Is infallibility coherent?

[Prodigal_Son]

As a philosophy graduate student, I’m trying to work through the Church’s teachings on infallibility, and I must admit I am a bit befuddled. Can someone clear this up?

Here’s the problem: in certain documents, Church authorities have said that the Magesterium and the Pope are infallible under specific conditions – teachings on faith and morals, in an ecumenical counsel, etc. It would seem, however, that the Church’s teaching of infallibility is not itself infallible. The teaching itself is not a matter of faith or morals, no?

But if the teaching on infallibility is fallible, it follows that all the “infallible” proclamations contained under its umbrella are fallible. This is a variant on the liar’s paradox: if I tell you that everything I say is true, though I am sometimes wrong, you can’t just take me at my word.

Hence my concern. The teaching on infallibility doesn’t personally bother me very much, but it does strike me as a bit silly.

Take the other option, though. Let’s say that the Church’s teaching on infallibility is itself infallible. How would we ever know that it’s infallible? Not because the Church tells us, because that is viciously circular. Perhaps if the Bible tells us – if so, can someone give me the reference?

 

[Scoobyshme]

First, let’s establish that papal infallibility is a matter of faith, since Jesus told the first Pope, Peter, that the “gates of hell” would never “prevail” over His Church. To a first century Jew in Palestine, this had more meaning than it may to us in our time and culture. It meant that the Church would never teach doctrinal error. And, it has not. Furthermore, Jesus told the first Pope, Peter, that “whatsoever you bound on earth, will be bound in heaven”, etc. Since untruth can never be a part of heaven, then whatever the Pope declares binding, must be true. It is a negative charism, though. It’s not a guarantee that the Pope will teach truth. He may, very well, teach nothing. It is a guarantee, though, that if he teaches anything to the whole Church, it will be true. I don’t know if a forum is the right venue for a really deep discussion, though. There’s lots more that could be covered.

 

[surritter]

Take the other option, though. Let’s say that the Church’s teaching on infallibility is itself infallible. How would we ever know that it’s infallible? Not because the Church tells us, because that is viciously circular. Perhaps if the Bible tells us – if so, can someone give me the reference?

The Councils that verbalized the idea of infallibility were commissioned with that authority not by the mere words of the Church, but by Christ Himself (see Luke 10:16). That’s how we know that infallibility is infallible.

You can also read this article which is posted at EWTN’s website.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Councils that verbalized the idea of infallibility were commissioned with that authority not by the mere words of the Church, but by Christ Himself (see Luke 10:16). That’s how we know that infallibility is infallible.

That’s a good start, but this presupposes that I interpret Christ’s words as the Church does. Any defense of infallibility I can think of, in fact, presupposes infallibility.

Personally, I will trust the Church because God has given me the power to do so. The Church’s implicit claims to being right about every specific teaching are completely unproblematic. It’s the formalization of this as a comprehensive dogma that doesn’t make sense.

The Orthodox teachings on infallibility strike me as much more sensible, to be honest. They say that God would not allow His church to fall into error, but they do not insist that particular statements are perfect.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

First, let’s establish that papal infallibility is a matter of faith, since Jesus told the first Pope, Peter, that the “gates of hell” would never “prevail” over His Church. To a first century Jew in Palestine, this had more meaning than it may to us in our time and culture. It meant that the Church would never teach doctrinal error.

Yes, but this is a self-referential claim, when the Church itself makes it.

It’s not a guarantee that the Pope will teach truth. He may, very well, teach nothing.

Good point. Praise God for giving us good shepherds, that don’t lounge on the seat of Peter!

 

[Harpazo]

That’s a good start, but this presupposes that I interpret Christ’s words as the Church does. Any defense of infallibility I can think of, in fact, presupposes infallibility.

Personally, I will trust the Church because God has given me the power to do so. The Church’s implicit claims to being right about every specific teaching are completely unproblematic. It’s the formalization of this as a comprehensive dogma that doesn’t make sense.

The Orthodox teachings on infallibility strike me as much more sensible, to be honest. They say that God would not allow His church to fall into error, but they do not insist that particular statements are perfect.

I have often wondered why a council (Vatican I) was necessary for Papal Infallibility to be proclaimed. If the pope were infallible, why couldn’t he just proclaim it himself? I also have to wonder why the proclamation was made in the late 1800s if it were a revealed, dogmatic Christian truth.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[surritter]

I have often wondered why a council (Vatican I) was necessary for Papal Infallibility to be proclaimed. If the pope were infallible, why couldn’t he just proclaim it himself? I also have to wonder why the proclamation was made in the late 1800s if it were a revealed, dogmatic Christian truth.

In Christ,
Andrew

The pope always had that infallibility, but Vatican I defined it in a better way. Remember that doctrine cannot be invented, but there is such a thing as development of doctrine.

An example: Transubstantiation was defined at an ecumenical council in 1215. But we all know that the idea of the bread and wine becoming body and blood goes back to the very beginning (actually back to the Last Supper).

 

[surritter]

That’s a good start, but this presupposes that I interpret Christ’s words as the Church does. Any defense of infallibility I can think of, in fact, presupposes infallibility.

Personally, I will trust the Church because God has given me the power to do so. The Church’s implicit claims to being right about every specific teaching are completely unproblematic. It’s the formalization of this as a comprehensive dogma that doesn’t make sense.

The Orthodox teachings on infallibility strike me as much more sensible, to be honest. They say that God would not allow His church to fall into error, but they do not insist that particular statements are perfect.

You are truly a philosopher! But if this is taken too far it becomes somewhat of a circular argument. There comes a time when you have to put faith in something. I see a blue sky and ask questions. But after science explains why it appears blue, I might begin to question my rods and cones – gosh, how can I be sure that my eye is really seeing blue as others understand the color blue?

Or take this example: how do you know that George Washington was the first American president? Were you there? Well, you say, we have ample historical documentation. But why do you trust those documents? How can we be sure of their proper authority?

You see what I mean? So as Catholics, we believe in infallibility because it is defined as such by the proper channels. And we trust those channels because they were established by Christ. And we trust Him, and the power he left to the Apostles to interpret His teachings through the ages. If we doubt even that, then we can just as well question the other claims of Christianity, and thus we have a circular argument about the whole shebang.

 

[momor]

This is a little off topic, but the biggest problem I have with infallibility is what it means for Catholics in practical terms. We are always arguing here about whether some teaching is or isn’t infallible. Why isn’t there a succinct list somewhere?
Whenever talk like this comes up my mind always goes to the topic of fasting. It was/is taught that we must observe the rules under pain of sin but then how come the rules can keep changing?

 

[rwoehmke]

This is a little off topic, but the biggest problem I have with infallibility is what it means for Catholics in practical terms. We are always arguing here about whether some teaching is or isn’t infallible. Why isn’t there a succinct list somewhere?
Whenever talk like this comes up my mind always goes to the topic of fasting. It was/is taught that we must observe the rules under pain of sin but then how come the rules can keep changing?

Because they are disciplinary rules and not doctrines. From ancient times mankind has practiced fasting, for example, as a part of religious practice. The Church in its wisdom prescribes how and when this is to be accomplished. From generation to generation the system is adjusted to best meet the needs of the faithful.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are truly a philosopher! But if this is taken too far it becomes somewhat of a circular argument. There comes a time when you have to put faith in something. I see a blue sky and ask questions. But after science explains why it appears blue, I might begin to question my rods and cones – gosh, how can I be sure that my eye is really seeing blue as others understand the color blue?

Or take this example: how do you know that George Washington was the first American president? Were you there? Well, you say, we have ample historical documentation. But why do you trust those documents? How can we be sure of their proper authority?

You see what I mean? So as Catholics, we believe in infallibility because it is defined as such by the proper channels. And we trust those channels because they were established by Christ. And we trust Him, and the power he left to the Apostles to interpret His teachings through the ages. If we doubt even that, then we can just as well question the other claims of Christianity, and thus we have a circular argument about the whole shebang.

I agree with your line of questioning. The question of life is this: who are you going to trust? You have manifold choices, which are usually not mutually exclusive, but sometimes are. If you don’t trust anyone, then you’ve truly missed out!

Thus, I am willing to trust the Church, as I would trust anyone else. It seems trustworthy, so I begin to stake something on it. As the Church repays my trust by providing me a meaningful and accurate picture of the world, I stake my life on the Church, as a manifestation of my prior commitment – staking my life on Christ.

This is the same way that I relate to people, in terms of trust. You have to take a chance, and see if it pays off. No risk, no reward. But here’s what puzzles me: who is the doctrine of infallibility addressed to? The faithful have already placed their trust in the Church. To a noncatholic, however, how does it help for us to say that “everything we teach about faith and morals is right”? What is the significance of such a statement? What does it give us that we didn’t have before, aside from giving us more problems with apologetics?

 

[neophyte]

That’s a good start, but this presupposes that I interpret Christ’s words as the Church does.

Not at all. The fact that Christ granted the charism of infallibility to the Church is entirely independent of your recognition of it.

Any defense of infallibility I can think of, in fact, presupposes infallibility…

There are defenses which do not. The one which convinced me merely presupposes that human reason is capable of arriving at true conclusions.

 

[momor]

Because they are disciplinary rules and not doctrines. From ancient times mankind has practiced fasting, for example, as a part of religious practice. The Church in its wisdom prescribes how and when this is to be accomplished. From generation to generation the system is adjusted to best meet the needs of the faithful.

Your answer makes my point. If a rule must be followed under pain of sin, and we are not allowed to exercise our own conscience to decide, doesn’t that make it infallible? And if it’s infallible, how can it change?
Dogma doesn’t change and I can understand infallibility related to dogma. But dogma is not the only infallible teaching and that’s where it gets very confusing for me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not at all. The fact that Christ granted the charism of infallibility to the Church is entirely independent of your recognition of it.

Yes, but the historical claim that Christ did grant that infallibility seems subject to debate, since the Scriptures are not abundantly clear on the matter. I don’t have access to facts, only claims.

There are defenses which do not. The one which convinced me merely presupposes that human reason is capable of arriving at true conclusions.

You’ve made me curious…

 

[LilyM]

Your answer makes my point. If a rule must be followed under pain of sin, and we are not allowed to exercise our own conscience to decide, doesn’t that make it infallible? And if it’s infallible, how can it change?

Not at all. For Jews of the Old Covenant, ALL the Levitical commands were binding under pain of sin. That’s why the Pharisees were so intent on ‘nailing’ Jesus for breaking them.

But not only did He undoubtedly break some (eg by touching lepers, bleeding women and corpses), He further, for example in the vision of Peter at Cornelius’ house, explicitly changed some of them. So clearly, however binding the OT laws might have been, they were not unchangeable.

But to break them was indeed sinful - for those without Jesus’ divine prerogatives - as wilful disobedience to God-given authority, not because the rules in themselves were necessarily important or unchanging truths. Eg the dietary laws - the unchanging and infallible principle is that SOME dietary restriction is necessary as a form of self-mortification. Today we adhere to that principle still, only we do so in the form of our Lenten (and perhaps Friday) fasting and abstaining from meat. It’s not the detail in such cases that is unchanging, rather the principle.

Dogma doesn’t change and I can understand infallibility related to dogma. But dogma is not the only infallible teaching and that’s where it gets very confusing for me.

See above. There’s an expression I’ve seen used - ‘disciplinary infallibility’. Not that this means that disciplines imposed by the Church are necessarily infallible in and of themselves, just the principles behind them.

 

[Philthy]

But here’s what puzzles me: who is the doctrine of infallibility addressed to? The faithful have already placed their trust in the Church. To a noncatholic, however, how does it help for us to say that “everything we teach about faith and morals is right”? What is the significance of such a statement? What does it give us that we didn’t have before, aside from giving us more problems with apologetics?

I would say that an infallible declaration provides finality with respect to certain teachings of the Church. Some issues remain open to debate and some issues have been decided once and for all.
The primary example of the latter is the divinity of Christ. People - bishops included! - fell into serious heresy regarding certain doctrine which required an unchanging, unquestionable level of finality. Infallible statements provide that to both the faithful and those outside the Church who wish to know what the Church teaches.
There are other issues which have remained relatively open to debate to varying degrees. The eternal destiny of an unbaptized infant is the first that comes to mind. There is a level of uncertainty surrounding the issue, but other aspects have been made clear - the spiritual benefits of baptism apply to infants, get your baby baptized and then you wont need to wonder about it!
Anyhow an infallible statement provides clarity when it is deemed necessary to avoid confusion.

Blessings!

 

[Crumpy]

That’s a good start, but this presupposes that I interpret Christ’s words as the Church does. Any defense of infallibility I can think of, in fact, presupposes infallibility.

Personally, I will trust the Church because God has given me the power to do so. The Church’s implicit claims to being right about every specific teaching are completely unproblematic. It’s the formalization of this as a comprehensive dogma that doesn’t make sense.

The Orthodox teachings on infallibility strike me as much more sensible, to be honest. They say that God would not allow His church to fall into error, but they do not insist that particular statements are perfect.

I’ll jump in here at this point. I’m hung up on the presumption in the OP that the teaching of infallibility is itself fallible. I don’t buy that. This is not a logic contest or a debate, if you will. Jesus that he would always be with us and that we would have the Spirit to aid us.

So, we presume that the word of Christ is also infallible and that his promises are trustworthy. That is the same sense as the first part of your statement about the Orthodox church. The second part leaves me a little hollow, because we depend on “statements” as being what they should be. You want to inject skepticism into this dogma of the church and you’re fighting an uphill battle. So, the problem is not the dogma, but your skepticism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ll jump in here at this point. I’m hung up on the presumption in the OP that the teaching of infallibility is itself fallible. I don’t buy that. This is not a logic contest or a debate, if you will. Jesus that he would always be with us and that we would have the Spirit to aid us.

So, we presume that the word of Christ is also infallible and that his promises are trustworthy. That is the same sense as the first part of your statement about the Orthodox church. The second part leaves me a little hollow, because we depend on “statements” as being what they should be. You want to inject skepticism into this dogma of the church and you’re fighting an uphill battle. So, the problem is not the dogma, but your skepticism.

As a fellow “informal apologist” for Catholicism on these boards, I find it a little bewildering to be accused of injecting skepticism. We’re on the same side here.

Personally, I don’t “presume” that the word of Christ is infallible. I know it, because I’ve tested it. “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21). I’ve staked my life on Christ and His Church, and they have been good to me. I’m not questioning the doctrine of infallibility because it is an issue of faith for me – indeed, I fully *assent *to the doctrine. But I do not understand the doctrine, for it seems to be saying something perfectly obvious – that we believe the core tenets that we teach to be protected from error. Why couldn’t we call these teachings “unnegotiables”, rather than take on the potentially inflammatory term “infallible”?

The teaching of the Church on this issue must either be in response to a *moral obligation *to inform the world (or the faithful) of its (limited) infallibility, or a *prudential judgment *that such information would be advantageous. But I don’t see the moral obligation here, and such a doctrine strikes me as evangelistically imprudent. Surely I am missing something here, though, and that’s why I started this thread. I am going to spend my life advocating for the Church against very powerful intellects. As such, I’d like to understand the rationale for Catholic teaching, especially those teachings that seem hardest for the modern mind to comprehend.

As for the comment “the problem is not the dogma, but your skepticism”, the same thing could have been said to Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed that the least powerful form of evidence was an appeal to authority. When we seek understanding, we seek not only to know the Truth, but in addition to become **convinced **of the Truth. Please don’t assume that I ask this question without an openness to an answer that will assuage all my doubts.

 

[neophyte]

Yes, but the historical claim that Christ did grant that infallibility seems subject to debate, since the Scriptures are not abundantly clear on the matter. I don’t have access to facts, only claims.

You’ve made me curious…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82842

 

[Prodigal_Son]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82842

Good stuff, that. Quite a Bible study!

My issue is this, though: Jesus didn’t claim infallibility. Indeed, He said, ““If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.” Jesus understood the point that His own claim to infallibility would be circular and meaningless. Rather, He let the Father’s testimony bear Him up.

If we take Christ’s words seriously, then there is no need for a dogma of Church infallibility; we know that God will protect His people from grave error. Thus, my thought that the *explicitly spoken *dogma could be mistaken or meaningless, while the sentiment behind the dogma is perfectly correct and significant.