Papal Infallibility | 10 Frequently Asked Questions

In my own journey into the Catholic Church, I identified around 14 theological barriers to embracing Catholicism. Near the top of my list of “deal breakers” was the notion of infallibility. As I have shared many times with many people on my journey, I had to let the Catholic Church use her own words with her own definitions rather than imposing my definitions on the words she uses. I did this with the Catholic idea of infallibility and discovered, as I had with so many other things I believed about the Catholic Church, that I misunderstood what the Church was saying by using this word. In this post (and most likely a few others that will follow it), I will use the format of FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) to try to sort through this issue.

1. What do you mean by infallible and infallibility?

The first mention of infallibility in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is in paragraph 889, which reads:

In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.” [1]

In summary, infallibility is not ascribed as a virtue or component of the Catholic Church apart from Christ, but is rather, first and foremost, about the truth of the Christian faith as taught by Christ to the Church. Jesus gave this unfailing (infallible) truth to humanity through a visible, real, and concrete Church that he himself is building, and which he has promised cannot be withstood by the powers of darkness (cf. Mat. 16:18).

2. How can the Catholic Church claim this infallibility for itself?

The Catholic Church cannot and does not claim anything for herself that Christ has not promised to her. She can neither invent a doctrine of infallibility nor claim infallibility as a status unto herself that Christ has not revealed or given to her. Thus, the Catholic Church, then, only affirms what Christ has promised; that He is building His Church — the Catholic Church — and that He Himself will always be with her, and that the Holy Spirit will preserve her from heresy (cf. Mat. 16:18; Jn. 16:13).

3. Are you implying that the Catholic Church cannot teach heresy.

Yes. But not because she has any virtue or status in herself apart from Christ’s gift. This does not mean that a person who is a Catholic cannot teach or believe heresy, or that even the highest officials in the Church (include the Pope) cannot believe or teach heresy. Rather, it means that the Holy Spirit, by the promise of Christ, will preserve the Catholic Church from binding the Church to heresy and raising it to the level of a Dogma. By virtue of this promise, no heresy can ever become a Dogma (A Dogma is a teaching to which all Christians are bound).

4. But there are clear examples of heresy being taught and believed by Catholic authorities all through Church History. If this is true, how can you claim the Church (or the Pope) is infallible?

Yes. This is true. Any Catholic can become a heretic. In fact, many of the heresies are named for the Catholics (many of them Catholic Bishops) who spread them around. For instance, Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcionism, and Appolinarism are all named for the ecclesiastics who spread them. These Catholic men were able to convince entire regions and, in some cases, millions of Catholics, to embrace their heresies. But when those heresies were brought before the Magisterium (the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him), and the Church defined the Christian Faith in the face of a dispute, the Church in each case ruled, infallibly, that these heresies were not orthodox, and clearly defined the truth in order to correct them. Thus, a Catholic can be a heretic, but the Catholic Church can never (because of the promise of Jesus) dogmatize a heresy. A heresy can never become a dogma of the Catholic Church. In fact, that last sentence is basically the best definition of infallibility that you can find. Another way of saying it is — A Catholic can be a heretic, but a heresy cannot become a Catholic Dogma.

5. I heard a Catholic Priest say that he believes people of the same gender should be able to be married. Surely this proves that the Catholic Church is not infallible, right?

No, it does not. What it proves is that a specific Catholic priest is teaching error, in contradiction to and in polarity with the settled and dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Again, a Catholic can be a heretic, but a heresy can never become a dogma. In simple terms, that is all that is meant by infallibility. There were lots of doctrinal errors being spread around by church leaders even in the New Testament era of the Apostles. True to His promise, God protected the Church through the teaching office (the Apostles and Bishops) and confronted and corrected those errors (cf. Acts 15:1-21; 1 Tim. 1:18-20, etc.). This will always be happening, and this is why the Spiritual gift of infallibility must always be present in the Church.

6. But how can you claim that the Pope himself is infallible? Nobody is perfect, and only Jesus is sinless. Honestly, how can this not be idolatry and blasphemy?

If the Catholic Church taught that the Pope was perfect in all of his thoughts, words, deeds, and beliefs, that he could not be wrong about something, or that he did not sin, I would agree with you. But this is not what is meant by Papal (or ecclesial) infallibility. No Catholic who understands the Catholic position would claim that infallibility meant that a Pope could not be wrong about something or that he cannot sin. Infallibility does not mean impeccability (sinlessness). Every Catholic is a sinner. The Pope goes to confession regularly. Papal infallibility simply means that God Himself will protect the Catholic Church from dogmatizing a heresy — even by the Pope himself. And when there is a dispute to be settled (which will need to be settled with the help and consent of the Pope), the truth will prevail because of the promise of Christ to guide his Church into all truth.

7. Isn’t it proud, arrogant, and presumptuous to claim that the Pope and the Catholic Church are infallible?

Any person or group that made this claim without the promise, authority, and gift of Christ would indeed be proud, arrogant, and presumptuous. In addition to that, it would be a grave sin to make such claims apart from the gift, calling, promise, and provision of Christ. But again, these are not claims that the Catholic Church makes for herself. The Church has nothing that was not given to her by Christ. Her claims, then, are wholly derived from her commission from Christ to teach all nations everything He has commanded (Matt. 28:20). It would be impossible for any Church to carry out this commission if the Church was fallible. There would be no way to know the truth from error. Here is more from the CCC, paragraphs 890-892 on this specific point:

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It 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. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: (see paragraphs 851; 1785)

 

891 “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. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” 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.

 

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. [2]

On this note, I would propose a few questions for your consideration; Is your Church teaching everything Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20) including the things not recorded in the Bible (Jn. 21:25), and all of the things taught in person by the Apostles which are not included in their writings (2 Jn. 1:12; 2 Thes. 2:15)? If the answer is no, then why would you want to be part of that Church? Don’t you want the entire and infallible teaching, in all its fulness, that Jesus has given to the world through the Church that He began, and that He is building? In addition — is your church teaching infallibly? Does your Church teach any heresy or not? How can you be sure either way? If you are not teaching infallibly, what things is your church teaching in error? What are the fallible teachings that you are putting forth to your members and the people under your care? What are you wrong about? If you don’t know what you are wrong about, how would you know if someone tried to point it out to you? How is it possible for any Church to teach everything Jesus commanded if that Church can prescribe a heresy as a dogma and lead the Church into heresy?

8. Isn’t this why we have the Bible? The Bible, not the Catholic Church, is the sole, infallible, and final authority of what is true for all Christians.

It would be nice if that were true, but that is not what the Bible teaches at all. The Bible says that the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). We all have the infallible text of the Bible, but we do not all interpret the Bible infallibly. Every heresy has, at base, been a dispute about something that is taught in the Bible. The Bible, alone, cannot settle these disputes (and never does) because the Bible does not interpret itself. People interpret the Bible. If every Christian is free to individually interpret the Bible for himself/herself, then who can say what is and is not biblical when there are different conclusions? This is not how Jesus set up His Church! The Bible was never, and is not now, the sole, infallible, and final authority of what is true for all Christians. The definition of Heresy is to interpret a Biblical idea in a way that chooses against what the Church teaches based on the settled teaching of the Church and the Church’s settled interpretation of Scripture. In addition, there is no text in the Bible that tells any of us which texts belong in the Bible. You have to trust the Church to tell you what goes in the Bible because the Bible never tells you. The Bible emerges and grows up over time out of the Church, not the other way around. It is the Church (especially the teaching office, also called the Magisterium) that has the responsibility, gift, and stewardship of teaching the truth to all nations — which includes teaching what the Bible IS, and (when there is a dispute) what the Bible MEANS (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1).

Here is what St. Vincent of Lerins (around 445 AD) said about people in his day who concluded that we should leave it to the Bible, and not the Catholic Church to settle our disputes about the Bible:

9. But I disagree with some of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church. They seem unbiblical to me. Why is the Catholic Church right and I’m wrong? I think my interpretation is better, and I have just as much right to interpret the Bible as any Pope or Catholic Bishop!

I understand. That is a very protestant way of thinking about things. Arius disagreed with the Catholic Church too. In fact, his interpretations were so popular and convincing (he was a smart guy!) that he was able to lead countless bishops, priests, and faithful Catholics into his error using, among other things, his own personal interpretations of the Bible and his ecclesial status as a bishop to do it. He was successful because his conclusions made sense to his adherents. In his heart of hearts, Arius was utterly convinced (as were those who agreed with him) that he had done his homework correctly. His writings display intricate methodologies, copious references to scripture, lots of analogies and examples, and plenty of careful thought. But his mistake was to interpret the Bible “for himself” instead of doing it in communion with “the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Church division, heresy, denominationalism, and so many other problems are all the result of a person (or a group of people) choosing to believe their own conclusions (in a sense, giving themselves or their favorite teachers the status of infallibility) over the settled teaching (or, when there was an unresolved or disputed question, over the consistent teaching) of the Catholic Church. The reason your Church probably has something about the Trinity on your doctrinal page is that the Catholic Church settled that dispute, and defined the doctrine as a dogma. But your Church also probably has something about the Bible being God’s sole and final authority when there is a dispute. I would point out that it is ironic to have the Trinity on your website as an article of faith if the statement about the Bible being the sole infallible authority is true — because everyone uses the Bible, and Arius disagreed with the Church about what the Bible was teaching. The Church defined the truth in contrast with Arius’ interpretations of the Bible. And it is the Church’s charge, commission, charism, and responsibility to do this when there is a dispute about the Bible.

10. I’m still not ready to accede to the idea that the Pope or the Catholic Church is infallible. I have heard the Pope say a lot of things I disagree with. How can he be infallible?

I have also heard the Pope say things I disagree with. He is a man with opinions, perspectives, and an emerging faith just like every other Christian. But his opinions (even if they are expressed in a homily or in a letter or in a discussion with others) are just that. A pope can be wrong about a million things — but he cannot, by virtue of his office, the gift of God, and the promise of Christ, dogmatize an error or heresy so that it becomes the settled teaching of the Catholic Church. A pope might say, “I don’t think the book of James or Revelation belong in the Bible” (like Martin Luther did). But he cannot say, “I hereby decree as supreme pontiff, and determine with all authority, that James and Revelation are to be removed from the New Testament Canon, and that from henceforth no Catholic Bible shall contain these books, and they shall not be read as scripture or used in the liturgy.” That, he cannot do — even if he thinks it should be done. Thus, infallibility does not say the Pope cannot be wrong. Rather, it says he cannot bind the entire Catholic Church to his error. God will not let him. He may believe any number of heresies and share his beliefs about them far and wide. But there is a line that God will not allow him to cross — and that is the line which, by crossing it, would require the Catholic Church to teach an error as the settled and dogmatic truth, and to bind all Christians to it. But that is more about the Holy Spirit’s ministry to the Church, and the promise of Jesus to always be with the Church (as the Church teaches the nations everything he commanded).

Well – perhaps these questions have provoked more questions. Have they? Perhaps we’ll have enough for a second list of FAQs about infallibility.

—————————-

NOTES & REFERENCES

[1] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 235.

[2] ibid, 235–236.

[3] Accessed here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm – Commonitory, Cpt. 2 v. 5.