User:Pseudo-Richard/Sandbox



Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to beinfallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and theSacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of theinfallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e.., that he is specially exempt from liability tosin.

The doctrine of infallibility relies on the other Catholic dogma of petrine supremacy of the Pope, and his authority to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church. The clearest example (though not the only one) of the use of this power 'ex cathedra' since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, took place in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being anarticle of faith for Roman Catholics. This authority is considered by Catholics to be apostolic and of divine origin. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino of 1441,  and Pope Pius IX in the Papal constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 1854  have all spoken "ex cathedra."

Conditions for papal infallibility
Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universalmagisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings, see Infallibility of the Church.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:


 * 1. "the Roman Pontiff"
 * 2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
 * 3. "he defines"
 * 4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
 * 5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:
 * a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
 * an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous Church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly. In this case, the previous fallible teachings are immediately made void. Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching, including the infallible teachings of the Holy Bible or Holy Tradition. Also, due to the sensus fidelium, an infallible teaching cannot be subsequently contradicted by the Catholic Church, even if that subsequent teaching is in itself fallible.

In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI asserted during an impromptu address to priests in Aostathat: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."

It is the opinion of the majority of Catholic theologians that the canonizations of a pope enter within the limits of infallible teaching. Therefore, it is considered certain by this majority of theologians, that such persons canonized are definitely in heaven with God. However, this opinion of infallibility of canonizations has never been definitively taught by the Magisterium. Other theologians, even those of earlier times, refer to this majority opinion, as a "pious opinion, but merely an opinion". Before the height of Middle Ages, saints were declared not by the Bishop of Rome, but by the bishops of the local dioceses, confirming or rejecting the acclamation of the people calling for declaration of sanctity of a particular Christian person who died "in the odour of sanctity". In Catholic teaching, diocesan bishops do not in themselves possess the charism of infallibility (but do so when gathered in ecumenical council), leaving these early Church canonizations without certainty of infallibility.

Ex cathedra


In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning "from the chair", refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

The "chair" referred to is not a literal chair, but refers metaphorically to the pope's position, or office, as the official teacher of Catholic doctrine: the chair was the symbol of the teacher in the ancient world, and bishops to this day have a cathedra, a seat or throne, as a symbol of their teaching and governing authority. The pope is said to occupy the "chair of Peter", as Catholics hold that among the apostles Peter had a special role as the preserver of unity, so the pope as successor of Peter holds the role of spokesman for the whole church among the bishops, the successors as a group of the apostles. (Also see Holy See and sede vacante: both terms evoke this seat or throne.)

Scriptural support for the primacy of Peter
Believers of the Catholic doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
 * John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
 * Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf.Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
 * Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
 * Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
 * Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
 * Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott points out several Scriptures which he believes show that the Apostle Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5).

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff
Doctrine-based religions evolve their theologies over time, and Catholicism is no exception: its theology did not spring instantly and fully formed within the bosom of the earliest Church. "The doctrine of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, like other Church teachings and institutions, has gone through a development. Thus the establishment of the Primacy recorded in the Gospels has gradually been more clearly recognised and its implications developed. Clear indications of the consciousness of the Primacy of the Roman bishops, and of the recognition of the Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century. L. Ott"

Pope St. Clement of Rome, c. 99, stated in a letter to the Corinthians: "Indeed you will give joy and gladness to us, if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union" (Denziger §41, emphasis added).

St. Clement of Alexandria wrote on the primacy of Peter c. 200: "...the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute..." (Jurgens §436).

The existence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy is emphasized by St. Stephan I, 251, in a letter to the bishop of Antioch: "Therefore did not that famous defender of the Gospel [Novatian] know that there ought to be one bishop in the Catholic Church [of the city of Rome]? It did not lie hidden from him..." (Denziger §45).

St. Julius I, in 341 wrote to the Antiochenes: "Or do you not know that it is the custom to write to us first, and that here what is just is decided?" (Denziger §57a, emphasis added).

Catholicism holds that an understanding among the Apostles was written down in what became the Scriptures, and rapidly became the living custom of the Church, and that from there, a clearer theology could unfold.

St. Siricius wrote to Himerius in 385: "To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs" (Denziger §87, emphasis in original).

Many of the Church Fathers spoke of ecumenical councils and the Bishop of Rome as possessing a reliable authority to teach the content of Scripture and tradition, albeit without a divine guarantee of protection from error.

Theological history


The doctrine of papal infallibility first developed in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance

Middle Ages
The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils wasTheodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century. Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas.

In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy inDictatus Papae: "22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness." Pope Gregory I had declared that the first four ecumenical councils were to be revered "like the four gospels" because they had been "established by universal consent". Gratian expressed a different view, asserting that "The holy Roman Church imparts authority to the sacred canons but is not bound by them." In the 12th century, the group of canon law scholars known as the Decretists concluded that a pope could change the disciplinary decrees of a council but was bound by the pronouncements of the councils when they concerned articles of faith. Some of them went so far as to assert that, where matters of faith were concerned, the authority of a general council superseded that of an individual pope.

In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.

Dogmatic definition of 1870
The infallibility of the pope was formally defined in 1870, although the tradition behind this view goes back much further. In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor aeternus, the First Vatican Council declared the following, with bishopsAloisio Riccio and Edward Fitzgerald dissenting:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).

According to Catholic theology, this is an infallible dogmatic definition by an ecumenical council. Because the 1870 definition is not seen by Catholics as a creation of the Church, but as the dogmatic revelation of a Truth about the Papal Magisterium, Papal teachings made prior to the 1870 proclamation can, if they meet the criteria set out in the dogmatic definition, be considered infallible. Ineffabilis Deus is an example of this.

The British statesman, Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone publicly attacked Vatican I, stating that Roman Catholics had "forfeited their moral and mental freedom". He published a pamphlet called The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance in which he described the Catholic Church as "an Asian monarchy: nothing but one giddy height of despotism, and one dead level of religious subservience". He further claimed that the Pope wanted to destroy the rule of law and replace it with arbitrary tyranny, and then to hide these "crimes against liberty beneath a suffocating cloud of incense". Cardinal Newman famously responded with his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. In the letter he argues that conscience, which is supreme, is not in conflict with papal infallibility—though he toasts "I shall drink to the Pope if you please--still, to conscience first and to the Pope afterwards". He stated later that “the Vatican Council left the Pope just as it found him”, satisfied that the definition was very moderate, and specific in regards to what specifically can be declared as infallible

Lumen Gentium
The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was also a document on the Church itself, explicitly reaffirmed the definition of papal infallibility, so as to avoid any doubts, expressing this in the following words:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

Instances of papal infallibility
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
 * 1) "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
 * 2) Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
 * 3) Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
 * 4) Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
 * 5) Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
 * 6)  Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
 * 7) Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility. In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions, that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis although not an ex cathedra teaching (i.e., although not a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium), is indeed infallible, clarifying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by theordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the laterPope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

Opposition to the doctrine of papal infallibility
In contrast to the Catholic emphasis on papal infallibility, the Eastern Orthodox emphasize theinfallibility of the Church as a whole.

Before the definition of the doctrine, which clarified the extent of the inerrancy claimed, papal infallibility was explicitly denied by many Catholic authorities, including a pope, and several catholic universities.

According to Brian Tierney, August Bernhard Hasler, and Gregory Lee Jackson, the Franciscan priest Peter Olivi was the first person to attribute infallibility to the Pope. Klaus Schatz says that it appears that Olivi by no means played the key role thus assigned to him by Tierney, who failed to acknowledge the earlier canonists and theologians, and that the crucial advance from their teaching came two centuries after Olivi. Ulrich Horst criticized the Tierney view for the same reasons. James Heft and John V. Kruse also dissent from the Tierney hypothesis, and in his Protestant evaluation of the ecumenical issue of papal infallibility Mark E. Powell reports Tierney's evaluation of 13th-century Olivi, but concludes that "the doctrine of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I had its origins in the fourteenth century and was itself part of a long development of papal claims".

In the late 13th century, a complex dispute arose over the issue of Franciscan poverty. In 1279 Pope Nicholas III had decided the issue in favor of the Franciscans by holding that communal renunciation of poverty was a possible way to salvation. and said that their way of life corresponded to the way of perfection that Jesus had taught the apostles. Forty years later, Pope John XXII came to a different conclusion and in the bullCum inter nonnullos  of 1323 declared heretical the affirmation that Jesus and his apostles owned nothing singly or in common. The Franciscans appealed on the grounds that the previous papal decision was irreversible. The Pope responded with the bull Quia quorundam of 1324, declaring erroneous the proposition that a Pope may not undo what a predecessor had defined in faith and morals. Of this Hasler wrote: "But John XXII didn't want to hear about his own infallibility. He viewed it as an improper restriction of his rights as a sovereign, and in the bull Qui quorundam (1324) condemned the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility as the work of the devil." Tierney wrote more circumspectly, saying that "the actual terms (John XII) used in condemning the Franciscan position left a way open for later theologians to re-formulate the doctrine of infallibility in different language."

In the campaign for Catholic emancipation; during the late eighteenth century two declarations in Ireland and, England explicitly denied it. In answer to the question whether the pope is infallible, the Catholic church in Ireland said that such an idea was a Protestant invention made to discredit Roman Catholics. However the Catholic church in England acknowledged that some Catholics had in the past believed it. They wished to distance themselves also from blaming the Protestant churches for circulating such untruths about their faith, as well as from what any other Catholic wrongly believed. The English Declaration (1789) stated... ""We, the English Catholics, ought not to suffer for or on Account of any wicked or erroneous Doctrines that may be held by any other Catholics which Doctrines We, publicly disclaim, any more than British Protestants ought to be rendered responsible for any dangerous Doctrines that may be held by any other Protestants, which Doctrines, the British Protestants disavow.""

Catholics in Ireland and then in England stated, in answer to parliamentary inquiries into Catholicism as part of the process of Catholic emancipation, that they did not believe that the Pope was infallible, ""The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath... that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible.""

The opinion of the English remonstrance to Parliament had first been approved by several Catholic universities in Europe. It was sent to the Catholic Universities of Paris, Louvain, Douai, Alcala, Salamanca and Valladolid. This was at the suggestion of Pitt. ""He urged his Catholic friends to establish exactly what the authoritative Catholic position on the obnoxious doctrines now was, so that he might consider the feasibility of (Catholic) emancipation.""

Examples of Catholics who before the First Vatican Council disbelieved in papal infallibility are French abbé François-Philippe Mesenguy (1677-1763), who wrote a catechism denying the infallibility of the pope, and the German Felix Blau (1754-1798), who as professor at the University of Mainz criticized infallibility.

An oath taken by Catholics in Ireland from 1793 stated that "it is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible" This was repeated in a pastoral address to the Catholic clergy and laity in Ireland in 1826, in which their bishops stated that it is "not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they thereby required to believe that the Pope is infallible".

In 1822, Bishop Baine declared: "In England and Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the Infallibility of the Pope."

Sparrow-Simpson remarked that "all works reprinted since 1870 have been altered into conformity with Vatican ideas. In some cases the process of reducing to conformity was begun at an earlier date. It is therefore with works printed before 1870 that we are now concerned." He therefore cites editions prior to that date.

In his theological works published in 1829, Professor Delahogue asserted that the doctrine that the Roman Pontiff, even when he speaks ex cathedra, is possessed of the gift of inerrancy or is superior to General Councils may be denied without loss of faith or risk of heresy or schism.

The 1830 edition of Berrington and Kirk's Faith of Catholics stated: "Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council or acceptance of the Church, oblige no one under pain of heresy to an interior assent".

The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales had the following question and answer:
 * (Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
 * (A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Sparrow-Simpson quotes also from the 1895 revision:
 * (Q.) But some Catholics before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism.
 * (A.) Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation - 'in so far as they could then grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions' ...

In 1861, Professor Murray of the major Irish Catholic seminary of Maynooth wrote that those who genuinely deny the infallibility of the Pope "are by no means or only in the least degree (unless indeed some other ground be shown) to be considered alien from the Catholic Faith".

A 1989–1992 survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the United States, Austria,Canada, Ecuador, France,Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain andSwitzerland), aged 15 to 25 showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on "papal infallibility", 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it.

Critical works such as Roman Catholic opposition to papal infallibility (1909) by W. J. Sparrow-Simpson have thus documented opposition to the definition of the dogma during the First Vatican Council even by those who believed in its teaching but felt that defining it was not opportune.

Following the first Vatican Council, 1870, dissent, mostly among German, Austrian, andSwiss Catholics, arose over the definition of Papal Infallibility. The dissenters, holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and thus a schism arose between them and the Church. Many of these Catholics formed independent communities in schism with Rome, which became known as the Old Catholic Churches.

A few present-day Catholics, such as Hans Küng, author of ''Infallible? An Inquiry, and historian Garry Wills, author ofPapal Sin'', refuse to accept papal infallibility as a matter of faith. Küng has been sanctioned by the Church by being excluded from teaching Catholic theology.Brian Tierney agrees with Küng, whom he cites, and concludes: "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it". Garth Hallett, "drawing on a previous study of Wittgenstein's treatment of word meaning", argued that the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless; in practice, he claims, the dogma seems to have no practical use and to have succumbed to the sense that it is irrelevant.

Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler (d. 3 July 1980) wrote a detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, presenting the passage of the infallibility definition as orchestrated. Roger O'Toole described Hasler's work as follows: "
 * 1) It weakens or demolishes the claim that Papal Infallibility was already a universally accepted truth, and that its formal definition merely made de jure what had long been acknowledged de facto.
 * 2) It emphasizes the extent of resistance to the definition, particularly in France and Germany.
 * 3) It clarifies the 'inopportunist' position as largely a polite fiction and notes how it was used by Infallibilists to trivialize the nature of the opposition to papal claims.
 * 4) It indicates the extent to which 'spontaneous popular demand' for the definition was, in fact, carefully orchestrated.
 * 5) It underlines the personal involvement of the Pope who, despite his coy disclaimers, appears as the prime mover and driving force behind the Infallibilist campaign.
 * 6) It details the lengths to which the papacy was prepared to go in wringing formal 'submissions' from the minority even after their defeat in the Council.
 * 7) It offers insight into the ideological basis of the dogma in European political conservatism, monarchism and counter-revolution.
 * 8) It establishes the doctrine as a key contributing element in the present 'crisis' of the Roman Catholic Church."

Mark E. Powell, in his examination of the topic from a Protestant point of view, writes: "August Hasler portrays Pius IX as an uneducated, abusive megalomaniac, and Vatican I as a council that was not free. Hasler, though, is engaged in heated polemic and obviously exaggerates his picture of Pius IX. Accounts like Hasler's, which paint Pius IX and Vatican I in the most negative terms, are adequately refuted by the testimony of participants at Vatican I".

Various scripture and history-based arguments
Those opposed to papal infallibility provide various arguments, such as those cited by Geisler and MacKenzie with proof texts for papal infallibility being contended against.
 * White and others disagree that Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter being the Rock, based on linguistic grounds, and their understanding that his authority was shared. They argue that in this passage Peter is in the second person ("you"), but that "this rock" is in the third person, referring to Christ, (the subject of Peter's truth confession in the verse 16, and the revelation referred to in v. 17), and who is uniquely and explicitly affirmed to be the foundation of the church. Certain Catholic authorities, such as John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, are cited 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".
 * The "keys" in the Matthean passage and its authority is understood as primarily or exclusively pertaining to the gospel.
 * The prayer of Jesus to Peter, that his faith fail not, (Luke 22:32) it is not seen as promising infallibly to a papal office, which is held to be a late and novel doctrine.
 * While recognizing Peter's significant role in the early church, and initial brethren-type leadership, it is contended 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 the Holy Father.
 * The Roman Catholic claim that the Lord's commission to Peter to "feed my lambs" in John 21:15ff requires infallibility is seen to be a serious overclaim for the passage.
 * The argument based on the revelatory function connected to the office of the high priest Caiaphas, (Jn. 11:49-52) which holds that this establishes a precedent for Petrine infallibility, is rejected, based (among other reasons), on the Catholic-acknowledged position that there is no new revelation after the time of the New Testament, inferred by Rev. 22:18
 * Likewise, it is also held that a Jewish infallible Magisterium did not exist, though the faith yet endured, and that the Roman Catholic doctrine on infallibility is a new invention.
 * The promise of papal infallibly is seen violated by certain popes who spoke heresy (as recognized by the Roman church itself) under conditions which, it is argued, fit the criteria for infallibility.
 * The condemnation of Pope Honorius I by the sixth, seventh and eighth ecumenical councilsfor teaching a Monothelite heresy argue against the position that papal infallibility has always been a consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. The counter argument is that Honorius, as Pope Leo II stated, was anathematized, not because of heresy, but because of his negligence.
 * Regarding the Council of Jerusalem, Peter is not seen being looked to as the infallible head of the church, with James exercising the more decisive leadership, and providing the definitive sentence. Nor is he seen elsewhere being the final and universal arbiter about any doctrinal dispute about faith in the life of the church.
 * The conclusion that monarchical leadership by an infallible pope is needed and existed, is held as unwarranted on scriptural and historical grounds. Rather than appeal to an infallible head, the scriptures are seen as being the infallible authority. Rather than an infallible pope, church leadership in the New Testament is understood as being that of bishops and elders, denoting the same office.  (Titus 1:5-7)
 * It is further argued that the doctrine of papal infallibility lacked universal or widespread support in the bulk of church history, contrary to the claims made by Vatican 1 in first promulgating it, and that substantial opposition existed from within the Catholic Church, even at the time of its official institution, testifying to its lack of scriptural and historical warrant.

Position of Eastern Orthodox tradition
The dogma of Papal Infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians hold that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole Body of Orthodox Christians to fall into error but leave open the question of how this will be ensured in any specific case. Eastern Orthodoxy considers that the first seven ecumenical councils were infallible as accurate witnesses to the truth of the gospel, not so much on account of their institutional structure as on account of their reception by the Christian faithful.

Furthermore, Orthodox Christians do not believe that any individual bishop is infallible or that the idea of Papal Infallibility was taught during the first centuries of Christianity. Orthodox historians often point to the condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council as a significant indication. However, it is debated whether Honorius' letter to Sergius met (in retrospect) the criteria set forth at Vatican I. Other Orthodox scholars argue that past Papal statements that appear to meet the conditions set forth at Vatican I for infallible status presented teachings in faith and morals are now acknowledged as problematic.

Anglican churches
The Church of England and its sister churches in the Anglican Communion, having left the Catholic Church centuries ago, reject papal infallibility, a rejection given expression in theThirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571):

"XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

Methodism
John Wesley amended the Anglican Articles of Religion for use by Methodists, particularly those in America. The Methodist Articles omit the express provisions in the Anglican articles concerning the errors of the Church of Rome and the authority of councils, but retain Article V which implicitly pertains to the Roman Catholic idea of papal authority as capable of defining articles of faith on matters not clearly derived from Scripture:

"V. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation..."

Reformed churches
Presbyterian and Reformed churches reject papal infallibility. TheWestminster Confession of Faith which was intended in 1646 to replace the Thirty-Nine Articles, goes so far as to label the Roman pontiff "Antichrist"; it contains the following statements:

"(Chapter one) IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

"(Chapter one) X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

"(Chapter Twenty-Five) VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

Evangelical churches
Evangelical churches do not believe in papal infallibility for reasons similar to Methodist and Reformed Christians. Evangelicals believe that the Bible alone is infallible or inerrant. Most evangelical churches and ministries have statements of doctrine that explicitly say that the Bible, composed of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, is the sole rule for faith and practice. Most of these statements, however, are articles of faith that evangelicals affirm in a positive way, and contain no reference to the Papacy or other beliefs that are not part of evangelical doctrine.

Infallibility and temporal dogma at Vatican I
According to Raffaele De Cesare:
 * The first idea of convening an Ecumenical Council in Rome to elevate the temporal power into a dogma, originated in the third centenary of the Council of Trent, which took place in that city in December, 1863, and was attended by a number of Austrian and Hungarian prelates.

However, following the Austro-Prussian War, Austria had recognized the Kingdom of Italy. Consequently, because of this and other substantial political changes: "The Civiltà Cattolicasuggested that the Papal Infallibility should be substituted for the dogma of temporal power ..."

Moritz Busch's Bismarck: Some secret pages of his history, Vol. II, Macmillan (1898) contains the following entry for 3 March 1872 in pp. 43–44. Bucher brings me from upstairs instructions and material for a Rome despatch for the Kölnische Zeitung. It runs as follows: "Rumours have already been circulated on various occasions to the effect that the Pope intends to leave Rome. According to the latest of these the Council, which was adjourned in the summer, will be reopened at another place, some persons mentioning Malta and others Trient. [...] Doubtless the main object of this gathering will be to elicit from the assembled fathers a strong declaration in favour of the necessity of the Temporal Power. Obviously a secondary object of this Parliament of Bishops, convoked away from Rome, would be to demonstrate to Europe that the Vatican does not enjoy the necessary liberty, although the Act of Guarantee proves that the Italian Government, in its desire for reconciliation and its readiness to meet the wishes of the Curia, has actually done everything that lies in its power."