Indefectible. It’s a big word that you don’t hear very
often. In fact, it seems that the only
time you hear of the word, it is almost exclusively used by Catholics in
referring to their church. Here are a
few examples of Catholic sources speaking of their Church’s supposed
indefectibility:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“…The most intimate cooperation of the Holy Spirit and
the Church is achieved in the liturgy.
The Spirit, who is the Spirit of communion, abides indefectibly in the
Church…” (CCC #1108)
The Second Vatican Council of
the Catholic Church said that the Church is “indefectibly holy” (Lumen Gentium 39)
The Vatican document Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and
the Faults of the Past (International Theological Commission, December
1999) speaks of the “indefectible fidelity” of the Church.
Also, according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online):
“The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to
the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.” (Under
“The Church”)
Note that the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
references Matthew 16:18 here (“the gates of hell will not prevail”). We plan to deal with Matthew 16 in next
month’s article.
But what does the term
“indefectible” actually mean, and why does the Catholic Church use this
particular word? According to these
popular dictionaries, this is the definition of “indefectible”:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1)
not subject to
failure or decay: lasting
2)
free of
faults: flawless
Dictionary.com
1) not defectible; not liable to defect or failure
2) not liable to fault or imperfection; faultless
Oxford Dictionary
1 1) not liable to fail, end, or decay
2) having no defects; perfect
Ok, so the word means
perfect, having no defects and no end, flawless, free of faults, not subject to
failure, etc. It’s interesting that
Catholics don’t seem to have a problem attaching a word with such a weighty
meaning to their beloved church. But
does this really define the Catholic Church?
Is this word a fair description of it?
Seriously, does the Catholic Church really expect us to believe that any
of its people, individually or
corporately, are “flawless,” “not subject to failure,” or “perfect”? History and Scripture would surely disagree
with this conclusion. Obviously, there
is no church that is perfect.
But in what sense do Catholics
believe their Church is indefectible? In
basically two ways. They believe that
not only will the Catholic Church remain and live on forever, but that it also
can never teach error.
But the first problem we have
with this is that the Catholic Church sees ITSELF as the true church, the one
Jesus said of whom the gates of hell would not prevail, and that they ALONE are
the ones who have received this promise.
No, the Catholic Church is not the true church, as is painfully evident
throughout this blog. Not only is it not the true church of Jesus Christ, but
it is very unbiblical in many of its teachings.
The true church is made up of individual believers worldwide, in many
different places, who believe, trust in, and are committed to serving Jesus
Christ and are following His Word.
Concerning the permanence of
the church, we don’t have an issue with the belief that the true church will
endure to the end. That is certainly a
biblical idea. We agree that Matthew
16:18 does indeed address that concept.
But the church will not be flawless in its teachings or its behavior, as
the word “indefectible” would demand. By
definition, any less-than-perfect behavior would negate (cancel) this claim to
indefectibility.
But Catholics will say that
the Church’s indefectibility does not apply to its behavior. But remember, the
official Catholic statement above (Lumen
Gentium, paragraph 39) calls the Catholic Church “indefectibly holy.” And notice that the context of paragraph 39 deals with the Church’s sanctification, and therefore, its morals
and behavior. Therefore, this “gift” of
indefectibility must necessarily also refer to the Catholic Church’s morals and
behavior. You can’t have indefectible
holiness and less-than-perfect behavior at the same time.
In the other quote above
about the Catholic Church’s “indefectible fidelity,” the document says that,
“the [Catholic] Church is at the same time holy [indefectibly so] and always in
need of purification…” But this is a
blatant contradiction! Again, you can’t
say that it is both indefectible in its holiness and at the same time, needing
purification in its behavior! This
destroys the very definition of the word “indefectible.” So, if the term doesn’t really apply to the Catholic Church (which it doesn’t),
then DON’T CALL IT INDEFECTIBLE! Use another word. Using this term is dishonest and arrogant.
Notice that the apostle Paul
does not tell Timothy, “Hey, just kick back and relax,Timothy, since the leadership
of the church has this special gift of indefectibility. All your teachings will automatically be true
and will come out perfectly, no matter what, so you don’t ever have to worry
about teaching error!” No, he tells
Timothy to guard his teaching (1
Timothy 4:16; 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14) and fight to maintain it. This doesn’t sound like a gift of
indefectibility in which Timothy couldn’t preach error, even if he tried. Why should it be guarded if it was never in danger?
It’s a great exaggeration to attach the word “indefectible” to any earthly person or group after the
apostolic era. God alone has that perfection,
that flawlessness.
The true church is made up of
godly, but imperfect, humans. We can
indeed have assurance that the true church will prevail, but only because of
the power and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, Himself. The bottom line is, the Catholic Church is
wrong: an “indefectible” church simply does not exist.
Greeting Russell,
ReplyDeleteI see that you wrote another article addressing Catholic claims to authority. Scripture passages dealing with apostasy definitely refute the idea of an "infallible church" (Acts 20:26-32; 1 Timothy 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3). What is your interpretation of the "rock" in Matthew 16:18-19? What about "binding and loosing"? Was the same ability given to all of the apostles (Matthew 18:18) and does it pertain to the spread of the gospel (Acts 14:27)? I am curious. Finally, do you think that a case for Sola Scriptura could be made from 1 John 2;26-27?
Jesse
Hello Jesse,
ReplyDeleteHow is everything going with you? Hope all is well.
Starting with the last item first, sorry, but I really don’t see how a good case for Sola Scriptura can be made with 1 John 2:26-27. Scripture is not mentioned here and I think it would be a stretch to say it is implied, as well.
Concerning Matthew 16:18-19, I am planning to address that very passage this month with a new article. But to briefly answer your questions:
I believe the “rock” in this chapter is referring to Jesus’ foundational statement that He just made (v. 16). He is telling His disciples He was going to build His church upon this FACT, this TRUTH, this PILLAR: that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This is the FOUNDATION of the church and its authority, not Peter or any other man. And yes, “binding and loosing” was given to ALL the apostles equally, and it does indeed pertain to the gospel! I touch on that point in this article:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=hi-jacking+of+John
Good hearing from you, Jesse, and I encourage you to continue your studies! God bless!