Articles by Norman L. Geisler
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
Norman L. Geisler
President & CEO of Southern Evangelical Seminary
Professor of Theology and Apologetics
B.A., Wheaton College
Th.B., William Tyndale College
M.A. Wheaton Graduate School
Ph.D., Loyola University, Chicago, IL
------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute
------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian
Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any
way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for
circulation as "freeware," without charge. All
reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright
notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research
Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or
the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes
all of its content with the exception of a few brief
quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data
file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for
resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright
1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC,
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693.
------------------------------------------------------------
"What Think Ye of Rome? Part Four: The Catholic-Protestant
Debate on Papal Infallibility" (an article from the
Christian Research Journal, Fall 1994, page 24) by Norman L.
Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
*SUMMARY*
Papal infallibility was formalized at the First Vatican
Council, A.D. 1870. It is required belief for Roman
Catholics but is rejected by evangelicals. On examination,
the major biblical texts used to defend this dogma do not
support the Catholic position. Further, there are serious
theological and historical problems with the doctrine of
papal infallibility. Infallibility stands as an irrevocable
roadblock to any ecclesiastical union between Catholics and
Protestants.
-------------
According to Roman Catholic dogma, the teaching
magisterium of the church of Rome is infallible when
officially defining faith and morals for believers. One
manifestation of this doctrine is popularly known as "papal
infallibility." It was pronounced a dogma in A.D. 1870 at
the First Vatican Council. Since this is a major bone of
contention between Catholics and Protestants, it calls for
attention here.
*THE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED*
Roman Catholic authorities define infallibility as
"immunity from error, i.e., protection against either
passive or active deception. Persons or agencies are
infallible to the extent that they can neither deceive nor
be deceived."[1]
Regarding the authority of the pope, Vatican I
pronounced that
all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the
Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the
whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the
successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the
apostles, and is the true [vicar] of Christ and head of
the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all
Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed
Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed,
rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also
contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and
in the sacred canons."[2]
Furthermore, the Council went on to speak of "The
Infallible 'Magisterium' [teaching authority] of the Roman
Pontiff," declaring that
when he speaks _ex cathedra,_ that is, when carrying out
the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in
accord with his _supreme apostolic authority_ he explains
a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal
Church, through the divine assistance promised him in
blessed Peter, _operates with that infallibility_ with
which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be
instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and
so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself,
but not from the consensus of the Church, _are
unalterable._ [emphases added][3]
Then follows the traditional condemnation on any who
reject papal infallibility: "But if anyone presumes to
contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid:
let him be anathema" [i.e., excommunicated].[4]
*Qualifications*
Roman Catholic scholars have expounded significant
qualifications on the doctrine. First, they acknowledge that
the pope is not infallible in everything he teaches but only
when he speaks _ex cathedra,_ as the official interpreter of
faith and morals. Avery Dulles, an authority on Catholic
dogma, states for a pronouncement to be _ex cathedra_ it
must be:
(1) in fulfillment of his office as supreme pastor and
teacher of all Christians;
(2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, i.e.,
as successor of Peter;
(3) determining a doctrine of faith and morals, i.e., a
doctrine expressing divine revelation;
(4) imposing a doctrine to be held definitively by
all.[5]
Dulles notes that "Vatican I firmly rejected one
condition...as necessary for infallibility, namely, the
consent of the whole church."[6]
Second, the pope is not infallible when pronouncing on
matters that do not pertain to "faith and morals." On these
matters he may be as fallible as anyone else.
Third, although the pope is infallible, he is not
_absolutely_ so. As Dulles observes, "absolute infallibility
(in all respects, without dependence on another) is proper
to God....All other infallibility is derivative and limited
in scope."[7]
Fourth, infallibility entails irrevocability. A pope
cannot, for example, declare previous infallible
pronouncements of the church void.
Finally, in contrast to Vatican I, many (usually liberal
or progressive) Catholic theologians believe that the pope
is not infallible _independent_ of the bishops but only as
he speaks in one voice with and for them in collegiality. As
Dulles noted, infallibility "is often attributed to the
bishops as a group, to ecumenical councils, and to
popes."[8] Conservatives argue that Vatican I condemned this
view.[9]
*A PROTESTANT RESPONSE*
Not only Protestants but the rest of Christendom --
Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox included -- reject the
doctrine of papal infallibility.[10] Protestants accept the
infallibility of Scripture but deny that any human being or
institution is the infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Harold O. J. Brown writes: "In every age there have been
those who considered the claims of a single bishop to
supreme authority to be a sure identification of the
corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the
Antichrist. Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) indignantly
reproached Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople for
calling himself the universal bishop; Gregory did so to
defend the rights of all the bishops, himself included, and
not because he wanted the title for himself."[11]
*Biblical Problems*
There are several texts Catholics use to defend the
infallibility of the bishop of Rome. We will focus here on
the three most important of these.
*_Matthew 16:18ff._* Roman Catholics use the statement
of Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16:18ff. that "upon this rock I
will build my church..." to support papal infallibility.
They argue that the truth of the church could only be secure
if the one on whom it rested (Peter) were infallible.
Properly understood, however, there are several reasons this
passage falls far short of support for the dogma of papal
infallibility.
First, many Protestants insist that Christ was not
referring to Peter when he spoke of "this rock" being the
foundation of the church.[12] They note that: (1) Whenever
Peter is referred to in this passage it is in the second
person ("you"), but "this rock" is in the third person. (2)
"Peter" (_petros_) is a masculine singular term and "rock"
(_petra_) is feminine singular. Hence, they do not have the
same referent. And even if Jesus did speak these words in
Aramaic (which does not distinguish genders), the inspired
Greek original _does_ make such distinctions. (3) What is
more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matt. 16:18)
is given later to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). (4) Great
authorities, some Catholic, can be cited in agreement with
this interpretation, including John Chrysostom and St.
Augustine. The latter wrote: "On this rock, therefore, He
said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For
the Rock (_petra_) is Christ; and on this foundation was
Peter himself built."[13]
Second, even if Peter is the rock referred to by Christ,
as even some non-Catholic scholars believe, he was not the
_only_ rock in the foundation of the church. Jesus gave all
the apostles the same power ("keys") to "bind" and "loose"
that he gave to Peter (cf. Matt. 18:18). These were common
rabbinic phrases used of "forbidding" and "allowing." These
"keys" were not some mysterious power given to Peter alone
but the power granted by Christ to His church by which, when
they proclaim the Gospel, they can proclaim God's
forgiveness of sin to all who believe. As John Calvin noted,
"Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the gospel,
the word 'keys' affords an appropriate metaphor. Now men are
bound and loosed in no other way than when faith reconciles
some to God, while their own unbelief constrains others the
more."[14]
Further, Scripture affirms that the church is "built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ
Jesus himself as the capstone" (Eph. 2:20). Two things are
clear from this: first, all the apostles, not just Peter,
are the foundation of the church; second, the only one who
was given a place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ,
the capstone. Indeed, Peter himself referred to Christ as
"the cornerstone" of the church (1 Pet. 2:7) and the rest of
believers as "living stones" (v. 4) in the superstructure of
the church. There is no indication that Peter was given a
special place of prominence in the foundation of the church
above the rest of the apostles and below Christ. He is one
"stone" along with the other eleven apostles (Eph. 2:20).
Third, Peter's role in the New Testament falls far short
of the Catholic claim that he was given unique authority
among the apostles for numerous reasons.[15]
(1) While Peter did preach the initial sermon on the day
of Pentecost, his role in the rest of Acts is scarcely that
of the chief apostle but at best _one of_ the "most eminent
apostles" (plural, 2 Cor. 21:11, NKJV).
(2) No one reading Galatians carefully can come away
with the impression that any apostle, including Peter, is
superior to the apostle Paul. For he claimed to get his
revelation independent of the other apostles (Gal. 1:12;
2:2) and to be on the same level as Peter (2:8), and he even
used his revelation to rebuke Peter (2:11-14).
(3) Indeed, if Peter was the God-ordained superior
apostle, it is strange that more attention is given to the
ministry of the apostle Paul than to that of Peter in the
Book of Acts. Peter is the central figure among many in
chapters 1-12, but Paul is _the_ dominant focus of chapters
13-28.[16]
(4) Furthermore, though Peter addressed the first
council (in Acts 15), he exercised no primacy over the other
apostles. Significantly, the decision came from "the
apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church"
(15:22; cf. v. 23). Many scholars believe that James, not
Peter, exercised leadership over the council, since he
brought the final words and spoke decisively concerning what
action should be taken (vv. 13-21).[17]
(5) In any event, by Peter's own admission he was not
_the_ pastor of the church but only a "_fellow_ presbyter
[elder]" (1 Pet. 5:1-2, emphasis added). And while he did
claim to be "_an_ apostle" (1 Pet. 1:1) he nowhere claimed
to be "_the_ apostle" or the chief of apostles. He certainly
was a leading apostle, but even then he was only one of the
"pillars" (plural) of the church along with James and John,
not _the_ pillar (_see_ Gal. 2:9).
This is not to deny that Peter had a significant role in
the early church; he did. He even seems to have been the
initial leader of the apostolic band. As already noted,
along with James and John he was one of the "pillars" of the
early church (Gal. 2:9). For it was he that preached the
great sermon at Pentecost when the gift of the Holy Spirit
was given, welcoming many Jews into the Christian fold. It
was Peter also who spoke when the Spirit of God fell on the
Gentiles in Acts 10. From this point on, however, Peter
fades into the background and Paul is the dominant apostle,
carrying the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 13-28),
writing some one-half of the New Testament (as compared to
Peter's two epistles), and even rebuking Peter for his
hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14). In short, there is no evidence in
Matthew 16 or any other text for the Roman Catholic dogma of
the superiority, to say nothing of the infallibility, of
Peter. He did, of course, write two infallible books (1 and
2 Peter), as did other apostles.
*_John 21:15ff._* In John 21:15ff. Jesus says to Peter,
"Feed my lambs" and "Tend my sheep" and "Feed my sheep" (vv.
15, 16, 17). Roman Catholic scholars believe this shows that
Christ made Peter the supreme pastor of the church. This
means he must protect the church from error, they say, and
to do so he must necessarily be infallible. But this is a
serious overclaim for the passage.
First, whether this text is taken of Peter alone or of
all the disciples, there is absolutely no reference to any
infallible authority. Jesus' concern here is simply a matter
of pastoral care. Feeding is a God-given pastoral function
that even nonapostles have in the New Testament (cf. Acts
20:28; Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). One does not have to be
an infallible shepherd in order to feed one's flock
properly.
Second, if Peter had infallibility (the ability not to
mislead), then why did he mislead believers and have to be
rebuked by the apostle Paul for so doing? The infallible
Scriptures, accepted by Roman Catholics, declared of Peter
on one occasion, "He clearly was wrong" and "stood
condemned."[18] Peter and others "acted
hypocritically...with the result that even Barnabas was
carried away by their hypocrisy." And hypocrisy here is
defined by the Catholic Bible (NAB) as "pretense,
play-acting; moral insincerity." It seems difficult to
exonerate Peter from the charge that he led believers
astray. And this failing is hard to reconcile with the Roman
Catholic claim that, as the infallible pastor of the church,
he could never do so! The Catholic response -- that Peter
was not infallible in his actions, only his _ex cathedra_
words -- rings hollow when we remember that "actions speak
louder than words." By his actions he was teaching other
believers a false doctrine concerning the need for Jewish
believers to separate themselves from Gentile believers. The
fact is that Peter cannot be both an infallible guide for
faith and morals and also at the same time mislead other
believers on the important matter of faith and morals of
which Galatians speaks.
Third, in view of the New Testament terminology used of
Peter it is clear that he would never have accepted the
titles used of the Roman Catholic pope today: "Holy Father"
(cf. Matt. 23:9), "Supreme Pontiff," or "Vicar of Christ."
The only vicar (representative) of Christ on earth today is
the blessed Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26). As noted earlier,
Peter referred to himself in much more humble terms as "_an_
apostle," not _the_ apostle (1 Pet. 1:1, emphasis added) and
"_fellow_-presbyter [elder]" (1 Pet. 5:1, emphasis added),
not the supreme bishop, the pope, or the Holy Father.
*_John 11:49-52._* In John 11:49-52 Caiaphas, the High
Priest, in his official capacity as High Priest, made an
unwitting prophecy about Christ dying for the nation of
Israel so that they would not perish. Some Catholics
maintain that in the Old Testament the High Priest had an
official revelatory function connected with his office, and
therefore we should expect an equivalent (namely, the pope)
in the New Testament. However, this argument is seriously
flawed. First, this is merely an argument from analogy and
is not based on any New Testament declaration that it is so.
Second, the New Testament affirmations made about the Old
Testament priesthood reject that analogy, for they say
explicitly that the Old Testament priesthood has been
abolished. The writer to the Hebrews declared that "there is
a change of priesthood" from that of Aaron (Heb. 7:12). The
Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled in _Christ_ who is a
priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Heb.
7:15-17). Third, even Catholics acknowledge that there is no
new revelation after the time of the New Testament function.
So no one (popes included) after the first century can have
a revelatory function in the proper sense of giving new
revelations. Finally, there is a New Testament revelatory
function like that of the Old, but it is in the New
Testament "apostles and prophets" (cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:5),
which revelation ceased when they died. To assume a
revelatory (or even infallible defining) function was passed
on after them and is resident in the bishop of Rome is to
beg the question.
In addition to a total lack of support from the
Scriptures, there are many other arguments against papal
infallibility. We will divide them into theological and
historical arguments.
*Theological Problems*
There are serious theological problems with papal
infallibility. One is the question of heresy being taught by
an infallible pope.
*_The Problem of Heretical Popes._* Pope Honorius I
(A.D. 625-638) was condemned by the Sixth General Council
for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one
will in Christ[19]). Even Roman Catholic expert, Ludwig Ott,
admits that "Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his
anathematization..."[20] This being the case, we are left
with the incredible situation of an infallible pope teaching
a fallible, indeed _heretical,_ doctrine. If the papal
teaching office is infallible -- if it cannot mislead on
doctrine and ethics -- then how could a papal teaching be
heretical? This is misleading in doctrine in the most
serious manner.
To claim that the pope was not infallible on this
occasion is only to further undermine the doctrine of
infallibility. How can one know just when his doctrinal
pronouncements are infallible and when they are not? There
is no infallible list of which are the infallible
pronouncements and which are not.[21] But without such a
list, how can the Roman Catholic church provide infallible
guidance on doctrine and morals? If the pope can be fallible
on one doctrine, why cannot he be fallible on another?
Further, Ott's comment that Pope Leo did not condemn
Pope Honorius with heresy but with "negligence in the
suppression of error" is ineffective as a defense.[22]
First, it still raises serious questions as to how Pope
Honorius could be an infallible guide in faith and morals,
since he taught heresy. And the Catholic response that he
was not speaking _ex cathedra_ when he taught this heresy is
convenient but inadequate. Indeed, invoking such a
distinction only tends to undermine faith in the far more
numerous occasions when the pope is speaking with authority
but not with infallibility.
Second, it does not explain the fact that the Sixth
General Council did condemn Honorius as a heretic, as even
Ott admits.[23] Was this infallible Council in error?
Finally, by disclaiming the infallibility of the pope in
this and like situations, the number of occasions on which
infallible pronouncements were made is relatively rare. For
example, the pope has officially spoken _ex cathedra_ only
one time this whole century (on the Bodily Assumption of
Mary)! If infallibility is exercised only this rarely then
its value for all practical purposes on almost all occasions
is nill. This being the case, since the pope is only
speaking with fallible authority on the vast majority of
occasions, the Catholic is bound to accept his authority on
faith and morals when he may (and sometimes has been) wrong.
In short, the alleged infallible guidance the papacy is
supposed to provide is negligible at best. Indeed, on the
overwhelming number of occasions there is no infallible
guidance at all.
*_The Problem of Revelational Insufficiency._* One of
the chief reasons given by Catholic authorities as to the
need for an infallible teaching magisterium is that we need
infallible guidance to understand God's infallible
revelation. Otherwise it will be misinterpreted as with the
many Protestant sects.
To this the Protestant must respond, How is an
infallible interpretation any better than the infallible
revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling
by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God's infallible
unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by
God is to say that it was not unveiled properly to begin
with.
To be sure, there is a difference between objective
disclosure (revelation) and subjective discovery
(understanding). But the central problem in this regard is
not in the _perception_ of God's truth. Even His special
revelation is "evident" and "able to be understood" (Rom.
1:19-20). Our most significant problem with regard to the
truth of God's revelation is _reception._ Paul declared that
"the natural person does not _accept_ [Gk: _dekomai,_
welcome, receive] what pertains to the Spirit of God..." (1
Cor. 2:14). He cannot "know" (_ginosko:_ know by experience)
them because he does not receive them into his life, even
though he understands them in his mind. So even though there
is a difference between objective disclosure and subjective
understanding, humans are "without excuse" for failing to
understand the objective revelation of God, whether in
nature or in Scripture (Rom. 1:20).
In this regard it is interesting that Catholic theology
itself maintains that unbelievers should and can understand
the truth of _natural_ law apart from the teaching
magisterium. Why then should they need an infallible
teaching magisterium in order to properly understand the
more explicit _divine_ law?
It seems singularly inconsistent for Catholic scholars
to claim they need another mind to interpret Scripture
correctly for them when the mind God gave them is sufficient
to interpret everything else, including some things much
more difficult than Scripture. Many Catholic scholars, for
example, are experts in interpreting classical literature,
involving both the moral and religious meaning of those
texts. Yet these same educated minds are said to be
inadequate to obtain a reliable religious and moral
interpretation of the texts of their own Scriptures.
Furthermore, it does not take an expert to interpret the
crucial teachings of the Bible. The New Testament was
written in the vernacular of the times, the trade-language
of the first century, known as _koine_ Greek. It was a book
written in the common, everyday language for the common,
everyday person. Likewise, the vast majority of English
translations of the Bible are also written in plain English,
including Catholic versions. The essential truths of the
Bible can be understood by any literate person. In fact, it
is an insult to the intelligence of the common people to
suggest that they can read and understand the daily news for
themselves but need an infallible teaching magisterium in
order to understand God's Good News for them in the New
Testament.
*_The Problem of Indecisiveness of the Teaching
Magisterium._* There is another problem with the Catholic
argument for an infallible teaching magisterium: if an
infallible teaching magisterium is needed to overcome the
conflicting interpretations of Scripture, why is it that
even these "infallibly" decisive declarations are also
subject to conflicting interpretations? There are many hotly
disputed differences among Catholic scholars on just what
_ex cathedra_ statements mean, including those on Scripture,
tradition, Mary, and justification. Even though there may be
future clarifications on some of these, the problem remains
for two reasons. First, it shows the indecisive nature of
supposedly infallible pronouncements. Second, judging by
past experience, even these future declarations will not
settle all matters completely. Pronouncements on the
inerrancy of Scripture are a case in point. Despite
"infallible" statements, there is strong disagreement among
Catholics on whether the Bible is really infallible in all
matters or only on matters of salvation.
*Historical Problems*
In addition to biblical and theological problems, there
are serious historical problems with the Catholic claim for
infallibility. Two are of special note here.
*_The Problem of the Antipopes._* Haunting the history
of Roman Catholicism is the scandalous specter of having
more than one infallible pope at the same time -- a pope and
an antipope. _The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_
says "there have been about thirty-five antipopes in the
history of the Church."[24] How can there be two infallible
and opposing popes at the same time? Which is the true pope?
Since there is no infallible list of popes or even an
infallible way to determine who is the infallible pope, the
system has a serious logical problem. Further, this
difficulty has had several actual historical manifestations
which bring into focus the whole question of an infallible
pope.[25]
Catholic apologists claim that there were not really two
popes, since only one can be infallible. However, since the
faithful have no way to know for sure which one is the pope,
which one should they look to for guidance? Each pope can
excommunicate the other (and sometimes have). This being the
case, claiming that only one is the real pope is at best
only a theoretical solution. It does not solve the practical
problem of which pope should be followed.
*_The Problem of Galileo._* Perhaps one of the greatest
embarrassments to the "infallible" church is its fallible
judgment about Galileo Galilei (A.D. 1564-1642), generally
known as Galileo. In opposition to Galileo and the
Copernican solar-centric theory he adopted, the Catholic
church sided with the scientifically outdated Ptolemaic
geocentric universe.
In A.D. 1616, the Copernican theory was condemned at
Rome.[26] Aristotelian scientists, the Jesuits, the
Dominicans, and three popes (Paul V, Gregory XV, and Urban
VIII), played key roles in the controversy. Galileo was
summoned by the Inquisition in 1632, tried, and on June 21,
1633, pronounced "vehemently suspected of heresy."
Eventually Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to return to his
home in Florence, where he remained under house arrest until
his death in 1642.
After the church had suffered many centuries of
embarrassment for its condemnation of Galileo, on November
10, 1979, Pope John Paul II spoke to the Pontifical Academy
of Science. In the address titled, "Faith, Science and the
Galileo Case," the pope called for a reexamination of the
whole episode.[27] On May 9, 1983, while addressing the
subject of the church and science, John Paul II conceded
that "Galileo had 'suffered from departments of the
church.'"[28] This, of course, is not a clear retraction of
the condemnation, nor does it solve the problem of how an
infallible pronouncement of the Catholic church could be in
error.
Roman Catholic responses to the Galileo episode leave
something to be desired. One Catholic authority claims that
while both Paul V and Urban VIII were committed
anti-Copernicans, their pronouncements were not _ex
cathedra._ The decree of A.D. 1616 "was issued by the
Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in
regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely
incompetent to make a dogmatic decree."[29] As to the second
trial in 1633, which also resulted in a condemnation of
Galileo, this sentence is said to be of lesser importance
because it "did not receive the Pope's signature."[30]
Another Catholic authority states that although the
theologians' treatment of Galileo was inappropriate, "the
condemnation was the act of a Roman Congregation and in no
way involved infallible teaching authority."[31] Still
another source observes, "The condemnation of Galileo by the
Inquisition had nothing to do with the question of papal
infallibility, since no question of faith or morals was
papally condemned _ex cathedra._"[32] And yet another
Catholic apologist suggests that, although the decision was
a "regrettable" case of "imprudence," there was no error
made by the pope, since Galileo was not really condemned of
heresy but only strongly suspected of it.
None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing,
having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the
pronouncements that resulted from this episode. Galileo and
his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the
serious charges leveled against him were not "_ex cathedra_"
in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the
condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be
surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not
really being condemned for false teaching but only that "his
'proof' did not impress even astronomers of that day -- nor
would they impress astronomers today"![33]
At any rate, the pope's condemnation of Galileo only
leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic
church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to
their apologetic warehouse -- the claim that the pope was
not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have
already observed, however, constant appeal to this
nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very
infallibility it purports to defend.
*AN IMPASSABLE ROADBLOCK*
Despite the common creedal and doctrinal heritage of
Catholics and Protestants, there are some serious
differences.[34] None of these is more basic than the
question of authority. Catholics affirm de fide, as an
unchangeable part of their faith, the infallible teaching
authority of the Roman church as manifested in the present
bishop of Rome (the pope). But what Catholics affirm
"infallibly" Protestants deny emphatically. This is an
impassable roadblock to any ecclesiastical unity between
Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. No talk about "first
among equals" or "collegiality" will solve the problem. For
the very concept of an infallible teaching magisterium,
however composed, is contrary to the basic Protestant
principle of _sola Scriptura,_ the Bible alone (_see_ Part
Three). Here we must agree to disagree. For while both sides
believe the Bible is infallible, Protestants deny that the
church or the pope has an infallible interpretation of it.
------------
Dr. Geisler is Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary,
Charlotte, North Carolina (704) 543-9475.
*NOTES*
1 Avery Dulles, "Infallibility: The Terminology," in _Teaching
Authority and Infallibility in the Church,_ ed. Paul C. Empie,
T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1978), 71.
2 Henry Denzinger, _The Sources of Catholic Dogma,_ trans. Roy J.
Deferrari (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), no. 1826, 454.
3 _Ibid.,_ no. 1839, 457.
4 _Ibid.,_ no. 1840.
5 Dulles, 79-80.
6 _Ibid._
7 _Ibid.,_ 72.
8 _Ibid._
9 They appeal to Denzinger 1839 to support their view.
10 Eastern Orthodoxy is willing to accept the bishop of Rome as
"first among equals," a place of honor coming short of the total
superiority Roman Catholics ascribe to the pope.
11 Harold O. J. Brown, _The Protest of a Troubled Protestant_ (New
York: Arlington House, 1969), 122.
12 _See_ James R. White, _Answers to Catholic Claims_ (Southbridge,
MA: Crowne Publications, 1990), 104-8.
13 Augustine, "On the Gospel of John," Tractate 12435, _The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I_ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1983), 7:450, as cited in _Ibid.,_ 106.
14 John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) 4:6,4, p. 1105.
15 Many of these arguments are found in White, 101-2.
16 One cannot, as some Catholic scholars do, dismiss this dominant
focus on St. Paul rather than Peter on the circumstantial fact
that Luke wrote more about Paul because he was his travel
companion. After all, it was the Holy Spirit who inspired what
Luke wrote.
17 _See_ F. F. Bruce, _Peter, Stephen, James and John_ (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 86ff.
18 This is the literal rendering given in the Roman Catholic _New
American Bible_ of Galatians 2:11.
19 _See_ John Jefferson Davis, _Foundations of Evangelical
Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994). Also _see_
Ott, 238.
20 Ott, 150.
21 Catholic apologists claim there are objective tests, such as:
Was the pope speaking (1) to all believers, (2) on faith and
morals, and (3) in his official capacity as pope (_see_ Ott,
207). But these are not definitive as to which pronouncements
are infallible for several reasons. First, there is no
infallible statement on just what these criteria are. Second,
there is not even universal agreement on what these criteria
are. Third, there is no universal agreement on how to apply
these or any criteria to all cases.
22 Ott, 150.
23 _Ibid._
24 F. L. Cross, ed., _The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 66. _See_ also,
A. Mercati, "The New List of the Popes," in _Medieval Studies,_
ix (1947), 71-80.
25 _See_ Jarislov Pelikan, _The Riddle of Roman Catholicism_ (New
York: Abingdon Press, 1960), 40.
26 _New Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 15 vols., prepared by an editorial
staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), vol. 6, 252.
27 Brown, 177, n. 4.
28 _Ibid. See_ also "Discourse to Scientists on the 350th
Anniversary of the Publication of Galileo's 'Dialoghi,'" in J.
Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J., eds., _The Christian Faith:
Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church_ (New York: Alba
House, 1990), 68.
29 Charles G. Herbermann, et al., _The Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 15
vols. and index (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1909), vol. 6,
345.
30 _Ibid.,_ 346.
31 _New Catholic Encyclopedia,_ vol. 6, 254.
32 "Galileo Galilei," in John J. Delaney and James E. Tobin,
_Dictionary of Catholic Biography_ (New York: Doubleday & Co.,
1961), 456.
33 _See_ William G. Most, _Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to
Modern Critics_ (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1986),
168-69.
34 Interestingly, the problem areas for evangelicals have also been
addressed by some well-known Roman Catholic authorities, such as
Athanasius, Jerome, and Aquinas. The evangelical case could be
made for these writers on a number of issues. For example,
Jerome did not accept the Catholic apocryphal (deuterocanonical)
books and Aquinas rejected the doctrine of the immaculate
conception of Mary.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0182A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"What Think Ye of Rome? Part Four: The Catholic-Protestant Debate
on Papal Infallibility"
release A, December 1, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
-----------
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours
if you contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out
about the offer from this computer text file. We offer a
wide variety of articles and fact sheets free of charge.
Write us today for information on these or other topics.
Our first-rate research staff will do everything possible to
help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.
ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota