Share This Episode
Renewing Your Mind R.C. Sproul Logo

Papal Infallibility

Renewing Your Mind / R.C. Sproul
The Truth Network Radio
November 26, 2024 12:01 am

Papal Infallibility

Renewing Your Mind / R.C. Sproul

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1850 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


November 26, 2024 12:01 am

Why does the Roman Catholic Church claim that the pope is infallible? Today, R.C. Sproul surveys the historical, political, and doctrinal factors that contributed to the rise of the papacy.

Get R.C. Sproul’s book Are We Together? and lifetime streaming access to his teaching series on Roman Catholicism for your donation of any amount:  https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/3712/roman-catholicism

Meet Today’s Teacher:
 
R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was known for his ability to winsomely and clearly communicate deep, practical truths from God’s Word. He was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew’s Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.
 
Meet the Host:
 
Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, host of the Ask Ligonier podcast, and a graduate of Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne, Australia. Nathan joined Ligonier in 2012 and lives in Central Florida with his wife and four children.

Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

It's interesting, I think, for Protestants to understand that the notion, the doctrine, of papal infallibility is of recent definition. It's only a little over a hundred years old. Did you realize that? Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Renewing Your Mind.

It's good to have you with us. The pope is regarded by Rome as the chief pastor of the whole church, the vicar of Christ upon the earth. And if you watch the news or see the headlines on social media, you quickly realize that the pope's influence extends far beyond the church. But this fairly new notion of the pope's infallibility is a claim that we need to examine.

And R.C. Sproul does that today in a series in which he carefully and respectfully looks at the doctrines at the heart of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide. And don't forget that until tomorrow, you can request this series and his book, Are We Together?, when you make a year-end donation of any amount at renewingyourmind.org. Here's Dr. Sproul on the question of papal infallibility. Today we're going to continue our series of lectures on Roman Catholic theology, and the theme of our concern in this session will be the doctrine of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility as an official doctrine of the church, a doctrine that became of the status called De Fide, that is to be embraced by all true and faithful Catholic people, was declared on July the 18th, 1870, by Vatican Council Number One. Vatican Council Number One, or the First Vatican Council, had as its presiding pope Pope Pius IX. Pius IX and Vatican Council Number One declared the doctrine of papal infallibility July 18th, 1870 by a vote, incidentally, of 533 for and to against.

The vote was not unanimous, but it certainly was overwhelming, 533 to 2. Now, it's interesting, I think, for Protestants to understand that the notion, the doctrine of papal infallibility is of recent definition. It's only a little over 100 years old since the Roman Catholic Church has declared papal infallibility. Also, I want you to understand that this concept of papal infallibility is a post-Reformation definition.

That is, with all of the controversies involved between the Reformers and the papacy during the 16th century, at that period of church history, papal infallibility, though it was espoused by many and believed by many and assumed by even still more, nevertheless had not become the official declared doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. However, it's important for us to remember as well that even though the doctrine's definition is only a little over 100 years old, the concept and indeed the working conviction has its roots very, very early in church history. So, before we look at the actual decrees of Vatican I and their significance and later formulations and developments, I'd like to spend a few moments this morning on historical background leading up to Vatican I. The notion of the monarchical episcopacy, that is the idea of a reigning primate of the church, as I mentioned a moment ago, has its roots in very early developments in church history. The church at Rome, the fellowship of Christian people in the city of Rome, has been prominent in the history of Christendom since the very first century, indeed since apostolic days. We notice that the epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is of great weight and of great significance. And tradition has it, and this is one tradition that most evidence that we do have, at least extra biblically, would tend to confirm, is that both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul were martyred in the city of Rome in the year 65 A.D. during those persecutions of the church under the leadership of the Emperor Nero.

One of the most important documents that survives from the first century is the Epistle of Clement, which is dated usually from 93 to 97, and for general purposes we sort of say around the year 95. The Epistle of Clement, written at the end of the first century by one who is identified as the Bishop of Rome, indicates something of the very early strength of the position of the Bishop of Rome in the Christian church. But the interesting thing about Clement's letter to the Corinthians was that it follows two epistles by the Apostle Paul. There are at least two epistles that Paul wrote to this troublesome congregation in Corinth, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and I think we often are left with bated breath after reading the Corinthian correspondence in the New Testament to see how the Corinthian community responded to the apostolic admonitions and rebuke and censure that came in those two epistles. Well, if we read 1 Clement, the indication would be is that the Corinthian church did not do too well after their admonition from the Apostle Paul because it became necessary 30 or 40 or 50 years later for the Bishop of Rome to intervene in a local situational problem in the Corinthian church. He beseeches them to get their act in order and calls attention back to the apostolic admonition that they had received from Paul. Clement does not sound like a 20th century pope giving an ultimatum or an encyclical, commanding on the strength of his own office that the Corinthian people repent.

But he does justify his own pastoral concern for the local situation in Corinth through a more or less pastoral shepherding type of a mood. But it is interesting that we have this incidence of the Bishop of Rome giving pastoral admonition to the church at Corinth, which would be out of his immediate geographical jurisdiction. Alright, in the Vatican Council, the dogmatic constitution that declared papal infallibility came under the title pastor aeternus, pastor aeternus, in which the primacy of the pope was established in three stages, which were called petrine, that is in terms of his succession and descent from Peter, that stage which was called perpetual, and thirdly that which was called Roman. Let's take a look at some of the statements from the council itself. Here's a statement from the text of pastor aeternus. With daily increasing hatred on all sides, the gates of hell are rising to overturn the church if it were possible.

Remember the background, the mood of bread against papal and Roman power? To overturn the church if it were possible against its divinely established foundation. Therefore, we judge it necessary for the protection, safety, and increase of the Catholic flock with the approval of the sacred council to propose the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy in which the strength and solidity of the whole church consists to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, and to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors so pernicious to the Lord's flock. As usual, in a conciliar statement, the church is not content merely to make declarations, but also to give canons of errors, such as we find in the canons on justification at the Council of Trent, where the usual formula denouncing the heresies that are denied, as well as that which is positively affirmed, will read something like this, if anyone says a man is justified by faith alone without any infusion of grace, etc., meaning by that the sole competence and the remission of sins by Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, let him be anathema, let him be cursed or excommunicated. So, you have these negative canons that are usually associated with conciliar statements, council statements, to make clear what is being affirmed and what is being denied. Let's look at some of those canons of Vatican I. Vatican I declares in its first chapter excommunicate or anathema anyone who says, quote, that, blessed Peter the apostle is not constituted by Christ our Lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant, or that he received directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy only of honor and not of true and proper jurisdiction.

Here's the petering dimension. Here the church is defining the papacy of Peter, that Peter is not simply one of the group of the apostles, but he has primacy not only of honor, but of jurisdiction over all of the other apostles of the early church. The second canon, it declares excommunicate anyone who says, quote, that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord himself or by divine law that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal church.

Not only do we have a succession of bishops, see, but a succession of the primacy of Peter over the bishops is affirmed by Vatican I, or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy. Excommunicate is anyone who does not believe that Peter had primacy. Excommunicate is anyone who does not believe what? That that primacy had succession.

All right. Excommunicate is anyone who does not believe that that succession of primacy is located where? In the Roman pontiff, in the Pope at Rome. Later, canon reads, the council declares excommunicate anyone who says, quote, that the Roman pontiff has the office only of inspection or of direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those pertaining to the discipline and the government of the church spread throughout the whole world. That is to say that the papal authority is not merely a teaching authority, but it is a governmental authority, having jurisdiction over the discipline and the government of the whole church.

So this is what they call the primacy of jurisdiction. Now, later on in the Constitution, we have the definition of infallibility, and let's take a moment for that. Read the statement from Vatican I, from Pastor Eternus. Quote, the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining faith and morals. And therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the church.

Now, there are a load of loaded concepts in this definition. First of all, papal infallibility is restricted to those utterances of the pope that are given ex cathedra with respect to matters of faith and morals when he's giving a decision in behalf of the whole church. That does not mean that if you would go up on the street in Italy and you ran into Paul VI on the street and you asked him for directions to how to get to the nearest pizza parlor, and he told you how to get to the nearest pizza parlor, you cannot assume that he has given you impeccably accurate instructions and directions on how to proceed.

He may send you to the wrong street or even to the wrong section of the city. He's eminently fallible with respect to matters like that. There is no infallibility of person merely of office only when speaking on matters of faith and morals, speaking from the chair, exercising the office of the pope. Not in every comment that he makes, every letter that he writes, every statement that comes from his lips is he considered infallible. Notice that according to this statement that this infallibility is not something that is intrinsic, but it comes through the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter. He is infallible as a special gift, as a special divine assistance given to him as part of the broader notion of the promise, according to the Roman Catholic Church, of the infallibility that Christ gives to his church. Great controversy followed the last line, and therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the church. The issue which has gone on for quite some time, does the pope speak ecstasy that is out of himself, or does he speak out of the broader context of the whole church?

Is papal infallibility something that the pope can exercise unilaterally, or must it be done in consultation with, in a spirit of collegiality, with the bishops and the cardinals of the church? Those are some questions that became immediately crucial after this definition of Vatican I. And again, like sessions of the Council of Trent, Vatican I never ended in the sense of having a formal completion and dismissal because of the outbreak of war and the invasion of Victor Emmanuel, and others, things were suspended. So, you're left with a super important council with a super important decision that didn't have a chance to pie up all the loose ends. And so, the immediate reactions are very interesting to what happened to the council and to the Catholic church in 1870.

Let's look at some of the reactions to the decree. First place, the leading German theologian and historian of the day, a man by the name of Johann Joseph Ignatz von Derlinger, refused to conform to this decree of infallibility for which he was summarily excommunicated. He himself did not start any kind of new Catholic church. There was no schism that he was involved with, but a schism did occur, and a group of Roman Catholics withdrew from the communion over this decree. And by, say, 1950, there were over 100,000 adherents in this group that left Rome over the infallibility decree of 1870, and this group is called the Old Catholic Church. Have you ever had any contact with the Old Catholic Church, virtually Catholic in every respect, with the exception of no doctrine of the papacy, no primacy of the pope? I've had contact with it in Europe. The Old Catholic Church is found substantially in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and Austria.

You don't find it outside of Western Europe, really, of any significance. But an interesting reaction is that those who were in favor of the infallibility of the pope began to hail this particular decision of Vatican I with all kinds of extravagant statements, making it sound, in a journalistic sense, as if the pope did have intrinsic powers of infallibility, and as if anything he said on the telephone or walking down the street was nothing less than revelatory statements from God himself. And some even made comparisons of the infallibility of God and the infallibility of the pope.

But that was not part of the official documentation of Vatican I, although there were extravagant claims for the pope in a popular mode after the council. In addition to the negative reaction of Derlinger, there was the reaction by the political leaders of the day. In 1872, Bismarck, who was of course the leader of Germany at that time, got into some disputes with the local bishops, and the local bishops were being critical of some of his policies and were calling him to change some of these policies. And Bismarck responded publicly by saying, why should I pay attention to them? They, that is the bishops, are only hirelings without any power. They have no authority. And that's the way Bismarck interpreted the decree of Pastor Aeternus, of Vatican I, that that left the bishops with absolutely no power. He said, they're hirelings, they're insignificant.

I don't have to pay attention to them. Who are they? Bishops. At that point, the bishops responded very indignantly, saying that they received their authority directly and immediately from the institution of Jesus Christ.

And they spoke in the name and authority of Jesus Christ. And in 1872, Pius IX affirmed that the bishops indeed had their authority directly and immediately by Jesus Christ and were not excluded from the authority of the church by means of papal infallibility. So then that raised the question, well, okay, how much authority does the pope have with respect to the bishops? How much do the bishops have?

What is the real line and staff? Is it the pope out of himself? Is it the pope with the bishops?

There has to be a consensus. The question that Burkauer raises in his earlier volume, Conflict with Rome, is that he uses an interesting title for the chapter. He uses the Latin phrase casa finita est. This phrase was a statement used by Augustine after the Pelagian controversy was supposedly settled in the fourth century.

Augustine responded casa finita est, which means the matter is finished. And that's the question that was being raised by theologians earlier in this century. Is the question of papal infallibility settled once and for all? Did Vatican I end all debate, all discussion with a clear declaration of papal infallibility that is irreformable? Well, this question came up again at Vatican II. And so let's look now in the time that we have left with modern reactions to the classical formulation of papal infallibility.

In the section of Vatican II on the constitution of the church under the section lumen gentium, this matter of the infallibility of the pope is treated in some detail. The basic spirit of Vatican II was radically different from Vatican I. Vatican I took place in the context of fear, reactionary, emotional upheaval. Vatican II took place in a spirit of conciliation, a spirit of ironicism. For example, in 1870 Protestants were referred to at Vatican I simply as schismatics and heretics. In Vatican II Protestants were referred to as separated brethren. Remember the spirit of John XXIII that he wanted for the Vatican Council II was the spirit of agoronamento.

Do you remember that? Agoronamento. What does agoronamento mean?

Agoronamento. Let the windows be opened and let fresh air blow through the cathedral and blow through the church. That's what he wanted, the freshness and a spirit of humility that is to characterize this council. And I would say that basically the spirit of Vatican II was much different from Vatican I. It was much more open.

It was more warm and kind and charitable and all of that. Nevertheless, in Lumen Gentium Vatican II has a massive confirmation of Vatican I regarding the primacy and the infallibility of the pope. That the pope has primacy over the church and that when he speaks ex cathedra he speaks infallibly is clearly with no uncertain terms reaffirmed by Vatican Council II.

Now things are added to it that put it somewhat in a better situation of balance with the additional spheres of authority of the bishops, etc., but in no way does Vatican II diminish or denigrate the firm affirmation made by Vatican I regarding the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals. Let's look at some of the statements that are made, however, concerning the bishops of Vatican II. First of all, the bishops are also defined as being successors of the apostles. The bishops have apostolic succession. They don't have the primacy of the apostles, just as the pope comes from Peter who has primacy over the other apostles, so the bishops are descended from the apostles.

So do you see the position? The bishops aren't hirelings. The bishops are just as significant as the other apostles were to Peter. Secondly, the authority of the bishop is by ordination and consecration, not by papal confirmation or appointment. That is, the authority of the office of bishop resides in the sacrament of his ordination and his consecration.

Why do they point that out? That his authority comes from where? From God through the sacrament, not from papal authority to the authority of the bishop. However, individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility. Vatican II makes that distinction. The pope does have the prerogative of infallibility. The individual bishop does not. However, the bishops can proclaim Christian doctrine infallibly.

That's where it really becomes a little fuzzy. There is a sense in which bishops can proclaim Christian doctrine infallibly. That is, when they are united with the pope, when they concur on a single viewpoint, or when together in ecumenical counsel they agree with unity of mind together with the pope, they are preaching the gospel, they are more or less participating in that infallibility.

But it's a collegial concept, a corporate concept, not an individual concept of infallibility. That is reserved for the pope. Studying the history of the papal office reveals political intrigue, ecumenical infighting, and seasons of great corruption. Those who were careful students of the Bible were concerned about that.

By the 16th century, the Protestant Reformation was born. This is the Tuesday edition of Renewing Your Mind. I'm your host, Nathan W. Bingham.

Why are we still concerned about these differences? Well, simply put, because the gospel is at stake. That's why I'd like to encourage you to continue your study with R.C. Sproul, taking the time to work through this entire series, as we're only featuring three of the messages this week, and to read Dr. Sproul's book, Are We Together? You can get both when you make a year-end donation in support of Renewing Your Mind and Ligonier Ministries at renewingyourmind.org. This offer does end tomorrow, so be quick to have this series added to your library and to get a copy of Are We Together put in the mail for you. Use the convenient link in the podcast show notes or respond to the offer at renewingyourmind.org. Well, you may have heard that Roman Catholics worship Mary, but is that true? R.C. Sproul will address that tomorrow, here on Renewing Your Mind.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-11-26 03:35:55 / 2024-11-26 03:44:58 / 9

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime