P
PRmerger
Guest
This is simply another way of saying, “I believe that the Holy Spirit has given me the faith to believe that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.”
- Status
N
Novocastrian
Guest
No it isn’t. Not at all.
Being unable to err does not equal not erring. I don’t know how to make that non-identity any simpler or clearer.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It does indeed, when the factors are repeated over and over, in multiple venues, over centuries, with completely different groups of men.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I’m not sure even if it was possible to make it simpler or clearer that it would matter.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
No it doesn’t. This is basic logic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let’s see how “logical” this is:
The Church is not infallible. She “just happened” to get it right.
She was not infallible at the Council of Rome in 382. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
She was not infallible at the Council of Hippo in 393. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
She was not infallible at the Council of Carthage in 397. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
And she was not infallible at the 2nd Council of Carthage in 419, She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
And she was not infallible at the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
And she was not infallible at the Council of Florence in 1442. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
AND…wait for it…
She was not infallible at the Council of Trent in 1546. She “just happened” to get it right there. As far as the canon of the NT.
I rarely use sarcasm. It is the protest of the weak. But sometimes sarcasm just is begging to be added.
So here it is:
Yep. It really does sound logical that you believe the Church did not err in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT, but that she hasn’t been given the charism of infallibility.
She “just happened” to get it right, without any influence by the Holy Spirit–at all–over and over and over and over again. In multiple venues. With different men.
Really?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Nothing I say claims that it “just happened” that x number of councils/bishops/fathers were right. I’m completely in agreement that the work of the Holy Spirit is to be discerned in this. But that is not the same as infallibility.
Let me be clear about your logical mistake. You’re making a bad inductive argument. You’re saying that because something has happened x times, we can be sure that it will never not happen.
It’s like saying that because the sun has risen every morning for millions of millions of years, it will rise tomorrow morning. Now we can be pretty sure that it will. Inductively, we have good evidence to suppose that it will. But can we be 100% sure that it will rise tomorrow morning? No. It is logically possible that it will not. The world could end tonight, for all you and I know. This is the inductive fallacy that you are committing.
If your claims is: the Church has in the past been right about things, it’s therefore logical and reasonable to trust it in the future, then I 100% agree with you. But infallibility - the logical impossibility of error - is something much, much more than that. It’s a whole different argument that you appear unable to recognise.
For the last time: being contingently right, even 100% of the time, is not the same as necessarily being right in all circumstances.
S
steido01
Guest
PR, are you really trying to make this argument? Like, seriously? You are essentially saying the following:
I did not err on my 1st grade spelling test. I did not err on my 2nd grade spelling test. I did not err on my 3rd grade spelling test. I did not err on my 4th grade spelling test. Etc., etc. These spelling tests were repeated over and over, in multiple classrooms, over years, with completely different groups of words. Therefore, my teacher must admit that I am infallible -at least in matters of spelling - which is a tacit nod to my infallibility.
I like many of your posts, and I dig your excellent use of gifs, but this line of “logic” is, frankly, stupid.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You keep saying that it’s not the same as infallibility.
So I’m not sure you’re understanding infallibility as the Church defines it.
Perhaps you could offer us what it is you think infallibility is, if it is not a charism in which the Holy Spirit protects the Church from proclaiming something as true which is actually false?
As such what you are doing is saying everything that the Church claims is infallibility, but then also saying, “But that’s not infallibility”.
Take this parallel:
Catholics: All female mammals can make milk. Cows make milk. Therefore, cows are mammals.
Novo: I agree with your first two sentences. But cows are still not mammals.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Nope, because that’s deductive reasoning. Not inductive.
The Roman Church claims infallibility in dogmatically defining faith and morals, protected by a special charism of the Holy Spirit which prevents the Church from teaching error.
I would argue that the Holy Spirit consistently teaches the Church the faith free from error, but just as man is free to ignore God and sin, so are all the members of the Church (including the Pope and the bishops) free to ignore the Holy Spirit and teach error. This doesn’t mean that they will do, merely that they can.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I think you might both be talking past the other.
Infallibility only applies in matters of Faith and Morals.
This would be an a fortiori] argument.
And you are correct, the 2nd proposition is weaker than the 1st proposition it is based upon. (Which is what a fortioti is). The 2nd proposition should never be presented in a blanket form (sorry PR
) and as what appears to be an “all inclusive” argument. Instead the 2nd proposition
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I’m not sure but maybe recognizing any possibility at all of human fallibility in the teaching of faith not necessarily being right in all circumstances, might ruin their faith.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Sorry but that analogy had me
P
Porknpie
Guest
Isaiah, is it not a matter of Faith that there are 73 books in the bible? All inerrant and inspired?
PnP
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. That’s what I said. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching that which is false as true.
And they “just happened” to get it right all those times?
The Holy Spirit guided them in these councils–you acknowledge that.
But it didn’t protect them from teaching error.
They just did it on their own.
Oh, the convoluted logic that people will accept in order to justify their rejection of the Church being given the charism of infallibility!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Let me stop you right here.
The Church was right, on her own, regarding the 27 book canon of the NT?
Or was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the HS came to discern the 27 book canon of the NT?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Where did I say it wasn’t?
However, what would be the secondary propositions to use a fortiori that are being based on this one?
K
KjetilK
Guest
I don’t really see the significance. Not that you necessarily believe that, but many people think that LWF has ecclesial jurisdiction. It doesn’t. If the LWF makes a statement, its member churches can ignore it completely if they so wish.
This makes the Catholic–Lutheran dialogues a bit weird, since we have one Church (the Roman Catholic Church) in discussion with a federation without any real jurisdiction to speak on behalf of its member churches.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
That is my impression, thanks.
- Status