Some Orthodox allege that the Catholic Church invented the dogma of Papal Infallibility and assert that it has no basis in the early Church and hence must be rejected. While they often admit Papal Primacy, which is asserted by numerous saints venerated by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, they outright deny Papal Infallibility.
They ask, why would the Popes have allowed bishops and theologians to transverse long and dangerous journeys on foot to attend Ecumenical Councils if matters could be dogmatically settled and declared simply by a papal ex cathedra statement? How can a Catholic counter the argument that Papal Infallibility is false since it was not practiced in the early Church?
What Papal Infallibility Is and Is Not
Before we answer this question, it is important to recall again what Papal Infallibility is and what it is not. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) provides the definition:
“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church (Denzinger 3074).”
Therefore, to satisfy the conditions required for an ex cathedra papal teaching, the Pope must:
- Define a doctrine regarding faith or morals.
- Express that he is establishing this definition by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (that is, as pastor and teacher of all Christians and not merely as a “private theologian”).
- State that this definition must be held by the universal Church (that is, all Christians must adhere to it, not just a segment of the Church).
It is only when all of these conditions are satisfied that the Holy Ghost protects the Pope from error. Note that the First Vatican Council also teaches that the ex-cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are “irreformable [unchangeable] of themselves.”
Father John Hardon, in his Catholic Dictionary, explains that:
“The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.”
This ex cathedra power has been invoked at least twice in the past two centuries.[1] On both occasions the Pope infallibly defined a Marian doctrine. However, it should be noted that in each case, the Pope made it a point to demonstrate how these doctrines are contained in the apostolic Deposit of Faith and Sacred Scripture.
Popes can and do err in matters as personal theologians, as seen in the views of Pope John XXII. Likewise, not every document issued by a Pope is infallible. Encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, motu proprios, and other papal documents are not automatically infallible. Their authority varies based on the level of teaching and the manner in which they are promulgated. It is possible for them to contain error, and finding errors in such a document should never scandalize to doubting any point of infallible Catholic dogma.
[Editor’s Note: If you wish to study the Church’s formal teaching on Papal Infallibility, then read Chapter IV of Pastor Aeternus, the dogmatic constitution promulgated by the First Vatican Council (1870).]
“Papal Infallibility” in the Early Church
While this dogma was not expressed precisely until 1870, it should be understood that the bishops at the First Vatican Council would not have made this declaration if they had not found this teaching within Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition.
Papal Infallibility of course rests on Our Lord’s famous words to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19. St. Peter exercises his authority when he defines that the Church is open to both Jew and Gentile (circumcised and uncircumcised) in Acts 10. Note that the Scriptures even emphasize: “While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word” (v. 44), which is a clear sign of the divine inspiration and infallibility of Peter’s teaching.
St. Peter again uses this authority when he settles the debate raging among the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (circa 50 A.D.). We are told: “The apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them … And all the multitude held their peace” (see Acts 15: 6-12). This is an impressive scene. We can imagine these great Christian leaders debating back and forth. Yet once Peter speaks and makes his definition by the authority of the Holy Ghost (v. 8), the rest fall silent in agreement. This scene is likewise scriptural evidence that the early Church acknowledged that Peter (the Pope) had the power to bind and teach infallibly.
Moreover, we see the successors of St. Peter using this authority and the Church acknowledging it. Pope Clement used his papal authority when he wrote to the Church in Corinth (70 A.D.). This was a church founded by St. Paul. Moreover, St. John the Apostle remained alive and governed in Asia Minor. He was much closer to Corinth, but it was Clement, Peter’s successor, who issued the definitions binding the Church.
The Council of Chalcedon had to assert the teachings of the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.), including the dogma that Mary is the Mother of God. It had to dispel the erroneous teachings of a council falsely purporting itself to be the Second Council of Ephesus. Today we know it as the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449 A.D.). Yet the Council adopted as its formal teaching the Tome of Pope Leo the Great. In fact, after having heard Pope Leo’s definition, the Council Fathers acclaimed: “Peter has spoken through Leo.”
In that same century, St. Augustine famously said in a sermon, “Roma locuta, causa finita est” (Rome has spoken, the matter is settled). He was referring to Pope Innocent I promulgating condemnations against the Pelagian heresy. The errors had already been condemned by local synods (Carthage in 412 and Milev in 416), but their rulings were only binding in North Africa. For it to be universal, the Pope’s authority was needed. Augustine knew the definition was infallible, but he was all too familiar with fallen human nature. The Church Doctor therefore added: “The cause is finished, would that the error was as quickly finished.” These words ring just as true today with respect to every infallible papal pronouncement.
These are just a few of the examples in which we see that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is implicitly contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
The “Development” of Doctrine
It should come as no surprise that after Our Lord’s Ascension debate arose among the Apostles on whether converted Gentiles needed to submit to circumcision or other aspects of the Mosaic Law. It was declared that they did not. Likewise, after the death of St. John and the close of the Apostolic Age, debate continued to exist around matters of Christ’s nature. Was Christ one or two persons? Was He human only, divine only, or both? Did God the Father die on the Cross too?
These and many other issues were settled dogmatically at the various Ecumenical Councils of the Church over the centuries. While objective truth always existed, our knowledge of Christian truths can deepen and become clearer over time. We see this, as the Orthodox will admit, in the declaration of doctrine in the first seven Ecumenical Councils. For instance, while Christ was always, from the moment of His Incarnation, a divine Person with a fully human and a fully divine nature, this was not fully settled in the Universal Church until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
In the authentic development of doctrine, both the expression and the meaning of the dogma remain unchanged. A dogma cannot “evolve” to “meet new circumstances” by meaning something different from what the Church held previously. While the Church may gain greater insights into a particular dogma, this deepening will never contradict the previous understanding.[2]
This process does take place, especially as saints across time contemplate Divine Mysteries. True developments lead to greater theological clarity, increased reverence and piety, and a strengthening of Catholic life. When the opposite results – confusion, ambiguity, impiety, weakening of Catholic life – it is a tell-tale sign of error and not of development.[3]
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Cardinal John Henry Newman, a prominent 19th-century theologian and convert to Catholicism, wrote a seminal work entitled An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine in 1845. In his essay, Newman explores the idea that Christian doctrine undergoes a process of development over time. He argues that the core truths of Christianity remain constant, but their understanding deepens as the Church engages with different historical and cultural contexts. Newman proposes seven “notes” (i.e., characteristics) that help distinguish authentic developments of the same unchanging doctrine from corruptions or perversions of doctrine. These “notes” are as follows:
- Preservation of Type: The new development should maintain the essential characteristics or “type” of the original revelation.
- Continuity of Principles: The development should maintain a continuity of principles while adapting to changing circumstances.
- Power of Assimilation: True developments have the capacity to assimilate new ideas without losing their essential nature.
- Logical Sequence: The development should follow a logical and coherent sequence from the original revelation.
- Anticipation of Its Future: Genuine developments have an anticipation of future developments, even if not fully realized at the time.
- Conservative Action upon Its Past: Authentic developments conserve and incorporate elements of the past, recognizing their importance in the ongoing tradition.
- Chronic Vigor: True developments demonstrate continuous vitality and growth, avoiding stagnation.
Conclusion
Cardinal Newman in this work has shown how the Church has lived and breathed throughout the ages. She is based on revealed fundamental principles, yet the understanding of her unchanging doctrine is able to develop over time. That doctrine, however, is firmly rooted in the Deposit of Faith that is Divine Revelation. Just as Christ became incarnate in the fullness of time, so the understanding of doctrine happens in conjunction with the time and place of its organic growth. The Church is able to deepen her understanding of Divine Mysteries over the ages and she thereby always remains the “one, true, Catholic, and apostolic Church.”
Similarly, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, Her Assumption, and Papal Infallibility – among other matters – were better known only over time. But that does not mean they did not exist in the early Church even if they were not preached or defined. We can know that God is present in the Catholic Church because He testifies to the Catholic Church by manifesting miracles, which continued throughout all the centuries since the Orthodox separated from her.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception (Ineffablis Deus, 1854), and Pius XII infallibly defined the Assumption of Our Lady (Munificentissimus Deus, 1950).
[2] An excellent article to read on this subject is John Vennari’s “The Oath Against Modernism vs. the ‘Hermeneutic of Continutiy.’”
[3] Catholics should avoid using the phrase “dogma evolves” because the very word ‘evolution’ generally implies “change into something different.”