Papal Infallibility - Objections

Objections

Those opposed to papal infallibility such as Geisler and MacKenzie say that it is contrary to Scripture and to the teaching of the early Church.

• On linguistic grounds and their understanding that Peter's authority was shared, James Robert White and others say that Matthew 16:18 does not refer to Peter as the Rock. They argue that in this passage Peter is in the second person ("you"), but that "this rock", being in the third person, refers to Christ, the subject of Peter's truth confession in verse 16, and the revelation referred to in verse 17, who is explicitly affirmed to be the foundation of the church. White cites Catholic authorities such as John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo as supporting this understanding, with Augustine stating, "On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built".
• They understand "keys" in the Matthean passage and its authority as primarily or exclusively pertaining to the gospel.
• They see the prayer of Jesus for Peter, that his faith fail not (Luke 22:32) as not promising infallibility to a papal office, which they hold to be a late and novel doctrine.
• While recognizing Peter's significant role in the early church, and his initial brethren-type leadership, they contend that the Book of Acts manifests him as inferior to the apostle Paul in his level of contribution and influence, with Paul becoming the dominant focus in the Biblical records of the early church, and the writer of most of the New Testament (receiving direct revelation), and having authority to publicly reprove Peter.(Gal. 2:11-14)
• Geisler and MacKenzie also see the absence of any reference by Peter referring to himself distinctively, such as the chief of apostles, and instead only as "an apostle", or "an elder" (1Pet. 1:1; 5:1) as weighing against Peter being the supreme and infallible head of the church universal, and indicating he would not accept such titles as "Holy Father".
• They say that the revelatory function connected to the office of the high priest Caiaphas, (Jn. 11:49-52) does not establish a precedent for Petrine infallibility, since (among other reasons) they infer from Revelation 22:18 that there is no new revelation after the time of the New Testament, as held also by Catholics.
• Likewise, they hold that no Jewish infallible magisterium existed, but the faith yet endured, and that the Roman Catholic doctrine on infallibility is a new invention.
• They see the promise of papal infallibly as violated by certain popes who spoke heresy (as recognized, they say, by the Roman church itself) under conditions which, they argue, fit the criteria for infallibility.
• They say that at the Council of Jerusalem Peter was not looked to as the infallible head of the church, with James exercising the more decisive leadership, and providing the definitive sentence; and that he is not seen elsewhere as the final and universal arbiter about any doctrinal dispute about faith in the life of the church.
• They hold as unwarranted on scriptural and historical grounds the idea that monarchical leadership by an infallible pope is needed or has existed; that the infallible authority is the scriptures rather than an infallible head. and that church leadership in the New Testament is understood as being that of bishops and elders, denoting the same office, rather than an infallible pope. (Titus 1:5-7)
• They argue further that the doctrine of papal infallibility lacked universal or widespread support in the bulk of church history, and that substantial opposition to it existed within the Catholic Church, even at the time of its official institution, saying that this testifies to its lack of scriptural and historical warrant.
• Chapter 7 of Lytton Strachey's biography of Cardinal Manning includes a discussion of papal infallability and some possible objections.