Posted on 07/01/2008 6:10:30 PM PDT by Salvation
The topic of infallibility in the Catholic Church is an ironic one: although intended to provide clarity, it is one of the most misunderstood topics within Catholicism.
At least, humbly speaking, it was a big sticking point for me when I was a beginning Catholic. But once I understood it, I saw that it flows from a deep and beautiful faith in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
First of all, let's start with the purpose of infallibility:
"It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.... To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." (Catechism, 890)
Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality.
Infallibility just means that certain teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be without error. That's not to say that they are the full and final word on the topic: later teachings may deepen and further clarify aspects of the original teaching.
(Some fundamental ideas about Catholic Tradition, the Catholic Church's origin, and Church authority are covered in other articles here on beginningCatholic.com. You may find that those articles provide good background for the topic of infallibility.)
The charism of infallibility is fully engaged only in definitive Magisterial teachings on faith and morals. This can occur in either...
The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It is exercised by the Pope alone when he teaches officially, or by the whole "college" of bishops together with the Pope.
Most Magisterial teachings are ordinary. The Pope's ordinary teachings are issued in the course his normal activity: his encyclicals and other documents, various addresses, etc.
The college of bishops also has an "ordinary and universal" Magisterium. This is seen whenever the individual bishops teach the same faith — that is, in union with the Pope and each other, even if they're dispersed in their separate dioceses. It's also seen when an ecumenical council teaches definitively but without issuing a solemn definition.
Occasionally, the Magisterium issues extraordinary definitions of doctrine. This occurs when the Pope teaches ex cathedra, officially and solemnly defining some truth of the faith. The official and solemn definitions of ecumenical councils (such as the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, etc.) are also extraordinary pronouncements.
Remember, it is the definitive teachings of the Magisterium that are considered to be infallible. This usually means that they explicitly state they're defining some matter of the faith, or put forth a position as to be definitively held.
But not always.
Some things that are taught repeatedly by the Magisterium can also be considered definitive, even if they're not explicitly named to be such.
The Catholic Church uses its charism of infallibility to give the faithful clarity and certainty about morality and the faith itself.
As such, Catholics are required to give the "assent of faith" to such teachings. This means that our faith in them rests directly on our faith either in the Word of God, or in the Holy Spirit's real & active assistance in the Magisterium.
We take that quite seriously!
You've probably heard a very common myth that infallibility has only been used a few times.
That is not the case!
It's true that the Pope has exercised only rarely his own extraordinary power of defining the faith. But ecumenical councils have issued many extraordinary definitions over the years. And both the Pope and the full college of bishops have issued very many definitions in the course of their ordinary Magisterium. And of course...
...infallibility hinges on whether a teaching is definitive, regardless of whether it's ordinary or extraordinary.
When people claim that infallibility is very rare, often they're trying to justify their own rejection of some doctrine. They're trying to minimize the number of cases where doctrine is binding.
But that's exactly backwards!
The main job of bishops is to teach the Gospel. They do so with a special assistance of the Holy Spirit himself so that we may hear a faithful, accurate proclamation of the one true faith.
Although individual bishops may err in their official teachings about faith and morals, the Magisterium as a whole never does. Nor does the Pope, by nature of Christ's special creation of Peter's office as one that "confirms the brethren" in the faith.
Frequently, the Magisterium sees fit to define some point of doctrine so that we can see, understand, and hold it with great clarity. These definitions are infallible, and we must believe them with the assent of faith.
But much of the time, the Magisterium teaches without making such definitions. Are we free to ignore these teachings that are not infallible?
Not at all!
We must believe these teachings, too, although a lesser degree of belief is required. The technical expression is "a religious submission of mind and will". This is less than the absolute assent of faith, but it still means that we must honestly strive to understand and accept these teachings.
As a practical matter, we should assume that the even Church's non-definitive teachings are correct. They are still made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, although not to the degree that guarantees that they're free of error.
We should have very compelling, objective reasons before challenging such teachings. (And please note that the most frequent topics of dissent are not in this category! Topics like contraception, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality are all addressed by definitive Church teachings.)
Also remember that we tend to prefer our own flawed opinions, rather than admitting that we have to change.
This call to change is the hard and unending work of Christian discipleship. It's known as conversion.
Christ has given us an extraordinary gift in the Catholic Magisterium. It is the means by which Christ ensures that the light of his saving Gospel will shine on every generation.
When the Church teaches infallibly, it gives us great light & clarity.
But even in its non-definitive teaching, the Church still shines with the clear light of truth — a light that is far stronger than the darkness of the world.
(John 8:12)
You also missed that one line — please do read it now.
**Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality. **
Please re-read this line.
**Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality.**
Not correct, actually - you've misunderstood me. I am arguing that God does not delegate His incommunicable attributes.
So the inspiration of God can be conferred on men when they are teaching via the written word? But, God cannot confer that same infallibility when another man teaches after the death of the Apostles?
God does not speak to His people through revelation after the death of Apostles because by the time the last of them died, He had already communicated to us, through the inspired writings of Scripture, all of the infallible teaching we would need to obtain salvation through His sacrifice on the cross and live lives of pleasing service to Him - the Word made flesh.
That Scripture, recognized as such in its own time and by the early church immediately after its composition, has been divinely preserved as the only infallible source of instruction and edification for God's people everywhere down through the centuries to the present day. Praise God!
And I question your last sentence - what teaching of the Church do you believe has contradicted itself, changed over time, or is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and Tradition?
A discussion of the teachings of the Roman church and its tradition I believe to be contradiction of Holy Scripture would take many, many threads...and they would probably have to be "Open" ones, at that, not "Ecumenical" ones. On that note, out of deference to the spirit of the thread, I'll say no more on this matter, as the intention of my original post was merely to point out that the ecumenical nature of the thread was no excuse for equivocating or mincing words to camouflage fundamental differences in views.
A good evening to all. :-)
Please remember that this is an Ecumenical thread. Antagonism against another profession is not condoned.
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and/or the faithful when the Apostle’s died?
Not correct, actually - you've misunderstood me. I am arguing that God does not delegate His incommunicable attributes.
See - He communicated His attribute of infallibility when the writers of Scripture were inscribing the Holy Writ. Now, He didn't confer infallibility on them per se, but the Holy Spirit protected them from error - much as He protects the Magisterium.
God does not speak to His people through revelation after the death of Apostles because by the time the last of them died, He had already communicated to us, through the inspired writings of Scripture, all of the infallible teaching we would need to obtain salvation through His sacrifice on the cross and live lives of pleasing service to Him - the Word made flesh.
Public revelation is absolutely ended - I could not agree more. However, the Scripture does not speak to every issue we face today, or will face tomorrow; nor is it explicitly clear on each point it does contain. We need to interpret it and understand it, and to do both without error, lest we stray from the Truth. It is difficult to believe He would leave us each an island in understanding His Writ, relying solely upon ourselves to understand His will; Truth is Truth, and it does not vary. There cannot be a multitude of correct answers to a given question - like Him, there is only One. Thus, if He has given us an infallible book, why would He not give us an infallible teacher?
That Scripture, recognized as such in its own time and by the early church immediately after its composition, has been divinely preserved as the only infallible source of instruction and edification for God's people everywhere down through the centuries to the present day. Praise God!
Scripture used today by Protestants differs from the Scripture used by the early Church - I pray you understand that. Further, nowhere do I find in Scripture that it is the sole source for instruction. But, definitely Praise God! :-)
A discussion of the teachings of the Roman church and its tradition I believe to be contradiction of Holy Scripture would take many, many threads...and they would probably have to be "Open" ones, at that, not "Ecumenical" ones. On that note, out of deference to the spirit of the thread, I'll say no more on this matter, as the intention of my original post was merely to point out that the ecumenical nature of the thread was no excuse for equivocating or mincing words to camouflage fundamental differences in views.
Fair enough, and I appreciate your ecumenical tone in our discussion. I hope we can continue this conversation elsewhere!
I think that those who deny infallibility (as properly defined) deny the truth of the Scriptures.
Speaking to the Apostles at the last supper, Jesus said (John 14:26), “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
He promises to send the Apostles the Holy Spirit to teach them ALL things.
Later on in the same discourse (John 16:23), Jesus continues, saying, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Again, he promises to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Apostles into ALL the truth.
So if He is telling the truth here (and we have no reason to believe that Jesus ever did anything other than proclaim the truth), He promises to guide the Apostles into the Truth. Any denial of this is a denial of Scripture (a pretty funny thing for a “sola scriptura” person to do, if you think about it — they may as well deny John 3:16).
The Apostles, operating with this charism of truth, appointed and empowered bishops as their successors. And St. Paul, operating with this charism of truth said that this would continue until the return of Christ (See Ephesians 4:11-13). Deny this and deny Scripture (you may as well deny John 3:16 if you deny the Scriptural support for apostolic succession).
The method for confirming doctrine or for making dogmatic decisions was originally by Church Councils, consisting of: bishops — the apostles and their successors. The first example of this is shown in Acts 15 (Gee, imagine, councils are scriptural, as well). Again, deny it — and you may as well deny John 3:16.
And guess who “ratified” Church Councils? Yup, the Pope. And guess what codified the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? A council.
(To a Catholic, this is confirmed also by the history of the popes...there have been some very “interesting” characters who have been named pope in history. Despite how “interesting” they were — the Catholic Encyclopedia has used the term “disappointing,” in fact — no official doctrine, much less dogma, was ever issued by those “interesting/disappointing” characters)
It's not easy to abide by the protocol, at least not for me, especially in view of your excellently made points (with which I disagree but which I would like to explore)
The one clarifying effort I think I can make is to say that "Infallibility" does not necessarily imply the same kind of revelation that went into, say, the writings of Paul. I would venture to suggest that ONE model of infallibility in action would be the Conference in Jerusalem over what to do about uncircumcised Christians (the ones that weren't female, that is.)
An aspect of "Infallibility" and its exercise which I think is often overlooked is that as a rule it is exercised in response to contention or outcry. Apparently sincere and pious folk of good will can disagree on the relationship between The Son and the Father, and their disagreements were often as nasty as religious debates on FR!
(Yes, I know that's hard to believe, but there it is. In those days, though, once Christianity was licit, they knew the identity of the RM -- fellow named Constantine, I think.)
Then as now, those who thought the Scriptures were clear that the Son was as divine as the Father were amazed and angry that there were others who maintained "There was when the Son did not exist." All of them reading more or less the same texts, and intending to worship whatever it was the Jesus of Nazareth was (and is).
Questions of this kind have cropped up over the past millennia. You and I may say the Trinity is clearly implicit in Scripture. But my Jehovah's Witness friends will say it's clearly denied in Scripture — and will produce their own translation to bolster their claims!
To whom can the person who is not a theologian and is just beginning to read the Bible turn? Which translation of the Bible shall he study? Are left saying that if God wants to save Him and wants Him to be at least approaching some kind of truth He will somehow direct him in the right way or to the right group of people?
(I see that our claims of "infallibility" only push the question back a step in this pluralistic age.)
Certainly it seems that it cannot be and has not been a case of a person alone with the Bible. There is always at least a temporary companion.
Okay, I'm rambling. Sorry.
Public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle but the Holy Spirit resides in the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit has not and will not abandon the Church. It is that same Holy Spirit(God) which keeps the teachings of faith and morals infallible not mere humans.
It is pretty obvious that the Apostles were also fallible humans yet Jesus chose them to head the church on Earth. It was through the Holy Spirit, not their feeble humanity, that they had the faith and the knowledge—and infallibility—required to lead the early church after Pentacost.
I could go on for days but the when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church meets all the requirements of infallibility it is God speaking through the Church and not fallible men. There is no new revalation but there can be a more thorough understanding of revelation.
Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we would not have the Bible we have now which was compiled and infallibly deemed inspired by a council of the Catholic Church. Individuals would be left in the dark as to which books were inspired and which weren’t and then there would likely be millions of different denominations instead of thousands, each with a different theology than the next.
For centuries the Church was alive and well through Tradition, that revelation that the Apostles handed on and it was through that Tradition of the Apostles that the councils chose which books were inspired and it was through the Holy Spirit that this could be known.
**He promises to send the Apostles the Holy Spirit to teach them ALL things.**
So true. Right there in Scripture!
I appreciate your taking up this question in such a clear and agreeable way. I’d gone to bed.
Willkommen!
Very well articulated.
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.