www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Infallibility - a Catch 22

The following is a short exmination of the possibility of a statement as being - infallable.

I attach no importance to what I am about to say. I went to bed troubled (as an RC this whole question has troubled me) and I asked God to show me which way to go. Being summer ... I often wake at night in the heat and humidity. I dunno why .. I just do. And as I was slipping back into being awake - I became aware that in my mind was something and I looked at it and I think I understood it.

What does all that mean? no assumptions about it should be made. It is what it is. Nothing more.

I will present the thoughts as I saw them - except I need to do a bit more explaining by way of word definitions.

Fallacy: Latin: deception, deceitful, aptness to mislead, delusive quality, a false or mistaken idea, false reasoning, error.

Infallibility: incapable of error, never wrong, can not fail, go wrong, or make a mistake.

For the logic below - we can discount the set of {not-deceptive, not-deceitful, not-misleading, and not-delusive} .. and can assign to infallibility[/] the sole intended meaning of the set of {incapable of error, never wrong, can not fail, go wrong, or make a mistake} which can be summed up in the one word [i]error - without-error.

Infallibility means = without error.

FIRST PART
Q: If a tree falls in the forest - and there is no human there to witness its falling - does it make a sound?

A: The correct answer lays in the fact that 'sound' itself - takes place inside the human body/mind. The sound waves travel in the air (not yet sound) but if there is not a human there to hear them (the waves to hit his ears) - sound - does not happen. Sound needs a human ear and that mystery-act of how the waves are transposed (inside our human nature of body/mind) into the particular human experience that we call 'sound'. SOUND is a human experience and even though we call them 'sound waves' ... sound itself does not exist - in - the waves - nor in the ear - nor in the matter of the brain � but entirely at the threshold of the act of transfer from biological processes into mental experience.

SECOND PART
One of the propositions that the RCC has expressed ... surrounding infallible statements is ...

Although a statement (declaration / definition / whatever) is infallible ... there is no guarantee that the reader/listener will understand the statement in an infallible way. The reader/listener can both fail to understand or can misunderstand the intentions of the words and thereby � not recive the intended meaning of the statement.

What he understands (in his misunderstanding) can be error. There is no guarantee that the listener/reader will infallibly understand the intended meaning of the statement.
The bottom line is that human language in itself � has no inherent capability of being infallible. Language is language and can not have the attribute which only belongs to a human mental experience (meaning without error) and can not belong to language (sensible signs or sounds) itself.

THIRD PART - THE INCONSISTANCE
What makes the second part true - is the fact that words (human language) have no inherent infallibility about them.

If we have six men look at the same sun � and then we asked each (separately) to describe the experience in 30 words � all six will use different words and phrases to describe the experience. While some of their descriptions may be similar � it will not happen that all six will use the exact same words in the exact same way to describe what had actually been the exact same experience.

If words had inherent meaning in themselves than we would expect all six to write the exact same word for word description of the sun. This proves the fact that words are flexible signs � signs which point to (but do not contain) a particular mental experience or meaning.

As signs (spoken or written) they themselves have no capacity for error or not-error - just as a rock or tree can not be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' � just as we can not say a cloud in the sky is in error � that capacity can exist solely in the mental human meaning that the signs point to.

If I were to write an infallible statement upon a piece of paper and I write that statement insome long disused and forgotten language which only I alone knew ... and I now place that piece of paper on a table ...

Q: Is the statement written on that paper - infallible - if there is no one there who can read it??

A: No. According to the First Part (above) there is nothing inherently infallible to the paper, ink, or signs written on it. By itself - it has no infallibility - any infallibility can only be assigned to exist in the mental experience of its intended meaning and the particular human understanding ... to which the signs point.

In this case: any error (or absence of error) can only exist inside and with the experience of a human who is trying to understand the meaning of the statement.

The statement itself (signs) can not be infallible � only the meaning of the signs (a mental experience) can be infallible (with out error).

A: Further - in as much as all human language is limited to being signs (which have no meaning inherent to (or within) themselves as objective �things� ... but are assigned a meaning by the action of a human mind ... neither a written nor spoken statement can have an attribute of being infallible ... or ... fallible ... for the fact that infallibility (and fallibility) can only be an attribute attached to the intended meaning and full understanding - which can only exist in a human mental experience of what the words (written or spoken) point to.

PRACTICAL BASIS
On a practical basis we may say that written or spoken statements can contain errors ... errors of use (wording) or thought (error in the intended meaning).

On a practical basis we can say that some statement does not contain error � but we can say this only if the intended meaning (the mental experience) of the writer is without error - AND - the derived mental experience of the reader is without error.

Within the Roman Catholic history there have been occasions where the proposition of some author (Origen and Eckhart for example) have been condemned as error � not because of the intended meaning of the author � but solely upon the basis of a misinterpretation held by some particular group. In the case of Origen � several prepositions were condemned based upon the interpretation of later �Origenists�. The fact exists that propositions have been condemned due topossible interpretations that other can have and not based upon the real and intended meaning of the author.

The premise of sola scripture is based upon a belief that scripture is without error (divinely inspired and divinely written). The counter to this argument is that scripture does contain error (wrong dates, wrong quotes, etc..) � AND � the fact that there is no guarantee that the person reading it and trying to understand it - will understand it in an infallible way (the same principle as the Second Part - above). Catch 22


RELATIVE TO THE READER/LISTENER
Since we have already said that there is no guarantee to the reader/listener that any statement can be received in an infallible way - any practical use of 'infallible' for any statement must be relative to the particular and personal experience of the reader/listener.

Due to the reality of the restrictions and limitations and variances of human language (the signs) which I could draw up a long list of .... and the fact that we have already proven that it is not the statement itself (signs) but the mental experience of the meaning of the statement {either in the mind of the author OR in the mind of the reader} that can be error or not-error ... it follows that the ONLY way a statement can properly be said to be infallible is if the reader/listener ... for whatever cause or reason ... fully understands that statement in the exactly meaning that was intended. I remind you that I say �practical� because the statement itself (as signs) have no capability of the attribute of error or not-error.

The condition MUST be one where the meaning of the author is without error AND (through divine intervention) the reader MUST be guaranteed an infallible reception of that same meaning � which condition the RC says � does not exist as guaranteed.

CONCLUSIONS
Bottom line is ... that for a statement to be considered an 'infallible' statement - we have to talk about it in a ... in a practical way (non-realistic but a use-able way to speak) ... and not a precise way. We must use the imprecise conventional way of casually speaking.

But even to talk about it in a conventional way ... for any statement to be considered as 'infallible' it must fulfill the conditions that ... the intended and full meaning of that statement MUST be transferred - to the recipients own mind.

We CAN talk about (in a practical way) a statement as being infallible *IF* the author of the statement is reading it himself (he understand exactly what he has written). We can say a statement is infallible in relation to anyone who understands it exactly as it was intended - but we can not say (even in a conventional an imprecise way) that it is infallible in relation to anyone who does not fully understand it or who � misunderstands it.

The concept of a Pope (or any religious body) making an infallible statement is a concept of teaching (those who are teaching) AND of reception ) those who are taught). The Pope is speaking TO others who are intended to receive the intended meaning. For that statement to be infallible - it must fulfill the condition of also being received in an infallible manner. IF NOT - than the Pope is speaking infallible only to those who fully understand his intended meaning ... and that same teaching is fallible to anyone else.

According to the above logic (all based upon propositions held by the RC) ... the infallability of any stament - can not be objective but caN only be ... RELATIVE TO THE RECIEVER.

Catch 22

/end of part 1/

-ray

I toss that up here for comments, I am not saying it is - true. It seems to be true.

=ray

Only one point (so far):


Alas, sometimes life is very hard:

a) animals quite frequently hear sounds and react to them. Some of these are sounds that human beings cannot here. Any large pet shop will sell you a doggy whistle that is inaudible to you and me, but to which the dog will react at once.

b) it's not just animals. Utterly inanimate objects can sometimes reach to sound waves, especially strong sound waves (such as those which might be caused by the tree falling in the forest even though I am not there to hear it). A musician with good pitch can often sing in such a fashion as to stimulate a piano to "sing" back to him.

Fr. Serge

I am not sure what you are getting at.

I make a diffrence between sound (the human expereince) and the energy waves (whiuch can cause the human expereince). As you point out - not all waves cause the human expereincne (sound) but can cause a sound expereince in other animals which we humans do not expereince.

We do not know what the experience of sound is for animals. Just as bees mostly see in infra-red and not in anything like the colors and shapes that you and I see - the sound an animal experiences has little similarity to the sound that is a human experience. Not only is the mechanism biological different - but most importantly - the meaning of any sound is very different and can not be shared. While my dog on occasion will pick up his head for a dog barking on TV - my dog has simply no appreciation for the Moody Blues. The sound that I hear (when I hear a Moody Blues song) and the sound that my dog hears - are quite different.

The fact remains that sound (and more importantly its meaning) are a subjective experience and not objective. Hense a person under hallusination (or even estatic expereince) can hear sounds that have no external cause.

-ray

But this must be extended not only to "Papal Infallibility," but to all the infallible Teachings of the Church. The same would apply to the Orthodox Churches from an Orthodox perspective (through the lens you're seeing it, at least).

You do admit that, right? This isn't specifically about papal infallibility but just infallible Church Teachings generally?

Alexis

A good reply Alex! It shows that you are thinking on your own and not just regurgitating the stock answers that so many of these debates dry up into.

I will respond tonight.

Can I ask how old you are? that your mind is so agile.

-ray

Ray,

I tried tracking with you through that thread. Not sure how successful I was... I'm trying to see how your views here differ from nominalism and its ultimate end, radical subjectivism and skepticism.

Infallibilty as a messianic charism of the Church (as I understand it) has to do with its proclamation, not with its reception.

Perhaps you could give me the Marvel Comics version of your argument? Again, I want to be sure that I understand what you are asserting here.

Thanks!

Gordo

I will admit that Wittgenstein on language has been my weak point to the extent that I have formally studied philosophy to date.

Having said that, Ray, it would seem, to the extent that I'm versed in philosophy at all, that your analysis doesn't allow for something to have objective characterisitics and properties. If that's the case, then how there can be any claim to objective truth about anything, as opposed to varying and competing relativist deconstructionisms, is unclear to me. And with no objective truth, I don't think there can be any Christianity worth its salt.

When a pope, ecumenical council, or the historical ordinary magisterium hold to something as being infallible, I wouldn't think that the fallibilities of others to accurately apprehend the assertion detract from the assertion itself still retaining infallibility, meaning that it's true, free of error, and immutable.

Regards to all,
Robster

Ray,

Your post is very interesting to read, but I think you are tending toward a nominalism (as Gordo mentions in his post) that, were it true, would make the Church's understanding of a "public revelation by God to man" impossible. Reason: while men can explain poorly, or misunderstand one another, God can neither deceive nor be deceived. And since His revelation is to us men, that implies that He has created us with the capability to understand what He is saying. Were nominalism true, that would frustrate this "capability".

This capability is not simply a personal gift, as if Revelation were an ongoing process (each human being requiring supernatural help to understand the content of His Revelation); rather it is public, such that Revelation ended with the death of the Apostles, thus fixing the deposit of the faith (the content), and requiring that the successors of the Apostles teach that doctrine which is for the salvation of the world. Obviously, we still need God's help (grace) to assent to what He has proposed. And that is what breaks the "Catch-22", I think.

I think Gordo has it right again when he says that "Revelation ... has to do with its proclamation, not with its reception."

I think that the Protestant idea of "sola scriptura" relies necessarily on the idea of "personal Revelation" I criticized above, and its premise is that there is no privileged authority in the Church that one can rely on to give an authentic interpretation of the Scriptures, or any other matter of our Faith.

I think you are dealing with the topic of "fallibility/infallibility" philosophically (at least your thoughts remind me of the courses on epistemology I took years ago); I think the ecclesial meaning of "infallibility" is tied very closely to the notion that Christ's Church has been given by Him all the means to bring men to salvation, such that it cannot fail in fulfilling its mission.

Sorry this isn't very original!

In Christ,
Michael

Well people �

Wow. I am tickled pink that you guys gave this a shot. How will I find holes in my thoughts unless good people point them out to me. My posts are not easy to read. But I learn more from people who disagree with me than I do from people who agree with me � so I welcome the debate.

Let me sum up my tentative position because it seems to met hat I have failed to be clear - if some suspect I am falling into these �isms� that have been mentioned.

POINT ONE:
I am saying that - as regards infallible statements and definitions - in as much as they are words and language (of the senses) and mere pointers to a mental meaning (a mental experience which the signs represent) it is impossible to assign to them an attribute of infallibility. It is only possible to assign an attribute of infallibility to the mental meaning (that the words are intended to convey). Yet we do assign to the words an 'infalibility' in a casual, imprecisie, functional way because of the intended meaning.

This is especially true since the precise meaning of words is a cultural thing that does shift with time and current usage. A prime example of this would be the East / West disagreement on the creed which (according to my study) quite possibly came to be when the Eastern bishops (native Greek speakers) and the Western bishops (speaking the form of Greek current at the time within Rome Italy) - had agreed upon precise Greek wording for the creed - - - but down the road came along a further development of one Greek word. The Eastern bishops (natural Greek speakers) quite naturally began to use the adjusted definition of the word in question � while the Roman bishops (speaking the form of Greek current to Italy) continued to use the original meaning of the word. Thus making it seem to the Eastern bishops (using the newer adjusted definition of the word) that the Latin church had changed the creed. {Believe me - I do not want to enter into that debate].

Yet further - the meaning that words point to - do depend upon current cultural use (at the cultural level) and finally the meaning anyone may get from words depends upon personal use and experience. (For example: my son�s girl friend uses the word �wicked� to indicate something that is awesomely good - while the traditional meaning of �wicked� would mean evil and bad.)

If a written or spoken statement, by itself, could be infallible - than the premise of �sola scriptorium� can be true - and scriptures (containing the words of Jesus and the apostles) can be infallible (as some Protestants take it to be infallible). It would also be true that any meaning one might get from any portion of scriptures - would be infallible- regardless of the author�s intended meaning.

Summation: words spoken or written can not, in themselves, be infallible. They do not contain the truth they point to. The truth that can be infallible is restricted to a mental meaning.

(I will give an example from RC Cannons that reflect recognition of this first point.)

POINT TWO:
And so ... therefore �
Since infallibility can only be an attribute of the meaning (a mental experience).
� AND �
There is no guarantee to any particular reader/listener that he will receive the intended mental experience (no divine guarantee that he will fully understand the intended meaning of the statement) .
� AND �
Since a teaching necessarily implies its reception (to put this into football terms - �the pass must be completed�). I will continue to use the football phrase.

� CONCLUSION �
An Infallible statement or teaching � are only infallible in a relative way.
------------


Q; What is meant by �in a relative way?�
A: Only if - �the pass is completed�.

Only if the intended meaning of the statement is (a mental experience) is indeed infallible - AND - only if the receiver of the statement (the man listening or reading) has (by way of the statement) that same mental experience.

OK.. Now� such deep though hurts my head. NOW - let us leave such deep thought and actually look at reality (the way things are) with both feet on the ground. And what we shall see is that reality itself - confirms our conclusion. We will use three examples drawn from practical reality.

1) In a practical way � in a relationship between �the Pope of Rome and his own Latin church � a Papal statement can be said to be infallible (in a practical way) because the intended meaning is intended for the reading/listening of his own church. We assume the �pass� will be completed.

We find this situation to exist in the everyday world.

2) In a precise way � in a relationship between the Pope of Rome and the Orthodox church � an infallible statement by the Pope is rejected. The �pass is incomplete�. In THIS relationship (Rome/Orthodoxy) the statement is not infallible. The intended meaning and the received meaning is not the same.

We find this situation to exist in the everyday world. The Orthodox are not bound in some mysterious and divine way - to Papal infallibility. They can - and do - reject it as having nothing to do with them. And they are no worse off for rejecting it.

3) In a precise way � in a relationship between the Pope of Rome and any individual member of his own Latin church � some will understand that statement in the same meaning as it was intended (the pass is completed) � and some will not understand it and some will misunderstand it (the pass is incomplete). For those who DO understand it according to its intended meaning - it is infallible. For those who do not understand it according to its intended meaning - it is not infallible.

LATIN CANNON
And now lastly I want to back this all up with something from the Roman Catholic Cannons. It is the laws regarding the handling of possible cases of heresy. I shall do them from memory and in summation.

Only a member of the church - can be heretical. Non-members can not be declared heretical. For example: a Buddhist who might teach that �God is a quadruplet� can not be heretical. The Buddhist is not a member of the church. The Buddhist has not received nor understood the teachings of the church. The Buddhist may be in error - but may not be declared heretical.

Only a member of the church who is teaching � error � may be declared heretic and his statements heretical. The key word is - teaching. Not just holding, having, or saying � teaching. An example would be a priest (having teaching authority) who is teaching that Jesus did not have a human body but the appearance of his body was an illusion.

The Cannon steps toward a declaration of heretic or heretical - are these�

Upon suspicions - the person must first be questioned by local authority as to the meaning of his statements. If the person is found to have misunderstood, or to lack knowledge of the position of the church, or to have been incorrectly taught � he is to be catechumed. (sp?) and that may be the end of things.

The next step is that the person is to be examined by the local bishop (perhaps a bishop appointed local council). He is to be questioned as to the precise meaning of his statements. If the MEANING of his statements are determined to be suspicious of being GAVE ERROR THAT WILL CAUSE PUBLIC HARM TO THE CHURCH - he is to be offered re-education - and he is asked to cease teaching his statements. Every effort must be expended by the church that he come to understand the churches position on the item. Such things as the mental capability of the person must be taken into account.

If the person is deemed to be capable of understanding the teaching of the church (on the subject) and refuses the teaching - and refuses to cease teaching the erroneous statements - thing elevate to the third and last level.

At the last level - the Vatican investigates and must question the person as to the exact meaning of his statements. The person must be examined by a council (more than one). If it is found that the person does understand the teaching of the church (on the subject) and the meaning of his own statements of teaching are may cause grace harm to the church - he must be offered re-education. At the same time the council must issue an official �cease and desist� order. If the person does �cease and desist� everything ends there and the person is not a heretic. However - if the person does not cease and desist AND is knowingly teaching error (he knows the truth and the proper teaching) at that point the Pope may sign-off on a declaration of heretic and the teachings of that person to be heretical.

If the person does cease and desist teaching his erroneous statements (upon reception of an official notification order) he can not be declared a heretic and his statements (the ones in error) are not declared heretical - just erroneous.


Two points need to be highlighted here.

1) The every effort must be expended to understand the intended meaning - of the suspect statements. In this regard it is proof that the church recognizes a difference between the words and language used and the intended mental meaning of the statement. Error depends upon the mental meaning and not upon the words themselves.

2) Any declaration of error - depends entirely upon the mental meaning of the statement. Any declaration of heretic and heretical depends entirely upon the refusal of the person to cease (after being official ordered to cease).

SIDE NOTE: In practice, on a rare occasion (Origen and Eckhart to name two) a statement has been declared heretical regardless of the intended meaning of the author. The author is not declared heretical - just the statement is declared heretical. In these rare cases it has been judged that someone else (not the author) has been using a particular understanding that one may have from the statement - and teaching that with some popularity - to the great harm of the church. This is a questionable use of Cannon law as there is no basis for such a declaration within Cannon law.

IN CLOSING
Perhaps I made a mistake in using the terms �subjective and objective�. Perhaps I did not use them according to convention.

Certainly, being a Catholic, I have witnesses the needless troubles that surround semantics when an Orthodoxy person insists a meaning for a Roman Catholic doctrine - which is not the same meaning that a Catholic has of the same doctrine. (my apologies to my Orthodox friends - I promise I will air some RC faults real soon J. ) Two sides both insisting dissimilar meanings for the one same statement. Certainly it is the intended mental meaning within a Roman Catholic context � which should be recognized as the intended meaning of that doctrine. But at the same time we must admit and recognize the reality that, in a relationship of an Orthodox reading a Catholic doctrine, the mental meaning that they have of it - is relative to Eastern theology and the Eastern experience. In other words - not in the same context from which the statement was forged. The �pass is not completed�. The doctrine (as understood by an Orthodox) is as wrong as they say it is. What they (an Orthodox) gains from it - maybe (and probably is) mixed with error. (this does not address the possibility that any particular RC doctrine may actually contain error). The Orthodox person is right - the meaning that he has from it is � error.

IF we are to get anywhere in drawing closer (Orthodox to Catholic) we MUST recognize the reality of the relative nature of the human condition.

IF we are to get anywhere we must recognize �pass completed� and �incomplete pass�.

IF we are to get anywhere together we must recognize that an infallible declaration is NOT infallible for everyone. The pass must be completed. The statement or declaration is not �infallible� (words and language) - only the intended meaning (which is a mental experience) may be infallible - and that only when received.

It seems to me that the Orthodox are essentially - right - in regards to the role of Peter in the early church. Peter was a visible sign of a unity which existed within and between � a confederation of churches. A judicial role only in the sense of �one place� and �one mouth� where to obtain the �mind of Christ� which in fact existed diffused throughout the churches of the confederation.

There is no doubt that Peter had full judicial office over his own church (as any other Patriarch has) and he can claim that as his own. But any judicial role he had over the entire Church )the confederation) was lent to him voluntarily - by his other equals. And his equals (other churches) suffer no ill consequences if they withdraw what was lent.

The divine nature of the church can not be damaged by man. The divine nature of the church is not damaged if there is no voluntary cooperation with Peter. But the human nature of the church can improve or lack - due to human management. Humanly - it would be better if Peter was again - a sign of unity - but nothing is lacking to the divine nature and workings of any church - if he is not.

These are my current opinions (not a teaching ) and they are tentative. I await to see if someone can shot a huge hole into it. Ha! I await to see if anyone understands my jumbled mind

Alex ... your comments? I look forward to them.


Peace to all churches.
-ray

Let me re-read your post several times and turn it over in my mind. I am not sure it applies to what I am saying. I am not sure.

But you said it very well

I will need some time to appraise it.

Thank you for reading my post and stepping forward to comment.

-ray

I think I understand you.

No .. I am not going toward radical subjectivism and skepticim. At least I do not thinks so.

I do these hard questions as a way to question myself. And I enlist your help. Sometimes I am just bouncing things off the wall to see where they land. That is why I sometimes say that I learn more from people who disagree with me.

I often (not always) insist on a God who is real - and not just my own security blanket. I think that is what Thomas was all about. He did not doubt Christ - he doiubted himself - his own (our own) ability to imagine Jesus to be the messiah. Pleanty of Jesus died just a few years before Jesus was born - because they longed for and followed a false messiah. Was Thomas just as mistaken as they were? He did not want to be. He demanded that his mmessiah be the real thing and not just projected hidden desires of his own mind.

It has been my expereince that God likes total honesty from us. Luke warm just does not cut it. If we say what we really feeel and it is wrong - he can fix that. But if we just say what we think he wants to hear - he can not do anything with that.

He offers friendship and I should offer genuine friendship back. That takes honesty. Deep honesty. I know how to be a real freind to someone ... and that is not to put on aires and not to be false. It is to be humana - with all the limitations and failings that go with that.

I can do that

It is a loopsided freindship but I can do that.

-ray

Perhaps Alex.

That is a dangerous subject to talk about in public. It is easily misunderstood what one is saying.

It touches on the question "Is the Church the only exclusive means to salvation?" which is an emotional subject for some.

I will - go out on a limb - and say that there is only one means of santification and that means is: cooperation with Providence and great attention to one's conscience.

Both - are avalible to all mean at all times.

Reality and Providence (which are really the same thing)

Conscience and Charity (charity arises from conscience)

... dedicate yourself to these, a radical dedication, and all else will fall into place.

If you are looking for God you will have a difficult time and you will tend to mistake many things for God ... which are not God. For the simple reason that you do not know what you are looking for. You can not know.

But if you dedicate yourself to the things I gave above than God will come and introduce himself to you. He can find you - he knows what he is looking for.

-ray

Hi Ray. Arthur here. I'm new to the board but am enjoying reading the various threads.

Am a Latin Rite priest and have a degree in philosophy. Your question is at the heart of modernity. It is the fundamental question of our age. Can language capture experience? Can language convey intended meaning? The classic answer is that yes language does convey, even if imprecisely, an intended meaning. To some extent this question goes all the way back to the Greeks. Plato's allegory of the cave is ultimately a question of epistemology. Do we see reality clearly? Or are we only seeing vague images and shaddows of reality. There was already among the Greek philosophers a party of skeptics.

The two questions (and there are two!) are: 1. Does our perception of reality refer to something real in itself or just an "experience" in our heads? 2. If we can perceive reality in itself, to whatever degree, is it possible to convey that reality through language?

As with all inherently philosophical questions there are classic lines of reasoning and argumentation both in favor and against every claim.

As religious believers, there is something fundamental about our belief that weighs heavily in favor of positivism--the opposite of skepticism. We believe that the most essential truth of the universe and human existence is conveyed through holy writ. The skeptical position and its modern cousin, deconstructionism claim that all texts once written become utterly free from their authors and any attempt at finding original authorial intent is impossible. All belief, even in "scientific" truths is rendered impossible in the most extreme form of this line of thinking.

Thus, as believers whose tradition and scripture is essentially textual, we have to assume that language can and does bear the intended truth.

The basic retort to skepticism is everyday life. Ask the deconstructionist professor how he responds to his wife's request that he buy a dozen eggs on the way home from campus. Does he say he cannot possibly know what a wife is, what is meant by eggs, a dozen, or home? No, he stops and buys the eggs or pays the consequence when he arrives home.

Regarding the original metaphor of the tree falling in the woods. It is a classic favorite question posed by philo profs to their freshmen. It is a bit of a linguistic parlour trick, though. There is a linguistic assumption that is built into the account which makes the concluding question possible. Who says that sound is an inner experience of the ear and brain? That assumption is where the problem lies. Sound is an objective reality. It is measurable and quantifiable. No scientist says that sounds waves are not sound. The only people who assume that sound is a subjective inner experience within the human are philosophers who read into reality this fundamental skepticism. Once the freshmen assume the seemingly innocuous assumption that sound is a subjective experience, the philosophy professor has laid the groundwork for getting the student to accept the hermeneutic of suspicion and all the rest. But, I would say that the basic assumption that sound is an internal experience rather than an objective measurable physical reality is fundamentally wrong.

For a robust counter to skepticism, Bernard Lonergon founded a minor school of thought called cognitive philosophy. He was a Jesuit physicist/philosopher/theologian. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is absolutely no match for him. A summary of his thought is the observation that if the human mind were not hard-wired to reality, we could not have the experience of insight--the ability to abstract principles from reality and apply them to new situations and to combine principles in new ways to arrive at other new principles. Without the capacity of the human for insight into reality itself, we could not build bridges or skyscrapers or go to the moon.

The skeptical response that we cannot know whether there are bridges, skyscrapers or a moon leaves something fundamental lacking...

So, as others have said the objection you raise to infallibility can be applied to all statements of fact whether religious or not. This is not the kind of argument that one Christian should be making to cast doubt on the means of another church's mode of teaching as it leads to the unraveling of whatever teaching he himself holds dear.

Fr. Serge.

I forgot to observe that you and I must have taken the same courses. You went straight for the philosophical jugular with your arguments for the objectivity of sound. I salute you!

Peace to all,

Fr. Arthur