More on infallibility: some opposition to it

Many non-Catholics (and modern Catholics) bristle at the mere exclusivity pronounced by the Catholic Church.  It seems haughty, conceited, and arrogant to believe that only that Church has the gift of infallibility.  This is a turn off in many ways.  St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3 that the ignorant and unstable twist the words of Scripture to their own demise.  For some, the idea of infallibility is so pretentious, so evil, they are willing to twist Scripture (or ignore it all together) to make it not so.

On one level, many people have been erroneously raised under the concept of cultural relativism: every culture or belief is equally OK.  The dogma of infallibility contradicts that, and states emphatically that there is a SINGLE set of right teachings.  These people, these "I'm OK, you're OK" people, are offended at this incredibly politically incorrect view of the world.  To them, such thinking is backward and outdated.

Related to the above, it is truly hard to believe that good people who believe in Christ are somehow wrong.  I personally don't struggle with this: to me its clear: Christ established the Catholic Church and guaranteed its total fidelity (not the total fidelity of Her members, but Her as a whole) to Him and His Word; any one who disagrees with the Church disagrees with Christ and is therefore wrong.  That being said, there are many who have loved ones who don't belong to the same denomination or Church they do.  Perhaps their children apostacized from the Catholic faith, or maybe their siblings all belong to different denominations.  Do you really, really, want to say they are in error?  I mean is it nice to believe that well-meaning, Bible-believing, sincere people are somehow wrong?  When the idea that Chirst founded ONE, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church and not several related churches that are ok, is tossed around, do we want to think that our loved ones are in error and not part of the Church that Christ founded?  God is too loving to let that happen, right?

Alternately, as a Methodist growing up, I was proud to call myself Methodist, and would defend my denomination against any claim that it was wrong, because it was mine and I belonged to it!!!  There was an emotional attachment to it.  It is a form of ethno-centrism, which is a view that one's own culture/belief system is the reference point from which they view the world, yet perfectly normal.  Infallibility disrupts that emotional attachment a non-Catholic has with the denomination of their childhood (or of their choosing).  That denomination is part of who you are, and to admit it is wrong is a horrendous blow to your idea of who you are.  This blow is even harder when you choose that denomination (often at great personal cost).  To think that someone else is calling your church wrong upsets you. 

The two above are hardly separated from each other.  It is only logical that a person believe that their denomination is right (which is why they are a part of it to begin with, partly).  Also, I don't know a single person who only has friends or relatives that belong to their denomination.  Thus, while you believe your denomination is right, those of your family or friends can't be wrong.  You can't have both, so the idea of infallibility or discernable religious truth becomes fantasy: it sounds nice but can't be real (because if it is, then either you or your loved one-or both-are wrong).

Even more personally, however, infallibility is an affront to people's pride and their own arrogance.  The United States is inherently a Protestant nation.  The entire ethic of "rugged individualism" is based on the Protestant idea of individual interpretation of Scripture.  We relish that, we thrive off that, we LOVE that.  It gives us POWER, puts US in control.  For some this individual interpretation allows them to justify their vices.  For others, it fuels their ego to create new and better theologies.  It feeds their importance.  Infallibility creates an uncomfortable alternative: perhaps you are wrong!  For those trapped in vices they cherish (like masturbation, sex before marriage or homosexuality), infallibility would require them to give up something they love.  For those who thrive on creating new and better theologies, it undermines their ego and checks their importance.  For both of these groups, infallibility is too condemning. 

_______________________________________________________

I really want to say that there are those who honestly, not for the selfish or deluded reasons above, cannot accept the idea that a Church has the gift of infallibility.  But when I think of the people I know, they all fit into the molds of the above (to greater or lesser extent).  In each and every case, admittance of infalliblity would undermine or confront their lifestyle, or possibly convict their consciences. 

Thomas Aquinas wrote that those who truly seek the Truth will be granted the Grace to find Jesus and His Church.  I honestly believe that.  Those who continue to reject the concept of infallibility are not really searching whole-heartedly for the truth.  If they were, wouldn't they want a Church that speaks authoritatively, and can, without doubt, guide them to the Truth?

What is Truth? More on infallibility.

Pilate asks Jesus "What is truth? (John 18:38)"

When a Catholic undertakes an apology, or explanation, of his/her faith, the concept of Truth cannot be forgotten.  The question, though, is exactly what Pilate asks: What is truth?

Jesus said to his Apostles: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life".  Starting from this point,we can get a pretty good understanding of what Truth is.

First, we know what St John's Gospel says concerning Jesus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [emphasis added]"  The Word, Jesus, was God.  Logic, then would state that if the Truth is Jesus, and Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God, than the Truth is God.  This dramatically enhances our understanding of what "truth" is. 

Scripture is quite clear about the nature of God.  God is eternal, universal, and unchanging.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  If Jesus is God, then He has the same characteristics: eternal, universal, and unchanging.  If Jesus is the truth, then truth has the same characteristics: eternal, universal, and unchanging.

This is incredibly important for the Catholic Apologist.  James White is a notable anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist.  It seems that for some insane reason, CA over at Rockin Apologist is enamored with him.  White is an opponent of the concept of infallibility.  He wants the Church to be able to reverse course when new evidence comes out.  Sounds good in theory, but he is missing the characteristics of what Truth is: unchanging and universal.  This is what infallibility does: provide the faithful with a surety that what the Church teaches is True, and will not change.  White is assuming one of two things by urging against infallibility: 1) truth is relative, and changes when time and situations merit, or 2) we are never capable of knowing the truth.

The first assumption is objectively false based on the definition of truth.  If truth changes, than what was once true is now false.  Since truth cannot be false, and truth that changes becomes false, truth cannot change.  Let us assume then that Mr. White does not assume that truth is relative.  In fact, it would be more accurate, and more precise in my experience, to assume that he thinks us incapable of really knowing the Truth (being mere humans).  This view makes more sense.  If we really can't know the Truth, then it fits perfectly for us to reverse course, which numerous Protestant denominations have done in regards to contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, the Real Presence, and the authoritative Church.  As one with a Bachelor's in History, I can attest that it is a common philosophy among historians that we cannot ever really know what  happened, and so we must present our narrative as plausible, based on what the sources tell us.  This leaves us open to changing our story when "new evidence reveals" something to the contrary (although I'm still positive that George Washington was NOT a cross-dressing lesbain).  This is what White wants the Church to do.

This view, however, is faulty as well.  Christ, who is Truth made Flesh, promises His Apostles in the Upper Room: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (Douay-Rheims)"  More modern translations of the Greek render that "He will guide you in all truth."  Apparently, Christ is promising His Apostles that His Spirit will protect them from falling into error, and will guide them in the Truth.  Christ Himself is telling us that through His holy Apostles, we CAN and WILL know the truth.

Okay, so Christ promised that the Apostles would know the truth, through the Holy Spirit.  It is assumed the Apostles would die, but Christ said earlier: "And I will ask the Father, and he will send another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever."  So the Spirit, which will guide the Apostles in truth, will be with them forever (not just until they die).  Fine.  Great. But that doesn't explain how we know what the truth is when the Apostle's die. 

In Acts chapter 1, we see Peter, as head of the Apostles, call for a successor to Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide after betraying the Lord.  "And they appointed two...to take the place of this ministry and apostleship."  Clearly, the office of apostle isn't a one and done deal: it is passed on to another, once its holder has gone "to his own place".  Likewise, Paul exhorts Titus in Titus 1 to ordain presbyteros and episcopus to the cities in Crete...an authority that only a successor to the Apostles would have.  Further, we are told in 1 Timothy 3:15: that "the church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth." 

To synthesize what we have seen, then, Christ promised that He would send the Paraclete to His apostles, to guide them in all knowledge and truth.  His apostles, then, appointed successors to carry on their authority and ministry.  Is the Paraclete guiding them in all knowledge and truth?  Well, according to the apostle Paul, yes, through the Church.  Clearly, then, Scripture promises that through the Church we can and will be able to know the truth.

So we come back to the second assumption: that those who don't want to believe in infallibility don't really believe that we can know the truth at all.  If that be the case, then, Christ lied to us in the Scriptures.  If Christ lied to us in the Scriptures, then even those who oppose infallibility, but call themselves Christians, would be wrong, because they are believing a lie.  For Christians, though, that is a self-defeating, and contradictory belief to have.  For the Christian, Christ didn't lie.  If Christ didn't lie then He most obviously gifted to His Church the gift of infallibility, the inability to teach error on faith and morals.