Replies

But which premise invalidates the NT church, as it began with souls having rightly discerned both men and writings as being of God, and following an itinerant Preacher whom the historical magisterium/stewards of Scripture rejected,

"Historical magisterium/stewards of Scripture"...?!?

What sort of contrived, shoe-horned-only-for-the-sake-of-smearing-the-word-'Magisterium' clap-trap is THAT?

Good grief, FRiend... are you seriously saying that, since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority, and the Catholic Church is an organized hierarchy, and the Sanhedrin were wrong, therefore the Catholic Church must be wrong? Wow...

"My dog has four legs. My cat has four legs. My dog loves car-rides; therefore, my cat must love car rides."

Look up the "fallacy of the undistributed middle", when you have a chance...

Good grief, FRiend... are you seriously saying that, since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority, and the Catholic Church is an organized hierarchy, and the Sanhedrin were wrong, therefore the Catholic Church must be wrong? Wow... "My dog has four legs. My cat has four legs. My dog loves car-rides; therefore, my cat must love car rides." Look up the "fallacy of the undistributed middle", when you have a chance...

Look up sophistry or cognitive dissonance when you have a chance, as you either or have resorted to misconstruing the argument or you have have succeeded in misunderstanding it.

No, it does not follow that since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority but was wrong, then Catholic Church must be wrong since it is an organized hierarchy, which is what you conveniently construed the argument to be.

Instead, it does follow that if an infallible magisterium is essential for the discernment of what is of God, then since then it is contrary to how the NT church began, as there was no infallible magisterium to tell them what was Scripture or the Messiah.

And in fact it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, while under the Catholic model the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture dissent is disallowed.

Thus the shared similarity of being an organized authority does not make the RC mag. wrong, but the very premise that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential is the issue, due to the posters questions. Which should have been obvious.

If want to compare reasons for the Rc mag. being infallible versus the OT mag then go ahead.

Good grief, FRiend... are you seriously saying that, since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority, and the Catholic Church is an organized hierarchy, and the Sanhedrin were wrong, therefore the Catholic Church must be wrong? Wow... "My dog has four legs. My cat has four legs. My dog loves car-rides; therefore, my cat must love car rides." Look up the "fallacy of the undistributed middle", when you have a chance...

No, you have not represented Daniel's logic faithfully. Therefore your claim of an undistributed middle term in his logic doesn't hold up, though your dogs and cats example does show one (exceedingly unlikely) way that fallacy could occur. In case there are some following this who do not know, let's look at what the infamous "undistributed middle" actually means. Consider the following syllogism:

P1: A is related to B
P2: B is related to C
Therefore: A is related to C

B is the middle term. It is properly distributed if and only if it refers to the same thing in both premises, P1 and P2. That is, it only links A to C if B really is exactly the same thing in both places.

The "undistributed middle" fallacy occurs when the B term somehow changes between P1 and P2. Sometimes the change can be an absolute break, such as the dogs and cats example. Or it can be more subtle, where the same word expressing the B term is used in both places but with a difference in meaning in P1 versus P2. So if we could say B in P1 is somehow significantly different from B in P2, then we have an undistributed middle.

But, just as Daniel says, we have mere sophistry if we try to compare paladinan's example with dogs and cats to Daniel's two magisteriums analysis. The terms don't map at all from Daniel's multi-syllogism sequence to the simple dog and cat syllogism

Dogs and Cats:

P1: dog has four legs
P2: cat has four legs
P3: dog loves car rides
Therefore: cat loves car rides

Which we can all agree is ludicrous, but it also has no resemblance to Daniel's sequence, as below:

Two Magisteriums:

Syllogism 1) Assert the following to be true:

P1: An infallible magisterium would not be in conflict with Jesus
P2: Israel's magisterium was in conflict with Jesus
Therefore: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium

Syllogism 1 is formally correct because the middle term, "conflict with Jesus," was distributed correctly, i.e., had the same exact meaning in P1 and P2. And as all the constituent terms are also factually correct, the conclusion of Syllogism 1 must also be true. So we can use it to test further conclusions, thus:

Syllogism 2) Assert the following to be false:

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium (see A above)
Therefore: It was impossible for Israel to know if Jesus was of God

Obviously, we all reject the conclusion of Syllogism 2. But is Syllogism 2 formally correct? Yes it is. Once again, in Syllogism 2, there is no problem with an undistributed middle. The B term, the one that links P1 and P2, is "infallible magisterium," and it is used the same way in both premises. And because P2 is simply a restatement of the correct conclusion found in Syllogism 1, then the only place remaining in which to find an error is P1 of Syllogism 2, the idea that an infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God.

Put another way, as a result of these first two syllogisms, we now know an infallible magisterium is not necessary to know what is of God. The only question remaining is how this new information plays out in the Catholic Magisterium syllogism:

Syllogism 3) Assert the following to be false, because it uses the same faulty premise as Syllogism 2

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Only Catholicism possesses an infallible magisterium
Therefore: Only Catholicism provides what is necessary to know what is of God

Because we already know the premise in P1 is false, we know the conclusion must be false, i.e., we know there can be means outside of Catholicism by which it is possible to know what is of God (which merits a discussion unto itself). Furthermore, looping back to the first syllogism, we see that the New Testament Ecclesia was birthed in direct conflict with the magisterium. This means that if we were forced for some reason to accept P1 as true, we would have to reject the ministry of Jesus, as it was conducted in opposition to the magisterium. But if, as is the better case, we accept the ministry of Jesus as true, it is impossible to accept P1 as true, and again we know from this that it is possible to know what is of God without the benefit of an infallible magisterium.

BTW, it should be pointed out that P2 in Syllogism 3 above is radically flawed as well. Catholicism's claim to an infallible magisterium is unconvincing:

1. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was ever created.
2. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was perpetuated past the apostolic age.
3. It cannot be demonstrated from primary historical sources that any consolidated, unified magisterium, fallible or infallible, ever existed in Rome under one bishop until nearly the end of the Second Century.
4. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can fall into catastrophic error.
5. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can be sent reformers from God for the purpose of correcting its catastrophic error.

Long story short, the dogs and cats analogy is NOT an analogy but a complete disconnect from Daniel's logic, and so does absolutely nothing to address or refute that logic. If you feel I have overlooked critical evidence of where the middle term fails to distribute properly, please let me know. I am fallible after all, and therefore am open to correction. :)

Peace,

SR