Infallibility, the objects and subjects.
By Anthony Murphy.
Anthony Murphy is a Bachelor student of catholic theology in Melbourne, Australia.
What is infallibility?
In this essay we shall attempt to analyse infallibility. We shall analyse the object of infallibility, that is what can be infallible, and we shall try to analyse the subjects of infallibility, that is, the sensus fidelium, the ordinary Magisterium(Episcopal infallibility), Ecumenical Councils, and finally the Papacy. We shall endeavour to demonstrate that the Church sees Infallibility not as the action of men, but a share in the divine life of God. We shall also attempt to show that the sensus fidelium is the foundational infallibility, through which the grace of God works towards the other subjects of infallibility.
Infallibility is a term meaning “incapable of error”. The term is at the centre of much debate within the Church regarding what exactly it means, and what its implications are. Broadly speaking, the Church declares herself infallible on matters of faith and morals, directly relating to the Christian faith. Yet not every statement the Church makes on Faith and morals is considered infallible.
The Second Vatican Council makes a clearer distinction. “And this infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” This statement is further clarified for us in the Catechism of the Church when it states “The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.”
At the First Vatican Council, where a sub-committee was created to look into the issue of infallibility, a key contributor to the debate, Bishop Gassar explained “that infallibility had both a direct object, and an indirect object: the direct object included those truths which are revealed, and the indirect object those which are not directly revealed but which are necessarily connected to revelation.” However, the bishops finally agreed to a tighter definition “concluding that the secondary object included only those truths necessarily connected to revelation. They never reached agreement, however, as to which truths were necessarily connected.”
Perhaps the clearest contribution to our understanding comes from The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in its 1973 Mysterium Ecclesiae where it sets forth secondary (indirect) objects as “things without which the deposit cannot be properly safeguarded and explained.”
In summary then, the object on an infallible meaning is either, the direct object of preserving revelation, or the indirect object, of those things necessary to maintain the direct object.
The subject of infallible meanings is chiefly the Church, with Christ at Her head. That is, it is the Church who carries, and in cases articulates infallible meanings.
The first amongst these is the Sense of the Faithful, known in the Latin as sensus fidelium. This infallibility of the faithful is “the most fundamental of infallibilities.”
This consensus of the faithful, or infallibility of believing “refers to the universal Christian meanings that are implicitly embedded in the living faith of those who are attached to Christ.” That is, those truths handed to us as revelation, which are the basis of Christianity. Such infallibility could be considered in the case of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since it is a part of the Christian Faith, and has always been believed by Christians, that Christ died on the cross, and is universally believed by all Christians, it could be said that this implicit meaning is infallible by virtue of the Sensus Fidelium.
As the Catechism states: “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."”
This universal meaning “existing at least implicitly in the whole of the faithful which constitute the source out of which the hierarchy becomes capable of infallibly understanding and ultimately proclaiming Christian truth for all.” It is important to note however that this form of infallibility is not an organ of proclamations in itself. The implicit faith is not an authority, or a guarantee of infallibility to articulate the meaning. It is simply infallibility implicit within the Church, not explicit.
An explicit infallibility requires the subjects to be discussed in coming sections, however it is reasonable to state now that “the infallible understanding and proclamation of universal Christian meanings by the hierarchy makes explicit what previously may have only been implicit in the minds of the most of the faithful; and serves to strengthen and deepen the sense of the faith of all”.
So, the sensus fidelium is the basis of this share in the divine life. The Church as a whole, guided by the Magisterium, is endowed by this capacity in right faith, and from this flow all infallible expressions within the Church. The Bishops, who themselves were once baptized in the bosom of Mother Church, were formed in the faith by the Holy Spirit Himself, through the hearts, words and actions of the earlier generation of Catholics, and now shepherd a flock of their own, on behalf of the Word made flesh.
The problem with the sensus fidelium is that it can not be monitored by a poll. “The notion that any issue can be decided by counting heads is incredibly naïve” The very way in which a question is asked can determine the outcome. Likewise, not all of the faithful, and at times, few of them, may grasp the full implications of what they believe. Thus, meanings gained in such a method are not able to be easily pointed to as some sort of consensus which can be established by asking. The implicitness of the sensus fidelium is therefore rather silent, a guardian of the truth to be sure, but not an articulator of the truth.
The Second Vatican Council says this about Bishops: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” This, in brief, means that the bishops of the Church, when united, with the bishop of Rome, may make an infallible statement. This theology can be found to have a scriptural basis in when talking to the Apostles, Jesus says:
Matt 18:17-19 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
It is reasonable to say that outside an Ecumenical Council, this situation was rare prior to the last century when communications could establish that agreement was found on an issue relating to the faith. However, the Council now seeing that this is possible, went on to make specific reference to the ability of bishops to reach “agreement” even when “dispersed through the world”.
Such ability as outlined by Vatican II is exemplified in the case of the John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Within this document the Holy Father made this statement: “In response to this request, at Pentecost in 1991 I wrote a personal letter to each of my Brother Bishops asking them, in the spirit of Episcopal collegiality, to offer me their cooperation in drawing up a specific document. I am deeply grateful to all the Bishops who replied and provided me with valuable facts, suggestions and proposals. In so doing they bore witness to their unanimous desire to share in the doctrinal and pastoral mission of the Church with regard to the Gospel of life.”
With this statement the Holy Father sets the scene for the doctrines he is to define within the document. He is doing so in communion with the Bishops throughout the world.
The statements within the text are compelling however.
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops--who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine--I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These three statements contain in them a footnote to section 25 of Lumen Gentium. They are transmitted to us by the Pope, but they are articulated in the name of the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This is an example of Episcopal Infallibility, otherwise known as Ordinary Magisterial Infallibility.
This case is however explicitly declared as such. In as much as it is formally articulated by the Pope in a readable format. The actual section of Lumen Gentium does not however exclude the possibility that a position may be held by the bishops of the world which has not been formalized to this degree, but is nonetheless part of the deposit of faith, and is therefore infallible. However, in such a case, since it is extremely difficult to point to without explicit agreement, it is almost impossible to determine, and if so, therefore can not be called an articulated infallible statement. Even so, we believe, as many theologians do, that the declaration of a saint falls into the category.
On the Episcopal subject of infallibility the sacred council says further: “This 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, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.” This statement points to the formal Ecumenical Councils of the Church, such as Vatican II, where the bishops of the world are brought together, and share collegiality of the most profound kind. There have been twenty-one Ecumenical Councils of the Church, through which many Doctrines have been infallibly declared. Such are the number as to be too lengthy to enumerate here, however an example may be the Nicene Creed, declared at the Council of Nicea.
Within the modern era it would be hard to think of a more significant infallible statement from a council than the words of Vatican I in her Apostolic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, 1870, when it said:
It is divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed…
This brings us to the last of our organs of infallibility, the Pope. This recognition of the supreme authority of the Pope calls the faithful to recognize the truths of the deposit of faith (Eph 4:5).
Vatican I’s solemn definition of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching function was the culmination of a long development in the Ecclesiology of the Western Church that had in great part been centered on the theme of the unity of the universal Church and on the role of the Petrine office as the centre and support of that unity
The beginnings of the scriptural basis of the declaration of Vatican I may be found in
Matt 16:16-19 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.".
This last example of infallibility probably has more books written about it than the previous combined. The idea of this authority being concentrated in the hands of one man is a source of comfort for some, and for others a troubling doctrine.
Not least amongst those critics, is the German theologian Hans Küng. Küng starts his major work on infallibility by going over the mistakes of the Papacy, as a criticism as to why the Papacy should not be credited with infallibility.
Among what might be called the classical errors now widely admitted are the excommunication of Photius, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and of the Greek Church, which formalized the now nearly thousand year old schism with the Eastern Church; the ban on lending money at interest imposed at the beginning of the modern age, a matter on which, after many compromises, the teaching office changed its mind, much too late; the condemnation of Galileo, and similar measures basically responsible for the estrangement between the Church and science that to this day has not yet been finally overcome; the condemnation of new forms of worship Rites controversy, which is one of the main reasons for the large-scale failure of the Catholic missions to India, China and Japan…
And so on and so forth Küng uses examples to demonstrate the dangers of allowing the Pontiff to have this profound power [sic] to determine eternal Church teaching.
Hans Küng takes as his prime example the Encyclical of Paul VI Humanae Vitae. For Küng, this is a prime example of why the idea of Papal Infallibility is not a good one. Küng argues that the Pope, by releasing his encyclical during the Council, actually circumvented the Council. “At the Council did not the Episcopate more or less passively and without serious reason – though admittedly hoping for a positive outcome – allow the Pope simply to reserve to himself the decision on this question and on the similarly weighty one of the reform of the Curia? Did this not permit him to reach his decision ‘on his own’, in the absolutist style customary to the high middle ages?”
For Küng, the argument of Humanae Vitae is based on bad theology. “...the encyclical’s arguments based on natural law are not convincing; that its concept of what is natural is naïve, static, narrow, and completely unhistorical” In an attempt to exemplify this, Küng offers the issue of transplants. “The artificiality of a method is no argument against its permissibility (the Pope declared heart transplants to be permissible)…”
However, if this logic were followed, one needs to ask whether birth is a disease, as heart disease is. Is it fair to compare the natural link between sexuality, and procreation, vis-à-vis the flaw in the human condition of disease? Is there a pro-genitive aspect to sexuality as a natural and normal course of human life, or are children a negative thing, like angina, to be overcome, rather than to be lived with, and accepted as part of our humanity?
But more to our point, is Küng actually jousting at ‘straw men’? This is raised by Karl Rahner : “If Küng has the consensus of Catholic theologians with him in holding that Humanae Vitae is erroneous in its condemnation of certain forms of contraception, he surely has the consensus of theologians against him when he holds that it is in the terms of the teaching of Vatican I, infallible.” “It is not surprising that Rahner vigorously attacks Küng on this point. Taking a stance similar to that of Newman a century ago, Rahner states: ‘Even if the minority commission had said that this question calls for an absolutely definitive assent, this would have been only the opinion of this minority and nothing more.’”
In short, Humanae Vitae was never presented as an infallible dogma in the first place, so it is an extremely poor example for Hans Küng to be using to argue that very point.
So far as Papal Infallibility goes as defined by Vatican I, we can only find two statements which definitely meet this criteria. They are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The great controversy over Papal Infallibility therefore probably points to just two Dogmas, both of which receive the over-whelming support of Catholics.
It is interesting to note that the Immaculate Conception pre-dates Vatican I. Thus, it is possible that an infallible statement from a Pope to pre-date Pastor Aeternus (1870). However, if the consensus of Catholic theologians can not agree on a Papal statement invoking the privilege of infallibility, even though it does not change its objective truth, it does not oblige a Catholic to consider it De Fide until such time as it is explicitly declared as such, and thus put beyond doubt.
Having looked at the object of infallibility, we can succinctly define it as the direct object of preserving revelation, or the indirect object, of those things necessary to maintain the direct object.
The subjects of infallibility are the sensus fidelium, the Episcopate in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Episcopate in Council with the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome. It is ironic that the most controversial of these, the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome (Papal Infallibility), has contributed little to the defined deposit of faith when compared to the others.
Bibliography
· Bermejo, Luis M.. Infallibility on Trial. Maryland: Christian Classics, 1992.
· Catechism of the Catholic Church. Rome: Ligouri Publications, 1994.
· Chirico, Peter. Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1977.
· Connor, James T. (ed). The Gift of Infallibility. USA: Daughters of St.Paul, 1986.
· John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical Letter. Sydney: St.Pauls, 1995.
· Küng, Hans. Infallible?: An Inquiry, London: Collins, 1971.
· Küng, Hans. The Council and Reunion. London & New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961.
· Lawlor, F.X., Ford, J.T., Heft, J.L.. “Infallibility”. In New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (2002), 7:448-52.
· McSorley, Harry J., et al.. The Infallibility Debate. New York: Paulist Press, 1971.
· Neuner, J., Dupuis, J. (eds). The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. Revised Edition UK Glasgow: Collins, 1983.
· The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Scepter, 1966.
· Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972.
