Archimandrite Mitrophan (Abramov) (+1945)
(Later Bishop of
Sumy)
Among the newly invented 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 man, is
nevertheless infallible in his judgments when he reasons about matters of faith
and the Church. The grace of God, abiding in a special manner upon the Roman Pontiff,
does not allow the head of the Catholic Church to err in his official judgments
on matters of faith. Catholics express it thus: when the pope speaks ex
cathedra (“from the chair”), he is infallible.
Before examining this
above-mentioned teaching of the Catholic Church, let us put the following
question to Catholic theologians: from what time did the popes become
infallible? If the popes became infallible only in the most recent time, when
the dogma of papal infallibility was officially established, then naturally
this teaching is a newly invented one, unknown to the ancient Church, and
therefore false. But if Catholics say that the popes were always infallible—and
they cannot possibly say otherwise—this will be untrue, since history testifies
that many popes erred not only in ordinary human actions, but also in matters
of faith.
So as not to be unsubstantiated,
we shall 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 sacrifice to the
goddess Vesta.
Pope Liberius (358) agreed
to accept Arianism and to condemn St. Athanasios the Great, so that for this he
might be recalled from exile and restored to his former see.
Pope Honorius (625)
adhered to the Monothelite heresy.
However, not wishing to incur
condemnation for partiality, let us turn to the Catholic historians themselves
and see how they characterize their own popes. The well-known Abbot de
Vallemont gives 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
violently seized the chair of St. Peter. He ordered the corpse of his
predecessor, Pope Formosus, buried in the Vatican, to be taken out of the
ground, clothed in pontifical vestments, and seated on the papal throne, and,
approaching this corpse, said: How did you, being bishop of the city of
Porto, dare to ascend the universal Roman see? Then he ordered his
vestments to be stripped off, his three fingers with which the pontifical
blessing is given to be cut off, and the corpse to be thrown into the Tiber.
All those ordained by Formosus he deposed. For this the citizens rose against
Stephen, bound him with iron chains, and cast him into prison.’ Sergius III
(907). ‘He had no regard for canonical rules in becoming pope.’ Lando of
Sabina (912). ‘A man of dark life. On the recommendation of Theodora, a
powerful woman, the history of whom somewhat darkened her glory, he made a
dishonorable man bishop.’ John X (913). ‘He attained the papacy through
the intrigues of Theodora. This man, so unworthy to be pope, was nevertheless
very useful for Italy.’ John XI (931). ‘Of shameful birth. The son of
Sergius III and Marozia, a Roman lady, having attained the chair of St. Peter
by unlawful means, he nevertheless showed much patience and strength in prison,
where his brother Gaius ordered him confined.’ John XII (955). ‘He was
the son of Alberic, Margrave of Tuscany. At eighteen years of age, he was
elevated to the papal throne through the schemes of his relatives. Because of
his disorderly life he was driven from Rome, to which he again returned through
the strenuous efforts of noble ladies. One Italian, being dissatisfied neither
with his wife nor with the pope, deprived him both of the papacy and of life.’ John
XV (985). ‘A Roman. This person was not greatly praised. Church properties
intended for the poor were generously distributed by him to his relatives. He
died of hunger in prison.’ John XVIII (1024). ‘He became pope by means
of force and money. When he was driven from his throne, Conrad, King of
Germany, deliberately came to Rome to restore him.’ Benedict IX (1034).
‘From the counts of Tuscany. Made pope through violence and simony.’ Damasus
II (1048). ‘He himself became pope; but fortunately, he did not long occupy
the throne he had seized.’”
We have cited, of course,
extracts not about all the popes, but only about such ones as even the most
accommodating conscience would not agree to recognize as infallible in matters
of faith. Let us now point out popes who in matters of faith contradicted one
another and violated one another’s decrees. “Paschal II (1088–1099) and
Eugenius III (1145) approved duels, whereas Julius II (1609) and Pius IV (1560)
forbade them. Eugenius IV (1431–1439) recognized the Council of Basel and the
restoration of the use of the holy chalice in the Bohemian Church, whereas Pius
II (1458) abolished this privilege. Adrian II (867–872) declared civil
marriages valid, whereas Pius VII (1800–23) condemned them. Sixtus V
(1585–1590) published an edition of the Bible and by a well-known bull approved
the edition, whereas Pius VII condemned those reading it,” and so forth (Speech
of Bishop [Josip Juraj] Strossmayer).
After all the above, there can be
no talk of the infallibility of the popes in matters of faith. Indeed, the
grace of God, abiding, according to Catholic belief, upon the popes, cannot
contradict itself and instruct the popes in opposite things, since the Lord is
One and the Same forever and does not change (cf. Heb. 13:8).
And can sound reason even agree
that men who often occupied the papal throne thanks to intrigues, violence, and
simony; men whose whole life was often a complete violation of the Divine
canons; men who repeatedly transgressed the law of faith and issued decrees
contradicting one another—could be infallible in their judgments on matters of
faith and the Church? To acknowledge the latter would mean to acknowledge an
absurdity than which, it seems, nothing more senseless could exist.
True, Catholic theologians
attempt to prove that everything reported by historians about many of the Roman
popes is falsehood and slander; but if one admits that even a single pope erred
in matters of faith, then that one case alone is already sufficient to destroy
completely the whole theory of papal infallibility invented by Catholic
theologians. If grace keeps one from error, why did it not keep another? And
how is one to know which of two popes judges matters of faith correctly, and
which does not, if both the one and the other are infallible? And who will
determine the correctness of a pope’s judgment, if among Catholics there is no
one above him, and only the infallible pope himself is the criterion of his own
judgments in matters of faith? It is possible to emerge from this labyrinth
only in one way: by recognizing the teaching on papal infallibility to be
untenable and rejecting it as something contrary not only to history, but also
to sound human reason. Will Catholic theologians ever agree to this? Of course
not, for by this they would sign the death sentence of their Church in the form
in which it exists at the present time. To say openly and directly that errors
exist in the Western Church would mean to dethrone it, to remove it from the
pedestal on which it has stood unlawfully, and to put it in its proper place.
And so Catholic theologians resort to the most impossible distortions, so long
as they may in one way or another justify the teaching on papal infallibility
invented by the Catholic Church.
How, then, did this strange
teaching arise? Its appearance was the inevitable consequence of the teaching
concerning the primacy of the pope that had arisen earlier.
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 unavoidable
obstacle. It turned out that the Catholic Church had deprived itself of an
infallible authority in matters of faith. Until then, such an authority in the
Church had been considered to be the ecumenical council; but once it is
recognized that the pope is above the council, and once the decrees of the
latter are considered valid only after their confirmation by the pope, then the
authority of infallibility must belong not to the council, but to the one who
sanctions the conciliar decisions, that is, to the pope. Catholic theologians
were thus faced with the following dilemma: either reject the primacy of the
pope, or acknowledge papal infallibility in matters of faith. The theologians
chose the latter. Thus, one error inevitably gave rise to another.
What shall we say about this new
error of the Catholic Church?
We have already seen how
groundless and, to the point of absurdity, strange this newly invented teaching
proves to be before the inexorable judgment of History. Now let us place it
before the judgment of the Word of God and show its groundlessness from another
side.
Let us ask the Catholic
theologians: to whom did Christ entrust the supreme infallible authority in the
Church? The theologians will say: to the Roman pope, as successor of the
Apostle Peter; but the Word of God tells us otherwise:
Having founded on earth His
Church, that is, the society of those who believe in Him, the Divine Founder of
Christianity, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not bestow within this society an
infallible authority upon any one particular member, but entrusted the latter
to the whole Christian society in its entirety, or to the whole Church. Only
the whole Church received the right to be the supreme judge in matters of
faith; only to the decision of the whole Church was the authority of
infallibility granted, so that whoever did not wish to submit to the Church’s
decision could no longer be considered a member of the Church.
“If thy brother shall trespass
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall
hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then
take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it
unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as
a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:15–17). Thus Christ taught. 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 whole Christian society, and not grant
it to any one 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; for more
detail, see 1 Cor. 2). But the fullness of the gracious gifts of the Holy
Spirit is not the possession of any one member of the Church; it belongs to the
whole Christian society. Only the whole Church, as the entire Body of Christ,
bears within itself the whole fullness of Divine grace, whereas the individual
members of the Body of Christ, or of the Church, bear within themselves only
that gift of Divine grace proper to their own position. This truth is
beautifully expressed by the holy Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.
“Unto each,” writes the Apostle,
“is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit. 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 discernment of spirits, to another diverse kinds
of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues… For as the body is one,
and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body, so also is Christ… For the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor.
12:7–14). But if each member of the Church is the bearer only of a certain
portion of the gracious gifts, while their fullness belongs to the whole Church
as the entire Body of Christ, then it is clear that only the whole Church can
be considered the infallible judge in matters of faith, as something belonging
to the whole Christian society. Meanwhile the Catholics have recognized as
judge an individual member of the Church—the pope. But does the pope embody
within himself the whole fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit entrusted to
the Church? Of course not. This would be so only if the pope alone in his own
person constituted the whole Body of Christ, or the Church; but “if,” writes the
Apostle, “the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were
hearing, where were the smelling? If they were all one member, where were the
body?” (1 Cor. 12:17–19). That is why, whenever questions arose in the Church
concerning the whole Christian society, the Church never relied upon the voice
of any one particular member, but always assembled Ecumenical Councils for
their resolution, and regarded their authority, as the voice of the whole
Christian society, as infallible for itself. It may be objected to us that
sometimes the Church accepted for universal guidance the judgment of individual
persons. Yes, but not immediately; only when those judgments had been approved
and sanctioned by the Ecumenical Councils. Until that time, judgments of
individual persons in matters of faith were regarded as private opinions,
having no binding force for the whole Christian society. This means that the
error of the Catholics, who have recognized the pope as infallible in matters
of faith, consists in this: first, that, contrary to the Word of God and the
Tradition of the Church, they have entrusted infallible authority to an
individual member of their Church; and second, that they have set their Church
upon the path of new delusions and errors. For indeed, who can guarantee that
the popes will not abuse their infallibility and devise even more grievous
errors? After all, from such popes as we saw at the beginning, one may expect
anything. And who will restrain the pope from error? The grace of God? But the
pope, as we have shown, is not the bearer of the whole fullness of Divine
Grace. An Ecumenical Council? But the latter, as Catholics believe, is not
valid without the pope’s approval. Individual persons? But they are obliged to
believe the popes unconditionally, having themselves recognized them as
infallible. But perhaps Catholics will say: the pope always has knowledgeable
persons with him who, when necessary, can warn him against errors. Such an
objection will again prove contrary to the state of affairs established in the
Catholic Church. Fallible men will be restraining the infallible one from
delusion, and the authority of papal infallibility will become dependent upon
the opinions of people capable of error. Such 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 [A Refutation of the Roman Error Concerning the Primacy
and Infallibility of the Pope], Archimandrite Mitrophan Abramov, Kharkov
Carpatho-Russian Committee, Kharkov, 1916.
Online:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.