tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post5626739709249437518..comments2023-10-26T02:29:30.037-07:00Comments on The Masked Thomist: Of Infalability and Green CheeseAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-30948658295373971362014-06-11T22:11:55.296-07:002014-06-11T22:11:55.296-07:00Justina, Christ and the apostles both warned about...Justina, Christ and the apostles both warned about false teachers in the body of the Church however, that is a very different thing from the suggestion that the Church its self (as opposed to individuals within it) can fall in error.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-10535064724203958172014-06-06T16:44:24.081-07:002014-06-06T16:44:24.081-07:00actually Jesus never said the Church would be kept...actually Jesus never said the Church would be kept reliable, on the contrary, He warned about false teachers and false prophets IN the Church as did the Apostles!<br /><br />St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory shows how to defeat such, what is held everywhere by all at all times? if it isn't held everywhere or if there is a history to it so it wasn't held everywhere, go back father, if this doesn't help look at the early writers and dogmatic definitions, if this doesn't help go to the Scriptures. Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-15426491482077611012014-06-06T16:41:58.857-07:002014-06-06T16:41:58.857-07:00I think the problem is, that while the Church'...I think the problem is, that while the Church's interpretation of Scripture in general as expressed in dogmatic definitions made by bishops steeped in study of Scripture and some individual holy writers ditto, this earlier fact, that the Church is infallible interpreter of Scripture because its leadership alone has the time and dedication and literacy to compare Scripture with Scripture and absorb and understand it all, has morphed into whatever nonsense from Origen or Basil's misunderstanding of the atom theory as positing chaos (which is doesn't) therefore it is false may have crept into the Patristic writers must be considered infallible truth, and RC took it even farther to church can indeed if it damn well pleases say John 3:16 means the moon is made of green cheese. well they didn't say that in so many words, but that is the attitude. <br /><br />Now, when protestants uphold Scripture against "tradition" it is usually a head on between things like predestination and free will, the latter opinion having been normative against pagan deterministic fatalistic philosophy until Augustine became so popular. But if you study the Scriptures you find that it is more nuanced, and predestination is limited and changeable by prayer (often by those individuals predestined to become Christian so they can start the ball rolling or restart or continue it). <br /><br />Purgatory and toll houses in RC and Orthodoxy, the error of purgatory is not that it defames Christ's once and for sacrifice for sin, since that is applicable when we repent, but both are issues of unrepented for sin. The error of purgatory is to posit it as a location separate from hell, and that the damned have no hope, even if prayed for, while Revelation last chapter only posits a finality of condition as being after The Last Judgement, so is inappropriate to apply to any time before that.<br /><br />Toll houses have two features, getting dragged into hell because your sins alienate you from God and his protection, an issue in prayers back to early times, and specific number of levels of judgement and demons having some office of judgement given from God, as opposed to lawless monsters who can get at other but weaker lawless absent intervention from God.<br /><br />Then there is prayer for the dead, remember St. Paul prays for mercy for the household of Onesiphorus, but what about him? why is it not Onesiphorus and his house? and adds a request that God have mercy on him on that day. What day? The day of judgement. Same prayer as the Jews made in I Maccabbees for their dead they discovered had hidden pagan amulets on their persons, and so made sin offerings for them and prayed God to be merciful to them on The Day of Judgement.<br /><br />So those steeped in Scripture operating with an open mind not through blinders, will get the truth, and this was done in early days of the Church and by those trained by the Apostles who then trained others. <br /><br />Immaculate Conception of Mary requires the same kind of allegorizing and jumping through hoops the classical gnostic and other heretics did, not to mention that the pre tribulation rapture crew who expect to not go through persecution do. Infallibility of the pope is so off the wall that even RC caveat it to where supposedly no pope since pronouncing these doctrines has spoken ex cathedra. Nonsense. Any formal pronouncement, a papal bull (so called by the bull design seal that used to be put on such when formally sent out for distribution), or whatever, if it deals with faith and morals is ipso facto ex cathedra. <br /><br />St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory online discussed how to settle such disputes, what is held everywhere and by all and at all times? if this fails, look to earliest writers and Scriptures.Christine Erikson (aka Justina)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11594093718714798117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-52079686778085113882014-06-05T16:46:06.800-07:002014-06-05T16:46:06.800-07:00On the formal logic, your reformulated syllogism i...On the formal logic, your reformulated syllogism is, obviously, logically valid, but I don't think that helps your case. <br /><br />In your original argument, your premises were "If P then (If Q then R)" and "Not R". I agreed with those premises. <br /><br />In your new argument, you've replaced your second premise with "Not (If Q then R)". I don't see any reason to accept that premise. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-65069514717547757702014-06-05T16:26:18.235-07:002014-06-05T16:26:18.235-07:00Thanks Brendan, (and Anthony, long time no see)
I...Thanks Brendan, (and Anthony, long time no see)<br /><br />I'll split this into two separate responses, one on the logic, one on theology. <br /><br />On theology, the claim of the Church is not only that she hasn't taught error but that Christ promised (and, of course, Chrsit's promises are reliable) that the Holy Spirit will act to keep the Church free from error.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-54496712113992772342014-06-05T04:57:11.005-07:002014-06-05T04:57:11.005-07:00Okay, I think I made a mistake. Having enlisted th...Okay, I think I made a mistake. Having enlisted the help of Anthony Bigg, let me try again:<br /><br />(1) If P, then if Q then R.<br />(2) Not (if Q then R).<br />(3) Therefore, not P.<br /><br />Okay should I clarify with you, then. How does Catholicism define its own infallibility? Is it that the Church just happens to say all the true things? Or is it stronger, namely, to say that the Church does not in fact have the power to say a false thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-7703336800280557522014-06-05T04:30:29.073-07:002014-06-05T04:30:29.073-07:00As for you attempt to rewrite your symbolic logica...As for you attempt to rewrite your symbolic logical argument, I have to say, no, sorry, I still don't get it, I've read through your argument several times and still don't see how it logically follows.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-66528851042713478462014-06-05T04:29:20.143-07:002014-06-05T04:29:20.143-07:00Brendan, thanks for the response.
On the possibl...Brendan, thanks for the response. <br /><br />On the possible worlds question, let me put it this way: There certainly exist possible worlds where there exists something called the Catholic Church and in which the thing called the Catholic Church has taught something obviously false about the meaning of Scripture. Obviously, the thing which is called "The Catholic Church" in this world would lack certain essential properties that I, as a Catholic, believe the Catholic Church has in the actual world.<br /><br />Let me put my claim this way: in order for your argument to work, you'd need to establish the existence of some possible world where there exists a body with the same essential nature as the Catholic Church has in the actual world and in which that Church has taught that John 3:16 is about green moon cheese.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11211076010977403016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9179627242645780373.post-4031460353803635702014-06-05T01:09:24.219-07:002014-06-05T01:09:24.219-07:00Interesting rejoinder, Jason.
I think you're ...Interesting rejoinder, Jason.<br /><br />I think you're right in saying that there's an ambiguity on what I meant by "possible." By "possible I simply meant logical possibility. That's because I assumed that X is infallible just in case there is no possible world in which what X says is false. X therefore cannot say a false thing in any possible world. But if infallibility is relative to worlds, as you seem to be suggesting, then it follows that X can be infallible relative to a world W1, but be fallible relative to another world W2, so that there is a logically possible world where the Church says "John 3:16 means 'The moon is made of green cheese'," but simply be mistaken. <br /><br />If that's right, my question then is to say, Why think this world is the infallibility world? <br /><br />Granted, that's quite apart from what I specifically said, so I guess I won't say anything more about it.<br /><br />I will come out with a full response later. But for now let me try to clarify that small syllogism I made. (Note, I think I will need to specify the syllogism further than this, so as to make clear my modal assumptions. But I'm going to save that for later.)<br /><br />I think your main criticism of the syllogism as so formed was my confusing brackets in the premise (3) formulation. I didn't mean to say what was outside the brackets after (3) is supposed to be logically equivalent to what is inside them. I meant that the bracketed section to be a sub-premise following from (3) as a consequence of it. Let me write it out clearer:<br /><br />(1) If P, then if Q then R.<br />(2) Not-R.<br />(3a) Therefore, not-Q. <br />(3b) Therefore not ’if Q then R’<br />(4) Therefore, not-P.<br /><br />We can see that this is valid if we employ a simple method like a truth-tree. The idea is that, in premise (1), you have a conditional, which has as its consequent another conditional (Q → R). Then, what you do in premise (2) is falsify the consequent of that conditional (Q → R), not-R. So, in premise (3a), we spell out that not-R implies not-Q as per an ordinary conditional, and (3b) shows the whole conditional (Q → R) to be false, given the falsity of R. But then it follows that the consequent of (P → (Q → R)) is false. Therefore, as (4) says, P itself, being the antecedent of the whole conditional, turns out to be false. <br /><br />S I hope that's clear. But just in case it's not, what do you think I should address if I do another blog response? Did I miss anything essential that you're trying to communicate here?<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to interact with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com