Some recent conversations in the blogosphere continue to show how being Roman Catholic boils down to "sola ecclesia". For Roman Catholics, once you put your faith in trust and Rome all else is true because Rome says so.

It is difficult at times for me to understand why the RC system would be attractive, but Hodge provides some good insight:

"Romanists teach that the Church, as an external, visible society, consisting of those who profess the Christian religion, united in communion of the same sacraments and subjection to lawful pastors, and especially to the Pope of Rome, is divinely appointed to be the infallible teacher of men in all things pertaining to faith and practice. It is qualified for this office by the plenary revelation of the truth in the written and unwritten word of God, and by the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to the bishops as official successors of the Apostles, or, to the Pope as the successor of Peter in his supremacy over the whole Church, and as vicar of Christ on earth.

There is something simple and grand in this theory. It is wonderfully adapted to the tastes and wants of men. It relieves them of personal responsibility. Everything is decided for them. Their salvation is secured by merely submitting to be saved by an infallible, sin-pardoning, and grace-imparting Church. Many may be inclined to think that it would have been a great blessing had Christ left on earth a visible representative of himself clothed with his authority to teach and govern, and an order of men dispersed through the world endowed with the gifts of the original Apostles, — men everywhere accessible, to whom we could resort in all times of difficulty and doubt, and whose decisions could be safely received as the decisions of Christ himself. God’s thoughts, however, are not as our thoughts. We know that when Christ was on earth, men did not believe or obey Him. We know that when the Apostles were still living, and their authority was still confirmed by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Church was nevertheless distracted by heresies and schisms. If any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant, the erring, and the wicked must be an evil inconceivably great. The Romish theory if true might be a blessing; if false it must be an awful curse." Systematic Theology

Uncertain Infallibility

Not only can Catholics not provide a list of infallible teachings, they appear to not always be sure if a particular teaching is infallible or not. One such example is the debate a few years back over JPII's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Latin for On Ordination to the Priesthood) is a Roman Catholic document discussing the Roman Catholic Church's position requiring "the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone." This Apostolic Letter was issued from the Vatican by Pope John Paul II on 22 May 1994....Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement, and so is not considered infallible in itself. There is, however, a case for its contents to be infallible under the ordinary magisterium, as this doctrine has been held consistently by the Church. In a responsum ad dubium dated October 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was to be held definitively, as belonging to the deposit of faith. In 1998, this was clarified slightly (in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem) to state that the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not taught as being divinely revealed, although it might someday be so taught in the future... Wikipedia

Since the issuance of the apostolic letter, however, reactions from some quarters have served to cast doubt on the definitive character of the papal teaching. The nature of this dubium concerned the question whether or not the teaching set forth in the letter belonged to the deposit of faith (depositum fidei). Conceivably, some warrant for the doubt may be found in the Pope's letter itself. Catholic.net

So if a Roman Catholic cannot identify all of the infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and at times is not sure whether a given doctrine is infallible or not, where is the certainty that an infallible authority is suppose to provide?

Fallible Certainty: Answers to jswranch, Part 3

Finishing up with jswranch’s comment on The Canon: Fallible Certainty post (see part 1 and part 2)…

I am not going to answer all of jswranch’s remaining comments because they are all basically the same objection that I mentioned in my Part 2 reply. His main assertion is that without an infallible organization on earth to declare what is or isn’t God’s Word, we cannot trust what scripture says because we do not infallibly know it is scripture. Apparently faith in God is not good enough, we need to have faith in an infallible organization of men to provide the certainty that RC’s demand.

Let me just briefly answer some of jswranch’s final thoughts:

Can we be infallibly certain an infallible book even exists? We cannot.

But apparently we can be infallibly certain that an infallible organization of men exists. Please, explain that one.

-If we deny that God established an institution of fallen, sinful human beings to infallibly teach the Gospel and the scriptures to us because they are fallen, sinful persons, can we believe that the Holy Spirit used fallen sinful human beings to even write infallible, inerrant books? No.

Huh? I haven’t seen anyone make that argument. The question is not COULD God create an infallible organization, the question is DID he.

Here are jswranch’s final 2 comments:

-(See above) Assuming FCIB (fallible collection of infallible books), does a source we can be dogmatically certain of exist by which we can know that there is such a thing as a bible? No. Assuming FCIB, we cannot be certain there is such a thing as the Bible. If you disagree, site a source we are certain of. A response such as a quote from lets say 2 Tim 3:15, begs us to state that we cannot be infallibly certain 2 Tim belongs in scripture. Can we say with certainty that we know scripture even exists or is inerrant from any source such as Acts 2:42? No. Why? Because we cannot be infallibly/dogmatically certain Acts is scripture.

-Can we be infallibly certain Jesus rose from the dead? No. First, we have already established that we cannot be infallibly certain of anything. Second, we do not infallibly have any source that tells us He did rise from the dead. Some books tell us he rose, but we are not certain those books are actually scripture, therefore we cannot be certain he rose from the dead if FCIB is true.

I am not going to answer these here as they boil down to the same issue – how does an infallible organization change anything? How can you ever infallibly prove that God established an infallible organization of men to infallibly validate the infallibility of scripture? How can you not see that problem?

I really cannot see how your objection, jswranch, can be chalked up to anything but a lack of faith. Seriously, I cannot even follow your logic – I would expect these kinds of objections from an atheist. To answer you I would have to start from the same point I would with a non-believer, and I don’t have the time right now to type all that out.

I may or may not come back to these last items in the future as they are very revealing of the Roman Catholic mindset. For now I'm done.

Fallible Certainty: Answers to jswranch, Part 2

Continuing with jswranch’s comment on The Canon: Fallible Certainty post (part 1 here):

(Original post in italics, jswranch’s comment in bold, my reponse in regular type)

-It serves to make the Christian aware of the fact that she walks by faith, and not by sight... Are we shown doubt in the Bible? One of my favorite verses: [Mk9:23-24]
These throws me. I cannot be certain that the book of Mark belongs in scripture, however I can be certain of my salvation in Christ because the biblical book of Mark tells me so...??!! This seems to conflict. To answer, "Are we shown doubt in the Bible?" I say, no, but we cannot be certain Mark belongs, therefore we can doubt this verse belongs.

-Without doubt, we are sure. With surety, it is not faith....
Hebrews 11:1... Romans 8:24
If there is no room for doubt, it is not hope, and it is not faith.
?? Ok we can be certain of the correct status of our surety, faith, hope, and doubt based on books we cannot be sure are scripture. Heck, we do not even know who wrote Hebrews. Isn't this circular logic?

I am just going to lump these two comments together because the logic is the same. This is the basic Catholic argument of “how can I believe anything the scripture says if I can’t know infallibly that scripture really is from God”. This is probably the favorite Catholic argument to swing back around to no matter where the discussion started.

As I see it, Catholics cannot believe that the Bible is the Word of God unless an infallible, earthly organization tells them so. What I find so odd about this argument is that Catholics can believe the Catholic Church is the Church of God without an infallible, earthly organization to tell them so (except the RCC itself, but that is completely circular).

So without giving my own answer for how I can know that the Bible is the Word of God without an infallible Church to tell me so, I must ask of jswranch or any other Catholic, how can I know that the Catholic Church is the infallible Church of God without another infallible organization to tell me so? If I can't know that the Bible is true without an infallible organization to tell me so, how can you know that the RCC is true without an infallible organization to tell you so?

Vicious Circularity

Gene Bridges made a great summary of the circular reasoning by many Catholics over on Beggars All:

Vicious circularity is usually a bit more roundabout than this bare-bones outline. For example, this is how a Roman Catholic will often argue for his faith:

“How do you know that the Catholic Church is not an apostate church?”

“Because the Church is indefectible.”

“How do you know that?”

“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”

“Haven’t the Popes made mistakes?”

“Only when expressing a private opinion, and not when speaking ex cathedra.”

“How do you know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra or not?”

“If he made a mistake, he was not speaking ex cathedra.”

“Is it not possible for your church to commit apostasy?”

“No, for the true church is indefectible.”

“How do you know that your church is the true church?”

“Because she has never fallen into heresy.”

“How do you know she’s never fallen into heresy?”

“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”

If you think this is a parody of Catholic reasoning, just read some of exchanges with Roman Catholics.

Fallible Certainty: Answers to jswranch

Jswranch left a rather long comment on The Canon: Fallible Certainty post which was really just pointing to a post Ellen made where she worked off another post on Parchment and Pen. I believe jswranch was mostly responding to Ellen’s post, but starting with the initial post that spurned Ellen’s may have brought some clarity.

All that said, let me try to briefly answer some of jswranch’s objections.

(Original post in italics, jswranch’s comment in bold, my reponse in regular type)

The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility...

Why? Just because I am fallible does not mean the HS didn't institute an infallible institution to do its will. Wasn’t Moses the infallible teacher anointed by God to instruct His people in truth?

No, the HS didn’t institute an infallible institution because nowhere in scripture is such a thing ever mentioned. The point of the epistemological argument is that an infallible organization can never provide 100% certainty because the followers are still fallible.

I believe this plays out in two ways. First, your personal fallibility means that your determination that the RCC IS an infallible organization instituted by God is a fallible decision. You can never be 100% certain that you are correct. Second, even if there were an infallible, visible organization, you can never be 100% certain that you will properly interpret what they have to say because you are still fallible.

The Catholic position is really no different than the Protestant position. We each have our own infallible authority (for Cats the magisterium, for Prots the Bible), but neither can be 100% certain that their source of authority is true since our own personal decisions are fallible. After that, neither can be 100% certain that we are understanding/interpreting the words/directions of our authority properly because again, we are fallible. Instead we must go with the highest amount of certainty and this is where Protestants pull ahead (from an epistemological POV).

So the point is that the whole need for an infallible, earthly organization is not only unscriptural, but it really doesn’t solve anything. Because of personal fallibility, you can never have 100% certainty.

As far as Moses being the “infallible teacher”, really? Is this the new Catholic apologetic argument to try to read an infallible leader into the Old Testament? Moses was not infallible, so this really doesn’t affect anything.

I’ll continue with this later…

Catholic Authority: Superior to Scripture

"It is the Church, the holder of Tradition, that gives life to the dead letter of Scripture. Experience shows that it is only in the life of the Church, the Bride of Christ, that Scripture, divinely inspired as it is, becomes 'living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword' (Heb 4:12)"

"In regard to these truth [faith and morals] the authority of Tradition and of the Bible is equal...Nevertheless, as we shall see later, the Church is superior to the Bible in the sense that she is the Living Voice of Christ, and therefore the sole infallible interpreter of the inspired Word, whenever an authoritative interpretation is required."

-A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951 (pg 2)
with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XII

Catholic Authority: Trumping Scripture

More from A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion:

"What then must the Catholic Christian generally believe?

He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic Church proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in Holy Scripture or not."

"Is the Infallibility of the- Pope the same as the Infallibility of the Church?

Yes, precisely. The Pope is the Supreme Pastor and Teacher, whose voice all the faithful, clergy and laity, 'lambs and sheep,' are commanded by Christ to hear and to follow. If he could teach error ex cathedra, the Church would then follow him into error, and would thereby fail; and so the promises of Christ would be falsified, which is impossible."


"Application: In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of Holy Church; for when you believe what the Church teaches, you believe the Word of God."

Catholic Authority: Follow the Leader

I enjoy reading older Catholic materials as they are less likely to water-down Catholic beliefs in the name of ecumenism. And since it is claimed that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church never change, looking to older material cannot be considered inaccurate today.

A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion from 1889 states the following:

"Why are Protestants so much prejudiced against the Catholic Church, and why is it so difficult to convert them? It is because from infancy the minds of their children have been impressed with a false view of the History of their Religion—a Religion that dates only from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Why should not Catholics with equal, and even greater, effect confirm our children in their attachment to the Church, by showing them how to trace her to the times of the Apostles, and even to the Creation of the world? Is it not, then, of the greatest importance to teach them, together with their catechism, the History of their Religion? History is a safeguard against internal doubts, and a bulwark against all external attacks. He who has, by this means, been fully strengthened in his conviction that the Catholic Church is from God, and that she is the Only True Church, cannot but love her and submit his intellect to her doctrine and his heart to her precepts, and thus remain all his lifetime faithful to her.

After this proof from History that the Catholic Religion is Divine, the Catechism proper commences, and teaches us that we must submit to its doctrine; namely, that we must, 1. Believe what the Church teaches; 2. That we must also practise, that is, do the will of God; and 3. That we can neither believe nor do the will of God without His grace, which we receive by means of the Sacraments and of Prayer."

First, I find it interesting that the proof of the Divinity of the Roman Catholic Church should be determined from history books rather than God's book.

Second, once one has submitted to history, he must submit his intellect to the Church, believe everything the Church tells him, and receive the sacraments through the Church to do the will of God.

No one comes to the Father except through the Roman Catholic Church?

Catholic Bishops: Holy Disorder

I knew it would not be long before someone would complain that my post on the Catholic Bishop was not fair because he doesn’t faithfully represent the Catholic Church. While I would usually agree that individual beliefs are not always accurate representations of official Church teachings, claiming that the comments of an ordained Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church are not a reflection of the Church is just another example of the inconsistency of Catholic doctrines.

Read the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church below. If what is claimed for the high level and power of a Roman Catholic Bishop are true, then how is it that they cannot be considered a fair representation of their Church? It seems that the “Catholic faithful” are to entrust their eternal salvation to the Bishops but not trust them to accurately portray the Catholic teachings in their behaviors or commentaries.

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis: It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi). Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.

1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.

1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)." "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."

1560 As Christ's vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: "Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church."

1581 This sacrament [holy orders] configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ's instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.

1585 The grace of the Holy Spirit proper to this sacrament is configuration to Christ as Priest, Teacher, and Pastor, of whom the ordained is made a minister.

1586 For the bishop, this is first of all a grace of strength…: the grace to guide and defend his Church with strength and prudence as a father and pastor, with gratuitous love for all and a preferential love for the poor, the sick, and the needy. This grace impels him to proclaim the Gospel to all, to be the model for his flock, to go before it on the way of sanctification by identifying himself in the Eucharist with Christ the priest and victim, not fearing to give his life for his sheep:

“Besides the power of order, bishops possess that of jurisdiction; they have the right to prescribe for the faithful the rules which the latter must follow in order to obtain eternal salvation. The power of jurisdiction is of Divine origin, in the sense that the pope is held to establish in the Church bishops whose mission it is to direct the faithful in the way of salvation. The bishops have then in their dioceses an ordinary jurisdiction, limited, however, by the rights that the pope can reserve to himself in virtue of his primacy. But this jurisdiction is independent of the will and consent of the faithful, and even of the clergy.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Catholic Canon Missing a Book?

Pope John Paul II said the following regarding Muslims:

“Continuing our discussion of inter-religious dialogue, today we will reflect on dialogue with Muslims, who "together with us adore the one, merciful God" (Lumen gentium, n. 16; cf. CCC, n. 841). The Church has a high regard for them, convinced that their faith in the transcendent God contributes to building a new human family based on the highest aspirations of the human heart….

We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: "We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection"

One of the Catholic commenters on my post about the One True Church of Allah said:

“According to the Qu'ran. Allah is the God of Abraham, Issaac and Joseph.”

If the Catholic position is correct, that the Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, then it seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church is missing a large portion of their canon – the Qu’ran. Since Muslims believe that the Qu’ran is God’s revealed word and the Catholics believe in the same God, then the Roman Catholic Church needs to encompass this divine revelation as it’s own to be consistent.

If the Roman Catholic Church does not believe the Qu’ran is the inspired Word of God, then the Church is mistaken in its belief that the Muslims worship the God of Abraham since the source of that proclamation comes from the Qu’ran. It is inconsistent to state that Catholics and Muslims share the same one true God but dismiss the divine, written revelation made to the Muslims.

One has to wonder how a supposedly infallible organization could make such a blunder.