29 Oct 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOkay, so it looks like the RCC hierarchy bases the case for the infallibility of its ex cathedra pronoucements largely, but not exclusively, on the following assumptions:
Yes, thanks for the link.
(a) Jesus, and several of his followers, were specifically referring to them, as the One True Church, in the context of a number reasonably vague and metaphorical utterances, admitting of a variety of interpretations;
(b) Jesus was generally a good authority on the truth.
I think (a) is presumptuous, tendentious, and self-serving. Convince me it's not.
I think (b) very likely false, given that, even when Jesus was being specific, for example, with respect to the timing of His own Second Coming, He was demonstrably wrong, which Christian theologians like Kung honestly admit.
Kung, of course, was silenced by the Church for being fallible.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeKung, of course, was silenced by the Church for being fallible.
Okay, so it looks like the RCC hierarchy bases the case for the infallibility of its ex cathedra pronoucements largely, but not exclusively, on the following assumptions:
(a) Jesus, and several of his followers, were specifically referring to them, as the One True Church, in the context of a number reasonably vague and metaphorical utterances, admit ...[text shortened]... ans like Kung honestly admit.
Kung, of course, was silenced by the Church for being fallible.
I know this is off-topic, but this is raised often enough for me to ask - exactly how did the Church "silence" Kung?
The rest of your post states your opinion on the article - you're entitled to it.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, that's standard term for it, when the Church takes away the license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian. I'm not suggesting they removed his vocal chords.
[b]Kung, of course, was silenced by the Church for being fallible.
I know this is off-topic, but this is raised often enough for me to ask - exactly how did the Church "silence" Kung?
The rest of your post states your opinion on the article - you're entitled to it.[/b]
I already know that, in one sense (thought I think, interestingly, not necessarily in another: ask me if you interested) I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. But why do you bother to state that?
What's at issue is whether the RCC is infallible speaking ex cathedra. I question two assumptions on which this infallibility seems to rest.
Do you want to defend your position, or not?
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeCome up with a specific objection (i.e. the Church interprets verse X to mean Y whereas Z is a more reasonable interpretation of X etc.) and you'll get a specific defence. At the moment, your objections are as vague as you claim the assumptions to be.
Well, that's standard term for it, when the Church takes away the license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian. I'm not suggesting they removed his vocal chords.
I already know that, in one sense (thought I think, interestingly, not necessarily in another: ask me if you interested) I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. But why do yo ...[text shortened]... ions on which this infallibility seems to rest.
Do you want to defend your position, or not?
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo I won't. My objections are fine as they stand. If you can't deal with them in the form they are in, that is your problem, not mine.
Come up with a specific objection (i.e. the Church interprets verse X to mean Y whereas Z is a more reasonable interpretation of X etc.) and you'll get a specific defence. At the moment, your objections are as vague as you claim the assumptions to be.
But the following example will make one of my objections more concrete.
Many--perhaps a majority--of Catholics don't go along with Church's official teaching on contraception. Specifically, they think it's okay to intentionaly use latex or hormones to reliably decouple sex from baby-making.
Now, who is the True Church here? The laity, perhaps a majority; or the Church hierarchy? Which one deserves to be regarded as infallible?
Is there anything in the biblical quotes on the page you referenced that implies it is more likely to be the Church hierarchy than the Church laity?
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI believe I did this to great extent in the Confession thread.
Come up with a specific objection (i.e. the Church interprets verse X to mean Y whereas Z is a more reasonable interpretation of X etc.) and you'll get a specific defence. At the moment, your objections are as vague as you claim the assumptions to be.
The Church has a translation which is demonstrably fallible and
rests upon that assumption.
Would you kindly turn to that thread and note my last post?
Nemesio
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
No I won't. My objections are fine as they stand. If you can't deal with them in the form they are in, that is your problem, not mine.
But the following example will make one of my objections more concrete.
Many--perhaps a majority--of Catholics don't go along with Church's official teaching on contraception. Specifically, they think it's oka ...[text shortened]... you referenced that implies it is more likely to be the Church hierarchy than the Church laity?
Is there anything in the biblical quotes on the page you referenced that implies it is more likely to be the Church hierarchy than the Church laity?
Quite simply - yes. (EDIT: This is re: infallibility; not re: True Church)
Mt 28:18-20 is directed specifically at the [eleven] Apostles (the first Bishops). Mt 16:18 is directed specifically at St. Peter (the first Pope). The letter in Acts 15:28 originates from the Apostles and the presbyters (a Biblical synonym for Bishop) in Jerusalem.
In all these cases, the charism of infallibility is placed squarely with the Pope and the Bishops.
1 Tim 3:15 asks Timothy to behave (and instruct other Christians to behave) in a manner befitting the True Church - which clearly indicates that the true standards of behaviour do not depend on common acceptance of those standards.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut isn't the presumption fairly obvious here, Lucifershammer?Is there anything in the biblical quotes on the page you referenced that implies it is more likely to be the Church hierarchy than the Church laity?
Quite simply - yes. (EDIT: This is re: infallibility; not re: True Church)
Mt 28:18-20 is directed specifically at the [eleven] Apostles (the first Bishops). Mt 16:18 is directed spec ...[text shortened]... ates that the true standards of behaviour do not depend on common acceptance of those standards.
Retrospectively, you can interpret the apostles and Peter as analogues for the bishops and the Pope. However, prospectively this interpretation is far less plausible. Isn't it stretching it just a bit to claim that Jesus specifically had the bishops and Pope in mind when addressing his apostles? And why not the Anglican bishops (even if they, in their modesty, abjure claims of infallibility)?
But while we are engaging in congenial retrospective interpretations, a disanalogy strikes me. The apostles had more in common with the laity than with the hierarchy in one crucial respect: they were lay people from various walks of life, not priests.
Does this mean that Jesus intended lay people to carry on his Church? So--to take up my example again--are the laity (possibly the majority thereof) right about artificial contraception, or the hierarchy?
It looks to me like the hierarchy are flattering themselves about their infallibility, thereby committing the sin of pride, which they acknowledge as being deadly...unless of course they are fallible on that one too.
01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeA further objection is this. Suppose Jesus did grant infallibility to those apostles. He didn't tell them that henceforth that infallibility would be inheritible or transferable, such that they could pass it along like a baton in a relay race. On what basis does the infallibility of today's Pope follow from the alleged infallibility of the apostles?
But isn't the presumption fairly obvious here, Lucifershammer?
Retrospectively, you can interpret the apostles and Peter as analogues for the bishops and the Pope. However, prospectively this interpretation is far less plausible. Isn't it stretching it just a bit to claim that Jesus specifically had the bishops and Pope in mind when addressing his ...[text shortened]... de, which they acknowledge as being deadly...unless of course they are fallible on that one too.
01 Nov 05
11 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."Is there anything in the biblical quotes on the page you referenced that implies it is more likely to be the Church hierarchy than the Church laity?
Quite simply - yes. (EDIT: This is re: infallibility; not re: True Church)
Mt 28:18-20 is directed specifically at the [eleven] Apostles (the first Bishops). Mt 16:18 is directed spec ...[text shortened]... ates that the true standards of behaviour do not depend on common acceptance of those standards.
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
-------------
I just read these. From these the Church infers Peter's and thus all papal infallibility? Surely you jest.
I don't see that even Peter was granted infallibility. If he were infallibile, why would he need Jesus to be with him always - the fact that Jesus will be with him always indicates to me that he will make mistakes and Jesus will be there to fix any messes he makes.
Or is it the case that Jesus being with him always makes him infallible? In that case, aren't I infallible if Jesus is with me always?
The gates of Hades will not overcome the church due to Peter's infallibility or due to Jesus' power over Hades?
Finally, where is the Simon Says clause in these verses? Where does it indicate that Peter would be infallible only when he said he was speaking from a particular aspect of his leadership role, but not in the rest of his leadership? Jesus did say 'always.'
This is yet another case of church loyalty making you delusional if you think that these verses imply that Benedict is infallible.
Regarding papal infallibility, the best explanation is that those in power simply made up the whole concept. I'll leave it to you to imagine their motives. If you have provided the best scriptural support, then there is no scriptual support for the concept.