This morning at Mass, I learned something completely new to me, which made me feel rather unintelligent. We had a great homily which dealt with the Catholic understanding of the infallibility of the Pope, based on today’s gospel with St. Peter.
“Infallibility” does not, strictly, mean the ability to teach the truth. Even etymologically, I should have seen that. It means the inability to teach errors – being not-fallible; unable to fail. I had never before thought of it, but lo and behold, Keating has given a great analogy in his Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which I thought I had thoroughly read:
Pretend for a moment a Pope is infallible not only in matters of faith or morals, but in trigonometry. He is presented with an examination consisting of one hundred trigonometry problems. What is the least number of problems he will answer correctly?
…The correct answer is: zero. …Being infallible in trigonometry would mean being prevented from putting down the wrong answers. It would not mean being able to put down the right ones. The answer sheet could be left entirely blank — and would be, if the Pope had not done his homework.
This explains, too, how Catholic doctrine develops over the ages. The first Popes were not able to give all the right answers, but they were prevented from giving false answers. Throughout the centuries, each additional right answer has been added to the living Tradition of the Faith. And the Popes who were not able to add anything to Church teaching on faith and morals must have just been quiet.
that’s really interesting, I never thought of it that way, although I suppose the conclusion is the same
— Raphael · Sep 3, 01:04 PM · #
Is papal infallibility truly infallible? Does papal/church history support such a claim? Is there any scriptural basis for it? Also, though he was right on declaring the Lord as the messiah, the son of God, Peter himself was wrong on more than one occasions (‘get behind me Satan’, ’you will deny me three times before the cock crows’ etc.). So, how can his heir claim to be infallible? To be honest, Catherine, I am a bit uncomfortable with this doctrine. I am neither able to accept nor reject it outright.
— gabe · Sep 3, 11:24 PM · #
Hey Gabe,
I suppose it is a difficult doctrine, but I think it is supported both by history and scripture. However, this isn’t really an apologetics blog – it’s a blog for Catholics – and I have to read books 2+3 of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and write a one-page thematic paper before class, so I’ll leave you to do the research on your own, if you feel so inclined… Good luck, and (in no patronizing sense) be assured of my prayers. Pray for me as well!
— Catherine · Sep 4, 08:46 AM · #