Questions for Protestants

[Teflon93]

Can you know with 100% certainty that the RCC is infallible?

Why ask a question of us when a similar question is applicable to you?

Easy. Christ abides with the Catholic Church. The Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth, is 100% guaranteed infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

Which Protestant pastor, bishop, elder, etc even makes this claim?

Where may we find examples of this person’s ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals so as to compare with the Pope’s?

 

[Calvinator]

Easy. Christ abides with the Catholic Church. The Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth, is 100% guaranteed infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

Which Protestant pastor, bishop, elder, etc even makes this claim?

Where may we find examples of this person’s ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals so as to compare with the Pope’s?

Of course no one I know of makes this claim, other than the Catholic Church.

But aren’t you, a fallible human, deciding to accept what your church teaches?

The other poster asked "Can we know with 100% certainty that any particular canonical NT book is inspired."

Can’t that same question be asked of you? Above you said “Easy. Christ abides with the Catholic Church. The Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth, is 100% guaranteed infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.”, and you are right, that is what your church teaches.

But, how do you, with 100% certainty know this? Even if it is true, how can you be 100% certain of this?

 

[Teflon93]

Of course no one I know of makes this claim, other than the Catholic Church.

But aren’t you, a fallible human, deciding to accept what your church teaches?

Sure. I am extremely fallible and I do freely accept what my church teaches. In fact, it is because of my fallibility that I do so—I trust my church more than my own theological reasoning. She has been around 2,000 years and Christ promised to keep her true. How could I argue otherwise, knowing my own fallibility?

Can’t that same question be asked of you? Above you said “Easy. Christ abides with the Catholic Church. The Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth, is 100% guaranteed infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.”, and you are right, that is what your church teaches.

But, how do you, with 100% certainty know this? Even if it is true, how can you be 100% certain of this?

Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason.

1. I am a fallible human being.
2. Scripture tells us Christ founded a church, then promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it as he would be with it always.
3. There is only one church which can claim to be that Church of Christ—the only one around since Pentecost.
4. The teachings of that Church nowhere contradict Christ.
5. Therefore, fallible human being that I am, I trust my salvation to Christ through his Church.

 

[Stylite]

Can you know with 100% certainty that the RCC is infallible?

Why ask a question of us when a similar question is applicable to you?

Calvinator,

Good dodge Sometime we can discuss certainty from the Catholic perspective. But, for now pretend that an athiest is asking this question after hearing a Protestant say that he has assurance of salvation.

 

[Calvinator]

Calvinator,

Good dodge Sometime we can discuss certainty from the Catholic perspective. But, for now pretend that an athiest is asking this question after hearing a Protestant say that he has assurance of salvation.

What have I dodged? I never claimed that I was infallible.

Some of the questions on the list are good but with a slight modification can be asked of a Catholic as well.

Teflon, in the post right above this one says that “Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason.”. I know he has come to the conlcusion that the Catholic church is what it says it is, but he can’t be 100% certain of this just as I can’t be 100% certain that any NT book or OT book for that matter, is inspired.

 

[Teflon93]

What have I dodged? I never claimed that I was infallible.

Some of the questions on the list are good but with a slight modification can be asked of a Catholic as well.

Teflon, in the post right above this one says that “Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason.”. I know he has come to the conlcusion that the Catholic church is what it says it is, but he can’t be 100% certain of this just as I can’t be 100% certain that any NT book or OT book for that matter, is inspired.

Let’s not shift frames of reference here, though.

How can you know with 100% your calculator is correct when it says the square root of .239 is 0.48887626246321266851102909935407?

Well, I reason it to the best of my ability, and find that if I come up with a different value, mine is likelier to be wrong.

And as that does require a bit of faith in the calculator’s manufacturers, I place my faith in them.

Since Christ founded the Catholic Church, and promised to guide her always, I have no problem placing my faith in him rather than in my own fallible reason. That said, my own fallible reason tends to confirm my faith, so no false dichotomy there.

It is when communities which cannot plausibly claim to be the Church Christ founded “reason backwards” from their preferred doctrine that they get into trouble. This is where “the invisible church” stuff largely comes from, I think.

 

[Calvinator]

Let’s not shift frames of reference here, though.

How can you know with 100% your calculator is correct when it says the square root of .239 is 0.48887626246321266851102909935407?

Well, I reason it to the best of my ability, and find that if I come up with a different value, mine is likelier to be wrong.

And as that does require a bit of faith in the calculator’s manufacturers, I place my faith in them.

Since Christ founded the Catholic Church, and promised to guide her always, I have no problem placing my faith in him rather than in my own fallible reason. That said, my own fallible reason tends to confirm my faith, so no false dichotomy there.

It is when communities which cannot plausibly claim to be the Church Christ founded “reason backwards” from their preferred doctrine that they get into trouble. This is where “the invisible church” stuff largely comes from, I think.

In the example above, you may place your faith in the manufacturer of the calculator, but you can verify the results can’t you? It may not be convenient but you can square 0.48887626246321266851102909935407 and see if you get 0.239.

If you do, you know the calculator is correct. With faith, it seems to be a little different doesn’t it?

In your previous example you said, in part **"Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason.

1. I am a fallible human being.
2. Scripture tells us Christ founded a church, then promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it as he would be with it always.
3. There is only one church which can claim to be that Church of Christ—the only one around since Pentecost.
4. The teachings of that Church nowhere contradict Christ.
5. Therefore, fallible human being that I am, I trust my salvation to Christ through his Church."**

In your point 1, you establish you are in fact fallible. In point 4. you say that "The teachings of that Church nowhere contradict Christ."

How have you determined that your church’s doctrines nowhere contradict Christ? Aren’t we back to you being fallible and therefore can’t be 100% certain that you are correct?

I am assuming that when we are talking about “being 100% certain” we are talking about that there is absolutely positively no way the decision could be in error.

 

[Stylite]

What have I dodged? I never claimed that I was infallible.

Some of the questions on the list are good but with a slight modification can be asked of a Catholic as well.

Teflon, in the post right above this one says that “Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason.”. I know he has come to the conlcusion that the Catholic church is what it says it is, but he can’t be 100% certain of this just as I can’t be 100% certain that any NT book or OT book for that matter, is inspired.

I know it wasn’t a bad faith dodge. I merely meant that you hadn’t answered the original question in your first response. Now I see that you have. So, you don’t have 100% certainty of salvation/election.

The reason I ask is because so many Protestants come on here and ask Catholics if they know 100% that they are saved/elect.

 

[Ziggamafu]

We look at the logical arguments surrounding Christ’s divinity as a study of history and come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to say he was / is God and that the Gospel’s are reliable as historically accurate.

We see in the Gospels that the God-Man, the Son of David and legal king, bestows on a man the keys to the kingdom. We understand that this is the restoration of the office of prime minister from an examination of the Davidic kingdom in the Old Testament.

We further see that the prime minister, along with the other appointed governors united under his leadership, are given divine protection in certain decisions (as well as the power to forgive sins). The same authority with which the king was sent is conferred upon these men.

Christ leaves behind no text, nor a canon of chosen texts, nor a command to write such texts. A few of the Apostles eventually write a few things, which, precisely because of the authority of their office, is immediately regarded as authoritative - though not immediately as inspired scripture - and circulated. Many other texts regarding the faith also begin to be written, not at the hands of Apostles, but by other Christians. Some of these, along with some of the apostolic writings, are used as scriptural readings during the mass.

In time, evidence of a general agreement on what texts are inspired, though not officially clarified, begins to surface.

Centuries pass. As some contentions begin to pop up, a couple local (not infallible but still authoritative) councils make decisions as to which of the texts were truly inspired by God and thus appropriate for reading in the mass. Virtually nobody questions the decisions, which quickly become universal.

More centuries pass (a great many, actually), with the vast and overwhelming majority of great Christian leaders and thinkers agreeing with the decision made and then reaffirmed at the two minor councils so long ago.

Eventually, one haunted and psychotically scrupulous monk changes the world and shatters the unity of Christianity with his charisma and convictions (one such conviction being that the Hebrew, not the Greek, version of the Old Testament was the true one).

Catholicism responds with a once and for all dogmatic declaration regarding the canon that sets in stone what had been already agreed upon by common consent for so long.

Protestants go on using the mutilated Bibles, which Rome says should be burned (rightfully).

Catholics go on using the Bible that God had protected for so long - and continues to protect - through the Magisterium.

---

The moral of the story? The Catholic idea of infallibility begins with Christ, carries from him into the Magisterium (and the writers of the scriptures, though the authors likely did not know this at the time of writing), and from the Magisterium into the decision as to which writings of which authors had been discerned to be inspired by God.

The Protestants are missing that vital link through which we may be assured that the Bible really is inspired; instead of Christ holding a hook upon which is suspended the lamp of his Word, we have a picture of Christ with his lamp mysteriously suspended in midair by nothing. The later image is, of course, absurd.

This is why, although we see many passages of scripture that let us know that the Bible is infallibly authoritative, we do not find a single passage - not one; none at all - that informs us that the Bible is the only infallible authority. This is quite a dilemma for Protestantism, which justifies its existence by the doctrine of sola scriptura; for if sola scriptura is not biblical then sola scriptura disproves itself.

Actually, I believe that it was because God wanted us to know the comfort of a protected Church government that Christ did not leave us with any texts written by his own incarnate hand. He forces us to trust in Christ’s living voice in the Church, thereby safeguarding the unity and order of the kingdom that Christ so ardently prayed for in John 17.

 

[Ziggamafu]

btw: **The Bible’s *inspiration *does not rely on the infallibility of the Church; but the recognition of what texts the Bible consists of does rely on the infallibility of the Church.

This should be obvious, but for some reason the connection is rarely made by Protestants faced with arguments similar to those presented in my previous post.

 

[Teflon93]

In the example above, you may place your faith in the manufacturer of the calculator, but you can verify the results can’t you? It may not be convenient but you can square 0.48887626246321266851102909935407 and see if you get 0.239.

I can only get an approximation to a certain decimal place. Beyond that, I’m running on faith.

If you do, you know the calculator is correct. With faith, it seems to be a little different doesn’t it?

Nope. Actually, I only think the calculator’s correct to the best of my ability to tell. Even if it’s perfect on this calculation, it could be wrong on others. With millions upon millions of combinations, I could either spend every waking moment checking it out or accept that it is far likelier to be correct than my fallible math.

How have you determined that your church’s doctrines nowhere contradict Christ? Aren’t we back to you being fallible and therefore can’t be 100% certain that you are correct?

It is not incumbent on me being correct, but on Christ keeping his word.

If Christ’s not trustworthy, then how could we rely on him for anything?

Put another way, I bet on Christ before I bet on myself.

I am assuming that when we are talking about “being 100% certain” we are talking about that there is absolutely positively no way the decision could be in error.

Sure. But since lots of folks on the board don’t understand infallibility as well as you do, let’s make sure we caveat that by saying the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

If the Pope were to provide his Super Bowl picks, and he turned out to be wrong, that would not send Catholics scurrying for the exits.

 

[Calvinator]

Sure. But since lots of folks on the board don’t understand infallibility as well as you do, let’s make sure we caveat that by saying the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

If the Pope were to provide his Super Bowl picks, and he turned out to be wrong, that would not send Catholics scurrying for the exits.

I meant your being 100% certain, not the pope.

 

[Calvinator]

It is not incumbent on me being correct, but on Christ keeping his word.

If Christ’s not trustworthy, then how could we rely on him for anything?

Put another way, I bet on Christ before I bet on myself.

But we aren’t talking about Christ’s trustworthiness, this started out by my asking can one be 100% certain that the RCC is infallible. I guess your answer is yes.

 

[mgrfin]

But we aren’t talking about Christ’s trustworthiness, this started out by my asking can one be 100% certain that the RCC is infallible. I guess your answer is yes.

Yes, the Catholic Church is 100% infallible in matters of faith and morals, when it intends to define something as such.

peace

 

[Yerusalyim]

I’m trying to come up with a list of stumpers for Protestants

If you’re simply trying to acheive ONE UP MAN SHIP on a Protestant, I would like to respectfully suggest that this is exactly the WRONG tact to use in trying to build Christian Unity. Share your faith by your example be ready to answer their pointed questions (rather than raise pointed questions of your own) and defend your faith by explaining it, rather than condemning theirs…Well timed and placed some of these questions might give them pause to think…but it’s presentation here seems to be more geared toward pummelling them into submission…speak gently and humbly… and you’ll attract more people.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Yes, the Catholic Church is 100% infallible in matters of faith and morals, when it intends to define something as such.

Your faith in the CC seems very strong indeed! Couldn’t we (just as fallibly) say that the bible is 100% infallible in matters of faith and morals, when it intends to define something as such?

If we are all fallible individuals, then it seems to me that we can eliminate the “middle man” and just appeal to the authority of God through the bible. In this way, if my fallible judgment has led me into error, at least my error was to trust in what God seems to have said rather than trusting in what Rome seems to have said.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Your faith in the CC seems very strong indeed! Couldn’t we (just as fallibly) say that the bible is 100% infallible in matters of faith and morals, when it intends to define something as such?

If we are all fallible individuals, then it seems to me that we can eliminate the “middle man” and just appeal to the authority of God through the bible. In this way, if my fallible judgment has led me into error, at least my error was to trust in what God seems to have said rather than trusting in what Rome seems to have said.

Answer:

We look at the logical arguments surrounding Christ’s divinity as a study of history and come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to say he was / is God and that the Gospel’s are reliable as historically accurate.

We see in the Gospels that the God-Man, the Son of David and legal king, bestows on a man the keys to the kingdom. We understand that this is the restoration of the office of prime minister from an examination of the Davidic kingdom in the Old Testament.

We further see that the prime minister, along with the other appointed governors united under his leadership, are given divine protection in certain decisions (as well as the power to forgive sins). The same authority with which the king was sent is conferred upon these men.

Christ leaves behind no text, nor a canon of chosen texts, nor a command to write such texts. A few of the Apostles eventually write a few things, which, precisely because of the authority of their office, is immediately regarded as authoritative - though not immediately as inspired scripture - and circulated. Many other texts regarding the faith also begin to be written, not at the hands of Apostles, but by other Christians. Some of these, along with some of the apostolic writings, are used as scriptural readings during the mass.

In time, evidence of a general agreement on what texts are inspired, though not officially clarified, begins to surface.

Centuries pass. As some contentions begin to pop up, a couple local (not infallible but still authoritative) councils make decisions as to which of the texts were truly inspired by God and thus appropriate for reading in the mass. Virtually nobody questions the decisions, which quickly become universal.

More centuries pass (a great many, actually), with the vast and overwhelming majority of great Christian leaders and thinkers agreeing with the decision made and then reaffirmed at the two minor councils so long ago.

Eventually, one haunted and psychotically scrupulous monk changes the world and shatters the unity of Christianity with his charisma and convictions (one such conviction being that the Hebrew, not the Greek, version of the Old Testament was the true one).

Catholicism responds with a once and for all dogmatic declaration regarding the canon that sets in stone what had been already agreed upon by common consent for so long.

Protestants go on using the mutilated Bibles, which Rome says should be burned (rightfully).

Catholics go on using the Bible that God had protected for so long - and continues to protect - through the Magisterium.

---

The moral of the story? The Catholic idea of infallibility begins with Christ, carries from him into the Magisterium (and the writers of the scriptures, though the authors likely did not know this at the time of writing), and from the Magisterium into the decision as to which writings of which authors had been discerned to be inspired by God.

The Protestants are missing that vital link through which we may be assured that the Bible really is inspired; instead of Christ holding a hook upon which is suspended the lamp of his Word, we have a picture of Christ with his lamp mysteriously suspended in midair by nothing. The later image is, of course, absurd.

This is why, although we see many passages of scripture that let us know that the Bible is infallibly authoritative, we do not find a single passage - not one; none at all - that informs us that the Bible is the only infallible authority. This is quite a dilemma for Protestantism, which justifies its existence by the doctrine of sola scriptura; for if sola scriptura is not biblical then sola scriptura disproves itself.

Actually, I believe that it was because God wanted us to know the comfort of a protected Church government that Christ did not leave us with any texts written by his own incarnate hand. He forces us to trust in Christ’s living voice in the Church, thereby safeguarding the unity and order of the kingdom that Christ so ardently prayed for in John 17.

 

[mgrfin]

If you’re simply trying to acheive ONE UP MAN SHIP on a Protestant, I would like to respectfully suggest that this is exactly the WRONG tact to use in trying to build Christian Unity. Share your faith by your example be ready to answer their pointed questions (rather than raise pointed questions of your own) and defend your faith by explaining it, rather than condemning theirs…Well timed and placed some of these questions might give them pause to think…but it’s presentation here seems to be more geared toward pummelling them into submission…speak gently and humbly… and you’ll attract more people.

I don’t think it is a question of one-up-manship. Protestants on this site are quite knowledgeable on the faith, and I think the questions they pose is to try to stump us.

Since they are not asking the ‘simple’ stuff, well we are trying to get some interest from them for questions they don’t seem to be asking.

We’ll all friends here.

peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I think Calvinator has a good point, and one I’ve been using myself for quite some time; the point being that we are all infallible and cannot know with 100% certainty that any of our evaluations are correct. My evaluation of scripture is just as fallible as my evaluation of the Catholic church.

IMO (and even I don’t think it is infallible. I’m just searching for answers ), the problem is that we have a tendency to limit God.

I think the answer is that God has many answers. We are not perfect, and we are incapable of fully understanding God or His revelation, be it His revelation through his Word (Bible) or His Church (also His word) or through personal experience (answers to prayer, mystical experiences, etc.).

I think there is actually a beauty in denominationalism b/c it is proof that God is working with his fallible humanity on many different levels. We don’t need to be theologians, historians, philoshophers or any of that to understand what God is telling us. All that is needed is the proper disposition.

Someone from a third world country is not going to grasp all of the reasons why they should accept the Catholic church as authoritative any more than that they should accept the Bible as authoritative. It’s all about disposition (humility) and love. Are they going to be held accountable for accepting just the Bible as an authority over the Catholic church? What is it that “sells” them to accepting an authority? Isn’t it love? Does it mean what was given to them was wrong?

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that we are all like people from a 3rd world country; with our own mental limitations and “hunger”. Yet God still reaches out to all of us and appeals to our limited capacity to understand.

Personally, I believe the “essentials” of Christianity – no – the “essentials” of ALL religions – are the same and are comprehensible to anyone with the proper disposition.

Personally, I believe it is probably that the Catholic church is all it claims to be, but I also think it takes a great deal of investigation to arrive at that probability. Notice I did not say “proof”. I don’t think you can know with 100% certainty that the Catholic church is the OTC/FOT unless you are God Himself (or maybe one of the apostles ), but like with our assessment of whether or not there is a God, I believe there is SUFFICIENT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to support that it indeed is - therefore, I take a leap of faith. I don’t think everyone who, in their fallible being, does not arrive at that conclusion is damned or whatever. I think God knows where we are in our searching for Him and meets us where we are. I think He offers something to every world faith and Christian denomination.

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard; nor has it entered the heart of man, what God has in store for those who love Him!

The best “stumper” we can offer our protestant brethren is:

…to humble ourselves
…to grow in holiness through those unfathomably rich gifts God has given us through His church and through our personal experience with God
…and to bear witness to others - this store of grace and love that God has to offer the world.

Let us thank God that He meets us all where we are and gives to us the measure to which we are ready to receive. God is far more than what we comprehend. He is more than a book or a church. Let’s open our minds and hearts and learn to EXPERIENCE Him through His many gifts whether they be the sacraments of the Catholic church, or the suffering souls we learn to love for.

A person whose relationship with God is based on humility and love will have a deeper experience of God than one whose relationship with God is based on intellect.

“It’s all in the shoe-leather.” (my friend Julie – God love you!)

Peace,
~joy

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw, as far as my limited intellect is concerned:

I think all of the questions the OP offers are excellent. Intellectually, I think it only makes logical sense that we cannot know the correct interpretation of scripture infallibly. Only God can know what the perfect interpretation is. If we believe in God (with that sufficient evidence that He exists: something cannot come from nothing, etc…) and we believe He has left us revelation through the Bible (again, through what sufficient evidence we have that the bible is a believable account: fulfilled prophesy, historical accuracy, etc.) then we must know that only God Himself has the perfect interpretation. Seeing the hundreds of thousands of interpretations the world has come up with in their own, well-intention, “Holy Spirit-led” way, it only follows that God must have entrusted the correct interpretation to somebody. The next step then is to find that same sufficient evidence to believe that the correct interpretation lies with the church that claims it does (there aren’t too many that claim this, and it’s pretty much a slam-dunk here). It might take some looking into history, etc., but then again, so did an evaluation of God’s existence, and the bible, right? If we can dismiss the probability that the Catholic church is that church b/c we don’t have 100% proof, then we can just as easily dismiss the bible, the existence of God, your calculator, your answered prayers…

Nothing is certain. We can only know with probability and a leap of faith.

There is sufficient enough evidence. It just takes time and patience to gather it all. I don’t think everyone NEEDS to discover that evidence to have an intimate relationship with God, but for those who are honestly searching, it is there, and the rewards of its recognition are as great as the realizion that God is real (as far as our own experience tells us)

~joy