Topic: An Infallible Hermeneutic
Question:
If a Catholic claims that his infallible hermeneutic is necessary for a valid and justified understanding of divine revelation, and this hermeneutic did not exist and was not used by the divinely ordained Jewish magisterium before the advent of Jesus, then he must explain what the normative hermeneutic was for the OT magisterium, and how they were justly called teachers and rulers, sitting in the seat of Moses. He must also give the hermeneutic which justifies Peter’s personal opinion about Christ, and his rebellion against the divinely established magisterium. This must also be done without presupposing that Jesus was the messiah, or using the NT’s interpretations of events, which uses, and therefore, assumes what must first be justified, Peter’s rebellious hermeneutic. Hence, the Catholic must justify and validate a hermeneutic that is contrary to his own, in order to justify a reliable knowledge of a coming messiah, and justify the rebellious apostolic acceptance of Jesus. And, he must then somehow show that such an opposing hermeneutic was never, or is no longer a justifiable means of divine knowledge.
Also, he must explain how such a position escapes the logical conclusion that the seat of Moses, and the apostolic rebellion, which used a fallible hermeneutic to expect and identify their messiah, was in all reality invalid and unreliable. Hence, the Catholic must face and defeat all his logical objections he poses against Sola Scriptura in order to validate the fallible hermeneutic of the OT magisterium established by God, and the rebellious apostles. He must then reuse those defeated, and shown to be invalid arguments, to show the necessity of his so called valid and necessary infallible hermeneutical system. Thus,the Catholic is left with an impossible task of justification, and his only hope for assurance and sanity lies in the principles of Sola Scriptura.
Answer:
The question is essentially the same as the first question that Eric Svendsen posed in his "18 Challenges", and the same question that White posed to Madrid in their 1993 debate. It's a little more dressed up, but it's the same question.
I've looked at this type of argument many times before. There are a few approaches a Catholic could take in refuting this argument IF one accepts the premise that is introduced at the beginning of the argument: "...and this hermeneutic (i.e. an infallible interpreter) did NOT exist was not used by the divinely ordained Jewish magisterium before the advent of Jesus..." It appears that, given the introduction of this premise, this Protestant has heard Catholic Apologists start from the basic premise that the OT magisterium was NOT infallible. He then goes on to focus his attack using this premise as his foundation. As I said above, there are a few approaches that a Catholic could take here, but I prefer not to do it. Why? Well, I challenge you to show me where the OT Magisterium erred in light of passages like Jesus' admonition in Matt. 23:2 and the Urim and Thummim in Exodus 28:30 and Numbers 27:21 where God guides the OT high priest. Can you please show me where the Sanhedrin taught an erroneous doctrine (not discipline)? You can even go to the accounts of Matthew 26:62-66 and Luke 22:66-71 where the Council condemned Jesus to death if you like. Show me where the Council said Jesus was not God. Then I want to know why Jesus answered the High Priest in the way that He did. In both gospel accounts, the High Priest asked Him if He was the Son of God. Why did Jesus say in both instances:
"YOU say that I am"
instead of
"Yes, I am."
Moreover, infallibility is a protection of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can lift that protection on whomever he chooses and did so in the Old Testament. It really doesn't matter how much a Protestant tries to undercut the infallibility of the Church anyways because everytime he does, he ends up cutting himself off at the knees. Everytime a Protestant want to butress his belief in sola scriptura by attacking the Catholic Church, he ends up foolishly undercutting the already insufficient Christian faith he claims to have.
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
February 5, 2000