Fallibility: The Theological Implications

[anon5216]

Subtlety, nuance and degrees of uncertainty abound in the Catholic faith.
You’re not responding to my point. I said “Infallibility is only relevant for the particular human psychology that fears subtlety, nuance and a degree of uncertainty.”
Surely you don’t think “infallibility” and “Catholic faith” are synonymous?
I happen to believe that claims of infallibility do far more harm to Christianity than any placebo effect of faith confidence boosting.

You must subscribe to the notion that Christianity is easy believism.
No. Padre Pio and those of his caliber hardly were satisfied with “easy believism” or even “macho military discipline believism” for that matter.

Or you think that since Catholics believe we possess salvific truths as revealed by God, that the faith lacks any subtleties or nuances, that it’s all black and white. Not true.
Catholics (in actual practice) believe all kinds of different things to all kinds of different degrees. A not insignificant quantity are very much into black and white rigidity.
I’m not saying you personally are one of those, but please don’t try to speak for “all Catholics” - you aren’t homogenous in your beliefs and level of understanding by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps the Church’s proclaimed possession of revealed truth makes you think that we are guaranteed heaven by being enjoined to the Church. Wrong again.
Sorry, you’re trying to speak on behalf of “all Catholics” again. Again, maybe you personally are clear that your membership card is no free pass, but you’re not “all Catholics”.

I wholeheartedly agree. But it seems as though you are speaking for God here. I suppose he revealed this information about Himself to you infallibly? I mean, you state it with such conviction.
I mean, you act so incredulous. You don’t claim to personally be able to imagine a God that feared subtlety, nuance or uncertainty?
I hope you wouldn’t be inclined to worship such a “god” if you can indeed imagine one.

Do you understand the meaning of infallbility? in the sense that the Church proclaims it. If you do, could you please provide for me the definition?
It’s too long to quote here, but there’s: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm and catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
No, I don’t subscribe to “infallibility” = “impeccable morals”.
I also don’t subscribe to “the Pope or the Magisterium are always infallible in everything they say” misconception.
Although, in that last regard, (in actual practice), there certainly is no shortage of self-proclaimed Catholics that give the impression they believe it - at least until pressed quite hard on the issue.

But getting back to the “newadvent.org” site. It lists 4 statements assumed to be truths that set up infallibility:

1. “That Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society”.
2. “That He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them”
3. “That He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship”
4. “In order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy — and on them exclusively — the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed”
   These may be established Catholic beliefs, but not one of them is established objective truth.
   Reminds me of the old joke about the word “assume”.

Of course it isn’t accepted by those outside. If it was accepted, they wouldn’t be outside. And this is not a “self definition” of Christianity. You may disagree with Christianity, but there is no debate over the definition of it. Find me one Christian who denies that their religion is one wherein we have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man. If you’re looking to define what Christianity is, you ask Christians…if you want to define existentialism, ask an existentialist. Disagree with the essence of that definition all you want…but the definition is not up for debate.
So, you insist that a definition of Christianity come from Christians but also insist that this is not a “self definition”? You really don’t see the contradiction here?
I agree Christians themselves may define their religion as one “wherein they have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man.”
That has nothing to do with whether or not God actually did such a thing in their case. It’s no more than a belief.
But outsiders can certainly agree to define Christianity as “a religion that believes/claims that they have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man”.

I see. So, man knows and claims God revealed himself to us. And we know this…because…?? …um…because we’re completely blind to all spiritual visions of his revelation. If you take the position that we know nothing of God infallibly, then you cannot take the position that He, in fact, did reveal Himself. So, of course God revealing Himself is relevant to our spiritual visual acuity.
I see. You believe that God can’t reveal Himself (or hasn’t revealed Himself) unless us humans get the message infallibly. That explains a lot about your positions.

Catholic worship is centered on a Person, not symbols. It is centered on a Person, whose revelation we have received as passed down from other persons whom that one Person revealed Himself to. Are you thinking Catholicism is a religion of the book alone? We do use symbols to represent His teaching, His grace, His ministries…but those symbols are deeply penetrated to their most inner core…atleast as far as God allows.
No, not book alone. And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against symbols - they most definitely have their place in the grand scheme of things.
They can never be actual Truth, however. Sets of words claimed as infallible interpretation or inerrant revelation amount to claims of actual Truth, and that amounts to worship.

We know exactly what it feels like to swim.
Padre Pio knew what it felt like to swim.
People of his caliber have been very rare over the entire two thousand year history of the Church.
(They’ve been rare in the various non-Christian religions as well. I’m not claiming otherwise on this point).
Somehow, I don’t even remotely believe your claim about swimming.
(And btw, I’m not remotely claiming to be a swimmer at that level either).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Before one would hypothesize about the absence of infallibility, and any ramifications of it, I would first ask, Is the premise valid? Is it really plausible, as Bubba suggested, that the Church arose as a natural consequence of Jesus’ activities? And we should determine the validity of the second premise, the plausibility of the Bible being merely man’s effort to record interactions with God. To me, we have to back way up first…

This is a good starting point but it’s important to distinguish determining whether the premise is valid from determining whether it is plausible (a much lower standard). The latter is a lower standard but since your goal is to show that it is implausible, that is sufficient.

First and foremost, is there a God? A sole omniscient, infallible Creator? If we believe so, then we continue talking about all this. If not, we have to square that away first.

I’m not sure we have to begin here but since we are in agreement on this let’s proceed.

Assuming we have belief in God, then we ask, is Christianity a valid religion, or a fake one? If Christianity is man’s word about God, then it is a fake, unreliable religion, for all intents and purposes, no different than any other religion in the world whose faith is based on man’s word about God.

Here is where you are setting up the very false dichtomy that I have argued with elsewhere. You give no reason for us to regard Christianity as fake if it is merely man’s word about God (in the sense of recording man’s interactions with God as opposed to making stuff up).

For example, we have a history of Rome that is man’s word about Rome. It is not fake for that.

But the fundamental difference of Christianity, unique among all world religions, is that it is God’s word about man, more specifically His word about Himself and man’s relationship to Him. God came down the mountain to tell us about Himself, paving a road that we could follow up to Him.

But this would be true either way. If the Bible is man’s record of God’s revelation it still retains this uniqueness.

So, if we start with a belief that Christianity is God’s word about man, what follows is that man has somehow been made aware of these words of God…they are known to us, have been revealed to us by Him. And since God’s word is without error, then Christianity is the infallible word of God made known by Him to man. In other words, man possesses revealed, inerrant and objective truth about our Creator. The only limitations placed on that knowledge is what amount of revelation God has provided. We believe He has revealed all of that which we need to know…and that the fullness of revelation happens after death. But that which He has revealed is inerrant and is objective.

Most of the Bible does not present itself as God’s word in this sense. There are exceptions, of course, quotes of God and Jesus, and certainly it contains some narrative in Genesis that only God could know (though they are also the most mythological parts) but for the most part, the Bible reads like a history book.

 

[SteveGC]

Look…we’re going round and round this whole thing. Here’s my point…

To believe God is infallible, and believe He revealed Himself…but NOT believe He revealed Himself infallibly (at least in terms of the essentials of our eternal relationship with Him) does not hold up to scrutiny, IMO. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t believe He revealed Himself infallibly in this way, then you either don’t believe He is infallible (which is why I started at belief in God), or you don’t believe He actually revealed these things about Himself…or both. So, what I’m saying is that to be a true Christian, one must believe in infallibility as the Church defines it (inerrancy in the teachings of our eternal relationship to the Triune God), because to not believe God revealed Himself infallibly is to not have faith that He truly revealed Himself at all. In other words, the implications of fallibility is the eradication of true Christianity, by Christianity’s own definition. Now, maybe that implication is OK to the non-Christian, and not OK to the Christian, but that IS the implication…Christianity ceases to be. Christianity is not a religion of speculation about God’s eternal relationship with man.

-The atheist believes neither, and therefore has no business opining about infallibility on earth…that’s a completely different thread

-The non-Christian theist believes the former only (such as anon - I’m assuming)…and therefore will undoubtedly oppose infallible teaching about Him, because he has no faith in the concept of divine revelation…only scientific and/or spiritual speculation…(i.e. maybe He did reveal Himself…maybe He didn’t.) No sense appealing to these folks about the importance of Christian infallibilty, because they do not possess faith in Christ. So he will certainly downplay the importance of infallibility, claiming that it is for “spiritual sissies” in a sense. i.e. “who needs to know for sure, when a stronger man seeks endlessly for it on his own”

-The non-Catholic Christian believes both, but the latter only through Scripture, hence believes in a pseudo infalliblity at best, based on a self-professed Spirit-guided personal interpretation of Scripture. They deny Church infallibility, and even Biblical interpretive infallibility, except for the claim that belief in Jesus Christ infallibly leads one to heaven. So for them, the implication of fallibility is minimal, except on that one aspect (belief in Christ). But still, this should be enough for even them to acknowledge that complete fallibility about the faith renders Christianity moot.

-The Catholic believes both to their fullest extent, that God is infallible, and that He revealed Himself in terms of man’s eternal relationship to Him infallibly through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The implications of fallibility to the Catholic is the eradication of Catholicism, which by definition, is the eradication of all Christianity.

So, what I’m trying to get at here is that a discussion about the theological implications of fallibility can’t go really go anywhere except to a discussion about the extinction of Christianity itself. That’s my opinion, and it’s based on an understanding of the true definition of Christianity.

Blessings.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To believe God is infallible, and believe He revealed Himself…but NOT believe He revealed Himself infallibly (at least in terms of the essentials of our eternal relationship with Him) does not hold up to scrutiny, IMO.

I think you have indeed come to the nub of the matter and the very fact that you feel the need to qualify your basic statement exemplifies the plausibility of a fallible human understanding of God. Now I would agree with you that there is some core essence that the Bible and Tradition have correctly conveyed to us but that is a far cry from infallibility.

You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t believe He revealed Himself infallibly in this way, then you either don’t believe He is infallible (which is why I started at belief in God), or you don’t believe He actually revealed these things about Himself…or both. So, what I’m saying is that to be a true Christian, one must believe in infallibility as the Church defines it (inerrancy in the teachings of our eternal relationship to the Triune God), because to not believe God revealed Himself infallibly is to not have faith that He truly revealed Himself at all. In other words, the implications of fallibility is the eradication of true Christianity, by Christianity’s own definition. Now, maybe that implication is OK to the non-Christian, and not OK to the Christian, but that IS the implication…Christianity ceases to be. It is not a religion of speculation about God’s eternal relationship with man.

Let’s call the fallibility view Christianity-Lite. I’m not concerned with whether the term “Christianity” is reserved to the theology view of an infallible record of God’s revelation. And you can see from above why I dont agree with your argument that the fallible view is illogical.

 

[SteveGC]

Now I would agree with you that there is some core essence that the Bible and Tradition have correctly conveyed to us but that is a far cry from infallibility.

Why? Why make the statement that you believe there is correct conveyance, but stop short of allowing, or proclaiming, that belief to have as it’s source the Holy Spirit gift of infallibility? Don’t you see? Infallibility is not a Church machisimo proclamation ("hey, look at us, we’re infallible, you’re not). No…it’s an acknowledgement of the power of God, and a praise for what He has given us. So, when you believe something about Christianity, you should be able to confidently say you believe it because God absolutely revealed it. 1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you. That’s a Christian exhortation fueled and fully supported by the infallibility of the Church, given to Her by Christ Himself.

Let’s call the fallibility view Christianity-Lite. I’m not concerned with whether the term “Christianity” is reserved to the theology view of an infallible record of God’s revelation.

It’s not about the “term”. It’s about the very essence of Christianity. Call it whatever you like. It ceases to be if it is fallibly revealed.

And you can see from above why I dont agree with your argument that the fallible view is illogical.

I’m not necessarily saying that the fallible view is illogical. I’m saying that the fallible view eradicates Christianity. That’s the implication. What we conclude about the eradication of Christianity is another subject.

 

[anon5216]

SteveGC,

You seem to confuse the idea of God’s infallibility and human capacity (or lack thereof) to relate profound spiritual experience in human language.
The fact that human language simply can’t express the Inexpressible in no way diminishes God.
There is Divine Revelation and then there is fallible human reception.

Text describing a saint’s profound spiritual experience will never mean the same thing to persons not having had that exact experience that it means to those persons who have had it.
For that matter, even reading a text description of an ordinary place on earth will never mean the same thing to persons who haven’t been there as it means to those who have.
(And even in the latter case, the understanding can easily be different).

You may say, that’s why there has to be an infallible interpretive authority. This doesn’t change the above comment in the slightest - it just adds more words to the soup.

People like me most definitely have faith in Divine Revelation - we don’t have faith that humans experiencing such revelation can accurately translate said revelation into human language

• because human language simply isn’t capable of it (except perhaps indirectly via poetic symbolism).

Faith in Christ is not synonymous with faith in fallible human interpretations of Christ.

I could agree that the definition of Christianity as you present it is subject to dissolution, but that hardly is a threat to Christianity itself.

Although, in your last post, you seem to be most concerned with Christianity as a set of beliefs you can confidently cling to.
To people like me, that is spiritually a worthless waste of time.
(Something akin to claiming you want to vacation in Hawaii and settling for believing a text brochure is inerrant and some person you know about is infallible in their interpretation of said text brochure).

I look at Padre Pio and see Christianity as being about the spiritual transformation of each and every Christian.
For that to happen, God does not need humans to be capable of infallibly expressing His revelation in human language.
Being obsessed with little textual quotes being the inerrant “Word of God” is a quite serious impediment to actual spiritual transformation.

Your position “that the fallible view eradicates Christianity” is completely illogical and untenable.
The “fallible view” only eradicates the “infallible view” - nothing more.

And in a sense, it doesn’t even eradicate that.
After all, the “infallible view” is simply a fallible mistake some people cling to.

 

[SteveGC]

SteveGC,

You seem to confuse the idea of God’s infallibility and human capacity (or lack thereof) to relate profound spiritual experience in human language.

No, I do not confuse them. I am merely pointing out that authentic Christianity ceases to be if we take the gift of infallible doctrinal teaching of Christ away. IOW, no infallible reception of revelation - no authentic Christianity. Why? Because Christianity is based on essentially two fundamental, foundational truths…that Christ (the Son of God) came to 1) sacrifice Himself for our forgiveness, and 2) build an infallible Church to guide all human beings unto this forgiveness. Take away either one of these, and Christianity as it was originally designed is gone. Now, could God have decided to relate to us in a different way? Could He have sent Christ to accomplish the sacrifice, but reveal the Father without gifting the Church with infallible reception of that revelation? Sure. God could’ve chosen an infinite number of ways to reveal Himself. But the fact of the matter is He chose to do it and give the Church this infallible reception of specific teachings related to our relationship with Him so that we would see the path to Him and follow it. Seeing the path is only the beginning of our journey in faith, but God did reveal that very path, and saw to it that we could clearly distinguish it

The fact that human language simply can’t express the Inexpressible in tno way diminishes God…

I never said it would diminish God.

There is Divine Revelation and then there is fallible human reception…

yes, indeed. And it exists abundantly in the world today outside of Christianity. But for the Christian, infallibly received teaching must exist because Christ Himself declared it would be so.

Text describing a saint’s profound spiritual experience will never mean the same thing to persons not having had that exact experience that it means to those persons who have had it…

I agree. But that has nothing to do with what is inherent in the doctrine of infallibility

For that matter, even reading a text description of an ordinary place on earth will never mean the same thing to persons who haven’t been there as it means to those who have…

I agree. But that has nothing to do with what is inherent in the doctrine of infallibility

People like me most definitely have faith in Divine Revelation -

can you define this “faith” you have in divine revelation. What does faith mean to you? I think we have some disconnect in that term’s meaning that should be explored

anon5216:

we don’t have faith that humans experiencing such revelation can accurately translate said revelation into human language

• because human language simply isn’t capable of it (except perhaps indirectly via poetic symbolism)…

infallible reception and promulgation of divine revelation is not a capacity derived from human strength, or human wisdom…it is derived from divine intervention, the very power of God transmitted to the Church (with origins at Pentacost)

anon5216:

Faith in Christ is not synonymous with faith in fallible human interpretations of Christ.

I agree, but faith in Christ without atleast some infallible knowledge of how to follow Him (which is the essence of faith) is not true faith, because otherwise faith in Christ could be synonymous with faith in a lawn chair. In either faith, you’re never really sure what to believe, and certainly unaware of how to truly follow the object of your faith.

anon5216:

I could agree that the definition of Christianity as you present it is subject to dissolution, but that hardly is a threat to Christianity itself.

Sure it is. Dissolve the definition, dissolve the essence of Christianity, dissolve the Church…what remains is mere speculation about God, His relationship to us, and our view of the path to Him. That’s more than just a threat to Christianity

anon5216:

Although, in your last post, you bseem to be most concerned with Christianity as a set of beliefs you can confidently cling to.
To people like me, that is spiritually a worthless waste of time.
(Something akin to claiming you want to vacation in Hawaii and settling for believing a text brochure is inerrant and some person you know about is infallible in their interpretation of said text brochure).

Not sure where you got this notion that Christianity is centered around text and doctrine. Text and doctrine are peripherals in the faith. The core focus and clinging is on the person of Christ Jesus. Being a true Christian is like wanting to go to Hawaii, and not only going there, but literally becoming Hawaiian.

anon5216:

I look at Padre Pio and see Christianity as being about the spiritual transformation of each and every Christian.
For that to happen, God does not need humans to be capable of infallibly expressing His revelation in human language.

Padre Pio needed that. That gift of infallible teaching predated and paved the way for his spiritual transformation. Same story with every Saint in history.

 

[SteveGC]

People like me most definitely have faith in Divine Revelation -

re-looking at this, I realize that I need to clarify the intent of my original statement about it. I don’t actually deny that non-Christians like yourself lack faith in divine revelation. But there is a lack of knowledge of what they have faith IN…IOW a lack of an object of their faith. It is an ambiguous faith, IMO, because it moves from one concept to the next, never able to define itself. To be even more precise, I should qualify that this is my opinion about non-Christians who are removed from any religion which clearly defines its doctrine or faith object(s). IOW, Muslims have objective faith just as Christians do, but obviously do not claim that their faith object is infallibly known.

I think a comparison to other organized religions is forthcoming in this discussion, and I will look to address it later when I have more time. Know that I do enjoy the contemplative discussion with both of you, and my apologies for any instances where I may be coming across sarcastic, harsh, or otherwise rigid. Not my intent, simply my own failing to express my thoughts clearly

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why? Why make the statement that you believe there is correct conveyance, but stop short of allowing, or proclaiming, that belief to have as it’s source the Holy Spirit gift of infallibility? Don’t you see?

For the same reason that I believe a man-made history of Rome is (more or less) a correct conveyance. That does not require a leap of faith, it is an ordinary observation.

Infallibility is not a Church machisimo proclamation ("hey, look at us, we’re infallible, you’re not). No…it’s an acknowledgement of the power of God, and a praise for what He has given us. So, when you believe something about Christianity, you should be able to confidently say you believe it because God absolutely revealed it. 1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you. That’s a Christian exhortation fueled and fully supported by the infallibility of the Church, given to Her by Christ Himself.

I have looked at the various justifications of infallibility and I find them ambiguous at best. CC infallibility is not nearly as problematic as Protestants present but nevertheless, it is not a straightforward proposition either.

It’s not about the “term”. It’s about the very essence of Christianity. Call it whatever you like. It ceases to be if it is fallibly revealed. I’m not necessarily saying that the fallible view is illogical. I’m saying that the fallible view eradicates Christianity. That’s the implication. What we conclude about the eradication of Christianity is another subject.

I am curious about what you are saying here. You seem to concede that fallibility is not illogical and that, threfore, it is logically plausible. And yet you suggest that Christianity self-destructs without infalliblity. I don’t see what you are saying here.

Now if you were arguing that Catholcism (in the sense of a unified belief) relies (directly or indirectly) on infallibility I would be inclined to agree. The principle of fallibility invites heterodoxy (or at least doesn’t preclude it) and that is unCatholic.

But heterodoxy has been around since at least the second temple period (Sadducees vs. Pharisees vs. Essenes) and I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.

 

[anon5216]

…
Know that I do enjoy the contemplative discussion with both of you, and my apologies for any instances where I may be coming across sarcastic, harsh, or otherwise rigid. Not my intent, simply my own failing to express my thoughts clearly

The feeling is mutual.

Although the clash of ideas is quite strong, it should not become a clash of persons.
My apologies for any instances where I may be coming across as attacking a person, instead of just vigorously opposing or defending an idea.