"Infallibility" should be removed from the apologetics lexicon

  • Thread starter Thread starter clem456
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

clem456

Guest
I wish so.
Most Catholics don’t even understand it in proper context.
Non-Catholics reject it almost reflexively.
And it’s not necessary or sufficient to “prove” much about the faith.

In doing apologetics for Tradition and so forth, the first hurdle seems to be “community”. Many Protestants here on CAF for example, don’t accept that Christ established a durable, continuous, and visible community (ecclasia, Church), believing the church exists vaguely in some non-definitive and diffuse manner.

If a person doesn’t accept that Christ’s Mystical Body exists somewhere, anywhere, in real form, what good does it do to throw infallibility at them?
 
Good thing the early Catholics didn’t give up on the Trinity. 🙂
 
Infallibility has to be addressed sooner or later. I agree that we should meet the individual where he is, and go from there.
 
I wouldn’t say it needs to be removed from the apologist’s lexicon. It does need to be introduced at the proper time. Like Clem said it does no good to tell a person about infallibility if they have no sense that the Church exists as something more than name only.

This does not mean that it cannot be introduced later at another time.

ChadS
 
I am not sure I entirely agree. Christians in general would say, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Assyrian or whatever, that the authors of the Bible were infallible when they penned the books of the Bible, under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This same concept of infallibility can then be extrapolated to the Magisterium and the Pope; note that with this approach, the concept of a visible organization, a community, a church, isn’t necessarily introduced first.

Hence I don’t think it is necessarily an obstacle in evangelization, nor should it disappear from the lexicon of apologists. Papal Infallibility is an integral part of Catholicism, a doctrine that was declared infallible itself, it needs to be introduced and discussed sooner or later. 🤷
 
Micosil said:
I am not sure I entirely agree. Christians in general would say, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Assyrian or whatever, that the authors of the Bible were infallible when they penned the books of the Bible, under guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
That only sets up the next argument of "if the Biblical authors were infallible, does that mean that everything stated in scripture is ‘true?’"

Does that mean that we are to take Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark literally?
 
Tim_D said:
That only sets up the next argument of "if the Biblical authors were infallible, does that mean that everything stated in scripture is ‘true?’"

Does that mean that we are to take Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark literally?
Click to expand...
It is true in as far as salvation is concerned. They infallibly wrote down divine truths related to God’s plan of salvation for mankind. Infallibility doesn’t necessarily mean only speaking literal truths, but truths in general, whatever genre or kind of literature is used to express that truth.
 
Micosil said:
Infallibility doesn’t necessarily mean only speaking literal truths, but truths in general, whatever genre or kind of literature is used to express that truth.
Click to expand...
That is precisely my point. How many threads have there been here where people are arguing for the literal interpretation of Adam & Eve and Noah’s ark? Part of their reasoning is that if it is in the Bible, then it is true because the Bible is the infallible word of God.

I remember when Pope Benedict published his book Jesus of Nazareth. The first thing being said in Catholic circles was “is it infallible?” Or the same being said about the catechism.

Unless one comprehends the subject of infallibility (which many, apparently, do not) it seems to be more of a source of confusion than clarification. I’ve often wondered how much thought the popes have given to the idea of the charisma of infallibility. I’ll wager that it is far less than what appears here. It is the confused equivalent of the so called Just War Theory. Pages are written on this site deciding which wars were or were not “just,” something that the Church hierarchy has never done for the simple fact that it is pointless.
 
Tim_D said:
Unless one comprehends the subject of infallibility (which many, apparently, do not) it seems to be more of a source of confusion than clarification.
Click to expand...
That is correct, but that confusion is either because of insufficient preparation of the evangelist/apologist or some other shortcoming – that isn’t really the Magisterium’s fault. 🤷 But the teaching is there, and if someone is a potential convert to Catholicism, it is something that, in due time, will need to be dealt with, with the appropriate importance it is due, as you said.
 
Perfect example; there is currently a new thread asking if Pope Francis’ The Joy of Love is infallible.

My question is; what difference does it make?
 
Tim_D said:
Perfect example; there is currently a new thread asking if Pope Francis’ The Joy of Love is infallible.

My question is; what difference does it make?
Click to expand...
In the specific case of Amoris Laetitia, there is quite a buzz and some apologists seem to be suggesting that Pope Francis has given a new perspective on what was originally thought to be an actual teaching, rather than merely discipline. This fear of an infallible teaching being altered is what drives people to ask such questions, I would assume. As you can see in some threads, I myself am a bit perplexed as to the statements surrounding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

But I think we can all agree that no, no teaching of the Church was changed.
 
I completely agree that many lay / amateur apologists jump into the topic of infallibility way too soon. Not only that, when it is discussed, everyone obsesses over PAPAL infallibility. This, I believe, does more harm than good if there isn’t a firm foundation in place first. Papal infallibility is a special exercise of the Church’s own infallibility (typically exercised by the bishops as a whole in union with the Pope either through the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium - the latter being Councils). One cannot understand Papal infallibility without understanding first the Church’s infallibility, and one cannot understand the Church’s infallibility without first understanding exactly what the Church is (as the OP pointed out).

I also think people jump into the topic of the Papacy itself way too quickly. Protestants always want to debate papal authority. This is counterproductive unless they first accept and understand episcopal authority in general. Often we Catholics forget that there is no fourth degree of holy orders. The Pope is first and foremost a bishop. His special role, his special authority, is completely rooted in his role as head of the College of Bishops. If we don’t start with apostolic succession and the authority of bishops in general, papal authority makes little sense. There was development of doctrine over time in regards to the papacy, but the authority of bishops is very explicitly clear from the earliest Fathers (see St. Ignatius of Antioch).
 
twf said:
I also think people jump into the topic of the Papacy itself way too quickly. Protestants always want to debate papal authority. This is counterproductive unless they first accept and understand episcopal authority in general. Often we Catholics forget that there is no fourth degree of holy orders. The Pope is first and foremost a bishop. His special role, his special authority, is completely rooted in his role as head of the College of Bishops. If we don’t start with apostolic succession and the authority of bishops in general, papal authority makes little sense. There was development of doctrine over time in regards to the papacy, but the authority of bishops is very explicitly clear from the earliest Fathers (see St. Ignatius of Antioch).
Click to expand...
I agree that this approach is level-headed. The thing is, if apostolic succession and the role of the bishop is brought up, the discussion can quickly go off on a tangent. Here’s why. The Catholic Church isn’t the only Church with a true, valid and legitimate apostolic succession. The bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox communion and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East are also all in the line of valid apostolic succession. So the discussion can quickly go off-topic, and the person we’re debating with can ask, “OK, so why the Catholic Church out of all these other ancient Apostolic traditions?”
 
Micosil said:
I agree that this approach is level-headed. The thing is, if apostolic succession and the role of the bishop is brought up, the discussion can quickly go off on a tangent. Here’s why. The Catholic Church isn’t the only Church with a true, valid and legitimate apostolic succession. The bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox communion and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East are also all in the line of valid apostolic succession. So the discussion can quickly go off-topic, and the person we’re debating with can ask, “OK, so why the Catholic Church out of all these other ancient Apostolic traditions?”
Click to expand...
Yes, but it’s still the logical foundation. Once grounded in apostolic succession, the college of bishops, and episcopal authority, the special role of papal primacy can be explained as that which sets Catholicism apart from the other apostolic Churches.
 
clem456 said:
I wish so.
Most Catholics don’t even understand it in proper context.
Non-Catholics reject it almost reflexively.
And it’s not necessary or sufficient to “prove” much about the faith.

In doing apologetics for Tradition and so forth, the first hurdle seems to be “community”. Many Protestants here on CAF for example, don’t accept that Christ established a durable, continuous, and visible community (ecclasia, Church), believing the church exists vaguely in some non-definitive and diffuse manner.

If a person doesn’t accept that Christ’s Mystical Body exists somewhere, anywhere, in real form, what good does it do to throw infallibility at them?
Click to expand...
We can’t remove something which is true. Most Non-Catholic Christians accept infallibility to some degree. They believe that the authors of the various books of the Bible were infallible in their writings of the scriptures. We need to do a better job of connecting the two.

Of course if they don’t accept the writings of the Bible as infallible, than infallibility is not a good place to start for evangelization.
 
As infallibility is the essence of Christ’s institution of His Catholic Church, it is the bedrock of all of the dogmas and doctrines by which we know truth from error in faith and morals, that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, and one with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

**When Christ instituted His Church He specifically mandated:
You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

To St Peter alone – Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

This very clearly then is why Christ established His Magisterium (teaching authority) in St Peter (His first Pope) and his successors who proclaim the truths of faith and morals in dogma and doctrine, and not to everyone who “feels’ they want to preach to others:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

This is the clearest summation of the requirements for both dogma and doctrine:
The three levels of teaching from *Ad Tuendam Fidem (ATF), which gives examples, are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
  • Joseph Card. Ratzinger
    Prefect
  • Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
    Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
    Secretary
    [This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of “Ad tuendam fidem” by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]
    See the examples given at:
    ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Thus no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words *ex cathedra *are never included.

That is how we distinguish truth from error.
 
Abu said:
As infallibility is the essence of Christ’s institution of His Catholic Church, it is the bedrock of all of the dogmas and doctrines by which we know truth from error in faith and morals, that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, and one with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

**When Christ instituted His Church He specifically mandated:
You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18) **
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

To St Peter alone – Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

This very clearly then is why Christ established His Magisterium (teaching authority) in St Peter (His first Pope) and his successors who proclaim the truths of faith and morals in dogma and doctrine, and not to everyone who “feels’ they want to preach to others:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

This is the clearest summation of the requirements for both dogma and doctrine:
The three levels of teaching from *Ad Tuendam Fidem (ATF), which gives examples, are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
  • Joseph Card. Ratzinger
    Prefect
  • Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
    Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
    Secretary
    [This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of “Ad tuendam fidem” by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]
    See the examples given at:
    ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Thus no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment for the whole Church, that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false. The words *ex cathedra *are never included.

That is how we distinguish truth from error.
Click to expand...
🤷
The point is not the nature of it or the justification for it.
It’s not usually a productive apologetics tactic to invoke it as the basis for changing an unbelievers mind about anything.
An unbeliever almost always comes to the faith through some other avenue than “the Church is infallible”. Authority is meaningless if it’s not accepted in the first place. For authority to be accepted, a person must have a reason for the faith.
“Because the infallible Church says so” means a lot to me, but means basically nothing to an unbeliever. And so it seems to me it is way overused in apologetics.
 
clem456 said:
I wish so.
Most Catholics don’t even understand it in proper context.
Non-Catholics reject it almost reflexively.
And it’s not necessary or sufficient to “prove” much about the faith.

In doing apologetics for Tradition and so forth, the first hurdle seems to be “community”. Many Protestants here on CAF for example, don’t accept that Christ established a durable, continuous, and visible community (ecclasia, Church), believing the church exists vaguely in some non-definitive and diffuse manner.

If a person doesn’t accept that Christ’s Mystical Body exists somewhere, anywhere, in real form, what good does it do to throw infallibility at them?
Click to expand...
MY dear friend,

While I am in agreement with the majority of your post, the OPQ point [Infallibility] is both explainable and provable, and therefore ought to be a part of any Faith-formation dialog.

Whether or NOT, the evidence is actually accepted is a matter for the Holy Spirit and the person in question.🙂

In sharing our faith, we should endeavor to do so, as ONLY our CC is able to do. TEACH the FULLNESS of our beliefs and practices, and supply the evidence od such in the process. Amen

Patrick [PJM]
 
clem456 said:
I wish so.
Most Catholics don’t even understand it in proper context.
Non-Catholics reject it almost reflexively.
And it’s not necessary or sufficient to “prove” much about the faith.

In doing apologetics for Tradition and so forth, the first hurdle seems to be “community”. Many Protestants here on CAF for example, don’t accept that Christ established a durable, continuous, and visible community (ecclasia, Church), believing the church exists vaguely in some non-definitive and diffuse manner.

If a person doesn’t accept that Christ’s Mystical Body exists somewhere, anywhere, in real form, what good does it do to throw infallibility at them?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t, and that’s a problem I see with many armchair “apologists”; they appeal to an authority, such as infallibility or the Catholic Church itself, that is not accepted by all parties. It’s kinda like using the Bible to defend one’s points against a Muslim.

Often, the best way to explain one’s faith is to go to the common denominator, depending on the context being used. Often, this is limited to the 66 protocanonical books of the Bible. Sometimes, it may even have to be limited to reason alone.

For all their zeal, too many Catholics, including plenty here on CAF, have a poor grasp of basic logic and debating skills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top