Sorin vs. Yasi: The Curse of Infallibility
Papal infallibility, intended as a gift to clarify doctrine, has instead become "Schrödinger's Pope"—a source of profound confusion because Catholics cannot agree on when or how often it has been exercised, rendering it practically useless for defining the boundaries of faith and causing more doctrinal chaos than it resolves.
The recent debate between Alex Sorin and Elijah Yasi made for terrific viewing. Both men defended their position well, I think. They were also refreshingly civil (though, apparently, they had a major falling-out afterwards. Alas).
Watching the exchange, though, I remembered why I came away from my own debate with Yasi feeling a little deflated. I was never sure that he understood my position or my critique of his position. And I expect that he felt the same way.
Now, to some people, that may “prove” that these debates are pointless. To me, it’s the opposite. To me, it proves that we haven’t had enough debates. We’re still just scratching the surface.
So, I’d like to elaborate on one of the questions they touched upon: How do we know when the pope is speaking infallibly?
Speaking From the Chair
During the Q&A, an audience member asked Elijah why there is no infallible list of infallible statements. Elijah’s response is quite thoughtful:
I can’t provide a list of that. It’s not a list. I think East and West both agree on this. There’s a sensus fidelium, a sense of the faithful. That’s what we believe. That’s why I showed you that from Vatican I, he decrees what the sense of the faith is—what the Faith has taught in the last 2,000 years. That’s what he decrees. And what’s important isn’t a list of ex-cathedras, because none of us can provide any lists. If I ask you a list of your dogmas and where they come from—you can't provide that, right?
With all due respect, though, it’s not about the list per se. We just want to know: How can we be sure when the pope is speaking infallibly?
Consider the concluding paragraph of Pastor Aeternus, the dogmatic constitution promulgated by Vatican I:
[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra—that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
The document’s language is perfectly clear. The exercise of papal infallibility is not a vague assurance that the pope won't err too badly in major pronouncements. Infallible definition is a discrete act or event. "When the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, such definitions are of themselves irreformable."
Moreover, when he performs this action, the result is binding upon the whole Church. We must, then, have some practical criteria for determining when the act itself (i.e., infallible definition) has taken place.
Schrödinger's Pope
The trouble is that no one can say for sure when the pope is speaking infallibly. Some theologians believe he has spoken infallibly only three or four times. Some say he has only invoked his infallibly once! In Cardinal Vinzenz Gasser’s official interpretation of Vatican I (which Yasi cites as authoritative), there have been “thousands and thousands” of infallible statements. Opinions vary wildly, with every Catholic left to make up his or her own mind.
Elijah admits as much during his rebuttal:
He says there have been two ex-cathedras since 1854, where Dr. John Joy, a theologian of the Catholic Church, would disagree. He would look at Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II saying females cannot be ordained as ex cathedra as well. So, it just depends on who you ask.
So, yes: it's a problem if Catholics can’t agree on when a pope is speaking infallibly. Because then you have a situation we might call
Schrödinger's Pope: We know the Roman Pontiff can speak infallibly, we’re just not sure when he’s doing so.
Imagine if we had this problem with another source of magisterial teaching—the Ecumenical Councils, for instance. Granted, there is some disagreement even among the Orthodox as to what the councils teach. But there is at least a basic agreement on certain major points. Nicaea I teaches the Divinity of Christ, Constantinople I teaches the equality of the Holy Spirit, and so on.
Now, imagine if we couldn’t agree how many Ecumenical Councils there have been. Maybe there has only been one; maybe there have been dozens and dozens (to play on Gasser’s words). It just depends on who you ask (as Yasi says). What, then, is the point of having an Ecumenical Council?
Laying the Horoi
The Greek word for dogma is horos. It translates literally as “boundary marker.” So, as we said, “doctrine” essentially means border. Dogmas establish the outer limits of Christian belief.
We must, then, imagine the bishops as surveyors. When a surveyor puts an orange mark between two trees, he may not be marking the property line with 100.00% accuracy. But he’s coming very close—as close as he possibly can.
Now, Elijah is right: the sensus fidelium is what matters. But the “sense of the faithful” is established, to a very large extent, by these dogmas. The horoi are laid down by the magisterial Church to prevent us from straying from the orthodox, catholic Faith. And the Church’s magisterial authority is exercised by (or through) the bishops. The shepherds build a fence to contain their flock. This is the order established by Christ in Matthew 16-18, and is first exercised by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
In other words, there is no “sense of the faithful” without the exercise of episcopal authority. If someone challenges the divinity of Christ, we must be able to point to Nicaea I and say, “These questions have been asked and answered before. The boundaries have been fixed. The debate is over.”
This is why it’s so important that we be able to distinguish between a pope’s infallible judgments and his private opinions. The popes have issued thousands of teachings over the years. They have made their marks on countless trees; the marks vary in their shapes, sizes, and colors; many appear to contradict each other. How do we know which ones are “binding” and which are mere suggestions?
Again, Catholics can’t even say for sure how many infallible dogmas the popes have laid down. It’s somewhere between one and “thousands and thousands”; that’s all we can say for sure. So, we're not even sure how many "official" marks we’re bound to observe. We can’t even guess!
What we have, then, is a whole forest full of strange and contradictory markings. We know that some of them are infallible while others are not. We must then ask: What’s the point?!
The Curse of Infallibility
The official English translation of Gasser’s relatio is titled The Gift of Infallibility. Yet, as we can see, papal infallibility is anything but a gift.
If Catholics can’t say exactly when the pope is exercising his magisterial authority—if they can barely even guess—then he is not exercising magisterial authority at all. Even if he is infallible, his infallibility is not magisterial. It doesn’t do the Church any good. In fact, it has done a great deal of harm.
This is why, since the First Vatican Council, the Roman Church has suffered greater confusion than at any point in its history. It’s ironic, actually: by dogmatizing papal infallibility, Vatican I caused an even deeper and more widespread confusion than ever before, especially in regard to the pope’s authority.
This is why Catholic apologists like Yasi can’t simply sidestep our call for a list of infallible papal teachings. It’s not about the list per se. What we’re asking for is some proof that the popes settle more debates than they create.
He can’t provide that evidence. No Catholic apologist can.
In that case, the dogma of papal infallibility fails on the most fundamental level. It’s not a theological or ecclesiological failure, but a logical one. If the pope is able to speak infallibly, but no one can be sure when or how, then his infallibility causes more confusion than it resolves.
And if it causes more confusion than it resolves, then it cannot be called an exercise of the Church’s magisterium. After all, the Church’s horoi can’t obscure the boundaries of the Faith more than they define them. This would be the very definition of the gates of Hell prevailing against the Rock of Peter.
