Replies

The author of this blog post would do himself a favor to read what one of the commenters of this post said/posted in reply to it. Namely the arguments here: $EasyMoney$ - A Response to Eric Svendsen’s 18 Challenges to the Catholic Faith.

I note that the commenter, shortly after he posted that link was banned from posting any more replies to the blog post. I won't comment on that decision by Mr. Culliton; it's entirely possible that the commenter in question was as uncivil as Mr. Culliton claims (I didn't read all the posts there). But it would have been interesting to see any of the Protestants there, Mr. Culliton included, comment on the following below (taken from the link above) which directly, and in my opinion, clearly demonstrates the weakness of the type of argument Mr. Culliton employs here.

Note, the following (italicized) arguments taken from the Catholic Legate site are addressing the issue of "is it possible to demonstrate there is a NEED FOR, an infallible authority here on Earth with regards to Christian teaching/doctrine/dogma. These arguments alone (just the ones below) don't address whether or not "Rome" is the "true Church". For more on that, see the link.

Challenge 1: Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the "true" church without engaging in the very private judgment that Rome condemns as illegitimate.

Response 1: Rome has never condemned private judgement per se. It condemns the error that sometimes comes from private judgement. St. James no doubt uttered his private judgement when he said, “Therefore, my judgement is….” (Acts 15:19). His judgement was singular, and therefore was private.

The question essentially reduces to the infallible-fallible card that Protestants try to play against Catholics. Catholics rightly ask Protestants to guarantee that they are preaching the ‘true gospel’ since there are many of them out there (Cf. Galatians 1:6-9). No Protestant, however, can guarantee the truthfulness of his gospel since it would mean calling in the question of the speaker’s infallibility. In order to validate his interpretation over his Protestant opponent, the first Protestant must claim something that his opponent does not have; namely, the charism of infallibility. For the Gospel to have any true and definitive meaning (which it must), the Protestant must be able to appeal to a source which *cannot* be common to everyone. This source must be *outside* of the bible to show that any one Protestant’s interpretation is correct. If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.

But, the Protestant will say, the Catholic is in the same position since he must make a private, fallible judgement on the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He will claim that the Catholic is simply substituting one alleged infallible source (the Bible) with another (the Church). So we have the fallible Protestant reading an alleged infallible bible, and we have a fallible Catholic listening to an alleged infallible Church.

But is the Protestant construction of the problem a fair one? Nope. You see, some propositions are manifestly infallible by their very nature. For instance, there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation. Likewise, I propose that it is a naturally manifest and infallible fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Now, there are not too many Churches that even claim such a charism so I will restrict myself to simply proving from reason alone that one must believe that God established an infallible Church. Once this is conceded, then we may turn our attention to try and find out which Church it is.

The following arguments, obviously, presuppose that I am addressing this question to a Protestant who believes in God. Of course, I would have to prove a few of these premises if I were addressing an atheist which is not within the scope of this examination.

Argument 1

Premise 1: God exists.

Premise 2: God is omnipotent.

Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.

Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.

Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)

Argument 2

Premise 1: The truth can be known..

Premise 2: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly. (Conclusion of Argument 1)

Conclusion: Therefore, God wants the truth in the Holy Scriptures to be known ONLY fallibly.

Overall Conclusion

Since God wills the gospel message to be known only with the possibility of error (that is, fallibly), then God wills the possibility of error in communicating His truth. The conclusion therefore is that God has contradicted His very being by willing something that cannot be; namely, willing something other than the truth.

It is important to distinguish between the mere existence and tolerance of error versus the normative declaration and existence of it in communicating the Gospel message. We are not talking about simply willing the possibility of error. Obviously, God has, by definition, done that through free will. The implication of the above conclusion is not simply that God tolerates error, but that He also wills the possibility of error IN COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL MESSAGE ITSELF. God can tolerate error ON OUR PART, but He cannot, by definition, even allow the possibility of it when He speaks about what is Truth. Now, the question for [any Protestant] is this: In order to reject the conclusion, which premise does he reject?

[To remain a Christian, one must reject Premise 4 in Argument 1. If this premise is rejected, however, sola scriptura is also rejected, and an infallible human authority is conversely conceded, which means I have at least proven that we require an infallible teacher. [The Protestants'] challenge specifically asks if Rome is that ‘true’ Church. I will address that issue in Challenge 3. This response at least establishes the necessity of having a true and infallible church in the first place, which represents half the battle.]

As I said, more at the link.

I re-post this here because it's something that comes up from time to time here, and these arguments weren't addressed (that I can see) in the blog's replies section. I'd be interested to hear how one replies to these, staying within the boundries of the arguments (that is, not trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing up Mary's sinlessness, or, how can we know that "Rome" is the true church [ for more on that see the link ]). I'd just be interested in replies that address these arguments. All others will be ignored by me for being off-topic.

Thanks,

some propositions are manifestly infallible by their very nature. For instance, there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation.

Argument 1 Premise 1: God exists. Premise 2: God is omnipotent. Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth. Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today. Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)

Since his premise is faulty, so is his conclusion.

Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.

That is not the claim, consistent with how the apologist himself allows infallible truth to be defined, that "there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation."

The fact is that even pagans can speak infallible Truth, such as the one Paul quoted in Acts 17. Thus the SS evangelical certainly can believe that one can interpret Scripture infallibly, but not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, so that whatever he has or ever will speak according to a certain scope and subject-based formula is and will be infallible/without error.

And as souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility, (Dan. 2:47; Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) and that such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth, then we can present this as:

Premise 1: God exists.

Premise 2: God is omnipotent.

Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.

Premise 4: Souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility.

Premise 5: such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth in Scripture.

Conclusion: God does want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly, but ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not essential for this.

If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.

Which perverse Roman reasoning is what is repeated elsewhere and exposed as such. For if indeed an infallible magisterium is essential to know if they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached, then it also must apply to the Scriptures upon which the gospel is based. "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.." "...now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets..." (Rm. 1:2; 16:26

But since God did not provide one, then according to this logic He makes God to be a sadist.

However, since both men and writings of God were always discerned and established as being so ling before there was a church which presumed she was essential for this. And as a perpetual IM was never essential to provide and preserve faith in Scripture, then the student of Scripture can know of a Truth that Rome is presuming to think of men above that which is written. (1Co. 4:6)

Moreover, the RC here admits what many RCs try to hide, that since certainty that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached rests upon the (unScriptural) premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), then faithful RCs are not as seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by acting like a noble Berean, (Acts 17:11) but is to implicitly trust that his church cannot err. Which is cultic, not Christian.