Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

[Hail_Linus]

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.

A Supreme court’s decision is not like an infallible teaching and it is not necessarily the final authority. First, a Supreme Court decision can be overruled by a future Supreme Court decision. An infallible teaching whether by Pope or Council cannot be changed by future Popes or councils since they are infallible. Secondly, the Supreme Court’s decision is not the final authority either since it may be overruled by legislation.

 

[PRmerger]

The only Holy Father I acknowledge is the Father of Jesus. My Holy Father. Who resides in heaven.

Do you take exception to Paul calling himself your father in Christ?

See 1 Cor 4:15
Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became** your father in Christ Jesus **through the gospel.

 

[PRmerger]

I have changed my mind on this.

But any interpretation of Scripture is (by definition) fallible.

Of what use is a Holy Writ that’s infallible but cannot be interpreted infallibly?

That’s like having an Infallible Author (God) but He speaks to no one and keeps His Revelation private because, after all, when He speaks,* no one understands correctly. *

 

[PRmerger]

Of what use is a Holy Writ that’s infallible but cannot be interpreted infallibly?

That’s like having an Infallible Author (God) but He speaks to no one and keeps His Revelation private because, after all, when He speaks,* no one understands correctly. *

I will amend the above because it was not well articulated.

Saying that the Scriptures are infallible but that we don’t have the ability to infallibly interpret them results in this same end:

God may as well not have spoken. For He will not be understood.

 

[Hail_Linus]

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.

I would say the statement “God exist’s” is not an infallible teaching. This was a teaching from before Christ. Additionally, infallible teachings are typically a redefining or reaffirming of an ancient teaching. For example, “We believe in one God” from the Nicene Creed is an infallible teaching but on the other hand it was always the Christian doctrine.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

So, help me understand this statement. The US Supreme Court is as old as the USA. Based on this premise the concept of infallibility waited for the establishment of 13 colonies, establishment of the USA and the Supreme Court. Do you really mean this?

 

[CopticChristian]

I have changed my mind on this.

But any interpretation of Scripture is (by definition) fallible./QUOTE]

This is a slippery slope. To say this is to say that the Jesus you believe in when interpreting Scripture has interpreted it fallibly. The first exception should cause doubt and open the door for further thought.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is interesting.

So let me think, what are the assumptions (as it were) that must be true in order for the statement “The pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals to be true”.

Because any infallibility that is based on the pope being infallible is only as infallible as the underlying assumptions are.

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?

1. 
   Yup. This is the one underlying assumption that underpins everything.
   

   *]Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

   Yup this is another foundational assumption. There may be some debate on what this means (and what “the Bible” is) but let’s table “what it is” for another day and view “the inspired Word of God” as what the Bible directly claims about itself is truthful and we are not getting into the realms of interpretation.
   

   *]Do you believe Jesus is the true Son of God, and in fact, God?

   Another foundational assumption. Some would claim that “the Bible is the inspired Word of God covers this”. JW would disagree.
   

   *]Do you believe that Jesus never lied to us?

   Which is probably by the above.
   

   *]Do you believe that Jesus established His Church (on Peter) and promised to be with us, always?

   The “on Peter” part would be an interpretation of what Jesus said since Jesus really said “this rock”. Now you believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of course, but others might disagree. Anyway, whatever the merits of the interpretation are, it is an interpretation.
   
   But even if one accepts “on Peter” as an assumption, there is still the issue of whether “on Peter” somehow continues through time after Peter dies. Which of course is another interpretation.
   

   *]Do you believe that Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to guide us and His Church, until Jesus returns?

   You of course are referring to the Scripture where Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth.
   
   Now it seems to me that the verb guide has a subject (Jesus) and an object (you) where the object receives guidance from the subject. Which of course raises the question on whether the object can err in receiving the guidance from the subject.
   
   It also raises the question on just how this guidance works.
   
   Of course the answers to these questions are issues of interpretation.
   

   *]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?

   Of course the nature and definition of this One church is an interpretation. One question being whether it is possible for this one church to span multiple organizations.
   

   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.

   Which I guess is another interpretation not only of Scripture but history. That being that the Catholic church of today and the Catholic church of today only is the “one church” that the Scriptures refer to.
   

   That’s why the Church can make the claim of infallibility.

   Which of course it can. But it seems to me that this claim of infallibility rests on a certain set of interpretations that are…well…fallible.

 

[Jeabriz]

Just in case no one has said it yet: The pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals not in matters of personal character. In matters of football, falling into sin personally, cooking, toy making, etc he is fallible.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

This post has produced much thought. I am a studen of thought. I am amused when I see the proposition that things must be reasonable, particularly when Protestants approach things taught by the Church…Do they?

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the Bible is the Word of God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the 10 commandments were given by God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the world was created by God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that there is a God.

This is Catholic Answers and by default those that are here are not here by reason alone, necessarily.

When an individual translates their thinking out of Reason into things believed by Faith…Reason can be a nemesis or a tool for further growth…

Paul in explaining the Old Testament with his letters as I see it does not necessarily appeal to reason and yet those of Faith constantly turn to reason…

Reason is the substance of those things hoped for the evidence of things not seen…?

Reason is part of our created being and Faith is a gift…they work hand in hand…we can reason ourselves into believing and sometimes what we believe is not reasonable…sometimes people choose to reason because they choose not to believe.

The question may even be asked…what came first, reason or faith…we trusted our parents long before we were able to reason…I believe some thought should be given to this.

 

[AmateurPianist]

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.

Of course

whatever you binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

and

when Peter (the Pope) makes a declaration of what is true in relation to faith and morals, it is infallible

are not the same sentence. In fact if I say so, there are several leaps of interpretation required to get from A to B here.

 

[PRmerger]

This is interesting.

So let me think, what are the assumptions (as it were) that must be true in order for the statement “The pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals to be true”.

Because any infallibility that is based on the pope being infallible is only as infallible as the underlying assumptions are.

Actually, the infallibility of the pope is based on God’s Infallible Word.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

---

 

[AmateurPianist]

I will amend the above because it was not well articulated.

Saying that the Scriptures are infallible but that we don’t have the ability to infallibly interpret them results in this same end:

God may as well not have spoken. For He will not be understood.

I dunno about this. This arrangement works in “real life” quite well.

For example yesterday I made pancakes for the family. The recipe to do so one might consider infallible. Every time the recipe is followed exactly, perfect pancakes will be the result.

But I am a fallible interpreter of said recipe… I can (and have in the past) err in interpreting and following said recipe (yes even when making pancakes a couple of times). But I would not say the recipe may as well not have been written just because I might err in interpreting said recipe.

Of course pancakes is a simple illustration (it is what came to mind in 2 seconds). More complicated ones (like college textbooks) also exist.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

originally posted by jeabriz
Just in case no one has said it yet: The pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals not in matters of personal character. In matters of football, falling into sin personally, cooking, toy making, etc he is fallible.

This is your interpretation and is fallible

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist;8655054:

I have changed my mind on this.

But any interpretation of Scripture is

(by definition) fallible./QUOTE]

This is a slippery slope. To say this is to say that the Jesus you believe in when interpreting Scripture has interpreted it fallibly. The first exception should cause doubt and open the door for further thought.
Point taken…amend statement to “any human interpretation of Scripture”

 

[PRmerger]

I dunno about this. This arrangement works in “real life” quite well.

For example yesterday I made pancakes for the family. The recipe to do so one might consider infallible. Every time the recipe is followed exactly, perfect pancakes will be the result.

But I am a fallible interpreter of said recipe…

Actually, AP, the “interpretation” of said recipe can be done infallibly. Either you use 2 cups of flour or you use 2 cups of baking soda. If you interpret flour to mean baking soda, then you have misinterpreted.

It is its execution that results in either tasty or burnt pancakes.

Brings the discussion to the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Your correct interpretation of the recipe is orthodoxy.
When you practice it correctly (orthopraxy) then you get good results.

When you interpret the Scriptures infallibly, this is orthodoxy.
When you practice it correctly, this is orthopraxy.

It is possible to have an orthodox (here, read “infallible”) interpretation of the recipe without getting a good pancake because of that pesky thing called orthopraxy, which is tainted by sin.

 

[pablope]

This is interesting.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Actually, the infallibility of the pope is based on God’s Infallible Word.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

---

But an interpretation of Scripture that is based on a logical proof remains an interpretation of Scripture. Human ability to reason logically is fallible and subject to fallacious logic.

I would imagine that if this were a thread here that was subject to a debate, that there might have been considerable debate concerning logical fallacies.

For example this one statement one might ask whether it contains the logical fallacy of “false choice”

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Actually, AP, the “interpretation” of said recipe can be done infallibly. Either you use 2 cups of flour or you use 2 cups of baking soda. If you interpret flour to mean baking soda, then you have misinterpreted.

But I have also interpreted said recipe in error. Once I used a tablespoon of baking powder where the recipe said baking soda when making pancakes. I honestly thought they were the same thing.

It took horrible tasting pancakes and correction from my wife to realize my error of interpreting said recipe. I have not made said error in interpreting since.

 

[fhansen]

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.

We wouldn’t need the gift of infallibility if the statements made were definitively provable. The statements are said to be true, regardless of their provability. They are not unreasonable, just not provable, because they concern supernatural matters. So grace, another supernatural matter, is ultimately what enables us to believe in them.