Replies

And I do agree that all the terms presented need further refinement. I noted to myself as I did the analysis that a great quantity of subsidiary logic was necessarily being glossed over to prevent what I personally dread, the wall post, a post so long it does no one any good, other than to be printed and used as wall paper. :) So I did strive for an economy that provided focus for the one issue I meant to deal with.

However, as the terms come from Daniel’s original analysis (as best I could summarize them), I strongly suggest Daniel be copied into this conversation, and be provided the first opportunity to explore the terms you find controversial.

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. I am sorry if you think I was angling for emotion. I write vividly because that is how I write. When I write boringly, even I get bored. But I assure you, my choice of term in that instance was conditioned by my real estimation of the objective failure of the Jewish magisterium. There are a number of them in decease who might now agree with my assessment. Objectively.

Peace,

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.