On the Infallible Church
Ever since the Fogey began harping on the infallible church, I have been trying to understand it, mainly because he argues it is the break point, like the place where a path forks and diverges, for Protestants and Catholics.
His argument, as I understand it, is that the Church is infallible while its members are not. In other words, the sum of the tradition of the Church, its practices, stances, teachings, etc., that have been preserved from time immemorial are infallible, and it is a belief in this infallibility which protects against human meddling and error. Belief that the Church is fallible or that some of these practices, stances teachings, etc. can change (not the same thing, if you ask me) equals Protestantism.
I value this argument precisely because I consider myself Catholic. I may not be a Roman Catholic any more, and may be more of an Independent Catholic than a traditional Anglo-Catholic, but I am Catholic. The belief that some Church practices or beliefs can change does not invalidate the past, tradition, or even those who still hold those practices or beliefs.
Arguing for a practice based on Church infallibility seems to be a faulty argument, simply because it seems to argue that this or that practice is right and this or that one is wrong precisely because it has always been held so. Both within and without the Church, practice and teaching, theory and reality change.
Perhaps what I am trying to articulate is this: such a belief seems too idealistic and ultimately unproductive (little can be made of it, other than the retrenchment of any position, no position is really promoted by it).
I’ve been thinking about the Church and Catholicity precisely because I’m preaching on Sunday, and I realize I’m one of the more traditionalist members of that congregation.
