Follow
In 897 AD, Pope Stephen VII had Pope Formosus’ body exhumed and put on trial at the infamous Cadaver Synod, during which the corpse was found guilty, and stripped of his papal vestments. Pope Theodore II later convened a synod and overturned Pope Stephen’s findings, as did Pope John IX after him. But later, Pope Sergius III overturned the rulings of Theodore II and John IX, and reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus. Perhaps Formosus’ corpse will find some little comfort in the knowledge that it is still—at least for now—listed on Rome’s “unbroken line of popes” currently on display at the Vatican.
We find a papal corpse a particularly fitting background image for this post on infallibility’s fatal flaw. The Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church may share in Christ’s infallibility, says the Catechism, “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891). But there is one problem: nobody knows when the Pope is speaking infallibly, nobody knows how often a pope has spoken infallibly, and nobody knows what the criteria are for when a pope is speaking infallibly. It is indeed a fleeting comfort to be assured that your teacher is teaching infallibly only at times when he is teaching infallibly, but that there is no way to know what those times are.
To give you an idea of how severe this problem is, we invite you to consider Keenan’s 1860 Catechism of the Catholic Church, published ten years before Vatican Council I declared that the Roman Pontiff enjoys the charism of infallibility. This is what Keenan’s Catechism said of the ancient and historical gift bestowed by Christ on “His” Roman Catholic Church since Peter:
-
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
-
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
- In a later version, “Revised and corrected, conformably to the decrees of [Vatican I]” in 1869-70, Keenan acknowledged that Papal Infallibility is now, and always had been, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church:
-
(Q.) What dogma was defined in this Council?
(A.) The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.
Of course, the problem for Roman Catholics does not end there. I highlighted this issue in the late 1990s in an article called Quid Pro Canon. The details are worked out more fully there, but to illustrate the problem, different Roman Catholic apologists believe differently about how many times a Pope has spoken infallibly:
Scott Hahn: two
Tim Staples: at least four
Adam Miller: eleven
Leslie Rumble: eighteen
To complicate matters, Rumble held that two of the eighteen are “of the utmost authority, [but] still fall short of technical requirements” for infallibility, and another two “very probably comply with the requirements” for infallibility.
Perhaps if there were an infallible list of infallible statements, this would be simpler, and the Roman apologists could come to an agreement. But it gets worse: there is no “official” list of criteria with which it may be determined that a papal statement is infallible. The different Roman Catholic sources indicate the severity of the problem:
Fr. William Most: two criteria
Apologist Scott Butler: three criteria
Catholic Encyclopedia: four criteria
Roman apologists do not even agree on the occasions that would induce a Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility. Apologist Karl Keating says the Pope only exercises it to resolve doctrinal disputes. Apologist Scott Hahn says the exact opposite:
Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire. (emphasis added)
In sum, Roman apologists themselves, as eagerly as they defend Papal Infallibility, do not know how many times he has exercised it, do not agree on why he exercises it, and do not know how to determine whether a pope has exercised it. All they know is that he has it.
We admire the tenacity of those who still want to argue for Papal Infallibility, and we especially appreciate how they make our argument for us. A few years back, “The Catholic Voyager,” in a blog post called Fallacies on Infallibility, attempted to rebut Quid Pro Canon by demonstrating the ease with which a Roman Catholic can identify infallible teachings. For example, he wrote, “a reasonable Catholic,” using criteria that he does not explicitly identify, should be able to read Munificentissimus Deus and determine on his own that it is infallible. Further, in Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, Pope John XXIII said that Ineffabilis Deus was infallible. “The Voyager” writes,
These examples are enough to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church whether or not one theologian or another may believe some other doctrine was not “technically” defined infallibly.
Voyager makes our point for us. He appeals to Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, which was not an infallible proclamation, as evidence that Ineffabilis Deus was proclaimed infallibly. If it is so easy to identify infallibility in the Church, why does “one theologian or another” disagree on whether some doctrine was “technically” defined infallibly? If a “reasonable Catholic” can determine it on his own, why did Rumble include two proclamations that probably are, and two that might not be, infallible? Why not just say they are, or they are not, infallible? As evidence of how difficult this is for practicing Catholics, most of whom probably consider themselves “reasonable,” consider the debate at US Catholic about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was defined infallibly by John Paul II:
When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. … Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”—although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office.
We are reminded here of Fr. William Most’s appeal to an unofficially published decree from the Holy Office in order to prove that it had been the intent of multiple popes and councils to declare a doctrine to be infallible, “for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.” Of course, unofficially published decrees are not infallible. They are not even officially published! Perhaps “the Catholic Voyager” can offer the assistance of “a reasonable Catholic” to William Most and US Catholic, as well as to Hahn, Staples, Keating, Butler, Rumble, Miller and the Catholic Encyclopedia by providing a list of Infallible Papal statements, since it is so easy for “a reasonable Catholic” “to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church.”
The Voyager ultimately refuses to provide any infallible list of infallible papal statements, as must every honest Roman apologist. The list exists nowhere in the “deposit of faith,” of which Rome is ostensibly the guardian. Therefore, to produce such a list would require that a Roman Catholic believe in Sola Verbum Dei plus something that is not contained anywhere in the Verbum Dei—making Sola Verbum Dei self-defeating.
“The Voyager” simply states that Rome does not need to produce such an infallible list, because that would be “asking God to certify God.” Very well. Neither will Protestants bow to Rome’s requests to prove from the Scripture that the 66-book canon is the canon of Scripture. Since the Scripture as contained in the 66-book canon is the Word of God, that would be “asking God to certify God.” The Voyager thinks by this that he has caught us in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. Hardly. He has merely caught us measuring Rome by her own standards, and finding her wanting.
Wouldn’t just one infallibly defined and certain dogma be better than the Protestant alternative of having zero infallibly defined and certain dogma? Even if there is some grey area and Roman Catholics aren’t completely certain on every infallible definition ever given…. It appears to me that we are certain on quite a few dogmatic pronouncements. One such certainty is the cannon of Scripture. Protestants can have no certainty of the cannon. Nobody has an “infallible list of infallible teachings”. However, Roman Catholics enjoy certainty on numerous articles of faith and dogma that a Protestant can never enjoy.
Kenneth,
Here you have made my point for me.
When you say, “Even if there is some grey area and Roman Catholics aren’t completely certain on every infallible definition ever given…. “, this is an acknowledgement of uncertainty on infallible definitions. It does you no good to be certain on the canon of Scripture and then to be uncertain on the infallibility of the pronouncements of the one who is to interpret those Scriptures for you infallibly.
It is true that Protestants consider the 66 books to be canonical, and to be the authoritative and exhaustive written Word of God. Rome considers the Word of God to include the infallible teachings of the Magisterium, including the infallible teachings of the Pope. To say Protestants have no infallible list of the canon of their revelation (the 66-book canon) while maintaining that there is no need for Rome to have an infallible list of the canon of its revelation (Scripture, Tradition and the Teaching of the Magisterium, including infallible papal definitions), is to hold Protestants to a higher standard than your own church. Since there have been so few infallible papal pronouncements, this should be a very easy task for Rome, but it cannot produce the list. Therefore you are right when you say that “Roman Catholics aren’t completely certain.”
I might add that Rome did not have an infallibly defined canon until the Council of Trent. The entire Roman Church, and all its members went more than 1500 years without one. May I ask why it is acceptable to you for Rome to go 1500 years without an infallibly defined canon, but it is wrong for Protestants to go 500 years without one? Again, you are holding Protestants to a higher standard than Rome can possibly meet.
My point is not that everything would be fine if you could just agree on a list of infallible papal definitions, or find an earlier ecumenical council at which the canon was defined. My point is that there is a fundamental flaw in your epistemology, and this is why “Roman Catholics aren’t completely certain,” even though they travel over land and sea to convince people that they are.
Poppycock.
Kenneth doing his Napoleon thing – Again..
It also seems rather crude to a Catholic to have to recognize authority in such a crude manner. For example, the word of God is the word of God because it just IS the word of God. This is the best that any Protestant can muster…. And it is not an acceptable answer
Kenneth, I hesitate to address you, given your reaction to my words thus far.
Nevertheless!
Are you suggesting there be a lacking in the Word of God?
What precisely is your point, except your constant and continued triumphalism?
Kenneth,
For example, the word of God is the word of God because it just IS the word of God. This is the best that any Protestant can muster…. And it is not an acceptable answer.
But that’s not the whole answer, though we do place a great deal of emphasis on the self-attesting nature of Scripture. You have to do that with the church, so you really aren’t giving a different answer than we are. The church has the word of God via tradition because it has the word of God via tradition. It has to appeal finally to itself, or the magisterium cannot be the final binding authority. Whatever the magisterium appeals to in order to provide final validation would be the final binding authority.
Both of us can point to external evidence for Scripture and the magisterium, respectively. I would say the evidence for Scripture is much better than the evidence for Rome. But setting that aside, Rome’s argument is no less broadly circular than Protestantism’s. You just have a different authority:
Rome: Jesus established a visible church that would maintain apostolic authority and we know that because the visible church has apostolic authority tells us that (along with Scripture and tradition).
Protestantism: Jesus established a visible church that is subject to the final authority of Scripture—our only infallible source of apostolic authority—and we know that because Scripture tells us that (along with the visible church and tradition).
Robert, I like your response to Kenneth. I would only add that Kenneth scores a point in so far as he wants to have an infallible human being (Bergoglio) to place his religious fidelity into.
We protestants do not have an infallible human.
We have an infallible God-man, our very Savior.
Now why Kenneth thinks we need an infallible human, that baffles me. But that’s a consistent Romanist position. The need for an infallible human.
I think..
Willing to be corrected here, you Catholics. Any takers?
Andrew,
Are you suggesting there be a lacking in the Word of God?
What precisely is your point, except your constant and continued triumphalism?
My point is that just one single infallible declaration that all the faithful can be certain of is better than none. My second point was that your argument for cannon is circular and unsatisfying. Is that more clear?
Kenneth,
I do hope to keep talking to you. And please don’t take that in some creepy way. I know I’m creepy. But I’m just on a cell phone at work, heading out to the driving range for my lunch break. Not a metaphor, this is real Andrew talking.
Where we differ, I believe, is what is meant by the word “infallible.” And if that is not our point of departure, then God has us in our respective camps, and for good reason. We are strangers on the internet. If something I said in private correspondence wierded you out, I hope you’ll accept my apology. I re read our interactions. I was surprised you took that approach on this blog. But please know I’m just a sinner saved by grace.
Yes, it clears it up.
Do take care.
Robert,
But that’s not the whole answer, though we do place a great deal of emphasis on the self-attesting nature of Scripture….
Both of us can point to external evidence for Scripture and the magisterium, respectively….
Protestantism: Jesus established a visible church that is subject to the final authority of Scripture—our only infallible source of apostolic authority—and we know that because Scripture tells us that (along with the visible church and tradition).
Is it not true that your list of infallible books is different than that visible church and what its list looked like? And by the way you also need to explain why we should prefer that visible church’s lists in the first place being as they are mere fallible authorities that all disagreed with one another on what the list should be. Also, as is recognized by your best and most respected historians, tradition does not teach Sola Scriptura. But then again perhaps you know better than Kelly, Schaff, Pelikan and McGrath. I am open to hear your case (as long as it isn’t a copy and paste of Webster and Kings debacle). The very fact that all of those scholars would disagree with you that “tradition” teaches that the Word is the final authority is enough for doubt to creep in. Doubt is what we are discussing. Protestantism offers no certainty. Only self attestation and circular reasoning. Perhaps Rome suffers the same problems and perhaps not. But at least we can agree that epestimelogically Protestantism has very little to offer for the thinking man.
I’ve made the argument elsewhere that the RCC can’t actually make an infallible list of infallible statements.
In order to determine if a statement is infallible, that declaration of infallibility would itself be subject to the rules of infallibility. In other words, the declaration that made such a list would itself have to be infallible, making the original statement infallible by fiat. This is plainly circular reasoning. (If the list were not infallible, it would prove nothing. Indeed, that is the situation we are in now where Catholics cannot agree on the list and it is subject to change.)
There is another problem. The official list of infallible doctrines is not itself establishing “a doctrine regarding faith or morals”, it is a meta-declaration (i.e. a list of doctrines is not a doctrine). It can’t actually be produced infallibly under the rules of the church.
Thanks, Derek, I appreciate your comments. In the end, since the sheep must be able to discern when the shepherd is speaking infallibly (indeed, Rome’s apologists are always telling us that only infallible statements are binding) in order to experience the benefit of having an infallible teacher, the sum of Revelation necessary for the Roman Catholic to know that he has been led into all truth is the Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition PLUS a definitive list of infallible papal statements that does not exist anywhere within Scripture, the Magisterium, or Tradition. In other words, Rome’s epistemological conundrum is that the Scripture, the Magisterium and Tradition are still not enough. And yet they (together, Sola Verbum Dei) are proposed as the definitive solution to the alleged problem of Sola Scriptura.
Thanks again,
Tim
Well, it seems to me that Rome has a convenient ( false) claim and assurance it offers it’s people. If you( the pope) can claim the titles of Holy Father, Head of the church, and then usurp the work of Holy Spirit( leading us into all truth) as the vicar, by claiming the Pope is the vicar of the Son of God, then one could be refuted on the infallibility argument. Both of you make logical arguments, but it seems to me the way to disprove the infallibility argument ultimately is to highlight the discontinuity between Roman Catholicism and the early church. Interestingly I have done this with 2 RC friends of mine ( telling them much of what I’ve learned here) and both have left the RC and believed the gospel for their salvation.
“(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.“
That is not the problem that Evangelicals who use it as an argument seem to think. Keenan’s reply, as quoted, is very precise.
There is an obligation to believe dogmas, once these are defined, in the terms in which they are defined. There was no such obligation regarding Papal infallibility before 1870. So rejection of belief in some form of Papal Infallibility could not be heresy before 1870, when a specific notion of it was defined as a dogma.
There was very widespread agreement, in the period before 1870, that the Pope exercised infallibility:
whether he acted alone in doing so
or could do so only with the other bishops
whether this infallibility was vested in his person
or in the office of Pope
what the scope of this infallibility was
– were all matters of debate. Most were thrashed out at Vatican I. What Keenan says about the infallibility of the bishops as teachers, reads as though it were quoting Vatican 2.
What he is rejecting, seems to be, not all notions of Papal infallibility, but, *a notion of it that sees the Pope as isolated from the rest of the Catholic bishops*. Which would be a monstrosity.
The infallibility of the Pope is the infallibility of the Church as a whole – the Pope cannot set up by himself, and be infallible by himself. He is not a shaman or an oracle, but a Christian bishop who is as obliged to be in communion with his brethren, as they with him.
Unfortunately, the common notion of Papal infallibility, among Evangelicals & RCs alike, tends to treat the Pope as such a monstrosity or oracle – the result: confusion and ignorance on both sides. Which does no-one any good.
Keenan’s description of the bishops as teachers is a very nice example of what Vatican 2 called their collegiality.
To understand what Keenan says about infallibility, one has to look, not only at what he says about the Pope alone, but at what he says about the infallibility, both of the Church, and of the bishops (of whom the Pope is one).
Keenan is right to mention the importance of reception of doctrine.
This – “no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body“ – is as much a matter of canon law as doctrine. The Irish Church (& therefore, that in the US) was strongly influenced by Gallicanism, as a result of its contacts with the French Church. The quoted phrase reads like an echo of the Fourth Article of the Declaration of the French Clergy of 1682: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Clergy_of_France#Four_articles
Similar opinions were widely held in the CC between the end of the Great Western Schism in 1417, and 1870. Gallicanism cannot be separated from the Conciliarist movement, or from the (less well-known) debates over the extent of Papal (and Imperial, and royal) sovereignty. One reason the definition of Papal infallibility caused such a commotion, until WW1, was, that the issue was, for historical reasons, related to many other issues.
So, if his original answer was right, why did he need to update his Catechism?
The truth is, Keenan knew very well after Vatican I that what he had written in his 1860 Catechism was now wrong. Thus, instead of defending it, he merely corrected it based on his new understanding of “the mind of the church.” It is remarkable to me that you now defend what Keenan himself was unwilling to defend—what indeed Keenan himself admitted would have been “contumacious” had he maintained it!
When he first corrected the Catechism in 1896 to bring it into conformity with Vatican I, he wrote on page 112:
And yet, here you are defending what Keenan himself was unwilling to defend. You have claimed that in his original 1860 version he seems already to have grasped the mind of Vatican 2, for you write, his answer “reads as though it were quoting Vatican 2.” But his 1896 Catechism acknowledges implicitly that he had to update it precisely because in his 1860 version he had not fully grasped the mind of the church.
James says ” there is an obligation to believe dogmas, once they are defined” ok, but we all have to answer the same question, according to whom?! ” What advantage is it to believe defined dogma in any church if it’s wrong .? Fundamental, as Luther purported, the church hinges on the gospel, justification by faith alone. Mark 1: 15 ” repent and believe in the gospel” Jesus said. The Roman church however disagrees and says you are saved through meritorious sacraments. Jesus says the gospel is told and believed and not done in Mark 1:15. Rome says differently. Who am I to believe?
Hi Tim, just wanted to drop you a note to say hi. Hope you and your family are well during these times. Its given me a great opportunity to read Predestination by Clarke. I wanted to ask you do you plan additional articles on the blog at some point? God bless Kevin
Kevin,
Great to hear from you. My family is healthy and happy. We are doing well. I expect to pick up blogging again. I’ve been immersed in some research on the early church and expect to return to posting on this blog in the summer.
Thanks for your note,
Tim
Thanks Tim. I cant wait. John and I have spoken about how valuable your work on the early church is. Immensely. And your message on Mathew 12 and justification was awesome. I pray someday your work distinguishing the true church and it’s history from the false religion of Roman Catholicism and its false early church account will be known widely. I have often said, and hope not overstated, that you can read Roman Catholic doctrine believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. The Protestant church must decide, either we treat Catholics as co laborers for Christ by which we would have to throw out 500 years of reformation history, martyrdom, and missionary work, or we must see them as the mission field in need of repenting and believing in the true gospel of scripture Mark 1:15. Church history along with the the doctrine of justification by belief is paramount. K
Hey Kevin,
I also find Tim’s website to be fascinating, cannot wait to see him publishing articles again.
In case you were not already aware, my website has got a ton of anti-Catholic articles:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/