Replies

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

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.

Aah, you have discovered the secret, Grasshopper.

The decoder rings are tunable to varying frequencies.

With a simply twist, fuzzy infallibles can be made out to be one thing. Give it a shake, and it's somewhat different.

All rings are not set on the same channel, but all decoder rings are on the one real (and only) channel.

That's all we've got to know...

Now kiss the ring(s)? No?

Ok, then just perhaps the Lord's own leading us to all truth and righteousness is not dependent upon that process having been necked down, funneled or channeled through any one particular "infallible by committee" design. Though at the same time that does not render all ecclesiastical community committees be entirely in error, either.

What's the measure of which is right, and what may be seen as clearly enough wrong? The committee sits in judgement -- of the committee, then publishes edict that the committee is the measure of all things?

Which things (that are taught) best adhere to the Word of the Lord, and His Spirit, as best those be known by those whom actually are acquainted with written Word, and both acquainted with and yielded to the Spirit of the Lord? Tradition can be of assistance, but traditions and attitudes themselves are not -- the written Word, or (Holy) Spirit either.

In regards to the yielding to Spirit --- is where the "believe on Him who was sent" can reappear within ourselves, I've come to understand (or else ---- believe). But check and re-check for affirmation. The prudent navigator does not rely upon only one, or else just a few navigational aids, but widens his views to take in all, including checking and re-checking instrument calibrations, and his own interpretations of those...

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257:‘The Lord said, "I am truth." He did not say, I am custom’ (The Opinions of the Bishops On the Baptizing of Heretics, 30). There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions:’ many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message.