[Since I’ve been spending time with the newest Diaz addition – Noah Thomas Diaz – I’ve been mostly catching up on reading, writing very little. Lord willing, I will posting my own stuff on Wednesday. But until then, here is an awesome refutation of the Romanist doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” from the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.]
“How does the Pope […] justify his demand for an infallible interpreter [of Scripture]?
Suppose it were true that an infallible text required an infallible interpreter. Then, of course, the Bible would require a papal encyclical for its interpretation. But since the encyclical, on this theory, is itself an infallible text, it too requires an infallible interpreter. Whoever this might be, his interpretation, also infallible, would require another infallible interpreter; and so on ad infinitum.
Obviously the papal claim […] is absurd.”
(God’s Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, p. 114)