"An infallible text requires an infallible interpreter"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Confessor01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Confessor01

Guest
Is this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
 
Um, I think that an infallible text requires a lack of direct contradictions within the text. By that logic alone, the Bible cannot be infallible.

I have tremendous respect for Protestant teaching, but this has always struck me as a no-brainer. Am I missing something?
 
Is this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
You could use it but couldn’t the same argument be turned around on you?

For example you have the church which you believe is infallible and that church writes various documents; catechisms, encyclicals, code of canon law, conciliar documents, etc. It is up to you, the fallible layman (assuming you are not a cleric), to read and understand or interpret these documents. You again have a source that is believed to be infallible (the RCC) that has to be understood/interpreted by a fallible man (the guy or girl in the pew).
 
SemperReformada, I am not Catholic, but rather Reformed.
 
Eucharisted, I’m not interested so much in the doctrine (dogma?) of papal infallibility as much as the argument that an infallible book requires an infallible interpreter. I have heard this argument used to deny the Protestant notion that an infallible and authoritative Church is required to properly understand the Bible, and I want to know if it is a common argument amongst Catholics, or if I stumbled across an argument that Catholics do not generally use.

If this is addressed in the article you linked, then I apologize.

EDIT – As a side note, what do I do to ensure (1) that I subscribe to every thread I post in or create, and (2) that I get an instant email notification when my subscribed threads are posted in?

EDIT 2 – Never mind, I got the subscription thing working. It just didn’t apply to threads that I had subscribed to prior to my changing the immediacy of the notification.
 
Is this an argument used by Catholics against sola Scriptura?
Confessor, you might find the three-part video on the “Origin of the Bible” informative. It’s at the following link: alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was invented by Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic priest, out of thin air in the early 1500’s. Nowhere in the Bible is this notion supported whatsoever. The other man-made doctrine he made out of thin air was Sola Fide. That’s not supported by Scritpure, either.

Consider this… Jesus never wrote a book. He didn’t found a Church based on the Bible. He trained 12 Apostles and commanded them to go forth and teach everything that He taught them (Matt. 28:20) and to train others to do the same. Yet, the Bible says that not everything is in the Bible (John 21:25). So, if the Bible doesn’t contain everything that Jesus did or taught, but the Apostles (and their successors) are to go forth and teach everything, where’s the rest? In Holy Tradition (a.k.a., Oral Tradition), as St. Paul talks about in 2 Thes 2:15.

The canon of the Bible wasn’t set until the Catholic Bishops decided in the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) in the fourth century. They had to decide from over 300 letters and documents what was Divinely Inspired and what wasn’t. That’s why we don’t have a Gospel of Thomas, or a Gospel of Peter, even though they existed at the time.

Even given that, the vast majority of the world’s population were illiterate (could neither read nor write) until the early 1900’s! So, a “Bible-reading, self-interpreting” Church, as Protestants seem to favor, would have been restricted to the tiny population of literate, educated people. I think Jesus founded a Church for everyone, not the elite! How 'bout you? 🙂

If you look at the “big picture” of Christianity, you could draw a timeline. From the time of Jesus to 1054 A.D., there was but one Christian Church, the Catholic Church. There was no other. Then, the Orthodox split off in 1054 A.D. It wasn’t until 1517 A.D. that Martin Luther, an ex-Catholic priest, broke off and started the Reformation. Since that time, Protestantism has split to over 30,000 man-made, doctrinally disunified, disagreeing denominations. If there were any truth to Sola Fide, with every man, woman, and child allowed to be his/her own infallible interpreter of Scripture, there would be one Protestant denomination, where everyone interpreted Scripture the same. But, the very nature of Protestantism is the cause of the constant splintering. There is no final authority as there is in the Catholic Church.

Jesus promised that the “gates of hell” would never prevail over His Church (Matt. 16:18). To someone living in first century Palestine, this means that His Church will never teach doctrinal error. If it did, then the gates of hell would, indeed, have prevailed over it. It would also mean that Jesus lied, or at least didn’t keep His word, and therefore, He couldn’t be God, since God never lies and always keeps His word.
 
Scoobyshme, I am not presently interested in a full-fledged argument against all the doctrines of Protestantism, but just this specific argument. Is it the case, or is it not the case, that “an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter” is an argument used often by Catholic apologists to deny that the (e.g.) Martin Luther can properly interpret the Bible?
 
Scoobyshme, I am not presently interested in a full-fledged argument against all the doctrines of Protestantism, but just this specific argument. Is it the case, or is it not the case, that “an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter” is an argument used often by Catholic apologists to deny that the (e.g.) Martin Luther can properly interpret the Bible?
Well, to be honest with you, in all my years of apologetics, I haven’t heard it put that way. It’s one of those statements that sounds good, and rolls off the tongue well, but I think the statement is a fallacy, because text must always be interpreted. So, to claim that there is such thing as an “infallible text” is misleading. I think that there must be an authentic, infallible interpreter, however. And Jesus provided one in the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.
 
Well, to be honest with you, in all my years of apologetics, I haven’t heard it put that way. It’s one of those statements that sounds good, and rolls off the tongue well, but I think the statement is a fallacy, because text must always be interpreted. So, to claim that there is such thing as an “infallible text” is misleading. I think that there must be an authentic, infallible interpreter, however. And Jesus provided one in the Church He founded, the Catholic Church.
So – to ensure that I understand you – you would say that Scripture itself requires an infallible interpreter, but not that all infallible texts require an infallible interpreter. Is that correct?
 
So – to ensure that I understand you – you would say that Scripture itself requires an infallible interpreter, but not that all infallible texts require an infallible interpreter. Is that correct?
Partially right. I say that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter to get the correct meaning.

On the other hand, I think the term “infallible text” is wrong. I don’t think there is such a thing. Text is just words on a page. They don’t mean anything until someone reads and interprets them. And, someone can read and misinterpret them, unless that someone was infallible in doing so.
 
Partially right. I say that Scripture requires an infallible interpreter to get the correct meaning.

On the other hand, I think the term “infallible text” is wrong. I don’t think there is such a thing. Text is just words on a page. They don’t mean anything until someone reads and interprets them. And, someone can read and misinterpret them, unless that someone was infallible in doing so.
Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?
 
Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?
I agree with Scoobyshme, it is an oxymoron to call something “infallible text”. The Church limits the term “infallible” to teachings on faith and morals. Texts are not teachings until they are interpreted.
 
I agree with Scoobyshme, it is an oxymoron to call something “infallible text”. The Church limits the term “infallible” to teachings on faith and morals. Texts are not teachings until they are interpreted.
Please see my above question.
 
Do you think it’s possible to say that a proposition X is true or false? If so, why cannot one say that a set of propositions is true or false? And if one can say that, then can one say that a set of propositions are infallible?
Propositions are ideas, which may or may not be written down, and must be properly understood to be judged as true or false, yes? If you wrote the propositions down, and I read it, I could probably ask for clarification from you if you were available, right? But, what if you died? Then, I couldn’t ask for clarification…unless, perhaps, some of the folks who you personally trained and understood it all, were still around, or maybe some folks they trained were still around. Then, I could ask them what you meant, true? But what if no one was around? Would I have a better chance of understanding it just by reading what you wrote? Or would I have a better chance by asking someone who was around, or who learned from someone who was around that you trained?
 
Propositions are ideas, which may or may not be written down, and must be properly understood to be judged as true or false, yes? If you wrote the propositions down, and I read it, I could probably ask for clarification from you if you were available, right? But, what if you died? Then, I couldn’t ask for clarification…unless, perhaps, some of the folks who you personally trained and understood it all, were still around, or maybe some folks they trained were still around. Then, I could ask them what you meant, true? But what if no one was around? Would I have a better chance of understanding it just by reading what you wrote? Or would I have a better chance by asking someone who was around, or who learned from someone who was around that you trained?
The explanations of the original propositions would only be by means of additional propositions. Therefore if you think that the derived propositions are interpretable, then it follows that the original propositions, if non-interpretable, are only non-interpretable as an accidental and not an essential characteristic.

And in that case, it would be wrong to state that an infallible text is a category mistake. Texts are comprised of propositions just as much as interpretations of the texts are. There is nothing essential to texts that means they can’t be infallible.
 
The explanations of the original propositions would only be by means of additional propositions. Therefore if you think that the derived propositions are interpretable, then it follows that the original propositions, if non-interpretable, are only non-interpretable as an accidental and not an essential characteristic.
All explanations needed to convey its true meaning are not contained in the text, meaning that the text cannot stand alone.
And in that case, it would be wrong to state that an infallible text is a category mistake. Texts are comprised of propositions just as much as interpretations of the texts are. There is nothing essential to texts that means they can’t be infallible.
Actually, texts are comprised of words arranged in sentences to convey information. Sometimes this information is phrased as a proposition.
“infallible text” is a category error because its true meaning cannot be contained in the text alone.
 
All explanations needed to convey its true meaning are not contained in the text, meaning that the text cannot stand alone.
Would you agree that this is an accidental characteristic for some texts, rather than an essential characteristic for all texts?
Actually, texts are comprised of words arranged in sentences to convey information. Sometimes this information is phrased as a proposition.
“infallible text” is a category error because its true meaning cannot be contained in the text alone.
If the Bible is infallibly interpreted, and if part of this interpretation is written down, would it be then correct to say that the interpretation is infallible? If so, would it be correct to say that the interpretation is an infallible text?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top