Is papal infallibility something Paul taught to the Corinthians and Thessalonians? Can you show us where Scripture says that the bishop of Rome is infallible? Can you show us where any of the fathers from the first 4 centuries said that? Not places where they said complimentary things about Rome, or about her bishops, but where they actually said something that means the bishop of Rome is infallible.
Algo1, since I see no response from any Protestants on here to the Reformers’ plain abandonment of a core early Christian doctrine that is firmly rooted in Scripture and confirmed by the unambiguous lens of Tradition – the Sacrament of Confession – I’m assuming there is a concession that Protestants might be wrong and the Catholic Church might be right on this point (see posts 138 to 143). Instead, you skip over Confession (Parker also ignores it) and challenge Catholics to demonstrate that papal infallibility has been divinely revealed to us. Geesh, if we could “prove” this, Protestantism would probably cease to exist.
But I’ll do my best.
I think a case can be made that papal infallibility is rooted in Sacred Scripture and that there was a gradual realization by the ECFs that the leader of the Church – the Bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor – is infallible in matters of religion.
First, God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18). It’s not a stretch to take this to mean that God would preserve the Church from falling into doctrinal error. Indeed, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church “to all truth” (Jn. 16:13). And St. Paul refers to the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). I think you’ll allow that the ECFs took it for granted that the Church, when she spoke authoritatively and as one on doctrine (e.g., at the Council of Nicaea), could not err.
Second, Scripture is quite clear, from a Catholic perspective (i.e., when read through the lens of Tradition), that Peter was the first head of the Church. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter – Rock – and said that he would build His Church on Peter (Matt. 16:18). Even if you don’t agree that Peter was the rock on which Jesus built His Church, I think you’ll concede that many (most?) Protestant scholars today will admit this to be true (contrary to their Protestant forebears). Moreover, just before His Ascension, Jesus, the Shepherd, explicitly passed on his role as chief shepherd to Peter (Jn. 21:15-17). And the passages in the Acts of the Apostles are legion demonstrating that Christians and Jews alike regarded Peter as the leader of the nascent Church. So Scripture can be read as demonstrating that the Church cannot be lead into error and, further, that Peter was its first leader. If Peter was truly the Church’s chief shepherd, it is not a stretch to believe that Scripture supports Peter’s universal jurisdiction over the Church.
Next, the ECFs support the notion that Rome was the see of Peter (even though he was bishop of Antioch first, the ECFs consistently referred to Rome, not Antioch, as Peter’s see). The ECFs also support the idea that the bishops of Rome were Peter’s successors. To save room, I won’t quote these passages, and I’m sure you are familiar with them anyway. Suffice to say, ECFs confirming that Rome was Peter’s see and that the Bishop of Rome was Peter’s successor include passages from Cyprian, the Poem Against the Marcionites, the Council of Sardica, Hilary, Optatus, Jerome, Pope Damasus, the Ambrosiaster, Pope Siricius, Ambrose and Augustine.
The ECFs also lend support to the idea that the Bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, exercised universal jurisdiction over the Church. True, some ECFs may not have fully grasped the full power of papal prerogatives. Nevertheless, early evidence of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is striking. Again, I won’t quote them here, but such passages include Clement of Rome’s exercise of jurisdiction over Corinth in the late first century, appeals to Rome to resolve the second century Montanist controversy in the East, Pope Victor’s threat to excommunicate entire eastern churches over the Easter controversy in the late second century, Cyprian (though, granted, he resisted Rome at times as well – but in the end, the Pope’s view in the rebaptism controversy prevailed), the Pope’s adjudication of the orthodoxy of Denis of Alexandria in the mid-third century, Pope Julius’ reinstatement of Athanasius as the bishop of Alexandria and his rebuke of the Eastern bishops for the “novel” act of deposing the Bishop of Alexandria without first appealing to Rome according to “the traditions of the fathers,” the Council of Sardica, Hilary, Basil, the Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Pope Siricius, Pope Zosimus, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo, Theodoret, and Pope Gregory.
Now we come to papal infallibility – the idea that, through divine providence, the Pope will never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion. If the Church is infallible, and the successor of Peter is its head, with universal jurisdiction over the Church, it follows that the successor must likewise be protected from error in doctrine. Otherwise, the leader’s error would lead the Church into error, an impossibility if God the Holy Spirit is truly keeping watch. In this regard, it cannot be overemphasized that Jesus intertwined the indefectibility of the Church with the rock, Peter, in the
very same passage of Scripture (Matt. 16:18). Put differently, papal infallibility is the logical conclusion of two separate revealed truths: (1) the Church is infallible and (2) the Pope is the earthly head of the Church with universal jurisdiction over Her, i.e., the place where “the buck stops.” Infallibility is implicit, rather than explicit, in many patristic passages (though it is made explicit in some too, as I hope to demonstrate).
con’t.
