Posted on 10/11/2015 12:22:10 PM PDT by NYer
There are two common and distinct approaches to the question of the infallibility of the Church’s teaching authority. Non-Catholics deny that any human person or institution can be infallible in any meaningful way. Many Catholics, by contrast, hold that the Church can and does teach infallibly on matters pertaining to faith and morals — except when she teaches something they don’t want to believe.
Infallibility is at the same time one of the most controversial and least understood dogmas of the Catholic Church. Even people who do understand infallibility argue over what teachings it covers and doesn’t cover, while others make errors of distinction between dogma, to which infallibility does apply, and discipline, to which it does not. (Discipline refers to the liturgical and ecclesiastical practices of the Church; e.g., clerical celibacy and meatless Fridays.) Moreover, many Catholics themselves are confused as to the extent of the Church’s teaching authority; they understand there are issues to which the Church can’t speak … but not that the Church isn’t strictly limited by its nature to commenting only on religious issues.
Let’s start off simply: What do we mean by infallibility? To say that the Church teaches infallibly is simply to say that the Church can’t teach errors; put differently, you can safely trust what she teaches. That, however, doesn’t mean that any given teaching is necessarily perfect. Let me draw an analogy: If I were to ask a class of math students, “What is the sum of two plus two?”, they could answer “an even number”, “an integer”, or “a real number”; these answers are all correct, even though none of them is necessarily the best answer to the question.
Why would the Church need infallibility? Jesus’ mandate to the apostles was to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). The Church exists to teach what Jesus and the apostles taught — not what they should have taught, not what they would have taught “had they known what we know now.” The doctrine of infallibility asserts that Christ himself guarantees the integrity of the gospel message through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
What Scriptural basis do we have for asserting the Church’s infallibility? First, at the Last Supper, Jesus promised the apostles, the leaders of his Church, that the Father would send them the Holy Spirit to “teach [them] all things, and bring to [their] remembrance all that I have said to [them]” (John 14:26), and that the “Spirit of truth” would “guide [them] into all the truth” (John 16:13). Moreover, Jesus promised to be with his Church “always, to the close of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Also, St. Peter reminds his audience that the apostles have “the prophetic word made more sure,” and that prophecy, such as those recorded in the Old Testament, doesn’t come “by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit [speak] from God” (2 Peter 1:19-21). And St. Paul called the Church “the pillar and bulwark [or foundation] of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
The quality of infallibility, then, isn’t a function of the holiness, the wisdom, or the zeal of the Church’s leadership. Indeed, Hilaire Belloc once quipped that “no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.” Rather, it’s lent to the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the presence of Christ with his Church; ironically, Protestant preachers, especially Evangelicals, assert this same guidance even as they deny infallibility to anything but Scripture.
Most of the Church’s infallible teachings, or dogmas (also called dogmata), have been explicitly declared in the canons and decrees of various ecumenical councils. (Key distinction: dogmas are irreformable; doctrines can be modified.) Infallibility assumes that the ecumenical council is not only “in communion with the pope” (i.e., having papal approval) but has gone to great lengths to declare their permanence, very often anathematizing those people who would contradict them.
Other infallible dogmas are stated in the creeds, particularly the Apostles’ Creed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Anything that’s part of the deposit of divine revelation is considered infallible; in fact, infallibility assumes that the doctrine is either directly revealed or closely connected to the revelation.
The First Vatican Council in its fourth session on July 18, 1870, formally defined and declared the infallibility of the pope. I refer you to an online copy of the Council’s First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, which set out their historical and theological rationale; for our purposes, we need only discuss its limits. Strictly speaking, infallibility is only granted to the pope “when [he] speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, [1] in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, [2] in virtue of his apostolic authority, [3] he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church” (First Dogmatic Constitution, 9).
As defined by the Council, this is such an extraordinary exercise of the papal teaching office that only two pontifically-declared dogmas are universally agreed to fit the criteria: the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. The point is, not everything that falls out of the pope’s mouth or comes out of his pen is indisputably infallible; in fact, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote his series on Jesus under his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger, specifically to avoid any claim of infallibility. Certainly Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff remarks and media interviews aren’t covered!
The extraordinary measures of councils and popes are referred to collectively as the sacred magisterium. By contrast, the ordinary magisterium of the Church is the everyday exercise of her teaching authority, in which neither the pope nor any council of bishops goes so far to cast doctrine in concrete (but see below). Doctrines can and do develop, especially as time, technological development, and the ever-inquisitive nature of Man create questions and issues that require the Church’s attention; e.g., Catholic social teaching.
Confusingly, there is also a class of teachings that belong to the ordinary and universal magisterium, which despite the name are actually part of the sacred magisterium, and are also considered infallible even though not defined and decreed as are other dogmas. One particularly controversial example is the restriction of ordination to men alone, as reaffirmed by Pope St. John Paul II in his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994 (see the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s ad dubitum response issued 28 October 1995).
Take note that the Church’s magisterium applies to matters of both faith and morals. While not every field of human endeavor has an application pertaining to matters of faith, most if not all have a moral dimension. Thus, for instance, the pope couldn’t tell economists how to properly discern the gross domestic product of a nation, or how to correctly define the marginal propensity to consume; he can, however, properly talk about the right to fair wages and the universal destination of goods. It’s nigh on impossible, then, to draw bright lines that set off whole subjects as “outside the Church’s competence”, subjects about which the pope and the Church can only say things we can safely, blissfully ignore.
Okay, so let’s say you find a way to list every dogma the Catholic Church has concretized by formal declaration. You could even go to a source, like Dr. Ludwig Ott’s seminal work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and obtain from it the theological weight of every teaching (at least up to 1954), from the highest (de fide, “of the faith”) to the lowest (opinio tolerata, “tolerated opinion”). Could you then openly dissent anything that isn’t at least “theologically certain”?
That in itself is debatable. While anything that’s been proposed “for belief as divinely revealed” must be “adhered to with the obedience of faith” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 891; cf. Dei Verbum 10.2, Lumen Gentium 25), there’s also this little catch-all:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (CCC 892; cf. Lumen Gentium 25; italics mine)
“Divine assistance” can be considered a kind of lower-case infallibility. While not directly asserting that the teaching proposed is error-free, it implies that most if not all reasonable objections have already been raised and answered at least once, and that the doctrine is the best that can be offered at this time. As such, it’s theologically certain enough that the protection of the Holy Spirit can be reasonably presumed albeit not explicitly asserted. In any event, unless you’re a priest or degreed theologian with a mandatum from your local bishop, you’re on safer grounds not disputing even low-weight doctrines.
Critics may argue that the presumption of infallibility imposes a kind of “groupthink”, making doctrinal advance impossible. However, we must be careful to distinguish authentic reform from corrupting innovation. As I’ve said at immoderate length elsewhere, “The gospel message the Church exists to preach is not her own — it belongs to Christ.” This “groupthink” is the Church’s best protection, the best means we have to insure the integrity of the gospel message and of that continuity between us and the first generation of Christians we call the apostolic tradition. The evangelium is not a suit of clothes to be replaced with every change of cultural fashion; to paraphrase Cdl. Timothy Dolan, we can in a sense “re-wrap” the Faith for better understanding, but we can’t change what that wrapping packs.
Catholic teaching is broad and deep; it’s difficult to know every dogma or doctrine, even if you went to good Catholic schools from kindergarten to college. As well, it’s safe to assert that Catholic religious formation has been suffering in the US for many decades, arguably even before Vatican II. The pejorative label “cafeteria Catholicism” isn’t meant to apply to defects of understanding and education, but rather to deliberate, conscious heterodoxy.
There are plenty of resources available, both online and at your local Catholic bookstore, to help you learn exactly what the Church believes, some of which I’ve linked to in this post. At the end of the day, though, no one can make you believe what the Church believes … except you yourself. As Fr. Dwight Longenecker recently wrote:
The Catholic Church needs diversity of opinion. It’s healthy for family members to disagree, and debate is one of the ways the Holy Spirit leads the Church. But both progressives and traditionalists must constantly measure their personal opinions and preferences against the magisterium of the Church and her authority.
Faith is ultimately an act of trust — trust in the truth of God, trust in the reliability of His Word, trust in the action of the Holy Spirit. The Church doesn’t ask you to trust the pope or the bishops; she asks you to trust in Christ’s promise that “the gate of Hades shall not prevail against” his Church (Matthew 16:18).
The same way he speaks to you.
Does the pope speak for God?
The same way you speak to him.
Where does he get his infallible pronouncements from?
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
Perhaps comprehension isn't your strong suit or nyer doesn't understand how the pope get his messages.
Or he is being disingenuous.
So now God does speak to the pope. Is that your final answer? Because you questioned this in a prior post. Or were you not being factual or just a smarty pants?
I’m a Chritian and the Greek is against roman cathlicism.
Please refresh my memory, is this the second or third thread that you have claimed expertise in Greek and offered no proof. You have also failed to offer any citations from secular/ unbiased sources that would support your case.
How do you know how God speaks to me? How can you say that it’s the same way.
If that’s the case, then there’s no need for the pope. I can go right to God and cut out the middle man.
I asked if the pope spoke FOR God, not TO God.
That last stuff doesn’t answer the question of where the pope gets his infallible pronouncements from.
My Greek sources include William Mounce, Bruce M. Metzger, and Daniel B. Wallace.
In prior posts, not necessarily on this thread, I've cited their work when warranted per academic requirement.
The beauty of the Greek is that it is not denominational. Msgr Pope, in an article recently posted by Salvation, indicated he was discovering the Greek.
I sincerely believe if all believers had a working knowledge of Greek, we'd have a lot fewer disagreements on the issues.
Anymore questions?
If that’s the case, then there’s no need for the pope. I can go right to God and cut out the middle man.
And that's the crux of the issue. Take away the pope and away goes the control of the roman catholic church.
In the NT we see numerous examples of God speaking through men via the Holy Spirit. He does not limit His communication to just one individual.
It's one of the reasons He has given us His Word.
“Infallibility is an impossibility, due to our sin nature...”
It’s GOD’S INFALLIBILITY, not man’s. I bet you believe scripture is infallible, right? Didn’t men write that down? “Oh, but it was God’s inspiration” you would say, right? Exactly! God protects the Church. It’s HIS INFALLIBILITY.
Popman: >>Infallibility is an impossibility, due to our sin nature...
RCC history proves it...<<
The rcc teaching on indulgences proves his point as do the false teachings on Mary.
“2. Sola Scriptura is more than supported. Scripture is the only source of infallible, authoritative, inspired truth, as the Scripture itself states over and over.”
Really? You are not familiar enough with the hundreds of verses that uphold God’s Word as:
infallible
authoritative
inspired?
If you are not, it is time to find a Bible and crack it open and read!
In the meantime, this thread is about the claim of Rome to be infallible. I noted that even the author of the article couldn’t find a single verse that says what he claims.
Best.
So we are at roughly the same level of education, using the same sources. I will stick with the accepted interpretation.
How does Wallace and/or or Mounce interpret Luke 1:28?
make that translate Luke 1:28.
"Anti-intellectualism" is a leftist smear. Catholics have often been the victims of the charge in the past but I notice that that doesn't keep them from using it on Fundamentalist Protestants whom they look down on.
I must ask you . . . do these people look like Profound Intellectuals to you?
I'll bet you think they are just the pride of Catholicism in their simplicity. That being the case, why does the simplicity of American Fundamentalist Protestants so offend you? Is this really a question of "our bumpkins are superior to your bumpkins???"
I advise you in the future to try to restrain yourself from posting ethnic slurs about rural America as you co-religionists are so fond of doing. I make note of every one of them.
You are one of the better Catholic posters here. I hope you will drop the big city hyper rationalism banner when debating with American Protestants.
According to your religion Peter was the chief apostle to the Catholic Church...
According to the God inspired scriptures the apostle Paul was the chief apostle to the Gentile church...Apparently then the Catholic religion is not affiliated with the Gentile church spoken of at length in the scriptures...
And while Paul was our chief apostle we are told by that man thru the inspiration of God not to focus on any man...So we focus on Jesus Christ...
The bible that your religion claims to own condemns the practices of the Catholic religion in numerous places...So it’s easy to see why your religion doesn’t accept the inspired words of God as its supreme authority...
Just watching your religion and reading the scriptures shows us conclusively that your Catholic religion is NOT the Christian church of the bible...
So with the condemnation of scripture it stands to reason that your religion, by perverting scripture and taking scripture completely out of context, that your religion would invent an ‘infallible authority’ beyond the words of God...
I would too if I wanted to deceive people...
+1.
He told us to follow HIM.
Matthew 4:19 And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
Matthew 8:22 And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
Matthew 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Mark 1:17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”
Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
Mark 8:34 And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Mark 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Luke 5:27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth. And he said to him, “Follow me.”
Luke 9:23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Luke 9:59 To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.”
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
John 21:19 And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”
John 21:22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”
They neither interpret or translate it.
You sure about that?
Luke 1:28 Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
..and he came to her and said, "greetings, highly favored one, the Lord is with you!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.