“In an attempt to argue against the papacy this ‘scholar’, Steve Hays from Triablogue has invented a new ecclesial typology as to how the church is composed. He now has compared the Church to a flock of birds, or a school of fish! Just when you think you have heard it all. I guess this guy has never read the Scriptures where Jesus refers to the flock as being sheep, which need a shepherd? If this is the best argument against the papacy as being the visible head of the Church, Catholics have nothing to fear. Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, not swim like a school of fish or fly as a formation of birds. While movements of flocks of birds or schools of fish are fascinating, the analogy is not a Biblical one. What he is trying to accomplish here is a mystery indeed.”
http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-protestant-scholars-attack-vol-i.html
Clearly da “champ” who penned dis reply is past his pwime.
My post consisted of two back-to-back quotes. The first quote was a stock argument for the “necessity” of the papacy. It didn’t quote Scripture.
Instead, it tried to mount an argument from analogy, appealing to human experience, viz. “The Church without a supreme Ruler would be like an army without a general, a navy without an admiral, a sheepfold without a shepherd, or like a human body without a head,” &c.
It went on to claim that without a visible leader, “anarchy” is “inevitable.”
Since the argument appealed to natural phenomena and human institutions to prove its point, that criterion cuts both ways. So I cited the example of teamwork in the absence of a visible leader: the formation flight of birds (and schools of fish).
Although they have no visible leader, they move in unison with military precision.
This is sufficient to disprove the facile argument that unless Christians have a visible leader (i.e. the pope), they will degenerate into anarchy.
Did I say that’s the best argument against the papacy? Irrelevant. It was a counterargument against a popular argument for the papacy. It only has to rebut the opposing argument on its own terms.
If a Catholic apologist is going use nature as a frame of reference to prove the papacy, then I can do the same thing in return to disprove the papacy. The standard is a double-edged sword.
Sorry if dat’s too subtle for da “champ.” Perhaps he’s been bonked one too many times on da noggin.
Scripture itself refers to the Church as sheep in need of a shepherd, and Christ entrusted His sheep to Peter. So how is that sola scriptura working for you pal?
ReplyDeleteThis is the same group of intellectuals that Gene “the Catholic Church teaches that coitus interruptus is okay” Bridges is a member of? How embarrassing for you guys.
The shepherd of the Church is Christ. How's that sucking up to the papacy to clear up confusion like Vatican II supposedly cleared up Vatican I which was nevertheless infallible until it was overturned by other infallible decrees doing for you pal?
ReplyDeleteThanks for playing. Have a nice day.
The Church cannot fall into anarchy because of the following syllogism reasoned by the master logician Steve Hays:
ReplyDeleteFish swim in unison without a visible head.
Men are fish.
Therefore, men swim in unison without a visible head.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAre you going to come to the defense of your peer Gene?
ALEX SAID:
ReplyDelete"Scripture itself refers to the Church as sheep in need of a shepherd."
i) Irrelevant to the Catholic argument I was responding to. So you concede my counterargument, and have to change the subject. I accept your admission of defeat.
ii) The Church has a shepherd. Try reading John 10. Or maybe that's been edited out of Catholic translations of Scripture.
iii) Peter died in the 1C AD. So by your logic, the Church has been w/o a shepherd for 1900 years and counting.
"So how is that sola scriptura working for you pal?"
It's working out just fine for me, pal.
How are those sodomite priests working for you, pal? How are the Antipopes working for you, pal? How are Catholic politicians like Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy working out for you? How embarrassing for you guys.
Alex said...
ReplyDeleteThe Church cannot fall into anarchy because of the following syllogism reasoned by the master logician Steve Hays:
Fish swim in unison without a visible head.
Men are fish.
Therefore, men swim in unison without a visible head.
*******************************
I see that you're intellectually challenged. Try to deal with my actual counterargument, in reply to the specific argument I was responding to. Perhaps you lack the intellectual capacity to do that.
Who is the one using bad analogies? Wow this is great. The Catholic references human institutions or the reference to Christ and his sheep in the Scriptures. Yet you go off and watch the Discovery Channel one night and have an epiphany! Low and behold, the birds! That is it! This is called a fallacious analogy in case you don't know. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteThe prior two comments above are really too stupid for me to respond to; however, the third comment I’ll respond to by asking where did I say Peter alone? I didn’t. In order to follow logic you must work off of premises. Like the poor analogy of birds and fishes to humans, you clearly have a problem following premises. I can’t help you there.
ReplyDelete"How are those sodomite priests working for you, pal? How are the Antipopes working for you, pal? How are Catholic politicians like Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy working out for you? How embarrassing for you guys."
Just curious, were you jabbing your fingers on the keys as you went along in your tirade?
"I see that you're intellectually challenged. Try to deal with my actual counterargument, in reply to the specific argument I was responding to. Perhaps you lack the intellectual capacity to do that."
How can I deal with a counterargument which doesn’t even deal with the actual argument to begin with? One guy appeals to examples found among humans, along with a clear scriptural reference; while you, the self-imagined master logician, responds by appealing to birds and fish. Your argument is childish and absurd.
rly ppl...
ReplyDeleteto the Alexs and Bellisarios of the blogosphere,
please actually read the posts before you comment.
and to put it nicely, if you DID read (which seems totally implausible), then you just don't get the post.
so, srsly, don't talk about what you can't articulate. You sound like a couple of bozoz.
the post takes aim at one (was it really that hard to see?) ONE romanist claim, that NO multi-party organization can function with organization or efficiency without a head.
an absolute claim is falsifiable with a single counterexample. steve just took one from nature. he didn't even NEED to get more complex. if you think the original CLAIM needed to be strengthened, that's not triablogues problem--that's the careless claim's problem.
YOUR equally careless comments haven't given anyone perusing the post any reason to reconsider the futility of the original assertion.
No, the bozo is the one who cant tell the difference between human institutions, Scripture references, and the Discovery channel. Did you even read the referenced Catholic post? He never uses the analogies that Hays uses. He never made reference all animal species on the face of the planet. The only references he uses are human, or the reference that Christ Himself made to sheep. Sorry, this kind of stuff doesn't cut it.
ReplyDeletethe Catholic Church teaches that coitus interruptus is okay”
ReplyDeleteIn the thread you quoted @ Beggars All and failed to link, I stated that, given there is no infallible condemnation thereof...not that tbe Church positively teaches it...how's that lack of reading comprehension working for you, Alex?
"so, srsly, don't talk about what you can't articulate. You sound like a couple of bozoz."
ReplyDeleteBruce, I think you would fit in well with the Triablogue team.
Also, what is the "tria" in Triablogue stand for? Isn't there five of you guys? Looks like fuzzy math if you ask me.
Tria...Trinitarian Theology...
ReplyDeleteGeneMBridges said...
ReplyDeleteOne more thing...
Natural contraception includes the withdrawal method and natural family planning. This is a simple fact.
Rome advocates these means. It does not advocate artificial means, like barrier methods."
(Quoted verbatim)
Gene A: "Rome advocates these means."
Gene B: "not that tbe Church positively teaches it"
Advocate
1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of another
Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."
Me: Please Gene, it is okay to admit you made a mistake. Except for the Master Logician Steve Hays, were all human here.
"Tria...Trinitarian Theology..."
ReplyDeleteOkay. I didn't know that the Trinity had a blog, but whatever.
The analogies to human institutions are fallacious.
ReplyDelete1) Christ is the head of the church. Anyone else claiming to be the head is antichrist.
2) There is no unity within the Romanist church. Having a pope apparently does not prevent anarchy and disunity. (i seem to recall a little incident called the Council of Pisa as well as the aformentioned Vatican I and Vatican II) These counter-examples are enough to destroy the claims of papal infallibility.
Note, Alex:
ReplyDeleteA.1. You're engaging in the word-concept fallacy. You're also equivocating between "contraception" as a broad concept and "contraceptive" as a term for a device, method, or procedure.
Contaception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. NFP falls under the portion in bold.
2. You'll find your documentation at sites like Contraceptiononline and EMedicine. Contraception, an International Journal includes NFP among the methods it discusses under the broad concept of contraception.
In other words, Mr. Greco, you might want to search through the Public Health Literature. In Public Health parlance, we call NFP a "fertility awareness based contraceptive technique."
No the Catholic Church does not allow the withdrawal method,
Really? Coming from you this is a real showstopper, given the way you constantly equivocate over the meaning of "The Church." Are your own bishops and priests not part of "the Church?"
nd if Gene Bridges is going to make such statement, he had better be able to prove it from the Church, not some individual priest.
Notice that when MB feels he's right about the majority of priests and bishops, he calls them "the Church." when we find somebody who disagrees, he calls them "an individual priest." But who is MB? Where is his ordination certificate?
Remember, this discussion began because MB felt we need a Magisterium (that is infallible) to arbitrate these things for us. But if the priests and bishops can and do dissent, what does this say about the rule of faith. Remember - the typical Roman Catholic claim is that since there is dissent among Protestants, our rule of faith is unworkable and therefore incorrect. That's the real issue here. MB threw down the gauntlet; TF decided not take it up. I, on the other hand, do not suffer from such a desire. I'd like to thank MB for taking the bait. It was my intention all along to get to the issue of dissent.
B.Our own musings are defining "contraception?" Who should I let define the concept? MB or the Public Health Literature?
What MB is doing is begging the question for Rome, but Rome qua Rome doesn't say that contraception is limited to particular acts and not others. It's only particular individuals in Rome who make that move - but who are these individual priests to dare speak for Rome?
Rather, Rome distinguishes between natural and unnatural means of contraception. I've already shown that to be true.
C.The article posted in support of your position stated:
ReplyDelete"This document does not intend to repeat the entire teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, and other documents of the ordinary Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff, but only to offer suggestions and guidelines for the spiritual good of the faithful who have recourse to the sacrament of Reconciliation, and to overcome possible discrepancies and uncertainties in the practice of confessors."
D.'ve not argued that Rome PROMOTES the withdrawal method, etc. As my friend Turretinfan (hereafter TF) has correctly stated, I have shown that there is no infallible condemnation of the rhythm method.
ReplyDeleteAnd absent an infallible condemnation, given the nature of arguments presented on theological issues, I've merely applied their own criterion for what is a legitimate matter of discussion, permission, and dissent. So I find MB's pontificating most humorous. I'm demonstrating the Catholic double standard. If Catholics can dissent on some issues and not others, then on what basis can we know which ones are legitimate matters and which are not when there is no infallible statement?
Moreover, remember it was MB, not TF, who chose to address the issue of the need for a/n (infallible) Magisterium to speak to issues where there are differences. Allegedly, this need makes the Roman Catholic rule of faith epistemically superior to Sola Scriptura. In fact, it allegedly solves a (pseudo)problem the Protestant rule of faith (allegedly) generates.
I've shown that Catholicism is not monolithic on this issue. In fact, it's rather easy to document the amount of past and present dissent within Catholicism itself on this, ranging from individual priests to entire groups of bishops, particularly in the US, Canada, and Europe. Remember, Rome's standard for infallibility is the Pope speaking ex cathedra or the Pope speaking UNITED with the Bishops in her communion. The bishops, indeed not even the Cardinals, are united with the Pope(s) on this one. So, we're left with a bunch of lay Catholics like MB who are, it seems, more conservative than members of their own hierarchy. So much for obedience to your bishops. I thought that was a high value for the Papists. I guess not.
The reason I addressed it, was because, like a good chess player, I was thinking several steps ahead, leading my opponent down the primrose path the whole time. I would like to thank MB for playing along.
So, taking the case that MB proposed, the Magisterium's authoritative statements have done exactly what compared to Sola Scriptura? The answer is plainly evident: Nothing.
MB can quote from individual popes all he wants. But they are just a bunch of private theologians. Again, that's what Romanists say when we quote them disagreeing with them, so I'm just taking their own argument and turning it back on them. Which of these was speaking infallibly here? Did those popes consider their words on this infallible? I don't think so. Further, Papal infallibility was not dogmatically defined until relatively recently in Catholic history.
And I reject the notion that Popes and Councils are infallible. MB has done nothing to prove that to be the case. Where can we verify that claim? Rome's claim amounts to its own ipse dixit, so it's claims to what constitutes "conception" and, I would argue, legitimate and illegitimate forms of it, collapses on nothing more than their say so. Worse yet, it doesn't, get Mr. Bellasario where he wants to go. Remember, HE chose to frame the issue that way, so I'm merely examining this issue. There has been a great deal of interpretation and dispute, ranging from his conservative position to the more moderate positons of others. Of course, we know how reliable Rome is when defending its ethical positions. I don't see John Kerry being denied the Eucharist over his position on abortion, despite the threat to do so. If Rome really believed these things, it would follow through on such threats. So, not only is there no infallible condemnation of such things as the withdrawal method, there isn't any substantive enforcement of sanctions against those who allegedly violate the terms of HV, what Rome says about abortion, etc. In the Bible, that would rank with a dead faith, a faith in word but not deed.
I'll take a stab at this one before I go to bed:
ReplyDeleteContaception: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. NFP falls under the portion in bold.
I'm assuming that what is in bold would be "sexual practices." Abstaining is a non-sexual act. When someone is abstaining from sex, we do not tend to say that they are engaging in a sexual act. If someone is not engaging in a sexual act, we would not say that they are contracepting. However, we are now fully aware of what passes as logic on Triablogue.
Oh yea, thanks Gene for pulling this one up, you're really the gift that keeps on giving:
ReplyDelete"I've not argued that Rome PROMOTES the withdrawal method, etc. As my friend Turretinfan (hereafter TF) has correctly stated, I have shown that there is no infallible condemnation of the rhythm method."
Me: Brilliant!!!
Gene A: "Natural contraception includes the withdrawal method and natural family planning. This is a simple fact.
Rome advocates these means. It does not advocate artificial means, like barrier methods."
Gene B: "I've not argued that Rome PROMOTES the withdrawal method, etc."
and a bonus for whoever can figure this one out: "As my friend Turretinfan (hereafter TF) has correctly stated, I have shown that there is no infallible condemnation of the rhythm method."
I'm assuming that what is in bold would be "sexual practices." Abstaining is a non-sexual act. When someone is abstaining from sex, we do not tend to say that they are engaging in a sexual act. If someone is not engaging in a sexual act, we would not say that they are contracepting. However, we are now fully aware of what passes as logic on Triablogue.
ReplyDeleteUm, in public health education,we define contraception thusly, Alex. The definition does not require a sexual act...rather it focuses on sexual practices. We've been over that already.
From the standard literature:standard NFP methods:
1. CONTINUOUS ABSTINENCE
2. OUTERCOURSE
3. COITAL TECHNIQUE
Coitus Interruptus (Withdrawal)
Coitus Reservatus
Coitus Obstructus
That said, I'm done w/this...the rules here specifically state that Triablogue is not a place for you to bring up conflicts from other blogs...so, here's your only warning..stick to Steve's own topic or be deleted...the fact you've had to change the topic demonstrates, yet again,you can't refute it.
"Okay. I didn't know that the Trinity had a blog, but whatever"
ReplyDeleteHaha, wow. The mind boggles. Is Alex trying his hardest to be dense, or does it come naturally?
Semper Reformanda,
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that out of all the above, my little admittedly poor attempt at humor is what you decided to single out as the example that I am the one who is dense. You didn’t choose to single out a line of argument, but rather focused on a poorly put together joke. By singling out that one stupid joke of mine, am I to understand that you are behind the logic in this comment section of Steve and Gene 100%? Interesting.
Gene, I’ll stay strictly on topic, it’s your blog. If you decide to discuss the other topic, then by all means come over to catholic champion, or start a new post. Thanks for the warning and having the tolerant decency to not just go through erasing everything I have written.
As Matt and I have put it, without the corresponding jabs, Steve’s logic has left much to be desired. It would have been one thing for the Catholic writer to have appealed to non-human nature, that is, the nature of beasts as evidence of the need for direct leadership over the body, but he didn’t except for the one Scriptural case of Christ’s own analogy of sheep. Certainly sheep do need a shepherd, and this was the point Christ was making. Whether or not the overall argument was good or bad is not my concern at the moment. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it. What Matt and I are pointing out is the flawed premise found in Steve’s argument in that his analogy is comparable. The original argument was not a broad appeal to nature, and anything found therein, but a narrow appeal to human nature. Therefore, any analogical appeal made by Steve by necessity must have stayed within the narrow confines of the argument; otherwise, the analogy didn’t follow. Steve must demonstrate why his appeal is reasonable given the fact that his selected analogy is outside the scope of the original argument.
Gene Bridges: "The reason I addressed it, was because, like a good chess player, I was thinking several steps ahead, leading my opponent down the primrose path the whole time. I would like to thank MB for playing along."
ReplyDeleteHey Gene, do you really play chess? I think Peter Pike plays chess, or used to anyways.
So you "played" this MB fellow, uh? Now that he knows, he's pretty ticked off. I don't think he's going to tip over his king and extend his hand in a congratulatory concession speech.
MATTHEW BELLISARIO SAID:
ReplyDelete"Who is the one using bad analogies? Wow this is great. The Catholic references human institutions or the reference to Christ and his sheep in the Scriptures. Yet you go off and watch the Discovery Channel one night and have an epiphany! Low and behold, the birds! That is it! This is called a fallacious analogy in case you don't know. What a joke."
As far as that's concerned, the Bible also compares Christians to fish (Mt 4:19; 13:47-50) and birds (Mt 10:16; 23:37). So the joke is on you.
Alex said...
ReplyDelete"It would have been one thing for the Catholic writer to have appealed to non-human nature, that is, the nature of beasts as evidence of the need for direct leadership over the body, but he didn’t except for the one Scriptural case of Christ’s own analogy of sheep. Certainly sheep do need a shepherd, and this was the point Christ was making."
The Catholic apologist was cherry-picking an example from nature to prove his point. Of course he ignored counterexamples, since that would undercut his argument. That's the problem.
"Whether or not the overall argument was good or bad is not my concern at the moment. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it."
Since the Catholic apologist was mounting an argument from analogy, whether the argument is good or bad is very much the point at issue. And an argument from analogy is only as good as the analogy, not not mention other analogies which undermine the inference.
"What Matt and I are pointing out is the flawed premise found in Steve’s argument in that his analogy is comparable. The original argument was not a broad appeal to nature, and anything found therein, but a narrow appeal to human nature."
It wasn't limited to human nature. And it was "narrow" because he arbitrarily confined himself to examples which would lend specious plausibility to his argument.
"Therefore, any analogical appeal made by Steve by necessity must have stayed within the narrow confines of the argument."
Not if the parameters of the argument are arbitrarily restricted.
Even as far as heads of state are concerned, there are some significant differences between the role of the heads of state in question and the monarchical role assigned to the Pope by Roman Catholics. Some governmental offices, such as the presidency in the United States, were developed by Protestants who wanted to avoid some of the attributes of the papacy. It's not as though we would have a papacy if we all came to agreement that there should be a head of the church under Christ who has a primacy of honor, but not jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteAs Steve has mentioned, scripture gives us a variety of analogies and models to draw from in our view of the church. There are some consistencies, such as the headship of Christ, but a papal office isn't one of those consistencies. In Jesus' parables involving subjects such as the Father's governing of the world, His (Jesus') absence from earth, and His second coming, for example, He sometimes refers to something like the appointing of one person to watch over His people while He's away (Matthew 24:45). But He also sometimes uses the plural, referring to multiple people entrusted with the task (Matthew 21:33) or doesn't specify what sort of government was set up (Matthew 25:14). Even when the singular is used, as in Matthew 24:45, we aren't told that there's to be only one individual who corresponds to that individual in the parable. Often, an individual in a parable will represent more than one person.
God sometimes governs with a physical representative on earth who's continually present. And sometimes He doesn't. He rules over the universe, the world, and individual lives without having such a representative for each. In the Old Testament era, we see God using a variety of means to govern His people. There is no continually existing equivalent to the papacy in the Old Testament era.
When it comes to an issue like Jesus' headship of the church, we don't have to rely on the sort of dubious argumentation that Roman Catholics appeal to when arguing for a papacy. Christ's headship is discussed explicitly and often. In contrast, while Peter's authority and unique roles in the New Testament church are often discussed (Acts 15:7, Galatians 2:9, 1 Peter 1:1, etc.), a papal office is never mentioned. The earliest post-apostolic Christians and the earliest opponents of Christianity say nothing of a papacy either. They explicitly and frequently discussed issues of authority and church government, but without mentioning a papacy.
The problem is that you've conflated the mere drawing of an analogy with an argument from analogy.
ReplyDeleteThe author invokes a number of examples of systems which would fail without a head, but it is not until the last paragraph you quote that he makes an actual argument from analogy. And the relevant institutions he invokes in that paragraph are all human.
Here's the paragraph:
"From the very fact, then, of the existence of a supreme Head in the Jewish Church; from the fact that a Head is always necessary for civil government, for families and corporations; from the fact, especially, that a visible Head is essential to the maintenance of unity in the Church, while the absence of a Head necessarily leads to anarchy, we are forced to conclude, even though positive evidence were wanting, that, in the establishment of His Church, it must have entered into the mind of the Divine Lawgiver to place over it a primate invested with supreme judicial powers."
In contrast, the second paragraph asserts that the Church without a head is like sheep without a shepherd and a body without a head, but that is all it does. It doesn’t state nor even imply that the mere fact that sheep need shepherds implies that the Church needs a head. Here we have analogy but no argument.
I take it that the sheep reference is a biblical allusion and the intent of the analogy was not to prove the author's point but to illustrate it. Christ didn't use the sheep analogy to prove anything, He used it as a colorful, explanatory metaphor. Context makes it clear that the Catholic author intends the same.
Had he intended examples from the animal kingdom (or human biology) to support his conclusions they would have shown up in his last paragraph, sandwiched somewhere between "From the very fact, then…" and "…we are forced to conclude".
JEN H. SAID:
ReplyDeleteThe author invokes a number of examples of systems which would fail without a head, but it is not until the last paragraph you quote that he makes an actual argument from analogy. And the relevant institutions he invokes in that paragraph are all human.
In contrast, the second paragraph asserts that the Church without a head is like sheep without a shepherd and a body without a head, but that is all it does. It doesn’t state nor even imply that the mere fact that sheep need shepherds implies that the Church needs a head. Here we have analogy but no argument.
I take it that the sheep reference is a biblical allusion and the intent of the analogy was not to prove the author's point but to illustrate it. Christ didn't use the sheep analogy to prove anything, He used it as a colorful, explanatory metaphor. Context makes it clear that the Catholic author intends the same.
**************************
If, ex hypothesi, we accept your interpretation, then the Catholic writer's various examples have no argumentative force. So you've just destroyed that portion of his case for the papacy. Fine with me.
To reiterate:
ReplyDeleteThe author argues for church authority from the uniform need for law and order in human affairs on multiple contexts. He amplifies his argument with a sheep metaphor, but the sheep metaphor is not part of the argument from analogy. Neither is the human body/human head metaphor.
The author does make an argument form analogy, just not the one you've claimed. Animals aren't in view. People are.
There can be no loss in argumentative force from an argument that was never made.