Michael Liccione
“I accept the doctrine of infallibility as the Church teaches it because there seems to me no other way to distinguish consistently between propositions calling for the assent of divine faith and propositions expressing plausible opinions or interpretations that might turn out to be wrong. Without the authority of a visible body identifiable as ‘the’ Church, all we have is an ongoing debate about what the data of Scripture and Tradition mean and whose opinions they best support. Of course, even within the Catholic Church there is much ongoing theological debate, and thus room for various opinions. But thank God that’s not all there is. That’s why I’m Catholic.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/#comment-5917
And, of course, that’s what the argument for Catholicism eventually and inevitably boils down to. After all the spooftexting and selective appeals to church history, the last-ditch appeal is the a priori argument for the necessity of an infallible teacher.
But to take one example, there was a celebrated debate between Hillel and Shamai over the grounds for divorce. Question: what Jewish pope adjudicated that dispute? Answer: none.
Ultimately, Catholicism begins and ends with a preconceived ideal: one that doesn’t correspond to God’s actual administration of the world.
I wonder how, after God gave the law to Moses, the Israelites infallibly knew how to distinguish consistently between propositions calling for the assent of divine faith and propositions expressing plausible opinions or interpretations that might turn out to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWithout the authority of a visible body identifiable as "the" Church, all the Israelites had was an ongoing debate about what the data of Scripture and Tradition meant, and whose opinions they best supported.
They must have been really screwed up.
James White referred in "The Roman Catholic Controversy" to the 'infallible fuzzies'. Here they are in all their glory.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course eminent EO blogger DavidW said precisely that yesterday, about EOC.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should talk. I'm sure they can work it out together, rather than excommunicate each other and sack each others' cities, though.
“I accept the doctrine of infallibility as the Church teaches it because there seems to me no other way to distinguish consistently between propositions calling for the assent of divine faith and propositions expressing plausible opinions or interpretations that might turn out to be wrong"
ReplyDeleteAnyone see the irony in this statement? "I accept..."
Interesting way to debate. Cherry pick quotes and mock. The argument seems parallel to many atheist objections to belief in God. Christians often say they belief in God because life makes more sense or some such thing. It can be mocked as a wishful thinking exercise. But is it really that stupid to search for a coherent belief system?
ReplyDelete