Who is Your Infallibe Teacher?

[ejb21]

I realize what you are getting at, which is that ultimately I must decide what interpretation I believe to be correct and live that out accordingly. However, at some stage everyone must make a personal decision on their interpretation of scripture, even Catholics. In order to be Catholic, you must accept the interpretation of scripture that invests the authority to interpret scripture to the Church and the means through which interpretive authority is passed from generation to generation within the Church. Once you’ve made the decision to accept that interpretation, then all of the other teachings of the Church follow as a consequence, but they don’t follow unless you agree with the interpretation that gives the Catholic Church the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture.

So yes, ultimately the decision falls to me to choose what I believe, as it falls on all people.

Yes, but do not most Protestants have there own presuppositions, and thus interpret the Scriptures based on those presuppositions?

 

[jrtrent]

I know this is a old thread, but as I was reviewing it this thought occurred to me and I wished to address it with a_mirror_dimly or any other protestant/NCC who wishes to respond.

In reference to the bolded statement, would such research include reading from Catholic Sources? In other words would you give the same weight to a catholic author’s interpretation that you give to a non-catholic author?

In my case, yes. There is a rich resource of insight in the many Christian traditions that we can profit from. One webpage I enjoy is Lectionary Central. They include sermons/commentary for most Sunday readings of the traditional lectionary from diverse sources including Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and more. They haven’t arrived yet, but I’ve ordered the Haydock bible to enjoy and learn from the footnotes gathered there plus a copy of the Angelus Press version of the daily missal, which I’ve read can make a wonderful daily devotional due to the amount of commentary provided in it. I’ve set up the website beingbob.wordpress.com as my browser’s homepage so I can start my internet perusings with daily Bible readings and links to the Saint of the Day. I’m just a confused protestant with Lutheran leanings (that papacy as antichrist thing is becoming a hard pill to swallow), but I think it would be foolish to ignore/reject thousands of years of pastoral scholarship just because it’s from a tradition I don’t belong to.

 

[JonNC]

The short answer, sadly, is that many modern-day non-Apostolic Christians don’t believe that any infallible teachers or authorities exist in the present day.

**Yes, they do.

They believe that they, themselves, are infallible.

They simply substituted the “infallible me” for the infallible Pope.

After all, if they don’t believe that they are infallible, why do they believe what they do?

(Except for certain Episcopalians, where infallibility rests with the previous rector.)**

Interesting. And who do the Orthodox substitute for the infallible pope, since Orthodoxy denies papal infallibility as well?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

First, tgette, I am thrilled to see your name here again. Blessings to you and yours.

=tGette;4232525]OK…we have heard it before…the Catholic Church is wrong. The Catholic Church misinterprets the Bible because it relies on one man, the Pope…etc, etc.
Fine…let us say that …hypothetically…the Catholic Church is wrong!

The first question would be, “wrong about what?” If the CC is just wrong, totally and completely, then we all are wrong. The very basis of trinitarian Chrstianity comes from the pre-schism Church catholic. So, I’m thinking that maybe you mean on papal infallibility.

I would ask, on what authority does the CC make the claim, as no truly ecumenical council made said declaration? If the early church relied on the ecumenical councils to determine right faith, and there have been no truly ecumenical councils since then, how to we know that Rome, without the guidance of truly ecumenical councils, is right about infallibility or other issues? It could be said, therefore, that Rome relies on the human interpretation, no less so than Protestants.

What makes any of these original founders of any of the Protestant denominations infallible in how they interpreted the Scripture?

Are these men not just merely being elevated to the status of “Pope”???

They are not infallible, and not one should be elevated to that status. In fact, none of them are of the status of the Bishop of Rome, on whom the council of Nice gave authority over the west. Notice, it was a council (human tradition) that gave him the authority he had.

If we cannot trust the people of the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture, what makes some random guy ever more capable?

There was a time that Rome could not be trusted. Not so today, and honest dialogue continues.

If Scripture were meant to be the SOLE source of Christian understanding, then why is it not more clear.

Not the sole source, but the final norm. We must rely on the early councils and fathers, and at least for Lutherans, the Lutheran Confessions. Martin Chemnitz makes the point that we should not depend on our own interpretations, even of the clearest passages.

You figure once the Reformation came that there would have been no need for interpretation after Luther. Right?

Wrong. Because Christ calls us to be one. We, all Chrstians, need to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide our leaders to a common interpretation that brings us all together in truth.
We’re not there yet.

Jon

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It is for this reason that I try to ask more questions than I state opinions.

That’s a good trait to have

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First, tgette, I am thrilled to see your name here again. Blessings to you and yours.

The first question would be, “wrong about what?” If the CC is just wrong, totally and completely, then we all are wrong. The very basis of trinitarian Chrstianity comes from the pre-schism Church catholic. So, I’m thinking that maybe you mean on papal infallibility.

I would ask, on what authority does the CC make the claim, as no truly ecumenical council made said declaration? If the early church relied on the ecumenical councils to determine right faith, and there have been no truly ecumenical councils since then, how to we know that Rome, without the guidance of truly ecumenical councils, is right about infallibility or other issues? It could be said, therefore, that Rome relies on the human interpretation, no less so than Protestants.

They are not infallible, and not one should be elevated to that status. In fact, none of them are of the status of the Bishop of Rome, on whom the council of Nice gave authority over the west. Notice, it was a council (human tradition) that gave him the authority he had.

There was a time that Rome could not be trusted. Not so today, and honest dialogue continues.

Not the sole source, but the final norm. We must rely on the early councils and fathers, and at least for Lutherans, the Lutheran Confessions. Martin Chemnitz makes the point that we should not depend on our own interpretations, even of the clearest passages.

Wrong. Because Christ calls us to be one. We, all Chrstians, need to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide our leaders to a common interpretation that brings us all together in truth.
We’re not there yet.

Jon

Very, very well-stated and reasoned post, Jon. Papal infallibility is a tough issue to argue in light of the councils. The first centuries of Christianity were governed by ecumenical councils and headed for a long time by Roman emperors like Constantine or Theodosius, etc. The primacy of honor held by Rome can be quoted by fathers and the coryphaeus approach of the East to the papacy, but the infallibility that we see nowdays was not in stone until the 1800’s. Catholics believe the pope was always understood to be infallible and just never needed to declare it officially until the 19th century, protestants and Orthodox don’t believe he ever had it.

Catholics will pull out a bunch of quotes from guys like Irenaeus and other pro-papal saints who said things like “Rome has spoken” and extrapolate infallibility from that and protestants will yank out a bunch of quotes to the contrary or guys like Cyprian who had quotes that point to both points confusingly. Infallibility is paradoxically the unifier for Roman Catholics and those in communion with Rome and also the deal-breaking polarizer for Orthodox and some Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. who consider ‘coming home to Rome.’ It’s a tough issue and can be argued till we’re all blue in the face!:

 

[JonNC]

Very, very well-stated and reasoned post, Jon. Papal infallibility is a tough issue to argue in light of the councils. The first centuries of Christianity were governed by ecumenical councils and headed for a long time by Roman emperors like Constantine or Theodosius, etc. The primacy of honor held by Rome can be quoted by fathers and the coryphaeus approach of the East to the papacy, but the infallibility that we see nowdays was not in stone until the 1800’s. Catholics believe the pope was always understood to be infallible and just never needed to declare it officially until the 19th century, protestants and Orthodox don’t believe he ever had it.

Catholics will pull out a bunch of quotes from guys like Irenaeus and other pro-papal saints who said things like “Rome has spoken” and extrapolate infallibility from that and protestants will yank out a bunch of quotes to the contrary or guys like Cyprian who had quotes that point to both points confusingly. Infallibility is paradoxically the unifier for Roman Catholics and those in communion with Rome and also the deal-breaking polarizer for Orthodox and some Anglicans, Old Catholics, etc. who consider ‘coming home to Rome.’ It’s a tough issue and can be argued till we’re all blue in the face!:

Thanks, gurney.
As you know, and tgette and others know, I say these things not from malice, but from a true desire for unity.
If I. as a Lutheran whose synod is not in apostolic succession, want to be in a church that is,and I want to go where the truth is taught, with the authority of the Apostles. Where do I go? Rome? Orthodoxy? How do I know which is truth with authority? And just saying pick one doesn’t work, because one or the other (or both) is teaching error, and if I pick wrong, the other will tell me I’ve simply gone from one truth mixed with error to another.

So I ask; how do we know who is the infallible teacher?

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, gurney.
As you know, and tgette and others know, I say these things not from malice, but from a true desire for unity.
If I. as a Lutheran whose synod is not in apostolic succession, want to be in a church that is,and I want to go where the truth is taught, with the authority of the Apostles. Where do I go? Rome? Orthodoxy? How do I know which is truth with authority? And just saying pick one doesn’t work, because one or the other (or both) is teaching error, and if I pick wrong, the other will tell me I’ve simply gone from one truth mixed with error to another.

So I ask; how do we know who is the infallible teacher?

Jon

The short answer is we’ll never know. It’s all on faith and hope. Catholics and Orthodox both believe they got it right just like Anglicans do. In the end I believe God is merciful and knows your kind and sincere heart and your quest. He knows your quest is sincere and you’ve done what you think is best. If you don’t believe in infallibility and universal jurisdiction and those issues, you can’t full well become RC and I would suppose the better choice for your belief structure would be Orthodoxy. In my case, there is no Orthodox church around here, nearest is 2.5 hours or so away. Not realistic. And there are many parts of the country without an Orthodox presence. In the Central Valley here that’s the case. So looking for apostolic succession outside of the Roman Catholic model would be Anglicanism.

 

[JRKH]

The short answer is we’ll never know.

Well we can assume we will know when we satand for judgement. eh?

It’s all on faith and hope. Catholics and Orthodox both believe they got it right just like Anglicans do. In the end I believe God is merciful and knows your kind and sincere heart and your quest. He knows your quest is sincere and you’ve done what you think is best.

Undoubtedly this is true assuming that one truly does look for the truth both purely and honestly. God is indeed merciful.

If you don’t believe in infallibility and universal jurisdiction and those issues, you can’t full well become RC and I would suppose the better choice for your belief structure would be Orthodoxy.

This is true and I would add that, regardless of how one feels about the “infallibility” issue one can find the ancient Church in either Rome or in Orthodoxy. The other thing ro remember is that these two brother Churches are working to resolve those differences that divide us and hopefully one day will reunite. Perhaps the solutions that are arrived at willhelp our seperated brethren to come home.

In my case, there is no Orthodox church around here, nearest is 2.5 hours or so away. Not realistic. And there are many parts of the country without an Orthodox presence. In the Central Valley here that’s the case. So looking for apostolic succession outside of the Roman Catholic model would be Anglicanism.

And this is no longer valid if my understanding is correct. In the light of decisions taken by the Anglican Church I believe that the Holy See has declared their Bishops longer valid. I don’t know the right description but by going Anglican there is a chance of losing the Apostolic succession as well.

Peace
James

 

[Hesychios]

There is only one infallible teacher, and He spoke in parables much of the time.

My faith is interpreted by the Teaching Office of the church, the Holy Orthodox church. In other words the Orthodox bishops in communion with one another. What they cannot teach me is not necessary for my salvation. If I have any questions my spiritual director can help me out.

 

[geometer]

God left the Church to teach. Who in that Church is your infallible teacher?

You must pardon me for not understanding, I am not a confirmed member of a church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well we can assume we will know when we satand for judgement. eh?

Undoubtedly this is true assuming that one truly does look for the truth both purely and honestly. God is indeed merciful.

This is true and I would add that, regardless of how one feels about the “infallibility” issue one can find the ancient Church in either Rome or in Orthodoxy. The other thing ro remember is that these two brother Churches are working to resolve those differences that divide us and hopefully one day will reunite. Perhaps the solutions that are arrived at willhelp our seperated brethren to come home.

And this is no longer valid if my understanding is correct. In the light of decisions taken by the Anglican Church I believe that the Holy See has declared their Bishops longer valid. I don’t know the right description but by going Anglican there is a chance of losing the Apostolic succession as well.

Peace
James

Hi JRKH,

A few comments. Thanks for the reply to my post. God bless. First of all, you’re correct we will now on judgment day! I merely meant here on earth we can never prove who is right and we’ll go in circles. Obviously when we stand before Our Lord we’ll have the truth and there can be no debate. So, yes, of course.

As far as the Orthodox and RCC reconciliations, I am pessimistic about that. Orthodox are firmly opposed to papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and they have a much different perspective on church polity/ecclesiology than the RCC does. I can’t imagine the RCC throwing out the filioque and papal infallibility to appease the Orthodox and I can’t imagine the Orthodox accepting infallibility and the filioque in the reverse.

And with Anglican orders, that is a complex issue that GKC is much better-suited to address however if you ever read Saepius Officio, the response by the Anglican Church to Apostolicae Curae, it’s quite good and makes a compelling case for Anglican orders being legit. ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

And if one feels that Leo XIII was correct and they weren’t valid then, after co-consecrating on an ongoing basis with the Old Catholic churches of Utrecht, the “Dutch Touch” as it is often called, the Anglicans are very widely accepted as having valid orders through Dutch valid Catholic lines. The RCC has not sought to discuss the legitimacy of Anglican orders since the late 1800’s with Apostolicae Curae. So losing apostolic succession by going to an Anglican church is debatable I suppose depending on one’s point of view.

 

[JRKH]

Hi JRKH,

A few comments. Thanks for the reply to my post. God bless. First of all, you’re correct we will now on judgment day! I merely meant here on earth we can never prove who is right and we’ll go in circles. Obviously when we stand before Our Lord we’ll have the truth and there can be no debate. So, yes, of course.

Yes - I was being a bit tongue in cheek there.

As far as the Orthodox and RCC reconciliations, I am pessimistic about that. Orthodox are firmly opposed to papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and they have a much different perspective on church polity/ecclesiology than the RCC does. I can’t imagine the RCC throwing out the filioque and papal infallibility to appease the Orthodox and I can’t imagine the Orthodox accepting infallibility and the filioque in the reverse.

Of course you may be right, but I prefer to be optomistic. It many not happen in our lifetimes, but hey - The Church is 2K old so what’s a hundred years or so.
Besides, if we are lucky the Good Lord will return and sort it all out for us before then.

And with Anglican orders, that is a complex issue that GKC is much better-suited to address however if you ever read Saepius Officio, the response by the Anglican Church to Apostolicae Curae, it’s quite good and makes a compelling case for Anglican orders being legit. ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

And if one feels that Leo XIII was correct and they weren’t valid then, after co-consecrating on an ongoing basis with the Old Catholic churches of Utrecht, the “Dutch Touch” as it is often called, the Anglicans are very widely accepted as having valid orders through Dutch valid Catholic lines. The RCC has not sought to discuss the legitimacy of Anglican orders since the late 1800’s with Apostolicae Curae. So losing apostolic succession by going to an Anglican church is debatable I suppose depending on one’s point of view.

Well I will plead ingrnance the because I am not up on the issue. Also I may be confusing different things. (happens sometimes) But I thought that when issues came up about ordaining women in the anglican communion the Holy See had made a statement on this. But like I said, I am not up on these things so will refrain from further comment on it.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

This is true and I would add that, regardless of how one feels about the “infallibility” issue one can find the ancient Church in either Rome or in Orthodoxy. The other thing ro remember is that these two brother Churches are working to resolve those differences that divide us and hopefully one day will reunite.

Hello James, my friend,
Protestants are often confronted with the question,“how can the Holy Spirit, who only teaches one truth, be in so many different churches where different truths are taught?”
So, I pose the question to you, Rome and the Orthodoxy teach different truths - purgatory, Transubstantiation, IC and Assumption of the Bless Virgin Mary. How can it be said that the ancient Church can be found in both? Isn’t it true that one or the other must be wrong? Wrong is wrong, and therefore, one is as wrong as Lutheranism. Correct?
And if Apostolic succession is evidence of truth, what about Old Catholics, PNCC, or even the Scandinavian Lutherans who have AS?

Originally post by Hesychios:
There is only one infallible teacher, and He spoke in parables much of the time.

My faith is interpreted by the Teaching Office of the church, the Holy Orthodox church. In other words the Orthodox bishops in communion with one another. What they cannot teach me is not necessary for my salvation. If I have any questions my spiritual director can help me out.

What a outstanding answer this is!
Christ is my infallible teacher, and whatever His Church can’t teach me, isn’t important to salvation anyway.
For me, substitute “the Holy Orthodox church. In other words the Orthodox bishops in communion with one another” with the Lutheran Confessions, and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The following exchange on a different thread really illustrates my point:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=356190&page=2

Posted by Mickey

Originally Posted by Joseph L Varga
I hope that God has a plan to convert Russia to his true Catholic Church, and that this plan - a great miracle - will be achieved through the intercession of Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

Russia is already converted to the true catholic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church.

Originally Posted by Joseph L Varga
Maybe this will be the way that the Orthodox Churches will finally accept the fullness of truth

The Orthodox already hold the fullness of truth.

And you see folks–it is exchanges such as these that tell us there will be no unification any time soon.

However, with God, all things are possible.

---

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Hello James, my friend,
Protestants are often confronted with the question,“how can the Holy Spirit, who only teaches one truth, be in so many different churches where different truths are taught?”
So, I pose the question to you, Rome and the Orthodoxy teach different truths - purgatory, Transubstantiation, IC and Assumption of the Bless Virgin Mary. How can it be said that the ancient Church can be found in both? Isn’t it true that one or the other must be wrong? Wrong is wrong, and therefore, one is as wrong as Lutheranism. Correct?
And if Apostolic succession is evidence of truth, what about Old Catholics, PNCC, or even the Scandinavian Lutherans who have AS?

A valid qurestion though I’m not sure what AS is unless you mean “Apostolic Succession.”

I will answer you in this way. God’s Truth is a Truth that transcends understanding. God’s Truth is pure Love. That is what Christ taught us when He told us what the Greatest Commandments were. This is what Paul tells us when he says teh greatest of these is Love.
Now We as mere human creatures must try our best to unite ourselves with God through Love but this Love is so Great and all encompassing that it cannot be adequately decribed by human language.How often have you and I had discussions between us or with others where we discover that we believe virtually the same thing but with only slight differences in weight or focus, but with large differences in “Language”. After we work through all of the language stuff, we are standing right beside earch other on belief.
Add to the language/terminology issue the “history” issues (walls) and you have a lot of shovelling to do. (again you see how you and I don’t get hung up on the evils of the middle ages and try to stick to theology and doctrine)
I think that much of the differences between the Catholic Church in Rome and the Eastern Orthodox is in just this kind of arena. The theologans form East and West will need to spend much time in dialog and writing to a consinsus. Then the faithful in the pews will also need to be acclimatized to the coming reunification to overcome cultural and historical issues.

So - I don’t see the differences so much in differing beliefs as in differing ways of expression and teaching.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

A valid qurestion though I’m not sure what AS is unless you mean “Apostolic Succession.”

I will answer you in this way. God’s Truth is a Truth that transcends understanding. God’s Truth is pure Love. That is what Christ taught us when He told us what the Greatest Commandments were. This is what Paul tells us when he says teh greatest of these is Love.
Now We as mere human creatures must try our best to unite ourselves with God through Love but this Love is so Great and all encompassing that it cannot be adequately decribed by human language.How often have you and I had discussions between us or with others where we discover that we believe virtually the same thing but with only slight differences in weight or focus, but with large differences in “Language”. After we work through all of the language stuff, we are standing right beside earch other on belief.
Add to the language/terminology issue the “history” issues (walls) and you have a lot of shovelling to do. (again you see how you and I don’t get hung up on the evils of the middle ages and try to stick to theology and doctrine)
I think that much of the differences between the Catholic Church in Rome and the Eastern Orthodox is in just this kind of arena. The theologans form East and West will need to spend much time in dialog and writing to a consinsus. Then the faithful in the pews will also need to be acclimatized to the coming reunification to overcome cultural and historical issues.

So - I don’t see the differences so much in differing beliefs as in differing ways of expression and teaching.

Peace
James

James,
This is an excellent response. And gurneyhalleck1 touched on this when he said:
"In the end I believe God is merciful and knows your kind and sincere heart and your quest. He knows your quest is sincere and you’ve done what you think is best."
God knows our hearts, our faith, and our desire to serve Him. The designations we place on ourselves are ours, not His. The designation He places on us the cross - at Baptism.

Someday we will all be one. Pray sooner, but for sure later.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hello James, my friend,
Protestants are often confronted with the question,“how can the Holy Spirit, who only teaches one truth, be in so many different churches where different truths are taught?”
So, I pose the question to you, Rome and the Orthodoxy teach different truths - purgatory, Transubstantiation, IC and Assumption of the Bless Virgin Mary. How can it be said that the ancient Church can be found in both? Isn’t it true that one or the other must be wrong? Wrong is wrong, and therefore, one is as wrong as Lutheranism. Correct?
And if Apostolic succession is evidence of truth, what about Old Catholics, PNCC, or even the Scandinavian Lutherans who have AS?

Great questions, Jon. I suppose the Roman Catholic response would be that apostolic succession is not a guarantee of right teaching. The Old Catholic denominations and Episcopalians have apostolic succession (through the Dutch Touch of Utrecht) as well as those Lutherans you mentioned. But they are not in communion with Rome and their teachings are not in harmony with the papacy and the Catechism of the RCC. Therefore, they may have valid sacramental consecrations but their belief structure, their teaching authority, and their theology is flawed to deeply flawed because of not being in union with the Church. Apostolic succession is not a magic power or aura that gives a person the spiritual power to be didactic and convey the truth in right teaching. It pertains more to sacraments of grace. That’s my understanding at least. From a RCC point of view, the East and the Anglicans and all those folks may have succession but they are defective theologically and therefore infallibility is assured to be absent in those communions. The “truth” as you put it, is not dependent on A.S. but rather the Holy See which is the office of the Holy Spirit’s guidance, protection, and inspiration. I guess that would be my answer from the Roman point of view.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

James,
This is an excellent response. And gurneyhalleck1 touched on this when he said:
"In the end I believe God is merciful and knows your kind and sincere heart and your quest. He knows your quest is sincere and you’ve done what you think is best."
God knows our hearts, our faith, and our desire to serve Him. The designations we place on ourselves are ours, not His. The designation He places on us the cross - at Baptism.

Someday we will all be one. Pray sooner, but for sure later.

Jon

I sure hope it will be sooner. Conservative LCMS Lutherans, Orthodox, orthodox Anglicans, and Roman Catholics have SO MUCH IN COMMON morally and in many cases sacramentally. We need to all pray, much as we Catholics were encouraged to pray for the conversion of the USSR, we need to replace that prayer with a sincere hope for ecumenism. We all need open minds and charity but at the same time a firm, hard resolve to fight moral relativism, which I myself struggle with all the time.

In the meantime, I find great comfort in the Catechism’s emphasis on the fact that our Lutheran and protestant and Jewish brethren, etc. are our brothers and they do much good in the world. And like Father Corapi has said, “better to be a good protestant than a lousy Catholic.” Jon is a good example of an amazing protestant that is probably holier than I am! The catechism shows the kindness of Our Lord that He will save non-Catholics. As Catholics, we should all prefer our brothers be Catholic of course, but we cannot pretend to know their hearts, experiences, and feelings about the Church and why they are where they are. Finding the truth is not easy as some would like to paint it. I still struggle with Catholic teachings as a Catholic and have quite a mental tug of war with these things. We need to pray for one another and hope for charity and conversion to the truth. We need to be on a quest for the truth–wherever that truth leads us…

 

[Hebrew_Student]

Hey Everyone,

This argument doesn’t just destroy knowledge of truth in protestantism, it destroys knowledge altogether. As someone has already mentioned, a Catholic has to rely upon the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy, Syrian Orthodoxy, Mormonism, The Watchtower Society, or any other group that claims that authority is not the one who actually has that authority. Isn’t it a fallible decision as to which church has the ultimate authority?

Worse than that, even granting that the church has this authority, then you are back to having to interpret the infallible interpreter. A Catholic might say that he can ask for a clarification. However, how do you know that you have infallably interpreted the clarification [expecially since the clarifications are going to multiply with every difficult concept presented]?

In the final analysis, everyone has to trust that they have correctly intepreted their ultimate authority. Whether it is scripture, a magisterium, or something else, you have to start somewhere.

The whole problem is that the starting place is all wrong. God’s voluntary condecension is the starting place. As Protestants, we believe that God condescended to man, and wrote the scriptures in a manner that those taught and stable could understand. This is what Catholics believe about the church and its teaching, so, there is no problem either way.