Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/877

 INFALLIBILITY

797

INFALLIBILITY

recognized in the infant Church, as was the enduring authority of the episcopal body; and it is a puzzle which the Catholic finds it hard to solve, how those who deny that the supreme authority of Peter's suc- cessor is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church can consistently maintain the Divine author- ity of the episcopate. Now, as we have already seen, the doctrinal indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal infallibility; so that if Christ's promise means anything — if Peter's successor is in any true sense the foundation and source of the Church's indefectibility — he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical infallibility. The metaphor used clearly implies that it was the rock-foundation which was to give stability to the superstructure, not the superstructure to the rock.

Nor can it be said that this argument fails by prov- ing too much — by proving, that is, that the pope should be impeccable, or at least that he should be a saint, since, if the Church must be holy in order to overcome the gates of hell, the example and inspi- ration of holiness ought to be given by him who is the visible foundation of the Church's indefectibility. From the very nature of the case a distinction must be made between sanctity or impeccability, and infallible doctrinal authority. Personal sanctity is essentially incommunicable as between men, and cannot affect others except in fallible and indirect ways, as by prayer or example; but doctrinal teaching which is accepted as infallible is capable of securing that cer- tainty and consequent unity of faith by which, as well as by other bonds, the members of Christ's visible Church were to be "compacted and fitly joined to- gether" (Eph., iv, 10). It is true, of course, that infallible teaching, especially on moral questions, helps to promote sanctity among those who accept, but no one will seriously suggest that, if Christ had made the pope impeccable as well as infallible, He would thereby have provided for the personal sanctity of individual believers any more efficiently than, on Catholic principles. He has actually done.

(ii) Christ said to St. Peter — and to his successors in the primacy: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren " (Luke, xxii, 31-32.) This special prayer of Christ was for Peter alone in his capacity as head of the Church, as is clear from the text and context; and since we cannot doubt the efficacy of Christ's prayer, it follows that to St. Peter and his successors the office was personally committed of authoritatively confirming the brethren — other bishops, and believers generally — in the faith; and this implies infallibility.

(iii) In John, xxi, 15-17, we have the record of Christ's thrice-repeated demand for a confession of Peter's love and the thrice-repeated commission to feed the lambs and the sheep: " When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep." Here the complete and supreme pastoral charge of the whole of Christ's flock — sheep as well as lambs — is given to St. Peter and his successors, and in this is undoubtedly com- prised supreme doctrinal authority. But, as we have already seen, doctrinal authority in the Church cannot

be really effective in securing the unity of faith in- tended by Christ, unless in the last resort it is in- fallible. It is futile to contend, as non-Catholics have often done, that this passage is merely a record of Peter's restoration to his personal share in the collec- tive Apostolic authority, which he had forfeited by his triple denial. It is quite probable that the reason why Christ demanded the triple confession of love was as a set-off to the triple denial ; but if Christ's words in tliis and in the other passages quoted mean any- thing, and if they are to be understood in the same obvious and natural way in which defenders of the Divine authority of the episcopate understand the words elsewhere addressed to the Apostles collectively, there is no denying that the Petrine and papal claims are more clearly supported by the Gospels than are those of a monarchical episcopate. It is equally futile to contend that these promises were made, and this power given, to Peter merely as the representative of the Apostolic college: in the texts of the Gospel, Peter is individually singled out and addressed with particular emphasis, so that, unless by denying with the rationalist the genuineness of Christ's words, there is no logical escape from the Catholic position. Furthermore, it is clear from such evidence as the Acts of the Apostles supply, that Peter's suprem- acy was recognized in the infant Church (see Pri- m.vcy), and if this supremacy was intended to be effica- cious for the purpose for which it was instituted, it must have included the prerogative of doctrinal in- fallilMlity.

(b) Proof from Tradition. — One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the pri- macy or of the infallil)ility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Coimcil. But the fact cannot be denietl that from the ■beginning there was a wide-spread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear, for exam- ple, from Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, from the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church; from the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connexion with the paschal controversy; from the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Aposto- licity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., Ill, iii) ; from the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century; and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see Prim.\cy.) Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal author- ity of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Ccelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a suffi- ciently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal .supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the de- crees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" {Indc cliam rescripta vene- runt: causa finila est. Serm. cxxxi, c. x, in P. L., XXXVIII, 734); and again when in reference to the same subject he iasists that "all doubt has been re- moved by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5, in P. L., XLIV, 574). And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be oecumenical, of the finality, and by