Great Bishop of Geneva! Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible? · Creation vs. Evolution: Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time? · somewhere else: "God is Being Itself, Creationism Portrays Him as a Cause Among Others"
I had an essay to notify Karl Keating of, namely Agreement and Disagreement with Robert Sungenis. On his FB page, I found this statement:
Ortlund*, like most other Protestants, finds himself defaulting to the claim that the Bible itself is "infallible" because, for him and for them, there is nowhere else to look for the infallible interpretive authority that every Christian desires to rest under. Unfortunately, Ortlund's quest is futile because the Bible cannot be infallible because it is not an active agent. It is a static book, and books don't and can't make decisions.
Obviously, neither can much more recent books, like AAS. What about AAS 1950?
Or if AAS had existed back then, 1854?
Have Marian dogmas been defined, and can they be consulted on paper?
The paper is not an "active agent" but a static book, but it incorporates an infallible decision by Pope Pius IX and probably one by Pius XII.
The point is, God was inspiring every moment of the hagiographer's final writing. Not necessarily by dictation, but God was inspiring the decision to include or exclude certain topics, and God was inspiring whatever the hagiographer decided to say on the topic.
Does this become fallible after a certain time lapse? Has the Apostles' Creed become fallible because it is now 2000 years old? Or the Nicene Creed?
You see where I am going. The argument is useless, because it proves too much.
From same post:
You and I are fallible in all of our decision making. However correct a decision of ours might appear, there is a chance it is incorrect. Someone who is infallible in decision making (in Catholic theology that includes bishops meeting together in ecumenical councils and, rarely, popes teaching on their own)—such a group or individual is held to be incapable of making an incorrect decision in certain circumstances.
In Catholic doctrine that includes hagiographers when writing tas hagias graphas, the holy Scriptures.
Normally, given "under certain circumstances" the word "infallible" applies to statements.
One can discuss whether Pius XII infallibly defined a Marian dogma only by asking whether he was still Pope.** But one can ask whether, supposing the overall and bold style statement was infallible, he was also infallibly stating:
Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit.
And if so, whether the words "singulari prorsus privilegio" apply only to the first clause that follows (Immaculate conception is already known), or to all three?
Was it a totally singular privilege for Her to "not be obliged to that law of remaining in the corruption of the tomb"?
Does it (if so) refer to:
- being alone (except Christ) raised and lifted up to Heaven?
- being alone (except Christ) not corrupted while in the tomb?
- being alone (except Christ)
recovered from corruptionin the tomb?
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt he did not want to suggest the blasphemy She ever was corrupt. That's why I struck this out. But the two other ones would also be erroneous:
- Henoch and Elias will be raised from the dead and lifted up to Heaven prior to doomsday, since that event will cause the conversion of 7000 unbelievers, presumably Jews ... sorry, I may have recalled the verse badly, it reads as I consult it:
And at that hour there was made a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake names of men seven thousand: and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of heaven
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:13]
- Or it could be taken as denoting that the Blessed Virgin was not in any way, shape or form close to dead, but was alive the moment before She was lifted up, there was no Dormition, probably erroneous, but see qualification about a private revelation.
- Even apart from Henoch and Elias not corrupting while dead, probably (I can't find that sentence as I consult the DR), there are incorrupt saints.
The only way for "singulari prorsus privilegio" to be true is, if it applies only to the first of the subsequent phrases, namely about the Immaculate Conception. And that one really is true. Not just was she immaculately conceived, but by that fact she vanquished sin, and its author even, as we can glean from "blessed among women" being basically a military award.
Now, the point is, no Catholic theologian will ever doubt that Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception, it would be few who questioned whether Munificentissimus Deus is an infallible papal statement (I know none but myself), but there are definitely two views on whether Syllabus Errorum by Pius IX or Lamentabili sane exitu by Pope St. Pius X are infallible. Hence, very clearly, "infallible" does apply to statements, not just to people. St. Pius X had the charism of infallibility, he exercised it on occasion of canonising St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, did he also exercise it in Lamentabile sane exitu? Did he delegate it to Fulcran Vigouroux when the latter stated Day Age theory was OK (but he didn't state it obliged)? There is one group of statements of which all Catholics will preeminently agree that they are all infallible, that being the statements in the Bible. With their strict implications. A smaller collection are obviously the statements and implications of the Canon Missae. But even as quickly as the Martyrology, we have divergence. Could "Paul VI" reform it? Was it even moderately OK to exclude Sts Barbara and Christopher, if only temporarily? What about St. Philomena? Her story is from an anonymous saint in the catacombs and a private revelation.
Speaking of which, if Pius XII did intend to define away Her Dormition, this could be a way to consider a private revelation as confirmed by his (if any) papal authority. That way also "singulari prorsus" could be true, since a private revelation could trump historic traditions about an event.
You can also quibble about whether, supposing Fulcran Vigouroux did wield the infallibility of St. Pius X in 1909, the response to Q VIII was an infallible or disciplinary response. If it was a doctrinal infallible response, there would not have been much use to confirm the part of the question*** whether exegetes were free to freely discuss it. If we knew that Day Age was dogma, we would, and even exegetes would not not be free to discuss in favour of literal days. But even so, FSSPX in the US district have started to treat the statement "only literal six days without a gap (or one moment creation) can now do justice both to theology and scientific evidence" as equivalent to rebellion against the infallible authority of St. Pius X.
In other words, it is more important to know what statements are infallible than to know who wields infallibility as a charism. And in that sense, infallibility can definitely apply to a book.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael's Feast
29.IX.2024
In monte Gargano venerabilis memoria beati Michaelis Archangeli, quando ipsius nomine ibi consecrata fuit Ecclesia, vili quidem facta schemate, sed caelesti praestans virtute.
* It's from a public post. A comment left under a video by Gavin Ortlund, that one being "the Protestant Canon Problem" ...
** Munificentissimus Deus was November 1, after Humani Generis, August 12.
*** sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?
