Authority Claims of Rome - Catholic Apologists

 In this blog, #40 in my Sola Scriptura series, I will continue the review of the authority claims of Rome, which refuses to accept the formal sufficiency of Scripture. If you will remember, I discussed Formal Sufficiency in parts 17 and 18 (Part 17: Formal Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture, Pt 1 and Part 18: Formal Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture, Pt 2) of this Sola Scriptura series but a strict definition was never given, so let me give one now. I ran across a blog discussing this topic and had a particularly nice definition, 

Formal sufficiency says that Scripture also contains all that is necessary to use the pieces to build the structure which is the complete testimony and harmony of Christian doctrine. In other words, the Scripture is clear enough that there is no need for an external authority to interpret it. Going back to the analogy, this would be the blueprints for what’s being built. 

Scripture is Formally Sufficient – by Lee Keitel [emphasis added]

Catholicism repudiates the concept that Scripture is formally sufficient believing that an infallible interpreter is required because Scripture is too obscure and too difficult to understand. That is why she claims that a magisterium is needed for this purpose. In fact, she believes that God ordained it specifically for this reason. This line of reasoning, though, was dismantled in the above-mentioned blog articles (as well as other articles in this series) because Scripture, even by the early Church fathers, was considered easily understood and interpretation was straightforward. William Webster and church history point out; there has never been a time when an infallible interpreter of Scripture has existed in or for the Church. This claim is only from Roman Catholicism, which has never produced one, not even after this unbiblical concept was put forward centuries after one would have supposedly been needed. 

And Church history, as Webster wrote, witnesses against such a claim in three ways:

1. First, there are instances where the Church fathers were in near unanimous agreement on the meaning of Scripture on specific passages which the Roman Church in later ages rejected. Practically speaking, this means that the Roman Church currently interprets Scripture contrary to the interpretation held by the early Church.
2. Secondly, there are teachings held today by the Roman Catholic Church, deemed necessary for salvation, which were never taught in the early Church and, in some cases, were actually ruled heretical. 
3. Thirdly, there were bishops of Rome who fell into heresy and were condemned for such. [1] 

So, my intent here is to discuss Rome’s authority claims and document how they do not line up with their own history. 

Early Church Unanimous Agreement Rejected

The previous blog looked at the theological and historical aspects of Matthew 16:18, so let’s approach the concluding remarks for this one from a different angle. I’ve already stated that there were quite a few early Church fathers that disagreed with the current Catholic Church interpretation of this verse. But the fact of the matter is, virtually all of the early Church fathers disagreed with Rome’s interpretation. That’s right. It wasn’t until the novel concept of a ‘pope’ was invented and implemented that a need to find justification for this new unbiblical position arose, which in turn changed the interpretation of this verse for later church fathers. 

The previous blog listed a number of Church fathers who disagreed with Rome’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Here is a more complete list of those dissenting Church fathers:

Tertullian (155-240/250 AD), Origen (185-253/254 AD), Cyprian (210-258 AD), Firmilian (d. ca 269 AD), Aphraates (280-345 AD), Eusebius (260–339 AD), James of Nisbis (d. ca. 337 AD), Athanasius (295-375 AD), Ephrem Syrus (303-373 AD), Firmicus Maternus (306-337 AD), Didymus the Blind (313-398 AD), Hilary of Poitiers (315-367/368 AD), Basil the Great (330-379 AD), Gregory of Nazianzen (330-389 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 AD), Ambrosiaster (works dated 366-384 AD), Ambrose (333-397 AD) , Epiphanius (315-403 AD), Gaudentius of Brescia (327-410 AD), John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), Jerome (342-420 AD), Asterius (350-410 AD), Paulinus of Nola (354-431 AD), Augustine (354-430 AD), John Cassian (360-435 AD), Palladius of Helenopolis (363-431 AD), Nilus of Ancyra (365-430 AD), Palladius of Helenopolis (363-431 AD), Paul Orosius (375-420 AD), Prosper of Aquitaine (390-455 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444 AD), Paul of Emesa (d. 445 AD), Isidore of Pelusium (d. ca. 450 AD), Peter Chrysologus (380-450 AD), Theodoret (393-466 AD), Cassiodorus (485-585 AD), Cassiodorus (490-583 AD), Basil of Seleucia (d. 468 AD), Fulgentius (467-533 AD), Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), Isidore of Seville (560-636 AD), John of Damascus (645-749 AD), Bede (672-735 AD), and Paschasius Radbertus (785-865 AD). You can find what each of the fathers wrote here: The Church Fathers’ Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources and The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 – Christian Resources. If you have any doubts, I encourage you to take a moment and check the webpages. 

That’s 44 Church fathers. Most people have never heard of these Church fathers, but there are many important and influential names on this list, like Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom and Gregory the Great. 

So, as you can see there were a lot of early Church fathers that did NOT hold to the Catholic Church’s ‘infallible’ interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It should make you ask a simple question: ‘Why so many?’ For many of these fathers, there was no such thing as a ‘pope’ during their lifetime, or it was a new concept where popes were testing their abilities to dictate their authority. But what this list of early Church fathers demonstrates is the simple fact that the modern interpretation of Matthew 16:18 was never about the unanimous content of the fathers. 

Trent and Vatican I

By the way, when do you think Matthew 16:18 was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church? That’s right, the Council of Trent in 1546, the anti-reformation council. Remember, the whole purpose of Trent was to counter the Reformation and with the Reformers challenging the authority of the pope, this dogmatic definition was the Catholic Church formally establishing the pope’s authority within the church. So, why did it take fifteen centuries? If the early Church fathers had understood ‘Peter was the rock’ in Matthew 16, none of this would have been questioned to the degree that it was by the Reformers and those that followed. But such a late decree comes across as self-serving and without any ‘unanimous consent,’ disingenuous with respect to history. 

And Vatican I only made it more self-serving and disingenuous when they reaffirmed the Trent decree stating that “it is unlawful to interpret Scripture in any way contrary to the unanimous content of the fathers.” [2] But as the previous blog and the list of fathers above showed, there was no unanimous content! Does this not mean that both Trent and Vatican I are in violation of this decree? And then as if that wasn’t bad enough, they went on to dogmatically define “papal primacy and infallibility with the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32 as the basis. The Council claimed that the interpretation it gave, and the conclusions it drew from them, were those which have ever been taught and practiced by the Church, that is, from the beginning and known to all subsequent ages.” [3]

But in reality, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the actual historical facts we know is that the Catholic Church knowingly and purposely lied in their dogmatic decree. And none of this was hidden from anyone who wished to know the truth. At the beginning of the apostolic age, no one held to the Catholic Church’s modern view. The concept developed in its theology and practice slowly over time as the concept of the pope was created and instituted in the West. The Eastern Church never accepted the pope as authoritative over the entire Church. And so, by Vatican I, to oppose this novel teaching, one is said to lose their salvation. That means according to Rome, no Protestants or Eastern Orthodox believers are Christians. So much for an infallible church.

Strike one. 

The Witness Within Catholicism

Since both Trent and Vatican I made such a huge deal about the authority of Rome and her pontiff, let’s look at what some of her historians, apologists and scholars found in the historical record. Can we find any support in the early church for the institution of the papacy practiced or taught by these fathers? Have these views always been taught by the church, as Trent and Vatican I claim?

Let us begin with Johannes Quasten (1900-1987), who was a Catholic patristic scholar. Much earlier in this Sola Scriptura series, I wrote about a controversy concerning rebaptism of some that were determined to be heretics which involved Pope Stephen and Cyprian. Quasten related the following, 

Cyprian is convinced that the bishop answers to God alone. … In his controversy with Pope Stephen on the rebaptism of heretics he voices as the president of the African synod of September 256 his opinion as follows:

[Quoting Cyprian] “No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” [emphasis added]

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles … No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed‘ (Epist. 71, 3).”…He does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59, 14) [4] [emphasis added]

As Quasten stated above, in Cyprian’s day no bishop thought they had to submit to the primacy of Rome.

Next we have Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger (1799-1890), who was one of the greatest and most influential historians of the Catholic Church.

In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine; but he places this superiority, rightly understood, only in its antiquity, its double apostolical origin, and in the circumstance of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, know nothing of special Papal prerogative, or of any higher or supreme right of deciding in matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and St. Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek Fathers, St. Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are the two Cyrils; equally silent are the Latins, Hilary, Pacian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and St. Ambrose.

St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome – which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable … that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word.

We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries – Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and, later, Leontius and Timotheus – have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith.

All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi. 18, John xxi. 17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess – Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas – has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the Church (Apoc. xxi. 14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as – what is obvious to any one at first sight – they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing. [5] [emphasis added]

I realize this is a long quote and there is some old English here that some might have difficulty parsing, so let me walk you through it. The quote starts by saying that Irenaeus is the only Church father that gave any superiority to the Roman church with respect to doctrine. Later fathers gave no such superiority to the Roman bishop. Next is Augustine, who is the one father that wrote more on Church unity and authority than all the other fathers combined, and there is only a single sentence in a single letter which mentioned the Apostolic chair. But it still did not put Rome ahead of any other church, such as Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria. Rome was not considered the center of the church’s power. Next, the author mentioned all the sects and heresies in the first six centuries, and at no time were any accused of promoting or denying the Pope’s supremacy on matters of faith. Why? Because Rome was not the Church center that all were expected to answer to. And lastly, concerning Matthew 16:18 and John 21:17, the author states that none of the patristic fathers applied these verses to the bishops of Rome, the so-called successors to Peter. In addition to that, none of the commentaries of these fathers contain the slightest indication of Rome’s supremacy or the promise supposedly given to Peter. Remember, this is the evidence a Catholic historian found within the historical writings of the early Church fathers. 

Summarizing the findings of Roman Catholic historian, Yves Congar (1904-1995), William Webster wrote, 

Yves Congar, readily acknowledges that the early Church fathers are not supportive of the teachings of Vatican I and that a consensus of the fathers is nonexistent regarding its dogmas. … in both their practice and their exegesis of Scripture, the Eastern Church is not in agreement with Roman Catholic ecclesiology of papal primacy or infallibility. We have a patristic consensus of both practice and interpretation. It is clear from their statements that they do not give an interpretation that is supportive of Vatican I. There is unanimous consent, but it is a consent that is antithetical to a Roman interpretation and ecclesiology. [6] 

Strike two.

Where is Papal Infallibility in Luke 22:32?

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)

As Catholicism and Webster point out, papal infallibility was based on its interpretation of Luke 22:32, which also says it was an historical belief of the early Church and had the unanimous consent of the fathers. But that is not true either. 

The Council [Vatican I] asserted that the doctrine of papal infallibility was a divinely revealed dogma and all who refuse to embrace it are placed under anathema. But an examination of the fathers’ interpretation of Luke 22:32 yields the following conclusion: there is not one Church father who interpreted that passage in affirmation of papal infallibility. In fact, no father, doctor, theologian or canonist of the Church for the first 14 centuries interpreted this passages in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. They never even implied the teaching of papal infallibility. The universal teaching and belief of the Church was that the bishops of Rome were fallible that they could and did err. [7] [emphasis added]

So, as Vatican I stated, there was unanimous consent of the Church fathers, then which fathers believed that Luke 22:32 spoke on papal infallibility? According to Brian Tierney (1922-2019), who was considered a world renowned Roman Catholic medieval scholar, 

The scriptural text most commonly cited in favor of papal infallibility is Luke 22.32. There is no lack of patristic commentary on the text. None of the Fathers interpreted it as meaning that Peter’s successors were infallible. No convincing argument has ever been put forward explaining why they should not have stated that the text implied a doctrine of papal infallibility if that is what they understood it to mean. [8] 

Strike three. There is zero evidence of papal authority in patristic Church history. And the worst part of this is that the Catholic Church has always know this.

Condemned as Heretical

Let’s start with the assumption of Mary. Did you know that this teaching was made ‘dogma’ in 1950 and that, as a Catholic, one is required to believe this for salvation? Do you know what’s worse? That there was unanimous consent in the early church about this belief, but that it was unanimously believed not to be true. And as Webster pointed out, this highlights the contradiction between the claims of Rome to never promote teachings or interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Church fathers. [9] 

 In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared this teaching to be a dogma of the faith and that it was divinely revealed by God and necessary to be believed for salvation. (Munificentissimus Deus – Papal Encyclicals, #44, #45, #47) Unfortunately, there is not a shred of evidence of its existence within the pages of Scripture or the annals of history for nearly 400 yrs. The first person to mention it was Epiphanius in 377 AD when he wrote that no one actually knew what happened to Mary. (Saint Epiphanius on the Assumption of Mary)

Like Epiphanius, Jerome lived near Palestine and never recorded a tradition.

In addition, Jerome, who lived in Palestine, did not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoed Epiphanius, stating that no one had any information about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore nonexistent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians admit this fact. [10] 

Again, according to Webster, the first Church father to teach the assumption of Mary was Gregory of Tours in 590 AD and what he used was an apocryphal gospel known as Transitus Beatae Mariae. The first time this apocryphal document was mentioned was in the 5th century and attributed to the 2nd century Church father, Malito of Sardis.  Unfortunately, this attribution was not exactly what it was purported to be. No true scholar believes Malito wrote it and the attribution is an attempt to place when someone thinks it was written, not by whom. It’s also interesting to note that the document was copied (one might even say ‘developed’ over time) and found throughout the East and West, but all of them can be traced back to this single supposed original document and that single source was regarded as heresy. Somewhere between 494 and 496 AD, Pope Gelasius issued a decree setting forth the writings that were considered canonical and accepted, and those considered apocryphal and should be rejected. The Transitus Beatae Mariae was considered apocryphal and thus heretical. Its status was placed alongside the writings of heretics Arius, Marcion and Pelagius to name only a few. And if that wasn’t enough proof, in 520 AD, Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this condemnation. [11] 

The bottom line is that at least through the 6th century, the assumption of Mary was considered heresy. Yet today, if the assumption of Mary is not believed then one is considered a heretic. Interesting unanimous consent, don’t you think? 

The Papacy and Heresy

According to the Catholic Church, papal infallibility can be validated by history and the practice of the church. Unfortunately for Catholicism, popes have erred, contradicted themselves and other popes. They have also embraced and have been condemned for heresy. So, let’s look at a couple of examples that prove this point. 

Pope Liberius

Liberius was pope from 352 to 366 AD during the Arian controversy. He is being mentioned because he is an example of how ridiculous it is to try to believe in the infallibility of the pope or the Catholic Church. When Liberius was elected pope, Constantius II (337-361) was the Roman emperor and a staunch Arian. Emperors want conformity to their beliefs and Constantius was no different than others, as he attempted to force (i.e., bully) the western church to follow his lead in the east by anathematizing Athanasius. One can also say that this is a condemnation of the infallibility of the eastern Church since they seem to have led the Arian charge. At first Liberius refused to reject his orthodox view, resisting both bribery and threats. That caused his position as pope to be revoked and earned him banishment. But as his banishment wore on and local Arian bishops worked to change his mind, he relented, submitted to the emperor, accepted Athanasius’ excommunication and the new Arian creed. [12] 

If not for the letters of Liberius and Hillary of Poitiers, I wonder if some of the history of Liberius would have been cleansed of this embarrassing episode. Liberius wrote a letter, documented in Appendix B of Webster’s book (Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II) [13] to Arian bishops in hopes of being released from his banishment. His letter was successful thus sealing his apostasy for personal and political reasons. But as Webster said, 

… if the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:32 is correct and the Holy Spirit guarantees that no heresy will ever infect the papacy, then this incident could never have occurred. Dollinger points out that this case of Liberius was cited throughout the Middle Ages as proof that the Bishops of Rome could and did fall into heresy:

[Dollinger wrote] Liberius purchased his return from exile from the Emperor by condemning Athanasius, and subscribing an Arian creed. ‘Anathema to thee, Liberius!’ was then the cry of zealous Catholic bishops like Hilary of Poitiers. This apostasy of Liberius sufficed, through the whole of the middle ages, for a proof that Popes could fall into heresy as well as other people. [14] 

And once Liberius was reinstated and Emperor Constantius died, he once again defended the orthodox faith proclaimed at Nicaea. But it does not change the fact that he apostatized during his banishment so that he could regain his position as pope. This completely undermines the idea that the pope, any pope, could be infallible. In addition, the Church appointed an Arian antipope during Liberius’ banishment and then reinstated Liberius as pope because he promised to repudiate the Christian faith and endorse the excommunication of Athanasius, all as conditions to regain the position as pope. Not only does this demonstrate that popes can err and are fallible, it does the same to the supposed infallibility of the Church. The churches in both the east and the west erred and repudiated the true faith by attempting and successfully forcing Liberius to apostatize the biblical faith proclaimed in Scripture. All to please a man, even if he was emperor.  

Pope Honorius

And then there is the case of Pope Honorius, who reigned from 625 to 638 AD. He promoted the heresy of monotheletism, which is the belief that Jesus only had a single will, the divine will, even though He had two natures, one human and other divine. The orthodox view is that Jesus had two wills, the human and the divine. Catholic apologists, like Karl Keating, have attempted to gloss over Honorius’ heresy but there is plenty of evidence and scholars that do not. As Webster related, 

Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. [15] 

The problem that Catholicism has is that they believe that the council was infallible and it understood that Honorius was a heretic, which is why they condemned him. But Honorius was also an infallible pope, even if it was an anachronistic rewrite of history. Add to this that Pope Leo II, another infallible pope, condemned and anathematized Honorius as well. But how can an infallible pope (Honorius) be condemned as a heretic? Adding to this problem, how can an infallible council, which the 6th Ecumenical Council is considered to be, condemn and anathematize an infallible pope (Honorius) after his death? What Honorius did, according to Leo II, was considered as subverting the faith, which is exactly what teaching heresy should be considered.

Now, some Catholic apologists will object to this characterization by stating that Honorius was not giving an ex cathedra statement, but Honorius was teaching within his official capacity as the pope and was defining a doctrine for the entire Church. Clearly heresy. And the 6th Ecumenical Council believed he was, which is why both it, Pope Leo II and every pope for the next 500 yrs condemned and anathematized Honorius. So, just in case you doubt me and you are curious, there are a number of sites on the internet that have statements from the council that corroborate everything said here concerning the council’s resolution. Catholic apologists can say whatever they want, but the council recorded exactly what is said above. 

Who is Authoritative?

The whole point of the examples of Liberius and Honorius is to conclusively show how the Catholic Church’s authority claims have major issues that contradict each other. For instance, according to the Catholic Church, at a minimum Scripture, tradition, the Magisterium, ecumenical councils, popes, and the Church are all infallible entities, and all infallible at the same time. This sets up a bit of a quandary – when there is a contradiction between two or more of these entities, who decides which is right? That, of course, means that one or more of them are wrong and strips one or more of them of their coveted ‘infallibility.’

For the case of Liberius, the whole Arian controversy was a gigantic mess for the concept of an infallible Church since it was the Church that vacillated from orthodoxy to heresy and back again. And this is a huge problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church as well, since they believe in an infallible Church too! And even though the concept of a ‘pope’ was still in its infancy, there was the pesky ‘apostolic succession’ that was anachronistically read back into Church history. ‘Fallible’ decisions by an ‘infallible’ bishop? Next we have Honorius, who is an even bigger embarrassment for the Catholic Church. We have an ‘infallible’ Church establishing a ‘fallible’ ‘infallible’ bishop to lead the Church. He promotes heresy while he’s the ‘infallible’ head of the ‘infallible’ Church. Is anyone as confused as I am? 

All of this proved without a doubt, neither the Church nor the pope are infallible. And as we discussed in a previous blog, Augustine wrote that Church fathers and councils made errors and had to be corrected by later councils and fathers. So, where does that leave us in our list of infallible sources? Right here: 

• Church leaders, including Church fathers and popes have all erred, which makes them all fallible men, regardless of their position in the Church. 
• Councils have erred which means they are fallible. Besides, they are run by men, and we just stated that men are fallible. 
• Churches have erred, which means they are fallible as well. 
• In our previous 39 blogs on this topic, we related that tradition is not what Catholicism proposes and is therefore fallible.
• The magisterium is a made up concept since there is nothing in history that supports the concept. If it does not really exist in the history of the Church, then it is by default fallible. 

That leaves Scripture as our only infallible source, which is the exact position of Protestants. Catholic apologists love pointing to the plethora of Protestant denominations as proof that Sola Scriptura without an authoritative interpreter defeats the concept of Sola Scriptura. But I have an entire blog devoted to dismantling this line of reasoning, as well as what was added to it in this blog. They also like to point out how Protestants disagree on their interpretation of Scripture, but this is blown way out of proportion. Just as Catholicism deals with heresy, Protestants do the same. So, to lump heretical so-called Protestant denominations or churches in as Christians is as invalid for Catholics as it would be for Protestants to do the same to Catholicism. 

So, in the end, we are right back to Scripture as our only remaining infallible source where we all have fallible men leading fallible churches using an infallible set of teachings known as Scripture.

Conclusion

So, I think that covers the three points we started this blog off with. First, we demonstrated that Matthew 16:18 never had the unanimous consent of the fathers and that both Trent and Vatican I misrepresented the truth about this verse. Why do I say that? Because there was nearly complete unanimous consent that Matthew 16:18 was NOT about Peter but about his confession of who Jesus was. Second, the Catholic Church teaches that all must accept the pope to be saved, yet this was not the belief in the early Church, which means it was not always believed. And third, there were bishops of Rome that erred by falling into apostasy. These supposed infallible popes were appointed by infallible churches, thus making it clear that popes are just fallible men and not infallible. 

Catholicism maintains that the Church and the pope are infallible guides in both the faith and practice within the Church. Yet, the example of popes Liberius and Honorius demonstrate that, just like popes, the belief of an infallible Church’s authority simply is not truthful. If you are supposed to be infallible, would you not know that these two men would apostatize the faith? 

My desire is not to drag people or popes through the mud, but to show that they are fallible men with the same fears and sometimes questionable motives that far too many believers have today. Nor is it my desire to do the same to the Church, since it is run by men and men err. The desire is simply to give historical examples as to why the Church, popes and councils are not infallible, and assigning an unrealistic authority structure to them doesn’t help prove or maintain anything when the readily available evidence contradicts the belief. 

Authority is far too often more about power than it is righteousness, and unfortunately, that is what we saw clearly in Honorius. And the same can be shown in the Church, when it wields power through the actions of men, whether popes, cardinals, bishops, patriarchs or pastors. And the same can be said on the Protestant side. 

What I did show is that of all the supposed infallible entities, the only one that remains infallible is Scripture. If no other authority claims are true or valid, and Scripture is the only infallible source left to you, is it not the only true and valid authority for Christians to accept and follow? Men will fail you; Scripture does not. Churches will fail you; Scripture does not. Councils will err; Scripture does not. And trying to pretend that Scripture is unclear is a self-defeating argument when compared to the overwhelming consensus of statements by the Church fathers. And not that they are the final arbiters, pick up and read Scripture for yourself and you will find out quickly that the overwhelming majority of it is understandable, especially the New Testament.

As we saw in The Formal Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture, Part 2, and several other blogs in this series, Scripture is clear and quite easy to understand. Does that mean every passage is? No. But since the Catholic Church has infallibly defined only 5-7 verses in the entire Bible and they made a royal mess with Matthew 16:18, they don’t seem to have a grasp on how to interpret anything. It was Scripture that was preserved by writing it down and passing it on throughout the ages to us today. It was Scripture that guided the early church. It was Scripture that was used to form the early creeds. It was Scripture that was used by the early church to defend the Christian faith. And it is Scripture that has never changed. Why? Because it was and still is the words of God to mankind, and God never changes. 

People will fail you; Scripture does not. 

The Holy Spirit, therefore, has generously planned Holy Scripture in such a way that in the easier passages He relieves our hunger; in the more obscure He drives away our pride. Practically nothing is dug out from those obscure texts which is discovered to be said very plainly in another place. 

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II. 6 (8) 

Footnotes

1. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 239.
2. Ibid, p. 240.
3. Ibid, p. 240.
4. Ibid, pp. 241-242.
5. Ibid, pp. 242-243.
6. Ibid, pp. 243, 244.
7. Ibid, p. 245.
8. Ibid, p. 245.
9. Ibid, p. 246.
10. Ibid, p. 247.
11. Summarized from William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 247-249.
12. Summarized from William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 250-251.
13. William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 251, 447-448.
14. Ibid, p. 253. 
15. Ibid, p. 255.