Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Chruch doesn’t promote blind acceptance, so your statement (highlighted) doesn’t make sense.

I don’t want to go off on that tangent here. Ideally, what you say is true though, as a matter of practice, it is not always so. Nevertheless, the very claim of infalliblity is almost always employed as a short cut argument in support of various Catholic dogma.

How does believing anyone can be in error lead to infallible Truth? The point is moot because anyone who believes anyone can be in error does not even accept the fact of infallible Truth. That’s why athiest principles don’t belong in this conversation.

Well I didn’t say infallible truth but science does, in fact, lead to truth. There is less debate today about how the planets, earth, sun, and starts relate to one another in large part because no dogma about them ever held. This is not an “atheist principle”, it’s how science progresses.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If your friend’s claim to infallibility leads to disunity in the Truth, it must be discounted as a valid claim to infallibility, and doesn’t really belong in this discussion.

Right. So it seems fair to conclude that there are circumstances in which denying infallibility does not deny truth or God.

I don’t know about deists, but I would include Jews and Muslims in the discussion on infallibility. The fact is, infallibility is intimately related to Truth which is defined to be One. Any definition of infallibility which devolves to “MY Truth” instead of “ONE Truth” does not belong in this discussion, would you agree? This is why your friend’s claim to infallibility, as well as the merely deistic understanding of infallibility, needs to be discounted.

I would agree but that’s a much tougher standard to meet.

I didn’t see that. Are you talking about another thread?

Yes, it was quite a while ago in another thread.

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that the belief in the infallibilty of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is a matter of faith, alone?

The fact of infallibility (which is an inherent quality of God and His Truth) is a separate issue from the evidence for Truth. All religions as institutions accept the fact of infallibility. So there’s no debate on that matter. The evidence for Truth that each of these institutions holds, however, is a separate matter.

Infallibility, outside of God, is a matter of debate in Judaism, for example:
Wikipedia:

The view that Jewish sages, both past and present, are not infallible is an approach to Judaism that attempts to dispel deification. Those who concur with this approach see infallibility as a purely Christian concept that defies rationalism and practicality. Man is inherently imperfect and thus his thought process is imperfect. It is not so much that this school of thought intends to propose this view as much as it intends to argue the opposing view – there is no source in classical Torah literature to support the stance that rabbis, whether great or small, are or were infallible.

And Islam, while it holds the Koran to be the literal word of God, is more like Protestantism in its lack of a unified teaching authority.

It would be more accurate to say that infallibility is a uniquely Christian concept. (Which is not in itself a problem but you can’t just say “everybody does it”.)

Having said that, the evidence for Truth is not based on empiricism, but rather epistemological evidence. This involves consistency in teaching, logical proofs, etc. - things that really touch upon the nature of the mind and soul rather than tactile evidence. Once, again, empirical evidence is, at best, an aid. But the evidence for Truth should not be understood to consist entirely of that, or even depend on that.

Yes, but I only offered science as an example of a different nature. I am not limiting the matter to scientific evidence.

The ones who point to circularity are normally only the Protestants. But, as noted, since their understanding of infallibility objectively devolves to “My truth” instead of “ONE Truth,” it should not be allowed to interfere in this discussion.

Just because Protestants have problems with their own concept of truth doesn’t mean this criticism is without merit.

I really don’t know where you got that from my statement.

You argued that infallibile teaching authority must follow from the Biblical experience with the prophets. I argued that fallible prophets are entirely conceivable if we view the experience as a gradual teaching process instead simply as a teach and punish process.

This argument doesn’t make sense. Then what do you propose should be the standard of Truth for your son? Just because your son misunderstands, that doesn’t mean you should be removed from the equation, does it?

Nowhere have I argued for removing any teachers from the equation. We could agree that the CC is the best teacher on the subject of God without agreeing that it is infallible in that regard.

Don’t worry, I know exactly what you’re getting at. Your analogy presents yourself as God, and your son, someone who claims to represent Him - basically the relationship of God to the ecclesiastical Magisterium. I disagree with that analogy.

I hesitate to say that out loud but that was the (crude) analogy.

Fact one: In Scripture, God always works through intermediaries to teach his Truth.

Fact two: In Scripture, those God-appointed intermediaries have never been known to misrepresent God to the people. That is infallibility. As Scripture states, without Him, we can do nothing, and being able to teach God’s truth faithfully is a special charism given to the Church (that is infallibility).

So how do we know that “God-appointed intermediaries have never been known to misrepresent God to the people”? (And here we must be clear that we’re not talking about intentional misrepresentation but only human limitations.)

According to the Scripture, it would be more proper to view yourself, in your scenario, as the intermediary between God and your son, while your son represents the laity. Just because your son (or the laity) misrepresents your teaching, or disobeys you, that doesn’t mean your existence lost its purpose.

That would work as well. And, again, I am not suggesting that the CC would have no purpose even if it were fallible. It might well be the best teacher, it might even be the only authorized teacher, and yet still be fallible.

And we really haven’t spent any time discussing what that means. If, for example, I try to teach my 5 year old son about making babies whatever I say is going to be problematic for him when he becomes an adult. What parents do is renew their teaching as the child is able to understand and handle more. This is a different sort of fallibility that resides in the immaturity of the student.

 

[DOShea]

Bubba,

I took your OP to be questions that bear on the Catholic/Reformed debate, but not one that required answers aimed specifically at that controversy. So my answers are intended to be more generic and not religio-centric in terms of one faith over the other. I know what I believe; I respect what others choose to believe, and I know that I am not capable of giving answers that would provide an honest and unbiased treatment of each/all. So I will stick to the plain black 'n white label kind of answer until or unless the questions develop into something I can think can only be answered from a Catholic perspective. Fair enough?

And sorry it will take two posts to answer. I must have learned wordiness is next to Godliness somewhere.

what is error and what does it mean to be free from error in this context.

In this context of speaking about infallibility, error would be the lack of truth. Since you must be able to have a way to know if you hold truth in your hand or you don’t, you could argue that error might also extend to the lack of ability to know truth. Personally, I’d leave that as uncertainty, and hold that if uncertainty is present, truth cannot be known.

DOShea: It means to deny truth.

This doesn’t quite hold up. If, for example, my friend were to claim that he is infallible… …the other infallible claims made by the alleged infalliable source).

By saying denying infallibility IS denying the truth, it assumes you have something infallible to deny, otherwise it is a different question. IF the friend wasn’t infallible, what is it you when you deny his claim? You are denying error, not truth.

If the source is regarded as infallible then the claims that follow must necessarily be regarded as true, including the claim of infallibility.

Note: Apologies up front for the use of “you.” I’m using it conversationally, which is how I normally write.
Not true. The true test is with the first case. You can’t use a term like “regarded as” with infallible; it either is or is not infallible. You must decide that first. From that, you can know further truth. If you can’t be assured of infallibility, you must be able to prove truth another way. Some things can be, some cannot. The Bible (infallible), teaches that man was made by God. A truth from an infallible source that man exists. Yet I can look out my window and know that is true. The same source teaches that, meeting certain criteria, we will have eternal life. I can’t look out my window and see that, so I must rely on the infallibility of the revelation to know that is true. If I can’t rely on it, the best I can do is speculate or hope, but I cannot know.

This is the big debate between science and the religions/philosophies. Science can only know what is within its bounds to know (scientific method, etc.) and sometimes claims nothing outside it can be known. The religions and philosophers disagree with that, holding that using tools like reason we can know, and part of that surety is in establishing things like being, existence, truth, discernment, infallibility, etc. Things that later distilled into the scientific method.

 

[DOShea]

This is why the Protestant approach leads to heterodoxy.

I don’t think you can make that claim from only the foundation laid so far. All we have talked about is infallibility, and certainly Reformers have their views on it too, including their own view of what is or is not infallible. I don’t think we are there yet.

Notice, however, that science also denies infallibility but it does not, in the long run, lead to heterodoxy. Rather, science has had a pretty good track record of iterating toward a reliable understanding of the world, at least in some areas such as physics.

If I were to submit a scientific paper using my own value for Planck’s constant on the idea that science holds nothing infallible, I think we could both agree that I would suffer serious intellectual pounding come the peer review. That’s because I’m mixing the concept of infallibility with the concept of truth. Science doesn’t say we hold this infallible, but once they have put it through the ringer of the scientific process, they know it is true. This would be similar to my example above re: man existing out my window. I know it’s true independent of, perhaps in addition to, an infallible source. Science knows what Planck’s constant is without an infallible source because they are not the only way to know truth.

As to denying truth itself independent of infallibility, I believe it can and has lead to heterodoxy, but sometimes such heterodoxy is beneficial for science. Ptolemy v. Copernicus and Galileo for example.

So it is not the case that denying infalliblity necessarily leads to a multiplicity of opinions, i.e. to heterodoxy.

I don’t think it mandates it because heterodoxy demands an additional view of truth, where each is promoted as (the) truth. One could deny the Bible as infallible, and by doing so they are denying the truth of it and in it. Then they could go watch football and there would be no heterodoxy. It is only when one tries to proclaim a different “truth,” that the heterodoxy emerges.

That’s not the usual meaning of infallibility. …the infallible source helps us to determine the truth of the claim. But we already have some concept of truth apart from the infallible source.

I contend you are confusing redundant methods of proving a truth with what an infallible source really is. The infallible source doesn’t “help” define truth, it DOES define truth. It doesn’t make “statements about the truth,” it only gives the truth. If you have another way of knowing the truth of something (is the stove hot? I have a thermometer , let me check.), the results will always match the infallible source (by definition). When you don’t have that other way to know, the infallible source is what defines truth, but defining isn’t conditional on other sources; it always defines.

Did God give us the Church?

The answer to that depends on if one thinks the Bible + Teaching + Tradition are infallible or not. If you do, the answer is yes, because that is what all of those sources declare. Other faiths do not hold T + T as infallible, but do hold the Bible as such. They have a different method and hold that as their infallible way to extract the truth from the infallible source. I’ll leave it to others more qualified than I to argue the merits of each.

Would God give us a flawed Church?

If He is not just and not holy, He could. It would be His arbitrary decision. If He is just and holy, He could not.

Can we evaluate and test the claim that God gave us the Church without relying on the claims of the Church?

No, unless you can find a way to know a metaphysical truth without a revelation. The only way we know we have any church at all is because God revealed it to man. All infallibility rests upon God, as He is the only infallible source they can come from.

Or is it a matter of faith that, once accepted, entails the rest?

This is why you have to first settle the matter of infallibility. Once that is settled, you can know the truth where before that you cannot. Then it isn’t a matter of acceptance as to the truth of something. It’s a matter of something IS true, and will you accept truth or error.

…must we suppose that the Bible is infallible truth?

If we establish God’s existence and qualities, and we have a record of His revelation to us, what else can we do with it except presume it be infallible? If God gave us a lie, it would undo the entire logical sequence used to establish Him in the first place.
I am not qualified to speak on Islamic beliefs, so rather than charge an entertainment fee, I’ll leave that question to others.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t want to go off on that tangent here. Ideally, what you say is true though, as a matter of practice, it is not always so. Nevertheless, the very claim of infalliblity is almost always employed as a short cut argument in support of various Catholic dogma.

I don’t agree at all. The Church teaches that infallibility is coextensive with the deposit of Faith. If you’ll read any of the apostolic constitutions of an ex cathedra decree, you will find a well-reasoned basis for that belief based on Sacred Tradition. The exercise of papal infallibility is not a magic wand of knowledge. The matter being infallibly defined must go through the usual human process and means of attaining divine knowledge - investigation into Sacred Tradition. Besides, I’ve never read an apologetic for any dogma of the Catholic Church by MERELY appealing to papal pronouncements. It’s possible that within the context of Latin Christendom, such papal pronouncements are sufficient, and since you are a Latin Catholic, you are probably used to it. But I’m not a Latin Catholic, and my own normal route of knowledge is to depend on the ENTIRE witness of Sacred Tradition, not just of the Popes.

Personally, I am offput by the tendency of some Latin Catholics to make it seem like papal infallibility is the source of all infallibility in the Church, which is not what Vatican 1 taught at all, and I try my best to combat that belief when I come upon it, whether it be the erroneous belief of certain Latin Catholics, or the equally erroneous misrepresentation by non-Catholics.

Well I didn’t say infallible truth but science does, in fact, lead to truth. There is less debate today about how the planets, earth, sun, and starts relate to one another in large part because no dogma about them ever held. This is not an “atheist principle”, it’s how science progresses.

How science progresses has nothing to do with infallibility, as you’ve admitted (I think). Infallibility relates to DIVINE Truths, not scientific facts.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Right. So it seems fair to conclude that there are circumstances in which denying infallibility does not deny truth or God.

It seems you are confusing the fact of infallibility with mere claims to infallibility. One can deny claims to infallibility without denying Truth or God, but to deny infallibility itself or even that God invested His Viva Voce on earth with infallibility, would be to deny Truth and God. Let me ask you this. Jesus said to His Apostles, “He who hears you hears me.” Do you suppose it is even logical to assume that Jesus would tell people to listen to men who have the possibility of teaching His Truth erroneously?

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that the belief in the infallibilty of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is a matter of faith, alone?

If by “faith” you mean dogma, then, yes, it is a matter of faith alone. If by “faith” you mean confidence unto belief, then no it is not a matter of faith alone. It also involves the use of reason, which is a gift of God.

Infallibility, outside of God, is a matter of debate in Judaism, for example:

Well, if Judaism formally repudiates infallibility, then their views shouldn’t intrude on this conversation. In any case, the fact that you appeal to the Jewish understanding means, to me, that you still don’t understand what infallibility is. Infallibility is NOT POSSESSED BY ANYONE on this earth. It is God’s and God’s alone, intimately connected with his Magisterium. Infallibility is a GRACE given by God to and for his Church at specific times for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Don’t confuse infallibility with indefectibility. Indefectibility is a CONSTANT character of the Church, but not infallibility. Infallibility is a grace given by God only in certain instances when the Church needs it. That the Jews deny such a grace can exist on earth is rather telling. I certainly couldn’t trust that such a group could maintain the Truth, especially if they claim that the very Grace necessary to maintain the Truth does not exist.

And Islam, while it holds the Koran to be the literal word of God, is more like Protestantism in its lack of a unified teaching authority.

I don’t know about that. I’ve read there are only two or three branches of Islam at most, and the difference between them is ecclesiastical and discplinary rather than dogmatic.

It would be more accurate to say that infallibility is a uniquely Christian concept. (Which is not in itself a problem but you can’t just say “everybody does it”.)

Who ever said “everybody does it?”

Just because Protestants have problems with their own concept of truth doesn’t mean this criticism is without merit.

The criticism is without merit because they deny that there is any agency of infallibility in the Church. Since it is not even exist in their theological understanding of the Church, how can we trust that they even understand it enough to criticize it? Besides, from what I’ve read, their argument of circularity is not applied to infallibility, but rather to authority.

You argued that infallibile teaching authority must follow from the Biblical experience with the prophets. I argued that fallible prophets are entirely conceivable if we view the experience as a gradual teaching process instead simply as a teach and punish process.

So where do you find in Scripture evidence that the Prophets took it upon themselves to limit what God wanted to be known to His people?

Nowhere have I argued for removing any teachers from the equation. We could agree that the CC is the best teacher on the subject of God without agreeing that it is infallible in that regard.

We’re not talking about science here. The “best” teacher in the matter of Divine Faith must necessarily be infallible. We’re not talking about merely human concepts here, but the Truth that God wants to be made known to the Church. Practically speaking, if a certain person wanted to let someone know something that he considers REALLY important, would he not make provisions for that knowledge to be transmitted accurately? Now use logic. Instead of something that a mere human considers important being transmitted, we’re talking about DIVINE TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE that GOD HIMSELF wants transmitted. Do you believe God would take measures to make sure that knowledge is transmitted correctly?

So how do we know that “God-appointed intermediaries have never been known to misrepresent God to the people”? (And here we must be clear that we’re not talking about intentional misrepresentation but only human limitations.)

Because we believe Scripture is inerrant, and the words of these Prophets are contained in Scripture.

And we really haven’t spent any time discussing what that means. If, for example, I try to teach my 5 year old son about making babies whatever I say is going to be problematic for him when he becomes an adult. What parents do is renew their teaching as the child is able to understand and handle more. This is a different sort of fallibility that resides in the immaturity of the student.

As stated, despite your analogies, simply put, we’re talking about the transmission of DIVINE TRUTH here. Don’t you try your best to transmit merely human truth to your child? Do you think God our Father wouldn’t make the same “effort” in transmitting HIS DIVINE TRUTHS? Or are we going to say, “God, your efforts aren’t good enough.”

Blessings

 

[cassini]

I might make one small change in understanding, with regard to the Bible being infallible. That’s a little misleading, I think. The Bible is neither fallible or infallible. It is a catalog of God’s truths, but must be interpreted correctly. If it is misinterpreted, as all Protestants do (speaking generally), then it can’t be “infallible.” The Bible needs an infallible, authentic interpreter. That would be the Catholic Church, which alone was founded by Christ. All other Christian denominations were founded by mere men and are not infallible interpreters of the Bible or Holy Tradition.

Excellent clarification Scooby. But now let me put the cat in with the pidgeons.

The dogma of infallibility has been long compromised within the Church. Read Vatican I and you find TWO kinda of infallibility - one defined explicitely called a pope’s ex cathedra infallibility and the other a description of an ordinary infallibility of the Church.

There is a case where one pope ruled a definition and declaration of an interpretation to be ‘immutible’ a term used by the Church before 1870. This case fits in EXACTLY with the conditions for an ordinary status of infallibility as shown in the documents of Vatican I.

But, it seems, now that Churchmen believe it was a FALSE definition and declaration they now use the ex cathedra infallibility to worm their way out of the understanding the original definition was not worth thge paper it was written on.

Moreover, the Church is now filled with Modernists who feel they can change anything because they were not defined ex cathedra.

So, the dogma of infallibility is now used as a means to Protestantism within the Church.

That said, any indepth search through the history of the Church shows that the dogma of BOTH infallibilities, that is, OFFICIAL definitions by the Church as clarified at Vatican I, has never been breached as Christ promised the gates of hell shall never prevail.

The trouble is, Modernism has caused so much confusion in the Church that few are capable of finding this path of infallibility any more.

 

[Scoobyshme]

With regard to the Bible, some may find the three part video series “Origin of the Bible” interesting.

You can view it at the following link:

alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In this context of speaking about infallibility, error would be the lack of truth. Since you must be able to have a way to know if you hold truth in your hand or you don’t, you could argue that error might also extend to the lack of ability to know truth. Personally, I’d leave that as uncertainty, and hold that if uncertainty is present, truth cannot be known.

This actually comes much closer my original thread objective, which is not to say I don’t appreciate the direction the thread took.

Introducing uncertainty is just one nuance to truth and error. Of course, there are black/white cases (e.g. “1+1=3” or “I did not have sex with that woman”) but there are also many “gray” areas. For example, let’s look at the example I gave previously of explaining where babies come from to a five year old. The most truthful answer would be either incomprehensible and/or inappropriate to the situation. My inclination, as a parent, is to provide that information which allows my child to make the right decisions. Similarly, we have the example of Genesis. If we assume that God was explaining to someone how the universe was created, is it not conceivable that an explanation that would satisfy a modern listener would be incomprehensible to a prehistoric listener?

Then, of course, there is the matter of uncertainty which is more complex than most people allow. There are many varieties of uncertainty from genuine indeterminacy to lack of knowledge to inability to proove to a particular standard.

What this all implies is that infallibility is a very complicated issue with many interesting subtleties.

By saying denying infallibility IS denying the truth, it assumes you have something infallible to deny, otherwise it is a different question. IF the friend wasn’t infallible, what is it you when you deny his claim? You are denying error, not truth.

Ok, but that’s too obvious to merit attention. Let’s agree that denying a source of information that is genuinely infallible is, indeed, denying truth.

The more interesting situation is where the infallibility is not known (or rests on the alleged infalliblity of the source, itself). I’m not certain (maybe I’m even skeptical) that my friend is infallible. But he says he is. And if he’s infallible then naturally his claim that he’s infallible is true.

Now the question is, what is the value of his claim that he is infallible? If he can proove his various claims then I will see the truth of them without believing his infallibility. If he can’t prove his claims, falling back on his claim of infalliblity doesn’t amount to anything useful.

You can’t use a term like “regarded as” with infallible; it either is or is not infallible. You must decide that first. From that, you can know further truth. If you can’t be assured of infallibility, you must be able to prove truth another way. Some things can be, some cannot. The Bible (infallible), teaches that man was made by God.

But, wait, how do we prove that the Bible is infallible?

This is the big debate between science and the religions/philosophies. Science can only know what is within its bounds to know (scientific method, etc.) and sometimes claims nothing outside it can be known. The religions and philosophers disagree with that, holding that using tools like reason we can know, and part of that surety is in establishing things like being, existence, truth, discernment, infallibility, etc. Things that later distilled into the scientific method.

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to introduce in this thread the tired old debate between science and religion. I’m only using science as an example of a knowledge system that doesn’t rely on infallibility, that is downright skeptical and invites distrust of experts, but nevertheless seems to be converging on truth.

It may be that the domains of science and religion are different in some way that renders the scientific method inapplicable to religious questions but that’s not obvious.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Science knows what Planck’s constant is without an infallible source because they are not the only way to know truth.

Yes, pricisely.

As to denying truth itself independent of infallibility, I believe it can and has lead to heterodoxy, but sometimes such heterodoxy is beneficial for science. Ptolemy v. Copernicus and Galileo for example.

Yes, this is an interesting point I brought up in another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370934). Sometimes taking a step back helps to move ahead. I read recently that the term “devil’s advocate” comes from Catholicism: someone is appointed to argue against a papal candidate forcing those in favor to think harder about their reasons. There are other similar examples.

I don’t think it mandates it because heterodoxy demands an additional view of truth, where each is promoted as (the) truth. One could deny the Bible as infallible, and by doing so they are denying the truth of it and in it. Then they could go watch football and there would be no heterodoxy. It is only when one tries to proclaim a different “truth,” that the heterodoxy emerges.

A valid point. Certainly that’s what we get with Protestantism. And it’s also worth nothing that there is a difference between academically exploring alternate theories of revelation and teaching one of them.

Can we evaluate and test the claim that God gave us the Church without relying on the claims of the Church?

No, unless you can find a way to know a metaphysical truth without a revelation. The only way we know we have any church at all is because God revealed it to man. All infallibility rests upon God, as He is the only infallible source they can come from.

Then it seems to me that a fallible Church (Bible, Sacred Tradition, etc.) are entirely plausible.

If we establish God’s existence and qualities, and we have a record of His revelation to us, what else can we do with it except presume it be infallible? If God gave us a lie, it would undo the entire logical sequence used to establish Him in the first place.
I am not qualified to speak on Islamic beliefs, so rather than charge an entertainment fee, I’ll leave that question to others

The first point to note is that our knowledge of God and his qualities comes from the very source whose reliability we are investigating. So, again, we encounter the circularity.

Now it’s not entirely hopeless because we do have access to ordinary emperical observations. The Church exists. The Bible exists and says this and that. We have other historical sources that provide the history of the Church. For example, we can say with reasonable certainty that Jesus was a genuine historical person, not a mythical entity like Zeus.

So one possibility is to reason from those sources to an infallible Church.

But the other option is to just throw our hands up and say belief in an infallible Church is simply a matter of faith, and that once you accept it all else falls into place.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Personally, I am offput by the tendency of some Latin Catholics to make it seem like papal infallibility is the source of all infallibility in the Church, which is not what Vatican 1 taught at all, and I try my best to combat that belief when I come upon it, whether it be the erroneous belief of certain Latin Catholics, or the equally erroneous misrepresentation by non-Catholics.

Yes, I don’t want to get into the specific debate of papal vs. ecclesiastical infallibility. If the Church teachs that the pope is infallible then papal infalliblity is a logical inference from ecclesiastical infallibility.

I don’t agree at all. The Church teaches that infallibility is coextensive with the deposit of Faith. If you’ll read any of the apostolic constitutions of an ex cathedra decree, you will find a well-reasoned basis for that belief based on Sacred Tradition. The exercise of papal infallibility is not a magic wand of knowledge. The matter being infallibly defined must go through the usual human process and means of attaining divine knowledge - investigation into Sacred Tradition. Besides, I’ve never read an apologetic for any dogma of the Catholic Church by MERELY appealing to papal pronouncements. It’s possible that within the context of Latin Christendom, such papal pronouncements are sufficient, and since you are a Latin Catholic, you are probably used to it. But I’m not a Latin Catholic, and my own normal route of knowledge is to depend on the ENTIRE witness of Sacred Tradition, not just of the Popes.
Then let me lay down the gauntlett: What is the “well-reasoned basis for that belief” in the infallibility of the magesterium.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus said to His Apostles, “He who hears you hears me.” Do you suppose it is even logical to assume that Jesus would tell people to listen to men who have the possibility of teaching His Truth erroneously?

In a word, yes. For all the reasons discussed previously. (I won’t even bother to point out that we get this quotation, and it’s interpretation, from the Church.)

If by “faith” you mean dogma, then, yes, it is a matter of faith alone. If by “faith” you mean confidence unto belief, then no it is not a matter of faith alone. It also involves the use of reason, which is a gift of God.

I’m not sure I’m clear on the distinction you are making here but your answer to the previous “gauntlett” will clarify that.

Well, if Judaism formally repudiates infallibility, then their views shouldn’t intrude on this conversation. In any case, the fact that you appeal to the Jewish understanding means, to me, that you still don’t understand what infallibility is. Infallibility is NOT POSSESSED BY ANYONE on this earth. It is God’s and God’s alone, intimately connected with his Magisterium. Infallibility is a GRACE given by God to and for his Church at specific times for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. Don’t confuse infallibility with indefectibility. Indefectibility is a CONSTANT character of the Church, but not infallibility. Infallibility is a grace given by God only in certain instances when the Church needs it. That the Jews deny such a grace can exist on earth is rather telling. I certainly couldn’t trust that such a group could maintain the Truth, especially if they claim that the very Grace necessary to maintain the Truth does not exist.

It is a matter of debate among Jews, apparently, but interesting to note nonetheless.

I don’t know about that. I’ve read there are only two or three branches of Islam at most, and the difference between them is ecclesiastical and discplinary rather than dogmatic.

Every imam is his own interpreter of the Koran. The analogy with Protestantism is pretty good.

The criticism is without merit because they deny that there is any agency of infallibility in the Church. Since it is not even exist in their theological understanding of the Church, how can we trust that they even understand it enough to criticize it? Besides, from what I’ve read, their argument of circularity is not applied to infallibility, but rather to authority.

This will be clarified by your response to the previous “gauntlett”. I don’t want to go off on a side discussion of what Proteatants believe, that’s a morass. It’s the issue of circularity only that is interesting to me (be it infallibility or teaching authority).

So where do you find in Scripture evidence that the Prophets took it upon themselves to limit what God wanted to be known to His people?

That is certianly not what I meant to imply. I was suggesting that God made that choice.

Because we believe Scripture is inerrant, and the words of these Prophets are contained in Scripture.

Why do we believe that Scripture is inerrrant?

As stated, despite your analogies, simply put, we’re talking about the transmission of DIVINE TRUTH here. Don’t you try your best to transmit merely human truth to your child? Do you think God our Father wouldn’t make the same “effort” in transmitting HIS DIVINE TRUTHS? Or are we going to say, “God, your efforts aren’t good enough.”

I can see easily enough how difficult it is to transmit human truths to children. It must be a thousand-fold times more difficult to transmit divine truths.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But, it seems, now that Churchmen believe it was a FALSE definition and declaration they now use the ex cathedra infallibility to worm their way out of the understanding the original definition was not worth thge paper it was written on.
Moreover, the Church is now filled with Modernists who feel they can change anything because they were not defined ex cathedra. So, the dogma of infallibility is now used as a means to Protestantism within the Church.

Could you elaborate on this? I’m not familiar with the details you describe and it’s an interesting claim.

I do notice that there is a lot of confusion about what is dogmatic teaching or ex cathedra and what is merely current prevailing opinion.

But there are some nontrivial points of confusion within dogma and perhaps the most interesting is the age old question of who goes to heaven. At one point the Church declared that only Catholics in good standing (and those invincibly ignorant of the Church) can go to heaven (“outside the church there is no salvation”). Vatican II seemed to endorse a much more liberal theory of an “invisible church” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church) that includes righteous non-Catholics, even Jews. What is interesting is that many who defend the VII view argue that those arguing against, i.e. for the harder traditional view, are interpreting dogma (in this case previous ex cathedra statements) for themselves instead of relying on the Church which is adopting a more elastic interpretation of “invincible ignorance”.

 

[cassini]

Could you elaborate on this? I’m not familiar with the details you describe and it’s an interesting claim.

I do notice that there is a lot of confusion about what is dogmatic teaching or ex cathedra and what is merely current prevailing opinion.

But there are some nontrivial points of confusion within dogma and perhaps the most interesting is the age old question of who goes to heaven. At one point the Church declared that only Catholics in good standing (and those invincibly ignorant of the Church) can go to heaven (“outside the church there is no salvation”). Vatican II seemed to endorse a much more liberal theory of an “invisible church” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church) that includes righteous non-Catholics, even Jews. What is interesting is that many who defend the VII view argue that those arguing against, i.e. for the harder traditional view, are interpreting dogma (in this case previous ex cathedra statements) for themselves instead of relying on the Church which is adopting a more elastic interpretation of “invincible ignorance”.

Bubba, I refer to the Supreme Holy Office of 1616, wherein the reigning Pope at its head defined and declared by papal decree that the Bible reveals a geocentric world.

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII at an official trial described the interpretation as ‘immutable’,

Once Churchmen were convinced the interpretation was wrong they dismissed the 1616 decree as not infallible and could thus be COMPLETELY ignored. The consequences of this showed up the Church as capable of defining heresy in error, and of demanding adherence to an error under threat of excommunication. Its either that or the original definition was correct and the belief of an error the true error.

In 1870 Vatican II once again said that any such interpretation of the Scriptures by the Church should be considered under the infallible protection.

As regard who is saved. As I have been informed by a traditional priest there has ALWAYS been the teaching that inculpably ignorant non-Catholics can be saved but through Christ’s redemption represented by the Church. To get saved without the sacraments etc must be most difficult, but the possibility is considered there. But note it is through the salvation of the Catholic Church that makes this possible even if the person is not Catholic. This is in keeping with the dogma that only THROUGH the Church can one be saved. The Lord will - it is taught - extend Catholic salvation to any just person. Think of it as ONE gateway to heaven belonging to the Catholic Church. Up comes a just man. Peter on this gate grants him or her entry into heaven - presumably after a period of instruction into absolute truth.

 

[abajab]

Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

I want to explore the subject of infallibility generally (not simply look at papal infallibility, a key point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants).

Let’s begin with two essential claims:

1. The Holy Bible is infallible.
2. The Sacred Tradition is infallible.
3. The Catholic Episcopacy (Magisterium) is infallible.
4. The Pope is infallible.

First, allow me to define “faith” as I will be using it here in this post. “Faith is the lack of knowledge absolute.” In other words, when I die I will no longer have faith in the existence of God. My faith will be replace by a knowledge absolute. If the atheist is correct in their “faith” of the non-existence of God, then my faith will come to an absolute null. In either case my faith will cease to exist.

Papal infallibility can only occur when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedrae” and has happened only a handful of times throughout history. However, it was the episcopate that met in council that made the proclamation of the Popes infallibility, (I do not recall date and name of the council). Prior to the meeting of this council it was a given that the Pope was infallible but it had become time to make the proclamation known to the church as a whole to end any debates of the subject. This of course causes a circular argument in that it must first be established that the Catholic episcopacy is infallible but this in itself was held as a given by faith. We can argue that all religions end up in circular arguments and therefore we are left only with “faith“, so let’s begin our circular argument from its beginning using Catholicism.

We start with the faith of the existence of an infinitely loving, infallible God. We know by evidence that we are sinful and evil towards one another and therefore fall short of existing within the pure presents of God. Therefore it is God who must take the infallible first step in winning us back into his graces and it is up to us, individually, to accept or reject this infallible step made by God. By faith we accept that this infallible step was the sending of his infallible Son Jesus to win us back into His graces. He preaches to us about God the Father and even goes so far as to say, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” In a sense we can say that Jesus is asking us to be infallible, however, we can not accomplish this unless we accept God’s first infallible step which is his son Jesus as our savior and it is evident that we are constantly falling short as individuals of attaining this perfection and therefore need to attempt to maintain the constant presence of Jesus within our soul by way of God the Holy Spirit. Jesus now establishes a church upon Peter because it was God the Father who reveals to Peter that Jesus is in fact His son. We accept by faith that this was an infallible revelation and therefore accept that our first Pope, Peter, has made his first infallible teaching of Christianity.

Next Jesus gathers together the first episcopacy, the apostles, and tells them that they will be guided through truth in all things necessary by way of the Holy Spirit, and so by faith we accept that the magisterial is infallible but only when it is meeting in council to make a proclamation of the teachings of the now established church.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that it was the Council of Trent. This is when the magisterial gathered together and went through seven Gospels to determine which were Holy Spirit inspired and which were humanly inspired. The Gospels of Peter and Thomas and the Egyptian Gospel were rejected by the council. There were also several epistles that the council went through and rejected until they finally came up with what we now know as the Bible and the cannon was closed. Therefore, if the magisterial is fallible, then it concludes that the Bible is also fallible. For the sake of argument let’s say that this is in fact the case. It still demonstrates that the Catholic Church came first and then the Bible came from the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The Bible is in fact a Catholic document and therefore cannot be the full deposit of faith without Sacred Tradition and it’s the Bible that backs this up. St. Paul states, "Keep to the traditions we hand down to you whether by spoken word (Sacred Tradition) or written letter (Sacred Scripture).

So now let me sum up…

By faith I accept that there is a loving infallible God.
By faith I accept that he sent his infallible Son.
By faith I accept that Peter receives an infallible revelation causing him to make the first infallible teaching of Christianity.
By faith I accept that Jesus establishes His church upon Peter as a result of God’s infallible revelation.
By faith I accept that the Holy Spirit comes upon the episcopacy causing them to teach infallibly.
By faith I accept that this episcopacy passes down Sacred Tradition.
By faith I accept that this magisterium compiles an infallible document, (Bible), several years latter.
By death my faith will cease to exist being replaced with a knowledge that is absolute.

This takes the circular argument and turns it into a straight line and as a result causes me to have great peace and serenity in my faith.

Jeff

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

By faith I accept that there is a loving infallible God.
By faith I accept that he sent his infallible Son.
By faith I accept that Peter receives an infallible revelation causing him to make the first infallible teaching of Christianity.
By faith I accept that Jesus establishes His church upon Peter as a result of God’s infallible revelation.
By faith I accept that the Holy Spirit comes upon the episcopacy causing them to teach infallibly.
By faith I accept that this episcopacy passes down Sacred Tradition.
By faith I accept that this magisterium compiles an infallible document, (Bible), several years latter.
By death my faith will cease to exist being replaced with a knowledge that is absolute.

This takes the circular argument and turns it into a straight line and as a result causes me to have great peace and serenity in my faith.

You are certainly correct that the circularity can be eliminated by the use of faith. However, most Catholics prefer not to rely so much on faith. The question, then, is how much can we determine on what minimal faith. For example, if you have faith in the infallibility of the CC then everything else falls into place. No need for faith in God, for example, because the CC says God exists and the CC is infallibly correct.

Papal infallibility can only occur when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedrae” and has happened only a handful of times throughout history.

Please forgive my simplicity in referring to fallibility and infallibity. As other have pointed out, my OP was very imprecise on this point but I am assuming we are all aware of the various qualifications. I’m not setting up a strawman argument that relies on mistake of the CC on non-dogmatic matters. So wherever I referr to fallibility or infallibility, please assume the necessary qualificaitons and distinctions.

First, allow me to define “faith” as I will be using it here in this post. “Faith is the lack of knowledge absolute.” In other words, when I die I will no longer have faith in the existence of God. My faith will be replace by a knowledge absolute.

I do think we need to be a little more careful here. There is a concept of “reasonable faith” meaning experience and reason may lead us to a conclusin that is uncertain and we may close that certainty gap through faith. For example, I’m reasonably confident that my wife loves me but I can’t prove it in the same way I can prove that 1+1=2. Whatever lingering doubt I may have I dispel with faith.

I will ask that you review your post in light of the above because it’s hard to address your other points without being clear on this.

 

[abajab]

abajab;5772312:

First, allow me to define “faith” as I will be using it here in this post. “Faith is the lack of knowledge absolute.” In other words, when I die I will no longer have faith in the existence of God. My faith will be replace by a knowledge absolute.

I do think we need to be a little more careful here. There is a concept of “reasonable faith” meaning experience and reason may lead us to a conclusin that is uncertain and we may close that certainty gap through faith. For example, I’m reasonably confident that my wife loves me but I can’t prove it in the same way I can prove that 1+1=2. Whatever lingering doubt I may have I dispel with faith.

I will ask that you review your post in light of the above because it’s hard to address your other points without being clear on this.

Hi Bubba,

Is it possible to answer, intellectually, your original question, “Infallibility: What Does It Mean”? Is it possible for any one man to mentally contain all the data needed to reach a conclution that dispells faith and resolves it with an absolute 1+1=2. However, my assumption is that your intent of asking the question was to receive data that would bring your “reasonable faith” to a strong faith. Or perhaps your intent is to cause those with a strong faith of “infallibility” to doubt. Either way, I thank you for beginning the debate. It has been a great read.

The point of defining faith, as in my quote above, is that when we die our faith will cease to exist. However, one could make the argument, “When we die we are instantly reincarnated into another body and therefore faith begins all over again.” So yes, in light of this my definition of faith in itself cannot be absolute. After all, it is only by faith that I believe that reincarnation does not exist.

But what, precisely, does it mean to say that someone or some institution or some body of knowledge or some source of information is infallible? What does it mean to deny infallibility?

What it means to deny infallibility is that the Catholic who denies it is simply not purely Catholic. I’m sure that you’ve heard the term “Cafeteria Catholic” were a person takes from Catholicism what they like and what agrees with their life style and then discards the rest. Catholicism is an “all or nothing”. Surely, this is a difficult concept and suggests that the Catholic must be a mind numbed robot and none of us here can claim that we’ve never been “Cafeteria Like” at one point or another in our Catholic journey.

I can honestly say that it took a great deal of study, contemplation and prayer that caused me to contain the strong faith that I have and I expect this faith to grow and grow. However, if the Lord were to appear to me tomarrow and set me straight on all of my errors then my faith would cease to exist because it would be replaced by knowledge absolute, but even those who listened to my story of the Lord’s appearance to me would have to except or reject it by faith.

Thanks for answering to my post,
Jeff

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is it possible to answer, intellectually, your original question, “Infallibility: What Does It Mean”?

My original question was more about the meaning of infallibility as opposed to the veracity of the claim. But both are interesting topics.

Is it possible for any one man to mentally contain all the data needed to reach a conclution that dispells faith and resolves it with an absolute 1+1=2.

I don’t believe that. I doubt anyone does.

However, my assumption is that your intent of asking the question was to receive data that would bring your “reasonable faith” to a strong faith. Or perhaps your intent is to cause those with a strong faith of “infallibility” to doubt. Either way, I thank you for beginning the debate. It has been a great read.

I would describe it more as expressing my own thoughts and wondering what I might be missing. I find the idea of a fallible Bible and Magesterium very compelling and have yet to hear anything which would cause me to question it.

What it means to deny infallibility is that the Catholic who denies it is simply not purely Catholic. I’m sure that you’ve heard the term “Cafeteria Catholic” were a person takes from Catholicism what they like and what agrees with their life style and then discards the rest. Catholicism is an “all or nothing”. Surely, this is a difficult concept and suggests that the Catholic must be a mind numbed robot and none of us here can claim that we’ve never been “Cafeteria Like” at one point or another in our Catholic journey.

This is, I think, the least interesting argument so far. It describes Catholicism as a club the membership to which requires certain beliefs. If the beliefs are wrong then no membership enticement can overcome that. Certainly there are many who approach Catholicism this way.

 

[abajab]

I would describe it more as expressing my own thoughts and wondering what I might be missing. I find the idea of a fallible Bible and Magesterium very compelling and have yet to hear anything which would cause me to question it.

I don’t think that you are missing anything Bubba and your 2nd sentence above shows it. You find that a fallible Bible and Magesterium are “very compelling” yet why don’t you find infallibility as “equally compelling”? It appears that you are declaring fallibility as part of your faith and then seeking out only the answers that support that faith. None of us can claim it as a knowledge whether the Church is infallible or not, the Church simply declares it as part of our faith. And yes, you find this to be a weak argument as well, but you have to continue to ask yourself the question of why you want fallibility to be a fact.

abajab;5778774:

What it means to deny infallibility is that the Catholic who denies it is simply not purely Catholic. I’m sure that you’ve heard the term “Cafeteria Catholic” were a person takes from Catholicism what they like and what agrees with their life style and then discards the rest. Catholicism is an “all or nothing”. Surely, this is a difficult concept and suggests that the Catholic must be a mind numbed robot and none of us here can claim that we’ve never been “Cafeteria Like” at one point or another in our Catholic journey.

This is, I think, the least interesting argument so far. It describes Catholicism as a club the membership to which requires certain beliefs. If the beliefs are wrong then no membership enticement can overcome that. Certainly there are many who approach Catholicism this way.

Actually this is not an argument at all. It was a simple answer to your question. You demonstrate that you are in protest of infallibility, so in a sense you are Protestant. Please don’t take this as an insult. There is nothing wrong in your questioning. This is how all of us learn and I truly believe that one day you will resolve this issue one way or the other. If the answer is Protestantism then find a church that agrees with your belief system. If infallibility wins the day, then on that day I will proudly say, “Welcome to the Club.”

Jeff

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think that you are missing anything Bubba and your 2nd sentence above shows it. You find that a fallible Bible and Magesterium are “very compelling” yet why don’t you find infallibility as “equally compelling”? It appears that you are declaring fallibility as part of your faith and then seeking out only the answers that support that faith.

There are many reasons but the main two that I will put forward are these: 1) humans are fallen and fallible by their nature, and 2) the OT and NT are incongruent. (I’ve discussed these in detail in other threads and just mention them by reference here to answer your question.)

None of us can claim it as a knowledge whether the Church is infallible or not, the Church simply declares it as part of our faith. And yes, you find this to be a weak argument as well, but you have to continue to ask yourself the question of why you want fallibility to be a fact.

Interestingly, most Catholics do seem to make the claim that infallibility is a logical certainty though there has been at least one other poster in this thread that approached it as a matter of faith.

Actually this is not an argument at all. It was a simple answer to your question. You demonstrate that you are in protest of infallibility, so in a sense you are Protestant. Please don’t take this as an insult. There is nothing wrong in your questioning. This is how all of us learn and I truly believe that one day you will resolve this issue one way or the other. If the answer is Protestantism then find a church that agrees with your belief system. If infallibility wins the day, then on that day I will proudly say, “Welcome to the Club.”

If by “Protestantism” you mean anything contrary to Catholic dogma, perhaps, but while I do read Protestant theologies I don’t expect to find a Protestant denomination that provides better answers. But, again, I’m not looking for a club to join, just seeking truthful answers to questions.