In the past, I’ve argued online in favor of the infallibility of the Bible, not only on faith and morals, but on every subject about which Scripture makes an assertion. And what I find is people don’t want the Bible to be infallible. They argue vehemently against that idea. They point out alleged errors, and when those are resolved with a reasonable and faithful answer, they just make more accusations. It’s not that they have studies the matter and decided, in good conscience, that they think the Bible is not infallible. Rather they know that if they believe the Bible is infallible, they will have to change. They will have to change what they believe, and how they act. So they reject the idea merely because they know the consequences of accepting the idea.

And the same is true for the controversy over Pope Francis. They don’t want to believe that Popes are immune from all grave error in their teachings, and that Popes can never fail in faith. It’s not that they’ve studies the teaching and reached a conclusion. No, they simply know that if they believe what the Magisterium has long taught about the Roman Pontiff, they will have to change what they believe and how they act. And since they don’t want to change, they argue vehemently against the Pope.

It’s useless to argue against either group, as they don’t care what the truth is. They have chosen excuses so that they can shield themselves from the obligation to change that would come with believing what the Church teaches about Sacred Scripture, or about the Roman Pontiff. It’s like trying to convince a smoker to give up smoking. An argument is not going to work. They know that this change will be difficult for them, and they don’t want to carry that cross.

RLCJ