Catholic Church: infallible, liar or lunatic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dolezal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
The skeptic in me says watch out for the bait. That being, if you as a non-Catholic deny the infallibility of the CC, then you must think it is filled with liars and/or lunatics. How uncharitable of you!!!
That said, I can’t read the heart of the article’s author, nor that of any poster. So, assuming the best of intentions by all, I hope to hear an answer to your question, as well.

Jon
Click to expand...
My question is how the CC can be infallible with having the inquisitions and now being pro-life. If they stand by their pro-life stance, they would have been fallible in the inquisitions. I do not believe CC claims to be infallible in every decision they have ever made but only on certain events…I may be wrong, but check on that.

ONLY God is infallible. When He is inspiring men they are still fallible men and can be mistaken. If the pope is infallible he would be Christ and he is not.
 
einna said:
My question is how the CC can be infallible with having the inquisitions and now being pro-life. If they stand by their pro-life stance, they would have been fallible in the inquisitions. I do not believe CC claims to be infallible in every decision they have ever made but only on certain events…I may be wrong, but check on that.

ONLY God is infallible. When He is inspiring men they are still fallible men and can be mistaken. If the pope is infallible he would be Christ and he is not.
Click to expand...
Infallibility doesn’t mean that, however. Infallibility has to do with doctrine and dogma (faith and morals), the teachings of the Church, not the sins or the sinful decisions of its leaders. So, ISTM, it has nothing to do with events.

Jon
 
AbideWithMe said:
Can someone explain why “sincerely mistaken” is not an option, according to people who think the opening argument is strong?

I’m genuinely puzzled by, what seems to me, to be the overlooking of the largest gap of possibilities—that between liar or lunatic on one hand, and infallible on the other.
Click to expand...
This is a very reasonable question. I agreed with the OP argument however this is not something I have thought through carefully, so I don’t have a quick answer to your question.

I will attempt to address it in the next few days. If I don’t get the time, then I apologise, and hope that someone else is able to respond.

If you don’t hear from me again, then “Thankyou, and Happy Christmas”, 🙂

~ Edmundus
JonNC said:
The skeptic in me says watch out for the bait. That being, if you as a non-Catholic deny the infallibility of the CC, then you must think it is filled with liars and/or lunatics. How uncharitable of you!!!
That said, I can’t read the heart of the article’s author, nor that of any poster. ** So, assuming the best of intentions by all, I hope to hear an answer to your question, as well.**

Jon
Click to expand...
Sorry Jon. I was thinking about this question (the OP), before admitting temporary defeat. Your response came in while I was thinking.

I do hope that myself, or someone else, is able to take this a bit further. The premise, and the objections, have something interesting.

Yesterday I had a look at Lewis’s trilemna, and found that it is not accepted by many Christian apologists, include William Lane Craig, who I greatly admire, so I may have to go back as far as that.

~ Edmundus
 
Edmundus1581 said:
This is a very reasonable question. I agreed with the OP argument however this is not something I have thought through carefully, so I don’t have a quick answer to your question.

I will attempt to address it in the next few days. If I don’t get the time, then I apologise, and hope that someone else is able to respond.

If you don’t hear from me again, then “Thankyou, and Happy Christmas”, 🙂

~ Edmundus

Sorry Jon. I was thinking about this question (the OP), before admitting temporary defeat. Your response came in while I was thinking.

I do hope that myself, or someone else, is able to take this a bit further. The premise, and the objections, have something interesting.

Yesterday I had a look at Lewis’s trilemna, and found that it is not accepted by many Christian apologists, include William Lane Craig, who I greatly admire, so I may have to go back as far as that.

~ Edmundus
Click to expand...
No time limit on this, Edmundus, and no need to apologize. I actually find it an interesting question from the Catholic viewpoint; how do Catholics view the nature of the claim of infallibility in terms of their leaders, the pope and Magisterium? Do they see contradictions, say, before and after Vat. II? Etc.

My stance at this point is that I won’t allow myself put into the either/or box of infallible or liar/lunatic. There’s enough the Lutheran confessions disagree with to say infallible, but far, far, far too much I/we agree with the CC on to even think of liar/lunatic.

Jon
 
Edmundus1581 said:
This is a very reasonable question. I agreed with the OP argument however this is not something I have thought through carefully, so I don’t have a quick answer to your question.

I will attempt to address it in the next few days. If I don’t get the time, then I apologise, and hope that someone else is able to respond.

If you don’t hear from me again, then “Thankyou, and Happy Christmas”, 🙂

~ Edmundus

Sorry Jon. I was thinking about this question (the OP), before admitting temporary defeat. Your response came in while I was thinking.

I do hope that myself, or someone else, is able to take this a bit further. The premise, and the objections, have something interesting.

Yesterday I had a look at Lewis’s trilemna, and found that it is not accepted by many Christian apologists, include William Lane Craig, who I greatly admire, so I may have to go back as far as that.

~ Edmundus
Click to expand...
Merry Christmas to you as well, and there’s no hurry for an answer. I often take my time to mull things over myself (and then forget which thread I was on :o).
 
I love C.S. Lewis, and while his trilemma argument is sound on Christian theological grounds, it’s not quite sound on regular logical grounds for one could argue logically that he left out the possibility that Jesus is just a nice story.

So, unfortunately, this leave the application of this argument about the Catholic church logically open to the same work around: the Lutheran response would be that the Catholic church is generally infallible, except when it isn’t. 🙂

The argument that your proposing, I think, works well for Catholics who have already accepted the hidden premises - but unfortunately, I don’t think the argument will work for non-Catholics because we don’t accept the other premises that would make the conclusion logical.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Can someone explain why “sincerely mistaken” is not an option, according to people who think the opening argument is strong?

I’m genuinely puzzled by, what seems to me, to be the overlooking of the largest gap of possibilities—that between liar or lunatic on one hand, and infallible on the other.
Click to expand...
Because one cannot mistakenly act “in persona Christi” for 2000 years. This is where the “lunacy” part of the trilemma comes in.

:bible1:
 
JonNC said:
Infallibility doesn’t mean that, however. Infallibility has to do with doctrine and dogma (faith and morals), the teachings of the Church, not the sins or the sinful decisions of its leaders. So, ISTM, it has nothing to do with events.

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes, but doesn’t “You shall not kill” go against the morals and doctrine of the church as a sin of the Ten Commandments? Even if they asked for forgiveness for their actions it seems they still would have been fallible by going vs. the Commandments.
 
einna said:
Yes, but doesn’t “You shall not kill” go against the morals and doctrine of the church as a sin of the Ten Commandments? Even if they asked for forgiveness for their actions it seems they still would have been fallible by going vs. the Commandments.
Click to expand...
Yes, but again that’s the sins of individuals, not the doctrine of the Church being fallible.

JOn
 
JonNC said:
Yes, but again that’s the sins of individuals, not the doctrine of the Church being fallible.

JOn
Click to expand...
The Ten Commandments are not included in the doctrine of the church? If they are the actions of the church during the inquisitions was going against that doctrine wasn’t it.
 
einna said:
The Ten Commandments are not included in the doctrine of the church? If they are the actions of the church during the inquisitions was going against that doctrine wasn’t it.
Click to expand...
einna - why don’t you start a thread on the Inquisitions?
 
This is the same logic josh McDowell uses about Jesus in his book more than a carpenter

I called him and talked to him and asked why he hasn’t used the same logic with the catholic church
 
XRU said:
The reason I don’t trust the Catholic Church, or Churches in general are that they are man made institutions and fallible. I know some would argue with me in that there is something special re the Catholic Church. If that’s the position ya want to take fine. I don’t believe it because of the history of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church btw.

So its not infallible, lunatic, or liar as the only options. There is the corruption of the institution by man.
Click to expand...
Than who do you trust?

Yourself? Aren’t you just as human as the churches you criticize?
 
einna said:
Yes, but doesn’t “You shall not kill” go against the morals and doctrine of the church as a sin of the Ten Commandments? Even if they asked for forgiveness for their actions it seems they still would have been fallible by going vs. the Commandments.
Click to expand...
Infallibility is not given to the whole church but to the Pope when making statements of the faith.

I have not seen or read of the rightness or necessity of the Inquisition being declared as an article of faith nor has Papal infallibility been invoked on anything about the Inquisition. As far as I know the two articles of faith in which Papal infallibility has been invoked has been the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. These dogmas must be accepted by every Catholic, but any Catholic can be free to disagree or agree with the Inquisition and what it stood for.

Infallibility also does not mean sinlessness or perfection and does not apply to the whole church but only to the Pope.
 
JonNC said:
So, the option of mistaken, which carries no implication of accusation of intentional deception, no implication of lacking mental stability, is not in fact an option?
Click to expand...
No, that falls under the “crazy” category. CS Lewis argued that if Jesus genuinely believed He was God but really wasn’t, then He would have to be crazy to make such a claim. I seem to recall he makes the case that someone may genuinely believe he is a poached egg…but his sincerity does not make it true.

So, the Catholic Church would be crazy to believe it is infallible if it really isn’t…if it’s not true, then it is a truly outrageous claim.
As for the claim of infallibility, so does Orthodoxy. Are they both right about the nature of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (hardly likely since the beliefs are contrary to each other)? Are they both right about the IC? Or the Filioque? Or is Orthodoxy simply lying or just crazy?
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
The Orthodox are neither right nor infallible. Since I don’t believe they are intentionally deceiving anyone, that only leaves one option. 😉
 
JonNC said:
The skeptic in me says watch out for the bait. That being, if you as a non-Catholic deny the infallibility of the CC, then you must think it is filled with liars and/or lunatics. How uncharitable of you!!!
That said, I can’t read the heart of the article’s author, nor that of any poster. So, assuming the best of intentions by all, I hope to hear an answer to your question, as well.

Jon
Click to expand...
Now, Jon, we’re not gonna call someone crazy just because they are ignorant! 😛
 
einna said:
My question is how the CC can be infallible with having the inquisitions and now being pro-life. If they stand by their pro-life stance, they would have been fallible in the inquisitions. I do not believe CC claims to be infallible in every decision they have ever made but only on certain events…I may be wrong, but check on that.
Click to expand...
Um…you’re right, sorta. The Catholic Church does NOT claim to be infallible “in every decision they have ever made.” Only in matters of faith and morals.

As for the inquisitions, I think you have a lot of reading to do…
ONLY God is infallible. When He is inspiring men they are still fallible men and can be mistaken. If the pope is infallible he would be Christ and he is not.
Click to expand...
Nope. To say that the Pope is infallible is to say that he is prevented (by God) from teaching error when making formal announcements concerning matters of faith and morals.

Christ was not infallible; He was divine. Not the same thing.
 
einna said:
The Ten Commandments are not included in the doctrine of the church? If they are the actions of the church during the inquisitions was going against that doctrine wasn’t it.
Click to expand...
Breaking a commandment is not the same thing as formally teaching error. Infallibility only has to do with the latter. You should do a bit of study on this.

As for the Inquisition, it’s obvious you need to do some reading.

Articles on the Inquisition

The Inquisition
catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

An Inquisition Primer
By Robert P. Lockwood
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp

Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed
By Robert P. Lockwood
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711tbt.asp

A New Look At the Spanish Inquisition
by Edward O’Brien
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/SPANINQ.TXT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top