Confusion on Church Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter edarlitrix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edarlitrix

Guest
In a pamphlet explaining the doctrine of infallibility, I read:

“What is infallibility? The heart of infallibility is this: The power of divine grace (not the human strength of its members) cannot allow the Church as a whole to fall away from the truth of God. Simply put, the presence of God will not allow the Church to self-destruct” (Kenneth R. Overberg, “Infallibilty and Church Authority: The Spirit’s Gift to the Whole Church”).

I don’t understand, however, what “the Church” is as a whole, so that it can be said to be “infallible”—isn’t it a bunch of people? So, if the Church is infallible, doesn’t that imply that each individual has to have infallibility? God would have to keep each individual member of the Church from falling away from His truth in order to keep the whole Church from falling away, unless the definition of Church is different. And I know Catholics don’t teach that individual is infallible! So, my basic question is what is “the Church” that it can be “infallible” (as infallibility was defined above)?
 
It seems to me a clumsy way of explaining infallibility.

Infallibility is a negative protection. That means that the Holy Spirit (God Himself) will prevent the Church from teaching error on a matter of faith and morals to the universal Church. The Holy Spirit will not leave the people of God and will not leave the Church, so that Christians can always know the truth, and can know Christ. No matter what else happens, and how bad things may become, the Church teaching will not fail and teach error. Like a compass, the Holy Spirit will keep the Church teaching pointed toward true north.
 
edarlitrix said:
I don’t understand, however, what “the Church” is as a whole, so that it can be said to be “infallible”—isn’t it a bunch of people? So, if the Church is infallible, doesn’t that imply that each individual has to have infallibility? God would have to keep each individual member of the Church from falling away from His truth in order to keep the whole Church from falling away, unless the definition of Church is different. And I know Catholics don’t teach that individual is infallible! So, my basic question is what is “the Church” that it can be “infallible” (as infallibility was defined above)?
Click to expand...
When you read “infallibility of the church” think the magisterium (i.e. Our Pope and our Bishops, and yes there our instances in which our Bishops do teach infallibly.)

The church does teach that our bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council do posses infallibility when they are teaching on matters of faith and morals. There have been 21 ecumenical councils within the church

Canon law 749 explains this:
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

As you can also see in the above Canon Law statement that Ecumenical Councils are not the only instances in which our Bishops maintain infallibilty. They also teach infallibly when they are in communion with each other and with the Pope and together teach matters of faith and morals, that they agree are definitive.
 
Here is how Vatican II explained it (see here):
12. The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.

110 Cf. Heb. 13:15.
111 Cf. Jn. 2:20, 27
112 Cf. 1 Thess. 2:13.
113 Cf. Jud. 3
 
edarlitrix said:
In a pamphlet explaining the doctrine of infallibility, I read:

“What is infallibility? The heart of infallibility is this: The power of divine grace (not the human strength of its members) cannot allow the Church as a whole to fall away from the truth of God. Simply put, the presence of God will not allow the Church to self-destruct” (Kenneth R. Overberg, “Infallibilty and Church Authority: The Spirit’s Gift to the Whole Church”).

I don’t understand, however, what “the Church” is as a whole, so that it can be said to be “infallible”—isn’t it a bunch of people? So, if the Church is infallible, doesn’t that imply that each individual has to have infallibility? God would have to keep each individual member of the Church from falling away from His truth in order to keep the whole Church from falling away, unless the definition of Church is different. And I know Catholics don’t teach that individual is infallible! So, my basic question is what is “the Church” that it can be “infallible” (as infallibility was defined above)?
Click to expand...
Your confusion is proof of the errors of Protestantism.

The church as a whole is infallible. The church has declared doctrines and dogmas that are the TRUTH. If one disagrees, they cannot go and form their own church and remain within THE CHURCH.
 
edarlitrix said:
In a pamphlet explaining the doctrine of infallibility, I read:

“What is infallibility? The heart of infallibility is this: The power of divine grace (not the human strength of its members) cannot allow the Church as a whole to fall away from the truth of God. Simply put, the presence of God will not allow the Church to self-destruct” (Kenneth R. Overberg, “Infallibilty and Church Authority: The Spirit’s Gift to the Whole Church”).

I don’t understand, however, what “the Church” is as a whole, so that it can be said to be “infallible”—isn’t it a bunch of people? So, if the Church is infallible, doesn’t that imply that each individual has to have infallibility? God would have to keep each individual member of the Church from falling away from His truth in order to keep the whole Church from falling away, unless the definition of Church is different. And I know Catholics don’t teach that individual is infallible! So, my basic question is what is “the Church” that it can be “infallible” (as infallibility was defined above)?
Click to expand...
Fr. Overberg, a Jesuit from Xavier University, dissents from the Catholic Faith on many issues. I didn’t read this particular work, but based on other things he has written he may be using the term “Church” in different ways. For instance, if Infallibility is a “gift” to the “whole Church”, then I, as a layman, benefit from that gift by getting reliable guidance from the Spirit, through the pope and bishops.

But more likely he intends to emphasize the “whole church”, all the members as equally somehow infallible - as opposed to the pope and bishops. If most Catholics now support condoms and contraception or no longer find the Trinity persuasive, then the Catholic Faith should incorporate that development. By reducing the pope and bishops to essentially a ceremonial role, his view would give more power to the media. This is what happened in many denominations, and would happen the to the Catholic Church, if the Magisterium were weakened.
 
edarlitrix said:
In a pamphlet explaining the doctrine of infallibility, I read:

“What is infallibility? The heart of infallibility is this: The power of divine grace (not the human strength of its members) cannot allow the Church as a whole to fall away from the truth of God. Simply put, the presence of God will not allow the Church to self-destruct” (Kenneth R. Overberg, “Infallibilty and Church Authority: The Spirit’s Gift to the Whole Church”).

I don’t understand, however, what “the Church” is as a whole, so that it can be said to be “infallible”—isn’t it a bunch of people? So, if the Church is infallible, doesn’t that imply that each individual has to have infallibility? God would have to keep each individual member of the Church from falling away from His truth in order to keep the whole Church from falling away, unless the definition of Church is different. And I know Catholics don’t teach that individual is infallible! So, my basic question is what is “the Church” that it can be “infallible” (as infallibility was defined above)?
Click to expand...
What Overberg is talking about is “indefectibility,” which is indeed the heart of infallibility. Infallibility is more specific: the Pope speaking ex cathedra and/or the Pope and bishops and the whole body of Christians in union with them acting authoritatively will not declare as part of God’s revelation something that isn’t, or condemn as contrary to God’s revelation something that is.

That’s my definition, by the way, and I invite correction. I’m still trying to figure this infallibility thing out after eighteen years of inquiring into it.

Edwin
 
Contarini #8
I’m still trying to figure this infallibility thing out after eighteen years of inquiring into it.
Click to expand...
What’s the problem, after the explanations given?
 
After reading this article, my opinion is that it doesn’t really explain infallibility, it tries to explain it away - sort of, “don’t worry about it, it doesn’t really affect you, or anyone else. Mature Christians should make up their own mind on what to believe and do; not the Pope.”

Remember, Catholic Update often disagrees with the Catholic Faith. Sometimes they can get an Imprimatur for a given article, which does not mean the Catholic Church endorses the article. It only means the article does not explicitly oppose Catholic Faith. An article can get an Imprimatur even if they are misleading, by omitting certain facts. It’s not what they put in, it’s what they intentionally leave out, that leaves the wrong impression.

I have seen other issues of Catholic Update, which do not have an Imprimatur, but merely a statement that it is published with ecclesiastic permission. That means the Archdiocese approves of them having an editorial office, but that they could not get an Imprimatur; that a specific article did explicitly dissent, it was so bad it couldn’t even meet that easy Imprimatur standard.

I suggest you consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this, and other issues. That is far more reliable than Catholic Update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top