INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE: The doctrine that the bishop of Rome in his official character, i.e., whenever he speaks ex cathedra on History a question of doctrine or morals, is of the free from error, and that his decisions Doctrine. must be accepted as final, not needing confirmation by an ecumenical council and not subject to modification or revision by such a council. The Fathers and the ancient creeds and councils know nothing of this doctrine; and the Eastern Church rejects it as a blasphemous assump tion. It arose in the Middle Ages in connection with the pseudo-Isidorian decretals (q.v.), and was defended even by Thomas Aquinas, who was the first theologian to discuss the theory of papal in fallibility as an integral part of systematic theology (cf. J. J. I. Döllinger, Das Papstthum, p. 133, Munich, 1891; Leitner, pp. 10-14, denies this). The reformatory councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope. It is disputed among Roman Catholic scholars whether Martin V., in approving the acts of the Council of Constance, included its distinct assertion of the supremacy of a council (cf. F. X. Funk, Abhandlungen and Unterauehungen, i. 489-498, Paderbom, 1897). After the Council of Trent the doctrine became a bone of contention between the Gailicans and the Jesuits. The latter triumphed in the Vatican Council, which formulated the new article of faith, July 18, 1870, in these words:

"we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra-that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter (Luke xxii. 32)--is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morale; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."

Papal infallibility was the chief topic of the Vatican Council. When the vote was first taken in secret session, July 13, 601 members being present, 451 bishops voted in the affirmative, 88 in the negative, 62 with a qualification (Placed juxta modum), and over 80, though present in Rome, abstained from voting. On the evening of the same day the minority, which included such able and influential prelates as Darboy of Paris, Schwarzenberg of Prague, Rauscher of Vienna, Dupanloup of Orléans, FBreter of Breslau, Ketteler of Mainz, Stroesmayer of Bosnia, Hefele of Rottenburg, and Kenrick of St. Louis, sent a deputation to the pope, and

its Pmmul

gatioa by

the

Vatican

Council.

begged him to modify the proposed decree, and make some concession for the peace and unity of the Church. But Pius IX. surprised the deputation with the assurance that the Church had always believed in the unconditional infallibility of the pope. On July 17 fifty-six bishops opposed to the dogma sent a written protest to the pope, and, with sixty additional members of the opposition, left Rome to avoid voting. The next day, of the 535 members present all voted for the dogma except Bishops Riccio of Sicily and Fitzgerald of Little Rock, Ark., who changed their votes before the close of the session. After the vote the. pope read the decree of his own infallibility in St. Peter's.

The Vatican dogma can not stand the test of history, and is a mere pretension. The sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople,

Criticism. 680) condemned and excommunicated Pope Honorius I. (62538) " as a heretic [Monothelite], who, with the help of the old serpent, had scattered deadly error." This anath ema was solemnly repeated by the seventh and by the eighth ecumenical councils (787 and 869), and even by the popes themselves, who, down to the eleventh century, in a solemn oath at their accession, indoraed the sixth ecumenical council, and pro nounced "an eternal anathema" on the authors of the Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Hono rius, " because he had given aid and comfort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics." History knows of other heretical popes. Zephyrinus (201-219) and Calixtus I. (217-222) were Patripassians [this charge rests upon the manifestly prejudiced testi mony of Hippolytus, who insisted that Patripas sianism was logically involved in their protest against ditheism. e. n. N.] ; Liberius signed an Arias creed in 358; Felix II. (355-358) was a decided Arias; Zosimus (417) at first indorsed the heresy of Pelagius and Celeatius, whom his predecessor, Innocent L, had condemned; Vigilius (538-555) vacillated between two opposite deci sions during the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.), and thereby produced a long schism in the West; John XXII. (d. 1334) denounced a certain opinion of Nicholas III. and Clement V. as heretical. Six tua V. issued an edition of the Latin Bible with innumerable blunders; Bellarmine, the great Roman controversialist and infallibilist, could not deny the facts, and advised the printing of a new edition with the bold statement in the preface, charging the errors of the infallible pope upon the fallible printer, though the pope had himself corrected the proofs.

P. and D. S. Schaff.

The arguments adduced by Roman Catholic theologians in support of this newly defined doctrine are in part a priori, based on the assumed necessity of a central supreme authority in matters of faith and morals whose decisions shall be final, and to which, moreover, recourse may be had

easily and conveniently when doctrinal differences and disputes arise. The infallible authority of the Church in her teaching-capacity is, of course, assumed as a postulate, for among other

reasons, it seems to be clearly implied in the promise of Christ to remain with the organization founded

The

Roman

Catholic

Statement.

490

by him ("the pillar and ground of truth," I Tim. iii. 15) "always even unto the end of the world." Furthermore, the recognition of the principle of infallibility teems absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the unity of faith in the Church, a contention which is amply borne out by the history and doctrinal disintegration of Protestantism. The infallibility of the Church being thus assumed, the farther question arises as to the subject of this prerogative. If it be considered to ride indiscriminately in the Church as a whole, it can clearly be of little practical benefit. Nor is it sufficient for the required end that it reside simply in the Ecclesia docena, vie., in the hierarchical body of the bishops I~, with the pope at their head, who are considered as j the legitimate successors of the Apostles to whom the promises of Christ were made. For it is obviously difficult to ascertain just what the teaching of all the bishops scattered over the world may be on a given point and at a given moment; and ecumenical eounculs from their very nature can be convened only for more solemn and momentous occasions. Hence the affirmed need of a central authority to which appeal can be readily made, whose ex cadedla decisions will enjoy the same immunity from error as those vouched for by the Eoamia dooem. This authority Roman Catholics recognize in the bishop of Rome, the traditional successor of St. Peter, and inheritor of his prerogatives; and in the various teats which are adduced to prove the primacy of Peter it is claimed that the gift of infallibility is implied. In this connection stns is laid on the passage of Matthew (xvi. 18)

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Here the lasting security of the edifice (including doubtless doctrinal inerrancy) is derived from Peter the foundation-atone, and similar deductions are made from other passages, e.g., Luke xxii. 31 sqq. and John xxi. 15 sqq. Texts are also brought forward from a number of the Church Fathers, e.g., Irenæus, showing that at an early date the see of Rome was widely recognized to be the center of doctrinal as well as disciplinary unity for the whole Church, and that her decisions in that regard should be taken as final.

Bibliography: In favor of the doctrine may be cited: G. Cardoni, Elucubratio de dogmatica Romani pontiflcis infawbwtats, Rome, 1870 (semi-official); H. E. Manning, Petri privilegium, London, 1871; idem, The Vatican Drams in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, ib. 1875, and of. E. S. Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning, ib. 1896; V. Deehamps, L'InfaillibiliU et is coneila pinfral, Paris, 1869; F. %. Leitner, Thomas von Aquino über das unfehlbare Lekmmt des Papstes, Frankfort, 1872 (important, opposes Döllinger); J. H. Newman, Letkr to the Duke of Norfolk, London, 1874 (a qualified defense in reply to Gladstone's Vatican Decrees); T. Granderath, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konxils, 8 vols., Freiburg, 1903-08 (the authoritative Ultramontsne hist. of the council); cf. J. Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, chap . id., New York, 1874.

Against the doctrine (1) by members of the council: H. L. C. Maret, Du eoneile pbnfrol st do la pain religisuee, 2 vols., Paris, 1869; J. Friedrich, Doeumenta ad dlu! Irandum concilium Vaticanum, Nördlingen, 1871 (contains a number of important documents, among them Darboy'e La LiberU du concite st 1'infaillibilitE, and Kenrick's Concio in ooncilio Vaticano habsnda et non habits); C. J. Hefele, Caua Honorii papa, Naples, 1870; idem, Honorius und das sockets allganeine Coned, Tübingen, 1870, Eng. transl. in Prsbyterim Quarterly Review, April, 1872. (2) by Catholics not members of the council: J. J. I. von D&1- linger, Der Papst und das Concil, Leipsic, 1869, Env

London, new ed. by J. Friedrich, Doe Papenum, Munich. 1892; ides, Ueber die Unfaklbarketts-Adreae, ib. 1870; J. Langen, Doe vatikanischs Dogma won den Univer sakpiskopat und der Unfdlbarkeit des Papstes, 4 vols., Bonn, 1871-76; J. Friedrich, Das vatikanische C oncil, 3 vols., ib. 1877-87; idem, Ipnas von Döllinger, 3 vols., Munich, 1898-1901. (3) by Protestants: W. E. Gladatone, The Vatican Decrees in their Bowing on Civil Allegiance, London. 1774, ed., with a hist. of the council and the text of the decrees, by P. Schaff, New York, 1875; idem, Vatiuanism, an Answer to Reproofs and Replies, London. 1875; Schaff, Creeds, i. 147-189. ii. 234-271.