The Amazing Mr. X Riddles Us More on Papal Infallibility

I am worried about TurretinFan—the amazing and undaunted Mr. X of Calvinism. Normally, he is one of the abler critics of the Catholic Church; apart from Dr.* James White (Th.D., D.Min., etc., etc.), the man himself, Mr. X is probably the most capable member of Team Apologian, and Dr.* White was correct to praise “the consistency of his work.” His earlier critiques (here and here) of two of my articles on sola scriptura (here and here), though wrongheaded, were at least cogent. They at least made arguments that were serious and scholarly and worth addressing. But I am afraid some inconsistency has crept in to the works, starting with this article of his on Pope John XX (which I addressed here), and now just yesterday with this very strange addition to his latest examination of papal succession and infallibility. I frankly know not what to make of it. Is Mr. X merely tired? Off his game? Have seasonal allergies been dulling his normal sharpness? Is he getting desperate for more arguments against the Catholic Church? I can’t figure it out.

Let me take you, dear reader, through the blog article so you can see what I mean. It’s titled “One Bad Argument Against Roman Catholicism (With a Good Side Point).” Mr. X starts by excavating this 2009 article from the Baltimore Sun to the effect that Benedict XVI may have been a Nazi (as a member of the Hitler Youth). This is evidence, for Mr. X, of a false anti-Catholic claim.

i.
the mystifying mr. x

n this point, we agree. The confusing part is why Mr. X would bother at all. No one would accuse the scribblers at the Baltimore Sun of being serious apologists, and no serious apologist says, “Well, you know, Benedict XVI was a Nazi, and so the Catholic Church is just rotten to the core.” Some kooks who claim to be Christian (like this one) do, but no one confuses them with serious apologists either. Indeed, their reasons for being anti-Catholic are not apologetic ones: The Baltimore Sun is secular in its orientation, and King James Onlyist Dr. Scott Johnson of Contending for Lies (he calls it Truth) is simply crazed.

So why Mr. X feels this to be necessary is a point on which I must confess confusion.

ii.
MR. X ARMS HIMSELF AGAINST PASTOR AETERNUS WITH A DISCLAIMER AND A CLICHE

hen, after three paragraphs devoted to knocking down an anti-Catholic claim that no serious person makes, Mr. X comes to what he believes is a better argument; it has to do with the fact that at one time Fr. Federico Lombardi felt the need to outright deny Benedict XVI’s conscripted involvement in the Hitler Youth. Saith Mr. X:

Sometimes those in Catholicism are so anxious to defend “the Church” that they do not bother to deal truthfully and honestly. … That issue is one that is much more germane to the distinctions between Rome and Geneva.

The reason that this “distinction” is “more germane,” according to Mr. X, seems to be that “Geneva” puts its trust in a Bible that never lies, whereas “Rome” puts its trust in the statements of men, who sometimes do.

I can hardly believe that this is a statement Mr. X would make. He has studied Church teaching on such matters as papal infallibility and the authority of the Magisterium for a long time; he has debated these subjects with able Catholic apologists like William Albrecht. (You can find the papal infallibility debate with Mr. Albrecht on Mr. X’s YouTube channel here.) Surely Mr. X understands this topic deeply, but what he says about it in his latest blog article does not rise higher than the level of an ignorant parody of what Catholics believe—the kind of parody you might hear from someone who has picked up only a few scattered tidbits from anti-Catholic sermons by folks like John MacArthur.

That men lie—even Catholics in high positions of Church authority—is not a point any Catholic would dispute. Neither would any Catholic dispute that people like Fr. Lombardi may be either misinformed or an incompetent spokesman, which Mr. X concedes might have been the case with his outright denial of an aspect of the pope’s childhood. Be that as it may, Mr. X adds a disclaimer to the bottom of his post, but this disclaimer does not contain a single sentence that any Catholic would dispute either. Here is the entire disclaimer:

Rome’s teaching on infallibility does not state that papal spokesmen are infallible. In fact, it hardly teaches that anything Rome sets forth is infallible. But you can trust everything the Bible teaches.

That seems to be Mr. X’s real argument, but to be honest it strikes me as innocuous and superficial. Never have I seen a piece of writing, that presents itself as argumentative, which contains, in its entirety, two self-evident observations and an innocuous thesis statement in the form of a disclaimer at the bottom of the text.

iii.
SHOULDN’T THE INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM BE ABLE TO TELL US WHY THE CHICKEN CROSSED THE ROAD?

he real nub would seem to be in the assertion that the Catholic Church “hardly teaches that anything Rome sets forth is infallible.” Let me state this as simply as I can: The pope, and those who teach in union with him, are infallible when they are speaking on points of divine revelation. It is necessary that this be the case in order that the purity as well as the unity of the Church be preserved. And because this is the case, it was necessary for the Church (in Pastor Aeternus) to specify the conditions under which a statement of divine revelation is being made. Necessarily those conditions must be limited.

Reformed apologists seem to have a consistent and bad habit of setting up false dichotomies, wherein if you reject sola scriptura, then necessarily everything that’s said must be a question of infallible divine revelation: It’s either just the Bible, or it’s everything. But the purpose of infallibility is to preserve the unity and purity of the Church, not to answer every question that can be asked. (For a clarification on one point of distinction between divine revelation and mere theological speculation, see my earlier article on Limbo here.)

The real problem with Mr. X’s blog article is that it purports to be a discussion of Catholic teaching on infallibility vs. the Reformed belief in sola scriptura, but the examples that are given—by Mr. X’s own admission—have nothing to do with that topic. Admitting this, he concludes with the innocuous statement “you can trust everything the Bible says,” which no Catholic disputes and which is not inconsistent with Church teaching on infallibility.

If it is inconsistent, Mr. X does not explain why.

***

If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week.