Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

[Bubba_Switzler]

Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

I want to explore the subject of infallibility generally (not simply look at papal infallibility, a key point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants).

Let’s begin with two essential claims:

1. The Holy Bible is infallible.
2. The Sacred Tradition is infallible.
3. The Catholic Episcopacy (Magisterium) is infallible.
4. The Pope is infallible.

(I am going to assume, for this discussion, that God is infallible but we can debate what that implies.)

Generally speaking, the Catholic Church holds all of the above to be true (with appropriate qualifications, e.g., the pope’s preference in pizza is not held by anyone to be infallible).

Also, generally, Protestants hold that only the first claim is true. In particular, Protestants believe that, somewhere along the way, the Catholic Church became corrupted (usually the blame falls on Constantine) and required reformation.

But what, precisely, does it mean to say that someone or some institution or some body of knowledge or some source of information is infallible? What does it mean to deny infallibility?

For example, Protestants believe that the Holy Bible is infallible but that it’s up to each individual to interpret it in their own circumstances (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) which leads, inevitably, to heterodoxy.

What is the purpose of espousing infallibility? Is it an aid in the pursuit of truth and salvation or a hindrance?

And what are the consequences of denying infallibility? Is heterodoxy inevitable? Does it necessarily become a slippery slow to atheism?

Can a Christian reasonably deny all four claims?

By comparison, Judaism does not generally hold that the Tenach, or even the Torah, is infallible whereas Islam holds that the Koran is not only infallible but the literal Word of God.

Here are some sources to aid in the discussion:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

 

[DOShea]

But what, precisely, does it mean to say that someone or some institution or some body of knowledge or some source of information is infallible?

It means that they are always free from error. Another way to say it is that whatever they proclaim is, by definition, always and absolutely true. I can try copying your post from memory; if I succeed, it is free from error but I am NOT an infallible copier, I only made an impeccable copy. I would have to be able to copy it correctly, free of any error, every single time to be that.

What does it mean to deny infallibility?

It means to deny truth.

For example, Protestants believe that the Holy Bible is infallible but that it’s up to each individual to interpret it in their own circumstances (with the aid of the Holy Spirit) which leads, inevitably, to heterodoxy.

Here you are mixing tint with the base color. You state X is infallible, then seek the results of X + Y. The Bible is infallible. That means IT is infallible, not the subsequent interpreter. Another way to look at it is like this: The author of any given book had only one true meaning to any given passage in that writing. “This is my Body…” then has only ONE true meaning. IF I then interpret that meaning correctly, I would have an infallible interpretation; but if I interpreted it incorrectly, I still have an infallible Bible, but with a fallible (and erroneous) interpretation. This is why no book, Bible or otherwise, can be both infallible of its own AND ensure infallible interpretation all by itself. Something outside or beyond the book itself must of necessity provide for that infallible interpreting, be it the power of the HS acting through individual or Church or whatever means.

What is the purpose of espousing infallibility? Is it an aid in the pursuit of truth and salvation or a hindrance?

It’s not an aid to truth, it is stating what truth is. We have qualities to describe what God must be if He is indeed God. Qualities such as holy, just, righteous, all-loving, etc. By the confines of these qualities, God cannot and would not give us a lie, for if He did, He would not be just or holy or all the other things. In short, He would not be God. That is the logical argument.

Thus if God is what He is, He can only give us Truth. The question then is, did He or didn’t He? We have a Bible that we hold as revelation from God to us. What else could it be if it is from God if not truth? How many errors can God give us when revealing Truth to us? Zero. So His message to us must by definition be infallible. The conventional wisdom of skeptics is such that if a single error can be found in the Bible, the whole of it is worthless, but we know that to be false. A spelling error on the part of a fallible man does not alter the true meaning of the revelation, it only means man goofed it up somewhere in the reproduction of copy.

Thus if God truly gave us a revelation in the form of the written word, the Bible, it must of necessity be infallible. It can be nothing less.

And what are the consequences of denying infallibility?

As stated above, if the Bible is supposed to be the Truth but is not infallible, then neither is the God who gave it to us. That is the necessary consequence.

Is heterodoxy inevitable? Does it necessarily become a slippery slow to atheism?

How do you ever get to heterodoxy if you can’t possibly have a “doxy” to begin with? Imagine for a second that God Almighty appeared in front of you and handed you a book. He says, “Some things in this book are true, some are not. Have a nice day!” What then can you possibly do with such a book? Found a faith on it? How? How would you be able to presume Ch 4 is true but Ch 7 is not? You end up in logical fallacy, the exact opposite of infallibility, where truth is worthless because it cannot be known.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It means that they are always free from error.

Which brings us to the question: what is error and what does it mean to be free from error in this context.

Another way to say it is that whatever they proclaim is, by definition, always and absolutely true. I can try copying your post from memory; if I succeed, it is free from error but I am NOT an infallible copier, I only made an impeccable copy. I would have to be able to copy it correctly, free of any error, every single time to be that.

A bit simplistic as an example, but certainly an example.

But what, precisely, does it mean to say that someone or some institution or some body of knowledge or some source of information is infallible?

It means to deny truth.

This doesn’t quite hold up. If, for example, my friend were to claim that he is infallible I would not be denying truth if I disbelieved him. So denying infalliblity is not ipso facto denial of truth.

Only if the claim of infallibility is, itself, true, would denying it be a denial of truth (the claim and, further perhaps, the other infallible claims made by the alleged infalliable source).

If the source is regarded as infallible then the claims that follow must necessarily be regarded as true, including the claim of infallibility. But that is a self-referencing claim and, thus, not a generally reliable test of infallibility.

Here you are mixing tint with the base color. You state X is infallible, then seek the results of X + Y. The Bible is infallible.

Please be more careful with your use of "you’. It could lead to no small confusion here. I am stating the Protestant position here to illustrate the larger subject.

That means IT is infallible, not the subsequent interpreter. Another way to look at it is like this: The author of any given book had only one true meaning to any given passage in that writing. “This is my Body…” then has only ONE true meaning. IF I then interpret that meaning correctly, I would have an infallible interpretation; but if I interpreted it incorrectly, I still have an infallible Bible, but with a fallible (and erroneous) interpretation. This is why no book, Bible or otherwise, can be both infallible of its own AND ensure infallible interpretation all by itself. Something outside or beyond the book itself must of necessity provide for that infallible interpreting, be it the power of the HS acting through individual or Church or whatever means.

This is why the Protestant approach leads to heterodoxy.

Notice, however, that science also denies infallibility but it does not, in the long run, lead to heterdoxy. Rather, science has had a pretty good track record of iterating toward a reliable understanding of the world, at least in some areas such as physics.

So it is not the case that denying infalliblity necessarily leads to a multiplicity of opinions, i.e. to heterodoxy.

It’s not an aid to truth, it is stating what truth is.

That’s not the usual meaning of infallibility. If we are evaluating a claim to determine its truth we might go to an infallible source which has made a statement about the truth of the claim. In this example, the infallible source helps us to determine the truth of the claim. But we already have some concept of truth apart from the infallible source.

We have qualities to describe what God must be if He is indeed God. Qualities such as holy, just, righteous, all-loving, etc. By the confines of these qualities, God cannot and would not give us a lie, for if He did, He would not be just or holy or all the other things. In short, He would not be God. That is the logical argument. Thus if God is what He is, He can only give us Truth.

This is the traditional Catholic argument for believing in the infallibility of the Church, yes.

The question then is, did He or didn’t He? We have a Bible that we hold as revelation from God to us. What else could it be if it is from God if not truth? How many errors can God give us when revealing Truth to us? Zero. So His message to us must by definition be infallible. The conventional wisdom of skeptics is such that if a single error can be found in the Bible, the whole of it is worthless, but we know that to be false. A spelling error on the part of a fallible man does not alter the true meaning of the revelation, it only means man goofed it up somewhere in the reproduction of copy.

Let’s be more precise about the question, then. Did God give us the Church? Would God give us a flawed Church?

Can we evaluate and test the claim that God gave us the Church without relying on the claims of the Church? Or is it a matter of faith that, once accepted, entails the rest?

The conventional wisdom of skeptics is such that if a single error can be found in the Bible, the whole of it is worthless, but we know that to be false. A spelling error on the part of a fallible man does not alter the true meaning of the revelation, it only means man goofed it up somewhere in the reproduction of copy.

Let’s not waste our time on such false dichotomies. I know what you mean here but I’m not particularly interested in what atheists believe or how they justify their beliefs.

Thus if God truly gave us a revelation in the form of the written word, the Bible, it must of necessity be infallible. It can be nothing less.

As stated above, if the Bible is supposed to be the Truth but is not infallible, then neither is the God who gave it to us. That is the necessary consequence.

I’m not sure this necessarily follows. Setting aside the above false dichotomy, must we suppose that the Bible is infallible truth? As above with the Church, did God give us the Bible? (Islam claims that God gave Mohamed the Koran, word for word. But Christianity does not make such a claim for the Bible.)

How do you ever get to heterodoxy if you can’t possibly have a “doxy” to begin with? Imagine for a second that God Almighty appeared in front of you and handed you a book. He says, “Some things in this book are true, some are not. Have a nice day!” What then can you possibly do with such a book? Found a faith on it? How? How would you be able to presume Ch 4 is true but Ch 7 is not? You end up in logical fallacy, the exact opposite of infallibility, where truth is worthless because it cannot be known.

That would be a good question to ask an Islamic Protestant, but this is not a good analogy for the Bible (save, perhaps, the striking of the Ten Commandments in stone).

 

[mardukm]

Some preliminary definitions:

The Catholic Episcopate is not the Magisterium.

The Catholic Episcopate POSSESSES Magisterium

Magisterium is defined as the teaching authority of God.

It is the Magisterium that is infallible.

The Catholic Episcopate is not infallible; rather it is the Magisterium of the Catholic Episcopate that is infallible.

The Pope is not infallible; rather it is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible.

If one denies infallibility, then one denies Truth, and one denies God.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Catholic Episcopate is not the Magisterium. [etc]

Well, yes, I gave a very short version (and alluded to qualifications) but your description is more precise.

If one denies infallibility, then one denies Truth, and one denies God.

If I deny that my dog is infallible (or my dog’s teachings) am I denying truth or denying God?

 

[Kasey1]

Some preliminary definitions:

The Catholic Episcopate is not the Magisterium.

The Catholic Episcopate POSSESSES Magisterium

Magisterium is defined as the teaching authority of God.

It is the Magisterium that is infallible.

The Catholic Episcopate is not infallible; rather it is the Magisterium of the Catholic Episcopate that is infallible.

The Pope is not infallible; rather it is the Magisterium of the Pope that is infallible.

If one denies infallibility, then one denies Truth, and one denies God.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

well,thank you for your hard work,it is so helpful for me.

http://www.photosnag.com/img/4673/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

 

[mardukm]

If I deny that my dog is infallible (or my dog’s teachings) am I denying truth or denying God?

Your original question was “What are the consequences of denying infallibility?” You didn’t mention any qualifications in the rest of the sentence or paragraph.

What does a dog have to do with anything?

Blessings

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Your original question was “What are the consequences of denying infallibility?” You didn’t mention any qualifications in the rest of the sentence or paragraph. What does a dog have to do with anything?

Well, for starters, I claim that there are no ill consequences of my denying that my dog is infallible.

(It’s more than a little ironic that you corrected the imprecision of my summary of infallibility and then offered an even more imprecise claim at the end.)

Insofar as the magesterium includes the claim that the magesterium is infallible then, obviously, whether or note denying magesterial infalliblity would be a denial of truth and God would depend, of course, on the truth of the above claims (e.g. that God gave us the Church, etc.).

 

[mardukm]

Well, for starters, I claim that there are no ill consequences of my denying that my dog is infallible.

(It’s more than a little ironic that you corrected the imprecision of my summary of infallibility and then offered an even more imprecise claim at the end.)

No. It wasn’t imprecise. Seriously, what does a dog have to do with anything?

Can a dog even speak or teach doctrine? It goes without saying that a claim that your dog is infallible has no ill consequences because the scenario can’t even exist. The premise is ludicrous, hence my question - what does a dog have to do with anything? Please respond.

Blessings

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No. It wasn’t imprecise. Seriously, what does a dog have to do with anything? Can a dog even speak or teach doctrine? It goes without saying that a claim that your dog is infallible has no ill consequences because the scenario can’t even exist. The premise is ludicrous, hence my question - what does a dog have to do with anything? Please respond.

All right if that’s too hard for you to imagine, then, let’s go back to the examples I gave previously: my friend claims to be infallible. Similarly I gave the example of science which explicitly disavows any notion of infallibility preferring, instead, the test of falsifiability.

The other related question is how do we determine the correctness of the Church’s infallibility claims? It is true that the claims are internally consistent, that is if you accept the claim then everything hangs together logically, but the standard Catholic argument for the claim, itself, rests on the claim, hence the entire system is self-validating but not otherwise validated.

 

[Cluny]

Also, generally, Protestants hold that only the first claim is true. In particular,

Actually, this has a corollary–the individual believer’s own interpretation of the Scripture is infallible.

 

[mardukm]

All right if that’s too hard for you to imagine, then, let’s go back to the examples I gave previously: my friend claims to be infallible. Similarly I gave the example of science which explicitly disavows any notion of infallibility preferring, instead, the test of falsifiability.

The other related question is how do we determine the correctness of the Church’s infallibility claims? It is true that the claims are internally consistent, that is if you accept the claim then everything hangs together logically, but the standard Catholic argument for the claim, itself, rests on the claim, hence the entire system is self-validating but not otherwise validated.

Your scenarios seem to switch back and forth between the perspective of an empirical athiest (test of falsifiability) and a Protestant (only the Bible is infallible). I’ll attempt to respond to both.

The notion of infallibility does not belong in an athiest-thiest debate. For one to believe in infallibility, one must first believe God exists, since the only source of infallibility is God. Infallibility is only of concern to those who have Faith in God. So Empiricism and infallibility are admittedly two mutually exclusive concepts. The first is an issue of material proof, the second is an issue of supernatural Faith. IOW, the former does not belong in the discussion. Athiests can flap their gums in complaint all they want that the “proof” for infallibility is “circular.” It doesn’t affect the discussion one bit. The issue of infallibility is only relevant to those who have a Faith in God.

As far as Christians are concerned, it goes without saying that, since God from the beginning has been teaching us and correcting/punishing us through His prophets and other representatives for disobeying His teaching, then there is an infallible Magisterium (i.e., an infallible teaching authority of God) on earth.

That’s it for now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

Also, generally, Protestants hold that only the first claim is true. In particular,Actually, this has a corollary–the individual believer’s own interpretation of the Scripture is infallible.

This brings two things to mind:

1. Is this so? Are there Protestants out there who can confirm or contradict this?
2. My original objective was to discuss the meaning of “infallibility”. It’s possible that Protestants believe that each person is an infallible interpretater of the Bible if the meaning is different for Protestants and Catholics. (E.g., true for me but not for you.)

A similar argument can be made for Catholic infallible, that regardless of whether or not it is actually true we are better off going about or lives as if it were true since there is no better source of knowledge about God and Revelation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Your scenarios seem to switch back and forth between the perspective of an empirical athiest (test of falsifiability) and a Protestant (only the Bible is infallible). I’ll attempt to respond to both.

They are very different examples, true. But hopefully you can at least understand that denying infallibility (of my friend, for example) does not deny truth or God. The general claim does not hold even if more specific claim (e.g. the infalliblity of the magesterium) do hold.

The notion of infallibility does not belong in an athiest-thiest debate. For one to believe in infallibility, one must first believe God exists, since the only source of infallibility is God. Infallibility is only of concern to those who have Faith in God.

Agreed. That would include, for example, deists, Jews, and Muslims.

So Empiricism and infallibility are admittedly two mutually exclusive concepts. The first is an issue of material proof, the second is an issue of supernatural Faith. IOW, the former does not belong in the discussion.

Let me pause here to point out that in a much ealier thread I posited that the Catholic claim of infallibility was a matter of faith and, indeed, a defining characteristic of Catholicism. But everyone disagreed with that.

But if you exclude empiricism what do you have left to justify belief in the Catholic dogma of infalliblity but faith?

Athiests can flap their gums in complaint all they want that the “proof” for infallibility is “circular.” It doesn’t affect the discussion one bit. The issue of infallibility is only relevant to those who have a Faith in God.

I agree that we’re not interested in the atheist position but atheists are not the only ones challenging Catholic claims of infallibility and, hence, not the only ones pointing to the circularity of Catholic teaching on this subject.

As far as Christians are concerned, it goes without saying that, since God from the beginning has been teaching us and correcting/punishing us through His prophets and other representatives for disobeying His teaching, then there is an infallible Magisterium (i.e., an infallible teaching authority of God) on earth.

That doesn’t follow at all. One can easily believe the former without beliving the latter. In particular, it presumes that the correcting and punsishing is not part of the teaching process.

Suppose, for example, that I sit my son down and run through some rules. Then she writes those rules down to help her remember them. Later he disappoints me and it turns out that he misunderstood me previously or misunderstood her own notes. In any case, he now corrects her notes and comes that much closer to having a correct understanding of what I expect of him. Adding an intermediary only increases the opportunities for error.

 

[mardukm]

This brings two things to mind:

1. Is this so? Are there Protestants out there who can confirm or contradict this?
2. My original objective was to discuss the meaning of “infallibility”. It’s possible that Protestants believe that each person is an infallible interpretater of the Bible if the meaning is different for Protestants and Catholics. (E.g., true for me but not for you.)

A similar argument can be made for Catholic infallible, that regardless of whether or not it is actually true we are better off going about or lives as if it were true since there is no better source of knowledge about God and Revelation.

Infallibility is the primary indicator of Truth, and Truth by defintion is ONE.

Jesus Himself tells us in John that UNITY is necessary for the world to accept the central message of the Gospel - “…that they may be PERFECTLY ONE, SO THAT the world may know that you have sent me and has loved them even as you have loved me.”

Since, the Protestant understanding of infallibility (personal infallibility) actually destroys the unity of the Church, it is really and truly a danger to the Faith and must be rejected.

Anything that endangers unity is opposed to the Gospel.

Blessings

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus Himself tells us in John that UNITY is necessary for the world to accept the central message of the Gospel - “…that they may be PERFECTLY ONE, SO THAT the world may know that you have sent me and has loved them even as you have loved me.” Since, the Protestant understanding of infallibility (personal infallibility) actually destroys the unity of the Church, it is really and truly a danger to the Faith and must be rejected. Anything that endangers unity is opposed to the Gospel.

John 17.

Yes, this is the sort of pragmatic argument that I was referring to in the post that you quoted. That we should treat the teachings of the Catholic Church because to do otherwise invites heteroxy (and, hence, division, not unity). In other words, better to risk believing, together, something that is false, than to separately pursue truth.

This is why I mentioned science as a comparison point. Science, in the long run, iterates toward a concensus without a belief in infallibile teaching, indeed by promoting the idea that anyone (even Einstein) can be in error.

 

[mardukm]

They are very different examples, true. But hopefully you can at least understand that denying infallibility (of my friend, for example) does not deny truth or God. The general claim does not hold even if more specific claim (e.g. the infalliblity of the magesterium) do hold.

If your friend’s claim to infallibility leads to disunity in the Truth, it must be discounted as a valid claim to infallibility, and doesn’t really belong in this discussion.

Agreed. That would include, for example, deists, Jews, and Muslims.

I don’t know about deists, but I would include Jews and Muslims in the discussion on infallibility. The fact is, infallibility is intimately related to Truth which is defined to be One. Any definition of infallibility which devolves to “MY Truth” instead of “ONE Truth” does not belong in this discussion, would you agree? This is why your friend’s claim to infallibility, as well as the merely deistic understanding of infallibility, needs to be discounted.

Let me pause here to point out that in a much ealier thread I posited that the Catholic claim of infallibility was a matter of faith and, indeed, a defining characteristic of Catholicism. But everyone disagreed with that.

I didn’t see that. Are you talking about another thread?

But if you exclude empiricism what do you have left to justify belief in the Catholic dogma of infalliblity but faith?

The fact of infallibility (which is an inherent quality of God and His Truth) is a separate issue from the evidence for Truth. All religions as institutions accept the fact of infallibility. So there’s no debate on that matter. The evidence for Truth that each of these institutions holds, however, is a separate matter.

Having said that, the evidence for Truth is not based on empiricism, but rather epistemological evidence. This involves consistency in teaching, logical proofs, etc. - things that really touch upon the nature of the mind and soul rather than tactile evidence. Once, again, empirical evidence is, at best, an aid. But the evidence for Truth should not be understood to consist entirely of that, or even depend on that.

I agree that we’re not interested in the atheist position but atheists are not the only ones challenging Catholic claims of infallibility and, hence, not the only ones pointing to the circularity of Catholic teaching on this subject.

The ones who point to circularity are normally only the Protestants. But, as noted, since their understanding of infallibility objectively devolves to “My truth” instead of “ONE Truth,” it should not be allowed to interfere in this discussion.

That doesn’t follow at all. One can easily believe the former without beliving the latter. In particular, it presumes that the correcting and punsishing is not part of the teaching process.

I really don’t know where you got that from my statement.

Suppose, for example, that I sit my son down and run through some rules. Then she writes those rules down to help her remember them. Later he disappoints me and it turns out that he misunderstood me previously or misunderstood her own notes. In any case, he now corrects her notes and comes that much closer to having a correct understanding of what I expect of him. Adding an intermediary only increases the opportunities for error.

This argument doesn’t make sense. Then what do you propose should be the standard of Truth for your son? Just because your son misunderstands, that doesn’t mean you should be removed from the equation, does it?

Don’t worry, I know exactly what you’re getting at. Your analogy presents yourself as God, and your son, someone who claims to represent Him - basically the relationship of God to the ecclesiastical Magisterium. I disagree with that analogy.

Fact one: In Scripture, God always works through intermediaries to teach his Truth.

Fact two: In Scripture, those God-appointed intermediaries have never been known to misrepresent God to the people. That is infallibility. As Scripture states, without Him, we can do nothing, and being able to teach God’s truth faithfully is a special charism given to the Church (that is infallibility).

According to the Scripture, it would be more proper to view yourself, in your scenario, as the intermediary between God and your son, while your son represents the laity. Just because your son (or the laity) misrepresents your teaching, or disobeys you, that doesn’t mean your existence lost its purpose.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

John 17.

Yes, this is the sort of pragmatic argument that I was referring to in the post that you quoted. That we should treat the teachings of the Catholic Church because to do otherwise invites heteroxy (and, hence, division, not unity). In other words, better to risk believing, together, something that is false, than to separately pursue truth.

The Chruch doesn’t promote blind acceptance, so your statement (highlighted) doesn’t make sense.

This is why I mentioned science as a comparison point. Science, in the long run, iterates toward a concensus without a belief in infallibile teaching, indeed by promoting the idea that anyone (even Einstein) can be in error.

How does believing anyone can be in error lead to infallible Truth? The point is moot because anyone who believes anyone can be in error does not even accept the fact of infallible Truth. That’s why athiest principles don’t belong in this conversation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Scoobyshme]

I might make one small change in understanding, with regard to the Bible being infallible. That’s a little misleading, I think. The Bible is neither fallible or infallible. It is a catalog of God’s truths, but must be interpreted correctly. If it is misinterpreted, as all Protestants do (speaking generally), then it can’t be “infallible.” The Bible needs an infallible, authentic interpreter. That would be the Catholic Church, which alone was founded by Christ. All other Christian denominations were founded by mere men and are not infallible interpreters of the Bible or Holy Tradition.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I might make one small change in understanding, with regard to the Bible being infallible. That’s a little misleading, I think. The Bible is neither fallible or infallible. It is a catalog of God’s truths, but must be interpreted correctly. If it is misinterpreted, as all Protestants do (speaking generally), then it can’t be “infallible.” The Bible needs an infallible, authentic interpreter. That would be the Catholic Church, which alone was founded by Christ. All other Christian denominations were founded by mere men and are not infallible interpreters of the Bible or Holy Tradition.

I hope I didn’t say anything to suggest otherwise but certainly this is worth clarifying.

However, it is interesting to note that the problem does not go away with Catholicism.

Protestants have the Bible to aid in making choices in their daily lives. Because the Bible requires interpretation some Protestants will interpret one way, others another.

Catholics have not only the Bible but also the CCC. And, yet, they are in a similar, if slightly improved, situation. They still have to interpret the Bible+CCC to make decisions in their daily lives.

In fact, you can think of the Bible as the early historical record of the CCC. For reasons outside the scope of this thread, the Bible was closed with Revelations and Catholic Sacred Tradition, Canon law, etc, take up from that point.