Circular logic, lack of falsifiability and Church teaching Truth?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

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.

 

[manygift1spirit]

That type of scenario you posit really only makes sense if you view making ex cathedra statements as on par with putting on clothes in the morning. “I think I will put on the red shirt”. “I think I will define the immaculate conception as such…”

That is not the way it is. The Church does not make up truth. She cannot make a falsehood true or vice versa. Law of noncontradiction and so on. She merely can elucidate it.

Another way of saying that is that the Church is not truth’s master, but rather truth’s servant. Third parties can indeed verify most of what is true (see Lumen Gentium).

Now one may not assent to the whole binding and loosing thing (these are called “non-Catholics”), and thus the conclusions of dogma/doctrine thus are not logically compelled to such folks. This happens all the time. But there is no contradiction. The premises just differ, and thus the naturally following conclusions, that’s all.

 

[davidv]

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.

What you propose here is impossible. The Pope cannot make a ex cathedra statement that is in error.

In addition the power to bind or loose does not imply the charism of infallibility

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.

Your premises are false therefore your conclusion is in error. The is no circularity. The charism of infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit, not the Church.

 

[Lisa44]

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.

A pope is a bishop. And in the early church bishops certainly were not considered incapable of making mistakes in their teachings. This is definately one of the teachings that seperates the Catholic from the Orthodox.
It’s problematic in my opinion for the simple reason that it opens the door to imposters to change church dogma. If you can get yourself into the chair then you could really damage the church.
Pius IX didn’t have an easy time passing this new dogma either and many bishops were against it.

Personally, I don’t think it is consistent with the 2,000 years of tradition and I don’t think it was prudent. Its a dangerous road and no one should walk down it.

In my humble opinion. (but I’m a heretic so don’t listen to me).

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you believe that Vatican I was binding then you basically HAVE to accept Vatican II. You have no way out of anything anymore. It is irreversible.

Crazy if you ask me. Wild. Shocking…absolute power and absolute authority.

 

[1sicht]

in the early church bishops certainly were not considered incapable of making mistakes in their teachings.

Lisa, this is really intriguing. Could you please provide a reference for this? (In a way, it “supplements” the fact that Athenasius only had 1/3 of the bishops on his side. [Not impugning the creed, only the manner whereby it was shoved through.])

 

[Lisa44]

Lisa, this is really intriguing. Could you please provide a reference for this? (In a way, it “supplements” the fact that Athenasius only had 1/3 of the bishops on his side. [Not impugning the creed, only the manner whereby it was shoved through.])

What information are you looking for specifically?

Here is a sample from the council of Nicaea showing that the bishop of Rome was on equal footing with the Bishop of Alexandria:

6.The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop.

Do you see that it is the “synod” that determines this, not one person.

 

[1sicht]

Thanks for that reference, Lisa. It would indeed seem to indicate that bishops have a parity. But I was hoping for a reference confirming what you wrote here:

And in the early church bishops certainly were not considered incapable of making mistakes in their teachings.

See, from what I understand, the sticking point in RCism is their staggering claim that only the apostolic successors (bishops), together with the Pope, constitute an infallible mouthpiece. They claim that whatever they decide in their councils is not only binding on earth but in heaven as well (iow, God regards their decisions as though He had made them Himself). So, IF the early church did NOT believe that, then the RCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Do you have a reference for your quote above?

 

[Lisa44]

Thanks for that reference, Lisa. It would indeed seem to indicate that bishops have a parity. But I was hoping for a reference confirming what you wrote here:

See, from what I understand, the sticking point in RCism is their staggering claim that only the apostolic successors (bishops), together with the Pope, constitute an infallible mouthpiece. They claim that whatever they decide in their councils is not only binding on earth but in heaven as well (iow, God regards their decisions as though He had made them Himself). So, IF the early church did NOT believe that, then the RCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Do you have a reference for your quote above?

You might want to read this page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Some quotes:

“It is also argued that since the apostle Peter himself was not regarded as infallible in the Bible, and was corrected—albeit in a matter regarding his personal behavior and failure to live by his own teachings—by the apostle Paul (referenced in Galatians 2:11), that it makes little sense to regard current popes as infallible.”

"The dogma of Papal Infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians hold that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole Body of Orthodox Christians to fall into error[50] but leave open the question of how this will be ensured in any specific case. …
Furthermore, Orthodox Christians do not believe that any individual bishop is infallible or that the idea of Papal Infallibility was taught during the first centuries of Christianity.

 

[tonyrey]

A pope is a bishop. And in the early church bishops certainly were not considered incapable of making mistakes in their teachings. This is definately one of the teachings that seperates the Catholic from the Orthodox.
It’s problematic in my opinion for the simple reason that it opens the door to imposters to change church dogma. If you can get yourself into the chair then you could really damage the church.
Pius IX didn’t have an easy time passing this new dogma either and many bishops were against it.

Personally, I don’t think it is consistent with the 2,000 years of tradition and I don’t think it was prudent. Its a dangerous road and no one should walk down it.

In my humble opinion. (but I’m a heretic so don’t listen to me).

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you believe that Vatican I was binding then you basically HAVE to accept Vatican II. You have no way out of anything anymore. It is irreversible.

Crazy if you ask me. Wild. Shocking…absolute power and absolute authority.

So you believe Jesus founded a Church which is capable of promulgating a pack of lies for two thousand years in every country on this planet…

 

[Lisa44]

So you believe Jesus founded a Church which is capable of promulgating a pack of lies for two thousand years in every country on this planet…

There is more than one church from antiquity around today. So obviously you don’t need an infallible pope right? The Orthodox don’t have an infallible pope and they are still around and thriving.

 

[tonyrey]

There is more than one church from antiquity around today. So obviously you don’t need an infallible pope right? The Orthodox don’t have an infallible pope and they are still around and thriving.

The existence of so many Christian churches with different doctrines proves that they cannot all be faithful to the teaching of Jesus:

“You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church…”.

 

[Lisa44]

The existence of so many Christian churches with different doctrines proves that they cannot all be faithful to the teaching of Jesus:

“You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church…”.

Sure, but where does it say in the bible that Peter or a Bishop is infallible?

 

[Luke_K]

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 made a thread about this before asking what would happen if the Pope infallibly defined something that was heretical, such as saying Jesus did not have a human nature. The answer is that an ex cathedra statement by definition cannot contradict earlier dogma.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494455

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I made a thread about this before asking what would happen if the Pope infallibly defined something that was heretical, such as saying Jesus did not have a human nature. The answer is that an ex cathedra statement by definition cannot contradict earlier dogma.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494455

Hence the point of my thread. To claim that an “ex cathedra statement by definition cannot contradict earlier dogma” is circular logic. It amounts to: “The Pope is correct because the Pope says so”. Reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma.

 

[Lisa44]

I made a thread about this before asking what would happen if the Pope infallibly defined something that was heretical, such as saying Jesus did not have a human nature. The answer is that an ex cathedra statement by definition cannot contradict earlier dogma.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494455

The dogma of papal infallability is a contradiction of the bible where Jesus tells Peter:
Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

So how do we get from Peter being called ‘satan’ by Jesus for his stupidity, to Peter’s heirs being “infallible”?

 

[Lisa44]

Hence the point of my thread. To claim that an “ex cathedra statement by definition cannot contradict earlier dogma” is circular logic. It amounts to: “The Pope is correct because the Pope says so”. Reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma.

True, if the Pope is infallible when teaching as the Pope, then when he declares he is infallible as the Pope, that must also be true.

So it is a logical fallacy. Because if x is always right, and x cannot be wrong, then x is right even when x is wrong.

 

[davidv]

True, if the Pope is infallible when teaching as the Pope, then when he declares he is infallible as the Pope, that must also be true.

So it is a logical fallacy. Because if x is always right, and x cannot be wrong, then x is right even when x is wrong.

Please study what infallibility means - Your post above is a strawman. You have attacked something that is not infallibility.

 

[Lisa44]

Please study what infallibility means - Your post above is a strawman. You have attacked something that is not infallibility.

Explain…

 

[dingodile]

Explain…

I’ll take a shot at it. I’m not one of the faithful, so this may be way off.

As I understand it, the Pope is perfectly capable of conceiving, entertaining, and believing erroneous things about Christian doctrine. He can have any number of screwed-up convictions, but he is prevented from defining those errors as doctrines of the Church. That prevention may take any form–a grand piano could fall on him before he can put his signature to the encyclical. The pen could break, and then there’s a fire alarm. It doesn’t have to be at the level of preventing him from thinking and believing error.

This means that the Pope’s beliefs are not infallible. What is infallible is the Holy Spirit’s operation to prevent him from teaching erroneous beliefs as doctrine. That form of infallibility is not different in kind from the general infallibility attributed to the Magisterium from the beginning. It is more or less Providential in character, rather than a special “super-power”. And the idea is that, since the Pope has the authority to override the beliefs of other bishops, the infallibility of the Magisterium entails infallibility of the Pope.

As for whether there is any compelling reason to believe in this infallibility that doesn’t presuppose it in one way or another…I personally don’t think so. One might take the position that in order for Christianity to have any credibility through the ages, it must have supernatural protection against error, but of course that’s a conditional statement. We can’t help ourselves to the premise that Christianity has credibility through the ages.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

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.

… dear bohm ,

… i’lll put aside my faith belief for a moment to discuss this with you from a purely human perspective and not through the eyes of faith , let’s say popes can make mistakes even speaking ex cathedra , is it so unbelievable if it were true ??? , no , it is not , the normal process for all human learning is that we make mistakes as we learn from trial and error , mistakes are just a part of the human learning process , mistake = learning , it’s possible the church does not yet realise that even popes must learn from mistakes and even progressively through the popes , inspired writings like the bible contains mistakes like the 7 day account of creation and there are endless references to mistakes , but inerrancy in the bible and consequently apostolic tradition takes into account mans normal modus operandi that he must learn from mistakes , mistake does not = error at all , even if a pope / s made a mistake it only becomes error if the pope knows it and does not correct the mistake , so even if papal infallibility was misunderstood because the pope must operate like a man and is not a purely divine instrument unable to make mistakes even when speaking ex cathedra it does not mean the church is in error at all , and even jesus made mistakes and the pope is the sweet christ on earth so it is possible there is some truth in what i say , the only being guaranteed to never make any mistakes as i see it is god in heaven , this is because he knows weverything – no exceptions , and if you don’t know absolutely all you will make mistakes , but mistake does not = error , as said , not church teaching , my own thoughts that may help your q , not necessarily my faith either , but some conjecture , as i am not necessarily the official voice of the church like the holy father , hope this helps dear friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …