Papal Infallibility and Paul's Rebuke

Pope Francis’ upcoming visit has me in the mood to write about Pope related stuff.  Today I wanted to talk about Papal Infallibility and the most common argument against it.

Let’s dive in!


Food Fights:

One of the biggest controversies at the dawn of the Christian Church was regarding whether Christians were required to observe the dietary laws of the Mosaic Law.

Today we take it for granted that Christians allowed to eat any food they please.  But if you were an observant Jew at the time - and your ancestors going back 1.5 millennia had obeyed these dietary laws - the transition might have been rocky.

The non-Jewish converts, on the other hand, weren’t bothered one bit.  They could eat bacon-wrapped-scallops from dawn till dusk and feel nothing but sheer bliss.  This difference in background created strife between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

This brings us to a passage in chapter 2 of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  Paul describes an episode where he had some words with Peter.  The guy had been publicly eating with Gentiles, but when he feared offending some Jewish converts who had come to town, Peter broke away from them and only ate clean foods with the Jews.

This example caused a bit of confusion and led many people to wonder if the dietary laws were still in effect after all.  The Apostle Paul wound up confronting Peter publicly on the matter.  And the confrontation is recorded for all time in Scripture:

“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.  For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.  The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." – Galatians 2:11-13

Worst Pope EVAR!  

Many folks will look at this event and observe two things:

1. Peter apparently messed up.
2. Peter was rebuked by Paul.

So, the argument goes:

How could the Catholics claim that Peter was the head of the Church and enjoyed the assistance of Papal infallibility?  Here he is making a gigantic screw-up and getting told off in public.  What kind of infallible, unquestioned leader is that?

Now what?


Kim Jong Kephas?

I like to respond to this challenge by asking a question.  I inquire of the person:

"What do you think Papal Infallibility is?  If you had to describe it to someone who had no clue, what would you say?"

The answer is almost always some variation of:

• It means the Pope cannot sin.  
• It means everything the Pope says and does is right.  
• It means the Pope can write new Scripture. 
• It means the Pope receives new revelations from God.
• It means the Pope knows the future. 
• It means no one can criticize the Pope.

In other words, what is expected is a kind of apostolic version of a North Korean dictator.  A man regarded as perfect, unquestioned, and with a direct redline connection to the Almighty.   Well, that isn’t the claim of Papal infallibility.

This is the creepiest photoshop I have ever done.

Whats This Thing For?

To understand Papal infallibility, you have to first understand what it is for.

Imagine an argument breaks out between two guys sitting in the pews on some matter of theological importance.  Things escalate quickly.  Next thing you know all the bishops of the world are at yelling at one another about this question.  Well… now what?

Two things are needed simultaneously.

First you need some guy who can make the final decision on the matter.  However, even if there was such a guy, people could still rightly ask, "Why should I listen to his opinion?"  So there is a second requirement; you need public confidence that God won’t let this tie-breaker give the wrong answer.

Thus, it stands to reason that for the sake of preserving the unity and veracity of the Church’s teaching, Jesus would designate some guy as the final say and protect him from error when it is absolutely necessary to have a right answer.

With all that in mind, here is what the Catholic Church says about Papal infallibility:

“In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ willed to confer on the Church a share in His own infallibility. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful who confirms his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” - CCC 890-891

So if you notice, this has nothing to do with the Pope always being right, never sinning, or even being a decent guy.  The fella could be a heretic who robs banks in his spare time.  The only time Papal Infallibility is in effect is when the Pope is using his authority to define doctrine for the whole Church.

Even then, it doesn't guarantee the Pope's answer will be the whole story, or that he will phrase things perfectly, or that he will have perfect timing.  All it means is that the answer he purposefully and definitively gives to the Church won't be wrong.


Taking a Look Back:

Now let’s go back to Galatians 2…

In the episode described above, Peter makes an imprudent pastoral decision and gives people the wrong impression.  Then he is rebuked by Paul.

This doesn’t disprove Papal Infallibility for the following reasons:

1. Peter did not actually teach that the dietary laws were still in effect.
2. Peter did not purposefully try to teach anything at all.
3. Peter was not defining a dogma for the whole Church.   
4. Papal infallibility doesn’t guard Popes against being hypocrites.  

Lastly, in regard to this proving Peter wasn’t the leader of the Church… it proves nothing of the sort.  All it means is that Peter was willing to receive criticism.  You know, the kind of fraternal correction Christians are supposed to receive with charity.

In fact, one can actually see a sort of backhanded acknowledgement of Peter’s authority in this.  First, the fact that tons of people were confused by Peter's actions showed how they were willing to interpret Peter's actions as a binding teaching.

Second, Paul is using this episode in his letter to demonstrate to the Galatians how serious he is about the dietary laws no longer being in effect.  In essence he is saying,

“This is so important, I was even willing to rebuke Peter on this!”

Every Pope including Peter has been a deeply flawed, mistake-prone sinner.  So this sort of thing remains necessary from time to time.  But that doesn’t mean that when it really counts God cannot use this flawed instrument to teach and preserve the Church.