Former Evangelicals typically convert to Catholicism because it supposedly supplies a level of religious certainty lacking in Protestant theology. However, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the claims of Rome, what do those lofty claims actually amount to? Like a product warranty or insurance policy, once you begin to read the fine print, the actual extent of your coverage is quite elusive.
Notice some of the ironies in the excerpt below. To begin with, the questioner is directing his inquiry to a lay Catholic epologist. Needless to say, Sungenis is not infallible.
Also notice the hairsplitting distinction between form and content. The content may also be infallible, but only in a derivative, secondary sense.
Furthermore, even in the case of formal infallibility, “although possessing the language of infallibility, does not actively become infallible unless the reigning pope authorizes it.”
And this, in turn, shifts the question to what constitutes an infallible papal pronouncement.
So where does a Catholic actually locate infallible teaching? Converting to Rome does not represent the end-point in his quest for religious certainty, but the beginning of newer, labyrinthine pursuit of religious certainty. Behind every hill is another hill.
And that assumes, for the sake of argument, that Rome is even the right road to begin your search.
***QUOTE***
It is correct to say that only the statements in the Council which begin with "If anyone says..." and end with "let him be anathema," are considered the formally infallible statements, in the canonical sense of the term, of the Council of Trent. That is why they are called "canons," since it is the rule of faith that everyone must follow without exception or objection.
That principle, of course, applies to ALL the Church's dogmatic councils, not just the Council of Trent. Vatican I would also be considered a dogmatic council for the same reason, that is, because it contained "canons" with anathemas. In essence, only when the Church makes a formal, dogmatic and defined statement that binds the faithful under pain of excommunication does the statement become infallible and irreformable by the mere nature of its form. Even then, however, the form itself, although possessing the language of infallibility, does not actively become infallible unless the reigning pope authorizes it, which is certainly the case with the Council of Trent, since its canons were authorized by three successive popes. Incidentally, it is for this same reason that Vatican II, by nature of its non-canonical form (that is, it did not have defined dogmas in the form of canons), was said by Paul VI "not to contain any extraordinary statements with the note of infallibility," although, whatever Vatican II reiterated from previous dogmatic councils would be considered infallible by nature of its content, but not form.
The specific category afforded to "canons" as infallible in virtue of their form also means, consequently, that the "chapters" in the Council of Trent, or any Council, which preface and explain the definitions in the canons are not, in themselves, or because of their form, infallible. They are infallible only by nature of their content (not form), since they necessarily introduce or reiterate what is finalized in the canons.
http://www.askacatholic.com/AAC_AnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2005_04AprilQuestions/2005AprCounciOfTrentAndItsInfallibility.cfm
***END-QUOTE***
Also notice that even if we were to grant that tradition is a valid source of divine revelation, there's nothing at all in the church fathers that would provide for such a nuanced definition of infallibility. So if the requirements for infallible dogma can't be culled from Scripture, and they can't be found in tradition, from whence do they come?
ReplyDeleteInfallibility is a pickle indeed - the "religious certainty" is only as strong as your initial use of private judgment to accept Rome. But I'm not sure it is at the forefront of every convert's mind - the issue may be more on authority rather than "i must know which teachings are infallible, because then I know what I know and can just ignore everything else." Many church documents specifically instruct the faithful to obey and submit to non-infallible teaching. Indeed, the faithful are to obey canon law/disciplines (which you know certainly aren't irreformable) such as friday fasting/penance and attending mass on holy days of obligation and so on. The church could be in error on something she is teaching non-infallibly (and indeed even infallible statements can be further nuanced/clarified at a later date as the Church reflects), the claim, I believe, is that she wouldn't be in error to such an extent that she is actually teaching and promulgating heresy to the faithful.
ReplyDelete