Error?

Ia it possible for the Church to teach infallibly? According to the members of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission ‘in certain circumstances’, the Church can teach infallibly ‘at the service of the Church’s indefectibility.’ (The Gift of Authority paragraph 52) (Indefectibility means that God will preserve the Church until the end of time.) To what extent does this accord with Roman Catholic and Anglican doctrine?

Infallibility - its background

The idea of the Church being able to teach infallibly has a long history but since the First Vatican Council (1869-7) has been particularly associated with the idea of Papal Infallibility. The Second Vatican Council (1962-5) modified the teaching so that in its present form the Pope on his own, or a body of Bishops together with the Pope, may ‘proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals’ ‘which must be adhered to with the obedience of faith’ (Lumem Gentium 25). Put systematically, since the middle ages the Roman Catholic Church has held three views:

Pre-Vatican I : The Church may teach infallibly.

Vatican I : The Pope may teach infallibly.

Vatican II : The Pope, or the Bishops and Pope together may teach infallibly.

It will be demonstrated below that none of these are compatible with Anglican teaching. The German Catholic Hans Küng writing shortly after Vatican II explained that ‘to non-Christians and Christians outside the Catholic Church the attribution of ‘infallibility’ to the Church’s teaching office has always been unacceptable. (Infallible? Chapter 1 section 1) Pointing to the cold facts of history he added, ‘in every century the errors of the Church’s teaching office have been numerous and indisputable.’

ARCIC and Infallibility

ARCIC covers infallibility mainly in sections 41 to 44 of the report with the heart of the argument expressed in section 42: 

‘In specific circumstances, those with this ministry of oversight (episcope), assisted by the Holy Spirit, may together come to a judgment which, being faithful to Scripture and consistent with apostolic Tradition, is preserved from error.’

In the following section this is qualified by the assertion that in some way the whole body of believers must participate in this decision. No mention is made of the role of the Pope.

At first sight the ARCIC statement seems to represent the Pre-Vatican I position. However, first appearances may be deceptive. The general method of ARCIC reports is to make vague statements that are open to various interpretations. After the previous report the Vatican issued its own document, Clarifications, putting their ‘spin’ on its contents. By contrast, it is rumoured that The Gift of Authority was delayed whilst it was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once known as the Inquisition). Given that the CDF is recognised as the powerhouse of Vatican I Catholicism (pro-Papal infallibility alone) it would be interesting to know their response.

The vagueness of the ARCIC position is evident from the words ‘in certain circumstances’ and ‘in specific circumstances’. What does this mean? The report does not seem to say. Furthermore, the section on infallibility does not mention the Pope and the section on the Primacy of the Pope does not mention infallibility, yet the door is left wide open to Papal infallibility being asserted as a valid interpretation of the report. For example the report claims that ‘The Bishop of Rome offers a specific ministry concerning the discernment of truth’ and ‘the Bishop of Rome in certain circumstances has a duty to discern and make explicit (the faith of the Church)’. With enough ‘spin’ the ARCIC report can be made to accord precisely with Vatican II, though not, it seems, with the more limited position of Vatican I.

The Anglican Understanding.

It is tempting to simply dismiss the ARCIC report as bearing no resemblance to the teaching of the Church of England. However, it is important to show the positive vision of authority which has always been at the heart of true Anglicanism.

Though there is much confusion on this issue today the formularies of the Church of England are a clear expression of the classical reformed position of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone). All the main-stream reformers held that ‘only the Bible has the authority to bind the consciences of believers’. There are lesser authorities, but none of them were ‘deemed absolute, because all of them were capable of error. God alone is infallible. Fallible authorities cannot bind the conscience absolutely; that right is reserved to God and his Word alone.’ (R. C. Sproul : The Heart of Reformed Theology p37,38). When the Church claims infallibility it is claiming authority alongside (or above) Scripture.

The fact that the Church of England rejects the infallibility of the Church (in whatever form) and holds to Sola Scriptura is immediately evident from the Thirty Nine Articles. Article VI is the classical Anglican statement that scripture is a sufficient guide to the faith so that whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to be believed as an article of the faith. This is what it means to say nothing else but the bible has the authority to bind the consciences of believers. Many outside the Church of England recognise this Article as a model, concise, statement of Sola Scriptura.

Following on from this high point the Articles set out the plain fact that churches have erred (Article XIX) so that any claim to the contrary is ludicrous or deceitful. (Compare this with the quotation of Hans Kung above.) Article XX follows the logic of this through to show that the Church has authority with regards to ceremonies and controversies, yet is always under scripture and cannot ‘enforce any thing to be believed’ - except scripture itself. Article XXI asserts that even General Councils when they are gathered together, inasmuch as they are an assembly of men, among whom not all are ruled by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, may also err. These issues are also touched on by several other Articles.

The supreme authority of Scripture also means that the Church cannot dictate how scripture is to be interpreted. The Reformation principle of private judgment means that any believer has the right to interpret the bible for himself or herself. Many will put up their hands in horror at this thought, but it must be understood properly. A believer is not free to separate themselves from, or set themselves above, the Christian community, they must welcome and weigh truth from every side. However, the community, the Church, cannot bind a persons conscience because Scripture is the supreme and final authority.

The Thirty nine articles are very clear in asserting that Scripture alone is the supreme authority for Christians and therefore rejecting every claim for the infallibility of the Church. This is a positive and wholesome position which is, and always has been, the main-stream reformation view. It is surprising therefore that this is neither set out nor interacted with in the negative and retrogressive arguments of the ARCIC report. It is hard to see how anyone who takes seriously the foundational teaching of the Church of England, let alone the plain facts of history, could endorse the view of infallibility set out in the ARCIC report.

The way forward

The one glimmer of light in The Gift of Authority is the assertion that the ‘reception of teaching is integral to process’ (section 43). The majority of Christians world-wide reject the absurd claims of infallibility made by the Roman Catholic Church since the middle ages. This is apparent not only from those who accept Anglican doctrine but also those many many churches (Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational and others) whose doctrinal bases descend from the common ancestry of the Westminster Confession of Faith (see chapter 21 section 3) and similar continental confessions. The fact that so many Christians consciously reject infallibility, and have done so for centuries, makes it self evident that the doctrine has failed the process of reception and must be considered part of the catalogue of past errors propagated by the Church. If the claims of infallibility were finally put to rest then there might be opportunity for real progress towards unity, as long as it persists it is an insurmountable obstacle.

Published in Church of England Newspaper June 1999