Author Topic: Why Canonizations are Fallible  (Read 1185 times)

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 927
  • Thanked: 698 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2018, 09:35:52 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.


Quote
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.

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.
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8206
  • Thanked: 5552 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2018, 09:54:17 AM »
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.
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 927
  • Thanked: 698 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2018, 09:56:39 AM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Davis Blank - EG

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2322
  • Thanked: 497 times
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2018, 06:39:59 PM »
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.
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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2018, 06:41:39 PM by Daniel »
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8206
  • Thanked: 5552 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2018, 08:00:55 PM »
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.
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 
The following users thanked this post: MundaCorMeum, Blue Violet

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6519
  • Thanked: 4210 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2018, 02:07:50 PM »
Here is Msgr. Van Noort:
Quote
Assertion 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.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8134
  • Thanked: 2619 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2018, 02:18:05 PM »
Quote
A 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.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, Blue Violet

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 2691 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2018, 02:21:07 PM »
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. 

Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8206
  • Thanked: 5552 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2018, 03:10:05 PM »
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.
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Providence is a present mystery by which our hope is confirmed and our faith solidified, if we give not into despair or disbelief.
 

Offline Sempronius

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 546
  • Thanked: 287 times
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2018, 04:14:58 PM »
Quote
A 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

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
 

Offline Counter Revolutionary

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 158 times
    • Divine and Catholic Faith Blogspot
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2018, 04:44:54 PM »
Here is Msgr. Van Noort:
Quote
Assertion 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.
“Invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.)
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 6519
  • Thanked: 4210 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2018, 05:55:36 PM »
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.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline Arvinger

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Thanked: 257 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2018, 02:50:44 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.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2018, 02:54:41 AM by Arvinger »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3879
  • Thanked: 1268 times
  • Religion: Catholic (Byzantine)
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2018, 02:46:20 PM »
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.


Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.


 

Offline Arvinger

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Thanked: 257 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why Canonizations are Fallible
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2018, 06:19:52 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: Quaremerepulisti
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.

The use of term "self-evident" is a tool to justify using private judgment and presenting it as "fact".

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
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.

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: Quaremerepulisti
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.

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: Quaremerepulisti
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.

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: Quaremerepulisti
It 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: Quaremerepulisti
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.

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.