An Open Letter to Catholic Apologists: On the Fairness of Mutual Fallibility

Your open letter is a thoughtful approach to a long-standing theological discussion that spans centuries. By juxtaposing Protestant reliance on the recognized canon of Scripture with the Catholic tradition of “ex cathedra” statements, you have shed light on the shared challenges of both faith traditions: trying to discern divine truths among layers of tradition, interpretation, and historical acknowledgement.
The Protestant journey, anchored in scripture and underpinned by tradition formed over centuries, mirrors the Catholics path that places trust in the Magisterium’s edits. Though separate in their paths, both trajectories ultimately seek the same goal: the quest for divine understanding, consistently perceived and frequently constrained by human perspective. For those desiring to delve even deeper into this subject, it would be particularly beneficial to explore his works on Bibliology & Hermeneutics course #2 of the Theology Program.. It offers a comprehensive exploration that will enrich one’s understanding.

Now, turning to Bibliophile’s response:
While your intent to clarify the distinction between infallibility and subjective interpretation is acknowledged, it seems you’ve honed in on just one facet of Michael’s comprehensive exploration. In doing so, there’s a risk of sidelining the broader philosophical and theological contours that Michael is navigating. It is essential in such profound discussion to consider the entire spectrum of thought presented rather than anchoring to a singular contention. Michael’s exploration goes beyond mere doctrinal specifics: it’s about the universal human journey of faith, an understanding of which demand more than a tunnel-vision approach to the matter. I urge you to engage with the breadth of the narrative he presents, and perhaps consider immersing in his works on Bibliology & Hermeneutics to appreciate the depth and layers of his perspectives.

Eric Quek. It isn’t “just one facet” of (what you call) “Michael’s comprehensive exploration”: the fact of the matter is that the entire blog misses the point because he doesn’t understand how infallibility works – hence, he compares infallibility with subjective interpretations, which is a completely wrongheaded approach.

And apparently you have the same misconception about infallibility, when you imply that ex cathedra definitions are “trying to discern divine truths among layers of tradition, interpretation, and historical acknowledgement.” Maybe that is what Protestants are trying to do. It certainly is not what Catholics mean by infallibility.

I’ll ask a question at this juncture: why do you insist on making the argument about a fallible list of infallible books a matter of subjective certitude, rather than objective authority? The point of the argument is not to show that Catholics have more subjective certitude about the canon once it has been defined; but to demonstrate that protestants have no legitimate, objective certifying authority to define the canon in the first place. And that’s a very big problem for protestants.

To reiterate: emphasis on authority, not certitude.

“When they could not agree, I said, where is the infallible list – the infallible canon? They said there is not one. We don’t need it.”

Yes, and they would be correct to say so. Why would we need a formal definition of how many formal definitions have been formally defined?

“I said that would be like me saying we don’t need an infallible canon of the Scriptures, even though some Protestants disagree about which ones belong in the Bible. Most agree on the 27, but there are a few here and there, who don’t.”

You’re misconceiving the issue. It isn’t just that you need an infallible canon; what you need – and this is more to the point – is an *infallible authority* to provide one in the first place. So it doesn’t matter whether everyone is agreed; what matters is that you have no authority to decide at all.

Please explain: why do you think it is so important for there to be an infallible list of ex cathedra statements? What would it achieve, as far as infallible authority is concerned? And to preempt your response about you not needing an infallible list of books – again, the issue is not certitude, but authority: the point is not merely whether you need the list, but that even if you did realise you need it, you would have no authority to define it in the first place.

Okay. And so why do you not accept the same answer when Catholics say they don’t need it?

No, please, go ahead, humour me: why would you not accept the same answer from a Catholic?

MAKING SENSE by critiquing the dialogue and dynamics between Michael & Bibliophile.
Michael initiated with an “Open letter” , with the intent to bridge the theological and interpretational gaps that exist between Protestant and Catholic understandings. Michael’s approach is one of inquiry and an attempt to foster unity through understanding. He addresses the distinctions and nuances, ensuring that his message is rooted in seeking clarity.
However, the responses from Bibliophile, rather than contributing to this constructive endeavor, seem to divert from Michael’s primary intent. There are several areas of concern in Bibliophiles approach:
1. Dismissiveness: At several junctures, Bibliophile, appears dismissive of Michael’s points. Phrases such as “the entire blog misses the point” and “you don’t understand how infallibility works” serve less constructive criticism and more as rebuff.
2.Superior Tone: There’s an undercurrent of superiority in Bibliophile’s responses. When pointing out differences, there’s an implicit suggestion that Michael’s understanding is not only different but inferior. This is evident in statements like “This makes it clear that you don’t understand what infallibility involves.”
3.Confrontational approach: Instead of taking Michael’s open letter as a starting point for a meaningful dialogue, Bibliophile frequently opts for a more confrontational route. Queries like “Are you trying to imply…?” seem more accusatory than genuinely inquisitive.
4. Narrow focus: While Michael’s letter addresses a broader spectrum of issues, trying to find common ground and mutual understanding, Bibliophile appears fixated on specifics, particularly the nuances of infallibility and ex cathedra, to the detriment of the larger conversation. This “missing the forest for the trees” approach restricts the dialogue’s potential depth.
5. Lack of reciprocity: Michael, in his responses, demonstrates a willingness to understand and clarify. He frequently acknowledges Bibliophile’s concerns and attempts to explain his stance further. However, Bibliophile rarely returns this gesture, sticking rigidly to his perspective without much room for compromise or mutual understanding.
Dynamics between Michael and Bibliophile:
A. Contextual understanding: One of the critical things Bibliophile seems to overlook is the context of Michael’s open letter. Michael isn’t just addressing Bibliophile or Catholics in isolation; he is reaching out to a broader audience that might have the same questions or misconceptions. His letter, therefore, is layered with broader strokes of understanding, rather than pin-pointed theological nuances. Bibliophile’s insistence on one aspect (infallibility) neglects this broader context.
B. The Art of Asking: There’s a profound difference difference between asking to understand and asking to contradict. Michael’s questions and clarification are rooted in the former–a genuine quest for understanding. On the other hand, Bibliophile’s questions often come across as rhetorical or leading, steering the conversation towards a pre-determined conclusion rather than opening it up for exploration.
3. Flexibility vs. Rigidity: Dialogue becomes meaningful when there’s flexibility in thought processes. Michael showcases this by constantly iterating, rephrasing, and trying t find a mutual ground. This flexibility is a sign of intellectual openness. Bibliophile’s approach, in contrast, appears rigid. Rather than expanding on Michael’s points or offering insights, he often shuts them down.
4. Emotional quotient: A crucial and often overlooked, aspect of dialogues is the emotional undercurrent. Michael’s tone is consistently one of humility and curiosity. He is transparent about his perspective while also being receptive to Bibliophile’s. In contrast, Bibliophile’s responses carry an undertone of impatience and frustration.
5. Depth vs. Defense: Michael’s open letter and subsequent responses aim at depth–exploring layers of understanding, seeking nuances, and trying to find intersections of agreement. Bibliophile’s responses, on the other hand, seem more defensive, aiming to protect a particular stance rather than delve into its intricacies. While defense has its place, especially in theological discussion, it should come t the cost of depth.
Conclusion:
True Maturity in any discourse, especially theological, is not just the depth of one’s knowledge but also the breadth of one’s willingness to listen, understand and grow. Productive dialogue thrives on mutual respect and ability to navigate disagreements with grace. It’s not merely about asserting one’s perspective but about understanding another’s .
In this dialogue, while Michael exhibits a balance of knowledge and humility, Bibliophile, despite having valid points, might benefit from taking a step ack, embracing a more open-minded approach, and perhaps considering the broader implications and opportunities that such a conversations offer. The ESSENCE is NOT just defending a position but also in fostering understanding and unity.

So, Michael, essentially all you are saying is that since Catholics don’t need to have an “infallible list of ex cathedra definitions”, then you as a protestant don’t need to have a fallible list of infallible books?

Not only is that a pointlessly unconvincing and evasive argument – like saying, “I don’t need apples because I have oranges” – but it leaves unresolved the problem of the protestant lack of authority in the matter of defining a canon.

Sorry, typo above: all you are saying is that since Catholics don’t need to have an “infallible list of ex cathedra definitions”, then you as a protestant don’t need to have an infallible list of infallible books?

Erik Quek. Since Michael seems to have bowed out for now, perhaps you can try and explain the rationale behind this line of argument.
In what way is the protestant problem of (lacking any legitimate infallible) canon and defining authority resolved, by fabricating the contrived notion of an “infallible list of ex cathedra statements”? It isn’t difficult to imagine such a response coming from a juvenile adolescent: “Well, you don’t have this list that I just randomly made up either! So there!” A response – more accurately, a desperate evasion – like that hardly warrants any serious consideration at all.
So, please explain in what way this evasive non-answer is supposed to put Catholics and protestants on an equal plane?

Thank you for extending the invitation to engage in this theological discourse.
Having keenly observed the exchange between you and Michael, I was compelled to reflect on the dynamics of the conversation. From my perspective, Michael’s approach appeared rooted in an earnest attempt to bridge theological gaps and promote unity. His emphasis on genuine inquiry and mutual understanding is commendable.
However, based on my prior observations in the “Making sense by critiquing the dialogue and dynamics between Michael & Bibliophile”. I noted certain elements in the dialogue that seemed more defensive than exploratory. While it’s crucial to stand by one’s convictions, the essence of dialogue is also to be receptive, ensuring an environment where both parties can openly share without feeling pre-judged.
Ephesians 4:2 encourages us to approach discussions with “humility, gentleness, and patience,” bearing with one another in love. Given the current tone of our potential dialogue, I’m concerned that our exchange might not align with this guiding principle. For a dialogue to be fruitful, both parties should feel that their perspectives are being heard and considered without prejudgment.
With this in mind, I believe it might be best to refrain from engaging further on this topic at this time. I hope that in the future, we can find common ground and approach such discussions with mutual respect and understanding

Well, Erik, to be frank, all pretentious rambling about humility aside, I think the real reason you won’t engage is because the simple fact of the matter is that you do not have any response.
And so it remains true, that while Catholics do not have an “infallible list of ex cathedra statements” – because they do not need one! So it is a silly demand to ask for such a list anyway – that does not at all affect the Catholic claim to authority; but the protestant admission that they do not have an infallible list of infallible books does very much undermine protestant claims to authority. So, in that respect, this blog post was an exercise in futility and a sheer waste of time.