The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-12-22
Papal InfalI bility Examined
by GEO. W. MCDANIEL.

nuto~Peter. Get thee behind me,
satan: thou are an offense unto me:
for thou savourest not the things that
be of God but those that be of mem"
This is the first act OF Peter after
Jesus spoke those words which
RomanistS interpret as giving nfalli-
biity He blunders eeregiously Ife
utterly fails to understand the Masters
mission. His opinion In this vital spir-
ittal nlatterfis in error. Jesus declares
Peter IS {; mbiing- block u54to Him.
He actually calls Peter Sataa Think
of Jesus branding the Pope as the
Devil.
The first time the sword was ever
drawn in the name of Christianity.
though by no means the last. was by
Peter. His Master rebuked him In
these words put up thy sword into
the cabbard.'' Who does not recall
Peters three-foid denial? He was the,
last OF the apostles except Judas. 10
be selected as the founder of a cell
bate and infalliblc order. Two things
certain about him are that he was
married and that he was very falli-
BILE
4. The apostles never recognized Pc
ter'a infallibitity.
In the ffteenth chapter of Acts is
the account of the Jerusalem Council
the first of all church councils a
careful reading OF the entire chapter
viii reveal the following fscts:
~ The delegates from Antioch went
up 10 the apostles ard elders at Jcru-
salem and not to Peter alone ..
I'D Peter spoke FIRST. like Junior
dieuitarY, and his speech did not settle
the dispute
80 Barnabas and Saul followed him.
with speeches, which were received in
The same manner---with silence
ti) James, the pastor at Jerusalem.
spoke last and decided upon the course
TO pursue.
~ Tho resolutions adopted were nos
even signed By Peter nor sent in his
name Indeed he is not mentioned.
Tho begin. THE apostles and elders
ard brethren send greetings"
Peter missed a fine opportunity to
decide an important religious question
and TO issue an encyclical to the entire
church In that council James had the
commence. Why did not Peter exer-
else his extraordinary preroEative?
Doubtless because he never possessed
such.
Consider also that John wrote three
eristies and the Revelation; James. the
first oeerseer of the church al .Ieru-
salem, wrote book. and neither OF
eminence. They had never heard OF
IT, In fact Peter feared the censure
of James, and was successfully resist
ed by Paul fGalations 2; II, 121. There
MAS nothing in Peter that James and
John did not have Paul SAYS: wv hen
James Cephas and John, who seemed
to be pillars" etc. Thus he mentions
James first and sandwiches Peter in
before John.
5, The circumstances under which
papal infallibiiity was decreed prove
papal fallibility. Pious ~ lost his
temporal power and wished TO
strengthen his spiritual power He
summoned the Xatical Council in 1879.
Unlike previous general councils, the
Catholic governments were not repre-
scented. More than third OF the 7s4
bishops were from Italy. The Jesuits
were in the ascendeney. Freedom of
debate was restricted. The Pope and
his appointees made the order OF bust
ness and rules of debate. The project
of papal infallibility was brought for
ward The pontiff and those high in
his favor supported the declaration.
The famous historian. Hefele, from
Germany, Dupanloup from France and
kendrick from America strenuously
opposed the measure. Some Of the
minority dtsbelieved in the doctrine.
while all of them judged its proclama
tion untimeiy. Most of them Withdrew
before the final vote. The proceedings
of that council rival some American
political conventions for ways that
are dark and tricks that are vain"
The measure was retroactive, and
whatever teaching relative to theology
or morals a pope had ever addressed
OR might ever address TO the entire
church was infallible
II is an indefensible doctrine. one
erroneous definition coming from one
Pope would demolish the tnfallibility
OF all of Them, according 10 the Ro-
nlaas themselves. We may pass over