impeccability and infallibility

Often discussions of the papacy confuse impeccability with infallibility. But when the Church teaches that according to Christ’s promise she has been preserved from error in matters of faith and morals, she does not also claim that either her children or her pastors are free from sin. In fact, she expressly and explicitly denies it. Cardinal Newman writes in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics:

I allow there are true charges which can be brought against us; certainly, not only do I not deny it, but I hardly could deny it without heresy. I say distinctly, did I take upon me to deny everything which could be said against us, I should be proving too much, I should startle the Catholic theologian as well as Protestants; for what would it be but implying that the Church contains none within her pale but the just and holy? This was the heresy of the Novatians and Donatists of old time; it was the heresy of our Lollards, and others, such as Luther, who maintained that bad men are not members of the Church, that none but the predestinate are her members. But this no Catholic asserts, every Catholic denies. Every Catholic has ever denied it, back to the very time of the Apostles and their Divine Master; and He and they deny it. Christ denies it, St. Paul denies it, the Catholic Church denies it; our Lord expressly said that the Church was to be like a net, which gathered of every kind, not only of the good, but of the bad too. Such was His Church; it does not prove then that we are not His Church, because we are like His Church; rather our being like the Primitive Christian body, is a reason for concluding that we are one with it. We cannot make His Church better than He made her; we must be content with her as He made her, or not pretend to follow Him. He said, "Many are called, few are chosen;" men come into the Church, and then they fall. They are not indeed sinning at the very time when they are brought into His family, at the time they are new born; but as children grow up, and converts live on, the time too frequently comes, when they fall under the power of one kind of temptation or other, and fall from grace, either for a while or for good. Thus, not indeed by the divine wish and intention, but by the divine permission, and man's perverseness, there is a vast load of moral evil existing in the Church; an enemy has sown weeds there, and those weeds remain among the wheat till the harvest. And this evil in the Church is not found only in the laity, but among the clergy too; there have been bad priests, bad bishops, bad monks, bad nuns, and bad Popes. If this, then, is the charge made against us, that we do not all live up to our calling, but that there are Catholics, lay and clerical, who may be proved to be worldly, revengeful, licentious, slothful, cruel, nay, may be unbelievers, we grant it at once. We not only grant it but we zealously maintain it. "In a great house," says St. Paul, "there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour." There are, alas, plenty of children of the Church, who by their bad lives insult and disgrace their Mother.

commentary upon his post

The subject of the post is introduced by a quotation and a link to the source from which the quotation was drawn.

The Vatican issued a document Tuesday ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict reasserting that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "true" church and that other denominations do not hold "the means to salvation." [article]

Next is his immediate reaction to Benedict’s statement—or rather, since he gives no sign of having read the document itself, to the article about Benedict’s statement.

Well isn't that precious.

Notice the ironic use of the word “precious.” The word does not mean “of high value” but the opposite. Yet as amusing and effective as irony can be, it is not a substitute for thinking or reasoning. For example, rather than critiquing this post I could have said, “Gee, your profound insights, thoughtful reactions, and well-informed opinions in this post are precious.” But I would rather use reason than irony since the calm, passionate defense of a belief more easily opens the way for response or even refutation. In the next sentence, he clarifies his personal reaction.

And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then.

Here are two implied arguments. The first is that Matthew 25:31-46 somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. The second is that the history of the papacy somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. Neither argument, however, can be refuted because neither argument is clearly presented.

I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity.

Here the author lets us know which emotional states he passed through in the moments immediately after reading the news article.

It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

This is the second most interesting part of the whole post because he manages to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. The first is the Appeal to Incredulity (e.g., “I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity”) and the second is the Appeal to Vanity (e.g., “You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity”) [SOURCE]. Interestingly, the author manages to blend both of them into a single appeal that we can, for the sake of accuracy, call the Incredulity-Vanity Appeal. However, no honest thinker can accept the argument that because this writer does not understand how intelligent Catholics assent to their faith, that faith must therefore be wrong.

Also, according to this author, the “nature of the Roman bishop” is “[quite literally] self-righteous.” Due to an ambiguity, this charge may be taken in two ways. The first way is if Roman bishop, which properly denotes the pope’s person, is a metonym for Roman bishopric, which denotes his office. Or, if the words are taken as they stand, that the any pope is, presumably in the exercise of his office, self-righteous. What then is meant by “quite literally” self-righteous? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-righteous” as “piously sure of one's own righteousness” [SOURCE]. The word “piously” here is pejorative, meaning not “marked by earnest devoutness” but “marked by false devoutness” [2b]. The question at hand then is whether the papal office as such is sure of its own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness, or whether every pope as a pope has been sure of his own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness. And the second sense must be universal to every bishop of Rome, for a flaw in the nature of a thing must be universal to all instances of that thing.

The first sense, while supported by a later correspondence in which the author said “the papacy in and of itself is a self-righteous post,” is quite literally impossible since an office, having no consciousness, cannot be sure of anything. And the second sense—that in the exercise of his office the pope acts in a manner marked by false devoutness—begs the question, assuming that the bishop of Rome has not been granted his office by Christ.

Now we come to the most interesting part of post, the imaginary conversation between a Protestant and the pope.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"
Pope: "Because I said I was!"

In this passage the author has the pope claim that the ground of papal infallibility is the pope’s own assertion rather than, as Catholic’s believe, Christ’s promise to his Church. This is distortion number one.

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."
Pope: "Take it back!"

Here the author implies that every pope is merely a petty, power-hungry person incensed by disagreement. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the popes, however, easily refutes this notion (vid. J. N. D. Kelly’s Dictionary of Popes). Distortion number two.

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."
Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

Finally, in his third distortion, the author suggests that in his condemnation of error every pope secretly wishes that those in error burn forever in hell. There is no evidence, however, to support such a wild claim.

Thus we have three distortions of Catholicism, two fallacious appeals, and two implied arguments. (Apparently, I miscounted the number of appeals earlier.)

Open Letter to James White: A Response to His Article "Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|"

The article may be found here: http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

Dear James White,

Although there are several excellent points you make - some of which I had never considered before - I think your reading is guilty of precisely what you accuse Catholics. You say:

This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter's confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him!

Actually, we can accept it. One of Christ's purposes in the Incarnation was to establish and bring all mankind into the true religion; therefore, it is not unusual that at the very moment his disciples make a profession of faith, He confirms them in that profession and promises perpetuity for the church which He will build ("and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"). Furthermore, your argument here is unconvincing for several reasons. First, because Scripture is not a systematic narrative; second, because the argument is based the assumption that Scripture has no sudden or unexpected transitions (when in fact the Bible is full of them); and third, because the same argument you use may be used against you. The immediate context of the following verses (which you do not quote) shows clearly that Christ was speaking directly to Peter and the apostles.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As I understand it, your argument is that by switching from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative pronoun in verse 18, Christ signifies something other than Peter as "this rock." You appeal to the context to support this, accuse Catholics of ignoring that context, and yet avoid what implication the use of the second person in verse 19 has on your argument. If you want to argue that at first He was talking to Peter and then He was talking about Peter's confession - and this, because Jesus did not use the second person pronoun for a third time in the same sentence - then does it not make just as much sense to argue that, since at first He was talking to Peter and then again talking to Peter, He was probably talking to him all along? Even if you want to say that Peter was the representative of the apostles, as he is elsewhere in Scripture, He was still talking to him in the beginning of verse 18, and to him throughout verse 19, so why not in the second half of verse 18 as well?

Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th is Peter's confession.

Actually, verse 19 tells against it. And it is not quite "seemlessly," as you said. Verse 19 is not directly about Jesus as Messiah but rather about how Christ gave His apostles the authority to forgive sins. It is about how Christ provided His church with the means to continue His saving work, that is, the work of reconciling the human race to the Most High. Consequently, reading the previous verse as related to Christ's gift to His church is not fantastic but natural. And while I can readily admit that verse 19 is indirectly about the identity of Jesus as Messiah (for the apostolic community He left on earth proclaims Him and continues His mission), I cannot understand why you say verse 19 supports your reading.

I can grant however that there is a secondary sense in which "this rock" refers to Peter's confession. First, because Christ built his church on the one to whom that divine revelation was given ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"); second, because this sacred doctrine is the first infallible teaching of the church (for the church cannot err when it teaches those truths which God has revealed); and third, because this same revelation is the most important proclamation of the church at all times (that is, relative to sinful humanity, not considered in itself). But the primary sense still refers to Peter himself, for at least two reasons. First, because Christ is making a pun; and Peter's newly invented name is clearly the object of that pun. And second, because Scripture says elsewhere that the church is built on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). Consequently, it is neither strange nor strained to claim that in this passage Christ is building his church on the rock of Peter. Your reading only "commands the most logical grammatical sense" if you overlook the fact that Christ is making a joke. If I may be permitted the expression, you ignore the theology of the pun! :)

I welcome any criticism or comments you have. Indeed, I would be in your delighted if in your busy life you found time to respond to this letter.

Your brother in Christ, etc.

Open Letter on Pope St. Gregory the Great and the papacy

This letter was written to refute claim (make by John Calvin) that St. Gregory the Great rejected the doctrine of papal supremacy. It divides into two sections: three quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia and then ten quotations (with links to the text) from St. Gregory himself.

A---,

In its article on Gregory, the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

A large number of letters relate to the reforms instituted by the pope (Epp., II, xlvii; III, xxxvi; IV, ix,xxiii-xxvii, xxix; V, ii; IX, i, xi, ccii-cciv; XIV, ii). His care over the election of a new bishop whenever a vacancy occurs is shown in many cases, and if, after his examination of the elect, which is always a searching one, he finds him unfitted for the post, he has no hesitation in rejecting him and commanding another to be chosen (Epp., I, lv, lvi; VII, xxxviii; X, vii).

The same article includes a passage from the Protestant historian Dudden:

In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever (Dudden, I, 475).

Finally, the article addresses in passing the controversy at hand:

There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii).

This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epp., IX, xxvi, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

I had hoped to provide links to each letter, but unfortunately the citations refer to an edition of his letters which is not the one found online at New Advent.

"Epistolae", ed. P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist.", I, II (Berlin, 1891-99); this is the authoritative edition of the text of the Epistles (all references given above are to this edition)

Sigh. Why isn't every book in the world online yet?

That did not deter me, however, from finding other supports for the position defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia, i.e., that Gregory as Bishop of Rome claimed authority over the universal Church - some of which have already been mentioned. Encouraged by Dudden, I found the following ten claims make by Pope St. Gregory the Great about the Apostolic See (with links to New Advent, all emphasises are my own):

(1) From Book III, Letter 30:

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, especial demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.

(2) From Book IV, Letter 2:

...since after such a schism had taken place about nothing, it was right that the Apostolic See should take heed, with the view of guarding in all respects the unity of the Universal Church in the minds of priests.

(3) From Book IX, Letter 81 (to Maximus, Bishop of Salona):

Although to what was faulty in thy ordination at the first thou hast added serious evil through the fault of disobedience, yet we, tempering with becoming moderation the authority of the Apostolic See , have never been incensed against thee to the extent that the case demanded. [Why would Gregory rebuke what was faulty in the ordination of another bishop, and reference the "authority of the Apostolic See" in an ominous way, if he thought that the Bishop of Rome had no authority over other bishops?]

(4) From Book IX, Letter 111 (to Virgilius, Bishop of Arelate):

This [i.e., asking that the pope confirm the rights granted to the monastery] he [i.e., Childebert] did as knowing such reverence to be paid by the faithful to the Apostolic See that what had been settled by its decree no molestation of unlawful usurpation would thereafter shake.

(5) From Book V, Letter 52 (to the same):

But, since it is well known to all whence the holy faith proceeded in the regions of Gaul, when your Fraternity asks for a repetition of the old custom of the Apostolic See, what is it but that a good offspring reverts to the bosom of its mother? [A parent and child may equally possesses the same nature, but one retains authority.]

(6) From Book V, Letter 54 (to all the Bishops of Gaul under Childebert):

But if a contention (which may the Divine power avert) should happen to arise on matters of faith, or any business come up about which there may perchance be serious doubt, and he should be in need of the judgment of the Apostolic See in place of his own greatness, we have directed him that, having diligently enquired into the truth, he should take care to bring the question under our cognizance by a report from himself, to the end that it may be terminated by a suitable sentence so as to remove all doubt. [Why would Gregory say that the judgment of the Apostolic See will terminate and remove all doubt on a question about matters of faith, unless he thought that the See of Peter possessed an authority which the all bishops of Gaul lacked?]

(7) From Book II, Letter 48 (to Columbus, in dealing with errant bishops):

But we, who, though unworthy, have undertaken the government of the Apostolic See in the stead of Peter the prince of the apostles, are compelled by the very office of our pontificate to resist the general enemy by all the efforts in our power. [Why does he mention Peter as prince of the apostles here if not to reinforce that his jurisdiction extents even to, I think, Africa, where Columbus was?]

(8) From Book IX, Letter 12 (to John, bishop of Syracuse):

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see. [This was quoted above; notice that the last line removes the charge of arrogance -- of which you yourself know that the saintly Gregory was not guilty.]

(9) From Book IX, Letter 68 (to Eusebius):

And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,-- though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force... [why would the decrees of a synod have no force without the consent of the Apostolic See unless it possessed a unique authority in the Episcopate?]

(10) From Book V, Letter 21:

But, when this my brother [John] with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,-the most serene Lord gives me a somewhat distressing intimation, in that he has not rebuked him who is acting proudly, but endeavours to bend me from my purpose, who in this cause of defending the truth of the Gospels and Canons, of humility and rectitude; whereas my aforesaid brother [John] and fellow-priest is acting against evangelical principles and also against the blessed Apostle Peter, and against all the churches, and against the ordinances of the Canons. [Why would one who falsely calls himself "universal bishop" be acting against (1) evangelical principles, (2) the prince of the apostles, and (3) all the churches, unless it was because he was usurping the place of the one to whom that title properly belonged?]

You can find more if you do a search for "Registrum Epistolarum Apostolic See" on New Advent. I found 45 hits.

I think all these sufficiently establish that Gregory believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Bishop of Rome possessed authority that surpassed that of other bishops - which is all I have tried to show, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether that authority exists under the New Covenant according to the will of Christ.

Have I convinced you?

Update: He said yes.

condemnations of the Holy See

In the censure of books, which offend against doctrine or discipline, it is a common rule to take sentences out of them in the author's own words, whether those are words in themselves good or bad, and to affix some note of condemnation to them in the sense in which they occur in the book in question. Thus it may happen that even what seems at first sight a true statement, is condemned for being made the shelter of an error; for instance: "Faith justifies when it works," or "There is no religion where there is no charity," may be taken in a good sense; but each proposition is condemned in Quesnell, because it is false as he uses it. (Newman Difficulties "The Syllabus")