INFALLIBILITY. — This is that supernatural prerogative by which the Church and the Pope cannot err in professing and defining revealed doctrine, through a special divine assistance. Infallibility excludes not only factual error but also error of law, eli-
minating every possibility of deviation in the doctrinal field.
The infallibility of the Church differs from that of God, from which it derives by participation; it implies neither the manifestation of new truths nor a supernatural impulse to write, but a divine assistance (attributed to the Holy Spirit) that directs all ecclesiastical teaching through negative and positive interventions, preventing the definitive formulation of false judgments and guiding the minds of the teaching body toward the correct understanding and reworking of the revealed deposit. Through this assistance, the infallibility of the believer is also guaranteed, since he adheres to the doctrine proposed for his faith by an infallible magisterium. Divine assistance does not exclude the human means of researching revealed truth and its developments, but presupposes, promotes, and preserves them from deviations in their final result. Infallibility, therefore, is neither omniscience, nor impeccability, nor the Pope’s habitual thaumaturgy, nor the hypostatic union of all the bishops with the Holy Spirit, as it is not infrequently presented by Protestants.
The infallibility of the Church, in general, has never been formally defined as a dogma, but it must undoubtedly be admitted as a revealed truth proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium; it is presupposed by the First Vatican Council in its definition of papal infallibility (constit. Pastor aeternus, cap. 4; Denz-U, 1839); it can be established with complete certainty through an examination of the New Testament texts and of primitive tradition.
1) In the New Testament, the Church appears invested with the same mission and the same power as Christ. Now, Christ’s mission and power had as their object the preaching of the doctrine received from the Father: cf. Mt. 18, 18; 28, 18-20; Mc. 16, 15-16, 20; Lc. 10, 16; Rom. 1, 5; I Cor. 1, 17; II Cor. 5, 20; 10, 4; I Tim. 1, 19; I Io. 2, 24; II Io. 1, 10.
2) The texts concerning the solemn investiture of the Apostles with Christ’s powers (Mt. 28, 18-20 and Mc. 16, 15-16), beyond the general mission to teach with the task of “making disciples,” promise an effective assistance whose temporal limits are the same as those of the duration of the present world. “I am with you” is, in biblical usage, a divine assurance of the successful outcome of the mission entrusted by God to his messengers—a mission which, in the texts cited, consists in the preservation and oral teaching of the Gospel.
3) Jesus Christ threatens eternal damnation to whoever will not believe the apostolic preaching (Mc. 16, 16); this threat would be absurd if the magisterium of the Church could be conceived as being in disharmony with the doctrine of the Master.
4) Jesus also indicated the supernatural cause of infallibility, identifying it with the spirit of truth, which, possessed and active, would assist the Apostles as witnesses and interpreters of his doctrine, enlightening them and sanctifying them with all truth, making them one with him and with the Father (Lc. 24, 48-49; Io. 14, 16 ff. 26; 15, 26; 16, 7-14; 17, 17; Act. 1, 8 and 2, 4).
5) The Apostles, moreover, appear fully conscious of their infallibility (Act. 5, 32; 15, 28) and transmit their powers to their successors (I Tim. 4, 11-16; II Tim. 2, 2; Tit. 1, 5) according to a law of succession clearly attested by s. Clement Romano (Cor., 44, 1) and already contemplated in Jesus’ promises.
6) The Fathers closest to the Apostles echo the same teaching. For s. Ignazio d'Antiochia, the bishops are Christ’s doctrine itself, just as Christ is the doctrine of the Father; the faithful must unite themselves to it (Ephes., 3, 2; cf. Philadelp., 3, 2). For s. Ireneo, apostolic doctrine, transmitted through the succession of bishops, is the criterion for distinguishing truth from heresy (Adv. haer., 1, 10, 1; 3, 3, 1; 3, 4, 1).
But the College of Bishops, heir to the powers of the apostolic College, infallible both in the solemn definitions of councils (v.) and in the ordinary and universal magisterium (v. CHIESA), carries out its teaching mission only in subordination to its head, according to the divine institution of the primacy, which therefore contains infallibility within its very nature, as an attribute inseparable from the universal magisterium. Indeed, according to the theological speculation prevailing today, also suggested by a passage in Mystici corporis (AAS, 35 [1943], p. 216), the pope is the sole immediate or direct subject, or the source, vis-à-vis the Church, of infallibility. This had already been formulated in the following terms by the Passionist theologian Giacomo del S. Cuor di Maria: “The pope is not infallible of himself, but through him, Jesus; nevertheless, the pope is infallible in himself, just as Jesus Christ is infallible in himself. Whereas the Church is infallible neither of herself nor in herself, but through Christ by means of the pope.” The conclusion follows from the universal character of papal teaching, since wherever ecumenical teaching is found in all its intensity, there too is the exercise of infallibility. For this reason, the biblical texts establishing the primacy also bear witness to pontifical infallibility. Thus, in Mt. 16, 18-19, the three parallel images of the foundation, the key-bearer, and the binder and looser, in his capacity as Christ’s vicar, authenticated in his decisions by Heaven, assign to Peter, together with the other sovereign powers, that of supreme magisterium as well. In Io. 21, 15-17, the charge of feeding Christ’s entire flock is indicated even more explicitly. A specific indication of pontifical infallibility is found in Lc. 22, 31-32. Jesus has just responded to the Twelve’s disputes concerning the primacy, inculcating in them the new spirit of authority (24-27), when he entrusts Peter—repeating earlier designations—with the office of confirming all the brethren in the faith. This appears to be an application of Mt. 16, 18-19, a particular aspect of the struggle announced there between the Church and the infernal powers. Many Fathers and the First Vatican Council saw in this text a clear affirmation of pontifical infallibility (const. Pastor aeternus, cap. 4; Denz-U, 1836).
S. Ireneo, in a celebrated passage (Adv. haer., 3, 3, 2), openly affirms the supreme magisterium of the Roman Church, embodied in its bishops, as the root of the doctrinal unity of the universal Church, gathering within itself the qualifications of witness, guardian, and organ of apostolic Tradition, and of the fullest criterion of truth against all heresies, equivalent to the consensus of all the apostolic Churches together (v. C. Mohrmann, A propos de Irenaeus 3, 3, 2, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 [1949], pp. 57-61: a new interpretation of the passage, which increases its probative value). Tertullian is forced to acknowledge, against his will, that the bishop of Rome is recognized as the arbiter of ecumenical communion and orthodoxy (Adv. Prax., 1).
The practice of turning to Rome whenever some danger to the faith arose has been particularly well attested from the earliest Christian centuries, just as papal interventions against heresies are numerous and decisive. The cases of s. Dionigi di Alessandria, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism, together with the decisions of the popes s. Innocenzo I, s. Zosimo, s. Bonifacio I, s. Celestino I, and s. Leone Magno, as well as the formula of s. Ormiada, are among the best known and most demonstrative (Denz-U, 100, 109, 110, 112, 149, 171).
After a recognition that in the West may be regarded as almost uninterrupted, one reaches the Second Council of Lyons (1274), which proclaims the pope “the definitive judge of questions concerning the faith” (Denz-U, 466). The conciliarist interlude (v. CONCILIARISMO) might have appeared to have ended when the Council of Florence (1445) called the pope “the Supreme Teacher of all Christians,” endowed with full power (Denz-U, 694); on the contrary, however, the error spread widely (v. H. Iedin, Storia del Concilio di Trento, I, Brescia 1949, pp. 34-53), Gallicanism (v.) persisted along the dangerous path, asserting that the pope
is not infallible « nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit » (Denz-U, 1325). It fell to the First Vatican Council (1870) solemnly to reaffirm Tradition and to explain the expression ex-cathedra within a more clearly defined framework, thus excluding the exaggerations and uncertainties of certain proponents of infallibility (Denz-U, 1832-40).
The ex-cathedra definition, the sole case in which, strictly speaking, the exercise of papal infallibility occurs, takes place only when the pope pronounces a manifestly definitive judgment intended for the whole Church, putting his entire universal doctrinal power into operation.
Infallibility is a personal prerogative in the Pope, not because, as a private person, he is guaranteed against error or heresy—a question left open—but in the sense that each of Peter’s successors, without exception, is infallible, and not merely the succession itself or the Roman See considered as a moral entity, as certain Gallicans claimed. It could also be called personal, with a more positive intention, in order to exclude its communicability: for it cannot be delegated. It was, and is sometimes still, called « absolute » and « separate », terms rejected by many, and admissible only in the historical function of excluding the condition of the Church’s consent. Under that condition—which would undermine it at its very root—even the last Gallicans were prepared to accept it; they attempted, but in vain, to introduce at least an allusion to it into the Vatican definition.
The First Vatican Council did not, however, define the object of papal infallibility, limiting itself to declaring it identical with that of the Church’s infallibility, which some of the Fathers had wished to have defined first. On this subject, however, there are precise indications from the ordinary magisterium and a doctrine well elaborated by theologians.
It must be held as a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in teaching what has been explicitly or implicitly revealed, according to the most common theological understanding today of “explicit” and “implicit.” For the custody, explanation, and presentation of the doctrine of the Divine Master Himself were entrusted to the apostolic magisterium. The breadth of this object is clearly indicated by the very terms that guarantee infallibility: within its scope are « every truth » revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit (Io. 14, 26; 16, 13), « all the preaching » of Jesus (Mt. 28, 20), « the words of Jesus that came from the Father » (Io. 17, 6-8), and « the Gospel of the Kingdom » (Mt. 24, 14; 26, 13). Logically, this includes heresy (v.), which contradicts revealed Truth. By virtue of this prerogative, the Church can also infallibly establish the canon of Sacred Scripture, declare the extent of biblical inspiration, define the meaning of a dogmatic biblical text, choose suitable dogmatic formulas, and so forth. All this is called by most modern theologians the direct or primary object of infallibility.
The secondary object comprises what are generically called « connected truths ». These are not formally found in Revelation, but are so closely linked with it that they may be said to be virtually contained in II. Error concerning these applications of the revealed principle would shake the very foundations on which they rest and would endanger the faith. Connected truths must therefore be regarded as present in the mind of the Divine Master at the moment of communicating His Revelation, just as, in every intelligent being, the most immediate consequences of his assertions are logically present.
The principal classes of these connected truths are those of theological conclusions (v.), dogmatic facts (v.), canonization (v.), and ecclesiastical legislation. The connection of canonization with Revelation appears from the fact that it is nothing other than the concrete application of two articles of faith: that concerning the veneration of the saints (v.) and communion of saints (v.); moreover, it concerns Christian religious conduct itself, since the person canonized is also proposed as a model of perfect virtue. In the case of legislation, the connection is revealed in its dependence upon revealed moral principles, which are here interpreted and applied for the whole Church. A particular case is constituted by the solemn approval of religious Orders in the strict sense. By this approval, the Church declares that a way of life is a secure path to Christian perfection. Infallibility does not, however, entail a judgment concerning the greater or lesser prudence exercised in promulgating universal ecclesiastical laws.
The principle of infallibility with regard to the secondary object has on its side the unanimous consensus of Catholic theology; indeed, its certainty would, according to several theologians animated by the breadth of Christ’s promises, rise to the level of divine faith (indications from the ecclesiastical magisterium on the matter in Denz-U, 1698, 1722, 1817, 2005). The assent owed by the faithful to definitions concerning connected truths is generally called assent of ecclesiastical faith. But a strong theological current, whose principal representatives are Schiflini, Gardell, Tuyerra, Marlin-Sola, Beraza, and Stolz, would abolish, together with the distinction between the primary and secondary objects of infallibility, ecclesiastical faith itself, and establish a single object: revealed doctrine, however revealed, which, after the Church’s definition, is to be held by divine-Catholic faith.