INFALLIBILITY’S FATAL FLAW

White Horse Inn ^ | February 17, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[RnMomof7]

In 897 AD, Pope Stephen VII had Pope Formosus’ body exhumed and put on trial at the infamous Cadaver Synod, during which the corpse was found guilty, and stripped of his papal vestments. Pope Theodore II later convened a synod and overturned Pope Stephen’s findings, as did Pope John IX after him. But later, Pope Sergius III overturned the rulings of Theodore II and John IX, and reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus. Perhaps Formosus’ corpse will find some little comfort in the knowledge that it is still—at least for now—listed on Rome’s “unbroken line of popes” currently on display at the Vatican.

We find a papal corpse a particularly fitting background image for this post on infallibility’s fatal flaw. The Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church may share in Christ’s infallibility, says the Catechism, “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891). But there is one problem: nobody knows when the Pope is speaking infallibly, nobody knows how often a pope has spoken infallibly, and nobody knows what the criteria are for when a pope is speaking infallibly. It is indeed a fleeting comfort to be assured that your teacher is teaching infallibly only at times when he is teaching infallibly, but that there is no way to know what those times are.

To give you an idea of how severe this problem is, we invite you to consider Keenan’s 1860 Catechism of the Catholic Church, published ten years before Vatican Council I declared that the Roman Pontiff enjoys the charism of infallibility. This is what Keenan’s Catechism said of the ancient and historical gift bestowed by Christ on “His” Roman Catholic Church since Peter:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?

(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

In a later version, “Revised and corrected, conformably to the decrees of [Vatican I]” in 1869-70, Keenan acknowledged that Papal Infallibility is now, and always had been, a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church:

(Q.) What dogma was defined in this Council?

(A.) The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.

Of course, the problem for Roman Catholics does not end there. I highlighted this issue in the late 1990s in an article called Quid Pro Canon. The details are worked out more fully there, but to illustrate the problem, different Roman Catholic apologists believe differently about how many times a Pope has spoken infallibly:

Scott Hahn: two
Tim Staples: at least four
Adam Miller: eleven
Leslie Rumble: eighteen

To complicate matters, Rumble held that two of the eighteen are “of the utmost authority, [but] still fall short of technical requirements” for infallibility, and another two “very probably comply with the requirements” for infallibility.

Perhaps if there were an infallible list of infallible statements, this would be simpler, and the Roman apologists could come to an agreement. But it gets worse: there is no “official” list of criteria with which it may be determined that a papal statement is infallible. The different Roman Catholic sources indicate the severity of the problem:

Fr. William Most: two criteria
Apologist Scott Butler: three criteria
Catholic Encyclopedia: four criteria

Roman apologists do not even agree on the occasions that would induce a Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility. Apologist Karl Keating says the Pope only exercises it to resolve doctrinal disputes. Apologist Scott Hahn says the exact opposite:

Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire. (emphasis added)

In sum, Roman apologists themselves, as eagerly as they defend Papal Infallibility, do not know how many times he has exercised it, do not agree on why he exercises it, and do not know how to determine whether a pope has exercised it. All they know is that he has it.

We admire the tenacity of those who still want to argue for Papal Infallibility, and we especially appreciate how they make our argument for us. A few years back, “The Catholic Voyager,” in a blog post called Fallacies on Infallibility, attempted to rebut Quid Pro Canon by demonstrating the ease with which a Roman Catholic can identify infallible teachings. For example, he wrote, “a reasonable Catholic,” using criteria that he does not explicitly identify, should be able to read Munificentissimus Deus and determine on his own that it is infallible. Further, in Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, Pope John XXIII said that Ineffabilis Deus was infallible. “The Voyager” writes,

These examples are enough to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church whether or not one theologian or another may believe some other doctrine was not “technically” defined infallibly.

Voyager makes our point for us. He appeals to Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, which was not an infallible proclamation, as evidence that Ineffabilis Deus was proclaimed infallibly.  If it is so easy to identify infallibility in the Church, why does “one theologian or another” disagree on whether some doctrine was “technically” defined infallibly? If a “reasonable Catholic” can determine it on his own, why did Rumble include two proclamations that probably are, and two that might not be, infallible? Why not just say they are, or they are not, infallible? As evidence of how difficult this is for practicing Catholics, most of whom probably consider themselves “reasonable,” consider the debate at US Catholic about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was defined infallibly by John Paul II:

When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. … Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”—although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office.

We are reminded here of Fr. William Most’s appeal to an unofficially published decree from the Holy Office in order to prove that it had been the intent of multiple popes and councils to declare a doctrine to be infallible, “for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.” Of course, unofficially published decrees are not infallible. They are not even officially published! Perhaps “the Catholic Voyager” can offer the assistance of “a reasonable Catholic” to William Most and US Catholic, as well as to Hahn, Staples, Keating, Butler, Rumble, Miller and the Catholic Encyclopedia by providing a list of Infallible Papal statements, since it is so easy for “a reasonable Catholic” “to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church.”

The Voyager ultimately refuses to provide any infallible list of infallible papal statements, as must every honest Roman apologist. The list exists nowhere in the “deposit of faith,” of which Rome is ostensibly the guardian. Therefore, to produce such a list would require that a Roman Catholic believe in Sola Verbum Dei plus something that is not contained anywhere in the Verbum Dei—making Sola Verbum Dei self-defeating.

“The Voyager” simply states that Rome does not need to produce such an infallible list, because that would be “asking God to certify God.”  Very well. Neither will Protestants bow to Rome’s requests to prove from the Scripture that the 66-book canon is the canon of Scripture. Since the Scripture as contained in the 66-book canon is the Word of God, that would be “asking God to certify God.” The  Voyager thinks by this that he has caught us in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. Hardly. He has merely caught us measuring Rome by her own standards, and finding her wanting.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Roger that.

[DungeonMaster]

The bible is very straightforward about anyone calling himself a prophet and being wrong.

[Diamond]

That's funny, because Vatican I taught (infallibly, BTW):

.....

Looks like some pretty clear qualifications to me. The Pope has to be (a) speaking in his supreme authority as "Pastor and Teacher of All Christians," (b) he has to be defining (that is, teaching definitively), (c) to the whole church, (d) a doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Is that your interpretation of what Vatican I taught? Is one's individual infallibility in interpreting that document as common as dirt and available to anyone who has said the magic words before reading Vatican I for themselves?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

The real question is, what is the Protestant definition infallibility they claim the Pope does not have.

It obviously does not fit with the understanding of the word in common use throughout history. Apparently the is a peculiar special decoder ring definition of the word that Protestantism says applies to each Protestant individual but somehow not to any individual Pope or other Catholic.

Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility is clear, long established, profusely documented, and the subject of numerous books by Catholic theologians and others, both pro and con.

More to the point is how any Protestant can argue against any form of Catholic infallibility, Papal or other, when all of Protestantism is based on individual interpretation of any and all Scripture.

Seeing Protestants focus so intently on attacking Catholics and Catholicism rather than on bringing home the 99 of their own sheep who are so obviously widely scattered begs the question, how can folks who claim to be able to infallibly interpret Scripture ignore so much of it ?

[CynicalBear]

>>Scripture simply describes the Church as a whole imasculine terms and never in feminine terms.<<

>>Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"<<

You really need to think about what you write. Look at your two statements above. You claim that the "church" has to be male. Then you claim that Israel and Gentiles are the "church" the "one new man". Now, we KNOW that Israel was the wife of God. One would presume female unless you want now to go into homosexuality or trans-gendered. But that's not the only problem with your scenario. God also said He would restore Israel as His wife.

Isaiah 54:6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of one's youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I forsook you, But with great compassion I will gather you.

So God promised to bring back His wife but she has become a male per your analysis.

>>Yeast always represents evil in Scripture.<<

Matthew 13:33 He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

So now the Kingdom of Heaven represents evil? In your previous post you simply dismissed this verse without explaining other than to claim it clashed with other references to yeast. Christ said "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven" meaning it changes the whole. How can that be a negative in this sense?

Like I said in my last post. Your post and your ebook are rife with error. It would be impossible to cover them all in one post or even this forum. My suggestion would be for people to totally ignore both your posts and your ebook.

[Diamond]

The real question is, what is the Protestant definition infallibility they claim the Pope does not have.

No, the question is the one I asked.

It obviously does not fit with the understanding of the word in common use throughout history. Apparently the is a peculiar special decoder ring definition of the word that Protestantism says applies to each Protestant individual but somehow not to any individual Pope or other Catholic.

Catholic doctrine on Papal infallibility is clear, long established, profusely documented, and the subject of numerous books by Catholic theologians and others, both pro and con.

I'll ask the question in a different way. Is your interpretation of that Roman Catholic doctrine infallible?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

Your question assumes that I accept a Protestant definition of the word infallible, a definition not in evidence, and a definition that obviously is used to mean one thing when in the context of all individual Protestant interpretations of Scripture but something different when applied to a Catholic individual.

Therefore, the question is exactly as I stated it, what is the Protestant definition of infallibility that makes it possible to claim infallible individual interpretation of Scripture while at the same ruling out infallible individual interpretation of Scripture ?

Get back to me when you've polled the tens of thousands of different Protest ant groups and they've all agreed to a proper definition.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>So God promised to bring back His wife but she has become a male per your analysis.<<<

I simply revealed what Scripture says about Israel + the Gentiles. It wasn’t me that said that the Church = Israel + Gentiles = “one new man” = “one body” in Ep.2.15b-16. God did - go argue with Him.

I explained Mt.13.33 in my first post. Why do I have to explain it again?

Again, Revelation tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church, and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church - her son). No errors.

But by all means, go ahead and cling to your tradition...

[CynicalBear]

>>I simply revealed what Scripture says about Israel + the Gentiles. It wasn’t me that said that the Church = Israel + Gentiles = “one new man” = “one body” in Ep.2.15b-16. God did - go argue with Him.<<

What you evidently didn't take into account is that is that is during this age of grace which ends with the fullness of the Gentiles.

<Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

>>I explained Mt.13.33 in my first post.<<

NO, you didn't. You simply dismissed it.

>>Again, Revelation tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church<<

You also ignored who it is that inhabits that New Jerusalem.

>>and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church - her son).<<

And I showed you that "Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28). [http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm]

And you contend that Israel turned from a female wife to a male.

[Diamond]

Your question assumes that I accept a Protestant definition of the word infallible,

No, my question does not assume a Protestant definition of the word infallible. Use Campions' definition, if you like. Is Campion's definition correct?

Cordially,

[Rashputin]

That definition doesn't match Protestant use of the word therefore what are we talking about since infallibility isn't the real issue, only the word chosen to make some other point while pretending infallibility is the issue ?

Where in Scripture is infallible individual interpretation of Scripture spelled out so clearly " a child can understand it" rather than clear only to those who prefer to interpret it one way or another ?

Following any such clear statement, what is the clear explaination in Scripture of how while an unlimited number of different interpretations are all equally infallible, that unlimited number of possible infallible interpretations does not include any interpretation held by a sitting Pope or any other Pope throughout history ?

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>>>NO, you didn't. You simply dismissed it.<<<

I did not "simply dismiss it". I explained it. And frankly, I am tried of you ignoring my explanation and claiming that I didn't.

>>>You also ignored who it is that inhabits that New Jerusalem.<<<

I also addressed this. Again, you are becoming very tiring. I am beginning to think that you have a comprehension problem.

>>>And I showed you that "Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers<<<

Of course it includes female believers, but the Church is symbolically represented as a whole as a "son". By your tortured logic, no men could be included in the bride of Christ, even if it was the Church - nonsense. (Of course, Scripture flat-out tells us that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church.)

>>>And you contend that Israel turned from a female wife to a male.<<<

I did no such thing. I simply pointed to Scripture that flatly states that:

Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"

Again, your argument is not with me, but with God. Good luck with that...

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Sorry, my last post was to CynicalBear not Diamond.