What do you think "Infallibility" means?

[Amandil]

This is infallibility in a nut shell:

By virtue of his office the Pope, being governed by the Holy Spirit, is protected from teaching something contrary to the Deposit of the Faith.

It is limited to the realm of faith and morals.

Which is why certain actions taken recently by Pope Francis, such as washing the feet of women or having a prayer session with a Jewish Rabbi and a Muslim cleric, may certainly cause one to scratch their heads and say that at the least it may be imprudent, it doesn’t fall into the category of infallibility.

In the same vein this same Pope has consistently taught about Satan and other evil spirits, of the evil of abortion and contraception, and has insisted that in regards to a female priesthood that “the door is shut.”

It’s simply not possible that a Pope would directly contradict the Deposit of the Faith. The Covenant between Christ and the Father which the Church grounded in is eternal and irrevocable.

 

[KindredSoul]

Apparently he is not troubled by Christ specifically mandating His truths through His Church and warning against dissent.

If you mean Prodigal_Son specifically, as opposed to people in general who wouldn’t be troubled, I do note that his saying he wouldn’t be troubled if the Church turned out to not be infallible was regarding a strictly hypothetical scenario. He does believe in Infallibility, based on the rest of his post. I’m just clarifying that because I didn’t mean to give the impression with my last post that I think he’s saying he doesn’t think the Church is infallible. He’s just saying IF it wasn’t, in a hypothetical scenario, he wouldn’t be troubled.

Although, to be sure, the questions in my last post would be directed not only at someone in his shoes, who hypothetically “wouldn’t” be troubled, but also toward those who for whatever reason really DON’T believe the Church is infallible and somehow are in fact NOT troubled by that and for some reason remain Catholic. Because both do bring out my “But how in the world could that fail to trouble you?” questions. But I don’t think any of us who would be troubled can answer the questions from my last post without projecting or presuming, because everything we might say on their behalf would be mere speculation, unless of course we’re sharing answers we’ve heard “straight from the horse’s mouth” so to speak.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So I’ve been thinking. These two thoughts I’ve quoted, contrasting as they are, raise an interesting set of questions, and while it might make for a whole thread unto itself, I think it can be a good direction for this thread to branch out.

Namely: If one is, like Prodigal, not troubled by the Church having never been infallible, and presumably has no problem remaining Catholic (not merely Christian) in such a scenario, then I’m interested in knowing what it is that would keep you Catholic in such a scenario as opposed to, say, Orthodox or perhaps high church Protestant? If the Catholic Church is not infallible, what makes Her special?

Interesting question. The thing is, though, that we ALWAYS have uncertainty to deal with, whether the uncertainty exists in the individual soul or in the Church. If I were a Lutheran, I would know very well that my Church was not infallible, so I might be uncertain about certain views of the Church. But a Catholic who believes in infallibility has uncertainty too – not about whether infallible teachings are true (they’re true by definition), but about whether the Church really is infallible. If someone really never has doubts about that, then I don’t understand them in the slightest.

In the end, I think God longs for us to be **obedient **much more than He wants us to be certain.

But why would a person who has questions about infallibility be Catholic anyway? Well, because I was born Catholic, for one. God put me in a Church, and the Church is a good Church, and the Church does not appear to be in error – certainly not fundamental error. I don’t feel any need to say that the Catholic Church is superior to the Orthodox Church, nor (say) the African wing of the Anglican Church. It may **be **superior, but what concern is that to me? I’m not church-shopping, and there’s no reason I need to be in the “best” church.

The Orthodox Church also has Apostolic succession, so it couldn’t be that. The Orthodox Church has the Eucharist and Sacraments, so it couldn’t be that. So what is it? And if the Catholic Church is not infallible yet still claims to be infallible, what makes Her anything better than a blatant liar or at the very least woefully misguided? WHY is She then the preferable option TO the Orthodox Church, etc? How could you remain Catholic, yet feel internally consistent and honest, in that scenario?

I guess I don’t understand this question. I don’t see what would be inconsistent or dishonest, in this situation. I know very well that I am not qualified to judge whether the Catholic Church is better than the Orthodox Church. It would be presumptuous for me to do so. If the R.C. Church tells me it is better – that it is infallible – I am happy to assent. But obviously their claim of infallibility is not independent evidence for the superiority of the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church.

(I suppose the Holy Spirit could offer me internal evidence of the veracity of the Catholic Church. But even that is subject to internal doubt – we just can’t escape doubt wherever we turn, so I’ve decided not to worry about doubt.)

I guess it’s true that She would still be the only Church led by Peter, upon whom Christ built His Church, but if Peter and the Catholic Church are not protected by Infallibility, then what was even the point of setting him apart? What makes him any different, then, from the other apostles, other than a formality?

One can have authority without it being infallible authority, no?

Would not the Orthodox be correct, then, when they say that the Pope’s leadership would be a mere formality? But then, what of the “keys to the kingdom?” The power to “bind and loose”?

Surely Orthodox priests have the power to bind and loose, in Confession, no? And I imagine Orthodox bishops have the same power, on a higher level. The level of respect that Pope Benedict, for one, showed to the Orthodox would certainly extend at least this far.

For if Peter has no special protection from theological and moral error (which is what Infallibility is), then these Scriptures which clearly give him some sort of special status seem quite meaningless, which has grave implications for the reliability of scripture…

I do think Peter clearly has a special status, and I don’t think Orthodox theologians think this status is merely formal. But you’re right that the Catholic Church has a much more straightforward understanding of these passages – which is an independent reason to believe in infallibility (or something like it).

Nevertheless, it’s clear that the Orthodox Church doesn’t understand the Scriptures in the sense you’re describing here, and I – again – do not consider myself independently qualified to judge that the Catholic interpretation is correct. And, if I just believe the Catholic interpretation because it is Catholic, then the Scripture isn’t working independently (since I am bringing a bias into play).

I just don’t see any way that assenting to or believing in infallibility leaves uncertainty behind. We’re always stuck with uncertainty, since we’re only human beings.

Peace, brother!

 

[KindredSoul]

I don’t feel any need to say that the Catholic Church is superior to the Orthodox Church, nor (say) the African wing of the Anglican Church. It may **be **superior, but what concern is that to me? I’m not church-shopping, and there’s no reason I need to be in the “best” church.
…]
I guess I don’t understand this question. I don’t see what would be inconsistent or dishonest, in this situation.

Hmm. When I was Protestant, I thought it was okay to disagree with my church, but only because that church, for all its specific beliefs, never claimed to be infallible, never claimed any right to define dogma. They claimed that the Bible alone was the rule of faith, so even if they were wrong, it was in a way that they upfront admitted that they might be. So even if I disagreed with some tenant of the denomination, ultimately I agreed with the denomination wholeheartedly–because the one and only “dogma” they pronounced was that the Bible was Divinely inspired. Everything else was interpretation, and they well knew/admitted it, even if in practice they often TREATED interpretations like dogmas… And this church taught that there WAS no “one true Church”, at least not in terms of specific churches, so for the church to be wrong was totally consistent with what it taught.

But with the Catholic Church, it’s a totally different matter. The Church has really left no “back door”, no “way out” if the Church ends up being wrong on some dogma. The Catholic Church, if not infallible, is, in effect, teaching falsehood as dogma–unlike those “denominations” which claim that Scripture alone is infallible, and can fall back on that claim if they end up being wrong on some claim they make. But why be part of a Church that not only could be in error, but teaches that error as compelling Dogma? Remember, after all, that even I have said I might be able to remain Catholic–if infallibility were somehow clearly disproven–if the Church Herself stopped claiming to be infallible…but if she didn’t stop claiming such, then that’s a problem in that scenario.

If the R.C. Church tells me it is better – that it is infallible – I am happy to assent. But obviously their claim of infallibility is not independent evidence for the superiority of the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church.

Oh, that’s true. No disagreement there, from me. We believe the Catholic Church is better out of assent, out of obedience, to the Catholic Church, and not because that claim is “independent evidence” of anything. Perhaps we’re just using different terms and descriptions. I haven’t been addressing, hypothetically, someone who had doubts, but still assented. Doubt is normal. But I had assumed that, when you said you would not be troubled if the Catholic Church had never been infallible, that you meant you would not be troubled if you came to the solid conclusion–and acted accordingly (by ceasing to assent to Infallibility)–that the Church was not Infallible, and that you could still remain Catholic without much “trouble.” And it’s why someone in those shoes would remain Catholic, even if the Church continued to claim Infallibility, that puzzles me. So if it’s that’s not what you meant, by contrast, then we’re on the same page…more or less, anyway. I too can and will remain Catholic even if I have doubts about infallibility…so long as I still assent to it.

One can have authority without it being infallible authority, no?

One can. However, it seems to me that (real) authority without infallibility, in matters of proclaiming religious faith and morality, is a dangerous thing. It would mean that Jesus had set up a system whereby not only might Peter preach falsehood (being unprotected from it), but due to his authority people had no choice but to believe that falsehood (or else his authority is meaningless,since the people can easily cast it aside if he seems to them to be preaching falsehood). I realize the bishops have authority too, and we can dissent if they contradict the Church, but the only reason we’re free to dissent from them is BECAUSE Peter’s authority is even greater, and it’s by that authority we are free to dissent from what contradicts it. If Peter’s authority, too, were fallible, we would be in trouble, I think.

And, if I just believe the Catholic interpretation because it is Catholic, then the Scripture isn’t working independently (since I am bringing a bias into play).

Well…as a Catholic, we DO believe it because it’s Catholic, or at least we would be willing to if we could find no other reason, just as a matter of assenting to the Church’s authority. But again, I agree with you that this “proves” nothing, it’s just what Catholics are obligated to do.

I just don’t see any way that assenting to or believing in infallibility leaves uncertainty behind. We’re always stuck with uncertainty, since we’re only human beings.

I agree. I am not saying infallibility leads to certainty for the individual believer. But be that as it may, the Catholic Church claims to be Infallible, so even if a Church might hypothetically be just fine without Infallibility (despite that I think there could be problems with that, as explained above), the Catholic Church does not have that luxury, because She proclaims Her own infallibility as dogma. In other words, the statement that “the Church does not appear to be in error” would be false if Infallibility were false, since the claim to Infallibility–due to its profound and sweeping implications–would hardly be an insignificant error.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Abu]

Prodigal_Son
whether the Church really is infallible. If someone really never has doubts about that, then I don’t understand them in the slightest.
We’re always stuck with uncertainty, since we’re only human beings.

Rather you don’t understand Christ when He founded His Church and what His Church really teaches.

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

I don’t feel any need to say that the Catholic Church is superior to the Orthodox Church, nor (say) the African wing of the Anglican Church. It may be superior, but what concern is that to me? I’m not church-shopping, and there’s no reason I need to be in the “best” church.

As the Orthodox Churches allow contraception and divorce and have no infallible authority, while the Protestant sects have no priesthood, no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and no Holy Communion nor most other sacraments, there is, according to Christ Himself, a mandate to follow Him in His Church that He instituted.

One can have authority without it being infallible authority, no?

Such a presumption has resulted in the many thousands of sects all preaching something false.

 

[KindredSoul]

But why would a person who has questions about infallibility be Catholic anyway? Well, because I was born Catholic, for one. God put me in a Church, and the Church is a good Church, and the Church does not appear to be in error – certainly not fundamental error. I don’t feel any need to say that the Catholic Church is superior to the Orthodox Church, nor (say) the African wing of the Anglican Church. It may **be **superior, but what concern is that to me? I’m not church-shopping, and there’s no reason I need to be in the “best” church.

In addition to my last response to the entire post, this particular part draws out a lot of interesting thoughts, I think.

For one, I think that there is indeed reason to be in the “best” church. Because if there is an objectively “best” Church, it is “best” for a reason, presumably because it adheres more than any other to the Apostolic Faith; to be more precise, the faith the Apostles inherited from Christ Himself. If there is a “best” Church, then indeed our very duty to follow Christ as closely as possible demands that we care whether or not we’re in it. I see no way of escaping this conclusion.

Consider also that, as Catholics, we are called to evangelize and, contrary to what many may have concluded in these past decades, that includes the Fullness of the Faith. We are not at liberty to stop with “basic Christianity” in our mission of evangelization: If possible, we are to bring people fully into the Catholic Church. This is indeed an integral part in our mission. But if we do not believe that this Church is the “best” Church (that is, the truest Church), how can we possibly expect others to believe it? How can we be motivated to bring people into the Fullness of the Church if we ourselves are not passionate about whether or not the Catholic Church even DOES possess (in a way exclusive to Her) that Fullness?

You see, as a convert, I am all too aware that not everyone has the luxury of being “born Catholic.” If I had depended upon that luxury in order to bring me this far, I would not be Catholic, and from where I stand now, I see that this would have been a great loss. Just as importantly, if no Catholics–such as countless people here at CAF and apologists in general–had exhibited a genuine zeal and confidence that this Church IS the “best” Church, then I doubt I would ever have encountered serious reason to join the Church. Don’t get me wrong, Her liturgies, history, etc., are all beautiful. But that alone would not have made me adopt beliefs that were so different from my Sola Scriptura beliefs…the Catholic Church, due to Her claims, cannot possibly be “just another church,” not even if a GOOD one. She either is what She claims to be–the “best” Church, as in the “True” One–or she requires Her adherents to believe so falsely.

So had I not encountered the fruits of labors of so many people who are passionate about this Church being THE Church, people who had been boldly willing to stake their lives not only on the “basic Christian message” but on THIS Christian message, that Christ cared so much about helping us to abide in Truth (and He IS Truth) that He not only died and rose again for us, but also founded an Infallible Church to keep us ever protected in truth as long as we followed Her, I wouldn’t be here. Had I been inclined to think the Catholic Church was only just as good as the Orthodox Church or certain very traditional Anglican churches, then I could have (and probably would have) just joined one such Anglican Church and not had to have changed my views of Sola Scriptura much at all for it…

That’s what’s at stake. We who are already in the Church–whether fortunate enough to have been born into it or simply who have already converted–may be able to say “Well, this is where God has put me, and I see no reason to leave” (although my last post delves into why even that is not so simple), but those outside of the Church have no such luxury. They need to have the Truth proclaimed in its fullness. They need us to stake our very lives on this Church being the True Church. For no one converts to something that has nothing he doesn’t already have. One usually converts to something that offers “more,” that offers something “better,” indeed “best.” If the Catholic Church does not have that claim, and if we Catholics do not show conviction that She does, then those outside of the Church would indeed be correct to wonder “Why bother?” I know I certainly would have.

Again, that is what’s at stake. In a manner of speaking I am at stake–that is to say, people whose journeys do NOT start out in the Catholic Church. So to me, this is far too pressing to consider of “no concern.”

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Prodigal_Son]

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

This quote seems to assume that certitude is a desirable trait, which in turn assumes that faith is compatible with certitude. But if faith is compatible with certitude, then “certitude” could not possibly mean “certainty”. Certainty precludes faith.

Example: I do not “trust” or “have faith” that 2+2=4, but I do trust that God forgives sins. The difference: I cannot have objective certainty of God’s forgiveness of sins. I have to accept God’s gift of faith, in order to believe it. The Church’s claiming to be infallible doesn’t help me receive this gift of faith, so far as I can tell – perhaps you think it does?

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, op. cit. p 82-4].

Sure, you can call what I’m talking about difficulties, then, not “doubts”. If you read what I write here, I’m certainly not engaging in skepticism or intellectual cowardice.

As for Orthodoxy, my point was that I am not qualified to judge which Church is more faithful to Christ’s teachings. I am taking a position of humility here. I am simply qualified to judge the activity of the Church with respect to my own life and the life of those I love. “By their fruits, you will know the false prophets”. I see good fruit from the Catholic Church. I don’t know whether I would find good fruit in the Orthodox Church and I don’t intend to find out. But I think it’s quite likely I would.

 

[Abu]

Prodigal_Son #27
I am not qualified to judge which Church is more faithful to Christ’s teachings. I am taking a position of humility here.

That is a real cop out for:

1. The Church’s teachings are clear on every important fact on faith and morals.
2. Christ established only His Church not any other Church or sect which is crystal clear from the Sacred Scriptures.
3. That is “a position of” infidelity and dissent not of “humility”.

What did Jesus say about hearing His Church? It is necessary to be subject to the right authority. Obedience is the very heart of religion. We went from God by disobedience; the road back is by obedience. And the authority of the Pope is that of Christ. Of him Christ said, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” [Lk10:16]. Again, Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen.” [Matt. 18:17]. Our Lord could never have commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities.

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Abu,

It is very hard to have a respectful discussion with you. I am done trying.

Peace,
Prodigal

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is “a position of” infidelity and dissent not of “humility”.

Please explain to me how accepting and assenting to the teachings of the Catholic Church is a position of infidelity.

In the end, either (a) you are qualified to determine the best Church, or (b) you are not qualified to determine the best Church. To believe (a) seems, to me, to involve an overestimation of your own powers. But if (b) is true, then you are in the Church because of God’s activity in your life, not because of your superior judgment. That is what I believe.

Even if we say – rightly! – that the Church has superior judgment on these matters, we nevertheless must subjectively evaluate this judgment in order to rationally verify that it is reliable. But this is precisely what we cannot do. Our judgment is fallible precisely because it is subjective. All faith is based on subjectivity – despite the fact that all truth is objective.

“No one can save himself.” - CCC 1058. We do not come to the faith through our intellect or through our discernment, but through Christ’s saving action in our lives. My intellect is capable of perceiving that a certain religion is false, but not that a certain religion is infallible. I can only take infallibility on faith – and faith is not intellectual.

If you want to dispute the point I am making, please do not simply quote other sources. Tell me what premise of my argument is false, and why it is false.

 

[Abu]

Prodigal_Son #29
Please explain to me how accepting and assenting to the teachings of the Catholic Church is a position of infidelity.

23​

whether the Church really is infallible. If someone really never has doubts about that, then I don’t understand them in the slightest.

Obviously, if one wills not to judge by assenting to the truths of the Church through doubting, then that is not the fidelity required by Christ and His Church.

Fr Dubay qualifies a healthy doubt as “a sensible person does well to suspend judgment either because he is ignorant of the matter under consideration or because he sees no conclusive evidence for a sure affirmation or a sure denial.” (Faith And Certitude, p 83).

So, no, the faithful Catholic has no doubt, and he takes the time and trouble to clarify any difficulties.

We do not come to the faith through our intellect or through our discernment, but through Christ’s saving action in our lives.

False.

First, no one is saved in this life – all have been redeemed, but salvation is dependent on the faith and reason exercised in this life, with God’s judgment as final.

Fr Thomas Dubay explodes the fantasy that faith does not come through the intellect and discernment:
“Before the intellectual ascent we call faith occurs one must achieve the judgment that he is obliged to believe. This is the work of the intellect which has seen the evidence and has come to the conclusion that uprightness demands that he assent to it. The will then makes the free act commanding the assent. Speaking of faith as a human process while still a gift from God, Newman points out to a correspondent that it is not a conclusion drawn from premises, ‘but the result of an act of the will, following upon a conviction that to believe is a duty……For directly you have a conviction you ought to believe, reason has done its part and what is wanted for faith is, not proof but will.’ ”[Op.cit. p 195].

Looking at what we think we know to be true, Fr Thomas Dubay has it right:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’ (Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84).

“It is clear that the person who is selective in his acceptance and rejection of diverse items in the deposit of revelation is not accepting what he does accept on the authority of God’s revealing it but on the basis of his own private judgment. This supermarket approach of selecting some doctrines and rejecting others makes it obvious that God’s word is not the reason for this person’s religious commitment.” (Faith And Certitude, Fr Thomas Dubay, Ignatius, 1985, p 197).

 

[Amandil]

This quote seems to assume that certitude is a desirable trait, which in turn assumes that faith is compatible with certitude. But if faith is compatible with certitude, then “certitude” could not possibly mean “certainty”. Certainty precludes faith.

Certainty does not preclude faith necessarily.

But certainty and certitude are not the same either. Certainty is perfect knowledge, certitude is a feeling of certainty.

But there are things we can be certain and have certitude of based upon the authority of the One by whom we receive the knowledge.
Prodigal Son:

Example: I do not “trust” or “have faith” that 2+2=4, but I do trust that God forgives sins. The difference: I cannot have objective certainty of God’s forgiveness of sins. I have to accept God’s gift of faith, in order to believe it.

This does not follow. You can have certainty that God forgives your sins, that’s why we go to confession. In fact to disbelieve in God’s forgiveness in the sacrament is an occasion for sin, is not a sin itself.

Faith is not less certain knowledge, it is more certain knowledge.
Prodigal Son:

The Church’s claiming to be infallible doesn’t help me receive this gift of faith, so far as I can tell – perhaps you think it does?

Really? How so? Either the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” or it is not. If it is not, then what does that say about Christ and His promise that we shall know the truth, and that knowing the truth we shall be free?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We do not come to the faith through our intellect or through our discernment, but through Christ’s saving action in our lives.

False.

I think this is about all that needs to be said about our disagreement.

Scripturally, clarity and holiness of mind proceeds from holiness of soul, which proceeds directly from Christ’s saving action. “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6). Any power of spiritual discerment we have does not come through our own doing.

See 1 Cor. 2:4. “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” And verse 14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

And immediately afterward, in addressing divisions within the early Church, Paul encourages focusing on the Church’s **one **foundation: Jesus. In that very passage, Paul chastises believers for saying that one is following Paul, another Peter, another Apollo. And it is clear that Christians were justifying such divisions on the basis of “reason”, since Paul says in this context, "Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written, … ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’ "

Again, we do not gain the power of discernment apart from God’s saving action in our lives.

Looking at what we think we know to be true, Fr Thomas Dubay has it right:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’ (Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84).

Honestly, I don’t think this makes sense. None of these things are known by faith. If we couldn’t verify that the news media was generally reliable, we wouldn’t believe them.

“It is clear that the person who is selective in his acceptance and rejection of diverse items in the deposit of revelation is not accepting what he does accept on the authority of God’s revealing it but on the basis of his own private judgment. This supermarket approach of selecting some doctrines and rejecting others makes it obvious that God’s word is not the reason for this person’s religious commitment.” (Faith And Certitude, Fr Thomas Dubay, Ignatius, 1985, p 197).

1. No one here is being selective in accepting dogmas or teachings.
2. Clearly, Dubay is saying something false. God’s word could cause an atheist to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, even if the atheist did not yet assent to Church teachings on the death penalty.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This does not follow. You can have certainty that God forgives your sins, that’s why we go to confession. In fact to disbelieve in God’s forgiveness in the sacrament is an occasion for sin, is not a sin itself.

Faith is not less certain knowledge, it is more certain knowledge.

I think you’re right, but your sentence’s correctness relies on the ambiguity of the English word “certain”. In one sense, “certain” means “psychologically firm and reassuring”. In another sense, “certain” means “founded on sure and firm foundations.”

In the first sense, my level of certainty that Christ rose from the dead is nowhere near as strong as my certainty that 2+2=4. (I think that anyone who claims otherwise is lying to himself). In the second sense, the fact that Christ rose from the dead is more certain than any other fact.

But you can’t tell me that faithful believers are always certain, in the first sense. Was Mother Teresa always certain? Was St. John of the Cross certain, in his Dark Night of the Soul? Was C.S. Lewis certain, when he said (I’m paraphrasing) that on some days the truth of the New Testament seems – subjectively – rather unlikely?

Do you agree that there are two types of certainty?

Really? How so? Either the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” or it is not. If it is not, then what does that say about Christ and His promise that we shall know the truth, and that knowing the truth we shall be free?

The gift of faith does not proceed from Church proclamations, but from the Holy Spirit indwelling in us. That was the only point I was making. Do you disagree?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In addition to my last response to the entire post, this particular part draws out a lot of interesting thoughts, I think.

For one, I think that there is indeed reason to be in the “best” church. Because if there is an objectively “best” Church, it is “best” for a reason, presumably because it adheres more than any other to the Apostolic Faith; to be more precise, the faith the Apostles inherited from Christ Himself. If there is a “best” Church, then indeed our very duty to follow Christ as closely as possible demands that we care whether or not we’re in it. I see no way of escaping this conclusion.

On a purely logical level, I’m not sure. For suppose: the best X might not be the best X for me. The best university might not be the best university in some respect that I myself in particular need. I know that wise people think this way, for example, when choosing a spouse: you don’t keep waiting until you find the “best” spouse; you look to see if this particular woman will help you to thrive.

If you’re right, KS, that would mean that it would be a moral duty for us to evaluate our churches. But that strikes me as a very Protestant attitude, honestly. (Ironically, it often leads Protestants to the Church – but I hope they stop there!) It sets up my ability to reason as a fixed point, upon which my life turns. I myself am happy not to follow my reason in that sort of way. I ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten my understanding, and with eyes that He hopefully has enlightened, I consider the deposit of the faith.

I believe the Holy Spirit has made clear to me two things: (1) that the Catholic Church is good and faithful, and (2) that being overly doctrinally focused often stands in the way of ecumenical progress. Jesus’s longest prayer was a prayer for Church unity, and I want to respect that. (Consider Pope Benedict’s many comments on ecumenism, in this respect).

I’m happy where the Lord has put me. If there’s someplace better, great. If I submit to Him, He’ll probably put me there.

Consider also that, as Catholics, we are called to evangelize and, contrary to what many may have concluded in these past decades, that includes the Fullness of the Faith. We are not at liberty to stop with “basic Christianity” in our mission of evangelization: If possible, we are to bring people fully into the Catholic Church. This is indeed an integral part in our mission. But if we do not believe that this Church is the “best” Church (that is, the truest Church), how can we possibly expect others to believe it?

I can – and should – offer someone an apple I think is very good, even if I have no certain knowledge it is the best apple out there.

(Remember, I’m talking about subjective uncertainty here, not objective uncertainty – see my post to Amandil above. My knowledge of the Church’s fullness is certain in the objective sense, but uncertain in the subjective sense).

You see, as a convert, I am all too aware that not everyone has the luxury of being “born Catholic.” If I had depended upon that luxury in order to bring me this far, I would not be Catholic, and from where I stand now, I see that this would have been a great loss.

Oh, absolutely. But I think it’s the Holy Spirit that brought you here, not your own intellect. Surely the Holy Spirit can guide the intellect, absolutely. But such guidance does not inevitably create an internal sense of certainty. If the idea is that the teaching on infallibility is supposed to create such an internal sense of certainty, it never will. (God might, but a doctrine won’t).

They need us to stake our very lives on this Church being the True Church. For no one converts to something that has nothing he doesn’t already have. One usually converts to something that offers “more,” that offers something “better,” indeed “best.” If the Catholic Church does not have that claim, and if we Catholics do not show conviction that She does, then those outside of the Church would indeed be correct to wonder “Why bother?” I know I certainly would have.

I guess I’m just concerned that there is too much focus on the Church here, and not enough focus on the Person of Jesus. I am honestly not very concerned about converting my Protestant friends, except insofar as to correct various distorted theological assumptions they might have, and to be sure their moral compass is correct. I don’t think this is a flaw in me, though I’m open to being shown that it is. My Protestant friends know Jesus, and they follow Him consistently and openly. In my estimation, the best way to get them to the fullness of the Truth is to work toward Church unity, not to try to convert them to Catholicism.

But with the Catholic Church, it’s a totally different matter. The Church has really left no “back door”, no “way out” if the Church ends up being wrong on some dogma. The Catholic Church, if not infallible, is, in effect, teaching falsehood as dogma–unlike those “denominations” which claim that Scripture alone is infallible, and can fall back on that claim if they end up being wrong on some claim they make. But why be part of a Church that not only could be in error, but teaches that error as compelling Dogma?

You’re right that this would be seriously disturbing, if the Church were wrong about infallibility. You’ve convinced me of that. But I don’t see why I should believe that some other church is better, simply because the Church makes a mistake. I’m inclined to say, “Where else should we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”

To be continued…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

…you could still remain Catholic without much “trouble.” And it’s why someone in those shoes would remain Catholic, even if the Church continued to claim Infallibility, that puzzles me.

Yes, though I would be disturbed, I would still remain Catholic without any serious soul searching.

However, it seems to me that (real) authority without infallibility, in matters of proclaiming religious faith and morality, is a dangerous thing. It would mean that Jesus had set up a system whereby not only might Peter preach falsehood (being unprotected from it), but due to his authority people had no choice but to believe that falsehood (or else his authority is meaningless,since the people can easily cast it aside if he seems to them to be preaching falsehood).

But most things popes say aren’t infallible, and some popes have taught falsely – though not ex cathedra. Clearly they have authority, even though they are fallible (in these cases). I don’t think this is dangerous, since the Holy Spirit can give us discernment not to follow false teaching.

In other words, the statement that “the Church does not appear to be in error” would be false if Infallibility were false, since the claim to Infallibility–due to its profound and sweeping implications–would hardly be an insignificant error.

In other words, if infallibility were false, then the Church would be fallible.

I’m OK with that. But I guess I’m a weirdo.

Peace!
D

 

[KindredSoul]

the best X might not be the best X for me. The best university might not be the best university in some respect that I myself in particular need.

I believe the concept of an objectively “best” Church cannot be compared to a best university or even a best spouse. Because if there IS an objectively “best” Church, then it is so because God has founded it, or it has more Truth (and thus more Fullness of Christ, Who IS Truth) than any other, or both. And more fullness of Christ, unlike the best university, is objectively better for anyone. No exceptions. Anything less is “better than nothing,” I grant, but one should only be content if he believes–at the very least out of assent as a gift of faith–that there IS nothing better out there, no “best” Church if it’s not the one he is in.

If you’re right, KS, that would mean that it would be a moral duty for us to evaluate our churches. But that strikes me as a very Protestant attitude, honestly. …] It sets up my ability to reason as a fixed point, upon which my life turns.

I disagree. Rather, it would mean we have a moral duty, as Catholics, to hold by faith that the Catholic Church IS the “best” Church, both objectively and (see above) subjectively. We must assent to this and, when possible, cultivate a passionate commitment. This has nothing to do with “evaluating the Church” therefore, but with practicing the virtue of faith by assenting that the Church is Who She claims to be.

It is only from outside of the Catholic Church that one has a duty to evaluate the Church and his own beliefs, IF he is to have hope of conversion, as inside of Her we are called to faithfulness above evaluation: But notice, I do not say this evaluation by those outside must be based on reason alone, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is integral to this. But without some sort of evaluation–Divinely led or otherwise–everyone outside of the Catholic Church would just “stay where they are.” Or at least, if they DID convert to Catholicism, it would potentially be a false conversion where one was not in fact convinced of the Church’s identity but was converting for the very “Protestant” reason of “Well, I personally think this Church is where God wants me, or I like the worship, etc., but it’s not for everyone, and God may lead them to be elsewhere.” I should know this approach to be Protestant in character: For I’ve lived it.

being overly doctrinally focused often stands in the way of ecumenical progress. Jesus’s longest prayer was a prayer for Church unity, and I want to respect that.

This presents a false dichotomy: “Either be quite focused on Doctrine OR make ecumenical progress.” The truth is that we must do both. The truest ecumenism is aimed toward creating mutual–but clear and uncompromised–understanding with other Christians, but with the ultimate hope that they come fully to Catholicism as a fruit of that understanding. Christ DID pray for Unity (it’s one of my favorite prayers), but a unity so profound that it mirrored His unity with the Father. This is NOT the sort of unity that disregards significant differences, but one where all that is false or incomplete becomes completely one with that which is true and complete, NOT by diminishing the significance of the disagreements, but by conforming to the true and complete. If the Catholic Church is the true Church–which Catholics are obligated to believe–then this means that unity can only be fully expressed, on Earth, by the conversion of all Christians to the Catholic Church. Any lesser unity among Christians falls short of being comparable to that for which Jesus prayed: Again, “better than nothing” admittedly but hardly something with which to be content.

I ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten my understanding, and with eyes that He hopefully has enlightened, I consider the deposit of the faith.

My reservations here are thus: Some people seem to sincerely believe the Holy Spirit tells them falsehoods such as “There is no one True Church,” or, say, “Contraception is morally acceptable.” I don’t profess to know any solution here, as I do agree with you that our own reason can be flawed, so that can’t be fully trusted either. But I am always wary of too much optimism that if we just pray for guidance, we won’t go wrong. Unless every non-Catholic is lying about sincerely doing just that, then it clearly doesn’t work for everyone. And because of what I’ve said earlier in this post, I do NOT think the answer is that “It’s not God’s will for all to be Catholic.”

Oh, absolutely. But I think it’s the Holy Spirit that brought you here, not your own intellect. …] If the idea is that the teaching on infallibility is supposed to create such an internal sense of certainty, it never will. (God might, but a doctrine won’t).

I have never argued that the teaching creates such an internal sense of certainty. In fact, I have specifically said that this has not been my point.

As for the Holy Spirit bringing me here, I agree. But the Holy Spirit can and does work through people, and indeed–as MUCH scripture attests with its urgent plea for us to preach–the Holy Spirit often allows His work to DEPEND on people, such that if they don’t do the work, it won’t get done. So if not for people who held fast and passionately to the conviction that the Catholic Church is the “best” Church that all people should join, if not for such people reaching out (via websites or books or whatever else), then the Holy Spirit’s work would not have been done in me. Most converts I know (who are not merely affected by a pseudo-conversion I mentioned a few paragraphs ago) tell the exact same story. We must NEVER underestimate that…

Continued…

 

[KindredSoul]

…continued.

I guess I’m just concerned that there is too much focus on the Church here, and not enough focus on the Person of Jesus. I am honestly not very concerned about converting my Protestant friends

As I said before, true Church unity, the full unity for which Christ prayed, can only happen (at least on Earth) when every Christian is Catholic. And if Catholicism is what it teaches itself to be, Protestants (and, to a lesser degree, even Orthodox) are missing out on something, objectively, by not being Catholic. To care about these brothers and sisters of ours, therefore, IS to care whether or not they become Catholic. I’m not saying we must “browbeat” them with Catholicism, but in whatever way seems best to us–and it may, for some, be simply by prayer–we must work for the good of their conversion to Catholicism.

As for your concern, I believe it is another false dichotomy: “Either there is too much focus on the Church OR there is enough focus on Christ.” But if the Catholic Church is to be believed, then She is by Her own profession the Bride and Body of Christ in a way surpassing any other. Thus Christ cannot be divided from Her anymore than a man can be (fully) thought of in total isolation from his body. To think of Christ without the Catholic Church is the same as thinking of the soul without the body. It can be done, but it is woefully incomplete.

The truth is, if the Catholic Church is what She claims to be, there is NO such thing as “focusing too much on the Church.” There IS such a thing as “not focusing enough on the Person of Christ,” and some Catholics are guilty of that. But the opposite would ALSO be a flaw: “Focusing on the Person of Christ and yet NOT focusing on the Holy Catholic Church, His Body.” You see, this is an instance where I believe Christ would say: “The one thing you should have done, without leaving the other UNdone!” We must focus, to the fullest extent, on both the Catholic Church AND Christ, for on this Earth there is a profound unity between the two. To focus on the Church without focusing enough on Christ is idolatry, but to focus on Christ without also focusing enough on the Church is to water Christ down, for focusing on the Church is PART of a “fuller picture” of the Person of Christ.

You’re right that this would be seriously disturbing, if the Church were wrong about infallibility. You’ve convinced me of that. But I don’t see why I should believe that some other church is better, simply because the Church makes a mistake.

I actually agree, here. JUST because the Catholic Church made a monumental mistake of this nature would not mean there was any other Church out there who had not made just as severe a mistake.

However, if you had decided to no longer assent to Infallibility–and have thus already been willing to “evaluate your Church” (by evaluating Her claim to infallibility as being false)–then the opus would be on you to determine whether or not there IS a Church out there who is better. IS there, in that scenario, another Church that seems to adhere to the Faith of the apostles, to adhere to the timeless Faith better than others, who does NOT have so glaring a dogmatic falsehood as–in that scenario–the Catholic Church would have? If not, then you’re right, may as well stay Catholic. But if so…then indeed, you would be obligated to follow that path, having already set a precedent for willingness to judge the Catholic Church.

Yes, though I would be disturbed, I would still remain Catholic without any serious soul searching.

I now realize, based on my last paragraph, that what troubles me about this is the inconsistency. Presumably one is willing to evaluate the Church enough to decide that Her claim of Infallibility is false, so at that point one can no longer claim one is remaining Catholic out of humility or refusal to judge the Church: One has already done that the moment one has discarded any teaching she dogmatically proclaims. One has already judged Her as “containing falsehood.”

It seems to me, rather, that the true answer to this dilemma, if one wishes to remain Catholic, is to say “I will go on believing the Church is Infallible, no matter what reason I may think I have to believe otherwise, no matter how compelling that reason may be.” This alone seems consistent with the “humbly remaining in the Church” approach. If one refuses to assent to infallibility, one has already been willing to set up one’s own reason as a guide higher than the Church, and one forfeits the luxury of refraining from leaving Her–despite no longer assenting that She is without dogmatic error–on the basis of being too humble to do so. In fact, it may be even less humble than leaving for one to remain in the Catholic Church while insisting that She is not infallible despite Her claims to the contrary, as if one knows the nature of the Church better than the Church Herself does…

Continued…

 

[KindredSoul]

…continued.

But most things popes say aren’t infallible, and some popes have taught falsely – though not ex cathedra. …] I don’t think this is dangerous, since the Holy Spirit can give us discernment not to follow false teaching.

Yes, but just as we have a right to dissent from bishops if they are not in line with the Pope, because the Pope’s authority outweighs theirs, so too the Pope has two levels of authority: His fallible authority is not binding if it contradicts his own (and the Magisterium’s) Infallible authority. So we still have that “higher and clear” authority to which to appeal in times when Popes teach falsely, but not ex cathedra.

As for the Holy Spirit giving us discernment, I have the same concern about that which I mentioned earlier about the clear fact that people are commonly misled by what they sincerely believe to be the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I DO believe the Holy Spirit guides Catholics, but it seems very clearly to often be through distinct means, such as the gift of the Church’s infallibility, and not through some sort of mysterious means by which we will just “know” or have our personal discernment infallibly safeguarded (notice that such a claim would be merely shifting infallibility from the Pope to the individual Catholic). So if Infallibility were not real, what I said before presents a clear problem… (I realize that even if Infallibility IS real, one has the problem of how to discern the Catholic Church is true in the first place, but I think that’s a different discussion–this one centers around how Catholics are to know what is true in context of Catholicism).

In other words, if infallibility were false, then the Church would be fallible.

I’m OK with that. But I guess I’m a weirdo.

In light of some of my statements above, I disagree that accepting the premise “The Catholic Church is not Infallible” is compatible with being a fully practicing Catholic. But as for your being a weirdo, it’s okay, you’re a cool weirdo.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi Kindred One!

Seeing that I don’t have time right now to respond to your voluminous response, I nevertheless wanted to throw out some food for thought. The person who cooked this food is a certain Blessed John Henry Newman, no lightweight in theological matters:

1. An objection, however, is often made to the doctrine of infallibility in limine, which is too important not to be taken into consideration. It is urged that, as all religious knowledge rests on moral evidence, not on demonstration, our belief in the Church’s infallibility must be of this character; but what can be more absurd than a probable infallibility, or a certainty resting on doubt?—I believe, because I am sure; and I am sure, because I suppose. Granting then that the gift of infallibility be adapted, when believed, to unite all intellects in one common confession, the fact that it is given is as difficult of proof as the developments which it is to prove, and nugatory therefore, and in consequence improbable in a Divine Scheme. The advocates of Rome, it has been urged, “insist on the necessity of an infallible guide in religious matters, as an argument that such a guide has really been accorded. Now it is obvious to inquire how individuals are to know with certainty that Rome is infallible … how any ground can be such as to bring home to the mind infallibly that she is infallible; what conceivable proof amounts to more than a probability of the fact; and what advantage is an infallible guide, if those who are to be guided have, {81} after all, no more than an opinion, as the Romanists call it, that she is infallible?” [Note 9]

This argument, however, except when used, as is intended in this passage, against such persons as would remove all imperfection in the proof of Religion, is certainly a fallacious one. For since, as all allow, the Apostles were infallible, it tells against their infallibility, or the infallibility of Scripture, as truly as against the infallibility of the Church; for no one will say that the Apostles were made infallible for nothing, yet we are only morally certain that they were infallible. Further, if we have but probable grounds for the Church’s infallibility, we have but the like for the impossibility of certain things, the necessity of others, the truth, the certainty of others; and therefore the words infallibility, necessity, truth, and certainty ought all of them to be banished from the language. But why is it more inconsistent to speak of an uncertain infallibility than of a doubtful truth or a contingent necessity, phrases which present ideas clear and undeniable? In sooth we are playing with words when we use arguments of this sort. When we say that a person is infallible, we mean no more than that what he says is always true, always to be believed, always to be done. The term is resolvable into these phrases as its equivalents; either then the phrases are inadmissible, or the idea of infallibility must be allowed. A probable infallibility is a probable gift of never erring; a reception of the doctrine of a probable infallibility is faith and obedience towards a person founded on the probability of his never erring in his declarations or commands. What is inconsistent in this idea? Whatever then be the particular means of determining infallibility, the abstract objection may be put aside. [Note 10] {82}

Note that Newman admit that the infallibility of the Church is (subjectively) uncertain. This is what he means by saying it makes sense to speak of an “uncertain infallibility”.

I think the train of thought is this: we prove the reliability of the Church with various arguments from the Scriptures, and we prove the reliability of the Scriptures with various other arguments. Since these arguments for Scripture and Church reliability are not perfect – they are merely manifestations of human reason – they do not make the infallibility of the Church subjectively certain. But it does not follow from such considerations that the Church is fallible.