August 16, 2023—Questions that arise from a Catholic Answers tract
Catholic Answers has published a tract titled Papal Infallibility. It contains a certification by an official censor that it’s free of doctrinal or moral errors, so it seems pretty legit.
I’d like to ask some questions as I think critically about it. Perhaps I’ll flesh this post out with additional research as I have time. But for now there will probably only be questions.
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
I’m struggling to understand this. I think this is what is being said:
It’s that last bullet point that I don’t understand. How can a person know if a bishop’s teaching accords with the doctrine in question? I think that judgment could only be made with certainty if the pope and a general council meet and agree? But then who can bring that infallible judgment down so that it is infallibly within reach of the lay person? Would it not have to be a bishop, which simply raises the question again? Because how can a person know if that bishop’s teaching on that infallible judgment, is itself in accord with that infallible judgment?
Otherwise it seems that people have to just assume that a bishop’s teaching accords, and then assume that his teaching is infallible in that instance. So infallibility is reduced to a mere assumption?
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
How solemnly, or in what form, must the pope make proclamation? And again, how can a person know infallibly that the pope has followed the proper procedure? Or what the pope has said?
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
I think this is an appeal to purity (No True Scotsman). A Catholic is one who never calls anything significant into question, until he does. At which point he’s no longer Catholic? so it’s still true that nothing has been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. Otherwise a falsifying example would be the Reformation, when a very significant number of Catholics began doubting many major doctrines.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection, of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example.
Pope John XII is a popular example of a pope living scandalously. He was excommunicated, declared to be apostate, and died shamefully. Indeed, if any kind of infallibility is present in the papacy, then this guy is proof that it comes with absolutely no guarantee of impeccability.
But I have a question about this. Above, Catholic Answers said a bishop is infallible while “maintaining the bond of unity […] with Peter’s successor”. Surely Pope John XII was not maintaining that bond. So in his case he possessed the gift of infallibility by nature of his office (he was pope), while simultaneously he did not “enjoy the prerogative of infallibility” due to his sins? If so, then to me that feels like the fallacy of division (I think that’s the name for it?)—the doctrine arises out of a study of generalities, but then is used to overrule any contradicting specifics.
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible; only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
How solemnly? How “officially”?
How can a person know infallibly that threshold has been reached? If you cannot know it infallibly, then you cannot know that the solemn official teaching is infallible, and so infallibility is an assumption or a courtesy.
I believe it’s Catholic teaching that popes may err in matters of fact. Therefore isn’t it possible that a pope may err in saying “I solemnly and officially teach this”? Therefore you cannot know it is infallible without already knowing it’s infallible.
Are there not examples of solemn, official teachings on faith and morals within the history of the Catholic Church which disagree with each other? I’ve heard allegations that there are.
If they do not disagree, how do you know that infallibly? Wouldn’t certainty on the matter require the intervention of a bishop, and infallible knowledge of it would require the pope with a council. But then how would you know infallibly whether the pope and the council are in agreement, unless you already assume that they agree. In which case isn’t it meaningless to say they must agree, because it’s question begging to state they must agree and to mean the determination of their agreement is a presumption.
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13).
So Peter’s actions had nothing to do with issues of faith or morals? That’s absurd. He was leading people astray (Gal 2:13), which is certainly an issue of both faith and morals.
So Peter’s actions have no teaching role whatsoever? That’s also absurd.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
I agree that Peter had some kind of infallibility with respect to authoring his scriptures. So yes, Peter’s misconduct did not nullify the epistles he wrote. I even have to admit that Solomon’s misconduct did not nullify Proverbs or Song of Songs.
But I think Pope John XII could rightly be called a slave of the devil without any offense to Catholics. So isn’t it an entirely different thing to say the popes are the rock and foundation of the church, helping to preserve her from the gates of hell, when at least one pope is himself a slave of hell? How can a hellish foundation save from hell? And then how can infallibility be derived from implications of that? That certainly requires additional explanation, to say the least.
I think I’m left wondering these things:
I think some of these questions will be easy to answer with additional research.