Infallibly fallible

So it's been a while since my last post, my bad again! But now onto the next of the "Catholics come home" topics: Papal infallibility and Papal succession. I shall start with the latter by immediately examining the favorite Catholic proof text without context: Matthew 16:18. One can hardly blame Catholics for heading to this verse. The Bishop in Rome needed some sort of sway to convince the other bishops that he was above them. The claim that popes descended from Peter came to aid the bishops of Rome especially around the time of Constantinople which was around the time that men calling themselves 'popes' actually appeared. (I find this quite ironic in more respect than one upon seeing Matthew 23:9 "call no man father, but more on that later). Matthew 16:18 depicts Peter confessing Christ to be the Messiah and Christ rewarding him with his very on church, right?! No. We are talking about the man who denied Christ, three times no less, was called Satan and a stumbling block by Christ himself and was rebuked by Paul. The only way to view this verse in any sane sense is to realize that in Greek πετρος mean a little pebble, a small rock (think back now to his confession of the Christ aka faith) and that πετρα signifies a massive rock formation like a foundation. What Christ is conveying here is that the church is going to be built on faith such as Peter showed, not that Peter gets to be earthly ruler. Indeed, Peter never saw himself as a pope, as above any other Christian, indeed I must say I believe he would have found the thought abhorrent.

Now, lets for the sake of argument say that I am completely wrong and Christ set up an earthly ruler over the church (in clear violation to Matthew 23:9 which will still be discussed later on). And that, for the sake of argument he decided not to tell Peter that he was a pope and was to be privileged to such things as speaking infallibly ex cathedra etc etc...Christ certainly provided no means for succession! How cruel, to leave the church a head for a mere generation more! Oh, wait, we have 2 Timothy 2:2 except that it uses men plural, in accordance with all believers being a royal priesthood (ironically from 1 Peter 2:9) again making the case that there is not supposed to be any mortal man over the church (except the ascended Christ in heaven). Indeed, look at the way succession was decided (decades upon decades after Peter's death); succession went to the bishop of Rome because Peter was martyred there (a disputed fact btw). Look at what this set up! God supposedly set up the leader of the church to always be Roman in spite of him not being a respecter of persons! Indeed only Romans were Popes for a long time until shifting secular power moved the papacy to Avignon, ultimately leading to there being 3 popes at the same time, all claiming to be the one true pope! (That's some seriously legit succession right there, being the divine will of God for there to be a man to lead the church to save it from spiritual confusion and conflict!!!)

But enough Catholic bashing and on to the heart of the matter. Catholics say that succession is a Christo-centric doctrine, but nothing could be further from the truth! Look now at Matthew 23:8 if you haven't already and read. Obviously Christ here isn't banning calling people 'father' or saying that we have no fathers, because biologically speaking we do. What he is saying is that we are not to be led by men. He very clearly states that we are not to either be like the pharisees living in richness and flattering ourselves as 'holier than thou' nor to follow such men. Yet look at the papacy, full of men doing the very things the pharisees did, and Catholics following them along. The Christo-centric doctrine is that the bible is all sufficient for Christian life and that men are nothing more than aids in understanding, racing partners (1 Corinthians 9:24) and brothers, not fathers, teachers and certainly not popes.

Having just used much space to persuade the reader that there is rightly no such one as a pope, I do feel it somewhat redundant and wholly needless to show that these 'popes' are not in fact infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but for those who still give credence to the papacy, I shall continue my work. I shall define ex cathedra as, to the best of my knowledge, when a Pope speaks seeking to bind the church body in belief with his statement, in regards to faith or morals, or when he speaks decisively about faith or morals without formally saying that he wishes the church to believe in it.

As to the fallibility of popes I shall only speak briefly since the standard Catholic response is "Well that wasn't Ex Cathedra". For my first example, let's look back to Pope Honorius, undeniably a supporter of the Monothelites (saying that Christ was only God and not man at all). Pope Honorius was condemned / anathematized / excommunicated at III Constantinople in his official capacity as a pope, not an individual scholar therefore demonstrating that the council (which many believe also enjoys infallibility when speaking as a whole) understood Pope Honorius to have been speaking ex cathedra and thus infallibly.

The only other example I shall give of papal fallibility is as follows. Vatican I declares "That if anyone says that the roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (a brief aside: what of the Avignon popes? They were not roman pontiffs yet the entire church declared them to be popes! Is the whole church during these times anathema? Also, let's not forget that Christ called 'blessed' Peter a stumbling block and Satan...'not the successor of the stumbling block Satan...' not quite the same ring eh?) In brief regards I imagine that there will be uproar for my saying that the Avignon popes weren't popes at all since they weren't roman by people claiming that being Pope makes you the Bishop of Rome, but history argues vice verca. Go back to a basic History class and you will see that only a Roman could be Bishop of Rome and that being Bishop of Rome is what made you a pope up until the Avignon disaster. But now back to the fallibility of Dogmas...Vatican I said that all who did not accept the succession from Peter (such as myself) are damned, yet hear what Vatican II says: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter...They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ." Look now at what this says...I am at once damned and united with Christ! This is clearly a contradiction and disproves papal infallibility. Really this shouldn't be a big deal since we're not to look up to any man as a teacher, but to Christ himself. Again the Catholic Church has set itself up to be something far greater than it should be and has fallen miserably short of the mark. In God alone, and his inspired words are there no contradictions. In him alone is there forgiveness of sins, and to him alone be the glory!

SOLI DEO GLORIA
Matthew Shealy