1. The Pope, and Infallibility The Papacy Christ himself established the papacy. He said to Peter “ At the First Vatican Council in Rome in 1869, Pope Pius IX in his constitution Paster Aeternus declared the primacy and infallability of the Pope. This conjstitution taught that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” of Peter”), that is, speaking in his office as chief shepherd of the Church and as the successor of St Peter, he is granted by the Holy Spirit the gift of infallible truth when he formally defines a doctrine of faith or morals. This does not, of course, mean that whatever the Pope says is infallible, although Catholics presume that even the ordinary teaching of a Pope is true and valuable. Scripture It was also at the First Vatican Council in Rome in 1869 that Pope Pius IX in his constitution Dei Filius spoke of the ultimate authority of God’s revelation and taught that nature and reason are subordinate to grace and faith. The Pope wanted people to remember that God’s revelation of the truth was given assuredly to the Church, not to public opinion nor to the new ideas of scholars. Mary In 1854, Pope Pius IX sought to clarify certain points of the catholic faith that were being questioned or disputed. He defined as a doctrine of faith that Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived without original sin – the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This dogma was miraculously confirmed four years later, when Mary herself appeared to Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes in 1858, and announced to her “I am the Immaculate Conception”. Even though catholics are not bound as a doctrine of faith to believe in appearances of Mary such as this one, generally most catholics look upon the thousands of healings that have occurred through the waters of Lourdes as confirmation of its authenticity.

2. There were Christians in Rome at least by 49 AD. St. Paul preached there 61-63 AD and was executed there in 67 AD. St. Peter, by tradition, also preached and died there around the same time. So the city could claim an ancient Christian lineage. There is no evidence this early of a bishop in Rome. Those who governed the Christian churches were called episcopos or presbyter (both Greek words -- the early Church was strongest in Greek lands), and those words were never applied to Peter or Paul. The first lists of bishops of Rome that we have date from 160-185 AD they make St. Paul and St. Peter the founders of the church of Rome. Not long after, we have documents that claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. These same documents claim that Peter made Linus his successor by a laying on of hands. The first bishop to claim primacy (in writing, anyway) was Stephen I (254-257). The timing is significant, for it falls during the worst of the tumults of the third century. There were several persecutions during this century and they hit the Church of Rome hard. Pope Xystus II (257-258), along with most of the members of the church of Rome, was martyred by the emperor Valentinian. Pope Marcellinus (296-304) apostasized during the persecutions of Diocletian. But then came the miracle of Constantine's conversion, and suddenly the church at Rome was saved. And yet, Constantine created an even more serious threat by removing the capitol to Byzantium. It can be no accident that Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter, and was the first pope to refer to the Roman church as "the Apostolic See". The prestige of the city itself was no longer sufficient; but in the doctrine of apostolic succession the popes had an unassailable position. Early Popes

3. How could Peter have been infallible if Paul said that he clearly was wrong (Gal. 2:11-16)? When this passage is read in context, it becomes clear that Paul was not questioning Peter’s teaching, but was admonishing him for failing to practice what he preached. Peter knew full well that Jews are saved in the different manner as the Gentiles, but by leaving table fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter’s actions were hypocritical. For this reason, Paul opposed him to his face, for by his actions he was "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14). While this was a sin on Peter’s behalf, it does not infringe upon the gift of infallibility. After all, the Holy Spirit still used him to infallibly write two books of inerrant Scripture. By mentioning this, it is useful to draw a parallel between the inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church. While they are distinct, the fact that all Protestants accept the inerrancy of Scripture can be used by the Catholic apologist to explain God’s reasons behind infallibility. If God can take fallible and sinful men (the authors of sacred scripture) and transmit his truth through them without error, why would God not be able to take fallible, sinful men (the pope and bishops), and use them to preserve his teaching without error? This is the only safeguard that his Church has to keep the pure teaching of the apostles from being tainted. Otherwise, we are left with an inerrant document (the Bible), that is used by 30,000 different denominations to justify their contradictory teachings. The fault is not in the Scriptures but in the desire to part with its authoritative interpreter—the Church. Considering the Church’s actions during the inquisitions, how can the Church claim to be infallible? Perhaps the most common misunderstanding of papal infallibility is to confuse it with impeccability (the inability to sin). The Church has never claimed this for her members. But the fact that some leaders within the Church have committed grievous sins brings up an important point: Can the sinfulness of a particular church leader invalidate the divine institution of Christ’s Church? While a tree can surely be known by its fruit, if we were to judge the apostolic Church by the behavior of the apostles on Good Friday, there would be no reason to accept Christ’s Church. Just as the early Christians did not leave Peter because of Judas, the faithful today are not free to leave the Church based upon the faults of any individual. The bottom line is that there is fundamentally only one reason to choose a church: Is it true? If it is not true, then no matter how good the company is, one should not join. Conversely, even if there are weeds and wheat in the Church, you should remain so long as it is the one Jesus established. Since the Church is more of a hospital for sinners than it is a museum for saints, we should not be surprised when even some esteemed leaders within the hierarchy fall at times. If Jesus called Peter "Satan" a few verses after he said he would build his Church upon him, we can rest assured that Christ’s Church does not stand or fall based upon the perfection of its members. Can the Pope really be infallible?

4. So, let’s look at the facts. There have been 78 canonized popes in the history of the Church, and 9 others who are currently blessed. This gives a total of 87 canonized or blessed out of a total of 264, or a percentage of about 32 percent. The most recent members of this group are: Saint Leo IX (1049-1054), Saint Gregory VII (1073-85), Bl. Victor III (1086-7), Bl. Urban II (1088-99), Bl. Eugenius III (1145-53), Bl. Gregory X (1271-6), Bl. Innocent V (1276), Saint Celestine V (1294), Bl. Benedict XI (1303-4), Bl. Urban V (1362-70), Saint Pius V (1566-72), Bl. Pius IX (1846-78), Saint Pius X (1903-14), Bl. John XXIII (1958-63) There have been no more than about ten corrupt popes, giving a percentage of about 4 percent. The most infamous pope in history was probably Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) who had seven illegitimate children as a cardinal, which he openly acknowledged. As the newly- elected 61 year-old pontiff, he had an affair with the 19-year -old Giulia Farnese, who was herself a married woman. It might be worth while mentioning the "Renaissance Papacy" in general. This period, which extended from the papacy of Paul II (1464-71) up to Pius IV (1159-65), has the reputation for producing popes who were all either immoral, corrupt, or both. This is not in fact the case. With the exception of Pope Alexander VI already mentioned, many of these popes were in fact neither corrupt nor immoral. It must be admitted, though, that they may not have given the Church the leadership She needed during this time, especially with regard to reform and the calling of the needed Council (namely, Trent). Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84), for example, was a holy man. Julius II (1503-13) certainly loved the Church, and was the pope responsible for commissioning the new St. Peter's. But he wasn't as committed to reform as perhaps he should have been. Even Pope Leo X (1513-21) was not a corrupt man, though his lifestyle was self-indulgent. Pope Adrian VI (1522-3) was a holy man. With the exception of Julius III (1550-5) the later popes of this period (Paul III (1534-49), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555-9) and Pius IV (1559-65)) all were committed to reform. Regarding the sanctity of those popes who have not been beatified/canonized, it's possible to cover them all here, just to mention one other holy pope of recent times. Pope Pius XII, he who has been greatly maligned, was certainly a holy man. Bear in mind also the suffering endured for the Church by those popes who have not been canonized, for example Pope Pius VII (1800-23), imprisoned by Napoleon during the latter's fleeting empire. So in conclusion, one should admit that the popes in general have shown a great deal of sanctity in their lives. 32 percent have been declared to be in heaven officially by the Church, others have also shown holiness. Only a handful have been truly corrupt. It is surely a sign of the divine institution of the Papacy that this is so. Even those corrupt popes never taught anything against faith or morals. Pope Vigilius (6th century) had even agreed with the Emperor to heresy if he became pope, and when he was in fact elected, he didn't go through with it. What about bad popes? There were several Popes who did bad things, starting with the First Pope, St. Peter, the only Apostle called "Satan" by Jesus, the one who Denied even to know Jesus under oath while he was being judged by the Sanhedrin, the one who abandoned Jesus at Calvary... but eventually he became a Saint, St. Peter!. (Mt.16:23, 26:72, Mk.14:50, Acts, chapters 2 to 8, 10, 11, 12). Unfortunately, there was a line of Borgia and Medici Popes that were horrible. They fertilized the ground for the Protestant Reformation. Several bad Popes in the middle ages sold Cardinalships to fund armies. Rodrigo Borgia (A.K.A. Alexander VI) used his daughter Lucrezia getting her married with important men for political reasons. BUT !! ……… none of these Popes actually ever taught any error as a doctrine of faith or morals!

5. How many popes have there been? 266

6. A brief example of early heresy – Gnosticism, 90AD The sort of stuff the early church fathers had to struggle with in forming one unified body in Christ.