Introduction

The idea of papal infallibility is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the pope is always right. This is not the case. Officially, the pope is only said to be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra or "officially" as the supreme authority on faith and morals to the world. Once an infallible statement is made, it becomes irrefutable. The value of this distinction is that it can technically be used to excuse numerous problems, but it also makes the doctrine of a need for infallible authority highly questionable (trying to get a list of ex cathedra statements is an exercise in itself). There is no infallible evidence for infallibility. Finding suitable testing ground for this claim is difficult, as ex cathedra statements are rare (there has only been one in the last 100 years), which calls into question the usefulness of an infallible pope in the first place. The teaching magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church (itself infallible when speaking officially on faith and moral matters) did not come up with this teaching until 1870 at Vatican I. There is also no infallible test for infallibility - disagreements exist as to when and if a pronouncement made by the pope is made ex cathedra or not.

Examining the Claim

Roman Catholic arguments for their claim are as follows:

• Scriptural: Because Peter was made the chief apostle of the church (John 21:15-17; Matt 16:16-19), then there must reside on earth an apostle in Peter's line that is free from error with regard to belief (Luke 22:32).
  
• Traditional: The church has always had an official whose duty it was to authoritatively teach the doctrines of the church.

These claims can and must be tested. If they are true, there are certain things we would expect to see. Scripture should be clear that this is the way God organized His kingdom on earth. History should show that popes never contradict one another on doctrinal or moral issues. The official teachings of the popes must remain true and unchanged over time.  But do we find these things to be true in history? If not, this teaching must be discarded.

Testing the Claim of Scriptural Support

Was Peter the head apostle?

Nowhere in John 21:15-17 is there even a hint of apostolic succession or infallibility,  the whole point of the exchange here is that Peter required restoration and forgiveness from Jesus for denying Him! It should also be noted that that this shepherding (pastoral) role that Jesus confers upon Peter is not exclusive to Peter or any of the apostles (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-2). Moreover Scripture is quite clear that Peter was neither infallible nor the "head apostle". In Acts, although Peter addressed the church council, final decisions were made by consensus, not infallible proclamation (Acts 15:13-23), and it was James who gave the final words which could actually place him at the "head".Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11-14). Paul claimed he was below none of the apostles (2 Cor. 12:11; Galatians 1:12, 2:2-8).Peter himself claims equality with the others (1 Peter 1:1, 5:1). The same authority is given to all the apostles (Matt 18:18 - see Matt 16:16 below).

Was Peter the Foundation of the Church?

Matt 16:16-19 is the foundation for papal authority. It may appear here that Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock upon which the Church would be built. Several problems exist with this interpretation however. Many scholars find that Jesus is referring not to Peter, but to his confession of faith made in the verses just before this one. It was upon acknowledgment of Jesus as the Christ that the Church would be built, not on a mere man. "Peter" (petros in Greek) and "rock" (petra) in this passage are two different words with two different meanings. Petros is a small stone while petra is a huge rock. The play on words seems to be intentional. The pronouns used to refer to Peter in this passage are always 2nd person, the reference to the rock is 3rd person, thus separating the two. Even if Peter was the rock being referred to, he was not the only rock - nor was he the chief rock (Eph. 2:20; Revelation 21:9-14; Matt. 21:42-45; 1 Peter 2:4-7; ).

 Luke 22:32 is not a prayer for Peter's perfect wisdom in matters of faith, it is instead a prayer for his perseverance after his coming trial (which he would fail). Peter's faith did not leave him entirely even after his denial - an affirmative answer to Christ's prayer. A simple look at the whole passage (22:31-34, 55-62) confirms this. Nowhere in the Bible is Peter (or anyone else) ever said to have this supposed infallibility.

Historical Support is lacking for the claims of Roman Catholicism.

• No pope ever had the powers bestowed upon the apostles to seal their claim of apostleship.
• It was the Emperor, not the Bishop (pope) of Rome who originally held supreme power over the church for many centuries.
• The Church Fathers did not agree with the interpretation of Matt 16:16-19, it was only used later to bolster their false claim.
• No church council in the first 1,000 years of church history were called by popes.
• For the first 1,000 years of the church's existence not a single doctrinal issue was decided by a pope.
• The infallibility doctrine was cause for 55 bishops to leave Vatican I in protest. It then passed by less than half of the original voters (535/1084) supporting the idea.
• The pope in power at Vatican I was deposed less than 2 months after papal infallibility was declared.
• Fraudulent documents like The Donation of Constantine and Isidorian Decretals were at the foundation for much of the supposed tradition of Roman Catholic teaching, and although found to be false by the 1500's, are followed today.

• Heresy - Pope Honorius I was condemned by the church for heresy regarding the nature of Christ. This is obviously a large problem for Roman Catholicism's claim to the pope's inability to be mislead on issues of doctrine!
  
  
• Multiple Popes - In the history of the Roman Catholic Church there have been no less than 35 "anti-popes", two opposing popes in authority at the same time. There is no infallible list of popes, nor an infallible method of knowing which one was the "real" pope. So which is it?

• The Inquisition - It is a historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church has killed more Christians than any other religious institution in man's history (some estimates put the death toll at 50 million). The fact that the Roman Catholic Church no longer has the power to enforce its policies should not make us any more comfortable, for the infallible pronouncements made to create the Inquisition are technically in force today.
  
  
• The Crusades - Many are unaware that there were actually several crusades commissioned by popes. Beyond the "noble" crusades that set out to free Jerusalem from the Saracens, there existed crusades against Christians! In fact, those who took part in them were promised absolution for all sins committed while on crusade. The slaughter of the innocent that ensued, not to mention the horrible atrocities against women and children, should come as no surprise.
  
  
• Indulgences - The main issue that prompted Luther to separate from the Roman Catholic Church was the selling of indulgences. For a small fee you could get your loved ones out of Purgatory and into heaven.
  
  
• Galileo - in 1633 Galileo was tried under the Inquisition for heresy for his theory of a non-geocentric universe. Because the Roman Catholic Church followed Ptolemy's idea of an earth-centered universe Galileo remained under house arrest as a heretic until his death.
  
  
• Adolph Hitler - In contrast to Galileo he Roman Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler (although past popes have been dug up after death, dressed in robes, and brought to trial only to be excommunicated by other popes). In fact it celebrated his 50th birthday with special ceremonies and prayers for his success (which only helped Roman Catholicism due to numerous treaties made with various european dictators throughout its history). Hitler died a Roman Catholic in good standing.

Is the history of Roman Catholicism a testimony to its leaders inability to be deceived? Volumes have been written on papal abuses, sinful obsessions, and false teachings. Yet to millions of Roman Catholics around the world, the pope stands in the place of Christ - believing that the pope is God's "vice-regent" ( "vicar of Christ" which, by the way, translates literally into "anti-christ").