What would be your reaction?

[Bagheera]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

 

[adrift]

It can’t happen.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

It is presumptuous to ask a question based on an unsubstantiated hypothesis. Nor is there any indication of the means by which a dogma is demonstrated to be logically impossible. Why Is it logically impossible, for example, that God exists, that miracles occur, that there is life after death or that we shall all get what we deserve?

 

[Starrsmother]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

Are we talking about when the Pope in the middle ages declared it a heresy to believe that the world wasn’t flat? If so, I’d say it’s proof positive that Popes with no background in science need to be careful in attacking scientific findings until they learn all there is to know about them! LOL!

 

[agnes_therese]

Are we talking about when the Pope in the middle ages declared it a heresy to believe that the world wasn’t flat? If so, I’d say it’s proof positive that Popes with no background in science need to be careful in attacking scientific findings until they learn all there is to know about them! LOL!

Isn’t infallibility reserved for matters of faith and morals? Science isn’t included, so a Pope can be completely wrong on scientific matters, as can anyone else.

 

[Bagheera]

It can’t happen.

Don’t be so sure. Besides, thought experiments are the foundations of progress. Even if they cannot happen, they are useful to expand our knowledge by eliminating a “negative”. .

It is presumptuous to ask a question based on an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

In science one always starts with an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and attempts to substantiate it by examining the corollaries. There is nothing “presumptuous” about it.

It is pretty good fun to see the cowardly attempts to avoid hard questions by stating that they “cannot happen”. Par for the course…

 

[JRKH]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

I cannot say what my reaction would be - it would depend on many factors.

Reactions - by the very term - requires some action. You have given a general idea - but nothing (as yet) to build on…

So - my general REaction to your proposed action would likely be…:bigyikes:
Followed by much study…:coffeeread: and prayer…

Peace
James

 

[Phalanx]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

I would laugh… what else is there to do? Im not the boss

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ought implies can. Therefore, any so-called dogma that is actually incoherent would not have to be believed or assented to. However, there is a difference between actual incoherence and apparent incoherence.

 

[Bahman]

Examples, works done by Galileo and Copernicus.

 

[Back2Church]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

Quit beating around the bush and give us your example so we can tear it to shreds!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

Based on the logic of Faith, nothing the Church teaches if illogical. Therefore, my answer is no. If you mean your logic or the logic of skeptics, the answer is no. I am not bound by their logic.

But I can’t wait for your earth shattering example. But don’t wait too long, your threads are very illogical so far and I loose interest very fast because of that. Nothing I dislike more than listening to a dogmatic skeptic.

Linus2nd

 

[Petaro]

I get awfully tired of games. Put up the hypothesis or shut up. You appear to be putting up a straw man, as, if the dogma was inherently illogical, no pope, much less a Jesuit pope could declare it infallible. It is not a hard question, it is an illogical one.

 

[Beryllos]

Oops!

 

[Jeanne1184]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

What kind of reaction are you in hopes of? I doubt that you could come up with any Church practice/belief that hasn’t been challenged before hundreds (thousands?) of times. But I’d still like to see the fish you caught so’s we can see if it is a new species.

“You can only find Truth with logic if you have already found Truth without it.” GK Chesterton

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let’s suppose that one of the (de fide) dogmas, which are taught “infallibly” by the church is proven to be incorrect. “Proven” in this case means that it is logically impossible. What would be your reaction? (Later I will give an actual example, but for the time being, just consider the hypothetical scenario.)

Divine logic trumps human logic, so the answer is no. But I can’t wait to hear your earth shattering revelation.

Linus2nd

 

[GEddie]

You forget, the Church is run by a phalanx of professional philosophers; nothing so blatant as a “logical inconsistency” would slip by them into official teaching.

Doctrines languish for centuries before being proclaimed in part because of this.

BTW, disagreement with postmodern philosophical nuance is not equal to a logical error.

Nice try; no cigar. ICXC NIKA

 

[KrazyKat]

Divine logic trumps human logic, so the answer is no. But I can’t wait to hear your earth shattering revelation.

Linus2nd

There is no “earth shattering revelation”. therefore there is no point to this thread.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Divine logic trumps human logic, so the answer is no. But I can’t wait to hear your earth shattering revelation.

Linus2nd

Agreed that Divine Logic trumps human logic. However, there is only one way to tell if the person had Christ speaking through them - and that is if I can Hear HIs Voice in others (oral or written) because He is inside of me. If not, I believe/follow blindly, leaning on my own understanding or someone else’s.

So, for me, the answer is ‘yes’ - it is possible for an ‘infallible’ teaching to be false and the sheep not be able to tell the difference, if we do not possess the genuine ability to ‘test the spirits’.

 

[agnes_therese]

Examples, works done by Galileo and Copernicus.

Those aren’t examples. According to your opening post, examples would be specific infallible teachings that were later proven to be incorrect. So, what are they?