The Infallibility Dogma by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 12, 1907

The Infallibility Dogma

By J. O. Corliss

Character of the Papacy— No. 3

The Infallibility Dogma

J. O. CORLISS

In an early age differences of opinion arose which could not be definitely settled by a general council to the satisfaction of all concerned. That is to say, the adjustment of disputed dogmas was not in such cases always agreeable to the bishops of Rome. Besides, an appeal to a general council concerning articles of faith, tended to the exaltation of these councils above the personality of the Roman bishop, and consequently lessened his power over other bishops and their clergy adherents.

To the close of the fourth century, councils alone decided all complex points of faith. But at the opening of the fifth century Innocent I claimed the right to interpose in the most difficult questions, on the ground that “the Fathers” had decreed this. Following him, Zosimus also declared that the Fathers had given the See of Rome the privilege of final decision in appeals. This claim was soon supplemented by another, at the Council of Ephesus, when the Roman legates declared that Peter, to whom Christ gave the power of binding and loosing, still lived and judged through his successors.

The persistency thus manifested was rewarded by the Emperor Valentinian III, who issued an edict making all the bishops of the western portion of his empire (that is, of Italy and Gaul) subject to the Roman bishop. Eastern suffragans were, however, to be subject entirely to the patriarchates of the East, as in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. But the concession already gained was quite enough on which to build a gigantic system, destined to control the greater part of the religious world.

One claim after another ripened into realization, and yet the bishops of Rome were hardly sure of their ground of

proof for an infallible head of the church, and all that the dogma stands for, until there appeared, near the middle of the ninth century, the famous Isidorian Decretals, published by one Isidore Mercator, of Spain. These pretended to be decrees of the earliest Roman bishops, and other church dignitaries, setting forth the sanctity and authority of the head of the Roman church. Their basis was that “the Roman church remains to the end free from stain of heresy.”—Hinschins’ ed. of “Decretals,” page 179. This point established, the next step was easy: “The church of Rome, by a singular privilege, has the right of opening and shutting the gates of heaven to whom she will.”—“Decretals,” page 464. Ancient church law was also made to place the decrees of popes before the decisions of councils.

One other point was necessary, however, to establish the infallibility of the popes. In 503 Ennodius, a secretary to Pope Symmachus, being called to defend his master against certain irregularities, said that “the popes must be held to inherit innocence and sanctity from Peter.” Isidore seized on this statement, and invented two Roman synods to approve the work of Ennodius.—“Decretals,” pages 675, seq. Emphasizing this point, Gregory VII declared that while every sovereign, however good at the start, becomes corrupted by the exercise of power, every rightly appointed pope becomes a saint through the imputed merits of Peter.

This marvelous doctrine was soon adopted into the codes of canon law, and so became the fixed order of the papacy. But it was afterward found that this was too strong, to apply in cases where popes have erred and been subjected to correction, and so infallibility has been since confined to official, or ex cathedra, utterances.

On such a flimsy basis as these pseudo-decretals the popes built their sanctity, their infallibility, and their scheme of dominion; for were they not able to judge men on earth, when the future salvation or condemnation of these was in the hands of the head of the church? Thus, Gregory VII at his Roman synod of 1080 declared: “We desire to show the world that we can give or take away at our will kingdoms, duchies, earldoms,—in a word,—the possessions of all men; for we can bind or loose.”

These assumptions were not kindly received by civil rulers, who maintained that the emperor was superior to the pope. To sustain this contention such arguments as the payment of tribute money by Christ, was cited to show that even he regarded the temporal power as superior to the spiritual. On the other hand, the papists contended that the civil power should be subject to the spiritual, and cited such texts of Scripture as: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” 1 Cor. 2:15. Also: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” Jer. 1:10.

By such misapplication of Scripture, the grossest assumptions were maintained, until the pope became lifted above every earthly authority, claiming, indeed, that he stood in the place of God to all men, high or low. This height was reached under Innocent III, at the close of the twelfth century, and continued so through the thirteenth century. King John of England found himself obliged to admit these claims of the papacy. John had filled the vacant See of Canterbury with one of his favorite bishops. The pope immediately declared the election void, and gave the position to one of his own friends. John strenuously opposed this move, when the pope laid all England under an interdict, excommunicated John, and cited the French king to undertake a crusade against the rebellious government. At this the English king was glad to yield to the demands of the pope.

Philip the Fair, king of France, taxed the clergy of his realm, thereby displeasing the pope, when the latter is said to have addressed the king thus: “Boniface the Pope to Philip the Fair, greeting. . . . Know thou, O supreme prince, that thou art subject to us in all things.” Philip’s rough reply was: “Philip the Fair to Boniface, little or no greeting. . . . Know thou, O supreme stupidity, that in governmental matters, we are subject neither to you nor to any other person.” Philip’s acknowledgment of the pope’s power was not so speedy and pronounced as were those of John of England, and Henry IV of Germany, because his people were, at the time, with him in his quarrel. But in time, through the machinations of the papacy, France was eventually brought to acknowledge the temporal power of the popes.

All this history but shows how accurately prophecy had outlined the career of this power, hundreds of years in advance. Thus the apostle, when giving instruction concerning the time of the Lord’s return to earth, said: “That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, . . . so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess. 2:3, 4.

Never has there appeared any system or power to fulfil these specifications, except it be found in the arrogant claims of the papacy, that the head of its system—a mere man, in many cases extremely sinful—is like God, infallible, a very God upon earth, sitting in God’s earthly temple,—the believing soul (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19),—to regulate and control the conscience, robbing Christ of his rightful sway over those whom he has purchased with his own blood.

Long centuries were to pass before this mystery of iniquity was to be fully revealed, or uncovered. In the apostle’s day it had already begun its work, but it moved slowly, though surely, for ages toward the pinnacle of its aspiration, whence it could look down in defiance upon every other earthly power, without the exception of national potentates. How came this great power? Why was it not permitted to continue? These are interesting questions which prophecy and history answer unerringly. But we must study this phase of the subject in a paper by itself.

Mountain View, Cal.