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

Dear Father Arthur,

Nice to know that education is not entirely dead - my thanks to your good self!

One could also point out that some animals do not merely hear; they can actually distinguish words (say "biscuits" around my dog and watch him respond!).

Again, my thanks.

fraternally yours in Christ,

Serge

For a delightful read on the problems with skepticism by a man in the same neck of the woods as Fr. Serge read, "Liberal Education as if Truth Mattered," by Christopher Derrick who was a student of CS Lewis. And if one wants a good dose of knowing, just the first book of Euclid's Elements will convince one that some things can indeed be known. But as you stated, Fr. Arthur, everyday experience is usually sufficient to refute the modernists.

I take one objection to the term used by Fr. Arthur-- positivism.


That term, at least in my profession, comes with its own form of skepticism. Positivism in the law is a form skepticism that maintains that laws are simply whatever men posit them to be. In this view laws have no real basis in nature (and hear I do not mean the "laws of Nature" as referred to on the Declaration, but rather moral laws) because there is no law giver--ie, God. According to the positivist view, things are wrong only because man says so--or as one of my positivists law professors stated, "law is simply what judges do." And this man was Jewish. When I confronted him with the horror of Nazi Germany, he only maintained that "might did make right." Scripture clearly refutes such a view as this:

"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts while their conscience also bears witness ..." Romans - 2:14

I have read and reread about 10 times in the last 6 months, Cardinal Ratzinger's essay on "Conscience and Truth." It can be found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM


I highly recommend this little essay.

For a great read from a man who has years of experience in dealing with sketicism of college level students, enjoy "What We Can't Not Know" by J. Budziszewski.

Dear Im.

Thanks for your insights. Regarding positivism, perhaps I should have said "logical positivism." In modern philosophy this was a movement intent on demonstrating that linguistic claims can be verifiable. It is closely related to the sciences and seeks to be a philosophical ground for science and from science to other kinds of truth claims. Wittgenstein was a foremost proponent of this thinking which insisted that truth claims be verifiable.

Positivism as you say is used in legal terminology is unknown to me. So thanks for the education. Have not read Derrick's book, but it sounds good to me. Bloom's book was helpful to me many years ago now.

Fr. Arthur

I am so pleased that you chimed in. Your philosophical training should help us all.

I trend to stay away from such labels as 'xxxxxx-ism' because they can be so unfair. As if everything had already been put to bed and there is nothing new - no new progress - no better understanding. It reminds me of modern life were one must be very careful talking to the opposite sex because people just seem to have an overpowering tendency put you into one category or another and tag you with s stereotypical label. �He is talking to her because he is a male pig � He is talking to her because he hates women .. He is talking to her because � etc..� it makes life so dead.

It seems a touch dehumanizing to me to imagine that there are only so many stereotypes and everyone must fit into one of them. I am NOT saying that you are doing this to me - I am just mentioning my aversion to stereotyping.

Now please do not take offense at my aversion to being put into boxes. I have not yet found a box I am comfortable in.


I would agree with this somewhat. They keyword is �does convey� and I would have it say �can convey�.

And at times it does convey a precise meaning. For example � if you were about to cross the street and I yelled �STOP!� - I would think you would freeze and stop movement. I intended a precise meaning and you received that precisely. Certainly you have experienced such a moment.

If it seems as if I was saying that language can not convey intended meaning - I do not think I was saying that. (perhaps I need to re-read what I wrote). But I was certainly saying that there is no necessity to it. In other words: language does not necessarily convey intended meaning.


Q: But does language ALWAYS convey the intended meaning?
(If it does - there would be that necessity to language.)
A: No. Not always.

As you will note if you re-read my posts - I say that infallibility exists in the intended meaning. As far as the signs (spoken or written) some will receive the intended meaning and some will not. Some will have another meaning - which they will believe is the real meaning but it is not the intended meaning.

Let us do a though experiment:: You are a priest. You gather about yourself 100 Catholics from your congregation. Now - let us take an Infallible pronouncement - let us take the one from the Papal letter Unum Sanctum. It is very short and comes at the end of the letter.


And now have every one write down the meaning of that statement in one paragraph. All 100 Catholics. � Do you believe that everyone of the 100 will write down the exact same (or even very near) meaning??

In this particular case it would be a good bet that most people would write something similarly - and to the effect that it means that all men of all times must submit to the authority of the Pope - in order to be saved. Even if this was said in varied wording - it would seem that the majority �got it�. No one would ask how it could be that Moses (who died well before any Pope) could be under the Roman Pontiff? Or how Abraham could have been under the Roman Pontiff? was under the Pontiff? Elisha - Enoch - taken into heaven - perhaps they were under the Roman Pontiff in some mysterious way that has not been explained to us?? Perhaps we should just believe it - and not ask �how?�

But NOW put the letter (Unum Sanctum) into context - it is a personal letter to King Philip of France - prompted by the occasion of Philip threatening to do - in France - what had already been done in England (the king of England had ripped its Catholic population and churches away from the Pope and had made himself head of the church - The Church of England). Philip was threatening to do the same (create a Church of France with himself as its head). And NOW we can understand why the Pope precedes his Infallible declaration - with a scriptural history of how terrestrial power (kings) are established by spiritual powers (God) and not the other way around (�Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God�). Which means that Philip can not be a valid head of Church. Philip - is a terrestrial power - not a spiritual power - it is impossible that Philip appoint himself to an office of spiritual power. That is just not the way it works.

The keyword �salvation� had always been used by Councils to indicate the set of sacraments. They have the power of salvation - when they are valid. Therefore - as regards the creation of a �Church of France� (this IS the context) - the Pope declares that it is absolutely necessary for the sacraments to be valid (have the power to save) that the church (people and property in France) remain under the Roman Pontiff.

An Infallible statement on one sentence - YES - but directly intended for Philip (not addressed to the entire universal church) and directly in the context of Philip�s contemplation of separating from the Pontiff - creating a �Church of France� - and making himself its spiritual head.

To end the experiment - I ask you - did the Infallible declaration you read to the 100 Catholics (�Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.) did it by necessity (without fail) � convey to all 100 Catholics the correct intended meaning that Pope Boniface had directly intended to give to King Philip?

Of course not. In the very least there will be some trouble with a concept of �every human being ever born - must submit to the Roman Pontiff� and this will make answers vary from person to person.

And even the majority would have received an off the target meaning because they did not have the context of it being the summary line (a summation) of the purpose of the histographical part before it.

Let us now consider if the 100 Catholic - had been 100 people of different faiths � how would each receive it?

This proves that there is no necessity that words and language does convey intended meaning. It CAN - but not by necessity.

[quote]
As religious believers, there is something fundamental about our belief that weighs heavily in favor of positivism--the opposite of skepticism.
[quote]

Perhaps. And perhaps (to use a sterotype) this positivism is (at some point and some occasion) just as much a problem as skepticism - is. Do we need - any - of these �isms�? Must we all toe the line of an ism? Is there liberty from �isms�? (of course I would answer - yes).

Back to Infallibility. Perhaps it is positivim - that makes it so hard for us religious people to grasp what is really so simple and plain to even common sense.

An Infallible statement - can not be infallible by way of words and language - but only by way of intended meaning - and can only said to be �infallible� if the �pass is completed� (the receiver actually does receive the intended meaning).

One last try ::: If something is Infallible it is also immutable. Because if it does change - it can only change to fallible.

Q: Can immutable truth (a particular meaning) be fully contained within words and language (things of the senses) when the container (or vehicle) which are words and language is not immutable (does change)?

Now please listen good Father � you should not assume (if you are or anyone else is) that I am putting all Infallible statements by Peter - to zero. That is not the case here. Nor am I attacking Peter (my Bishop and the Patriarch that Providence has put me under). But CLEARLY - reality displays - that Infallible statements which would seem to be judicial descisions binding upon the universal Church - are NOT binding upon every church. What smoke and mirrors (positivism?) makes us believe that the Orthodox are bound by all of them? Do we SEE the Orthodox being bound? No we don�t. IF they WERE bound - they WOULD be accepting and doing them. And we know that is not the case. So why do we say the universal Church is bound - when they are NOT all bound?

If I were to tell you that there are ten men inside a room � and you went into the room and found five men � would you come out of the room and say �There ARE ten men in the room!�

You are a priest - you do not have the same liberty that I have (I am no one and have no authority and no responsibility to speak as directed). You do not need to answer any of my questions.

May peace be to our church. May Peter be - once again - a visible sign of unity. My our eyes be upon Providence and our ears be ever attentive to our conscience where God writes his will with his own finger.

Please mention me (silently) at the moment of consecration.

-ray

I recall now that the full title of the book is, "Escape from Skepticism, Liberal Education as if Truth Mattered."

Your point raises a question. Does one need to verify "scientifically" every experience? Would not that proposition itself have to be verified?

I recall the story of a professor who was dealing with a difficult student who was doubting everything. I believe the professor grabbed his hand, lit a lighter underneath it and said, "fire is hot." No kidding! I believe the young man later converted to Catholicism and is now a priest.

The problem with the skeptic is, as I see it, a moral one. He is bound by his obstinacy. Truth could hit him squarely between the eyes and he would deny it.

Bloom's book is a good one.

Try doing Euclid's First Book which is here

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html

The great thing about geometry is that it is abstracted from matter which makes it, in a way, immutable.

One must distinguish with the claim of infallibility what actually is the subject of infallibility--immutable claims to the truth of faith and morals.

Thus, for example, when people claim that the Church's teaching on the death penalty has changed, I do not think that is correct. The Catechism states that the conditions when it is necessary are "vary rare, if not practically non-existent." That is a prudential judgment and conditions can change. That is very different from a claim that says abortion is always a grave sin.

Maybe this part of Cardinal Ratzinger's lecture might be helpful:

>Without the capacity of the human for insight into reality itself

I would call this - intentionality - as found in Aristotle, Aquinas, St. Anselm, and a few others. Hard-wired is not a bad way to express it. I get the meaning.

According to intentionality �

It is in the design of our created spiritual nature (psychological mind) and our physical nature (soma) to want God. Just as the green plant turns to the sunlight � �all natures contemplate the One� (Plotinus). They (these created natures) have no free choice in the matter.

Our created natures try to contemplate God in the way which is appropriate to each. The body looks to the psychological mind (for God) and the mind looks to our person (the mysterious �I�) for God - and the �I� looks at God (within our conscience). Each in the way appropriate to its own nature.

Intentionality explains.

The psychological mind and the body have no choice in the matter - they must contemplate God in the way described (the lower nature is in-formed by the higher nature). If they can not have the real God they will create or latch onto a substitute (which can not satisfy them). Like a baby who does not have a real nipple will try to nurture on a substitute.

However � the �I� (that mystery in us that is most like God) does have a choice (to look at conscience or not) and so that �chain of contemplation� � that chain of in-forming intentionality � is redirected to something lower (not God) - but which does reflect God in some way.

When the gaze of the person is on something lower (something not-God) the in-forming intentionality process is still churching away � it is an �act� which is the same act as our existing � but the in-forming is now on things which are not appropriate for it. Our faculties misfire J . Like a car on the wrong type of gas. The experience of reality which comes to consciousness is distorted, all fogged up, like a dirty pane of glass in a window it filters and we do not see past it clearly.

The faculties are designed to work well only on good gas. Anything less - and they work less well and complain. They are exiled from eden (the face to face experience of Providence) an the clear perception and experience of existential and empirical reality.

And so we can only have a �face to face� experience of reality (existential and empirical) when the �I� turns its gaze back to the mystery of the presence of God within our own conscience. The return to reality (psychological and soma) is a result of the �I� returning to its proper object (the mystery of God in our conscience).

I have not been precise with my terms. I gave you the short non-theological terms - version.

Outside of eden we call it �reality�� but back inside eden it is called Providence and it is the experience of a person.

You brought it up does the �hard-wired� thing have any similarity to this?

Where are you located? If close enough to me I might want to come over some evening and we can both look up at the stars and bat this stuff around until morning. You seem quite capable. I am ametur and would be annoying.

-ray

Im,

You hit it right between the eyes. The famous weak spot of logical positivism is that the claim that every truth claim be verifiable is itself unverifiable. Well done!

From fire is hot to the Catholic priesthood. Vocation directors take note!



Well put. Is this not the also the bain of the evangelist as well. The willful and ego centered refusal to accept even basic premises and the refusal to acknowledge God are two huts on the same block. Truth is One. It is indivisible and so is the impulse to reject it.

Ray. Excellent. This is essentially the claim of natural law: that man being made in the image of God has the capacity of intelligence such that he can reason morally and at least come close to the Good. That is, that our weakness from the fall of Adam is not so great that our capacity to discern good from evil is not unraveled. The claims of natural law are such that reason and revelation should never be opposed. What one learns from divine revelation should not conflict with what one discerns by reason. This, btw, is the heart of what Benedict XVI is trying to convey to the contemporary academy.

BTW, St. Paul uses natural law reasoning in Romans 1:



--vv. 18-26.

Even the pagans should have been able to discern the reality of God and his moral law by reason without benefit of revelation.

I live at Notre Dame in Indiana. You would be welcome, Ray. And, a night of philosophizing and star gazing might be a nice treat on a clear fall night.

Fr. Arthur

I think the view was the other way around - that God created math � and using math he created the world.

The math is immutable ideals (does not change) and the matter created by use of it - does changes (is mutable).

One ancient view was that pre-existent matter was a substance like water - it takes the shape and form of any vessel it is poured into. It is really allegorical (an it-is-likened-to thing) but was often taken literally by those who could not raise to the allegory.

In any event - I am currently listening to lectures which include Pythagoras and Newton (creating calculus). I have the type of job where I can put on an mp3 player and do my work and may perhaps not see anyone all day long. Imagine what a joy it is sometimes - to work out in nature - not see anyone - do my work - and listen to either lectures or music all day. For breaks and lunch time I can just sit and absorb birds, trees, clouds, wind, etc.. I do not get paid much (those days are gone) but I would not trade it for more money. Approaching the twilight of life - this is exactly what I asked God for.

(I am drifting off topic).

I will save your link. I should like to get to know him a bit.

Thanks.

I hope my comments in this thread are not taken too seriously as if some great thing dependned on me being right.

-ray

Ray,

As has been said by others, infallibility applies only to the statement of doctrine, not its reception by the reader. There is no guarantee the doctrine will be properly understood by the reader especially as the good will, proper attention and education are required for understanding. We have all seen how some anti-Catholic Protestants willfully misunderstand Catholic teaching. Understanding any writer or speaker requires good will. Presuming your 100 Catholics have the proper disposition, they may not have the required intellectual formation or even capacity. Reality is complicated whether philosophical, theological or scientific.

Ray, I am afraid I have to respectfully disagree. Math is a symbolic system, a language if you will, designed by humans to express and explain reality. While God created the physical universe and human intelligence, I am not sure he created math. Basic mathematical principles are tied to reality. But this is not a reality that is random. Creation does not mean that God could have created something else radically different. For instance, I cannot imagine a created universe in which 1 + 1 = 3. I would not say that God has a choice about the sum of one and one. So, math is a reflection of creation but it itseld is not created except by human intelligence. I fear I am not saying this very well. Help?

No, no .. I was simply relaying the ancient views. It is good to understand how they saw things. Such a view does express something and has a little value but when carried to the extreme (as Newton did) it makes God sit on the sidelines as the mechanical world gears itself along to its inevitable end. This is what was called fate and pre-destination (Calvin) and a corruption of Paul.

My own belief is in a moment by moment creation. Providence. As explained within the Catholic doctrines that were formed by the doctors of the Church and shared by many in the ancient world. Where the �beginning� is within God and the �end� is within the material world. A �procession� is what the Greeks called it. A �coming out� from God. Renewed at every moment.

Where time touches eternity � is at the moment of the crucifixion and resurrection. All things of history before the resurrection look forward to it - and all things of creation after the resurrection look back to it. This is how Paul saw it and I agree.

It is rather difficult to grasp when put up against our habit of thinking time to be an external thing and not specifically a human experience caused by the retentive function of our faculty of memory. Now some might assume of me some 'ism' here - but that would be to assume of me something I do not hold. It is Providence - all the way. There is not a saint - who is a saint - without radical dedication to Providence and conscience.

A literal reading of Genesis supports a big bang view (a beginning of time - time existed even without man to experience it) but such a think is impossible. To locate any moment in time - one needs to know a point of time immediately before and after the point in time one is trying to locate. That begs the question �What time was it - before time came into being?� and that is a ridiculous question.

Time is a human experience. It �begins� at the moment we become aware (with birth) and it ends when we die. It is a function of the persistence of memory (without which we could not function).

If the world existed - and no man existed - (as some propose that there was no man around yet when the world was made) would there be �time�? Would time exist?

No - of course not. Man was not made for the world - the world is made for man. It is God�s �tool� which he uses to try and �Let us make man into our image.�

This is all explained in the doctrines of Providence and conscience as held by the church both East and West. In the East it is the doctrine of Uncreated energies (orginally called Virtues). In Genesis it is the four rivers which flows out from Eden into creation.

But now - for the past three nights my son has come into the room to chat about life and, because I was deep in though here, I gave him a �not now� look. So I am spending too much time yakking away here.

Perhaps we will pick this up next week - in a different way.

Peace to you � oh great I AM <wink>
-ray

Hi all,

This whole construction rests on the assuption that there is no such thing as objective Truth.

By "Infallibility", the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) has never meant that the doctrines infallibly defined cannot be misunderstood by any audience.

One just has to give a quick view the the history of the great theological and christological disputes that triggered the first general councils (the ones both Catholic and Orthodox acknowledge as Ecumenical): Each new hersessy was simply an over-doing of the (infallible) refutation of the previous one.

"Infallible" doesn't mean that the teaching will always convey its message to all audiences. It means that the teaching is in perfect agreement with the Deposit of Faith (that is, what has previously been considered as infallibly defined, by Scripture and/or Tradition).

We are able to affirm this because we believe there is such thing as objective Truth, that is, Truth that does not depend upon personal beliefs.

Yes, you could argue that a Truth that is not believed does no good to anybody, but that doesn't make that Truth any less true. It just makes us a bunch of ignorants (or infidels).

However, these days it is very fashionable to deny (openly or implicitly) the very possibility of objective Truth and fall into what Pope Benedict XVI appropriately calls the "tyrany of relativism", in which only subjective "truths" are considered (my truth vs. your truth), and therefore, the "truth" of the strongest is the one with better chances to be imposed on others.

We see the consequences of this all across the board: from the removal of the Ten Commandments from Court buildings, to abortion rights, to the obligation to adopt the moral goodness of homosexual activities, to global economics, to the decisions on which wars are just and why.

If we lose the compass of objective Truth, then it is jungle law for all: Survival of the toughest.

Is that what we want?

Shalom,
Memo