on the Infallibility of the Church
These postulates should be read in the light of the reflection Perfectible: Infallible in the End, and the Critique on Lumen Gentium elsewhere on this website.
Indeed, it is a sort of perfection, for it is perfect knowledge or wisdom which cannot err. Without perfection there must always be inadequacy, or perfection in that field has been achieved and no further progress is possible. This kind of infallibility is an inherent infallibility derived from perfection.
However, the term might also be used to describe the effect of the Holy Spirits ability, in his sovereignty, to protect his fallible people from certain kinds of error while they journey toward perfection. Whilst not in any way wishing to deny the Spirits power, I would question the logic of claiming he would use it for such a purpose. For the Scriptural precedent is one of Fall and Redemption, of loss and recovery (Luke 15.3-32), of joy following suffering (cf Ps 30.5, Heb 12.2). That is also true of our everyday experience of Christian life. We would need a very clear and unambiguous promise to justify an exception for one specific area of the Churchs functioning. For, as it is within the Spirits power to protect his Church from misunderstanding his guidance, it must surely also be within the capability of the sovereign God to protect Adam and Eve from the Fall, and to protect his redeemed from sinning, but he does not do so. Despite the statement in I Corithians 10.13, which might imply otherwise, other Scriptures (eg Rom 7.14-25, I Jn 1.8), and our own experience, testify to the struggle and failure we all know.
Romans 8.20 hints at the reason for this. Our God is glorified by the progress made in his creation toward our future hope. The process of perfection is the means of Gods glory and that is why it is unacceptable to claim aspects of it have already arrived (cf II Tim 2.18). To lessen our need for perfection is to lessen the glory of God.
The perfect Church is the complete catholic and eternal Church which is represented in the world today but will only be fully revealed at the Eschaton. It consists of Christ, its head, his angels, and the Church in every age which includes every Christian who will ever live.
The eschatological Church will know all things (cf I Cor 13.12, I Jn 3.2). From the perspective of eternity, in perfect fellowship with its omniscient Lord, and consisting of the entire body of the fully informed faithful, it will be in a position to understand and appreciate fully every aspect of every truth. Moreover, it will reside in the perfection of the age which is to come, when the former things will have passed away.
From the foregoing it is clear the eschatological Church has the quality of infallibility. It is also the only Church which can entirely fulfil the Vincentian Canon, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ad omnibus. It is the only complete and total Church in time and eternity of which all particular churches even the universal Church of any particular age are partial representations.
The contemporary Church is the expression of Christs one true Church in this present age. It contributes itself from this age to that one true Church. However, in itself, it is not that Church in its fullness, but only the contemporary expression of it. It lacks the members of other ages, especially the future, and its viewpoint is limited by time. It can make judgements to the best of its knowledge at any given time, but because its knowledge is limited, those judgements are always subject to revision as both knowledge and members increase. (cf I Cor 13.9, I Jn 3.2)
A failure to recognise the full impact of the eschatological dimension has tended to locate our expectations of infallibility in the temporal Church, despite the obvious experiential difficulties. This has led to two contrary shortcomings: either to deny that the Church is infallible at all, or to define exceptional circumstances in which infallibility can supposedly be achieved despite the natural limitations of those involved in the process.
The latter response is a natural consequence of a developing understanding attempting to recognise a position which is not yet clear. It is an intermediate stage in the formation of a truer doctrine which is still in the process of being understood.
9th March 2005.
22nd March 2005.
Your Comments welcome.
|Designed in the UK by |