Roman Catholicism does err
It is not enough for the Roman Catholic Church to claim to be correct or right. You can be right without being infallible. No it has to claim to be infallible and incapable of error under certain circumstances. That is definitely pure arrogance and a sign of lack of confidence in the strength of its teaching. So it has to use magic and prestige and create an aura of supernatural mystery around its power to teach in order to impress its doctrine on the world.
REASON AND INFALLIBILITY
The Church of Rome claims to be infallible. This doctrine is the Achilles’ heel
of Catholicism. Pulverise it and the whole unbiblical system crashes down except
the Bible. Prove one infallible doctrine to be wrong and you prove that the
Church is not infallible. All the doctrines of Rome that are shown false in this
book are held by that Church to be infallible for she used her infallibility to
teach and sanction them.
The Church has used its infallibility mostly with ecumenical councils.
The thought is that whatever the bishops decide is infallible and irrevocable
for God makes sure the council will have the right views if it wants to.
For such a core doctrine it is surprising that the early councils of the Church,
the most important ones of all, had the Eastern Church make the decisions which
the Western Church merely accepted. The latter did not seem to care much
what they decided and played a very minor part. History then marks out the
Eastern Church to be considered as the true Church. Its head functioned
more as pope at the time than the bishop of Rome did.
Rome teaches that all that God has revealed is in the Bible and in tradition.
Both are the word of God.
Rome maintains that reason shows that an infallible teaching Church is necessary
for much of scripture and tradition is unclear and needs this Church to clarify
it. But if they do that does not mean that she is infallible. A devious answer
is that if an infallible interpreter were required then Rome was it for it is
the only claimant in the early days of the Church. But there were scores of
sects that made similar claims and there is no evidence from the first or second
centuries that the Church of Rome could not err.
St Irenaeus said that the Church of Rome was to be listened to because of its
learning and apostolic origin which has nothing to do with it being infallible.
He wanted the heretics to listen to that Church and would have told them it was
infallible if he had heard of that idea. Some very mystical Christians followed
the interpretations of their leaders who they viewed as prophets because they
found some of the scriptures to be too vague. Also God might have made them
vague for some purpose intending to send a prophet centuries later to do the
interpreting.
When the Church becomes the only authorised interpreter of the Bible and makes
infallible decisions on how to interpret then the Church becomes the real
authority and the Bible has none. Since the Church says infallibility does not
work unless she does her homework carefully so that it can guide her to the
right conclusion it follows that the reasons for her interpretation must be
infallible as well. It is plain to be seen that if the Church can get the right
and most probable conclusion from studying the matter there is no need for
infallibility at all. People will good brains would be able to see what the
logical answer is. Infallibility is just a trick for forcing people to let the
Church tell them what is what. It is certainly one of the most outlandish claims
made by the Church and it’s disarming too which is why it looks saner than it
is. This infallibility is not a great thing and is a failure for it cannot
sanction the authority it pretends to sanction when there is no agreement among
theologians as to what dogmas are infallible (page 27, Biblical Exegesis and
Church Doctrine).
Christ denied the need for anybody to infallibly interpret his teaching: Jesus
said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide
these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones."
(Matthew 11:25).
The Catholic Church argues that since it is the true religion Christ would not
let it err in thinking it is infallible when it is not for then it would cease
to be the true Church. So it is thought that if the Church of Rome is the Church
of Christ then it is infallible for it says so. If the Church can know by some
grace that it is right when it says that God has revealed a dogma and therefore
the dogma is true then what is to stop anybody from thinking they have got the
gift of infallibility and forming a new sect? The Church forbidding people to do
that shows that it is not Catholic for Catholic means the Church cannot unjustly
exclude anybody. This is disturbing sectarianism.
The Church can be fallible if millions of Catholics can make piles of errors in
religion and remain Catholics. They cannot but then it is possible for the true
church to exist and not be infallible in its official doctrine. The Catholic
Church even claims that those Christians who are very far from her are true
Catholics and just don’t know it!
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Part 1, reminds us that the Church has two
kinds of teaching, ordinary and solemn. Ordinary has not been infallibly defined
but solemn has but ordinary is more important than solemn in the sense that it
comprises the general and constant and unchanging teaching of the Church (page
177-178). Ordinary teaching is considered infallible without a formal definition
if it is the constant teaching of the Church.
Theologians disagree a lot about what teachings are really inerrant doctrines.
What use is infallibility when nobody can be sure when it was used? When such
uncertainty is permitted by God to exist he would just let a group of bishops or
a pope pretend to use the charism of infallibility in order to deceive the
Church. The Church also is unable to work out when the bishops speaking as one
without an ecumenical council are infallible (page 17, Infallibility in the
Church). If they had any infallibility at all they would not be so confused.
Rome does not know everything and when Jesus let this happen it shows that he
does not need an infallible Church.
Rome says miracles like Lourdes prove she is infallible for they show that God
approves of the Catholic Church. But the Church teaches false doctrines such as
that you can do good works while having unrepented sin though you are telling
God, “I do this good with the sin”, which makes an insult of it. It is like
offering a nice dinner to somebody with a dead mouse on it.
There is no evidence that Catholicism is protected against making theological
mistakes therefore it is evil to assert that she is for that is saying that you
should submit to her even though it is all guesswork. That is irrational and
bigoted and unnecessary.
To believe in the gospel because the Church says it is true is to believe in the
Church and not in God even if it is the gospel of God for we don’t know that
when we depend on the Church. We must believe in God and what he has said
instead. It is idolatry not to. We see that Roman Catholicism does not do this
and believes in the Church instead of God.
If the Church of Rome and the pope really believed in infallibility the Church
would be a democracy for then the Church would still be incapable of error. They
would give the people the chance to run the Church under certain good
restrictions when the people want it so much. They could delegate infallibility
to the ordinary people of the Church so that what most genuine Catholics think
can be taken as what God teaches. Vatican I, the 1869-1870 Ecumenical Council,
was questioned by some theologians because it got its decrees past by
manipulating the proceedings so that a simple majority to vote doctrines into
irrevocable dogma was achieved (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). Never
did the Church get together to infallibly proclaim that this is the list of
infallible councils and the list is infallibly correct. What it could do is
infallibly declare that the decrees of these councils were infallible and that
way there could be no doubt.
The Church holds that ecumenical councils are infallible. There is no list of
such councils that is binding on a Catholic (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND
HIS WAY). The accepted numbering of the councils and the accepted list is
questioned by some Catholic theologians. What good is infallibility then if the
Catholic can reject some councils as defective or infallible?
Even conservative Catholic theologians hold that the Church being kept by God in
enough truth to save souls is more important than holding that the statements
given by ecumenical councils or the Church using its infallibility are
infallible (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The radical Catholic
theologian, Hans Kung wrote that when he tried to get the Church through its
theologians to prove to him that it is possible for the Holy Spirit simply to
protect some essential statements from error it never responded (page 97, HANS
KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). His conclusion was that no theologian was able to
do it or could do it.