Traditional INFALLIBILITY

Since our subject has led us to speak about the hierarchy of initiatic functions, we ought also to consider another question more particularly connected thereto, that of doctrinal infallibility. We can do this, moreover, not only from the initiatic point of view, but also from the traditional point of view in general, which includes the exoteric as well as the esoteric orders. To understand what is involved, the principle must first be granted that it is the doctrine, and it alone, that is strictly speaking infallible, and not any individual human being as such; and if the doctrine is infallible, this is because it is an expression of truth, which in itself is absolutely independent of the individuals who receive and understand it. Ultimately, the guarantee of the doctrine lies in its 'non-human' character; and it can be said that every truth, of whatever order it may be, when considered from the traditional point of view, participates in this 'non-human' character, for it is truth only because it is linked to higher principles and is derived from these as a more or less immediate consequence or as an application to a definite domain. Truth is in no way made by man as the modern 'relativists' and 'subjectivists' would have it, but on the contrary it imposes itself on him, nothowever 'from outside' in the manner of a 'physical' constraint, but in reality 'from within', for man is obviously not obliged to 'recognize' it as truth unless he first has 'known' it, that is, unless it has penetrated him and he has really assimilated it to himself. [1] It must not be forgotten that all true knowledge is cssentially, and in the exact measure that it is real, an identification of the knower and the known, an identification still imperfect and as if 'by reflection' in the case of merely theoretical knowledge, and a perfect identification in the case of effective knowledge. It follows that any man will be infallible when he expresses a truth that he really knows, that is to say with which he is identified; [2] but it is not as a human individual that he will then be infallible, but insofar as he so to speak represents that truth by virtue of this identification. Strictly speaking, one ought not to say in such a case that he expresses the truth, but rather that the truth expresses itself through him. From this point of view infallibility does not appear to be anything extraordinary or exceptional, or as some sort of 'privilege', for in fact everyone possesses it to the degree that he is 'competent', that is, insofar as he 'knows' in the true sense of the word; [3] the difficulty, of course, is to determine the real limits of this competence in each particular case. It goes without saying that these limits will depend on the degree of knowledge that the being has attained, and that they will be the more extensive as this degree is the more elevated; and consequently it also goes without saying that infallibility in one order of knowledge does not imply infallibility in a higher or more profound order, and that, to apply this for example to the most general division that can be established among traditional doctrines, infallibility in the exoteric domain in no way implies infallibility in the esoteric and initiatic domain. In what we have just said, we considered infallibility to be strictly tied to knowledge, that is, as inherent to the being that possesses this knowledge, or, more cxactly, to the state it has thereby attained, and this not insofar as it is this or that particular being but insofar as, in this state, it really is identified with the corresponding truth. One can say moreover that this is an infallibility that in a way concerns only the being to whom it belongs as an integral part of its interior state, and which may very well not be recognized by others if the being concerned has not been expressly invested with a particular function, and more precisely, with a function of doctrinal teaching. This infallibility will in practice avoid the crrors of application that are always possible because of the difficulty we have just noted of determining 'from outside' the limits of that infallibility. But in every traditional organization there is also another kind of infallibility that is attached exclusively to the teaching function in whatever order this may be exercised, for this too applies simultaneously to both the exoteric and the esoteric domains, naturally considering each within its proper limits; it is especially in this respect that one can sce particularly clearly that infallibility does not belong to individuals as such, for in the case before us now it is entirely independent of what the individual who exercises the function may be in himself. Here it is necessary to refer to what we said earlier concerning the efficacy of rites. This efficacy essentially inheres in the rites themselves insofar as they are the means of action of a spiritual influence; the rite thus acts in every respect independently of the worth of the individual who accomplishes it, and even without the individual having an effective knowledge of this efficacy. [4] If the rite is reserved to a specialized function, it is only necessary that the individual should have received from the traditional organization to which he belongs the power to accomplish it validly; no other condition is required, and if this condition can in turn require certain particular qualifications, as we have seen, these do not refer to the possession of a certain degree of knowledge but are simply those that allow the spiritual influence to work through the individual as it were without his particular constitution hindering it. Such a one, then, truly becomes a 'carrier' or a 'transmitter' of the spiritual influence, and it is this alone that is important, for while under this influence of an essentially supra-individual order, and consequently insofar as he accomplishing the function with which he is invested, his individuality longe counts and even disappears entirely. We have already emphasized the importance of the role of 'transmitter', particularly in regand to initiatic rites, for it is this same role that is exercised with respect to doctrine when the function of teaching is involved; and in fact between these two aspects, and consequently between the natures of the corresponding functions, there exists a very close relationship resulting directly from the character of the traditional doctrines themselves. Indeed, as we have already explained in connection with symbolism, it is not possible to establish an absolutely clear distinction, still less a separation, between what pertains to rites and what pertains to doctrine, nor therefore between accomplishing the for mer and teaching the latter, for even if they actually constitute two different functions, they ale nonetheless fundamentally of the same nature. The rite always bears within it a teaching, and the doctrine, by reason of its 'non-human' character (which, let us recall, is manifested especially by the symbolic form of its expression), also bears within itself the spiritual influence, so that they are really only complementary aspects of one and the same reality; and although we first spoke of this more particularly in connection with the initiatic domain, it can nonetheless be extended in a general way to everything of a traditional order. There is in principle no distinction to make in this regard; the only distinction that can in fact be made is that, in the initiatic domain, where the essential goal is pure knowledge, a teaching function of any degree ought normally to be conferred only on one who possesses an effective knowledge of what is to be taught (all the more in that what counts here is less the outwardness of the teaching than the result-inward-that the teacher must help produce in those who receive it), whereas in the exoteric order, the immediate goal of which is different, the one who exercises such a function can ve y well have a merely theor etical knowledge sufficient to explain the doctrine intelligibly. But in any case, this is not what is essential, at least for the infallibility attaching to the function itself From this point of view one can say that the fact of being regulatly invested with certain functions confers, by itself alone and without any other conditions, [5] the ability to accomplish such and such rites; in the same way, the fact of being regularly invested with a teaching function entails by itself alone the possibility of validly accomplishing this function, and thereby necessarily confers infallibility within the limits of its exercise. The reason for this is fundamentally the same in both cases: on the one hand, the spiritual influence inheres in the very rites that vehicle it, and on the other, the same spiritual influence inheres equally in the doctrine by the very fact that it is essentially 'non-human'. Thus, in the final analysis it is always this spiritual influence that acts through individuals, whether in the accomplishment of rites or in the teaching of doctrine, and it is this influence that ensures that these individuals can effectively exercise the functions with which they have been charged, no matter what they may be in themselves. [6] In these conditions, of course, the authorized interpreter of doctrine, insofar as he exercises his proper function, can never speak in his own name but solely in the name of the tradition that he represents and that he so to speak 'incarnates', and which alone is really infallible. As long as this is the case, the individual no longer exists except in the capacity of a mere 'support' for the doctrinal formulation, and this support plays no more active a role here than does the paper on which a book is printed in regard to the ideas for which it serves as a vehicle. If in some other respect this individual should happen to speak in his own name, he would by that very fact no longer be exercising his function but merely expressing individual opinions, in which he is no more infallible than anyone else. In himself therefore he enjoys no special 'privilege', for once his individuality reappcars and asserts itself, he immediately ceases to be the representative of the tradition and becomes no more than an ordinary man who, like any other, has worth in respect of the doctrine only in the measure of the knowledge he himself really possesses, and who cannot in any case claim to impose his authority on anyone. [7] Thus the infallibility belongs solely to the function and not at all to the individual, for outside the exercise of this function, or if the individual ceases to fill it for any reason, he retains nothing of this infallibility; and here we have an example of what we said above, that the function, in contrast to the degree of knowledge, adds absolutely nothing to what the being is in itself, and does not really modify its interior state. We must further explain how doctrinal infallibility, as we have just defined it, is necessarily limited in the same way as is the function to which it is joined, and this in several ways. First, it can only apply within the tradition to which the function belongs and is nonexistent in respect of any other traditional form; in other words, no one can claim to judge one tradition in the name of another, for such a claim is necessarily false and illegitimate since one can only speak in the name of a tradition about what concerns that tradition itself, which is evident enough to anyone who has no preconceived idea on the matter. Next, if a function belongs to a certain determined order, it can only entail infallibility in what relates to that order, which may be more or less limited according to the case. Thus, without leaving the exoteric order, one could for example conceive of an infallibility that by reason of the particular character of the function to which it is attached concerns only this or that branch of the doctrine and not the doctrine as a whole; with all the more reason a function of an exoteric order, of whatever kind, would be unable to confer any infallibility, and consequently any authority, with regard to the esoteric order; and here again any contrary claim, which moreover would imply a reversal of normal hieraichical relationships, would be worth strictly nothing. It is absolutely necessary to observe these two distinctions at all times (on the one hand between the different traditional forms, and on the other between the esoteric and exoteric domains), [8] in order to prevent any abuse or crror in application in traditional infallibility, for beyond the legitimate limits belonging to each case there is no longer any infallibility because thele is nothing to which it can be validly applicd. If we have thought it necessary to dwell somewhat on this, it is because we know that too many people have the tendency to misunderstand these essential truths, either because their horizon is limited to one traditional form, or because, within this one form, they know only the exoteric point of view; all that one can ask, in order to reach an understanding with them, is that they know and be willing to acknowledge just how far their competence extends, so that they do not intrude upon another's territory, which would be especially regrettable for themselves, for by this they would only give proof of a truly irremediable incomprehension.