Many non-Catholic Christians make the claim that if papal infallibility were true, Scripture would explicitly teach it. Because Scripture fails to make an explicit pronouncement, they argue, it must have been foreign to the biblical authors. Although papal infallibility is in fact not explicit in Scripture, the biblical and historical data we do have make the infallibility of the pope quite clear.
To provide this proof, I will need to establish three points of argumentation.
Premise 1: The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Jesus established.
Perhaps the most controversial part of this proof, we need to recognize that the Church Jesus established is infallible. This part of the argument does not actually require that the Church Jesus established be the Catholic Church. It simply requires that whatever Church he established be protected. This can be established through several Bible verses. The most common would be Matthew 16:18. We could also reference other Bible verses, such as 1 Tim. 3:15. If the Church is a pillar for truth, it must have some protections always to be such a pillar. Finally, Jesus tells his apostles in Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” This suggests that the apostles have the authority of Jesus while he is in heaven. If this is the case, the Church has certain protections from error.
Premise 2: Peter was the leader of the early Church during the time of the apostles.
This part of the argument can be established in several different ways. His name appears 195 times in the Bible, more frequently than all the other apostles combined. When the Bible lists all the apostles, not only is Peter always first, but Judas is always listed last. This suggests that the apostles are ordered in terms of importance or authority. Although all the apostles are given authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter is singled out in Matthew 16:18, suggesting that he had a special authority. Jesus also calls out Peter in Luke 22:32, telling him that he prayed for him (singular) that his faith may not fail, and that he may strengthen his brethren.
In the Council of Jerusalem, not only does Peter speak up first in Acts 15:7, but he makes a bold statement: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.” If all of the apostles have equal authority, why would Peter single out himself here? He also says that God made a choice among “you,” speaking to other apostles and elders in the Church. Some have argued that James is the one leading the council, but in reality, Peter makes the declarative statement that the Church will not require circumcision. After this, James speaks up and says that because of this decision, they should write to the Gentiles to abstain from certain things. This is not the same type of statement that Peter makes, because the Church as a whole is still following Peter’s decision—whereas the letter to the gentiles was only for a specific people at a specific time.
Premise 3: Peter’s unique authority passed on to his successors.
Given that we have already established Peter’s unique authority, the last step in proving papal infallibility would be to prove that Peter’s authority was passed down to his successors. Before getting into a proof, we should recognize that this should be the default position. After all, if Peter’s authority was unique, it would make sense for it to pass down to his successor. The alternative view, that this was only for the apostles, would need to be argued.
Not only would this belief be unprecedented, but the later facts of Church history nullify it. Take, for example, the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon, who declared that “Peter has spoken through Leo” (the pope at the time). Some will surely argue that this is late in Church history (451), but this council discussed matters as important to the Faith as Christ’s nature, specifically answering questions about the hypostatic union. If this is not too late for those issues, why is it too late to teach explicitly that Peter’s authority is passed down?
Keep in mind that just like how there were earlier Church history facts that would allow us to conclude that the declarations of the council on the hypostatic union were believed before the year 451, the same can be said about Peter’s authority being passed down.
Believe it or not, these premises are all we need to establish the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. To do so, we will employ a proof by contradiction.
There are several ways to prove something in philosophy and mathematics. One is proof by contradiction. In order to prove something in this way, we would need to assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove, then follow the logical steps.
For example, if I wanted to prove something simple like “Not all numbers are even numbers,” I could assume the opposite: that all numbers are even. Then, if we recognize that even numbers divided by 2 should lead to a whole number, we can easily establish that this is false by picking a number like 5. If we divide 5 by 2, we get 2.5, a non-whole number. Therefore, not all numbers are even.
This way of proof can also be developed for the doctrine of papal infallibility. To wit:
- Want to prove: Pope Francis is infallible when making binding declarations on faith and morals.
- Assume the opposite: Pope Francis is not infallible when making binding declarations on faith and morals,
- If 2 is true, then the leader of the Church Jesus established can bind the faithful unto error.
- This cannot be the case, because the Church Jesus established is infallible, and Peter was the leader of the early Church, and his authority was passed down to his successors (now Pope Francis).
- Conclusion: It is impossible for Pope Francis to bind the faithful unto error definitively, so he must be infallible when making binding declarations on faith and morals.
In summary, papal infallibility can be logically proven through both scriptural evidence and proof by contradiction. By establishing that the Church Jesus founded is protected from error, that Peter held unique authority as its leader, and that this authority was passed to his successors, we can deduce that the pope must be infallible when making definitive declarations on faith and morals.