http://divineandcatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2018/11/why-canonizations-are-fallible.html
Why Canonizations are Fallible
Many of the prominent theologians of the last few centuries who argued that canonizations of particular individuals are infallible relied on an appeal to the concept of "ecclesiastical faith" to justify their position. It is worthy of consideration that several theologians whom Msgr. Fenton considered to be eminent outright rejected the validity of the concept of a mere "ecclesiastical faith."1 Faith rests on authority. If the authority we believe a particular doctrine on is God, then we are said to possess divine faith. If the authority we believe a particular doctrine on is human, then we are said to possess human faith. Msgr. Fenton includes a definition of ecclesiastical faith as "the absolutely firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself." Proponents of a mere EF claim that teachings which must be accepted with EF are infallible. Fenton quotes Bishop Garcia Martinez, one of the eminent theologians who denied the validity of the concept of a mere EF, as insisting upon the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain assent of faith based on something other than the divine authority itself. Fr. Marin-Sola also opposed the validity of EF on the grounds that, "The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new doctrine, but only an explanation of the deposit of public divine revelation." The reason why theologians have used the term "ecclesiastical faith" in reference to canonizations of particular individuals instead of "divine faith" is because "divine faith" pertains to believing doctrines which God has revealed as part of His public revelation that ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Very few would claim that canonizations of particular individuals, excepting perhaps the canonizations of St. Dismas and other unique cases, are contained within this public divine revelation. Hence the need for a new term, at least for those theologians who are bent on arguing in favor of the infallibility of canonizations, and for whom the term "human faith" would be very problematic.
Fr. Blaise Beraza, SJ is another theologian who Msgr. Fenton referenced who argued against the validity of EF. Fr. Beraza appealed primarily to two magisterial documents in making his argument. The first of these documents is Pastor Aeternus. Fenton paraphrases Fr. Beraza's reasoning for claiming that the concept of EF as understood by the majority of its proponents is irreconcilable with Vatican I, "It would be idle to imagine that there could be any such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible teaching power as the ecclesia docens as a whole) precisely for the sake of guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to the Church as divine revelation through the Apostles." Vatican I explicitly teaches that the Holy Ghost was not given to Peter's successors to make known any new teachings. The very fact that the proponents of the concept of "ecclesiastical faith" eschew using the term "divine faith" in reference to canonizations and other things customarily classified as "secondary objects" shows that they acknowledge that we cannot believe a particular teaching on the authority of God if that particular teaching is not contained within the deposit of faith. The problem with claiming that canonizations are infallible is that the attribute of infallibility was not given by God to the Church to make known novel doctrines.
The other magisterial document Fr. Beraza references is the Tridentine Profession of Faith. He points out that in this Creed we profess as an article of divine and Catholic faith that we firmly "admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church." We also profess in the same Creed as an article of divine and Catholic faith that we "receive and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments." Fr. Beraza's reason for emphasizing those particular articles of the Creed is to demonstrate that some of what other theologians speak of as being entirely only the objects of mere ecclesiastical faith, such as the liturgical rites used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, are actually objects of articles of divine and Catholic faith. This perceptive observation of Fr. Beraza is very, very important because the concept of EF has been used by the liturgical revolutionaries to undermine divinely revealed dogmas concerning our ecclesiastical traditions, such as, for example, the dogma of the necessity of adhering to the received and approved liturgical rites of the Church, "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13).
D.M. Drew of SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission expounded upon how the concept of EF has weakened the ability of traditionalists to effectively defend our sacred liturgical rites, "The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts. How were they overthrown? They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorized as matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church. If objects of EF are 'the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself,' then they are necessarily contingent human truths. If the Church thinks the objects of EF are historical, contingent truths which have become outdated and no longer speak to the modern mind, then she can change them into other more relevant contemporary truths...Msgr. Fenton goes into some detail what the 'ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church' refers which the EF people reduce to a mere human authority. Take, for example, the most important of the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, the Roman rite of Mass. It is not and never has been a mere object of Church discipline but that is where the idea of EF has taken us. Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission have made a public profession of divine and Catholic faith in our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. We have refused to consider them as mere objects of human EF but hold them as necessary attributes of the faith which make it known and communicable to others. Since God commands the faithful to make public professions of faith and to worship Him in the public forum, every Catholic possesses a right to these immemorial ecclesiastical traditions that perfectly manifest the faith we hold in the internal forum."2
Canonizations of particular individuals are, unlike certain aspects of the Church's liturgical rites, not objects of public divine revelation. The arguments against the validity of EF are therefore relevant when discussing whether or not they are infallible. Does acknowledging the fallibility of canonizations mean that chaos will result in the Church and the sanctity of countless heroic souls who have been raised to the Church's altars thrown into question? Canonizations are teachings of the "authentic magisterium". Regarding teachings of the authentic magisterium, the theologian Dom Paul Nau wrote, If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught."3 We are not allowed to refuse prudential inward assent to teachings of the authentic magisterium unless we possess grave reason for doing so. I cannot think of any grave reasons for calling into question the truthfulness of any of the pre-Vatican II canonizations of saints who I am familiar with. When it comes, however, to the canonizations of Pope John Paul, the Great Ecumenist, and Pope Paul VI, the Great Secular Humanist, I can think of grave reasons for refusing assent.
1. http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ecclesiastical_faith.html
2. See poster "drew" http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/Implications_1989%20POF_Religious-Submission_EF.htm
3. Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church
Catholics have a choice:
1. Accept that Bergoglio has been twice accused of heresy, publicly, and refused to recant. He is therefore not Catholic and not the Pope. All of his actions with regards to the Church are therefore invalid.
2. In humility and obedience, tonight get on your knees to honor and ask for intercession from St. John Paul II, patron of incestuous homosexual pedophilia and protector of Islam, and of St. Paul VI, patron of masons and modernists. Oh, and you should also throw in St. Romero, patron of marxists.
The OP's point is grounded in the limits of the Catholic magisterium -- and I include the magisterium pre-V2, as well. The magisterium does not set itself up as the dogmatic arbiter of personal spirituality. Officially, it limits its authority and enforcement to public prayer, public revelation (a point well hammered home in the original post), and the permanent deposit of faith.
Traditionally, the Church does not enforce private spirituality, and that private spirituality includes both private revelation and private devotion to saints (prayer and veneration). The faithful are invited to participate in what spiritual resources are efficacious for them and bring them closer to God. They are not required to participate in optional devotions, including optional traditional devotions such as the blessing of throats of St. Blaise's Feast Day, such as enrollment in the scapular and the wearing of it, etc.
Thus, I do not "pray to" JP2, Mother Teresa, JXXIII, etc.
No member of the hierarchy and no lay person has authority to enforce private (optional) devotions of any kind. We are required to believe in the precepts of the Apostle's Creed, including the fact that there is indeed a Communion of Saints, but even lay people who believe that JP2 "is a saint," are not obligated ever to ask for his supposed intercession or to acknowledge within his or her heart, his sanctity. In charity, we should hope that all baptized Catholics have been or will be ultimately saved, including people we dislike, have been scandalized by, etc., but we need not feel affection for such people, let alone pray for their intercession.
This is the rabbit hole you go down when you make everything, even knowledge and truth itself, hinge upon authority. Authority is subject to truth and not the other way around. This is, in a nutshell, why the Western Church ran off the rails and why traditionalists are having a difficult time defending tradition - a very difficult time, in fact, because they have to constantly make end-runs around the claim of authority, just as shown in the OP. The arguments about sacred rites, for instance, are quite weak, because no one is saying the TLM or traditional sacramental rites are evil, which is essentially what Luther maintained and what Trent was condemning. Anyway, a 100% rebuttal to the argument is to say, "That's what YOU say Trent means. The Pope says otherwise. And he, and not you, is the authority." There is essentially no answer to that in the traditionalist framework.
There is one thing, and one thing only, which qualifies a man to teach and that is knowledge of the relevant subject material. And there is one reason, and only one reason, why sacred rites should be defended and that is because they are sacred.
What chiefly distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism is the concept (and reality) of authority outside of the individual believer, an authority decreed by Jesus Christ Himself.
ETA:
not only decreed, but bestowed by Our Lord.
Quote from: james03 on November 01, 2018, 10:43:11 AM
Catholics have a choice:
1. Accept that Bergoglio has been twice accused of heresy, publicly, and refused to recant. He is therefore not Catholic and not the Pope. All of his actions with regards to the Church are therefore invalid.
2. In humility and obedience, tonight get on your knees to honor and ask for intercession from St. John Paul II, patron of incestuous homosexual pedophilia and protector of Islam, and of St. Paul VI, patron of masons and modernists. Oh, and you should also throw in St. Romero, patron of marxists.
I thought he was the patron of apostates?
I kind of like the theory held by some SSPX priests, that the pope is "infallible" when (and only when) he speaks and acts in agreement with truth.
But if this theory is correct, then papal infallibility is basically a tautology... and if it's a tautology, then the whole doctrine concerning papal infallibility is seemingly meaningless. It's logically impossible for a man to simultaneously be wrong and speak truth, so of course the pope is "infallible" when speaking the truth. But the fact that there's a dogma concerning papal infallibility seems to imply that infallibility is a power given by God to the pope, preventing the pope from speaking anything that isn't true (though perhaps this power applies only within its scope).
Daniel, I will delve into potential heresy here, but I have come to the conclusion that every traditional Catholic position destroys papal infallibility and makes it meaningless, including sedevacantism. And that attempts to save it often lead to various forms of insanity. Not clinical insanity, but that people adopt crazy delusions to try to save papal infallibility. Perhaps it is simpler to just reject infallibility instead of rejecting six decades worth or popes in an attempt to save it, or to insist Benedict is still the pope even though he says he is no longer the pope in interviews, or constantly redefining the scope of papal infallibility to be narrower and narrower with each passing year to try to save face as the SSPX is doing. Where does that lead us? I really do not know to be honest.
Quote from: Matto on November 01, 2018, 05:35:55 PM
Daniel, I will delve into potential heresy here, but I have come to the conclusion that every traditional Catholic position destroys papal infallibility and makes it meaningless, including sedevacantism. And that attempts to save it often lead to forms of insanity. Not clinical insanity, but that people adopt crazy delusions to try to save papal infallibility. Perhaps it is simpler to just reject infallibility instead of rejecting six decades worth or popes in an attempt to save it, or constantly redefining the scope of papal infallibility to be narrower and narrower with each passing year to try to save face as the SSPX is doing. Where does that lead us? I really do not know to be honest.
It leads to the same place it came from: confusion about the teaching of infallibility which is rather clear below:
Quote9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
There have been exactly two Ex Cathedra definitions: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
What the Pope randomly thinks out loud or even writes about is owed, as much as possible, some degree of assent. But only when he speaks/writes Ex Cathedra is he acting in the manner which was defined by Vatican 1.
One of the biggest problems with the Novus Ordo milieu, as well as the more extreme Trad milieu, is the ultramontane misunderstanding of infallibility.
ETA: I fail to see, despite having read many attempts, how any particular person being a Saint is a matter of faith or morals as held by the Church since Her beginning. That sainthood in general is possible, yes. That morals are understood to have been lived, yes. But of faith itself and morals themselves for a particular person post-Apostolic age? That seems to me to be entering into the idea of extending public revelation.
Now, applying those teachings as always held would be different, and could lead to moral certainty of one's sanctity. But moral certainty is not the same thing as an infallible declaration. Even a layman can have moral certainty of a person's salvation: for example, you watch your mother die seconds after the completion of a final confession and absolution, extreme unction, etc. You would have moral certainty she is at least in purgatory.
The entire point of the cultus and miracles previously associated with a declaration of sainthood has gone largely by the wayside. Many point out the quick canonizations of certain saints like Francis of Assisi, Clare, and Anthony of Padua. But they worked miracles even during their lives. Can we say the same of JP2? John XXIII?
In reality, this question on the status of canonizations has never been answered, and its defense was always accompanied by the reality of truly, obviously, and traditionally holy people.
If canonization is an infallible declaration by the Church, over which the Pope merely presides (much like an [true] Ecumenical Council), then the question of an anti-Church and consequently an anti-Pope becomes much more interesting.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 01, 2018, 12:16:54 PM
What chiefly distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism is the concept (and reality) of authority outside of the individual believer, an authority decreed by Jesus Christ Himself.
ETA:
not only decreed, but bestowed by Our Lord.
But what should
chiefly distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism is the concept and reality of
truth, and not authority. Protestants have their own authority (the Bible, and their ministers).
I mean let's be honest here. All the legal i's were dotted and t's crossed with regard to the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, and all the rest. You and other traditionalists reject it not due to arguments to authority (for the very authority you recognize promulgated these things) but because of a lost sense of the sacred which is natural or "connatural" (as Thomists would have it, to maintain distinction between nature and grace) to elevated man. You are not wrong in so doing. Just don't pretend authority is the acme and the sine qua non of spiritual life.
Quote from: Matto on November 01, 2018, 05:35:55 PM
Daniel, I will delve into potential heresy here, but I have come to the conclusion that every traditional Catholic position destroys papal infallibility and makes it meaningless, including sedevacantism. And that attempts to save it often lead to various forms of insanity. Not clinical insanity, but that people adopt crazy delusions to try to save papal infallibility. Perhaps it is simpler to just reject infallibility instead of rejecting six decades worth or popes in an attempt to save it, or to insist Benedict is still the pope even though he says he is no longer the pope in interviews, or constantly redefining the scope of papal infallibility to be narrower and narrower with each passing year to try to save face as the SSPX is doing. Where does that lead us? I really do not know to be honest.
How about instead of choosing between denial of dogma and acceptance of insanity, you choose between denial of personality cult(current yet quite traditional understanding/practice of the papacy) and acceptance of ecclesial check and balance(indicated by the mysterious relationship between and status of both St. Peter and St. Paul, the fact of there being all 12 apostles gathered at the time of the descent of Holy Ghost, the duo that was St. John and Jesus' Mother Mary.)?
Check and balance is the alternative to insanity, and irreformable(language of the definition of infallibility) precedent of the deposit is the alternative to personality cult. Use those as starting points. Have faith Matto.
I wonder when we will hear the 'No True Scotsman of the strict observance' argument.
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after becoming president and having yet to do anything (and never ending up doing anything anyways...). Will we get a living Pope Saint Francis? Progress!
My understanding is that canonizations are not infallible.
If someone could find the time and resources to read the apologetics by the newly converted protestants from the 16th and 17th century he would find a couple of more doubtful saints that they mention.
A more known example is a saint that followed the false Pope (can't remember the saints name).
Quote from: Gardener on November 01, 2018, 05:44:52 PMETA: I fail to see, despite having read many attempts, how any particular person being a Saint is a matter of faith or morals as held by the Church since Her beginning. That sainthood in general is possible, yes. That morals are understood to have been lived, yes. But of faith itself and morals themselves for a particular person post-Apostolic age? That seems to me to be entering into the idea of extending public revelation.
I think it's implicit. The people who promote certain modernists are saints are implying that these modernists are holy and orthodox, which is a denial of the Church's teachings concerning faith and morals. Plus, canonizations can (and sometimes do) impact the liturgical, and it is believed that the liturgy is tied in with faith and morals (hence the SSPX's position that it is
sinful to participate in the Novus Ordo Mass... though I personally don't believe that the SSPX is right about that).
Could we perhaps say that even though Pope Francis is the pope, and even though canonizations are infallible, maybe Pope Francis does not act in the office of pope when he does the canonizations, and so these particular canonizations aren't true canonizations, and so they aren't infallible? That's one of my initial reactions, though I'm not sure if that sort of position would be in line with the Church's teachings or not.
QuoteNow, applying those teachings as always held would be different, and could lead to moral certainty of one's sanctity. But moral certainty is not the same thing as an infallible declaration. Even a layman can have moral certainty of a person's salvation: for example, you watch your mother die seconds after the completion of a final confession and absolution, extreme unction, etc. You would have moral certainty she is at least in purgatory.
I don't really understand the technical definition of "moral certainty", but that just sounds like wishful thinking. Since we cannot read minds, and since many mortal sins are committed solely in the mind and in an instant, we can never know who is in a state of grace and who is not. Perhaps she validly received absolution and last rites and then a split second later fell into another mortal sin. Or perhaps her absolution was invalid for whatever reason, and she lacked perfect contrition. We can never know.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 01, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
This is the rabbit hole you go down when you make everything, even knowledge and truth itself, hinge upon authority. Authority is subject to truth and not the other way around. This is, in a nutshell, why the Western Church ran off the rails and why traditionalists are having a difficult time defending tradition - a very difficult time, in fact, because they have to constantly make end-runs around the claim of authority, just as shown in the OP. The arguments about sacred rites, for instance, are quite weak, because no one is saying the TLM or traditional sacramental rites are evil, which is essentially what Luther maintained and what Trent was condemning. Anyway, a 100% rebuttal to the argument is to say, "That's what YOU say Trent means. The Pope says otherwise. And he, and not you, is the authority." There is essentially no answer to that in the traditionalist framework.
Blah.
Conciliar dogmas are the precise interpretations, to be taken literally, which clarify revelation. That is the answer where you claim there is none. There is nothing and can be nothing beyond them in the scheme of teaching: if they themselves are open to and demand interpretation, then so would any "interpretation of the interpretation" and so on to infinity, and further, the Church both East and West accepts such councils as having the higher authority.
QuoteThere is one thing, and one thing only, which qualifies a man to teach and that is knowledge of the relevant subject material. And there is one reason, and only one reason, why sacred rites should be defended and that is because they are sacred.
This is just unabashed question begging which leads straight back to the question of authority, as expected from the logical blunderer who insists on presenting himself as some kind of philosopher.
Daniel, one does not need perfect contrition for Confession to work. Absolution is always to be considered valid if done in the proper form. Only the penitent would know if they held back a mortal sin on purpose (merely forgetting is not purposeful).
Moral certainty is not wishful thinking, but a reality. The standard you wish to have belongs only to God: absolute certainty.
To confound these two opens the door not only to doubts about the Faith, but despair itself via a very scrupulous rabbit hole.
What if the priest is invalid? What if he didn't intend to do what the Church does? What if he mispronounced the words of absolution on purpose because he dislikes a person and in the haze of a mother's deathbed? etc.
A very dangerous path and bespeaking of a lack of faith.
Do we really need to write all that to contest the claim that the Church has power to determine who has been saved outside of those divinely revealed to have been, which oversteps magisterial bounds on the face of it? Why would you even need a process of investigation and the testimony of miracles to canonise anyone if these were "infallible", in the sense of fact and not just as stamps of approval upon the known facts of a person's life? The Jansenist weirdos were frankly correct on this point as it pertained to being able to judge infallibly the intended meaning of a supposedly heretical text. Infallible determinations of saints, heretics, nature, every jot and tittle of moral questions, and by some attitudes even philosophical systems, because theological fashion says so.
Quote from: Gardener on November 02, 2018, 07:54:17 AMWhat if the priest is invalid? What if he didn't intend to do what the Church does? What if he mispronounced the words of absolution on purpose because he dislikes a person and in the haze of a mother's deathbed? etc.
A very dangerous path and bespeaking of a lack of faith.
But these things are all real possibilities, and even the Church doesn't guarantee that they won't happen. If I had to place a bet, I'd say that there are people in hell who, just prior to death, made a good confession and died confidently believing that they were going to heaven, yet it turned out that their absolutions were invalid due to their priest messing things up, and, since they didn't have perfect contrition, their sins were not forgiven, even though their confessions were good. And there are also probably people who are still alive in the similar boat, who have come out of confession thinking that they are in a state of grace, but are in fact not, and are then unknowingly committing sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion afterwards.
Extreme unction answers the issue of a bungled absolution regardless of the next sentence. However, you must also remember that while we are bound to the Sacraments, God is not. A person who, operating only with imperfect contrition (which is not something in our power to move beyond and requires grace to have perfect contrition), who gives a good and true confession but nonetheless is subject to a moron who can't say three simple words, well... as St. Augustine says, we must only do what we can do and is in our power and leave the rest to God. In cases where people have confessed (unknowingly) to non-priests, such as homeless who wandered in, "the Church supplies".
Now if a person willingly withheld a mortal sin in a final confession, then yes, they would most likely be damned regardless of the validity or invalidity of the absolution's form (for the person would invalidate the absolution by withholding sin(s) ).
You have a very terrifying and incorrect view of God.
Here is Msgr. Van Noort:
QuoteAssertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
Proof:
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint."
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.
(Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.)[/size
The most compelling reason that I have read about the infallibility of Canonizations, is that the Church proposes the Canonized as a model for Catholics to venerate and imitate; if the Church were to prescribe a cult to a person of evil life or heretical doctrine, then she would be leading her children to Hell, and she would not be what she claims to be, which is the sole ark of salvation.
QuoteA more known example is a saint that followed the false Pope (can't remember the saints name).
That would be Saint Vincent Ferara (sp?), who raised people from the dead and saved perhaps 100,000 jews and moslems from hell.
Quote from: james03 on November 01, 2018, 10:43:11 AM
Catholics have a choice:
1. Accept that Bergoglio has been twice accused of heresy, publicly, and refused to recant. He is therefore not Catholic and not the Pope. All of his actions with regards to the Church are therefore invalid.
2. In humility and obedience, tonight get on your knees to honor and ask for intercession from St. John Paul II, patron of incestuous homosexual pedophilia and protector of Islam, and of St. Paul VI, patron of masons and modernists. Oh, and you should also throw in St. Romero, patron of marxists.
That is something of a false dilemma. Francis for all his weird and / or blasphemous statements, and his efforts to secure the post V2 colonisation of senior church offices by sodomites, is in Rome wearing a white cassock with the powers of the Papal office. He holds the office. Saying he doesn't, doesn't make it so. Accepting a hard reality while still adhering to the Mass of Ages, is the way for the typical (traditional) Catholic who each Sunday, and more often if he can, hears Mass as his ancestors did. It just does not follow, it is a
non sequitur on stilts, that accepting Francis holds the office, means also accepting the entirety of the Conciliar nonsense.
Quote from: Prayerful on November 03, 2018, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: james03 on November 01, 2018, 10:43:11 AM
Catholics have a choice:
1. Accept that Bergoglio has been twice accused of heresy, publicly, and refused to recant. He is therefore not Catholic and not the Pope. All of his actions with regards to the Church are therefore invalid.
2. In humility and obedience, tonight get on your knees to honor and ask for intercession from St. John Paul II, patron of incestuous homosexual pedophilia and protector of Islam, and of St. Paul VI, patron of masons and modernists. Oh, and you should also throw in St. Romero, patron of marxists.
That is something of a false dilemma. Francis for all his weird and / or blasphemous statements, and his efforts to secure the post V2 colonisation of senior church offices by sodomites, is in Rome wearing a white cassock with the powers of the Papal office. He holds the office. Saying he doesn't, doesn't make it so. Accepting a hard reality while still adhering to the Mass of Ages, is the way for the typical (traditional) Catholic who each Sunday, and more often if he can, hears Mass as his ancestors did. It just does not follow, it is a non sequitur on stilts, that accepting Francis holds the office, means also accepting the entirety of the Conciliar nonsense.
Only if canonizations are fallible. If they're infallible, then there is a real problem.
Quote from: james03 on November 03, 2018, 12:18:05 PM
QuoteA more known example is a saint that followed the false Pope (can't remember the saints name).
That would be Saint Vincent Ferara (sp?), who raised people from the dead and saved perhaps 100,000 jews and moslems from hell.
Yes, and then there is Blessed Louis Allemand.
"In 1439 Allemand was primarily responsible for the election of Felix V, the antipope, and it was Allemand who, sometime later, consecrated him bishop and crowned him as supreme pontiff. During the continuance of the assembly at Basle the cardinal showed heroic courage in tending the plague-stricken. He was also a diligent promoter of the decree passed by the council in favour of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. In the years which followed Allemand discharged several diplomatic missions in behalf of Felix V, while he openly disregarded the decrees of Eugenius IV, which pronounced him "excommunicated" and deprived him of his dignity as cardinal. After the resignation of Felix V, brought about by the assembly of bishops which met at Lyons in 1449, Allemand was reinstated in his dignities by Nicholas V. His violent action at Basle seems to have resulted from an earnest desire for the reform of the Church, and having made his submission to Nicholas V, he is believed to have done penance for his former disloyal and schismatical conduct. He died shortly after in the odour of sanctity. His private life had always been a penitential one, and many miracles were reported to have been worked at his tomb. In 1527 a Brief of Clement VII permitted him to be venerated as Blessed."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09376a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09376a.htm)
The Jansenists claimed that he didnt show any remorse for his crimes.
And Blessed Pierre de Luxembourg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Luxembourg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Luxembourg)
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 03, 2018, 12:07:50 PM
Here is Msgr. Van Noort:
QuoteAssertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
Proof:
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint."
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.
(Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.)[/size
The most compelling reason that I have read about the infallibility of Canonizations, is that the Church proposes the Canonized as a model for Catholics to venerate and imitate; if the Church were to prescribe a cult to a person of evil life or heretical doctrine, then she would be leading her children to Hell, and she would not be what she claims to be, which is the sole ark of salvation.
1. The terminology "we declare, define" only ensures infallibility when it is being used by the pope to "religiously guard and faithfully expound the
revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles," which revelation or deposit ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Vatican I teaches, "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine..." and almost no one claims that canonizations of particular individuals are anything other than new doctrines. If all of the Church's canonizations of saints were contained within the deposit of faith then there would have been no reason for theologians to have used the term "ecclesiastical faith" in reference to them. The consideration that the overwhelming majority of theologians deliberately avoided using the term "divine faith" in reference to canonizations is a testimony to the fact that they did not believe that canonizations could be believed on the authority of God revealing.
2. Msgr. Van Noort's second argument relies on his false contention that canonizations are definitive decrees that bind the faithful. See #1.
C.R.
Most of the Church's theologians held that Canonizations are infallible; the fact that the feastday of the canonized was inserted in the Calendar and a Mass and office that corresponded with the feast was instituted and ordered to be observed, strongly indicates the mind of the Popes and therefore of the Church in these cases.
I have to add that in times like these of crisis, the worst possible course of action to take, is to start rejecting Church teaching because it appears difficult to reconcile with what we perceive the situation is. The canonizations of the Conciliar Popes should not make us doubt the doctrine of canonizations, but rather the veracity of said canonizations. The same goes for the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope and other "inconvenient" truths.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 01, 2018, 11:42:49 AM
This is the rabbit hole you go down when you make everything, even knowledge and truth itself, hinge upon authority. Authority is subject to truth and not the other way around.
There is one thing, and one thing only, which qualifies a man to teach and that is knowledge of the relevant subject material. And there is one reason, and only one reason, why sacred rites should be defended and that is because they are sacred.
It is true that authority is subject to truth, but epistemologically an infallible authority is necessary to know what truth is. If we don't depend upon authority to learn truth, any claim to knowledge is reduced to the level of personal judgment and private conviction that what we believe to be true is in fact true. This is why an atheist cannot consistently claim to know anything at all, because every truth claim he makes is in reality nothing else but his personal opinion. So, we have to accept what infallible authority says and subsequently evaluate our experiences through these lenses, not the other way around, as you do. A good example of this difference is the discussion on Church's indefectibility:
1) I know that the Church is indefectible, and that knowledge is epistemologically prior to my judgment of events in the Church. Therefore, I know that whatever happens, it cannot and therefore does not constitute defection of the Church.
2) For you, your judgment of events in the Church is epistemologically prior to Church's teaching on indefectibility. Therefore, on the basis of your private judgment you erroneously reject Church's teaching, instead of subjecting your judgment of events to it. Yes, you claim that Church's teaching must br consistent with facts - but you take your private judgment as a way of determining what facts are and how should they be interpreted, which makes your claims about what is true and not merely an opinion and private interpretation. The only source of knowledge is an infallible authority.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 12, 2018, 01:50:44 AM
It is true that authority is subject to truth, but epistemologically an infallible authority is necessary to know what truth is. If we don't depend upon authority to learn truth, any claim to knowledge is reduced to the level of personal judgment and private conviction that what we believe to be true is in fact true.
The situation is no better and in fact worse. Then, epistemologically, another infallible authority would be necessary to know the truth that an infallible authority is necessary to know what truth is, as well as what that authority is. But then another infallible authority would be needed to know that truth. And on to infinity, and thus one can never really learn anything - one's claim of "authority" is in reality still only a personal judgment and private conviction, no matter how loudly he claims otherwise.
Unless the infallibility of an authority, somewhere along the line, is self-evident - but it is still our reason, and not the claim of authority merely in and of itself, that is able to see it as so.
QuoteThis is why an atheist cannot consistently claim to know anything at all, because every truth claim he makes is in reality nothing else but his personal opinion. So, we have to accept what infallible authority says and subsequently evaluate our experiences through these lenses, not the other way around, as you do.
If an atheist does not know
anything at all via reason, or at least cannot claim to know it, then how can he possibly come to know the existence of God? All the philosophical arguments for existence of God assume prior knowledge of something, which can be obtained via the use of reason, prior to arriving at knowledge of existence of God via deduction. If you deny this, then you implicitly deny the existence of God can be known through reason.
QuoteA good example of this difference is the discussion on Church's indefectibility:
1) I know that the Church is indefectible, and that knowledge is epistemologically prior to my judgment of events in the Church. Therefore, I know that whatever happens, it cannot and therefore does not constitute defection of the Church.
2) For you, your judgment of events in the Church is epistemologically prior to Church's teaching on indefectibility. Therefore, on the basis of your private judgment you erroneously reject Church's teaching, instead of subjecting your judgment of events to it. Yes, you claim that Church's teaching must br consistent with facts - but you take your private judgment as a way of determining what facts are and how should they be interpreted, which makes your claims about what is true and not merely an opinion and private interpretation. The only source of knowledge is an infallible authority.
Really? Do you know 2) is correct? What infallible authority told you that 2) is correct regarding the epistemological priority of my judgments, my claims being merely opinions, and so on, and the implications of such? None, obviously, which means (according to you) that your claims in 2) are merely a matter of your own private judgment.
What you've essentially done is answered an argument from reason by adopting an irrational approach and giving an irrational answer, by ruling out all such arguments
a priori as "private judgment" - not realizing that your own argumentation is likewise "private judgment" by the same standard.
Now, regarding Indefectibility, the argument is of this form:
The traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility implies not A.
A (which is an observable, empirical fact).
Therefore, the traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility is incorrect.
It is not a reasonable reply to say the traditional understanding of Indefectibility simply must be correct, whether or not it implies not A and whether or not A has happened. Nor is it reasonable to say I can assent simultaneously to: Indefectibility -> !A, A, and Indefectibility.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 12, 2018, 01:46:20 PM
The situation is no better and in fact worse. Then, epistemologically, another infallible authority would be necessary to know the truth that an infallible authority is necessary to know what truth is, as well as what that authority is. But then another infallible authority would be needed to know that truth. And on to infinity, and thus one can never really learn anything - one's claim of "authority" is in reality still only a personal judgment and private conviction, no matter how loudly he claims otherwise.
This is why I always emphasize that the final infallible authority is a fundamental presupposition which is taken axiomatically and is not subject to any further verification (if it was, it would not be the final authority).
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiUnless the infallibility of an authority, somewhere along the line, is self-evident - but it is still our reason, and not the claim of authority merely in and of itself, that is able to see it as so.
The use of term "self-evident" is a tool to justify using private judgment and presenting it as "fact".
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIf an atheist does not know anything at all via reason, or at least cannot claim to know it, then how can he possibly come to know the existence of God? All the philosophical arguments for existence of God assume prior knowledge of something, which can be obtained via the use of reason, prior to arriving at knowledge of existence of God via deduction. If you deny this, then you implicitly deny the existence of God can be known through reason.
He can arrive to conclusions which are true, and hold positions which are objectively true. However, in atheist's worldview there is nothing that epistemologically justifies his truth claims, therefore he cannot know anything at all, because he lacks authority from which truth can be derived. All he has is his cognitive faculties, and without God he cannot know whether they are reliable. God is necessary starting point for any knowledge, and as such His existence must be fundamentaly presupposed before any knowledge can be obtained. In other words, belief in existence of God is a precondition for knowledge. Of course, that does not mean that existence of God cannot be demonsrated through rational arguments, as Vatican I teaches.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiReally? Do you know 2) is correct? What infallible authority told you that 2) is correct regarding the epistemological priority of my judgments, my claims being merely opinions, and so on, and the implications of such? None, obviously, which means (according to you) that your claims in 2) are merely a matter of your own private judgment.
2) denies teaching of the Church, that is all I need to know, and the implications which I presented stem precisely from that.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWhat you've essentially done is answered an argument from reason by adopting an irrational approach and giving an irrational answer, by ruling out all such arguments a priori as "private judgment" - not realizing that your own argumentation is likewise "private judgment" by the same standard.
I hold to the teaching of the Church on indefectibility (because it is epistemologically prior to any judgment of events in the Church), you reject it - that is the difference. I use my private judgment only in explaining the way you reject it (and you admitted that much by explicitly saying that the Church was wrong on this issue).
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
The traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility implies not A.
A (which is an observable, empirical fact).
Therefore, the traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility is incorrect.
A is not empirical fact, it is merely your private interpretation of events in the Church which you use to reject Church's teaching, therefore elevating your judgment over the Magisterium.
Because Church's teaching has epistemological primacy, I know a priori that whatever happened and will happen in the future, it cannot and does not constitute A.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIt is not a reasonable reply to say the traditional understanding of Indefectibility simply must be correct,
Yes, it must be, because it is taught by the Church.
Quote from: Quaremerepulistiwhether or not it implies not A and whether or not A has happened. Nor is it reasonable to say I can assent simultaneously to: Indefectibility -> !A, A, and Indefectibility.
The claim that A has happened is your private judgment which is contrary to Church's teaching. By this fact alone your judgment is proven false and must be rejected. Any private judgment which runs contrary to teaching of the Church is ipso facto proven wrong. Let me illustrate this with another example. If I study Sacred Scripture and interpret a specific passage in a way which denies the existence of Purgatory (or any other dogma), I know that this interpretation of Scripture is for sure wrong, because the Church teaches infallibly that Purgatory exists. Same here - any interpretation of events in the Church which asserts that the Church has defected is wrong, because the Church teaches that She is indefectible.
Your epistemological take on this issue is no different from that of a Protestant who interprets the Bible and claims that his interpretation falsifies teaching of the Catholic Church, only that you interpret events in the Church and claim they falsify teaching of the Church. In both cases the error lies is in subjecting Church's teaching to external verification through private judgment rather than recognizing its epistemological primacy.
https://youtu.be/T_ok3ybnJTA
There is also:
https://athanasiuscm.org/2014/06/23/aude-sapere-podcast-001-re-introduction-and-canonization/
The idea that epistemology must rely upon outside infallible authority, or else it is only private judgment and therefore only opinion and not knowledge, is a false dichotomy, and makes faith essentially irrational. In fact it makes man essentially irrational. And, just as with the attempt to deny the law of non-contradiction, it is self-refuting - one has to assume there are certain conclusions of reason that are not mere opinions and yet do not rely on outside infallible authority even to get the argument off the ground.
Quote from: Arvinger on November 12, 2018, 05:19:52 PM
This is why I always emphasize that the final infallible authority is a fundamental presupposition which is taken axiomatically and is not subject to any further verification (if it was, it would not be the final authority).
Why listen to the "infallible authority" in the first place? You have to use reason and logic to see that it should be followed. Otherwise, you have to simply say that you listen to the infallible authority because it says to be listened to, which sets you off on an infinite regress.
But then, your "final infallible authority" isn't really the first step in the epistemological chain - it is the realization that it is a fundamental presupposition to be taken axiomatically and thus not to be submit it to further verification. And how do you come to that knowledge, if you do not already have it? And also, you need to know what your "final infallible authority" is actually authoritatively saying in order to submit to it, but if your only basis for knowledge of that is the authority itself, you end up in an infinite regress or having to resort to "private judgment" somewhere along the way.
The notion that epistemological presuppositions need no justification is the very definition of irrationality and makes of faith a farce. The Muslim likewise assumes that the truth of the holy Quran is the final infallible authority and any arguments against it are ipso facto invalid. Therefore, his conversion is impossible.
QuoteThe use of term "self-evident" is a tool to justify using private judgment and presenting it as "fact".
That is gratuitously asserted so it will be gratuitously denied.
QuoteHe can arrive to conclusions which are true, and hold positions which are objectively true. However, in atheist's worldview there is nothing that epistemologically justifies his truth claims, therefore he cannot know anything at all, because he lacks authority from which truth can be derived. All he has is his cognitive faculties, and without God he cannot know whether they are reliable. God is necessary starting point for any knowledge, and as such His existence must be fundamentaly presupposed before any knowledge can be obtained. In other words, belief in existence of God is a precondition for knowledge.
That is merely argument by assertion. And it is fallacious: You confuse knowledge with the ability to provide a satisfactory epistemological justification. It's one thing to say an atheist can't provide a satisfactory epistemological justification for his worldview or what he claims to know; quite another to say he knows nothing whatsoever at all. Even Scripture, when blaming him for his atheism, says precisely that he is to blame due to other knowledge he has (e.g. the light of things which are made). Now, since you see Scripture as an infallible authority, you are contradicting the very authority you hold up as infallible.
If you are right, it would be
impossible for an atheist to come to knowledge of God. Cosmological arguments are out of bounds, for he does not and cannot know their premises are true. He cannot even know that he does not have a proper epistemological justification for his viewpoint. He can't even know that you are telling him that he needs God as a fundamental presupposition, and can't make any kind of logical argument, since his cognitive faculties might be unreliable.
QuoteOf course, that does not mean that existence of God cannot be demonsrated through rational arguments, as Vatican I teaches.
Yes, it does mean precisely that, for it means the existence of God must be presupposed before any rational arguments can even be made for His existence, which means it is impossible for someone who does not already know the existence of God to attain to that knowledge.
Quote2) denies teaching of the Church, that is all I need to know, and the implications which I presented stem precisely from that.
But you don't know that. No infallible authority told you that (2) denies teaching of the Church. Nor did any infallible authority tell you your implications stemming from that.
QuoteI hold to the teaching of the Church on indefectibility (because it is epistemologically prior to any judgment of events in the Church),
Wait, how do you know it is epistemologically prior? Which infallible authority told you so? And how do you know you even hold to Church teaching on Indefectibility? Which infallible authority told you that?
Quoteyou reject it - that is the difference.
Wait, how do you know I reject it? Which infallible authority told you so?
QuoteI use my private judgment only in explaining the way you reject it (and you admitted that much by explicitly saying that the Church was wrong on this issue).
Which infallible authority told you what I explicitly said?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
The traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility implies not A.
A (which is an observable, empirical fact).
Therefore, the traditional understanding of Church Indefectibility is incorrect.
QuoteA is not empirical fact...
Pope Francis' teachings on the death penalty are empirical fact.
Quote...it is merely your private interpretation of events in the Church which you use to reject Church's teaching, therefore elevating your judgment over the Magisterium.
Because Church's teaching has epistemological primacy, I know a priori that whatever happened and will happen in the future, it cannot and does not constitute A.
Only if you're willing to throw logic overboard.
If Pope Francis is right, then the Church not only permitted but positively supported a "cruel" and "inhumane" practice for centuries - certainly, "cruel" and "inhumane" practices are intrinsically evil.
If Pope Francis is wrong, then Church teaching does not have epistemological primacy - you have to submit it to your own judgment to conclude it is wrong.
Take your pick.
You can, of course, choose a different version of virtue ethics than the Thomistic version, adopt some sort of situation ethics and abandon the notion of "intrinsic evil" or something like that, and conclude that both Pope Francis and the earlier Church were correct. But you're still abandoning the traditional understanding of things.
QuoteYour epistemological take on this issue is no different from that of a Protestant who interprets the Bible and claims that his interpretation falsifies teaching of the Catholic Church, only that you interpret events in the Church and claim they falsify teaching of the Church. In both cases the error lies is in subjecting Church's teaching to external verification through private judgment rather than recognizing its epistemological primacy.
There is a difference, you know, between private judgment/interpretation and rigorous logical argument.
If a Protestant could prove, by rigorous logical argumentation, that teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the Bible, then Catholicism (or at least that teaching) would in fact be falsified. But instead, Protestants pick one of several possible interpretations of Scripture passages and use that as "proof" of the falsity of Catholicism. But that is not logically rigorous - other interpretations of those passages are compatible with Catholic teaching. The Protestant is picking what is only possibly true as an argument.
However, I can prove by rigorous logical argumentation that Pope Francis' teachings are not compatible with the traditional understanding of Indefectibility and morality. I am using what is certainly true as an argument.
Your claim that that is mere "private judgment" is a bare assertion devoid of truth. If you think 2 + 2 = 4 is merely matter of "private judgment" then you have simply abandoned rationality, and good luck with that. It's likewise only a matter of "private judgment" that an infallible authority must be adhered to.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 13, 2018, 09:36:36 AM
The idea that epistemology must rely upon outside infallible authority, or else it is only private judgment and therefore only opinion and not knowledge, is a false dichotomy, and makes faith essentially irrational. In fact it makes man essentially irrational. And, just as with the attempt to deny the law of non-contradiction, it is self-refuting - one has to assume there are certain conclusions of reason that are not mere opinions and yet do not rely on outside infallible authority even to get the argument off the ground.
If you don't have infallible authority, it necessarily means that every claim is fallible and could be wrong, which relegates it to the level of private interpretation/opinion, which cannot be epistemological basis for knowledge.
And yes, we all have presuppositions - I presuppose truthfulness of the Catholic Church, an atheist making truth claims must presupposes that his cognitive faculties are reliable, that the past in fact happened, that inductive reasoning is reliable, etc. Some presuppositions are always necessary, without them there is infinite regress of verifying authorities.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWhy listen to the "infallible authority" in the first place? You have to use reason and logic to see that it should be followed. Otherwise, you have to simply say that you listen to the infallible authority because it says to be listened to, which sets you off on an infinite regress.
But then, your "final infallible authority" isn't really the first step in the epistemological chain - it is the realization that it is a fundamental presupposition to be taken axiomatically and thus not to be submit it to further verification. And how do you come to that knowledge, if you do not already have it? And also, you need to know what your "final infallible authority" is actually authoritatively saying in order to submit to it, but if your only basis for knowledge of that is the authority itself, you end up in an infinite regress or having to resort to "private judgment" somewhere along the way.
I use reason only to arrive to the knowledge about infallible authority, but from that point on I take it as a fundamental presupposition and no longer base it on my reasoning. Although my interpretation of Scripture and Church history lead me to Catholicism, the reason why I'm a Catholic is not because I believe my interpretation of Scripture is correct and it does not rely upon it, as that would subject Catholic Church to my interpretation of Scripture as a higher authority (as you correctly point out). So, if somebody makes a conuter-argument based on Church history or interpretation of Scripture (the means I used to arrive to conclusion that Catholicism is true) that I am unable to refute, that does not affect my position of truthfulness of Catholicism, since from the moment I arrived to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is true, it becomes a fundamental presupposition, truthfulness of which no longer relies upon the means I arrived to it (otherwise it would not be the final authority, these means and my judgment of them would be).
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiThe notion that epistemological presuppositions need no justification is the very definition of irrationality and makes of faith a farce. The Muslim likewise assumes that the truth of the holy Quran is the final infallible authority and any arguments against it are ipso facto invalid. Therefore, his conversion is impossible.
1) It does not make it irrational, because I can still make rational arguments indicating truthfulness of these presuppositions. However, these arguments are not the basis for faith.
2) In case of a Muslim, yes - at the end of the day everyone has some presuppositions, without any presuppositions we would face an infintie regress of verifying authorities and knowledge would be impossible. For example, someone claiming the world around us is a hologram could say "an atheist assumes that the world around him is real and his cognitive faculties are reliable, and any argument agaist this is ipso facto invalid." When we arrive to the level of authority which someone holds as final, we can only hope to provide arguments indicating that he made an incorrect presupposition and chose wrong final authority. If he believes that any such argument is ipso facto invalid, there is indeed nothing that can be done, epistemologically speaking of course.
3) Some presuppositions account for a worldview, other don't. Catholic do - explaining where knowledge, logic, morality, reliability of cognitive faculties etc. come from and how can we know them, atheistic don't.
Quote from: QuareperepulistiThat is gratuitously asserted so it will be gratuitously denied.
You use the term "self-evident" to describe claims which are, epistemologically speaking, your interpretations and fallible private judgments, therefore it is perfectly fine to point out that your use of this term is an epistemological cop-out which you use when it suits you.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiThat is merely argument by assertion. And it is fallacious: You confuse knowledge with the ability to provide a satisfactory epistemological justification. It's one thing to say an atheist can't provide a satisfactory epistemological justification for his worldview or what he claims to know; quite another to say he knows nothing whatsoever at all.
No, you confuse knowledge with truth. You can say something that is objectively true, but it is a different thing than knowing it - knowledge requires epistemological justification. So, an atheist can hold positions and make claims which are objectively true, but if he cannot provide epistemological justification for this claim, he does not know it.
For example, I can claim that St. Paul wrote the Letter to Hebrews. That claim might be objectively true, but I cannot say I know it, because I lack epistemological justification for this claim. Likewise, an atheist cannot.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiEven Scripture, when blaming him for his atheism, says precisely that he is to blame due to other knowledge he has (e.g. the light of things which are made). Now, since you see Scripture as an infallible authority, you are contradicting the very authority you hold up as infallible.
Yes, but he has this knowledge because God exists and He is the foundation and necessary precondition for knowledge. If there was no God no knowledge would be possible (since we would be left with our cognitive faculties, reliability of which is impossible to verify).
Quote from: QuareperemulistiIf you are right, it would be impossible for an atheist to come to knowledge of God. Cosmological arguments are out of bounds, for he does not and cannot know their premises are true. He cannot even know that he does not have a proper epistemological justification for his viewpoint. He can't even know that you are telling him that he needs God as a fundamental presupposition, and can't make any kind of logical argument, since his cognitive faculties might be unreliable.
God exists, thus his existence provides epistemological justification for these things. What you wrote actually explains perfectly why existence of God must be taken as a fundamental presupposition rather than merely result of one's reasoning (which does not mean that rational arguments to support the existence of God can't be made, as Vatican I teaches - arguments of Aristotle or Aquinas can still be used, and you can use them to arrive to the point when you make existence of God a presupposition which no longer relies upon these arguments).
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiYes, it does mean precisely that, for it means the existence of God must be presupposed before any rational arguments can even be made for His existence, which means it is impossible for someone who does not already know the existence of God to attain to that knowledge.
The fact that God is a necessary foundation for knowledge is in itself a rational argument, as it points out that without God obtaining any knowledge is impossible. But an atheist believes that knowledge can be obtained, therefore it can be pointed out to him that his claim that knowledge can be obtained can be justified only in case God exists, which is a rational argument for the existence of God. Evidence presupposes truth, truth presupposes God.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiBut you don't know that. No infallible authority told you that (2) denies teaching of the Church. Nor did any infallible authority tell you your implications stemming from that.
Yes, it is my private judgment of your words. But the burden is on you, since you make the claims in regarding to the teaching of the Church. As long as these claims are a private judgment (which they are), they cannot possibly constitute evidence against what the Church teaches.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWait, how do you know it is epistemologically prior? Which infallible authority told you so? And how do you know you even hold to Church teaching on Indefectibility? Which infallible authority told you that?
The Church, I do not subject Church teaching to my external judgment, I submit to it. Also, I can use my private judgment in certain situations, because existence of God provides justification for my worldview and its presuppositions (an athest doesn't have such justification), and the Catholic Church has not defined every fact of reality dogmatically. However, I can't use private judgment to deny teaching of the Church.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWait, how do you know I reject it? Which infallible authority told you so?
If you don't reject it, there is no reason to debate because none of us two questions the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church and we agree on it. If you reject it, you are wrong, because you do it on the basis of your private judgment. Either way, the doctrine stands.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiWhich infallible authority told you what I explicitly said?
Again,
1) if I misinterpreted your words (however unlikely that is) and you hold to indefectibility of the Church, the doctrine stands. If you reject it, it also stands since you reject it on the basis of your private judgment.
2) The Church does not teach what QMR explicitly said (therefore I can use my private judgment here), but does teach indefectibility (so I can't use my private judgment to evaluate it).
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Pope Francis' teachings on the death penalty are empirical fact.
But the implications you draw from this teaching is not an empirical fact, merely your private judgment as to what this teaching means for the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiQuote...it is merely your private interpretation of events in the Church which you use to reject Church's teaching, therefore elevating your judgment over the Magisterium.
Because Church's teaching has epistemological primacy, I know a priori that whatever happened and will happen in the future, it cannot and does not constitute A.
Only if you're willing to throw logic overboard.
Now you smuggle your private interpretation of events in the Church and their implications for the doctrine of indefectibility as "logic", while it is nothing else than your personal judgment which cannot trump teaching of the Church.
As I said on another thread, your epistemology is not Catholic at all, it is Protestant - for you to accept a dogma, it must first pass a test of verification through your private judgment (indefectibiltiy evidently did not make it through this verification), making your private judgment the higher authority that the Church. This is exactly how Protestantism was born - Luther judged that the Catholic doctrine is wrong on the basis of his private judgment, you do the same.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIf Pope Francis is right, then the Church not only permitted but positively supported a "cruel" and "inhumane" practice for centuries - certainly, "cruel" and "inhumane" practices are intrinsically evil.
If Pope Francis is wrong, then Church teaching does not have epistemological primacy - you have to submit it to your own judgment to conclude it is wrong.
Take your pick.
You can, of course, choose a different version of virtue ethics than the Thomistic version, adopt some sort of situation ethics and abandon the notion of "intrinsic evil" or something like that, and conclude that both Pope Francis and the earlier Church were correct. But you're still abandoning the traditional understanding of things.
Or there is another solution, like the Chair of Peter being vacant, Siri theory, or some solution we did not come up with yet. The bottom line is - I don't have to know the explanation to know that it exists. The fact that the Church teaches X means that any arguments against X have to be wrong and there is some solution to this difficulty, even if I dont know it.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiQuoteYour epistemological take on this issue is no different from that of a Protestant who interprets the Bible and claims that his interpretation falsifies teaching of the Catholic Church, only that you interpret events in the Church and claim they falsify teaching of the Church. In both cases the error lies is in subjecting Church's teaching to external verification through private judgment rather than recognizing its epistemological primacy.
There is a difference, you know, between private judgment/interpretation and rigorous logical argument.
Epistemologically, none. Protestants can also claim that their arguments against Catholic teaching are "logical and rigorous", or an atheist can say that by "logical and rigorous argumentation" he proved contradictions in the Bible. But we know that the Bible is inerrant, therefore whatever argument he makes must be wrong, which you agreed with on another thread earlier. How do you know the argument is logical and rigorous? Your private judgment.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiIf a Protestant could prove, by rigorous logical argumentation, that teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the Bible, then Catholicism (or at least that teaching) would in fact be falsified. But instead, Protestants pick one of several possible interpretations of Scripture passages and use that as "proof" of the falsity of Catholicism. But that is not logically rigorous - other interpretations of those passages are compatible with Catholic teaching. The Protestant is picking what is only possibly true as an argument.
Hypothetically he could, but since we know the Catholic Church is true (a fundamental presupposition), it is practically impossible and such situation will never happen. Therefore, we can know a priori that Protestant's argument does not falsify truthfulness of Catholicism before he even opens his mouth. To say otherwise if to subject Catholic Church to a higher authority.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiHowever, I can prove by rigorous logical argumentation that Pope Francis' teachings are not compatible with the traditional understanding of Indefectibility and morality. I am using what is certainly true as an argument.
But you don't do just that, you draw a further conclusion that the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church is false, which is a private judgment. I, on the other hand, know that since the Church teaches indefectibility, Francis' teaching on death penalty cannot constitute or prove defection of the Church and an explanation must exist.
As I said, it is the same as with alleged errors in the Bible. You admitted on another thread that when an atheist points to alleged errors in the Bible, we know he is wrong because Scripture is inerrant. Same here - we know that arguments against indefectibiltiy are wrong because this doctrine is taught by the Church and thus is true.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiYour claim that that is mere "private judgment" is a bare assertion devoid of truth. If you think 2 + 2 = 4 is merely matter of "private judgment" then you have simply abandoned rationality, and good luck with that.
Without God
it is absolutely a private judgment - rules of logic and mathematics need epistemological justification as well, they are not a given. How do you know that an alternative reality with another system of mathematics or logic does not exist? Thus, an atheist cannot appeal to logic or mathematics, because he has no epistemological justification for them.