The Bible and the Church fathers support the doctrine of papal infallibility.

To begin with, I"d like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to dsjpk5 for having accepted my challenge to debate the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I"d also like make clear that nothing put forth in this debate should be construed as being an attack against any part of the Christian religion, or even the Roman Catholic Church itself, a church of which I am in fact a confirmed member (although obviously differing slightly in some doctrinal issues!). In fact, I even subscribe to the notion of the papacy, and believe that this throne was bequeathed upon, and has been transferred through Saint Peter. However, I do not accept my Church"s doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pleasantries aside, I will now get down to the crux of the issue. The first thing that I"ll do is to clarify the definition of Papal Infallibility that I will be attempting to refute. As defined post-Vatican I, Papal Infallibility is the doctrine that, in layman"s English, the Pope can not only make no error when speaking ex cathedra on matters concerning doctrine, faith, and morals etc., but that he is also prevented from making errors, something that is supposedly the result of the Holy Spirit residing in him as a result of his papacy. Now, in coming at this issue, I"ll be taking a few angles. First of all, I"m going to be presenting the practical realities of upholding this doctrine; namely, why it is practically impossible to be free of error, and what the potential implications of Papal Infallibility are. To buttress these notions, I will be giving examples of past popes who have made statements that were so obviously problematic that they must at face value disprove Papal Infallibility, and, having established the practical realities of why Papal Infallibility is not a true doctrine, I will speak to the Biblical realities of this doctrine. Afterwards, I will refute some of the arguments made by my opponent. So, it is my opinion that the first and most weighty objection to papal infallibility is that of common sense. Put quite simply, I am of the humble opinion that no human being save for Jesus (no, not even Peter) has ever been, and will ever be free of error. There are a multitude of examples of cases in which a Pope has said things that were wrong, thus either demonstrating that the Holy Spirit is not in fact very good at preventing poor Papal decisions (forgive the blasphemy), or that fallible men have made mistakes in interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Examples of this are many; within the Bible, there is a potential example from Galatians 2:11-14 in which St. Paul rebukes St. Peter for being "clearly wrong" (NIV) (I say potential example due to the fact that this verse does force us to accept Pauline authority over Petrine authority). Throughout the history of the papacy, there have also been many cases of popes contradicting each other, and saying things that are clearly problematic. Such examples include Stephen VI"s cancellation of all of the ordinations of his second last predecessor (Formosus), Pope Liberius" condemnation of St. Athanasius (who had already been canonized at that point), as well as his Arian heresy (although this is disputed, and many consider it to have been produced under torture). These are just two of many examples of popes who have been contradictory, and who have said things that the Vatican itself considers to be heretical. The second side of this argument is the practical reality of taking Papal Infallibility to its farthest extent. Under the doctrine of Infallibility, it would be possible for a pope to decree that crimes such as abortion, and murder are, in fact, morally acceptable. While this scenario is doubtlessly absurd, and very unlikely, it is nonetheless possible. It is an integral part of the Christian worldview, and an obvious fact of God"s Word that all humans have been endowed with free will, and I certainly believe that this has been extended to all of us, popes included, thus meaning that it would not be impossible for a pope to say something that blatantly contradicts Catholic doctrine, perhaps even something as extreme as the examples that I have provided, something greater even than the examples that I provided of the transgressions of the popes of the past. So, having considered both the historical, and potential aspects of this "Argument from Common Sense", I believe that we must not only recognize the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as being impractical, but also as being impossible. I would now like to speak briefly as to the Biblical realities of Papal Infallibility. To me it is clear that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that having assumed the papacy, Peter shall be infallible, let alone that all of his successors for the entire history of the Church shall be. Rather, we must infer certain things in the absence of scriptural support for this idea. This is how the Church develops doctrine, and I have no issue with it. That being said, I do believe that the burden of proof falls on those proclaiming Infallibility in the absence of clear scriptural support for the doctrine. Having made my case for the inference from Scripture being that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is incorrect, I will now move to a refutation of the arguments presented by my opponent. To first counter the interpretation of the scriptures provided, I will address the verses provided one by one. Both verses from the Gospel of John do proclaim that the Holy Spirit would guide one to the truth. However, this is not to say that individuals guided by the Holy Spirit would be free of error; rather, it is to say that the truth will out, and will provide our consciences with an indication of what is right, and that eventually all will come to know what is correct in this world, and outside of this world. Once again however, this does not rule out brash statements, things done because of jealousy, power plays etc. The verse from the Gospel of Luke simply proclaims that the Apostles will be preaching the good news. Matthew 16:18 has always been for me the most appealing verse of the Bible in support of Papal Infallibility, however, I would maintain that given the context of other verses in the Bible (many in Acts, most notably), this is taken to apply only to healings, and other miracles from God, while Peter is clearly still not exempt from doctrinal errors (refer back to Galatians 2:1 as an example). As well, this verse still in no way speaks to Peter"s successors, and is in my opinion only directed towards him, and the other Apostles to a certain extent (once again, clearly with healing, and other miraculous abilities). To complete the refutation of the biblical arguments, Matthew 23 is Jesus simply saying that you should practice could morals, and have just actions reflect your just words, this having no bearing on whether or not the Pope, and all of his successors are free from error. As far as the quote from Cyprian is concerned, it is a) not even clear to me whether or not this Church Father is explicitly supporting a doctrine of Papal Infallibility; and b) even if he is, I still do not believe that it stands up to the logical scrutiny that I have provided with my previous arguments. I hope that my thoughts will not prove to be too disorganized so as to prevent insightful debate, and apologize for any poor grammar and/or writing mistakes. I look forward to your response, and Dominus vobiscum.