Is Infallibility Possible or Desirable?

[Gregory Thompson]

Except Catholics DO NOT believe in sinless perfection except for two people. And neither of them is the pope. For you and me, and everyone you will meet, we are not going to be sinless in our lives. End of story.

And for that matter we only believe in an exceptionally limited infallibility. Far less than most people around here who think they are infallible.

One good thing about the doctrine of infallibility is the realization that I don't have it. It's a good humiliation for Catholics who then don't have to pretend we are infallible. Or that our pastor is infallible. Or that some TV preacher is infallible. Or that every utterance of a denominational leader is infallible. What a relief.

I understand more than just catholics have the infallibility mechanisms in their religious tradition.

Sometimes you see evidence of this in newer-ish traditions when they try to get people to fill out a piece of paper when they receive a miracle or healing. Using healing and miracles as proof of doctrine is another aspect of this area of scrutiny.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I understand more than just catholics have the infallibility mechanisms in their religious tradition.

Sometimes you see evidence of this in newer-ish traditions when they try to get people to fill out a piece of paper when they receive a miracle or healing. Using healing and miracles as proof of doctrine is another aspect of this area of scrutiny.

Well, a miracle is a form of testimony. But then I am allowed a healthy skepticism for any modern miracles, and would not be hasty to use them as proof of a doctrine. Cumulatively many miracles, once scrutinized heavily, then maybe so. After a decade or more had gone by. We Catholics are now discerning that maybe the many miracles in Medjugorje were not quite the proof of the apparitions that they appeared to be a few years ago. People want to believe, but they need time for the fruits of things to show.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, a miracle is a form of testimony. But then I am allowed a healthy skepticism for any modern miracles, and would not be hasty to use them as proof of a doctrine. Cumulatively many miracles, once scrutinized heavily, then maybe so. After a decade or more had gone by. We Catholics are now discerning that maybe the many miracles in Medjugorje were not quite the proof of the apparitions that they appeared to be a few years ago. People want to believe, but they need time for the fruits of things to show.

(yes)

Since wonders are spiritual in nature, you can tell by the fruit of those affected if it was of God or not after the passage of time.

 

[concretecamper]

A definition of faith I've always liked is that it's belief in the face of objective uncertainty. This implies that faith involves a level of trust rather than a sense of knowing. So we do the best we can with everything that's available to us - the Bible, church, books, the testimony of others and personal experience etc. - and then commit fully to that but still acknowledging some doubt and uncertainty. One benefit of this is that if we can tolerate doubt in ourselves we'll be more tolerant of others

OTOH, I can see why some people might say that, because we're talking about God and it's so important, our beliefs should be absolutely certain and so He would provide a way for that to be possible. As I understand it, this is why the Catholic church incorporates infallibility, under certain conditions and rarely used, and why others might assign infallibility to personal experiences of the Holy Spirit they believe they have.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

God sent His only Son to endure a cruel suffering and death so that we might live. To give us anything but and infallible interpreter would be absurd.

 

[Eloy Craft]

God sent His only Son to endure a cruel suffering and death so that we might live. To give us anything but and infallible interpreter would be absurd.

Amen.
Jesus brought infallible teaching to earth and gifted His Church with it. Otherwise we would be left orphans. Eternally infallible teaching entered time and human life. Why would it die?

 

[Noxot]

God is the Truth. humans are not the truth as much as God is because of our weakness and limitations. you can't rid yourself of yourself because to know and to express truth requires yourself. infallibility then requires purification and nearness to God. it requires ears to hear, eyes to see, ect. it is our responsibility to love God and to hate what is not of him. the gospel sums up a great deal of this in the following.

Matt 16:13-27
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! 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 gates of hell 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.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm not sure I hold to the same definition of faith.

From my estimation, from both looking at the Greek word for faith (πίστις pistis), and looking at how the word is used in the Bible, I'd say faith has more to do with God proving himself to you rather than resting on uncertainty.

For example, Abraham only had the faith to sacrifice his son after God had already proven Himself to Abraham like 8 times.

 

[chevyontheriver]

God is the Truth. humans are not the truth as much as God is because of our weakness and limitations. you can't rid yourself of yourself because to know and to express truth requires yourself. infallibility then requires purification and nearness to God. it requires ears to hear, eyes to see, ect. it is our responsibility to love God and to hate what is not of him. the gospel sums up a great deal of this in the following.

Infallibility is a negative virtue, and as such only requires that you choke on your words, or forget what you were going to say, or get struck by lightning before saying something false. Nearness to God would be great, but when we speak of infallibility we don't mean that the person is holy or wise. Just that the person has not said anything false in matters of faith or morals in their capacity as teacher of faith and morals. We could hope and pray for more than that, for purity and nearness to God for our teachers, but we expect a much lower pass is guaranteed by infallibility.

 

[Noxot]

Infallibility is a negative virtue, and as such only requires that you choke on your words, or forget what you were going to say, or get struck by lightning before saying something false. Nearness to God would be great, but when we speak of infallibility we don't mean that the person is holy or wise. Just that the person has not said anything false in matters of faith or morals in their capacity as teacher of faith and morals. We could hope and pray for more than that, for purity and nearness to God for our teachers, but we expect a much lower pass is guaranteed by infallibility.

I understand that in some measure since no one should throw out the baby with the bathwater... even though most will do that when it is convenient for them since at their spiritual core they are the deciders of what they are willing to trust. God will work with what we are but it is important that we give him something good to work with. if the kingdom fully coming was based only in God it would have long ago came but it is because of people not fully willing in both action and understanding that it is not here. there is obvious room for improvements of wisdom and discernment. it is self-satisfied religious pride that says "there is no further divine revelation".

there is a danger for the flesh to justify it's biological habits and preferences as absolute truth since the flesh prefers it's own sense of self that it has developed which includes all things one accepts as part of themselves. peters flesh has no authority, only that which is spiritually pure is correct because only that has communion with God.

this is why sometimes no one knows who to accept when it comes to accepting opposing dogmas when two different christian sects differ. thus you must result to a preferred authority or preferred group acceptance in a guarantee in X, Y or Z official church. for you it could be your catholic faith. for the EO it might be the EO. or someone might accept reason as one of the highest principles of judgment for what they believe to be true. some believe the oldest is best and then they fight over who is the oldest. some that only what is their perceptions of the bible is legit. some believe that A, B or C person is wise and speaking the truth. some by whatever they think God tells them. the point is that we all have some kind of criteria(s) that we utilize.

faith/trust is always required for legit authority. without a free acceptance of that which you can believe in by some kind of spiritual resonance or discernment one is forced into acceptance of authority based on some kind of threat, established hierarchy (no matter it's legitimacy in comparison to the ultimate and final legitimacy called God), or torture.

for most Christians there is no better authority than Jesus though unfortunately our own perceptions and capacity to understand get in the way.

Mark 12:28-34 (ESV2011)
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Luke 24:28-33 (ESV2011)
So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together,

 

[Davy]

A definition of faith I've always liked is that it's belief in the face of objective uncertainty. This implies that faith involves a level of trust rather than a sense of knowing. So we do the best we can with everything that's available to us - the Bible, church, books, the testimony of others and personal experience etc. - and then commit fully to that but still acknowledging some doubt and uncertainty. One benefit of this is that if we can tolerate doubt in ourselves we'll be more tolerant of others

OTOH, I can see why some people might say that, because we're talking about God and it's so important, our beliefs should be absolutely certain and so He would provide a way for that to be possible. As I understand it, this is why the Catholic church incorporates infallibility, under certain conditions and rarely used, and why others might assign infallibility to personal experiences of the Holy Spirit they believe they have.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Increase in the knowledge of God's Word and doubt becomes 'knowing'. Of course the only way to come to that knowledge is like how Apostle Paul showed, study to show oneself approved of God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth.

The way it becomes 'knowing' is by revelation from God Himself by The Holy Spirit. Then manifestations/proofs of His existence and working in your life gives 'certain' knowledge, and you can't then have doubts. Look at Apostle Paul's experience on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.

If the believer gets into God's Word asking His help, and asks to be in His service, He will use you, and you'll know it. Won't be any doubt, He will make you 'know' it. It won't be any superstition either.