Of course not. It just means that even if papal infallibility were false, its falsehood could not be demonstrated (adapted from here). I’m leaning towards it is theoretically falsifiable because I can conceive of a pope declaring it an infallible dogma that Mary was born with original sin, but thoughtful people disagree.Given the assumption that papal infallibility is unfalsifiable, does this make it untrue?
Its not an assumption. Its a fact. The concept of papal infallibility is expressed in such away that it is conveniently unfalsifiable. It can be a gift and a curse.Given the assumption that papal infallibility is unfalsifiable, does this make it untrue?
David intended the word “assumption” in a sense meaning a technical term in logic. He wasn’t saying that papal infallibility was not a fact.Its not an assumption. Its a fact. The concept of papal infallibility is expressed in such away that it is conveniently unfalsifiable. It can be a gift and a curse.
No it isn’t possible in theory because by definition, even in theory, cardinals and popes are those men who follow the prompting of the spirit. Like doctors are those who practice medicine. Like catholics are not catholics because of the name but because of what they do or don’t do. An evil cardinal or pope would not actually be a catholic cardinal or pope and any evil dogmas would be ignored. But as it stands there are no evil Dogmas because all Dogma is sourced directly from the Scriptures. A new and evil Dogma, presumably, would not be contained in the Scriptures because they are the source of Dogma and nobody has any quibble with Scripture as far as I can see.…
Maybe it wouldn’t happen in reality, but in theory is it at least conceivable that a pope or a cardinal would elect someone or declare something without asking the Holy Spirit what to do? If not, then your answer to this thread’s title question is “no,” I imagine.
Figuring out whether a claim is falsifiable or not can be very useful epistemologically. See Karl Popper.Is papal infallibility falsifiable? who cares about falsifiability? If I cannot prove something is wrong then presumably that means there can never be anything wrong with it. That is another possibility.
It doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. If something is true and you cannot prove that it isn’t true doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. It can mean that you’ve just found something that is actually true.Figuring out whether a claim is falsifiable or not can be very useful epistemologically. See Karl Popper.
Also, the inability to prove something wrong does not necessarily mean by any stretch that there can’t be something wrong with it. For example, the claim “there is an imperceptible ogre who lives under my bed” cannot be proven wrong, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something wrong with it.
As I understand it, if the Pope specifically declared, as doctrine, that a previous doctrine was false, that would disprove papal infallibility. What it would not do would be to change church teaching.Just a non-Catholic here with a question about infallibility. What hypothetical proposition would a pope have to say that would falsify the doctrine of papal infallibility? Would it be nothing short of this sort of thing: “I, Pope X, in the exercise of my office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of my supreme apostolic authority, define the doctrine to be held by the whole Church that (falsehood Y)?” I do not want to derail this conversation by inserting any specific falsehood into where I wrote (falsehood Y), but if it helps you answer the question, feel free to make up falsehoods to insert in its place.
Is papal infallibility not falsifiable after all, not even in theory? That is to say, would even a pope saying the above proposition not falsify his infallibility, and simply mean that (falsehood Y) is not actually a falsehood? There has to be a difference between the hypothetical scenario where papal infallibility exists and the one where it does not exist, hasn’t there? That difference is what I’m curious about. I would be grateful if you could dream up and post propositions which, by virtue of the fact that papal infallibility is an accurate component of reality, a pope could/would never actually say.
That’s possible: that a Pope doesn’t ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit when declaring infallible dogma. It’s also possible that he always will. The only point here is that free will and protection from error by the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily compromise the Pontiff’s free will. So it seems that issue is resolved.Maybe it wouldn’t happen in reality, but in theory is it at least conceivable that a pope or a cardinal would elect someone or declare something without asking the Holy Spirit what to do? If not, then your answer to this thread’s title question is “no,” I imagine.
This is incorrect. The claim of the CC is that all ex cathedra statements pertaining to faith and morals are true; yet this is just a claim. Assuming that moral statements containing normative content are falsifiable, any normative statement by the Pope ex cathedra is also falsifiable. If it can be known that “we ought not kill infants solely for personal pleasure,” then a contrary statement from the Pope is false.Its not an assumption. Its a fact. The concept of papal infallibility is expressed in such away that it is conveniently unfalsifiable.
There is much to answer in your post, but I choose to focus on this. Can you give a single example in which the Church has contradicted herself on matters of faith or morals (doctrine)?Similarly, internal contradictions between one infallible claim of the CC and another at least prove that one of those propositions is false.
True things can be falsifiable, too. If something is true, obviously it can’t be proven false, but if we can conceive of hypothetical scenarios that would, were they not hypothetical, prove it false, then it is falsifiable. For example, the claim “It didn’t rain yesterday,” is true (at least where I am) and falsifiable, because I can conceive of a way to prove it false: I can check yesterday’s weather, and if it says, “it rained yesterday,” then the claim is falsified. Just being able to conceive of a scenario where the claim is false is enough to render it falsifiable. It seems like you don’t think a scenario where papal infallibility is false is even conceivable, so your answer to the question is “no,” I think.It doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. If something is true and you cannot prove that it isn’t true doesn’t mean there is something wrong with it. It can mean that you’ve just found something that is actually true.
That’s fine; if I got that right, dshix already said that the following two statements are only seemingly contradictory, and it is only known as of this writing that they are not contradictory, but not how:That’s possible: that a Pope doesn’t ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit when declaring infallible dogma. It’s also possible that he always will. The only point here is that free will and protection from error by the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily compromise the Pontiff’s free will. So it seems that issue is resolved.
So I have you down as “Yes, papal infallibility is falsifiable in theory, and the fact that it hasn’t been proven false even though the possibility exists is good evidence that it is in fact true,” right? I would ask you what your thoughts are about claims about bad popes like John XII, if indeed you believe any were bad. Do you think that through all of their sins and things, they never wanted to officially contradict any doctrine, or they were mystically barred from doing so?In fact, the very fact that no pope has ever tried to refute the doctrinal claims of the Catholic Church is, I think, strong evidence that papal infallibility is true. No other institution in the world, religious or otherwise, has maintained such strong consistency in its core beliefs and directives.
The sun is hot. Is that a statement that can be falsified?True things can be falsifiable, too. If something is true, obviously it can’t be proven false, but if we can conceive of hypothetical scenarios that would, were they not hypothetical, prove it false, then it is falsifiable. For example, the claim “It didn’t rain yesterday,” is true (at least where I am) and falsifiable, because I can conceive of a way to prove it false: I can check yesterday’s weather, and if it says, “it rained yesterday,” then the claim is falsified. Just being able to conceive of a scenario where the claim is false is enough to render it falsifiable. It seems like you don’t think a scenario where papal infallibility is false is even conceivable, so your answer to the question is “no,” I think.
It appears so from a physical perspective. In physics something is hot if its temperature is above absolute zero degrees. So if someone hypothetically determined that the sun’s temperature is absolute zero, then the statement “the sun is hot” would be proven false. The fact that this scenario is conceivable means that the statement is falsifiable. If you mean “hotter than a comfortable or bearable temperature” when you say “hot,” then I can conceive of someone feeling comfortable and bearing the temperature on the sun, so, at least to them, the statement would be false, meaning that it is falsifiable.The sun is hot. Is that a statement that can be falsified?
I don’t think ’ the sun is hot’ can be falsifiable in theory or in practice since I am already starting from the position of feeling the sun hot on my skin. I already know its hot so I cannot even hypothetically imagine that the sun is below absolute zero.It appears so from a physical perspective. In physics something is hot if its temperature is above absolute zero degrees. So if someone hypothetically determined that the sun’s temperature is absolute zero, then the statement “the sun is hot” would be proven false. The fact that this scenario is conceivable means that the statement is falsifiable. If you mean “hotter than a comfortable or bearable temperature” when you say “hot,” then I can conceive of someone feeling comfortable and bearing the temperature on the sun, so, at least to them, the statement would be false, meaning that it is falsifiable.
A statement like “there is an imperceptible ogre under my bed,” is not falsifiable, because every conceivable way to determine that no such ogre is under my bed would be fully consistent with it being there, imperceptibly. Looking under the bed wouldn’t do; I could say that the fact that you don’t see anything under there is just further proof that the ogre is imperceptible. Inventing and utilizing an “ogre-perceiving device” wouldn’t do either, since it would only work on perceptible ogres, not the imperceptible one under my bed. No proof that this statement is false can be conceived, whereas proof that the sun is not hot can be conceived.
Well, almost. My position would be that that fact is one of two premises in a good argument for the truth of papal infallibility, the other being…So I have you down as “Yes, papal infallibility is falsifiable in theory, and the fact that it hasn’t been proven false even though the possibility exists is good evidence that it is in fact true,” right?
I would say that there have been some very bad popes; most especially Pope Sergius III. However, my evaluation has been that they were permitted to alter certain things, but always stopped short of changing any actual doctrines. I would doubt that mysticism has anything to do with it, however. My position is that it is direct action on the part of divine providence that brings this about. God, after all, is the Lord of history.I would ask you what your thoughts are about claims about bad popes like John XII, if indeed you believe any were bad. Do you think that through all of their sins and things, they never wanted to officially contradict any doctrine, or they were mystically barred from doing so?
Very few of the church’s doctrines were ever -declared- by the pope as doctrine, if that’s what you mean. I can only think of two off the top of my head. Every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is true and unchangeable, or it wouldn’t be a doctrine. I hesitate to call doctrines “infallible,” however, since the word is really only used to apply to a person who can’t make errors in pronouncements of faith or morals; not to the pronouncements themselves.I would also ask you whether you consider any doctrine on faith and morals infallible that was not explicitly claimed to be infallible. From what I gather only two articles, both about Mary, are infallible. If that’s true, what explains this paucity of infallible declarations, since such strong consistency has been maintained anyway? If that’s false, forget it.
I would like to distinguish between “falsified” and “falsifiable.” I agree with you that “sun is hot” cannot be falsified because it cannot be proven false because it is true.I don’t think ’ the sun is hot’ can be falsifiable in theory or in practice since I am already starting from the position of feeling the sun hot on my skin. I already know its hot so I cannot even hypothetically imagine that the sun is below absolute zero.
I think my original intention was the statement, the sun is hot, not the actual sun, is it hot?I would like to distinguish between “falsified” and “falsifiable.” I agree with you that “sun is hot” cannot be falsified because it cannot be proven false because it is true.
However you can imagine that the sun is at absolute zero. You’re doing it right now. The only reason you can tell me that you can feel the sun’s heat on your skin is because you can conceive of what would be different if that weren’t the case. People have taken the sun’s temperature. Its surface is 5873.15 degrees above absolute zero. It is possible to conceive that an experiment results in the conclusion that the sun is zero degrees above absolute zero. The fact that such an experiment can take place even theoretically means that “the sun is hot” is falsifiable.
Do you see the difference between that and the statement, “there is an imperceptible ogre under my bed?” The scenario that there isn’t one is identical to the scenario that there is one. No experiment that can even be conceived could rule out the possibility that there is an imperceptible ogre under my bed. On the other hand, I can conceive of an experiment that could rule out the possibility that the sun is hot: checking its temperature, which it appears you were doing with your skin. It hasn’t been falsified, but your experiment demonstrates that it is falsifiable in theory.
If you’d like to learn more about falsifiability I think this powerpoint does a good job of explaining it.
No, because I don’t believe there is a single example.There is much to answer in your post, but I choose to focus on this. Can you give a single example in which the Church has contradicted herself on matters of faith or morals (doctrine)?
Don’t dodge the question; answer it. Give me an example. Just one.No, because I don’t believe there is a single example.
I agree that it is simpler to just deal with this. The form of the conditional proposition is valid. I agree with the premises. The conclusion is true.Modus ponens
If the pope has free will, then the pope is free to say that a falsehood is infallibly true.
The pope has free will.
Hence the pope is free to say that a falsehood is infallibly true.
I deny the second premise; therefore, I deny the necessary truth of the conclusion.Modus tollens
If the pope has free will, then the pope is free to say that a falsehood is infallibly true.
The pope is not free to say that a falsehood is infallibly true.
Hence the pope does not have free will.
That’s never really been my argument. I think the evidence cuts both ways. As you point out, there have been “bad” popes in the sense that some engaged in personal scandalous acts or were otherwise poor leaders. There are accounts of Popes who very likely held heterodox personal theological opinions. I only use the lack of contradiction in the exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium as a defense to claims of inconsistency, or, in this case, unfalsifiability.So I have you down as “Yes, papal infallibility is falsifiable in theory, and the fact that it hasn’t been proven false even though the possibility exists is good evidence that it is in fact true,” right? I would ask you what your thoughts are about claims about bad popes like John XII, if indeed you believe any were bad. Do you think that through all of their sins and things, they never wanted to officially contradict any doctrine, or they were mystically barred from doing so?
.I would also ask you whether you consider any doctrine on faith and morals infallible that was not explicitly claimed to be infallible
It’s not entirely accurate. Unam Santum is an infallible papal decree. There are probably more, but we don’t generally focus on the source of individual dogmatic decrees. There is one deposit of truth for Catholics, regardless of whether it’s from an ecumenical council, the ordinary teaching magisterium or from an ex cathedra pronouncement. Many times, if not most times, it’s from more than one.From what I gather only two articles, both about Mary, are infallible. If that’s true, what explains this paucity of infallible declarations, since such strong consistency has been maintained anyway? If that’s false, forget it.