Infallibility, Inerrancy And Truth

I went to my old Roman Catholic parish yesterday to witness the Confirmation of three children I know. (secretly, I also went to check out the new bishop. I think he’ll work out quite nicely) A lot of people will know that I love going to Confirmation; but that’s neither here nor there.

After the service, I ended up talking with the deacon, who was glad to see me and said the congregation misses me, and that I should come back more often. I mentioned that I was finding the separation from the Roman church quite difficult, partially because the liturgical structure at the church I have been attending is so alien. Then, of course, there are also the reasons of pure human weakness: loss of community, difficulty sorting out doctrine and belief in a systematic way, not being in communion formally with any church at all. I didn’t mention any of these latter reasons, largely because I know that I am willing and able to persevere while I am learning. Now, if I could just find a patient, magically coherent, passionate and open teacher who has the remarkable quality of actually wanting to teach me…wow: it sounds like I’m looking for a Mary Poppins!

Anyway, the deacon – who was Anglican and is now Roman Catholic – was telling me that one of the reasons he chose to be welcomed into the Roman church was because of its oneness and unity, which he felt he could not maintain in the Anglican church. Personally, I rather like aspects of the ‘looseness,’ but that’s neither here nor there. I, of course, have difficulty with the form this ‘unity’ takes in the Roman church for perhaps the same reasons the deacon admires it. By which I mean the doctrine of papal infallibility, which I reject as, at best, an unfortunate and incorrect phrasing of ‘first among equals,’ and, at worst, actual heresy insofar as this mis-expression is held to be literally true. In what may perhaps seem like an ironic twist, I do in fact accept the idea that the Pontiff is first among equals in relation to the bishops of the other four apostolic sees and the episcopate in general.

This requires some explanation. Or anyway, it probably does. Well then: how to begin? I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Let’s start with oneness. If Holy Mother the Church is one – which she is – then we must all be still in communion with one another somehow, and that includes Rome. Misleadingly, Rome tends to define being in communion with it rather narrowly. However, what is obviously true is that all Christians everywhere accept the Creeds ratified by the (genuinely) ecumenical councils. Hence, though it visibly and superficially seems like we’re not all in communion with one another, at the deepest and most profound level we are, and that absolutely. If I didn’t believe this were true, I would never have done what I have done.

Okay: Holy. What does that even mean? Presumably the Church is holy because she is united to Jesus as the body of Christ. However, this does not mean that individual members of the Church are holy merely by extension. The Church is, after all, still in pilgrimage and full of sin. I think what it means is that the Church is an instrument of grace. I could be wrong: I also, for example, believe that the ‘keys’ given to Peter (and his Church) refer to the responsibility with which the Church is charged – leading people to salvation. So I’m definitely open to suggestion as to my definitions.

Next: Catholic. Strictly speaking, catholic means universal. There is no possible way the Church could be universal under her own power. Rather, I believe it is the sacraments themselves that make the Church catholic, most especially Holy Communion. In the celebration of the Eucharist given by Christ to the Church as a free gift, Christ in His sacrifice and priesthood is present. Christ is truly universal, truly everywhere; by the sacraments, this universality is manifested in the Church and becomes a characteristic of her being. It is not by seeing the Church that we find the sacraments, but by the presence of the sacraments that we see and find the Church. Maybe this is why there have been so many fights about the Blessed Sacrament?

Fourthly: Apostolic. This can mean any number of things. It means for one thing having and preserving the faith of the Apostles. Since this deposit of the faith was entrusted to the Church as steward and was ratified in the ecumenical councils, it stands to reason that every body of Christians confessing the Creed displays genuine apostolic succession. Um. And now I have a confession. Taking back nothing I just said, I really do believe that the episcopacy is the truest expression of that succession, partly because it is embodied. In valid Episcopal succession that extends unbroken and in which core formulas of ordination remain intact and in which the laying on of hands takes place as part of the rite of Holy Orders, I find the truest visible manifestation of apostolic succession that is also clearly tied in to the sacramentality of the Church.

I think this is one of the reasons I’m drawn to the Anglican Communion: I recognize true apostolic succession in its episcopacy. This helps me see and vibrantly maintain my understanding of Church. I also believe that the structure of the Anglican Communion more closely manifests the kind of oneness and catholicity that inheres in the Church. It is looser in its allowance of different liturgical expressions, it recognizes that catholicity is not uniformity, and it allows congregations to work out non-core doctrines in the context of tier own community’s needs, as opposed to regulating everything centrally.

Which brings me back to papal infallibility, which I reject. But I think the longness of this post means that I should save that discussion for next time.

p.s. please someone point out if I am a heretic so I can either prepare my defense or write my recantation speech. They have fancy champagne and flowers and awards at recantations, right? Or is that recitals…