Yet another on the infallibility in the Church
##############################################
:date: 2017-08-09T21:02:04
:category: faith
:tags: blogComment, Catholics, ecumenism, Bible, theology
(written originally as yet another comment to the blogpost “`How Many
Theologians Does it Take To Define Infallibility?`_” by Melinda Selyms)
First of all: thank you, these are very good questions, which actually made me
think (doesn’t happen that often on blog comments).
1. Certainly, some rules are necessary even unavoidable, “Ubi societas, ibi
ius” (“where there is society, there is a law”). However, these are rules
mostly about organizing the community, dispute resolution, etc., not what
people should believe (e.g., Immaculate Conception) or what they should do
outside of the group (e.g., no sex before marriage, unless sexual
intercourse is part of the community activity ;), yikes!).
2. There are probably some rules about what makes the group the Christian one.
They should not limit membership (I am strong believer in “belonging before
believing”, so even unbelievers should be members of the community, although
with some limited rights), but they should define the spirit and direction
of the community. I am a member of the international Protestant congregation
in Prague, Czechia, so members of our church come from a very wide
denominational background. We have members from American Episcopalians and
Norwegian Lutherans on one side to Pentecostals from Africa with people from
Philippines, all around Europe and many other types of Christians in
between. So for me the definition of who is a proper Christian is rather
loose. I guess I would keep the basic Creeds of the Church (Apostles’ Creed,
Nicene Creed, etc.), but not sure who further I would like to limit. I would
certainly welcome Roman Catholics and Orthodox, even to the celebration of
the Lord’s Supper and other sacraments, but I am afraid they prefer their
own communities.
3. I really don’t see, why I would have to have 100% trust in the human
leadership of the community. I do believe in leadership of the Holy Spirit
over whole Church (“gates of hell won’t prevail over it”), but I do not
identify this whole Church with any particular humanly-visible institution.
For any such institution (be it a denomination or particular congregation)
I don‘t expect more certain leadership than for my family. And it is more
important for me as a husband that I am willing to accept my mistake (or
sin), ask God for help, and retarget. That is more important (and more
useful) than having 100% certainty that I am always right (I am not, and
I believe pope/bishops/priests/etc. are not either). It is probably worthy
of emphasizing I believe in the Universal Priesthood of all believers, so
I don‘t see any substantial difference between so called priests and so
called lay people. Of course, pastor is somebody who has calling from God to
work as an authority in the Church and I expect him to have proper training
etc. However, he is no different than a brain surgeon in his job. Of course,
I wouldn’t question his expertise (without really strong reasons and
evidence, perhaps even second opinion) and if I was his subordinate, then
I should submit to his authority. Besides “[…] all things must be done
properly and in an orderly manner.” (1Co 14:40), so every rebellion in the
Church is prima facie suspicious.
Sorry, that was a bit tangential, but what I wanted to say is that I don‘t
expect from the Church leadership more certainty than in my decision as
a father of family. Of course, in the end, my trust in the Church not being
prevailed by the gates of hell is based on the mercy of God, not on 100%
infallibility of the Church leadership.
.. _`How Many Theologians Does it Take To Define Infallibility?`:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2017/08/many-theologians-take-define-infallibility/
