This month I will be discussing the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which Vatican Council I (1869-70) defines as:

"...We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he, speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves---and not by virtue of the consent of the Church---are irreformable." (An anathema was attached for anyone rejecting this dogma): "But if anyone--which may God forbid!--presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema."

Where did this dogma originate? Was Peter "infallible" when he "...walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel...", in Galatians 2:11-14, when Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed..."? So if Peter erred concerning "faith and morals", how then does his alleged "successors" claim infallibility? Who declared such a doctrine? Well, as the old saying goes, "A COCK HAS GREAT INFLUENCE ON ITS OWN DUNGHILL" (Emphasis mine) and alas, the pope claimed himself infallible!!

Interestingly enough, it was a Franciscan priest named Peter Olivi (1248-98), that was the first to attribute infallibility to the pope, and his motives were less than pure. In 1279, Pope Nicholas III (1277- 80) had decided, to the delight of the Franciscans, that communal renunciation was a possible way of salvation. One year later, Olivi tried to render the papal decision irreversible when he said that the pope was an unerring standard for all Catholics on questions of faith and morals. But in 1324, Pope John XXII (1316-34) came to a very different decision on the matter of poverty as a means of salvation! His own lust for wealth undoubtedly influenced his decision, but the fact remains that Pope John XXII did not want to hear about infallibility. He saw it as an improper restriction of his rights as a sovereign and in the bull Qui quorundam, (1324) he condemned the Franciscans doctrine of infallibility as the work of the devil. With this doctrine, all popes would be bound by the decisions of their predecessors, which as we will soon see, would not be tolerated.

That the office of pope was a gradual development is made clear from a study of history. It wasn't until after the fall of the Roman empire that more and more power, ecclesiastical as well as political, fell into the hands of the bishop of Rome. Edward J. Taris, in his booklet, What Rome Teaches, he explains:

"Ireneus, who was a disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John the apostle), died about the year 200...Ireneus never taught that Christ intended any bishop to be the infallible head of the Church...Tertullian never heard of an infallible head of a Church...Jerome...did not teach that the Church had an infallible head...Gregory the Great...[has been quoted as saying]...that the title of pope as 'Ecumenical Bishop' was 'proud and foolish' and 'an imitation of the devil'..."

In Loraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism, 241,242, says:

"For centuries before the doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted there was much difference of opinion as to where that infallibility lay. Some held that it rested in the councils speaking for the Church. Two councils, that of Constance (1415), which deposed the first Pope John XXIII after he had held the office for five years and had appointed several cardinals and bishops who continued to hold their offices, and that of Basle (1432), declared that 'even the pope is bound to obey the councils'. At another time it was held that infallibility lay in acts of the councils approved by the pope. But in 1870 it was declared to reside in the pope alone, and all good Roman Catholics now are compelled to accept that view...But the principal question remains: Which council pronouncement was "infallible," that of Constance and Basle? Or that of the Vatican Council? Clearly they are contradictory and cannot both be right."

That the popes have not always been considered infallible is made clear by a review of events in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. Such a survey is given by Dr. Harris as follows:

"In the 1300's, the popes moved to Avignon, France, and for seventy years were manifestly subservient to the French kings. This has been called the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the papacy. Following this time, Gregory XI went back to Rome. His successor, Urban VI (1378-1389) made an election promise to return to France, but election promises are not always kept and he later refused. The French then called his election illegal and elected a new rival pope, Clement VII (1378-94). This schism continued until a council was called at Pisa in 1409 which deposed both rival popes and elected a new one, Alexander V (1490-10). The rival popes refused to accept the council and so three popes were on the scene. After the death of Alexander V, he was succeeded by John XXIII whom Roman Catholics do not acknowledge and whose name the present pope has taken to show the illegality of the first John XXIII. Roman Catholics do not accept the Council of Pisa as an ecumenical council (that is, one representative of the whole church). But most of them accept Alexander V whom it elected! (Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol.1, 58) The Council of Pisa declared that a council is superior to a pope. The schism continued and the Council of Constance (1414-1418) was called. This council deposed all three popes and elected a new one, Martin V (1417-1431)...The Council of Constance also declared that a council is superior to a pope, and thus it acted to depose all three popes at once. Hefele, on the the best known Roman authorities, takes the odd position that the first forty sessions of the council were not ecumenical but that sessions 41-45, presided over by Martin V whom they elected, were ecumenical. Martin proceeded to confirm all the decrees of the first forty sessions except those which minimized the papacy. Here, of course, was the pope's dilemma. If the earlier sessions were valid, the Council was supreme over the pope. If not, the other popes were not deposed and Martin V was not rightly elected! The Vatican Council of 1870 declared: 'They err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgment of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.' This is wonderful. The pope is higher than a council. The Vatican Council made him so! But a previous council just as regular, had denied him to be so."

The fact is, many popes taught heretical doctrines. Several were condemned by later popes and church councils, and some have been declared "antipopes", that is, fraudulently chosen or elected, and later dropped from the official record. The most famous, and by far the most gruesome event in papal history was held in January of 897 by Pope Stephen VI (VII) during which the corpse of Pope Formosus (891- 896) was exhumed and placed on trial. Stephen convened the "Cadaver Synod" to try the dead pope on assorted charges such as perjury, canonical violations, and ambition in seeking the papacy. What made it so grotesque, was Stephen's insistence that Formosus appear personally. The rotted corpse was taken out of the tomb, dressed in vestments, and propped up in a chair. A deacon, standing behind the body, answered on its behalf. Not surprisingly, Formosus was found guilty. His acts and ordinations were proclaimed null and void, his body mutilated---three fingers on his right hand were severed. His body was then thrown to the mob. Then Pope John IV (898-900) declared the actions of Stephen annulled. As you can see, popes were against popes, councils against councils, popes against councils, and councils against popes. What a mess for a Church claiming ANY infallibility! But that was just some of the doctrinal errors. Let's now take a quick glance at the moral sphere:

"Pope John XI (931-936) was the illegitimate son of pope Sergius III by a wicked woman named Marozia. The nephew of John XI, who took the name John XII (956-964), was raised to the papacy at the age of 18 through the political intrigue of the Tuscan party which was then dominant in Rome, and proved to be a thoroughly immoral man. His tyrannies and debaucheries were such that, upon complaint of the people of Rome, the Emperor Otho tried and deposed him. Some of the sins enumerated in the charge were murder, perjury, sacrilege, adultery, and incest! Yet he is reckoned as a legitimate pope through whom the unbroken chain of apostolic authority descends from Peter to the pope of the present day" (Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner, 250,251).

The argument used today to justify such a doctrine is that in Matthew 16:18, Christ says: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Their logic is, "If the Church fell into error and corruption in the course of time, then the gates of hell prevailed against her...How could the Church become corrupted with the abiding presence of Christ?" My question would be: How could the Jewish Church fall into error and corruption in the course of time, with the abiding presence of God, so that it failed to see in Jesus Christ, the long promised "Son of David," and be accused by Him of being "blind guides"? (Matthew 23:24) Yet the Jewish Church is regarded by the Catholic Church as having been infallible and preserved from error. (See The Faith of Our Fathers, 118,119; Doctrinal Catechism, 369,370.)

Popes are not infallible! They preach and teach another gospel! They not only contradict each other and themselves, they contradict the Word of God! Another point, lay people are not just obligated to obey the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra. They are also told that:

"This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him." (Second Vatican Council)

This kind of "submission of the will and intellect"... a kind of "leave reason at the door" mentality...has led to even greater apostasies. For example, in Confessio Romano--Catholica in Hungaria Evangelicis publice prescripta et proposita, Articles IV, I, and XXI, read:

"We confess that whatsoever new thing the pope of Rome may have instituted, whether it be in Scripture, or out of Scripture, is true, divine, and salvific; and, therefore, ought to be regarded as of higher value by lay people than the precepts of the Living God...We confess that the Pope has the power of altering Scripture, or increasing and diminishing it, according to his will...We confess that the Holy Scripture is imperfect and a dead letter, until it is explained by the Supreme Pontiff, and permitted by him to be read by lay people."

Where, in the Holy Scriptures, does it EVER give Peter, or ANYONE authority to alter the Word of God??!! (Rev.22:18) There is no such authority. However, there is one who seems to fit the description of the pope..."Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." II Thessalonians 2:4, in reference to the antichrist. Now, if you think that "that was then, this is now", you had better guess again! Pope John Paul II reaffirmed his supremacy. In an article in our local paper, The Repository, on May 31, 1995, it read:

"ROME--In an appeal for greater unity among Christians, Pope John Paul II invited leaders of other churches...to join him in a discussion on the role of the papacy...But the pope, made clear that the authority of his office remains absolute and supreme..." (Written by Celestine Bohlen).

So when you hear Rome speak of ecumenism, you can rest assured that she means to stay in control! She wants all "her children" to "come home". She will not meet you half way unless it is only to guide you the rest of the way “home”. It never ceases to amaze me how the champions of the ecumenical movement tell us that Catholics and Protestants worship the same God and are guided by the same Spirit. But you tell me this: how could the same Spirit who told me and millions of other Catholics, to "come out of her my people" (Rev. 18:4) could be the same spirit that is telling people like Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, and Patrick Madrid to "go into her my people"? Obviously one of us is listening to a lying spirit. Maybe someone from the ecumenical camp could produce a scripture that instructs us to join the Whore of Babylon? I'll be waiting for their reply!

I'd like to conclude by citing Catholics favorite apostle, Peter, you know, the one they claim to be the first pope! Let's listen to his words:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, NOT BY CONSTRAINT, but by willingly; NOT FOR FILTHY LUCRE, but of a ready mind; NEITHER AS BEING LORDS OVER GOD'S HERITAGE, BUT BEING EXAMPLES to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (I Peter 5:1-4) (Emphasis mine)

by Diane M. Schoeppner