pope is in agreement, the bishops enjoy infallibility, when they proclaim dogmas during ecumenical councils (Flannery, 1981).[20] The question remains, however -- was this proclamation infallible, in spite of the strife that wrought it? It does, after all, meet the criteria outlined for a proclamation to be considered infallible. Apparently, it must not have been, in spite of “Haec Sancta’ or its approval by the then current Pope.
As mentioned before, Pope Martin V declared that there could be no appeal from a Pope to a Council; Pope Pius II formally condemned this as a grievous error in 1459, along with the entire conciliar movement! In the meantime, however, one Jean Le Charlier De Gerson, a bishop of France, and a student of D'Ailly, wrote extensively for the document, and his opinions were greatly received in France. Gerson once wrote that "the 'Articles of Constance' were dogmas and should be carved on the stone of all the churches" (Salembier 1998). If the ecumenical Council had infallibility, since this doctrine supposedly existed from the first century on, how could Pope Pius II proclaim that it was heretical? Obviously, one of these two assertions is in error.
3.) Are Pastors Free of Error, Too?
The claim that Jesus Christ “endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals” (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994) cannot go unchallenged. It is imperative that its claims are investigated and either refuted or accepted as truth.
In order to establish whether or not Jesus granted this dubious gift to Pontiffs, bishops, and pastors throughout the ages, one must find out whether Biblical text evidenced such things undeviatingly, when it came to matters of ‘faith and morals’. Because the apostles are purported to be the originators of the ’unbroken' line of succession’, both within the Pontifical and Magisterial rings, both their words and actions should be scrutinized. From there, one should be able to successfully extrapolate the answer to this question.
a.) The Doctrine of Paul
In the book of Galatians, Paul gives insight in this matter:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-13). [my emphasis]
Although Paul was speaking the Truth here, it must be observed that he placed himself among those who could possibly deceive others. Many would say that he did this, in order to make others feel more comfortable with the words. However, one must remember that this is a scripture from the Bible -- it is inspired of God. When speaking to the faithful, Paul said it was possible for even he himself to become a heretic. Further, he instructed the faithful not to follow his (or even an angel’s) commands, should they contradict the doctrines of God’s word in any way. This is in direct conflict with the words of the Vatican II, regarding the decrees of the bishops and indeed, the Pontiff himself (Flannery, 1981). Based on this scripture, at least, one must assume that pastors today could fall into error when declaring doctrine, written or otherwise.
b.) What about Peter, the Rock?
While most non-Catholic people would agree that pastors could fall into error in matters of doctrine, based on the words of Paul above, those who adhere to the decrees and dogmas of the Roman Catholic faith, would be quick to point out that Paul was not Peter, the apostle to whom they ascribe the origin of the Papacy and the foundation of the entire Church.
Interestingly, Peter spoke of the dangers of falling away, but used the pronoun, ‘you’, rather than ‘us’ in II Peter 3:17, 18. On its own, one could easily surmise that Peter was incapable of error in the area of ‘doctrines and morals’. However, this is an erroneous conclusion. In Luke 21: 34 - 37, Jesus spoke to all of His apostles about the possibility of apostasizing and missing out on the provision God had in store for them:
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21: 34 - 37) [my emphasis]
In this passage, Jesus admonished all those who came with Him to be careful to keep themselves pure and to remain diligent at all times, so they would not fall into error. Peter was most certainly one of those adherents who accompanied Jesus that day. The point this author wants to make with this passage is not that Peter necessarily fell into error, but that it was possible. If God granted him (and the rest of the apostles) the gift of infallibility, this conversation would not have had to occur.
Here again, though, many would say that this proves nothing because he only had to be perfect in the proclamation of doctrines; he did not have to be a perfect person, he simply had to be above reproach in matters of ‘faith and morals’. The question still lingers, then -- was he always above reproach in the proclaiming and / or teaching of doctrine? The answer may be found within the lines of the Epistle to the Galatians.
In Galatians, Peter was openly admonished by Paul because Peter had chosen to fall into the lie of preferring the company of those who had been circumcised over the Gentile Christians who had not been. According to Paul, Peter was heeding the false doctrine of others and fearing those who had been circumcised more than God Almighty. This would seem to be an act of teaching by ‘example’, at the very least. Regarding this incident, Paul recounted:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid (Galatians 2:11-19) [my emphasis].
Without a doubt, Paul considered Peter to have been both ‘deceived’ by others and perpetuating the heresy he had been deceived by, through the actions he chose to take. These actions even resulted in the temporary backsliding of Barnabas. This seems to be in opposition to the assertions made, regarding the doctrine of infallibility because Peter sinned not only on a personal level, but as a ‘Vicar of Christ’, if indeed, he ever was one.
4.) What Does All This Mean?
The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly asserts that “infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed” (Toner 1990) [my emphasis]. However, it has been shown that the application of this belief appears to be rather capricious, to say the least. Further, many of the suppositions which have gone into the outlining of this particular dogma, have been in direct opposition to the Word of God.
a.) The Word Of God versus The Vatican
This presents a problem for the follower of the Catholic Church, not to mention the leaders. According to the Word of God, we are to “let God be true but every man a liar. . .[t]hat You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged" (Romans 3:4b). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has been taught that the Pope and the other leaders are capable of making infallible proclamations and that its followers must accept those proclamations, regardless of what they know to be true. The Second Vatican Council says it this way:
Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops ' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex-cathedra in such wise, indeed that his Supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated. (Flannery, 1981). [my emphases]
Converse to these declarations, are the stinging words of our Saviour Himself. When confronted by scribes and Pharisees who wanted to put the traditions and teachings of their elders ahead of what God’s word said, Jesus replied to them;
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:7-9). [my emphasis]
Paul mirrored his Master’s beliefs:
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power . . . . (Colossians 2: 6 - 11). [my emphasis]
Later, Paul further admonished all believers, by saying, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. . . " (2 Timothy 2:15-17) [my emphasis] and also . . . “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2-5). [my emphasis]
b.) Luther Stands Up Against Infallibility
Martin Luther echoes these Biblical ideologies in his writing:[21]
They assume authority, and juggle before us with impudent words, saying that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith, whether he be evil or good, albeit they cannot prove it by a single letter. We will quote the Scriptures. St. Paul says, If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace (1 Cor. 14:30). What would be the use of this commandment, if we were to believe him alone that teaches or has the highest seat? Christ Himself says, And they shall be all taught of God (John 6:45). Thus it may come to pass that the Pope and his followers are wicked and not true Christians, and not being taught by God, have no true understanding, whereas a common man may have true understanding. Why should we then not follow him? Has not the Pope often erred? Therefore it is a wickedly devised fable and they cannot quote a single letter to confirm it that it is for the Pope alone to interpret the Scriptures or to confirm the interpretation of them. They have assumed the authority of their own selves. And though they say that this authority was given to St. Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were not given to St. Peter alone, but to the whole community (Snyder 1958). [my emphasis]
5.) How Should One React To The Dogma of Infallibility, Then?
So, what are those who feel bound by the doctrines of men, to do? Reject them
categorically and stand on the Solid Rock of their faith; not Peter, but on the teachings of the Word and His Bible. Christ taught that if men broke a command and then instructed others to do likewise, He would consider these to be ‘least in the kingdom’, but whoever stood for the Truth and taught it, would be called ‘great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).
II.) The Line of the Vicar of Christ
Throughout the past 1700+ years, many have pointed to the entity known as the Catholic Church as the only truly designated authority over the Body of Christ. They also have believed the Pope is its authority and his line of succession has been unbroken from Peter to the current Pope, John Paul II. According to the Catholic Church itself, it has enjoyed an unbroken connection with the first century church, via the Pope’s line of succession, beginning with Peter. The online Catholic Tract, “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”, explains it this way:
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history (Keating 1996). [my emphasis]
The Second Vatican Council mirrors this claim:
In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one, and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with the same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole church, direct the house of the living God (Flannery 1981). [my emphasis]
While these documents speak of an unbroken succession (as do countless others), the evidence does not seem to bear out the claim that the Catholic Church has enjoyed an unbroken line from Peter to John Paul II. Over the next few pages, the evidence that points to the contrary will be presented and examined.
APPENDICES | INDEX| PART II | CEPHAS FILES
Please tell your friends about our website: http://www.cephasministry.com