Infallibility

[Drawmack]

I would like to ask some Catholics to construct a logical defense against this syllogism:

All men are fallible.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The madisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible.

 

[Godfollower]

I would like to ask some Catholics to construct a logical defense against this syllogism:

All men are fallible.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The madisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible.

All men are fallible, except when God protects them against error.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible, except when God protects them against error.
God protected and continues to protect the magisterium of the Catholic Church from error in writing the Bible and in teaching with respect to faith and morals.
Therefore, the magisterium of the Catholic Church was and is infallible when writing the Bible and in teaching with respect to faith and morals.

 

[Drawmack]

All men are fallible, except when God protects them against error.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible, except when God protects them against error.
God protected and continues to protect the magisterium of the Catholic Church from error in writing the Bible and in teaching with respect to faith and morals.
Therefore, the magisterium of the Catholic Church was and is infallible when writing the Bible and in teaching with respect to faith and morals.

In your defense you claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. The Old Testament was written before Christ was born, the Catholic Church did not exist until after Christ’s death, therefore the Catholic Church cannot have written the Bible. Thus the basis of your defense is flawed.

Additionally, where is your proof that your addition to my initial premise is correct or that my initial premise is flawed? Also, where is your evidence that God protects the magisterium from error? Even if we accept that there are times when man is protected from his own fallibility where is the evidence that the magisterium is one of those times?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All men are fallible except Christ who is infallible.
The magesterium consists of men, including Christ.
Therefore the magesterium when Christ speaks to and through it, is infallible.

Also I see where the previous poster was going.

All men are indeed fallible. BUT here’s the kicker–first, God speaks through men infallibly (Scripture). Second, one Man is infallible (Christ) and He can speak infallibly through any given man He chooses.

Second, the Magesterium is more than just ‘a bunch of men’. The Magesterium includes Scripture and Sacred Tradition --both of which are the infallible words (written and spoken) of God. You have to take that into account.

 

[Drawmack]

All men are fallible except Christ who is infallible.
The magesterium consists of men, including Christ.
Therefore the magesterium when Christ speaks to and through it, is infallible.

Also I see where the previous poster was going.

All men are indeed fallible. BUT here’s the kicker–first, God speaks through men infallibly (Scripture). Second, one Man is infallible (Christ) and He can speak infallibly through any given man He chooses.

Second, the Magesterium is more than just ‘a bunch of men’. The Magesterium includes Scripture and Sacred Tradition --both of which are the infallible words (written and spoken) of God. You have to take that into account.

Where is your proof that the Magisterium includes Christ? How do we determine when Christ is speaking through the Magisterium and when He is not? Where is the proof that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are infallible?

 

[Godfollower]

In your defense you claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. The Old Testament was written before Christ was born, the Catholic Church did not exist until after Christ’s death, therefore the Catholic Church cannot have written the Bible. Thus the basis of your defense is flawed.

Additionally, where is your proof that your addition to my initial premise is correct or that my initial premise is flawed? Also, where is your evidence that God protects the magisterium from error? Even if we accept that there are times when man is protected from his own fallibility where is the evidence that the magisterium is one of those times?

Well, you’re right in part; the Old Testament was written by the previous priesthood, from whom the people of God were taken away and given to another priesthood (Matthew 21:41-45). The New Testament, however, wasn’t completed until around the year 100 (which would put it during the reign of Pope St. Evaristus, the fifth pope).

I assume you accept that God protects, or at least in the past has protected, some men from error, because otherwise you have to assume that the Bible might be mistaken. So I assume that we agree at a minimum that the men who wrote down the various letters that the Church eventually accumulated into what we know today as the Bible did so without error.

If you disagree with that statement, then you can’t rely on the Bible as infallible. If you agree with that statement, however, then I have to ask: If God protected men from error at one point – which is to say, various men and women over a period of approximately a millennium – then what’s to stop Him from protecting others?

Enter Scripture:

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

John 14:26.

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

John 16:12-15.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15.

And, of course:

Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 16:16-19.

There’s plenty of Scriptural evidence that God promised to protect the Church from teaching error. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[Rolltide]

In your defense you claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible. The Old Testament was written before Christ was born, the Catholic Church did not exist until after Christ’s death, therefore the Catholic Church cannot have written the Bible. Thus the basis of your defense is flawed.

Actually, this is incorrect. The Jewish Scriptures known as the Tanakh (the Old Testament) existed before the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church started with the Apostles upon the death of Jesus. The last New Testament scripture wasn’t completed until almost 100 AD (the Book of Revelation). The “Bible”, a definitive, canonized compilation of all of these scriptures in a single volume and in a single language, did not exist until the late 300s AD, after it was compiled by the Catholic Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

Between the death of Christ and the compilation of the Bible, there was much confusion as to what books were to be included in the Bible. Many people dismissed books like Revelation and 2 Peter. Others included books like the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Others included the Gnostic Gospels, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdelene, and Philip. There were even completely forged “folktale” stories floating around, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Further, the Jews had not canonized the OLD Testament at this point, and so there was discussion over whether to use the Hebrew version of scripture, or the Greek Septuigant, which included seven extra books (The Deuterocanon / Apocrypha). Amidst all of this confusion, it took the Catholic Church to sort everything out and come up with the definitive list of what was to be included (although general agreement DID already exist upon several books, such as the four main Gospels).

You’re right, the Catholic Church did not “write” the Bible, but it DID compile scripture into what became known as the Bible.

 

[Drawmack]

Actually, this is incorrect. The Jewish Scriptures known as the Tanakh (the Old Testament) existed before the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church started with the Apostles upon the death of Jesus. The last New Testament scripture wasn’t completed until almost 100 AD (the Book of Revelation). The “Bible”, a definitive, canonized compilation of all of these scriptures in a single volume and in a single language, did not exist until the late 300s AD, after it was compiled by the Catholic Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

Between the death of Christ and the compilation of the Bible, there was much confusion as to what books were to be included in the Bible. Many people dismissed books like Revelation and 2 Peter. Others included books like the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Others included the Gnostic Gospels, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdelene, and Philip. There were even completely forged “folktale” stories floating around, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Further, the Jews had not canonized the OLD Testament at this point, and so there was discussion over whether to use the Hebrew version of scripture, or the Greek Septuigant, which included seven extra books (The Deuterocanon / Apocrypha). Amidst all of this confusion, it took the Catholic Church to sort everything out and come up with the definitive list of what was to be included (although general agreement DID already exist upon several books, such as the four main Gospels).

You’re right, the Catholic Church did not “write” the Bible, but it DID compile scripture into what became known as the Bible.

I never claimed the Catholic Church didn’t compile the library known as the Bible. I simply said that they did not write the Old Testament.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, you’re right in part; the Old Testament was written by the previous priesthood, from whom the people of God were taken away and given to another priesthood (Matthew 21:41-45). The New Testament, however, wasn’t completed until around the year 100 (which would put it during the reign of Pope St. Evaristus, the fifth pope).

I assume you accept that God protects, or at least in the past has protected, some men from error, because otherwise you have to assume that the Bible might be mistaken. So I assume that we agree at a minimum that the men who wrote down the various letters that the Church eventually accumulated into what we know today as the Bible did so without error.

If you disagree with that statement, then you can’t rely on the Bible as infallible. If you agree with that statement, however, then I have to ask: If God protected men from error at one point – which is to say, various men and women over a period of approximately a millennium – then what’s to stop Him from protecting others?

Enter Scripture:

John 14:26.

John 16:12-15.

1 Timothy 3:15.

And, of course:

Matthew 16:16-19.

There’s plenty of Scriptural evidence that God promised to protect the Church from teaching error. There is no evidence to the contrary.

The only scriptural support you have provided for the infallibility of the Magisterium is a passage that refers to the Church and not to the magisterium. The word church is repeatedly used in both the Old and New Testaments to mean a congregation of believers. Where is your proof that this is not what was meant by this usage? Additionally, where does it say that the gates of hell will not prevail because Christ will move his Church if need be? Where does it say that the gates of hell will not prevail because if his Church decries something as heresy when it is not that heresy will prevail over the established church?

 

[Katholish]

In answer to the OP, the minor (second) premise is false. The magisterium does not consist of men. The magisterium is the Church’s teaching authority. It is not people per se, only exercised through people, which is a significant difference.

 

[Drawmack]

In answer to the OP, the minor (second) premise is false. The magisterium does not consist of men. The magisterium is the Church’s teaching authority. It is not people per se, only exercised through people, which is a significant difference.

Yes, the first actual defense against the syllogism! Okay, so the Magisterium does not consist of men – you claim. However, you acquiesce that it is exercised through people. I agree that this is a significant difference. Here is my question. How can we know when these men are being men and when they are – in fact – having the Magisterium exercised through them?

 

[Godfollower]

The only scriptural support you have provided for the infallibility of the Magisterium is a passage that refers to the Church and not to the magisterium. The word church is repeatedly used in both the Old and New Testaments to mean a congregation of believers. Where is your proof that this is not what was meant by this usage? Additionally, where does it say that the gates of hell will not prevail because Christ will move his Church if need be? Where does it say that the gates of hell will not prevail because if his Church decries something as heresy when it is not that heresy will prevail over the established church?

Not sure if some words got left out of your post, so I’m not sure whether I’m responding to what you’re asking. Basically, what you’re suggesting is that Jesus’ promise “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” actually means that the gates of hell (that is, the powers of darkness) can prevail – because that is what His Church teaching incorrect doctrine would mean.

Here’s another syllogism for you:

1. 
   *]Jesus took His vineyard (the faithful) away from its former stewards and gave it to another priesthood.
   *]He gave that new priesthood the authority to teach in His Name.
   *]He promised that the forces of darkness would not prevail against the new priesthood.
   *]Jesus keeps His promises.
   *]If the new priesthood teaches falsely, then the forces of darkness have prevailed.
   *]Therefore, the new priesthood has not taught falsely.
   
   Either Jesus established a new church or He didn’t. If He did, then that church either continued in existence or it didn’t. If it continued, then it either teaches the faith truly or falsely. If it teaches truly, then that is either because of God’s power or man’s. If it is because of God’s power, then we ought to listen.
   
   If you disagree with any of those statements, then you are apparently arguing either that Jesus did not establish a new church despite His promise to do so, or that His church ended its existence (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or that His church is teaching the faith falsely (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or the church is teaching truly because of man’s power (which suggests that God is unnecessary, which is incorrect).

 

[Mel_Stones]

Drawmack

You keep asking for proof. Faith is a belief and trust in God without proof. God cannot deceive us because He is truth. We cannot give proof when the Holy Spirit works. Such is not faith.

Christ set up the Catholic Church (Matthew 16: 13-20). Catholics trust the Church which Christ set up. Part of that Church is the Magisterium.

 

[Drawmack]

Here’s another syllogism for you:

1. 
   *]Jesus took His vineyard (the faithful) away from its former stewards and gave it to another priesthood.
   *]He gave that new priesthood the authority to teach in His Name.
   *]He promised that the forces of darkness would not prevail against the new priesthood.
   *]Jesus keeps His promises.
   *]If the new priesthood teaches falsely, then the forces of darkness have prevailed.
   *]Therefore, the new priesthood has not taught falsely.

1. 
   That’s not a syllogism – but I’ll respond anyway.
   
   Your third point is what is in question at this point in time. Did Jesus’ say how He would ensure that the forces of darkness would not prevail against the new priesthood or did he simply say that it would not prevail? If it is the later than your entire logical train unravels. If it is the former then show me where he said this.
   

   If you disagree with any of those statements, then you are apparently arguing either that Jesus did not establish a new church despite His promise to do so, or that His church ended its existence (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or that His church is teaching the faith falsely (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or the church is teaching truly because of man’s power (which suggests that God is unnecessary, which is incorrect).

   Do not assume what my answers will be. When you assume what my answers will be you have done nothing except demonstrated that any future readings of my responses will be based on prejudice rather than what I actually write.

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack

You keep asking for proof. Faith is a belief and trust in God without proof. God cannot deceive us because He is truth. We cannot give proof when the Holy Spirit works. Such is not faith.

Christ set up the Catholic Church (Matthew 16: 13-20). Catholics trust the Church which Christ set up. Part of that Church is the Magisterium.

And you are, according to the writings of one of the counsils (I forget which one) anathema. The Catholic Church has infallibly declared that knowledge of God is possible without belief.

 

[pickguard1]

Yes, the first actual defense against the syllogism! Okay, so the Magisterium does not consist of men – you claim. However, you acquiesce that it is exercised through people. I agree that this is a significant difference. Here is my question. How can we know when these men are being men and when they are – in fact – having the Magisterium exercised through them?

here is a good article on Tradition and the Magisterium from the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

It should help you sort out what it means, how it developed, and why it is an integral part of Christianity.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;5712937:

Here’s another syllogism for you:

1. 
   *]Jesus took His vineyard (the faithful) away from its former stewards and gave it to another priesthood.
   *]He gave that new priesthood the authority to teach in His Name.
   *]He promised that the forces of darkness would not prevail against the new priesthood.
   *]Jesus keeps His promises.
   *]If the new priesthood teaches falsely, then the forces of darkness have prevailed.
   *]Therefore, the new priesthood has not taught falsely.

1. 
   That’s not a syllogism – but I’ll respond anyway.
   
   Your third point is what is in question at this point in time. Did Jesus’ say how He would ensure that the forces of darkness would not prevail against the new priesthood or did he simply say that it would not prevail? If it is the later than your entire logical train unravels. If it is the former then show me where he said this.

1. 
   It’s the former.
   

   And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ~ Matthew 16:18.

   (“It,” of course, referring to the antecedent “church”). Therefore, Point 3 is correct, yes?
   

   Godfollower;5712937:
   

   If you disagree with any of those statements, then you are apparently arguing either that Jesus did not

   establish a new church despite His promise to do so, or that His church ended its existence (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or that His church is teaching the faith falsely (meaning that the forces of darkness are now in control), or the church is teaching truly because of man’s power (which suggests that God is unnecessary, which is incorrect).Do not assume what my answers will be. When you assume what my answers will be you have done nothing except demonstrated that any future readings of my responses will be based on prejudice rather than what I actually write.

   No, I’m pointing out that the listed conclusions are the apparent consequences of your argument. You’re free to point out any errors, of course, but it seems to me that you are necessarily making one of those arguments. If I’ve missed one, I’d be glad to debate whatever it is, but I can’t think of what you might be arguing other than one of the ones I listed.

 

[pickguard1]

I would like to ask some Catholics to construct a logical defense against this syllogism:

All men are fallible.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The madisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible.

I’ll try one out

All men, except Christ are fallible.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of the Authority given by Christ to His Church to teach all that He had taught them.
The magisterium of the Church is infallible when teaching anything required to be believed by all the faithful. (That is, anything concerning faith and morals).

 

[Mel_Stones]

And you are, according to the writings of one of the counsils (I forget which one) anathema. The Catholic Church has infallibly declared that knowledge of God is possible without belief.

I’d like proof of this please. Besides knowledge of God is not what we are talking about. You wanted proof of the Holy Spirit working. Such proof is not possible. It is supernatural and requires faith.

 

[Katholish]

Yes, the first actual defense against the syllogism! Okay, so the Magisterium does not consist of men – you claim. However, you acquiesce that it is exercised through people. I agree that this is a significant difference. Here is my question. How can we know when these men are being men and when they are – in fact – having the Magisterium exercised through them?

First it is important to make the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary exercise of the Church’s teaching authority. By nature of the office held by the successors of the apostles, they have an authority to lead and guide the flock entrusted to them. They have the duty to teach and to explain what has been revealed. This regular teaching is certainly done with authority, but the Church only claims the protection of infallibility in particular cases. Most notably in ecumenical councils and solemn and binding teachings of the Successor of St. Peter to whom the power of binding and loosing (in part a referrence to infallibility) is given in a special way.

Since we understand that the role of the Magisterium is the interpret and explain the deposit of faith, the first criteria for an infallible statement becomes apparent. It must be in regards a matter of faith or morals implicitly contained within the deposit of faith (i.e. revelation found in the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition). Furthermore, any infallible teaching must be addressed and held binding for the entire church, which is also somewhat obvious and really just implies that the pope intends to use his binding power. Which brings us to a third criteria, that the pope has use of his own free will and full intention. Lastly, the teaching needs to be properly promulgated which really just again refers back to the intention of using binding power and making it universal through the whole Church.

I think these 4 criteria are consistent with common sense once the it is understood that the Church’s claim to infallibility rests in the successor of St. Peter and was promised by Christ Himself. In order to make the Church’s own position about her authority clear, however, these 4 criteria were solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council.