Replies

If you want a meaningful exchange you need to explain what your argument is.

I think there is a double standard in your position.

We both can make lists of things we see our respective infallible authorities teaching…

and:

But no one or office has the gift of assured infallibility…

I think you are attacking the position of infallible dogma. My point is no religion holds its dogma as fallible. This is what is declared as true. It is not like science where there are hypotheses.

So I ask for the same thing you ask for - infallible or fallible - in order to illustrate the double standard.

Hope this is clearer.

This sort of question posed to dan, isn't quite fair, not only for your having chopped off included qualifiers which should preclude your own use of a sentence fragment of his representing that as an actual position to be weighed.

You said;

I think you are attacking the position of infallible dogma.

as a doctrine subscribed to need not be seen as entirely infallible.

Further, is issue of there being no distinction being made here by yourself between doctrine and dogmas, with those not being entirely synonymous. Doctrines are more amenably to later adjustment or clarification, while dogmas proclaimed to be infallibly true by those who declaring themselves to be infallibly proclaiming them-- not as much if at all, without incurring risk of having not been so infallible on a particular point.

Proceeding then to such as;

My point is no religion holds its dogma as fallible. This is what is declared as true. It is not like science where there are hypotheses.

The point borders on being superfluous, particularly in how it arose on this thread, as I did explain in a comment to yourself (and addressed to a few others also) just previous to my now making this comment.

But nice distraction, it seems so central, but it is not, for it is so near the border of artifice (for representing things by over-simplicity while ignoring clarifying qualify clauses, redefining them not inclusive of the clarifying clause, but excluding those instead)

I'm sorry I did not more fully extend effort to address these aspects, or straighten it out sooner. I did write concerning this usage of "fallible" as it has been employed here by yourself but never finished well enough to actually post comment concerning this digression towards fallible being conceptually applied to dogma in the manner in which it has, though I provided introductory overview of a somewhat differing treatment of the issue, showing things to be not exactly thing of on-off infallible/fallible dichotomy, for reason that pretty much any product of men's minds and hands in regards to the things of God become polluted whenever man sets his tools to work upon the platforms from which sacrifice is then made unto God.

A better inquiry for us here would be to examine if that which has been dogmatically proclaimed by those who drape themselves in mantle of infallibility are well enough justified in that which they not only proclaim is truth, but which by dogmatic proclamation is said must be believed by all.

Here is some interesting wording, which if carefully enough examined, may show one of those double-standards which seem to be troubling to you D-fendr, for neither dan or any other on this thread at least, have gone quite to the extent as saying the below;

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."[29]
Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

So we see here this is one thing which Roman Catholic Magesterium" (?) in the person of "pope Pius IX" is threatening penalties of law if one dare oppose the ideas in writing which he expressed in Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854.

Just what are those penalties of law? Those would include excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, which same church in that era expressed the idea that she alone could empower "priests" to "confect the sacrifice" or in other words, successfully conduct the sanctification ritual which results in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the being "the body of Christ" which if according to "law" (?) one does not eat thereof, is cut off from Christ entirely.

That's heavy weight stuff to be attaching "by penalty of law" to a literal dogma (dogma -- as compared to beliefs more simply said to be "true" or contain truth).

I think you are attacking the position of infallible dogma. My point is no religion holds its dogma as fallible.

Thanks for making that clear. I was indeed attacking the position of infallible dogma, as in the premise upon which this is based, but which is not a dbl standard. There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error, and we can even agree with Muslims on some things .

But the issue is the basis for Truth and interpretation of it. And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.

And which presumes this is promised as being necessary for the providence and assurance of Truth and preservation of the faith, and that this status is manifested by historical descent as being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation.