Logical questions regarding Papal Infallibility

[CatholicHere_Hi]

There are two things I’ve always wondered about Papal Infallibility and the Magesterium.

1. Isn’t the concept of Papal Infallibility circular?
   “The Catholic Church is infallible of matters of faith and morals, because the Catholic Church says so”
2. How does the Pope and Bishops exactly know they have come to an infallible conclusion while discussing a dogma to proclaim in a meeting with each other? I imagine that has to be a extremely stressful experience for those involve having that kind of pressure on them to make sure their conclusions are infallible.

How do they know “Ok everyone! This is definitely infallible. It’s time to make a dogma!”?

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t the concept of Papal Infallibility circular?

“The Catholic Church is infallible of matters of faith and morals, because the Catholic Church says so”

Yes. Even Jesus teaches that one can testify to themselves, but that is not convincing as Truth. But it was Jesus that gave the Keys to the Kingdom to the Church, and promised to send His Holy Spirit to lead her into “all Truth”. The church is incarnational, just like Jesus. There is a divine nature, and a human nature. It is not the human nature that makes her infallible, but the divine. Jesus is her Head, and the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church. It is these divine elements that make her infallible.

How does the Pope and Bishops exactly know they have come to an infallible conclusion while discussing a dogma to proclaim in a meeting with each other?

This is a very good question and it has taken centuries in some cases. There is a lot of prayer, a lot of study, looking at the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, and the doctors of the Church. The divine deposit of faith was whole and entire when it was given to the Church, and there is no new public revelation after the death of the last Apostle. Anything the Church does, then, rests on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets built by Christ, and cannot deviate from what has already been given.

I imagine that has to be a extremely stressful experience for those involve having that kind of pressure on them to make sure their conclusions are infallible.

I don’t think so, since they all know it is not up to them. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to lead the Church into all Truth. The Magesterium does their part, then it is up to the HS to show the way.

Dogmas are very rare, and are made in the case of rampant heresies, to prevent the faithful from falling into error. They encompass what the Church has always believed and taught, but that may not have been stated with sufficient clarity.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Read the Catechism about the Church’s teaching office:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

• The teaching office
  888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416
  889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
  890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
  891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
  892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Zaccheus]

Isn’t the concept of Papal Infallibility circular?

“The Catholic Church is infallible of matters of faith and morals, because the Catholic Church says so”

No, it’s not circular.

First: "the Catholic Church is infallible’ oversimplifies a bit. The Pope, or the Pope together with the bishops, may infallibly proclaim truth on issues of faith and morals under certain limited and well-defined conditions.

Second: It’s not “because the Church says so.” It’s because God says so.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Isn’t the concept of Papal Infallibility circular?

“The Catholic Church is infallible of matters of faith and morals, because the Catholic Church says so”

I don’t look at it like that. Obviously that would be circular. For me it comes down to what Jesus promised. He promised he would build his Church (singular) on St. Peter and the gates of Hades will not prevail over it. Which means that the Church would never be led astray. Then he gives Peter the authority to bind and loose - Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Then he says he will give them, (the Apostles and by extension the Church), the Holy Spirit, and he will lead them into all Truth. Elsewhere, in Scripture it talks about the Church being the bulwark of Truth.

So the Holy Spirit leads and guides the Church. The bible is full of references to the authority of the Church and how Christians need to follow her. So it is not circular. It is Jesus’ Church and his promise that matters, because He is God. And personally I think it is that which keeps the Church on the straight and narrow. Not the agency of men. Because as we have all seen men (in the Church) are sinners. Yet God can use sinners to do his work. Just look at the authors of the NT. God used fallible sinners to write an infallible book. If he could do that then why wouldn’t he want an infallible Church in regards to faith and morals that could be that city on the hill that people could find and be saved. If you only had the book but no infallible interpretation or authority to interpret it then you could have really no confidence that you knew the truth of what you needed to know to be saved. You would only have this interpretation or that interpretation. But no clear authority to tell you which was correct. And which way led to salvation and which led to damnation.

 

[Rhubarb]

It would be circular if it went “the pope is infallible because the pope says so, and the pope is infallible so what he says is true” But that’s not the argument for infallibility. So as others said, it’s not circular, at least in the terms that infallibility is used in Catholicism. The rationale behind it isn’t due to a pope.

I guess if someone wants to be a jerk and really argue the point they might argue that infallibility relies on God, and proofs of God beg the question (which is a type of circular logic). But that’s a very labored argument and I wouldn’t say it makes the matter of infallibility circular.

 

[Hebrews12]

Well, the Church is infallible because God said so. Of course, the Church said that God said so. Of course, the Church only said that because God inspired them to say that.

What it comes down to is simply faith. Either you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or you don’t. If you do, you must believe in the infallibility of the Church.

For me, I believe logic demands for there to be a God, and while maybe not necessarily the God we know of from the Bible, to me at least the God in the Bible is the most credible God I’ve ever heard of. I mean, seriously, why is there a universe? It makes absolutely no sense if there is no God for there to be anything at all. Accepting that, I’m forced to go looking for God. God probably cares about us, otherwise why bother making us? So I should look for a God that cares. A God that cares would have some kind of plan for us, and want us to know of Him, because again, why bother otherwise? Maybe it’s a God that we find through some kind of Cartesian thought exercise, but that’s not very comforting at all, at least to me. I don’t expect to know or be capable of comprehending the full extent of God’s plan, but I think some manner of revelation is more plausible. Okay, so where do I see revelation and the guiding hand of God? Well, pretty much the Bible. There’s a lot of comfort in the Bible. There’s also a comforting internal consistency and consistency with natural law that conforms to something being true. The Ten Commandments make a lot of sense. The Golden Rule makes a lot of sense. These are rules I can live by, or at least strive to live by, and hope everyone else does too. A lot of the Bible is backed up by other historical sources. A fact that early Judaism survived and Christianity even exists seems so implausible in light of so many challenges and potential challenges if it was false, as to lend it credence. That the Catholic Church survives, seemingly unchanged in doctrine, seems miraculous. These are the stirrings of faith, in concordance with the promises of the Bible. Belief in infallibility seems to come naturally in light of the historical evidence and all of the above. Where some might see circular reasoning, another might have faith and see divine consistency, a self-evident truth one simply can accept.

I can’t say I know how Bishops know exactly when they’ve got something right, all I know is it seems to take a great deal of study, prayer, and debate, and ultimately they don’t announce anything new very often. That seems about right to me.