www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility - a Catch 22

Well said, Memo. One of the most astonishing examples of this "truth imposed by the strongest" is the practice of protestant denominations of voting on essential questions of morality every few years. One year women's ordination is opposed to the scripture and tradition, the next it is at the center of church life. One year gay sex is an abomination and the next it is the daily practice of a a newly ordained bishop. Such "voting on truth" is the end of Christianity for those who have embarked on the sinking ship of protestant denominationalism. Can the evangelicals be far behind?

You are absolutely correct that truth does not depend upon personal beliefs and yet it does absolutely depend on the belief in a person:

Hi Im,

I am not sure I am following your line of thought.

Our eternal life depends on our faith, yes, of course.

However, that God is the One True God, that Jesus Christ is His Only-Begotten Son and that God sent Jesus Christ to the world for our salvation are objective Truths, which do not depend on whether we believe them or not.

In this regard, even if our salvation depends on our adherence to Truth (which, I would argue, is no different than our adherence to Love), Truth is not dependent on us in any way.

Is this what you meant?

Shalom,
Memo

Ray,

Thanks for the (undue) compliments, but I couldn't possibly add anything to what Fr. Arthur and others have already said. I'm not well-versed enough in philosophy to keep up, anyway, so I prefer just to read!

Alexis

Dear Memo ...

What you wrote is well said ... but it is not what I think my position is. That is ... if you were referring to my position.

Believe me when I say that I am well aware of my oddball way of putting things. No one here invites more misunderstanding (by the way he puts things) than I do.

I can see I made a mistake in my original post by using the words �objective and subjective� as they seem to have a lot of baggage attached to them.

I claim that Infallibility is an attribute of a mental meaning - and not of written or spoken words (language).

Language works by an association of mental meaning � by associating a particular mental meaning to signs (written of spoken). There are a lot of variables involved and the mental meaning is not always received. As you note:

[quote]
Infallible" doesn't mean that the teaching will always convey its message to all audiences.
[quote]

I think we all agree with that.

And so it only makes common sense that if the intended meaning is not conveyed - what the person has - is another meaning (which is not the intended meaning). And so it is clear that language (signs) are not an infallible way to pass a meaning to someone else. Certainly you are saying the same think (in a simpler way) in your quote above.

I believe that we are in agreement to this point in the debate. I just gave more details as to why language (in itself and by itself) does not have the inherent capability to insure that the reader/listener will receive the intended meaning without fail.

We should still be in agreement at this point in the debate.

Now if we want to say that objective truth does exist in the meaning - I will go along with that. I will agree with that. I too will say that objective truth does exist in the meaning of the Infallible statement. And it is this objective truth that we would like to convey to the reader/listener.

We should still be in agreement here at this point of the debate.

Now (breath ..) on this next point we may perhaps disagree - so get your coffee or Pepsi with caffeine and be sharp J

----
I propose that teaching is an dynamic act had between two people (one a teacher and the other a student). I had likened this to a quarterback throwing a pass to a receiver.

I am well aware that we use the word in a static sense (for example we can point to a book on a table and say that the book contains a �teaching� be it math, or botany, or religion, etc.). But we do so only by way of assuming the dynamic act it can be used for. More precisely it is simply a book on a table that contains written words and that is all it is.

For something to be a real �teaching� the dynamic act must take place. That is: The teacher explains and the student receives the meaning that the teachers intends. Another way to say that would be to say that � learning must happen.

Let us do a thought experiment ::: If a teacher stands in the front of the class and carries on explaining how the earth revolves around the sun - but no student in the class understands him � has he taught anything? The answer to that question is: no he has not. He had tried to - but not one student received the intended meaning. Our conclusion must be ::: teaching has not taken place. The students did no understand or � had misunderstood.

Perhaps we are in agreement to this point in the debate and perhaps we are not. Perhaps - you would insist that the teacher was teaching - and the students were simply not learning. While I would maintain that no teaching was taking place (the quarterback had thrown the ball but the receiver did not catch the ball - the pass was incomplete).

Now � let us apply these conclusions to the subject at hand - Infallible statements.

First off - an infallibility can only be said to be an attribute of the mental meaning.

Second off - any act of teaching can only be said to have take place when the intended mental meaning has actually been received by the reader/listener.

If these two items are true (and they certainly seem to be) than the results are that any Infallible teaching issued by the Pope is only an infallible teaching - when it is fully understood by the reader/listener.

All this (close and detailed examinations) just confirms for us what we experience as true out in the world. Let us be totally honest. Let us recognize the reality God has created. That is�

That while we can and do say that any Infallible statement (teaching of faith and morals) that the Pope of Rome publishes is - an - Infallible teaching (� pause a moment to absorb that and remind ourselves what we normally think and feel about such statements �) there are some people who (for whatever reasons) do not receive the intended meaning and misunderstand (they have a different meaning and not the intended meaning).

This is true. There should be no disagreement on that. The bare real fact is that some people do not receive the intended meaning. For - whatever - reason. No teaching has taken place for them. And what they have received (for whatever reasons) is not infallible.

It is now inescapable ::: the �infallible teaching� has neither been infallible nor a teaching - in the particular case of those who do not receive the intended meaning.

Now, we Catholics can continue to say that any Infallible statement published by the Pope of Rome is an �infallible teaching for the entire universal church and all its members� in regards to an assumption of its purpose (to be fully received in mental meaning by all members of the universal church) � but if fact it is not.

We have to make a difference between the meaning (a mental experience) and the statement (written and spoken human language).

We simply have to get real. These statement are not magic. We claim they are binding upon all members of the universal church - and look! Look out into the world of reality - these statements are NOT binding upon the entire universal church.

What, I ask us, has blinded us to believe they are?? What makes us ignore the reality in front of our faces?

Let us ask an Orthodox �Are you bound by the Pope�s Infallible statement?� and the answer will be �No.� and in fact we can witness that the Orthodox church and its members - do ignore or criticize and misunderstand such statements. They are not adopted by the Orthodox so as to become a part of the �truth of faith�.

Look my friend - it is very simple � if someone is bound - he is tied up even against his will. He has no choice in the matter. We grab him and take his arms and put chains on his arms and he is bound in chains even against his will.

Now when Jesus said �what you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven� (one of the primary proofs set forth by the RC to support Infallible statements as being binding upon the entire universal church) he is definitely using the term �bind� in this forceful way. The binding will happen and no one can stop it from happening. I do not suppose I need to quote all the quotes of scripture which tell us that what God decides to do - he does - and no one can stop him from doing it.

And so � it is inescapable �

1) only the meaning of any infallible statement - is infallible. The words and language of the statement (the things of the senses) are not infallible.

2) any Infallible teaching is only an Infallible teaching - when it is successfully conveyed in its meaning. The intoned meaning must be understood by the person (the receiver) and if it is not than no teaching has taken place.

3) If we do not find that the universal church in all its parts (the several churches) binding itself to the infallible teaching - then it is not binding on the entire universal church and it is not an act of faith (on our part) to continue to say that - it is.

Now we Catholic�s can continue to call an apple - an orange - if we want to (I know that I will until I am told otherwise) by calling Infallible statements to be infallible teachings that are binding on the entire universal church - or we can come to our senses and reality and say that Infallible teachings from the Pope of Rome are only Infallible teachings that are binding on all those who are voluntarily joined to the Pope of Rome.

Of course the BEST way would be for the Pope of Rome to only define an Infallible teaching - only if all the churches that comprise the universal church - have already bound themselves to such a teaching. In this way he (the Pope of Rome) comes to confirm through one voice (his) what has already been bound in heaven (the church). And in this way he is a public sign to the entire world - of the unity that does exist in the entire universal church.

Now what I have just said above - is very close to the way the Orthodox say that the role of the Pope had been in the early church. I, myself, tend to believe them. It was not a judicial role by a confirmatory role. The Pope (in this role) was not a judicial master (binding all churches to something) but was rather a servant of his brother bishops (confirming to the world what the entire church held to be true).

The problem with our current Catholic view of Papal Infallibility (at least in the empirical operation of it) we feel we must have faith in it (that it is universally binding upon the entire church) because it seems to be an article of faith that we are required to believe if we are to be good Catholics. This !! makes us blind to reality and being blind to reality is being blind to what Providence has done. We are like fools standing atop a hill in the dead of night - pointing to the black sky - saying - �wow - the sun is really bright today� � now I ask - what is holy about that?
-----

I have spent myself on this thread. I do not know how many ways I can try to convey the truth of the matter - nor how I can get some Catholics to see what is there for all to see. That is :: that Infallible statements are only infallible in their meaning - they are only infallible teaching when they are learned properly - and they are not binding upon the entire universal church.

Not only that but we Catholics tend to extend infallibility to every thing the Pope may say .. Even if the Pope really did not say it! Even though the doctrine specifically states that the Pope is only infallible - when he says he is infallibly speaking - at other times we tend to suspend our own reason and nod like good Catholics should - and believe what we think we are supposed to believe and criticize others who disagree.

I remember just days before the start of this last Iraq war. The media had reported that the Pope had said that any war with Iraq (done by the US) would be an unjust war according to the �Just War� doctrine. Yet - I actually saw on TV (CPTV)the very press interview from which (supposedly) the press took this. The Papal Secretary was at a podium (press conference) and was asked by someone in the press seats �Does the Pope think this is an unjust war?� and the Secretary responded that it was not the role of the Pope nor the church to make any judgments on the matter. He said that the Just War theory was available for a guideline for governments to guide them in making their own judgments. Most of the press began to write on their note pads and then someone asked the Secretary something to the effect of �Did you tell Bush in your meeting with him what the Pope said about this being an unjust war?� to which the Secretary became a bit visibly frustrated and replied that what he and Bush had talked about was entirely private and he would not tell anything said in the meeting - and he again reiterated that the church and the Pope do not have the mission to make any judgments on wars - the mission of the church and pope is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The very next day the media headlines in both secular and Catholic press was �Pope cautions Bush that any war with Iraq would be unjust� and immediately many Catholic swallowed this press line as having come directly from the Pope. I mentioned to a Few fellow Catholics (one being a priest) that the Pope had made no judgments on an Iraq war - and I was told that I was not a good Catholic and that I did not respect the Pope and I had better check the condition of my lack of faith.


This is the end of this subject for me.

Peace to you all.

Excuse the typos. No time to correct them. My spell checker has a mind of its own. This is four evenings that my son has wanted to talk with me. I need to do that now. Bye.

-ray

Hi Ray,

A few comments,


But what does "a mental meaning" really mean?

You mean that what's infallible is what the Church or the Pope meant to say, but not what they actually said (because in order to say anything, both the Church and the Pope *HAVE* to use written or spoken words)?


But the reception of the message is a separate issue. What infallibilty covers is the content of the message, not any part of its transmission, including the command (or lack thereof) of any particular language.


Of course, but that is what we have. God had to use human language to give us Scripture and, even more so, God, by taking our human flesh and uniting Himself to it, had to use our very fallible body language to tell us He loves us.

It wasn't only until Thomas put his finger through the nail hole what he believed.

Surely there was a much more profound "mental meaning" to the Resurrection, but still, Thomas had to put his finger through that hole.

We are not ehtereal minds floating around. We are corporeal beings. Language is an important part of our bodiliness and, because God created us body and soul, our bodiliness has to be good.


Sure. However, that is not what the doctrine of infallibility is all about.

Again, it is not about the transmission of the message, but about the content of the message.

I would say that it is precisely because the message can get lost by a ton of reasons during its transmission, that God wanted to guarantee the fidelity of the content itself to His Truth.


Right.



I will snip a little bit of the rest, until we get to...


I need to say: non-sequitur.

First you offer an explanation why you think a teaching is a dynamic act, beyond the content being taught (and for the sake of brevity, let's agree to your definitions) and now you want to apply something you believe about the dynicamic act of teaching, to the Infallible statements from the Church or the Pope.

I'd say, if we want to talk about the act of teaching, let's talk about the act of teaching. If we want to talk about the content being taught, lets talk about that. But, if the whole point is making a difference between these two, then let's not mix the two!


So. Infallible statements or infallible teachings? What are we talking about here.

Let me put it this way: Using your definitions of statement and teachings, there are no such things as infallible teachings. The only infallible thigns are the statements of doctrine themselves.

If I have understood your ideas correctly up to this point, then the rest of your post confuses me, because it mixes these concepts in a way that doesn't seem consistent with the discussion so far, so I will not comment on it.

I just need to add that not every statement that comes from the Pope is to be considered protected by infallibility, even if it happens to be right, such as was the case with the warning about the war in Iraq. Not an infallible statement, not even a binding one to anybody. A correct statement, nonetheless.

Shalom,
Memo

Oh - you ARE sharp Meno! You comments are very good. This is a piece of cake for you. You picked up on everything including me using wrong terms! How did you do that so fast?

I had not realized that using 'teaching' and 'statement' almost interchangably - was perhaps - making a mess of things.

I will respond soon. I just wanted to let you know that you have grasped everything so far and we agree much more than you may think. But I will have to make the diffrence you are asking for.

-ray

I just wanted to take a moment to thank - every one - as I stuggle with this thing. I am going to answer Meno today but you all have been a great help.

-ray

Dear Memo ...

What you wrote (in the entire post) is well said. I think you will find that I do believe in objective truth and it is exactly what we are digging for here. My goal here is exactly to expose and remove sujective 'truth' that we take for granted and assume - and misleads us.

Let me start off this post with were you, and I, and the church - seem to agree.

Let me do that by matching terms that you had used with terms that I had used. As most discussions like this do not get very far until there is some agreement on terms.

You use the term �content� which you seem to be using similar to how I had used �intended mental meaning�. I think these terms are pretty well aligned. I also think the church would basically agree here and the end result is that the �means of transmission� (which I was calling the �words and language of the statement�) are not infallible in themselves - only the content (the intened meantal meaning) is infallible.

Now I might nit-pick a bit and say the term �content� is has a meaning of something being contained inside a container - which would indicate the mental meaning is contained in the words and language - but you seem to agree that the means of transmission are different from the content and so I would have reason to believe that you would agree that the means of transmission (which are written or spoken words) are limited in fuction to be pointers toward the content (which content is a mental meaning and understanding).

And so I would say we are pretty well aligned to this point and we both seem to be pretty well aligned with the church where is says that there is - no guarantee that anyone reading/listening to an Infallible statement will, by necessity, fully comprehend the meaning of the statement.

So despite a little difference in wording - we three seem to be in agreement (Meno, Ray, and Church).

(plus I would say what we have all have gone through to get to realize that we are saying the same thing in slightly different words --- is proof of the variables of language and its limitations).

So now, if we can put that behind us � what remains is �teaching�.

Now I do admit that on a day to day level we say that someone is teaching - simply by his act of trying to get something across to a student. This is a common use of the term �teaching�. But I want to be more precise than that. After all - there are plenty of things we say on a day to day level that work well for us - but are not really true.

{example} On a day to day level we say that -sound- does have an objective existence �out there� and we say �sound waves�. We do say �the sound came from over there.� and give sound an external location. But anyone who knows anything about how the ear words - knows that the process begins with oscillating waves of pressure (air or some other media) hitting out ear drums - which is then transduced {transduced = changed from one thing into another thing} into motion in the gel like liquid within membrane in our inner ear � which is then further traduced into electrical pulses - which is finally transduced (in some unknown way at the interface of body and mind) into our personal experience of sound. This proven process means that the cause of sound may be �out there� but the sound itself only exists as a human experience (an experience to whatever living creature has hearing capability).

Now this example I have given is very much a parallel as to how we had said that the meaning (content) of a statement (means of transmission) is a mental experience - and the content (meaning) is not contained in the written or spoken words (the statement) itself but is rather tranduced into a mental expereince of which we call - meaning (content).

So let us look at �teaching�.

-----------

I propose that teaching is a dynamic act had between two people (one a teacher and the other a student). I had likened this to a quarterback throwing a pass to a receiver and the pass being caught (completed).

I am well aware that we use the word in a static sense (for example we can point to a book on a table and say that the book contains a �teaching� � be it math, or botany, or religion, etc.). But we do so only by way of assuming the human dynamic act that the book can be used for.

More precisely � it is simply a book on a table that contains written words and that is all it is. If I throw it into a fire it is fire wood. If I use it to keep a door open it is a door-stop. And so ... the book recieves its name from how we use it.

But we can say a book contains a 'teaching' - in regards to its human purpose. And we can also say that any 'Infallible statement' (of written words or spoken words) is a �teaching� in regards to its intended human purpose.

But let us not be more precise than just the every day common use of language which often works (and sometimes fails) on a day to day level.

For something to be a real �teaching� : the dynamic act must take place.

{example} The teacher explains and the student receives the meaning that the teachers intends. Another way to say that would be to say that � learning must happen.

{thought experiment} If a teacher stands at the front of a class room and carries on explaining how the earth revolves around the sun - but at the end of the day not one single student ss understands him � has he taught anything? The answer to that question is: no he has not. He had tried to - but not one student received the intended meaning. Our conclusion must be ::: teaching has not taken place. The students did no understand or � had misunderstood.

Perhaps we are in agreement to this point in the debate and perhaps we are not. Perhaps - you would insist that the teacher was teaching - and the students were simply not learning. While I would maintain that no teaching was taking place (the quarterback had thrown the ball but the receiver did not catch the ball - the pass was incomplete).

{thought experiment} Yogi Nahna sits by himself ontop of a mountain. He is all alone and no one is there. There is no one else for 100 miles. He stands up in his lonesome cell and begins to teach. �. Is Yogi Nahna � �teaching� � when the fact is that there is no one there who is being taught?

I would say : No. He is not teaching.

{example} If I am teaching Johnnie � and Johnnie does not get it and walks away having learned nothing of what I was trying to teach him - has Johnnie been taught anything?? The answer to that question is �no - he has not�. The act of teaching was still-born. The seed was not planted. The act was not completed (perhaps not the teachers fault). No teaching took place because the act of teaching (by one person) inherently implies the act of learning (in the other person). Only if there is success can we say that teaching (the act of one person giving to another who is receiving it as learning) has really taken place.

I can certainly remember having classes in which I walked away and said �He didn�t teach me anything� (blaming the teacher for not being able to teach) while it may have been true that it was I who was incapable of learning anything. The quarterback may have thrown the ball badly or I may have fumbled the catch - but the pass was incomplete.

Generally (in everyday life) the ability of a teacher to teach - is measured by how well his students learn. If all his student consistently get good test scores - we do say �he is a very good teacher� but conversely if class after class have horribly low test scores we do say �Oh - he doesn�t know how to teach - he doesn�t know how to get through to his students� which is the same as saying that no teaching was taking place. Talking at the students perhaps � but no act of teaching.

Now please keep in mind my dear Meno - - - at no time in this debate have I expressed or insinuated that any current Infallible pronouncements (statements/teaching) are wrong or in error. In fact I have been (in this debate) assuming that they are not in error and are in fact are infallible their originally intended mental meaning (which you called �content�). So there is no need for anyone to jump to the Pope�s defense.

>I just need to add that not every statement that comes from the Pope
> is to be considered protected by infallibility,

I agree Meno - the narration I gave regarding the Iraq war is just such a situation where his statement (which was incorrectly reported by the media) - was very much - considered to be infallible or near Infallible by some of the general Catholic public and priests. Only I (the only one in the room that had witnessed the press conference) knew the truth in the matter. The tendency to believe that almost everything the Pope may say is Infallible or near infallible (a tendency many Catholics have) made me out to be anti-Pope - while in truth I was the only one aligned with the Pope!

Soooo� Meno � where do we stand on �teaching� at this point?

Do you agree with me that �teaching� really implies, by necessity, that the content (the intended mental meaning) has been received in the student?


By the way (an aside) where does the nick name �Meno� come from? What is its meaning? AND that if no learning has taken place - no teaching has happened?

-ray

Hello Ray,

In Spanish, my nickname, which is "Memo" (two "m"s) is a customary short form for "Guillermo", my second given name. It is pretty much what "Bill" is to "William" in English.

As for the discussion, I don't see any point in continuing.

Nobody is officially proposing that the Pope is infallible in the "dynamic act of teaching", as you have defined it. That is, nobody is claiming that just because the Pope teaches, everybody will learn and learn correctly.

God bless!

Shalom,
Memo

Thanks Momo.

This whole thing has helped me sort out a few assumptions which I had held for a long time as an RC.

-ray