November 25, 2006
Infallibility versus Inspiration: Is there a difference?
In my earlier post What is the Purpose of the Vatican I brought up the difference between infallibility and inspiration. I’m just getting around to posting more about it after a comment on the article. These two concepts are different and I’ll start with the more basic concept of infallibility.
Never being wrong
If something is deemed infallible, it simply means that it is not incorrect in terms of doctrine. As Catholics we believe documents can be infallible even though they are not Scripture. For example, the Pope has the ability under certain circumstances to write infallibly or without error (see this post for more). Why should anyone be infallible? I think the Encylopedia of Catholic Doctrine answers that well:
How can we hear and follow Jesus? Has he not provided some means by which his teaching would be preserved in its authenticity throughout the ages?
He has: by endowing his Church with the charism of infallibility. “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility” (CCC 889).
In other words, the point of giving the Church infallibility in certain areas was to prevent her from falling into error. The Catholic Church cannot fall into error because of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 that nothing would prevail against her.
Written by God
Inspiration is completely different, although it is infallible as well. Inspiration takes infallibility to the next level, since it not only is “not wrong” it also is “completely true.” So inspiration is God using human men to write His words. We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, not of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, although their writing styles affected the work, God lead their hand like a flutist blowing through a flute (the human instrument). Back to the Enclyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine:
The foundation for this doctrine rests on the propositions that Sacred Scripture is ultimately authored by God and that it contains divinely revealed realities inaccessible without divine help. The key New Testament texts are 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 3:15-16, and John 20:31. . . This divine authority meant that the inspired texts had an authority that far surpassed even the most sublime and profound teachings of even the holiest and most illuminated mystics and theologians.
So inspiration does more than infallibility, because it teaches truths that man alone could not understand or conceive of. The Bible is inspired by God like no other written document and can alone claim this trait. It is unique and cannot be repeated in the future.
Infallibility is nice, but inspiration is better
Without Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and the Scriptures written about Him, we could not understand God in the way we currently do. Even with infallibility, we needed inspiration from the Biblical writers in order to more fully understand the reality of God and His Church. Infallible documents do not create new revelations, rather they help us more fully understand what has already been revealed by God. Inspired documents – Scripture – does have revelations that were never conceived of prior to their writing. This is the difference between inspiration and infallibility.
The reason we still have the charism of infallibility is because the Holy Spirit continually works on earth to protect His Church from error, so that we all might be lead to heaven.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Jay, so infallibility is, by definition, limited to explaining what is already revealed but inspiration can go beyond this and introduce new revelation?
I'd like to explore how this applies to the "Sola Scriptura" debate. I recall you make a post a long time ago suggesting that "Sola Fidei" does not divide the Roman Catholic Church from the Protestant faiths as much as we think it does (I believe you quoted Peter Kreeft who points out that the word faith is used in two very different senses in the Bible - one type of faith can be said to be saving and the other cannot).
Perhaps the distinction between infallibility and inspiration can serve to place the "Sola Scriptura" debate in a better light. Namely, could Catholics accept "Sola Scriptura" in the sense that only the Sacred Scriptures are the inspired word of God? I think the Second Vatican Council declared that the complete deposit of public revelation was contained in the Sacred Scriptures.
When it comes to infallibly interpreting Scriptures, one might at first think that the Catholics would recognize this charism in the Magisterium and Tradition and the Protestants would recognize this charism in no one. But if we were to ask a Protestant "could you possibly be so grievously in error that your salvation was in danger?". Those that answer "no", would in fact be, by definition, declaring themselves infallible. Hence the phrase "Protestants do not have a Pope, they have millions of Popes".
Could Catholics then say to Protestants: "we believe that our Pope is as infallible as you believe yourselves to be"?
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at November 27, 2006 06:22 PMBurnt
Your last sentence rocks.
wwwo
Posted by: when we were one at November 28, 2006 09:24 AMI wonder if you might be interested in my Bible Reading Notes, covering the whole of Scripture www.christinallthescriptures.blogspot.com www.theologyofgcberkouwer.blogspot.com http://chascameron.blogspot.com
Best Wishes.
I have a question concerning the infallibility of the Magisterium. I have for years been of the impression that the documents of the Second Vatican Council were known to be infallible (in the sense that they contain no doctrinal errors) because they were produced by an ecumenical council.
Today I ran into some Catholics claiming that because the council did not define any doctrines, then no such protection applies. They also claimed that the documents were a tragic mistake because they have been open to abusive interpretation. They blame the Second Vatican Council for causing all the problems that followed whereas I maintain that it merely exposed existing problems.
Anyhow, I have been unable to find reliable sources (i.e. ones that don't accuse Pope John Paul II of heresy) even mentioning this subject. Any help would be appreciated.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at December 4, 2006 12:45 AMBurnt,
You may want to check with Art Sippo at the Catholic Legate up where you are. He battles prots to sspx on these topics of the Councils.
http://www.catholic-legate.com/
wwwo
Burnt,
In your post of Nov. 27 you said "I think the Second Vatican Council declared that the complete deposit of public revelation was contained in the Sacred Scriptures". I have recently been reading Dei Verbum and it seems to me it declares that the complete deposit of public revelation is contained in both the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures (DV 9-10), but I don't really know what you meant by that. Your post is great anyway.
About the infallibility of the Magisterium and Vatican II. I think Lumen Gentium 25; the Cathechism 889-891, and the Code of Canon Law 749 could be helpful. If what you want is clear, orthodox, reliable sources mentioning this, I suggest you go to Catholic Answers, www.catholic.com, and browse the e-versions of "This Rock" magazine.
Rafa
Burnt
I talked to Art Sippo for you... I had to play like 007 to get his number from mutual friends. He notes that whoever told you that there were no doctrines in V2 is/are mistaken. (I am summarizing his comments they were extensive).
He shot off quite a few doctrines that I had difficulty writing down. Kinda like sipping from the fire hydrant of apologetics. He notes Lumen Gentium 3 defining the relationship of Pope to the clergy...LG 25 re: Papal non infallible statements worthy of the thoughtful consideration of the devout. LG (?) re: Going against Aquinas' opinion on the ordination of minor orders and the immediate changes by the sitting Pope...
He said you could email him if you wished (artsippo@aol.com) I told him there were 2k hits on this website and he didn't seem to mind me posting it so... there it is.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at December 6, 2006 11:27 AMWWWO, I saw that he already had an article on the infallibility of Vatican 2. His article answered my question pretty thoroughly.
I think I was right to say that one cannot accuse Vatican 2 of unorthodoxy. I'm beginning to think that the Society of Saint Peter is dangerously close to the SSPX mentality.
I'm also thinking that to start by saying "Vatican II did not formaly define doctrines under pain of anathema" (to reject its infallibility) and then go on to denounce parts of it as unorthodox or heretical because it is not infallible is to talk out of both sides of the mouth.
Either it has dogmatic content and thus enjoys the protection of infallibility (Art's position)or it does not have dogmatic content (what the Latin folks say) in which case it cannot contain heresy (which was my response to the Latin folks). In both cases, there are no heresies or unorthodoxies in Vatican II.
Art says it better than I do though.
Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at December 7, 2006 12:49 PM
