Asa H. Craig, (Asa Hollister), 1847-1934
Few Protestants understand the real meaning of the Infallibility of the Popes. Like many important features, or histories, of the Catholic Church, which have been grossly misrepresented, so, too, has this doctrine of Papal authority been belied, slandered, and condemned, and all because of ignorance of the subject under discussion.
Probably no interpretation of Catholic dogma has been looked upon by Protestants with so little reverence as this, but when we analyze the interpretation that is usually given, we ought not to wonder why it is so, for we find that Protestants are usually taught that the Pope, being called Infallible, is above the possibility of sin. Infallibility to them can have but one construction, and that which refers to a perfect purity of mind and body. Catholics may wonder why such a belief should become so prevalent among other Christian denominations, but when I tell you I have always lived in as intelligent a State, county and town as there is in the United States, and yet, during my whole life (and I am now turning the corner of manhood’s prime), I have no recollection of ever hearing a Protestant who pretended to explain Infallibility, except as it meant an impossibility to sin. The whole argument has ever been to present this one idea, and in its presentation, we could see the error of belief. We could see that the Pope was a man, that once he was an ordinary priest, and now to place him in the Papal chair and say by this act that he is above sin was carrying the sublime to a point of inconsistency, and of course through Protestant eyes it became a ridiculous farce.
Thus, we find that almost universally, outside of Catholics, the belief refers to a perfect purity of life, with no error and no sin; that every act is pure and holy; and because of these Christ-like inspirations, the Pope is placed above the worldly passions of men, and thus made Infallible in speech, in deed, and in instruction. This is the general opinion that is accepted by Protestants everywhere. And why should they not believe it? Like myself, they were taught it in society, in the church, at home, at school, when abroad, in fact it was an unconscious instruction in every walk of life. Every Protestant child grows to the years of understanding with this thought firmly
implanted in his mind. How could it be otherwise? He received no counter instruction, and without even observation, believed that Catholics accepted the doctrine of Infallibility as a divine power of man.
When I look back through my career in life, when I realize that this one lesson of all other lessons was accepted without discussion, or even investigation, I simply stop in my meditations and say to myself: This is the only instruction which I have ever received in which I did not consider the subject, and in considering, investigate its foundation. I accepted the statement as a fact and could not conceive how any intelligent being could be so blinded in faith as to believe that a Pope could not sin. In my ignorance I actually pitied the misguided Catholic for his infatuation and blindness, when in reality I should have pitied myself for accepting the statement of others without a study, or even a thought of investigation.
Having commenced a study of the Catholic Church, it became an easy matter to follow one principle after another without any serious trouble of misunderstanding, and as I did so I found that I had gathered only prejudice and misstatements. The history of the Church was becoming fascinating to me, for it was developing a character so much different from what I had been taught to believe. I found that I had been deceived in my views concerning it. It was not that awful instrument of persecution, rack, and torture, which had been charged against it. There were two sides to every charge and grievance raised in its opposition. There were two sides to the Reformation and its long line of wars and desolation. There were two sides to the history of the Huguenots of France. There were two sides to the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Two sides to the Spanish Inquisition, the controversy on the Bible, the history of Oliver Cromwell, of Queen Mary, and the oppressed and persecuted Mary, Queen of Scots. And on further investigation I found a new vision in the sainted and beautiful life of the mother of Jesus, and as I developed in my mind this wonderful miracle of God by which the Savior of man came into the world, I learned to reverence the instrument of purity that gave Him birth. To me the Virgin Mary was no longer an ordinary woman, no more than was Christ an ordinary man. By this I do not mean to represent that the mother of Jesus was of divine origin, but being prepared for this great event in the history of mankind, she could not be an ordinary woman. Her mission was one of a grander purpose. Her body was consecrated to the most holy office which could be conceived in the wisdom of God. He was to give his only-begotten Son to mankind as a redemption for sin, and in this gift, this bringing to earth His own spirit, He could not select only that which was pure and undefiled.
And now, when we find that Catholics look upon the Virgin Mary with love and veneration, when they kneel before her shrine, when they invoke her aid in their intercessions before the throne of Grace, we are forced to believe that they see and feel what Protestants do not understand. I may be too expressive in my demonstrations of this pure relation which must exist between Jesus and his mother, yet I cannot now conceive how any other relation could have existed, nor can I understand how a Christian can love his Redeemer without loving and blessing the being who gave Him birth. It would seem to me that the more a person would worship God, the more he must honor and venerate the Blessed Virgin.
But I can understand why Protestants are not thus enthused. I was taught that these demonstrations of affection are but mockery. I believed they worshiped the Virgin Mary, just as I believed that their doctrine taught that the Pope was Infallible and above sin. With these views of a subject, it is not strange, after all, that we grow to manhood in ignorance of what Catholics profess and believe. In our misjudgment we mentally condemn what does not exist, and in our imagination, we do not stop to inquire or investigate, but follow in the old line of supposition.
In order to give undisputed evidence of what Infallibility means, I will quote from Cardinal Gibbons, one of the best Catholic authorities on this continent The Cardinal says:
“The Infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gifts of inspiration, and we accept their writings as the revealed word of God.”
“No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired, or endowed with divine revelation properly so called.” “Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable, or specially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with few exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honored martyrs. Seventy-nine out of the two hundred and fifty-nine that sat on the chair of Peter, are invoked upon our altar as saints eminent for their holiness.” “The avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes -with immorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought against them, we have forty-three virtuous to one bad Pope, while there was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.”
“But, although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given, not for the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment; for there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High Priests of the Old Law.”
“The illustrious Pontiff (Pius IX) is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has already filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of thirty years, ‘a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men/ and no man can point out a stain to his moral character. And yet, Pius IX, like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week. Each morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar, ‘I confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed/ And at the Offertory of the Mass he says: ‘Receive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences.”
“With these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of the Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as to proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth, that Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can benefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.”
“Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences, such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truths. It does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motion of planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form of government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to vote.”
Thus, we have from the words of the best of authority that Infallibility does not mean any of the gross charges which have been preferred against it. A Pope is not above other men, except that his great learning and piety have made him an acceptable candidate for this exalted position. Possibly Protestants may not know that when a Pope ascends the Papal chair, he is a man of mature years, when human ambition and passions are on the wane. “His personal expenses do not exceed a few dollars a day. He eats alone and very abstemiously. He has no wife, no children to enrich with the spoils of office, as he is an unmarried mam The Popedom is not hereditary, like the sovereign of England, but elective, like the office of our President, and the Holy Father is succeeded by a Pontiff to whom he is bound by no family ties.”
While Protestants often regard the Pope as a man of arbitrary power, yet we find him past the prime of life, elected by his associates because of his power of understanding, because of his ability to govern his Church, and because he has proved by his life a worthy successor of those who have preceded him.
We also find him outside of the affairs of state, with no politics and no desires to dictate what others shall do or say. His mission is to interpret the laws of the Church, and in all matters of religion or faith he stands as the exponent, the Infallible guide and the highest authority. As the Supreme Court is the infallible exponent of the Constitution of the United States, so is the Pope the Supreme Court of the Church.
“The Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker of divine law; he is only its expounder. He is not the author of revelation, but only its interpreter. All revelation came from God alone through His inspired ministers, and it was complete in the beginning of the Church. The Holy Father has
no more authority that you or I to break one iota of the Scripture, and he is equally with us the servant of the divine law.”
To more forcibly impress my readers with the duties of the office of Pope as it refers to the Church and State, I will again quote: “The Pope’s Infallibility, therefore, does not in any way trespass on civil authority; for the Pope’s jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, while the duty of the State is to provide for the temporal welfare of its subjects.”
“When a dispute arises in the Church regarding the sense of Scripture, the subject is referred to the Pope for final adjudication. The Sovereign Pontiff, before deciding the case, gathers around him his venerable colleagues, the Cardinals of the Church; or he calls a council of his associate judges of faith, the Bishops of Christendom; or he has recourse to other lights which the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then, after mature and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judgment, and his sentence is final, irrevocable, and Infallible.”
Not long ago, while discussing the- Infallibility of the Pope. I read to my friend the above quotations, showing that even in the Pope’s decisions of disputes he does not depend upon his own wisdom, but, like the President of the United States, who summons his cabinet for advisement, so, too, does the Pope summon his Cardinals, or Bishops, for advice in all important and essential principles relating to the Church. My friend remarked that the Pope might not call the Cardinals and Bishops,’ but depend upon wisdom derived from the Holy Ghost, and as such would interpret the law without the aid of his associates, but would still be Infallible* My friend seemed to appreciate the efforts made by the Cardinals to select only such an one as was eminently qualified to fill the position of Pope, but was fearful that the inspiration of the Holy Ghost might not be interpreted without error, while a full discussion by Cardinals, or Bishops, would be a better exposition of divine truth.
Here, again, were the outcroppings of doubt, prejudice, and a misunderstanding. My friend was afraid to trust the judgment of the Pope, who would become the dreaded one man power, which Protestants seem to fear so much. Such is usually the sentiment of all those who oppose the Catholic Church. They know that in all organizations, no matter what is its nature, be it local, secret, or government, there must be some head, power, or governing influence, to guide, or control. Without a directing hand to point out the path of duty and to hold and sustain discipline, there cannot be harmony. As the general stands at the head of his army to give instruction to his subordinates, so, too, stands the Pope at the head of his Church to preserve harmony, to explain Scripture, to define the duties of faith and worship, and in this exposition there can be no doubt and no appeal.
His decision becomes final and Infallible. His is the highest court in the Church. He is the Chief Justice, the elected power to prescribe, the recognized authority, and while he calls his Cardinals and Bishops to advise and to give wisdom, yet it is not because of a necessity, but to insure a perfect and undeniable decision.
One form of opposition against Papal Infallibility is that he has no right to interpret the Bible, or any passage thereof.
Ministers, in preaching against this Infallibility, are loud in their declaration of individual rights to read the Word of God and determine for themselves the truths contained therein. They seem to believe that a Pope, Bishop, or Priest, has no right to explain the divine truths of the Scriptures, but at the same time they declare that they themselves feel the presence of God, they pray that his servant shall be filled with wisdom, that the Holy Ghost shall enter his heart, and that his words shall be the inspiration of that Spirit. They teach from the most approved commentaries, and constantly explain divine instruction. While they deny to others the right of instruction, yet they ask that their expositions shall be accepted as the Infallible doctrine of faith and worship.
A prominent Protestant Bishop once said, when discussing the right of the Pope to explain the Scriptures: “For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.” Possibly this Bishop may be able to interpret every passage of Scripture exactly as it is designed by God; if he can, then he is infallible, and he has delegated to himself exactly what he denies to the Pope. If he cannot positively understand and explain every passage of the Bible, he may look for someone who can, and again he denies this right to those whose duty it is to announce these explanations. Therefore, this Bishop is either infallible or he is not. If he is not then he must find someone who is, otherwise he is not competent to teach a perfect doctrine of faith and salvation, and if he is infallible then he becomes his own Pope.
But is this true? Does he correctly interpret the infallible doctrine of Christ? If he does, then the hundreds of other denominations who take the Bible as their standard of authority must be in error. If one out of the one hundred is right, then ninety and nine must be wrong. Now, there can be but one true version, and yet each denomination has made its own infallible doctrine from the same source. Is this not the result of individual study? And when we place the Bible in the hands of every seeker after truth and tell him to teach himself, have we not imposed upon him a burden which he cannot possibly understand? If the wisest theologians cannot agree there may be, after all, some grounds for conferring upon the Popes this Infallibility and thus prohibit the never-ceasing controversy which must be the result where there is no defined authority, and beyond which there is no appeal. Thus, is it not demonstrated that it becomes an absolute necessity that there must be some authorized and unerring interpreter?
For this, and only this, has the Church rested its final authority in the hands of the Pope. To do otherwise would be impossible and still retain a perfect union. Destroy this authority and you destroy the rock of its foundation. It is the compass, the lighthouse, and the pilot, without which the Church must flounder in confusion and chaos. The wonderful spread of Christianity through all the nations of the earth is due to the acknowledged authority to direct, control, and sustain. Had there been no head, the jealous rivalry of contending forces would have brought disaster and ruin. As governments require a court of final resort, so, too, does the Church require its Pope, who is and must be the Infallible guide in all that pertains to the spiritual welfare of the Church.
Many Protestants are not willing to recognize, nor do they comprehend, that the Catholic Church holds an unbroken line of Church sovereignty from the Apostle Peter to the present day. For over eighteen hundred years they can trace a perfect succession of the two hundred and sixty Popes, with the name of each, his date of assuming the chair, his time of sovereignty, his church work, and the time and manner of his death.
From the Bible, as well as the Church, we find that Peter was the recognized and the appointed head from the year 42 to the year 67. That he was so appointed must be recognized by every Christian denomination. It is true that some professed Christians deny that any special power was conferred upon Peter by which he was to hold and sustain the Church. But if we believe the New Testament there can be no doubt but on him was laid the responsibility of Church government, as well as to preach repentance. If you do not believe in Divine Scripture then you may deny any or all of the acts of Providence, as well as to deny the existence of immortality. But if you believe in the words of Jesus, you must concede that when He addressed Peter, as he did in Matthew xvi, that there must have been a meaning. Either Christ meant what he said, or He did not. If he meant it, which he did, for Jesus in his teachings always meant exactly what he said, then you must accept his words just as they are written.
“And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in/ heaven.”
Now, what is this meaning? Is it for you or for me to question its assertion, or to present a different explanation? No language could be more explicit, or more direct, “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Again, we find in the language of our Savior: “I, the Supreme Architect of the universe, will establish a Church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the foundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock of truth that the winds and storms of error shall not prevail against it.
Thou, O Peter, shalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken, because thou shalt rest on Me, the rock of truth.”
Thus, do we have the positive assurance that Peter is the rock of the Church, the foundation upon which error cannot prevail, and as He has declared that “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”
Was greater power ever conferred upon man, than that every act should be accepted as perfect? Peter was made, not only the rock upon which the Church should rest, but he should be above error, infallible, and incapable of expressing a false doctrine of worship.
No other disciple was given this power of infallibility but being appointed to stand at the head of Christianity, to teach divine truths, and to advance the Church in its influence among men, he must be endowed with the gift of truth and the power to hold and sustain this truth.
Again, we find in the 11th Chapter of St. John, that Jesus, after having arisen from the dead, said unto Peter: “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.” And to impress upon him more firmly this injunction He three times repeats to Peter, “feed my sheep.” Thus do we find that Peter is appointed by our Lord to be the universal shepherd of His flock, and were we to follow this divine injunction, as it must relate to the Church, we will find that as Peter was the shepherd of all the people, so, too, would the Pope be the shepherd of all his people, that he “must feed the flock, not with the poison of error, but with the healthy food of sound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers pernicious food to his flock.”