Fallibility: The Theological Implications

[Alindawyl]

The OP wasn’t referring to whether or not the Church/Scripture are fallible or infallible - as obviously infallibility is a matter of faith, not of objective fact.

The real issue the OP is tackling is:
Assume the Church and Scripture are fallible and errant.
Now, what would be the theological implications of that truth?

I was responding to a comment in a subsequent response by the original poster, not the original post itself. Namely that he hasn’t heard any Catholic who believes that accepting infallibility is a matter of faith rather than reason.

I did not respond to the original post because I believe the stated assumption of a fallible Church and Scripture to be false. The theological implications of falsehood being truth are obvious because that would be a logical impossibility and therefore not deserving of consideration.

Since most of what I can provide on this topic is based on faith rather than reason, you may now dismiss me and return to idle speculation.

 

[anon5216]

I was responding to a comment in a subsequent response by the original poster, not the original post itself. Namely that he hasn’t heard any Catholic who believes that accepting infallibility is a matter of faith rather than reason.

I did not respond to the original post because I believe the stated assumption of a fallible Church and Scripture to be false. The theological implications of falsehood being truth are obvious because that would be a logical impossibility and therefore not deserving of consideration.

Since most of what I can provide on this topic is based on faith rather than reason, you may now dismiss me and return to idle speculation.

Your belief that the Church & Scripture are infallible & inerrant is just that - a belief.

Words are symbolic human representations. They are not the concept, idea or “Truth” they attempt to express - that is the logical impossibility.
Logically the Church can not be infallible and Scripture (be it Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever) can not be inerrant.

Claims of infallibility and inerrancy are human attempts to compensate for weak faith.
Ultimately, however, those crutches keep faith at a relatively immature and somewhat weak level.
If a person’s faith would disintegrate without belief in infallibility and inerrancy, that is a very fragile “faith” indeed - if it can even be called faith at all.

I see no reason at all why Catholicism would have to crumble without those claims.
As a matter of fact, I would expect many more Padre Pios to appear without those encumbrances.

 

[Roman_Army]

Roman_Army,

The only reference to uselessness in Bubba Switzler’s post was in response to your 2nd post above - describing not theology but rather your peculiar understanding of fallibility vs. infallibility.

Your concern seems to be in establishing unquestioned authority - the idea of a fallible Church and a possibly errant scripture clearly threatens that authority.
Truth requires no “authority” and is not in any way threatened by fallible human (including Church) attempts at expressing Truth.

I believe the original intention of this thread is to speculate what would be the theological implications if the Church and the Scriptures were fallible. It was not to be an endless circular debate between two opposite camps about whether or not the Church is infallible. I stated the theological implications that it would render theology and the Church completely irrelevant, worthless, and useless. Restricting theology to mere usefulness and subjectivity renders it irrelevant, useless, and worthless. Indeed, it was the very argument of the Communists who adopted Atheism. Of what good would it be to follow Church teaching to please God if it is not from God? Of what good would it be to please God when we know nothing with certainty of what pleases him? How can we possibly know Truth objectively without an infallible guide to teach us? It would be mere worthless opinion much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Scientifically we can view Catholicism so: Anyone who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason. In the world around us we recognises the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices. If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accepts the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth.

I’m going to start with this because this is pretty much they way that I think about it. I’m with you here.

For me, Catholicism is the only religion that has an answer for everything. Thus I can have faith in it as a complete religion. It was structured by god and thus like nature, it has to have certain ingredients to work properly. As He created a massive eco-system that operates in perfect harmony, with every creature necessary to prevent collapse, so too did God include in his religion for salvation all the systems for it to work too. Thus infallible Scriptures are crucial for their viability, and an infallible interpreter crucial for theological understanding and credibility of the faith that derives from the Bible’s teaching. If any ingredient of the Catholic Faith were not there, our ability to believe would be lessened. Indeed, so successful has this structure been that it has survived without ‘infallible’ contradiction throughout the ages.

This is an interesting point and I certainly do not dismiss it lightly. Elegance can’t negate fact but if we are choosing between competing theories of reality we are certainly justified in choosing the more elegant one. And there is a certain elegance to Catholocism.

But I find that there is an inelegance as well that drives me toward the fallible view. The biggest problem I have with the Bible is the incongruity between the OT and the NT. The more I study it the less convinced I am of Catholic theology on the point (that the NT is the “fulfillment” of the OT).

On the other hand, if the Bible is a flawed record of God’s revelation then the incongruities between the OT and the NT are no more problematic than any other historical record.

Similarly, the history of the early church really reads like the growth of any human institution, warts and all. Catholicism is faithful to the early church (Protestants claims to the contrary notwithstanding) but that merely begs the question as to whether the early church got it right. Was Paul so different from any modern theologean?

 

[diggerdomer]

I
But I find that there is an inelegance as well that drives me toward the fallible view. The biggest problem I have with the Bible is the incongruity between the OT and the NT. The more I study it the less convinced I am of Catholic theology on the point (that the NT is the “fulfillment” of the OT).

I think there is much more continuity/congruity between the Testaments than there is discontinuity/incongruity. Remember, Jesus grew up knowing, praying, reading, and believing the Scriptures that we call the Old Testament. He came to fulfill the promises contained therein (Matt 5:17). Jesus Christ is the fulfillment; not the New Testament.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has excellent passages about Scripture that should be referred to by anyone seriously interested in the Church’s position in this area. See CCC para 101-141.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think there is much more continuity/congruity between the Testaments than there is discontinuity/incongruity. Remember, Jesus grew up knowing, praying, reading, and believing the Scriptures that we call the Old Testament. He came to fulfill the promises contained therein (Matt 5:17). Jesus Christ is the fulfillment; not the New Testament.

This is going a bit offtopic (but it’s interesting and important anyway).

I’m not suggesting that Jesus isn’t a fulfillment of OT prophecy but rather that fulfillment does not adequately explain the incongruities. In another thread I argued that God pulled a fast on on the Jews though another view would be that the Jews exagerated (and still exagerate) their understanding of God and, hence, missed out on the new things that Jesus taught. The Jewish interpretation of the OT was/is not an unreasonable one.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has excellent passages about Scripture that should be referred to by anyone seriously interested in the Church’s position in this area. See CCC para 101-141.

Yes, for the most part the CC is more reasonable in this regard than Protestantism but, still, it ultimately makes a similar claim altough moderated by Sacred Tradition.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is going a bit offtopic (but it’s interesting and important anyway).

I’m not suggesting that Jesus isn’t a fulfillment of OT prophecy but rather that fulfillment does not adequately explain the incongruities. In another thread I argued that God pulled a fast on on the Jews though another view would be that the Jews exagerated (and still exagerate) their understanding of God and, hence, missed out on the new things that Jesus taught. The Jewish interpretation of the OT was/is not an unreasonable one.

Yes, for the most part the CC is more reasonable in this regard than Protestantism but, still, it ultimately makes a similar claim altough moderated by Sacred Tradition.

One thought that may be relevant/helpful…things that we might see as incongruities were not necessarily understood as such by the people (and authors) of the times the Scripture were written.

 

[Alindawyl]

Your belief that the Church & Scripture are infallible & inerrant is just that - a belief.

Words are symbolic human representations. They are not the concept, idea or “Truth” they attempt to express - that is the logical impossibility.
Logically the Church can not be infallible and Scripture (be it Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever) can not be inerrant.

Claims of infallibility and inerrancy are human attempts to compensate for weak faith.
Ultimately, however, those crutches keep faith at a relatively immature and somewhat weak level.
If a person’s faith would disintegrate without belief in infallibility and inerrancy, that is a very fragile “faith” indeed - if it can even be called faith at all.

I see no reason at all why Catholicism would have to crumble without those claims.
As a matter of fact, I would expect many more Padre Pios to appear without those encumbrances.

The Church is not truth. The truth is a person, not an institution. He who is truth uses the Church as his instrument in teaching us about himself. He ensures the Church is infallible in such matters so that what we are capable of comprehending about him is passed on without error.

Reason is not absent from the belief that the Church can teach infallibly, but it does require more faith than reason. Faith in the resurrection. Faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Faith that God can use an institution comprised of fallible humans to present the infallible.

Catholicism would not crumble if the Church was not infallible. But it would probably make my belief in Catholicism less certain, and also less reasonable. I would likely have to rely more on faith if I had to question if everything being officially taught was true, and my belief in God would likely be less certain if he wasn’t ensuring an avenue by which his truth could be authoritatively presented to us.

But that’s just idle speculation, since he does ensure the Church teaches the truth about him.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One thought that may be relevant/helpful…things that we might see as incongruities were not necessarily understood as such by the people (and authors) of the times the Scripture were written.

But, in fact, this particular incongruity was there from the very beginning. Most Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah because they did not recognize him as a fulfillment of the OT prophecies. Those who followed Jesus did not do so because he fufilled the prophecies but for other reasons (e.g. his miracles). It was almost as an aside that Peter asked Jesus if he was the Messiah. Certainly the early church (Paul in particular) made note of how the prophecies could be interpreted to point to Jesus but that was after they had already followed him for other reasons (most particularly the resurrection). Even after the fact, it remained, and remains, a point of deep contention between Jews and Christians.

 

[cassini]

But I find that there is an inelegance as well that drives me toward the fallible view. The biggest problem I have with the Bible is the incongruity between the OT and the NT. The more I study it the less convinced I am of Catholic theology on the point (that the NT is the “fulfillment” of the OT).

On the other hand, if the Bible is a flawed record of God’s revelation then the incongruities between the OT and the NT are no more problematic than any other historical record.

?

Bubba, any incongruities you find between the OT and NT are in your mistaken interpretations. I have long discovered that God did not bestow on the Church the responsibility to interpret the Scriptures properly without just cause. The thing is that the language used in the OT and sometimes in the NT are in places IMPOSSIBLE for your average Christian to understand properly. This is evident from the readings at Mass that do not always make sense to us.

But why not be grateful that we live at a time when the Church has completed its reading of the Scriptures, interpreted them for us, and most important, made the connections between the OT and NT where one complements the other.

The best example of this infallible teaching from the OT to the NT can be found in any good daily Missal. These are still used at the Tridentine Masses but not found in the leaflets of the denuded N.O. Mass.

I have my Saint Andrew Missial out in front of me now Bubba. I take an example: Second Sunday after the Epiphany, the wedding feast of Cana.

It tells us that the Fathers saw in the miracle of Cana a prophecy of the Eucharest and the transformation of our souls under the action of Christ. This was to be the new covenant that would replace the old.
And how did the Fathers come to know this? From the OT. The missal goes on:

'On the superiority of the new covenant over the old:Jerem 31 to be read in conjuction with 2 Cor3; Jerem32, 39-40; Ezech. 11-17-29; 18. 30-32; 36. 22-29; John 8. 49-59. Read also Romans 7;8 and Heb. Moses gave the the people water to drink (Exod 17.1-7, but Jesus gave them the Holy Ghost John 7. 37-39 to be read with 4. 1-42; Cor. 10, 1-4; 12. 12-13; See also Sunday of Advent and the circumcision.

On the eucharestic symbolism of the wedding at Cana compared with the multiplication of bread (Matt 14.13-21; 15. 32-39, read also Cor. 10.16-17, 11.29-32. See also Sunday after Penticost.
On the role of the Blessed Virgin foretold in Gen 3. 14-15 (the proto Gospel) it culminates in John 19’ 25-27; the power of Mary’s intercession with her Son is henseforth employed on behalf of those whose mother she has become at His bidding.

Consideration of the wedding feast of Cana leads inevitably to the thought of the great biblical theme of Yahweh, husband of his people (Is. 54.4-13; 62. 3-5 - Osee2. 18-19; 21-22 -Ps. 44 - Cantic. which is continued in the New testament up to the wedding of the Lamb (Matt 9. 14-15; 22. 1-13; Apoc 19. 5-10; 22.17.

Other bible readings Ephes 1. 3-19; 2.4 to 4.16; 5.21 to 6.17. Philip 1.21 to 2.18; 3.7 to 4.1. Col 1.9 to 2.15, 3.1 to 4.1.

Now Bubba, this is but ONE SUNDAY. See the interactions of the Scriptures. It took hundreds of years of study and reading by the Fathers, Saints, and approvals of popes and Councils to compile for us the teachings of the Bible and what they really mean. With such references we Catholics today can enjoy the teachings with complete confidence in the lessons they teach so that we can get to heaven. Moreover, seeing as the Scriptures were defined as infallible, every word, mundane and salvation passages, we can be sure of what the Church says they say, it too being the only infallible interpreter and teacher.

I pray this post helps you believe in the infallible means by which God has left us to show His Church goes back to the very beginning when Satan tempted Adam and Eve and He promised us Mary and her Son Jesus to guide us out of his grasp.

 

[anon5216]

I believe the original intention of this thread is to speculate what would be the theological implications if the Church and the Scriptures were fallible. It was not to be an endless circular debate between two opposite camps about whether or not the Church is infallible. I stated the theological implications that it would render theology and the Church completely irrelevant, worthless, and useless.
And I state the opposite. The kind of guarantees you want via infallibility are an artifact of a psychology that fears subtlety and nuance - insisting on everything being obvious black & white and simple & clear.

Restricting theology to mere usefulness and subjectivity renders it irrelevant, useless, and worthless.
Admitting that the Church is fallible and scripture is errant does not in any way reduce theology to mere usefulness & subjectivity. Nor does it render it irrelevant, useless or worthless.

Indeed, it was the very argument of the Communists who adopted Atheism. Of what good would it be to follow Church teaching to please God if it is not from God?
See, another black & white statement.

Of what good would it be to please God when we know nothing with certainty of what pleases him?
You know, you just might have to put more effort into finding out directly, and accept the consequences for your mistakes along the way.

How can we possibly know Truth objectively without an infallible guide to teach us?
Ahh! Now here we get to the root the problem. You want Truth to be reducible to words you can quote and fix in stone.
But words are just symbols for the concepts or objects they represent and worshipping symbols is idolatry.

It would be mere worthless opinion much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
On the contrary, theologians would have to become spiritually far more advanced.
As would everyone in the Church.

 

[anon5216]

The Church is not truth. The truth is a person, not an institution. He who is truth uses the Church as his instrument in teaching us about himself. He ensures the Church is infallible in such matters so that what we are capable of comprehending about him is passed on without error.
On the point of Jesus having ensured an infallible Church I entirely disagree - he didn’t even ensure an infallible discipleship - and I’m not referring to moral flaws, but their fallible understanding of Jesus himself.

Reason is not absent from the belief that the Church can teach infallibly, but it does require more faith than reason. Faith in the resurrection. Faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. Faith that God can use an institution comprised of fallible humans to present the infallible.
And you are, of course, entitled to your faith.

Catholicism would not crumble if the Church was not infallible.
I agree 100%

But it would probably make my belief in Catholicism less certain, and also less reasonable. I would likely have to rely more on faith if I had to question if everything being officially taught was true, and my belief in God would likely be less certain if he wasn’t ensuring an avenue by which his truth could be authoritatively presented to us.
I don’t see a problem with that.
Belief in infallibility and inerrancy are like training wheels on a bicycle - a fair and reasonable crutch for helping a young child learn how to balance themselves until they’ve developed a bit more.
I really doubt if people like Padre Pio needed training wheels anymore - and of course, they wouldn’t necessarily yank the training wheels from those they were guiding until they were ready.

But that’s just idle speculation, since he does ensure the Church teaches the truth about him.
Well, I see infallibility & inerrancy as enforced speculation.

In any case, if you feel you still need the training wheels to feel secure in your faith, by all means, hang on to them.
Faith has to be much stronger and deeper than that to reach the spiritual levels of a Padre Pio however. (IMO that is).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I must say that I’m not surprised, of course, that there are many who object to the idea of a fallible Bible and Magesterium but I am a little surprised that nobody has been able to offer an example of how theology would change if such were the case.

If theology is unaffected then the question is largely moot.

I do, of course, recognize that those who deny infalliblity have taken different theological paths but which is the cause and which is the effect? It would only be natural for those taking a different theological path to deny infallibility but that does not imply that denying infalliblity leads to a different theology.

 

[davidv]

I must say that I’m not surprised, of course, that there are many who object to the idea of a fallible Bible and Magesterium but I am a little surprised that nobody has been able to offer an example of how theology would change if such were the case.

If theology is unaffected then the question is largely moot.

I do, of course, recognize that those who deny infalliblity have taken different theological paths but which is the cause and which is the effect? It would only be natural for those taking a different theological path to deny infallibility but that does not imply that denying infalliblity leads to a different theology.

I seems to me that these conclusions ignore the points made in post #2 of this thread. If there is no infallibility, the is no firm ground upon which to base anything, and any discussion of God (theology) becomes purely rhetoric without any basis in truth.

 

[diggerdomer]

I seems to me that these conclusions ignore the points made in post #2 of this thread. If there is no infallibility, the is no firm ground upon which to base anything, and any discussion of God (theology) becomes purely rhetoric without any basis in truth.

God’s infallible. God is true. These are objects of faith. That’s the firm ground upon which our faith rests, regardless of how one understands the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility in terms of the Church or Scripture.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I seems to me that these conclusions ignore the points made in post #2 of this thread. If there is no infallibility, the is no firm ground upon which to base anything, and any discussion of God (theology) becomes purely rhetoric without any basis in truth.

I did respond to that post, I find that a rather hysterical point of view. But, even so, it does not provide any examples of a different theology, only a (extreme) view of the uncertainty that fallibility would entail. And even if it were “purely rhetoric without any basis in truth” (which I do not concede) would the “rhetoric” be different?

 

[SteveGC]

I’ve been pondering the issues surrounding the various claims of infallibility that permeate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

What I’d like to do here is explore the implications of fallibility. Suppose that the Church and the Bible are not infallible but fallible. What would that imply theologically?

The first implication is that if that is so then they cannot be from God in the sense that Catholics believe. The argument that God would not give us a fallible Church or Bible is certainly a reasonable one. But it is by no means obvious that traditional Chrisitian view here is correct.

It is entirely plausible that the Church arose as a natural consequence of Jesus’ activities and that the Bible is man’s effort to record his interactions with God.

If that were the case, what would it imply theologically?

Hard to follow all the philosophical ponderings here in detail, so I will just attempt to give an opinion on this OP. Forgive me if my statements below are simply echoes of what has already been discussed in detail…

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…

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.

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. 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. All the other theistic religions are various other roads that are being paved by man in an effort to find Him. If we don’t first believe that Christianity is the primary religion of God, then there is no sense conjecturing about the nuances within it, because it ultimately is all subjective, for it is one fallible man’s word against another fallible man’s. For the Christian and non-Christian, this is where a division exists…in the acceptance of the fact that Christianity is indeed God’s word. No sense talking about infallibility on earth unless Christianity is first agreed upon.

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.

For individual Christians, this can be a point of departure among ourselves. Some believe that God only clearly revealed that belief in His Son is required for salvation…this is all that is ultimately required. The Catholic (or Orthodox) believes that God clearly revealed much more than mere belief, many more salvific essentials. However, both the Catholic and non-Catholic agree that whatever the salvific essentials are, they are infallibly known by us because God revealed them.

The next question is…how was knowledge of God revealed by Him? The non-Catholic believes it was infallibly revealed to the prophets, and the apostles, and then all that was needed to be preserved was documented and preserved in Scripture alone. The Catholic also believes it was infallibly revealed to the prophets and the apostles, but that the preservation of that infallible revelation was accomplished through both these men (and tradition) as well as through Scripture, with men (apostles) having primacy in this preservation under the new covenant. This is another obvious point of depature for the Catholic and non-Catholic. This is important to this discussion inasmuch as we take the Catholic view and assume that the Church is God’s way of preserving His revealed Truth, because it is the Church’s proclamation of infallibility which is under scrutiny.

So…where are we? Well, depends on your belief. For the Catholics,

1. we believe in God
2. we believe that He revealed Himself to man
3. we believe He chose specific men as primary to receive, pass down, and preserve His revelation for all time, in every age, and that these men collectively lead Christ’s visible Church on earth.
4. we believe He guided these men to write inerrantly about Himself, and collect these writings together in Scripture.

If you’re not Catholic, you have to find where you disagree above. If you’re a professed Christian but question Church infallibility, you depart at #3. So, it is highly unlikely that you can fathom infallibility without first reconciling #3.

But an even more poignant question is this…if God revealed Himself to man, and this revelation was infallible (because He Himself revealed it)…why would it be satisfactory to God that His infallible revelation be received fallibly? What would be the point of an infallible God, who intended to reveal Himself to the world, effecting this revelation so that it would be received fallibly?

…continued…

 

[SteveGC]

…continued from above…

In conclusion, in a statement directed at the exploration of fallibility, I would say that if nothing on earth about God was preserved infallibly, then the implication would be that Christianity would not be a true religion. Because Christianity is, by definition, a religion wherein we have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man. And if it were to be received fallibly, then that contradiction in concepts demonstrates that God did not reveal Himself…and if God did not reveal Himself, then Christianity is an illusion.

And if Christianity is an illusion, then we’re all here on earth seeking God (in whatever form we think He might be), without any reliable knowledge of Him…subjectively declaring truths and living as morally relative as ever. Someone, I think anon, said that we “have to put more effort into finding out directly, and accept the consequences for your mistakes along the way”. To which I would say…those consequences are not just consequences we accept ‘along the way’. The types of consequences we are talking about here are eternal ones. There’s nothing ignoble about knowing the revealed truth about God. He wanted us to know Him…it’s what we were created for. To suggest that it is a sign of spiritual immaturity to anchor oneself to revealed truth is to significantly misunderstand true spirituality. Spirituality is the activities revolving around one’s spirit. One’s spirit is not accidental in one’s being…it was designed and put in the body by the Creator. Moreover, it was put there in His own image, to be enjoined to Himself for all time in the bonds of agape. We freely chose to separate ourselves from Him, and He now reveals Himself to us, so that we might return to Him, as He created us to be. And our spirits are restless until they rest in Him.

Hence, to open oneself up to revealed truth, recognize the significant demands on us for returning to Him, and then ascenting to allow Him to live in us, and choosing every day to fight to keep Him in us, and working through us…is a sign of the most mature, most courageous, most saintly seeker in the world. Spiritual immaturity is ignoring that call by God all around you, and allowing your spirit to wander in the vast unknown, forever doubting the validity of anything you find, yet opening yourself up to everything under the sun.

 

[anon5216]

…
But an even more poignant question is this…if God revealed Himself to man, and this revelation was infallible (because He Himself revealed it)…why would it be satisfactory to God that His infallible revelation be received fallibly?
Infallibility is only relevant for the particular human psychology that fears subtlety, nuance and a degree of uncertainty.
God would have no problems with subtlety or nuance and certainly has no fear of uncertainty.
What would be the point of an infallible God, who intended to reveal Himself to the world, effecting this revelation so that it would be received fallibly?
What is fallible to the limited human mind could very well be fine with God.
…

In conclusion, in a statement directed at the exploration of fallibility, I would say that if nothing on earth about God was preserved infallibly, then the implication would be that Christianity would not be a true religion.
No, just Christianity as understood by those humans who desperately need everything to be monochrome and capable of being set in stone.

Because Christianity is, by self-definition only, a religion wherein we have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man.
This is not even remotely an accepted fact to those outside.

And if it were to be received fallibly, then that contradiction in concepts demonstrates that God did not reveal Himself…and if God did not reveal Himself, then Christianity is an illusion.
Again, very poor human logic. God revealing Himself has nothing to do with blind human spiritual vision.
Only the rigid, black & white Christianity of fearful people is an illusion.

And if Christianity is an illusion, then we’re all here on earth seeking God (in whatever form we think He might be), without any reliable knowledge of Him…subjectively declaring truths and living as morally relative as ever. Someone, I think anon, said that we “have to put more effort into finding out directly, and accept the consequences for your mistakes along the way”. To which I would say…those consequences are not just consequences we accept ‘along the way’. The types of consequences we are talking about here are eternal ones.
The "eternal consequences you are referring to are merely the fabrications of a particular human psychology - they’re not just illusions as you say (for some people useful illusions, but illusions none the less).

There’s nothing ignoble about knowing the revealed truth about God. He wanted us to know Him…it’s what we were created for. To suggest that it is a sign of spiritual immaturity to anchor oneself to revealed truth is to significantly misunderstand true spirituality.
Words are mere symbols. They are not Truth Itself. They simply attempt to, in a crude manner, represent Truth.
Your insistence on worshipping these symbols you call “revealed truth” is nothing less than idolatry.

Spirituality is the activities revolving around one’s spirit. One’s spirit is not accidental in one’s being…it was designed and put in the body by the Creator. Moreover, it was put there in His own image, to be enjoined to Himself for all time in the bonds of agape. We freely chose to separate ourselves from Him, and He now reveals Himself to us, so that we might return to Him, as He created us to be. And our spirits are restless until they rest in Him.
And of course, resting in God is not remotely synonymous with passionate loyalty to a set of symbols.

Hence, to open oneself up to revealed truth, recognize the significant demands on us for returning to Him, and then ascenting to allow Him to live in us, and choosing every day to fight to keep Him in us, and working through us…is a sign of the most mature, most courageous, most saintly seeker in the world. Spiritual immaturity is ignoring that call by God all around you, and allowing your spirit to wander in the vast unknown, forever doubting the validity of anything you find, yet opening yourself up to everything under the sun.
Spiritual immaturity is ignoring the substance behind symbols and treating the symbol as the goal.
God is all around you, but you have to penetrate the symbols.

Those who insist on mere symbols being the actual Truth are like people who have found a book that explains swimming and worship the text,
without ever realizing what water is, without ever actually getting in water, and without ever realizing what it feels like to swim.

 

[SteveGC]

anon5216:

Infallibility is only relevant for the particular human psychology that fears subtlety, nuance and a degree of uncertainty.

Subtlety, nuance and degrees of uncertainty abound in the Catholic faith. You must subscribe to the notion that Christianity is easy believism. 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. 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.

God would have no problems with subtlety or nuance and certainly has no fear of uncertainty.

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.

What is fallible to the limited human mind could very well be fine with God.

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?

Because Christianity is, by self-definition only, a religion wherein we have God revealing His infallible word about Himself to man.
This is not even remotely an accepted fact to those outside.

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.

Again, very poor human logic. God revealing Himself has nothing to do with blind human spiritual vision

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.

Words are mere symbols. They are not Truth Itself. They simply attempt to, in a crude manner, represent Truth.
Your insistence on worshipping these symbols you call “revealed truth” is nothing less than idolatry.

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.

We know exactly what it feels like to swim.