Is there a logic to infallibility?

[Hubriss]

I think when you get right down to the bitter meat of the teaching of infallability. You have to rely on a circular argument.

Every word in the Bible is true. We know the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true, and according to the first sentence, every word in the Bible is true.

Those two sentences completely simplify the reason every Christian is a Christian. This especially applies to most protestants.

 

[Hesychios]

… I will quote below (this is from Pope Alexander VII’s Papal Bull “Speculatores Dominus Israel”):

*"He then stated, explicitly in the Bull:

…having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority* by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight. But, more important is point ‘2’ , attaching …all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement… AND confirm[ing], and approv[ing] with Apostolic authority."

Please note the repeated references to “Apostolic Authority.” The weight it seems to carry here is the same weight I suggested in my post above that it carries in regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In this instance its in regards to the interpretation of the scriptures, which is an act of faith. In my post immediately above, it’s in reference to faith as well. So, are these infallible or not, and if not, why not? Don’t quote the “discipline” answer either, because if you really read that webpage, you’ll realize that that’s dogma, not discipline. The words they used in those statements hundreds of years ago do not change just because science later proved them wrong.

This is not a challenge. I am seriously wanting someone to answer this for me, in the hope that I can move beyond this enormous stumbling block and fully embrace the faith. If I’m horribly misinformed or am committing a logical fallacy, please point it out to me.

*“We must admit that being separated from the East, our spirituality and our theology were so impoverished and dried out, that we had to rationalize them”
*Roger Cardinal Etchegaray *l’Osservatore Romano, *June 23, 1981

 

[crmcfl]

Is there any “cold logic” in believing that God’s son came to earth, died for us, was resurrected and continues to guide us today? Yet we do.

 

[Scottgun]

Our faith is based on the apostolic witness and their authority. It is the proximate rule of faith. No one picks up a Bible, reads and formulates the Trinity on their own–it is taught to them. That is because the Bible (and Sacred Tradition) are remote rules of faith. The apostles tapped succesors to be the authorities for our teaching. They teach that the deposit of faith is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. You either believe it or you don’t–and while it can’t be deductively proven, there is nothing circular about it at all.

 

[Dalik]

It seems to me everyone is avoiding the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. Every reply has been in response to the “circular argument” aspect of my posts. I am assuming this is because that, oddly enough, this is the “easist” part of my post in which to reply.

Circular argument must be accepted on faith. Don’t necessarily agree with that, but okay, let’s move on.

Does anybody have a response to the rest of my posts, the parts that to me represent the most problems?

 

[sara888]

It seems to me everyone is avoiding the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. Every reply has been in response to the “circular argument” aspect of my posts. I am assuming this is because that, oddly enough, this is the “easist” part of my post in which to reply.

Circular argument must be accepted on faith. Don’t necessarily agree with that, but okay, let’s move on.

Does anybody have a response to the rest of my posts, the parts that to me represent the most problems?

**Catholics dont see the POPE( THE MAN) as or with infallibility, JUST HIS OFFICE or his word on GOD.

Jan**

 

[sara888]

Here in its full detail is the entire Galileo controversy, PRESENTED BY A CATHOLIC (just so we don’t have any attempts to dismiss it as Protestant propaganda).

veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/geocentricity-101-supplement.html

This same website, but not this page, was referenced under the “List of Infallible papal proclamations” forum.

Basically the website’s argument is that in fact the Church’s statements about scripture during the Galileo controversy ( including the papal statements) were infallible. They don’t argue this in an attempt to discredit the Church, but in an attempt to give it credit, because they then go on to argue for SUPPORT for the geocentrist view that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it.
Their words, not mine.

Whether you believe any of it or not is up to you. I would like to point out an area of interest from the website, though, which I will quote below (this is from Pope Alexander VII’s Papal Bull “Speculatores Dominus Israel”):

*"He then stated, explicitly in the Bull:

…having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority* by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight. But, more important is point ‘2’ , attaching …all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement… AND confirm[ing], and approv[ing] with Apostolic authority."

Please note the repeated references to “Apostolic Authority.” The weight it seems to carry here is the same weight I suggested in my post above that it carries in regards to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In this instance its in regards to the interpretation of the scriptures, which is an act of faith. In my post immediately above, it’s in reference to faith as well. So, are these infallible or not, and if not, why not? Don’t quote the “discipline” answer either, because if you really read that webpage, you’ll realize that that’s dogma, not discipline. The words they used in those statements hundreds of years ago do not change just because science later proved them wrong.

This is not a challenge. I am seriously wanting someone to answer this for me, in the hope that I can move beyond this enormous stumbling block and fully embrace the faith. If I’m horribly misinformed or am committing a logical fallacy, please point it out to me.

**Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles

.It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels." Philastrius of Brescia, On Heresies (ante A.D. 387).

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 (c. A.D. 110**

Jan

 

[Scottgun]

It seems to me everyone is avoiding the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. Every reply has been in response to the “circular argument” aspect of my posts. I am assuming this is because that, oddly enough, this is the “easist” part of my post in which to reply.

Circular argument must be accepted on faith. Don’t necessarily agree with that, but okay, let’s move on.

Does anybody have a response to the rest of my posts, the parts that to me represent the most problems?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking one thing at a time, or even addressing the easy aspects of a assertion–it helps establish common ground. I’m sorry, but saying the Church’s authority rests on circular argument is a 1000lbs. gorrilla that needs to be disposed because it is going to hamper discussions of anything else.

 

[Atreyu]

Sorry, that’s still circular logic.

No it is not. Never have I assumed a premise that I was trying to prove; therefore my logic is not circular. In my previous post I was not trying to prove the Papacy, I was simply trying to demonstrate that the logic of it is not circular. I suggest you read this page before going any further. If you still think the logic is circular, please tell me why next time (instead of just claiming that it is).

Please tell me, when you look at ALL of this material (the 27 books of the NT, the writings of the early church fathers, and the enormous number of other Gospels, Epistles, Acts, and Apocalypses), how you come to the conclusion that the Church is infallible? You’ve got to prove the Church infallible using ALL of those documents, otherwise you can’t follow your chronological order that states: 1) historical documents make Church infallible, 2) infallible Church creates biblical canon.

I would only need to prove the first proposition. I would suggest buying a book, perhaps Upon This Rock by Steve Ray. It is mostly apologetical in nature (with respect to Protestantism) so maybe it’s not the best book for you. But this kind of “proof” you will only find in a book - a forum post is simply not possibly exhaustive enough.

Interpreting what the scripture means IS a matter of faith. That’s the greatest argument the Church uses against Protestants.

“How can you personally interpret the Bible? You can’t, because everyone is coming to a different conclusion. That’s why you need the Church, because of the authority with which it’s vested.”

This is true but only in the case of a dispute. Every single person who reads the Bible privately interprets the Bible; it’s just not possible to read it and not interpret it (unless you’re just scratching the surface). The reason you need the Church is when your interpretation is an error. The Church is the pillar of the Truth and so is able to correct the error. In Protestantism, there is no means to correct such an error. As for a particular interpretation of a passage being a matter of faith, I would contend that this is only the case in a particular percentage of the passages (ie not all passages). I really don’t see how a scientific interpretation of a Biblical passage could be a matter of faith!

If the Church said part of the Bible meant this, and then it was later proven wrong, does that show it wasn’t infallible on a matter of Faith (1/2 of the Faith and Morals equation)?

Only if the Church used her capacity to speak with infallibility. It might be a general understanding in the Church (such as the case with geocentrism) - and the pope may even believe in this understanding - but this understanding is only considered to be infallible when it has been proclaimed as such; either in an Ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra statement. You should read this page so as to understand what exactly infalliblity is (at least, as the Catholic Church claims she has it), in particular chapter III on the “Organs of Infallibility”.

 

[Atreyu]

First off, let me state a correction for you. You said that you “have the canons from every single Ecumenical Council.” Canons are not infallible. The Church HAS definitively stated that regarding Canon Law.

Source please. The page I linked above to New Advent (the Catholic Encyclopedia) would seem to directly contradict this statement. So I think I need to see where you got this from please.

As to the rest, exactly… two (and reference immediately below regarding their “officiality”). There have been numerous ecumenical councils and Papal decrees throughout the two thousand years of Christianity. Are you seriously telling me that in all that time, there have really only been two infallible statements issued?

NO! I was trying to say that there have only been two ex cathedra statements in the last 150 years. As to before Vatican I, I have no idea how many ex cathedra statements there have been. I would assume that there have at least been some, as I doubt the Church would simply come up with this whole “ex cathedra” language out of the blue. Please note this is an assumption of mine, and I would really have to go and ask someone else about it to get an answer.

You stated “in the last 150 years”, but you’re assuming that Vatican I only applies to statements made AFTER that council.

By the very statement by me limiting to the last 150 years, I was side-stepping the assumption you think I made. I made no such assumption; in fact the opposite. I believe there were ex cathedra statements prior to Vatican I, I just don’t know what they were.

In fact, the statement was retroactively applied as well, so all previous statements and councils fall under Vatican I’s definition. I’d like to point out that you verified my statement about only 2 being “commonly” accepted.

Only two are commonly accepted from the last 150 years, yes. And I agree with the first sentence.

Do you realize that the Council of Trent’s decision that definitely stated the canon of the Bible is not one of those two? What could be a greater element of Faith and Morals than the very definition of the Bible itself?

Considering the Eastern Catholic Churches have a larger canon than does the latin Catholic Church, this doesn’t surprise me at all. In what way could the canon of the Bible possibly be an issue of faith or morals? Are you trying to tell me that I must have the correct canon of the Bible as a matter of faith? I have to tell you that this idea is utterly foreign to me. We do not derive our doctrine from the Bible as do the Protestants.

How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Not considered to be infallible, right?

Does it fall under the auspice of an ex cathedra statement? No it does not. Was it defined dogmatically by an Ecumenical Council? No it was not. Therefore, it is not infallible. Still, it can be considered to be a “sure norm” for teaching in the Church. “Sure norm” =/= infallible.

How is infallibility defined?

1. Papal decree ex cathedra
2. In regards to issues of Faith and Morals

Incorrect. Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked above.

Please reference the bolded text above. “By virtue of my Apostolic Authority” sounds pretty ex cathedra to me.

But not to me. There is more in apostolic authority than mere infallibility. Indeed, every single validly-ordained bishop in the world has apostolic authority. I think you’re trying to pidgeon-hole authority somewhat.

“Is a statement of the Church’s faith”…“I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith” Those two sound like Faith and Morals. I’d have to say the Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible.

Well it just doesn’t qualify under the criteria of infallibility mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia article above.

Let me just reference my list from the Church and indeed confirm that it is… oh wait, I don’t have a list from the Church. So I guess the whole idea of definitively knowing stuff based on Infallibility is useless, since it’s entirely open to interpretation as to what exactly is infallible.

Maybe it would be handy to have such a list. But the absence of a list does not make the charism useless. And the bishops in their wisdom have not made the decision to produce such a list. I can live with that, can you? If not, why not?

 

[Atreyu]

I won’t delve into the Galileo incident because I simply don’t know enough about it. I would suggest starting another thread on that one.

 

[Dalik]

**Quote:
Let me just reference my list from the Church and indeed confirm that it is… oh wait, I don’t have a list from the Church. So I guess the whole idea of definitively knowing stuff based on Infallibility is useless, since it’s entirely open to interpretation as to what exactly is infallible.

Maybe it would be handy to have such a list. But the absence of a list does not make the charism useless. And the bishops in their wisdom have not made the decision to produce such a list. I can live with that, can you? If not, why not?**

I can’t live with it because it completely defeats the purpose of infallibility. You can’t prove or disprove the infallibility, because there aren’t any examples definitively stated to be infallible. If a “commonly accepted” one is later proven completely incorrect, then an apologist would likely argue that that statement was never definitively classified as infallible; it was just commonly assumed instead. Circular arguments about the Bible aside, putting it on the line and saying “these statements are infallible” goes a long way to proving your point, more than anything else in my mind, because we can then analyze those statements to determine if they are in fact infallible. Saying there’s no reason to prove infallibility, because it just is, and you should just accept it on faith, drives me insane.

The chief argument for Christianity against say, Islam, is the historicity of Christianity. If you’re going to define something ENTIRELY on faith and nothing else, then you can’t make a valid argument against Islam, because they can throw faith right back at you. I spent years as an atheistic agnostic (I accepted you couldn’t know one way or the other, but I was inclined to disbelieve) largely because most of the religious people I knew had absolutely no idea why they believed what they did. They were raised that way, they accepted it on faith, and that was good enough for them. I shot holes in every argument they presented (because they were extremely weak arguments), and decided I was done with religion, because it was all bogus. Only the patience of my wife, who is Catholic, led me to give religion a second look, even though she falls into the category of those who really know nothing about their faith. I went actively looking for people who could challenge my assumptions, and once I finally found them, I found that atheism completely crumbled, and you either accepted one of two views of the world: 1) that you can know nothing, and I really mean NOTHING about the world, yourself, or anything (the truly agnostic perspective), or 2) that you can know the world and that there are certain unchangeable truths (the theistic view). From there, it was only a careful HISTORICAL analysis of all the world’s religions that led me to believe that indeed, Christianity was the obvious choice.

I have to have stuff proven to me. It’s just how my brain works. I consider most science to be just theory, because many of our notions have never been definitively proven. It used to drive me crazy back in high school and college when I was given a test with a question saying something like “What species was the immediate ancestor of man” instead of “According to our current theories, what species was the immediate ancestor of man.” One question tests your knowledge assuming that the “correct” answer is fact. The other question tests you knowledge of the material, not necessarily the truth of the world. Don’t assume I’m a creationist from this example, because I’m not (there does seem to be enough evidence to disprove that likelihood). I am, however, a skeptic regarding almost everything.

When you’re dealing with the theological realm, though, with an unchanging God, then, in my opinion, you’d better back up your claim of infallibility, because “theory” is just not good enough. Not “hanging it all out there” and saying to the world, “these statements by these Popes and these Ecumenical Councils are infallible” is HIGHLY suspect in my mind.

That’s why I can’t just live with it.

 

[Mystophilus]

It gets to say it’s infallible, but you can never prove it wrong because it never tells you on which issues it’s infallible. Oh sure, it’s infallible on issues of Faith and Morals, but that’s not something that can be honestly debated. Concrete examples are what we can debate, and that seems to be what the Church manages to avoid. This idea seems to only be reinforced by the fact that the only two papal statements COMMONLY argued as being infallible are on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary, both of which cannot be proven one way or the other historically, and thus can never be proven wrong.

“the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.”
[
Catholic Encyclopediawithout which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observedCatechismCanon LawLumen Gentiumgeneral**over time](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

 

[Atreyu]

**Quote:
Let me just reference my list from the Church and indeed confirm that it is… oh wait, I don’t have a list from the Church. So I guess the whole idea of definitively knowing stuff based on Infallibility is useless, since it’s entirely open to interpretation as to what exactly is infallible.

Maybe it would be handy to have such a list. But the absence of a list does not make the charism useless. And the bishops in their wisdom have not made the decision to produce such a list. I can live with that, can you? If not, why not?**

I can’t live with it because it completely defeats the purpose of infallibility. You can’t prove or disprove the infallibility, because there aren’t any examples definitively stated to be infallible. If a “commonly accepted” one is later proven completely incorrect, then an apologist would likely argue that that statement was never definitively classified as infallible; it was just commonly assumed instead. Circular arguments about the Bible aside, putting it on the line and saying “these statements are infallible” goes a long way to proving your point, more than anything else in my mind, because we can then analyze those statements to determine if they are in fact infallible. Saying there’s no reason to prove infallibility, because it just is, and you should just accept it on faith, drives me insane.

The chief argument for Christianity against say, Islam, is the historicity of Christianity. If you’re going to define something ENTIRELY on faith and nothing else, then you can’t make a valid argument against Islam, because they can throw faith right back at you. I spent years as an atheistic agnostic (I accepted you couldn’t know one way or the other, but I was inclined to disbelieve) largely because most of the religious people I knew had absolutely no idea why they believed what they did. They were raised that way, they accepted it on faith, and that was good enough for them. I shot holes in every argument they presented (because they were extremely weak arguments), and decided I was done with religion, because it was all bogus. Only the patience of my wife, who is Catholic, led me to give religion a second look, even though she falls into the category of those who really know nothing about their faith. I went actively looking for people who could challenge my assumptions, and once I finally found them, I found that atheism completely crumbled, and you either accepted one of two views of the world: 1) that you can know nothing, and I really mean NOTHING about the world, yourself, or anything (the truly agnostic perspective), or 2) that you can know the world and that there are certain unchangeable truths (the theistic view). From there, it was only a careful HISTORICAL analysis of all the world’s religions that led me to believe that indeed, Christianity was the obvious choice.

I have to have stuff proven to me. It’s just how my brain works. I consider most science to be just theory, because many of our notions have never been definitively proven. It used to drive me crazy back in high school and college when I was given a test with a question saying something like “What species was the immediate ancestor of man” instead of “According to our current theories, what species was the immediate ancestor of man.” One question tests your knowledge assuming that the “correct” answer is fact. The other question tests you knowledge of the material, not necessarily the truth of the world. Don’t assume I’m a creationist from this example, because I’m not (there does seem to be enough evidence to disprove that likelihood). I am, however, a skeptic regarding almost everything.

When you’re dealing with the theological realm, though, with an unchanging God, then, in my opinion, you’d better back up your claim of infallibility, because “theory” is just not good enough. Not “hanging it all out there” and saying to the world, “these statements by these Popes and these Ecumenical Councils are infallible” is HIGHLY suspect in my mind.

That’s why I can’t just live with it.

I completely understand your position, and I find it utterly laudable. I guess what I was trying to say is that I can personally live without an infallible list of infallible proclamations. It just isn’t all that important to me.

Anyway, I was trying to come up with some concrete examples of proclamations or definitions the Church has made that would fall under the auspice of an infallible proclamation. I stand by my previous comment that we can find those proclamations at the various Ecumenical Councils. An example would be the canons on Justification at the Council of Trent (scroll down to chapter XVI). As far as I am aware, these are concrete examples that the Church has of infallible proclamations. I am not 100% sure that I am correct, but I would be very surprised if I were not.

 

[Dalik]

I have resolved my issues, thanks to a 3 hour conversation I was able to have tonight after RCIA with a visiting priest. I will get into further details and explanations later.

I do want to say right now that I’m not sure to what extent the difference is between “canon” and “canon law,” (if there is any difference at all), but I did confirm tonight in my conversation with the same aforementioned priest what I had heard before about canon law dealing with discipline only, and that it is NOT infallible. He should know, too, since he specialized in canon law at seminary.

More to follow.

 

[Atreyu]

I have resolved my issues, thanks to a 3 hour conversation I was able to have tonight after RCIA with a visiting priest. I will get into further details and explanations later.

I do want to say right now that I’m not sure to what extent the difference is between “canon” and “canon law,” (if there is any difference at all), but I did confirm tonight in my conversation with the same aforementioned priest what I had heard before about canon law dealing with discipline only, and that it is NOT infallible. He should know, too, since he specialized in canon law at seminary.

More to follow.

Yeah that sounds a bit better. I think the word “canon” is used in a variety of places. In the instance above I was talking about the “canons” proclaimed at Ecumenical Councils. Hopefully that’s the right way to use that word… I’m not sure. I’m really glad you’ve resolved your issues! Congratulations. Keep asking questions…

 

[Atreyu]

Hey Mystolphilus. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to reply to this post, and I doubt I will do it justice, but I will try.

If I take your question to mean ‘What is your basis for claiming that your particular faith is ontologically*] correct?’, then my answer would be that I have none. As we have demonstrated here, faith is faith, not knowledge: I can no more prove the validity of my faith than can anyone else. I do not claim it to be ontologically correct; I just cannot claim any of the others to be so.

Right. But I would contend that our faith is utterly reasonable. I think the recent lecture given by the holy father in Regensburg would be a really good thing to read. Have you read it? Anyway, if we find that a particular religion (in particular, a Christian denomination) is not reasonable, then we should reject that denomination, right? Unless we think that God transcends reason. For me, Protestantism as a whole can be rejected upon this basis. As John Henry Newman said,
And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
Therefore it is not reasonable that God would allow the very first Christians to be led into such error, before correcting this error at the Reformation. Newman goes on to say:
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
(source = Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction part 5). I think this is a reasonable conclusion, but I suppose this would be the subject for another thread.

In fact, it is evident, as much from personal experience in every day life as from sociological and historical study, that human beings have an impressive capacity for fallibility. We all make mistakes all the time. I find the idea of the creation of such thoroughly-imperfect beings by a perfect God quite incompatible with the contention that such a God could be unhappy about the creation happening to be as created: that would be singularly unjust. What I would suggest, then, is that fallibility is part of the intention: it is a feature, not a flaw.

I (think I) disagree. As Augustine says in his Confessions (paraphrased):
My God, who is the ruler and creator of everything, but of sin, the ruler only.
Was fallibility an inbuilt intent on the part of God, or was it a result of Original Sin? Maybe what you said is not so far from the Truth, but I think possibly a better way of thinking about it is by thinking that the stain of Original Sin surrounds us, cutting us off from God’s Truth. I don’t know what your beliefs or ideas are concerning Original Sin, but I personally think that it accounts for this abundantly apparent fallibility quite well.

Frankly, I cannot convince myself of the notion that such imperfect, limited mortals could ever hope to accurately comprehend the nature of an infinite God.

Indeed.

As such, I believe that all of us are wrong.

I disagree. We must be right, inasmuch as we are in accord with the objective Truth. Do you think this makes sense? Determining what this objective Truth is on the other hand, quite an onerous task. The beautiful logic of the Church’s teaching on infallibility is that it claims to actually give us the means to come to know this objective Truth. This is a claim that no other Church can make, perhaps not even the Orthodox.

 

[Atreyu]

cont…

Now, this inaccuracy doubtless varies in its degree, but, having acknowledged its presence, one cannot reasonably claim to have an absolute method of measuring the degree of deviation from Truth. I can demonstrate that a certain representation of a certain event contradicts the historical record which we have, and I spend a lot of time in these fora doing just that, but I cannot prove that the Real Presence is, or is not, there.

I’m not sure that I’ve really understood what you said here.

This is my reason for being a ‘non-partisan’ Christian: I see no greater justification in one position than another. Catholicism could be correct: I cannot prove it wrong. The same applies to Anglicanism. Even when dealing with belief-systems which hold to premisses than can be demonstrated to be flawed, I cannot then presume that everything else that they teach is incorrect.

Well you can on the part of Catholicism, in the case of infallibility. If you can prove that a certain infallible teaching of the Church is wrong, then everything else that the Catholic Church teaches is at the very least suspect. You cannot presume that it is all incorrect, but there is a fair chance that it is not correct. In the case of the Anglican Church, it is easy to show that the teachings of the Church have changed over time. For example, the teaching on contraception, and the teaching on Papal primacy. These teachings aren’t a development from a previous under-developed theology, but a clear contradiction of a previous theological position. Therefore, the Anglican Church was either right now or right in the past, and either wrong now or wrong in the past, or possibly wrong all the time. The Anglican Church cannot have been right all the time. For me, this is a clear indication that the Anglican Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, based on my assumption that the Holy Spirit would not lead a Church into error in the case of faith or morals.

Further, considering the great number of very holy and very clever individuals who have ascribed to various positions, I see no justification in the idea of any of them being damned merely for failing to go to church on the correct day, intone the correct words in a ceremony, etc.

I know that one of the doctors of the Church wrote about this phenomenon (that very smart people do not all convert to Catholicism), I think it may have been Augustine? Actually maybe it was Newman? I can’t remember. I’ll try and find it, but I can’t give you any promises. I’ll set you a challenge though. Try and find a Catholic scholar who has converted to Protestantism on theological grounds and who has not twisted the teaching of the Church to do so. I’m asking you to do this because every single conversion story I have seen for ex-Catholics goes along the lines of something like “I was sick of trying to buy my way into Heaven by relying on works for my salvation” or something like that. And I’m sorry for over-generalising, but that has been my experience. By the way, I also agree with the second part of your sentence, after the first comma.

So, I am working on doing what I understand to be right, holding a lot of ideas in tension as contingent beliefs, and trusting in the faithfulness of a merciful God to make up the difference.

Sounds good to me. Ask and you shall receive!

 

[Mystophilus]

Anyway, if we find that a particular religion (in particular, a Christian denomination) is not reasonable, then we should reject that denomination, right? Unless we think that God transcends reason.

Perhaps that ought to be amended to: “if we find that a particular ideology is evidently unreasonable or illogical, e.g., if it contradicts itself.” Call me fussy, but “not reasonable” begs too much definition.

As for God transcending (human) reason, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).

For me, Protestantism as a whole can be rejected upon this basis… the Christianity of history is not Protestantism… Therefore it is not reasonable that God would allow the very first Christians to be led into such error, before correcting this error at the Reformation… The Anglican Church cannot have been right all the time. For me, this is a clear indication that the Anglican Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, based on my assumption that the Holy Spirit would not lead a Church into error in the case of faith or morals.

I would never imagine that anyone of your intelligence could remain not a Protestant if s/he saw Protestantism as being correct. In addition, I cannot contest Newman’s statement about Protestantism, especially the Sola-Scriptura variety, being not the Christianity of all of history.

That, however, is rarely claimed. Protestant churches more commonly claim to be following the universal doctrines of C1st Christianity. Given how little we know about those doctrines, i.e., only what is in the Bible, I am not sure how far they can be proved wrong in that claim, although the valuation of the C1st can be questioned. Therefore, their status as being illogical remains undemonstrated.

I (think I) disagree [that fallibility is part of the design]. As Augustine says in his Confessions (paraphrased):
My God, who is the ruler and creator of everything, but of sin, the ruler only.
Was fallibility an inbuilt intent on the part of God, or was it a result of Original Sin?

I should possibly have stated that I believe that God is truly omnipotent: i.e., “Nothing is impossible for God,” as Jesus said. Under such a presumption, God is necessarily involved in everything that occurs, by virtue of always having the power to prevent or allow it. Thus, both Original Sin and this fallibility are results of the will of God: we are so because God allows us to be so. This is not equivalent to saying that we are not at fault for our sins, but does mean that God is, too. Yes, I know: I am a heretic.

I choose to believe in an omnipotent God because I would not worship something which is merely a more-powerful version of me, but it does create certain logical issues.

We must be right, inasmuch as we are in accord with the objective Truth. Do you think this makes sense? Determining what this objective Truth is on the other hand, quite an onerous task.

Yes; if we are in accord with objective Truth, then we are right. I feel reasonably secure claiming that “2+2=4” is True as a general rule of abstract mathematics. For more complex issues, however, such as the nature of God, of salvation, or of the hereafter, I beg leave to say that we lack sufficient data to prove or disprove very much, if anything, about them. As such, we have no means of ensuring accuracy, or demonstrating that we are in accord with objective Truth. Without a means of measuring the objective Truth, we cannot know that Proposition X is in accord with it. (More on this in the next post)

The beautiful logic of the Church’s teaching on infallibility is that it claims to actually give us the means to come to know this objective Truth. This is a claim that no other Church can make, perhaps not even the Orthodox.

Many Protestant churches claim the same thing, as does much of Islam, every branch of Buddhism (that being Buddhism’s whole point), and more than a few crazed cults. That claim is as difficult to prove, my friend, as it is easy to make.

 

[Mystophilus]

I must highlight Newman’s assumption that God would not allow Christians over the centuries to be in error. I know that this idea is very popular amongst Christians, e.g., among Protestants for Sola Scriptura, and not least amongst Catholics, but I see no means by which it could be demonstrated as true. In order to prove Newman’s assumption, we would have to be able to do two things: demonstrate an unvarying continuity of belief, which is not too challenging, and then prove true what Christians now believe, which is impossible when we have nothing to prove it against. We have no external criteria against which we can measure our belief, and by that alone would we ever be able to prove it true. That is why it is ‘belief’, rather than ‘knowledge’.

In at least so much as I understand, the Roman Catholic Church does not claim to be able to prove its belief, depending instead upon the belief in the protection of the true doctrine by the Holy Spirit, and then laying claim to tradition and apostolic succession as demonstrations of possession of that true doctrine. Thus, the Catholic Church claims to believe what has always been believed (a claim made just as assertively, and at least as defensibly, by the Orthodox), and, believing that the Holy Spirit would not allow it to be wrong, proceeds to the conclusion that it must be right. The whole claim, then, rests upon that assumption about the Holy Spirit’s protection.

I’ll set you a challenge though. Try and find a Catholic scholar who has converted to Protestantism on theological grounds and who has not twisted the teaching of the Church to do so. I’m asking you to do this because every single conversion story I have seen for ex-Catholics goes along the lines of something like “I was sick of trying to buy my way into Heaven by relying on works for my salvation” or something like that.

I am afraid that the form of the task renders it impossible. Catholic teaching is that the Catholic Church has the most desirable of all possible paths to God. As such, the mere act of leaving the Catholic Church constitutes a ‘twisting’ of Catholic teaching in the denial of that particular.

Still, even were I to search around and find another, or ten, or a hundred, who converted, as Luther and all of his followers did, because they did not believe that the Church was right, I would merely be demonstrating that we disagree with you, not that we are correct. As noted earlier, we lack the means to prove the accuracy of our beliefs, which is why they are ‘beliefs’.