JUST FOR my fellow CATHOLICS-The Canon and Infallibility

Just for Catholics is a website where Dr. Mizzi seeks to convince Catholics to leave the Catholic Church.  I am reviewing his teachings and comparing them to the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.  We are currently on this article.  His words in blue.

The Canon and Infallibility

Question: How do you know that the books of Scripture are inspired? Only by the authority of the Catholic Church can we know with certainty which books belong to the Bible. All Christians must therefore submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

This is true.  It is the Catholic Church which canonized the Bible and therefore from her authority everyone knows which are the books of the Bible:

"I would not believe theGospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto" (St. Augustine).

Answer: There are several reasons why I believe that the Bible is inspired. First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Roman Catholic Church in my childhood, 

Very good!

and by the writings of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high esteem of the Bible. For this testimony I thank God. As I read the Bible for myself, I was greatly impressed by its doctrines. I was guided by its wisdom, smitten in my conscience and humbled before God. Believing its message I received eternal life, found peace with God, and joy unspeakable. I have experiential knowledge that the Bible is the Word of God; I drank the Water of Life, and it satisfied my thirsty soul.

That is wonderful, but lets not forget that the Church first taught you about the Bible and without the Catholic Church, we wouldn't have the Bible.

Ultimately, I came to the full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God by the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart; for I, blinded by sin, could not perceive the light of the glory of Christ revealed in Scripture. He opened my eyes that I might see the beauty of His Word. Being one of His sheep, I hear the voice of my Shepherd. Or, if you like, being a child of the Father, I recognize my Father's voice.

If you had been listening to the Catholic Church, you would have known that from a child.

And why, may I ask, do you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired?

Because the Catholic Church told me so.  I don't, for instance, believe that the Quran is inspired. The Catholic Church does not teach Islam.  Nor do I believe that the book of Mormon is inspired. The Catholic Church does not teach Mormonism.

Question I am greatly touched by your story yet it does not seem to satisfy. You wrote that 'as I read the Bible... I was greatly impressed by its doctrines. I was guided by its wisdom, smitten in my conscience and humbled before God. Believing its message I received eternal life, found peace with God, and joy unspeakable.' To this I will only add that a convert to the Islamic faith or the Mormon faith could say exactly the same thing about their 'inspired books', the Koran and the Book of Mormon. So, your subjective 'evidence' simply does not hold up as a firm assurance of the Bible's inspiration.

To your question, 'Why do I believe that the books of the Bible are inspired', I say that it is not only because of all the reasons you mentioned, but also through the constant witness of the Church over 2000 years. I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, infallibly recognized the canon. It is the same Church that, guided by the same Spirit, infallibly interprets it. That is why all should submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

My sentiments exactly.

Answer Your purpose is to convince me about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that consequently I should submit to Rome’s authority.

No, actually, I'm here responding to your attacks against the Catholic Church.  With all due respect, I am here simply to clarify your errors for my Catholic brethren who might read them and be confused.

To do so, you ask me how I know that the books of the Bible are inspired. You are not satisfied with my reasons, not least because the evidence is subjective. In other words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.

Yes.  That is true.  

1.  The Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture 1700 years ago.  

2.  500 years ago, the Protestants took out seven books but kept 66 of the books canonized by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the books you recognize as canonical were all selected by the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is curious that I gave personal reasons for my convictions, just as you have requested, but you immediately turned back to me protesting: 'That's all subjective!' Well, of course it is. That’s exactly what you have asked me for!

Stop the drama.  You asked yourself a question, posing as a Catholic.  And you gave a Catholic response, posing as a Catholic.  And now you are pretending to be offended at yourself because you supposedly asked yourself a subjective question.

Actually, you asked yourself a question which could be answered subjectively and objectively.  Apparently, below, you will begin to answer the question objectively.

I am not attempting to prove the Bible’s inspiration on the grounds of my subjective beliefs. The Bible is what it is apart from my convictions. Objective truth is independent of our beliefs. If the world denies that the Bible is true, so be it. The Bible is still the Word of God. Let God be true, and every man a liar. The sun still shines even if all the people of the world were blind.

Which has nothing to do with the question at hand, since you have admitted that you learned about the Bible from the Catholic Church.

It is true, of course, that Muslims and Mormons can say similar things about their books. That does not necessarily prove what is claimed; it just shows that people can be mistaken and deceived. This fearful reality greatly humbles my intellectual pride because I realize that it was not by my searching and understanding that I came to know God and His Word. The lost sheep did not find the Shepherd; it was the Good Shepherd who sought after and found the lost sinner. I can never thank God enough for opening my eyes to see and believe His Word.

Apparently he has abandoned answering his own question.  But the answer is found in his writing.  The Catholic Church taught him.  And whether he admits it or not, it is the Catholic Church which identified the books of the New Testament and canonized the Bible.  If not for the Catholic Church, we wouldn't have the Bible today.

Furthermore, you argue that the only sure foundation for our knowledge is the witness of an infallible Church. In other words, you reason this way:

1. The Church is infallible.
2. The Church states that the Bible is inspired.
3. Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired.

You probably don't realize that your argument about subjectivity can be applied with equal force to your position. 

Nope.  I don't believe that is true.

When I ask you why you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired, you appeal to the constant witness of the church over 2000 years. 

Correct.  I appeal to the constant witness of the Church over 2000 years.  You appeal to your feelings.

Lets compare.  The constant witness of the Church for over 2000 years totals to the opinions of hundreds of thousands if not millions and billions of people.  Compared to your personal feelings.

I'd say the Catholic testimony is much more objective than yours.

Well and good. You can add that piece of valid evidence to the reasons in my list, for I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible). 

Great!  But you didn't at first admit this.  As you dramatically pointed out, you were basing yourself upon your subjective feelings.

As a matter of fact, I also mentioned this reason in my answer. I wrote: 'First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Roman Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writing of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high and reverent esteem of the Bible.'

Yes, I've been making a point of reminding the reader of what you first said.  It pretty much demolishes the rest of your arguments.  

Your conviction that the Bible is inspired rests on your presupposition that the church is infallible.Can't you see that this is also subjective? How do you know for sure that the church is infallible? 

Because my Mama told me.  Because the Bible tells me.  Because Tradition tells me.  And yes, because the Church tells me.

From a purely logical point of view, we cannot avoid an element of subjectivity.

True.  Nothing is completely objective.

You got yourself entangled in your own thesis. 

It's the other way around.  Here, let me explain.  You're attempting to prove that you don't need the Church to determine the inspired canon of the Bible.  Ok.

1.  You started by telling us that the Church taught you about the Bible.

2.  You inserted many subjective reasons and then dramatically objected to your own objections to those subjective feelings.

3.  Then you again told us that the Church taught you about the Bible. Emphasizing that you had said so from the beginning.

4.  Now you're trying to say that Catholics are as subjective as you.  But that isn't the case because we believe the inspiration of the Bible based upon much more than our subjective feelings.  

a.  The Church tells us.

b.  The Bible tells us.

c.  The teachings of the Church throughout history tell us.

d.  The many Christian traditions, such as yours, tell us also.

Remember your original aim, namely to convince me that the church is infallible? 

That is your aim.  You are the pretend Catholic asking the questions.  Remember, Catholics normally don't go out and tell people what to believe.  We believe in faith AND WORKS.  We evangelize always, we use words only when necessary (St. Francis Assissi).

Now look where you place that proposition. You place it in as the first premise rather than at the conclusion of the argument. You did not prove that the church is infallible; you’re simply assuming that it is.

Well, ok.  If that's what you want me to prove.  Please see this article.

To complicate matters, you use the Bible to justify your presupposition on the infallibility of the church. Take a second look at your argument:

'I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.'

You start with a truth taken from the Bible, namely that Jesus established the church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. And again, you take another truth from the Bible, namely that the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth. But in all this you’re assuming that the Bible is inspired (otherwise you cannot be sure that what it teaches about the church is certainly true); and finally you come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired. That’s a classic example of circular argumentation. You are begging the question by tacitly assuming the truth of the conclusion ('the Bible is inspired') in the first premise ('the church is infallible because the inspired Bible so teaches').

You're shooting yourself in the foot.  Because you just admitted the same thing above.  So, if this methodology is wrong.  So is yours.

However this is not my methodology.  Here, let me show you where it is wrong.  I'll print your words and substitute mine in black wherever you are wrong.

Take a second look at my argument:

'I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.'

I start with a truth taken from the Teaching of the Church, namely that Jesus established the church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. And again, I confirm that truth in the Bible, namely that the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth. But in all this I'm accepting the Catholic Teaching that the Bible is inspired (otherwise one cannot be sure that what it teaches about the church is certainly true). 

So, my argument is not circular.  It is reliant upon three sources.  Church, Tradition and Scripture.

That’s a classic example of circular argumentation. You are begging the question by tacitly assuming the truth of the conclusion ('the Bible is inspired') in the first premise ('the church is infallible because the inspired Bible so teaches').

No, actually, it is your argument which is circular.

Lets compare.

I believe the Bible is inspired because the Church tells me, Tradition tells me, Scripture itself tells me, other Churches tell me, my parents tell me and many others as well.  I'm also convinced because I have set the doctrines of the Church to a test and they are found in Scripture.  Since Catholic doctrine is infallible, then the Bible which contains those infallible doctrines is also infallible.

You believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible tells you so.

Why don't you argue as follows instead, since your real intention is to prove the infallibility of the church?

1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
2. The Bible teaches that the church is infallible. [1]
3. Therefore the church is infallible.

Well, yeah, I do.  But you are arguing with yourself here aren't you.  Or who is the pretend Catholic asking the questions?

However, my syllogism goes further.

4.  The Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

5.  The Leaders of the Catholic Church were inspired by God to write Scripture.

6.  Therefore the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.

7.  History tells me the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ.

8.  Jesus Christ selected the Leaders of the Catholic Church.

9.  Jesus Christ sent the Leaders of the Catholic Church out as the Father sent Him.

10.  Therefore the Leaders of the Catholic Church are infallible.

11.  Jesus Christ established Traditions.

12.  Jesus Christ was infallble.

13.  Therefore the Traditions of Jesus Christ are infallible.

14.  Jesus Christ deposited His infallible Traditions in the infallible Catholic Church.

15.  Jesus Christ commanded that the Church continue to teach His Traditions.

16.  Therefore the Catholic Church continues to teach the infallible Traditions of Jesus Christ.

There are many, many, logical syllogisms to prove why the Church is infallible, the Traditions are infallible and the Scriptures are infallible.

You don't have the courage to present your argument in this way. 

Dr. Mizzi!  Wake up!  You're arguing with yourself!

If you do, you must first of all assert your belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Catholic Church! 

I can't do that.  It is because the Church is infallible and inspired of God that the Bible is without error.

Here is the common confusion of the Protestants.  When we say, "the Bible is inspired of God."  That doesn't mean that God drew a breath and out popped the Bible.

No.  Scripture tells you what it means:

2 Peter 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

 ²¹For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  In other words, the Holy Spirit INSPIRED men, first to preach and then to write the Scriptures.  Therefore, the Scriptures could not be inspired apart from the Church.  The Scriptures are a result of the Teaching of an inspired Church!

Of course, as a Roman Catholic, you cannot do that.

The convoluted argument for the infallibility and authority of the Roman Catholic Church, popularized by modern Catholic apologists, is both invalid and insincere.

I'll let the readers decide between you and I, whose arguments are convoluted, invalid and insincere.

---

Notes

[1] Contrary to the Catholic assertion that the church is infallible, the Bible teaches that the church is subject to many moral and theological errors. It is enough to recall the experience of the Galatian and Corinthian churches. The apostle Paul writes to correct their various doctrinal and practical mistakes. [back]

The answer is right there in his own note.  St. Paul represented the infallible Magisterium of the Church.  Even today, the Magisterium corrects the local churches.

Sincerely,

De Maria