Some scholars believe that St. Thomas based this opinion on forged Patristic sources.6 St. Thomas had to write a work which was to aid in the union of the Western Church with the Eastern Church and there he does use doubtful Greek Patristic texts. Though this is true, St. Thomas held this opinion in many other works which are very early.7 Hans Kung sees this opinion as a kind of remote preparation for the doctrine of infallibility in Vatican I. "There is no doubt that Aquinas, basing himself — we may assume, in good faith — on the forgeries, in this way laid the foundations for the doctrine of infallibility of Vatican I."8

In addition to St. Thomas, one cannot understand the why and wherefore of the definition of infallibility in Vatican I nor the further elaboration of this definition in Vatican II unless one puts it in the context of two movements in the Church which greatly affected ecclesiology. These are conciliarism and Gallicanism. Conciliarism could be defined as the theory that the Pope answers to a General Council and derives his authority from the Council. This theory was particularly pervasive in the 15th century at the time of the councils of Basle and Constance when there were several rival Popes. This age was also characterized by the rise of the towns and the attempt to reduce the government of the Church to the model of an Italian city-state.

The other movement is Gallicanism, which could basically be defined as that movement which holds that dogmatic judgments of the Pope enjoy irreformability only as a result of the consent of the bishops in a given national church.9 This movement characterized the growth of the nation state and absolutist monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries. This allowed the kings to argue against Roman intervention in times when they wanted to limit the influence of the Pope in their domains.

Each of these theories has the effect of limiting the ability of the Pope to define a doctrine and bind people to assent to it just by the personal authority of his office as the head of the whole Church. Each of these movements reflects a model of the government of the Church which is based on a secular model. In the former case, it is that of the Italian city-state which is like a constitutional monarchy or parliamentary monarchy and in the latter, it is the absolutist nation state.

Gallicanism came to dominate most of Europe in the Age of the Enlightenment. The two ideas go together. One can see the final shipwreck of any real basis for papal authority when reason was thought to be the source of all truth. The Gallicans saw no real need for a supernatural idea of the Church universal and sought to reduce the Church to a department of state with the Pope as a foreign power. The Church was no longer the unique, universal, supernatural society of grace itself, autonomous in purpose and structure from the state, but merely a servant of the absolutist sovereign of a particular nation in whom the power of grace was invested.

The definition of Papal infallibility in Vatican I has been called by many an attempt to return to this absolutist idea of power in the face of the liberal idea of authority in the 19th century. Kung quotes a representative source, "In the age of restoration the papacy became the indispensable support of backward-looking legitimist-monarchist thinking."10 Vatican I sought to introduce a monarchist idea of the Papacy which was not supported by either Scripture or Tra dition and was an attempt to restore the union of throne and altar.

All of this would be of mere historical curiosity if it did not affect the thinking about the teaching authority of the Pope in our own time. No doctrine has been more questioned, misinterpreted and deplored than the infallibility in post-Vatican II literature largely as a reaction to Humanae Vitae and more recently to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In this apostolic letter Pope John Paul II states, ". . . I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."11 Cardinal Ratzinger later clarified that this teaching, "has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium . . . Thus, . . . the Roman pontiff, . . . has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere and by all as belonging to the deposit of faith."12

The question of papal infallibility is both a long-standing and a timely one which seems to be open to great debate and great misinterpretation. The best way to approach it is to treat just what the Fathers at Vatican I were trying to define in Pastor Aeternus and how this definition is both applied and advanced by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium. In treating of Vatican I, the best source for interpretation is the Relatio (Report) given by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser on July 11, 1870 to the Council and adopted by the Council as the authentic interpretation of their decree. "It [Gasser’s Relatio] is the key to proper interpretation of chapter four of Pastor Aeternus as it was finally approved.13 In treating of Vatican II, the best source is the Synopsis Historica of the doctrinal commission which drew up Lumen Gentium. This is the official notebook explaining the reasons why the commission used the various words they used and what it was they were seeking to teach.14

The key text in Vatican I’s decree, Pastor Aeternus which defines papal infallibility occurs at the end. The Fathers state that papal teachings which are made ex cathedra, that is with the intention of definitively deciding questions of faith and morals, are irreform able "in themselves and not from consent of the Church (ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae)". Given the language used by the Gallicans cited above,15 the Fathers of the Council were clearly trying to defeat Gallicanism. Since Gallicanism was the tool of Louis XIV and the absolutist kings, the furthest thing from the mind of the Fathers was the restoration of the union of throne and altar. History bears this out by two important facts. First, this was the first council to which the civil powers were not even invited and second, shortly after this council the veto power in papal elections of the Catholic powers was ended, practices which were certainly jealously guarded by the politicians who represented the ancien regime. Rather the Council was trying to declare authority in the Church free from any model in the civil order, independent as a society from any civil authority.

The declaration of the infallibility of the Pope was part of a much larger picture in which the Fathers wanted to demonstrate the divine and supernatural character of the Church and settle once and for all how the Church differed from other human societies. This is shown graphically in the definition of the infallibility. The Church is not a democracy, oligarchy or monarchy or a combination of all these. She is rather a supernatural society, established by Christ to teach the Truth about God and to be a means of grace. Christ Himself en dowed the Church with supernatural wisdom and supernatural aids to allow her to truly believe in him, not least of which was his promise of his personal protection until the end of time. Because of this aid, the whole Church is unable to err in faith. The whole Church is infallible in the sense that the Church cannot err in believing in Christ.

The faithful as faithful are infallible in believing. But, that they might be taught correctly what Christ taught about Himself, Christ Himself established the hierarchy and guaranteed He would aid the hierarchy as a whole to teach correctly concerning all that touched faith, both faith as known and faith as lived, or morals. The purpose of the infallibility (final cause) has nothing to do with the political or scientific orders except where these may touch faith. The purpose is that the whole Church may not be mistaken about the Bride groom, Christ.

To this end, Christ first aided Peter and the Apostles with the special charismatic grace of the Holy Spirit by which they as a group and each personally could not be mistaken in their preaching concerning Him. This is the charism of infallibility. The infallibility given to Peter was also given to his successors. "[T]he Lord granted to Peter the prerogative of infallibility in His Church . . . ; this infallibility was passed on — indeed was meant to be passed on — to all the successors of St. Peter."16 This is because Peter had to guarantee the unity of doctrine for the whole Church.

Such was not the case with the infallibility personally granted to the Apostles. "[E]ach of them was individually infallible: but this infallibility was extraordinary . . . the prerogative of personal infallibility, joined in an extraordinary mode to the apostolate, would not pass on to the bishops."17 Instead, the whole group of the episcopate, together with the Pope as the primary bishop also enjoys infallibility when teaching doctrines about faith and morals. The Holy Spirit will aid all of them as a group to judge matters of faith correctly just as the Holy Spirit aids the Pope personally. "But this infallible aid is not present in each of the bishops but rather in the bishops taken together and joined with [their] head, for it was said to all generally and not each individually: "Behold, I am with you all days until the end of time."18

"The principle or efficacious cause of infallibility (efficient and formal cause) is the protection of Christ and the assistance of the Holy Spirit."19 These two aids which apply to the hierarchy generally apply to Peter in particular. This gift to the Church is a charismatic grace attached to the office of the Pope so that he possesses by himself the same ability which the whole group of bishops has to define doctrines. This is regardless of his moral worthiness. The difference between sanctifying grace and charisms is that sanctifying grace is given for personal holiness, whereas charisms are given as a means for the holiness of others. God is not stymied in giving these gifts by the weakness of his instruments. The charisms can be exercised by someone who is personally unworthy. This was a necessary clarification because one of the problems in defining the infallibility was that the German word for infallibility, "Unfehlbarkheit" suggests impeccability. The Council was not saying the Pope could not sin, but only that the Holy Spirit would aid him to know and teach what Christ had revealed and the Church had always taught. Nor is this gift a new formal revelation or the inspiration characteristic of Scripture. The Pope cannot change what the Church has always taught. He can only clarify that this is what the Church has always taught.

The material cause or subjects of the infallibility are then two: the Pope alone and the bishops as a whole, including the Pope. This is clearly taught in Vatican I although the only part of the doctrine which is defined is the infallibility of the Papal Magisterium. How can one coordinate these two subjects? Full and complete power is exercised personally by the Pope, not as an individual, but in his office as supreme pastor.

The personal infallibility of the Pope must be more accurately defined in itself in the following way: it does not belong to the Roman Pontiff inasmuch as he is a private person, nor even inasmuch as he is a private teacher . . . although we do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Univer sal.20

This full and supreme power is also exercised by the bishops collectively. The promise of the protection of Christ was made to all of them collectively directed by Peter.

When it comes to the Pope, the operation of this gift has some conditions. Absolute infallibility belongs to God alone. The Pope is limited to doctrines of the Church and those truths necessary to explain those doctrines, including dogmatic facts. He is also limited to the time of his pontificate. He must also be free from compulsion and clearly state that he is intending to teach something directly and definitively (directe et terminative) so that all may be clear about his mind. But there are no conditions as to formula or whom he must consult. His decisions need to be approved by no one. The Fathers avoided all such language as creeping Gallican ism. Instead, they clearly proclaimed the independence of the Church from every secular model and tried to show once and for all that though the Church has a human face, that she was in essence a supernatural society.

Two further points need to be made. One of the objections to the definition was that it would make ecumenical councils superfluous. To this Bishop Gasser answered, I answer: they will be necessary in the future as they were necessary in the past. They were never absolutely necessary if what you are talking of is only a matter of Christians of good will knowing the truth with certitude. For they were able to know the truth through the ordinary magisterium of the Church, that is, through the bishops having communion with the Apostolic See.21

To the objection that there should be a specific formula for ex cathedra definitions, Gasser says that this would militate against former infallible pronouncements. "[W]e are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See."22 There are those who say even today that there are so few infallible pronouncements that it is a useless prerogative. 23 Gasser is clear that there have been many thousands of definitive teachings on the part of the Pope.

The doctrine taught in Vatican I is also taught in Vatican II and even elaborated on. This follows what Pope John Paul II calls the "principle of integration".24 According to this principle, "[T]he teaching of Vatican II, which centres above all on the reality of the Church, must be organically inserted into the whole deposit of faith, so as to be integrated with the teaching of all preceding Councils and pontiffs."25

Vatican II treats the question of the infallibility in Chapter Three which is on the Hierarchy. Obviously, the Council intended to complete the treatment of the hierarchy of the Church begun in Vatican I and to round it out with more precision. The Fathers in Vatican I had intended to treat of the bishops and the Church as a whole but the Council had to be disbanded before this could be done because of the political situation in Rome. The Fathers in Vatican II especially wanted to formally explain how the bishops in their authority related to the Pope. To this end, they used two concepts to refer to the Church and the hierarchy in the Church which many have taken as a innovation or even perhaps a denial of the teaching of Vatican I on infallibility. The first is People of God and the second is the term "College" to refer to the bishops as a whole.

In the Sixties, it was common to treat the term People of God, used by the Council in Chapter Two of the document, as somehow a denial that there were grades of authority in the Church. No longer was the Church to be viewed as a hierarchy with each part having a different function, but all members enjoyed equality. The term which had expressed hierarchy and difference of function, "Mystical Body of Christ", had been in the minds of many replaced by "People of God". This equality of relationship was expressed in the hierarchy by the idea of the college. The Apostles were a college. Since all the members of the People of God were equal, the term college expressed a similar equality among the hierarchy. The hierarchy was like a parliament with the Pope like the constitutional monarch. Nothing could be taught or bind anyone which was not agreed upon by at least the majority. In the minds of many, this was the purpose of the renewed emphasis on national conferences of bishops.

So pervasive was this opinion that it lead some authors to: a) deny the scriptural or historical foundations of the infallibility; b) deny that papal infallibility is necessary for the Church; c) and even question whether Vatican I was an ecumenical Council.26 Nor is this hermeneutic limited to the time immediately following the Council. Even today some bishops feel that the collegiality of Vatican II demands a much more parliamentary approach to governing the Church. In an address at Oxford University, Archbishop John R. Quinn teaches, "My point is simply to underline that issues of a major concern in the Church are not really open to a free and collegial evaluation and discussion by the bishops, whose office includes being judges in matters of faith."27

A complete reading of Vatican II together with the Synopsis of the doctrinal commission which proposed it shows that these ideas could not be further from the mind of Vatican II. While it is true that Vatican II used the image of the People of God extensively to discuss the difference between Christianity and other religions, this was hardly to downplay the image of Mystical Body of Christ. In fact the commentary of the doctrinal commission on the first sentence in Chapter Three of Lumen Gentium reads, "The first sentence is so determined that it may better appear to indicate that the People of God, the Church and the Body of Christ are one and the same concrete reality."28 Also, following the "principle of integration" the actual text of Lumen Gentium teaches, "in the footsteps of Vatican I"29, Vatican II "proposes anew . . to be firmly believed by the faithful"30 the "teaching concerning the institution, permanence, nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office."31 So Vatican II presupposes all that is taught in Vatican I about the infallibility of the Papal Magis terium. What it wishes to take up is the Bishops’ Magisterium. "[The Council] proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops . . ."32

Vatican II explains that the whole group of the Apostles including Peter constituted the original college. By apostolic succession, this is a continually existing body. In fact, the word "college" here has nothing to do with a parliament. "The term ‘college’ is not understood in a juridical sense about an assembly of perfect equals; but rather of a stable assembly, instituted by the Lord."33 Paul VI made this clear in his "Explanatory Note" added to the end of Lumen Gentium:

The word College is not taken in the strictly juridical sense, that is as a group of equals who transfer their powers to their chairman, but as a permanent body whose form and authority is to be ascertained from revelation. . . . There is no such thing as the college without its head: it is "The subject of supreme and entire power over the whole Church." This much must be acknowledged lest the fullness of the Pope’s power be jeopardized. . . The Pope alone, in fact, being head of the college, is qualified to perform certain actions in which the bishops have no competence whatsoever. . . . The Ro man Pontiff undertakes the regulation, encouragement, and approval of the exercise of collegiality as he sees fit.34

From these teachings one can easily see that Vatican II wished in no sense to change either the final, formal, efficient or material causes of the infallibility as defined by Vatican I. The Fathers at Vatican II merely wished to apply the exact same doctrine to the second subject (material cause) of the infallibility, the magisterium of the bishops, something Bishop Gasser had already done without using the word college.

After approving an almost verbatim summary of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as taught in Vatican I, the Council goes on to teach, "The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office."35 This text and all the ones which surround it have official footnotes taken from Bishop Gasser’s Relatio.

So, the infallibility has three subjects: the Church as a whole, the Bishops together with the Pope who constitute the College, and the Pope alone. Though the infallibility of the Episcopal Magisterium is clearly taught in Vatican I and II, it is not defined in either. Vatican I did not define it directly and though clearly taught in Vatican II, there were no new doctrines defined in Vatican II according to Paul VI when he implemented the Council.36 Rather than Vatican II denying the teaching of Vatican I which was meant to guarantee the transcendent character of the Church as a society, the Fathers extended the infallibility to include the whole college of bishops. Since the Pope is the head and he decides how the college will act, one could without contradiction maintain that encyclicals which meant to resolve moral questions definitively, like Humanae Vitae, and letters which meant to resolve sacramental questions about Christ’s institution of the priesthood, like Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, would not be examples of the Pope’s ex cathedra magisterium as defined in Vati can I. Still, they would be infallible teaching from the Episcopal Magisterium with the Pope teaching collegially as the head of the college.