RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Indulgences Infallibility of the Pope
Gotha, 1886; F. Beringer, Die Ablasse, ihr Wesen und Gebrauch, Paderborn, 1895; T. Brieger, Das Wesen des Ablasses am Ausgange des Mittelalters, Leipsic, 1897; A. Kurz, Die katholische Lehre vom Ablass vor und nach dem Auftreten Luthers, Paderborn, 1900; F. Beringer, Les Indulgences. Leur nature et leur usage, Paris, 1906; Neander, Christian Church, vols, iii.-v. passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 381 sqq., vi. 146 sqq., v. 1, pp. 729 sqq.; Thatcher and McNeal, Source Book, pp. 338-340; Robinson, European History, i. 337-340, 477, ii. 41-42, 53 sqq.; KL, i. 94-112; DCA, i. 834-835, ii. 1586-1608; and literature under Eck, Johann Meyer; Luther, Martin; Reformation; and Tetzel, Johann.
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 assumption. 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 infallibility as an integral part of systematic theology (cf. J. J. I. Dollinger, 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 und Untersuchungen, i. 489-498, Paderborn, 1897). After the Council of Trent the doctrine became a bone of contention between the Gallicans 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 morals; 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 mem- Its Promul- bers being present, 451 bishops voted
gation by in the affirmative, 88 in the negative, the 62 with a qualification (placet juxta
Vatican modum), and over 80, though present
Council. 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 Orleans, Forster of Breslau, Ketteler of Mainz, Strossmayer of Bosnia, Hefele of Rottenburg, and Kenrick of St. Louis, sent a deputation to the pope, and
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. (625-638) " as a heretic [Monothelite], who, with the help of the old serpent, had scattered deadly error." This anathema 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, indorsed the sixth ecumenical council, and pronounced " an eternal anathema " on the authors of the Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Honorius, " 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 testimony of Hippolytus, who insisted that Patripassianism was logically involved in their protest against ditheism, a. h. n.] ; Liberius signed an Arian creed in 358; Felix II. (355-358) was a decided Arian; Zosimus (417) at first indorsed the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius, whom his predecessor, Innocent I., had condemned; Vigilius (538-555) vacillated between two opposite decisions 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. Sixtus 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. Schapf.
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 The easily and conveniently when doctrinal Roman differences and disputes arise. The Catholic infallible authority of the Church in Statement, 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
Infallibility of the Pope Inge