Sean Boyle:
The infallible Magisterium existed before the bible and before the collections of letters and accounts of Christ’s life were approved by the same infallible Magisterium as scriptural. History proves this without question.
Actually, history does not bear out nor testify to a so-called “
infallible” magesterium existing before the Bible, and which
jburgherr states in his message to be “
Peter and his successors” (based on RC dogma). To the contrary, history shows us that such a notion was a post-Apostolic, time developed, human assertion, rooted in the struggle for power between the Western and Eastern church.
We know from Scripture that Peter himself was at least twice strongly rebuked, first by Christ Himself and then by Paul.
Right after Peter was called “
blessed” by Jesus for his testimony of Christ being the Messiah, Son of the living God, and that this truth was revealed to him directly by God, he blatantly demonstrated his
fallibility by contradicting, even rebuking, Christ, and totally not understanding God’s salvation program through the death of the same Messiah God had just revealed to him.
Peter was correct on one point but erred terribly on another (Matt. 16:21-23). Hardly a demonstration of infallibility. And ironically, all within the same context by which Rome claims its Papal Authority over the whole Church.
Paul tells us how he had to publicly rebuke Peter for his blatant hypocrisy regarding the faith, not being straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, even compelling the Gentiles live like Jews,
i.e., under the Law (
salvation by works, Gal. 2:12-14).
So we see that before Pentecost and after Pentecost (the coming of the Holy Spirit) Peter demonstrated fallibility. So if Peter was certainly fallible, what more could we say for his so-called “successors” who claim their “infallibility” based on him.
As for history:
Calixtus I (218-223) was the first to based his claim on Matt. 16:18. However, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Peter made such a claim regarding his Apostleship. Nor has it has ever been historically proven that Peter ever was “Bishop” of the church at Rome.
The
Council of Nicaea (385) accorded the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch full jurisdiction over their Provinces, as the Roman Bishop has over his. No hint to their being subject to Rome, or its Bishop, at that time.
It was
Siricius (385-398) who first claimed Universal Jurisdiction over the Church, but the East never recognized his self-proclamation.
Innocent I (402-417) called himself “Ruler of the Church of God,” and claimed the right to settle the more important matters in the whole Church. But his claim was never recognized by all the churches in the Empire.
Leo I (440-461) made the assertion that he was, by divine appointment, Primate of all Bishops, Lord of the Whole Church, Exclusive Universal Papacy and that resistance to his authority was a sure way to Hell. But the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) totally ignored those boasts and gave the Patriarch of Constantinople equal prerogatives with the Bishop of Rome.
Leo II (682-683) even pronounced the previous Pope
Honorius I a heretic.
Nicolas I (858-867) was the first Pope to wear a crown. He interfered in the affairs of the Eastern church, excommunicated Photius (then Patriarch of Constantinople), who in turn excommunicated him.
Up to A.D. 869 all
Ecumenical Councils had been held in or near Constantinople and in the Greek language. But the Roman Bishop’s claim to be Lord of Christendom had become too unbearable and the East definitely separated itself. In fact, to this day the Eastern Orthodox church calls the Roman Pope the first “Protestant.” Hence, the last Ecumenical Council was the
Council of Constantinople in 869. From then on the Greek church had its councils and the Roman church its own. And never was the claim to “
infallibility” by he Roman Pope or Rome’s “Magesterium” ever unanimously recognized by the whole, visible church - and rightly so. This was strictly a Western development based on the assertions of western Bishops. And the RC dogma of Papal Infallibility did not become
official until 1870.
So you see, neither Scripture, Ecumenical Council, or history bears out Rome’s claim to “
infallibility” or Authority over the whole Body of Christ. Such was the assertion of mere men, yes, but the Scriptures taught from the beginning that the Church has only one Head - the resurrected and glorified Christ:
Col 1:18 “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”
