A Catholic Doctrine is Proven False, therefore Church Infallibility is Proven False

[Nullasalus]

But this is essential. Christians do not believe the testimonials of Muslims. Why?

They do believe some testimonials of muslims - possibly many. You’re making the mistake that all Christians must not believe that any other god exists, or any other proof of gods exist, or that all proof must point to the same exact God of the sect. This isn’t automatically entailed; they can believe that a given being does exist, possibly even supernatural - it can be a small-god god. It can be God, misunderstood. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have very different views about God and understanding God, but their disagreement is no bar to their agreeing on God other understandings of God, or even on miracles.

I believe even the Pope recently re-affirmed that the God of the muslims is the God of Catholicism. They could argue the being being testified to is real, but the testimony is confused. They may be skeptical based on conditions. In the end, it all comes down to judgment calls and faith - no matter how much testimonial or otherwise evidence is supplied.

Give me some reaon to believe that anyone can foresee my thoughts (except of couse God), and you will have a position to argue.

As you are well aware, the concept of free will is just a probable assertion. It cannot be proved or falsified.

Give me any reason that if foreseeing thoughts is possible, only God can do it. Give me a reason to believe, other than an appeal to your personal philosophy, that a future development of such foresight is flat out impossible.

Hell, look what you just said. “You can’t prove or falsify free will.” So there’s a faith component, a judgment call. That’s yet one more bit of faith in play for your examples. And you have direct subjective access to your thoughts and will, no less.

But let me tell you this: suppose I ask for God to reveal himself. Then out of the wild blue, behind my closed doors a being manifests himself, and says he is God, and is willing to demonstrate it. To believe that this being is a super-powerful space alien, who was previously hiding under my bed, and waited for me to utter this request, and then magically appeared in front of me, just so he could fool me with his superior alien powers is less credible than God answering my request. (Don’t you believers assert that God will answer my prayer if I ask him long enough???)

Those same believers insist how faith is essential, typically.

It doesn’t matter if you personally judge the alternatives to be less credible - establishing that there are potential alternatives is more than enough to point out the faith leap. You may have more evidence to rely on, more experience. But it’s never going to get you to ‘knowledge’ rather than ‘belief’.

Yes, I am playing the percentages here. If you wish to call this “faith”, then you are guilty of equivocation.

Why should I be? I said faith is required even if God exists, always and forever. Certain things are being ‘knowing’ in the sense you’re using - they can be justified by greater or lesser amounts of evidence or reason. But there exists a wall.

 

[tdgesq]

Based upon the experiments I described above, the chance that the person claiming to be God is just an impostor, is zero. No faith would be needed.

BTW, this reply pertains to all who reflected on my post.

Well, since it applies to all who reflected upon your post.

The preconditions of knowledge require faith.

1. You assume for all of your scenarios that the senses are reliable, even though experience tells you that is not always the case. Couldn’t it be that your senses are deceived, whatever the cause might be? And isn’t it true that you would first question the reliability of your senses before accepting that it was really God at your doorstep? The answer is “yes.” The more interesting philosophical question is this: what ontological explanation do you have for accepting that the senses are reliable in the first place?
2. You assume that laws of logic and laws of thought are always and everywhere uniform. Perhaps in this instance the law of identity and has been suspended and that it was God that appeared to you, but it also really wasn’t God. Why not accept this explanation? It is because you accept that the law of non-contradiction applies; based upon faith of course, not because there is “zero” chance under your scenarios that you were wrong. Again, the more interesting philosophical question: what ontological explanation do you have for accepting laws of logic that everywhere and always apply?
3. You speak of probabilities, and under your scenarios you speak of them as giving a “zero” chance of the god at your doorstep being an impostor. You are the mathematician, but I don’t know of any statistical method that could yield a “zero” chance, at least in an actual life scenario. I have only seen it in the field of deductive logic and proofs. Even then, as I pointed out above, accepting the laws of logic requires a faith commitment.

And since we are really dealing with inductive evidence when talking about the probability that it is truly God at your doorstep, you would first have to accept the uniformity of nature and solve the problem of induction. You cannot reliably compare your past experiences to the hypothetical current experience of god at your doorstep to make any statistical conclusion unless you first rule out the possibility that nature may no longer be uniform. Your past experiences would be useless to help you understand what is happening now. How would you know that your past experiences are any guide to what you are experiencing in the present? Unless of course you accept the uniformity of nature on faith. And for the last time: what is the ontological construct to which you would turn to explain why nature has been and will continue to be uniform?

What we have here is a failure to examine epistemic presuppositions. There is no “zero” chance of an impostor for you. Worse yet, I see no explanation for how your theory of knowledge could fit categories of being and existence. Until then, I will remain a theist.

 

[Kronotaur]

Hello,
I’m going to leave the current debate to you fine folks and throw a new angle on the thread’s original arguement.

The church is inherantly NOT-infallible. Let’s first acknowledge a basic principle - people are imperfect. If this is true, then any religious institution, unless directly led by the Lord, is subject to moral corruption. I challenge you to consult your bibles (both new and old testaments to find what God’s word says about the ‘perfect’ or infallible church concept. Be aware that I consider these concepts linked. It seems to me that since the church is largely run by people, it is subject to imperfection and therefore should be regarded as just as fallible as any thing else run by humanity,

If a church leader is more concerned with worldly things and fulfilling a sin lifestyle, then how can what they teach be the only truly correct source of propper understanding of God? Throughout the history of our church, there have been instances where immoral men have made decisions which profoundly affected the world we live in. IE - crusades. Personally, I don’t think that Jesus intended for us to spread the faith with the sword (“those who live by the sword will die by the sword” - Jesus). For the record - sincere faith doesn’t come by forcing someone to worship. It seems much more likely that the true purpose for the crusades was the expansion of power and authority in an effort to assert domination over the rising Muslim faith.

That’s kind of a stereotypical example but it’s not unique. A similar thing happened in Spain in an effort to purge the land of non-christians and non ‘true’ christians. (Spanish Inquisition) All of this of course happened with church approval. If the institution is infallible, then preforming any of these actions to combat outspoken atheists and other non-believers must be acceptable.

The only thing which is absolutely infallible is Jesus Christ, the son of God, The Holy Spirit of God, and God the Father. The Bible falls in a close second. Everything else has been tainted by sins of humanity.

Sincerely,
Mike
the Kronotaur

 

[cpayne]

To Kronotaur (does that mean “Time Bull” or “The Bull of TIme” or somesuch???):

Believing that the Church is infallible does not entail believing that every person in the Church is infallible.

To ateista: Regarding “mindless worship”: Right now we are thinking and discussing God; our worship isn’t mindless. However, when we actually see God in Himself as He is, I’m pretty sure we’ll also see our mental constructions of Him are inadequate. As Job says, “I had heard of You with the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You.” At that point it seems the appropriate response is either worship or flight, not posing a bunch of tough questions and cracking the whip.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The only thing which is absolutely infallible is Jesus Christ, the son of God, The Holy Spirit of God, and God the Father. The Bible falls in a close second. Everything else has been tainted by sins of humanity.

Sincerely,
Mike
the Kronotaur

I note that you say you are Catholic in your profile, yet seem to miss in your post that as Catholics we believe in two sources of revelation, i.e., Scripture and Tradition. Of its nature, if you deny tradition you deny scripture as all that is in Scripture was handed down by oral tradition prior to being reduced to writing. Even one of the books in the New Testament says that not all the books in the world could contain what was revealed or taught by Jesus. What we as Catholics believe is that the Church is infallible in its teaching of faith and morals only. Note I said the teaching of. No one, not even the pope is infallible in the living of his daily life. We believe that teaching is infallible because we have Jesus’ promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Church). Your post and conclusion distorted these simple, yet profound teachings.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Take any apologetics issues to the Apologetics forum. Thank you all.

 

[ateista]

Jean is right, we were drifting. I will start a new thread to discuss the issues which came up here, but do not really belong. Everyone is always welcome to join.

 

[Kronotaur]

Kronotaur as I use it doesn’t actually really mean anything. It’s derived from the word Carnitor which is a large, horned carnivorous dinosaur. I retained it because I find it interesting and as far as I can tell, I’m the only person in world using it.

I’m Catholic by birth. I like the Catholic faith and the specific capabilities that has (world reach, long, fairly consistent messages, these types of things). I don’t have any problem analyzing the actual value of tradition. I personally believe that traditions are not completely necessary. Don’t mistake me here - most do have value for helping us to stay in the Christian faith. Jesus himself ordained some traditions which we still keep like the celebration of the Eucharist. However, when tradition is held above purpose, it loses its value. Worse yet is when traditions drown out their reason for existence.

Growing up, I was well aware of the traditions and practices. So were the teachers who taught it to us. I knew somewhat why we did what we did. Unfortunately, no one seemed willing to take the time to go beyond this and actually discuss the measure of God’s love. This problem is not unique to the church I grew up in. Try this - ask around your own congregation and friends to find out what they think is necessary for salvation and see what answers you get. Most people in our church don’t know what the bible actually says.

This is the danger of holding traditions in such high regard. Your practices should never over shadow your core beliefs. You should also consider if a particular practice caused a particular core belief as that can be equally dangerous.

In order to determine what can be done to better benefit Christianity on earth, we must be willing to look at what’s working and what needs to be let go of. It always bothers me when I see someone stubbornly holding on to the niceties that don’t really help anyone. The Latin mass is a prime example of this. Until recently, mass was always held in Latin regardless of the country. What good is it to teach people about Jesus in a language that they don’t understand? What does that create - blind followership or sincere belief in the founding principles of Catholicism?

Regarding teaching - the Catholic church’s teachings on morality and faith have varied over the years. From teachings on forgiveness (and methods there in) to teachings on the creation of the universe, variances have occurred. To elaborate on the creation issue - I read on this website that the church’s official opinion regarding the creation of world has changed from what God’s Word says to the big bang theory under the thinking that Genesis should not be taken literally and that a scientific understanding is more believable. If this is true, then it completely destroys even the slightest notion the church’s teachings are genuinely infallible. The ‘big bang’ theory is hardily even scientifically credible. Which is it? Are Adam and Eve just a story or is that the way it really is?

Can any church claim that Genesis is literal then turn around and claim that it is not and still be infallible in teaching?

With the question of infallibility, all these things are linked - Teaching, Morality, Doctrine, Dogma, etc. If one is false, how can the others be completely true?

To Arteista - Mindless worship is to worship without understanding. My bible tells me that God is real and that he sent his Son into the world to die on a cross so that we might again know him. I know that my bible is true because of the powerful messages that it contains. Because it predicted future events in tremendous detail and nearly all such predictions have come to pass in the exact way they were predicted. I know that God is real because of the profound and amazing set of seemingly well orchestrated ‘coincidences’ that have occurred throughout my life. Because of these things, when I give praise to God and worship him, I know that my efforts are not in vain, that my worship is not mindless.

Sincerely,
Mike
the Kronotaur

 

[mlchance]

Can any church claim that Genesis is literal then turn around and claim that it is not and still be infallible in teaching?

Perhaps not. Thank goodness the Church never claimed that “Genesis is literal”. Maybe some theologians have, but theologians do not equal the Church. It’s also noteworthy that any perceived change in teaching due to the Big Bang Theory isn’t actual. At least as early as St. Augustine of Hippo, Church theologians posited that the first chapter of Genesis cannot be read literalistically as describing seven actual days.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Kronotaur]

Oh yes it did. Go back a few hundred years - to say, Galileo’s time and ask the same question. The church has this funny habit of changing beliefs to better fit it’s current world view. It’s one of the reasons why protestants don’t trust the church. I grew up being taught in Sunday school and in Mass that Adam and Eve were real - not some fairy tale to help a group of ill-educated people quantitate the universe.

In addition to this, the church has also accepted the current evolutionary theory which believes that man evolved from monkeys, which ultimately evolved from inanimate chemical compounds. ???

By accepting the notion that Adam and Eve are fictional stories, we can by direct association accept that the concept of original sin was purely a construct of man. (No forbidden fruit was partaken in, ergo, no original sin exists.) Keep in mind just how much of our very religion hinges on this idea. This in itself should be raising huge red flags.

Consider the implications of the church being able to selectively modify what is printed in the Bible. It discredits the Word of God. What is printed in that book is the only reliable record of God’s will for humanity. We are rooted to the word of God. By accepting this, we are abandoning the very idea that this is the church Jesus started through Peter. WOULD JESUS CHRIST THE LIVING SON OF GOD ABANDON HIS FATHER’S WORD BECAUSE ITS BELIEF BECAME INCONVENIENT AND INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT?

The word of God is our spiritual sword against the forces of darkness. The breakdown of moral values within church leadership was no accident or random anomaly. There is a growing notion among today’s Christians that spiritual warfare isn’t actually happening. Church leaders are prime targets for the forces of corruption. The very notion of infallibility smotes of intense pride. It’s derived from the understanding that we can take gladness in the fact that we know the Living God. However, it has progressed far beyond that from righteous joy into conceit.

You write that teaching will remain the same, but at some point this is going to get out. It won’t be long before this is being taught in catholic high schools - if it’s not already. How long before it becomes part of the catechism?

Any one can postulate about the things written in the bible. God gave us the gift of intelligence and inquisitive minds. Scripture tells us that not only are we are right to question, but that we should question the motives of our leaders lest we be mislead in our spiritual pursuits. The times after the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven will be and have been filled with false teachers and antichrists. Many have not been as obvious as others and it’s probably fair to say that some have avoided detected altogether.

Back on main topic - redefining our understanding of scripture to fit modern understanding is an incredibly dangerous, incredibly slippery slope. How long before we deny the casting out of demons? (This one is happening in some other Christian groups and among some Catholics.) How long before we deny the resurrection of Christ? (An ossuary was found bearing his name with bones inside that date to the correct time…) How long until we completely discredit the miraculous Jesus for the historical Jesus trading messiah for prophet and revolutionary? Even today, he’s being progressively watered down and pushed into the corner. Does Jesus come up in sincere conversation outside of mass? How many people actually care about reading the Bible? Even in Mass, mentioning his name outside of the traditional ceremonies insights discomfort. Don’t let ‘Catholic’ transform into a club to belong to with rites and ceremonies held for their tradition and heritage that have lost meaning and value.

Have no doubt that it is happening. Everyday that we transcend away from scripture and into ‘ideas’, we take one step closer to that inevitability. By the way, that is looking on the bright side of things. Our church is a giant flashing target for demonic forces. Acting through corrupted people, the devil is already in our church. Be wary of any decisions that are made based on devalued and/or twisted scripture. What would be the bigger insult for the evil one to give to God – to dismantle the Church or to corrupt its teachings and mislead millions? Such things have happened to other groups – Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Branch Davidians, even Muslims (Muhammad probably actually saw a very beautiful angel – it just wasn’t who and what he thought it was…)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was trolling the intarweb the other night, and I happened upon a little blog thingy.

justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/modus-tolens-and-infallibility-of-the-catholic-church/

I often hear Catholic apologists of many stripes asserting that attempting to prove a Catholic doctrine (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation) false is a wasted effort because the Church’s infallibility must first be addressed. If the Church is infallible, then her doctrines are true.

The blog rejects this claim by using simple principles of logic, modus ponens and modus tollens. Because the statement “If the Church if infallible (p), then her proclaimed dogmas are true (q)” is thus structured, modus ponens and modus tollens apply.

He concludes that by modus tollens, by proving a Catholic dogma to be false, he proves the falsity of the Church’s infallibility or simply…

If p, then q.
Not q.
Then not p.

Seems like a valid observation to me. The blog author isn’t attempting to show that the Church is fallible or that her dogmas are false but that it is not logically valid to assert that Church infallibility must be addressed before her dogmas are. If so, Catholics shouldn’t be so ready to switch over to the issue of the Church’s infallibility whenever a dogma is challenged.

What are your thoughts?

The logic is correct. If the Catholic Church can ever be shown to have formally taught a false doctrine, then the doctrine of infallibility is disproven. Makes sense, right?

However, this is not the real issue. While *as a Catholic discussing doctrines with other Catholics, *I can agree with them to appeal to infallibility when necessary because we (might ) both agree that the Church is infallible.

As a Catholic apologist engaged with non-Catholics, this is not something that I can do since my audience does not accept the validity of infallibility.

Therefore, if I want to use infallibility as the basis for proving another doctrine, I would have to prove infallibility first.

It comes down to this: just what authority and how much authority does the Catholic Church have by God’s design?

This is why Matthew 16:18 and other verses that support the papacy are often at the center of ecumenical debate.

I think.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh yes it did. Go back a few hundred years - to say, Galileo’s time and ask the same question. The church has this funny habit of changing beliefs to better fit it’s current world view. It’s one of the reasons why protestants don’t trust the church. I grew up being taught in Sunday school and in Mass that Adam and Eve were real - not some fairy tale to help a group of ill-educated people quantitate the universe.

Perhaps I’m confused…what are you saying here? The Church clearly teaches and all Catholics are required to believe that all human life descends from two individuals whom we call Adam and Eve. Do you think the Church teaches otherwise?

In addition to this, the church has also accepted the current evolutionary theory which believes that man evolved from monkeys, which ultimately evolved from inanimate chemical compounds. ???

Uh…no…the Church teaches that you may believe whatever you like with regard to the origin of mankind provided that A) you acknowledge that God is the originator, and B) that there were only two original parents.

How God created them it is up to you to decide.

 

[mapleoak]

Give me some reaon to believe that anyone can foresee my thoughts (except of couse God), and you will have a position to argue.

If someone foresaw your thoughts and predicted results for you and made accurate weather forcasts you would then believe it was God? Why couldn’t it be a sorcerer? Why would you be so certain that someone being able to read your thoughts is proof of the existence of God and not proof of the existence of sorcerers?

 

[buffgbob]

I completly agree. That is sound logic. Attempts to dissuade the idea make me question that person’s reason free from passion.

If it were proven that a doctrine was false, clearly I would no longer believe in the Church’s infallibility. Any reasonable person would act likewise. As it stands, I know the Church to be infallible; none of her doctrines are false. I’ve found most objections to be tenuous at best, easily refuted by history, context, or metaphysical relationship.

I love God, the Truth, and His Church. We should all pray for her prosperity.

 

[po18guy]

What are your thoughts?

Stop trolling the web. There is lots of poison out there, and the evil one is quite web savvy.

This fellow makes himself superior in intellect to every intellectual who has even questioned church teaching, including Aquinas, et al. What utter arrogance!

Avoid them, and pray for them.

 

[ateista]

If someone foresaw your thoughts and predicted results for you and made accurate weather forcasts you would then believe it was God? Why couldn’t it be a sorcerer? Why would you be so certain that someone being able to read your thoughts is proof of the existence of God and not proof of the existence of sorcerers?

Because there are no sorcerers either.

 

[mapleoak]

Because there are no sorcerers either.

But that doesn’t answer why you would conclude that if someone performed these feats that they are indeed God and not a sorcerer and deceiver. In other words, just because someone were able to do these things, still would not prove the existence of God any more than it proves the existence of sorcerers. Therefore, now matter how you slice it, it takes faith to believe in God.

 

[ateista]

But that doesn’t answer why you would conclude that if someone performed these feats that they are indeed God and not a sorcerer and deceiver. In other words, just because someone were able to do these things, still would not prove the existence of God any more than it proves the existence of sorcerers. Therefore, now matter how you slice it, it takes faith to believe in God.

So you say that even in heaven you will need faith about God’s existence?

 

[BigTurkey]

I’m that author of the blog post that started this thread. I didn’t even realize that this thread had been posted…I was wondering why that post was becoming the most viewed on my blog.

Anyway, I’d like to thank everyone for taking time to discuss my point. I admit it wasn’t a deep point…but I still think it is valid.

Just for your kicks, I wrote that post after I had written a post criticizing an argument by James White. I felt that, since I am still in the midst of my research into the Catholic-Protestant divide, I’d try to devote equal blog time to criticisms of both sides.

(Here is the James White blog post: justsomethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/examining-an-argument-by-protestant-theologian-james-white/)

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to read my blog (and I hope this post isn’t considered off-topic–have mercy upon me, O gracious moderator).

 

[BigTurkey]

Just ask yourself a simple question. Do you believe in the trinity, i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit? If you do, we all know it cannot be proved by logic. Therefore this entire thread is faulty from the very first post.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

This seems like an odd statement (and, I believe, wrong). Do you really think that because the Trinity is beyond reason (but not against reason), I cannot affirm the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Do you find anything wrong with “God exists” and “God doesn’t exist” both being said to be wrong?

You have a deep confusion…perhaps I could recommend reading Plato’s Theaetetus for help with this?