Certainty and Infallibility

[Reformed_Rob]

Hey, I’m wondering, and this related to this other thread about infallibility.

Ok, we talk about how Christians wouldn’t know what to believe and boo hoo how could we be certain about faith and morals if the Pope wasn’t infallible?

But…

We know truths related to things other than faith and morals without there being an infallible voice on those topics.

For instance, look at your periodic table of the elements. For a test, disagree with it. **Convince your chemistry teacher that you are right and the periodic table is wrong. **

The scientists that over many years compiled that information, do we doubt their work? Maybe some people do (we would call them Sophomore Protestant Chemists), but I expect that generally speaking, we can add elements but we won’t ever be changing the atomic weight of Nickel.

So, my question is why do we need infallibility for religion, when we don’t for science or math or carpentry or literature or economics, etc?

I suppose the answer would involve considering the nature of the knowledge we are seeking and the topics involved.

 

[teajay]

It depends on what you mean by “wrong”. If you say that the periodic table is a perfect representation of reality then that would be “wrong” because, even though it is reliable within a broad range of circumstances, quantum mechanics has expanded our understanding beyond the model represented in the periodic table.

The concept of infallibility and authority are intertwined and therefore need to be dealt with together. I think its quite common for people to deal with infallibility as though its relevance lies within the realm of epistemology, when in reality it relates to the ontological character of the church.

At least that’s my fallible understanding…

 

[Fidelis]

St. Thomas has a comprehensive answer for this (as he does for most things) but I don’t have it at my fingertips. Let me take a whack at it by taking a slight diversion to the Natural Moral Law.

It can be argued that there are at least two other kinds of Law (besides divine revelation) operative in the world and established by God (actually there are more kinds than that which are derivatives, but let’s keep it brief). The first kind are the Physical Laws – motion, gravity, thermodynamics, etc, etc. Since these Laws involve physical, observable, tangible things, the effects of them are readily observable physically, i.e., by our senses.

Going a little higher, there is also the Natural Law which, as Christians, we also believe was established by God and placed within the conscience of God’s highest creatures – angels and men. Thus we --all sapient beings – know deep within us without anyone telling us that things such as wanton murder, rape, and pillage are inherently wrong (sometimes we’ll make excuses to commit these, but that also proves we know these things are wrong). Again, as Christians, we also believe that violation of these Laws have consequences. The difference, of course, is that we can’t *always *immediately see those consequences in the same way as we might when physical laws are violated (though sometimes we do).

Now the conclusion. I think the interpretation of spiritual truths is related – on a higher level even --to this last type of Law – revealed truth being the highest form of truth which builds upon and cannot contradict other, lesser, types of truth (grace building upon nature, and all that). The point about the weakness of personal Scripture interpretation resulting in 30,000 different denominations (if not interpretations) is that God would not provide us a body of revealed truth without an infallible means to interpret since he must have known what chaos would result if he were counting on personal interpretation. The lower forms of Law (Physical = Periodic Table; Natural = basic morality) are more or less self-evident. The highest form of Revelation (Scripture/Sacred Tradition) are demonstrably not.

Does that make sense?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

St. Thomas has a comprehensive answer for this (as he does for most things) but I don’t have it at my fingertips.

The lower forms of Law (Physical = Periodic Table; Natural = basic morality) are more or less self-evident. The highest form of Revelation (Scripture/Sacred Tradition) are demonstrably not.

Does that make sense?

Yep, thanks Fidelis.

I wasn’t at a crisis of faith, about to leave the Church. I was just wondering. Thanks again!!

More discussion???

 

[VociMike]

I’d say the issue is testability. One can test the periodic table (indirectly). One can test a great many areas of knowledge. But one cannot in general test the faith. How does one test, for example, for the Real Presence?

 

[neophyte]

Hey, I’m wondering, and this related to this other thread about infallibility.

Ok, we talk about how Christians wouldn’t know what to believe and boo hoo how could we be certain about faith and morals if the Pope wasn’t infallible?..

Who talks like that? Certainly not knowledgable Catholics, nor knowledgable non-Catholics either.

Naturally revealed truth is that which is discernable by reason using the rules of logic. Within the realm of naturally revealed truth we are certainly able to come to infallible conclusions without help from the Church; if one correctly uses logical processes, then one is guaranteed to come to the correct answer. There are many moral truths which are naturally revealed; among these are: God exists, God is One, God is eternal, God is omniscient, God is omnipresent, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, theft is wrong, etc, etc.

Divinely revealed truth is that which is not discernable by reason using the rules of logic. Divinely revealed truth, by its very nature, requires that it be told to us and explained by an authority if we are to have any assurance of understanding it correctly. Among these truths are: God is triune, God is Father, etc, etc.

 

[mrs_abbott]

How does one test, for example, for the Real Presence?

I’ve heard stories about people taking Consecrated Hosts and smashing them and they bleed real blood. Has anyone else heard of these? Are these documented accounts or just stories?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Divinely revealed truth, by its very nature, requires that it be told to us and explained by an authority if we are to have any assurance of understanding it correctly.

Ok, thanks

Did the OT Jews have such an authority?

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I’ve heard stories about people taking Consecrated Hosts and smashing them and they bleed real blood. Has anyone else heard of these? Are these documented accounts or just stories?

I’ve never heard stories that unfold quite like you explain it. But that doesn’t mean that such hasn’t happened.

However there are many stories regarding what we call “Eucharistic Miracles” where consecrated hosts turned to heart material or bleed when broken (during normal Liturgical process or consumption).

There are actually blood stains on altar cloths. People have been really brought to great devotion by witnessing such visible miracles of different kinds.

The most renowned is probably the one in Lanciano Italy in the 700’s

But there are many more, like:

Braine, France - 1153
Olmutz, Czechoslovakia - 1242
Hasselt, Belgium - 1317

And many many more. Several are Church approved. therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.htmlThe hosts and associated materials have for the most part been preserved to our day. The one at Lanciano has been tested and is AB (I don’t know if it’s neg or pos) but that’s the same type as in the Shroud of Turin.

Anyways, here’s a neat book that I’ve got on that.

And here’s a website that has Church approved miracles for devotion.