Infallible Infallibility

Standing On My Head ^ | February 17, 2009 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[NYer]

I am reading a conversion story and apologetical book called An Invitation Heeded published at the end of the 1800s with a view to editing it for re-publication by the Coming Home Network. In the chapter on infallibility the author makes the very good point that rather than the Catholic Church's stance on infallibility being nonsensical, it is the churches who deny infallibility that are absurd.

The essential Protestant position is, "Our church is merely a human institution. It is not infallible." And yet they demand allegiance of the faithful to the beliefs and moral teachings of their church. But if their church, by their own insistence, is fallible how can they demand obedience and loyalty to their teachings? There is a logical hiccup here of enormous magnitude.

"Ah!" the Protestant will object, "Our church is fallible, but the Holy Scriptures are not, and it is the Holy Scriptures in which we place our confidence--not in the traditions of men." Of course, this begs the question because Protestants of every stripe--from radical Episcopalians with their Mother Goddess worship and homosexual marriage to mainstream Evangelicals to Jehovah's Witnesses all claim that their beliefs and practices are derived from and at least consistent with Scripture.

In fact, while denying that their leaders are infallible, every religion must act as if they are infallible, otherwise their religion would cease to function. Whenever Bob the Baptist steps through his church door he functions on the basic assumption that his pastor does not teach error in the matter of faith and morals. (this is the definition of infallibility) Likewise, Esther the Episcopalian and Martin the Methodist and Frank the Four Square Apostolic Church of the Redeemed of the Fourth Degree-ist all assume that their pastors teach without error--otherwise their religion wouldn't work. They have to assume infallibility in practice, even if they deny it in theory.

The fact of the matter is, all religions function on the assumption that their church leader is infallible. Catholics are just the only ones who dare to make the claim, and how can Catholics make such an audacious claim?

There are only three options: 1) they are insane and deluded 2) they are liars 3) It's true.

[NYer]

Ping!

[netmilsmom]

This was one of the main points that got my hubby to convert. I asked him how he could trust that when he walked into his church, that what the pastor was teaching was true. It was just another human stating his/her opinion.

[Mr. Lucky]

Umm, this author doesn’t understand Protestants all that well.

[raygunfan]

sure he does. i get it as well....

every non catholic church claims the scriptures are infallible...fair enuff,

every non catholic church teaches from the infallible scriptures, fair enuff...

yet these same non catholic churches who claim to teach only from the infallible scripture, will differ greatly on major issues concerning salvation, all supposedly clearly written and understandble in the infallible scriptures....

and this is because each pastor puts his/her imprimatur on his/her eisigesis, and claims that basically, the church down the street is wrong on what they teach...

believe me, i live with a ‘bible only’ ‘free church’ pastored by ex catholics, mother in law, and i have experienced first hand their reading into scripture, their views and damning the other ‘free church, bible alone’ group up the street from them..

yeah, i say this guy understands protestants pretty well...

[the long march]

Misrepresentation of the worst kind. The “head” of protestant churches is God not a man. The organization that exists to allow us to voluntarily come together to worship is a man made, fallible structure. I worship God not the man. There is nothing difficult to understand about that. I opt to express my belief with others of like mind. I need no pontifications to clarify my faith.

[armydoc]

Whenever Bob the Baptist steps through his church door he functions on the basic assumption that his pastor does not teach error in the matter of faith and morals. (this is the definition of infallibility) Likewise, Esther the Episcopalian and Martin the Methodist and Frank the Four Square Apostolic Church of the Redeemed of the Fourth Degree-ist all assume that their pastors teach without error--otherwise their religion wouldn't work

Um, no. Every one of my protestant pastors stated emphatically that he was capable of teaching error, and it is the parishoner's responsibility to hold up his teachings to the light of scripture. We expect our pastors to strive for scriptural teaching but recognize this is an ideal; reality will always find man falling short. Question: Catholic Priests are not infallible, correct? Does Joe Catholic have the responsibility of holding up his Priest's teachings to Scripture (and Tradition)?

[delacoert]

...yet these same non catholic churches who claim to teach only from the infallible scripture, will differ greatly on major issues concerning salvation...

Please list a few of these major differences "concerning salvation" and specify which denomination teaches each one.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Yeah this is interesting. I am pretty sure that most FREEPERS will opt for choices 1 and 2. And I hope you have your fire suit ready.

I always wonder about this. It is obvious that things have changed since the first century Church. If there is no institution with authority to make changes, then is everyone apostate?

Also lets say they dig up another lost book of the bible. If the early Church didn’t have the authority to determine the Canon how would an individual know whether or not a single book inspired word of God or not?

And if they had the authority to determine the Canon what happened when Luther changed the Old Testament?

[NYer]

this author doesn’t understand Protestants all that well

He is a former Anglican minister and convert to the Catholic Church.

[LeGrande]

There are only three options: 1) they are insane and deluded 2) they are liars 3) It's true.

I choose '1', but '2' is a close second : )

[trad_anglican]

He is a former Anglican minister and convert to the Catholic Church.

Then he should know that radical Episcopalians most definitely do not claim that their innovations are supported by scripture. They claim, essentially, that innovation (so long as someone, somewhere believes that it's inspired by the Holy Spirit) trumps scripture and tradition.

And as a former Anglican layman nearly finished becoming a convert to the Catholic Church, I agree with those who have said he doesn't state the protestant position very well.

[Mr. Lucky]

Well then, that explains it.

[Campion]

He also graduated from Bob Jones University (and was a fundamentalist Protestant before he became an Anglican). Evidently, they didn’t teach him much about Protestantism there. ;-)

[D-fendr]

t is the parishoner's responsibility to hold up his teachings to the light of scripture.

Would this just transfer infallibility to the parishioner?

[Mad Dawg]

I do think the Episcopalian notion might be the most problematic. On the one hand, (some) Episcopalians argue for Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, meaningful sacerdotal absolution, that kind of thing, while at the same time officially saying, "We could be wrong about this," both in the "Articles of Religion" (whatever authority they may or may not have) and in their toleration of clergy who deny Baptismal Regeneration, The Real Presence, meaningful absolution, and even the efficacy of prayer.

So it comes down to some of them saying,"When I pronounce you forgiven, you are forgiven ... uh, or not, maybe."

I think more capital 'P' Protestants would not believe any of that kind of thing and are franker about saying, "As far as I can tell, this is true and that isn't but, really, it's between you and God to work out who's right."

[armydoc]

Would this just transfer infallibility to the parishioner?

I think you're missing the point. We don't believe that any mortal man is infallible.

[D-fendr]

Then a fallible parishioner is holding up a fallible preacher’s teachings to the light of scripture - and I don’t see how that improves upon the initial problem.

I guess this is a fundamental difference between us on the concept of church as a teaching authority.

I can’t see how in your view a church exists in practice as “the pillar and foundation of truth”.

I appreciate your reply.

[armydoc]

I can’t see how in your view a church exists in practice as “the pillar and foundation of truth”.

In my view the church does not exist as the "pillar and foundation of truth". You are correct that we see the role of the church differently. I certainly see value in the teachings if learned men but also am also on the lookout for false teaching. As a Catholic, I would hope you would have the same attitude toward your teachers, be they Priests, Bishops, Cardinals or even the Pope when he is not speaking infallibly.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

It is the Church’s teaching on faith and morals that is infallible. You are correct that if a Catholic teaches pro-abortion, for example, we should know that is false. We know the Churches teaching on the sanctity of life.

However, there are other churches who teach this is not false.

>>>In my view the church does not exist as the “pillar and foundation of truth”

How do you view 1 Timothy: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”