The conclusion of syllogism two is rejected, because while logically sound, it does not consider all possible premises. Consider:
Syllogism 2a) Assert the following to be false:
P1: Jesus was/is God
P2: It was possible to learn from Jesus while He was on Earth if the people then accepted His authority to teach.
P3: Jesus taught the people of Israel (as well as others) while on Earth infallibly about Himself.
Therefore: It was possible for the people of Israel (and others) to know Jesus is God if they accepted Him as an authority on God.
The point is, that Premise 1 from both Syllogism 1 and 2 is agreed to be faulty, but not because of the logic in Syllogism 1. It is rejected because it is a strawman argument. The Church does not teach that an infallible Magesterium is “required” or “necessary” to know the things of God, because the Church does teach that “nothing is impossible with God” and thus He can save as He wills. Also, obviously before Christ, there was no “infallible Magesterium” but the Church does teach that there are Saints in heaven from the Old Testsment.
Again, the Church teaches that God is not bound to the Magesterium, just as He isn’t bound to the Sacraments, but that He has chosen both as the normative means of Salvation.
Thus premise 1 is rejected for being a strawman argument and thus, any conclusions based on such faulty premises are the result of the same poisonous fruit, so to speak.
I appreciate your response, and I expected that after the original analysis it would become evident that any further attempts to derail Daniel’s logic would have to come from finding fault with something other than a supposedly defective middle term. Contesting the facts in each of the terms is the next logical place to go.
However, as this is Daniel’s logic we are parsing, it seems best to include him in this conversation, and I will defer any further analysis until he has had a chance to weigh in on your comments.
Peace,
SR
The Church does not teach that an infallible Magesterium is “required” or “necessary” to know the things of God,
You are jumping in here while being ignorant of the premise i was refuting, which was that without an infallible magisterium then we could not know what was of God. Thus such questions like , "ince nobody is infallible, how do you know that's really true?" like that the Apostle John really explicitly wrote something.
While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
And the Catholic Encyclopedia asserted,
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
The whole argument is that the Cath magisterium has uniquely received the revelation from on high, only by which can we really know what Divine revelation consists of and means, thus we need faith in this intermediary authority to correctly know what the word of God is and means.
Since your take is contrary to what was being argued against by my response, then your claim of a strawman indicts fellow RCs, not me. But while you allow souls being correct without an infallible magisterium, other RCs would argue it is essential for authority and to really know Truth For if souls could be correct without the magisterium, then the censure of "private interpretation" and disallowance of dissent loses force, and some preachers may really be of God though not sanctioned by them as such. Which some RCs find intolerable and can quote RC teaching to support it.
What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Many other RCs basically argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.