Infallible Infallibility

Standing On My Head ^ | February 17, 2009 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[NYer]

I am reading a conversion story and apologetical book called An Invitation Heeded published at the end of the 1800s with a view to editing it for re-publication by the Coming Home Network. In the chapter on infallibility the author makes the very good point that rather than the Catholic Church's stance on infallibility being nonsensical, it is the churches who deny infallibility that are absurd.

The essential Protestant position is, "Our church is merely a human institution. It is not infallible." And yet they demand allegiance of the faithful to the beliefs and moral teachings of their church. But if their church, by their own insistence, is fallible how can they demand obedience and loyalty to their teachings? There is a logical hiccup here of enormous magnitude.

"Ah!" the Protestant will object, "Our church is fallible, but the Holy Scriptures are not, and it is the Holy Scriptures in which we place our confidence--not in the traditions of men." Of course, this begs the question because Protestants of every stripe--from radical Episcopalians with their Mother Goddess worship and homosexual marriage to mainstream Evangelicals to Jehovah's Witnesses all claim that their beliefs and practices are derived from and at least consistent with Scripture.

In fact, while denying that their leaders are infallible, every religion must act as if they are infallible, otherwise their religion would cease to function. Whenever Bob the Baptist steps through his church door he functions on the basic assumption that his pastor does not teach error in the matter of faith and morals. (this is the definition of infallibility) Likewise, Esther the Episcopalian and Martin the Methodist and Frank the Four Square Apostolic Church of the Redeemed of the Fourth Degree-ist all assume that their pastors teach without error--otherwise their religion wouldn't work. They have to assume infallibility in practice, even if they deny it in theory.

The fact of the matter is, all religions function on the assumption that their church leader is infallible. Catholics are just the only ones who dare to make the claim, and how can Catholics make such an audacious claim?

There are only three options: 1) they are insane and deluded 2) they are liars 3) It's true.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

The gates of Hell have absolutely NOTHING to do with...

Thank you for another innovative interpretation that most amazingly dances off the clear meaning of the scripture. The contortions arising from trying to remove Jesus' Church from scripture amaze me.

Hey, pick up a bible and study it…

Likewise, but try to do so with a little less creativity.

[D-fendr]

What is heaven’s physical location?

[Iscool]

However, with wisdom comes understanding.

Only if it's God's wisdom...

I know that I’m not smart enough. I go to those who are.

Nothing wrong with listenening to other people...As long as what they say lines up with the scripture...

[Mad Dawg]

I'm supposing the answer would be something like "another dimension" or another universe. We might also wonder what Ha Shamayim are made of. Atoms? Of the same kind as those which comprised my breakfast?

And going further in that direction, since we know of atoms not so much by observation but by deductions based on certain "laws" applied to certain phenomena, do the atoms in heaven act like atoms on earth?

So will our resurrected bodies eat and drink, urinate and defecate? If NOT then how are the atoms the same? To say it another way, if aging is largely a biochemical phenomenon, then either we age in heaven or we don't. If we do, I want my money back. If we don't then those laws of nature by which we deduce atoms are changed, which leads one to wonder how we know there are atoms there -- or has the meaning of "atoms" changed in the heavenly places?

How many quarks can dance on the head of a pin? But if we are asked to imagine an automobile in heaven, then can we imagine a chem lab? Though for both I have the questions, where would it be and where would you go? It's like Stephen Wright's man who has everything. Where does he put it?

I take it "real" is not equivalent to "material" because God is "real" but "spiritual". Though "Geist" in German can be translated "spirit" or "mind" are the two distinct? Presumably so because it is averred that we think that heaven is only a state of mind. "Only a state of Spirit" would probably mean something else, and I suspect, something better and "realer". Are "material" and "physical" synonyms?

And there're the lingering issues of "essence" and "substance".

But more than that, as has been noted on other threads, one underlying issue is: Whether Athens has anything to do with Jerusalem. "Secular philosophy" is offered as though it were some especially vicious activity at war with the Truth.

But of course what happens when there isn't some recourse to the disciplines of philosophy is garbled communication: A says, "It's real."
B says, "I don't know what that means, or what you mean when you say it."
A says, "You do too!"

Also, there is a multiplication of terms without definition. I remember at the end of some conversation about the Sacrament one of the "Athens go home!" crowd suddenly introduced "corporeal" into the conversation, though the word had not been used before. "Alchemy" has also been used similarly.

It just now occurs to me that for many the meaning of these words is to be derived from an affect which they supposedly invoke. That is, "Alchemy" does not mean "an investigative activity preceding the chemistry of Lavoisier and the moderns and perhaps troubled by a confusion of Aristotelian notions of substance with the reactive characteristics of various materials." Instead it means, "something wicked and profitless in which stupid and superstitious people engaged and having vaguely to do with the changes of materials and the pursuit of gold."

I pinged you, Mr, Lucky, because I would like to learn if you have any thoughts on the Athens v. Jerusalem problem.

[D-fendr]

I think the “includes and transcends” framework is the best for your question.

Empirical science includes gross matter and transcends it (providing models and predictions). Reason/Logic includes empirical science and transcends (adding to) it. Philosophy includes and transcends reason/logic. Religion includes and transcends philosophy.

Philosophy would discuss the epistemology of absolute truths, religion would seek to know them by means transcending reason.

So the key, and the hard part is to avoid category errors and leave to Athens what is Athen’s and to Jerusalem what is Jerusalem’s.

[Mad Dawg]

Philosophy would discuss the epistemology of absolute truths, religion would seek to know them by means transcending reason.

Can we make it "infusing, transcending, and perfecting reason."

It is remarkable to me that Mahayana Buddhists, some of whom may have had some interaction with Christians, make nirvana (extinction, as in 'the flame was estinguished') and prajna (wisdom) subordinate to compassion. And in general a lot of people all over the world talk about Love as supreme. (Not just John Coltrane!)

But it seems almost intuitively clear to me that that has no living and effective meaning in my life and not a whole lot of clarity in my thought without the Holy Spirit working over time in this recalcitrant soul t inform (infuse), to elevate (transcend) and to enlighten (perfect).

I'll be away until 0300 ZULU, but will look eagerly for your response and that of Mr. Lucky.

[Iscool]

For the record, I assert that Heaven is not merely a state of the human mind. The quote from a man who is no longer my pope, as you falsely characterize him, does not assert that heaven is merely a state of the human mind.

From your previous pope:

In the context of Revelation, we know that the "heaven" or "happiness" in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds

Disembodied spirits are not extended in space. They don’t have shape or take up space. As a result, some have wondered whether heaven is a "place." This is a difficult question. Heaven is not a location in the physical universe. One could never travel far enough in any direction in space to arrive in heaven.

Your 'previous' pope doesn't seem to have as much trouble with the word 'physical' as some of you guys do...

So you guys will never walk up and down the streets of Heaven...Because it's not real in the physical sense...

By the way, I don't give a hoot what 'physical' means in Latin...I care what it means in English...And in English it means you are able to touch it, taste it, feel it, etc. etc...

It it was a significant revelation what something meant in the old, dead Latin, Latin would be the language of the world...But alas, it's English...

[D-fendr]

I think so long as transcending is in there, I’d agree with you.

The main point being that there are categories of knowledge and tools for each category. If we wish to know the circumference of the earth, we don’t consult faith, we measure using the tools of science.

These tools used for the limited sphere of science cannot be used to completely know what can be known using philosophy.

And there are areas of knowledge which cannot be known using the tools of philosophy and science alone; we need religious search if we are to continue seeking knowledge beyond the capacity of science and philosophy alone.

And when we do so, we have to be mindful of our method: gross errors occur when we deduce science from theology or infer theology from science.

Now, in practice this sharp division of spheres becomes less clear. Maybe this is where infusion comes in. Science, for example, assumes certain absolutes in order to do its work. And a monk in contemplative prayer is fully alive to sense data.

But all of the spheres of knowledge share the common goal of the search for truth. Properly used, the tools do not compete, but complement.

Here’s how Pope John Paul II put it:

“There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action.”

This is from his “Faith and Reason,” which in my opinion is a masterpiece on the subject.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM

[Iscool]

In closing I'd say this: If it's impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't use other people to teach us (educate us) about His Word

Well of course...But there is a standard bearer...The scrptures...

the passage from St. Peter's second epistle warns us that without proper instruction, without proper "education", the Scripture can be (and are) "twisted" to be unreadable. The point is of course that this re-enforces the message of 2 Pet 3:16.

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

This is a warning to people who follow Jesus and Peter is warning about other people who don't get it about Paul's revealed mystery of the church...And it is not a warning to get a proper seminary education...

This is a warning about Paul's epistles...It deals with a future new heavens and a new earth which some religions don't beleve in, as well as many other things Paul taught, which some religions don't put much stock in...

It pertains to unlearned and unstable people 'in the knowledge of the scriptues'...

That is, how His revelation was "hidden" there but "now" revealed.

My point exactly...You and I and scholars can read something all day long but it may be meaningless, or we apply it's meaning incorrectly until and unless it is revealed to us from Jesus...

[Mr. Lucky]

Both of your posts are excellent.

Kind of scary, actually.

[Iscool]

What is heaven’s physical location?

Find the North Star...Set your compass and head due North...But you may drown unless God opens the sea for you...

[D-fendr]

Ah, Kolob...

[D-fendr]

If you’re referring to Pope John Paul II, I believe his phrasing was “state of being”.

[FourtySeven]

I think we’re missing the forest through the trees here. First of all, if I may mention in passing, the order in which you quoted my thoughts is out of order. For example, when I said, “The point is of course that THIS re-enforces the message of 2 Pet 3:16”, the “this” is referring to the passage in Luke you posted (Luke 22:45). Also, you didn’t address the main point raised by my statement, “In closing I’d say this:”. For the record also, that should have read “If it’s impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit uses other people...”, that is, the word “doesn’t” should be stricken.

The complete thought (which is relevant to this discussion which is why I’m repeating it) is: If it’s impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit uses other people to teach us (educate us) about His Word, then what one has done by saying such is stated, “I don’t believe the Holy Spirit inhabits anyone for the purposes of education other than me”. In other words, such a person is saying, “No one else has been taught by the Holy Spirit other than me, unless that person agrees with me.” IOW, it’s setting oneself up as a sort of “mini-Pope”.

I’d suggest you think about that previous paragraph carefully. It’s right on point if one suggests, “education is irrelevant to reading the Scriptures; all we need is Jesus. We don’t need any man”.

As a side note, In the passage from 2 Peter chapter 3, starting from verse 11, I do not see St. Peter discussing the larger revelation of Christ, but rather he is urging the more (relatively) narrow point that we should always be ready for Christ’s return.

Again though, this doesn’t matter to the point in question. Verse 16 is rather confusing when written in the KJV style, I think the NAB has it better (starting from verse 15):

“15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

Whatever one believes the overall context of chapter 3 is, verse 16 (starting from “In them...”) is clear: It’s warning against the “ignorant” and “unstable” who “distort” scripture. Now why, or how, do you think they are distorting scripture? Because they are “ignorant” and “unstable” and Scripture is “hard to understand”! Now, do you think an “ignorant” person could understand Scripture that is, by its own description, “hard to understand”?

The relevant portion for our discussion is the word “ignorant”. Ignorant is the lack of knowledge; how is one *not* “ignorant”? If one is educated! Thus it’s clear: To shrug off education by others as unimportant is not only dangerous, but contrary to the essence of 2 Pet 3:16.

Again, certainly it’s possible that one could learn from the Holy Spirit directly, but why is it so difficult (or unacceptable) to believe that the *way* the Holy Spirit teaches us about God’s Word is not only through direct, one on one interaction, but also through a 3rd party, a person with more education and experience than us? Why is that so heretical, especially given Eph 4:11 which specifically *tells us* that “some” will be given to be “teachers”!

[Iscool]

The relevant portion for our discussion is the word “ignorant”. Ignorant is the lack of knowledge; how is one *not* “ignorant”? If one is educated! Thus it’s clear: To shrug off education by others as unimportant is not only dangerous, but contrary to the essence of 2 Pet 3:16.

The Apostles Paul, John and even Jesus teaches us that Heaven is a real, physically, literal place...

Peter is talking about people ignorant in scripture...NOT ignorant in Math, or Theology, or Philosophy...

There are however, people out there who do have a secular education in Theology and Philosophy who agree me and millions like me...Just sayin'...

[Mad Dawg]

I think you err in assuming that "physical" and "state of mind" exhaust the possibilities.

Are you asserting that Heaven is indeed a "location in space"? Is it limited or defined by other places? Some say a thing's location is the set of contiguous points of all the things which are not the thing in question but which touch it. Others would identify a location with coordinates in the several dimensions. Both understand a place as relative to other places. So is heaven relative to other places? Is it "somewhere" in the "physical universe"?

I am reasonably certain I know what John Paul II meant when he said "physical". We've read a lot of the same books. I am not certain what you mean when you say "physical". That is why I have asked you what you meant.

Okay, you don't care what Physical means in Latin. This is good because it is a Greek word.

But now you are saying that physical means "sensible". And I assume you would extend that to include those things which we ourselves cannot sense through our organs of sense, but which we can detect through devices which, as it were, "report" to our senses through dials or flashes of light or somesuch thing.

When you consider that the organs of sense are themselves physical, then "physical" describes a class of things which interact with members of the same class.

And of course, the interaction is complex. We do not, strictly speaking "see a tomato." We see a shaded red patch. If it's close enough we derive an idea of it's 3-dimensional shape through parallax, as long as both eyes are functioning. After several tomato sightings, we associate the visual perception with a tomato, while we acknowledge that someone could produce a very similar visual sensation with something inedible made of wax so that we thought we saw a tomato but we didn't.

But there's a problem: Are thoughts physical? Specifically, when I think, "That's a tomato," is that a physical event? Is it MERELY a physical event?

Now we have a dilemma:
(1)If thoughts are physical events, since physical events seem to follow laws, then how are we free?
(2)If thoughts are not physical, then how are they informed by the physical? What kind of thing is the bridge between the physical sensation of redness and roundness and the internal event which we call a thought? If it's merely physical then how is it a bridge? If it's NOT merely physical and not merely a thought, it must be a third thing. And then what mediates between that third thing and the physical on one side and the thought on the other.
In other words, we have to find a way to avoid an infinite regress if thoughts are not physical.

So if "physical" means "sensible" we seem to have a problem explaining this exchange of views.

Further, "It is sown a ψυχικον body, it is raised a πνευματικον body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body." (I Cor 15:44)

The pneumatic body can "see" God as He is (I John 3:2). Does this seeing happen through organs of sense? Are they "physical" organs? Or, since the seers are resurrected, are they spiritual organs? Or is God seen in some other way?

Spiritual is not necessarily less or less "real" than physical. Might the streets of heaven be paved with spiritual gold or are you insisting that if someone could somehow get one of the heavenly paving stones to a lab here on earth it would test out as gold?

To sum up so far, saying that the physical is the sensible seems to say that the physical acts on physical sense organs, but does not go into the sensations of the resurrected body. And the problem of physical things and thought seems to make "sensible" a problematic explanation of "physical".

I haven't even touched on the "reality", if any, of truth. beauty, justice, and love, and how they are perceived.

[D-fendr]

Well done, Dawg.

A nun once told me that our imagining life after death is like a baby in the womb imagining life after birth.

[Iscool]

A nun once told me that our imagining life after death is like a baby in the womb imagining life after birth.

How'd she find that out, she tried it???

[FourtySeven]

Peter is talking about people ignorant in scripture...NOT ignorant in Math, or Theology, or Philosophy...

I'm not sure what you mean by "ignorant in Scripture". If you mean "ignorant about the intricacies *of* Scripture" then yes, I agree.

Also, first of all, I don't know why you would think this, but I'm not suggesting people be educated in all areas of everything. Math for example. Where did you get the idea I was suggesting mathematicians are the only ones who can understand the written Word properly? Similarly for philosophers (although some philosophy is required for proper theology).

I'm also not saying that everyone needs to take formal classes in theology or philosophy. This whole exchange began when you said to netmilsmom that, "There is not a single verse in the scriptures that indicate the more educated a person is, the more he'll know of the scriptures..." I provided 2 Pet 3:16 to show that notion is false. I believe I have adequetely done so.

I'm not going to get into an argument about how much education every single Christian should have. netmilsmom said herself that she doesn't know very much, and that's why she relies on the training and knowledge of others. This is what you originally balked at; the idea that we can learn from others about theology. 2 Pet 3:16 shows that it's perfectly ok to learn from others about theology. So I don't see any continued problem here.

[Iscool]

I suspect you spend a lot of time talkin to yourself...But at least you spend some time trying to analize the reality of Heaven...It’s a pity God can’t help you out there...