Thanks to R. B. Jones for his commentary on Grice and the 39 Articles of 1581. As Jones notes, these predate the 1870 date but do postdate wicked earlier statement (1075, A.D.) to the effect that
"i. the Roman church has never erred
ii. nor will it err to all eternity".
"this sounds more like the target of the 39 articles [of 1571] and this doctrine really is contradicted by the articles"
Jones adds:
"though it's not specifically a doctrine of Papal infallibility."
Indeed. It's just what one Pope (and admittedly wicked) just said -- and presumably out of the blue.
Jones adds:
"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)"
Yes. It is a good thing that they keep numbering statements and articles. It makes our analytic task an easier one.
I would formalise Statement 22 (1075) as follows:
(22) "I hereby state -- by uttering (22) -- that the Roman Church has *never* erred, and more importantly that it will NEVER err to all eternity".
This quantifies over "t" (chronological operators). t1>t2. (t). For all 't'. Strictly, we should use the inverted "A" here:
(22) -- as uttered in ti (∀t) (22) is true.
Or something.
Strictly, I would think that the 39 Articles would require an extra 'closure' article (making that "Forty"), to echo Gregory's presumptuous claim:
ARTICLE 40. All of the above are true, as is this one, from here to eternity.
Or something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The later pronouncements (concordia, bulls, declarations, what have you) generally take precedence. There is a core dogma (--then that's the case with any religion, isn't it) concerning Scripture itself--it's a mistake to think ala some progressive types that the Reason trumps the ...faith, and really mystical elements. It updates it,enhances it perhaps but the core is...mystical. The clerics modify other positions regarding scientific theories over time (say, accepting Copernicus, or Gallileo, eventually at least).
ReplyDeleteOne point well-intentioned skeptics could raise, however, concerns the status of miracles, and the "miracle-verification" process of the Holy see. In the old days, the church accepted all manner of supernatural weirdnesses (flying saints! including Aquinas). They still do, but much fewer, mostly from 3rd world. I think the miracle-pandering biz (not all catholics approve, but many do) may be one of the most...questionable of papist practices. Millions still flock to Lourdes, or to see the Virgin of Guadalupe, the supposed Fatima site, etc. Read the Fatima reports closely--looks something like a hoax (and nearly has some reaching for the old notes to...the dastardly Davy Hume).
Excellent commentary. Yes, we should typify all miracles (or 'miracles' -- never the scare quotes were better used) and see which one is "more" miraculous. Lourdes being the case in point. The flying saint is a good one, but then there's the flying nun, etc. I'm in a rush now so can't expand, but will, I hope.
ReplyDeleteEtc.