Inquiring Catholic question: papal infallibility no matter what?

[lovevirginitydeath]

I wasn’t raised religious and haven’t been baptized, but feel that Catholicism is very close to my values. I’ve gone to Mass for ~1 year, but am struggling with papal infallibility. It makes sense that for the Church to stay unified, it’s a great help to have one voice that can resolve any matter in dispute; I think papal authority/infallibility have a practical strength. And I see real virtue in those in service to the Church. Deference to authority can help us become better, just as when we are challenged by a good leader (gym class in elementary school: “Don’t stop running!”). Many flaws in our world come from an inability to stick with things: our culture has abandoned the idea of persevering through difficulty. I don’t agree with this.

But I fear an authority instructing/permitting me to do something I believe in my heart God would never want me to do. I know infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on doctrinal matters and has been invoked only 2x. But, it is possible to see some of the earthly political processes that move and govern institutions, and should such an authority ever give me permission/instruct me to do wrong, I would hope that I would do what I most believe God expects of me. I fear if I forfeit my agency without concern for what’s right, I may do wrong.

This isn’t meant as a straw man: I do not predict the Pope saying anything outlandish. But 1) I would like to resolve the case of the hypothetical (in the same way that I would not want to marry someone who I thought would ever cheat on me, but where, once married, I know I might never forgive myself for giving up). 2) I could imagine subtle doctrinal changes on the horizon, which might challenge my closely held beliefs (e.g., complementarity between men and women and their roles in family or in the Church or if the Church became more permissive about divorce or abortion).

I think a good Catholic might say that God will never allow the Church to be compromised in any serious manner, but I have trouble finding satisfaction in this answer; perhaps it is through our vigilance that what is right will endure.

Is my skepticism regarding earthly legalism/central authority more in accordance with Orthodoxy or Protestantism? Culturally, I prefer the state-like quality of Catholicism because of its ability to keep community and tradition intact. Traditions (which draw their ethos from hierarchy) keep the Church steady in our fallen world. And yet, in extreme cases, I think each person must have their deepest allegiance to their inner connection with God; however, this “I know better” justification is similar to the self-serving rationalizing used to excuse what is appealing but wrong (“I know I shouldn’t cheat on my spouse, but the rules shouldn’t apply to me…”).

How do you submit to papal infallibility? If doctrine were changed in a significant way, would every Catholic just trust in the Church? Generally, how do you balance your attraction to the rigor of unflinching tradition to a (healthy?) skepticism for any authority in absolute questions of morality?

Have a Merry Christmas!

 

[poche]

The question of infallibility applies to hwere the Pope speaks ex-cathedra on faith and morals.
There is a story about Cardinal Gibbens. He came back from a trip to Rome that included an audience with the Pope.
Reporters met him and one of them asked him if he really believed in papal infallibility. He replied, “When I met with the Pope, he called me ‘Jibbens.’”

 

[Bithynian]

How do you submit to papal infallibility? If doctrine were changed in a significant way, would every Catholic just trust in the Church? Generally, how do you balance your attraction to the rigor of unflinching tradition to a (healthy?) skepticism for any authority in absolute questions of morality?

As a point of discussion, many people from my faith journey (Anglican to Roman Catholic) tend to struggle with papal infallibility to some degree or another.

I think it’s worth highlighting a few points that may help:

(1) Papal infallibility is invoked so infrequently - as you mentioned - that it, in practice, seems to present a theological dilemma that might not even arise in our lifetime.

(2) There is much critique about the wide ranging and unrestrained potential of papal infallibility, but, again, in practice Popes are very conservative and circumspect in pronouncing ex cathedra. In addition, Popes do not capriciously declare dogmas: there are informal and formal systems of consensus making amongst himself, his fellow bishops and theologians.

(3) Papal infallibility isn’t too dissimilar from other systems of doctrinal definition in other Christian communities. Whilst they may not term it “infallibility”, all ecclesiologies invest authority in some person or structure to define doctrines. Whether it is the Pope of the Catholic Church or the pastor of a non-denominational Protestant church, or the General Synod of the Church of England or the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, all these people or structures have definitive power in their respective communities to proclaim dogma.

These points aren’t meant to assuage all concerns you may have about papal infallibility, but hopefully they might give some different perspectives.

 

[adf417]

How do you submit to papal infallibility? If doctrine were changed in a significant way, would every Catholic just trust in the Church? Generally, how do you balance your attraction to the rigor of unflinching tradition to a (healthy?) skepticism for any authority in absolute questions of morality?

Google “Popes with the shortest reigns” and you will see the many popes that reigned for only a few days. Why would God allow this? This is my personal assurance that popes cannot “teach” false doctrine.

Peace!!!

 

[fhansen]

The doctrine of infallibility is simply an honest and humble recognition of the fact that man needs God’s direct guidance in the Church in order to prevent error from entering her teachings. There must be a place on this Earth within Christianity where the buck stops.

Protestantism doesn’t have it and won’t admit to it while each and every private interpretor of Scripture from the Reformation on nonetheless acts as a pope themselves, infallibly proclaiming their take on the faith as they oppose other’s beliefs, as often as not opposing other Protestants.

And the Orthodox couldn’t call an ecumenical council to resolve and agree on any controversy now if their life depended on it.

At some point we have to know that Christ established one Church, and didn’t leave it abandonded when He rose to heaven. We can and must trust that He gave us a logical and practical means to keep the faith unified. And so the question arises, where else does one find it?

 

[ioannes_pius]

You do not have to worry about the Popes teaching heresies or grave doctrinal error whether he’s speaking ex cathedra or whether hems teaching to a lesser extent, because each Pope is given the gift of truth and and unfailing faith.

 

[Elf01]

But I fear an authority instructing/permitting me to do something I believe in my heart God would never want me to do. I know infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on doctrinal matters and has been invoked only 2x. But, it is possible to see some of the earthly political processes that move and govern institutions, and should such an authority ever give me permission/instruct me to do wrong, I would hope that I would do what I most believe God expects of me. I fear if I forfeit my agency without concern for what’s right, I may do wrong.

Honestly if the Pope were to infallibly declare something, that despite research, prayer etc. I still see as false I would see that as proof that Catholicism is not true and either become Orthodox or non Christian.

 

[neophyte]

I would like to resolve the case of the hypothetical…

The thing is, papal infallibility is a recognition of the fact that Jesus promised to protect his Church from teaching false doctrine. So either this is an impossible hypothetical (in which case there’s nothing to resolve), or else Jesus is not God (in which case I can safely abandon Christianity).

Once I realized that, I spent a fair bit of time trying to find a single instance of the Church teaching self-contradictory doctrines. Not only was I totally unsuccessful in that search, what I found strengthed my trust in the teachings of the Church.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[commenter]

I wouldn’t say infallibility has only been invoked 2 times.

We don’t know how often a pope was leaning towards defining a dogma, and was prevented from doing so.

But surely we accept other instances besides the two usually mentioned (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). Is the Bible inspired? The Church infallibly teaches that it is. It even infallibly decides which books Protestants use for their New Testament.

To understand infallibility consider the ordinary vs extraordinary Magisterium. What was made more explicit at Vatican 1 was already operating in the early Church. What would christianity look like now without infallibility in the early Church?

 

[InThePew]

Do you know of any Catholic doctrine that gives credence to this view (i.e., “I follow authority, but if that authority crosses a very bright line, I acknowledge that I am ultimately responsible for what I do and follow.”)?

It’s commonly called conscience and it applies to all matters of faith and morals. That doesn’t mean that we can do whatever we want as long as we can justify it to ourselves, but it also doesn’t mean that we check our ability to think and judge for ourselves at the door when we enter a church.

In answer to the OP, as a priest, it goes further for me - the profession of faith I swore and signed prior to ordination refers to I adherence “with religious submission of will and intellect” to the teachings of the magisterium, even if not proclaimed by a definitive act. Yes, we are called to trust that the Lord will not allow His Church to fall into error but also, on a more human level, we’re also called to exercise humility. So I may disagree with what the Church teaches about something or with the Pope’s teachings but, in a sense, that’s my problem. The call to humility requires us to respect teachings even though we may disagree with them, even though we may feel very strongly about them. At the end of the day, it’s God’s Church not ours and so it’s best to leave it to Him to sort out!

 

[Hume]

As it comes to Catholics and the Pope’s statements on faith and morals, yes.

No matter what.

If that chafes you, Orthodoxy is probably your next spiritual stop, imo.

 

[Hume]

Merry Christmas to you!

As an olive branch, you could also try Byzantine Catholicism. @dochawk is a great resource.

I view them as Catholics who have a tacit agreement with the rest of the Church that they’ll only stick around as long as Rome doesn’t overstep what they view as “papal bounds”.

Hope you find what you’re looking for.

 

[fhansen]

For the record, the Church teaches that we must be true to our consciences-even if wrong. But she also teaches that one must take effort to inform ourselves as to the truth, and give her the benefit of the doubt, at least, in having possession of that truth. We’re born without this higher truth even though we must ingest and filter and discern it for ourselves, with the help of grace. And God is there to grant that grace-and that understanding, the understanding, ultimately, that the Church happens to be right. And we can experience this agreement with the Church via the sensus fidelium, a work of the /Holy Spirit.

 

[InThePew]

What would you do if a new teaching of the Church (not something that existed when you swore your oath) was irreconcilable with your conscience?

Firstly, Church teaching develops and changes over time, rather than staying the same, while at the same time always staying consistent with Tradition. Given this, I’d expect there to be some changes in Church teaching over my lifetime meaning that it wouldn’t be the same as it was when I first made my profession of faith. If there was something which I didn’t like then and I felt was something which I couldn’t reconcile with my conscience then the nuclear option would be a withdrawal from public ministry (while still remaining a priest) - meaning that I wouldn’t be in a position of preaching / teaching something I couldn’t accept. Tbh tho, I struggling to think of anything which might put be in this position. More to the point perhaps, I am also a priest for the Church and not myself.

I like the idea of having faith, but what if we are the mechanism by which things will be alright in the end?

Thankfully that’s not the case otherwise we’d all be in big trouble!

I apologize if I come across as being without humility; I’m not perfect, but I definitely do not ever want to be Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons constantly calling, “Well actually …” from the back pew. In almost all things religious I would like to be like a sponge and to soak in the expertise of others.

None of us can claim to be perfect nor can we ever truly claim to be humble! While there’s nothing wrong with listening rather constantly disagreeing, there’s also something to be said for respectful discussion and questions - that’s how we come to know and understand anything.

I feel that if I complied with something against my conscience, I would be doing something very grave, no matter what authority assented.

As Pope Francis put it, the Church exists to form consciences not replace them; something which doesn’t just apply to us but also to those outside of the Church. What also makes it difficult is that it’s a pastorally sensitive area requiring compassion as much as compliance. Too often we want things to be black and white so that our response to X is always Y. Helpful though that might be, it doesn’t quite work like that if for no other reason than we’re rational beings with free wills!

I have seen these things evolve rapidly in our society and have seen the family unit weaken. In the secular world, there are tremendous forces pushing this direction and that for both men and women, family is something from which we should be liberated.

As the saying goes, there’s nothing new under the sun. The Church has been under pressure from outside forces for most of her existence and as CS Lewis put it, each generation thinks it’s smarter that the one before it. The push for “progressivism” in the world is well intentioned - something that we shouldn’t lose sight of - but also misguided. All of us are called to preach the gospel, and also to help the world understand this even if only as a voice in the wilderness.

 

[dochawk]

As an olive branch, you could also try Byzantine Catholicism. @dochawk is a great resource.

Actually, most of what I repeat came from byzcath.org forums.

I view them as Catholics who have a tacit agreement with the rest of the Church that they’ll only stick around as long as Rome doesn’t overstep what they view as “papal bounds”.

Not an unfair way to put it, although I"m not sure I’d go that far.

But there are limits, which have been hit and caused schisms . . .

All in all, I think the Melkites have the best handle on it all.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

All in all, I think the Melkites have the best handle on it all.

I don’t doubt what you say, but could you explain further?

 

[Genesis315]

Papal infallibility is a necessary consequence of the permanence of the primacy in the Church. The particular church in primacy (the Church of Rome–the Apostolic See) cannot be separated from the universal Church nor the universal Church from it. The universal Church therefore must hold the same faith as the Church of Rome.

Should the Church of Rome require an error to be believed in order to have communion with it, either the Church of Rome would defect from the universal Church or the entire Church would defect into error following Rome–and both things are impossible.

Therefore, in as much as the bishop of Rome–the authorized teacher of the Church of Rome–provides a judgment as to a doctrine that must be held in order for all to maintain communion in the Church, it must be true, otherwise it would lead to one of the two impossible conditions above.

Popes do and say tons of stuff that has no consequence on communion in the Church. That being said, despite the myth that they have only done so twice, they do often definitively judge what must be believed or held in order to maintain communion in the Church.

As for a Pope telling you to do something against your conscience, see what St. John Henry Newman says here:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

 

[Genesis315]

The limited “only two” view is relatively novel. At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure or using some verbal formula, the relator for the Commissio de fide (charged with providing official doctrinal explanations of Council documents to the Council Fathers) said this was impossible, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop ... - Vinzenz Gasser - Google Books

“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been more than two (the “only two” theory would mean “only one” at the time of Vatican I–that is pretty absurd)! I assume where a document contains a long list of definitively judged propositions, each one is considered a single judgment (e.g. e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, etc.). Also included would be definitive judgments the Pope makes in his own name in the context of a partial or even ecumenical synod. In fact, the First Vatican Council itself notes the variety of ways such definitions have come about:

The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

I think some imagine papal infallibility as the Pope autocratically defining doctrine. Rather, as the Council noted, it is often a result of a synod or even general Council when the Pope at then end issues the decisions in his own name. Even in the two famous Marian examples, the Pope first received the opinions of all the bishops of the world and their overwhelming agreement.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Infallibility is not impeccability. On a few occasions, the Pope has had to declare ex-cathedra some dogmatic faith or moral issue such that the issue is definitely closed and the faithful have clarity. Without it, we would be like the 10,000+ Protestant denominations arguing with each other about dogmas and each choosing its own path. The papal infallibility leads to unity.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Sit quietly in the back and only frown to oneself as we try to overcome our defective conscience? Follow our conscience and change to another denomination that fits our most immutable values

A right conscience is formed in time, we are not born with it. Catholics inform their consciences according to reason and revelation as guided by Church teachings. It is an act of the will.