Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmateurPianist

Guest
Definition:
incapable of error
Click to expand...
Obviously humans are “capable” of error." in anything that humans do.

I have been struggling with understanding this concept for some time.

What makes a statement made by fallible humans infallible. I can think of three ways.
  • The statement is provable
  • The statement is observable
I thought of adding a third “The process used to produce said statement is infallible”, but since the process is a human process we still have the same issues…but now “what makes a process infallible”

How does this apply to God? God of course is infallible but yet perceived and understood by fallible humans. Is any claim made by a human about God of the type “incapable of error”.

More specifically is the statement “God exists” an infallible statement. It is not provable, it is not observable. It is a statement that I believe and accept on faith. I also believe there is good evidence to support this.But in the end I don’t think I can logically prove it to a skeptic.

If the statement “God exists” is not an infallible statement, how can any statement about God made by fallible humans be infallible.

Note…I am not trying to encourage skepticism, I am just wondering how anything we ultimately take by faith be infallible.
 
I will just try to lay out the foundation of infallibility.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Three Persons in One God.

God’s greatest attribute is His Divine Love. Love implies a lover and a beloved. When people have love for each other, they are of one heart and mind. This unity in terms of the Church comes from Christ through the Holy Spirit, and in turn, together we are offered to the Heavenly Father.

Being Catholic is in essence, being in communion with God through the Church, with each other, this communion not man made but God created and centered. Our communion is a Living Communion, a dynamic that is provided us when we hold the Catholic Church in faith as Christ’s Church.

The Holy Father, through Peter, holds the keys Christ gave Peter. The keys can only open one door: the key to life. The seat of Peter holds the key to Living Revelation through which Christ reveals Himself to the Church as Head.

What Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. The dictates of our faith – every Catholic experiences this tactile bonding we have to the dictates of our faith. Our faith is binding. And those of us who nurture our faith by being active Catholics have very sensitive consciences, and know the binding effects of our faith. Christ Himself is the one who makes the more difficult aspects of our faith possible, such as avoiding contraception and using natural means instead.

Therefore, it is Christ Himself who strengthens and sustains us in upholding the entire standards of our faith. Active participation in the sacraments makes living out unpopular Catholic beliefs very possible, and bring us even deeper into the life of Christ and the mystery of faith.

Likewise, the role of the Holy Father is the work of unity in the Church.

He represents Christ and he represents us and our faith in Christ. When the Holy Father speaks with infallibility, he is also speaking in communion – of shared faith – held by all the bishops and believers they represent throughout the entire world, the universal church.

So when the Pope speaks infallibly, the fruit of this experience we subsequently have is communion with God and all believers, the experience of peace and nourishment to our souls, and communion and balance in living out our faith in the world around us.

When the Pope speaks infallibly, it does not bear fruit to bondage, oppression, and imbalanced in reason and personality.

I would add, that the aspect of living out our faith in relation to infallible statements brings us into deeper communion with Christ as the Holy Father holds the key to Living Revelation: Jesus Christ present to us right now in the world.
 
AmateurPianist said:
What makes a statement made by fallible humans infallible. I can think of three ways.
  • The statement is provable
  • The statement is observable
I thought of adding a third “The process used to produce said statement is infallible”, but since the process is a human process we still have the same issues…but now “what makes a process infallible”
Click to expand...
I think this premise is incorrect. There are more ways to arrive at truth besides demonstrable methods. Dialectical methods are necessary to establish first principles.
 
KathleenGee said:
I will just try to lay out the foundation of infallibility.

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Three Persons in One God.

God’s greatest attribute is His Divine Love. Love implies a lover and a beloved. When people have love for each other, they are of one heart and mind. This unity in terms of the Church comes from Christ through the Holy Spirit, and in turn, together we are offered to the Heavenly Father.

Being Catholic is in essence, being in communion with God through the Church, with each other, this communion not man made but God created and centered. Our communion is a Living Communion, a dynamic that is provided us when we hold the Catholic Church in faith as Christ’s Church.

The Holy Father, through Peter, holds the keys Christ gave Peter. The keys can only open one door: the key to life. The seat of Peter holds the key to Living Revelation through which Christ reveals Himself to the Church as Head.

What Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. The dictates of our faith – every Catholic experiences this tactile bonding we have to the dictates of our faith. Our faith is binding. And those of us who nurture our faith by being active Catholics have very sensitive consciences, and know the binding effects of our faith. Christ Himself is the one who makes the more difficult aspects of our faith possible, such as avoiding contraception and using natural means instead.

Therefore, it is Christ Himself who strengthens and sustains us in upholding the entire standards of our faith. Active participation in the sacraments makes living out unpopular Catholic beliefs very possible, and bring us even deeper into the life of Christ and the mystery of faith.

Likewise, the role of the Holy Father is the work of unity in the Church.

He represents Christ and he represents us and our faith in Christ. When the Holy Father speaks with infallibility, he is also speaking in communion – of shared faith – held by all the bishops and believers they represent throughout the entire world, the universal church.

So when the Pope speaks infallibly, the fruit of this experience we subsequently have is communion with God and all believers, the experience of peace and nourishment to our souls, and communion and balance in living out our faith in the world around us.

When the Pope speaks infallibly, it does not bear fruit to bondage, oppression, and imbalanced in reason and personality.

I would add, that the aspect of living out our faith in relation to infallible statements brings us into deeper communion with Christ as the Holy Father holds the key to Living Revelation: Jesus Christ present to us right now in the world.
Click to expand...
Good answer.

Here is my question.

The Catholic understanding of infallibility rests (at least in part) on an interpretation of Matthew 16. Now I suppose pages and pages of thread space here have been devoted to the merits of this interpretation, but whatever the merits of this interpretation are, it is still one done by humans (as all interpretations are) and therefore fallible.

Moreover this interpretation rests (as you say) on a belief in the Trinity, and at the most basic level a belief in the existence of God.

So if you take this from the top, is the statement “God exists” infallible? If so, what makes it so?

You see, when I say that “God exists”, I can’t logically prove it to be so. It is not an observable statement that a neutral observer can verify. It is something that I just believe to be true. And anything that I as a human do is subject to error…including belief.

So I am wondering just how useful any dogma of infallibility is if the foundation it rests on (an interpretation of Matthew 16 amongst others, a belief in the trinity, a belief in existence of God even) is in the end fallible.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Example?
Click to expand...
Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God is one example. But really you can pick any field (like, say, Geometry). There are always going to be a set of first principles that you cannot “prove” according to the prescripts of the scientific method. But that doesn’t mean they’re not true nor that we cannot know that they are true.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Good answer.

Here is my question.

The Catholic understanding of infallibility rests (at least in part) on an interpretation of Matthew 16. Now I suppose pages and pages of thread space here have been devoted to the merits of this interpretation, but whatever the merits of this interpretation are, it is still one done by humans (as all interpretations are) and therefore fallible.

Moreover this interpretation rests (as you say) on a belief in the Trinity, and at the most basic level a belief in the existence of God.

So if you take this from the top, is the statement “God exists” infallible? If so, what makes it so?

You see, when I say that “God exists”, I can’t logically prove it to be so. It is not an observable statement that a neutral observer can verify. It is something that I just believe to be true. And anything that I as a human do is subject to error…including belief.

So I am wondering just how useful any dogma of infallibility is if the foundation it rests on (an interpretation of Matthew 16 amongst others, a belief in the trinity, a belief in existence of God even) is in the end fallible.
Click to expand...
It’s good that you ask questions. If I’m reading correctly, you are wondering how you would explain this to a neutral observer, correct? If a neutral observer thinks of these questions that you are putting before us, I’m not we can do anything about it. True, I’m not very knowledgable on the subject, which may not be good. But what I’d say about this is, if someone is going to be a skeptic about if we can really believe this and that, then the reason I say we probably can’t do anything about it is because that person has not been granted the gift of faith. In the end, regarding the Church’s teachings, everything comes down to faith. I mean, unless you can PROVE the fundamental beliefs of the Church (which I think might more or less be what you’re wondering), some people will just never be happy unless they have the virtue of faith.

OK, I’m not sure I answered your question or contributed (in a positive way) to this conversation, and now I’m not entirely sure what I was trying to say…haha but there you go. :cool:
 
The concept of infallibility originates in the U.S. Supreme court. The notion is very easy to understand…it is simply, the court’s rulings are not final because they are infallible, instead they are infallible because they are final…as in there is no higher authority.

Similarly with the Pope. When statements are made that are said to be infallible it is under the same notion that the current ascent of truth among the brightest theologians in the Church have concluded as such and therefor at present there is no higher authority and the Papal statement is thus infallible.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Definition:

Obviously humans are “capable” of error." in anything that humans do.

I have been struggling with understanding this concept for some time.

What makes a statement made by fallible humans infallible. I can think of three ways.
  • The statement is provable
  • The statement is observable
I thought of adding a third “The process used to produce said statement is infallible”, but since the process is a human process we still have the same issues…but now “what makes a process infallible”

How does this apply to God? God of course is infallible but yet perceived and understood by fallible humans. Is any claim made by a human about God of the type “incapable of error”.

More specifically is the statement “God exists” an infallible statement. It is not provable, it is not observable. It is a statement that I believe and accept on faith. I also believe there is good evidence to support this.But in the end I don’t think I can logically prove it to a skeptic.

If the statement “God exists” is not an infallible statement, how can any statement about God made by fallible humans be infallible.

Note…I am not trying to encourage skepticism, I am just wondering how anything we ultimately take by faith be infallible.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this, AP: do you believe the Scripture are infallible?

(I think I asked you this before…:))
PRmerger said:
Again, please explain how this definition of infallibility would apply to the Scriptures. Thanks.
Click to expand...
and you responded:
AmateurPianist said:
Now I am confused.

I am not sure the word “infallible” can apply to Scripture strictly speaking. Although I probably have used it that way.
Click to expand...
Are you still of the position that you cannot apply the word “infallible” to the Scriptures?
 
tskrobacz said:
The concept of infallibility originates in the U.S. Supreme court. The notion is very easy to understand…it is simply, the court’s rulings are not final because they are infallible, instead they are infallible because they are final…as in there is no higher authority.

Similarly with the Pope. When statements are made that are said to be infallible it is under the same notion that the current ascent of truth among the brightest theologians in the Church have concluded as such and therefor at present there is no higher authority and the Papal statement is thus infallible.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t your statement that “there is no higher authority” be fallible?
 
+Christianity . . . as taught by our Holy Mother Church . . . is by no means a “religion” of human reason (ratio) alone . . . or . . . faith (fides) alone . . . at the beginning of Blessed Pope John Paul the Great’s Fides et ratio . . .

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II
FIDES ET RATIO
To the Bishops
of the Catholic Church
on the relationship
between** Faith** and Reason
1998.09.14

Link: vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

is recorded a blessing from our highly esteemed Holy Father . . . the Blessed Pope John Paul the Great . . . which brings into focus . . . **human reason ** . . . and its significance in . . . **participating with ** . . . God . . . in the salvific nature of the Holy Gift of Christian Faith . . .

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of TRUTH; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the TRUTH—in a word, to know HIMSELF—so that, by knowing and loving ❤️ God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
​

Continuing on in Fides et ratio, Chapter 1, Section #9 . . .

"…Based upon God’s testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace,
  • FAITH is of an order
    other than
  • PHILOSOPHICAL knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. **
  • PHILOSOPHY AND THE SCIENCES** function within the order of natural reason;
while
  • FAITH, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)."
:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__P1.HTM

. . . :idea: . . .

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
saith the Lord.”
Isaiah 55:8

"Thy :bible1: word
is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path"
Psalm 119:105

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?
by taking heed thereto according to
thy :bible1: word.”
Psalm 119:9

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord God in Heaven Above+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . thank You Holy Mother Church+
. . . thank you blessed Pope John Paul II+​
 
PRmerger said:
Let me ask you this, AP: do you believe the Scripture are infallible?

(I think I asked you this before…:))

and you responded:

Are you still of the position that you cannot apply the word “infallible” to the Scriptures?
Click to expand...
I have changed somewhat in that I now believe a statement can be infallible. For example I believe 1+1=2 is an infallible statement because it can be proven mathematically. The statement the walls in this room are blue is infallible because it can be show to be true by observation.

Still having trouble getting my head around this though.
 
PRmerger said:
Are you still of the position that you cannot apply the word “infallible” to the Scriptures?
Click to expand...
I have changed my mind on this.

But any interpretation of Scripture is (by definition) fallible.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God is one example. But really you can pick any field (like, say, Geometry). There are always going to be a set of first principles that you cannot “prove” according to the prescripts of the scientific method. But that doesn’t mean they’re not true nor that we cannot know that they are true.
Click to expand...
Good answer.

I recall reading that math has a small set of what one might call “assumptions” that are unprovable that one must just accept as being true.

And perhaps there exists these “assumptions” in other fields. For example as far as observation go I assume my eyes are correctly seeing stuff.

Maybe in Christianity the statement “God exists” is one of these “assumptions”.

But still, God is not directly observable or is God logically provable.

Thinking.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Definition:
incapable of error
Obviously humans are “capable” of error." in anything that humans do.

I have been struggling with understanding this concept for some time.

What makes a statement made by fallible humans infallible. I can think of three ways.
  • The statement is provable
  • The statement is observable
I thought of adding a third “The process used to produce said statement is infallible”, but since the process is a human process we still have the same issues…but now “what makes a process infallible”
Click to expand...
The problem that most people have in believing in the infallibility of the Pope, or of the Catholic Church, is because they tend to think about it in strictly human terms. They try to place the same limits on them as they do on anything that is “made by human hands or reasoning”, so they assume that it’s impossible for anything man-made to be infallible. Of course, they’re correct if that’s the narrow perspective that they see it through.
AmateurPianist said:
How does this apply to God? God of course is infallible but yet perceived and understood by fallible humans. Is any claim made by a human about God of the type “incapable of error”.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t apply to God at all. He is completely infallible and incapable of ever making any mistake, or changing His “mind” about anything He does. If the claim is based solely on human reason, then no man can ever make an infallible statement.
AmateurPianist said:
More specifically is the statement “God exists” an infallible statement. It is not provable, it is not observable. It is a statement that I believe and accept on faith. I also believe there is good evidence to support this.But in the end I don’t think I can logically prove it to a skeptic.
Click to expand...
If the statement is made by most human beings, then there’s always room for doubt. But, when it’s made by God, Himself, it’s an undeniable fact.
AmateurPianist said:
If the statement “God exists” is not an infallible statement, how can any statement about God made by fallible humans be infallible.

Note…I am not trying to encourage skepticism, I am just wondering how anything we ultimately take by faith be infallible.
Click to expand...
They can’t really be infallible under any circumstances if they’re just made by man, without the true inspiration of God.

Our entire failure to believe that any statement made by any man can be infallible is due to not understanding the difference between those that man makes on his own, through his very limited powers of reason, and those made by the unmistakable inspiration of God.

  1. *]Do you believe in God?
    *]Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
    *]Do you believe Jesus is the true Son of God, and in fact, God?
    *]Do you believe that Jesus never lied to us?
    *]Do you believe that Jesus established His Church (on Peter) and promised to be with us, always?
    *]Do you believe that Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to guide us and His Church, until Jesus returns?
    *]Do you believe that Jesus and His Apostles told us that there would only be One Church, One Baptism, One Body of Christ, and that we were to remain united with Him through that One Church?

    If you believe in all of the above, then you have to believe that Jesus is God and that there is an actual Church that was established by Him. You also have to believe that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us and His Church until Jesus returns. You would also have to believe that Church is truly inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. The only way that anyone can legitimately claim infallibility is if they are speaking through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There’s only one Church that has continuously made that claim for 2000 years, and that’s the Catholic Church. That’s why the Church can make the claim of infallibility. The Pope can also make that claim when he is speaking in regards to faith and morals. Not everything that the Pope says is an infallible statement, but on those topics, the Church believes that he is always speaking through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is therefore infallible.
 
tskrobacz said:
On earth, who is a higher authority then the Supreme Court or the Pope (at least for Catholics)?
Click to expand...
Because the supreme court says something certainly does not make it infallible, consider Roe v. Wade and the question of infallability cannot be asked for Catholics only. If something is infallable it is infallable for everyone.
 
I took that particular stance to show in experience how we relate to the Holy Father.

Protestants have scruples in perceiving the pope is God or is taking the place of God Himself, and subsequently,in context, his decrees are man made and serve man or his way of looking at things, serving the lower nature.

On the contrary, the Holy Father is Peter to the world today. And the Holy Father only does the will of Christ. The Holy Father lives for Christ and His Church, and being the sign of unity representing our faith throughout the world.

Being Catholic actually is a place of great freedom…but for the common good in service of the will of God.
 
KathleenGee said:
I took that particular stance to show in experience how we relate to the Holy Father.

Protestants have scruples in perceiving the pope is God or is taking the place of God Himself, and subsequently,in context, his decrees are man made and serve man or his way of looking at things, serving the lower nature.

On the contrary, the Holy Father is Peter to the world today. And the Holy Father only does the will of Christ. The Holy Father lives for Christ and His Church, and being the sign of unity representing our faith throughout the world.

Being Catholic actually is a place of great freedom…but for the common good in service of the will of God.
Click to expand...
The only Holy Father I acknowledge is the Father of Jesus. My Holy Father. Who resides in heaven.
 
IF you believe that Jesus is God, then you can’t doubt His word when He says that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. Therefore, when Peter (the Pope) makes a declaration of what is true in relation to faith and morals, it is infallible because God has so declared it to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top