Replies

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

But, just as Daniel says, we have mere sophistry

But which rushed reply (I was going to be gone for some hours) needed some proof reading, sad to say).

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

Which premise is what i was responding to, and includes both knowing what Scripture consists of and means, and which is behind all "The Catholic Church gave us the Bible" polemical assertions in response to refutation from Scripture.

Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

The whole argument is that the Cath magisterium has uniquely received the revelation from on high, only by which we assuredly know what Divine revelation consists of and means, thus we need faith in in this intermediary authority to assuredly correctly know what the word of God is and means.

Thus the now classic quote by Keating:

“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

And Manning,

The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

Which means Rome can "remember" a specific event Scripture never records or foretells, that of a fable that lacks even early historical testimony , and even make binding doctrine out of it though even her own scholars were adverse to it:

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via invisible, amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.

Hi, S.R.! Good to see you, again!

Your definition of the "undistributed middle" (also known as the "fallacy of four terms", FWIW) is fine. I'll insert comments at the points where we start to disagree. You wrote, in describing Daniel's argument

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

No problems, so far.

Syllogism 2) Assert the following to be false:

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God

Let me stop you, here. On the one hand, your analysis is correct: Syllogism 2 is valid (i.e. logically, the conclusion follows from the premises), but it's UNSOUND (i.e. a bad argument) because it started with a false premise--i.e. P1. Well and good, so far.

But: the suggestion that "an infallible Magisterium is necessary to know what is of God" has some problems which Daniel didn't address. First, the phrase "what is of God" is annoyingly vague, and it covers a great many species of items... some of which WOULD require an infallible Magisterium for certainty (e.g. which books are truly Sacred Scripture, and which are spurious), and some of which would NOT require such an authority (e.g. the existence of God, Himself--which can be known through pure reason, unaided by Divine Revelation).

To make matters worse, this definition doesn't make the needed distinction between absolute certainty (i.e. certainty beyond ALL doubt, which is required for a priori conclusions such as the Pythagorean Theorem) and MORAL certainty (which logicians and lawyers would call "certainty beyond REASONABLE doubt, where rejection of the conclusion would entail a violation of sane reason", which is the minimum requirement for a posteriori, sense-data-dependent conclusions such as determining whether the room contains any penguins, or not). In short: this premise is an absolute mess.

If you'll remember from logic, there are three things needed for an argument to be sound (i.e. valid and true): (a) clear definitions, (b) true premises, and (c) a conclusion which logically follows from the premises (i.e. no fallacies). "P1" fails on two counts: it's not sufficiently clear, and--as a general statement, it is false (though it's true for some subsets of "that which is from God").

If the argument progresses, while "limping along" with this inadequate definition, it's going to collapse. That's one key thing which flagged my attention.

P2: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium (see A above)

True enough.

Therefore: It was impossible for Israel to know if Jesus was of God

See above; there was no effort to parse out the subsets of "that which is of God" (much less to place "knowledge that Jesus was of God"--which is vague in its own right, since ALL humans are "from God" in a looser sense), and so there's no clear way to reach any certain conclusion.

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

See above; this is far too murky and insecure to use, at all.

P2: Only Catholicism possesses an infallible magisterium

Therefore: Only Catholicism provides what is necessary to know what is of God

Again, see above.

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:

Just as a side note: "unconvincing" and "flawed" are not equivalent. I've run into many people who were "unconvinced" even of a priori truths which were proven beyond all doubt. "Convincing", unfortunately, is a process which usually has to wade through the recipient's EMOTIONS, as well as their reason, to attain its end.

1. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was ever created.

It depends on what you mean by "demonstrated"; how strict are your standards? Are you expecting a mathematical, airtight proof? Then no, it cannot be demonstrated... but neither can it be demonstrated mathematically that Jesus ever walked the Earth at all. Are you expecting a proof beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, then I submit for your consideration the fact that this has been proven, over and over again, in hundreds of venues. If you're really ambitious, try to locate the book, "Christianity and Infallibility: Both or Neither", by Fr. Daniel Lyons. (It's out of print, but inter-library loan should be able to find it.)

By the way: is a demonstration from SCRIPTURE the ONLY type of demonstration you'd find convincing? I don't see why, since "sola Scriptura" is a self-contradictory, invalid bit of nonsense which deserves no allegiance from anyone.

I'd also add: St. Peter, who was the rock on whom Christ built His Church (with the promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against Her), was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven--with an unquestioned power to bind and loose. Compare this to Isaiah 22, and it makes an unmistakable connection: St. Peter is the "prime minister" (al ba'it) of the King of Kings, who is empowered to speak and act with the King's authority. (The others of the Twelve were also given the power to "bind and loose"--cf. Matthew 18:18--though they were not given the keys, and their authority was therefore contingent upon union with St. Peter.) Jesus also said to the Twelve that "he who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16); the Holy Spirit (through St. Paul) calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), and those who spurn the voice of the Church are to be treated as the heathen or tax collector (cf. Matthew 18:17). The early Church fathers were unanimous in their acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome as being identified with Peter, and having his authority. Church history holds this idea to be absolutely unquestioned by all Church authorities, Fathers, and doctors of the Church, at least until the terrible schism between East and West (at roughly the turn of the millenium) approached.

Beyond this (which I cut very short, for the sake of time), common sense requires that God should have permitted us an infallible interpreter of His Revelation, lest the sinful and darkened intellect of man distort that Revelation beyond recognition. As Fr. Lyons says (and I paraphrase): "To presume that our God did not provide a secure, living, immortal, and accessible authority Who could preserve both His Revelation and the teachings dependent upon it from error and deceit, is to presume that God is indifferent to the damnation of the vast majority of His children." If Revelation is necessary for salvation, and if there is no certain way to know the contents of revelation, then there is no certain way to attain salvation.

2. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was perpetuated past the apostolic age.

How about the fact that St. Peter and the other Apostles felt compelled to replace Judas Iscariot? Even more compelling are the reasons they cite: "Let another take his office" (Acts 1:20, citing Psalm 109:8). Why? Why not leave only 11 Apostles? Apparently, there were reasons (I'd argue that the Apostles needed to represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel, among other things) for keeping the "office" alive, even when an officeholder had vacated (through death, etc.). This is strengthened by the fact that St. Paul talks repeatedly about ordaining more bishops (episkopoi) and priests (presbyteroi), and the fact that all of Church history has not only acknowledged, but EXPECTED, that the Apostolic succession must continue. If nothing else, Jesus requires it when He commands them to "make disciples of all nations" (which could hardly have been done in the lifetime of the Apostles). For those who suggest that Apostolic authority died with the Apostles, I'm afraid history and Scripture are against them.

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.

What do you mean by "primary" historical sources? Do you require that the original manuscripts still be in existence? And what sort of "consolidated" Magisterium would flag your attention? St. Peter was undeniably the head of the Apostles; even a cursory examination of the Scriptures (to say nothing of early Church history) would show that plainly; but would that satisfy your definition of "consolidated Magisterium"? I do wonder if some definitions might not weed out legitimate evidence, simply because the conclusions are not pleasing to the viewers...

4. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can fall into catastrophic error.

You'd have to be much more specific than that--both with examples, and with explanations as to what TYPE of error. Was it error in doctrine? Error in personal behavior? Error in matters of faith and morals? Errors in matters not related to those? (And on what basis do you use the word "catastrophic"? It's a very dramatic-sounding word... but it can also be abused.)

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.

I'll take a guess, here, and say that you may be thinking of Galatians 2:11-14? If so, you'll have to explain what genus the "error" was (e.g. doctrinal, behavioral, etc.), and why you attach the word "catastrophic" to it (aside, perhaps, from emotional emphasis).

More later; must dash!