Replies

Again, I appreciate your response, and I understand the objections you have raise. But the point of my response was to show that your claim of an undistributed middle in Daniel’s logic was spurious, and I believe that mater is now settled in Daniel’s favor.

Well... this particular point isn't one for which I'm willing to make heroic efforts; so I'll give you that point. MY point was, if I could re-word it, an effort to point out (among other things) an illicit equivalence in Daniel's definition of "infallible magisterium" (the "seat of Moses" was authoritative, but it did not convey infallibility); the Jewish authorities never even CLAIMED to be infallible, so comparing them to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is both odd and a bit misleading. But again: I'll give you (and Daniel) the specific point about it not being a specific "undistributed middle" fallacy, and attribute it to hasty reading on my part... and I'll gladly withdraw it (and beg your pardons).

One more point, and only because it bothers me. In describing the failure of the magisterium as catastrophic, I cannot imagine what would be more catastrophic that to reject and kill the Son of God.

:) Hm. On the one hand, it's very difficult to argue with that! On the other hand, I was trying to figure out just how limited your use of the word "Magisterium" was; if you were limiting it to the Jewish authorities (which is fine, though the word "magisterium" is almost never used to describe Jewish teaching authorities--hence my wariness), and if you weren't seeking to make any comparisons between them and the Catholic Church (that would be an apples/oranges comparison, anyway), then I'd not complain at all... and I definitely think that killing God is a cataclysmic (and maximally evil) mistake for any teaching authority to do. I was just being wary about possible forays into the idea of, "So you see, Magisteriums can be infallible... therefore, the Catholic Church [etc., etc.]"... which WOULD have been an "undistributed middle" fallacy.

I was just being wary about possible forays into the idea of, "So you see, Magisteriums can be infallible... therefore, the Catholic Church [etc., etc.]"... which WOULD have been an "undistributed middle" fallacy.

Interesting point, and I do agree distribution of that middle term could be problematic, depending on the degree of abstraction one assigns to the word "magisterium." Certainly Catholic apologists have attached a set of attributes to the class of things called "magesterium," and these attributes may well be different between the two (OT and NT) within Catholic thinking. The problem I am seeing in this conversation is that what that term means as between the two of us is a big part of what is being contested, and it might help a great deal if both sides could come to a common working definition, so that we do not get sidetracked by hidden discrepancies.

For my part, I don't see a complete "apples and oranges" break between the OT and the NT teaching authority. More like granny apples versus red delicious. Distinguishable on some attributes, but in a lot of ways the same thing. Indeed, a fair portion of our debate centers around how alike or different they really are, so assuming they are totally different in advance would be begging the question. If we abstract the term "magisterium" to mean nothing more than "divinely appointed teaching authority for the covenant community," we would have to say they are functionally identical. If we get a bit more concrete and start looking at organization and process, we will start to get some differences. But it is precisely our contention that infallibility of the magisterial body is present in neither Old or New Covenant models. We demonstrate to a high degree of certainty infallibility was not present in the old, and thus demonstrate it is not necessary to have an infallible institution in order to have and benefit from an infallible divine revelation.

In other words, we are attempting to show by analogy between the old and the new that they are indeed both fallible. This is because the typical argument we see in support of institutional infallibility is necessity, necessity to the purpose of recognizing divine truth. I personally am confused at this point because that necessity has been presented to us as a key to knowing divine truth but there seems to be some variability, with some posters taking a more absolutist approach and others allowing for alternatives to institutional infallibility in some special cases. If I were asked to reconstruct a formal, uniform Catholic position on the matter using nothing but favorable FR posts, I would feel the task was impossible.

In any event, our point is that the necessity argument fails because the divinely appointed OT teaching authority didn't have it and yet the people of God could still connect with the truth of God. In math, if you purport to come up with a universal axiom, and yet there is a counterexample, the axiom's alleged universality is disproved. Absolutes brook no exceptions. If the divinely appointed OT teaching authority did not have and did not need infallibility for people to find God's truth, why should we assume it suddenly became necessary in the NT to accomplish the same end?

Again, I'm not sure I could articulate the RC argument for the change here, because as a rule, I don't think it is ever presented. We never get far enough down the road to do that. Which, BTW, is reason enough to appreciate the dialog we are having, as it has exposed this problem as an area to explore.

Peace,

SR