Are Catholic Appeals to Infallibility Circular?

I’ve won every single debate I’ve ever had in my head. Like, every one.

Man, oh man. You should hear the knock-down, drag-’em-out, mic-drop rebuttals I’ve used to level my imaginary opponents. Truly extraordinary stuff.

But in all seriousness, I do recognize that the imagined dialogue I’ve written below, which seeks to respond to the Protestant claim that Catholic appeals to infallibility are circular, may not give the Protestant position a fair shake, but hopefully it isn’t an example of me completely misunderstanding their position either.

How’s that for a low bar? … Me not completely misrepresenting them, and I win.

You’re welcome.

I’ll get to the dialogue in a moment, but first, a quick note. I wrote it in response to some pushback I received after posting a quote from Thomas Joseph White, OP—an argument I take to be a genuinely good one, and worth thinking through carefully. Maybe read it first before reading the dialogue.

The claim to infallibility, while a bold one, is actually quite sensible in its own way. It is virtually a tautology, in fact, since it amounts to saying nothing more than this: if God has revealed himself, then what he has revealed is true, and the Church can come to know over time in a definitive way what God has revealed.

These are not in themselves very astonishing claims. They rest on a more fundamental claim, namely that God has revealed himself. But if that has occurred, why would it be so strange that God should assist the Church over time, in and through controversy and dispute, and despite the terrible moral and intellectual limitations of her adherents, to come to know the truth he has revealed? What would be stranger, indeed illogical in its own right, would be the claim that God has revealed himself, most certainly, but that we might just as certainly deny the Church’s capacity to identify his teaching with certitude.

If the Church cannot teach infallibly, then we are in fact required to say something absurd of just this kind: God has revealed himself, but the Church can never say with assurance what God has revealed. In that case we might claim that there is an infallibly true revelation of God, but we must also admit that we cannot identify it, practically speaking, in any realistic way.”

Protestant: Let me try to sum up your position, okay? You say the Church is infallible. And when I ask how you know that, you appeal to Scripture. But then when I ask why I should trust your interpretation of Scripture, you appeal to the Church.

That’s circular.

Catholic: Only if the argument is, “The Church is true because the Church says so.” But that’s not the claim.

Protestant: Okay, then what is the claim?

Catholic: That Christ established a visible Church with authority, and that this Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that it cannot definitively teach error in matters of faith and morals.

Protestant: And how do you know Christ did that?

Catholic: Through a combination of Scripture, history, and the very existence of the Church itself.

Protestant: But Scripture is part of that. So again, you’re using the Bible to prove the Church, and then the Church to interpret the Bible.

Catholic: Do you think all reasoning that appeals to mutually supporting sources is viciously circular?

Protestant: If it’s your ultimate authority, yes.

Catholic: So when you trust your memory and your senses together, is that circular?

Protestant: That’s different.

Catholic: How so?

Protestant: Because those are properly basic. They don’t need to be justified the same way.

Catholic: Alright. But do your memory and senses ever support each other?

Protestant: Sure.

Catholic: So even your “basic” beliefs don’t function in isolation. They form a network where they confirm and correct one another.

And you trust that whole system without stepping outside it to prove it, right?

Protestant: I suppose.

Catholic: That’s my point. Not all circularity is vicious. Some is simply what happens when you have an ultimate standard you can’t step outside of.

The real question is whether that standard actually makes sense of reality.

Protestant: Alright, but let’s grant that. You still haven’t escaped the problem that someone has to interpret the Church. So you haven’t avoided the regress.

Catholic: Do you think you need an infallible interpreter to understand every authoritative statement?

Protestant: No.

Catholic: Then why demand one here?

Protestant: Because you’re claiming infallibility.

Catholic: Right. But infallibility applies to the act of defining doctrine, not to every act of understanding it.

Let me give you a historical example.

At the Council of Nicaea, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

Protestant: Agreed.

Catholic: Did that settle everything?

Protestant: No. There were still debates.

Catholic: Exactly. People argued about what consubstantial meant, how the Persons are distinct, what to say about the Holy Spirit, and so on.

So what resolved that?

Protestant: Further theological reflection.

Catholic: And concretely?

Protestant: Another council, I suppose.

Catholic: Right. The Council of Constantinople.

So notice what happened. An earlier authoritative teaching raised questions. And those questions weren’t settled by everyone privately interpreting Nicaea. They were settled by the Church, again, speaking with authority.

Protestant: But that just pushes the problem back. Now I have to interpret Constantinople.

Catholic: Yes, in the same way you interpret anything. Fallibly, but usually reliably. But tell me this. When disputes arise, what’s your final court of appeal?

Protestant: Scripture.

Catholic: And when two sincere Christians disagree on what Scripture teaches, what settles it?

Protestant: Scripture.

Catholic: But they both appeal to Scripture.

Protestant: Right. And that’s why I rely on the Church, on pastors, on councils, on tradition. I’m not interpreting in isolation.

Catholic: Good. So do I. But let me ask you this. Can any of those authorities finally settle the disagreement?

Protestant: Not infallibly, no.

Catholic: So if a council reaches a conclusion, and you’re convinced Scripture teaches otherwise, you can reject it?

Protestant: Yes.

Catholic: And if another Christian, equally sincere, rejects your interpretation for the same reason?

Protestant: Then we continue the discussion.

Catholic: And if you never agree?

Protestant: Then we remain divided.

Catholic: Right.

So even though you rightly rely on the Church, councils, and tradition, none of them can actually decide the issue.

They can guide. They can persuade. But they can’t finally settle the disagreement.

Protestant: At least I’m not appealing to an institution that could be corrupt.

Catholic: You’re not avoiding authority. You’re multiplying it.

Instead of one visible, historically continuous authority, you now have:

• many competing interpreters

• no final arbiter

• and the individual as the last court of appeal

Protestant: We’re debating whether your system is circular.

Catholic: Let me suggest something.

Every worldview has to start somewhere. You can’t prove your ultimate authority without, at some point, relying on it.

You trust Scripture as the word of God. Why?

Protestant: Because it bears witness to itself and the Spirit confirms it.

Catholic: And I trust the Church as the authority Christ established, which recognized, preserved, and proclaimed that very Scripture.

The issue isn’t circularity. Every view has an ultimate authority you can’t step outside of. The real question is which account actually explains how divine truth is known, preserved, and interpreted.

Protestant: And you think yours does?

Catholic: Yes. Because it explains not only how revelation is given, but how it is preserved, clarified, and authoritatively interpreted over time.

A text can be debated endlessly. A living authority can judge between interpretations.

Protestant: I am completely convinced and am now ready to join OCIA.

Cameron (Catholic’s wife): Honey? … You okay? You’ve been grinning at nothing for an hour.