Friday, July 02, 2010

Infallible Papal Bulls

Sometimes simply asking a question can be interesting. Here's a Catholic Answers inquiry-

Greetings,

I am familiar with Mr. Akin's article here. Based on his opening comment, "Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t," is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?

Thanks.

46 comments:

Viisaus said...

In the link below, this particular issue is treated in more detail.

Admittedly this is just a "tu quoque" argument, but a powerful one; if your opponent (the RCC) is claiming epistemic superiority over you, then you have defeated him just by proving that you are in fact "equal". You do not need to prove your own superiority to defeat his position, only to prove that he is not superior to you.


"Perhaps the reader has begun to see the weakness of the Roman Catholic position. The Protestant has been asked to produce an infallible list of the canon of the Bible. If the Protestant produces such a list, it is a concession that an elementary part of Christian knowledge (i.e., the canon) is contained outside of Scripture. Thus, it is alleged to be a denial of Sola Scriptura. Rome, on the other hand (so it is supposed) does not have this problem because her infallible Council of Trent declared the canon of Scripture, and that is how a Roman Catholic knows with certainty that which the Protestant cannot—the canon of the Bible. But Roman Catholics cannot know the infallible canon of what they are supposed to believe. A very small portion of that canon would be a list of ex cathedra papal statements. Any Roman Catholic will gladly give you his opinion of how many times the popes have exercised this gift. Scott Hahn has affirmed a list of two. But that is Hahn's opinion. Rumble has offered a canon of possibly 18, most likely 16, but possibly only 14, and Miller thinks it might just be 11. But these are mere opinions. Staples has offered a canon of at least four, and says there are more. But that is his opinion. These are all the fallible opinions of men. The truth is, the infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements exists nowhere within what Rome calls her three sources of revelation: the Bible, the Magisterium, and Tradition, leaving the faithful to struggle through this issue, groping blindly on their own. In fact, their own teachers will not and cannot tell them."

http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/apol75.htm

Rhology said...

Admittedly this is just a "tu quoque" argument, but a powerful one; if your opponent (the RCC) is claiming epistemic superiority over you, then you have defeated him just by proving that you are in fact "equal". You do not need to prove your own superiority to defeat his position, only to prove that he is not superior to you.

Exactly! Viisaus gets it!

Now if only RCs could get that through their heads!

Viisaus said...

I might well believe that God was guiding pope Pius IX when he declared the papal infallibility -in the same way that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. The pope ended up committing a suicidal megalomaniacal blunder that Roman apologists today cannot cope with.

"Whom god(s) want to destroy, they first make mad."

steve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scott Windsor said...

Alan quotes: Admittedly this is just a "tu quoque" argument, but a powerful one; if your opponent (the RCC) is claiming epistemic superiority over you, then you have defeated him just by proving that you are in fact "equal". You do not need to prove your own superiority to defeat his position, only to prove that he is not superior to you.

Then Alan adds: Exactly! Viisaus gets it!

Now if only RCs could get that through their heads!


sw: The reader should note, the "Top Ten List" I posted does NOT say they are unsuccessful tactics, only that they are tactics used by anti-Catholics. Alan seems to have a guilty conscience about this because he continues to "defend" himself (and other anti-Catholics) who use tactic #3 from that list! Keep in mind, I've said all along, that while such tactics may successfully derail a debate - that's exactly what the tu quoque fallacy sets out to accomplish! It doesn't deal with the REAL subject matter at hand, it diverts the debate into a sense of "you're no better than we are" - while leaving the REAL TOPIC untouched - and THAT is why it is labeled one of the Common Fallacies (and not just by me!)

sw: So, will Alan ever "get it through his head" that all I'm saying is that this is a common tactic of anti-Catholics AND that it happens to be also a "Common Fallacy" (and ironically, it was Alan who educated ME on the actual name of this fallacy!)

sw: I thank Alan again for drawing attention to this and for his continued affirmation that he (and others) use this tactic. In doing this, he only validates the accuracy of the list, well, at least #3 on the list!

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

James Swan said...

I don't recall using "the we're as bad as you are" type of argument often.

I do though continually press the Romanist position to apply the same arguments used against Protestantism to their own position. Rarely, do I find Romanists willing to go the extra mile in doing so. Particularly in Dr. White's Roman Catholic debates, Romanists can tear down sola scriptura, but won't positively defend Tradition in debate. Here is the second source of God's revelation, allegedly proving "sola" is an error, yet search far and wide, no Romanist will do an in person debate defending it.

The goal of such an endeavor isn't to level the playing field to prove each position (Romanist or Protestant) is equally valid or invalid. The goal is to show the arguments used are often invalid.

For instance, take this sentences provided by Viisaus:

"The Protestant has been asked to produce an infallible list of the canon of the Bible"

This sentence asks a basic epistemological question, but is based on the faulty paradigm that only an infallible authority can produce such a list.

The Romanist though likewise has an epistemological problem: each individual Romanist has to "'know" with certainty that the infallible authority is indeed what it claims. As with the Protestant, the Romanist is left with his subjectivism, because each individual Romanist is fallible.

One might conclude the playing field has been leveled: Romanists "are just as (epistemologically) bad as Protestants. This isn't the case. What I've proved is the basic paradigm Romanists apply to history and God's way of revealing himself is faulty. A different set of questions needs to be asked. When one looks at history and God's revelation, one need not start with Trent or Hippo. One needs to begin at Genesis, and look at the entire Old Testament and ask: how did God reveal himself to his people, how did they know God had revealed himself? How was it they were responsible to God's revelation without a magisterium? These questions stem from a completely different paradigm and authority structure.The way I see it, an infallible magisterium is superfluous to the way God has communicated to his people.

One more thing, I appreciated this part from that which Viisaus posted:

Any Roman Catholic will gladly give you his opinion of how many times the popes have exercised this gift. Scott Hahn has affirmed a list of two. But that is Hahn's opinion. Rumble has offered a canon of possibly 18, most likely 16, but possibly only 14, and Miller thinks it might just be 11. But these are mere opinions. Staples has offered a canon of at least four, and says there are more. But that is his opinion. These are all the fallible opinions of men. The truth is, the infallible list of ex cathedra papal statements exists nowhere within what Rome calls her three sources of revelation: the Bible, the Magisterium, and Tradition, leaving the faithful to struggle through this issue, groping blindly on their own. In fact, their own teachers will not and cannot tell them.

The irony about this is the reason for this very post was that I was doing some research on an old papal bull, and it took me nearly an hour to find one secondary source claiming the bull was dogma. I thought how odd: a Church claims infallibility, but doesn't even know the scope of those infallible statements. If ever something smelled fishy, this is it.

Scott Windsor said...

And thank you Mr. Swan for your semi-verbose response ALSO utilizing #3 on the Top Ten List. Now did I say every anti-Catholic uses every tactic in every debate? No, not at all! The FACT of the matter is the tu quoque fallacy is just that, A FALLACY in logical debate! To answer the Catholic challenge to Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura to present the Canon of Sacred Scripture from within the Scriptures Alone, with a question about Catholic tradition is NOT addressing the challenge the sola scripturist Protestant is faced with! It is a diversion, a red herring, which is also a logical fallacy.

It has yet ceased to amaze me how anti-Catholics not only USE tactic #3, but actually EMBRACE IT and seem to THINK it is a valid response to the challenge of the sola scripturist to provide the Canon of Sacred Scripture from within Scripture Alone!

As for a Catholic being unwilling to take up the debate on tradition, I believe that is wholly false. Now, if the non-Catholic is using that as a response to a Catholic challenge; then the Catholic is quite justified in not answering the diversionary and logically flawed tactic. However, if you wish to debate Catholic tradition on the merits of Catholic tradition, I'll take you up on that challenge! Will you put your money where your mouth is, or will you find some excuse to not debate me on this topic? Let me know and we'll work out the details of the debate format.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

steve said...

Well, Catholic logician Peter Geach didn't think the "tu quoque fallacy" was a fallacy.

But if Scott wants to take that illogical position, then that disqualifies every Catholic argument which uses the same "fallacy."

So we'll be happy to file his disclaimer for future reference, and apply it retroactively as the occasion arises.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

10. Never admit you're wrong, even in the smallest issues.

Rhology, Viisaus, James Swan, Steve Hays,

Has Scott Windsor ever admitted he was wrong in any of his debates with you on something that was not irrelevant or not inconsequential?

Seems like he himself may be committing what he likes to call the tu quoque fallacy:

"You too! You never say you're wrong so how can you complain about me for not admitting that I've been wrong?"

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

10. Never admit you're wrong, even in the smallest issues.

Rhology, Viisaus, James Swan, Steve Hays,

Out of curiosity, have you ever admitted you were wrong on even the smallest of issues in debates with Roman Catholics?

If so, then Scott Windsor's statement is a bald-faced lie.

And when a liar is caught lying, the liar should own up to speaking falsehood, for bearing false witness, and apologize and repent for his sin.

Scott Windsor said...

TUaD,
Try paying attention! I didn't say (and just earlier EXPLICITLY STATED) that EVERY anti-Catholic uses EVERY tactic. Those who are able to admit they are wrong when proven so are to be applauded.

To answer your question myself, yes, I have admitted I was wrong many times.

I have not falsely charged anyone with any of the tactics listed. In fact the ONLY persons I've directly applied ANY of the tactics with is Alan and James and only with #3 - which Alan flat out boasts about and James has recently defended as well. If anyone needs to repent for a false accusation here - it would be you.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Scott Windsor,

PAY ATTENTION!!

Look at what I wrote and note the boldface:

"If so, then Scott Windsor's statement is a bald-faced lie."

"Seems like he himself may be committing what he likes to call the tu quoque fallacy"

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Has Scott Windsor ever admitted he was wrong in any of his debates with you on something that was not irrelevant or not inconsequential?"

Scott Windsor: "To answer your question myself, yes, I have admitted I was wrong many times."

Show me ten times where you admitted that you were wrong on something that was not irrelevant or not inconsequential.

To make it easier to begin, start by showing me three instances where you admitted you were wrong on something substantial and important.

Scott Windsor said...

TUaD said:
> Scott Windsor,
> PAY ATTENTION!!
>
> Look at what I wrote and note
> the boldface:
> "If so, then Scott Windsor's
> statement is a bald-faced lie."

sw: OK, so since the "if so" is false, so is the accusation. I'll accept that as a non-argument.

> "Seems like he himself may be
> committing what he likes to call
> the tu quoque fallacy"

sw: Um, where have I employed the tu quoque fallacy? Please document or retract what you "seem" to think I've done. For what it's worth - Alan (aka Rhology) provided the identifier - and he's PROUD of using that fallacy! All I did was merely point out a list of tactics used by anti-Catholics to which Alan (and now Mr. Swan) admits to and justifies the use of #3 on that list. They have validated, at least that one item on "the list". TUaD, all you're doing is allowing me to continue to respond to this FACT.

As for #10 on The List, "pay attention" - it specifies "even in the smallest issues." You're changing #10 to suit your needs and I'm not going to play that game with you.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Scott Windsor said...

Steve wrote:
> Well, Catholic logician Peter
> Geach didn't think the "tu
> quoque fallacy" was a fallacy.

sw: Steve, could you document where Geach specifically states the tu quoque fallacy is not a fallacy?

> But if Scott wants to take that
> illogical position, then that
> disqualifies every Catholic
> argument which uses the same
> "fallacy."
>
> So we'll be happy to file his
> disclaimer for future reference,

sw: Feel free to do so. I make no claims of impeccability, and if you can show where I'm using a logical fallacy - I'd be happy to admit to it and correct or retract the argument. Are you willing to do the same, or will you be like Alan and James and actually EMBRACE the fallacy?

> and apply it retroactively as
> the occasion arises.

sw: Again, feel free to do so.

sw: I repeat, The List only posits tactics used by anti-Catholics - and AGAIN I point out - at least #3 has been flat out vindicated by Alan and James.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

James Swan said...

And thank you Mr. Swan for your semi-verbose response ALSO utilizing #3 on the Top Ten List. Now did I say every anti-Catholic uses every tactic in every debate? No, not at all!

Scott why the snide comment? Perhaps this is a tactic of Romanists? I simply joined the discussion and added a response, not implying you were accusing me of every tactic on your fallible personal list.

To answer the Catholic challenge to Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura to present the Canon of Sacred Scripture from within the Scriptures Alone, with a question about Catholic tradition is NOT addressing the challenge the sola scripturist Protestant is faced with! It is a diversion, a red herring, which is also a logical fallacy.

This is a false question, as has been demonstrated countless times (and explained quickly in my previous comment).

will you find some excuse to not debate me on this topic?

You want to do an in-person debate on Tradition?

Scott Windsor said...

James,
Why is my thanking you for exemplifying #3 on the list a "snide comment?" I was pleased you embrace the tactic as it affirms, at least that portion of, the list.

I am also pleased that you acknowledge that I am not accusing you or anyone of using every tactic on the list.

I am also pleased that you acknowledge the "false question" being posed by respondents to the Catholic challenge to Sola Scripturists regarding the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Yes, it IS a fallacy (false question) to present that question as a response to the challenge to find the Canon of Sacred Scripture within Scripture Alone (sola scriptura). The tu quoque is also a red herring in that regard, since it does not answer the question posed - but rather asks a different question.

As for debate, I will do a written debate with you online. I would welcome a PORTION of that debate to be a live IRC session. In a written debate it is much easier to stay on task and give fuller and more responsible answers. While I do not wholly dismiss a live, face-to-face debate - it is not the best format as if either of us are caught off-guard by a question there is no time in a live confrontation to research and provide a responsible answer.

What do you propose the question of the debate to be? Or, would you like me to present the question/thesis since on the matter of Catholic tradition, I would be the one holding the affirmative?

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Scott Windsor said...

The discussion of a potential debate on Catholic Tradition is also echoed here:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/07/tradition-debate.html

I mention this because we've drifted a bit from the actual topic of this blog/post.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

steve said...

[Geach] Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man—in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something *he* believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won’t admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it’s up to him to modify it somewhere. —This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.

Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:

A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

B. But you eat meat; and I’ll bet you’ve never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.

No umpire is entitled at this point to call out “ad hominem! Foul!” It is true that B’s remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could *consistently* condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one—as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn’t matter.

Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim—it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.

Reason & Argument (Blackwell 1976), 26-27.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Scott Windsor: "As for #10 on The List, "pay attention" - it specifies "even in the smallest issues." You're changing #10 to suit your needs and I'm not going to play that game with you."

Scott Windsor,

Your original diarrhea mouth game of "even in the smallest issues" is just silly and ridiculous.

Hence, I made it more substantive with:

"Has Scott Windsor ever admitted he was wrong in any of his debates with you on something that was not irrelevant or not inconsequential?

Show me ten times where you admitted that you were wrong on something that was not irrelevant or not inconsequential.

To make it easier to begin, start by showing me three instances where you admitted you were wrong on something substantial and important."

So either show everyone where you admitted you were wrong on something substantial and important

or

stop being a diarrhea mouth.

Scott Windsor said...

Back to James' question:
I am familiar with Mr. Akin's article here. Based on his opening comment, "Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t," is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?
Actually, James' question is not a tu quoque in this context. He's not making the comparison between sola scriptura and Catholic infallibility in merely asking the question he asks. The answer is actually quite simple. According to Akin's article in order for a teaching to be considered infallible it must not only be on a matter of faith or morals and given to the whole Church (not directed toward an individual or portion of the Church); it must also be clearly defined and citing the relatio given for Pater Aeternus 4 he states:
"the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff."

Therefore, if it cannot be "known for certain," then it is not an infallible teaching.

The simple answer to Mr. Swan's question is "No, there is no infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible." The longer answer is "The Church does not promulgate an infallible teaching merely because some protester complains or attempts to use a tu quoque argument. The Church has not seen the necessity of such a list when the teaching on infallibility itself is clearly made (and further explained as in the relatio of Pater Aeternus 4) that not only must the teaching be one on faith or morals and addressed to the entire Church but it must also be clearly understandable that opposition to said teaching results in heresy, with the penalties that implies."

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
CathApol Blog

James Swan said...

10. Never admit you're wrong, even in the smallest issues.
Out of curiosity, have you ever admitted you were wrong on even the smallest of issues in debates with Roman Catholics?


I've never been a Romanist, so there have been times when I've been wrong on Romanist related issues- even Luther related issues. As to specifics, I'd have to sift through my blog entries over the years, and dig them out. I don't plan on doing this- but rest assured on an important matter I will concede to error- why shouldn't I? I'm just a guy with a blog. I don't have a pay pal account set up trying to pass myself off as some sort of "Pro-apologist" that deserves your hard earned money. I've found there are some people pretending to be apologetic "authorities" that think they deserve donations, when in fact, like me, they are simply people with blogs or websites. I won't name names (you know who you are), but those people should repent of their pride and thievery.

James Swan said...

Why is my thanking you for exemplifying #3 on the list a "snide comment?" I was pleased you embrace the tactic as it affirms, at least that portion of, the list.

Mr. Windsor, I interpreted "semi-verbose response" as mockery or snide. If it wasn't I stand corrected. However, if it wasn't mockery or snide, then your comment simply dwindles down to meaningless. "Semi" verbose doesn't make much sense. "Verbose" means to use more words than are needed to convey a point. "Semi" has a variety of meanings, gravitating around "half" or "partial". So, as far as I can figure out your term, it's nonsense. If though you have some sort of standard accepted definition of "semi-verbose" that I'm not aware of, I look forward to this information.

I am also pleased that you acknowledge that I am not accusing you or anyone of using every tactic on the list.

You appear to be attempting to cause friction rather than dealing with the content of my blog post. I made a general comment, you then in response directly to me stated, Now did I say every anti-Catholic uses every tactic in every debate?. In response I said, "I simply joined the discussion and added a response, not implying you were accusing me of every tactic on your fallible personal list." So, "how" you read comments is somewhat troublesome. You then say, I am also pleased that you acknowledge that I am not accusing you or anyone of using every tactic on the list. Scott, this type of interaction doesn't warm my heart at all as to any sort of constructive dialog with you. This type of tedium is a waste of time, and really says more about your reading comprehension than anything else.

James Swan said...

I am also pleased that you acknowledge the "false question" being posed by respondents to the Catholic challenge to Sola Scripturists regarding the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Yes, it IS a fallacy (false question) to present that question as a response to the challenge to find the Canon of Sacred Scripture within Scripture Alone (sola scriptura). The tu quoque is also a red herring in that regard, since it does not answer the question posed - but rather asks a different question.

Your understanding of what I wrote in no serves to endure me to further dialog with you. The false question is that being put forth by Romanists.
Based on what wrote earlier, I explained the reasoning behind a particular Romanist apologetic question was flawed, and therefore was an invalid question. You muddled interpretation of what I wrote is frankly, annoying.

As for debate, I will do a written debate with you online. I would welcome a PORTION of that debate to be a live IRC session.

As to the later, I don't do IRC debates. If you were to check my #pros stats, you'll find I write very little. As to a written debate, I don't completely rule that with you- but based on what you've written so far, I'm not all persuaded it will have any value. Even on the entire concept of "debate" as presented in my earlier comment was simply stating a fact that professional Romanist apologists (Hahn, Madrid, Staples, Pacwa, etc.) will not positively defend Tradition as an infallible deposit of faith. You interpreted that to be a challenge to do a written debate with you! LOL. I find that humorous. Why not rather contact you're favorite pro-Romanist apologist and ask them to put their money where there mouth is? Why not contact your local bishop and ask them likewise? I'm sure Dr. White would be very interested in doing an in-person debate with the best Rome has to offer. You, Mr. Windsor, are not that person. You are a guy with a blog. If you want to help the Romanist cause, do your part to get the best Rome has to offer to do a debate.

In a written debate it is much easier to stay on task and give fuller and more responsible answers. While I do not wholly dismiss a live, face-to-face debate - it is not the best format as if either of us are caught off-guard by a question there is no time in a live confrontation to research and provide a responsible answer.

Hmm, that reminds me of your appearance on the Dividing Line some years back. How have your studies on Augustine been going since then?

James Swan said...

The discussion of a potential debate on Catholic Tradition is also echoed here:http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/07/tradition-debate.html.I mention this because we've drifted a bit from the actual topic of this blog/post. In JMJ,Scott

Scott, I realize this is one your tactics- to join a discussion over here, and then try and take a discussion back over to your blog. You've probably done this half a dozen times. Frankly, I rarely read your blog, nor will I ever follow one your rabbit trails back to your blog.

James Swan said...

Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim—it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.


Well stated. Thanks.

James Swan said...

The simple answer to Mr. Swan's question is "No, there is no infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible."

LOL, and I mean I genuinely laughed at loud.

As to Rome's claims for certainty, or providing certainty, the claim is a lot more grand than the actual pay out.

Rather than Romanist apologists wasting so much bandwidth fighting for the Pope's infallibility, they should busily be researching as to exactly what he has said that's infallible. If I knew that the Holy Spirit had actually informed someone special in the church, I would break down the door to find out what that information is.

James Swan said...

I stated:

'Your understanding of what I wrote in no serves to endure me to further dialog with you. The false question is that being put forth by Romanists."

I meant to use the word "endear", not endure. That's what I get for typing quickly.

James Swan said...

And likewise, I stated:

"Why not rather contact you're favorite pro-Romanist apologist and ask them to put their money where there mouth is?"

I meant "your" not "you're"

That's probably it for me today. I don't live in cyberspace. Ill Be back later this week.

Scott Windsor said...

TUaD, I did not bring up my "Top Ten List" over here, I believe Alan/Rhology did. Since your comment is a direct response to that subject on my blog, I have responded here:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/06/top-ten-tactics-of-anti-catholics.html#c6005097547317372357

Mr. Swan seems to be against cross posting between blogs (I see no problem with it - sometimes it even merits a whole new blog post since the combox is rather limiting). If Mr. Swan REALLY opposes this, then he should rein in his contributors. Anyway, my response is on my blog, as will be future references to the Top Ten List which originated on my blog.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Mr. Swan seems to be against cross posting between blogs (I see no problem with it - sometimes it even merits a whole new blog post since the combox is rather limiting). If Mr. Swan REALLY opposes this, then he should rein in his contributors. Anyway, my response is on my blog, as will be future references to the Top Ten List which originated on my blog.

No, I don't totally oppose cross-posting. I will not though, follow your rabbit trails elsewhere.

Scott Windsor said...

James Swan wrote: Scott, I realize this is one your tactics- to join a discussion over here, and then try and take a discussion back over to your blog. You've probably done this half a dozen times. Frankly, I rarely read your blog, nor will I ever follow one your rabbit trails back to your blog.

Ironically, most of the traffic in THIS combox is related to a "rabbit trail" Alan/Rhology blazed from my blog to here! (As of the post count of me writing this, at least 22 of the comments out of 31 are related to my "Top Ten List" - which, again, I did not bring up here!).

BTW- You're welcome. I brought the discussion back to the original question instead of continuing Alan's rabbit trail. And I apologize for this response going back off-topic - but I am responding to you.

Now, as for me posting the debate challenge on my blog, I did that because I cannot create a new post on your blog and THAT subject did not belong under THIS combox which was a question of papal infallibility - NOT of Catholic Tradition (though tangentially related).

I assure you, there are no ill motives in me posting to my paltry blog (I get about 1/4 the traffic you get). No, sometimes what we're discussing either just doesn't fit the topic (and as I said, I can't introduce new topics here) or the limitations of the combox prevent us from posting an unbroken thought. A quick "click" can bring the reader back and forth. No biggie, so far as I'm concerned.

I also do not delete the links blogger automatically creates at the bottom of my blog entries which point back here - but someone over here is deleting those links back to my blog. They appear for a while then disappear. Of course it is fully within the purview of yourself and those whom you've empowered to do so.

> JS: No, I don't totally oppose
> cross-posting. I will not
> though, follow your rabbit
> trails elsewhere.

sw: Well, some of my responses will be over there when it seems proper for them to be.

JAGWHAB,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Out of curiosity, have you ever admitted you were wrong on even the smallest of issues in debates with Roman Catholics?

I have, yes, and with EOx.
And no, I've never seen Windsor do so.

What Windsor doesn't get here is that he claims a better epistemic position. I come along and show that's bunk, that we're at least on equal footing (an internal critique). That's it. He's making a big deal out of sthg he doesn't understand. What else is new?

Scott Windsor said...

Alan/Rhology wrote:
Out of curiosity, have you ever admitted you were wrong on even the smallest of issues in debates with Roman Catholics?

I have, yes, and with EOx.

sw: As have I.

And no, I've never seen Windsor do so.

sw: I said I can and will when PROVEN wrong. I have and I'm sure I will again, sometimes I've caught my own error and corrected myself.

What Windsor doesn't get here is that he claims a better epistemic position.

sw: Hmmm, I don't remember making such a claim. I believe you assume I make such a claim.

I come along and show that's bunk, that we're at least on equal footing (an internal critique). That's it. He's making a big deal out of sthg he doesn't understand.

sw: So, you have a straw man which you knock down. And, um, the record will show that it was YOU who brought up this topic here. It is YOU who is "making a big deal of something (you) don't understand." That "something" is the FACT that the tu quoque is a logical fallacy. It does not answer the challenge presented to, in this case Sola Scripturists, but rather avoids answering and merely attempts to say, "well, you're no better than we are!" In essence, that IS a concession of the subject at hand! By claiming, "you're no better than we are" you're AFFIRMING that you cannot demonstrate the Canon of Sacred Scripture from within Scripture Alone (sola scriptura) and have tried to divert the discussion by putting the Catholic challenger on the defensive. (BTW- That's #2 on the "Top Ten List").

JAGWAB,
Scott<<<

PS- I'd like to admit to a mistake, earlier I said "JAGWHAB" and there should not have been an "H" in there.

James Swan said...

Ironically, most of the traffic in THIS combox is related to a "rabbit trail" Alan/Rhology blazed from my blog to here! (As of the post count of me writing this, at least 22 of the comments out of 31 are related to my "Top Ten List" - which, again, I did not bring up here!).

I'll try to avoid being "semi-verbose":

I stand by what I stated. When you show up and then respond to something here by linking to a fresh Windsor blog entry, I don't venture over to your blog.

someone over here is deleting those links back to my blog.

As far as I know, blogger links at the bottom of a blog post can't be deleted, though I may be wrong about that. You appear to have a blogger x-file on your hands, because I've never deleted one of your bottom post links, and I doubt anyone over here has either.

James Swan said...

sw: I said I can and will when PROVEN wrong. I have and I'm sure I will again, sometimes I've caught my own error and corrected myself.

Here's a little bit of Scott Windsor history (mp3). If I recall correctly, Scott admitted to some errors he made during this broadcast later on his website. It's been many years since I've heard this. I vaguely recall he posted corrections to errors he made on this broadcast. He can clarify this if he wants to.

Scott Windsor said...

>> sw: Ironically, most of the
>> traffic in THIS combox is
>> related to a "rabbit trail"
>> Alan/Rhology blazed from my
>> blog to here! (As of the post
>> count of me writing this, at
>> least 22 of the comments out of
>> 31 are related to my "Top Ten
>> List" - which, again, I did not
>> (initially) bring up here!).
>
> I'll try to avoid being "semi-
> verbose":

sw: :-) Thanks!

> JS: I stand by what I stated.
> When you show up and then
> respond to something here by
> linking to a fresh Windsor blog
> entry, I don't venture over to
> your blog.

sw: Two things:
1) My point above was that a majority of this thread deals with a topic which originated on my blog, the "Top Ten List."
2) I understand what you're saying about not venturing over to my blog for a "fresh Windsor blog entry," but I repeat, I only do that when the combox is a bit cumbersome or hard to make clear points.

Back to the irony - THIS thread has been dominated by a topic from my blog. I'm OK with the "Windsor blog entry" being discussed here, but the ACTUAL topic of the entry HERE was not really the #3 (and other) points from my "Top Ten List," and I've even tried to bring the subject back to the original topic (a couple times).

JAGWAB,
Scott<<<

Scott Windsor said...

>> sw: I said I can and will when
>> PROVEN wrong. I have and I'm
>> sure I will again, sometimes
>> I've caught my own error and
>> corrected myself.
>
> JS: Here's a little bit of Scott
> Windsor history (mp3). If I
> recall correctly, Scott admitted
> to some errors he made during
> this broadcast later on his
> website. It's been many years
> since I've heard this. I vaguely
> recall he posted corrections to
> errors he made on this
> broadcast. He can clarify this
> if he wants to.

sw: Thank you. Actually, in my initial response I counted 28 "errors" by White from that interview and later retracted 3 of them. Some of the errors were rather minor, others were not. Now all the responses to that program would be WAY too much for a combox discussion, so I provide you with this link to the website:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/jrw/jrw_first_live_debate.htm

Again, thank you for the opportunity to explain.

JAGWAB,
Scott<<<

CathApol said...

Sorry, the above linked address is incorrect, the address is correct, but the link itself just goes to the homepage. Here's the properly linked URL:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/jrw/jrw_first_live_debate.htm

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

sw: :-) Thanks!

You're welcome. It wasn't any trouble at all. I avoided doing something imaginary, based on a term you created that made no sense.

Back to the irony

I don't see the irony. Alan used your entry as an example of a point made by Viisaus.

sw: Thank you. Actually, in my initial response I counted 28 "errors" by White from that interview and later retracted 3 of them.

LOL. Based on how you've interpreted my words in this comment box, I'm surprised you didn't come up with 50 errors of Dr. White.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to explain.

You're welcome.

Sorry, the above linked address is incorrect, the address is correct, but the link itself just goes to the homepage.

This can be added to the pile-

http://vintage.aomin.org/WinSunRep.html

Rhology said...

Windsor is almost as bad in the defend-self-at-all-costs tradition as is DA. It's sort of dumbfounding to watch.

CathApol said...

>> sw: Back to the irony
>
> JS: I don't see the irony. Alan
> used your entry as an example of
> a point made by Viisaus.

sw: The irony was based in your comment about taking something from over here and finding me blogging about it on my blog. Alan made a comment regarding my blog here and linked to it, and the further irony is that this thread has been dominated by points from the "Top Ten List" from my blog - when THAT has nothing to do with the initial topic (which I tried, a couple times, to bring us back to).

>> sw: Thank you. Actually, in my
>> initial response I counted 28
>> "errors" by White from that
>> interview and later retracted 3
>> of them.
>
> JS: LOL. Based on how you've
> interpreted my words in this
> comment box, I'm surprised you
> didn't come up with 50 errors of
> Dr. White.


sw: The point is - White could vindicate himself of those errors by correcting them. The 25 which remain are ALL errors. That whole DL show got initiated due to a comment I had made to "tatrbrain" about White's numerous errors - thus part of the whole REASON for my response was to enumerate error(s) from that single discussion to prove my point.

sw: White is really in a no-win situation, which is why, I believe, he will not respond to the errors. IF he corrects the errors, he acknowledges he made them in the first place. I'm sure his hope is that my website doesn't enough traffic to concern him.

sw: Well, I shouldn't say it's a "no-win situation," for he COULD win IF he proved all 25 of the remaining errors on the list to be false. He cannot do that, some of them are so obviously and patently false if he addresses them at all, he has to admit to the errors.

sw: The objective reader, and one who knows logical debate, knows that silence implies consent. St. Thomas More stood upon that precept until false testimony brought about his conviction anyway, at which time he broke his silence. Prior to his breaking of silence, the law had to be interpreted that even though he had not openly affirmed the king's decree - that his silence in the matter had to be taken as consent.

> JS: This can be added to the pile-

http://vintage.aomin.org/WinSunRep.html

That link, as well as my response to it are both on the page I linked earlier.

JAGWAB,
Scott<<<

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Scott Windsor writes:

The objective reader, and one who knows logical debate, knows that silence implies consent.

1. Since you think this is a matter of logical debate, it should be easy to cite some logic texts that agree with your assessment.

2. Can Jesus' silence at his trial, an affair which was a mockery of justice and an affront to the standards of Jewish law, be properly construed as consent (Matthew 26:63)? This seems especially difficult to maintain given when he did decide to speak and how it played into his conviction.

3. In true Catholic fashion, you look to your denomination's heroes over and against the Scriptural principles on the issue (e.g. Proverbs 26:4).

James Swan said...

sw: The irony was based in your comment about taking something from over here and finding me blogging about it on my blog. Alan made a comment regarding my blog here and linked to it, and the further irony is that this thread has been dominated by points from the "Top Ten List" from my blog - when THAT has nothing to do with the initial topic (which I tried, a couple times, to bring us back to).

Well, enjoy your own personal "irony." Frankly, I decided some time back to ignore your continual posted advertisements back to your blog. That's just me, others are free to do as they wish.

As to the subject of the blog post, I appreciated you eventually commented on it. I recall recognizing that fact.

White is really in a no-win situation, which is why, I believe, he will not respond to the errors.

I've made the mp3 available to listen to as well. I had no idea who you were when I listened to it live all those years back, but I do recall you didn't do all that well. If you did in fact prove Dr. White wrong 25 times, then it's time for you to do a live in-person with debate with Dr. White. In fact, if you're free in August, I think Chris Arnzen would love to hear from you. Madrid, Staples, Hahn, Keating, etc. don't seem to be in business any more to confront Dr. White in-person.

Rhology said...

I just listened to the Windsor-White mp3.
Mr Windsor stopped giving any substantive replies at minute 17, and then started appealing to RCC's alleged authority around minute 19, thus conceding the entire debate.
Mere assertions and reiterations of RC dogma, simplistic appeals to "Church Fathers", and vague allusions to "the entire context of Scr and its teaching on free will" are not answers to specific exegetical questions. Further, Windsor shows virtually no familiarity with Calvinistic doctrine, wherein humans make choices (but don't possess unfettered libertarian free will). In short, White was in high form and Windsor did a very very poor job.

CathApol said...

Alan,
Of course I disagree with your assessment. I do not feel I "won" the debate - but I also do not feel it was not as devastating as you try to paint it. This is also not the subject here in this thread and I think there have been quite enough diversions. If you would like to engage me in a point-by-point discussion of my response to White, I'd be happy to do so on my blog or yours - but on a thread which is about THAT topic. I sincerely doubt you will engage such a debate/discussion, but say the word and I'll initiate such a thread on my blog - or start one on your blog, or even here.