The Question of Infallibility
In a previous post, I asked the question, “How do we know that (the magisterium of) the Church is infallible?”
Nothing in my Catholic interlocutor’s response addresses my question. In fact, I get the impression time and time again that he is not aiming at dialogue, but using my posts as a launchpad of canned responses of the Catholic Church.[1]
However, we agree on one thing: This is ultimately a question of epistemology, which involves authority, evidence, faith and reason. My question is meant as a challenge, but it is also an honest query. For every rational being should be able to give a defense to anyone who asks him for a reason for his beliefs. A proper defense would use a set of criteria accepted by both sides, and present arguments and evidence that support one’s belief.
Eamonn Clark wrote, “There are PLENTY of ways to see that the Catholic Church has the authority which She claims – the plethora of miracles, the favors of the many major Marian apparitions (especially Fatima, given its enormous audience and recent occurrence), the coherence and stability of doctrine, the proliferation of that doctrine across the Earth”.
Neither miracles nor apparitions are evidence of infallibility. They are evidence of some kind of power over elements of nature, but power is distinct from infallibility. In the Church tradition even demons can produce miracles and apparitions, and lead people astray; The proliferation of a doctrine is perhaps evidence of the veracity of the doctrine, not the infallibility of the people teaching it. Mathematics is taught universally around the world, but teachers of mathematics are not infallible.
Eamonn Clark wrote, “One ought to be inclined toward trusting the Church as God’s infallible mouthpiece just as one is inclined toward Christ … I could take many of these same objections and apply them to Christ. How do we know He speaks infallibly? Who decided that? How do we know we are understanding what He is saying?”
If any people on earth has a claim to being God’s mouthpiece, it would be the nation of Israel, as God’s chosen people and priesthood, and yet both the priests and the people erred and were driven into exile; In the New Testament, the believers are warned that they too would fall, just as the Israelites did, if they become unfaithful. So it seems to me the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility is questionable to say the least.
By contrast, we know the Word of Christ is true, to the extent that it is humanly possible to know anything, because the Word has been tested many times throughout many generations, like silver refined in a furnace, and has been demonstrated to be true. I mean what the Scripture says about human history, and about human nature. In Deuteronomy 18, in a passage that foreshadows the coming of Christ, God taught the Israelites how to discern who is a prophet sent by Him, namely, verify whether what the prophet says comes true. In other words, even God in His humility doesn’t claim infallibility for Himself without giving plenty of evidence.
In sum, I would be more than happy to engage in a Socratic dialogue with Catholics (and anyone interested), and have our beliefs cross-examined by one another, for an unexamined belief is not worth adhering to. However, unless we can agree on the basic question of how to determine what is true, any discussion would be futile.
Notes:
- ^1. By “canned responses”, I don’t mean there are answers to my specific questions, at least not that I know of, but many of Clark’s statements are typical of what I’ve heard from Catholics over the past few years, claims that Catholics seem to take for granted, but to others, they are unproven, unpersuasive, if not irrelevant.
Related Posts:
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura: II. A Brief Response to a Catholic
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura: III. A Longish Response to a Catholic
Related External Articles: