Calculating the Cost of Infallibility II: Fogey forces the fence.

Well, first a thank you to Young Fogey who has forced my hand on this issue. I do need to think about it because it is a central and difficult claim that is made by the Holy See. Am I an Anglican Papalist if I do not accept the Infallibility of the Pope?

I confess that I find it difficult. Infallibility means that when you ask for the Truth in a matter, the correct answer is always given, like the calculator I describe below. Thus Papal Infallibility means that when a question arises about the truth of doctrine, the Pope is capable of uttering that truth without error.

I don't see that as much of a problem. The Church is infallible, and there must be a way for that infallibility to be expressed definitively. It makes sense then that the definitive and united voice of that infallibility should be the head of the Church, the successor to St Peter. I accept it because I accept the Holy See as being the One True Church. I am therfore bound by the teachings of the Church. This does not mean that I do not have doubts and difficulties with what she teaches - I am only human, despite what my pupils may say!

So why am I vacillating as usual?

To be honest, the source of my indecision lies in my Anglican scepticism. Non-Papal Anglicanism and the Orthodox churches do not accept this doctrine of Infallibility, and Anglicanism is very much a part of me. As I intimate below, it is the conditions of Infallibility that perplex me. If Anglican Orders are null and void then clearly Papal Infallibility works because (as Young Fogey comments) members of the Anglican Church are still members of the One True Church but not as a corporation, rather as individuals, thus Rome does not have to consult Canterbury in order to establish whether a doctrine has been truly established by the Church and thus may be Infallibly pronounced. If Anglican Orders are not null and void then there is a problem. And quite where do the Orthodox Churches whose orders are recognised fit in?

On the real face of it, the practicality of Papal Infallibility is not problematic. There have only been two Infallible statements, both concerning the nature of Our Lady, namely the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, neither of which cause major problems with in Roman and Easter relations, and I suspect that the majority of Anglican Catholics (or Catholic Anglicans) may only really disagree with them on the grounds that they were Infallibly pronounced. Another cause for me to doubt is the authentic faith and theological integrity of the Protestant Catholics like Fr. Hart, who ask difficult and challenging questions, and challenge the claims of Roman Dogma.

It is only the idea of Infallibility that is irksome, that one Bishop has a precedence over the rest. I would certainly be more comfortable if there were twelve Patriarchs each holding a See founded, like Rome, by one holding a direct succession to one of the original Twelve which held council and then Infallible statements uttered by their chief, the successor of St Peter. However, the Church doesn't exist to make me comfortable, but rather to ensure that I keep awake and thinking.

So critics of Anglican Papalism will say "Aha, you hold to Papal Infallibility. That means unless you secede immediately, you are in mortal sin." I have already confessed my need for Rome. I am repenting, meaning that I am turning around and making my way there, dragging behind me the entirety of my Anglican tradition which remains utterly valid in the faith, and possesses an integrity that Rome needs. It is heavy and my progress will be slow, and like an ant trying to make off with the Shroud of Turin singlehandedly, I'm going to have a tough time. But confess, repent, and be absolved, that is the Catholic formula for reconciliation which I believe I am following.