by J. L. Speranza
--- for the Grice Club.
Vis a vis the Pope's visit to Grice's country.
----
We were discussing with J and Jones the issue of infallibility. The wiki goes about "papal infallibility":
"a rejection given expression in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571)"
Wiki goes on to quote the two relevant articles here, also mentioned by Grice (1988, Studies in the way of words):
ARTICLE XIX.
"Of the Church."
We are analysing to what extent these are propositions of the p, q, r, ... form and in what way they are infallible.
"The visible Church of Christ is
a congregation of faithful men, in
which the pure Word of God is preached, and
the Sacraments be duly ministered
according to Christ's ordinance, in all
those things that of necessity are
requisite to the same. As the Church
of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch,
have erred, so also the Church of Rome
hath erred, not only in their living and
manner of Ceremonies, but also
in matters of Faith."
OK. So the key concept here is 'error'. How can the Pope be infallible if he has erred?
---- So the proposition, p, q, r, ... goes:
i. The Church of Rome has erred.
---- i.a. in matters of faith.
---- i.b. in the living.
---- i.c. in the manner of ceremonies.
Personaly, I think 'matters of faith' is more relevant. Who cares for ceremonies?
--- Although the reference may be to the "mass" thing which Anglicans DENY it involves a real 'transubstantiation' (oddly Grice calls 'transubstantiation' one of his metaphysical routines).
--
Article XXI.
"Of the Authority of General Councils."
"General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes."
"And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err,"
------ i.e. <>p -- where <> is a 'possibility' operator. "They may err". It is possible that they err. Not that they MUST err. That would be the necessity operator []p.
---
"and sometimes have erred,"
--- So, here the modal assertion is rendered factive.
"even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
"that they be taken" is old English, but the 'be' is NOT African American Vernacular English. It means, "that they ARE taken".
---- But the 'be' has a 'deeming' side to it.
"Let there BE light".
----
I think there is a subjunctive side to 'that they be taken'. But in symbols, it means that
"it has to be declared" -- the "unless it may", while involving the possibility-operator at the surface level, involves, really, the 'necessity' operator --
"that they be taken out of Holy Scripture"
So, we need a DECLARATION (which is the speech-act involved here, which Grice would have as 'central', along with Austin, rather than 'peripheral').
A declaration about what?
And by who?
By princes. Meaning Henry VIII.
And on what?
On 'things ordained as NECESSARY' (the same operator) for salvation.
So, you HAVE to agree that the 39 Articles of the C. of E. give it an epistemic twist to what it taken for Granted by the Roman Catholics, it would seem.
--- Or something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The conflict here is odd in that the Wiki tells us that the doctrine of papal infallibility only dates from 1870, which is 300+ years later than the date you give for the 39 articles.
ReplyDeleteIt seems probable that there might have been some prior conception of papal infallibility which was simply codified in 1870.
In any case there is not necessarily a disagreement between the 39 articles and the doctrine of Papal infallibility, since the 39 articles only assert that the Roman Church may err. Which is consistent with the doctrine of infallibility, so long as it does not err in the very specific circumstances identified in the 1870 dogma.
Referring back to the Wiki I find:
In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the
powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22.That the Roman church has
never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing
witness."
And this sounds more like the target of the 39 articles, and this doctrine really is contradicted by the articles (though its not specifically a doctrine of Papal infallibility, one needs some further explanation of what constitutes an act or pronouncement of the church to know whether or when a statement of the Pope would fall under Gregory's statement 22).
Interestingly, I see it alleged (at one-evil.org) that the 27 statements are were forged by Gregory (and that Gregory was one of the 20 most evil persons of the 11th Century, having, inter-alia, murdered 6 bishops and a pope in the furtherance of his career).
Roger Jones