infallible voice on doctrine
A question for the Catholics among us...
I read in a review of Ratzinger's new book (link) that:
"After finishing a 400-page manuscript last fall, Pope Benedict XVI decided to publish his argument under his given name, as a theologian-scholar rather than as the church's "infallible" voice on doctrine. "Everyone is free, then," he writes, "to contradict me."
This seems odd to me. First of all, that there would be an "infallible voice on doctrine" is a bit out there for me. In our denomination (link), there is no human authority above the level of the local church, and even the leaders in the local church (in practice) don't wield all that much authority.
Assuming though that the pope is the "infallible voice on doctrine", then why play this game of sometimes wearing his "theolgian-scholar" hat and sometimes "infallible voice on doctrine." If you're infallible, that settles it.
What's the deal?
well, the catholic doctrine of infallibility only pertains to special cases where the pope formally puts on his "infallibility hat" and issues a teaching. almost all things that popes teach do not have the rank of "infallible" teaching. i think there are very few cases where the pope has resorted to this.
i believe that infallibility is kind of a last resort to settle important conflicts in matters of teaching where no consensus among senior church leaders can be reached.
so, i guess the answer is: the pope is not infallible, unless he puts on his formal authority in some case of emergency. but i'm no theologian, so i may be wrong. this is how i understand it.
many catholics just have a lot of respect for the guy, he usually being a well-recognized theologian, and just assume he's right anyway...
On the subject of Papal Infallibility.
One of the first things to realize is the definition of infallibility and that in particular it does not mean impeccability.
Thus when St. Paul rebukes St. Peter he rebukes his behavior. But, when St. Paul needs to resolve a question regarding circumcision it is St. Peter who infallibly determines doctrine – in this case via the first apostolic council, the Council of Jerusalem.
Second, you should recognize that there is a limit to the scope of infallibility. The pope may only teach infallibly on matters of morality and faith. So, logically, the pope cannot teach infallibly regarding the nature of quantum electrodynamics – it would be beyond the scope of his authority to do so.
Third, you should actually look at the justification for this type of authority. Do you know how many heresies sprung up upon the formation of Christianity? How many are addressed in the Pauline letters alone? When you go beyond this to see what happened in the first 400 years of Christianity you learn about Montanism, Arianism, Gnosticism, etc. And, so you see an enormous amount of time spent defending the true tenants of Jesus and his apostles – this was and is the pope’s job, to defend the faith.
Fourth, you should take a look at exactly what has been declared infallible down throughout the ages. I am sure you will find it all agreeable. Much of it is like having to defend the obvious. A modern day example is the sacrament of marriage – defined infallibly by Pope Paul VI to be the union between a man and a woman. Now most of us did not need this little bit of logic but if you turn to the Anglican Church you will see that there are issues with the obvious now being turned on its head.
Finally, and here this the difficult part, you mention that this seems a bit unnecessary coming from your perspective as a member of the Church of Christ. I would like to explain to you that, in fact, you are very familiar with the benefits of papal infallibility.
Let’s begin with the fine summary you provided via link to Wikipedia. This summary explains that the Church of Christ believes in the concept of sola Scriptura. This concept proposes that all that a Christian needs is between the two covers of his Bible. In particular that all that is needed for the faithful can be found in these pages. Further, in particular that these pages are the means by which God reveals Himself to man and that no other means is necessary to find God but to know this sacred scripture.
Also, on Wikipedia, the summary on the Church of Christ says that it is devoted to the gospel and teaching of the apostles but that it stops there and does not entertain the teachings of the so-called early church fathers or of creeds or of council teachings.
The difficulty I ran into was that the dismissal of early council teachings is in conflict with the Church of Christ belief in sola Scriptura. Why? Well, where did the canon of scripture come from other than the council declarations, here they are:
The list goes on up through 1869 when the first Vatican Council reaffirmed the list. So, for over 16 centuries, the Catholic Church used her teaching authority and the infallibility of Pope Damasus to define the canon of scripture. Some of the books originally under question were Hebrews, Jude, Revelations, and 2 Peter – nevertheless included in Pope Damasus’ decree. Others that some people thought were inspired included – Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, and the letters of Barnabas and Clement – but none of these were included by Pope Damasus.
Notably, Martin Luther removed seven books -- ouch! It appears that he did this mainly so that he could remove any reference to Purgatory and the Communion of Saints.
In your statement stating that you were unfamiliar with the nature of papal infallibility it seems that the opposite is true. So, as you study sacred scripture in compliance with the tenants of the Church of Christ you are not reading the letters of Barnabas and Clement because Pope Damasus did not permit those letters to become a part of sacred scripture and you are reading Hebrews, etc. because Pope Damasus degreed it so Ex Cathedra. Every time you state that all you need is between the two covers of your bible you should also mention that you believe this because you ascent to the infallible degree of Pope Damasus in AD 382. But how can you ascent to the power of papal infallibility when the cannon of sacred scripture does not explicitly call it out or explain its limitations?
Further, the Wikipedia article explicitly points out that the Church of Christ does not adhere to any creed or council dogmas. Again, this cannot be true unless the Church of Christ has created its own bible. Few would join it though if this were the case. Instead, the Church of Christ relies heavily on council dogmas including the cannon of scripture, the dogma of the Holy Trinity, and the dogmatic formulary for baptism.
Please consider that all this is OK because the church of the apostles and the disciples is the same church that St. Peter led to Rome and for which he was crucified upside down and to which he gave his own apostolic authority through Pope St. Linus in AD 67 etc. on down now to Pope Benedict XVI.
Thanks,
Joey
Joey and Peter,
Thanks for the explanations.
I was basically trying to understand the concept of papal infallibility.
I brought up the c of C background as an excuse for why I'm so ignorant about the concept of papal infallibility and might find it a bit strange once I learn more about it...neither to explicitly claim the traditional c of C views to be superior to Catholic ones nor to be independent of them.
I understand from both of you that papal infallibility has a limited scope. This is something that I didn't fully understand, though in retrospect that's what Ratzinger was obviously saying in his quote about the book. I understand your point about electrohydrodynamics being outside the scope...but that doesn't help me all that much to understand why certain matters of faith and doctrine are in scope but others are not.
I just read through the wikipedia entry on papal infallibility (link). That would have been a good place for me to start and would have answered most of my questions...but then there might have been less meat for conversation.
From the wikipedia article quoting an "Idiot's Guide...":
That, to me, is pretty straightforward...but I guess it seems like a different term would be more helpful since "papal infallibility" does sound like a mystical power rather than the concept that the pope is the ultimate and unquestioned authority for setitng offical church teaching on certain subjects.
I believe that the scriptures are sufficient. I also understand that my understanding of what is scripture and what scripture means is influenced in so many ways by the teachings and understandings of many sources originating outside scripture...from the early Christians, to the popes, to 20th century theologians, to my parents, etc. I believe that all of these sources benefit my understanding, but I do not believe that any of them are ultimately necessary. I understand that what I consider to be part of the canon is dependent on the "infallible decree" of Pope Damascus. I accept as scripture the 66 books in my Bible and don't feel a strong motivation to examine in details the various merits of what has or hasn't been included. However, I'm willing to accept the decree of Pope Damascus to the extent that it is supported by the evidence and wisdom and logic and consistency with the rest of scripture, not because I believe the decree to be infallible. If I were presented with clear evidence that an incorrect decsision was made, I would have little hesitation in deviating from Damascus' decree. That is, I do see a fundamental difference in the authority of the apostles vs. that of all subsequent theologians and spiritual leaders. As I've already mentioned, I do see great value in the teachings/perspectives of many that came later. However, to me that value is based not on their intrinsic objective authority but on my subjective view of their consistency with scripture.
Hopefully the above helps explain where I'm coming from.
A few other asides:
You mentioned St. Peter's role in the council of Jerusalem. When I read Acts 15, I also see Paul and Barnabas as important figures and, frankly, James (rather than Peter) to be "the decider"...though surely the decision was made by consensus of the apostles.
You are right that the c of C does rely heavily, if informally, on many creeds and dogmas and extra-Biblical teachings. The distinction between formal and informal reliance probably does have some significance though in the sense that the reliance must be informal since there is no hierarchy or human authority that is recognized and therefore able to make any such reliance formal or official.
You mentioned the need to deal with heresies. This week I watched the first three installments of PBS' "Secret Files of the Inquisition" (link). I'd be interested to hear your views on this troubling history.
Jonathan - personally, i am grieved by the fact that the church was hijacked, for several hundred years, by a bunch of torturers, murderers, you name it. there's no excuse for that. however, there's an explanation, and that is the need to preserve the faith from being hijacked. may sound stupid, but if you look at the U.S. at present, there's a neat little analogy: the U.S., once a bastion of individual freedom, become less free every year because the rulers think they have to clamp down hard on threats to freedom (guantanamo, wire-tapping, anyone?). so, faced with the divine mandate of keeping the church together in the face of external threats (invasion of holy land and europe by islam, worldly kings and emperors, heresiarchs, etc), the church slid itself into what it wanted to avoid being most: a reign of terror. if i think myself into the role of a pope who wants to defend the church against heretic X who thinks that aspect Z of the faith should be changed, abolished, reinterpreted, etc, what do i do? argue? teach? that will only help to some extent. at some point, if the guy persists in being obviously wrong, the gloves will have to come off, unless i want to completely forfeit my authority. and that not only means letting go of authority myself (that might be easy), but also abandoning the rest of the church to what may be a very evil influence. i don't know what i would have done, quite honestly.
however, the inquisition's misdeeds have been officially renounced ("sinful church"), and that is good. personally, i am not defending the inquisition. but i can see how such things may come about...
Peter,
I think that's an interesting parallel between the excesses of the inquisition and excesses of the "war on terror"...as people in power with presumably good intentions slip into taking actions that violate their most fundamental principles in the name of preserving those principles.
It's kind of an amazing contrast that the Christian church that began by voluntarily submitting to torture and violent death rather than violating the principles of their faith evolved to the point where it became a practitioner of torture, burning at the stake, etc. in the name of protecting the faith. I'd like to better understand how that transformation happened. I understand that the architects of the inquisition were motivated to stamp out heresy, but there had to have been a multitude of developments and mutations that took Christians from being voluntary recipients of torture to its practitioners.
I'd like to better understand how that transformation happened. ...
- me, too. but where to start? which books can one trust? any ideas?
No, I don't really have any specific ideas, though I suspect there are some good books out there if one were to search for them. I guess it's basically a study of the history of Christianity and how Christians went from being politically powerless to incredibly powerful...from the persecuted to the persecutors, etc. I suspect there's a significant role for loss of distinction between church and state (or contamination of one by the other). Constantine converts and issues the Edict of Milan...within several decades comes the first execution for heresy (Priscillian)...by the 11th century the church is sanctioning the crusades.
Sometime in the next year or so I want to put together a study of Christian perspectives on non-violence, pacifism, military service, just war theory, etc. for my church. What the Bible says about those issues, what the early Christians thought, etc. Maybe we'll hash it out here too.
Jonathan,
Thanks for your excellent reply. You are both challenging and present an intellectual honesty that is refreshing.
We are talking about several things that are best taken individually.
1) We are not yet clear on infallibility . . . I think . . .
2) You bring up the question of the authority of Peter vs. James a whole topic called either "the Papacy" or "Apostolic Authority"
3) Now you and Peter have devolved into the Inquisition/Crusades - really a different topic that does not touch on the other two
4) I think ultimately we will have to discuss Islam and how it compares to Christanity and Judiasm to answer some of your questions.
I think blogs are useful if each thread can be on one topic.
Joey
Joey,
Jonathan,
I could hardly summarize infallibility as well as this source does. Please take a read and then let's discuss.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Surely there will be propositions that you can accept and others that you cannot accept - but let's discuss them openly.
Joey
Joey,
I finally started reading read the article about infallibility. I'll record my thoughts in various comments as I make my way through it.
From the Wikipedia entry, I got the impression that infallibility is not necessarily some mystical ability as much as a statement that the pope is the ultimate authority. That incorrect impression is corrected:
Among the assumptions, this is the one that may be troublesome to me:
namely that the apostles had a hierarchy of successors to whom they passed on teaching, governing, and liturgical powers.
Looking at the first scripture cited as basis:
Matthew 28:18-20 - Jesus tells the apostles that all authority has been given to him, that they should make disciples teaching them to obey Jesus' commands, and that he will be with them until the "end of the age." This is the so-called "Great commission." I agree that, in some sense, it is a charge that we can reasonably assume applies to those who came after the apostles. In fact, I believe it applies to all Christians, not limited to a hierarchy of successors. That all Christians are to make disciples and teach them the commands of Jesus. Exactly what he meant regarding being with them until the end of the age isn't obvious to me (especially since he taught that he had to leave so that the Holy Spirit could come). The article gets a lot of mileage out of the "end of the age" part...probably too much, IMHO. To me, it is questionable to claim that this applies to "his church" in a way other than being applicable to all Christians since "his church" as some formal body wiith hierarchy of leaders did not exist at this time. Nevertheless, it is an assumption that this charge was applicable beyond those who heard it and an even bigger one that it applied to only a select few "successors."
I believe the commandments of Jesus are infallible, regardless of who is teaching them. The infalliblity rests in the teachings not in the teachers. I also suspect that it may be a bit tough to establish that all of the ex cathedra teachings are simply reiterations of the commandments of Jesus.
The article says that the church must be infallible otherwise there is no authority establishing that various historical heretical teachings are heretical. I respond that I rely primarily on scripture, not the church, to teach me with teachings are heretical. The article retorts that I can't appeal to scripture because the identification of what is and isn't scripture relies on the infalliblity of the church. This may be true in some historical sense, but I don't believe it to be true in a fundamental way. The canon stands on its on merits, not the authority of the church.
The article maintains that infallibility was necessary to maintain unity. Unity in the specifics of doctrine has not been maintained. Even in the time of the apostles, it was not. It claims that the only alternative to infallibility is private judgment. I'm in the private judgment camp. The article criticizes the fruit of private judgment (claiming it inevitably leads to utter rationalism). Um, no. Plus, I don't think it would be too hard to criticize the fruit of infalliblity were I so inclined.
The argument really seems to hinge on what Jesus meant in his promise to the apostles to "be with" them (and their assumed successors). This seems to me to be rather murky territory...
The discussion of this passage ends in a few paragraphs getting all technical about internal assent. I have not context for this. I recognize the right of no human to demand my internal assent.
more later...
Jonathan,
Thank you for your time devoted to this interesting topic. Indeed there are many questions that arise. I will wait until you finish your comments on the article. js
the canon has, for the vast stretch of the christian era, not relied on papal infallibility, which was formally decreed in the 19th century. i assume it was implicitly assumed, though. see wikipedia article.
"In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. For all such infallible teachings, the Holy Spirit also works through the body of the Church to ensure that the teaching will be received by all Catholics.
This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. "