On Papal Infallibility

Bishop Mitrofan (Abramov) of Sumy (+1945)

 

Among the newly devised dogmas of the Catholic Church is also the dogma of papal infallibility. The essence of this dogma is as follows: the Roman pope, being fallible like every human being, is nevertheless infallible in his judgments when he speaks on matters of faith and the Church. The grace of God, which abides especially upon the Roman high priest, does not allow the head of the Catholic Church to err in his official judgments concerning matters of faith. Catholics express this as follows: when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair), he is infallible.

Before examining this doctrine of the Catholic Church, let us pose the following question to Catholic theologians: since when have popes become infallible? If popes became infallible only in the most recent times, when the dogma of papal infallibility was officially established, then naturally this doctrine is newly devised, unknown to the ancient Church, and therefore false. But if Catholics claim that popes have always been infallible—since otherwise, they could not say so—this would be untrue, for history testifies that many popes have erred not only in ordinary human actions but also in matters of faith.

In order not to be unfounded in our claims, we will point to a whole series of popes who undoubtedly erred.

Thus, it is known that Pope Victor (192), at the beginning of his ministry, approved of Montanism.

Pope Marcellinus (296–303) committed the sin of idolatry; specifically, he offered a sacrifice to the goddess Vesta.

Pope Liberius (358) agreed to accept Arianism and to condemn St. Athanasius the Great so that he might be recalled from exile and restored to his former see.

Pope Honorius (625) adhered to the Monothelite heresy.

However, not wishing to be accused of partiality, let us turn to Catholic historians themselves and see how they characterize their own popes. The well-known Abbot de Vallemont provides the following characterization of certain popes:

Boniface VI (896): “Although his election seemed canonical, this man did not deserve to be pope. Some historians omit him.”

Stephen VII: “A cruel man; he forcibly seized the see of St. Peter. He ordered the corpse of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, which had been buried in the Vatican, to be exhumed, dressed in pontifical vestments, and placed on the papal throne. Approaching this corpse, he said: ‘How did you, being the bishop of Porto, dare to ascend to the universal Roman see?’ Then he ordered the vestments to be stripped off, three fingers—used for giving the high priestly blessing—to be cut off, and the corpse to be thrown into the Tiber. He deposed all those ordained by Formosus. For this, the citizens attacked Stephen, put him in irons, and imprisoned him.”

Sergius III (907): “He did not consider canonical rules in order to become pope.”

Lando Sabinus (912): “A man of dark life. At the recommendation of Theodora, a powerful woman whose history somewhat tarnished her fame, he appointed a dishonorable man as bishop.”

John X (913): “He attained the papacy through the intrigues of Theodora. This man, so unworthy of being pope, was nevertheless very useful for Italy.”

John XI (931): “Of shameful birth. The son of Sergius III and Marozia, a Roman noblewoman, he unlawfully ascended the see of St. Peter. Among other things, he showed great patience and fortitude in prison, where he was confined by order of his brother, Guy.”

John XII (955): “He was the son of the Tuscan marquis Alberic. At eighteen years old, he was elevated to the papal throne through the machinations of his relatives. Due to his disorderly life, he was expelled from Rome, but returned thanks to the persistent efforts of noble ladies. One Italian, dissatisfied with both his wife and the pope, deprived him of both the papacy and his life.”

John XV (985): “A Roman. He was not highly praised. Church properties intended for the poor were generously distributed by him to his relatives. He died of starvation in prison.”

John XVIII (1024): “He became pope through force and money. When he was expelled from his throne, Conrad, the German king, came to Rome specifically to restore him.”

Benedict IX (1034): “From the counts of Tuscany. Made pope through violence and simony.”

Damasus II (1048): “He made himself pope; but fortunately, he did not occupy the usurped throne for long.”

Of course, we have not provided excerpts on all the popes, but only on those whom even the most indulgent conscience could not recognize as infallible in matters of faith.

Now let us point out the popes who contradicted one another in matters of faith and overturned each other’s decrees:

• Paschal II (1088–1099) and Eugene III (1145) approved duels, while Julius II (1609) and Pius IV (1560) forbade them.
• Eugene IV (1431–1439) recognized the Council of Basel and restored the use of the holy chalice in the Church of Bohemia, whereas Pius II (1458) revoked this privilege.
• Adrian II (867–872) declared civil marriages valid, whereas Pius VII (1800–1823) condemned them.
• Sixtus V (1585–1590) published an edition of the Bible and approved it with a well-known bull, whereas Pius VII condemned those who read it.

(Quoted from the speech of Bishop Strossmayer.)

After everything that has been said, there can no longer be any question of papal infallibility in matters of faith. Indeed, the grace of God, which according to Catholic belief abides in the popes, cannot contradict itself and instruct popes in opposing matters, for the Lord is the same forever and does not change (see Heb. 13:8).

And can sound reason agree that individuals who often occupied the papal throne through intrigues, violence, and simony; individuals whose entire lives were often a complete violation of the Divine canons; individuals who repeatedly transgressed the law of faith and issued decrees that contradicted one another—could be infallible in their judgments on matters of faith and the Church? To acknowledge this would be to accept an absurdity, more nonsensical than which, it seems, nothing could exist.

It is true that Catholic theologians attempt to prove that everything reported by historians about many of the Roman popes is falsehood and slander. However, if it is admitted that even one pope erred in matters of faith, this alone is sufficient to completely destroy the entire theory of papal infallibility devised by Catholic theologians. If grace prevents one from error, why did it not prevent another? And how can one determine which of the two popes judges correctly in matters of faith and which does not, if both are infallible? And who is to judge the correctness of a pope’s judgment, if, among Catholics, there is no one higher than the pope himself, and only the infallible pope is the criterion of his own judgments in matters of faith?

There is only one way out of this labyrinth: to recognize the doctrine of papal infallibility as untenable and reject it as contradicting not only history but also sound human reason. Will Catholic theologians ever agree to this? Of course not, for in doing so, they would sign the death sentence of their Church in its present form. To openly and frankly admit that there are errors in the Western Church would mean to dethrone it, to remove it from the pedestal on which it has stood unlawfully, and to place it in its rightful position. Thus, Catholic theologians resort to the most implausible distortions, seeking by any means to justify the doctrine of papal infallibility fabricated by the Catholic Church.

How did this strange doctrine arise? Its emergence was an inevitable consequence of the previously established doctrine of papal supremacy.

Having recognized the pope as the head of the Church, the vicar of God on earth, and having placed him above the Ecumenical Councils, Catholic theologians encountered a natural and inevitable obstacle. It became evident that the Catholic Church had lost an infallible authority in matters of faith. Until then, such authority in the Church had been considered the Ecumenical Council; but once it was acknowledged that the pope is above the council, and that the council’s decrees are valid only upon the pope’s approval, it followed that infallibility should not belong to the council, but to the one who sanctions its decisions—that is, the pope.

Catholic theologians were thus faced with the following dilemma: either to reject papal supremacy or to acknowledge papal infallibility in matters of faith. They chose the latter. Thus, one error inevitably led to another.

What can be said about this new error of the Catholic Church?

We have already seen how unfounded and absurdly strange this newly devised doctrine appears before the relentless judgment of History. Now, let us place it before the judgment of the Word of God and demonstrate its baselessness from another perspective.

Let us ask Catholic theologians: to whom did Christ entrust the highest infallible authority in the Church? The theologians will say: to the Roman pope, as the successor of the Apostle Peter. Yet the Word of God tells us otherwise.

Having established His Church on earth—that is, the community of those who believe in Him—the Divine Founder of Christianity, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not grant infallible authority to any one particular member of this community but entrusted it to the entire Christian body as a whole, or to the entire Church. Only the whole Church received the right to be the supreme judge in matters of faith; only the decision of the entire Church was given the authority of infallibility, so that whoever refused to submit to the Church’s decision could no longer be considered a member of the Church.

"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; but if he refuses even to listen to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector" (Matt. 18:15–17).

Thus taught Christ. For this reason, the Apostle Paul also wrote to his disciple Timothy: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Why then did Christ entrust the authority of infallibility only to the entire Christian community and not grant it to any one particular member of the Church? The reason is very simple. Matters of faith can be decided only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; see also 1 Cor. 2 for further details). However, the fullness of the grace-given gifts of the Holy Spirit is not the possession of any one member of the Church but belongs to the entire Christian community. Only the whole Church, as the entire Body of Christ, bears within itself the fullness of Divine grace, whereas individual members of the Body of Christ, or the Church, possess only the measure of Divine grace appropriate to their position.

This truth is beautifully expressed by the Apostle Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.

"To each one," writes the Apostle, "is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit… to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues... For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body—so also is Christ… The body is not one member, but many" (1 Cor. 12:7–14).

If each member of the Church is only a bearer of a certain portion of the grace-given gifts, while their fullness belongs to the entire Church as the whole Body of Christ, then it is clear that only the entire Church can be considered the infallible judge in matters of faith, as the possession of the whole Christian community. Meanwhile, the Catholics have recognized as judge a single member of the Church—the pope. But does the pope embody within himself the entire fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit entrusted to the Church? Of course not. This would only be the case if the pope alone constituted in his person the whole Body of Christ, or the Church. Yet, "if," writes the Apostle, "the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the sense of smell? If they were all one member, where would the body be?" (1 Cor. 12:17–19).

This is why, when matters arose in the Church that concerned the entire Christian community, the Church never relied on the voice of any single individual member but always convened Ecumenical Councils to resolve them, considering their authority—expressing the voice of the entire Christian community—to be infallible.

It may be objected that at times the Church has accepted the judgments of individual persons as universal guidance. Yes, but not immediately—only when these judgments were approved and sanctioned by the Ecumenical Councils. Until that time, the opinions of individuals in matters of faith were regarded as private opinions, lacking any binding authority over the entire Christian community.

Thus, the error of the Catholics in declaring the pope infallible in matters of faith lies in the fact that they, contrary to the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church, entrusted infallible authority to a single member of their Church. Furthermore, they set their Church on a path toward new errors and delusions. Indeed, who can guarantee that the popes will not abuse their infallibility and devise even greater errors? Given the kinds of popes we have seen earlier, anything can be expected. And who will restrain the pope from mistakes? The grace of God? But as we have shown, the pope is not the bearer of the fullness of Divine Grace. An Ecumenical Council? But according to Catholic belief, a council is not valid without papal approval. Individual persons? But they are required to believe in the pope unconditionally, having themselves recognized him as infallible.

Perhaps Catholics will argue that the pope always has knowledgeable advisors who, when necessary, can warn him against errors. But such an argument contradicts the very structure of the Catholic Church. The fallible would then be restraining the infallible, and the authority of papal infallibility would become dependent on the opinions of men who are subject to error.

This is the labyrinth into which Catholic theologians have led their Church by creating the doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

Source: Разбор римского заблуждения о главенстве и непогрешимости папы [An Examination of the Roman Error on the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope], by Archimandrite Mitrophan (Abramov), Kharkov, Diocesan Printing House, 1916.