Circular logic, lack of falsifiability and Church teaching Truth?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The power or loose anything is not really an unqualified power. The pope can bind or loose anything that fulfills God’s providence. After all, our God is not an idle spectator watching from the sidelines.

Thank you. Answered thread .

 

[Lisa44]

John 21:15 After perfomring 2 miracles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him 3 times:
v15 1. v15 = Feed = Boskein = Feed (Teach)
v16 2.v16 = Feed = Poimanao = Shepherd or Tend; To Govern. (Sheep)
v17 3. v17 = Feed = Boskein = Feed (Teach) Jesus was emphasizing v15 & v16 again.
Jesus entrusts all his sheep to Peter.

John 10:11 Jesus says he is the shepherd.
John 21:17 Jesus then makes Peter the shepherd.

John 10:12-13
The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.
The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

John 10:24-
The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”

 

[razredge]

Catholics maintain that the Church has taught Truth for 2000+ years. I would like to ask whether such claim can be deemed as committing the fallacy of circular logic, and is therefore unfalsifiable:

1. The Church maintains that the Pope is infallible (free from error) on matters of faith and morals when he pronounces an ex cathedra statement. In short, Catholics believe in papal infallibility.
2. The Church maintains that the Pope/the Church has the power to “bind and loose” (cf. Matthew 18:18) in Heaven.

In other words, even if the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement that is fundamentally an error on faith/morality (from an impartial reference point), he is still correct by virtue of the fact that he has the power to bind and loose in Heaven. The Pope, and all subsequent Church doctrines, would therefore be true simply because “the Pope has said so”, and not verifiable by any third-party.

Can anyone please explain/clarify? Thanks.

I’ve realised this too - it gets quite problematic, especially in the case of papal infallibility which people use to reject modern scientific findings because it contradicts with some supposedly infallibly Papal pronouncement.

If you look into the history of the doctrine, you’ll see that the Pope was declared infallible back in 1870 to substitute the drastic loss of his temporal power (with the loss of the Papal States) by increasing his spiritual power.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve realised this too - it gets quite problematic, especially in the case of papal infallibility which people use to reject modern scientific findings because it contradicts with some supposedly infallibly Papal pronouncement.

Can you give any examples?

If you look into the history of the doctrine, you’ll see that the Pope was declared infallible back in 1870 to substitute the drastic loss of his temporal power (with the loss of the Papal States) by increasing his spiritual power.

How do you justify this hypothesis?

 

[Perplexity]

If you look into the history of the doctrine, you’ll see that the Pope was declared infallible back in 1870 to substitute the drastic loss of his temporal power (with the loss of the Papal States) by increasing his spiritual power.

This seems to be what Hermann J. Pottmeyer argues for in his chapter in Puglisi, James F. How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub., 2010.

Highly recommend this book, has articles from a number of heavy-weights including John P. Meier (likened to the Hawkings of NT/Early Church studies) and Archbishop Roland Minnerath

 

[Benadam]

I’ve realised this too - it gets quite problematic, especially in the case of papal infallibility which people use to reject modern scientific findings because it contradicts with some supposedly infallibly Papal pronouncement.

Where did you read that? I think if the Church were in fact rejecting scientific findings for that reason the statements supporting that accusation would carry more weight than mere rumuor. The Church isn’t perfect but it wouldn’t be two thousand years old by being that stupid. The Papal officce guards truth it doesn’t make it up.

If you look into the history of the doctrine, you’ll see that the Pope was declared infallible back in 1870 to substitute the drastic loss of his temporal power (with the loss of the Papal States) by increasing his spiritual power.

As long as you understand it was not something that became true in 1870 but something that the Church recognized as true a long time ago.