INFALLIBLE CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS?

Catholic apologists say that since they are also using the Bible to defend their Church, then they are as "infallible" as anyone of the believers in Christ who give Scriptures as an example for the teachings of Christ.

God’s Word is infallible. Someone’s interpretation is not infallible. Jesus Himself defined God’s Word as the Truth needed for the completion of God’s work of sanctification (John 17:17). Later, in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 the scriptures are designated as that which completes God’s salvific work. You cannot add to perfection. The Word of God is infallible and sufficient.

It is at this point that Romanism fails her apologists. Dr. Ludwig Out, an accepted Catholic theological authority, has written in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that Catholic theology rests on three pillars - the Bible, Tradition and the day-to-day teaching of the pope and the bishops united with the pope (loosely defined as the magisterium).

A Bible or any other written document to which other things need to be added is not infallible, for a + sign indicates the deficiency of that which went before. Even if the apologist were to affirm that the Bible is infallible, he cannot maintain that the Bible + Tradition is infallible.

The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia gives two instances of Tradition. One is that Jesus was born on December 25 and the other is that a holy woman wiped with a towel the face of Jesus as He went to the cross. Imprinted on the towel was the true image of Christ (vera icon, Latin for true image). The holy woman came to be known as St. True Image (Veronica). Neither instance is true.

We use an infallible Bible, but none of us believes our interpretation is infallible. Plain passages that speak of salvation (e.g., John 3:16) and basic requirements of the Christian life (e.g., Matthew 6:33) need no interpretation. The fact that there will be differences of opinion among Bible-believers is indicated in Ephesians 4:3,14 where we are admonished to keep the unity of the Spirit with fellow believers even if we have not yet arrived at the unity of the faith. Theological discussions are used by God to challenge and strengthen the saint.

There are Bible verses that can be misinterpreted. Let us imagine that I have been called to pastor a church in Moab, Utah. After several months of ministry, I run across Jeremiah 48:28, O ye that dwell in Moab, leave the cities, and dwell in the rock, and be like the dove that maketh her nest in the sides of the hole's mouth.

I interpret “the rock” to be one of the two National Parks nearby, and organize a move, lets say, to Natural Arches Park. Since I used biblical authority to command you to leave the city of Moab, I feel justified. But this is not proper biblical interpretation. Yet Jeremiah 48:28 is still infallible.

Suppose the Catholic apologist is using a translation of the Bible that cites Philippians 2:12 as “Work for your salvation” instead of “Work out your salvation” (KJV). Only one of these can be infallible, so, in order to find the truth, I compare this with other scriptures. I read Ephesians 2:9,10 which tells me I am not saved by works, but that good works will follow my salvation. Likewise Titus 3:5,8. Also John 1:12,13. The Catholic concept of working for salvation is not accepted in the Bible.

Incorrect translations destroy infallibility. Jerome’s use of penitente agite in his Latin Vulgate which was translated “do penance” (Douay-Rheims) instead of “repent” (KJV) and has caused many to tread the path of sacramentalism in an effort to find a salvation that has already been offered without religious works.

Incorrect interpretations make a mockery of infallibility. Tradition negates scriptural infallibility, as does the ubiquitous magisterium. Champion of this dispersed diaconate is an “infallible” pope, whose last for-certain infallible teaching was over 50 years ago.

The scarcity of infallible papal statements was explained by Karl Keating, whose apologetic group, Catholic Answers, is supposed to be the largest and greatest (apologies to Vinnie Lewis, who believes Keating is backslidden or fearful or both).

Karl, in a debate with Bill Jackson, suggested we look at papal infallibility not as the ability to say correct things, but the Divinely given inability to say incorrect things.

Suppose, Karl said, you were the pope’s trigonometry teacher and the pope was infallible in trigonometry. If you gave him an exam of 100 trig questions, how many would the pope get right?

All of us thought the obvious - he would get them all right - but Karl quickly burst our bubble. The pope, Karl assured us, might get none of the questions right by simply leaving his paper blank. In doing so, he would not have made any mistakes.

(We have advised young students to do this in their next exam, but no one, as far as we know, has passed an exam by leaving his paper blank and then challenging the teacher to find a mistake.)

After decreeing papal infallibility in 1870, Pope Pius IX said nothing infallible. He “kept his paper blank.” Likewise did Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI.

Nevertheless, the above-named popes are remembered for various documents. Leo XIII is famous for his “Syllabus of Errors,” a condemnation of much tat goes on in the world. Pius X is noted for his siding with the Central Powers in WW I which caused him to be overlooked for participation in the peace making process.

Benedict XV is known for his proclaiming Our Lady of Loreto (Mary) as patroness of aviators because the house in which she raised Jesus was supernaturally flown first to Albania, then to Italy.

Pius XII broke the papal silence in 1950 by declaring the Assumption of Mary. We are still waiting for another universally-accepted infallible dogma, as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and (so far) Benedict XVI have said nothing infallible.

With the present problems of New Age infiltrations, Traditional rebellions, Third Secret of Fatima confusions, etc., you would think Benedict XVI would conjure up enough courage to steady the “barque of Peter” by filling in some blanks, or at least answer some multiple choice questions infallibly.

But the real reason for the failure of Catholic apologists to understand the very plain biblical truths is found in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

As religious as a Catholic apologist may be, all would concur with Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid’s admission in a debate in Colorado that they first became Christians when they received Holy Baptism as infants. The Bible succinctly denies their claim in John 1:12: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Their supposed rebirth by the will of man declares them to be still strangers from the covenants of grace, good men but still natural men whose understanding of scripture can only first embrace “Ye must be born again.” For this divine revelation we pray.