Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 1
ROMAN CATHOLIC OPPOSITION
TO PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
CHAPTER I
THE EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE
Those who do not identify history with heresy will always desire to know how a Christian affirmation of the present compares with the past. Whatever validity faith may attach to the teaching of the Church of to-day, there must be reasons and reasons which demand and justify an enquiry into the doctrine of other ages. If serious discrepancies would cause perplexity, unforeseen harmonies would confirm. In any case the refusal to examine is not the product of a genuine faith. For, after all, history is, if on one side human, on another divine. Moreover, the actual development of human thought must be of profoundest living interest. This enquiry, then, must be undertaken in reference to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. For it is, in a large portion of modern Christian life, an existing affirmation. The question is, What relation does the doctrine bear to the facts of History? And obviously, first of all, what does Scripture say?
The Ultramontane, so far as he founds the doctrine on Scripture language, finds it chiefly in the words of our Lord to St Peter: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."[1] Now seeing that this dogma of Papal Infallibility would be, if true, no less than fundamental, it is necessary to dwell at length on the asserted scriptural witness to the same. For those who believe that fundamental Christian truth must be traceable to the records of Revelation must test each doctrine by what is told them there. And we are here concerned with the express words of Christ. And the issues which depend on a right understanding of the Redeemer's words are, as all Christians will acknowledge, momentous.
The Roman interpretation of this passage maintains the following points;—
1. That Christ here confers on Peter an exclusive prerogative, on the ground of Peter's superior position;
2. That this prerogative is infallible insight;
3. That thereby he was enabled to give infallible instructions to his brethren;
4. That this prerogative extends to all Peter's successors and to none but those—the prerogative being as exclusive in its range as it was in its origin.
There is, however, another interpretation which has been in substance and in many details accepted by members of the Roman Church, and which is unable to find any of these doctrines in the words of Christ.
There are clearly four points to be considered: Christ's Prayer; Peter's Faith; Peter's Brethren; Peter's Successors.
i. First, then, Christ's Prayer: I have prayed for thee.
I. Certainly it was an exclusive prayer. Satan hath desired to have you, collectively; but I have prayed for thee, Peter, individually. Christ here prays for the one: for the others, on this occasion, He does not pray.
Does not this imply, asks the Ultramontane, the superiority of the individual thus selected and distinguished? Does not Christ here place the security of the many in the security of the one? If the leader and chief is protected, those who follow him and obey him will be secure. This exposition labours under the double defect of assuming a theory of Peter's supremacy and of ignoring the historical circumstances which prompted Christ's words. That the prayer was exclusive is true. But exclusive petition does not necessarily imply the greater superiority of the person prayed for; it may equally well imply his greater need. Remembering that Peter alone was on the verge of a triple denial, no wonder he became the object of an exclusive prayer. If his confident self-reliance, together with his impulsive temperament, laid him open to perils from which the Twelve were exempt, what else could his Master do than offer special intercession for him? To build a theory of permanent prerogative as universal teacher on the fact of Christ's exclusive petition is therefore to forget that the historic circumstances, which elicited our Lord's concern, suggest a totally different explanation.
2. Moreover, while we are reminded that Christ's prayer was exclusive, we should also be reminded that it was conditional.
It seems at first sight a natural outcome of Christian piety to assume that whatever Christ prayed for was certain to come to pass. Is it not written, "I know that thou hearest me always"? But the effectiveness of Christ's prayers must take into account our human independence. To say that the prayer of Christ must necessarily realise its design, is really to reduce mankind to a mechanism upon which the Spirit plays. But this is false to Christian teaching and human experience. The prayers of Christ are invariably conditional upon the human response. They demand human co-operation. The prayer for Peter unquestionably implies that the resources needed to discharge his function would be placed at his disposal, provided that he yielded his will to the offered grace. But that Peter would invariably fulfil the essential conditions, Christ's petition does not affirm and cannot even suggest. It cannot mean unconditional security, exemption from the liabilities of human weakness and imperfection, apart from all considerations of personal effort and moral state.
ii. The second object for our analysis is Peter's Faith and here two points arise:—What is meant by "faith" and what is meant by "fail."
1. Now when our Lord says "faith," the meaning is in general not difficult to ascertain. The faith which, if present, could remove mountains, or, if absent, hinders His merciful works, is plainly not so much an intellectual assent to a number of propositions, as a moral relation to a Person; a devotion to Himself, demanding qualities, not only of the intellect, but also of the affections and of the will. It is a quality inseparable from love. It may exist in many varying degrees.
2. What, then, is meant by "fail"? The Greek term here translated "fail" sometimes describes an eclipse, which to the primitive imagination suggested death, much as we talk of the dying day. "Thou art the same and thy years shall not fail,"[2] means shall not cease, or come to an end.
3. Accordingly, by "a faith which should not fail," our Lord described a personal devotion to Himself, which should never cease to exist. But we must carefully distinguish between the inward quality of faith and its outward expressions. St Peter, in the subsequent denial, failed ; not in his inward belief, but its outward expression. The failure was not in his thoughts but in his words. As a fact, his outward expressions of faith were not protected from error. He said exactly what his intellect contradicted, what he knew was false. The natural inference is that the prayer of Christ was concerned with Peter's inward spiritual state, not with the outward phrases. A very able Roman writer saw this plainly enough. Consequently, he says, Christ demanded here for Peter two privileges—not merely one: first, that he should never lose his faith; secondly, that as Pope he should never teach anything contrary to the faith. That is what the Ultramontane position would require. But that is exactly what did not happen at the denial. The prayer of Christ did not secure St Peter from false expressions. Nor did it secure Peter's personal devotion from a temporary eclipse. But even if Peter's dogmatic insight remained unclouded, that would help his brethren comparatively little if his official utterances could be mistaken. And it was expressly in his utterances that he did fail.
iii. The third theme for analysis is the Strengthening his Brethren.
1. Now to strengthen is to give support. It is employed several times by St Paul. As when he says: "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established."[3] He says he sent Timothy "to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith."[4] He speaks of "stablishing your hearts unblameable in holiness";[5] prays that God will "comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word and work";[6] and says "the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil."[7] So St Peter desires that God would "stablish, strengthen, settle"[8] the Christian; and says that Christians are "established in the present truth."[9] The Revelation of St John again says: "Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain, which are ready to die."[10]
This scriptural use of the term "strengthen," or "stablish," shows conclusively that any kind of moral support may be intended. The strengthening may be that which Divine Grace supplies; or that which comes from the knowledge of the Truth; or that which comes from the encouragement of Christian ministers. But in no solitary instance is there any suggestion of infallibility as essential to enable one to be a strengthened Thus, "when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," would naturally mean, When thou hast by repentance recovered from thine own moral infirmity, do thou become a moral support to the impulsive and the weak. It is a merciful promise to St Peter before his sin, of restoration to Apostleship after the sin had been committed. It suggests that even through the denial he may gain a humility and self-knowledge which may enlarge his sympathies and increase his strength. It is all in the moral rather than in the purely intellectual sphere.
2. But further: The utterance, "strengthen thy brethren," is a command and not a promise. We cannot infer, from a duty enjoined, its invariable fulfilment. Otherwise, we are all perfect: For this command is laid upon us all. Moreover, whatever Peter may have done, what is certain is that at Antioch he did not strengthen his brethren. All human analogy would suggest a more or less imperfect human endeavour to fulfil a divinely appointed ideal.
iv. The fourth and last point for consideration is Peter's Successors.
1. Now, first, our Lord does not mention them. They are not mentioned even by implication. There is no necessary implication, unless we assume, à priori, as some Roman writers do, that such a prerogative could not be restricted to a single generation, nor to the Apostolic Age;[11] and therefore that the function of Peter in strengthening his brethren must be continued to his successors to the end of time. But by no process of interpretation can this be derived from the words of Christ. It can be read into them: it cannot be read out of them. Whether false or true, it is certainly not what our Lord has said.
Moreover, since the prerogative here conferred on Peter was the prerogative of sympathy learnt by the humiliations of failure, not the gift of Infallibility, its perpetuation among his successors could not confer upon them what it did not confer on him. If our exposition of this prayer of Christ be correct, the extension of the prerogative over a series of successors would be doubtless morally valuable but of no dogmatic use.
2. Moreover, if the words, "strengthen thy brethren," apply to Peter's successors, so do the words "when thou art converted." Bellarmine himself saw this, and was disturbed by it. He suggested that "converted" must not be understood as moral renovation and repentance, but as an adverb equivalent to, "in turn," as if the passage ran—I have strengthened thee, do thou in thy turn strengthen thy brethren. Or else it might mean—so it was suggested—Having turned your attention to them, exercise your Infallibility. But even if the sentence, "when thou art converted," bore no allusion to Peter's denial, still no possible exegesis can justly elicit the Infallibility of his successors out of the injunction "strengthen thy brethren." Peter's successors would be thereby ordered to bestow moral support upon their weaker brethren. But whether they would obey this command and fulfil it with more invariable exactitude than he to whom it was spoken, is a question of historical investigation and not of à priori theory.
The preceding exposition has been very largely derived from Roman Catholic sources; from the writings of Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, opposing, in behalf of the Church of France, the Ultramontanism of the seventeenth century; of Barral, Archbishop of Tours, in the early nineteenth century; of Bishop Maret, and of Gratry, just before the Vatican Council of 1870; of Döllinger, prior to the rupture with Rome; of Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis, in the speech which he intended to deliver in the Vatican Council, in exercise of his divine right as a Bishop, but whose delivery was prevented by the closure of the discussion.