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

[Greg27]

In my understanding, the Catholic Church claims infallibility in terms of its doctrines concerning faith and morality. It also holds to the doctrine of infallibility in terms of the Pope and the Magesterium (the teaching of the church) in its teaching on faith and morals.

The theology concerning this is fairly nuanced and as I am not a theologian, I can’t really comment on that. I would understand infallibility to mean freedom from error. That is, if something is infallible, it is not wrong in any sense. If the CC claimed a teaching was infallible, I would take this to mean that in the eyes of the church, that teaching is free from error, and free from error in the sense it is true.

What is truth? We could adopt a range of views on truth, but I would define truth as a proposition or idea that is in some sort of correspondence with the facts and evidence of experience. Clearly some beliefs the CC propounds, such as the doctrine that Christ is present in the Eucharist, can’t be proved based on scientific evidence or sense experience, and rightly these are held to be mysteries that are understood in the light of faith. Other teachings, such as the immorality of using contraception, homosexual sex acts, or of remarriage after divorce, are teachings regarding ethical matters the church argues are universal and can be discerned through using reason to deduce the contents of natural law. The church also extends its claims to infallibility in these teachings as well.

I think one would have great difficulty in proving that a moral or theological view is wrong, in the strict sense. I also think it would be incredibly difficult to try and prove a theological or moral view is perfect and infallible. I think the best one can do is put forward arguments and reason on questions of religion, law and ethics as best one can, but as Aristotle said, it is nonsensical to expect that the demonstrations of the teacher of ethics or politics (and in my view, the same extends to religion) to have the same degree of certainty as those of a mathematician or logician.

 

[Apologist78]

The problem with this post from my view is that one cannot prove or disprove the infallibility of the Church from Logic.

The inerrancy of the Scriptures is not proven through scientific means, but is accepted based on the fact that the Scriptures are of Divine Origin, and this is known becasue of their connection with the apostles. In other words that which has a connection with the apsotles is trustworthy.

I would argue the same for the Infalliblity of the Church. It is not proven through scientific discourse, but rather like the Scripture simply accepted becasue of the Church’s Divine Origin. Just as the Scriptures are taken as inerrant becasue of their Divine Origin and not scientific or logical proof, so also the Infallibility of the Church.

 

[bobzills]

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?

This seems to be OK reasoning to me. If a dogma were to be proven to be false, then the Church would not be able to claim infallibility, since it had been shown to be wrong on a specific point which was infallibly claimed. Of course, there are a few caveats here, which could easily be overlooked.

1. some of the teachings of the Church have not been proclaimed infallibly, so if they were shown to be false, it would not contradict infallibility. For example, I don;t think that the teaching on limbo is an infallible one, nor is it infallibly taught as to whether or not one will suffer the same fire in purgatory as one does in hell.
2. It will depend on what you mean by proving a Catholic doctrine false. Generally, Catholics will maintain that this cannot be done, and I don;t see how you could prove such a thing. For one thing, you have to be careful about your definitions and what is being claimed in the Catholic teaching. Many times this teaching will not be able to be verified experimentally in our daily life by physical or scientific methods. So although your logic may be correct, the methodology used to disprove a Catholic teaching will in the end be fruitless.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

In my understanding, the Catholic Church claims infallibility in terms of its doctrines concerning faith and morality. It also holds to the doctrine of infallibility in terms of the Pope and the Magesterium (the teaching of the church) in its teaching on faith and morals.

The theology concerning this is fairly nuanced and as I am not a theologian, I can’t really comment on that. I would understand infallibility to mean freedom from error. That is, if something is infallible, it is not wrong in any sense. If the CC claimed a teaching was infallible, I would take this to mean that in the eyes of the church, that teaching is free from error, and free from error in the sense it is true.

What is truth? We could adopt a range of views on truth, but I would define truth as a proposition or idea that is in some sort of correspondence with the facts and evidence of experience. Clearly some beliefs the CC propounds, such as the doctrine that Christ is present in the Eucharist, can’t be proved based on scientific evidence or sense experience, and rightly these are held to be mysteries that are understood in the light of faith. Other teachings, such as the immorality of using contraception, homosexual sex acts, or of remarriage after divorce, are teachings regarding ethical matters the church argues are universal and can be discerned through using reason to deduce the contents of natural law. The church also extends its claims to infallibility in these teachings as well.

I think one would have great difficulty in proving that a moral or theological view is wrong, in the strict sense. I also think it would be incredibly difficult to try and prove a theological or moral view is perfect and infallible. I think the best one can do is put forward arguments and reason on questions of religion, law and ethics as best one can, but as Aristotle said, it is nonsensical to expect that the demonstrations of the teacher of ethics or politics (and in my view, the same extends to religion) to have the same degree of certainty as those of a mathematician or logician.

The one thing that is absent in thinking that those issues of theology can be proven purely by science is the element of faith. Two of these issues which would jump out are our belief in the Trinity and the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, in the fullness of his body, blood, soul and divinity. There are others, but I will use just these two. Neither can be proven scientifically. We accept these on faith.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear Got. of Ge: I want to read up more on undeviability. Can you give me a name or two of people who wrote on this?

Walter Ullmann discusses it - briefly - in one of his books; I’ll see if I can find the title ​