INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES.
As the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strangely misapprehended by our
separated brethren, because it is grievously misrepresented by those who
profess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, I shall begin by
stating what Infallibility does not mean, and shall then explain what it
really is.
First—The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are
inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and we
accept their writings as the revealed Word of God.
No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed
with Divine revelation properly so called.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order
that they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that,
under His assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fidelity
explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by the
Apostles.”(174)
Second—Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or
specially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with
few exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honored as
martyrs. Seventy-nine out of the two hundred and fifty-nine that sat on
the chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their
holiness.
The avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes with
immorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought
against them, we have forty-three virtuous to one bad Pope, while there
was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.
But although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so
unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of
itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for
the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment;
for, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High
Priests of the Old Law.
The present illustrious Pontiff is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has
already filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of thirty
years, “a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men,” and no man can
point out a stain upon his moral character.
And yet Pius IX., like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week.
Each morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar,
“I confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned
exceedingly in thought, word and deed.” And at the Offertory of the Mass
he says: “Receive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation
which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offences and
negligences.”
With these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of
the Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as
to proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth,
that Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can
benefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.
Third—Bear in mind, also, that this Divine assistance is guaranteed to the
Pope not in his capacity as private teacher, but only in his official
capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as Head of the Church. If a
Pope, for instance, like Benedict XIV. were to write a treatise on Canon
Law his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any Doctor of
the Church.
Fourth—Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to
questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences,
such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the
false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth.(175) It
does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the
planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form
of government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to
vote.
The Pope’s Infallibility, therefore, does not in any way trespass on civil
authority; for the Pope’s jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, while
the duty of the State is to provide for the temporal welfare of its
subjects.
What, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility? It simply means that
the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, by virtue of
the promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved from error of judgment when he
promulgates to the Church a decision on faith or morals.
The Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker of the Divine law; he
is only its expounder. He is not the author of revelation, but only its
interpreter. All revelation came from God alone through His inspired
ministers, and it was complete in the beginning of the Church. The Holy
Father has no more authority than you or I to break one iota of the
Scripture, and he is equally with us the servant of the Divine law.
In a word, the Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, though in a more
eminent degree, what the Supreme Court is to the United States. We have an
instrument called the Constitution of the United States, which is the
charter of our civil rights and liberties. If a controversy arise
regarding a constitutional clause, the question is referred in the last
resort, to the Supreme Court at Washington. The Chief Justice, with his
associate judges, examines into the case and then pronounces judgment upon
it; and this decision is final, irrevocable and practically infallible.
If there were no such court to settle constitutional questions, the
Constitution itself would soon become a dead letter. Every litigant would
conscientiously decide the dispute in his own favor and anarchy,
separation and civil war would soon follow. But by means of this Supreme
Court disputes are ended, and the political union of the States is
perpetuated. There would have been no civil war in 1861 had our domestic
quarrel been submitted to the legitimate action of our highest court of
judicature, instead of being left to the arbitrament of the sword.
The revealed Word of God is the constitution of the Church. This is the
_Magna Charta_ of our Christian liberties. The Pope is the official
guardian of our religious constitution, as the Chief Justice is the
guardian of our civil constitution.
When a dispute arises in the Church regarding the sense of Scripture the
subject is referred to the Pope for final adjudication. The Sovereign
Pontiff, before deciding the case, gathers around him his venerable
colleagues, the Cardinals of the Church; or he calls a council of his
associate judges of faith, the Bishops of Christendom; or he has recourse
to other lights which the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then, after
mature and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judgment and his sentence
is final, irrevocable and infallible.
If the Catholic Church were not fortified by this Divinely-established
supreme tribunal, she would be broken up, like the sects around her, into
a thousand fragments and religious anarchy would soon follow. But by means
of this infallible court her marvellous unity is preserved throughout the
world. This doctrine is the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith, and,
far from arousing opposition, it ought to command the unqualified
admiration of every reflecting mind.
These explanations being premised, let us now briefly consider the grounds
of the doctrine itself.
The following passages of the Gospel, spoken at different times, were
addressed exclusively to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and on this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”(176)
“I, the Supreme Architect of the universe,” says our Savior, “will
establish a Church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the
foundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock of truth that the
winds and storms of error shall not prevail against it. Thou, O Peter,
shalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou
shalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken, because thou shalt
rest on Me, the rock of truth.” The Church, of which Peter is the
foundation, is declared to be impregnable—that is, proof against error.
How can you suppose an immovable edifice built on a tottering foundation?
For it is not the building that sustains the foundation, but it is the
foundation that supports the building.
“And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”(177) Thou
shalt hold the keys of truth with which to open to the faithful the
treasures of heavenly science. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound also in Heaven.”(178) The judgment which thou shalt pronounce on
earth I will ratify in heaven. Surely the God of Truth is incapable of
sanctioning an untruthful judgment.
“Behold, Satan hath desired to have you (My Apostles), that he may sift
_you_ as wheat. But I have prayed for _thee_ (Peter) that thy faith fail
not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”(179) It is
worthy of note that Jesus prays only for Peter. And why for Peter in
particular? Because on his shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church.
Our Lord prays for two things: First—That the faith of Peter and of his
successors might not fail. Second—That Peter would confirm his brethren in
the faith, “in order,” as St. Leo says, “that the strength given by Christ
to Peter should descend on the Apostles.”
We know that the prayer of Jesus is always heard. Therefore the faith of
Peter will always be firm. He was destined to be the oracle which all were
to consult. Hence we always find him the prominent figure among the
Apostles, the first to speak, the first to act on every occasion. He was
to be the guiding star that was to lead the rest of the faithful in the
path of truth. He was to be in the hierarchy of the Church what the sun is
in the planetary system—the centre around which all would revolve. And is
it not a beautiful spectacle, in harmony with our ideas of God’s
providence, to behold in His Church a counterpart of the starry system
above us? There every planet moves in obedience to a uniform law, all are
regulated by one great luminary. So, in the spiritual order, we see every
member of the Church governed by one law, controlled by one voice, and
that voice subject to God.
“Feed My lambs; feed My sheep.”(180) Peter is appointed by our Lord the
universal shepherd of His flock—of the sheep and of the lambs—that is,
shepherd of the Bishops and Priests as well as of the people. The Bishops
are shepherds, in reference to their flocks; they are sheep, in reference
to the Pope, who is the shepherd of shepherds. The Pope, as shepherd, must
feed the flock not with the poison of error, but with the healthy food of
sound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers
pernicious food to his flock.
Among the General Councils of the Church already held I shall mention only
three, as the acts of these Councils are amply sufficient to vindicate the
unerring character of the See of Rome and the Roman Pontiffs. I wish also
to call your attention to three facts: First—That none of these Councils
were held in Rome; Second—That one of them assembled in the East, viz: in
Constantinople; and, Third—That in every one of them the Oriental and the
Western Bishops met for the purpose of reunion.
The Eighth General Council, held in Constantinople in 869, contains the
following solemn profession of faith: “Salvation primarily depends upon
guarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pass over the words
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I
will build My Church,’ what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the
Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate,
and holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated
from this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion
which the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true
solidity of the Christian religion.”
This Council clearly declares that _immaculate doctrine_ has always _been
preserved and preached in the Roman See_. But how could this be said of
her, if the Roman See ever fell into error, and how could that See be
preserved from error, if the Roman Pontiffs presiding over it ever erred
in faith?
In the Second General Council of Lyons (1274), the Greek Bishops made the
following profession of faith: “The holy Roman Church possesses full
primacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which
primacy, with the plenitude of power, she truly and humbly acknowledges to
have received from our Lord Himself, in the person of Blessed Peter,
Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and
as the Roman See, above all others, is bound to defend the truth of faith,
so, also, _if any questions on faith arise, they ought to be defined by
her judgment_.”
Here the Council of Lyons avows that the Roman Pontiffs have the power to
determine definitely, and without appeal, any questions of faith which may
arise in the Church; in other words, the Council acknowledges them to be
the supreme and infallible arbiters of faith.
“We define,” says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were
present the Bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, “we define that the
Roman Pontiff is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, and _the true Vicar of Christ, the Head_ of the whole Church,
the Father and Doctor of all Christians, and we declare that to him, in
the person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Savior, full
power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church.”
The Pope is here called the _true Vicar_ or representative of Christ in
this lower kingdom of His Church militant—that is, the Pope is the organ
of our Savior, and speaks His sentiments in faith and morals. But if the
Pope erred in faith and morals he would no longer be Christ’s Vicar and
true representative. Our minister in England, for instance, would not
truly represent our Government if he was not the organ of its sentiments.
The Roman Pontiff is called the _Head_ of the whole Church—that is, the
visible Head. Now the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is infallible.
It is, as St. Paul says, “without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.” But
how can you suppose an infallible body with a fallible head? How can an
erring head conduct a body in the unerring ways of truth and justice?
He is declared by the same Council to be the _Father_ and _Doctor_ of all
Christians. How can you expect an unerring family under an erring Father?
The Pope is called the universal teacher or doctor. Teacher of what? Of
truth, not of error. Error is to the mind what poison is to the body. You
do not call poison food; neither can you call error doctrine. The Pope, as
universal teacher, must always give to the faithful not the poisonous food
of error, but the sound aliment of pure doctrine.
In fine, the Pope is also styled the _Chief Pilot_ of the Church. It was
not without a mysterious significance that our Lord entered Peter’s bark
instead of that of any of the other Apostles. This bark, our Lord has
pledged Himself, shall never sink nor depart from her true course. How can
you imagine a stormproof, never-varying bark under the charge of a
fallible Pilot?
But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal
Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not
the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always
unchangeable in her teaching?
The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one.
It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been
accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in
the deposit of revelation.
I may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When
the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question,
his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new
doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the
Constitution.
In like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree
is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the
decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.
The course pursued by the Church, regarding the infallibility of the Pope
was practiced by her in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our
Savior was acknowledged to be God from the beginning of the Church. Yet
His Divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nicæa in the
fourth century, and it would not have been defined even then had it not
been denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the
belief in the Divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?
The following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of God
from the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils
promulgated doctrines or condemned errors they always transmitted their
decrees to Rome for confirmation or rejection. What Rome approved, the
universal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.
Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St.
Cyprian, of Carthage, and of a council of African bishops regarding a
question of baptism.
Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns the Pelagian heresy,
in reference to which St. Augustine wrote this memorable sentence: “The
acts of two councils were sent to the Apostolic See, whence an answer was
returned. The _question is ended_. Would to God that the error also had
ceased.”
In the fourteenth century Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of Wycliffe.
Pope Leo X., in the sixteenth, anathematizes Luther.
Innocent X., in the seventeenth, at the solicitation of the French
Episcopate, condemns the subtle errors of the Jansenists, and in the
nineteenth century Pius IX. promulgates the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception.
Here we find the Popes in various ages condemning heresies and proclaiming
doctrines of faith; and they could not in a stronger manner assert their
infallibility than by so defining doctrines of faith and condemning
errors. We also behold the Church of Christendom ever saying Amen to the
decisions of the Bishops of Rome. Hence it is evident that, in every age,
the Church recognized the Popes as infallible teachers.
Every independent government must have a supreme tribunal regularly
sitting to interpret its laws, and to decide cases of controversy likely
to arise. Thus we have in Washington the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Now the Catholic Church is a complete and independent organization, as
complete in its spiritual sphere as the United States Government is in the
temporal order. The Church has its own laws, its own autonomy and
government.
The Church, therefore, like civil powers, must have a permanent and
stationary supreme tribunal to interpret its laws and to determine cases
of religious controversy.
What constitutes this permanent supreme court of the Church? Does it
consist of the Bishops assembled in General Council? No; because this is
not an ordinary but an extraordinary tribunal which meets, on an average,
only once in a hundred years.
Is it composed of the Bishops scattered throughout the world? By no means,
because it would be impracticable to consult all the Bishops of
Christendom upon every issue that might arise in the Church. The poison of
error would easily spread through the body of the Church before a decision
could be rendered by the Prelates dispersed throughout the globe. The
Pope, then, as Head of the Catholic Church, constitutes, with just reason,
this supreme tribunal.
And as the office of the Church is to guide men into all truth, and to
preserve them from all error, it follows that he who is appointed to watch
over the constitution of the Church must be infallible, or exempt from
error in his official capacity as judge of faith and morals. The
prerogatives of the Pope must be commensurate with the nature of the
constitution which he has to uphold. The constitution is Divine and must
have a Divinely protected interpreter.
But you will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be
conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His
Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of
working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouth-piece
communicating God’s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the
custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it
impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than
the Pope who preserves it from error.
If, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter
would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He
withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He
should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.
A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal
Infallibility, recently used the following language: “For my part, I have
an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.”
This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand
the test of sound criticism.
Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either
you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is
correct or you are not.
If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course
for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny
to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own
Pope.
If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of
the whole Bible—and this is a privilege you do not claim—then, I ask, of
what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an
infallible interpreter?
If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do
you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be
most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving
him a means of ascertaining its precise import?
Do you not reduce God’s word to a bundle of contradictions, like the
leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of
every inquirer?
Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does
not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each
member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in
the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this
variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: “An
infallible Bible is enough for me,” and does it not proclaim the absolute
necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to
drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched
lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the
medium of your interpretation?
How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic
teaching on this subject!
According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child,
is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who
will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its
difficulties.
Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that
will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without
sediment of error.
Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over
it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one “to whom I have given the keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven,” who will preserve that Constitution inviolate,
and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions
of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one.