Is infallibility coherent?

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

This is an intriguing point, and I will consider it.

 

[system]

www.vogmall.com
So wonderful website!
Go there,Maybe you will find the things you are looking for.
Big surprises are waiting for you!
Do not msis it!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Prodigal_Son,

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.

I admit I am perplexed by the issue you have created for yourself. I take infallibility of the Church as a given, because we are the body of Christ imbued with the Holy Spirit. That seems pretty self-evident. What the Catholic Church has done is given some signposts to how we can recognize that infallibility at work in the Church. I don’t understand why that would be objectionable or even cause a quandary.

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.

That the Church cannot fall into error is the doctrine of INDEFECTIBILITY, not Infallibility. Infallibility has to do with the active teaching office of the Church. Our teacher is the Holy Spirit, Who is infallible. When the Spirit speaks through the Church regarding a divinely revealed truth, then the Church exhibits the infallibility of the Holy Spirit. The question is: how do we recognize when the Holy Spirit is speaking infallibly through the Church? The Catholic Church has been able to help on that matter, and that is a good thing.

If the Orthodox Church really teaches what you say it teaches, then it makes less sense than you claim. How, indeed, can a Church claim to not be able to fall into error, without having the means to know what error is or is not?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[cassini]

Originally Posted by Philthy
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.

This is an intriguing point, and I will consider it.

Prodigal, fascinating subject matter and whereas I am not into philosophy as deeply as you and others (or to be more correct, have not got the intellectual ability in keeping with 99.99% of Catholics), I have had a problem with this subject for some time. My problem is not so much with infallibility, but with FALLIBILITY of ‘Church teachings.’

First of all, will someone tell me what ‘Church teachings’ are? No, don’t I know what are official Church teachings on matters of faith and morals and what are Opinions.
Second, why are all Church teachings not infallible? Philthy’s post (included) above talks about ‘certain teachings’ and issues open to debate. How can you have a teaching ‘open to debate’? Surely that subject then could not be a teaching?

The perception given is that non-infallible Church teachings could be in error. If so, how could the Church be asking the flock to adhere to possible error? .

I could go on but I do know what I am talking about because for years I have argued on an infallibility called the ‘Ordinary’, not explicitly defined but certainly acknowledged at Vatican I.
This is the ‘infallibility’ ordinary simple Catholics hold the Church to have, teaching the truth without error. By ‘simple Catholics’ I mean the 99% who do not research the history of the Church to ‘prove’ it is teaching the truth but just take it on face value.

But nobody wants to acknowledge this ordinary infallibility for the simple reason that one incident in Church history has totally messed up anyone taking it seriously, - the rejection of the 1616 papal decree in which the proper meaning of the Scripture was defined and declared (the proper interpretation of Scripture being a matter of Faith).
Are papal decrees not teachings of the Church when defining and declaring the proper interpretation of the Scriptures? Can Papal decrees that define and declare be totally overturned to the extent that the HERETICAL teaching can then become orthodox?

The argument over the last few centuries is that this papal decree was not INFALLIBLE. In other words, that is WHY IT WAS IN ERROR and heresy can become orthodox.

Again I could go on, but the MESS allowed in this case leaves one to believe in NOTHING for certain unless it is INFALLIBLE. It points DIRECTLY to the IDEA that any NON-INFALLIBLE ‘teaching’ could possibly be in error.’

On the other hand, I for one have found PROOF of the Ordinary infallibility of the Church promised by Christ by a deep study of this very question above. The trouble is few Catholics are interested in this proof or have a love for truth in this case due to a LIE that had/has to come from hell itself. I say this because of the grip it has on man today, a grip tighter than the faith of Catholic millions.

As I see it now, all official Church teachings are protected by the Holy Ghost. infallible dogmas have been elivated to the highest doctrines of IMPORTANCE to other teachings not elivated to de fide dogmas, not because they may contain error but because they are lower in salvation value.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Since you are a philosopher, I will try and address my comments in that context.
I believe you have made two logical errors here:

1. You have extrapolated a universal conclusion (Jesus didnt claim infallibility) from a particular instance (if I testify about my self…) without demonstrating that the instance is applicable universally.
   And might I add that you have done this based on an isolated verse of Scripture without providing a reference? Lets hear more of Christs claims regarding his testimony of himself and see if it is congruent with your impressions above. From John 8:
   "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true. Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going…my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father [fn] who sent me. "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. “I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
   I think it is plain enough that Christ claims complete infallibility with regard to his testimony and judgements - for all are done in complete harmony with the Father who sent Him and who also bears witness to Him.
2. You have made a conclusion with respect to “infallibility” based upon a comment regarding “testimony”.
   Even if you are able to establish a valid link between Christ’s “testimony” and his “infallibility” (which you have yet to do), the section of Scripture above and my commentary seems to refute your notion that Christ did not testify to himself and did not claim infallibility: He explicitly describes his testimony of himself as “true” and he describes it as harmonious with the testimony of the Father. God’s testimony is certainly infallible, and if Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him, Christ is claiming infallibility.

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.

Im sorry, but you will need to demonstrate how you arrived at this conclusion. Simply knowing that “God will protect His people from grave error” does not indicate how, exactly, he will do this and it does not identify who, exactly, is being spoken of as “His people”

Thus, my thought that the *explicitly spoken *dogma could be mistaken or meaningless, while the sentiment behind the dogma is perfectly correct and significant.

Sorry, I dont follow. Sentiments do not suffice when, in the face of confusion and heresy, clarity is needed among the faithful (ie His people?). Confusion and heresy among Christians is an historical and perennial fact. No sentiment has served to resolve this - infallible dogma proclaimed by the Church most definitely has caused some to submit to the Truth proclaimed by the Church precisely because it was proclaimed as infallible. Again, the divinity of Christ, the hypostatic union, and the canon of Scripture are all perfect examples…

Blessings!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Since you are a philosopher, I will try and address my comments in that context.
I believe you have made two logical errors here:

1. You have extrapolated a universal conclusion (Jesus didnt claim infallibility) from a particular instance (if I testify about my self…) without demonstrating that the instance is applicable universally.

I said that Jesus didn’t claim infallibility. I should amend the statement, for accuracy, however: in no existing canonical scripture did Jesus claim infallibility. I am perfectly open to someone pointing out a scripture that shows me to be wrong about this. If Jesus said something to this effect that didn’t show up in the gospels, of course, is something completely beyond our capacity to know.

"Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true. Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going…my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father [fn] who sent me. "In your Law it is written that the testimony of two men is true. “I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

I think you’re missing the difference between truth and infallibility here. Jesus knows that His testimony is true, and therefore perfectly reliable, because He is God. But the question He addresses to the authorities is how they should know that His testimony is true. According to Jewish law, there were two witnesses required. This is why His testimony without any other witness – despite being true – is not valid (in the sense that it is not sufficient to confirm His claims).

But let us be clear about fallibility, in this context. Is what Jesus says *actually *infallible? A thousand times, yes! And, insofar as His Church remains in Him, what His Church says will actually be infallible.

The concern I have isn’t with actual infallibility, but with the claim of infallibility. If Jesus had said, “Nothing I say could possibly be in error”, it would seem perfectly extraneous and unnecessary. The proof of His reliability, after all, was not in His words, but in His being – in the relation between every soul and Him. This is how I feel about the Church. The Church proves itself in its role as the Body of Christ; thus, every true word of the Church is Christ’s words. The epistemic problem becomes: how do we know what is a true word?

The claim of infallibility for certain categories of statement (which categories seems to be open to interpretation by theologians) is, I suppose, an answer to this question. But, since saying something is infallible doesn’t make it infallible, the claim itself seems extraneous. In a certain way, I agree with Cassini above, at least in the following sense: why would the Church teach anything that it didn’t know to be true?

1. You have made a conclusion with respect to “infallibility” based upon a comment regarding “testimony”.

My only claim was that John 5 gives us a window into Jesus’ mind on the issue of how you know someone to be reliable.

God’s testimony is certainly infallible, and if Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him, Christ is claiming infallibility.

Yes, implicitly. He isn’t making an explicit claim, however.

No sentiment has served to resolve this - infallible dogma proclaimed by the Church most definitely has caused some to submit to the Truth proclaimed by the Church precisely because it was proclaimed as infallible.

But isn’t “infallible dogma” redundant? If it’s a dogma, it had darn well better be infallible! How does the word “infallible” add anything? Consider:

Bob: You’d better go to confession for your mortal sin.
Nancy: Sin, schmin!
Bob: It’s a dogma of the Church that those Catholics who haven’t confessed risk damnation.
Nancy: Dogmas don’t bother me. I’ll just sin with impunity.
Bob: But, Nancy, it’s an **infallible **dogma.
Nancy: Really? You say it’s infallible? In that case, I’m off to confess!

(Sorry for the dramatization – I just enjoy using humor to make a point.)

I do think that there should be some procedure to, as you say, finalize doctrines that were disputed, and make that finalization clear to the faithful. I just don’t like putting the word “infallible” on it. Perhaps it’s just an irrational bias of mine, to avoid extraneous words and teachings. I’m still open to the idea that it isn’t extraneous, however.

 

[surritter]

I said that Jesus didn’t claim infallibility. I should amend the statement, for accuracy, however: in no existing canonical scripture did Jesus claim infallibility. I am perfectly open to someone pointing out a scripture that shows me to be wrong about this.

There are certainly verses where Jesus’s infallibility is implied, even without using the word “infallible.” Try John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” Ergo, Jesus must be infallible, otherwise we are saying that the Father can tell untruths.

Also see John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus IS truth by definition. Doesn’t that equate with a claim of infallibility?

 

[Philthy]

I said that Jesus didn’t claim infallibility. I should amend the statement, for accuracy, however: in no existing canonical scripture did Jesus claim infallibility. I am perfectly open to someone pointing out a scripture that shows me to be wrong about this… But let us be clear about fallibility, in this context. Is what Jesus says *actually *infallible? A thousand times, yes! And, insofar as His Church remains in Him, what His Church says will actually be infallible…The concern I have isn’t with actual infallibility, but with the claim of infallibility. If Jesus had said, “Nothing I say could possibly be in error”, it would seem perfectly extraneous and unnecessary.

Following this montage of thoughts on infallibility, I will point out again that

Philthy:

God’s testimony is certainly infallible, and if Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him, Christ is claiming infallibility.

To which you agreed, but that he is implicitly making the claim without explicitly doing so. To which I respond: so what? Why does it matter whether it is implicit or explicit?
Your amended concern did not require an explicit statement of infallibility, just the claim itself.

The concern I have isn’t with actual infallibility, but with the claim of infallibility. If Jesus had said, “Nothing I say could possibly be in error”, it would seem perfectly extraneous and unnecessary. The proof of His reliability, after all, was not in His words, but in His being – in the relation between every soul and Him. This is how I feel about the Church. The Church proves itself in its role as the Body of Christ; thus, every true word of the Church is Christ’s words.

Yeah, but think about it - the “Church” is not a person but an institution which speaks in varied ways. Did every word that came from the prophets become part of Scripture? No - despite being an instrument for speaking God’s truth - they had to articulate when they were speaking for God, “Thus says the Lord…” In proclaiming an infallible truth, the Church is doing the same thing, no?

But, since saying something is infallible doesn’t make it infallible, the claim itself seems extraneous.

I disagree: whether it is infallible merely upon being proclaimed so by the Church is a matter of faith.

In a certain way, I agree with Cassini above, at least in the following sense: why would the Church teach anything that it didn’t know to be true?

Why did Paul give advice to the unmarried if he were uncertain as to it’s fallibility(cf 1 Cor)? There were things he knew to be “commands of the Lord” and there were other things that he was uncertain about, but which he offered as “someone trustworthy”. I dont see any difference. The Church always speaks as “someone trustworthy”, just as Paul did.

But isn’t “infallible dogma” redundant?

Yes it is redundant - I’ll avoid the term.

I do think that there should be some procedure to, as you say, finalize doctrines that were disputed, and make that finalization clear to the faithful. I just don’t like putting the word “infallible” on it. Perhaps it’s just an irrational bias of mine, to avoid extraneous words and teachings. I’m still open to the idea that it isn’t extraneous, however.

If you wish to suggest a better way to articulate that the Church has received final clarification of an issue by the special charism it possesses to “bind and loose” on “heaven and earth” then I am also open to it. Until then, the terms “it is dogma” and “it has been infallibly declared” accomplish that task.

Blessings!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There are certainly verses where Jesus’s infallibility is implied, even without using the word “infallible.” Try John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” Ergo, Jesus must be infallible, otherwise we are saying that the Father can tell untruths.

Also see John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus IS truth by definition. Doesn’t that equate with a claim of infallibility?

No. A claim of infallibility would be equivalent to the following: your most trustworthy friend tells you a) that he ate an apple yesterday, and follows it up with b) the statement he is never wrong. The latter statement is a claim of infallibility.

Jesus is always *in fact *infallible. His saying so, however, would be like printing on a compass “this compass correctly points to North.” Such a statement imparts no information: those who believed it before will continue to believe, and those who doubted it before will continue to doubt.

 

[surritter]

No. A claim of infallibility would be equivalent to the following: your most trustworthy friend tells you a) that he ate an apple yesterday, and follows it up with b) the statement he is never wrong. The latter statement is a claim of infallibility.

Jesus is always *in fact *infallible. His saying so, however, would be like printing on a compass “this compass correctly points to North.” Such a statement imparts no information: those who believed it before will continue to believe, and those who doubted it before will continue to doubt.

Whatever we provide to show you that Jesus was infallible will immediately prompt your asking for proof to show that the quotation source is valid. Let’s think this through: If I could find an EXACT verse from the Bible to satisfy your question, to be consistent you should challenge me:

You: How do we know that the Bible is to be taken as true?

Me: Because those books were deemed canonical by the Church.

You: But where did the Church get the authority to do that?

Me: By Jesus Himself.

You: How do we know Jesus was able to do that?

Me: Because He is God.

You: How do we know that?

Me: Through faith, and from the testimony of the Apostles.

Do you see how this becomes circular? Just like the bit about George Washington, there comes a point where you have to believe something without firsthand knowledge. (See my post #8 of this thread.)

 

[Cristian_B]

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.

So you’re telling me that whatever will be bound/loosed on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven? So it’s like as on earth, so in heaven?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Following this montage of thoughts on infallibility, I will point out again that

Originally Posted by Philthy
God’s testimony is certainly infallible, and if Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him, Christ is claiming infallibility.

To be clear, I agreed that both testimonies are accurate, but I did not agree that either the Father or the Son *claimed *infallibility. I could be wrong about this, as I’ve said before. You said above that “Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him”, but I don’t see that anywhere in the Scripture itself. Rather, in the Scripture, He mentions them as two separate testimonies that are in harmony.

To which I respond: so what? Why does it matter whether it is implicit or explicit? Your amended concern did not require an explicit statement of infallibility, just the claim itself.

It’s just redundant.

Yeah, but think about it - the “Church” is not a person but an institution which speaks in varied ways. Did every word that came from the prophets become part of Scripture? No - despite being an instrument for speaking God’s truth - they had to articulate when they were speaking for God, “Thus says the Lord…” In proclaiming an infallible truth, the Church is doing the same thing, no?

I have no problem with proclaiming infallible truths. I just find it funny that we call them “infallible”. This is an epistemic, not an ontological, objection. All truths are, in fact, infallible – that is the definition of truth.

Why did Paul give advice to the unmarried if he were uncertain as to it’s fallibility(cf 1 Cor)? There were things he knew to be “commands of the Lord” and there were other things that he was uncertain about, but which he offered as “someone trustworthy”. I dont see any difference. The Church always speaks as “someone trustworthy”, just as Paul did.

Now that is a puzzling passage! What do you make of someone who tells you, in inspired scripture, that he’s just stating his own opinion? The paradox is, to a mind like mine at least, fascinating!

If you wish to suggest a better way to articulate that the Church has received final clarification of an issue by the special charism it possesses to “bind and loose” on “heaven and earth” then I am also open to it. Until then, the terms “it is dogma” and “it has been infallibly declared” accomplish that task.

I’m not suggesting changes. I’m just trying to understand the rationale for the present state of things. As I’ve said before, I’m prepared to spend a life’s worth of energy advocating for the Church as a philosopher and apologist. I just want to understand those things that puzzle me, first.

 

[surritter]

So you’re telling me that whatever will be bound/loosed on earth will be bound/loosed in heaven? So it’s like as on earth, so in heaven?

I’ll let Scoob clarify, but please note that the binding/loosing thing only applied to Peter (and his successors, of course).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Whatever we provide to show you that Jesus was infallible will immediately prompt your asking for proof to show that the quotation source is valid. Let’s think this through: If I could find an EXACT verse from the Bible to satisfy your question, to be consistent you should challenge me:

You: How do we know that the Bible is to be taken as true?

Me: Because those books were deemed canonical by the Church.

You: But where did the Church get the authority to do that?

Me: By Jesus Himself.

You: How do we know Jesus was able to do that?

Me: Because He is God.

You: How do we know that?

Me: Through faith, and from the testimony of the Apostles.

Do you see how this becomes circular? Just like the bit about George Washington, there comes a point where you have to believe something without firsthand knowledge. (See my post #8 of this thread.)

You think I’m more skeptical than I am. Your justifications above don’t strike me as viciously circular, no more circular than any justification about the world necessarily is. The problem with viciously circular justifications is that they don’t tell us anything new; they are, as I’ve been saying, redundant. To say that a dogma is infallible is to say nothing at all.

 

[surritter]

You think I’m more skeptical than I am. Your justifications above don’t strike me as viciously circular, no more circular than any justification about the world necessarily is. The problem with viciously circular justifications is that they don’t tell us anything new; they are, as I’ve been saying, redundant. To say that a dogma is infallible is to say nothing at all.

I didn’t mean to imply that you are skeptical. I suspect that you don’t really doubt infallibility, but this whole topic is somewhat of a thought experiment. (Thanks for exercising my brain!)

But I do maintain the thrust of my previous post: your quest for the certainty of infallibility will never end, because every response will require you to question the veracity of that response. Thus = vicious circle.

 

[Philthy]

To be clear, I agreed that both testimonies are accurate, but I did not agree that either the Father or the Son *claimed *infallibility.

Both testimonies are accurate, both testimonies are true, and both testimonies are infallible. But there is a distinguishing feature between describing Christ’s teaching as infallible and claiming a Church teaching as infallible: in the case of Christ, there is no possibility of an error - ever. In the case of the Church, when, for example the Pope speaks on a topic, there is the possibility of error and, therefore, his comments are recognized as fallible. If, however, in another instance the Pope speaks under the necessary conditions(ie guided by HS) his speaking is infallible. So Christ would never need to articulate a difference between when he was speaking the Truth and when he was offering a merely mortal opinion because He never had a merely mortal opinion - he always spoke the Truth. The Church, however, being merely mortal yet enlightened AT TIMES by the charism of infallibility, needs to articulate when it is speaking an “opinion which is trustworthy” and when it is speaking for God. This latter speaking by the Church often incorporates into it previous communications made by the Church - usually from Popes and/or councils long past - which were at the time recognized as being “trustworthy opinion” but which later, come to be incorporated into the proclamation which is regarded as infallible. This is how I have come to rationalize it, anyhow.

I could be wrong about this, as I’ve said before. You said above that “Christ claims that his own testimony is that of the Father who sent him”, but I don’t see that anywhere in the Scripture itself. Rather, in the Scripture, He mentions them as two separate testimonies that are in harmony.

They are seperate and they are one and the same. Think about what Christ said to Peter in Matt16 when Peter said, “You are the Messiah…” Christ said “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Was Peter’s testimony not the Father’s as well?

All truths are, in fact, infallible – that is the definition of truth.

Only theological truth is infallible; truth which resides solely within the context of the temporal order is not infallible. “I am writing to you” is true, but it’s truth evaporates with the time it was created.

Now that is a puzzling passage! What do you make of someone who tells you, in inspired scripture, that he’s just stating his own opinion? The paradox is, to a mind like mine at least, fascinating!

Our minds are very similar! We could go on for quite some time on the implications of that passage. It is fascinating. I will add this, though: did the truth of Pauls opinions “become infallible” when the letter was determined canonical or were they infallible merely because they were true? I have a feeling it is the former. Fallibility has to do with recognizing the absolute truth of something.

I’m not suggesting changes. I’m just trying to understand the rationale for the present state of things. As I’ve said before, I’m prepared to spend a life’s worth of energy advocating for the Church as a philosopher and apologist. I just want to understand those things that puzzle me, first.

Sound good - keep up the good work!

Blessings!