In discussing the evolution of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it’s essential to recognize the various theories that have emerged over time. This article explores the shift from a broader understanding of papal authority as defined in Vatican I to a narrower interpretation in contemporary Catholic thought. We will also examine alternative theories to the receptionist doctrine, providing a comprehensive view of the complex nature of papal infallibility.

Key Quotes from Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus)

Definition of Papal Infallibility:

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Scope of Papal Authority: “Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

Broader Interpretation of Papal Authority (19th Century)

During the 19th century, conservative theologians like Cardinal Henry Manning advocated for a broad interpretation of papal infallibility, extending it to legislative and disciplinary actions closely related to faith and morals. Manning argued that papal infallibility covered “all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority,” including laws of discipline and approbation of religious orders.

Ultramontanism, which supported the extensive authority of the pope, was the majority view at Vatican I. The council’s intent and the understanding of its authors and members were aligned with this perspective, reinforcing the pope’s overarching infallibility in a wide array of teachings and actions. This view effectively ruled out alternative interpretations of infallibility at the time.

Shift to a Narrower Interpretation (Post-Vatican II)

Vatican II and Collegiality: Vatican II (1962-1965) introduced a more collegial approach to Church governance, emphasizing the collective responsibility of the bishops alongside the pope. This shift is reflected in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), which highlights the importance of episcopal collegiality and shared teaching authority.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI’s Emphasis on Dialogue: Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI continued this trend by emphasizing dialogue and the pastoral application of doctrine. John Paul II’s encyclicals often sought to address contemporary issues while reaffirming traditional teachings, demonstrating a careful balance between authority and pastoral sensitivity. Benedict XVI’s approach in documents such as Deus Caritas Est emphasized the importance of love and pastoral care in the application of doctrine, reflecting a more nuanced and dialogic approach to papal authority.

Critique of Theories on Papal Infallibility

Absolutist Theory (Ultramontanism)

Description: The absolutist theory, historically known as Ultramontanism, posits that the pope possesses infallibility broadly in all his teachings related to faith and morals. This includes encyclicals, bulls, and other papal documents, regardless of whether a specific ex cathedra formula is used.

Support: This theory aligns closely with the views held by some conservative theologians during Vatican I, such as Cardinal Henry Manning, who argued that the pope’s infallibility extended to all legislative and judicial acts related to doctrinal authority.

Critique:

• Overreach of Authority: Critics argue that Ultramontanism grants excessive power to the pope, undermining the collegial nature of the Church and the role of bishops. This centralization can lead to potential abuses of power and diminish the importance of the broader episcopal community in doctrinal development.
• Historical Inconsistencies: Historically, there have been numerous instances where papal decisions on disciplinary and administrative matters have been controversial or erroneous, such as the actions of certain Renaissance popes. Ultramontanism fails to account for these inconsistencies and the need for checks and balances within Church governance. Historically, there have been numerous instances where papal decisions on disciplinary, administrative, and doctrinal matters have been controversial or contradictory. For example:
• Pope Leo X (1520) and the Death Penalty: In the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine (1520), Pope Leo X condemned the proposition that “it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.” This statement supported the execution of heretics as a legitimate practice.
• Pope Francis (2018) and the Death Penalty: In a significant doctrinal shift, Pope Francis declared in 2018 that the death penalty is “inadmissible” because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. This statement was included in the revised Catechism of the Catholic Church, which now states that the death penalty is inadmissible in all cases.
• Pope Honorius I (625-638) and Monothelitism: Pope Honorius I was posthumously anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) for his letters supporting Monothelitism, a doctrine later condemned as heretical. This anathematization created a significant controversy regarding the extent and nature of papal infallibility.
• Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) and the Vulgate Bible: Pope Sixtus V authorized and published an official version of the Vulgate Bible in 1590, which he declared as the definitive and inerrant edition. However, this edition contained numerous errors, leading to its withdrawal and replacement under Pope Clement VIII in 1592.
• Pope John XXII (1316-1334) and the Beatific Vision: Pope John XXII preached sermons suggesting that the souls of the deceased do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment, a view that contradicted the prevailing theological consensus. His successor, Pope Benedict XII, later defined the orthodox teaching in Benedictus Deus (1336), affirming that the souls of the righteous see the Beatific Vision immediately after death.
• Pope Zosimus (417-418) and Pelagianism: Pope Zosimus initially declared the teachings of Pelagius and Caelestius orthodox. However, after further consideration and pressure from African bishops, he reversed his position and condemned Pelagianism as heretical. This flip-flop raised significant questions about the consistency of papal declarations.
• Pope Liberius (352-366) and Arianism: During the Arian controversy, Pope Liberius was pressured by Emperor Constantius II and signed a creed that included Arian-sympathetic statements, contradicting the Nicene Creed. Although he later retracted his support, this incident showcased a papal inconsistency on a crucial theological issue.
• Pope Vigilius (537-555) and the Three Chapters Controversy: Pope Vigilius initially refused to condemn the Three Chapters, writings associated with Nestorianism. After being detained by Emperor Justinian I, he eventually capitulated and condemned the Three Chapters, creating confusion and division within the Church.
• Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) and the Index of Forbidden Books: Pope Paul IV established the Index of Forbidden Books, a list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality. Some books on the list were considered essential theological works by subsequent popes, leading to revisions and inconsistencies in the Index over time.
• Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) and Modernism: Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemned various modern ideas, including the separation of church and state, religious freedom, and modern interpretations of scripture. Later, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) embraced many ideas previously condemned by Pius IX, such as religious liberty and ecumenism, reflecting a significant shift in the Church’s stance on modernism. This stance was later reversed by the Second Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae (1965), which declared that religious freedom is a fundamental human right.
  
• Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) and the Fourth Crusade: Pope Innocent III initially supported the Fourth Crusade to reclaim the Holy Land but later condemned the crusaders for their diversion to Constantinople and the subsequent sacking of the Christian city, revealing a significant shift in papal stance.
• Pope Stephen VI (896-897) and the Cadaver Synod: Pope Stephen VI held the infamous Cadaver Synod, exhuming and putting the corpse of Pope Formosus on trial. This act was later condemned by subsequent popes, and the decisions of the synod were reversed, showing a stark inconsistency in papal actions and decisions.
• Pope Gregory XII (1406-1415) and the Western Schism: Pope Gregory XII resigned to end the Western Schism, a period with multiple claimants to the papacy. His resignation and the Council of Constance’s resolution contrasted with previous papal assertions of their legitimacy, highlighting inconsistencies during this divisive period.
• Pope Julius II (1503-1513) and the Fifth Lateran Council: Pope Julius II convened the Fifth Lateran Council, which aimed to address church reforms but was seen as ineffective. His decisions were contradicted by the more successful reforms of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), highlighting differences in papal approaches to church reform.
• Pope Clement XIV (1769-1774) and the Suppression of the Jesuits: Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1773, a decision that was later reversed by Pope Pius VII in 1814, restoring the order. This reversal showcased significant papal inconsistency in dealing with religious orders.
• Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and Railroads: Pope Gregory XVI condemned railroads as “roads to hell” in his encyclical Mirari Vos. Later popes accepted and even embraced technological advancements, showing an evolution in the Church’s stance on modern inventions.
• Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) and the Treaty of Tordesillas: Pope Alexander VI’s support for the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, was later seen as problematic as it ignored the rights of indigenous peoples. Subsequent papal teachings emphasized the dignity and rights of all people, including indigenous populations.
• Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) and Slavery: Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas (1452), which authorized the enslavement of non-Christians. This position was later contradicted by Pope Gregory XVI in the bull In Supremo Apostolatus (1839), which condemned the slave trade and slavery.
• Pope Paul V (1605-1621) and Galileo: Pope Paul V supported the condemnation of Galileo for his heliocentric views. This decision was later contradicted by Pope John Paul II, who formally acknowledged the errors of the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1992.
• Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) and Marriage of Mixed Faith: Pope Benedict XIV issued the bull Providas Romanorum (1751), which forbade marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics. Later popes, particularly after the Second Vatican Council, adopted a more lenient stance, allowing such marriages under specific conditions.
  
• Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) and the Line of Demarcation: Pope Alexander VI issued the bulls Inter caetera (1493), dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. This decision was later modified by the Treaty of Tordesillas and criticized for its disregard of the rights of indigenous peoples.
• Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) and Ecumenism: Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which promoted ecumenism and dialogue with other Christian denominations and religions. This was a significant departure from the previous stance of the Church, which had condemned ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, such as in the encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928) by Pope Pius XI.
• Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull Summis desiderantes affectibus in 1484, endorsing the witch hunts and the work of inquisitors Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, authors of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum. Later, the Church distanced itself from such practices, with subsequent popes and church authorities condemning the injustices of the witch hunts.
  Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and Unam Sanctam: Pope Boniface VIII issued the bull Unam Sanctam (1302), asserting the supremacy of the papal authority over temporal rulers. This assertion was effectively challenged and nullified by subsequent political and religious developments, including the Avignon Papacy and the rise of national monarchies.
• Pope Martin V (1417-1431) and the Hussites: Pope Martin V called for a crusade against the Hussites, followers of the Czech reformer Jan Hus. However, later efforts to reconcile with Hussite leaders led to the Compactata of Basel in 1436, which granted certain religious freedoms to the Hussites.
• Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) and Anti-Semitism: Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), condemning Nazi ideology and anti-Semitism. This contradicted earlier papal actions that had endorsed discriminatory policies against Jews, such as the establishment of Jewish ghettos and mandatory wearing of badges.
• Pope Clement XIV (1769-1774) and the Jesuits: Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1773 due to political pressure from European monarchs. This decision was reversed by Pope Pius VII in 1814, who restored the Jesuits and recognized their contributions to the Church. For more, I recommend, Challenging Catholicism: Unveiling Inconsistencies.
  
• Theological Rigor: The broad application of infallibility in Ultramontanism can dilute the theological rigor required for defining doctrines. By not necessitating a clear and explicit formula, it risks conflating authoritative teachings with infallible pronouncements, potentially leading to confusion among the faithful.

Conciliar Theory (Conciliarism)

Description: The conciliar theory, historically known as Conciliarism, emphasizes the role of ecumenical councils in conjunction with the pope’s authority. It asserts that infallibility is exercised not solely by the pope but collectively by the pope and the bishops when they teach together on matters of faith and morals.

Support: This theory is reflected in the teachings of Vatican II, particularly in the document Lumen Gentium, which highlights episcopal collegiality and shared teaching authority. It suggests that the infallibility of the Church is a collaborative exercise between the pope and the bishops.

Critique:

• Anathema: One major criticism of Conciliarism is that it was given an anathema in favor of Ultramontanism by the First Vatican Council. This effectively ruled out the conciliar approach as a valid interpretation of infallibility within the Catholic Church.
• Implementation Challenges: Conciliarism can face practical difficulties in implementation, especially in convening ecumenical councils and achieving consensus among a diverse group of bishops. This can slow down the decision-making process in critical matters of faith and morals.
• Papal Primacy: While promoting collegiality, Conciliarism may undermine the primacy of the pope as established in Catholic doctrine. The balance between papal authority and conciliar input is delicate and can lead to tensions within the Church hierarchy.
• Historical Precedent: Historically, the Church has faced challenges with conciliarist approaches, particularly during the Great Western Schism and the Councils of Constance and Basel, where conflicting claims to authority led to significant divisions within the Church.

The historical context and rejection of Conciliarism can be better understood through the events surrounding the Councils of Constance and Basel, and the actions of Pope Pius II.

The Council of Constance (1414-1418)

The Council of Constance was convened to resolve the Western Schism, which saw multiple claimants to the papacy. The council embraced Conciliarism, asserting that a general council had greater authority than the pope and could make binding decisions on matters of faith and Church governance. This belief was rooted in the desire to bring unity and stability to the Church. The council’s significant achievements included:

• Deposition of Rival Popes: The council deposed or accepted the resignation of all three rival popes (Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII), ending the schism.
• Election of Pope Martin V: The council elected Martin V as the new pope in 1417, restoring a single papal line and bringing much-needed unity to the Church.

The Council of Constance issued the decree Haec Sancta, which stated that a general council held authority directly from Christ and that everyone, including the pope, was bound to obey it. This decree embodied the core principle of Conciliarism.

The Council of Basel (1431-1449)

The Council of Basel continued the conciliar tradition by asserting similar claims of authority over the pope. Convened by Pope Martin V but carried on by his successor, Pope Eugene IV, the council aimed to address Church reforms and other ecclesiastical matters. Key events include:

• Initial Conflict with Pope Eugene IV: Pope Eugene IV attempted to dissolve the council in 1431, but the council resisted, reaffirming its authority.
• Compromise and Split: Eventually, a compromise was reached, and the council moved to Ferrara and later to Florence. However, a faction of the council remained in Basel and continued to assert its conciliar authority, even going so far as to elect an antipope, Felix V.

The Council of Basel highlighted the ongoing tension between conciliarist principles and papal authority. Although some initial acceptance of conciliar authority occurred, the divide and conflict ultimately weakened the conciliar movement.

Rejection of Conciliarism

The rejection of Conciliarism became more pronounced with later papacies, particularly under Pope Pius II. Pius II explicitly condemned Conciliarism and reinforced the doctrine of papal supremacy:

• Bull Exsecrabilis (1460): In this bull, Pope Pius II condemned appeals from papal decisions to general councils as “execrable and unheard-of,” asserting that such appeals were an affront to the Church’s hierarchical structure and the divinely instituted papal authority.

Pius II’s actions marked a clear repudiation of Conciliarism, re-establishing the primacy of the pope as the ultimate authority within the Church.

“The next day the best known and most discussed incident of the entire council occurred. It centered on Cardinal Filippo Maria Guidi, a Dominican whom Pius had made a cardinal in 1863. Pius also appointed Guidi, archbishop of Bologna, but Guidi had been unable to claim his see due to the obstruction of the Italian government, which now held the former papal city. During the council Guidi lived with his fellow Dominican bishops at Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the great Dominican convent in the center of Rome.

In keeping with the tradition of their order, Guidi and his fellow Dominicans belonged to the majority, but they were not partisans of the Manning-Senestrey bloc. This was especially true of Guidi, who from 1857 until 1863 held, at the special request of Cardinal Rauscher, the chair of Thomistic theology at the University of Vienna, where he got to know many of the bishops of the minority from that part of the world.

Up to this point in the council Guidi had kept a low profile. He had, however, been in contact with minority bishops and was among the many at the council who hoped to find a formula that would end the standoff and unite the council behind the decree. That is what he attempted to do on June 18, and to a large extent he succeeded. Here at last was what the minority hoped for: somebody from the majority who publicly offered a formula it could accept.

In his speech to the council Guidi essentially dealt with the two key issues: is infallibilty personal to the pope, and is it separate from the church? Infallibility, he argued, does not make the person of the pope infallible, as if it were a habitual quality of his person. Guidi used a homely analogy: we do not call somebody a drunk who once or twice had too much to drink. Divine assistance is promised not to the person but to an act. It is the act that is infallible. Therefore the title of the chapter should be changed to “De Romani Pontificis Dogmaticarum Definitionum Infallibilitate” (The infallibility of the Roman pontiff in defining dogma).

Is the pope separate from the church, or is he dependent upon it? The pope is not dependent on the church in the sense that the bishops, even bishops gathered in council, confer upon the pope an authority to make infallible judgments. He is, however, dependent in that he must learn from bishops what the sense of the church is on a given issue—ut ab eis resciat quinam universalis ecclesiae sit sensus.

We learn of this truth, he said, from the practice of the apostles themselves (Acts 15) and from the practice of frequent councils in the early church. Indeed, Cardinal Bellarmino taught that popes “do not condemn a new heresy without a new council.” And among their contemporary Jesuit theologians, Father Giovanni Perrone of the Collegio Romano taught the same. Consultation of the bishops was, therefore, absolutely necessary to determine what the faith of the church was, as Pius IX did in defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The decree must, therefore, make it clear that the pope must consult the bishops, and therefore it must contain the words “after due inquiry, as is the custom” ( facta, uti mos est, inquisitio). With that, shouts of “Good! Good!” rang out, as well as “No! No!” A few moments later Guidi concluded with a defense of bishops, who were loyal and orthodox but unfairly called gallicans, though they did not believe a council could undo an infallible papal declaration.

As Guidi descended from the rostrum, Strossmayer ran up to kiss his hand. The mood in the council hall had lightened. Many bishops felt that a turning point had been reached and that the council could now move forward with hope for virtual unanimity on the decree. Both Dechamps and Pie were pleased. Deschamps saw the speech as a “bridge to unity” and confessed to Darboy that he had always taught what Guidi proposed. Darboy replied expressing his pleasure but also noting that this was far from the actual wording of the decree. Not everybody was happy. Manning groaned that Guidi was confused, and at crucial points in Guidi’s speech other bishops made clear their disagreement. In any case, a coalition of the minority and moderates of the majority now seemed a possibility.

It was not to be. Pius IX was furious. That very afternoon he summoned Guidi to his apartment. He accused him of befriending the enemies of the church and of trying to ingratiate himself with the Italian government so that he might occupy his see in Bologna. He reminded Guidi that he was his creature, an unknown friar until he had made him a cardinal. Strossmayer’s kiss proved that Guidi was surreptitiously plotting with the leaders of the opposition.

In reaction to Guidi’s insistence that before issuing a definition the pope had to investigate the tradition of the church, Pius broke out with the famous words, “I, I am tradition! I, I am the church” (Io, io sono la tradizione! Io, io sono la chiesa!). To defend himself Guidi could say only that he had spoken according to his conscience and according to the teaching of Saint Thomas and Cardinal Bellarmino.”

John W. O’Malley. Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church. Belknap Press, 2018. Pages 210-212.

Minimalist Theory (Moderate Infallibilism)

Description: The minimalist theory, historically referred to as Moderate Infallibilism, restricts the scope of papal infallibility to the narrowest possible definition. It holds that infallibility applies only to very specific ex cathedra pronouncements made under strict conditions, thus excluding most papal documents and teachings from the scope of infallibility.

Support: This interpretation has gained traction in the post-Vatican II Church, with theologians and official ecclesial teachers emphasizing the need for a clear and explicit ex cathedra declaration for a teaching to be considered infallible. This approach is also consistent with the views of theologians like St. John Henry Newman, who argued for a limited understanding of infallibility.

Critique:

• Clarity and Certainty: While providing clarity on the conditions for infallibility, the minimalist approach can create uncertainty about the authority of other papal teachings. This can lead to ambiguity and varied interpretations among the faithful and theologians.
• Pastoral Concerns: The stringent criteria for infallibility in the minimalist theory may neglect the pastoral needs of the Church. Important teachings that address contemporary issues might be deemed non-infallible, potentially weakening their perceived authority and impact.
• Historical Development: The minimalist approach may not fully account for the historical development of doctrine, where significant teachings have evolved without explicit ex cathedra declarations. This can create a disconnection between past doctrinal development and present application.
• Vatican I’s Position on Formula: At Vatican I, the idea that a specific formula was necessary for a teaching to be infallible was mocked by many council members. The council’s definition of infallibility does not require a specific formula, indicating that the Church’s understanding of infallibility encompasses more than just explicit ex cathedra statements. This historical context challenges the minimalist view and highlights the broader scope intended by the council.

Bishop Gasser’s Relatio: Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his relatio (explanation) to the council fathers, addressed concerns regarding the need for a specific formula. Gasser argued against the necessity of a strict formula, emphasizing that the content and intent of the pope’s teaching were more important than the exact words used. He pointed out that requiring a formula would be unprecedented and unnecessary, given the history of papal teaching.

Mockery of the Formula Requirement: Many council members, including those who were skeptical or critical of the definition of papal infallibility, found the idea of needing a specific formula to be overly rigid and impractical. They argued that infallibility should be understood in the broader context of the pope’s role as the supreme teacher and guardian of faith, rather than being tied to specific phrasing.

Gasser’s Statement: In his relatio, Gasser remarked, “Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?” This statement reflects the council’s broader understanding that infallibility is not dependent on a specific formula but on the authority and intent behind the teaching.

Outcome: The final text of Pastor Aeternus does not specify a required formula for infallible teachings. Instead, it emphasizes that when the pope “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,” he speaks infallibly by virtue of his office, under the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.

Pastoral Theory

Description: The pastoral theory focuses on the practical and pastoral application of papal teachings. It suggests that the pope’s infallibility is not just about doctrinal correctness but also about guiding the faithful through pastoral care and discernment.

Support: This theory is reflected in the approach of recent popes like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, who have emphasized the pastoral dimension of their teachings. Documents such as Amoris Laetitia highlight the importance of pastoral discernment and care in the application of doctrine.

Critique:

• Doctrinal Precision: The pastoral approach can sometimes prioritize practical considerations over doctrinal precision. This can lead to interpretations and applications that may diverge from traditional teachings, causing confusion among the faithful.
• Authority and Unity: Emphasizing pastoral care might dilute the perceived authority of papal pronouncements. If teachings are seen primarily as pastoral guidelines rather than doctrinal imperatives, it could challenge the unity and consistency of Church teachings.
• Change of Topic: Similar to how the pragmatic theory of truth shifts the discussion from the nature of truth itself to its practical applications, the pastoral approach shifts the focus from the doctrinal precision of papal teachings to their pastoral effectiveness. While there is no doubt that the pope has a role in defining and giving dogma, this shift in focus can obscure the importance of maintaining doctrinal clarity and consistency.
• Risk of Relativism: By emphasizing practical outcomes over doctrinal fidelity, there is a risk of relativism, where the truth of teachings is evaluated based on their pastoral utility rather than their adherence to established doctrine. This can undermine the Church’s commitment to objective and unchanging truths.

Developmental Theory (Developmentalism)

Description: The developmental theory, historically known as Developmentalism, is based on the idea that doctrine develops over time through the Church’s lived experience and deeper understanding of revelation. This theory suggests that the understanding and application of papal infallibility can evolve.

Critique:

• Doctrinal Continuity: Critics argue that Developmentalism can risk altering core doctrines under the guise of development. Ensuring continuity with foundational teachings while allowing for development requires careful theological discernment.
• Subjectivity: The concept of development can be subjective, leading to diverse and sometimes conflicting interpretations of how doctrines should evolve. This can create doctrinal fragmentation and inconsistency within the Church.
• Authority and Tradition: Balancing development with respect for established tradition is crucial. Overemphasis on development might undermine the authority of traditional teachings and create tension between past and present interpretations.
• Endless Evolution: Like Hegelianism, Developmentalism implies that doctrinal truth is an ongoing process that never fully reaches a final form. This can make the faith appear as though it is in a constant state of flux, with no universal perspective or endpoint. The idea that truth and understanding are always evolving can undermine the certainty and finality of papal pronouncements and established doctrines.
• Undermining Certainty: The perception that doctrine is always subject to change can weaken the faithful’s confidence in the Church’s teachings. If doctrines are seen as provisional rather than definitive, it may lead to a lack of trust in the stability and reliability of Church teachings.

Receptionist Theory (Receptionism)

Description: The receptionist theory emphasizes the reception of papal teachings by the faithful as a crucial element in the exercise of infallibility. It suggests that the infallibility of papal pronouncements is confirmed through their acceptance and integration into the life of the Church.

Critique:

• Authority and Certainty: The receptionist approach can lead to ambiguity about the definitive nature of papal teachings. If infallibility depends on reception, it might challenge the clear authority of papal pronouncements.
• Doctrinal Consistency: Ensuring consistent reception across the global Church can be challenging, given diverse cultural and theological contexts. This can result in varied interpretations and applications of papal teachings.
• Ecclesial Unity: The emphasis on reception might undermine the immediate and universal authority of the pope, potentially leading to fragmentation and divergent practices within the Church.
• Hegelianism Parallel: This approach can make the faith resemble Hegelianism, in which one never fully reaches the true substance until the end of time because there is no universal perspective on how teachings will be received. This ongoing evolution without a clear endpoint can undermine the certainty and finality of papal pronouncements.

Ultramontanism as the Preferred Interpretation

Given the intent of the First Vatican Council, Ultramontanism seems to be the best critique of all these other theories because it aligns closely with the council’s understanding and interpretation of papal infallibility. The council’s clear preference for a robust papal authority, as evidenced by the anathemas pronounced against alternative views, underscores the necessity of affirming Ultramontanism to maintain doctrinal consistency and unity within the Church. None of the other theories adequately address the potential for contradiction or fragmentation, making Ultramontanism the most coherent and authoritative interpretation of the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Comments on Ross Gregory Douthat’s Perspective

Ross Gregory Douthat, in his commentary, highlights the historical context and evolving understanding of papal authority, emphasizing that contemporary debates reflect the church’s complex relationship with its traditions and teachings.

Thomas Pink’s Argument: Thomas Pink, in an essay, addresses the question of the extent to which Catholics can argue with or resist the pope, especially when papal actions seem to contradict settled doctrine. He cites historical examples and argues for a more nuanced understanding of infallibility that allows for legitimate critique and dissent.

“A pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy,” wrote John Henry Newman (now St. John Henry Newman) during the 19th-century debates over papal infallibility and its limits. One might think that the history of the medieval and Renaissance papacy would confirm this perspective — yet as Pink argues, there was a powerful school of Catholic thought that held the opposite opinion. And with some justification: Catholics are supposed to assume that the Holy Spirit protects the church, and the papacy especially, from teaching falsely when it comes to crucial matters of faith and morals. Why wouldn’t the same guarantee extend to matters of law and policy and discipline, which are, after all, intimately connected to faith and morals, since they represent the operationalization of Catholic teaching in the world?

Thus Newman’s fellow English Catholic churchman Cardinal Henry Manning argued that the pope’s infallibility covered “all legislative or judicial acts, so far as they are inseparably connected with his doctrinal authority” and similarly that “laws of discipline, canonizations of saints, approbation of religious orders, of devotions, and the like” would all “intrinsically contain the truths and principles of faith, morals and piety.” (This theory would certainly extend the blessings of infallibility to Pope Francis’ crusade against the Traditional Latin Mass.)

The Manning view, Pink argues, wasn’t an outlier: It was quite close to the views of Catholic authorities in the Counter-Reformation era, who allowed for extreme hypotheticals about heretical popes but mostly assumed that the papacy’s infallibility in doctrine extended “to a comparable infallibility as legislator” (as did many popes themselves).

So in 19th-century Catholic debates, some general principle of near-infallibility was a credible conservative position, set against Newman’s relatively liberal assertion that actually, the papacy and the institutional church could make serious mistakes. And a century and a half later, we can say that this debate has been settled in favor of the more liberal position — not through any formal ruling from the Vatican, but simply because of the obvious implications of how the church has changed since then.

John Henry Newman’s View: John Henry Newman argued that a pope is not infallible in his laws, commands, acts of state, administration, or public policy. This perspective contrasts with views like those of Cardinal Henry Manning, who extended infallibility to legislative and judicial acts closely related to doctrinal authority.

Challenges with the Legacy of Vatican II: The changes brought about by Vatican II, which introduced significant reforms in church governance, worship, and relations with other religions, highlight the difficulty of maintaining a strict interpretation of infallibility. The evolving nature of church teaching suggests that a more dialogic and discerning approach is necessary to navigate contemporary issues.

In conclusion, the debate over papal infallibility continues to be shaped by historical developments, theological perspectives, and contemporary challenges. The tension between maintaining doctrinal continuity and adapting to new contexts underscores the complexity of this doctrine and its application in the life of the Church.

1. Distinction between Magisterial and Official Theology

Pink introduces the distinction between “magisterial teaching,” which is infallible and binding, and “official theology,” which, while authoritative, is not protected from error and may evolve or be subject to critique.

Critique:

• Ambiguity and Confusion: The distinction between magisterial teaching and official theology can create ambiguity and confusion among the faithful. It may be challenging for lay Catholics to discern what teachings are infallible and which ones are open to legitimate disagreement.
• Undermining Authority: By categorizing certain papal teachings as “official theology” and not infallible, Pink’s view might inadvertently undermine the perceived authority of the pope and the Church’s teaching office. This could lead to selective adherence to Church teachings, weakening ecclesial unity.
• Furthermore, he has to deal with the evidence for all the alternative theories.

If you’re interested in a deep dive into the complexities of papal infallibility and its historical challenges, check out the article “The Death Penalty and the Death of the Roman Magisterium.” This piece critically examines the contradictory stances of different popes on the death penalty and what this means for the concept of infallibility. It’s a thought-provoking read for anyone interested in theology and Church doctrine.

Recommendations for Further Reading

If you found the article on papal infallibility intriguing, you might also be interested in exploring these related pieces that delve into various aspects of Catholic doctrine and tradition:

1. “The Death Penalty and the Death of the Roman Magisterium”
   Read here
2. “Tradition in Context: Understanding Paul’s Teachings”
   This article offers a comprehensive look at Paul’s teachings and their relevance to modern theological debates.
   Read here
3. “The Battle of Doctrinal Foundations: Examining Sola Scriptura and Tradition”
   An in-depth examination of the foundational doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Tradition, and their roles in theological discourse.
   Read here
4. “Why I’m Challenging Catholicism: Unveiling Inconsistencies”
   A critical analysis of perceived inconsistencies within Catholic doctrine, offering a thought-provoking perspective.
   Read here