Erroneous Extension of Infallibility

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle,

You lost me from the start. What were you trying to say?

PS. I just read your profile. Weren’t you a Catholic at one time?

Sorry about that - and it’s not “were”, it’s “am”.​

What I was trying to say is that there are all sorts of loopholes which make the dogma meaningless - they make it useless for the purpose it is meant to serve. It is worded in such a way that - given that no pope has authority over another - it cannot ensure the perpetuity of the faith either; if anything, it undermines that perpetuity.

If the Church’s theological methods had never changed, and if the content of the deposit of faith had been made explicit from the start, these loopholes would much smaller, though not perhaps closed. As things are, and given that the final arbiter of what is orthodox is the Pope, any Pope is in principle free to fill up the content of the deposit as he thinks is appropriate. So “new doctrine” is defined by what that Pope judges to be “new” - he is not obliged to keep within a discernible boundary, such as the teaching of the Fathers, or of the first six Councils. So the fact that a dogma was not formally known to the fathers, or the Apostles, is no reason not to define it. The result of all this is to make hay of Catholic Tradition - its contents are what the Pope says they are.

Which is why Cardinal Manning’s notion of infallibility (say) is not part of Tradition: it is broader than what was defined - he believed the Popes to be infallible in approving religious orders. It is a bit awkward to treat someone as a witness to a doctrine or dogma, if the form of it believed in by him is not quite what is formally dogmatised.

I’m interested in the whys and wherefores of ideas - I like them to make sense and to be free of logical fallacies; and to agree with the facts of history. I don’t see infallibility as doing any of these things, & I think the very desire for that sort of certainty is a mistake. IMVHO, the definition has done no clear good, and plenty of damage.

I hope that is clearer

As for over-extension, the 1998 Ratzinger Note accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem says that canonisations are infallible. This is hard to believe, when the Church in 1965 forbade the veneration of Simon of Trent, whom Sixtus V had canonised in 1588.

Is there really no contradiction here ? The Church cannot just ignore these details - so how are they to be reconciled ? And why should one believe the Church in the future ? The desire for infallibility opens up many cans of worms ##

 

[Struggling]

Simon of Trent

By forbidding [public] veneration (for fear of the Jews) they didn’t say he wasn’t in heaven or condemn him to hell.

I mean…does anyone really doubt that Simon of Trent, being, as he was, baptized and only 2 years old (below the age of reason), is in heaven?

Regardless of whether the tale of his martyrdom is true or a blood libel…the boy still existed, still died below the age of reason, and is still in heaven just like Sixtus said. Forbidding public veneration (for political reasons) doesn’t touch that fact.

 

[Della]

Gottle of Gear, you are tying yourself up in knots chasing after red herrings. The charism of infallibility wasn’t invented but confirmed. And it is more of a negative charism than a positive one. IOW, the pope cannot make doctrine–that’s not what infallibility means. It only means that he cannot pronounce as doctrine whatever isn’t true. It’s a guard against the very thing you seem to fear–that the popes will create doctrines willy-nilly out of thin air, but they can’t do that. All they can do is NOT declare as true what is false in matters of faith and morals–AND NOTHING ELSE!!!

 

[Truthstalker]

The Holy Spirit.

This, actually, I think, is the Correct answer. Either God guides the Church or He doesn’t. The doctrine of infallibility is descriptive, not prescriptive: this is what happens, not what we need to do to fix the situation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

By forbidding [public] veneration (for fear of the Jews) they didn’t say he wasn’t in heaven or condemn him to hell.

I mean…does anyone really doubt that Simon of Trent, being, as he was, baptized and only 2 years old (below the age of reason), is in heaven?

Regardless of whether the tale of his martyrdom is true or a blood libel…the boy still existed, still died below the age of reason, and is still in heaven just like Sixtus said. Forbidding public veneration (for political reasons) doesn’t touch that fact.

The problem with this reply is that it doesn’t address the issue of the Pope’s action in canonising him.​

Which in turn prompts the q.: What does it mean, to say “the Pope is infallible when he canonises people ?”

I don’t think that saying “X is in heaven”, true as this may be, quite meets the problem. My difficulty is not with Simon of Trent, but with the relation between the events of 1588, 1965, & 1998: not with those of 1475 & 1588 & 1965.

If an act is infallible, it will be able to be known to be such - and AFAICS this involves it being free from questions about how to discern its infallibility. Otherwise, it’s being called infallible, without being known to be infallible.

IOW - there are epistemological problems here, which need to be addressed; otherwise, the events which raise the problems are impossible to defend, as they cannot be understood clearly in the first place.

If one is required to believe something, one hopes to have some assurance that the belief is internally coherent. And the relation between events in 1588, 1965, & 1998, with the doctrinal weight given them, does not STM coherent.

It’s entirely likely one is overlooking something - so what is it ?

TY for replying BTW

 

[CollegeKid]

This, actually, I think, is the Correct answer. Either God guides the Church or He doesn’t. The doctrine of infallibility is descriptive, not prescriptive: this is what happens, not what we need to do to fix the situation.

I agree. The answer requires faith to assent to because it begs the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit does in fact prevent the Pope from teaching erroneously on a matter of faith or morals or inventing some new doctrine unrelated to faith or morals, but its the answer nonetheless. After all, everything we believe requires faith. You’ve hit the nail on the head though- Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council of 1870 is descriptive of a Catholic doctrine that that been developing throughout the centuries. I’m pretty sure this is always the case with dogmatic pronouncements of councils or popes-they’re simply clarifications of and official statements on what has always been believed, even if never formally defined. In many instances they’re issued because some dispute has arisen in the Church over a doctrine.

 

[Truthstalker]

I agree. The answer requires faith to assent to because it begs the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit does in fact prevent the Pope from teaching erroneously on a matter of faith or morals or inventing some new doctrine unrelated to faith or morals, but its the answer nonetheless. After all, everything we believe requires faith. You’ve hit the nail on the head though- Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council of 1870 is descriptive of a Catholic doctrine that that been developing throughout the centuries. I’m pretty sure this is always the case with dogmatic pronouncements of councils or popes-they’re simply clarifications of and official statements on what has always been believed, even if never formally defined. In many instances they’re issued because some dispute has arisen in the Church over a doctrine.

In some ways I think the Church is stuck with its theology, because it is stuck with God, and some theological disputes arise not out of real theological difficulties, but difficulties with God. Jesus did not hesitate to give people theological heartburn when He was here; why would He stop now? At times I think all the Church can do is turn to Him and say, “Well?” Either theology flows from God or its manmade. Intrinsically we will have trouble with real theology because we ain’t all that bright, or perfect in faith or holiness - qualities necessary for real theological comprehension. And so the Church struggles to explain the God it knows.

As Della pointed out, the doctrine of infallibility is more about what the Pope cannot do than what he can do: he can’t screw up too badly. He can really make mistakes, he can sin, he can say silly things, but God will take care of the Church regardless. If the focus is on God not the Pope it’s ok - once we look at the man rather than God, we have a problem anyway. The present problem is whether, given infallibility in faith and morals, an erroneous extension into other fields is possible. I think some are saying no, that by the very nature of the doctrine it cannot be infallible when applied to areas it does not apply to. In some sense it is like asking how high a race horse can fly. They can fly down the track but not up in the air. By that argument the question is meaningless. But I think it can lead to a greater understanding of the doctrine.

 

[CollegeKid]

In some ways I think the Church is stuck with its theology, because it is stuck with God, and some theological disputes arise not out of real theological difficulties, but difficulties with God. Jesus did not hesitate to give people theological heartburn when He was here; why would He stop now? At times I think all the Church can do is turn to Him and say, “Well?” Either theology flows from God or its manmade. Intrinsically we will have trouble with real theology because we ain’t all that bright, or perfect in faith or holiness - qualities necessary for real theological comprehension. And so the Church struggles to explain the God it knows.

As Della pointed out, the doctrine of infallibility is more about what the Pope cannot do than what he can do: he can’t screw up too badly. He can really make mistakes, he can sin, he can say silly things, but God will take care of the Church regardless. If the focus is on God not the Pope it’s ok - once we look at the man rather than God, we have a problem anyway. The present problem is whether, given infallibility in faith and morals, an erroneous extension into other fields is possible. I think some are saying no, that by the very nature of the doctrine it cannot be infallible when applied to areas it does not apply to. In some sense it is like asking how high a race horse can fly. They can fly down the track but not up in the air. By that argument the question is meaningless. But I think it can lead to a greater understanding of the doctrine.

Just curious: are you planning to convert?

 

[Truthstalker]

Just curious: are you planning to convert?

Read my posts.

 

[CollegeKid]

Read my posts.

Well, from your posts it looks as though you’re considering it. God bless, and good luck on your journey.

 

[Truthstalker]

Thanks.

Back to topic: what if a Catholic decides that an “infallible declaration” isn’t one, because in his view it lies outside the arena of faith and morals? Let’s say someone doesn’t accept the Immaculate Conception, for example, on the grounds that it is outside what is necessary for salvation and hence not subject to infallibility (I don’t want to get sidetracked on that particular dogma, I just want to explore the possibility).

 

[Stephen_C]

Thanks.

Back to topic: what if a Catholic decides that an “infallible declaration” isn’t one, because in his view it lies outside the arena of faith and morals? Let’s say someone doesn’t accept the Immaculate Conception, for example, on the grounds that it is outside what is necessary for salvation and hence not subject to infallibility (I don’t want to get sidetracked on that particular dogma, I just want to explore the possibility).

It depends as to what you are talking about. If it is Church dogma/doctrine. Then no you don’t get to pick and choose what to believe if you are Catholic. It is all or nothing. First and foremost you need believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus. (Which I do) I may not fully understand something. Or at this time may not be able to grasp it. So I need trust in Jesus that he will in his time give me that understanding. In other words, If I choose not to believe something, then I stop seeking understanding and I close the door. Always remain open. Trust and have faith that Jesus does keep his promises. That He will always protect his Church, and keep it from teaching error. Again, if you cannot get a handle on some of what the Church teach’s, just keep praying for understanding. That is Catholic. To pick and choose what you believe, or not believe…well…

 

[trth_skr]

As I recall of the Galileo case (I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I get it wrong, but just for the sake of argument), it wasn’t whether or not the earth stands still but that he was saying he had to be right and the Bible wrong. Frankly, I don’t think the pope cares how the physical mechanics of the universe operate, but he does care, very much about the veracity of the Bible.

From Geocentricity 101, Part III:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples… …and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…

If the Scriptures have veracity, then the object(s) of the veracitatiousness need to be true (by definition)!

On the other hand, it is not clear that the geocentric decrees were infallible. So this may not be the best example for this thread.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com