Oh, I agree. It is the Catholics that keep claiming infallible knowledge is needed, not I.
Actually, Catholics only claim that you need an infallible source to turn to, not that you need to be infallible. That infallible source should be living and continuing, in such a way that if anyone misunderstands, that source can say “No, this is what I actually meant to say” until that source itself can determine that the fallible people understand. It’s not at all impossible for the fallible people to understand, or even improbable, as long as they don’t have a severe intelligence deficient which would prohibit them from understanding even simple sentences–which isn’t what fallibility is.
Here is the problem with you scenario and I will stop here. If I had infallible knowledge that you were indeed infallible then you are right. However, the problem is, how do I get infallible knowledge that you are infallible? Solve that problem for me without me using fallible reasoning.
To some degree there is an element of Faith, yes. That is, of course, your point, and I’m not blind to that (these two sentences are not quotable out of context with what I’m about to say–I’m aware of what you can try to assert by taking them out of context). You want to say that since it takes some faith (alongside solid history) to believe that the Church is infallible, that we’re in the same boat as Protestants, as it also takes faith (alongside solid history) to believe that the Bible is infallible.
Here’s the difference: Even
if your faith in the Bible alone were correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, you’d have no means to resolve differences when people disagree as to what that very Bible says even about matters they feel to be matters of life and death. Furthermore, the Bible never defines what does and doesn’t belong in the Canon. Therefore, by virtue of your faith, even if you came to it
infallibly, you’re left without a means to resolve differences and to know what belongs in the Bible, since even the source that you have faith to be infallible doesn’t define it.
If, however,
our Faith in the Church Teachings (which confirm the Bible and acknowledge it) is correct, the Church Herself, being infallible, can resolve differences so that those who disagree with the Church are at least typically left with no choice but to
admit they disagree (unlike how people with
countless contradictory views all say the Bible agrees with them). As such, we can know with certainty,
within our standard of faith, that what the Church says is true, including what belongs in the Canon.
So you’re missing the point in asking “How do you know you’re right about the Church’s infallibility?” When it comes to that, Protestants are no better off concerning the Bible’s infallibility, and perhaps are worse off since the Catholic, fallible or not, has a lot of history to solidify our claims (this is irrelevant to the discussion, by the way, you’ll prove nothing in questioning it–it really is for another thread). The question should be instead “Between Catholics and Protestants, which one is in a better position to know things truly and certainly
if their beliefs are true?” For the many, many, many reasons you’ve been given, we certainly believe that the answer is Catholics. So, regarding Canon, our Infallible source,
if our Faith in it is correct, explains the Canon. Your sole infallible source, even
if your faith is correct, doesn’t explain the canon at all; any explanation or actual listing of books for the Canon you have will be outside of your source, and therefore violates your very rule of faith.
