What do you think "Infallibility" means?

[Amandil]

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.”

What are your sources?
Prodigal Son:

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?

According to their own words, yes they were certain. In fact their Dark Nights made them more certain and fed their faith.

Their dark nights led them to cleave to God even more. That is what any of us ought to do when faced with such spiritual aridity.
Prodigal Son:

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?

Was it real uncertainty, or was it merely those irrational doubts that even I have from time to time based upon my own fears?
Prodigal Son:

Do you agree that there are two types of certainty?

Not really since there are already words for the two senses you describe.
Prodigal Son:

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?

Do you really believe that there is any such dichotomy between the Spirit and the Church?

I don’t see anything from Scripture which even suggests such a possibility.

 

[Abu]

Prodigal_Son #39
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”.

On the contrary Cardinal Newman was most emphatic on infallibility.

As Newman expressed it, “granting at the same time fully, that the gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of that tradition resides in the Ecclesia docens.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, p 107].

This is what Newman taught:
On the requirement that the authoritative words of popes and Councils be interpreted through the ‘passive infallibility’ of the ‘whole body of the Catholic people’ (including the ‘investigations and disputes’ of the school of theologians):
“Some power then is needed to determine the general sense of authoritative words – to determine their direction, drift, limits, and comprehension, to hinder gross perversions. This power is virtually the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Catholic people. The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
[Letter to Isy Froude from July 28, 1875; quoted from *The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman (Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338].
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

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.

On the contrary John Henry Cardinal Newman himself stressed in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Chapter 2. On the Antecedent Argument in behalf of Developments in Christian Doctrine
Extract:
“The absolute need of a spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest of arguments in favour of the fact of its supply. Surely, either an objective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with means for impressing its objectiveness on the world. If Christianity be a social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain ideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed, (which shall here be assumed,) and if these ideas have various aspects, and make distinct impressions on different minds, and issue in consequence in a multiplicity of developments, true, or false, or mixed, as has been shown, what power will suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflicting conditions, but a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgments by a divine right and a recognized wisdom? In barbarous times the will is reached through the senses; but in an age in which reason, as it is called, is the standard of {90} truth and right, it is abundantly evident to any one, who mixes ever so little with the world, that, if things are left to themselves, every individual will have his own view of them, and take his own course; that two or three will agree today to part company tomorrow; that Scripture will be read in contrary ways, and history, according to the apologue, will have to different comers its silver shield and its golden; that philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion, party, caprice, will find no common measure, unless there be some supreme power to control the mind and to compel agreement.” [My emphasis].
newmanreader.org/Works/development/chapter2.html#present

 

[Prodigal_Son]

On the contrary Cardinal Newman was most emphatic on infallibility.

Abu,

Please read what I actually write, not what you think I believe. I never said Newman disagreed with infallibility. He didn’t. What I said was this: Cardinal Newman believed that the evidence for infallibility was based on probabilities – that is to say, arguments. Here is what he said, again:

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?

In this passage, Newman does not deny infallibility – indeed, he is DEFENDING infallibility against skeptics. But, in the process, he clarifies that the **evidence **for infallibility is probable, not certain. Elsewhere, he clarifies that the evidence is very strong, but even this does not amount to saying it is certain.

 

[KindredSoul]

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:

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.

It seems to me that there is nothing in this post–or in Newman’s words on which the post was based–with which I disagree. To be clear, I have never intended to give the impression that a Catholic should have a feeling of certainty that the Church is Infallible. Nor need a Catholic be intellectually convinced of infallibility with significant confidence. A Catholic is obligated to neither of these.

I completely agree that the Church’s infallibility is taken–at least at some point in the chain of “reasoning”–on faith. I haven’t ever intended to deny that. A Catholic is not obligated to any degree of “certainty”, subjectively speaking. In fact, he is not obligated to subjective certainty at all. He is merely obligated to assent to Infallibility (and all dogmas to which it applies), and that for as long as he remains Catholic. But this assent may be outright fraught with uncertainties, difficulties, etc. And that’s okay. Assent, if anything, is even more meaningful (certainly not less) in the absence of subjective certainty.

So…I’m not sure we disagree on this point at all. Unless I’m missing something.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Edit: What I have been arguing is that this assent should be expressed in one’s actions. By such things as “passion” and “conviction” I do not mean to speak of the subjective emotions often associated with the terms, but actions–which speak louder than feelings–which point to such things… That’s what I have meant, for instance, by Catholics who would “stake their lives” on things such as the Church being “the best Church,” and how important it is to be like that in order to evangelize, etc. If that’s what a Catholic assents to, then he must both act and speak as though it is the reality, not out of subjective certitude, but out of compliance with that to which he is assenting IS reality, even if he lacks any subjective certainty in his assent.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What are your sources?

Common usage. But any dictionary will confirm it. Consider the World English Dictionary for “certain”:

1. ( postpositive ) positive and confident about the truth of something; convinced: I am certain that he wrote a book
2. ( usually postpositive ) definitely known: it is certain that they were on the bus
3. ( usually postpositive ) sure; bound; destined: he was certain to fail
4. decided or settled upon; fixed: the date is already certain for the invasion
5. unfailing; reliable: his judgment is certain
6. moderate or minimum: to a certain extent
7. make certain of to ensure (that one will get something); confirm

Meaning #1 is subjective; meaning #5 is objective.

According to their own words, yes they were certain. In fact their Dark Nights made them more certain and fed their faith.

Actually, Mother Teresa said she was filled with doubt, more than once. See firstthings.com/article/2003/05/the-dark-night-of-mother-teresa

Was it real uncertainty, or was it merely those irrational doubts that even I have from time to time based upon my own fears?

I don’t see why real uncertainty needs to be rational.

Not really since there are already words for the two senses you describe.

What are these? Do you deny that “certain” is ambiguous?

Do you really believe that there is any such dichotomy between the Spirit and the Church?

I don’t see anything from Scripture which even suggests such a possibility.

The Spirit was the CAUSE of the creation of the Church, at Pentecost. Obviously, the Spirit is not identical with the Church.

Perhaps you misunderstood, though. I don’t deny that the Spirit works through Church proclamations. I just think that, in order for us to receive these proclamations as inspired, the Spirit must be working independently in us, too.

This process – the Spirit enlightening the heart, and the heart accepting the Church – is directly referred to in Ephesians 1:

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

 

[Abu]

Prodigal_Son #42
Newman….clarifies that the evidence for infallibility is probable, not certain.

Catholic answers
Did Cardinal Newman initially reject the doctrine of papal infallibility?
Full Question
Is it true that Cardinal John Henry Newman, the Anglican convert from the Oxford Movement of the last century, rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility up until the definition at Vatican I and only accepted it out of obedience afterward?
Answer
No, it is not true. Cardinal Newman professed that he personally believed that the pope must be infallible, but he questioned the issuing of a formal definition of the doctrine at that particular time. He was not alone among the Church hierarchy in holding this opinion and was perfectly within his rights to do so.** Once the definition was issued he embraced it unhesitatingly**. [My emphasis].
catholic.com/quickquestions/did-cardinal-newman-initially-reject-the-doctrine-of-papal-infallibility

This means certainty.

**A Return to Infallibility, with Help from Newman
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | Apr 16, 2013 **
Extract:
“Newman, you may recall, was opposed – not to the concept that the pope was infallible, which he believed – but to the manner in which the aggressive ultramontanists (who had no love for Newman) sought (but did not get) a decree which would make the pope infallible nearly every time he opened his mouth to sneeze.

“Anyway, Newman was one of the great living Latinists of the 19th century. He understood every word, every nuance of the language. Newman pointed out that it is not enough for the Pope to do something (such as excommunicate someone) to be infallible; it is not enough that his words should be contained in this or that type of document (whether an allocution, a homily, a bull, an encyclical); it is not enough that his words should have some specific rhetorical form; it is not enough that he should be holding forth on any subject whatsoever, or making a prudential judgment; it is not enough that he should utter the most solemn of truths to this or that group only.

“Rather, what must be manifest is the Pope’s intention to fulfill four special conditions. Here, then, is how Newman explained the meaning of Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I with respect to the infallibility of the pope:

He speaks ex cathedra, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision. Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, 1975; Armstrong, p. 299]

“**Some details are spelled out in Newman which are merely implied in my formulation, but the four conditions are exactly the same. **No matter what the venue or the form, whenever the intention of the pope to fulfill these four conditions is clear, based on the context and meaning of the words he has chosen to use, we can be certain that what he has taught is infallible. Usually he is not speaking or writing in this way. But when he is, no matter how we may rail against his words, the truth he explains will still be held by the Church in a thousand years.” [My emphasis].
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1071

 

[Amandil]

The Spirit was the CAUSE of the creation of the Church at Pentecost. Obviously, the Spirit is not identical with the Church.

I didn’t ask you if the Church was identical with the Spirit, I asked you if you believe that there is some dichotomy between them.

And if so where do you get this belief?
Prodigal Son:

Perhaps you misunderstood, though. I don’t deny that the Spirit works through Church proclamations. I just think that, in order for us to receive these proclamations as inspired, the Spirit must be working independently in us, too.

This process – the Spirit enlightening the heart, and the heart accepting the Church – is directly referred to in Ephesians 1:

Does the Spirit only work through the proclamations or actually through the Church herself?

It seems rather that you’re drawing distinctions where none exists.