Infallibility of the Faith
#60
(06-23-2014, 04:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: So, in fact, in this instance, you are wrong. I hope this will demonstrate that you don't have a correct understanding of Infallibility, and should not reject it until you have educated yourself on it. There are plenty of solid tracts from Catholic apologetic sites to help here. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Ok.  I accept that I was wrong about Galileo's condemnation being infallible.

Quote:Again, I think you see here a material resemblance, where there is truly a formal difference.

In Mormonism, there is a constantly evolving revelation. The religion constantly changes its doctrines, so there is no such thing as infallibility, but there is a teaching authority. The simple fact that God makes completely contradictory revelation, though, is proof enough that this is mere material resemblance.

In shia Islam there is ‘iṣmah, which does have a note of infallibility to it, but it is not the same kind of thing as Papal infallibility. The shia do not have a consistent doctrine here. Some say that all imams have such ‘iṣmah. Others say only Mohammad and earlier prophets enjoyed this. It is impeccability and infallibility in the sense of knowing the totality of God's will and able to give guidance which perfectly accords with God's will.

The differences between Papal infallibility and ‘iṣmah should be apparent. These can't really be compared, rather, to evaluate them, you have to take them each on their own footing. If you have doubts about ‘iṣmah, then study it's foundation (which is an interpretation of the Qu'ran). If you have doubts on Papal infallibility, study that on its own footing (founded on Scripture and expressed since the earliest days of the Church in various ways). You can't pit two different concepts against each other and think we can come up with some meaningful result.

In short, your criteria of evaluation here and your questions are bad questions. They really don't address the fundamental issue. If Papal infallibility is true then it will stand on its own two feet. If other religions claim something similar, then whether these are true will have to be evaluated in the same way, based on their claims, not based on comparison with Papal infallibility.

It's not in the idea that concepts share all the same criteria where my doubt lies.  It is simply in "what would I consider crazy about Catholicism if I were not Catholic?" at the time.  What in Catholicism asks us to suspend reason in order to believe them.  Even if ismah is not a direct parallel to papal infallibility, believing papal infallibility still asks us to suspend rational thought to believe it.  It's not a naturally occurring phenomenon.  We have to accept that the laws of nature are somehow working differently here than on any other human being. 

Quote:He doesn't or he can't? It makes a difference. If he cannot, then it's not really God, if he does not, then its a matter of demonstrating that you are incorrect and He does and has.

He doesn't.  Obviously a god who created the universe would necessarily have the power to intervene in it.

Quote:Since the New Testament is a reasonably accurate historical record (more so than even other documents we have from that period), then we're going to have to find some pretty solid criteria for rejecting it. We can't just decide to rewrite parts of it either. If the miracles (which are the proof of Christ's divinity) are thrown out, then the Gospel is just a story of a lunatic who did nothing special except get Himself crucified and zealous followers who had reason to create a new religion. Pretty much, the whole Gospel and Catholic religion make no sense if you dismiss the miracles. And there is no good reason to dismiss the miracles.

They're not written about anywhere else.  For example, there are no reports from other sources of all the tombs in Jerusalem opening and the dead walking the streets.  There are no other sources that talk about the veil in the temple being torn in two (not really miraculous, but significant).  If these didn't really happen, how can we be sure the rest did?  And, again, believing that they happened requires one to at least momentarily suspend rational thought.

Quote:And somehow scientific studies can detect supernatural effects? Isn't science about the natural, observable world, not about the supernatural (i.e. non-observable world).?

No.  Science can detect when there is no difference between a control group and a test group that is supposed to have supernatural effects taking place.  In studies where people were asked to pray for a group of people that had cancer to be healed, and there was a control group where no one received prayer, there was no difference in the incidence of cancer going into remission or being spontaneously healed in the two groups.  Studies like this have been replicated multiple times.

(06-23-2014, 10:59 AM)Melkite Wrote: I think just observing life, for whatever reason, shows that God wants the universe to unfold as it would.  If he is constantly interfering with miracles, then it's not the brilliant creation of his that its supposed to be. It would mean he created a faulty universe in the beginning that he constantly has to tweak because of the bugs in the program he apparently wasn't omniscient enough to prevent in the beginning.  

Quote:You're entirely right. If God created a universe that required his constant tinkering, He would not be God. Yet, it does require His constant maintenece of its being. But "miracle" does not mean a violation of the laws of nature at all, nor does it undermine God's wisdom or immutability. God being Omniscient, foresaw from all eternity all He did and would do. This is because in God (as Aristotle proves) there is no movement from potency to act. He is pure act. Thus His acts are not sequential or separate. It is one single, perpetual act. Because, however, we are in time, the effects of His acts appear as sequential. Thus His healing of a man's sickness comes sequentially after the man's birth in time, but in God's action there is no real distinction of these two things.

So, He created once, and by the same perpetual act, maintains this creation, and sees the entirety of creation. He does not sequentially look at creation. That alone would disprove His omniscience. Any intervention to prevent a secondary cause from acting as it normally does (a "miracle") was foreseen and planned from eternity in the same act which created the universe, because God could not have come to know something which He did not know from all eternity, else it is not God of which we speak.

If this is true, then what is the purpose of supplicatory prayer?  If God acts outside of time, then our prayer can in no way alter that action.  It is worthless to ask of God anything.  It would also mean that predestination is true, even more fully than what the Calvinists propose, and that every evil that falls upon us, even if only passively so, was planned and created by God.

Quote:Actually, no. The nature of a thing is to be what it is, not to cease to be what it is. The perfection of a nature is the perfect operation of its faculties. Naturally man should remain united body and soul, and this eternally, since the soul is eternal.  The only explanation for death is a nature which is wounded. And original sin perfectly explains this. Otherwise, there should be no death.

So then squirrels and rabbits and foxes and elephants were all supposed to be eternal as well?  And how then could animals that existed prior to humans be carnivorous, if death is unnatural?

Quote:The problem with Predestination is not the Catholic understanding (which accords with free will), but the Calvinist one, which effectively rejects free will. If God is as we described Him above, pure Act, and in one perpetual act saw all things from all time and all of what He would do, then He knows from all eternity exactly what graces He will give, which graces we will accept, which we will reject, and how we will be disposed when we die. He gives sufficient grace for all to freely choose Him, and even superfluous grace, up to the last moment, but knows which will reject these graces and thus merit Hell. None of this is unjust, because grace is, by definition, a free gift of God.

No, even the Catholic understanding of predestination does not really allow free will.  I've had plenty of former fishies try to explain this to me.  Sufficient grace, efficacious grace, yada yada.  If we can't choose for God without efficacious grace, and God chooses to not give efficacious grace, thereby making it completely impossible for us to choose him, then he has chosen to reject us.  If God only gives us the choice to not choose him, then he hasn't given us free will in the least.  God can't predestine some to heaven by giving efficacious grace, and withhold efficacious grace from others - without which it is impossible to attain heaven - but still give them sufficient grace to choose what they are incapable of choosing without the efficacious grace he is withholding, and then be said that he did not actively predestine those to hell.  Free will and predestination of any sort are incompatible.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-22-2014, 10:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-22-2014, 10:41 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-22-2014, 11:01 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by medievalman86 - 06-22-2014, 08:50 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by seanipie - 06-22-2014, 09:39 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:48 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 08:04 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by PolishTrad - 06-23-2014, 08:10 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:14 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:19 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 10:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 10:33 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:59 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:03 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:06 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:09 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:11 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-23-2014, 11:12 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:17 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:18 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:24 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:29 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:35 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:36 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:45 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:03 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 12:11 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:13 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:14 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:20 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:22 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-23-2014, 12:24 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:27 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:31 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:34 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:35 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 12:40 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 01:03 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 01:22 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 01:50 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 01:57 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 02:07 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 02:10 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 03:24 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 03:26 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 03:44 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 03:54 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 03:56 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 04:26 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 04:31 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 04:40 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Qoheleth - 06-23-2014, 08:52 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Beardly - 06-24-2014, 12:00 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-24-2014, 09:09 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-24-2014, 12:51 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Beardly - 06-24-2014, 03:57 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)