Jason Stellman Tells His Conversion Story
Mar 21st, 2013 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog Posts
Regular readers of Called To Communion are familiar with Jason Stellman. In September of last year we posted an article he wrote for us titled “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won.” In November of last year, I interviewed Jason regarding his conversion from Presbyterian pastor to Catholic, and posted the podcast of that interview here. On March 9 of this year, Jason Stellman gave a talk at the Holy Family Conference at Holy Family Parish in Kirkland, Washington. Jason had been planning to talk about “The cruciform life” during that session of the conference. But in the hour before his talk was scheduled to begin, he had lunch with Scott Hahn, who convinced him to tell his conversion story instead. So he did, and thankfully the event was recorded:
[podcast]https://www.calledtocommunion.com/media/Holy%20Family%20Conference%20-%20Conversion%20Story.mp3[/podcast]
Download the mp3 by right-clicking here.
Jason blogs at CreedCodeCult.com.
So I found this post at 1:35 a.m. on a worknight. Thanks a lot C2C. Clicking play now.
Thanks, Bryan, (et. al.).
Very sad to hear him.
“…That moment when you say ‘look, I can fit that verse into my paradigm, but someone holding my paradigm would never say that.'” (22:40)
Bingo. That paradigm shift is a wild ride.
Nice to have you on board Francis’ boat Jason.
Jason, I can’t believe you didn’t find my “We’re “Ć%#@!” answer satisfying.
I appreciated the task of reading the NT again and highlighting phrases and passages that wouldn’t be said if the author held your paradigm. I’d love to see your notes on this. Even if it only got to Mt 18. Has anyone else here made a similar list?
Jason, I listened to all 3 of your recent conversion accounts from your blog. As an ex-“truly reformed” Christian, I can relate to much of what you went through. Your observations on the Catholic bloggers/authors attitudes, in general, contrasted with the reformed attitudes, in general, resonated powerfully to my wife and I. I’ve commented here previously that the arrogance sometimes displayed by many popular reformed apologists (which I was encouraged to read by the reformed to get “both sides”) did contribute to my conversion. Thanks for your testimony.
Hugh (#2):
What is sad to you about this testimony? He sounds to me to be full of the Lord’s joy. Finding the True Church is in no ways at odds with finding Jesus Himself; quite the contrary, I’d say.
isaiah.
Did I understand correctly that his wife and kids are still with the PCA, or did they eventually the Church?
Isaiah,
He sounds like Luther in reverse – running away from the light of Christ to structure, hierarchy, centralized authority, sacred tradition, no eternal assurance, but plenty of temporal and temporary assurance (until he morally sins again), etc.
Gullible, Jason, you are gullible. Deceiving and being deceived, as Paul put it. There is no way to prove this, any more than you can prove your side.
You claim no one had a good argument against your queries. I would maintain that you simply don’t believe the arguments of your professors and others. (I loved the reference I believe to Steve Baugh!)
So be it. Seeing eyes and hearing ears must be granted one from above. May God have mercy on you.
Hugh McCann,
Why would you speak that way to Jason? You didn’t lay out a single argument as to why your paradigm is preferable to his. No one had good arguments for my queries either, and I was honestly alarmed that its been this long since the Reformation and the Reformed System has so many glaring holes that even a lay person like myself could spot them. I don’t blame the Magisterial Reformers, but I sure was surprised that so much has gotten past so many for so long.
Since there is no such thing a universal salvation, how do you know that you are not one of those “who went of from us because you were not among us?”
You’d think that since he can’t help it that God wasn’t merciful to him like He was to you because he doesn’t have seeing eyes and hearing ears, his haters would be really kind so as to win him back with the love of Christ, or ignore him altogether.
This behavior is so cruel, and people hurt. Please seek to make it right.
Susan
Hugh,
Did the Apostles believe in an authority structure? If they did and if they began churches with a structure for authority, then was this authority the kind which can just spring up anywhere and at anytime through the proper understanding of Scripture? If so, which of the many communities which have done this has the structure which if of divine authority that make up the varied groups of Protestantism today? If you are thinking along the lines that all the diverse communities have the number of the elect scattered and sub-grouped within them, then can all the Elect have mutually exclusive understandings about the gospel? If they cannot, then this means that only a sub-groups out of all the protestant groupings are within your standard of being able to be saved or elect. If then there are only a sub-group of communities which are protestant wherein a person who submits to the ecclesiastical teaching authority (which Hebrews 13:7 teaches) can be genuinely saved, which groups are these? How can you know these groups are the ones whom God accepts alone?
It is clear that you believe that Catholics, who believe in Catholic theology, are lost and condemned because of their doctrine. If this is the case, then you have applied a certain standard to be able to put Catholics on the “hell-bound” line unto the final judgement. If this is case as well, then you have a standard by which to put the Elect on the “heaven-bound” line unto the final judgement. Since there is no choice for you but to accept this logic (unless you deny it in the name of some invisible revelation to the inner senses), could you be a loving person and share with us what the standard of doctrine determining whether someone “can” be saved or definitely lost.
If you see all these questions as superfluous and inferior to the inner revelation which the Holy Spirit alone gives to man, then do you reject Protestant apologetics to the unsaved? If you reject Protestant apologetics to the unsaved, does this not require the use of reason and fine questioning? If you accept Protestant apologetics, why would you denounce the same kind of logic which undermines and falsifies the protestant conception of the gospel? If you accept Protestant apologetics, then you believe there are arguments which can potentially lead one to see that Catholicism has demonic doctrine, using logic and reason, while not resting on logic and reason as the foundation of persuasion. If you believe that logic and reason can and will do this, given that the person is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, then why would you not provide some reason as to why you believe what you believe?
This is a good time to remind everybody of our posting guidelines.
That means that you may not criticize or insult or belittle or judge or mock any person, his character, intelligence, education, background, or motivations. Attacking persons is fallacious and uncharitable and will not be permitted here.
Hey Matthew,
You understood correctly, my wife and kids are still attending Exile Pres, which I planted.
Thanks, Jason. I’m glad Scott talked you into this.
I can tell you from personal experience that as a new convert, you will come under attack from the Enemy, trying to convince you to leave the Church, or not to pursue it so deeply. So, I will be praying for you and the strength of your family!
God bless.
I’m listening to your talk now Jason so you may cover this but was your wife willing to convalidate your marriage so you could enter the Church?
That has got to be tough, Jason. Do your wife and children not share your views on Catholicism?
How do y’all work out your differences in your family life?
I apologize if this is too personal. I’m in a similar spot myself, almost ready to make the leap, without wife and children.
Dan,
No, they do not share my convictions. My wife is awesome and totally respects me, but she also thinks I’m kind of nuts!
Jason, I have followed your story for some time now and have prayed for you and your family and also requested prayers for you from our Adoration teams. I came back to the one holy catholic and apostolic church after over 25 years of fully embracing Evangelicalism/Protestism. I am back in the church today for many of the same reasons that you converted. Like you it hasn’t always been easy and many of my friends and family think I have lost my mind and thats ok because to lose myself is to gain Christ. Once the scales fell from my eyes I honestly had no other choice. I finally know true peace and God is sculpting me one day at a time. Thank you for sharing your story. God be with you and grant you peace. P.S. It took 14 years but Tim Staples family finally converted and his brother became a Priest. ; )
(Re #16-18): St. Monica, pray for us!
Jason,
Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful testimony. Please know there are so many praying for your job search and your family during this time. We all are so excited to see your vocation in the Church take flight.
Peace of Christ,
Patrick
Thanks Susan. To your concerns: Why would you speak that way to Jason? You didnât lay out a single argument as to why your paradigm is preferable to his.
>You’re right – I wasn’t arguing at all. I wasn’t posting to argue as had Mr Stellman’s seminary profs (many of whom I had in the late 1990s).
Since there is no such thing a universal salvation, how do you know that you are not one of those âwho went of from us because you were not among us?â
>Only by faith. :)
Youâd think …his haters would be really kind so as to win him back with the love of Christ, or ignore him altogether.
>No, Ma’am. You might think that, but not we all. But if Mr Stellman wishes to report his being hurt, I will gladly reconsider my comments. As to winning him with the love of Christ – that was laid out by better, more sanctified, more erudite, and I expect certainly more loving teachers of the Word than I; and they (we) all have failed. You last option is a good one. But we also believe that men who defect from Christ (just as your church teaches about those who defect from Catholicism) are actually under God’s curse, barring their repentance & returning to the biblical faith. I won’t try to argue it here. It appears such is a lost cause @ CTC. But I wanted to address your concerns. We are of different spirits, different gospels, different Christs.
Youâd think that since he canât help it that God wasnât merciful to him like He was to you because he doesnât have seeing eyes and hearing ears, his haters would be really kind so as to win him back with the love of Christ, or ignore him altogether.
>I am close to this last suggestion of yours.
This behavior is so cruel, and people hurt. Please seek to make it right.
>You have also made assertions w/o argumentation, just as I have. I believe that unless we violate some other criterion of this site’s posting policy, we are both free to do so.
Thanks for clarifying, Jason.
Hey, Erick (#11),
Did the Apostles believe in an authority structure?
>Sure – they instituted bishops and deacons.
If they did and if they began churches with a structure for authority, then was this authority the kind which can just spring up anywhere and at anytime through the proper understanding of Scripture?
>Yes, in many cases there are no missionaries to stay behind. Natives have to fend for themselves with only God’s Word – which claims self-sufficiency.
If so, which of the many communities which have done this has the structure which if of divine authority that make up the varied groups of Protestantism today?
>Couldn’t tell you. You guys love tidy packaging, I know. Sorry.
If you are thinking along the lines that all the diverse communities have the number of the elect scattered and sub-grouped within them, then can all the Elect have mutually exclusive understandings about the gospel?
>You define ‘gospel’ much differently than I. By PAUL’S gospel (1 Cor. 15:3f), no, the elect cannot have “M.U.E.” about the gospel. The gospel and the gospel alone is the way of salvation: Christ dying and rising again for his own.
If they cannot, then this means that only a sub-groups out of all the protestant groupings are within your standard of being able to be saved or elect. If then there are only a sub-group of communities which are protestant wherein a person who submits to the ecclesiastical teaching authority (which Hebrews 13:7 teaches) can be genuinely saved, which groups are these? How can you know these groups are the ones whom God accepts alone?
>Answered above. One must believe the true gospel about the true Christ to be saved. S/he may differ with others on baptism issues, church polity, eschatology, etc.
It is clear that you believe that Catholics, who believe in Catholic theology, are lost and condemned because of their doctrine. If this is the case, then you have applied a certain standard to be able to put Catholics on the âhell-boundâ line unto the final judgement. If this is case as well, then you have a standard by which to put the Elect on the âheaven-boundâ line unto the final judgement. Since there is no choice for you but to accept this logic (unless you deny it in the name of some invisible revelation to the inner senses),
>Sounds sound.
could you be a loving person and share with us what the standard of doctrine determining whether someone âcanâ be saved or definitely lost.
>Yes, as the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 15:3f – keep in mind THAT gospel, and you’ll be saved.
If you see all these questions as superfluous and inferior to the inner revelation which the Holy Spirit alone gives to man, then do you reject Protestant apologetics to the unsaved? If you reject Protestant apologetics to the unsaved, does this not require the use of reason and fine questioning? If you accept Protestant apologetics, why would you denounce the same kind of logic which undermines and falsifies the protestant conception of the gospel? If you accept Protestant apologetics, then you believe there are arguments which can potentially lead one to see that Catholicism has demonic doctrine, using logic and reason, while not resting on logic and reason as the foundation of persuasion. If you believe that logic and reason can and will do this, given that the person is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, then why would you not provide some reason as to why you believe what you believe?
>”Protestant apolgetics” is a wide field. I reject empiricism and evidentialism. I embrace Scripturalism.
>You’ll have to be specific about “the same kind of logic which undermines and falsifies the protestant conception of the gospel.”
>One reason not to go too far in arguing, is that it is fruitless with those who have been trained in Reformed theology, and have even argued for it. Think of Mr Cross or Mr Stellman, for example. But what exactly do you want?
>Thank you.
Hugh:
Do you have life in you?
Keep in mind that in order to have life in you and be raised up on the last day, Jesus says you must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Do you, in absolute point-of-fact, do that?
The Scriptures are perfectly and plainly literal on this point, you know. And it’s the only thing that allows Christianity’s connection with the Old Testament to make sense!
The people of Israel remained under the covenant and in the people of God because when they celebrated the Passover, they ate the lamb. Christ our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed; we are the People of God; we are bidden to come enjoy the feast; we must therefore Eat The Lamb.
Likewise we must drink His blood. The Old Testament is very specific: The life is in the blood. God, who never intended to fill His people with the merely organic life of an animal or a man, forbade the drinking of the blood of animals or of men. It is not that kind of life that we are to drink. He desires something better for us: He specifically promises to give us Eternal Life. Not merely everlasting life, mind you, such as every human soul has, but Eternal Life: No beginning, no end. Only one such has that life: God Himself. Is it any wonder that He bids us drink His blood, so that we might have life in us, and be raised up at the last day?
Nor is this any novel interpretation of Scripture. It’s the way the first-century Christians interpreted it, according to their own writings. And the second-century Christians, according to theirs. And the third-century Christians. And the fourth. And the fifth. And, and, and, and…it is only those who came along fifteen hundred years later, plagued with the errors of human reasoning and divorced from the Jewish roots of Christianity by a vast cultural gap, who are confused enough to see it any other way. It is their modernism, their secularism, their theological liberalism, which prompts them not to Take Christ At His Word, and to deny that He Said What He Meant And He Meant What He Said.
So I ask you, Hugh: Do you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood? Do you have life in you?
Or do you have a 16th-century anachronism derived from a watered-down, modernized, and secularized institutional memory? Are you, like Luther, a theological liberal?
Respectfully, I exhort you: The Lord Jesus Christ thinks it matters.
Hugh,
Thank you for your responses. I happen to be very open to Protestant arguments, as I do not always appreciate the arguments that Catholics give in response. I particularly have a bit of difficulty with how Protestants can maintain their view of the the Scriptures with a robust logical exegesis of the texts. I happen to believe the texts of Scripture lean more toward a the traditional way of understanding Christianity. If you had to nail it down, what makes you believe that Catholics are hell-bound if they really do believe in Catholic doctrine?
Is it justification? Well, even as a Protestant, you cannot subjectively “know” you are justified (depending on which reformed church you are in) until you have reached a certain confirmation that your “fruit-bearing” or “repentance” is of a God-accepting level. If you come from a protestant camp which is more reformed baptist or independent baptist (Richard Owen Roberts, etc,etc), you are constantly warned of “false-conversion” or “counterfeit repentance”, to the extant that one is always doubting and questioning one’s own conversion and repentance. If you are hyped up in this kind of “holiness” environment, then your assurance of your acquisition of Christ’s righteousness is not stable, but always dependent upon you passing the bare minimum level of which you think is “true” repentance. At times, the level of your standard can go down or up, depending on what you’ve been learning or who you’ve been influenced by. For instance, those who love RC Sproul and Burk Parsons have a bit of a more easy way of balancing the Christian life so that the person has assurance and yet is still under the fear of God and obligation to live in holiness. But others, who dive into Matthew Meade’s Almost Christian, may find themselves going through a doubting depression for years. You yourself may be in the camp which says, “Amen! The Christian life is Hard! And one must really sacrifice all the desires of the flesh for the glory of God!”…..but you see……one wonders what effectiveness this more “grace-filled” gospel has in the life of the human being. You are consistently taught that human works have no cause in the salvation of the human being, and yet you are constantly being told that only works evidence the prior work of God, and then even more constantly reminded that there are so many counterfeit versions of the evidence, and that there is a very difficult, even impossible, single and genuine evidence which can grant one assurance of salvation. And it becomes an even more difficult rubix cube when a Person who has been serving Christ in this way for years, and then dives into a couple of years of fornication. And the worst part about it is this, God is controlling everything. God is ordaining the doubt in salvation. If you are truly lost, despite all the energy and effort to be saved, this is also an immutable energy of God working in the life of the person.
At this point, one wonders how Protestants consider themselves to have more “grace” in their gospel. Catholics believe that Jesus loves all people and wishes all to be saved. He doesn’t think that his cross loses glory because some of those for whom He died reject him ultimately and go to hell, because it remains a loving act towards the world, something that is in the heart of God (John 3:16). Calvinists are so proud of protecting God in His glory in the unmitigated and undiluted sovereignty and predestination of God, that sometimes you really do not know if God loves you or if you are one of those Christians who are self-deceived (in the truest sense) for 50 years and then by 51 years of age you become a reprobate, and all along God has hated you and purposed you for wrath and destruction. You take away the very thing which human beings are to know about God, that He loves them and cares for them and wishes them to be saved, by this sovereign salvation and damnation apart from human works. It is almost as if since works play no part in the predestination of the elect, works also play no part in the predestination of the wicked. There is a settled determination before all creation, and everything in our time is simply an outplay of this pre-determined plan. This creates much confusion with the theology of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the apostles.
What else is it? The Papacy? The wickedness? The lukewarmness? The false holiness? The praying to the dead?
Still waiting for Jason to answer my question in #15 I have a very good reason for asking it so if you could do so I would be most appreciative?
Wayne, (re: #26)
You may have a very good reason for asking your question. But rather than insist that Jason publicly answer a personal question before laying out that reason, a more charitable approach on your part would be simply to explain your reason, and let Jason see whether it applies to his case.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dear Susan (@ #10),
I appreciate your post the more I think about it.
Prov. 15:1 & 2 Tim. 2:23ff came to mind as I read Titus 2:7-9 today.
Many thanks for your admonition to caritas!
Hugh
Erick #25: I will try to reply ASAP, and as I am allowed to here,
but perhaps we &/ or the moderator may want us to discuss this
in emails rather than here @ CTC.
R.C. #24: I will likewise try to reply to you ASAP.
Both your posts are great, and I am honored to be asked these things.
Thank you.
Sure Bryan. I am considering converting to the Church but my wife refuses to convalidate our marriage so I may have to seek a radical senation from the Bishop. And yet this situation has also given me pause and I am proceeding with caution as I know I am the Spiritual Leader in our home.
Hope that helps and my apologies if my question was too personal and would be happy to receive a reply privately.
In His Blessed Name,
Wayne
Hugh:
I find your position rather mystifying. On the one hand, you claim that neither side can “prove” the superiority of its interpretive paradigm as applied to the Bible; on the other, you claim the Bible is “self-sufficient.” How the Bible can be self-sufficient if it doesn’t decisively settle the question which paradigm to adopt for its interpretation is rather mystifying, wouldn’t you say?
Best,
Mike
Michael #30,
The Bible, the Faith, is only discernable to those whose eyes and ears it opens. Faith comes by hearing* the Word of God.
*That hearing is not from one’s free will, nor a Spirit-aided freed will, but regeneration must precede belief. By proclaiming the true Word of God, we have confidence that it w/ the Spirit will enliven and saved whom God will, and harden whom he will. See 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16.
Thank you.
Hence, the Bible is self-sufficient and decisively settles the question for those who are first enlivened to believe it.
Hugh:
I agree with everything you say in #32, but I don’t think what you say in #33 follows at all. In fact, the latter is incompatible with the former.
You write:
If something beyond just reading the Bible with literary understanding is necessary for understanding the truth conveyed by the Bible, then the Bible alone does not suffice for understanding the truth it conveys. Indeed, according to you, the grace of the Spirit is also necessary for understanding the truth conveyed by the Bible–a claim I agree with. But in that case, something beyond just reading the Bible with literary understanding is necessary for understanding the truth conveyed by the Bible. Hence, “the Bible” is not self-sufficient for the purpose stated.
If we can agree on that much, the next question becomes: “How does one know when one is interpreting the Bible by the grace and light of the Spirit?” Your statement: “The Bible, the Faith, is only discernable to those whose eyes and ears it opens” won’t do, for two reasons. First, even though that statement is true, it doesn’t answer the question; second, it assumes one of the very theses at issue, which is whether the contents of the Bible are identical with “the Faith.” Thus your statement is question-begging in two ways.
Best,
Mike
Hey Wayne,
That’s rough, buddy. Have you tried the romance approach: be really sweet, go on lots of dates, dial up the affection? Also, is there a way to bing her to social events in which she will encounter and befriend happy, faithful Catholic women?
Sincerely,
K. Doran
Mike @34 – You are rockin’ it!
Great point. I erred here. The Bible is sufficient as to things here on Earth – no magisterium or pope (in- or semi-fallible) necessary.
One knows anything spiritual by the Spirit. One knows he is interpreting the Bible by the grace and light of the Spirit by the Spirit’s witness/ testimony, just as one knows his adoption/ sonship per Romans 8:14ff ~ For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, âAbba! Father!â The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
Are these helpful? I’m not sure I am answering you to your satisfaction.
Thank you.
Hugh
> Do you have life in you?
Hey, R.C. (@24),
Yep! :)
> Keep in mind that in order to have life in you and be raised up on the last day, Jesus says you must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Do you, in absolute point-of-fact, do that?
By faith alone [not transubstantiation]: John 6:35, 40, 47f.
> The people of Israel remained under the covenant and in the people of God because when they celebrated the Passover, they ate the lamb. Christ our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed; we are the People of God; we are bidden to come enjoy the feast; we must therefore Eat The Lamb.
“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life” (John 6:40). That is to “eat Jesus Christ.”
> Likewise we must drink His blood. The Old Testament is very specific: The life is in the blood. God, who never intended to fill His people with the merely organic life of an animal or a man, forbade the drinking of the blood of animals or of men. It is not that kind of life that we are to drink. He desires something better for us: He specifically promises to give us Eternal Life. Not merely everlasting life, mind you, such as every human soul has, but Eternal Life: No beginning, no end. Only one such has that life: God Himself. Is it any wonder that He bids us drink His blood, so that we might have life in us, and be raised up at the last day?
No, sir.
> So I ask you, Hugh: Do you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood? Do you have life in you?
Yes & yes.
> Or do you have a 16th-century anachronism derived from a watered-down, modernized, and secularized institutional memory? Are you, like Luther, a theological liberal?
Acc. to you, I guess so!
Thank you.
…we may not criticize or insult or belittle or judge or mock any person, his character, intelligence, education, background, or motivations. Attacking persons is fallacious and uncharitable and will not be permitted here.
Hugh, relating to your comment 33,
Please enlighten me, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley had some pretty strong differences on the nature of salvation.
Calvin, Luther, and Wesley believed that baptism was necessary and that infant baptism baptism was valid. Zwingli did not on either account.
Calvin believed in once saved always saved. Wesley believed you could lose your salvation.
Calvin and Luther practiced devotions to Mary and saw this as laudable, but Zwingli saw it as a hell-worthy abomination.
There are dozens of other salvation related issues which they disagreed.
These are issues of salvation so one cannot claim they agreed on the essentials and disagreed on the nonessentials.
Your understanding of salvation also contract Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley.
So my question to you is, which of you are Spirit-aided and have truly listened to what scripture says? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley all seem pretty sincere in their convictions and you do also, and all believed they were listening to the Holy Spirit. But clearly someone has to be mistaken, since you can’t all be right.
So how do *you* know you are correct an they are wrong?
Hi Jason S. We have to meet sometime! I just had coffee recently with Fr. Bryan Ochs –this week.
I am entering the Church next WEEK in fact.
My wife is not opposed, but neither is she 100% supportive. She is NOT anti-Catholic by any means, she just doesn’t see the point. After all, can’t we just simply be GOOD Protestants. She was fine as long as Catholicism was merely “interesting”. It was only when I started talking about it as if were TRUE that she started to have a problem.
It hurts for my wife and family to NOT see the beauty and fullness of Catholicism. I’m praying daily she’ll warm up to it.
I have never heard of “convalidating” a marriage before. Maybe someone could fill me in on that. Our RCIA director didn’t mention anything like that to me.
Wayne,
I highly recommend that you write the diocesan marriage tribunal for your local diocese and describe in detail the circumstances of your marriage regarding:
– baptism (or not) of each party
– previous marriages if any
-were any of the previous marriages in the Catholic Church
– whether either party has ever been Catholic
– whether the marriage was civil or religious
In addition it will probably be very helpful to speak to a priest at a local parish, and possibly contact a canon lawyer. You could also call Catholic Answer apologists off-air and they will get you started 619-387-7200
MondayâFriday, 9 AMâ4:45 PM, Pacific.
Still the Diocesan Tribunal is the highest authority and deals with this all the time. Local Priests and knowledgeable can sometimes be misinformed or not aware of certain conditions.
I hesitate to offer any solid guidance because there are nuances I don’t understand always and I am not an expert BUT…
In general the Catholic Church does recognize marriages of other Christians as valid. There are however two types of marriage: Simply a valid marriage, or Sacramental Marriage. If I understand correctly your marriage may not be Sacramental without convalidation, but it is very possible that your marriage would be recognized as valid and you would be able to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.
Particularly, if this is a first marriage for both of you and neither of you was baptized in a Catholic Church and neither of you has ever been Catholic, you probably have a valid marriage from what I understand.
Non-Catholics are not subject to Canon law, and are not subject to the requirements the Church places upon Her members regarding marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament that is properly instituted by the Couple themselves, not by the priest. The Priest is a witness and blesses the marriage and the Mass is for the marriage and celebrates and solemnizes the occasion, but the marriage itself is contracted entirely between the two partners.
Sorry for my in-expertise. I hope I am sure I have this mostly correct, but you are best served by going to the tribunal.
Prayers for you! And really, regardless of your marital status, the Church is still the True Church. In my mind, better to be imperfectly a member and bear the cross of an irregular situation than to remain outside of visible communion with Christ’s Church.
To Hugh and To Wayne
Dear Hugh,
Glad you are interested in doing what is good. Your change of heart has touched mine:)
I can commiserate to some degree, because while I didn’t plant a church and I don’t have his position as authority nor his amount of learning, I am in a situation near to his. I entered that Catholic Church this past December, and I am the only person in my family to go this route. My husband and children still attend a Reformed church in Southern California. We go our separate ways every Lord’s Day and it is terrible hard.
Those people at their church have been very kind to my family but it I do’t see any of them in social settings anymore. I haven’t seen my former pastors since last summer. The whole situation is very weird.
I know that I am always welcome to any social situation, but I feel that they think I have the plague:) I don’t want to deal with people showing me sorrowful eyes as if they pity me for my poor choice. I am pleased to have found the Church! But, I also understand how they view me now. They are mistaken however, and so I hand onto the truth, I have received by faith. Also, happy to hear that you desire to continue communicating on this site! Blessings to you.
Dear Wayne,
My husband was extremely hostile to me before I converted. He didn’t attend my reception and first communion. It has gotten easier. The yelling has stopped( from both of us) ,and he puts up with my Catholic books. I haven’t even tried to ask him for any icons…it’s too soon.
He was not willing to have our marriage convalidated, but since we had both been baptized after we were married, it wasn’t needed.
Hang-in there and keep being a loving husband.
I will pray for your situation.
~Susan
Hi Wayne,
It really depends on your wife. Scott Hahn converted long before before his wife agreed, and Kimberley Hahn admitted that she was so fixed in her intellectual views that she would have stonewalled his conversion forever if Scott Hahn didn’t act unilaterally. The unilateral conversion forced her to be serious about examining the claims of the Catholic Church.
For other women (e.g. more “Heart Christian” than “Head Christian”), a hard unilateral approach is the worse possible thing you could do and might do irreparable damage to your marriage. For these women, it is critical that you don’t pressure them and it is important that you first live the Catholic life (i.e. attend mass but abstain from the Eucharist, practice Catholic devotions, care for the family from the Catholic perspective, etc) and give her space before even attempting a conversion. Eventually she will see that Catholicism is “safe”, that you are a better husband, father, and person for being Catholic, and see your suffering at not being able to receive the Eucharist or go to confession that she will support you as a Catholic and all obligations you have as a Catholic. This may take years, the suffering of waiting and constant prayer for full reconciliation will not go to waste.
You know your wife better than anyone here. But in either case, you can’t force your wife to convert. If it happens, it is by God’s grace and you’re personal piety will play an crucial part in lowering the barriers to her conversion.
Wayne,
Feel free to write me privately: j(dot)stellman(at)comcast(dot)net.
Michael Liccione: you wrote: “you claim that neither side can âproveâ the superiority of its interpretive paradigm as applied to the Bible; on the other, you claim the Bible is âself-sufficient.â How the Bible can be self-sufficient if it doesnât decisively settle the question which paradigm to adopt for its interpretation is rather mystifying, wouldnât you say?”
But how can the pope settle anything when Garry Wills is on the loose?
Sean Patrick (or whomever), RE #36 – thanks! ;)
Dear Anil @38 ~
Please enlighten me, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley had some pretty strong differences on the nature of salvation.
>I believe that I am in essential agreement with Luther and Calvin, but am not conversant with Zwingli and am not in essential agreement (as far as I know of him) with John Wesley.
There are dozens of other salvation related issues which they disagreed.
>Yes. Some issues of salvation and some not. You & i would probably disagree on which these are.
These are issues of salvation so one cannot claim they agreed on the essentials and disagreed on the nonessentials.
>That’s your opinion, and you have the right to hold that opinion, but with due respect, I believe it is incorrect. >Infant baptism is not an issue of salvation. But could otherwise good men err on this?
Your understanding of salvation also contract Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley.
> You mean “contradict”? How? I may disagree with Wesley, but how do I differ from Calvin & Luther?
So my question to you is, which of you are Spirit-aided and have truly listened to what scripture says?
Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley —
>That seems a fair Best-to-Worst rating, as far as I know. :)
So how do *you* know you are correct an they are wrong?
>I believe that I am in essential agreement with Luther and Calvin, but am not conversant with Zwingli and am not in essential agreement (as far as I know) with John Wesley.
>To the best of my knowledge, I am in agreement with Paul and Jesus. Infinitely more important. :)
>Thank you.
Thanks to each of you who provided me with counsel, prayers, and recommendations above in my particular circumstance. It’s been quite the struggle over the past year or so but God is in control.
Jason, Susan, and Wayne,
I am very sorry to read of the marital problems your conversions to Rome are causing (exposing or exacerbating). I am writing the following sincerely.
Given that you are leaving a grace-only religion (that holds orthodox Trinitarianism & Christology), and that claims that one can know whether s/he is destined for heaven through her/ his faith in Christ Jesus, why not for the sake of peace and marital harmony stay in the “lesser” church?
Rome claims that we’re separated brethren, not the heretics Trent threatened to burn, right? Then why not for your family’s sake stay in communion with your spouse & children in a Presbyterian or Baptist or Reformed church?
I grant you that Rome has the corner on venerability, incense, liturgy, Latin rite, bonus Bible books, catechism, canons, councils, decrees, dogmas, and promises of sacramental grace, but no sure eternal hope, only maybes.
Why go where eternal life is merely a possibility (if you’re good enough) and not stay where faith in Christ as the soul’s sole Mediator is the watchword?
Why leave a church where the family is united, and grace is secure, and separate the family for “maybe”?
Hugh (#36):
I appreciate your humility, and I mean that. I do not often encounter theological opponents who actually admit they’ve erred when I point out their error. You refresh! Thank you.
Even so, I’m not sure you’ve taken my larger point. You write:
I think what you mean is that no ecclesial teaching authority is necessary for interpreting the Bible correctly, but only the Holy Spirit. At least that’s what I take your position to be; it’s the position of many Protestants. But it doesn’t really answer my question: How you know when you are interpreting the Bible by the Spirit, who has divine authority, and not just according to your own or some other people’s understanding, which has no authority?
You seem to be getting at an answer by quoting Romans 8:14ff and commenting:
Very well then: How do you distinguish between “the Spirit’s witness” and those of people who just happen to agree with you about how to interpret the Bible for doctrinal purposes? It won’t do to cite the fact–if indeed it is a fact–that you “know” your adoption as a child of God. I too believe I am an adopted child of God (though I hold that belief by faith, not as an item of knowledge), but I don’t think that status guarantees that I’ll be able to tell the difference between the Spirit’s authoritative witness and my own or others’ merely human interpretive opinions. For that, I look to the Magisterium; as a Catholic, I believe the bishops are successors of the Apostles, to whom Jesus Christ gave his divine teaching authority, and who passed that authority on to their successors. To whom or what do you look for the Spirit’s authoritative witness?
Best,
Mike
Hey, Mike,
> I think what you mean is that no ecclesial teaching authority is necessary for interpreting the Bible correctly, but only the Holy Spirit. At least that’s what I take your position to be; it’s the position of many Protestants.
Yes sir!
> How you know when you are interpreting the Bible by the Spirit, who has divine authority, and not just according to your own or some other people’s understanding, which has no authority?
> …How do you distinguish between “the Spirit’s witness” and those of people who just happen to agree with you about how to interpret the Bible for doctrinal purposes?
> To whom or what do you look for the Spirit’s authoritative witness?
Again, the Rom. 8 & 1 Cor. 1-2 refs. give us proof that we can know certain terribly important spiritual things.
I only have the clear passages to help me with the less clear ones. As one Prot. Confession (from Jason’s ex-denom) put it in chapter 1:
Hey, Mike,
How you know when you are interpreting the Bible by the Spirit, who has divine authority, and not just according to your own or some other peopleâs understanding, which has no authority?
âŚHow do you distinguish between âthe Spiritâs witnessâ and those of people who just happen to agree with you about how to interpret the Bible for doctrinal purposes?
…To whom or what do you look for the Spiritâs authoritative witness?
I cannot believe there is a higher or holier authority than sacred Writ itself and its Author.
Darryl (#44):
I occasionally permit myself that kind of wit, but I don’t take it as seriously as you do. Here’s why.
Anybody who cares to can learn what the definitive teachings of the Church are. What the Church has taught definitively is thus “settled.” The technical term for that is ‘irreformable’, which does not mean ‘cannot be improved’, but rather ‘may never be contradicted’. By the same token, anybody who cares to can tell that Garry Wills rejects many irreformable teachings of the Church. Materially, he is a heretic. The only reason he isn’t formally branded a heretic by the Church is that the canonically required trial and conviction is ordinarily reserved for clerics and theologians, and even then only rarely, for what I consider sound pastoral reasons.
Accordingly, from the fact that many “Catholics” are allowed to get away with material heresy, it hardly follows that nothing is settled. Sin and error have plagued the Church since her first generation, and will not be “settled” in the sense you mean until the Eschaton.
Best,
Mike
Hugh (#50
Isn’t there a problem here? Can we be sure that the things that we think less clear are not themselves necessary for salvation? Evidently the Trinity itself is not that clear; at least millions of JWs, Muslims, and, in the past, Arians, think it clear that the Bible is not Trinitarian. Would you say the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation, since it is not clear to many?
jj
Mike, so you mean the Roman Catholic Church is not disciplined? Sounds like Protestantism.
‘morning, JJ @ 54 *
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, manâs salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture. …those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
The doctrines necessary for salvation are not clear to those to whom these things are not given. As I referenced in 1 Corinthians (1:18-2:16); 1:18 ~ the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
And 2:14ff ~ the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For âwho has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?â But we have the mind of Christ.
Your examples are of those who not only deny the Trinity, but also the person and work of Christ. Many other doctrines they misunderstand as well. The Confession is not speaking of things in Scripture being understood by all men, but by those whom God enlightens. Or, as I said above, those to whom he first gives eyes to see and ears to hear. Your examples are of apostate (blind) groups.
Thank you,
Hugh
* How’d you do that with the #50?
I tried copying and pasting the date & time,
but couldn’t get it to work as a number.
Darryl,
# 54.
Human beings are often not disciplined. Paul didn’t get out of Corinth without learning that. But what is your point? You sound like an atheist giving the classic atheist apologetic of, ‘Look at those hypocritical and sinful Christians!’
Sean @56,
We Prots never claim a boffo Magisterium or infallible Petrine chair, as y’all do.
I expect that Herr Hart is merely just sayin’ that like Protestantism (regularly slammed by some for its splintered schizophrenia) and the vaunted papacy are more alike in their brokenness than is sometimes allowed by those who contend for protecting beastly priests b/c their office is so holy and their transubstantival ministrations so indispensable.
Just sayin’…
Thank you,
Hugh
Hugh (#55)
OK, but it seems to me this means that it is not true that, regarding the “whole counsel of God,” “…those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” “Ordinary means” are insufficient. You have to be one of those whom God enlightens. That appears to me considerably more than “ordinary means.”
jj
JJ @ 58 â Good points to clarify!
Again from the Westminster Confession:
Thanks!
Hugh
Thanks again for sharing your testimony Jason, and thank Scott Hahn for encouraging you to do so.
Regarding your wife and family, I just want to tell a quick story. My wife wanted to convert/revert to the Catholic faith and I just about flipped out! I told her that Christ would never be the “head of a church of pedophiles.” It was 2002 and the sex scandals from Boston were making front page news just about every week! To say I was anti-Catholic is an understatement.( I had left the Catholic faith as a young teen reading lots of Chick tracts and became a devout evangelical. ) I asked my wife to throw out all the Catholic books and tapes she had amassed in her pursuit of Truth in the Catholic Church. She never once attempted to cajole, convince or coerce me to join the Catholic faith. She said she only prayed God would allow her to become Catholic, never believing I would ever come home to the Catholic faith. Long story short, 5 years later I was on my knees in confession and then in Mass after having our marriage convalidated and receiving Christ in the Eucharist. It has been 9 years now that I have been blogging about the faith, sharing with family (to some degree) and friends, and writing and performing music about this treasure we have discovered in the Catholic Church. I would encourage you and Wayne to hang in there and pray, and I will join my prayers with others for spiritual harmony to come to your home. I offered my Communion for you and your intentions this AM at the shrine of Saint Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal in Harrisburg. God bless
Hugh:
As I understand your last several comments, your position is that of the Westminster Confession. Very well. My problem with the WC is the same problem I have with confessional Protestantism quite generally: its interpretive paradigm is neither rationally compelling nor otherwise authoritative. Hence the foundational documents of confessional Protestantism–be it the Westminster Confession, the Augsburg Confession, or any similar confession–can only be presented as theological opinion, not as authentic expressions of divine revelation. As such, they cannot command the assent of faith at all.
They are not rationally compelling because they fail to achieve the main purpose of any theological IP, which is to enable us to distinguish between authentic expressions of divine revelation and mere theological opinions. They fail to achieve that purpose because those who composed and profess them do not claim to be divinely protected from error in producing them and professing their contents; hence, the documents themselves cannot plausibly claim divine authority, even for their premise that the Protestant canon is divinely inspired and thus inerrant. Given that they cannot plausibly claim divine authority, such documents supply no principled criterion for distinguishing between the authoritative witness of the Spirit to what they say and the merely human belief that the Spirit witnesses to what they say. By the same token, Protestant confessions are not otherwise authoritative. They can claim no more authority than the churches that produced them and believe them, and those churches cannot plausibly claim divine authority, because they do not claim to be divinely preserved from error under any conditions.
Best,
Mike
Darryl (#54):
Following up on Sean’s #56, you seem to be suggesting that nothing is doctrinally settled unless the Church’s discipline ensures that there’s little or no dissensus within the Church. Sts. Peter and Paul didn’t seem to think that. Indeed, whether from a Protestant or a Catholic standpoint, accepting such a suggestion would render any criterion of orthodoxy epistemically useless. And that’s because you fail to distinguish between empirically and deontically normative conceptions of orthodoxy.
From a Protestant standpoint, one can define “the Church” as the people who, across space and time, concur about the “correct” interpretation of Scripture on matters they deem “essential” and who aim to live accordingly. In fact, that’s what conservative Protestants typically do. And prima facie, it all sounds pretty normative. On such a picture, when people within “the Church” obstinately dissent from the “correct” interpretation of Scripture on matters deemed essential by “the Church,” they are sometimes excommunicated, thus maintaining the doctrinal purity of “the Church.” But whether they are excommunicated or not, the dissenters typically hive off to join or start another church. Having done so, they proceed to define their new church as at least part of “the Church” in the way I described above, often to the detriment of the church they left, which of course continues to claim that it, not the church joined or started by the dissenters, is orthodox. Does such a process “settle” anything, even by the criterion you suggest? Of course not. Accordingly, what counts as “orthodox” doctrine, and with it as “the Church,” becomes purely a matter of opinion, which cannot claim divine authority and thus cannot command the assent of faith. For few Protestant churches claim, and none can plausibly claim, to be divinely protected from error under certain specifiable and concrete conditions. So, what’s considered “orthodox” from a purely empirical standpoint can, does, and must vary considerably among churches, given their objective lack of divine teaching authority.
Now if the Catholic Church conceived of her own identity and authority as conservative-Protestant churches typically conceive of their own, then she would indeed be just one more denomination, with no more divine authority to define and impose orthodoxy in a deontically normative way than any other denomination. But in point of fact, she does claim to be divinely protected from error under certain specifiable and concrete conditions, so that whatever she teaches with her full authority is inerrant and irreformable. If such a claim is correct, then no matter how many nominal Catholics dissent from such teaching or hive off to join or start another church, the divine authority, and thus the deontic normativity, of Catholic teaching remains intact, and thus with it, the epistemic utility of Catholic teaching for distinguishing between orthodoxy and heresy. Thus Catholic orthodoxy would be normative in a sense in which no Protestant “orthodoxy” can ever be.
Of course, the above is in no sense a proof that Catholicism is true or even orthodox. Like liberal Protestants, you could always just say that religion is a matter of opinion, full stop. But what I have shown is that the Catholic Church at least has a criterion of orthodoxy that could qualify as something more than a merely empirical norm, thus constituting a truly deontic norm. And that’s what’s necessary for distinguishing between authentic expressions of divine revelation, and mere theological opinions that could turn out be wrong, pending further evidence and historical developments.
Best,
Mike
Mike @ 61 –
As I understand your last several comments, your position is that of the Westminster Confession.
> Sometimes, yes. I am not wedded 100% to any of ours, but the WCF is generally very much a goody.
Very well. My problem with the WC is the same problem I have with confessional Protestantism quite generally: its interpretive paradigm is neither rationally compelling nor otherwise authoritative.
> Right! Only Writ.
Hence the foundational documents of confessional Protestantismâbe it the Westminster Confession, the Augsburg Confession, or any similar confessionâcan only be presented as theological opinion, not as authentic expressions of divine revelation. As such, they cannot command the assent of faith at all.
> Absolutely, amen, & smiley icon here!
They are not rationally compelling because they fail to achieve the main purpose of any theological IP, which is to enable us to distinguish between authentic expressions of divine revelation and mere theological opinions. They fail to achieve that purpose because those who composed and profess them do not claim to be divinely protected from error in producing them and professing their contents; hence, the documents themselves cannot plausibly claim divine authority, even for their premise that the Protestant canon is divinely inspired and thus inerrant.
> Amen! I love this! Right on!
Given that they cannot plausibly claim divine authority, such documents supply no principled criterion for distinguishing between the authoritative witness of the Spirit to what they say and the merely human belief that the Spirit witnesses to what they say. By the same token, Protestant confessions are not otherwise authoritative. They can claim no more authority than the churches that produced them and believe them, and those churches cannot plausibly claim divine authority, because they do not claim to be divinely preserved from error under any conditions.
> Wow! This is awesome! Totally in agreement with you, man. (Darryl might take umbrage, but then he’s an Orthodox Presbyterian. To such, I am neither…)
> We repuditate the implicit faith explicitly enjoined upon the Romish faithful in their magisterium. I agree with your Pontiff Emeritus that, “The Holy Spirit, who gives life to the Church, enables us to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively. The Bible is the Churchâs book, and its essential place in the Churchâs life gives rise to its genuine interpretation.” But all who are born from above have the same Holy Spirit. John Chrysostom no more than I; Luther no more than Calvin. I would reverse Augustine here: I would not believe the authority of the Church had not the Spirit’s tranformational power through the gospel led me to do so.
> So, we are opposed to the following by our biblical hermenuetic:
But it got better:
Found @ http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#_ftn86
> We’re agreed that Scripture is not be read apart from wise men who’ve gone before, but none of these are absolutely authoritative when they veer from the Text. Needless to say, we Prots find much such ‘veerage’ in Rome.
> We Prots cannot receive that there is another source of divine truth on a par with [& able to validate or confirm our understanding of] the Bible. It alone is God’s word to us.
> Thank you,
> Hugh
* Jerry’s here taken from Paul to Titus, 1:9!
Hey Darryl and Hugh.
Your bible must not really be authoritative because so many Christians fall short of the bible’s precepts.
Signed – Atheists
S/b: Scripture is not to be read apart from wise men whoâve gone before…
Sean’s atheists –
Aha!
You’ve found us out!
Drat!
;)
Sean @ 64,
The syllogisms DO differ, you realize.
The atheist claims that our Bible is bogus because some of its admirers are such dogs.
It only proves that some of its admirers are not living up to what’s written therein.
It does not prove that the Bible (the very standard of morality the atheist is using against us!) is unauthoritative.
The Protestant claims that Rome’s claims to an infallible chair and Spirit-sanctioned conciliar dogmas (on a par with the inspired Book) are bogus because
(1) the Bible doesn’t speak of such post-canonical authorities on a par with Itself, and,
(2) the popes and councils have erred. Scripture never does.
Hence, our sins do not vitiate the Bible – they would merely vitiate our claims to occasional infallibilty, if we made such. But your establishment’s claims to occasional infallibilty are seriously threatened by her many scandals.
Thank you,
Hugh
Hugh McCann,
I am happy you are interacting. I would like to hear you respond to my comment #11. The protestant gospel claims to be the gospel of grace which Paul preached, and yet I argued that it actually creates a certain bondage at times. For you are told on the one hand, that you cannot work or earn salvation and that it is faith alone which brings salvation, but then on the other hand, you are told that good works prove your faith and so unless good works are there you cannot know if you are saved or not. Therefore, there is practically the same, in theory, view of assurance between Catholicism and Protestatism. I lean more toward Catholicism providing a deeper assurance of salvation, for in Protestantism, when you are so focused on your works, you then hear a sermon which says that the proud focus on their works and the real elect rest on the works of Christ…..and then you think your faith is not real saving faith because you are so convicted over sin and trying to obey the Lord, when the real faith is recognizing that one cannot be good in themselves….etc,etc,etc. .
Secondly, the “faith alone” conception of Protestantism makes the “faith” of the human being something which Satan and His demons can exercise. Since protestants see Romans 4:1-4 to prove that faith is has no worth or value in itself, else otherwise it would have a value to barter with God, and that faith is simply resting and trusting in the alien righteousness of Christ…..well then Satan can do this if salvation was opened to him. I understand that salvation has not been offered to fallen angels, but if we were to just compare justifying faith, which is widdled down to have absolutely no merit or worth in itself, then what makes this kind of faith different than what the demons have?
As soon as you begin to qualify faith as an “obedient faith”, then you insert the requirement of internal righteousness as a necessary co-op to faith, which then moves you into the historic understanding.
I know, I know, Erick Y!
Yours takes more thought, prayer, & savoir faire, ya know!
I did #11 in #23. I owe you for #25, correct?
Erick – Short answer tonight for #s 25 & 68:
The Puritans are not the zenith of Protestant thought. Sure, they got some things right, but they navel-gazed too much and failed (unlike earlier Reformers, Luther, Tyndale, Calvin) to point us to solus Christus!
At least, the English. I am not conversant at all with the Lutherans.
Prolly agood thing, too! ;)
Also, the problem is not the biblical (Protestant) gospel, but in how it’s @ times misunderstood, misrepresented, and misapplied!
I want to address your questions about assurance, too, but am very busy tonight.
Also, please email me if you wish: HUGHMC5 [at] HOTMAIL [dot] COM
Blessings galore,
Hugh
Sean Patrick, I am not pointing out hypocrisy. I am simply noting that converting to Roman Catholicism does not remove the problems that converts think they are leaving in Protestantism. If Protestantism is so bad, and if Rome has the same problems, then Rome is not superior. In fact, with all that authority, history, and apostolicity, you’d think Rome would be way better than it is.
Look, people have been looking for Rome to reform itself for 500 years. How long, O Lord, how long?
Mike, you wrote: “Of course, the above is in no sense a proof that Catholicism is true or even orthodox. Like liberal Protestants, you could always just say that religion is a matter of opinion, full stop. But what I have shown is that the Catholic Church at least has a criterion of orthodoxy that could qualify as something more than a merely empirical norm, thus constituting a truly deontic norm.”
But that is just your opinion. The Eastern Church doesn’t believe this and it is as old (if not older) than Rome and has as much apostolicity. Plus, you never cited an iota of Scripture. Don’t you think it odd that when the apostles write about the assurance that believers can have (Heb. 6), they never mention the church or the apostles but actually rest their claims on the promises of God? And is it not strange that when Christ promises that his people will be preserved from error, he promises the Spirit (John 16).
So while you keep trusting in the papacy, I’ll keep trusting in God.
Sean Patrick, so you do acknowledge that Rome has a problem with error and hypocrisy. Then exactly how is it superior to Protestantism or to Eastern Orthodoxy (aside from the circular claims it makes for itself)? Communists also claimed to be superior to the liberal West and they had the philosophy and history to prove it.
Erick, Per #25
> Is it justification?
Yes sir!
>
> Well, even as a Protestant, you cannot subjectively “know” you are justified (depending on which reformed church you are in) until you have reached a certain confirmation that your “fruit-bearing” or “repentance” is of a God-accepting level.
Some may teach & believe that, but not all of us. Some merely say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”
>
> If you come from a protestant camp which is more reformed baptist or independent baptist (Richard Owen Roberts, etc,etc), you are constantly warned of “false-conversion” or “counterfeit repentance”, to the extant that one is always doubting and questioning one’s own conversion and repentance. If you are hyped up in this kind of “holiness” environment, then your assurance of your acquisition of Christ’s righteousness is not stable, but always dependent upon you passing the bare minimum level of which you think is “true” repentance. At times, the level of your standard can go down or up, depending on what you’ve been learning or who you’ve been influenced by.
Amen! Sadly…
>
> For instance, those who love RC Sproul and Burk Parsons have a bit of a more easy way of balancing the Christian life so that the person has assurance and yet is still under the fear of God and obligation to live in holiness.
J’appreciate Dr Sproul!
>
> But others, who dive into Matthew Meade’s Almost Christian, may find themselves going through a doubting depression for years. You yourself may be in the camp which says, “Amen! The Christian life is Hard! And one must really sacrifice all the desires of the flesh for the glory of God!”…..but you see……one wonders what effectiveness this more “grace-filled” gospel has in the life of the human being. You are consistently taught that human works have no cause in the salvation of the human being, and yet you are constantly being told that only works evidence the prior work of God, and then even more constantly reminded that there are so many counterfeit versions of the evidence, and that there is a very difficult, even impossible, single and genuine evidence which can grant one assurance of salvation.
Bad news, this. It ain’t the gospel!
>
> And it becomes an even more difficult rubix cube when a Person who has been serving Christ in this way for years, and then dives into a couple of years of fornication. And the worst part about it is this, God is controlling everything. God is ordaining the doubt in salvation. If you are truly lost, despite all the energy and effort to be saved, this is also an immutable energy of God working in the life of the person.
Truly God is sovereign. Absolutely.
>
> At this point, one wonders how Protestants consider themselves to have more “grace” in their gospel. Catholics believe that Jesus loves all people and wishes all to be saved.
Erick – reread that sentence of yours: Think about it. How is loving for a god to love ’em all, wish (sort of) for all to make it, sends his son to die for all mankind, and then, leaves it up to them to find the Catholic Church, receive sacaramental grace, and persevere therein by their synergistic [cooperative] efforts!
>
> He doesn’t think that his cross loses glory because some of those for whom He died reject him ultimately and go to hell, because it remains a loving act towards the world, something that is in the heart of God (John 3:16).
But you have a god wanting to save them, but not to the point of violating their ‘free will,’ thus it’s sadly a religion of works, with nothing but possiblities (no assurances) @ the end of the day.
>
> Calvinists are so proud of protecting God in His glory in the unmitigated and undiluted sovereignty and predestination of God, that sometimes you really do not know if God loves you or if you are one of those Christians who are self-deceived (in the truest sense) for 50 years and then by 51 years of age you become a reprobate, and all along God has hated you and purposed you for wrath and destruction.
Ungospel!
>
> You take away the very thing which human beings are to know about God, that He loves them and cares for them and wishes them to be saved, by this sovereign salvation and damnation apart from human works.
Your religion and the Bible paint different portraits of God. We maintain that he only loves and effectually saves only his elect.
>
>It is almost as if since works play no part in the predestination of the elect, works also play no part in the predestination of the wicked.
By George, I think he’s GOT it! Per Romans 9:11 – “before they had done anything good or bad… that the purpose of God according to election might stand…”
>
> There is a settled determination before all creation, and everything in our time is simply an outplay of this pre-determined plan. This creates much confusion with the theology of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the apostles.
Not really, but it’s a different paradigm, for sure!
>
> What else is it? The Papacy? The wickedness? The lukewarmness? The false holiness? The praying to the dead?
All of the above are problems for us, as you know. But the core issue is what did Jesus accomplish – redemption for some or potential redemption for those who rightly exercise their ‘free will’?
Thanks,
Hugh
Hugh,
It is not a misunderstanding of the protestant gospel. Faith alone, understood as simply receiving benefits from an outside source all the while remaining inwardly dead and enslaved to sin is a false concept of faith. Abraham’s believing in God is his giving of Himself to the will of God and not to whatever his own mind told him. It was a virtue that God was pleased to see, just as any Father is pleased to see a son trust in Him all the way to protect him. Abraham was being tested with all the delays…and yet Abraham did not lack in faith but gave glory to God, and this is why faith was reckoned for righteousness, because He gave God his whole person, mind – body – and will. Abraham could have simply not wanted to hope for a child anymore, could have ceased any relations with Sarah, could have left Canaan for Ur, etc,etc,etc…..and yet his faith caused him to remain in God’s will…and this is why it is righteousness. God gave Abraham this faith, and he no reason to boast, for God called him out of Ur of the Chaldeans to perform for Abraham what only God could do.
To think that faith is this completely un-virtuous and of no value with God is to say that God reckoned Abraham’s assent to the facts or even his trusting in the facts (aside from obedience) as righteousness itself. Protestants want to maintain the “gift” status of justification by excluding almost any human co-operation, but it is precisely God who calls men to repent in order to be justified. Do you not believe that repentance is a condition for salvation? That right there is giving up the immoral life of sin to live in righteousness and holiness, and such a thing is a condition for the remission of sin and a right relationship with God. Was it a work? Not an outward work, but it is an inward change of the heart whereby man detests sin and moves into the holy life of God…and this is before any works are done. God considers this act of repentance and faith as righteousness, and this puts you into the right relationship with God, and of course this relationship is not one where God controls the will. Protestants like to say that the “elect” cannot die in their sin. What keeps them from dying in their sin? The protestant says God. The Catholics asks: Well then his will is under control? The protestant says no, God is sovereign and there is a mystery to His works….He wills to never allow the elect to choose mortal sin. The Catholic confirms that this is simply a way to avoid the necessary and logical conclusion, that if the justified person cannot enter back into the slave life to sin, then his/her will is under the control of God.
If however, our wills can re-enter the life of sin, which many protestants have done, he is cut of from Christ Jesus and is no longer a participant in the glory to come. He can regain that status through conversion to Christ, and true genuine repentance. This is the belief of the historic church.
Protestants also wish not just to procure the responsibility to God in the salvation of sinners, but also in the damnation of the non-elect. Just as God made the decision (positively) that certain men, without considering their own life or faith or holiness or sinfulness, should be destined for salvation, so also he has pre-destined certain men, apart from their own sin, that they should enter into eternal hell. This is the salvation apart from works and the damnation apart from works which is marvelously accepted in protestant circles. In the attempt to rescue God’s glory from human works mixed in the salvation of souls, they also want to rescue God’s glory from human sin in the damnation of souls, otherwise he is not sovereign, in their minds.
Erick, Per #25,
~ Cleaning up the italics (I hope…) ~
> If you come from a protestant camp…the level of your standard can go down or up, depending on what you’ve been learning or who you’ve been influenced by.
Amen! Sadly…
>
> There is a settled determination before all creation, and everything in our time is simply an outplay of this pre-determined plan. This creates much confusion with the theology of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the apostles.
Not really, but it’s a different paradigm, for sure!
>
> What else is it? The Papacy? The wickedness? The lukewarmness? The false holiness? The praying to the dead?
All of the above are problems for us, as you know. But the core issue is what did Jesus accomplish – redemption for some or potential redemption for those who rightly exercise their ‘free will’?
Erick @ 75 ~
> It is not a misunderstanding of the protestant gospel. Faith alone, understood as simply receiving benefits from an outside source all the while remaining inwardly dead and enslaved to sin is a false concept of faith.
Agreed!
Abraham’s believing in God is his giving of Himself to the will of God and not to whatever his own mind told him. It was a virtue that God was pleased to see, just as any Father is pleased to see a son trust in Him all the way to protect him. Abraham was being tested with all the delays…and yet Abraham did not lack in faith but gave glory to God, and this is why faith was reckoned for righteousness, because He gave God his whole person, mind – body – and will.
That’s the RCC definition of faith? OK – but it ain’t ours…
> To think that faith is this completely un-virtuous and of no value with God is to say that God reckoned Abraham’s assent to the facts or even his trusting in the facts (aside from obedience) as righteousness itself.
The value was not in the believing or in the regeneration of Abe’s spirit, but in Christ alone, the grand object of Abe’s faith!
Protestants want to maintain the “gift” status of justification by excluding almost any human co-operation, but it is precisely God who calls men to repent in order to be justified. Do you not believe that repentance is a condition for salvation?
Yes, Mark 1:15. It is given us, as is faith. Regeneration precedes repentance & faith, and necessarily gives both to God’s elect.
That right there is giving up the immoral life of sin to live in righteousness and holiness, and such a thing is a condition for the remission of sin and a right relationship with God. Was it a work? Not an outward work, but it is an inward change of the heart whereby man detests sin and moves into the holy life of God…and this is before any works are done.
The change is God’s monergistic work, sans man’s cooperation of any kind.
God considers this act of repentance and faith as righteousness, and this puts you into the right relationship with God, and of course this relationship is not one where God controls the will. Protestants like to say that the “elect” cannot die in their sin. What keeps them from dying in their sin? The protestant says God.
Yes. The keeping power of Christ. AS you read John’s gospel in particular (esp. ch. 10), you’ll hear Christ promising his keeping his sheep for whom he died.
The Catholics asks: Well then his will is under control? The protestant says no, God is sovereign and there is a mystery to His works….He wills to never allow the elect to choose mortal sin.
We of course consider all sin to be of your ‘mortal’ variety.
The Catholic confirms that this is simply a way to avoid the necessary and logical conclusion, that if the justified person cannot enter back into the slave life to sin, then his/her will is under the control of God.
Right
> If however, our wills can re-enter the life of sin, which many protestants have done, he is cut of from Christ Jesus and is no longer a participant in the glory to come. He can regain that status through conversion to Christ, and true genuine repentance. This is the belief of the historic church.
I know; at least a big chunk of the visible, institutional part of it…
> Protestants also wish not just to procure the responsibility to God in the salvation of sinners, but also in the damnation of the non-elect. Just as God made the decision (positively) that certain men, without considering their own life or faith or holiness or sinfulness, should be destined for salvation, so also he has pre-destined certain men, apart from their own sin, that they should enter into eternal hell. This is the salvation apart from works and the damnation apart from works which is marvelously accepted in protestant circles. In the attempt to rescue God’s glory from human works mixed in the salvation of souls, they also want to rescue God’s glory from human sin in the damnation of souls, otherwise he is not sovereign, in their minds.
In SOME Prot circles (not enough! imho), yes. Well-stated. Cain, Esau, Pharaoh, OT Saul, Judas – all were vessels of God’s wrath made to be destroyed in the fires of hell (Rom. 9; 2 Peter 2:12).
Thank you,
Hugh
Erick @68
>…the âfaith aloneâ conception of Protestantism makes the âfaithâ of the human being something which Satan and His demons can exercise. Since protestants see Romans 4:1-4 to prove that faith is has no worth or value in itself, else otherwise it would have a value to barter with God, and that faith is simply resting and trusting in the alien righteousness of ChristâŚ..well then Satan can do this if salvation was opened to him. I understand that salvation has not been offered to fallen angels, but if we were to just compare justifying faith, which is widdled down to have absolutely no merit or worth in itself, then what makes this kind of faith different than what the demons have?
“Whittled,” perhaps?
Satan does not have salvation open to him as an option. Demonic faith is unsaving because it cannot trust Christ alone, and hence being a bogus ‘faith,’ it produces no abiding fruit. The notion that there is a God is little help, as James points out. 1 Cor. 15:3f is salvific. Much different content!
> As soon as you begin to qualify faith as an âobedient faithâ, then you insert the requirement of internal righteousness as a necessary co-op to faith, which then moves you into the historic understanding.
Agreed. It is a faith that moves us to work, but not a faith that has works within it. Love is not a component of faith, for example, but a fruit thereof. Etc. Saving obedient faith is a redundancy. But faith that doesn’t produce works is dead, as St James saith.
Thanks,
Hugh
P.S. I will never out-type you, Ybarra!
Erick – let’s do this offsite, in emails.
Hugh
HUGHMC5atHOTMAILdotCOM
Darryl,
“Sean Patrick, so you do acknowledge that Rome has a problem with error and hypocrisy.”
No. I did not say that Rome has a problem with ‘error.’
As to the rest of what you’ve written, I might suggest that you actually take a moment to try to understand what the claims of the Catholic Church mean. Nobody has ever claimed that the Catholic Church is a magical place where sinners stop being sinners and all the billion Catholics in the world conform perfectly to the precepts of the Church. We did not leave Protestantism because we thought we’d escape sinful and hypocritical people.
So, your entire line of argumentation is attacking a straw man. If you want to know why we became Catholic, all you have to do is ask. Jason Stellman described some of his reasons in this interview. Note that he did not at any point say, “Well, all the Protestant churches are full of sinful people who adhere to the bible to varying degrees and some Protestants completely disregard biblical teaching and I heard that Catholics are all better at obeying so I became Catholic.”
If I do say so myself, you and Hugh are really quite late to the conversation here. You both are playing cards that have played by others on Called to Communion before.
Instead of playing the same old tired typical apologetics that don’t address the issue at hand and largely rely presuppositions that what we believe is not ‘in the bible’, why not actually engage with what Jason said in his talk?
# 67.
All of that begs the question.
Sean,
Better late than never, as I alawys say! :)
Et. al.,
Seriously, and I repeat myself, I know, but the severity of the charges of just the past decade, the payoffs and even confessions, weighed against very lofty claims unheard from any other Christian communion make one dubious about Rome’s unique self-description. Can you at least, please, admit that much wickedness has been carried out under Church leadership protection in the name of holiness and piety and the need to protect the institutional machinery?
And that this understandably doesn’t sit or play well with not just conservative Protestants, liberals, or atheists, but among the Catholic faithful as well?
The last time I tried bringing this up, I was castigated and discouraged from posting. I am am pleading with my Romanist friends @ CTC – please own up to Rome’s disgraceful sins, and acknowledge that not all who bring it up are demons.
The Church MUST reform itself, police itself, even the world sees it. Please.
Thank you,
Hugh
Which question is begged, Sean?
Question to all. If the Bible is the only real authority necessary for salvation, what did the earliest Christians do before there was a New Testament, fully defined and certified kosher? You tell me how many 1st and 2nd Century Christians ever saw a written scripture? Yet many were heroic martyrs, were they not saved? Even if they had pieces of the New Testament from say the letters of St. Paul in their community, they certainly never had a full Bible, Old or New Testament. Who could even afford to possess a fully written Bible or any book for that matter? They only had the verbal tradition, taught to them by their bishops and priests. Doesn’t this blow apart the whole Protestant position? Am I missing something?
So God makes men for the purpose of molding them into sinners so that He is the one responsible for their wickedness?
Sean, You’ve avoided my point.
Your witty atheist gag about Prots’ Bibles is one thing.
We claim a perfect Book, not perfect followers.
You claim a sometimes infallible pope and cardinals.
Yet these who call for implicit and unquestioning fealty
and who claim to the one true church established by Christ,
with all the deposit of the fulness of the Holy Spirit,
with a man [today, two*] claiming to be God’s vicar on earth,
also commit fairly heinous sins & cover-ups.
These are quite different things, my question-begging notwithstanding.
Thanks,
Hugh
* I am unclear – has Ben16 forfeited his vicarage?
Darryl, (re; #71)
You wrote:
It does if the fundamental problem one finds oneself in, as a Protestant, is being in schism from the Church Christ founded. It isn’t ultimately about whether the Catholic Church is “better;” it has ultimately to do with the Catholic Church being the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” Christ founded, and the failure within Protestantism to preserve conceptually the very possibility of schism from the Church, and thus distinguish non-arbitrarily between a schism from the Church and a branch within the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hugh,
Question: how do you know you have a “perfect Book? Who told you that it is perfect? Prove it!
Michael J. @84 – They would have had to rely on oral tradition. That was enscripturated in the biblical canon. The church recognized it years later.
But when Paul speaks of traditions, how do you know that what’s been passed along to today are his (& the Spirit’s) direct commands?
Erick @85 ~ Some men, yes. St Paul calls them vessels of wrath made for destruction. Romans 9 & 2 Peter 2:12.
Thanks,
Hugh
Michael @88 – I cannot do this last request, “Prove it.”
I answered the first two questions above in #s 50, 55, 59, 63.
Thank you,
Hugh
Must be going.
Goodnight, all!
Hugh
I asked this very question of a leading Calvinist pastor in Geneva. I have yet to get an adequate response from him. I asked the same question of a Baptist minister, friend of mine from high school….no answer either. The reason is because they both have to admit that some early Catholic bishops in Africa said it like 1600 years ago. The New Testament is our family book, written by Catholics. A part of the truth, but not the complete truth. Yet the Protestants act as if it is the only game in town. I submit that is a form of idolatry…
# 89. So Hugh you’re telling me that the earliest Christians didn’t have the “perfect Book,” and that these earliest saints didn’t have the full truth as you Protestants assert is necessary for salvation? If they did have the “Truth,” it was from their Church, taught by their bishops and priests, who learned it from the Apostles? The very same truth passed down by the very same Church to this day?
#89. How can you ensure that oral tradition, which was later “enscripturated,” was at all accurate in the first place? Prove it to me….It’s the Church( with a capital C) that guarantees it. The same Church whose authority you deny! How do you know the written translations from that same dysfunctional Church weren’t corrupted at some point over the past thousands of years?
I think that if you were to transport Calvin, Luther, Wesley, any other 16th Century Protestant “scholar” back to the 1st Century and they espoused some of their “truths,” the early Christians would stare at them like they had come from an alien planet, had three heads, or laughed them out of the catacombs!
Michael,
Just checking in – yes, we believe in the Scriptures as being the written record of all the tradition God wanted the Church to have. Nothing extra-canonical is of the same weight, of divine authority.
We have implicit faith in the Book, while yours rests on the RCC’s recorded dogmas & rites. All taken by faith, eh?
We’re not charting new courses, here, but no one will. It’s the ages old argument of the Reformers and Rome.
@93 – the perfect Book was being assembled as the Apostles died off. It took the Church a few centuries to rightly acknowledge the canon.
Thanks,
Hugh
Hey Russ,
I really appreciate your comments and encouragement.
Not to change the subject, but is this the same “Hugh McCann” that taught my all-time favorite college course (Philosophy 361: Metaphysics) at Texas A&M University?
Sean, who said anything about “the Catholic Church is a magical place where sinners stop being sinners and all the billion Catholics in the world conform perfectly to the precepts of the Church”? I actually brought up the Syllabus of Errors and Unam Sanctum. All I’m asking is for a little coherence from your pontiffs. And the point is that Vatican II changed that but no one on your side seems to know what to do about that.
Bryan, but Jesus was never in Rome. How could Rome be the church that Christ founded? This is all based on what Roman prejudiced clerics say. You don’t find a whiff of it in Scripture. Remember John 16 — it’s about the Spirit, not about the pope.
Bryan, btw, but if you’re saying that Protestants are guilty of mortal sin and so are going to hell, that’s good to hear the straight dope rather than this “separated brethren” liberalism.
Hugh:
What this centuries-old dispute is really about is the nature of divine faith. As Catholics, we hold that one can only believe God as Revealer by trusting an ongoing human authority as an embodiment of divine authority. The Apostles directly and visibly experienced the primary Authority of that form: Jesus the Christ. We who “do not see, but believe” must rely in part on a secondary extension of that authority. On that point, we are all agreed. That disagreement is about the composition of that secondary authority.
Like all conservative Protestants, you hold that only a book constitutes that authority. I reply that the grounds for trusting that book as an extension of the Logos’ primary authority are only as strong as the grounds for trusting the human authorities who wrote, collected, and proclaimed the contents of that book as divinely inspired and thus inerrant. The belief that certain writers and not others were divinely inspired and thus inerrant would only be an opinion if the early, post-apostolic Church were not divinely protected from error in holding and teaching such a belief. If said Church could have been wrong on that matter, then said book can no more count as an object for the assent of divine faith, as distinct from that of human opinion, than the authority of the early Church herself. And the same goes for the ongoing interpretation of the Bible. Unless a particular, ongoing ecclesial authority since then is understood to be divinely protected from error when teaching under certain conditions, then neither its nor anybody else’s interpretation of the Bible for doctrinal purposes can amount to anything more than provisional human opinion. And such opinions neither command nor merit the assent of divine faith, “implicit” or otherwise. Therefore, to hold that the early Church was infallible when certifying the Bible as inerrant, but the Church thereafter is never infallible when interpreting the Bible for doctrinal purposes, is to render the Bible useless as a source of doctrine calling for the unconditional assent of faith, as distinct from that of provisional opinion.
This is why conservative Protestantism is just liberal Protestantism waiting to happen all over again.
Best,
Mike
Darryl (#72):
I had written:
To that, you first reply:
I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. I was not trying to establish that the Catholic Church actually does constitute the “deontic norm” of orthodoxy. I claimed only that the Catholic Church makes a key sort of claim that’s necessary for qualifying as such. I am well aware that the Eastern-Orthodox communion does the same for itself, in its own terms. And so I’m happy to acknowledge that it too makes the necessary sort of claim. But few Protestant churches do, and none can do so plausibly. So, although the argument of mine I quoted above does not suffice to validate the claim of the Roman over the EO communion to be “the” Church that teaches with Christ’s divine authority, it does suffice to rule out any Protestant church or communion.
Doubtless you’ll want to reply that that too is a matter of opinion. And as I had said, you can always hold, like liberal Protestants, that the Christian religion in general is a matter of opinion. But even aside from ruling out the assent of divine faith altogether, that stance would be too facile. If either the Roman or the EO communion is “the” Church that teaches with Christ’s divine authority, then the assent to what is taught by said authority is that of divine faith, not of that of opinion. Thus it would be self-inconsistent of me as a Catholic to treat my acceptance of the Church’s claims for herself as a matter of opinion. You cannot say the same about yourself in relation to your own church, whatever that may be.
You next write:
In the present context, there are two problems with that argument.
First, it’s a non-sequitur. From the fact that Hebrews 6 doesn’t talk about the Church, it doesn’t follow that the writer didn’t take believers’ reliance on the Church for granted. From the fact that Christ promises the Spirit to keep the Church indefectible, it doesn’t follow that an infallible teaching authority is not one of the means by which he chose to keep that promise. And your argument is that particular form of non-sequitur fallacy known as the “argument from silence.” It takes no account of other passages, such as “He who hears you, hears me” and the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of truth,” that should be understood as part of the exegetical context for the passages you quote. Of course you would want to say that the correct interpretation of the passages I’ve cited is not the Catholic. But that brings me to the second problem with your argument.
Citing Scripture in this context is merely question-begging for either of us unless and until two things are established: the grounds for holding that Scripture is a normative record of divine revelation, and the grounds for holding certain interpretations of it are authentic conveyances of that revelation, rather than merely human theological opinions. The Catholic interpretive paradigm supplies such grounds as themselves objects for the assent of faith. Your IP does not.
Finally, you write:
That begs the question in two ways: first, by assuming a dichotomy between the teaching authority of the papacy and that of God, which is exactly what Catholics would deny; second, by assuming that you know, without trusting the papacy’s teaching authority, that you’re trusting God’s authority, which Catholics would deny.
Best,
Mike
Bryan, but Jesus was never in Rome. How could Rome be the church that Christ founded?
Is this really what the argument has come to Darryl???
Jesus founded the Church on the apostles at Pentecost. This was not merely the ‘Roman’ church but it was the Catholic Church. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The apostles went out from there and began to preach the gospel and baptize. Peter ended up in Rome and was the first bishop of that city. He died there and is still buried there.
Hey Mike @ 101 – good morning!
Amen and amen to your opening.
…the grounds for trusting that book as an extension of the Logosâ primary authority are only as strong as the grounds for trusting the human authorities who wrote, collected, and proclaimed the contents of that book as divinely inspired and thus inerrant.
> I’d say that the grounds are only as strong as the sovereign Lord who superintended the writing and collecting of his works. Again, you and I assert he’s revealed himself in different ways.
The belief that certain writers and not others were divinely inspired and thus inerrant would only be an opinion if the early, post-apostolic Church were not divinely protected from error in holding and teaching such a belief. If said Church could have been wrong on that matter, then said book can no more count as an object for the assent of divine faith, as distinct from that of human opinion, than the authority of the early Church herself. And the same goes for the ongoing interpretation of the Bible.
> So far, I’m with you…
Unless a particular, ongoing ecclesial authority since then is understood to be divinely protected from error when teaching under certain conditions, then neither its nor anybody elseâs interpretation of the Bible for doctrinal purposes can amount to anything more than provisional human opinion. And such opinions neither command nor merit the assent of divine faith, âimplicitâ or otherwise. Therefore, to hold that the early Church was infallible when certifying the Bible as inerrant, but the Church thereafter is never infallible when interpreting the Bible for doctrinal purposes, is to render the Bible useless as a source of doctrine calling for the unconditional assent of faith, as distinct from that of provisional opinion.
> Agreed again! That’s why I haven’t said that the chruch never gets anything right, or “is never infallible when interpreting the Bible for doctrinal purposes,” but that your church has erred in many more ways than you guys allow. Most fundamentally, in the source of dogma and in the gospel of Christ.
This is why conservative Protestantism is just liberal Protestantism waiting to happen all over again.
:) !
> When I [briefly] taught N.T. at an Anglo-Catholic Anglican seminary, I recall the Archbishop remarking how Calvinists degenerated into Unitarianism. There are pitfalls all around – I pray I fall into none (tho’ you all would say I’m mired in one TODAY!).
Thank you,
Hugh
Feast of the Annunciation of Mary
Dear Joel, @ 97,
No, I am not Hugh J. McCann.* But I work with Robert Garcia’s mother-in-law. Does that count? :)
All Hugh McCanns & all philosophers should read Gordon H. Clark. For my pals @ CTC may I recommend his Lord God of Truth published with “Concerning the Teacher” [De Magistro] by Augustine?
Thank you,
Hugh T. McCann
(not nearly as smart as the TAMU philosopher!)
* https://philosophy.tamu.edu/People/Faculty/McCann/
Darryl (re: #99, #100)
We don’t have to choose between John 16 and Matthew 16, or between the Spirit and Christ, or between the Spirit and Christ’s Vicar, or between the Spirit and Christ’s Body (i.e. the Church). That sort of false dilemma was the notion of the second century Montanist heresy, and I’ve addressed it here. Yes, Jesus was never in Rome, but He did not need to go to Rome to found the universal Church and give the keys of His Kingdom to St. Peter. St. Peter did go to Rome sometime around AD 43, and was martyred there around AD 68, being crucified — though upside down, because he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as our Lord. The Church is the Kingdom prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7, as I pointed out in comment #428 of the “Christ Founded a Visible Church” thread, and thus receives the dominion of all the kingdoms, including the fourth kingdom of Daniel’s prophecies. It is not an accident that the one who had received the keys from Jesus went to Rome, to take the fourth kingdom not with the sword, but by testifying before Caesar, and not loving his life even unto death (Rev. 12:11). Christ’s Kingdom was to be *catholic,* not merely Hebrew, and so it was to be centered in Rome, built right over the heart of the fourth kingdom of men.
I have not said nor am I saying that Protestants are guilty of mortal sin or are going to hell. The One who sees the hearts of men will judge us all on that Day. The Catholic teaching that Protestants who have been validly baptized are attached to the Church by Baptism, but through no fault of their own remain separated from her both in doctrine and communion, are “separated brethren” is not “liberalism,” though if you have *argument* for that claim, you are welcome to lay it out.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hugh (#104):
You write:
I agree with your first sentence. But since it doesn’t address the issue I’ve posed, it’s irrelevant. As to your second sentence, I do not merely “assert” my position; I’ve argued for it. You don’t give an argument for your position in the above paragraph; instead, you adumbrate such an argument in your next. Thus:
But the first sentence in that paragraph is irrelevant, and the second simply begs the question.
The first is irrelevant for two reasons. For one thing, if you are indeed claiming that something called “the Church” is infallible under certain conditions, your claim is empty unless you say (a) which church is “the Church” Christ invested with his teaching authority, (b)under what conditions she exercises that authority infallibly, and (c) how you can present such infallibility as something other than the agreement of “the Church” with your interpretation of Scripture, which is itself fallible. As a Catholic, I can do (a)-(c) because the Church herself has already done so. But you have not. The other reason the above paragraph of yours is irrelevant is that no Catholic would deny that Church leaders have sometimes “erred” in the sense of “sinned,” but you haven’t shown that such moral deficiencies logically imply doctrinal deficiencies.
Your second sentence begs the question because it merely asserts your position without arguing for it.
Best,
Mike
Mike the Meticulous @ 107 ~
I agree with your first sentence. But since it doesn’t address the issue I’ve posed, it’s irrelevant. As to your second sentence, I do not merely “assert” my position; I’ve argued for it. You don’t give an argument for your position in the above paragraph; instead, you adumbrate such an argument in your next.
> Thank you for the correction. Agreed.
But the first sentence in that paragraph is irrelevant, and the second simply begs the question.
The first is irrelevant for two reasons. For one thing, if you are indeed claiming that something called “the Church” is infallible under certain conditions, your claim is empty unless you say (a) which church is “the Church” Christ invested with his teaching authority, (b) under what conditions she exercises that authority infallibly,
> You’re looking for a visible institution. I do not.
…and (c) how you can present such infallibility as something other than the agreement of “the Church” with your interpretation of Scripture, which is itself fallible. As a Catholic, I can do (a)-(c) because the Church herself has already done so.
> Right.
But you have not.
> I don’t see how I can. Or that I want to. Or need to; except that you folks claim to have it all dialed in, and therefore want us to answer you in kind. I don’t see that we can.
The other reason the above paragraph of yours is irrelevant is that no Catholic would deny that Church leaders have sometimes “erred” in the sense of “sinned,” but you haven’t shown that such moral deficiencies logically imply doctrinal deficiencies.
> That there are doctrinal errors in all our communions is not denied, is it? I am not arguing that “moral deficiencies logically imply doctrinal deficiencies,” but both happen in all our communions – we don’t disagree there, do we?
> Of course, our Prot list of Roman errors is much longer than yours.
> Hugh
Darryl (re: #98)
If you want to ask “for a little coherence,” from our pontiffs, first you’ll need to demonstrate or establish that there is some incoherence between pre-conciliar teaching and Vatican II. You have not yet done that, or even begun to do that. I already addressed (in comment #89 of the Habemus Papam thread) your claim (in comment #87 of that same thread) that pre-conciliar teaching pointed to eternal life as something we obtain in the life to come, while post-conciliar teaches that we receive eternal life in this present life.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hugh @ 105,
Thanks for confirming. Our textbook in that course would help Christians from all sides… like squat thrusts for the mind to prepare for theological discussions such as these… William Carter’s The Elements of Metaphysics weighs in at approximately 200 pages, is not a quick read, and will make you think about how you think… about God and how God thinks and whether or not you can even think about God on your own. Reminds me of what C.S. Lewis wrote, when recalling his debates with his logical monster of a schoolmaster, Kirk, “Some boys would not have liked it; to me it was red beef and strong beer.” (in Surprised by Joy, 1955)
Mike, I know, every time I say something it’s ad hominem, a straw man, or a begged question. At least I know a place where I can get the pre-Vatican II apologetic.
But from my paradigm, your philosophical claims are beside the point since they don’t actually address what God reveals. Sorry, but I still have great attachment for the Bible. But I know that book has not always been available to the RC laity.
Bryan and Sean, but wouldn’t it be nice if you had more than one verse on which to hang your claims or through which to read the rest of Scripture. I know, I have the wrong paradigm. The right one begins and ends with Matt. 16. But given the small role that Peter plays in the rest of the NT after Acts 15 (not to mention that Mary doesn’t even make a cameo appearance), you guys better run for cover to the early church fathers.
Bryan, do the current popes still affirm the Syllabus of Errors? Do they still ban books? Do they still follow Unigenitus?
One of the great things about being a Protestant is that we have a lot less to explain. You guys have a long history that gives you so many more problems than your average Wesleyan or your kooky Unitarian.
I recommend you take a look at pp. 281ff of Owen Chadwick’s book on the difficulties surrounding Unigenitus: https://books.google.com/books?id=fIo_5qn2o9kC&lpg=PP1&dq=popes%20and%20european%20revolution&pg=PA281#v=onepage&q=unigenitus&f=false
#112
Darryl,
You have been posting here for about a week but I have yet to see you make an argument or present something substantial. Its quick comments that ignore paradigms, as if paradigms are not important, or otherwise stock apologetic quips that do nothing to advance the conversation. “Jesus never went to Rome so He could not have founded the Roman Church.” Sorry Darryl, but that sort of comment isn’t going to get much traction.
Now you are moving onto stuff like, “You guys base everything on Matthew 16…!” Again, that won’t get you very far either. It begs the question and betrays the fact that the Catholic Church has never placed Her claims on one bible verse.
The funny thing is that you will show that you’ll post stuff here all day but you won’t engage in Jason’s talk. Why is that?
Joel @110,
Much smaller but no less profound (I’ll bet) and quite biblical are the works of the aforementioned Gordon Clark – the preeminent Protestant mind of the last century.
Please see his articles (and books) at http://www.trinityfoundation.org
Thanks,
This Hugh
Darryl (re: #112, #113)
You wrote:
The paradigm does not begin and and end with Mt 16, but it does include Tradition, and is not merely “solo scriptura.”
Again, see your “wrong paradigm” comment, regarding the question-begging character of trying to infer the relative importance or truth of a doctrine by the infrequency of its repetition in the New Testament or its non-explicit presence in the NT.
Books are no longer banned by the Index, but the pastoral principles regarding the right and duty of the bishops to ensure that no harm is done to the faith and morals of the Christian faithful through social communication remain part of canon law. (see canons 822-832) And the errors pointed out in the Syllabus are still errors, and remain condemned. And the errors condemned in Unigenitus are still errors and remain condemned.
Having no history is a “great” thing if the ultimate goal is to have “less to explain,” but not a “great” thing if the goal is to be in the Church Christ founded.
Thanks, done. Feel free to specify what you think is a “difficulty” regarding Unigenitus, and why it is a difficulty.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hear hear, Bryan.
Darryl â please specify what you think is a âdifficultyâ regarding Unigenitus, and why it is a difficulty. Amen & please explain.
Chadwick saith (p 282), âTo a numerous body of men, especially in France, the bull was impossible, or only possible to to receive by a feat of intellectual gymnastics in the way of interpretation.â So, what else is new?
Hugh (#108):
I had asked you how
To that, you replied:
I know well that you can’t and don’t want to. But unless and until you do it all the same, you have no reply to my arguments. And if you’re going to show that your IP is at least rationally plausible, you “need” such a reply. Of course you might see no “need” to show that your IP is at least rationally plausible. In that case, you’d be stuck in fideism–a stance which supplies no reason for anybody to prefer your beliefs to theirs, or even to share your beliefs at all. That’s not a position I want or need to be in myself, and I don’t have to be.
Best,
Mike
Mike @ 118,
[1] What is “IP”?
[2] To clarify: You wrote:
[3] I get you – please hear me. I am saying that I don’t believe that I can prove our claims apart from sola scriptura. No other authority for us is equal to (much less, surpasses) it. You say that you “know well” that I cannot prove our position beyond what we’ve said for centuries. I agree. Call me “stuck in fideism” (or worse), but aren’t we in agreement here? If so, please stop demanding something that you and I agree I cannot produce!
Thank you,
Hugh
Darryl (#111),
You can add red herring to the list.
From Henry Graham’s book Where We Got the Bible, Ch.11:
https://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER XI
The translators of the Authorised Version, in their ‘Preface’, referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed:
‘The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin … but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.’
Now, as all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The Translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others.
…
Much about that time,’ they say (1360), even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . … So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] … but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.’
…people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.
…
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: ‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, ‘The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’
Combine the above facts with the facts that ANY book in the pre printing press era was worth months of wages, and that literacy was low, and the idea the Catholic Church kept the bible from the people is really strange. In fact, even when I was Reformed, I was defending Christendom on this point against KJV only fundamentalists.
[1] IP = “Interpretative paradigm” GOT IT!
You’ve got the CIP & I’ve got the PIP!
Darryl (#111):
You wrote:
There’s nothing particularly “pre-Vatican-II” about exposing fallacies as such. And even if there were, that would not be a defect if I’m correct. And you have said nothing to show I’m incorrect.
You wrote:
I hardly know where to begin with that. Let’s get the snark out of the way first.
As a Catholic, I too have “great attachment for the Bible.” Every day, I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, which contains psalms and Scripture readings. Every week, I conduct a Bible study incorporating various passages about timely and apposite themes of practical and spiritual interest to the participants. As an undergraduate, I studied Old Testament with Theodor Gaster, a Jewish rabbi and professor who, as much as anyone else in the world, was responsible for making the content and meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls accessible to the general public. I studied New Testament with Elaine Pagels, a liberal Protestant who, more than any other academic writing in English, has been responsible for presenting the content and meaning of 2nd- and 3rd-century Gnostic writings accessible to the general public. I am by no means indifferent to the Bible either confessionally or academically, and I am as familiar with its larger context in the ancient world as with its content. What we disagree about is not the importance of the Bible or the study thereof, but about three other questions: (1) Why should the Bible be considered divinely inspired and thus inerrant, and (2) How should it be authoritatively interpreted? (3) Whatever the answer to (2), why should we accept it? As a Catholic, I can and do answer those questions. So far at least, you have not even attempted to do so.
Perhaps that’s because, as you further wrote:
That just adds another layer of question-begging, because we don’t agree on how to “address” what God reveals, nor do we even agree entirely on what God has actually revealed or on how we know it. To stop begging the question, you’d have to show why your paradigm’s not dealing with my philosophical arguments is rationally preferable to mine’s way of using them. That you have no so far done so, and show no inclination to do so, suggests that you aren’t interested in a rational comparison of paradigms. Which, of course, leaves you with nothing but question-begging.
Best,
Mike
Hugh:
Now that you understand that the question is which IP is the more reasonable one, you can appreciate an article I wrote a few years ago for CTC.
Happy reading!
Best,
Mike
David @120,
O.K…
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Canon – Source: D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
Both quotes found @ https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=272675
Yours,
Hugh
Dear ‘Guest Author’ @ 123 –
Yippee!
Thanks,
Hugh
Hugh,
I’ll let other do the heavy lifting, but out of curiosity I’ve been doing some research on your #124 regarding “The Council of Tarragona, 1234 AD” and D. Lortsch Historie de la Bible en France 1910. This is a new one to me so I’ve been investigating. I haven’t found much so far, but from what I’ve seen I think this instances illustrates quite well how we get so much confusion in our discussion with well intended Protestants like yourself.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I’m guessing you have never read D. Lortsch Historie de la Bible en France 1910? Also, I’m guessing you have little personal familiarity with anything to do with any council of Tarragona or events in that region c.1330 (which is no defect on your part since neither and probably only maybe 20 or 30 people in the world do).
If my assumptions are true, then you are willing to quote a book making a claim concerning events and documents from a place and time in history that you have no real familiarity with. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me. I am not trying to offend you, or create acrimony. Rather, I want to help improve the dialogue between us all on CtC. I made the point in another thread to DGHart that we really need to go to source documents. I believe this is a particularly vivid example of why that is so.
Now, I obviously have not read the book either, but from the beginning my “smelltest-O-meter” was in the yellow zone. A book and author I have never heard of, quoting Canons from a “Council” I have never heard of … Regardless of what the actual quotation says, and even if it supports my own case, I want to find and read this in context of what is going on in Tarragona in 1334.
In my investigation, my first discovery is that there is no Council of Tarragona in 1334. There is a council or synod of Tarragona in 1329 and one in 1242 another in 1292. There is also a slightly more notable “Council of Tarragona in 516. The synod in 1329 was attended by at least 6 members of whom 2 are noted as Bishops. Clearly all of these are local synods (councils). My source is Landon, E. H. (1909). Vol. 2: A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church Edinburgh: John Grant.
At this point, if the quote is authentic I know it is addressing local concerns in the vicinity of Barcelona Spain. Also, the dates don’t quite match up. Lortsch could have erred or it could be a typo… The source above, MCHCC for short, mentions that in 1329 “Eighty-six canons were published, chiefly collected from those published in former councils.” MCHHC reproduces or summarizes about 20 of the canons, but does not mention Canon 2, or anything at all regarding banning the bible. That doesn’t prove that Canon 2 does not read as Lortsch quotes it, only that if it does, the editors didn’t think it was significant.
So with a little more poking I find I don’t have the resources to get much more on a Council of Tarragona in 1329 (or 1334, or 1292) I decided to see what I can find about Lortsch and Historie de la Bible en France. Again, not much, but…. Googling I find that the nearly every single internet references to Historie de la Bible en France are from Protestant websites attacking Catholicism the few exceptions are Catholics refuting Lorscht quotes. Googling and reading about Council and Tarragona I can piece together that the Cathars were active in that region of Spain earlier in the 13th century and that there were conflicts with the Templars in that area contemporaneously with 1329 to 1334. Also, a history of King Pedro of Aragon refers to a “council” at Tarragona in 1334 associated with an armed conflict with the Templars. All in all, I can’t find anything solid either way, but the indications support 1) that (if true) this was a local matter and a decision based (ill advisedly?) on heresy and local politics and strife, and 2) there is a lot of confusion.
What I find notable and I think you should find disconcerting Hugh, is the very large number of references to Lortsch and Historie de la Bible en France that come from Ellen G. White. It seems pretty apparent to me that this not a work that history scholars are referencing.
To sum up regarding Lorscht: I find that quote from Historie de la Bible en France to be Highly Dubius and simply without further corroboration from some respectable source, I refuse to acknowledge that a Canon 2 from any Council of Tarragona contains the text quoted by Lorscht.
Now, on to why I bring this up. It is clear that this text has been cited 100s of times on the internet and again, just guessing, that is where you found it. I assume that the majority of the writers also have not actually read or checked the source.
This is what Stephen Colbert calls “Truthiness.” A piece of seemingly factual information confirms what someone feels to be true and they accept it as Truth. Unfortunately this kind of practice (by either side) is extremely unhelpful for dialogue.
Hey G,
I am not an apologist for I merely found it at the Catholic Answers blog. I am not trying to prove anything by it. Sorry if it offends. I thought these were legitimate since they were posted on a Catholic chat blog.
As I said, Both quotes found @ https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=272675
No problem Hugh. Thanks for the response. I had skimmed through that thread myself. I find Catholic forums interesting. Always a lot going on. Misguided Catholics, and fledgling appologists and bomb throwing anarchists can all coexist. After 2 decades of the online dialogue I really appreciate CtC where Bryan et. al. really make the effort to move the dialogue forward.
Mike, you wrote: As a Catholic, “I too have âgreat attachment for the Bible.â Every day, I pray the Liturgy of the Hours, which contains psalms and Scripture readings. Every week, I conduct a Bible study incorporating various passages about timely and apposite themes of practical and spiritual interest to the participants. As an undergraduate, I studied Old Testament with Theodor Gaster, a Jewish rabbi and professor who, as much as anyone else in the world, was responsible for making the content and meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls accessible to the general public. I studied New Testament with Elaine Pagels, a liberal Protestant who, more than any other academic writing in English, has been responsible for presenting the content and meaning of 2nd- and 3rd-century Gnostic writings accessible to the general public. I am by no means indifferent to the Bible either confessionally or academically, and I am as familiar with its larger context in the ancient world as with its content.”
Me: ad hominem.
Mike: “To stop begging the question, youâd have to show why your paradigmâs not dealing with my philosophical arguments is rationally preferable to mineâs way of using them.”
Me: I’m not begging. I’m not even asking that question. Paul talked about the Greeks who thought the gospel was foolish according to the wisdom of the world. The Pauline-Tertullian-Augustinian-Lutheran-Reformed strain of Christianity (minus the neo-Calvinists) believe that philosophy is overrated.
But if you want to parade your deontic claims before the working stiffs in the Kensington section of Philadelphia, have a nice day.
David Meyer: this is what is so annoying about you guys. You don’t tell the whole story:
“Question: You said that the Catholic Church forbade the common people from reading the Bible in their own language. Whereâs the evidence for such a claim?
“Answer: There were times when the Catholic Church officially deprived the common people from reading or even possessing the Bible in their own language. The historical fact is admitted by Catholic writers:
“âIn early times, the Bible was read freely by the lay people, and the Fathers constantly encourage them to do so, although they also insist on the obscurity of the sacred text. No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible. New dangers came during the Middle Ages. When the heresy of the Albigenses arose there was a danger from corrupt translations, and also from the fact that the heretics tried to make the faithful judge the Church by their own interpretation of the Bible. To meet these evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of the Scripture, unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such readings was likely to prove beneficial.â (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publications Society Co., N.Y., 1887, p. 82).
“The following two quotations are taken from the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Trent in the thirteenth and sixteenth century respectively.
“âWe prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.â (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
“âSince it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.â (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).
“This is in stark contrast to the Reformers like Wycliffe, Luther and Tyndale who laboured tirelessly to give the Word of God to the people in their own native tongue. In my country, Malta, which is intensely Roman Catholic, the first efforts to translate the Bible into the Maltese language were done by the handful of Protestants on the island. In fact the first complete Bible in Maltese was published by a Protestant society, despite all the opposition encountered from the Catholic establishment.
“Thank God the modern Catholic Church has changed its position. I rejoice that many Catholics are now reading Godâs Word for themselves, and hopefully, through the message of the Bible, many will come to experience the grace of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
https://www.justforcatholics.org/a198.htm
Darryl (#129):
LOL! You’re not even using the phrase ad hominem correctly. I had described my interest in and qualifications for studying the Bible so as to show why your own ad hominem was baseless. That ad hominem is contained in the following, which you had written in #111:
The dig there was that your “attachment for the Bible” is greater than mine, and your not-so-subtle implication was that, since “that book has not always been available to the RC laity,” my supposed lack of due attachment to the Bible is understandable given the ignorance of it supposedly characteristic of my Catholic background. That’s an ad hominem fallacy, since it didn’t rebut my arguments, but only sought to explain why those arguments should be ignored, given my personal lack of attachment to and understanding of the Bible. In response, I supplied the evidence that I have quite a bit of attachment to and understanding of the Bible, thus exposing your ad hominem as baseless. Now you charge me with an ad hominem for doing that! But my response was not an ad hominem; for I did not meet your argument by criticizing your person or motives, but by addressing the substance of your (fallacious) argument. So anybody with basic critical-thinking skills can see that your new move is itself a tu quoque fallacy.
Addressing you, I had also written:
To that, you reply:
So you meet my criticism that you’re begging the question by rejecting the question. But the reasons you give for doing so are irrelevant. Your citation of Paul is irrelevant because, unlike the “Greeks” he cites, I do not regard the Gospel as “foolishness” at all, while you have said nothing about my arguments that would show otherwise. Your citation of a particular strain of theology is irrelevant because it does nothing to show what it is about my arguments that the strain of theology you cite would be justified in viewing as “overrated.”
I don’t know where you developed your critical-thinking skills, but wherever it was, you need to start from scratch.
Best,
Mike
Mike, so is this an ad hominem? “I donât know where you developed your critical-thinking skills, but wherever it was, you need to start from scratch.”
BTW, I referred to your personal testimony about the Bible as an ad hominem simply to let you know how it feels. It worked.
Now for critical thinking skills, you haven’t proved why my rejection of your philosophical questions is irrelevant. As I indicated, I am not the first saint (yes, I am) to question the merits of philosophy over the wisdom of the cross.
Then again, it does seem that Roman Catholicism is appealing to those who like to think they are the smartest people in Christendom (which does not exist anymore). I see this impulse among the neo-Calvinists. I am sure any Van Tillian or Plantigaian could match philosophical wits with you. I am more interested in history and how Roman Catholic converts have to cover their eyes.
Of RCC Bible prohibition, this thread discusses it from the Catholic perspective and gives many references: https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1604
Of Tarragona, I there found this: After the death of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: “prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere”* (Hefele, “Concilgesch”, Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele, ibid., 918).
* Online translators saith: “We forbid that they should not be permitted to have the books of the Old and New Testaments to the laity.”
Mike @ 131,
What is the proper definition of the gospel?
(I think we’ll probably differ, so I am curious.)
Thanks,
Hugh
All,
Daryl wrote:
I’ve been following the conversation as it has progressed and, while Daryl’s lack of philosophical argumentation (combined with your dubious historiography) is problematic, I do think he raises a good point here. I know there are many readers of this website who are currently in RCIA preparing to enter the Church this Easter – and since the “moment of truth” with respect to church membership is rapidly approaching, I hope what I write here is of some service to those persons.
As Chesterton noted at the beginning of Why I Am A Catholic, “The difficulty of explaining ‘why I am a Catholic’ is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true”. Ultimately, then, converts have to assent not to the fact that Protestantism is wrong (although if Catholicism is true it is), but to the fact that Catholicism is right. There might well be a billion and one reasons why Protestantism is wrong, or bad, or unlikable – but none of those reasons will be sufficient to join the Catholic church. That’s why, on Easter night, some of you readers will be asked to say the following:
Notice what is not being said here: You are not being asked to believe and profess that Protestants are confused and disorderly. You are not being asked to believe and profess that there are no problems in the Catholic Church, or to believe and profess that all one’s personal problems magically disappear once one becomes Catholic. In other words, don’t become Catholic because Protestantism is wrong! That’s not enough (and I think that’s what Jason was getting at in his talk when he mentioned that – even granting the problems in the Protestant position – it was still better to be a Protestant unauthoritatively right about justification than to be a Catholic whose position was authoritatively wrong).
Instead, one should become Catholic only if you believe that the Catholic church (and hence those bishops in full communion with the bishop of Rome), constitute the Church founded by Christ. It is in virtue of holding that that one can “believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God”. So in other words, don’t become Catholic because Protestants (or Protestantism) is wrong. Don’t become Catholic because we’ve got incense, or pretty windows, or you met a priest one time who was a real bang-up guy. Don’t become Catholic because you like our views on abortion, or the death penalty, or helping the poor, or whatever. Join if and only if you believe her to be the Church founded by Christ – the Church, in order words, to which you will submit even if she were to ever use her full doctrinal authority to teach something you think is wrong.
I’m not going to lie: being Catholic rocks. The Eucharist is amazing, our cathedrals are pretty, and (especially among the younger priests), there are a lot of good homilies (sermons) to be heard. It’s by no means the spiritual wasteland I’d heard about (especially if one’s parish is on the ball). But being Catholic for any of those reasons I just listed in this paragraph is intellectually unjustifiable – as is being Catholic because Protestants are confused and disorderly. But if you believe the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, join up. Lord knows there’s plenty of work to be done, and a few more hands to help us out would be great…
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
PS: To anyone having an existential crisis shortly before entering the Church, I found Chesterton helpful (as I usually do) when I was in the same position last Easter. I’d recommend either Why I Am A Catholic (shorter read) or The Catholic Church And Conversion (longer read).
Hugh, re:#133
Thanks for following up. Since I responded yesterday and no one else has taken up the topic, Iâll keep with it. I have not studied a lot of this in detailed history, but over the years Iâve become roughly familiar with this topic. Personally I find it more disturbing than it seems some Catholic Apologists perceptions. I hope my comments yesterday reflected that I felt the quote regarding Tarragona was plausible even though I thought it might be fake. The reason it is plausible is that there are some actual cases where similar statements are authentic.
Apologetically the main point is these cases are LOCAL acts. The Church is UNIVERSAL. The Universal Church has never banned or discouraged bible reading. At some places and times local Churches in specific circumstances have banned private bible reading. This is an issue of a few Bishops in a certain geographic area (acting in concert with the local government) prohibiting private bible reading for the good of public order. Again, the main point apologetically is that this was a local, temporary order. Subsidiary to that main point are that the Bishops were confronting a heresy that was detrimental to the faith and the civil society. Also, subsidiary to the main point, the Bishops were also part of the local civil government. So this wasnât solely a religious action but partly a civil action.
In the case of the Toulouse statement, that was issued during a time period near the end of the Cathar heresy and in the midst of the Albigensian heresy. The Cathars I know less about I have some interesting ideas and feel more sympathetic towards them mainly I think I read somewhere they were peaceful and their neighbors were sympathetic towards them over the government. Many Cathars were massacred by the authorities. The Albigensians I know a bit more about. They were dualistic manicheans. They were offended by procreation both human and animal. For that reason they preferred concubinage and temporary relationships. They avoided pregnancy. They thought suicide was a good idea. Generally, in society of the middle ages they were disruptive to the order. The Albigensians were particularly strong around Toulouse. Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Albigensianism for starters. The Albigensian’s ended up on the receiving end of the Albigensian Crusade – the only crusade launched on Europe itself.
I bring this up because the Canon banning the bible in Toulouse, although not doing nearly what anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda alleges, is actually the tip of an ice berg of ugly history.
Also, at this time the Bishops were officially part of the civil government. There was no separation of Church and state. Bishops were often appointed as favors to political families or might be younger sons of the nobility.
I find the whole thing shameful.
Going back to apologetics. The Catholic Church, being formally united, and having a long history, this ties directly to the âusâ of Catholics today. Yes, Catholic Bishops made decisions that at least in our eyes today, look pretty bad.
Protestants have their own historical moments. No one really want to claim Calvinâs actions in Geneva. In the USA right up through c. 1950 protestant school boards wanted to indoctrinate Catholics and opposed Catholic Schools. Catholics had to go to the Supreme Court to be given the right not to be taught Protestantism.
The difference here is that the Catholic Church has a visible unity and continuous visible existence through history. We have a visible Hierarchy. It is possible to KNOW where (and who) the Catholic Church exists everywhere in history and today. Certainly there are episodes that seem like mistakes. But we canât deny that they belong to us.
You may be happier being a Protestant who can join a denomination conceived last year, or join a fragment of a denomination that split from a split, then you donât have to personally recognize that historically, yes that was my church.
Benjamin,
Those books by Chesterton are great. The latter was especially helpful to me in those last moments when I was already convinced, but still afraid.
Hugh (re #133),
That information comes from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Scripture, and can be found in the sub-section, “Attitude of the Church towards the reading of the Bible in the vernacular.” The article provides some of the context necessary for understanding the Church’s various directives concerning the use Sacred Scripture, which are prudential judgments relative to time and place. As you know, some things in the Bible, St. Paul’s writings in particular, are hard to understand, and ignorant, unstable persons twist these things to their own destruction. In some cases, apparently, the ecclesial authorities judged that there was imminent danger of this, should the Bible be made generally available for private reading. Maybe in each case it would have been better to risk it, maybe more good would have come by taking a more liberal stance, but I don’t know enough about the circumstances to make that judgment.
From a Protestant (and a modern) perspective, any restriction upon the reading of Sacred Scripture will seem tantamount to a restriction upon the Christian life itself. But from a Catholic point of view, those restrictions, even if they were unnecessary or counter-productive (again, I don’t know enough about the circumstances to make that judgment), do not necessarily amount to a restriction on the Christian life, since it is in the liturgy of the Eucharist that the Word of God comes to us in the fullest way (in this life), as spiritual food and drink. At Mass / Divine Liturgy, we step into the world of the Bible, we are (mystically) in the Garden of Eden, walking with God during the cool of the day, with Christ and the disciples in Bethlehem, Galilee, and Judea, at Calvary, and with the saints and angels before the heavenly Throne and the Lamb standing as though it had been slain.
Ultimately, the Word of God is not words on a page, but the Word made flesh, and he is our life. I like to read, and I love being able to read my Bible at home, whichever version I like best (provided it has 73 books; I don’t use the abridged versions). Still, I don’t want to end up like the theologian who, upon death, was offered the alternative of going to Heaven or going to hear a lecture on Heaven and chose the latter. Anyway, I’m glad to have access to the Word both in the Church’s liturgy and in the privacy of my own home, via the printed page. Bible study in my recliner with coffee and a good monograph on, say, the Abrahamic Covenant in the writings of St. Paul is great; but when its time to go to Liturgy, I don’t stay home for all that.
Darryl,
The reforms of Vatican II were certainly changes in the life of the Church, and of course the abuses that accompanied these reforms have not been helpful. I think that Bryan earlier alluded to the difference between a development and a corruption or abuse. In the Catholic Church, we’ve seen both running side by side for the past 50 years. Heck, we’ve seen both for the past 2,000 years. I wrote a little bit about the phenomenon of changes in the Church, in response to a couple of your former colleagues, in this post. Its a bit of a rambler, but at least I acknowledge the Church has changed a lot. Only, I argue that that’s because she is alive and well.
Oh, and yeah that last bit from Mike looked to me like an ad. hom. That type of thing is contrary to our comment policy. Of course it doesn’t matter where you learned your critical thinking skills. It only matters that we all think critically, in the sense of making and evaluating arguments to the end of arriving at unity in truth. As you know, we believe that this unity is bound to be Catholic. And I know that you disagree. But since we’re not fundamentalists, that disagreement doesn’t have to be a conversation stopper.
Andrew
Hugh,
The gospel has already been defined in the Nicene Creed.
Erick -@138: Thanks! The gospel is 1 Cor. 15:3f, which is not about what we do, what’s done inside of us, a universal atonement,* or anything we experience. Nicene only says this, re the gospel: “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” *FOR OUR SINS!
GreatNorthWestPaul @136: “You may be happier being a Protestant who can join a denomination conceived last year, or join a fragment of a denomination that split from a split…”
~ I’ll just start my own cult, and that way can play pope to the lepers in my head… :)
Benjamin @135: Well put, this: “Join if and only if you believe her to be the Church founded by Christ â the Church, in order words, to which you will submit even if she were to ever use her full doctrinal authority to teach something you think is wrong.” Amen. The authority issue is foundational to the rest of it!
Thank you, men!
Hugh
I especially appreciate your gospel summary as you were coming to understand the Catholic faith. I know when I converted I was eagerly looking for an equivalent to the Four Spiritual Laws for Catholics. Something that “could fit on a dime.” I took the opportunity to transcribe your quick summery here. But I’d appreciate if others could point out simple descriptions of how Catholics understand (or communicate) the Gospel â particularly to those who are not even Christian. For example, as a Protestant if someone were to approach me and say, “How do I become a Christian?” I would have a quick, canned Gospel presentation ready. But as a Catholic, I sort of dance around a bit. I’m not as confident as I was as a Protestant. I certainly don’t have it down to “dime sized”. Anyway, I’d appreciate any links or short descriptions of the Gospel that you would use with someone asking how they might become Catholic. (More than, come with me to RCIA â they’ll tell you. ;) )
Without further ado… Jason Stellman’s transcribed description of the Catholic / Apostolic Gospel during his journey to the Church…
And, by the way, it might just fit on a dime…
Here are the links to the “near dime-sized” gospel presentations…
https://oi50.tinypic.com/301dpbs.jpg
https://oi48.tinypic.com/r1bn2c.jpg
;)
Eva @ 140 – Cute graphics! :)
But the the gospel is laid out in 1 Cor. 15:3f ~ Paul delivered to the Corinthians that which he’d received of the Lord: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
The Son of God assumes a human nature and human flesh together with His divine person. And he lived and died and rose again and ascended to heaven and gave the Holy Spirit. True enough! But more than this…
This death was not indiscriminate – it was to actually accomplish the salvation of his people from their sins, as the angel Gabriel had told Joseph he would, Matt. 1:21.
Not a potential redemption,
not a first justification to be later ratified through one’s efforts
(however Spirit-empowered or sacrament-stoked those may be),
not a possible salvation with a large IF hanging over it.
But a sure justification,
a washing of all our sins,
a definitive sanctification in the SON
(1 Cor. 6:11, cf. 1:30f).
Yours,
Hugh
I’m wondering what my brothers and sisters here think of this phrase as a Catholic understanding of justification by faith:
We are justified by faith expressing itself through love.
I think it encapsulates Paul and John and James.
Peace,
EJ Cassidy
Erick @138,
And notice that the Nicene Creed doesn’t say anything about our works contributing to, meriting, or being the reason for our salvation.
Eva,
Y e a h, I still may need to whittle that down a bit!
E. J. (#142)
The phrase is Paul’s (Galatians 5:6). I have heard that Luther strongly rejects the possibility that love can play any part in our salvation – that love is an assured result of our faith, but cannot itself be the instrument of our salvation. Don’t know if this is true or not.
jj
Galatians 6:5
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. {NIV, 2011}
For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything,
but only “faith working through love.” {NAB}
~ Or, “faith expressing itself through love,” or “faith energized by [God’s] love.”
áźÎ˝ Îłá˝°Ď Î§ĎΚĎĎῡ ៸ΡĎοῌ Îżá˝ĎÎľ ĎÎľĎΚĎοΟΎ ĎΚ áź°ĎĎĎξΚ Îżá˝ĎÎľ áźÎşĎÎżÎ˛Ď ĎĎÎŻÎą áźÎťÎťá˝° ĎÎŻĎĎÎšĎ Î´Îš’ áźÎłÎŹĎÎˇĎ áźÎ˝ÎľĎÎłÎżĎ ÎźÎνΡ
Hugh (re:#146),
Galatians 6:5 is appropriate for the discussion here in many ways– one of them being that, historically, to my knowledge, the Catholic Church has understood the “circumcision or uncircumcision” issue to be part of what St. Paul means by “works of the law.” That is, works of the Mosaic law. I’ll explain what I mean.
As a Reformed Baptist, I was taught that what the apostle is addressing in Galatians is the conflict between being “justified by faith alone in Christ alone” and the supposed attempt to “earn one’s salvation through works.” Through my research of both Catholic exegesis and more recent non-Calvinist Protestant exegesis though, I eventually came to a different perspective on Galatians, and I think that it makes more sense of the entire letter and of the New Testament as a whole.
That different perspective is thus: St. Paul is actually addressing a controversy in the church at Galatia between Jewish Christians (who made up the majority of the larger Church at that time) and newer Gentiles who had been converted to Christ. At least some of the Jewish Christians in the church at Galatia were trying to stipulate that Gentile converts to Christ must be circumcised (as all Jews were, obviously, as part of the Mosaic law) in order to be accepted as genuine followers of Christ. These Jewish Christians were basically saying, “True Christians must be circumcised, Jewish and Gentile.”
In opposition to this thinking, as a Jewish convert to Christ himself, St. Paul says, “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.â {NAB} The apostle is not saying that Christians can be justified by a “faith alone in Christ alone” without *any works of love for God and neighbor* at all. He is stating that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians are both united by faith in Christ– justified by faith in Christ *alone*, whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised.
However, significantly, St. Paul does not state that justification is by *faith alone*– and St. James explicitly says that justification is *not* by faith alone in James 2:14-26. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians both must trust in Christ alone, but trusting in *Christ alone* (which is necessary for believers) does not equate to justification by *faith alone*. If trusting in Christ alone necessarily equated to justification by faith alone, there simply would not be so many passages and verses in the Bible that clearly indicate the contrary, such as Matthew 25:31-46 and Romans 2:6-13 and James 2:14-26, among multitudes of others.
I never would have imagined it, for most of my time as a Reformed Baptist, but the Catholic understanding of justification (which is not “earning one’s salvation through works,” but rather, faith working through love) actually makes more sense of the whole counsel of the Bible than the Reformed understanding of justification. It is that conclusion (which I found confirmed in the writings of the early Church Fathers) which played a pivotal role in my eventually having to leave Protestantism and return to the Catholic Church.
I realize that I’ve made some very controversial statements in this comment, and that many of the Protestants reading here will have strong objections. I understand– I used to be a Protestant myself! :-) Alas, for my part in the discussion, I am leaving tomorrow for travel related to a death in my family, and I likely won’t have much access (if at all) to the internet until after Easter.
In that light, I wish all Christians who observe Holy Week here at CTC a very meaningful one, and I wish a joyous Easter Sunday to all believers! May we all pray for ever deeper unity in Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life! In this Holy Week, Good Friday is still to come, but He, in whom we all trust *alone*, is eternally Risen! Thanks be to God!
#129 – An anti-philosophical reading of Paul is a strange reading of Paul, who is significantly influenced by the Stoic philosophy of virtue and by the rhetorical form of the Stoic diatribe, not to mention his famous allusions to the Stoic doctrine of natural law in Romans.
An anti-philosophical (or non-Platonic) reading of Augustine is a remarkable and rare achievement.
Tertullian, I grant you.
Benjamin– you nailed it.
Thanks, Chris @147 – Hope your trip is a safe & profitable one.
Quick query on this (anyone there can answer). You said
What does Christ’s death and resurrection effect in your scheme?
Thanks,
Hugh
Dear Ben @135,
You write:
BINGO. As St Joseph said, “You nailed it.” I mean, here it’s G.K.C. “nailing it,” but you have too, and not merely in quoting the big man. BTW, I’ve read his Orthodoxy.
Now THAT’S a big reading list! How long is RCIA’s catechesis?! Seriously – is this “merely” learning your latest catechism, or is one to have working knowledge of the Vaticans, the Nicaeas, the Constantinoples, Trent, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc.? Papal encyclicals? More? Fewer?
If one needn’t be conversant with the catechism, is one is simply giving implicit assent to Rome’s claims of being the One True Church of Jesus Christ on Earth, and the Pope being his Vicar?
To profess that one believes EVERYTHING your organization “believes, teaches, and proclaims” without KNOWING it all seems problematic. How do you work around this? Surely you take in illiterates, too. How do they make such a profession?
Hmm – I think you’re spot on.
Sadly,
Hugh
Benjamin, how do you know Rome is the church Christ founded? Why not Antioch? Peter was there. Some think the Church of Cyprus rocks (and it’s like older than Rome’s church).
Hugh,
When Jesus asked the Twelve whether they would abandon him along with the rest of the crowd, Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have come to believe and are sure that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Whatever kind of reckless and potentially dangerous faith Peter exercised there is what every Catholic who enters the Church must exercise. It’s not like in Protestantism. There is only one Messiah, and he has only one Body and Bride.
(So much for the Tu Quoque!)
Andrew, how do you know what is a development or an abuse when popes themselves shift ground? Do you think Boniface VIII would have approved Vatican II? Do you think Francis will maintain the corrections to Vatican II of JPII and Benedict XVI? Reporters at NCR don’t think so: https://ncronline.org/news/vatican/editorial-francis-election-full-symbols-signs-new-era
Look, I know it’s hard to run things. Administrators always have to be political animals. But you guys construe the pope as the chief pastor. And what is good for the Curia is not always good for the laity. You would think that subsidiarity might be something the hierarchy might try to implement within the church.
dgh.
Just FYI, ‘the National Catholic Reporter’ is just about the most schismatic publication ever. They have no approval from the Catholic Church whatsover and even recently the bishop where their main office is located argued that they should remove the word ‘Catholic’ from their publication. If one spends five minutes on NCR’s website its clear that they have two main aims: 1) Gay Marriage and 2) Woman Priests. Most of their contributors are former Catholics including some defrocked priests.
Lastly, neither JPII or B16 ‘corrected’ Vatican II.
Jason,
So reckless faith means dismissing the lack of historical evidence for so many of Rome’s claims? Here I thought Aquinas was Rome’s main guy. I guess the work of Hahn and other Roman apologists and theologians is pointless, then.
Seems to me Jesus was all about telling people to go to Moses to see whether or not what He was saying was true.
Dear Hugh (@151),
Thanks for writing and for your kind compliments. Not to be too pedantic but, if you wouldn’t mind, please call me Benjamin. For whatever (probably arbitrary) reason, I’ve always preferred âBenjaminâ to âBenâ, âBennyâ, or any of the other variants. No offense taken on my part â but I thought it’d be okay to make the request. :-) Orthodoxy has been a favorite of mind (and I always read an excerpt from âHereticsâ whenever I teach Intro to Philosophy), but frankly my favorite book of his has long been âThe Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmareâ. It’s a…strange book, but fantastically adventurous and, so long as one remembers that it’s a nightmare, the ending makes a lot more sense. The interchange between Syme and Gregory at the beginning of the book is amazing.
More substantively, you asked:
In my case, it was just shy of a full year. (For comparison, to join the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I attended for awhile and met with the Session once. Once I told them I wanted to join it was a matter of weeks, but I guess I’d been attending regularly for a few months anyways. Then, come the next Sunday, boom! I was OPC). RCIA is partially so long because ours functioned as both an introduction to Christianity as well as an introduction to Catholicism. Our RCIA class was quite good, actually â so while I certainly wouldn’t say we got a âworking knowledge of the Vaticans, the Nicaeas, the Constantinoples, Trent, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc.?â, I’d say we did cover a lot of material contained in those sources (and related encyclicals). One can actually cover a fair bit of catechisis meeting 1x/week for 3 hours for the better part of a year (but our parish is good and I’ve heard horror stories of elsewhere).
With respect to knowing all those sources, hey, you can’t get everything in RCIA (and, obviously, what is expected of one scales to one’s age, maturity, etc. I’ve seen the same be true of joining reformed presbyterian churches â the level of understanding of Westminster expected of a 12-year old joining is rather less than that expected of an adult). I’d definitely say RCIA familiarized us with the CCC, of course, the CCC does a great job of pointing to its sources too (particular patristic sources, those councils you mentioned, various encyclicals, etc). Hopefully that gives you some idea of what sort of preparation we had. :-)
There’s a (potential) bit of ambiguity here. If you are asking must one be conversant with the catechism in order to be Catholic, then I think the answer is that it’s not an absolute requirement. Similarly, must one be conversant with the Bible in order to be a Protestant (or Reformed [or OPC/PCA/RPCNA])? I don’t think it’s an absolute requirement (that is, one can’t join, say, the OPC unless one is already conversant with the Bible) â but any of those denominations (as well as the Catholic Church) would say that everyone should grow in their faith as much as they can. Doing so, one presumes, entails learning more about the Bible and learning more about the Westminster Confession (or the CCC, or Augsburg, etc). Actually, a big part of our last RCIA class involved our teacher encouraging us to keep growing in our faith (and knowledge of what the Church teaches) even though RCIA was finished â and I can easily imagine a solid membership class at, say, the OPC saying basically the same thing.
Good stuff â and it illustrates one of the big differences between being Catholic and being Protestant. Since Catholics hold that their Church is the one founded by Christ (and hence cannot err), whatever the Church says is what I believe even if I don’t know all of it here, now, today. (Incidentally, what bothered me more than anything else in becoming Catholic was grappling with that submissive posture â that, in essence, when the Church uses her authority to say something, it’s not my,/i> way or the highway but rather the Church’s way or the highway. As a philsophy Ph.D. Candidate and as a lifelong Protestant, the appropriately submissive posture towards legitimate authority is not something that comes naturally to me). Regardless, insofar as my job is to âthink with the mind of the Churchâ (or some similar formulation), I can do that without knowing every jot and tittle of everything that’s been dogmatically defined, to say nothing of the stuff that hasn’t been dogmatically defined but is still important to believe. But, of course, I am committed to retracting any particular theological position I hold if it can be shown to be contrary to what the Church has taught.
With respect to illiterates, I actually have no clue how that works in the Catholic church. (Relatedly, I have no clue how it would work in the OPC or RPCNA or whatnot). I assume such persons can join the Catholic church (or the OPC, etc.), but I don’t know how it works with respect to having adequate knowledge of the Bible/CCC/Westminster/whatever. However, obviously, one need not read truths of the faith to know truths of the faith. So, yeah, anybody who knows more than me can feel free to chime in with respect to stuff like this. Particularly Protestants â can illiterates join a conservative Presbyterian church? How does that work?
Another, hmm, query. You closed off your note by signing âSadly, Hughâ. Why sadly? (Sadly because you don’t think the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ? That doesn’t seem to call for sadness insofar as it’s a factually true statement. Sadly because you think us Catholics have drunk the kool-aide and you can’t talk us out of it? I guess that might call for sadness. Sadly because you think the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ but you’re scared to join? Brother, if that’s it, you have no clue how much I can empathize). I’m not pretending to read your mind or anything â it just struck me that one generally doesn’t sign off notes âsadlyâ and I kinda wondered why. No need to reply to this part if it’s too personal. Just wanted to ask. :-) Thanks again for the kind words.
Yours Sincerely (and tiredly, because my daughter was up early this morning and I had to teach at 8AM!),
~Benjamin
Sean @ 55 – Does that mean you guys aren’t too keen on those hilarious, sedevacantist cut-ups the Dimond Bros’ @ @ Most Holy Family Monastery?
;)
Eva (140) and Hugh (134),
The gospel might be hard to fit on a dime.
.The catechism states:
We do have this good news that Jesus has come to save us. I think it is hard , at times, to make a statement to fit on a dime. When men preached the gospel in Acts the info depended on the state of the people being addressed since not everyone had the same understanding of life– that there is only one God, that we need a blood sacrifice etc. Some of the elements to be preached on might include the following, depending on the people being addressed:
1. God (who is Triune) is our Creator . Man is responsible to him.
Created by God Col 1:16
Made in God’s image Gen 1:26
Made to glorify God Rev 4:11, Made for God Col 1:16, Rom 11: 36
God desires our love Dt 6:5, Matt 22:37
2. Man’s problem
God is Holy Is 6:3
Man sinned and men are sinners Gen 2,3, Romans 5:19
Sin separates us from God Is 59:2
Sin results in death Rom 6:23
Sin results in judgment Heb 9:27
Sin results in eternal destruction 2 Thess 1:8-9
3. God’s remedy
God became incarnate (his Son) to make purification of sins Heb1:3
Christ is the only way to God Jn 14:6
Blood must be shed for forgiveness of sins Heb 9:22
Christ payed the penalty 1 Peter 3:18
Christ was made to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God 2 Cor 5:21
God provides a new heart and His Spirit Ez 36:26, 2 Cor 3:18, Acts 2:38
God provides by his divine power a participation in the divine nature 2 Peter 1:5
God provides a church I Tim 3:15, includes sacraments Jn 6, I Cor 11:23ff, leaders to whom we obey Heb 13:17
4. Man’s responsibility
Repent Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30-31, Luke 24:47
Believe Jn 1:12, James 2:19, Acts 16:31, Jn 3:36
Baptism Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21
Walk in the Spirit Gal 5:13-25, Rom 8:12-13, Heb 13:20-21
Forsake not the church or assembly Heb 10:2-26, includes partaking of the sacraments, obey the leaders etc
The Gospel then includes the Good news of Christ and the knowledge that we can be joined to him Him 2 Peter 1:4,5 . But there needs to be a fuller explanation of who Christ is, what he has done, and what repentance , baptism, belief means when one explains the gospel to our generation, right?
Kim D
Jason @53 – Thanks for connecting. I don’t get it, though. Please if you would, connect the dots for me:
I get ‘reckless faith’ (like you, you may remember, I too went the “Calvary Chapel–> WTS/PCA–> out” route. I ended up in Anglicanism, you in Rome*). I think I get you, sort of, but please explain. And tie it if you would to what I wrote in #151 replying to Mr Keil. And how is tu quoque applicable. I apologize for being thick, here, but I truly want to understand your points.
Thank you,
Hugh
* Unlike you, I only came under care in the PCA, then trod the “Canterbury trail.”
I have since bid Anglo-Episcopalianism adieu, too.
Robert,
My point was simply that the faith required to come into full communion with the Church is akin to that required for Peter and the disciples to trust in Christ. There is always an element of fear and trembling involved since our religion is more than a set of scientifically demonstrable propositions that can be verified in a lab or under a microscope.
So Hughâs sense of sadness over how much faith Catholicism requires can also be applied to Christianity as a whole. Faith seeks understanding, but the latter cannot be insisted upon before the former is exercised, thatâs just not how revealed religion works.
Hugh,
My point in bringing up the Tu Quoque was to show how different embracing Catholicism is from embracing some form of Protestantism. Thereâs no finger-crossing, as though if the Magisterium gets something wrong I am free to simply bail and join some other church (or just start my own). In the same way Peterâs faith entailed the notion that Jesus is not just one religious leader among a host of other options, so the CC is not just one denomination that happens to line up most closely with my theology at a given moment. Itâs more than that.
When conversion to the CC is understood on Catholic terms, the Tu Quoque sounds completely ridiculous, as if all thatâs happening is no more significant than switching from Goldâs Gym to 24 Hour Fitness.
Thanks, Kim D @159. We are essentially agreed on your points. Well stated.
The debate betwixt us is whether 1 Peter 3:18 {Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit} means that
[1] he suffered to make it possible* for sinful folks to get to God (your story), or,
[2] “that he might bring us to God,” that is, actually, unilaterally, and securely reconcile us to God by his death on the cross alone.
As Paul said, God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.{Romans 5:8-11}
We see God’s love, Christ’s death, our justification, & salvation from God’s wrath as being of a piece.
A sure peace! Reconciliation, salvation (Paul appears to repeat for emphasis) via a sure atonement.
All these are inextricable parts of his grace-to-his-elect package for their sure salvation.
Thank you,
Hugh
* By fulfilling his responsibilities to repent, believe, get baptized, walk in the Spirit, attend church -includes partaking of the sacraments, obeying the leaders, etc. (How long should this list be?)
We Protestants see faith, repentance, & all obedience to be fruit from God’s prior regeneration.
(Mr Stellman is as versed in Reformed soteriology as any at this site, I imagine!)
Ps to my comment—This comment I just made did not even go into the aspects of grace and how it relates to all of this! Eph 1 :6 “For the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.” Needless to say grace is involved in all aspects, no? Someone needs to come along and make corrections to my outline. ;-)
Jason @ 162 & 153 – Got it.
Thank you!
As I read Benjamin’s #157 I will hopefully be better equipped to ask my next question about Tiber-crossing (addressing you both, if that’s OK).
Hugh
Hugh:
In #95, you wrote:
That’s basically right. So if “implicit faith” is a problem for Catholics, it’s a problem for you. But I don’t think it’s a problem for you. For the same reason, I don’t think it’s a problem for us.
Best,
Mike
Dear Daryl (@152),
I forgot to mention this in my last note but I read online that you’re teaching at Hillsdale now? I got my BA in Philosophy from there in ’06. :-) Hopefully you’ve had a chance to meet Dr. Stephens by now? On my best day I’m half the philosopher he is on his worst day. Hillsdale’s an amazing place â I hope you appreciate the gift you’ve been given by being able to teach there.
Anywhoo, you wrote:
Well, like all Catholics, we’re Catholics because the Catholic Church said she was founded by Christ, and she said she was right, and if she was wrong she wouldn’t say she was right, so yeah. Also, it helps if you don’t think too hard and just do whatever the Catholic church tells you. (Thanks, folks, I’ll be here all night! Don’t applaud â just throw money!)
Essentially, I think you’ve asked the million dollar question. I kinda doubt that you’re asking it seriously (meaning, I suspect Bryan’s argumentation hasn’t won you over such that now you’re just trying to figure out if you’ll be Catholic, EO, or Mormon) â but regardless, that’s a good question to ask insofar as you are actually interested in taking the answer seriously.
As Mike Liccione has argued at great length, conservative Protestantism does not fulfill a necessary condition of Christianity â that is, it provides no principled manner of specifying that which constitutes divine revelation (and hence requires the assent of faith) and that which constitutes human opinion (and hence requires the assent of opinion). But on the assumption that he’s right, and assuming that Catholicism fulfills such a necessary condition, that will not uniquely recommend Catholicism since other institutions also fulfill that same necessary condition. Put simply, if a magisterium is necessary for Christianity, then Protestantism ain’t got one (nor does the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, etc.). But Catholicism has one â as does Constantinople, Antioch, and Salt Lake City. How to choose between them?
I won’t lie: if a good choice requires that I âknowâ that the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ, and if by âknowâ you mean âproveâ, I’ll just say that I can’t prove that the Catholic church is the Church founded by Christ (where âproofâ is taken akin to geometry proofs â that is, proofs that cannot be rejected unless one is irrational). This is because the constitution of the church is a matter of faith, so geometry-proof like certainty is nowhere to be found (and if geometry-proof like certainty of the Catholic church’s identity were to be found, then it wouldn’t be a truth of faith anymore – it’d be a truth of reason). For what it’s worth, I also don’t think I can prove the divine identity of Jesus (son of Joseph) with geometry-like certainty â but I do know that if proving that âJesus is the second person of the Trinityâ were like proving that âTriangles have 180 interior degreesâ, it would be a truth of reason, not faith.
So I can give no proof (in that strict sense) that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ â nor can you with respect to Jesus’ identity, and if you (or I) could do so then we wouldn’t be dealing with matters of faith anymore. But although I can’t prove the Catholic Church’s identity in that way, and we both can’t prove Christ’s identity in that way, neither you nor I are fidiests. We can give some reason (good reasons, in fact) to think that Jesus was the son of God â but such reasoning can be rejected without oneâs interlocutor being a âfool or knaveâ. Similarly, I can give some reason (good reasons, in fact) to think that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ – but just as some persons can reject the divinity of Christ, so too some people can reject the identity of the Catholic Church. In so doing, they are neither fools nor knaves (even if theyâre wrong).
As to what âgood reasonsâ I could give for thinking that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ (rather than Antioch or Salt Lake City, et al.), just google âcatholic motives of credibilityâ. Largely what youâll find at those kinds of sites is what Iâd endorse. Iâd go into more specifics if youâd like (admins can get you in touch with my email address), but as I mentioned before Iâm rather doubtful youâre actually too very interested in what historical reasons Iâd adduce to find Rome more plausible than Constantinople or Salt Lake City. When this question has been asked in the past, itâs because the interlocutor has planned on saying âSee – you left Protestantism because of a lack of certainty and now you still have no certainty – all youâve got is those mucky motives of credibility!â If such a view is yours (and, honestly, I hope itâs not), then game, set, match. I canât prove that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Christ. But since I canât prove that Jesus is the Christ either, that doesnât bug me overmuch – since good reasons can still be given to think that Jesus is the Christ and to think that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. But such reasons canât rise to the level of certainty insofar as we are talking about matters of faith (that is, revealed by God) as opposed to matters of human reason (where, again, certainty is understood as being generated by the kinds of proofs I mentioned above). But if you or anyone else wants to hear more precisely exactly which motives of credibility I found plausible, just have the admins give you my email. We can talk there for whoever is genuinely curious.
Sincerely,
~Benjamin
PS: If I goofed up something or other with respect to theology, I assume and hope one of the more knowledgeable Catholics will charitably correct me. Thereâs a reason I do philosophy, not theology. :-p
Dear Hugh (@165),
Sure ’nuff. If you want to talk offline, email one of the admins and they can give you my email address. And if you want to talk online, post here and I’ll reply as best as I can whenever I can. For what that’s worth. ;-)
Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Benjamin (#167):
I agree with everything you’ve written, but I think you omitted something important. The CCC says:
The content of the deposit of faith is knowledge, in the sense that God knows and reveals it. But for those of us who did not know Jesus the Christ as he walked the earth, our assent to it as the truth is faith, not knowledge. That’s because we can only assent to it on God’s authority, not verify it for ourselves, and we locate God’s authority as Revealer only by trusting some human authority as an embodiment of divine authority. Thus the certainty of faith is the result of a choice to trust–one that is made possible by grace and does not itself constitute knowledge, even though the reasons we should have for making that choice render the choice reasonable enough.
Best,
Mike
Dear Benjamin,
Don’t know that you’re pendantic, but I apologize for my offensive familiarity. Goodness knows I offend enough in many other ways! ;)
> In my case, it was just shy of a full year. …Our RCIA class was quite good, actually â …meeting 1x/week for 3 hours for the better part of a year (but our parish is good and I’ve heard horror stories of elsewhere). …I’d definitely say RCIA familiarized us with the CCC, of course, the CCC does a great job of pointing to its sources too… <
Thank you for sharing all this. 'Tis helpful! To be forthcoming, part of my reason in asking is that I am also looking at Orthodoxy (the Eastern variety) and their catechetical requirements or recommendations. (It's a year to two, bascially.)
I agree that Presby and other Prot churches are light-weight on requisite pre-membership catechesis.
> There’s a (potential) bit of ambiguity here. If you are asking must one be conversant with the catechism in order to be Catholic, then I think the answer is that it’s not an absolute requirement… Actually, a big part of our last RCIA class involved our teacher encouraging us to keep growing in our faith (and knowledge of what the Church teaches) even though RCIA was finished â and I can easily imagine a solid membership class at, say, the OPC saying basically the same thing. <
Sure.
> Good stuff â and it illustrates one of the big differences between being Catholic and being Protestant. Since Catholics hold that their Church is the one founded by Christ (and hence cannot err), whatever the Church says is what I believe even if I don’t know all of it here, now, today. (Incidentally, what bothered me more than anything else in becoming Catholic was grappling with that submissive posture â that, in essence, when the Church uses her authority to say something, it’s not my way or the highway but rather the Church’s way or the highway. As a philsophy Ph.D. Candidate and as a lifelong Protestant, the appropriately submissive posture towards legitimate authority is not something that comes naturally to me). Regardless, insofar as my job is to âthink with the mind of the Churchâ (or some similar formulation), I can do that without knowing every jot and tittle of everything that’s been dogmatically defined, to say nothing of the stuff that hasn’t been dogmatically defined but is still important to believe. But, of course, I am committed to retracting any particular theological position I hold if it can be shown to be contrary to what the Church has taught. With respect to illiterates, I actually have no clue how that works in the Catholic church. …can illiterates join a conservative Presbyterian church? How does that work? Another, hmm, query. You closed off your note by signing âSadly, Hughâ. Why sadly? (Sadly because you don’t think the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ? That doesn’t seem to call for sadness insofar as it’s a factually true statement. Sadly because you think us Catholics have drunk the kool-aide and you can’t talk us out of it? I guess that might call for sadness. Sadly because you think the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ but you’re scared to join? Brother, if that’s it, you have no clue how much I can empathize). I’m not pretending to read your mind or anything â it just struck me that one generally doesn’t sign off notes âsadlyâ and I kinda wondered why. No need to reply to this part if it’s too personal. Just wanted to ask. :-) Thanks again for the kind words.
> Yours Sincerely (and tiredly, because my daughter was up early this morning and I had to teach at 8AM!) <
Mine was sick yesterday – we got to sleep around 3:30am, and had to be up & at 'em early today!
Not sad, but exhaustedly,
Hugh[uenot]
I do not know why the posts are not formatting correctly, Sean.
Please remove these 170 & 172 and I will retry.
170 should read
Dear Mike @166, [not 156]
Ought I then sign off:
âFideistically Yours,â
Hugh
?
I apologize for these inconveniences and thank you for your patience!
Hugh
Benjamin,
Please email me @ hughmc5 hotmail com
Thanks,
Hugh
Benjamin, I am trying to format the ending of # 170…
HM: To profess that one believes EVERYTHING your organization âbelieves, teaches, and proclaimsâ without KNOWING it all seems problematic. How do you work around this? Surely you take in illiterates, too. How do they make such a profession?
BK: Good stuff â and it illustrates one of the big differences between being Catholic and being Protestant. Since Catholics hold that their Church is the one founded by Christ (and hence cannot err), whatever the Church says is what I believe even if I don’t know all of it here, now, today.
HM: Bingo – you said as much repeatedly in #135, and I blockquoted in 151.
BK: (Incidentally, what bothered me more than anything else in becoming Catholic was grappling with that submissive posture â that, in essence, when the Church uses her authority to say something, it’s not my way or the highway but rather the Church’s way or the highway. As a philsophy Ph.D. Candidate and as a lifelong Protestant, the appropriately submissive posture towards legitimate authority is not something that comes naturally to me).
HM: As a rabid Prot, I can “Amen” this wholeheartedly!
BK: Regardless, insofar as my job is to âthink with the mind of the Churchâ (or some similar formulation), I can do that without knowing every jot and tittle of everything that’s been dogmatically defined, to say nothing of the stuff that hasn’t been dogmatically defined but is still important to believe. But, of course, I am committed to retracting any particular theological position I hold if it can be shown to be contrary to what the Church has taught.
HM: Right.
BK: With respect to illiterates, I actually have no clue how that works in the Catholic church. …can illiterates join a conservative Presbyterian church? How does that work?
HM: Dunno that, either.
BK: Sadly because you think us Catholics have drunk the kool-aide and you can’t talk us out of it? I guess that might call for sadness.
HM: Yes, indeed. Again, you found the nail’s head.
BK: You closed off your note by signing âSadly, Hughâ. Why sadly? …Sadly because you think the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ but you’re scared to join?
HM: Ha ha! Not yet, fer sure!
BK: Brother, if that’s it, you have no clue how much I can empathize). I’m not pretending to read your mind or anything â it just struck me that one generally doesn’t sign off notes âsadlyâ and I kinda wondered why. No need to reply to this part if it’s too personal. Just wanted to ask. :-)
HM: Not at all – and feel free to email if you want ask any personal questions you feel are inappropriate for CTC blog.
BK: Thanks again for the kind words.
Yours Sincerely (and tiredly, because my daughter was up early this morning and I had to teach at 8AM!)
HM: Mine was sick yesterday – we got to sleep around 3:30am, and had to be up & at ’em early today!
Not sad, but exhaustedly,
Hugh
Hugh (163),
Yes, Christ made an atonement. The question I suppose is how /why to we preach the gospel? “But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?” Romans 10:14 How is the atonement applied to the individual? Does it have to be applied? Yes. Does God use men to bring the gospel? Usually, Yes.When the gospel is preached in Acts is it necessary to repent, believe and be baptized? Yes. There needs to be a response on the part of man. Can man do this apart from grace? No. We agree it is from Christ’s grace. The unilateral idea–that is the problemo. What does this unilateral belief entail? Does his grace, his sovereignty mean that the application needs no response on the part of man? No. Can man resist God’s grace is perhaps the question? This may be the area of disagreement. Acts 7:51 51 âYou stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” 2 Cor 6:1: “Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain” Hebrews 10:29 “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite (or insult) unto the Spirit of grace? ” So then you believe in irresistible grace or effectual grace? ….a grace that is different than these verses indicate I suppose.
Secondly–the regenerate still need to be exhorted to bear fruit. This happens all of the time in Scripture, and in Church. The New Testament is filled with exhortations of what God desires of us. God uses means . Therefore , although you say, “We Protestants see faith, repentance, & all obedience to be fruit from Godâs prior regeneration”……this would not negate God’s use of means and the need to preach the means. This is what I was trying to put forth in the comment I made. There are certain things God gives to or in the Church to bring about growth in grace, correct?? Is there a continual need to repent of our sins? Yes,God uses means. You may say that God ordains these means, nonetheless the means need to be there and used.
Since, therefore, God uses means to bring about the application of the atonement to our lives, men are responsible to preach these means. The comment I gave showed some of the things we need to incorporate as means that God uses to bring about the salvation of a soul, no?
Benjamin, Jason, et. al.,
Is this an accurate description? (By James Akin – http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2.htm)
By James Akin – http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2.htm
[CAPS were used for words that are new vocabulary to me.]
Dear CTC-ers,
I think I’m getting it –
Hence, one must give assent to the validity, authority, and accuracy of the RCC even if/ when one believes her to be in error.
One is swearing fealty to Rome, not necessarily asserting the validity & the accuracy of all her teachings, right?
Thanks,
Hugh
Benjamin, who says a magisterium is necessary for a genuine Christianity? Do you understand how much of the New Testament is written without any reference to a magisterium or to the supremacy of Peter? No offense to Mike, but I do think the apostles have more authority than he does.
I appreciate your admission that you cannot prove Rome is the church Christ founded. It is something that needs to be taken with faith. This is different from the way Bryan Cross argues: https://oldlife.org/2013/02/the-limits-of-unlimited-authority/comment-page-4/#comment-73499
Jason, how do you know that your choice of Rome as opposed to Constantinople is any more than choosing Baptist Protestantism over Methodism? The Church of Antioch, where Peter ministered, has as much antiquity and apostolicity as Rome. But you believe what Rome tells you the way Protestants believe the Bible. That may explain why Roman Catholics can’t question the papacy even though they might wish they could when it comes to Unam Sanctum, Unigentius (1713), and the Syllabus of Errors.
Mike @ 169 ~
Thanks for your side’s take on this. You get us at this point, right?
The content of the deposit of faith is knowledge, in the sense that God knows and reveals it. But for those of us who did not know Jesus the Christ as he walked the earth, our assent to it as the truth is faith OR, knowledge. Thatâs because we can only assent to it on Godâs authority, not verify it for ourselves, and we locate Godâs authority as Revealer only by trusting THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE as THE embodiment of divine authority.
Thus the certainty of faith is trust (NOT OUR CHOICE, BUT GOD’S GRACIOUS GIFT) âone that is made CERTAIN by grace, and does INDEED itself constitute TRUE knowledge, SINCE THE SCRIPTURES ARE GOD-BREATHED AND SUFFICIENT TO SAVINGLY REVEAL CHRIST TO THE REGENERATE.
We equate faith with trust with “true knowledge.”
Just to remind all…
Hugh
Hugh (173 et passim)
It is impossible to know everything a Christian group believes, teaches, and proclaims, because what every Christian group is Christ – and He is infinite. Either you cannot make an act of implicit faith in a group, and thus always reserve for yourself the possibility of leaving the group if it teaches what you have judged to be error – the normal Protestant approach – or you believe that the group is, in fact, the Body of Christ – the continuation of the incarnation, as it is sometimes expressed (in words that shocked me when I, a Protestant at the time, first heard them). In the latter case, then, of course you can have no fear of making an act of faith. You know that if such a group ever “believes, teaches, and proclaims” something that you think error – it is you who are wrong.
jj
Huhg (#176)
One is swearing fealty to the Catholic Church because one believes it to be Christ’s ordained full presence in the world – that that Church is protected by Christ from teaching error (as a Church – not as this or that bishop speaking for himself) – and thus swearing fealty to the Church is necessarily asserting the inerrancy of her teachings – including those that have not yet been made explicit.
I say ‘the Catholic Church’ rather than Rome because it is a little misleading to say ‘Rome’ as though Rome were somehow of the essence. When the Papacy was in Avignon, the Church was still the Church. If Rome were nuked out of existence, the Church would still be the Church. And it is not the Pope personally that one is swearing fealty to (except, if I understand their situation correctly, the Jesuits); it is the Church. And it is not the Church on its own say-so but precisely because we think the Church is Christ’s Mouthpiece in this world.
You would really profit from reading Ronald Knox’s little book The Belief of Catholics. It is pretty short, very clear, and entertainingly written. You can even read it on-line for free.
jj
Hugh (#179):
You write:
Shouting that in caps doesn’t give us a reason to believe it. I believe that Scripture is God-breathed because the Church, as described by JTJ just above, so teaches. Why do you believe that Scripture is God-breathed? After all, you don’t believe that anybody who told you that is infallible. And it’s no good quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 to me either. That only works if that letter too is God-breathed, which just brings us back to my question.
Moreover, I do not believe that Scripture can be reliably interpreted in isolation from Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. Why do you think it can?
You write:
Trusting an authority supplies knowledge when you have reason enough to believe that the authority you trust understands how the knowledge is acquired and has acquired that knowledge themselves. Thus, I trust astronomers when they tell me that the Sun is roughly 93 million mile away from us, even though I haven’t discovered that for myself as I could, because in college I acquired independent evidence that astronomers know how astronomical facts are discovered and have discovered such facts themselves. But in the case of divine revelation, its content is not something any of us could have discovered for ourselves; that’s why God had to tell us. Accordingly, access to divine revelation–for us in this life after the Apostles–cannot dispense with trusting some authority, the way science can dispense with that; and the reasons justifying that trust cannot constitute evidence that the authority has the relevant knowledge, because what the authority says is something human methods of inquiry cannot discover by themselves.
For reasons I explained above in this thread, it’s no good citing the authority of a book; for the book can have only as much authority as those who wrote, collected, and certified it as divinely inspired have themselves.
Best,
Mike
JJ @181 –
Thanks for Ron Knox tip.
This is curious: “…it is not the Church on its own say-so but precisely because we think the Church is Christâs Mouthpiece in this world.”
But don’t you think the Church is Christ’s mouthpiece because she says so?
Thanks,
Hugh
Mike @182 –
The caps were merely meant to delineate where I had added to or changed your post. Sorry to sound loud.
You say, “Trusting an authority supplies knowledge when you have reason enough to believe that the authority you trust understands how the knowledge is acquired and has acquired that knowledge themselves.”
> If I understand this sentence (& I am unsure I do!), then OK. In the case of Scripture and its divine Author, I have the internal Holy Spirit witness (“reason enough”) to believe the authority and supremacy of Writ. Nothing above it & Him!
“…in the case of divine revelation, its content is not something any of us could have discovered for ourselves; thatâs why God had to tell us.”
> Nor can it be externally verified, unlike the 93 million mile claim.
“Accordingly, access to divine revelationâfor us in this life after the Apostlesâcannot dispense with trusting some authority, the way science can dispense with that; and the reasons justifying that trust cannot constitute evidence that the authority has the relevant knowledge, because what the authority says is something human methods of inquiry cannot discover by themselves.”
> The only authority equal to Scripture is its Author who spiritually bears witness to facts stated in above posts. You claim a magisterial power as authoritative as Writ. We deny it.
Thanks,
Hugh
Hugh:
You write:
That just brings us right back to the question I posed for you when we started this whole conversation: How do you know that the Holy Spirit is witnessing to your belief, so that it’s not just yours and some others’ opinion?
Best,
Mike
dghart, (re: #177)
I invite Benjamin to clarify what he means when he writes that the constitution of the Church is a matter of faith. Protestants unfamiliar with Catholic teaching might interpret him incorrectly. The existence of God, for example, is a “matter of faith,” but it is also held that that existence of God can be known by the natural light of human reason. In the same way, the divine founding of the Catholic Church can be known by rational investigation. So Bryan is quite right in what he wrote in the linked thread. Here are some quotations from Catholic theologians:
Rev. George D. Smith, “The Teaching of the Catholic Church” :
Rev. John Brunsmann, “A Handbook of Fundamental Theology”:
And there are many more quotations that could be provided. The point is, what Bryan wrote is not peculiar. The divine founding of the Catholic Church can be known with certainty, apart from faith.
This threaded is getting a little crowded and going in many different directions, so I am going to drop the subject.
Brian (#186):
You posed that issue to Bryan and me in the thread on my article. I responded, and would be willing to continue the conversation there.
Best,
Mike
Thanks, Kim @174.
I agree that God uses means (preaching, as you showed). We disagree as to what some terms mean. I would say that irresistible/ effectual grace is God’s grace toward his elect, and would read the verses you quoted a bit differently.
Hugh
Mike @ 185. I take the Bible on faith, just as you do your authority, the RCC.
The Bible says that those believing in Christ will be saved.
I believe in Christ.
Therefore I will be saved.
Thanks,
Hugh
P.S. Conversely, your Church teaches that the faithful within her bosom have a good chance of trimming time off purgatory.
You are a faithful son of Rome.
Therefore. . .
Also, Mike, more to your point – I don’t know how better to answer you than I did way back in posts #32, 33, 36, 50 & 51. Help me here. Where are we misfiring?
Hugh
Mike, Please see: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=84 | Therefrom:
Thanks,
Hugh
Hugh,
I had asked:
To that, you replied:
But that doesn’t really answer my question. For one thing, I too “take the Bible on faith.” But the faith I take it on is my faith in the word of the Catholic Church. She claims divine authority to teach infallibly under certain conditions, which are met by her claims that the Bible contains such-and-such writings, that no other writings are to be added to or subtracted from that canon, and that the contents thereof are God-breathed. And in the article of mine I linked you to, I gave my reasons for trusting the Catholic Church as such an authority. You, on the other hand, cite only “the internal witness of the Spirit” as the basis for your faith. But what I had asked is how you “know” that the Spirit is witnessing within you–more specifically, witnessing to your belief that the Bible contains such-and-such writings, that no other writings are to be added to or subtracted from that canon, and that the contents thereof are God-breathed. To say: “I take the Bible on faith” doesn’t answer that question because, for reasons I’ve explained above, faith and knowledge are not the same thing, You would have partially answered my question if you had said that you trust yourself, or at least something that goes on within you, as a bearer of divine authority to make such claims. I understand why you don’t do that, but in that case, what is the basis of your trust? Why do you think that the strength of your inner conviction is any reason at all to believe that the content of your faith is true?
In our previous go-round with this, you mostly quoted the Westminster Confession. Very well then: I pose the same question to its authors that I’ve posed to you. How did they “know” by the “internal witness of the Spirit” that their view of the Bible, and their faith generally, is true? Remember, you said your faith is “knowledge.” I don’t make the same claim for my faith, so your task is harder than mine.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I hope to read your piece today.
I do not [yet] see the difference between our positions. You write:
OK, but how do you know the Church is right when she claims divine authority?
OK, will read. But is there an authority higher than the Roman Catholic Church? She is the norm that norms all norms, no? St Ig said: “We must put aside all judgment of our own and keep the mind ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, and Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church.” *
You also said
Of course, I trust one thing that the Bible tells us that happens within us believers, and that is the Holy Spirit’s testimony. He bears witness that the words are true which he inspired the human authors to write. I believe this/ I know this.
As you believe Rome to be the authoritative Church that Christ founded upon St Peter, do you not also know such to be true? Why are not faith & knowledge synonymous in your epistemology. As I read your article, I ask you to please read the article I reference in post #191, above.
Thank you,
Hugh
Maundy Thursday
* Alternately, “Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one’s own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy.” Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. [OUP], Henry Bettenson, ed., pp. 364-367. Š 1999. Found at https://wps.ablongman.com/long_longman_lwcdemo_1/0%2C9493%2C1532993-%2C00.html
Hugh (#193):
I have read the article you linked me to. As a philosopher, I have serious problems with it, but most are not important for our immediate purpose. I shall bring up the one that is important after I frame the context of our discussion.
You write:
There are two key differences between our positions. First, I do not claim to “know” that the Church is right when she claims divine authority and uses that as her basis for saying that the Bible is the Word of God in written form. But you claim to “know,” without relying on the word of human authorities, that the Bible is the Word of God. By contrast, my trust in the Church is an assent of faith; but I have reasons for making that assent. Those reasons do not suffice to prove that the Church’s claims for herself are true, but they do suffice to make my assent of faith in her reasonable. And now that I have made an assent of faith in a teaching authority which claims to be divinely protected from error under certain conditions, I cannot see what I thereby assent to as mere opinion; I can only see it as an authentic expression of divine revelation. But in this life, that stance is faith on my part, not knowledge. Here, we only “see in a glass, darkly…”
Second, and unlike you, I do not claim that the Bible is the sole means by which we can identify the content of divine revelation as such. Rather, I claim that the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium is that means, where those are understood to be mutually attesting and interdependent. I think that’s historically as well as epistemologically far more reasonable than sola scriptura–a doctrine that is not even consistent with itself.
The article you linked me to claims that the believer can “know” that the Bible is the Word of God by “presupposing” that belief without evidence, as if it were self-evident. I consider that claim absurd. One cannot even know what such a claim means without holding and making inferences from more foundational beliefs.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
Thank you for reading and interacting with the article. And thanks for your two points.
As to the 1st, we have such divergent views on nearly every term* we use, it makes meaningful dialogue rather difficult.
As to the 2nd, I have 66 books, you have an enormous stack! We have such differing authorities!
Like you, I can also claim, now that I have made an assent of faith in a teaching authority [Holy Scripture, HM] which claims to be divinely protected from error under certain conditions, I cannot see what I thereby assent to as mere opinion; I can only see it as an authentic expression of divine revelation.
Thanks,
Hugh
* Epistemology, knowledge, faith, redemption, atonement, etc.
Hugh (re: #191)
In addition to what Mike just said, I have addressed presuppositionalism in both “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective” and in “Presuppositionalism: Fideism built on Skepticism.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thank you, Bryan.
I note that we dialogued on the Wilson/ Hitchens piece late last year and earlier this month. I am repeating myself here with Mike, RE: the Clark article!
I hope that you & Mike understand the differences between Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. They are at times, pretty significant.
Thank you all for interacting with me.
Hugh
Maundy, Maundy
(not by the Mamas and the Papas)
Hugh (#195):
I agree that we use all the relevant epistemological and theological terms differently. That points up the “difference of interpretive paradigm” I discuss in the article of mine I linked you to. The question before us is which IP is the more reasonable one to adopt. If you care to discuss that question, please do so in the combox under the article. Thanks.
Best,
Mike
Hugh (#183)
Absolutely not! What good would that do? It would be absolutely circular. I might as well tell you that I am God’s mouthpiece in the world and that you should believe it because I, who am God’s mouthpiece, say so.
This is the question of the ‘motives of credibility.’ I have quoted this from Knox several times on this blog before:
jj
jj,
Is Knox’s 1st point axiomatic?
How does he (or you) get a basis for #2* before getting to #4?
Thanks,
Hugh
* God “has made a revelation to the world in Jesus Christ.”
“…our Lord founded a Church.”
Dear Brian (@186),
You wrote:
Thanks for asking! Bear in mind that Iâm a non-professional theologian and Iâm also a neophyte (well, for the rest of this week!) So I could well just goof up on theology or use a relatively technical term wrongly. Hereâs are two brief excerpts from the CCC that are relevant; Iâll try to explain what I think they mean (and if I mess something up, I trust somebody will let me know).
First, what are âmotives of credibilityâ?
As far as I can tell, ârevealed truthsâ are believed because of Godâs authority – and these revealed truths are, well, revealed. Thus my contrast from my earlier post between matters âappear[ing] as true…in the light of our natural reasonâ (such as geometry proofs) and (what I called) âmatters of faithâ. I donât know whether or not âmatters of faithâ is a term of art Iâm misusing, but I intended it to denote propositions that are believed because they are revealed by God. However, as the CCC itself notes, thereâs not a contradiction between between what is revealed by God and what is intelligible in light of natural reason – Godâs revelatory process has conjoined external proofs accessible to all with divine revelation. So, for instance, the Catholic Churchâs stability is something intelligible to all (as was recognized by an atheist and fellow grad student in our department the other day: âThe most bizarre thing about the Catholic Church is that itâs still here!â) As I understand it, then, we make the assent of faith (rather than the assent of provisional human opinion) to that which is revealed by God, our assent of faith is aided (or perhaps âinclinedâ) without being necessitated by the motives of credibility.
Relatedly, then:
As I understand it, faith is required to recognize that the Catholic Church possesses the four marks of the Church identified in the Apostleâs Creed (and the Nicene Creed, etc.). However, these four marks have certain âhistorical manifestationsâ (such as invincible stability – which is what my fellow grad student observed even though he is an atheist). Natural reason, then, allows one to discern the motives of credibility and makes reasonable the assent of faith – but in a very important sense, the motives of credibility underdetermine the conclusions drawn from them. And, as I understand it, this must be the case insofar as we are discussing divinely revealed truths rather than truths of natural reason (geometric truths, say).
Similarly, as I tried to mention in my prior comment, that Jesus son of Joseph was the Messiah is a revealed truth. There are motives of credibility (his miracles, his ridiculously extensive fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, etc.), but these data point in a very real sense underdetermine the conclusion that I draw from them: that Jesus son of Joseph was and is the Messiah.
I hope this clarifies matters sufficiently, at least with respect to my views. If these views evince an inaccurate understanding of matters Catholic, I trust one of the crazy smart people that regularly post here will charitably let me know. :-)
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Dear Daryl (@177),
You wrote:
Well, youâre quoting from my simplification rather than the more extensive way of formulating it Iâd written earlier in the paragraph. Earlier in that same paragraph, Iâd written that if Christianity requires a âprincipled manner of specifying that which constitutes divine revelation (and hence requires the assent of faith) and that which constitutes human opinion (and hence requires the assent of opinion)â, then Protestantism provides no such method. (Avoid, then, getting hung up on whether or not a âmagisteriumâ is required, but instead focus on whether or not some principled way of distinguishing between divine revelation and human opinion is necessary). If youâre still OPC (or, heck, any kind of robustly confessional Protestant), then you do presumably believe that in fact a principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion is needed. If so, your disagreement with me isnât over whether or not such a principled method is necessary – itâll be over whether or not Protestantism provides such a method. This discussion has already been held at much greater length prompted by Dr. Liccioneâs post. (I neglected to link to it in my previous post – my bad). If you want to seriously pursue whether or not Protestantism provides a principled way of distinguishing between human opinion and divine revelation, youâll probably want to make a post over in that thread and interact with Dr. Liccione directly.
You wrote:
Yup. Of course, if the lack of NT reference is what suffices to make a doctrine heterodox, Iâd really love to know how you think about the Regulative Principle of Worship. For, it seems that âmuch of the New Testament is written without any reference [to the Regulative Principle of Worship]â too. But you accept the RPW (presumably). So whatâs the difference?
Of course thatâs a bad argument to reject the RPW – the lack of mention in âmuch…of the New Testamentâ doesnât show that a view is heterodox – as presumably we both agree (emphasis mine). Plus, since Catholics reject sola scriptura anyways, the lack of mention in Scripture isnât a big deal for Catholics. So, if youâre assuming sola scriptura and then using sola scriptura to reject, say, papal supremacy, your argument will be unpersuasive to anyone who either rejects or is neutral towards sola scriptura. (Similarly, if I made an argument for papal supremacy implicitly based on, say, papal primacy, my argument would be unpersuasive to someone who rejects papal primacy already – namely, you. ;-) So if itâs bad for me to argue papal supremacy based on something you reject [papal primacy], itâs also bad for you to argue against papal supremacy based on something I reject [sola scriptura]). Make sense?
Finally, you wrote:
See the comment I posted shortly before this one for a bit more of an expansive clarification of what I meant. The sense in which I cannot âproveâ the divine origin of the Catholic Church is the same sense in which I cannot âproveâ that Jesus son of Joseph was divine. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it cannot be âprovenâ, it can be given good justification sufficient to constitute knowledge (this justification, however, is not sufficient to make all other options irrational, and hence is not sufficient to make all persons who reject it either fools or knaves). But all this is formed by my acceptance of the proposition that philosophy and theology are not ultimately contradictory – a proposition which I suspect you reject (or at least in #132 of this thread, you seemed to contrast the âwisdom of the crossâ over the âmerits of philosophyâ – and a plausible interpretation of what you wrote is that you believe philosophy and theology are ultimately contradictory). If that is indeed what you hold, then you maintain a position for which no sound arguments can be given. Also, ironically, if thatâs what you hold then youâve managed to adopt a (controversial) philosophical position while simultaneously denigrating the merits of philosophy.
All that said, I donât see any disagreement between what Bryan says and what I said – I read the link you provided and thought âOh, dang, thatâs pretty much what I said but a lot clearerâ. So if your noting that Bryan and I explain things âdifferentlyâ was intended to denote that we use different words to make the same fundamental point, then you (Daryl) and I agree. But if you mean that what I wrote and what Bryan wrote are fundamentally contradictory, then Iâd love to see your argument supporting that. To demonstrate a contradiction, as K. Doran explained to you in another thread, just give a quote from me, then give a quote from Bryan, and then explain why you think those two quotes are contradictory (such that I am asserting X and Bryan is asserting ~X [not X], or vice-versa). But at least in my first pass through the link you provided, I didnât pick up on any contradiction between what I wrote and what Bryan wrote.
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Ugh – HTML coding fails in both my comments. Also, Hugh, I sent you an email. If you didn’t get it, let me know and I’ll just drop my address here.
Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Hugh (#200)
If by ‘axiomatic’ you mean does Knox mean the existence of God is presupposed, or something that does not need proof, or something like that – then definitely not. The existence of God must be inferred from our experience (of the world, of ourselves) – standard Aquinas ‘five ways’ stuff. Similarly for the rest. They are all things we have to come to know from understanding the world – including, of course, history. In the case of #2, we are talking about reading the New Testament as history – not, initially, as revelation. We don’t know that yet.
These comboxes are not the place to go into this stuff in detail. If you want to know what Catholics consider as the reason for trusting the Church, I really recommend reading Knox.
jj
OK – Cross directed me to his two pieces.
Liccione’s sent me to the Mathison-bashing piece.
Thayer Jensen sends me to Knox (and by extension, the angelic Dr).
Keil is another fast typist I have to contend with in email. (A decided blessing, not a bane.)
I am again heavily outgunned & outmanned.
Vastly outnumbered, I fideistically retreat to the solace of sola scriptura,
curling up with my com’puter to read you stellar RC apologists.
I hope Jason will write up (or record) his pilgrimage for our side to hear from him.
I appreciate the above audio, but it’s directed to RCs.
May God savingly reveal himself this holy weekend to all readers here!
Forever your favorite fideistic Protestant,
l’Hughuenot
Benjamin, do you have a Facebook page? Can I friend you so that we can chat?
Ben, thanks for your response. Again, you assert something that is more a desire than a philosophical proof or deontic claim (whatever that is). You say that we must have “a principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion is needed.” Who says? It would be nice if we had it. But lots of things we would like in life we don’t have. So it seems like you establish a criterion for certainty and then say it exists. Didn’t Kant and Hegel do the same thing? Don’t feminists?
The lack of mention of the magisterium in the NT may not bother you, but you would think that with the very first pope writing two epistles you might have some mention of the import of the church and its offices — after all, the popes wrote pretty much about their power and ministry for the first 1000 years of encyclicals.
As for the RPW, it is taught in the Ten Commandments (our second your first). You do believe the 10 commandments are still binding, right?
I am not sure whether you actually disagree with Bryan or not. But you are actually human and a tad vulnerable in your comments.
BTW, men, it’s Darryl and Benjamin, if you’re keeping scorecards…
(Not Daryl & Ben.)
Darryl (#207):
Addressing Benjamin, you write:
I figured you’d end up saying that. Here’s what I say: If there’s no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion, then the question what God has revealed can only be answered with human opinions. Now what God has revealed is to be believed on divine authority, with the assent of faith; but human opinions bear no such authority. Hence, if there’s no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion, then nothing can be identified as calling for the assent of faith as distinct from that of opinion. The assent of faith thus becomes impossible.
Congratulations.
Best,
Mike
Mike, faith isn’t impossible. Epistemic certainty is. You’ve been harmonizing faith and reason so long reason has swallowed up faith, except for implicit faith, which I guess all the non-philosophical types have.
Darryl,
So you reject my argument that “the assent of faith is impossible” given your premise. Very well: Where’s the flaw in my argument? Which inference does not follow, or if it all follows, which premise of mine is false?
Regardless of how you choose to answer that, it’s not yet clear how our respective conceptions of the nature, as distinct from the content, of faith differ from each other. To explain what I mean by that, I shall first state the relevant aspect of my conception, which is the same as that set forth in the CCC (§156-157; emphasis added, footnotes omitted):
Now, you claim that faith is possible but that we nonetheless lack “epistemic certainty.” Since that assertion is ambiguous, however, it’s not clear yet how we disagree.
Your claim could mean simply that faith lacks the sort of epistemic certainty characteristic of some forms of human knowledge–for example, the sort which obtains when one knows how something “feels” or “seems” to oneself, or the sort we have about mathematical or scientific propositions that are “true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason.” If that’s all you mean, I agree–but that doesn’t tell against my position, as expressed by the CCC above. Or you could mean that faith lacks certainty because we can never be sure that the propositions we assent to by faith as authentic expressions of divine revelation really are such expressions. If that’s what you mean, then my argument and its conclusion stands–unless you can show what’s wrong with my argument.
Best,
Mike
Darryl, (re: #210)
Are you certain that epistemic certainty is impossible? If so, you are contradicting yourself, by possessing the certainty you are claiming cannot be had. But if you’re not certain that epistemic certainty is impossible, then your confident assertion that epistemic certainty is impossible is unjustified.
Skepticism is always self-defeating in this way, by denying itself in the very assertion of itself.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Mike, the assertion that “this is the church Christ founded” is one that depends more on faith than on epistemic/philosophical grounds. It is also a historical claim, subject to historical scrutiny. When such scrutiny happens, faith usually needs to kick. Philosophy might get you over the hump. But philosophy never proves what happened.
Bryan, knowledge of truth is possible but of ultimate truth it depends on special revelation and the work of the Holy Spirit (not the charism of the pope).
Darryl (#213)
Absolutely!! This is what I have tried to make clear, that Catholics cannot believe in the authority of the Church based on the Church’s own statement – and no more can Protestants believe in the inspiration of Scripture based on Scripture’s own statement.
Historical scrutiny (which is, after all, a part of philosophy) provides the ‘motives of credibility’ for believing in the Church – but faith, which is a free gift of God, must provide the certainty. It is precisely this sequence – historical examination (including looking at the contents of Scripture now as part of their history), philosophical reflexion, and then the gift of faith – which leads to trusting the Church – and it is trusting the Church that leads to faith in the inspiration of Scripture. There is no other philosophically acceptable way.
jj
Hi John (#215),
You wrote:
Absolutely!! This is what I have tried to make clear, that Catholics cannot believe in the authority of the Church based on the Churchâs own statement â and no more can Protestants believe in the inspiration of Scripture based on Scriptureâs own statement.
Response:
If we agree that a formal motive is necessary for believing, then your two examples are only material circles. The Church’s statement (faith proposal) about Church authority is the only way Catholics know the Church has authority (a supernatural thing). Protestants say that a scriptural statement is required to believe the inspiration of scripture. I am thinking of explicit statements in both examples.
Thanks,
Eric
Darryl (#213):
You write:
Well, given what I quoted from the CCC, I agree with all that. So now I’m even more puzzled as to how we disagree on the nature of faith. Perhaps a pair of supplementary notes on my part would help elicit some clarity from you.
1. What you say of the proposition: “This is the Church Christ founded” (where ‘this’ refers to a particular, visible body) is true of most doctrinal statements believed to express the deposit of faith generally. (I say ‘most’ for technical reasons I’m willing to discuss if you’re interested.) Hence the proposition in question presents no greater a difficulty for human reason than most other doctrines believed by most Christians. Indeed, I would argue that it presents less difficulty than the central doctrines you presumably hold along with Catholics: the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. The first says that three persons are each the same God as the others; the second says that one man was (and is) a divine person, fully God as well as fully man; the third said that that Person saved humanity from itself by letting a handful of people torture and execute him before he rose from the dead. My mind finds all that much harder to deal with than the proposition that he founded, and intended to found, what is now called ‘the Catholic Church’. And I am by no means singular in that respect.
2. The thrust of my argument was that “[i]f thereâs no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion, then the question what God has revealed can only be answered with human opinions,” and that if that’s all we’ve got, then “the assent of faith is impossible.” You rejected my argument in your penultimate comment. But in your last comment, instead of giving your reasons for doing so, you say something I agree with. It would almost certainly be rash of me to conclude that we agree on the nature of faith itself. But I am now clueless as to how that could be. Or not.
Best,
Mike
Eric (#216)
Huh? There are, I suppose, Protestants who believe in Scripture on Scripture’s say-so. If so, and if that were the real reason they believed it (I don’t think it is), they would be no different from Muslims or Mormons, who believe their Scriptures, apparently, for the same reason – or say they do.
Not sure what you mean by a ‘formal motive.’ My motive for making an act of faith is the very material arguments for the thing I am believing in – but my formal motive is the act of faith which the Holy Spirit grants and without which I cannot believe.
I think, in fact, that Protestants mostly believe in Scripture for the same reasons I believe in the Church. They have a variety of ‘motives of credibility’ (which are all material), including the very ordinary ones of having been reared in the faith, the arguments from fulfilment of prophecy, the empty tomb, etc – and they are granted the gift of faith. I really doubt there are any believers who, in the absence of external material motives, picked up a Bible, saw that it said “this is the Word of God” (the very existence of the Bible as a collected book, which does not say about itself as a whole that it is the Word of God is, itself, a material motive of credibility) – who saw that, and said, ok, it must be true. This is not the experience of real people.
jj
John (#218),
I agree with your comments about motives of credibility being the usual reasons for believing. The act of faith requires a formal motive or reason that belongs to the supernatural order. MOC don’t rise to this level. The formal motive I have in mind is the True God revealing or the authority of the God revealing. I cannot see how a catholic can affirm scripture’s inspiration without an actual explicit scriptural statement behind it.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric (#219)
OK, understood, and agreed – MOC do not rise to the level of formal motives. The formal motive for the Protestant is the belief in the inspiration of Scripture. The Catholic believes in the inspiration of Scripture, but he does so on the word of the Church. His formal motive, to use your language (which, I hasten to add, is probably the right language – I am no philosopher), is the divine mission of the Church. We believe the Church has been commissioned by Christ to teach the truth. The Church tells us, amongst other things, that Scripture is inspired.
jj
Eric – PS – we don’t start with the ‘formal motive’ of the inspiration of Scripture and derive the mission of the Church. It is the other way around.
jj
Eric:
You wrote:
and
All that is true as far as it goes, but an explication is needed to exhibit the relevant epistemic relations.
The Church’s “faith proposal” about her own authority is not by itself a reason to believe that proposal. Rather, it gives material content to what you call “the formal motive” for faith in general. Thus if the Church is what she claims, then she is the visible, living embodiment of the formal motive: God’s authority as Revealer. Those of us who, unlike the Apostles and other disciples who knew Jesus while he was visibly on Earth, lack direct experience of that divine authority, require such an embodiment in order to identify whom we trust by faith, and to identify all that’s proposed by that authority for the assent of faith.
As to the role of Scripture, JTJ has got it basically right. The proposition that just these writings are divinely inspired, and in that way inerrant expressions of divine revelation, is one of the propositions we believe by the authority of the Church precisely as a visible, living embodiment of divine authority. But as different kinds of authorities, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church are mutually attesting and interdependent: each points to the others, and the first two, which are the “sources” of divine revelation, can be authentically interpreted only by the last. You might call that a “material circle,” but a better analogy would be that of a three-legged stool holding up the deposit of faith as formal, proximate object of faith (FPOF) for us. To my mind, that makes good historical as well as epistemological sense.
Best,
Mike
John & Mike,
Did the teaching church draw from scripture to know that scripture was inspired ? perhaps from tradition alone or tradition / scripture together ? Vatican I said that it holds the “written books” as sacred and canonical because of there inspiration and divine origin.
Eric
Eric etal.
Just to propose my own logic, if its acceptable. It seems to me that Jesus did not write any Scripture. And God the Father only wrote the Ten Commandments. That may not seem significant, but bear with me.
It is interesting that we frequently ask ourselves, wwjd, what would Jesus do? So, let’s ask, “What did Jesus do? ”
1. He built a Church.
2. Taught the members of His Church.
3. Commanded them to pass on His Teachings.
Why? Why didn’t Jesus write a document? In my opinion, it is because He wanted us to look to the Church which He appointed to teach what He commanded.
Furthermore, the Teachings of Jesus Christ are His Traditions. And these Traditions tell us about Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Therefore, it can be said that the Traditions of Jesus Christ are the fulfillment of the Old Testament because they contain the knowledge of He who fulfilled the Old Testament.
Still more, these Traditions are the basis of the New Testament. Because the authors of the New Testament were writing down the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, in order for one to understand the Scripture, one must understand Sacred Tradition. But in order to understand Sacred Tradition, one must learn from the Church. Because it is the Church which Jesus appointed to teach His Traditions.
Does that make sense?
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Thanks for responding. These things do make sense to me, but you highlight only one side of the coin. Continuing with Vatican I, the Apostles learned from the mouth of Christ to pass on His teachings. They were also inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Do you think the Holy Spirit was continuing a written tradition beginning with the Father ?
You wrote:
Therefore, in order for one to understand the Scripture, one must understand Sacred Tradition.
Respond:
Jason Stellman recounts how he searched for the gospel in the scriptures (among other christian writings). A search for paradigmatic truths in the mind of an author was supposedly available from writings. His conclusions were judged to be the same as teachings of catholic tradition. Did he not understand tradition from understanding scripture ?
Why did the Apostles think that scripture was inspired ? Did they discover a paradigmatic truth implicit in Christ’s mind or explicit from His mouth (perhaps both) ? Christ’s command to pass on must have included the command to write.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric (#223):
De Maria has answered you mostly accurately (though I’d exegete the OT by opining that it was God the Son whom Moses saw and heeded). The OT scriptures were interpreted by the incarnate Son’s life and teaching, and the NT records how that played out. Once the overall canon was set, the Bible became the norma normans for the Church’s preservation and interpretation of the Tradition received from Christ.
The statement of Vatican I that you cite should be construed to mean that the writings contained in the Bible are canonical because the Church has discerned that they divinely inspired and thus inerrant. Their inspiration and consequent inerrancy is independent of the Church’s discernment, but our basis for saying that they are inspired and inerrant is the authority of the Church, which embodies that of her risen Head.
Best,
Mike
@Brian (#206):
Sure enough – just search for Benjamin Keil and Iâm the one at the University of Kansas. I did a quick search and saw a bunch of Brian Ortizâ which whom I have no mutual friends so Iâm not sure which one is you. :-p If you canât find me by searching (since I have my profile fairly locked down), let me know and maybe I can give you my email or some other way. Weâll figure something out. :)
Sincerely,
~Benjamin
@Darryl (#207),
Sorry for the delay in replying – Triduum time is busy (but fun!) time. :)
You wrote:
Ironically (or not), my former OPC pastor said pretty much the same thing when he and I were talking about Catholicism. Although I agree with what Mike and some of the other interlocutors have said, hereâs my own take on this kind of question.
First of all, I definitely donât (mean to) establish a criterion for certainty then say that the criterion exists – what I was trying to say was that if such-and-such actually is the criterion, then Protestantism canât meet the criterion. So the argument Iâve got in mind is something like:
It seems like you and I agree on premise 2, at least given your comment to me, so then the only disagreement will be over 1 – and you are totally right to say that I gave no argument in favor of 1 in my comment (although Mike has). And something very much like your view is what my former pastor held – that some way to distinguish between revelation and opinion would be swell if it existed, but it doesnât, so we just need to do the best we can despite being unable to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion.
Iâve got to admit – once my Pastor and I came to that point, there really wasnât much more to say. It became apparent that he and I had pretty fundamentally different conceptions of the epistemic consequences of revelation – and, consequently, of Christianity itself. If we ultimately canât distinguish between human opinion and divine revelation, then (as Mike said) we canât give the assent of faith to any theological proposition. All your theological views, then, are held with the assent of human opinion rather than the assent of faith. But insofar as you assent to something via the assent of opinion, you are committed to holding it only insofar as the evidence allows. So, as with all your other opinions, if certain kinds of evidence came along you would be rationally committed to changing your views about your theology.
Here comes the theological liberalism of a kind, I think, far more insidious than anything youâve accused Rome of holding. You know those views you have about the Trinity? You are rationally required to reject them (and become, say, a Unitarian) if the right kind of evidence comes along. Your views about number and nature of the sacraments? You hold those only provisionally and youâll change them if the right kind of evidence presents itself. I could go on, but you get the point: Every theological opinion you hold is, well, an opinion – itâs provisional, and youâll change it under certain circumstances.
When my Pastor and I got there, I realized that something was very wrong. Heck, I havenât read much Calvin or Luther (probably wayyy less than you have), but my limited readings definitely did not give me the impression that Calvin held onto his view of Communion or the Trinity with the assent of human opinion such that, if certain evidence came up, Calvin would have become a Unitarian (or a transubstantiationalist, etc). Thatâs just not how Calvin rolled – or Luther, or Zwingli, or anybody back then. Both Calvin and Catholics agreed that we needed some principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion – Calvin thought he could do it, Luther thought he could do it, etc. Heck, I thought the big difference between liberal Protestants and conservative/confessional Protestants was that liberals thought religion boiled down to matters of opinion but confessional Protestants thought that religion boiled down to matters of divine revelation.
But apparently thatâs not what you think – and, as I said, you and my former OPC pastor are expressing basically the same view. My discussions with him (and subsequent discussion with you) led me to conclude that the difference between the OPC (and other conservative/confessional Reformed denominations) and, say, the PCUSA was actually pretty small. That is, both the OPC and the PCUSA apparently hold that religion basically boils down to matters of opinion – and itâs just that the OPC has some human opinions about womenâs ordination (they canât be ordained) and the PCUSA has some other opinions about womenâs ordination (they can). But in both those denominations, apparently, there was nothing in sight except merely human opinions about what God has revealed – and hence, the assent of faith was nowhere to be found. Thus, the assent of opinion was everywhere to be found.
I donât want to minimize the difficulties of the historical concerns youâre raising. But conversion requires at least a two step process: At first, one has to reject Protestantism. Second, one has to accept Catholicism. What Iâve written above doesnât say much about the second step since, even if Catholicism provides a principled way to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion, Eastern Orthodoxy does too (as does Mormonism, etc). But all that stuff above does touch on the first step (the part about rejecting Protestantism) – and once one rejects Protestantism, then that makes Catholicism a viable step in a kind of way it wasnât previously.
You wrote:
Eh, honestly, it used to but it doesnât much anymore. Yeah, some of the big stuff in Catholic ecclesiology doesnât get much âairtimeâ in Scripture as I might like. But once one conceptualizes of the Church as fundamentally a faith community (and a ~2000 year old old one at that), it makes sense that all kinds of important things wouldnât be in its holy (inspired, God-given) book since the book wasnât finished until, what, 60 some years after the communityâs head ascended into heaven? All of that is to say that this is one of those issues which seems way more problematic from the Protestant vantage point than it is from the Catholic vantage point.
Oh yeah, and I wasnât meaning to make too big a deal out of the RPW. Itâs one of those nifty issues where, like some Catholic theologies, there just isnât a lot of good clear scriptural support for it. I mean, Iâve read the 10 commandments plenty of times, but none of them brought to mind that âThe acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scriptureâ (WCF 21.1). Even if you think the RPW is in Scripture, I think itâll be a stretch to say itâs clearly found in Scripture. Catholics can and have said (it seems to me) effectively the same thing about, say, the Real Presence (actually, the real presence seems to me more clearly in scripture than WCF21.1, but maybe thatâs just me). Anyways, I didnât mean to make too big a deal out of the RPW – I just was trying to show that we Catholics would make parallel moves to Protestants with some doctrines that arenât so clearly found in Scripture.
Hehe – I think thatâs a compliment. If so, thanks. :-) My vulnerability with respect to Catholicism hopefully doesnât come from my seeming to think that Catholicism is false – Iâve got a lot personally riding on its being true, and I think it is true. But even if itâs true, Catholicism isnât easy or straightforward (like the law of non-contradiction), and I recognize that smart guys like you disagree with me, so…well, itâs just my way of wrestling with the fact that lots of smart people are Protestants and lots of smart people are Catholics. Iâm neither and, heck, Iâm a philosopher anyways (so Iâm really outside of my element). But there are my thoughts, such as they are.
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin :)
Mike (#226),
If what you say is true, then we can say that the Lord taught “All scripture is inspired by God” and identified some canon. The OT and the incarnate Son’s life / teaching provide no NT records or canon of the records, and the Tradition received from Christ allowed for more Holy Spirit inspired writings. This leads me to ask: Did the Lord reveal the doctrine of scripture’s inspiration or was it taught before His incarnation ? Could someone know which books were inspired without Christ’s authority ?
Eric
Eric (#225):
You write:
Jason concluded that the Catholic “paradigm” of justification and sanctification makes better overall sense of the relevant passages of Scripture than the Reformed. But that was only one step on his journey. He saw that the Reformed view does not exhibit any putative “perspicuity” of Scripture on the matter, but was only one interpretive opinion among others, and not the most defensible. But if he had left things at that, he could well have concluded that his preferred interpretation was itself only an opinion that might be wrong, and remained Protestant. In fact, the substance of the Catholic view is shared by some non-Reformed Protestants; but like the Reformed, they cannot explain why their view is anything more than one rationally plausible opinion among others. Catholicism can, and does.
Of course it is possible to “understand tradition from understanding scripture.” I believe Jason did understand the directly pertinent content of Tradition through his study of Scripture. But that doesn’t tell us whether Tradition has any normative content behind and beyond Scripture. To get beyond Protestantism, one must acknowledge that it does. But the only way to make that acknowledgement is to acknowledge the binding interpretive authority of the bearer of both Tradition and Scripture, i.e. the Church Christ founded. There is no other epistemic access to the deposit of faith as an expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a collection of human opinions. And that’s what Jason did.
You also ask:
Apparently, the Apostles believed that the books contained in the Septuagint are divinely inspired, for that’s the version of “Scripture” they knew and quoted. They probably believed that before meeting Jesus, but their experience of his person, words, and deeds gave them the correct interpretive key to those writings. We do not know whether Jesus commanded them to write, but we do know that he commissioned them as the core of his new Israel, his ecclesia, and commanded them to preach the truth to the world, starting with the Jews.
Best,
Mike
You’re welcome.
I don’t know what you mean?
Continuing with Vatican I? This has continued throughout the history of the Church.
So, perhaps I’m not understanding your meaning.
To write what? Let us look at Scripture:
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy;
This is St. Peter talking. He says, “we”, meaning the Apostles. And he assures the reader that they have a more sure word than did the Prophets of the Old Testament.
whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
And then he says that it would be wise for the reader to obey the prophecy of the Apostles.
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Now, he speaks of Scripture and says that the reader is not free to interpret the Scripture according to his own whim.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
Notice the distinction between prophecy and Scripture.
The prophecy did not come by any man’s will.
but holy men of God spake
But holy men spoke the prophecy in obedience to God. Let’s take a brief glance at Jesus’ command.
Jesus, God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, commanded holy men to speak and teach His commands.
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Later those same men wrote the prophecies which God had commanded them to speak. They didn’t write anything different than that which God had commanded them to speak.
I think the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to write down what Jesus had commanded them to teach. His Sacred Traditions. Yes.
Correct.
Paradigmatic truths? A paradigm is a system of thought. A set of logical deductions or adductions.
He was comparing paradigms to the Scriptures to see which paradigms fit the Scripture best.
Namely, he took the Catholic paradigm based upon Catholic Sacred Tradition and the Protestant paradigm based upon the Protestant tradition. He compared both to Scripture and decided that, in his opinion, the Catholic paradigm fit the facts better.
Correct.
He confirmed what he had begun to suspect. That Catholic Tradition is the basis of the New Testament.
They knew it was inspired because they were so taught, by their Jewish tradition and by Jesus Christ.
Yes to both.
If it did, why did most of the Apostles and disciples ignore that command?
No thanks necessary,
Sincerely,
De Maria
# 228 Benjamin,
I dealt with the same thing when I was leaving the Reformed church where I was a member. My pastors also didn’t think that they needed a principled way to determine human opinion and divine revelation. Protestantism is messy, heck Christianity is messy, I should just learn to live in the messiness. There’s nothing more I can have this side of heaven.
When I read Darryl’s words, “who cares?” I sorta scrunch my nose and squint me eyes, because I just can’t believe that he doesn’t see the implications in this idea.
Am I wrong to conclude that unless Reformers believe that their formularies are infallible, they have no way to principled way to critique anyone else’s doctrines?
You are extremelysharp and very gentlemanly.
Blessings,
Susan
Eric (#225 and 229):
If it did, they surely didn’t follow the commandment very well! Of the original Apostles, only three produced a Gospel (St. John, St. Matthew and presumably St. Peter, through St. John Mark), and there are a handful of other letters (St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude). St. Paul was responsible (directly or indirectly) for the rest. But I doubt that the other Apostles should be considered failures for that.
Mike alluded a little bit to this, but you seem to be conflating inspiration with revelation. Inspiration means that God was a co-author, but it doesn’t mean that one has a complete knowledge of the divinely inspired content. In other words, you can know that something has divine content without knowing what that content is. In fact, the Old Testament is evidence that people can know the Scriptures as inspired *without* knowing their content, since the Scriptures testify to Christ, but this was not apparent until Christ was revealed. And even the faithful, the Apostles themselves, did not understand how the Scriptures testified to His Resurrection until after the fact. So Christ had to lead them along the way, to hold their hands through the process, which is shown in the Gospels. Only after He shows someone in this way and they still refuse to see does He condemn them for failure to know, and even the Apostles themselves are rebuked in the Gospel of Mark repeatedly for their failure to understand. Generally, it is not as if they should have known that the Scriptures testified to Christ, but if they had known the Scriptures for what they *did* say (in terms of teaching love of God and love of one another), then they should have recognized the ultimate expression of God’s love: His own Son.
In terms of our understanding of the divine content, Pentecost changed everything. That was the birthday of the Church; until then, much of Scripture was hidden. It is no coincidence that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church was the turning point of understanding Scriptures, because that was the point at which the presence of the One Who Inspired began to dwell in the hearts of Christians. Before then, the community of God recognized that Scriptures were inspired; after, they recognized what they were saying. It was this common witness of the Church that caused people to recognize later additional documents as being inspired, and again, this was a process of collective realization in the Church, not an individual deliverance in the manner of the Old Testament prophets. Of the New Testament, only Revelation is in the prophetic genre, although there are some similar elements in the Gospels.
From the Catholic perspective, the fact that the Church comes before Scripture themselves in terms of understanding the divine content is itself a Scriptural teaching. People who recognized the Scriptures as inspired, even faithful people, did not understand the content until it was revealed to them by God. That is why St. Paul spoke of the “man of God” being equipped for good works by Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The collective witness of the Holy Spirit as to the content is primary, and because of that primary witness, we know what the content is. Consequently, we know the Old Testament better even than those who wrote it, because we have access to more of its content, even though we ourselves also see “as in a mirror darkly” in terms of ultimate vision. In principle, unlike the community of God before Christ, we could have done without any written revelation of the New Covenant at all, but God provided this as a help to us.
In short, there is a missing link in your logical chain from “inspiration” to “revelation,” and that link is the Church.
Thanks, Jonathan. I had just wandered back here to write a reply to Eric’s #229, but I see that you did it for me.
Mike (#230),
You wrote:
Apparently, the Apostles believed that the books contained in the Septuagint are divinely inspired, for thatâs the version of âScriptureâ they knew and quoted. They probably believed that before meeting Jesus, but their experience of his person, words, and deeds gave them the correct interpretive key to those writings. We do not know whether Jesus commanded them to write, but we do know that he commissioned them as the core of his new Israel, his ecclesia, and commanded them to preach the truth to the world, starting with the Jews.
Response:
Push through the “apparently”, “probably” and “we do not know”. These words indicate a problem within the catholic paradigm. The catholic paradigm still cannot explain how the Apostles believed and identified OT scripture without Christ proposing some canon for belief. Link the “written form”, known as the NT, to Christ’s teaching apart from the content of that form. The “written books” may be a form to transmit Christ’s teaching, but where in Christ’s teaching do we expect this form from His Apostle’s ? Why did the Apostles write anything when their Master wrote nothing ?
Eric
Eric (#235):
I see that Jonathan’s comment wasn’t enough. Oh well. Here goes.
You write:
First, we must be careful not to be anachronistic about such concepts as canonicity and inspiration. There was no formal Jewish “canon” when Jesus walked the Earth, and there was no prevailing agreement about what “inspiration” consisted in or what it applied to. The only set of writings everybody accepted as divinely inspired and binding was the Torah or Pentateuch. The Sadduccees, who were the predominant party among the wealthy and priestly families, accepted only the Torah or Pentateuch as inspired and binding, in part because the universal tradition was that Moses, recognized by all as a great prophet, had written it–a tradition which is unlikely to be true for each and every part of the Torah, and for which there is no good, independent evidence in any case. Like the Pharisees–the party Jesus seemed closest to–the Essenes seem to have accepted “the prophets” and “the writings” in addition to the Torah as inspired, or at least as authoritative, though perhaps not of the same degree of authority as the Torah. But the Qumran discovery indicates that they were busy producing writings of their own that they esteemed as highly as the prophets and the writings, which nobody else did. Jesus and his followers seemed to approach this matter, and indeed much of theology, as the Pharisees did, thus accepting the Septuagint as inspired in some sense, even though it was a Greek translation. But we didn’t get a formal Jewish canon until the end of the first century, after the destruction of the Second Temple, when the rabbis accepted only books originally written in Hebrew, and so rejected the Septuagint canon in favor of what later came to be called the “Muratorian” canon. Even today, that’s the canon Protestants accept as “the Old Testament,” rather than the Septuagint canon. So what, precisely, is this “OT” that Jesus is supposed to have taught the Apostles was inspired and canonical? From a purely historical standpoint, that’s a matter of opinion, which will probably never be resolved into knowledge.
And that brings me to my main point. This is not primarily a question of knowledge; from the standpoint of human reason, we have mostly just opinions about it. But opinions won’t do as answers to the question which writings are divinely inspired and thus inerrant. So for Catholics, the question what counts as inspired, inerrant Scripture must be and was left to the authority of the Church, founded on the Apostles. And that is not a “weakness” of the CIP. Why?
As God the Son, Jesus Christ is the primordial “Word of God” and thus “the” revelation of God to man. As such, he showed the Apostles how “the scriptures” were about him and what he would do. OT Scripture, whatever its exact contours, is only a written record of the divine revelation that was unfolding, and is not that revelation itself. And neither it nor the NT, taken separately or jointly, were ever meant to be the only authority about revelation, because the exact contours of the biblical canon had not even been set by the time the last apostle died. That’s why it matters little the we have no formal, written record of what Jesus told the Apostles about the concepts of canonicity and inspiration, and not terribly much clarity about how they applied such concepts. All that matters is that what counts as inspired, inerrant Scripture is a question that was left to the Church, the bearer of divine authority in the world, to resolve in due course.
Some of the Apostles wrote things that the Church has preserved not necessarily because Jesus ordered them to–there’s really no evidence of that–but because they and the Church as a whole found it pastorally necessary for them to do so. Without the four canonical gospels especially, there would have been nothing for the early sub-apostolic Church to point to as a clear record of the revelation in Jesus Christ, so that much would have been forgotten or distorted, thus making the challenge of heresy more difficult to meet. That’s why and how the challenge of the Docetists was met by John’s Gospel. That’s why and how the challenge of the Marcionites in the early and mid-second century was met by the Church of Rome’s setting most of the NT canon, comprised chiefly of writings traditionally read in worship synaxes before the celebration of the Eucharist. That’s why and how the challenge of the Gnostics was met by a reiteration of that canon along with the Church’s rejection of the Gnostic gospels. And that’s why and how East and West had to formally close the canon at Nicaea with the often-disputed Book of Revelation.
From the standpoint of the CIP, the main point to be made here about Scripture is that it was never meant to function as the sole authoritative presentation of divine revelation. Hence, the question what counted as Scripture for Jesus and the Apostles can, to a certain extent, safely be left to opinion. What matters far more is the question whether some living, visible, divinely commissioned authority is needed for telling those of us who come after the Apostles what is and is not an authentic expression of divine revelation. The Catholic answer is yes, and that the Catholic Church is that authority. If you reject that authority, you are left largely with opinions, even about the significance of such knowledge as we have.
Best,
Mike
Mike (re: #236),
As I have not been involved with the whole discussion, I would simply like to make a few comments on your last post.
You said, “…thatâs why and how East and West had to formally close the canon at Nicaea…”
This seems to be a historical error or misrepresentation. It would be helpful if you could document what you are referring to, since I find it difficult to see how the canon could be “formally closed” if there were no formal decisions as to what constituted the canon.
You said, “The Catholic answer is yes, and that the Catholic Church is that authority. If you reject that authority, you are left largely with opinions.”
This affirmation puts the Roman Catholic in an odd position. Since the Council of Trent provided the only formal and binding declaration of the canon of Scripture, the Catholic seemingly must affirm that all those born before 1500 were left “largely with opinions.”
You said, “What matters far more is the question whether some living, visible, divinely commissioned authority is needed for telling those of us who come after the Apostles what is and is not an authentic expression of divine revelation.”
If that matters far more, then the following question also arises: Is some living, visible, divinely commissioned authority needed to tell us that the Catholic Church is the original, authentic, living, divisible, divinely commissioned authority? And then is another authority needed on top of that?Catholics seems to stop this infinite regress with the axiom of natural reason, while Protestants say it stops with with self-attesting Word of God.
De Maria (#231),
Here are some short answers to your questions and concerns:
Q. I donât know what you mean?
Q. Continuing with Vatican I? This has continued throughout the history of the Church.
So, perhaps Iâm not understanding your meaning.
A. See #223 for why I continued with Vatican I.
Q. Paradigmatic truths?
A. I meant that certain truths of Catholic Tradition must be in the minds of the NT authors.
Q. If it did, why did most of the Apostles and disciples ignore that command?
A. A general command to write was given with the Holy Spirit freely determining the specific occasions. If Christ did not command, then the “written form” specific to NT does not originate with Christ’s teaching. In some cases, a command can be given without an imperative.
Please feel free to respond to comment # 235.
———————-
You wrote:
They knew it was inspired because they were so taught, by their Jewish tradition and by Jesus Christ.
Response:
Is this your opinion ?
Eric
Jonathan (#233),
Thanks for responding. Your response was detailed and very informative.
You wrote:
If it did, they surely didnât follow the commandment very well!…
Response:
I find this strange. Appeals to scripture show that Christ commanded the Apostles to preach and teach. Tradition is behind this scripture. What explains the fact that the Apostles wrote ? Possibly a command from the same Tradition ?
————————
You wrote:
In fact, the Old Testament is evidence that people can know the Scriptures as inspired *without* knowing their content, since the Scriptures testify to Christ, but this was not apparent until Christ was revealed.
Response:
For the sake of argument, I will grant *without* knowing their content. Consequently, the OT scriptures provide OT evidence that people can know the scriptures as inspired. Since Christ’s authority was not necessary for this, then the Church’s authority follows suit for the NT. If this is not the case, then “All scripture is inspired by God” is a doctrine originating with the incarnate Son or His Apostles.
Thanks,
Eric
John D (#237):
You wrote:
You are correct that Nicaea made no “formal decision” about the canon, and it was wrong of me to suggest otherwise. My ill-framed statement was, however, an inference from the following. The canon as formally enumerated by the Council of Rome (382) is exactly the same one later defined by the Council of Trent and used by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches even today. That enumeration came very not long after Nicaea I, before which the canonicity of the Book of Revelation was still disputed in some quarters; but after the 4th century, it no longer was. So, I concluded that the canon was effectively closed by joint East-West agreement by the mid 4th-century at the latest. My error consisted in suggesting that said closure was by a formal, joint East-West statement at Nicaea I.
I had written:
To that, you reply:
Given my citation of the Council of Rome just above, your first sentence is false. But even if that council had made no such formal declaration, for Catholics the question which writings belong in the biblical canon had been settled by Tradition long before Trent, by joint consensus of West and East. Formal dogmas propounded by the “extraordinary magisterium” of general councils or of popes are not the only way the Church infallibly teaches. The Apostles’ Creed is an example of infallible teaching by the “ordinary and universal magisterium,” and most of the Church’s irreformable moral teachings have been set forth infallibly by that same magisterium.
You also replied:
For Catholics, the formal, proximate object of faith (FPOF) is the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, where those are understood to be mutually attesting and necessarily interdependent. Thus the first two transmit the content of divine revelation to us; the third ensures that those are authentically identified and interpreted, by divine authority. As I had written to Eric: “You might call that a âmaterial circle,â but a better analogy would be that of a three-legged stool holding up the…FPOF for us. To my mind, that makes good historical as well as epistemological sense.”
Arguments of “natural reason” for accepting the FPOF in that sense do not generate an infinite regress. They merely present the Catholic Church’s conception of the FPOF as a more reasonable way of conceiving it than the alternative of a “self-attesting” Scripture. For the latter sort of attestation boils down simply to some peoples’ fallible, non-binding interpretations of Scripture.
Best,
Mike
Mike (re: #240),
Thanks for the reply. I would like to respond to a few things.
(1) You said:
I sense a bait and switch in your argument. You are correct that the Council of Rome (382) formally enumerated the same list later defined by Trent. However, you leave out that this was not an ecumenical council. So, although the council claims to this list is âwhat universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shunâ this council is not protected from error according to Catholic teaching. Moreover, I doubt you are willing to elevate all decrees of local councils to matters of dogma, even if we only count cases where the local council claims to speak on behalf of the universal Catholic Church. If that is the case, then it is accurate to state Catholics are left âlargely with opinionâ prior to Trent.
(2) You said:
How can a Catholic know that the ordinary and universal magisterium has decided a matter infallibly? I think your answer to that question would approximately parallel to how a Protestant knows what books constitute Scripture.
(3) You also said:
The only way someone could know which is âa more reasonable way of conceivingâ is if they presuppose natural reason to start. How does the Catholic know that natural reason leads to Truth? It appears faith in Godâs word is a more proper starting point. In response to the âfallible, non-binding interpretationsâ remark, I answer that the Catholic simply seems to prefer his/her fallible, non-binding interpretations of the historical record.
Peace,
John D.
John (#241):
You write:
Your argument is unsound. For one thing, a premise of it is a straw man. For I didn’t claim that the Council of Rome was infallible just by virtue of being a local council. And the conclusion of your argument is a non-sequitur. For I would argue that the Council of Rome’s enumeration of the canon was infallible for the reason I give next:
As a matter of historical fact, the “consensus” I cited was firm by the end of the 4th century.
To that, you reply:
There are three difficulties with that. Together, they suffice to rebut your objection.
First, you assume that Catholics are supposed to “know” when a doctrine has been taught infallibly. But that does not square with the Church’s understanding of the assent of faith. For in this life it is by faith, not by knowledge, that we believe that the Church teaches infallibly at all, and thus it is by faith, not by knowledge, that we believe any article of faith so taught. But for reasons I’ve often given, such faith is by no means unreasonable.
Second, you take no account of the fact that the Magisterium develops and clarifies particular answers to your question over time. It did so with the Apostles’ Creed in the 2nd century; it did so with the biblical canon centuries before Trent; and it has done so today on the question of women’s ordination. And those are just three examples. Formal definitions of beliefs belonging to Tradition are not always necessary for Catholics to “know” when the traditional conditions on definitive and infallible teaching have been met. If that were not the case, then the entire deposit of faith would have been a matter of opinion before the first ecumenical council, which is absurd.
Third, my answer to your question does not “approximately parallel to how a Protestant knows what books constitute Scripture,” in part because I would deny that Protestants as such “know” any such thing. In the 16th century, the Reformers rejected the Septuagint canon long established by the Catholic and Orthodox churches in favor of the Muratorian canon. Thus they reversed prior development of definitive doctrine, while citing no visible authority other than their scholarly agreement for doing so. That is unlike what either the Catholic or the Orthodox churches do.
Finally, you write:
I know neither what you mean by “presupposing natural reason” nor, whatever you mean by that phrase, why you think doing what it describes would be a mistake. It is undeniable that there is such a thing as natural reason, and if one is going to do apologetics at all, one must use it. Thus, what I described as a “more reasonable way of conceiving” the FPOF is what I exhibit as such using natural reason to make an apologetical argument.
Of course you claim that “faith in God’s word is a more proper starting point.” Well, that depends on the discipline one is engaged in. If one is doing theology proper, then one should indeed take “God’s word”–whatever that may consist in–as one’s starting point. That’s what all theologians as such do, regardless of which theology they profess. But when one is doing apologetics, then one of the issues needing to be addressed is, precisely, how we are to identify “God’s word” as such in the first place, given the widespread disagreement about what that word is and about how to identify it as such. And as I’ve said, that’s what I do using natural reason. There is no logical alternative.
Now you say that, like the Protestant, “the Catholic simply seems to prefer his/her fallible, non-binding interpretations of the historical record.” But a tu quoque objection of that sort misses the mark. If and when the context of discussion is apologetics, then indeed the arguments that Catholics or Protestants can give will be be “fallible” and “non-binding.” But from that fact, it does not follow that any teachings to which such arguments facilitate assent is itself fallible and non-binding. Arguments only show how and when the assent of faith is reasonable; they do not suffice to make that assent rationally inevitable.
Best,
Mike
Mike (#236),
I want CIP to explain a glaring discontinuity between Christ and the Apostles. Christ did not use his pastoral authority to write. Three things are clear: (1) The Father intended the NT scriptures (2) The law of Christ revealed and mediated the Father’s intentions (3) The actual NT scriptures fulfill the Father’s intention. I conclude that the NT scriptures are necessary by necessity of supposition and precept. Disagree ? If not, then provide catholic sources of revelation to substantiate my conclusion.
Eric
Eric (#243):
Your argument is sound. It does not follow, however, that that the Apostles knew your conclusion is true. All that follows is that, once the NT canon was established de facto (probably by the mid-2nd century), the early Church was in a position to verify your premises, and thus reach your conclusion.
Accordingly, we don’t have to identify something Jesus or the Apostles said in order to show that an NT was necessary or that it would end up containing what it does. All that’s necessary is to identify the Church Christ founded, and her authority. And Scripture helps us do that, while also being validates as such by the Church.
Best,
Mike
Hello Mike (re: #242),
Thanks for the response; here is my reply.
1. I did not intend to attribute to you the position that the Council of Romeâs pronouncement was infallible by virtue of their being a local council. However, you do go on to claim that the enumeration at the Council of Rome was infallible as the matter had been âsettled by Tradition.â Herein lies the rub. Is that conclusion [that the Council of Romeâs enumeration was infallible] an element of the Catholic Faith that is formally protected from error? You seem to reply, yes since it is part of Tradition. However, this is your opinion. Even if it is based on a reasoned argument, it is licit for a Roman Catholic today to hold that the Council of Romeâs decision was not infallible. Therefore, the Catholic is back to square one of a canon based âlargely on opinionâ prior to Trent. He may accept your argument about the Council of Rome or he may reject it, but either way, he is the fallible agent making the decision.
2. Iâm not married to the thesis that the way Catholics know the binding decisions of the ordinary magisterium is parallel to the way Protestantâs know what constitutes Scripture. Nevertheless, I will respond to some of your statements there:
A) You said,
Perhaps I was unclear, but I did not intend to assume this. Whether or not Catholics actually are aware of all the things that have been infallibly decided is irrelevant to my argument. Rather, I argue that it is impossible for a Catholic to know, with certainty, whether or not a matter has been infallibly decided by the ordinary magisterium.
B) You said,
On the Catholic paradigm, individuals cannot know, with certainty, without a formal definition of the belief. The reason is that all of their decisions as to what is in Tradition will be based on their evaluation of arguments that are not protected from error. You cited 3 examples which, conveniently for your argument, have not changed. However, I can cite examples of things that appeared to be settled only to be disputed later. One example is a literal six day creation, which Catholics are now free to disregard.
C) You said,
Protestants can know that canon at least as well as a Catholic can know if something has been infallibly decided by the ordinary magisterium. Also, it is not much of a point to say that Protestants, who deny the existence of an infallible, visible authority, did not appeal to one. Before examining the historical record, I would first ask how you interpret Romans 3:2?
3. (A) By âpresupposing natural reasonâ I mean that a person has a more ultimate commitment to natural reason than to other things. When you say something is a âmore reasonable way of conceivingâ the FPOF, you are arguing that an individual ought to choose this way. However, how do you know that the âmore reasonable wayâ is more likely to be true? At rock bottom, it seems that you propose natural reason is an axiom that must be accepted. How do you know natural reason is valid? If you give a reasoned argument in response, then you beg the question. Thus, you simply place your trust in it. Well, Reformed Christians place a similar trust in Godâs Word at the outset.
(B) Reformed Christians propose the Word of God as an alternative, ultimate presupposition. Human reason is subordinate to Godâs Word, but Godâs Word provides the necessary foundation for valid, human reasoning. How do Christians know what the Word of God is? God tells them. He says, âMy sheep hear my voiceâ (John 10:27). Dr. James White has framed it in the following way, âThe New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon didâ [https://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/
“Vatican I said that it holds the âwritten booksâ as sacred and canonical because of there inspiration and divine origin.”
Then my answer remains the same. The Church has always considered the Scriptures Divine. And the Church canonized the Scriptures. Therefore, this has been true throughout the history of the Church.
â¨
Correct. The Teachings of Christ preceded the NT Scriptures.
You are reading a general command to write into the Scriptures. But it is not there.
Correct. It originates with the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
Agreed. But this is not one of them.
I’ll try to get to it later.
It is fact, Jesus said:
John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Thus teaching that Scripture is the Word of God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
John (#245):
Addressing me, you write:
You’re presenting a false dichotomy: either “formal infallibility” or “opinion.” That is understandable, since many poorly catechized Catholics labor under the same misimpression about how infallibility manifests itself in the Church. But the dichotomy is not only false, but demonstrably so. How?
Suppose arguendo that the dichotomy is true: formal infallibility and opinion are the only epistemic alternatives. If so, then only dogmas formally defined by ecumenical councils or popes, as binding on the whole Church, are suitable for the assent of faith as distinct from that of opinion. But if that is itself a true norm of faith binding on the whole Church, then by its own criterion, it too would have to have been formally defined in the way specified. Yet it never has been. On the contrary, when the Magisterium has addressed the topic of infallibility, it has assumed that “the Church” as such–i.e., the body of the faithful as a whole–is infallible on matters of faith, and speaks of the infallibility of popes, general councils, and the college of bishops only as manifestations of such ecclesial infallibility. And things could hardly be otherwise; for prior to any ecumenical council or unilateral papal definition, the entire deposit of faith was infallibly held and professed by the Church “catholic,” albeit more explicitly by the college of bishops with divine authority over said Church. Thus, what counts as “infallible” teaching must be discernible in principle by Tradition without the intervention of the extraordinary magisterium. The latter only makes the prior faith of the Church more explicit and precise so as to dispel confusions or errors that contingently arise; it does not fashion the Faith along the way out of prior opinions. That’s what the first ecumenical council did, and that’s what all subsequent interventions by the extraordinary magisterium have done.
The mistake you’re making consists in a faulty inference. Thus, from the fact that many Catholics are unclear or wrong about which non-defined doctrines are irreformable in virtue of having been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium, you conclude that everything short of formally defined dogma is a matter of opinion. But given how the Church works as I’ve described, that neither is nor could be the case. When the Magisterium clears up such confusion or error, it is not changing a matter of opinion into a matter of faith. It is making clear what the faith on the matter always was, so that those who don’t recognize it as such, or see the matter only as one of opinion, are better equipped to see that they were wrong (not that they always will). As I had said, there are many examples of that. The fact that not all such cases have been cleared up by formal magisterial statements does not mean that every such case is a matter of opinion until formally made otherwise.
Again, the biblical canon is a good example of what I’m talking about. What made the Council of Rome’s enumeration of the canon infallible was not the fact that the Council of Rome taught it, but the fact that said council was only articulating what had been come to be recognized as irreformable by means of Tradition as borne, professed, and known by the Church as a whole. The Council of Trent found it necessary to reaffirm the canon accepted by universal Tradition only because the Reformers presumed to delete the “deuteros,” thus treating the exact contours of the biblical canon as a matter of opinion and leading some to do the same.
Your objection to such a picture is this:
But the example you give is faulty. St. Augustine denied that Genesis had to be interpreted as positing creation in literally six days, and was never condemned for that. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the Ptolemaic theory of geocentrism: Copernicus and Kepler were never condemned for proposing the hypothesis of heliocentrism, which was confirmed a few centuries later. The reason most Christians of whatever stripe believed young-earth creationism and geocentrism prior to the development of modern science–and some still do, much to my chagrin–was that there were no confirmed scientific alternatives to the biblical account of such matters. On reflection, the Catholic Church has come to understand that natural science is its own, legitimate form of inquiry whose conclusions need not and should not be understood as contrary to the Faith. So, as the CIP would have it, where exegesis and scientific knowledge conflict, it’s biblical exegesis which should change.
A better example for your purpose might be contraception, but even that one doesn’t work for you. Prior to the 20th century, the universal consensus of the Catholic Church in particular and of Christendom in general was that intentionally blocking conception where it could otherwise occur is gravely immoral. Since the 1920s, most Christians have rejected that past consensus, thus raising the question whether the consensus was always wrong, or whether it was always right, so that most Christians today–including most Catholics–are wrong. Only the Catholic Magisterium has consistently taught the latter; indeed a recent Vatican document has called the Catholic teaching “definitive and irreformable.” Thus on the CIP, the matter is not one of opinion–and the fact that most people think it is does not make it so.
You write:
As I have long argued, the fact that Protestants as such “deny the existence of an infallible, visible authority” renders religion simply a matter of opinion for them, whether some realize that or not. For without such an authority, there is no principled way to distinguish between authentic expressions of divine revelation and what some fallible people believe to be such expressions. The CIP does have such a principled means and uses it when necessary–although for the reasons I’ve given above, recognizing when a given teaching is irreformable is not limited to formal statements by such an authority.
As to Romans 3:2, my individual interpretation is not what counts. What counts is how the Church as a whole interprets it. The Church as a whole has always understood that verse to be literally true. Accordingly, the fact that most Jews don’t become Christians can only be explained by their unwillingness to see the Christ-event and the Church has the fulfillment of their own scriptures. The question when that unwillingness is culpable is, of course, another matter that cannot be judged in individual cases.
You write:
Your position amounts to a form of fideism that I don’t believe all “Reformed Christians,” let alone Catholics, would accept. Those who don’t accept it have very good reason to reject it. Why?
The questions you pose to me are of the form: “How do you know….?” Such questions can only be answered, whether well or poorly, using what you call “natural reason.” I could answer them and we could debate the answers; but given how you have framed the issue, that would be beside the point. The point is that there is no alternative to “presupposing” the validity of natural reason if we are going to conduct any inquiry at all with the aim of discovering truth. “Trust” in natural reason is accordingly justified on that basis, apart from any appeal to an authority one might also trust; to deny that would be to eschew reason altogether, which I don’t think even you want to do. But the same cannot be said of what you present as your presupposition. Unlike trust in reason, your presupposition is trust in what you take to be an authority that undergirds and can trump reason; but you cannot present that as knowledge if you present it as an alternative to trusting reason. Since you do present it precisely as such an alternative, you eschew giving any more basic “reasons” from which we could infer its truth. Accordingly, I can explain why my presupposition is justified as such, but you cannot do the same for yours–unless you argue that the entire system of belief involving your presupposition is, itself, at least reasonable. But that would have you doing the same thing on behalf of your belief-system that I do for mine. And that would be fine by me, since I believe I can make and have made the better case.
Yet you also write:
That is confused–so much so, that it is ultimately incoherent. There is of course a sense in which “human reason is subordinate to God’s word”: Where conclusions reached by the former conflict with the latter, it is the former that needs correction. But human reason has an unavoidable role to play in helping us determine what counts as “God’s word” in the first place. To deny that lands you inextricably in the difficulties I described in my previous paragraph. Indeed, it is simply incoherent to suggest that God’s word is the “foundation” by which we can validate the use of natural reason. Whatever A is a foundation for B can only be exhibited as such by making inferences by natural reason from A. So, where B is natural reason itself, presenting something called “God’s word” as the foundation for natural reason is self-defeating.
Best,
Mike
@Susan (#232)
Thanks for the reply. :) Just a few thoughts of my own, but nothing too serious…
You wrote:
Eh, at least speaking for my own (former) pastor, he was fully aware of the implications of his theology. He just didnât think there was any (viable) alternative, and I thought there was. But, yeah, religion reducing to opinion definitely didnât seem to bother him in a way that it did me. I think there are good reasons that it should bother someone, but, for any number of reasons, my former pastor didnât find my thoughts compelling. Oh well – as a philosopher, one encounters this not infrequently.
You wrote:
Well, Iâm not a trained theologian, but I think what you have there is a bit imprecise. If the Reformers are presenting their theologies as one human interpretation among many possible human interpretations of the Bible, then not believing your confession (Augsburg, Westminster, etc.) is infallible makes a lot of sense. After all, opinions can (and have!) been wrong plenty of times before. Further, even if one doesnât think Westminster (say) is infallible, one can still say that it makes better sense of the Bible than Augsburg (say). So itâs not that the Reformers have no principled way to critique anyone elseâs doctrines – itâs that their critiques fundamentally cannot rise above the levels of human opinions. And the good (or bad) things about human opinions are, first, one is rationally required to change her opinion if one finds enough information indicating that she was wrong and, second, one should not accept an opinion on authority but on the evidence. (These interrelate with each other, obviously – because opinions are based on the best available evidence, they are changeable if the right kinds of evidence later come into play).
All of that is how matters go if one thinks that religious matters ultimately devolve into human opinions about divine revelation. Iâm not a Luther scholar (or a Calvin scholar, etc.), but I donât get the feeling that those folks or their early successors thought that Calvinism or Lutheranism was merely the best-supported human opinion but that, in some broad sense, Calvinism or Lutheranism was what God had revealed – and hence, wasnât to be accepted (or rejected) as an opinion, but was to be received with the assent of faith. Dr. Anders mentions this in his dissertation on Calvin (hopefully I understood his scholarship correctly):
Although Dr. Anders goes into (much!) more detail, my takeaway is this: Once Calvin starts arguing that churches may not only define their own doctrines but also saying that their doctrines must be accepted on grounds of implicit faith, weâre no longer talking about human opinions anymore. Weâre talking about a kind of thing that has been given divine authority. In other words, having implicit faith in the proclamations of a merely human institution putting forth one human opinion among many is not only wrong but dangerous. But if an institution has been divinely established and preserved from error under some certain conditions, then its proclamations are not merely human opinions (that is, its proclamations are not merely one opinion among many) but are instead divinely authorized. And as divinely authorized proclamations they arenât received as opinions but on the authority of the (divine) giver – and thus, our acceptance of such proclamations isnât with the assent of opinion but with the assent of faith.
So that was a long and probably boring way of saying that, if the Reformers saw their views as nothing more than merely human opinions, they can still critique othersâ views – but their critiques will never transcend human opinions about what God has revealed. But if the Reformers saw their views as (in some sense) authoritative expressions of divine truth (which thus call for the assent of faith), then now theyâre sounding like Catholics (who also think that the Church can make authoritative expressions of divine truth which call for the assent of faith). But any Reformed Christian thinking in that kind of way is going to quickly butt up against âAll synods or councils…may err; and many haveâ (WCF 31.3). So Catholics disagree with the WCF there – we hold that general councils may not err (under certain conditions) due to Jesusâ unfailing promise. Hence, whatever doctrines are proclaimed by a general council cannot be in error, and thus we submit to them not because we agree with them (the assent of opinion), but on the divine authority they come from (the assent of faith).
OK, enough rambling. I need to get back to dissertation writing. Thanks very much for your kind compliments at the close of your note; I hope what I wrote here was of some small service to you (or whoever else reads it). Have a great day!
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
1. You, are jumping to conclusions.
2. Perhaps Mike is being cautious.
3. Perhaps Mike simply uses more words than he needs.
4. But it is simply wrong for you to claim that the problem is with the Catholic paradigm simply because YOU disagree with a Catholic who tries to explain Catholic Doctrine.
5. There is no problem with the Catholic paradigm.
6. The problem lies with the person who does not understand the Catholic paradigm.
First of all, what makes you think that the Apostles would turn to any Scripture INDEPENDENT OF CHRIST?
That makes no sense. Christ used the Septuagint, therefore the Apostles used the Septuagint and therefore the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint.
What does that mean?
St. Luke explains why he wrote his Gospel:
Luke 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
So, it sounds to me as though he wrote his Gospel in order to help others understand the Teaching of the Church.
De Maria
Mike (re: #247),
Thanks for the response. Here is my reply to a few things that you said.
1) You said:
I admit to presenting a truncated version of church infallibility as you have corrected me. I was actually working off what I heard from a Catholic apologist, Marc Bonocore, in which he breaks down the Catholic faith in the following way. He says there is (1) dogma, which is binding on all the faithful (2) canon law, which the faithful must obey though they are free to disagree with it, and (3) theological opinion, which a catholic may adopt or reject. My mistake was to limit that first category to formal definitions by the extraordinary magisterium. However, I think my argument still holds water after considering this correction. I will elaborate below.
2) You said:
Ok, herein lies the rub. I would like to draw a distinction between the object of faith and the act of knowing that object. It makes sense on the Catholic paradigm that the magisterium does not change opinion into formal doctrine. Since truth is truth, restating/clarifying something that is true does not make it more true or less true. However, my objection is not that the status of the object of faith is changing, but rather, the status of an individualâs knowing changes when things are formally defined. My main point is that on the Catholic paradigm, outside of formal, dogmatic definitions, an individualâs knowing can never reach any objective certainty. An individual may be convinced in his or her own mind that the ordinary magisterium has decided X. But, that individual cannot declare X to be true independent of human opinion, since he or she has no authority to do so. Sure, the individual might provide reasoned arguments and give evidence that the ordinary magisterium has decided X. In fact, that is parallel to what the Protestant does to say the bible has decided X; he or she provides evidence and reasoned arguments. If there is no objection to this principle when it appears in the Catholic paradigm, it should not be rejected out of hand in a Protestant paradigm.
3) This last section is of a somewhat different nature, but still very important. You said:
You are correct that not all Christians openly accept this position. However, this âform of fideismâ is consistent with Reformed theology, since a faith that is generated by Godâs spirit in his elect is not a blind, irrational leap, but rather a complete trust in the substance of things hoped for [Hebrews 11:1].
You also said:
This is your âform of fideism.â You say we must trust natural reason, because there is no alternative. But, even if it is true that there is no psychological alternative, that does not show that natural reason leads to objective truth. Your view does not escape the possibility of Descartesâ evil demon.
Lastly, you said:
This is a misunderstanding of the term âfoundationâ which I did not specify. I did not mean that Godâs word is the âfoundation in a logical orderâ of natural reason. Rather, Godâs Word and God Himself provide the ontological foundation for the validity of natural reason. Also, when I speak of presupposing Godâs Word, I do not mean to imply the âpreâ refers to the time at which I hold this supposition. Rather, Godâs Word is held preeminently; it is the most ultimate of all the other Reformed Christianâs beliefs.
Peace,
John D.
John D (#250):
You write:
Thanks for that clarification of your argument. I have several interrelated points to make in reply.
First, your statement that on the CIP and “outside of formal dogmatic definitions, an individualâs knowing can never reach any objective certainty” is an overstatement. When adults are received into the Catholic Church, they profess their adherence to “all that the Holy Catholic Church professes and teaches.” Nobody thinks the neophyte thus explicitly affirms a comprehensive, completely accurate list of non-defined teachings set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (‘OUM’), or even such a list of dogmas defined by the extraordinary magisterium. As far as I know, there are no such lists for people to memorize, and in the former case, I doubt there even could be. When I directed RCIA, however, the pastor and I made the standard, twofold presumption about the neophyte: (a) She has significant and generally accurate understanding of the particulars of the Faith, and implicitly affirms those particulars when professing her adherence to “all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches”; (b) She consciously affirms the Magisterium’s claims for itself in particular, such that she pledges her acceptance of whatever the Magisterium has taught and will teach as belonging to the deposit of faith and morals. Of course there will inevitably be cases of such teaching that the neophyte doesn’t know are such cases when she is received into the Church. Indeed most Catholics, whether cradle or convert, never quite reach the point of knowing what all of them are. It does not follow, however, that they can “never” know that a given teaching meets the conditions for having been infallibly taught by the OUM until the Magisterium explicitly says so. For instance, the binding character of the Apostles’ Creed neophytes recite while being baptized has never been formally defined by the extraordinary magisterium, whether piecemeal or as a whole; but it is uncontroversial that its content has been infallibly taught by the OUM. The same goes for the other examples I’ve given before, and for still-less controversial examples such as “God loves everybody.” Often people are vague or otherwise unclear about what such propositions mean, but Catholics as such are by no means uncertain about their truth.
But second, the content and degree of authority of many such teachings typically is “known” with “objective certainty” by neophytes and by Catholics generally. Of course there are also teachings in which that is not the case. But that is not a difficulty for the CIP. For one thing, the “objective certainty” borne by definitive Church teachings is intrinsic to them, but is not necessarily shared by a given person who knows their content. She might well be in doubt about some of them at particular times, but that is a defect of either the individual’s virtue of faith or the catechesis she has received–not of the objective criteria by which propositions are identified as objects for the assent of faith. For another, and even more important, the CIP contains a principled means of resolving cases in which many people doubt their binding character as authentic expressions of divine revelation as opposed to human opinions. It is that means which the Catholic as such affirms with the assent of faith and relies on.
Third and accordingly, although there is indeed a parallel between a Protestant’s understanding of the Bible and the Catholic’s of Church teaching, there is also a crucial difference. For many Protestants–mostly “conservative” Protestants, whether confessional or evangelical–and for Catholics as such, the Bible is to a certain degree an object of implicit faith. Both affirm that the Bible is a divinely inspired and thus inerrant record of divine revelation; yet since nobody has fully plumbed its depths and fully understands it, some interpretations, even when true, are reached and expressible only as opinions, and some of those interpretations will be false. Thoughtful Catholics as such often undergo the same sort of process when faced with the large body of Church teaching as well. But the crucial difference is that Catholics as such possess, and Protestants as such do not possess, a way of getting beyond mere interpretive opinions–about Tradition and magisterial statements as well as Scripture–to actual objects for the assent of faith. When the Catholic affirms, with an assent of faith whose object is partly implicit, “all that the Holy Catholic Church professes and teaches,” she is affirming that the Magisterium has the divinely bestowed authority to teach infallibly which theological propositions are authentic expressions of divine revelation and which are only opinions, whether such opinions happen to be true or false. That is the “principled means” by which the Catholic can distinguish between the two classes of proposition. Since, however, Protestants as such deny infallibility, ecclesial as well as individual, they have no principled means of making that distinction. So the mere fact that Catholics often don’t employ such means or do so accurately doesn’t mean it’s not there and not available to Catholics. In fact it is, and it increasingly manifests itself in the Church over time.
About what I called you “form of fideism,” you write:
That won’t do even for your own purposes, unless and until you can explain just how the “complete trust” you cite is not itself an irrational leap of faith.
You write:
Our trust in natural reason is not just the only “psychological alternative” available, but the only logically possible alternative as well. That’s what I meant when I said that there is no alternative to âpresupposingâ the validity of natural reason if we are going to conduct any inquiry at all with the aim of discovering truth. Your objection even to that appears to be: “…that does not show that natural reason leads to objective truth.” But that objection is weak. The undeniable fact is that natural reason often does lead us to truth, even though sometimes it leads us into error. But the fact that it sometimes leads to error is not a reason to distrust natural reason in general. For the only way to know that natural reason sometimes leads to error is to rely partly on it to discover the truths that serve to expose the previous errors. And we do that all the time. Hence natural reason is in general reliable, even though not in every particular case. That’s why we should trust it in general, even though we needn’t trust its conclusions in each and every case.
Of course, your general skepticism about natural reason as such is motivated by the fact that “it does not escape the possibility of Descartes’ evil demon.” But that is not a cogent reason to adopt your skepticism either. Although human reason cannot rule out the logical possibility of DED, the only reasonable stance is to rule out DED as a real possibility. To see why, consider another example. It is logically possible that the world came into existence five minutes ago, with exactly the observable features it has now; but that is not a cogent reason to believe it did, or even to believe that such is really possible. That’s because we know by experience that natural reason enables us to discover more and more truths over time, even though we may hold many false beliefs at any particular time. And one of those truths is that the world is more than five minutes old.
The mistake you’re making is to assume that to “know” something is to be certain about it on the ground that there is no logically possible alternative to affirming it. Descartes did not make quite that mistake, because he adopted that assumption only as part of his reconstructive method of “hyperbolic doubt.” But that was only a method for securing what he took (wrongly, in my view) to be the foundations of knowledge, not a criterion for each and every item of knowledge as such. The fact is that we know many things whose negation is logically possible, such as that the shape of our planet is roughly spherical, or that many diseases are transmitted by micro-organisms, or even how something “feels” or “seems” to us. To deny that we know such things is simply unreasonable; hence, so is your skepticism. That some doubt things that are facts, on the ground that the opposite is logically possible, is not a good reason to deny they are known facts.
You write:
Now that you’ve clarified yourself on the question of “foundations,” I must say that I agree as a Catholic. So I suggest you drop the idea that God’s Word is needed to ground natural reason epistemologically. The only possible basis for that idea is general skepticism about natural reason, which I have shown to be unwarranted.
Best,
Mike
Mike (re: #251),
Thanks for the reply. I don’t think I will be able to respond today, but I thank you for clearing up several of my misconceptions regarding the Catholic faith.
I will respond more critically in the coming days.
JohnD (re: #250)
The claim that there is no alternative to fideism was addressed in some detail in “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective” and the subsequent comments, as well as in the “Faith and Reason” podcast I did with Tim.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Mike (# 244),
Our exchange has provided good information to help sort out these issues. It’s important to highlight a main point to see what remains problematic for me.
(# 222) Thus if the Church is what she claims, then she is the visible, living embodiment of the formal motive: Godâs authority as Revealer.
This is really the source of my problems. The authority is like a thread running through every interdependent aspect of FPOF. It explains three things: (1) Christ revealed through it. (2) The Apostles transmitted revelation through it. (3) The Church identifies, interprets and explains revelation through it. At many intersecting points, God inspired Scripture connects with this authority. Moreover, four more things appear: (1) God inspired by His own authority. (2) Christ’s law, received from the Father, excluded Him from writing. (3) The Apostles teaching and preaching includes writing. (4) The Church preaches, teaches and writes when proposing revelation.
Assuming God’s omnipotence and true free-will, He can and may continue “written books” during the Church age. Only a revealed truth, or necessary truth connected to revelation, limiting this can cause us to believe inspiration has ceased. How can scripture be limited to the Apostolic age when “God’s authority as Revealer” continues in the Church ? I’m unable to see how this authority can be a principled reason for distinguishing “inspired written books” and “uninspired written proposals of revelation”.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric (#254):
That’s kind of an odd question. Public revelation was closed at the end of the Apostolic age, so there can’t be any kind of further revelation either in written or unwritten form. We might realize additional significance of something else that has already been revealed (that is what development of doctrine is), but there is no new revelation after the death of the last Apostle. That is an (implicitly) revealed truth in the fact that the Holy Spirit, when delivered at Pentecost, led the Apostles into “all truth,” as taught by Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. That is why everything recognized as Scripture was reported from Apostles during their lifetime, even if the Apostle himself may not have dictated it or authored it verbatim.
We therefore can’t learn anything beyond what the Apostles knew in terms of the content of the Gospel; rather, we are working out various implications and applications of that content. That is, in essence, the problem of sola scriptura. It leaves us with no coherent path for development, only corruption. Scripture can never be reformulated or interpreted infallibly, so implications and applications can never be certain, meaning that there can be no such fixed public revelation. By contrast, Tradition and the Magisterium, as parts of the initial revelation, provide ways for infallible maintenance and development. In otherwise, the closure of public revelation does not prevent it from continuing to work in the Church, and to provide ongoing “authority as Revealer,” in the manner you described.
Eric (#254):
If I understand you aright, your “problems” center on what you see as the absence, within the CIP, of a principled distinction between the inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church. If there were no such principled distinction, then the CIP could not explain why the inerrancy of the Church’s developing, definitive teaching is compatible with the closure of the canon and the reservation of the term ‘inspiration’ for the source of the canon’s inerrancy. Well, the issue here is linguistic and logical, and can be resolved as such.
As a matter of linguistic usage, theologians and the Magisterium generally reserve the term ‘inspired’ for the men who wrote for the Church as the direct recipients of the revelation in Jesus Christ, authorized by him to teach in his name. The term ‘infallible’ is generally reserved for those who, although not direct recipients of said revelation, inherited the same degree of teaching authority from Christ through the Apostles, thus enabling the faithful to identify and interpret both Scripture and Tradition in ways that supply them with objects for the assent of faith, rather than just that of opinion. It does not follow, however, that the latter class of men–i.e. the college of bishops–is never “inspired” in its acts of teaching, or that the former class of men–i.e. the Apostles and their authorized collaborators–was never “infallible” in their acts of teaching. The former might sometimes be, even though we are not required to believe that; whereas the latter definitely was, and we are required to believe that. The point of maintaining the distinction of usage between ‘inspiration’ and ‘infallibility’ is to remind people that the latter class of men only transmits divine revelation with divine protection from error, while the former not only transmitted it with that protection but also had it because they received said revelation directly from the Revealer in person, who authorized them to transmit it. And that’s what explains why, on the CIP, the biblical canon could and ought be closed. The Bible records the once-for-all divine revelation, whereas the Magisterium only helps people identify and interpret said revelation in the “sources,” which include Tradition as well as Scripture.
Logically, then, the picture is this:
(1) Necessarily, whatever teaching is inspired is infallible, but not necessarily vice-versa.
(2) As the directly apostolic record of the once-for-all revelation in Jesus Christ, the written, inspired teaching of the NT is correspondingly once-for-all, so that the body of writings the Church has discerned over time to be such a record cannot be added to or subtracted from.
(3) By the same token, the “sources” of divine revelation’s transmission, i.e. Scripture and Tradition, are infallibly identified and interpreted as such by the Magisterium, not augmented by the Magisterium.
(4) On matters of interpretation, the Magisterium’s infallible teaching nonetheless augments our understanding of the once-for-all revelation transmitted to us through Scripture and Tradition.
I believe that supplies the necessary “principled distinction” between definitive, once-for-all divine revelation and the ongoing, developing interpretation thereof.
Best,
Mike
De Maria (# 246 & 249),
The reason I wrote “continuing with Vatican I” was to focus my attention on what it said. I was not claiming the Church did not always teach scriptures were divine.
You wrote:
You are reading a general command to write into the Scriptures. But it is not there.
Response:
See CCC #76. Writing was a way to keep the Lord’s command. NT writings fulfill a necessity of precept because the law of Christ mediated the intentions of the Father. Believers cannot doubt the Father intended the NT scriptures.
You wrote:
It is fact…..
R: Jewish tradition is not the authority of the Church. If JT knew certain books were inspired, then why do Protestants need Church authority to know ?
———————–
#1 through 6 is a rebuke. I accept it and don’t want to offend anyone.
You wrote:
First of all, what makes you think that the Apostles would turn to any Scripture INDEPENDENT OF CHRIST?
That makes no sense. Christ used the Septuagint, therefore the Apostles used the Septuagint and therefore the Catholic Church uses the Septuagint.
R: Jewish tradition and tests of a true prophet found in the Law are reasons I think they would turn. If the Septuagint was recognized like the Vulgate, then it would make more sense under the catholic paradigm.
You asked:
What does that mean ?
R: Scripture is a written form of transmitting revelation. The words are the content of the form. It is easy to link Christ’s teaching to the content, but what about this form ? Christ did not write, so what made the Apostles think they could ?
You wrote:
St. Luke explains why he wrote his Gospel….
R: This certainly explains why he wrote his Gospel and it serves to fulfill the law of Christ.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric on April 6th, 2013 6:49 pm, you said:
Got it.
This is what CCC#76 says:
76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
– orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;
– in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.
That doesn’t say that Jesus instructed the Apostles to write. Again, as I have mentioned. If Jesus instructed the Apostles to write, it is surprising that so few obeyed His command.
Its hard to untie that knot. Let me see.
1. Before Christ and the Church, the authority was Moses and the Levitical Priesthood. It is they to whom Scripture refers where it says:
Acts 7:38
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
And also:
Romans 3:2
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Then Jesus came and brought the Mosaic law to fulfillment and closed out the Old Testament:
Hebrews 9:
King James Version (KJV)
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
And the Catholic Church became the new ministers of the Word of God:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
And Scripture says of the Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
The Protestants came many centuries later and have no authority but their own man made traditions.
âââââââââ¨
Its a correction. There is a fine distinction. A rebuke would read something, “âŚand don’t do it again!”
re¡buke
/riËbyoÍok/
Verb
Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions.
A correction highlights the error and gives the proper understanding.
cor¡rec¡tion
/kÉËrekSHÉn/
Noun
The action or process of correcting something.
A change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy.
In addition, I posed the correction as a question and it is not rhetorical.
That is a fine attitude. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the misunderstanding.
To which tests are you referring?
I’m not sure what you mean because the Septuagint is included in the Vulgate.
Agreed.
Where do the words come from?
What form are you talking about?
Correct.
According to Scripture it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
In my opinion, we can generalize that the other three Gospels were written for the same reason. St. John says:
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Yes, it does. But the primary law of Christ concerning evangelization is that the new disciples should be taught by word. Not that bibles should be handed to them and they learn on their own.
You’re welcome,
De Maria
Mike (re: #251),
(1) You write:
The Protestant can say the same regarding definitive teaching in Scripture. The Word of God is objectively certain and bears infallible authority.
(2) You also write:
And also:
I have several critical comments in response to this.
A. The Protestant paradigm is consistent with itself in that it affirms the perspicuity of Scripture. Here is the WCF to that end, âAll things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.â
B. The Protestant paradigm is not without a principled way of distinguishing authentic expressions of divine revelation. That principled way is exegesis and hermeneutics which draw upon reason, evidence, tradition, and ultimately the Spirit of God who will guide believers into Truth. Remember, Jesus says âMy sheep hear my voice.â
C. The principled way you speak of on the CIP does not escape the infinite regress of interpretation. That is, once the magisterium defines a dogma formally, that definition is then subject to interpretation. Those interpretations can then be debated. For example, Vatican I said, âIf anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God let him be anathema.â I have seen conservative Catholics argue that this canon makes Catholic belief in theistic evolution illegitimate. Also, would you say that magisterial statements are clearer than the Word of God?
(3) I will move my comments about presuppositions to the posts where Bryan Cross has directed me.
Peace,
John D.
Eric and De Maria,
Your conversation is deviating from the topic of this post, so please continue your discussion off the thread. Thanks!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
John D (#259):
I had written:
To that, you reply:
It’s important here to note that infallibility is a property of persons, not of objects such as books. The infallibility borne by Scripture is that of the persons who wrote, collected, and certified those writings as, together, the normative written record of divine revelation. Writings are neither fallible nor infallible; they either contain errors or they do not. When they do not, that can be because those who wrote, collected, and certified them are infallible in those capacities, by divine gift. When that is the case, the writings are called ‘inerrant’.
With the above correction made, I agree with your point. But that only reinforces my own point. For conservative Protestants, Scripture is the formal, proximate object of faith (FPOF) inasmuch as it records divine revelation and is, itself, an embodiment of divine authority which must thus be believed with the assent of faith, not of opinion. For Catholics as such, the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium is the FPOF, where the three elements are understood to be mutually attesting and necessarily interdependent. Both Catholics and Protestants have an FPOF which they take to be the embodiment of divine authority, and thus as the means by which we identify what God has revealed. Hence the fact that Catholics sometimes err, as individuals, in how they interpret their FPOF is no more an argument against Catholicism than the fact that Protestants sometimes err, as individuals, in interpreting their FPOF. The fact in question thus does not settle the larger question.
The larger question is this: Who has the more reasonable way of conceiving what counts as the FPOF in the first place. I argued:
That difference is quite pertinent not only to the question how to interpret Scripture, but also to the question what counts as Scripture in the first place. Since Protestants deny that anybody after the Apostles is ever infallible, they are logically committed to affirming that the way the Church came to identify and close the biblical canon was fallible. And if that is the case, I would argue, then conservative Protestants have no principled basis for claiming divine authority for their belief that Scripture is an inerrant and thus normative record of divine revelation. Whereas Catholics do: the infallibility of the Church Christ founded.
To what I’ve just quoted from myself above, you reply with three paragraphs labeled ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ respectively. I shall now consider each.
You write:
Another commenter quoted that sentence from the WCF to me before in this thread. I suggest you check out my replies, especially #61. In the meantime I note two things.
First, what you call “the Protestant paradigm” is only the paradigm of some Protestants. By no mean do all Protestants affirm the “perspicuity” of Scripture, inasmuch as many Protestants deny, with some reason, that the interpretive method cited by the WCF suffices to settle all significant doctrinal questions. Of course you could try to get around that by suggesting that Scripture is perspicuous only on “essential” doctrinal matters. But that would only kick the can down the road, because there is no agreement among Protestants as a whole about which matters are “essential” and which are not, and the method you cite does not itself suffice to settle that disagreement either.
Second, even supposing for argument’s sake that Scripture is perspicuous in the way the WCF describes, so that “the Protestant paradigm” is self-consistent, that would do nothing to show that the conclusions reachable by such means are something more than human opinions about what some people have said and done about God–i.e. are actually authentic expressions of divine revelation. That’s because Protestants as such deny that anybody after the Apostles is infallible.
Nonetheless, you write:
But that won’t do for the purpose. As I’ve just said, the method you describe does not suffice to show that it yields anything more than human opinions. Talk all you want about “the Spirit of God”; everybody claims the Spirit of God for what they confess; what matters here is the method by which they discern that it’s the Spirit of God talking, not just their own opinions. Thus everybody uses “exegesis and hermeneutics which draw upon reason, evidence, tradition,” yet by such means, many reach doctrinal conclusions opposed to those of many others. Who has the authority to say that their conclusions are Spirit-certified? Catholicism answers that question clearly, with reference to the authority of the Magisterium as the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. To the extent your paradigm answers it, it does so only with an academic magisterium. Having spent a good portion of my adult life in academia, I am not impressed with that. If you put any random selection of people with terminal degrees in theology into a room together, you’ll get as many opinions as there are people in the room.
You write:
What you call an “infinite regress” is nothing of the kind. The mere fact that Catholics sometimes err in how they interpret dogmas does not mean that the dogmas in question settle no questions or that the Magisterium cannot correct interpretive errors along the way. Thus the dogma you quote says only that God creates everything ex nihilo. That settled a question definitively. Bu it does not address the further question whether God creates most of the species he creates by enabling some other species to act as secondary causes thereof. From the standpoint of Catholic dogma, that question remains open, even though from the standpoint of natural science, it’s closing. Although it’s true that doctrinal development is never complete, and that not all errors Catholics make are formally corrected by the Magisterium as they arise, that is not an infinite regress; it is just an ongoing process that is also cumulative in its results.
Best,
Mike
This might be a bit odd, but I want to avoid some of the attachment to church names so as to ask the question generally. Because I found this testimony puzzling.
The speaker testifies that he left church x for church y. He raised some sensible concerns about church x. His main one was that church x doesn’t have clear teaching authority. You can read the Bible and try to figure stuff out on your own, but unless there’s someone who can make the final call on competing readings, you’re just never going to know for sure that your reading is right. (Fair enough, let’s suppose that things are more ambiguous than they seem when we read the Bible. Maybe we’re fooling ourselves when we think certain significant things are fairly clear.)
His conversion story then goes like this: “I really began to study the claims of church y and read the Bible. And the more I studied things I discovered that church y really does have it right. And, given that they have it right, I now accept church y’s claim to authority.”
So he read the Bible, as he had before, and determined privately that some position was right. Then he moved to the church that had it right on his own reading. (Which he also did once before when he moved from church w to church x.)
He now accepts of authority of church y based on his own judgement about what the Bible does and doesn’t say, which is exactly what you’re not permitted to do if you accept the authority of church y. That seems like the wrong way to go about accepting the authority of church y. It can’t be based on your best reasons, otherwise it wouldn’t be authoritatively based. But then how can someone come to accept the authority of y? Is it the testimony of the Holy Spirit, because members of church x already have that in their favor, or so they will claim just as well as members of church y will claim.
Jones,
Just saw this comment. I will respond later this evening, as I’ve got something going on all day.
Jones,
While Jason is formulating his response, you can peruse these old articles which address your objection:
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/son-of-a-tu-quoque/
– dp
Jones,
This is kind of correct. What I would want to highlight is the fact that it is ultimately not a matter of comparing Romeâs views on each and every issue with Genevaâs, and then concluding that the former âhas it right.â While that may correctly describe the move from Geneva to Canterbury or Wittenberg, it fails to capture a move to Rome. More on this below.
Not exactly. The convert to Catholicism weighs several strands of evidence when evaluation this issue, one of which is the Bible. But he also considers other matters, both philosophical and historical.
The authority-claims of the Catholic Church are rendered plausible by the evidence, but like any article of faith and teaching of special revelation, they cannot be demonstrated by the same means you would use to prove at what temperature water boils. Rather, the CCâs claims, once deemed plausible, still must be accepted with the assent of faith.
This is in no way the same thing that transpires when one switches Protestant denominations, for (as the articles linked above show) a convert to a Protestant denomination still retains his interpretive autonomy once he has changed churches, while the Catholic convert, while having employed his own investigative skills while considering the CC, vows to submit to the Magisterium once he has been convinced of the CCâs claims to authority.
In a word, thereâs a big epistemological difference between submitting to a denomination because theyâre right, and submitting to the Church because it is the Church.
I read the first article. If I’m understanding correctly, I would summarize this way:
“Yes, our own intellectual explorations and judgments play a role in coming to initially find that the Catholic Church, alone, has authority to teach Christian doctrine. The protestant will object, ‘But you’re relying on your own interpretation of Scripture and history to arrive at that conclusion.’ The Catholic responds that the ‘interpretation’ is not a sort of argumentative, deductive sort of conclusion, but something more like a personal discovery. It is like discovering the person of Christ and being moved by him; rather than discovering the doctrine of Christ and intellectually ascending to it.”
Is that near right?
If so, I can’t imagine this will be very persuasive. I understand the problem of authority and the question of how orthodox Christian theology comes to be formulated and believed. But if I’m supposed to rely on some mystical discovery, I’m not too optimistic. There are two broad interpretations of the development of Roman authority in the west: 1) it was political development that political leaders in the West’s strongest city baptized or 2) God really gave such authority to Rome.
I don’t know how one comes to believe 2.
Thanks for your reply, Jason. I was moved by your testimony and your boldness in making such a difficult move. It certainly takes a good bit of courage to do what you’ve done. I’m glad to have the opportunity to get your further comments on it.
You said: “In a word, thereâs a big epistemological difference between submitting to a denomination because theyâre right, and submitting to the Church because it is the Church.”
Yes, this is well-taken. I understand the problem you’re raising and about ecclesial authority, which can be all but non-existent in some protestant groups.
You say too that the claims that the Catholic church is precisely the Church which has such authority is plausible. I don’t know what else to say but that, according to my (perhaps insufficient) understanding of Christian history, it’s highly implausible. If Alexandria had been more politically powerful than Rome, Roman Catholicism probably not exist. In the very least, monophysitism would be orthodoxy and Chalcedon would have been anathematized.
In any case, that seems just as plausible to me than that Rome has any special authority. I don’t mean to push the conversation to places that have been thoroughly covered, so don’t feel the need to convince me if my historical knowledge just isn’t sufficient for me to see the authority of Rome the way others do. But, if I do have a point, I hope Catholic apologists will see that the “Return to Rome!” sort of triumphalism just doesn’t really register for so many of us. It’s not a matter of not seeing the clear reasons; as you say, it’s not entirely a matter of grasping the clear reasons.
Dear Jones the Seeker (re#266)
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
God gave this authority to no other man, because only Peter is the Vicar of Christ. And Peter – as the first pope – is the visible sign of unity in the Universal Church.
This is how we know where the true Church is: find the successors of Peter and the Apostles.
The discovery is not mystical, but historical.
Pax Christi,
Frank
Thank you, Frank. I understand this claim of Catholic theology (I think). But, as you might guess, I don’t find it persuasive. The Catholic doctrine of authority is really built up from this somewhat cryptic starting point. Notice that Jesus doesn’t say anything like what we’re being asked to believe.
When you ask evangelicals and other protestants to see the clarity of Roman authority in this passage, don’t be surprised that we have a difficult time finding it because, again, it doesn’t really say it. That is, it doesn’t say that therefore Rome has a special privileged in the church and that the bishop of Rome is the Vicar for all Christendom, and so on. It’s just a lot to have to believe on the basis of this small statement. But you probably know all of this.
The Catholic doctrine is certainly consistent with this passage, but so are any number of ecclesial models. I’m only making the standard non-Catholic point that, “meh.”
Dear Frank and “Jones, the Seeker”
Thank you, and Amen, Frank. I always need this reminder….at least for now as I still adjust to having recently become Catholic. I feel sometimes I am in a witness protection program, and that my identity has been changed:) Thankfully I was Reformed before and that I was sorta prepared for the transition.
(btw, your music is beautiful)
I understand the kind of skepticism that Jones the Seeker has; I had it myself. Mine came when I questioned ( as a seeker must) my own presuppositions about the nature of the church. I am still having spasms of skepticism when I consider the plethora of denominations out there all saying that they are the place where truth resides. But, this is my Protestant self that I am trying to kill, and the only way to kill it is to submit to the historical truth, that God founded a visible church, and that everything…..yes everything… she teaches is the truth. I once thought Rome’s longevity was a matter of contingence too. But it really couldn’t have been otherwise. “I believe in one holy, apostolic church…..” after all:) https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
~Susan
Jones the Seeker,
I just wanted to pop in with a comment. Jason and Frank both refer to history . This was what made me consider the Catholic faith. I am going to give a long quote from a comment made by Ray Stamper which summarizes what started many of us on this journey towards Catholicism. This quote is found in comment 8 here:https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/01/a-response-to-scott-clark-and-robert-godfrey-on-the-lure-of-rome/
Thanks, no need to respond–Kim D
Dear Jones the Seeker (re#269):
In Mt. 18, where Jesus founds the Church upon the Rock of Peter (the language could hardly be more clear), Jesus is hearkening back to another moment in Scripture, Is. 22:
“[20]And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
[21] And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
He is investing Eliacim with the authority (exercised in the King’s absence) to act as Regent – a “vicar” of the King. The image of the keys was understood by the Jews as a symbol of complete authority. And the House of David is the OT prefiguring of the Church of the New Covenant. Jesus appoints Peter and his successors as Regents of his Kingdom in his absence, using language that any Jew who knew his Scriptures would recognize.
The foundation for the Catholic claim is historical and eschatological. Jesus founded One Church (“one, holy, catholic and apostolic”) and appointed one man as his Regent: Peter. “Christendom” is the Kingdom of Heaven – the Church – with Christ as Her King. So the Regent of the One Church is the head of “Christendom.” “Christendom” is a meaningless construct borrowed from political language. There is only the Kingdom of Christ: and this is the Good News.
Pax Christi,
Frank
Jones the Seeker,
Further, if I am to believe that there is no continuity between the apostolic age and now,I am forced towards, at the very least, agnosticism concering God. The “Solo” in sola scriptura just doesn’t serve as a theological nexus, as is evident by the result that I can see around me. So, it’s either many churches with varying “essentials”(huh?) OR there really is a church founded by God Himself. Many varying churches each deciding what constitues an essential is harder for a seeker of truth to find viable. One has to jump through hoops to make-up a new definition of what constitutes “the church”( invisible and apostolic at the same time?)But, if one can believe that God, who is truth, wants seekers to find, one could conceive that he would have founded a living institution…..especially since the RCC has found a really clever way to use Matthew 16:18 to its own advantage, being the Roman megalith that it is! Why can’t you allow this in your schema, considering that God is God?
I’d really like to hear a response.
~Susan
Susan,
You asked for my response, so I’ll give a very brief (and almost certainly inadequate) one. There’s much to be said, much I can say which may not be useful, and much I don’t know. (And I thank those others who have contributed helpful comments. I appreciate your time.)
I do accept that there is one church which Christ established; after all, there’s only one Christ and, so, only one bride. But I am skeptical that the Roman church in its institutional and political form embodies that one true church. The true church consists of all those persons of all nations and ethnicities who believe in the Lordship of Jesus by the Holy Spirit’s illuminating and regenerating work. Some of those people are Catholics, some are evangelicals like me, and others are other kinds of Christians.
I realize that there are serious theological differences between Christians. But by “Christians” I mean those who accept the central doctrines of Scripture. Secondary doctrines (typically, the metaphysical explanations of those primary doctrines) are areas of great contention and when we misunderstand what other Christians are saying in explaining primary doctrines we might be apt to think they reject those primary doctrines. In time we often find that they don’t but they’re using terms that misleading to us.
The norm of Christian theology is the Bible and its perspicuous propositions taught to faithful Christians and Christian communities by the Holy Spirit.
In any case, I’ve said something that won’t be new to most people and have, no doubt, opened myself up to a number of criticisms. But that seems more plausible to me than that Rome represents the nexus of the one true church. Suppose that the proper ecclesiology is congregational, as I’ve said, and the proper approach to theology is biblicist. There is something radically democratic and even unsettling in that. It’s hard to accept that the Holy Spirit simply leads the church and that his wind blows as God sees fit. It would be tempting, for political reasons to insist that the proper ecclesiology is episcopal; and in times when heresy is hard to answer on biblical and rational grounds (due to a dearth of exegetical and rational tools) it would be tempting to insist that deviation from the institution is itself a heresy so that more difficult heresies need not be meticulously answered.
But, once again, I understand that I’m not telling any former evangelical/protestant anything that he or she hasn’t already thought through. I, however, can’t see how those doubts and objections might be convincingly overcome.
Jones the Seeker (#274
How do you know what are the central doctrines of Scripture? How do you know which beliefs, derived from Scripture, are central and which are not? Is the Trinity derivable from Scripture? If it is, is it central? If so, why?
A lot of questions, but the first one in the series is the real one. When I was Reformed I was told that the sovereignty of God – as explicated by Calvinists – was central, obvious, and to deny it (in its Calvinist form) was to risk damnation. Were they right? Would you agree? Would you call those who disagree not Christians?
jj
“How do you know what are the central doctrines of Scripture? How do you know which beliefs, derived from Scripture, are central and which are not? Is the Trinity derivable from Scripture? If it is, is it central? If so, why?”
Yes, I know. That’s why I mentioned that I have opened myself up to many criticisms. This is where I also wish to plead that the sine qua non doctrines aren’t as difficult to ascertain as RCC and EO try to make it out. No doubt, authoritarian (as opposed to biblicist) approaches to theology would like to emphasize the ambiguity of Scripture (as I might like to emphasize its perspicuity). In any case, there it is. I don’t think it’s always entirely obvious but neither is it entirely obscure. I’m sure I won’t convince, however.
To give some answer, I suppose, yes, the Trinity is a sine qua non doctrine; that is, neither modalists, nor Arians, nor tritheists are Christians. And we know the Trinity is true because Scripture teaches 3 things about God: God is one, the Father is God/Son is God/Spirit is God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same persons or individuals. Those are all biblical truths that can’t be avoided by the exegete. Heresies all make things more intelligible but they do so by neglecting some perspicuous strand of Scripture about God.
This should not, however, be confused with say Augustinian, or Cappadocian, or Thomistic accounts of divine triunity. Those accounts seek to answer “how” God is triune. Understanding and affirming those accounts certainly aren’t essential to Christian faith. I’m sure you’ll agree, most Catholics couldn’t explain those accounts.
Is Calvinist sovereignty a sine qua non? No, the Calvinist account isn’t per se. But a biblical statement of sovereignty is. In other words, I can’t imagine what it would mean to be a Christian while denying that God providentially orders the world according to his own will. A Christian who thinks things happen willy nilly or that God can’t control things as their unfold wouldn’t really be a Christian; barring times of deep confusion. But I can imagine a Christian who neither knows nor affirms double predestination.
So the “what’s” aren’t so controversial for anyone who has a passable grasp of the biblical God. The “hows” are always quite controversial. But if the “hows” are essential for salvation then very few have any hope.
Really enjoyed listening to this, particularly the point that what most people know of catholicism is obtained from the enemies of the church rather than from the church itself. God bless you.
@Jones the Seeker (#276
Thanks – I understand, I suppose – but I found myself, at least, unable to respond to my Calvinist elders when they insisted that their understanding of the sovereignty of God was as clear and Scriptural as was the Trinity. Reminds me of Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – one of the books that made me a Catholic, in which he argues – cogently, it seems to me – that many of the beliefs of the early Church, including the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the grievousness of the sin of schism, and the primacy of the Pope, are seen from Scripture by the early Fathers with greater clarity and conviction than the Trinity itself.
But, of course, the “ambiguity of Scripture” cannot be a reason for believing in the authority of the Church – though I think it is a motivation for seeking to know whether there are not good grounds for believing in the authority of the Church.
Anyway, this is probably off the topic of Jason’s conversion. I’d better stop here :-)
jj
Thank you for your response. I see that you believe that the scriptures are perspicuous and that a teaching authority isn’t required in order to discover what can be easily ascertained from simply reading.You do, however, believe that there are doctrines that a person, who wants to identify with Christ, must give intellectual assent to,but you don’t see the need of an interpretive authority to locate interrelated scripture, define parameters, or declare dogma that is sine qua non. At least, this is what I think you are saying.
You cite the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as an example of an idea that is easy enough to grasp; easy for us to say, now, after the 1st and 2nd Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople,and Florence. We are all piggy-backing of the apostolic faith. The language used to define the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t even found in the scriptures.
“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82 (CCC 251)
It couldn’t be that easy to understand if it took hundreds of years to formulate.And who formates, but a body of believers who are moved by God? Somebody had to say, “no” to this or that idea, and “yes” to another. But you said that the Trinity is a biblical truth that can’t be avoided by an exegete, but clearly there were heretics exegeting scripture( and they had all 73 books) and there are heretics still. There are heretics still because they deny some part of the apostolic faith.
I don’t know…..you are not convinced of the petrine ministry, but you are certain about the “whats’ of Christianity. You must not place the petrine ministry in your category of “whats”, but I wonder how you can do this when even a scriptural canon( which Protestants depend on to get their biblical doctrine) can even be decided without appealing to something outside the scriptures. There are things that cause me to scratch my head about the whole Reformation. These things seem glaring to me, but they don’t bother some Protestants; I was thinking yesterday, how weird it is that Luther was (rightfully) angry about the selling of indulgences, but doesn’t this mean that indulgences was part of Christian belief for some extended period of time prior to the Reformation? The RCC has retained a doctrine of indulgences, but Protestantism has dropped it from their essential doctrines. Same thing concerning the altar; under the authority of Calvin, Catholic altars were destroyed. This makes me very suspicious that men were tweeking things, not to be in accordance with scripture, but to their own intepretation of scripture and I don’t see how this is any different than a private development of doctrine. I have digressed, and this is material for another conversation, but man, I don’t understand why Protestants are not convinced.
Finally you said: “But if the âhowsâ are essential for salvation then very few have any hope”
If there were no sects people could more easily find the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And this is the direction to search. First believe that God has not left us orphans and then go from there.
~Susan
Dear Jones,
I meant to address you in my last response( #279) Sorry about that:) I realize that I probably sound cranky:), and I don’t mean to come across so upset, but being the only Catholic in my family is very hard. Most of my old friends have been nothing but kind, but I still get jibes about the Papacy and Mariology from time to time. “Papist”is the most recent jab I heard, but it has a negative connotation for no good reason. It rolls off the tongue, so I get why they like say it, but it means nothing other than the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t make a Catholic doctrine false if they say it 1000 times.
I will let others take over from here. Happy Seeking:)
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/07/the-vatican-files-n-4-a-reply-to-ref21s-leonardo-de-chirico
~Susan
I have been very interested in Jason Stellman’s recent post on “Creed Code Cult” entitled “Stuff I Don’t Like That Much: Catholicism Edition”.
https://www.creedcodecult.com/stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
I have a few questions about it. (1) Were you fully aware of all of these things when you converted or have you become aware of some of them post-conversion?, (2) Does your post qualify as “private judgment” and to what degree do you believe that private judgment about the church is appropriate for Catholics at this point of your journey?, (3) If you don’t like these things about Catholicism, do you think it is possible that you may at some point not like core Catholic doctrines (concerning justification, the Mass, or indulgences not related to Twitter, for instance). If you find that you do not like them, might another conversion to something other than Catholicism be a possibility? Presumably you discovered some things about Reformed Protestantism that you did not like prior to becoming a Catholic.
Hi Erik (#281),
I’m not sure if Jason will respond to you; I got the impression he was recently on vacation, and your comment may get lost in the mix. I read on Old Life your frustration with no one responding to your questions here at CTC. If it’s not too rude to interject, it seems that you are suggesting through your questions that Jason’s concerns with some aspects of Catholicism indicate that he may be simply choosing the next “flavor of the month,” having already moved from Calvary Chapel to the Reformed faith, and now to Catholicism. Is that accurate? It seems similar to your previous speculation that many Reformed-turned-Catholic folk will end up atheists. I think the short answer to the heart of your question is probably something like “many things are possible.” However, I’d say it’s unfair to question someone’s conversion by claiming that because they’ve been on a spiritual journey that has involved several different theological systems, this somehow weakens the trustworthiness of their conversion. Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate to consider the reasons why they converted, and assess the relative merits of those reasons?
It may be worthwhile to reflect on why Jason or other CTC contributors converted. I don’t think anyone would say they converted because they “liked” one thing more than another, but that they found Reformed Protestantism no longer intellectually/theologically tenable, and commensurate to that realization, or later, became persuaded that Catholicism was indeed a coherent and believable faith system. If you became convinced sola scriptura was neither intellectually coherent or scriptural, what would you do?
cheers, Casey
Casey, there you go again trashing Protestantism.
Dr. Hart (#283),
What is the “protest” against in Protestantism? Or what was the basis for the need for a “Reformed” theology? Both seem, by definition, to be reactions against Catholicism. Even when I was a Reformed Protestant I realized that intrinsic to my Christian faith was a foundational belief in Catholicism’s errors and the necessity for “reform” or “protest.” Isn’t it Carl Trueman who says all Reformed Protestants, by virtue of their historical/theological heritage, must understand why they’re not Catholic? Your comments suggest we’re just looking to target some random fellow on the street corner to whom we have no prior relationship. cheers, Casey
Casey,
Thanks for your response. I just want to see some interaction with Jason’s post here because I see it as a bombshell and very un-Called to Communion-like. I would like to see you guys take Jason on on his criticisms. If not, can I conclude that you agree with them? Reformed guys on Old Life argue with each other all the time. You guys here seem to present more of a united front and Jason’s post was a divergence from that. I wonder if you guys have some buyer’s remorse in elevating him to the status of Catholic apologist within hours of his conversion. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, either.
Erik, (re: #285)
If you see Jason’s post as “a bombshell and very un-Called to Communion-like,” then you don’t adequately understand the distinction between disagreements of faith, and disagreements not of faith. I have explained that distinction in “The Catholics Are Divided Too Objection.” Jason’s objections are in the “not of faith” category, and are for that reason fully compatible with what we have said here at CTC. (And, by the way, we did not “elevate him” to any status; we just talked with him.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Casey, but while single out Reformed Protestantism? Why not feature Methodists who convert to Rome? Why no critiques of Lutheranism? Why is the foil always Reformed Protestantism? https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/lawrence-feingold-on-gods-universal-salvific-will/
But we are supposed to feel affirmed and empowered?
Bryan,
Were Luther’s 95 These of “of faith” or “not of faith”? Sometimes disagreements that begin as the latter end up as the former. That’s what make’s Jason’s post extremely interesting in light of his past.
I would also note that Jason received some rebukes from Catholics on âCreed Code Cultâ for his piece. Do those Catholics not understand the distinction between the types of disagreements?
Erik, (re: #288)
Some were “of faith”.
I don’t know, because I don’t know what they said. But people can (and do) often have firm convictions about matters “not of faith.” So their expression of their disagreement with Jason doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t understand the distinction.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Erik (#285),
I agree with some of Jason’s frustrations, and disagree with others. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a Catholic who didn’t agree with Jason’s dislike of priests guilty of pedophilia. None of his frustrations have to do with doctrine though, so Jason and I remain united in our full communion with the Catholic Church. I do think he’s missing out for not having a devotion to the image of Divine Mercy associated with Sister Faustina Kowalska, but I’m biased since I’m half-Polish. cheers, Casey
Hi Dr. Hart (#287),
Bryan addressed the substance of your question on another thread, and I agree – we are former Reformed Protestants seeking to encourage our friends from those communities to join us. I’ve seen some dialogue with Lutherans on this website, but it’s certainly a minority. The weight of our analysis on Lutheranism or Methodism would, I think, have a little less currency with Lutherans or Methodists, since we cut our theological teeth in the Reformed tradition. That said, I know Lutheran Rod Rosenbladt is a contributor to White Horse Inn (and Methodist William Willimon makes many apperances), and that there are plenty of non-Reformed with an affinity with certain aspects of Reformed theology. I think your suggestion to discuss some more uniquely Methodist or Lutheran issues is worth considering and feasible to do in the future. cheers, Casey
Hey Erik,
Just saw your questions (I have been on vacay for the last couple weeks). I will respond soon.
JJS
Erik,
Most of them I was fully aware of, others of them I became more aware of after investigating Catholicism and converting to it. If you have questions about specific things I listed, feel free to narrow the question down.
I think all that I mentioned comes from my own private judgment, against which there is no prohibition from the Church. IOW, the Church never tells me de fide that I need to enjoy this song, or appreciate that work of art. Private judgment is only a problem when I use it like a Protestant and elevate it above things that the Church has taught with her full authority (for which nothing I have listed qualifies).
To be clear, I absolutely love (or am coming to love) what the CC teaches, although there were many things that I initially submitted to merely because of the Churchâs authority. When we follow the pattern of faith seeking understanding, often times things that at first seem totally foreign and weird become the very things we learn to both embrace and treasure. I am sure the same was the case for the apostles who, after the resurrection, had to learn how to read the OT through completely new lenses. That kind of thing takes some getting used to.
As far as converting to anything else, like Casey said, anything is âpossible,â however unlikely. The thing about the CC is that it is a lot like Jesus himself (it is his Body after all, which makes the observation pretty uncontroversial from the Catholic point of view). Once the Jews of Jesusâ day were confronted with his unique, and uniquely audacious, claims, their choices were pretty much whittled down to two: become believing Christians or disinherited Hebrews. âTo whom shall we go,â and all that.
(I love Chestertonâs remark about how if he abandoned the Christian Church he would just become a pagan bowing before a tree in a forest, since that would eventually lead him back to bowing before a cross in a church anyway.)
I would like to briefly address the ideaâone that I have come across a lot over the last yearâthat I have this pattern of hopping around from one expression of the faith to another. I was baptized in 1986, I became a serious Christian in 1989, I became a Calvinist in 1996, and I became a Catholic in 2012. To whatever degree people want to consider that as unstable or restless, I donât really care. My guess is that if I had never become a Catholic, but had just made the switch from evangelical to Reformed, my instability would be greatly welcomed by Presbyterians (as it indeed was). So the issue is not really that I hop around too much, itâs the destination of my most recent hop.
And concerning your presumption that I had found things about Geneva that I didnâtâ like before relocating to Rome, thatâs actually not the case, believe it or not. I really, really like Old School confessional Protestantism. It suits my personality almost perfectly. In fact, I doubt Iâll ever be even close to as good a Catholic as I was a Presbyterian. I had that stuff wired.
In reality, the only dislikeable thing I discovered about Reformed theology was that it wasnât true. Everything else was rad.
Jason, careful, you can’t say that about Reformed theology any more. You know, evangelicals and Catholics together, Vatican 2, separated brothers. If you want Old School Roman Catholicism you need to go back to Pius X.
JJS, the destination of your most recent hop is certainly an issue, but I doubt it’s everything. I mean, my guess is that even if even if you hopped back over here there would still be some serious concern over the hopping. I’m not sure coming from one tradition or another to Reformed is necessarily considered unstable, and I’d hope that while we’d be glad to welcome anyone who landed here, I also hope that we’d take into consideration a background that was more or less checkered when it comes to assessing maturity. My point is that while it may be true that some of us let sentimentality trump discernment one way or another, there are others of us who aren’t quite as given to it.
Bryan – I donât know, because I donât know what they said. But people can (and do) often have firm convictions about matters ânot of faith.â So their expression of their disagreement with Jason doesnât necessarily mean that they donât understand the distinction.
Erik – Sounds like some Presbyterian & Reformed people I know (ha, ha).
Jason â Private judgment is only a problem when I use it like a Protestant and elevate it above things that the Church has taught with her full authority (for which nothing I have listed qualifies).
Erik â Of the close to 3,000 Q&Aâs in the Roman Catholic catechism, how many would you say are things that the Church has taught with her full authority?
Do you think a âpro choiceâ Catholic politician like Tom Harkin, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, or the late Ted Kennedy were acting contrary to something that the church has taught with her full authority in their enthusiastic embrace of abortion on demand? Iâm being sincere in asking.
How are people in the cheap seats supposed to distinguish the difference?
After spending a year plus thinking about our (Reformed & Catholic) differences it has become clear to me that 95% of our disagreement comes down to the nature of the true church (âduhâ, you probably say). You are more concerned with locating the true church in time and space, linking it back physically to Christ) and less concerned about itâs fruits being in accord with Scripture. We are more concerned with the marks of true churches being in accord with Scripture and less concerned with the time and space correlation (thus the accusations of ecclesiastical deism). Itâs a fascinating and probably intractable debate.
Personally Iâm not very swayed by the ecclesiastical deism argument because we are talking about a God who saw fit to reduce the true church to one not overly virtuous family on a big boat at one time. Weâll keep talking, though.
Darryl, (re: #294)
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but in case you weren’t, ECT is not magisterial, and nothing in VII forbids saying what is true or false in the area of theology.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, CTC is not of the same tone as post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Anyone without an tin-ear can see that. In case you haven’t noticed, First Things is far more representative of conservative Roman Catholicism in the U.S. and they are always kind to Protestants and don’t point out their errors. And then there is Francis who loves everybody and only says kind things. You are an SSPXer without the PX.
Darryl, (re: #298)
You would have to define what you mean by ‘tone.’ If you mean civility, respect, charity, and grace, then I don’t see any difference. If you mean something else by ‘tone,’ then you’ll need to specify.
Indeed there is a time and place for finding and focusing on common ground, and for working together in various ways in moral and social issues, and in opposition to actions or ideas we mutually oppose. But there is also a time and place for working out disagreements between us. And that’s a venue we are providing. The Church is large enough to allow and include both of those at the same time.
If it really needs to be said, we are not like the SSPX because we are in full communion with, and submission to, the Magisterium of the Church. If you don’t agree, feel free to point out some claim or belief we hold that is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dr. Hart, (@298)
Surely you’ve had occasion to meet Dr. Turner (from Hillsdale’s “Philosophy and Religion Department”; back when I was getting my undergrad, it was just the Philosophy Department). One of the (many) virtues he helped inculcate in me is the recognition that an argument’s “tone” has nothing to do with its soundness. Put bluntly, who cares if CtC’s tone is different from First Things’ tone? Who cares if CtC’s tone is different than Vatican II’s tone? CtC has presented arguments and the way to refute their deductive arguments is to show either that their conclusion does follow from their premises or to show that one of their premises is (in fact) false.
When you first arrived on this website, you argued that the change in tone between Vatican II and (say) Trent constituted a doctrinal contradiction. If true, this would be significant (since, if Catholicism is true, its doctrines over time cannot contradict each other. Thus, if such a doctrinal contradiction genuinely existed, Catholicism would be false). You’ve abandoned that (after some arguments from Bryan showing that changes in tone do not constitute doctrinal contradiction), and now you’ve moved on to…well, of a truth, I’m not quite sure what you’ve moved on to. You’ve argued that CtC’s tone is different from FTs, that CtC deals with Reformed theology too much, that CtC is too logical, and that Bryan’s relationship with his wife is revelatory of…something?
Honestly, Dr. Hart, I’m not sure where you’re going. At first you had an argument that would entail the falsity of Catholicism. Now I’m not even sure if you’re giving arguments anymore, much less arguments showing Catholicism to be false. Speaking for myself, I want to believe true things. If Protestantism is true, I want to be Protestant. But I became Catholic because I found the arguments on this site (and from other resources) to be sound. If you’ve got some whiz bang knock down argument to present, I’d love to read it. But most of what you’ve written lately is just irrelevant to whether or not Catholicism is true – and that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it?
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin Keil
One of the things that has frustrated me, as a Catholic, reading a lot of these posts and dialog is that they’re not really representative of Catholicism (But with over a billion served it’s difficult to find any representative sample). They’re certainly representative of a certain strain of American Catholicism. It’s one I disagree with but still have a lot of respect for certain facets of it. It’s certainly the strain that is most similar to confessional protestantism.
I’m wondering what both the CTC folks and their protestant detractors would think of liberal/modernist or radical traditionalist/SSPX Catholic responses to a lot of these critiques. It seems they would both share a position that mistakes were made and would place less of an emphasis on the papacy as the source and summit of the Catholic Faith.
In short a lot of the arguments and counter-arguments here seem non-unique to Catholicism in general but a particular strain of Anglo-American Catholicism in particular.
Dan, (re: #301)
How so?
It would be more helpful if you would specify in particular what it is you disagree with, instead of merely hand-waving with generalities while saying you have a lot of respect for certain facets of it (if you truly want to discuss these points of disagreement, rather than just mentioning them without intending to discuss them).
You’re going to need to specify (a) what critiques you have in mind, and (b) what responses you have in mind.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Brian,
One argument made at CtC that I believe is unrepresentative of Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. The claim itself is not unrepresentative but it’s literal understanding is (Jesus of Nazareth ordained the Twelve, the Twelve ordained an unbroken line of bishops etc.) For a more nuanced understanding see here:
[Raymond Brown on Apostolic Succession]
Again there are a great many Catholics that share the more literal view as held by many at CtC but the Catholic Church as a whole does not subscribe to this view. Protestant criticisms of this view are really not valid criticisms of Catholicism but rather a particular belief held by the Catholics at CtC.
Many arguments made at CtC also rely on the notion of development of doctrine. I personally am sympathetic to these arguments but traditionalists from Cardinal Manning onward are hostile. There is a fideistic tradition within Catholicism which frowns upon the sort of historical speculation and reconstruction used to ground the Catholic Faith in the “Early Church”.
Lets start with those too critiques. The first modernist the second traditionalist.
The first admits historical ambiguity but believes the Catholic Faith does not stand or fall on the particular literal historical claim that the Catholic Church is the literal Church Christ founded.
The second rejects the whole notion that one can has access to the “Early Church” and that any attempt to establish the validity of the Catholic Church through historical study is always already a protestant project. The Church IS the deposit of faith and any idea of a historically reconstructed “Early Church” that one could compare, even favorably, to the Catholic Church as it exists is one that already admits rupture. Is in fact designed to undermine not strengthen the claims of the church.
I actually think Protestants (At least the Protestants commenting here) would be more sympathetic to both of these critiques.
Bryan, the difference in tone (and meaning) is that you say Protestants are wrong and the Vatican doesn’t (any more).
Benjamin, but who knows what truth is any more (and this from a former Reformed evangelical convert to Rome)? https://oldlife.org/2013/08/when-logic-is-delusional/
The change of tone goes to the change of stance on the truth. Have you not heard, Rome changed at Vatican 2? I used to be a heretic, now I am a separated brother. I’m not sure how you work it out, but something changed and it has a lot to do with the merger of tone and equivocating on truth.
Darryl, (re: #304)
If that is what you mean by tone, I would describe that as an [alleged] difference in *content.* But even so, the Catholic Church does not have to keep repeating her dogmas, in order to preserve their truth. They remain true. Moreover, while recognizing many truths and gifts within Protestantism, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit within Protestantism, the Catholic Church still believes and teaches that Protestantism is deficient in certain respects, for example, in not having valid orders, and thus in not having a valid Eucharist (and the other sacraments besides baptism and matrimony). This is why she said (in 2007) that Protestant ecclesial communities are not particular Churches — see Responsa quaestiones, and the accompanying Commentary.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dan (re: #303)
That’s not an argument; that’s a claim. Your objection to this is, apparently, that Christ did not found a Church. But Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that “Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.” (UR, 1) It further teaches that “large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church” (UR, 3), also described as “Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” (UR, 3). As Pope Leo XIII taught, the Church came forth from the side of the second Adam (cf. Divinum Illud Munu, 5). And Pope Pius XII taught that “But our Divine Savior governs and guides the Society which He founded directly and personally also.” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 39) and
Likewise, the Responsa ad quaestiones of 2007 affirms “the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.” (Responsa ad quaestiones, 3) This is the one Church to which all men must be joined for salvation, excepting invincible ignorance, as the Catechism explains:
The Catechism itself teaches that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ. This is the unchanging teaching of the Church. To claim that Christ didn’t found a Church, or that the Church He founded is some other Church than the Catholic Church, is to deny a dogma of the Catholic Church.
Regarding your second criticism, you wrote:
This claim conflates inquiries of reason and inquiries of faith. I’ve already addressed the error of fideism in the “Wilson vs. Hitchens” post, and in the comments following it. Historical investigations can be done by the light of reason alone, and that is perfectly legitimate for those having only that light. In such a way they can find the motives of credibility by which to recognize the divine authority of the Church. Historical investigation can also be done both by the light of reason *and* the light of faith, and this is perfectly legitimate for sons and daughters of the Church, by which to understand more deeply the Tradition we have received within the Church.
Again, we have to be aware of the distinction between inquiries of reason, and inquiries of faith. Such an historical reconstruction by one having only the light of reason, and making use of historical evidence accessible through rational investigation, is perfectly legitimate. On the other, an inquiry undertaken by the light of faith is already aware of the historical continuity of the Church, and therefore his inquiry need not presuppose any sort of rupture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dan (re #303),
In order for the “Catholic Church as a whole” to “subscribe” to a view, it is not necessary that there be no Catholics who dissent from that view. It is only necessary that the doctrine in question be taught with the full authority of the Magisterium, in one way or another.
The Magisterium has clearly taught that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. This was most recently reaffirmed in the documents to which Bryan linked in #306, above.
Concerning the Catholic Church’s understanding of Apostolic Succession, here are some authoritative statements:
1563 Trent, Session 23, Chapter IV.
1947 Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis.
1964 Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Chapter III.
1965 Vatican II, Christus Dominus.
1983 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sacerdotium Ministeriale [To view this document in English, use Google translator].
Development of doctrine, on the other hand, is not itself a doctrine but a theory about doctrine. As such, Catholics are free to disagree over the question of how successfully this theory, in one form or another, accounts for the data. However, your gloss of the theory re the early Church reflects only one particular strand of thought, that associated with Cardinal Manning, and not necessarily the implication of the theory itself. Newman, for example, was pleased to stake his claim upon the Church Fathers:
To “establish the validity of the Catholic Church through historical study” would be a “protestant project” if having discovered the Catholic Church and believed her claims, one then operated as though the basis of those claims is their agreeing with one’s own interpretation of the data of history, including but not limited to the canonical texts, instead of the divine authority of the Catholic Church herself.
Brian,
The objection to the Church that Christ Founded rhetoric was one of it’s literal interpretation not it’s spiritual truth. Most of the documents you cite use that language spiritually but not necessarily literally. Some of them were certainly meant to be interpreted literally when they were crafted but the notion that Jesus of Nazareth literally laid his hands on the apostles, that the apostles did so to their successors, etc. etc. is simply not dogma. Faithful Catholics often believe, teach, and confess that the Church is Founded by Christ in a more spiritual way (Note that the book mentioned earlier by Fr. Raymond Brown received both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur). I don’t believe your literal interpretation of the doctrine is outside of the bounds of the faith but that’s all that it is, YOUR literal interpretation.
CtC arguments often hinge upon literal interpretation of this teaching which quite simply cannot be historically verified as has been pointed out by Protestant critics here. I claim that while it cannot be historically verified it is not the dogmatic teaching of the church that it must have literally happened.
As to development of doctrine I’d agree with you that, “Historical investigations can be done by the light of reason alone, and that is perfectly legitimate for those having only that light.”, but I’m sympathetic to traditionalist arguments that this cannot simultaneously be done with what you call the light of faith. I’ll check out your piece on fideism though!
Again the point was originally that CtC represents merely a slice of the Catholic pie and that the arguments and positions of CtC are not necessarily the arguments and positions of the Catholic Church.
Andrew,
“The Magisterium has clearly taught that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.”
Again my objection was to the literal interpretation of that statement and not it’s spiritual reality. Fr. Raymond Brown’s position is not some marginal position in the Church and the book has both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. The Magisterium has endorsed non-literal views as valid just as it has endorsed literal views.
I’m not particularly concerned, for the purposes of this post, if Cardinal Manning was correct in his assessment or not but the fact remains that development of doctrine is a theory that has and still generates a lot of controversy among Catholics. That’s not the impression that one gets at CtC. A lot of objections raised by Protestants here to development of doctrine would be sustained by Catholic traditionalists.
This is where the debate really fails for me as ecumenical dialog. The Catholics here present arguments as “the Catholic argument” rather than “our Catholic argument”.
Lots of the arguments made here I believe can be rejected in good faith by Catholics as well as Protestants.
Dan,
If you think that what I said depends upon Christ laying His hands on the Apostles, then you misunderstood me. I never said that Christ founded the Church by laying His hands on the Apostles. So you’re criticizing a straw man insofar as you are construing what I said above as depending in some way on Christ laying His hands on the Apostles. The question is actually quite simple: Did Christ found the Church, or did He not found the Church? The Catholic Church’s dogmatic answer (which we affirm), is yes, He did.
Hand-waving with generalities is very easy, but not helpful. If you sincerely wish to discuss these “CtC arguments” that “hinge upon literal interpretation” (rather than engage in drive-by criticisms), please specify which arguments you have in mind.
That depends on what the “it” refers to.
That remains to be shown, because you haven’t shown where we depart from the “arguments and positions of the Catholic Church.” You’ve only shown, at most, that on certain points we do not agree with Raymond Brown. But Raymond Brown isn’t “the Catholic Church.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Brian,
It appears I haven’t even demonstrated that you disagree with the late Fr. Brown! I’ve evidently misinterpreted what you mean when you say that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded!
In another thread Jeremy Tate was using the language of Jesus establishing himself the Church while on earth. I had assumed this meant by the laying on of hands establishing the institutional church. I’m not sure if you and Jeremy disagree on this issue or not. Could you point me to a resource on CtC that spells out exactly what you mean when you use the language of “The Church that Christ Founded”? Does the claim make a distinction between Christ and the historical person and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth?
Benjamin – Honestly, Dr. Hart, Iâm not sure where youâre going. At first you had an argument that would entail the falsity of Catholicism. Now Iâm not even sure if youâre giving arguments anymore, much less arguments showing Catholicism to be false. Speaking for myself, I want to believe true things. If Protestantism is true, I want to be Protestant. But I became Catholic because I found the arguments on this site (and from other resources) to be sound. If youâve got some whiz bang knock down argument to present, Iâd love to read it. But most of what youâve written lately is just irrelevant to whether or not Catholicism is true â and thatâs the million dollar question, isnât it?
Erik – I think part of our point is that if you think you are Catholic because you’ve found a “better argument”, you’re kidding yourself. You are just accepting different faith-based propositions than you were before. The Motives of Credibility purport to be rational and not fideistic, but they’re not. You have to presuppose Catholic doctrine to find them credible. This is why you (and perhaps us as well) need to lose the attitude of intellectual superiority and the (in your case) “I’ve found the one true church that Christ founded schtick”. I think this is what Hart might be getting at in comparing First Things and Francis the Nice to CTC.
And if Catholic arguments are so superior to Refomed arguments, then why are we always getting our âparadigmâ thrown in our faces whenever we make an argument? If things we are saying are clearly not true they should be easily falsifiable using either your paradigm or ours. The answer is that religious truth claims (at least those with any age on them) are generally not falsifiable, thatâs why we read about them in the religion section of the bookstore and not the physics section. So again, if some of CTCâs writers would just lose the attitude we could all get along a lot better.
Erik,
Would you care to elaborate on how the ‘motives of credibility’ need the presupposition of Catholic doctrine in order to be credible?
Thanks,
Dan
Dan H. (re: #312)
Ah, well, that’s progress. I don’t think there is any disagreement between Jeremy and myself on this point. A good place to look, to understand what is meant by Christ “founding” the Church, is paragraphs 26-33 of Mystici Corporis Christi. The claim does not make or depend upon any distinction between “Christ and the historical person and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dan H. (#301)
I think a great deal of the confusion – or apparent confusion – amongst interlocutors here is connected with the fact that the word ‘Catholicism’ is being used, often within the same comment, with two different meanings:
1) What the Catholic faith is – what is real, official, etc
2) What some (larger or smaller) group of Catholics do, believe, preach, teach, etc
I think it essential that we make clear what we are talking about.
jj
Darryl (#305)
Dear Darryl, there is no change. The second is a consequence of the first :-) It is both/and, not either/or!
jj
Darryl (#304)
It doesn’t??
jj
Erik,
You wrote (#313):
In fact this is why I ceased being Protestant months before I was even remotely interested in what the Catholic Church says about herself: the Protestant claims do not hold water on their own terms. Not meaning to pile on; just sayinâ.
Peace,
Fred
Fred,
The link you posted got truncated. Here is the link to your article: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/07/the-accidental-catholic/
Dan
Brian,
Looking over Mystici Corporis Christi again I have to say I’m not finding exactly where my initial characterization was mistaken. The precise language of the laying on of hands isn’t there sure but the notion that Christ in history calls the apostles, appoints Peter as the head, and institutes the sacraments is there. The Spirit is sent at Pentecost etc.
What I’m failing to see is how this definition does what you think it does. It doesn’t address how we get from Point A “The Church that Christ Founded” to Point B “The Catholic Church in 2013 A.D.”
Is what bridges point A and B apostolic succession through the literal laying on of hands which Fr. Brown believes to be overly simplistic and doubtful (And which I believed the CtC apologetic necessitated) or is it more the sort of process that Fr. Brown thinks took place (Which I believe successfully dodges some Protestant objections)?
Dan H. (re: #321)
Right.
What, exactly, do you think I think it does?
Oh, well that’s a totally *different* claim. We were discussing whether Christ founded a Church (and you were trying to claim that He did so not literally, but only spiritually). Now you’ve switched to a different claim, namely, whether the Catholic Church (of 2013) *is* that same Church Christ founded. So, no, those paragraphs of Mystici don’t answer *that* question. That question is addressed in the quotations I provided in #307 above (and see paragraph #13 of Mystici).
You wrote:
It is a dogma of the Church that the Sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted by Christ. (Canon 3 of Session 23 of Trent.) The matter of the sacrament of ordination is the laying on of hands, and that is essential to the validity of the sacrament. But, as there is baptism by desire, so there is also a moral contact possible in the sacrament of ordination, on the part of the one ordaining, as Pope Pius XII notes when he says, “We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 6) Without that matter and the essential form, there is no valid conferring of the sacrament. And he who lacks Orders, cannot give them. Hence, it follows by necessity that there can be valid Orders today only if there is an unbroken succession of ordinations extending back to the Apostles.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan (with a ‘y’)
Dan,
Thanks! Fixed.
Fred
Erick (@313):
Thanks for the thoughts. Incidentally, blockquotes are totally the way to denote what someone else has said. You can see how to do blockquotes by clicking here.
You wrote
This seems to express the view that fideism is at the root of the Catholic/Protestant dispute. That is, rational reasons are insufficient to justify Catholicism or Protestantism. I struggle to see why you think thisâll lead us to give up Catholicism – if reason is insufficient to adjudicate between the two, why do you care whether I choose to be Catholic or Protestant? My reasons for Catholicism are, by your lights, just as bad as your reasons for Protestantism (are as bad as a Muslimâs reasons for Islam, are as bad as an atheistâs reasons for atheism, etc.) Also, although youâre willing to concede the essentially fideistic nature of religion, itâs worth nothing that a wide swath of Christians (say, every OPC pastor Iâve had occasion to talk to) would strongly reject the assertion. Not just OPCers, of course, but the point still stands: Lots of people think they have rational reasons to prefer Protestantism to Catholicism, or their flavour of Protestantism to any other flavour. I donât quite know what arguments you have in mind for arguing that religion is essentially fideistic, but if theyâre anything like Kierkegaard, W. James, or Humeâs arguments, Iâve examined them and already found them to be false.
Well, Iâd disagree (and for what itâs worth, I did disagree with that even as a Protestant). Let me give you two examples I worked through personally.
1) Supposed contradictions in doctrine. If the Catholic Churchâs claims for herself are true, then there will exist no contradictions between authoritatively-taught doctrines. This is to say that there will never be a time when doctrine X is taught as divinely revealed (hence binding on all the faithful) and a future time when the opposite of doctrine X is taught as divinely revealed. If such a contradiction genuinely exists, then Catholicism is false. But, significantly, one need not be Catholic to examine whether the Catholic church has in fact taught two doctrines that directly contradict each other.
Having a finite amount of time, it seemed rather unreasonable to read each and every document put out by the Catholic Church to determine if it contradicted another. So the shortcut I opted for was to examine the purported contradictions (pointed out by Protestants and others) to see if, in fact, they were contradictions. I discovered that, of all the examples I could lay my hands on, they turned out to be other than genuine contradictions (many involved taking particular phrases out of context or were otherwise changes without being contradictions [which could be explained either via the development of doctrine, or via shifts in tone but not content, or via shifts in content about disciplines instead of doctrines, etc). To say what should be obvious, the lack of doctrinal contradictions does not prove that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, but they ainât called motives of proof anyways. :-p
2) Marian apparitions. As a Protestant, I took an *extremely* skeptical stance towards the possibility that Mary would appear anywhere or say anything. Needless to say, some supposed appearances of Mary are clearly so much crazed rantings (and it was these that I tended to overweight in my analyses). But when I started to look at a wider swath of evidence, others of them are harder to dismiss.
âWho cares?â, you might ask. I bring this up for two reasons: First, one doesnât need to be Catholic (or have uniquely Catholic presuppositions) to examine the evidence for a purported apparition (say, at Lourdes) and decide on its likelihood of being genuine. Second, if indeed Mary did show up on Earth and say something (say, at Lourdes or Fatima), then the credibility of Catholicism/EO shoots way up (and the credibility of Protestantism falls down fast). Again, Maryâs appearing on Earth doesnât *prove* that Catholicism is true, but it definitely makes it more likely than it would otherwise be – and you donât have to be Catholic to take a good hard look at the evidence for, say, Fatima and decide that the reports are plausibly true (or not).
Well, if âintellectual superiorityâ = arrogance, then that definitely wasnât what I was shooting for. Apologies extended. But if âintellectual superiorityâ = âI think Iâm rightâ, well, I kinda do (and I have what seem to me good reasons for believing as I do). But if everyone who thinks theyâve found the Church founded by Christ inappropriately thinks himself âintellectually superiorâ (by your lights), you do realize youâve just branded like 1.5 billion people with that label (and there are only like, what, 800 million protestants?) :-p
Uhm, paradigms come up whenever youâre comparing two belief systems that disagree about the first principles. If CtC and the Reformation has shown nothing else, it should have taught us that Catholics and Protestants disagree about first principles (Did Christ found an essentially visible or invisible church, say). As such, if you use Protestant first principles to disprove Catholicism, your argument wonât be compelling to Catholics (and if you use Catholic first principles to disprove Protestantism, the argument wonât be compelling to Protestants). Also, I dunno if Iâd say that the best Protestant arguments are âclearly not trueâ; I think the best Protestant arguments are unsound (or the best ones Iâve encountered are unsound), but a reasonable person could disagree with me. In other words, you ainât dumb for being a Protestant (even if I do think, ultimately, youâre wrong). :)
Uhm, unless youâre a liberal Protestant, you might want to be careful there. That the son is consubstantial with the father is not falsifiable, but plenty of religious truth claims are perfectly falsifiable (which is why I ainât no fideist). That there was a dude named Jesus is an empirical claim. That he was executed by Romans is an empirical claim. That he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures is an empirical claim (a claim which, if empirically falsified, means weâre all just wasting our time like St. Paul says). (Incidentally, that the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith is an empirical claim – one I have reasons for thinking rather less than plausible, but I wonder if on your view thereâs any rational reason whatsoever to prefer Christianity to Mormon tritheism).
Once again, though, who cares? CtC has presented arguments – and if those arguments are true (or false) nobodyâs attitude matters. Bryan could be the worldâs biggest jerk (heâs not) or I could be the worldâs most obtuse nogoodnik (hopefully I’m not!) and it wouldn’t matter one whit. Validity and soundness (for deductive arguments) donât depend on the speakerâs attitude. Likelihood (for inductive arguments) doesn’t depend on the speakerâs attitude.
Honestly, I personally think weâd all get along best if we could ignore everyoneâs attitude and get down to the arguments. Find one on this site (there are plenty) and show that itâs wrong. Show that the premises are false or that the conclusion doesnât follow from the premises. Or, for inductive arguments, show that the likelihood of the premises does not justify accepting the conclusion. If Dr. Hart does that (rather than attacking Bryanâs marriage, for cryinâ out loud) then thatâs the kind of thing that has a chance of convincing me that Protestantism is true. But ignoring an articleâs arguments to take issue with its toneâll get you nowhere.
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
PS: Sorry for writing a novel. I accuse my parents? ;-) (MST3K joke, for those of you who donât know…)
Erik,
I wrote, âPrivate judgment is only a problem when I use it like a Protestant and elevate it above things that the Church has taught with her full authority (for which nothing I have listed qualifies).â You responded:
I fail to see how that question is relevant to my overall point, which is that I wrote the post in question so as to counter Hartâs claim that all we converts talk about is the rosy parts of the CC, while never being willing to admit there are problems.
Without being fully aware of what these politicians have actually said on the matter (if anything at all), my initial response would be to say yes.
Itâs a lot easier for a Catholic to know what counts as de fide dogma than it is for a Protestant to determine what counts as an âessential doctrine.â There are official documents he can consult, and there are priests and bishops from whom he can seek clarification. Itâs not that hard, and itâs not as if the presence of disagreement proves the impossibility of there being an answer. Your liberal slip is showing again.
Yeah, the way I put it for the purposes of pithiness and brevity is saying that the Reformed view is âThe church is where the gospel is,â while the Catholic position is that âThe church is where the bishop is.â Itâs more complex than that on both sides, of course, but it does come down to authority. As Paul says, âHow shall they preach unless they are sent?â That said, the idea that a lack of piety, or the presence of bad fruit, negates ecclesial authority is both Donatist and non-Reformed (at least if the second Helvetic has anything to say about it).
Cool. I would humbly suggest, though, that both the OT and NT teach that the new covenant is to be greater than the old, and that the Church (whatever is may be) is to be a worldwide and universal thing. Just saying.
Erik (#313):
You wrote:
I’ve often heard that assertion from Protestants, but rarely have I heard an argument for it that amounts to more than hand-waving. When I do hear a substantive argument, I rebut it. Have you got one?
Well, I’ve written a bit for First Things, and even worked there on contract for a while several years ago. In keeping with the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus’ vision of a conservative journal of “religion and public life,” it places more emphasis on what Christians and Jews have in common than on what divides them. I was happy to contribute to that brand of ecumenism, because it makes the most sense when one’s audience is the broad “public square” where religion and politics meet. But that’s compatible with what CTC does, which is no different from what Fr. Neuhaus used to do when explaining, in the pages of FT and in a few of his books, why he converted to Catholicism from Lutheranism. This site just has a narrower, more focused mission than FT. To the extent CTC’s mission succeeds, it too will have contributed to the reunion of Christians in its own way.
Pope Francis has not publicly expressed interest in getting Protestants to become Catholic because, as pope at this stage of history, he is far more concerned with getting the Catholic house in better order, where the “order” is understood in the terms he elaborates. I believe that too is a vital contribution to ecumenism. For if Catholics grow and change in the ways he advocates, the Church will be a more credible witness to that vast majority of people who either don’t know much or don’t care much about the sorts of theological considerations characteristic of this site.
Best,
Mike
That said, the idea that a lack of piety, or the presence of bad fruit, negates ecclesial authority is both Donatist and non-Reformed (at least if the second Helvetic has anything to say about it).
Right. But the claim isnât that impiety negates ecclesial authority. Itâs that impiety does a number on infallibility, which is entirely different. If the Bible is found to lie in one part, then itâs no longer infallible. Itâs just wrong about which it lies and right about which it doesnât. The same would seem to be true for the Magisterium or the General Assemblyâif it is at any point impious then all claims to infallibility evaporate. The best it can be is sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
Zrim, (re: #327)
And that’s what we believe about popes. They are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But when they speak with their full authority, they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as Lumen Gentium 25 explains. If you think that it is impossible for popes to be sometimes protected from error, then you cannot think that the authors of Scripture were at one time protected from error, in which case you lose the inerrancy of Scripture (or turn all the biblical authors into persons who never sinned).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, maybe the church doesn’t have to keep teaching what it taught, but is that wise (from an institution that is supposed to protect the church from error)?
“. . . over the past four decades, self-reported church attendance has declined among âstrongâ Catholics as well as among Catholics overall. The share of all Catholics who say they attend Mass at least once a week has dropped from 47% in 1974 to 24% in 2012; among âstrongâ Catholics, it has fallen more than 30 points, from 85% in 1974 to 53% last year.
“Among Protestants as a whole, self-reported church attendance has been fairly stable, although the share of those who attend at least once a week was somewhat higher in 2012 (38%) than in 1974 (29%). Self-reported church attendance among âstrongâ Protestants has fluctuated over the years, but the share of frequent attenders was not significantly different in 2012 (60%) than in 1974 (55%).” https://www.pewforum.org/2013/03/13/strong-catholic-identity-at-a-four-decade-low-in-us/#attend
Sorry but this kind of denial is not at all intellectually satisfying (even if it works existentially for you).
Darryl, (re: #329)
You’re misrepresenting what I said in #306. I didn’t say that the Church does not need to proclaim the truths she believes; of course she does. Rather, I said, “the Catholic Church does not have to keep repeating her dogmas, in order to preserve their truth. They remain true.”
I don’t know what “denial” you are referring to, because you do not specify. And, again, it is not about anything being “intellectually satisfying;” it is about truth.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
Thanks for your last response. I think we’re back on track now.
I don’t think confessional (Or for that matter many liberal) protestants are arguing that Christ didn’t found a church the question is exactly what that looked like and how close it is to the Catholic Church of today (And as a result is the same Holy Catholic Church). Unsurprisingly Mystici Corporis Christi’s description is that it looked pretty much like the 20th century Catholic Church. By the third century I think Mystici Corporis Christi’s description is a pretty accurate one. Early than that it’s dicier, and modern Catholic scholars (Like Raymond Brown) acknowledge that. There’s not nearly as many sources for the period and they’re really mixed (See Brown citation up thread). Obviously I don’t believe this rules out the Catholic Church from being the Church Christ Founded but it’s not an open and shut case.
Again I don’t think it’s controversial (Among confessional and liberal protestants) that Christ instituted Holy Orders (Or at least called and sent the Apostles who then did some calling and sending of their own). The question is how and how this is historically verified. Sacramentum Ordinis problematizes this a little by acknowledging the historical reality that there wasn’t always and everywhere the sort of physical contact that is customary today. This is fortunate as the paper trail on Holy Orders is really spotty. So the general rule in evaluating the validity of Orders winds up being moral and not historical. And the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of literally dozens of churches orders from Old Catholic, to Orthodox, to Oriental Orthodox churches.
So the Catholic Church itself ends up arguing that there are literally dozens of churches which are the Church(s) Christ founded. Mainline and Confessional Protestant churches make the same sort of argument that Sacramentum Ordinis makes about moral contact for the validity of their own orders.
This is why I think the whole Church that Christ Founded argument brings more heat than light to these discussions. I think the notion that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded is an important theological statement of the Catholic Faith. As far as a historical and ecclesiastical argument that dog isn’t going to hunt.
Dan H. (re: #331)
No she doesn’t. Again, as I mentioned in #307, Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that âChrist the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.â (UR, 1) You are conflating the distinction between the Catholic Church, and *particular* Churches. The Oriental and Orthodox Churches are *particular* Churches. So is the Church at Rome. So is the Church in New York, the Church in Chicago, etc. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, wrote (quoting Pope Leo XIII):
Likewise Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973) says,
In other words, the universal Church is not just a collection of particular Churches, however divided from each other they may be. The universal Church is that visible Body of those particular Churches in full communion with the successor of Peter. That’s the one and only Church Christ founded. To separate from Peter is to separate from the universal Church. No one can separate himself from full communion with Peter and yet remain a member of the universal Church. And the same is true of particular Churches. If a particular Church separates from Peter, it places itself in schism from the universal Church, as the Catechism teaches in CCC 2089.
What is tripping you up regarding the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded is your conflation of the universal Church and particular Churches.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
I understand that this is the situation in the mind of the Catholic Church and is the underlying spiritual reality but it is not how these particular churches exist in the fallen world. In history these churches have at various times and in various places been in and out of communion with each other.
But if I’m a Protestant and I say,
“Bryan, why should I be Catholic?”
And you say,
“Because the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ Founded.”
And I say,
“Says who?”
And you say,
“The Catholic Church.”
And I ask,
“Why?”
And you give me the argument you’ve given me, and I make the leap of faith from the third to the first century in terms of the historical record and then say,
“How about that Assyrian Church of the East?”
And you tell me,
“No.”
And I ask,
“Why.”
And you say,
“Because the Catholic Church says so.”
I’ll start to think that this is a shell game.
I don’t think this is a problem with the Catholic Church, I think this is a problem with the argument.
Historically it gets you back to the third century which is, I think, really really awesome. But there’s no straight ecclesiological and historical line back to the apostles. It’s really messy. And if I’ve got other issues (like justification) it’s going to be really tough to make that leap based on spotty evidence.
And then Catholic Church, as she and the particular churches exist in the real world, isn’t the only church on the block that looks a lot like the third century. That historically speaking looks as much if not more like the Church Christ Founded.
I think it’s a weak argument for Catholicism structurally in that it is non-unique. It’s also an argument both liberal and traditionalists Catholics would be really reluctant to make. I don’t really think there are any sort of “slam dunk” arguments for Catholicism. It’s too big, beautiful, and downright strange for that. There’s a lot of interesting approaches to the New Evangelization that don’t have these sorts of issues. There’s ways of talking about the Catholic faith that don’t result in historical and philosophical impasses.
Dan H., (re: #333)
I wrote everything I wrote to you on the presumption that you are Catholic, and therefore affirm by faith everything that the Catholic Church teaches about herself. Of course, if I were speaking to a non-Catholic, I wouldn’t appeal to the Church’s authoritative documents as *evidence* that she is the Church Christ founded. I would appeal to the motives of credibility.
But at this point, I don’t know what exactly is your point.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dan H. you found it. Shell game. Motives of credibility? Another shell game. But an intellectually satisfying one, of course.
Dr. Hart (#329),
What conclusion am I to draw from your latest data element(s)? We could also site the explosion of Mormonism over the period, the strong increase in flavored oxygen bars, or the surge of organic food stores. Again, what is the conclusion?
I think this is a case of a damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Examples:
1. Note that other religious institutions or society at large suffers with sexual deviance, and that the bad-priest issue is not unique to the Catholic Church. We are putting our head in the sand. Come down hard on priests who are bad, and the Church is defectible, gotcha!
2. Point out that society as a whole has moved away from traditional mores and practices, and that all institutions that hold fast to those (liturgy, morality, etc.), are losing a foothold in the culture — we are in denial. Show you that despite all of these trends in America, the developing world Church is growing at enormous rates and still good things are happening here — we are skirting the issue.
I could go on. What you don’t think we all realize (I’m guessing), is the state of the Church in the western world in particular. However, we do. The West has a contracepted view of faith — give me what I want without any of the repercussions. Again, though, this is not a Catholic problem per se. It is, however, a BIG Catholic problem.
We all see the problems in the Catholic Church. However, unlike Luther, we seek to solve those problems from within — not in schism from the Church Jesus founded. And, just like 400 years ago, the Church will go on, She will not fail, and the gates of hell will not prevail.
There you go, triumphalism and all. : – )
Dan H (#331):
As I finished reading the latest contributions to this thread, I shared Bryan’s puzzlement about what, exactly, your point is. On second thought, however, it seems to me that your point is that the Catholic Church’s claims to be the Church Christ founded and to have valid Holy Order cannot be “historically verified.” Thus:
and
Notwithstanding the rather Catholic-sounding things said by Sts. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) and St. Polycarp (early to mid-2nd century) and St. Irenaeus (late-2nd century), you see it as a problem that the documentary evidence prior to AD 200 does not suffice to actually verify the aforementioned claims. I shall now explain why that should not be seen as a problem.
First, and as you acknowledge, the documentary evidence after AD 200 presents an essentially Catholic picture on the two points at issue: the Church’s foundation, and apostolic succession of orders. This suggests that, if the Church before 200 was different enough to have lacked a Catholic self-understanding on those points, the later developments must have been a pretty sharp break with the past. But there is little evidence to show that such a break occurred. Of course the sparsity of such evidence does not show that such a break did not occur. By the same token, however, one cannot infer, from the sparsity of evidence showing continuity, that such a break did occur. From the standpoint of deductive logic, the matter is a wash. From the standpoint of inductive logic, however, the evidence we have from after 200, along with the sparsity of evidence for discontinuity, makes it more likely than not that what came after was continuous with what came before.
Second and in general, inductive support from purely empirical data (historical or otherwise) is the most we can expect for matters de fide. If what is “of faith” could be proven by human reason alone, the gift and virtue of faith would be unnecessary. Now the Catholic Church’s teachings concerning her foundation and apostolic succession are de fide. Assent to them is by faith, not by reason alone. So we should not expect that they could be proven or “verified” simply by examining the overall body of historical data available to us. But faith is not and should not be contrary to reason. Accordingly, we should at least expect that such teachings make sense of the data we do have, typically in terms of that form of inductive reasoning called “inference to the best explanation.” And, for the reason I gave in the previous paragraph, that is indeed the case. So the fact that the Church’s claims for herself cannot, for the reasons you give, be “historically verified,” is not a problem. In a way, it is just what one should expect.
Best,
Mike
And thatâs what we believe about popes. They are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But when they speak with their full authority, they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as Lumen Gentium 25 explains. If you think that it is impossible for popes to be sometimes protected from error, then you cannot think that the authors of Scripture were at one time protected from error, in which case you lose the inerrancy of Scripture (or turn all the biblical authors into persons who never sinned).
Bryan, itâs the âsometimesâ that bothers. How can an infallible source, textual or personal, ever be said to be sometimes wrong (as opposed to always right)? What happens when you apply that bog standard to the Bible? I donât see how its reliability goes out the window. If ever wrong then never infallible. But itâs not impossible for popes to sometimes to be in some sense âprotected from error.â They can speak truthfully just as much as I can, but how either of us are said to be more than inerrant but also infallible when we do is the problem. Itâs a question of inherent nature. Itâs also a question of how a speaker is judged to be speaking right or wrong. Iâm judged by my lining up with the Bible, the pope is judged by the authority of his succession. In other words, itâs a double standard and one designed to give the pope a status of uber-humanity or what Paul called super-apostleship.
Zrim (re: #338)
As I already explained, unless you think all the authors of Scripture were sinless throughout their whole lives, you already have your answer.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Michel,
Re: The Motives of Credibility
I don’t want to be too hard on Bryan because he’s willing to come into hostile territory and debate, but I don’t think this particular one went well for him. You’re welcome to disagree, of course.
https://literatecomments.com/2013/02/28/do-roman-catholics-use-circular-reasoning-a-good-debate-with-bryan-cross-at-oldlife-org/
Jeff Cagle, who doesn’t come around Old Life much anymore, does a particularly good job of holding Bryan’s feet to the fire.
Erik – Of the close to 3,000 Q&Aâs in the Roman Catholic catechism, how many would you say are things that the Church has taught with her full authority?
Jason – I fail to see how that question is relevant to my overall point, which is that I wrote the post in question so as to counter Hartâs claim that all we converts talk about is the rosy parts of the CC, while never being willing to admit there are problems.
Erik – Does that mean you can’t or won’t answer my question? I’m not asking for an exact count. What I am getting at is the hedging that we constantly have to deal with from Catholics. You guys are shape shifters and it drives us nuts. I would assert that a Catechism with close to 3,000 questions is part of the problem. You guys can pull about anything you want out of your hats to justify what you do or believe as it suits you, but then deny virtually the same thing you have previously affirmed as it suits you as well. We, on the other hand, with much shorter Confessions and Catechisms lay out what we believe relatively clearly and simply and invite you to have at it.
@Zrim (#338):
To expand on what Bryan said a bit, if this is your operating principle then itâll require you to give up on Biblical inerrancy. But if it wonât require you to give up on Biblical inerrancy then Catholics are out of hot water. Hereâs why.
Youâve asserted that if someone is ever wrong then theyâre never infallible. But Peter was wrong at least once in his life (and, if he was sinful, he was wrong rather more times than once!) So if Peter was wrong at least once in his life, he is never infallible. Peter also wrote the Petrine epistles (1st and 2nd Peter). He (their author) was never infallible, so the texts themselves must be fallible. And if 1st and 2nd Peter are fallible, buh bye Biblical inerrancy for 1st and 2nd Peter. (And, obviously, this argument is not unique to Peter – it could easily be iterated for every author of Scripture who has ever been wrong once in his life, which is to say all of them).
But if you hold that Scripture is without error despite the fact that its authors were ever once wrong, then youâll need a principled reason for that. And whatever principled reason you give will be a Catholicâs grounds for holding that ex cathedra proclamations are without error despite the fact that its author was ever once wrong. Capisce?
Michael,
Exactly!!!
I don’t have a problem, as a Catholic, saying that I’m a Catholic because the Church is the Church Christ founded but in doing so I am making a faith claim.
I have a problem telling a Protestant that they should be Catholic on the basis of historical study. The Catholic Church itself recognizes particular Churches that exist in the world as separate churches and in their own self understanding as the Church/and or Churches that Christ Founded. There are other churches/ecclesial communities which the Church does not recognize as particular churches that could make similar historical claims (Church of England, many of the Lutheran Churches, etc.).
At the end of the day however, as Bryan pointed out (Sacramentum Ordinis, 6), continuity can be preserved by “moral contact” as well. Isn’t this sort of “moral contact” exactly what Protestant’s claim they have to Christ and the apostles through the Scriptures?
So the argument falls back onto what constitutes “moral contact”, what’s a valid link the the Church Christ founded? And that’s how we return to the impasse.
Erik (#340):
After the half-hour or so I’ve been able to devote to following that Old Life thread, it seems to me that Bryan did pretty well. Could you sum up for me here exactly where, after all is said and done, you think he fails?
Best,
Mike
Benjamin, Iâm saying there is an essential difference between the Word of God and human beings, such that the infallibility of the former isnât dependent upon the piety of the latter. So it doesnât matter if the authors of Scripture were ever wrong about something or otherwise impious. I donât see how your reasoning isnât subject to the Donatist charge, namely that the efficacy of the Word of God turns upon the piety of its writers, nor how your reasoning isnât simply the flip side of Donatism, which is to say that since Peter wrote an infallible text it must mean he was himself infallible (as are those who come after, which is odd since they never wrote any Scripture).
Dan H (#343):
Thanks for the clarification. We agree that Catholics cannot convince Protestants to be Catholic on the basis of historical considerations alone, and must fall back on theological considerations. But I’m still unclear about what the problem is supposed to be.
Your use of the universal/particular distinction in ecclesiology strikes me as beside the point. In terms of Catholic ecclesiology, “the” Church Christ founded, which is the universal Church, “subsists” as a unitary whole only in the Roman communion. But that is fully compatible with there being “true, particular churches” that have gone into schism with Rome, and thus are not in full communion with her. The Church Christ founded consisted from the beginning in the universal Church represented and governed by the Apostles he appointed, with Peter as their leader; the particular churches they founded belong to said Church; but that doesn’t mean every particular church founded by the Apostles or their successors will always remain in full communion with the universal Church. The universal or “Catholic” Church remains what she is: the communion of churches in full communion with the Church of Rome. Can that be proven by historical considerations? Of course not. It’s an ecclesiology: a set of interlinked theological doctrines, for which historical considerations are always relevant yet never decisive. But I do not understand why that is supposed to be a problem, and you haven’t really explained why.
The real problem bothering you, it seems to me, is this:
The apparent “impasse” arises from the fundamental difference of interpretive paradigm between Catholicism and Protestantism. On the Protestant one (the “PIP”), one strives to answer your question by examining the early “sources” and deciding for oneself which church’s way of interpreting them is correct. But since the PIP no more admits ecclesial than individual infallibility, such theological conclusions as we may draw from the early sources must, on the PIP, remain a matter of opinion. And that’s something quite different from assenting to articles of faith on divine authority–even on the (fallible) supposition that Scripture inerrantly records divine revelation. No amount of historical study and interpretation is going to yield such articles. On the CIP, however, the early sources–i.e. the New Testament and writings from the first few generations after the Apostles–can be so interpreted as to yield articles of faith by accepting how the teaching authority of the Church interprets them when teaching with its full and thus infallible authority. Needless to say, the early sources cannot, taken in isolation from said authority, prove its claims for itself. Nor are those claims proven by the mere fact that said authority makes them. So prima facie, there does appear to be an “impasse.”
But there isn’t, really. What we should assent to, as believers, are not just human theological opinions but articles of faith proposed on divine authority. Since it eschews ecclesial as well as individual infallibility, the PIP has no room for that. For all the PIP can tell us, we could all be wrong even when affirming scriptural inspiration and inerrancy. We could all be wrong in distinguishing between what belongs in Scripture and what does not, between what it’s “essential” to believe and what it’s not. The only way to get theological conclusions that are not merely human opinions, but articles of faith propounded on divine authority, is to locate and identify “the” Church which Christ founded and to which transmitted his infallible teaching authority through the Apostles. Does that seal the case for the Catholic Church? Of course not. If one premises that all mere humans are fallible all the time–which is not an unreasonable premise–then one is going to see the Catholic Church’s claims for herself as false, and eventually be forced to admit that these matters must ultimately remain ones of opinion. But if one is to believe articles of faith propounded on divine authority–as I think believers should–then the CIP is a far better way to go.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
Awesome. This really helps me see where your coming from. I’m reminded of how once Karl Rahner was asked what he thought about converts to Catholicism and his response was basically, “I’m not even sure how one would do that.” Basically he couldn’t see how one could leave PIP or enter CIP. Upon learning of my conversion to Catholicism a Catholic friend responded, “I thought we were like the Jews, you just sort of are.”
It seems to me that both PIP and CIP are like the Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave. The Catholic Church’s sacramental theology makes this explicit (Aside from this curious detour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church), you can be a bad Catholic, you can be under discipline, but you can never be not Catholic. You’re indelibly marked.
But how can one convert into the Catholic Church without, “examining the early âsourcesâ and deciding for oneself which churchâs way of interpreting them is correct.”? That is a tough nut to crack.
As a convert your religious assent to the claims of the Catholic Church are necessarily the product of PIP. This is always something chosen in a way that it’s not for a cradle Catholic.
Or is it…
Canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law stipulates that confirmands reach, “the age of discretion” prior to being confirmed. This implies an individual choice or judgement being made. Does not the Catholic Church itself mandate that all those seeking confirmation engage in PIP?
@Steve/Zrim (#345),
Hey man. Iâm a bit busy here so Iâll briefly reply and if I miss something please let me know. Incidentally, do you prefer to be called Steve or Zrim? (Or something else?) :-)
I donât know if weâre talking past each other now (âcuz thatâs never once happened in the history of Protestant/Catholic dialogue ever), but I agree with what you write there. Not only do I agree with that, I also agree with the following claim: âThere is an essential difference between ex cathedra proclamations and human beings, such that the infallibility of the former isnât dependent upon the piety of the latterâ.
See, I thought you were saying (and maybe I was wrong?) that you were accepted Biblical infallibilty but rejected ex cathedra infallibility. The reason I understood you to give for accepting one but rejecting the other was that popes are sometimes wrong (which I agree with), and âIf [someone is] ever wrong then [theyâre] never infallible.â I then replied (trying to) point out that if that was correct, then your argument will indeed dismantle ex cathedra infallibility – but itâll also destroy Biblical infallibility (inerrency) as well.
But the Catholic isnât in the same boat since he accepts both Biblical infallibility and ex cathedra infallibility. You accept the former but not the latter. I was trying to show that the reason you gave for rejecting the former but not the latter would in fact lead you to reject both. So all of what I wrote was trying to examine an implication of your claim that oneâs ever being wrong prevents one from being infallible. Hopefully that makes more sense now?
If so, I suspect thatâll clear up some of your worries about Donatism. (Also, I loves my Augustine, so Iâm a real hater when it comes to Donatism). Catholics/I donât believe that Biblical efficacy relies on the holiness of its authors, nor do Catholics/I believe that Peter was infallible in all he did. What I was trying to spell out was not my view but an implication of your view (namely, that the argument you gave entails the rejection of both Biblical and ex cathedra infallibility).
Gotta dash, but hopefully that helps somewhat. Have yourself a great day!
Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Michael – Could you sum up for me here exactly where, after all is said and done, you think he fails?
Erik – I don’t think he ever answers Cagle’s challenges and in the end has to resort to appealing to Jeff’s (and the other P&R guys’) lack of charity. This is noteworthy because it is the only time I can recall in debate where Bryan has done this. Normally he is on the offensive, attacking the other side’s logical shortcomings from the get-go. This was the first time I have seen him take what I would characterize as a defensive posture for most if not all of the debate. If you want to revive the same debate there and think you can do better, feel free.
To quote Hart on that thread:
Bryan, what could be better evidence of circularity than your rejection of Jeffâs claims by attributing them to a lack of charity for the church? If Jeff has proper charity heâll interpret the article correctly. So his reason depends on his love. That is not logical. The logic depends on something extra to the propositions.
I think you are so wound up in circles that you donât see how fideistic you sound.
Hey Erick (@340),
If I could second Mike L’s request, I definitely would. You sent a link to a link to an article with 200+ comments on it. If you were suggesting just reading the article, I could make that happen. But since my time isn’t as infinite as I’d like it to be (ha!), the odds of my reading the article, the 200+ comments on it, and figuring out which of Cagle’s comments contain the arguments you’re alluding, are basically zilch.If you want to point me to one or two particular comments (which have the argument you found compelling in them), or just summarize whatever argument you found compelling, that’d be super helpful for those of us with three kids. :-p
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Benjamin,
If you think your Catholic faith is justified by reason alone you owe it to yourself to read the debate. If you aren’t really concerned, that’s fine. The topic of the debate is to what degree the motives of credibility rely on circular reasoning. Those holding to “Sola Scriptura” admit that we are using circular reasoning (at least somewhat) and are fine with that. Catholics seek to deny it because an admission would be fideism, which the church has condemned. We don’t think it can be denied, though. Another fascinating debate.
I think Bryan’s problem in that debate is the same problem that CTC (and some of the more dogmatic & stubborn Popes throughout history) suffers from in general. It’s like you have a football team and you’re not content with going 6-3 and making the playoffs — you have to go 12-0, win each game by 50 points, and win the state championship or the season was a waste of time.
Apologetics (which the MOC are) are not so much to rationally convince a skeptic as they are to bolster the faith of those who already want to believe. This is why it’s no shame for them to contain elements of circularity. Bryan (in faithfully trying to defend what the church has said about fideism) insists on no circularity whatsoever and is fighting an unwinnable battle.
It’s interesting to compare the MOC to Van Til’s presuppositional approach to apologetics which basically says that we as Reformed people are to proclaim the Word of God as true not only because of the impossibility of the contrary (no ground for laws of logic, laws of nature, or laws of morality), but because that Scripture itself teaches that no one will embrace the gospel unless God has called them to. In other words, we have nothing to lose because if we are successful it is God’s doing and it we are unsuccessful it’s God’s doing. In essence it’s all highly circular, and we readily embrace that.
Benjamin, it seems to me youâre using words interchangeably here and it ends up moving goal posts. What I am saying is that when a pope speaks correctly that is all he is doing and that just because he speaks correctly it doesnât mean he speaks infallibly. It means he speaks at times inerrantly and at others errantly.
But if weâre talking about implications, it also seems to me that when you say an infallible personal source can speak errantly, e.g. the pope, then how does that not imply that we could say the same thing about an infallible textual source, e.g. the Bible? In other words, if the pope can retain inherent infallibility even when heâs wrong then so can the Bible, in which case biblical reliability goes out the window. But unlike the efficacy of the Bible depending on human piety, infallibility does depend on inerrancy, which means a source (personal or textual) is only as infallible as it is inerrant. That is to say, I am working with a more strident definition of infallibility than you seem to be. The one youâre working with seems to put the Bible on the block by expanding it to errant sources able to retain their infallibility. The only way to do that is hocus-pocus.
Ps sorry about the name mix up, used different machines with different default settings or something. âYou can call me Ray or you can call me Jay, but you canât call me Jackson.â Or whatever.
Mike (re#337),
I agree that the Catholic Church’s claims about herself cannot be strictly proved, but I think merely saying so without further clarification will mislead a lot of your Protestant readers. I think they will be confused by how Catholics seem to say, on the one hand, that the motives of credibility are independent facts that rationally support the truth of the Catholic Church’s claims, but say, on the other hand, that they fall short of a proof. I think this is why, in comment #313, Erik Charter thinks that the motives of credibility are “fideistic” and why, in comment #335, dghart thinks that the motives of credibility are a “shell game.”
If I understand Catholic teaching correctly, the motives of credibility serve to make the Catholic Church’s claims “evidently credible.” As an analogy, let us take a witness that relates to you events that you did not experience. The motives of credibility for that witness do not serve to make those events evident to you. Rather, what they establish is that the witness is credible, and you can assuredly trust what he says. In this analogy, the Catholic Church is the witness and the testimony she offers is God’s revelation. The motives of credibility establish that the Catholic Church is a credible witness, or worthy of belief. What is interesting about this is that anyone can interrogate the witness in this way and arrive at a kind of “natural faith” just based on lines of evidence. I think this was always implicit in the theology of divine faith found in Aquinas, but it was fully brought to my attention by the theologian Louis Billot.
So everyone agrees that the testimony cannot be made evident or proved, but I think where you have disagreed with others, Mike, is what can be known about the witness by reason alone. Vatican I seems to teach that the divine origin of the Catholic Church can be “known” and “proved” by at least external signs like miracles. And that’s pretty much all we need to know about the witness, right? And I agree with Vatican I – whether we’re talking about the Resurrection, post-apostolic miracles like Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, healings, etc. – all of these things can be investigated by reason alone and seem to establish the credibility of the witness.
Just my thoughts.
-Cormano
Steve,
The dogma of papal infallibility includes inerrancy, but not in the tautological sense that whenever the pope happens to say something true he is not saying something false, nor in the sense of being “inherently” infallible in his person, such that whatever he happens to say or write is ipso facto without error. Rather, the teaching of the pope is without error under certain specified conditions, namely:
The relevant similarity between papal infallibility / inerrancy and biblical infallibility / inerrancy is this:
The human authors of sacred scripture are protected from writing error, not in the merely tautological sense that whenever they happen to write something true they are not wrong, nor in the sense that they are inherently infallible in themselves, such that anything that they happened to write would be ipso facto inerrant. Rather, the human authors of sacred scripture were infallible under a specific condition; namely, whenever they were writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the biblical authors were inerrant.
It should be easy to see that neither papal infallibility / inerrancy nor biblical infallibility / inerrancy depends upon the piety of the pope or of the biblical authors. Both depend upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. (It is important to note that, although inspiration implies infallibility, infallibility does not imply inspiration. These are two distinct spiritual gifts, the differences being the subject of this post.)
Ben, (re: #350)
I’ll summarize the discussion that took place between Jeff Cagle and myself on that thread. Jeff initially made the claim “Itâs not hard to establish the circularity of your position.” So then he offered an argument which he presumed to be mine, and showed that it was circular. I pointed out that it was not my argument, and that what he was treating as “motives of credibility” were actually articles of faith, and thus that he was constructing a straw man. He kept offering revised versions, and in each case I pointed out that what he was treating as motives of credibility were actually articles of faith, and wasn’t avoiding the strawman problem. Finally he gave up trying to make that argument, and asked, “What are the claims to authority that can be warranted by the motives of credibility?” And that’s where we left it.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
I just got through reading all the comments on that post. I have to point out that unlike most of your other interlocutors on that thread, Jeff Cagle was charitable in his responses and engaged you civilly in debate without resorting to ad hominems and derisive scoffing.
Keep the faith,
Dan
Andrew, you seem to be saying that just as when the biblical authors wrote the books of the Bible they were divinely protected from error thus infallible so is the pope protected and infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. You then want to say that infallibility doesnât imply inspiration, such that whatever the pope says isnât tantamount to Scripture. But that just seems arbitrary and your case not very compelling.
If I tell me wife the sky is blue and God is one and she should believe me not just because I am right but because I speak infallibly, she would be right to question my implication that I speak with divine speech. She would also be right to tell me to be satisfied with simply having it right and to stop short of this infallibility business. And I would be passive-aggressive to at once deny implying divine speech and insist on having spoken infallibly. And she would be questing for a kind of certainty not afforded in this age if she could only believe that the sky is blue and God is one if on top of simply affirming what is true also had to assign infallibility to my speech.
Hello Dan (re: #357)
Jeff, Brandon, and Justin were all quite charitable.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Zrim (@353:)
You wrote:
The sentiment is mutual, but I do think I have a better grip on what youâve been trying to argue all along thanks to your last comment. Just to make sure weâre on the same page, though, Iâm going to explain what I think your thesis is, and then Iâm going to explain what I think your argument for it is. Then, in a reply, youâll (hopefully) indicate whether my summary is accurate or inaccurate. We can then proceed appropriately.
Your thesis is: If Papal infallibility is true, then Biblical Reliability is false.
(where âBiblical Reliabilityâ is something like the thesis that âEverything in the Bible is reliably trueâ)
Your argument for this thesis is:
1. If an infallible person can be errant, then an infallible text can be errant
2. An infallible person can be errant (Assumption accepted by Catholics – the Pope is such a person)
3. So, an infallible text can be errant (1,2)
4. The Bible is an infallible text (Assumption accepted by Catholics)
5. So, the Bible can be errant (3, 4)
6. If the Bible can be errant, then Biblical Reliability is false (assumption)
7. So, Biblical Reliability is false. (6,5)
This is my attempt to summarize your position (thesis + argument) as best as I understand it. Have I done so accurately? Have you any modifications to make to what Iâve written?
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Prophecy and miracles are divine facts. Is the virtue of divine faith a divine fact or motive of credibility ? If not, then how does the individual catholic know they have it ?
Thanks,
Eric
Bryan (at 338) you likened the sinfulness of the biblical writers to that of the popes. So are you likening the teaching of the papacy (and magisterium) to that of Scripture. Is the church infallible the way Scripture is? I mean, Scripture is infallible all the time. So far the papacy has spoken infallibly only twice (out of a lot of speaking).
Steve,
That is an accurate summary of what I am saying. However, your illustration does not show that the distinction between inspiration and infallibility is arbitrary, nor does it show the latter gift to be needless. What your illustration does show is that when confronted with a claim of infallibility (or inspiration, for that matter) a wise person will test that claim to see whether and to what degree it is plausible. In your illustration, the claim to inerrancy does not seem to be plausible at all. But the Church’s claims that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that the pope is inerrant under specified circumstances, though of course many people find one or both claims to be implausible, are significantly different from your example (in form and content), so the analogy fails.
Eric,
The virtue of faith is not a motive of credibility since, as a habit of the soul, and unlike fulfilled prophecies and miracles, the formal habit of virtue is not something open to public investigation so as to lend credibility to the one who possesses it. The virtue of faith is a supernatural habit of the soul. Habits are, in general, ordered toward action. One knows he possesses a habit when he acts in accord with that habit. When one acts naturally and spontaneously in accord with a habit that fulfills human nature, one is said to possess a virtuous habit â or a virtue. In the realm of natural virtues, one knows he possesses a virtue such as temperance when he finds himself naturally and spontaneously guiding his appetites in accord with what fulfils his nature. Likewise with the supernatural virtue of faith, one knows that he possesses the virtue of divine faith when he is in the habit of naturally and spontaneously assenting with the will to the articles of faith â i.e. when he naturally and spontaneously makes acts of faith. For the habit of willful assent, or making acts of faith, is precisely what the âvirtue of divine faithâ entails.
Pax Christi,
Benjamin (re 360), seems more or less what I am saying. The basic point is that infallibility seems inherently to preclude a source may ever err at any point. But if the human source may err at any point then why not the textual source (unless you allow for double standards for infallibility)? And if the textual source may err then infallibility seems to disintegrate.
Andrew (re 362), the test of the claim to infallibility is whether the claimant is inherently divine, and since I am not in any way divine but only human then my claim to infallibility fails. I am simply correct in saying the sky is blue and God is one.
Which Protestants claim the bible’s infallibility and do they speak for all Protestants? among the 47 different reformed groups Is there an authoritative source or confession agreed upon and on what grounds?
Steve,
I am not sure what you mean by a claimant to infallibility being “inherently divine.” Do you mean that the claimant must be God, in order for the claim to be true? This seems to be problematic for the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture, since not all of the authors of scripture are God. In any case, some of the human (i.e., not inherently divine) authors of scripture claim, at least implicitly, that what they are writing is infallible, their own non-inherently-divine status notwithstanding.
Brent, I don’t know what blog you’re reading, but I never hear about the sexual abuse scandal or any social decline at CTC. Remember, it’s all about an intellectually satisfying faith. That’s why so much talk about theory and little notice of the real world.
Dan H (#347):
You wrote:
I do not agree. From the fact, if it is a fact, that “once-Catholic-always-Catholic” (exceptions aside), it does not follow that one will always accept or even understand the Catholic interpretive paradigm. In fact, many nominal Catholics neither understand nor accept the CIP, and end up joining Protestant churches. From the fact, if it is a fact, that one is or becomes a Protestant, it does not follow that one will never see a way out of the Protestant interpretive paradigm, follow it, and then adopt the CIP. In fact, the main authors at this site were all Protestants who did just that.
There are many respectable ways in which people decide to become Catholic, without conducting a careful scholarly examination of the early sources. Some of them are quite striking. Surely you know that. Or are you prepared to argue that the only respectable way would involve conducting such an examination?
But let’s suppose, for argument’s sake, that we’re dealing with somebody who has decided to become Catholic on just such a basis. She studies Scripture and the early Church fathers in an academically respectable way, reaches the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and joins said church. Now what? Is her belief still just an opinion of hers that could just as well change, if further evidence from 1st- and 2nd-century Christianity emerges and causes her to doubt that belief? Well, if that’s how she sees the matter, then she hasn’t really converted to Catholicism. She is still a Protestant, an adherent of the PIP, who happens to believe for the time being that the Catholic Church is the denomination with the strongest credentials.
Becoming a Catholic means that one recognizes the Magisterium as the “sole authentic interpreter” of the Word, written or otherwise, handed on to us from Jesus through the Apostles. In that capacity, the Magisterium is divinely protected from error when teaching with its full authority. But such conclusions are not ones that can be reached merely by an academically respectable study of the early sources. For the Catholic as such, studying the early sources can and should confirm the Church’s claims for herself, but it cannot establish them to be begin with; it can only provide some reasons for believing them. For the Catholic as such, it is only by encountering and submitting to the authority of Christ embodied in the Church, which is his Body, that one can assent to what is proposed to us by God as being “of faith,” as opposed to just a theological opinion.
Given all that, it’s perfectly OK for a Catholic as such to study and interpret the early sources, if she has the opportunity and inclination to do so, so long as she doesn’t think that’s either necessary or sufficient to justify being Catholic. From that point of view, the PIP goes wrong not by studying and interpreting the early sources, but by insisting that such a procedure, conducted without relying on some allegedly “infallible” authority, is the supreme and normative way by which the Christian comes to learn and understand what God has revealed.
Best,
Mike
Joseph,
Between* 59-88% of Evangelicals, between 22-60% of Mainline, and between 62-84% of Historically Black Protestants believe in the bible’s infallibility. So on the low end 46% and on the high end 78% of Protestant’s believe in the infallibility of the Bible.
Some Protestant denominations explicitly affirm the Bibles infallibility, some explicitly deny it, and some do not hold to any one position.
Some Protestant’s hold a wide range of different confessions and attitudes toward the authority of those confessions. Others affirm no authoritative confession or explicitly forbid confessional or authoritative statements of any kind.
*Low end are people who tell Pew that the Bible is “Word of God, literally true word for word” while the high end also includes those who answer that the Bible is “Word of God, but not literally true word for word.” I haven’t seen any large surveys that use the language of infallibility.
Erik Charter:
Answering my request, you wrote in #349:
Well, that’s not how I saw the discussion. I saw it the way Bryan describes it in #356:
Are you prepared to argue that Bryan is summarizing the discussion inaccurately?
In #350, you write:
Suppose for argument’s sake that the purpose of “apologetics” is just what you say: “not so much to rationally convince a skeptic as they are to bolster the faith of those who already want to believe.” Even if that were true as stated–and I think it needs severe qualification–it would not follow that apologetical arguments must involve some “circularity.” Whether one goes in for Reformed “presuppositional” apologetics or some distinctively Catholic approach, one could argue roughly as follows: “If you honestly studied and understood my belief-system as a whole, you would come eventually to understand that it does a far better job of making sense of things than the major alternatives.” Now if and when that statement is true, then for the person one is addressing, one’s apologetics would afford the means by which their initial skepticism is overcome, and thus reason enough to adopt one’s belief-system. That’s why the aforesaid supposition needs severe qualification. Such an apologetical approach is not circular, even when the apologist adheres to the premises of his belief-system without adducing any other argument for those premises. To borrow Al Plantinga’s phrase, the apologist is “within his epistemic rights” to proceed in that manner. That would not be the case, however, if his arguments were circular; for circular arguments are the primary way in which people commit the fallacy of begging the question, and one is not within one’s epistemic rights to commit fallacies.
Best,
Mike
Cormano (#354):
Addressing me, you concluded:
I would not deny that “the credibility of the witness” can be known by “reason alone”–if and when the inquirer is able to marshal a sufficiently large body of the relevant evidence cited by the standard inventory of MOCs. But few inquirers are actually in that position. And even for the few who have been and are, the conclusion that the witness is credible is not established apodictically, as a result of deductive reasoning, but only with what Catholic theology calls “moral certainty.” Thus the MOCs provide inductive reason enough to justify choosing to make the assent of faith in the Catholic Church’s claims for herself, but they do not provide premises from which the truth of those claims would follow.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
OK this helps. So what you’re saying is that the CIP exists apart from really existing Catholics (Hereafter REC)? I have a really big problem with the notion of “nominal Catholicism” as the language undermines the Church’s sacramental theology. One is Catholic by virtue of Baptism and Confirmation. Full stop. So I’m not going to use that language.
You’ve already stated that RECs don’t necessarily hold to CIP.
Could CIP exist without any RECs? (Let’s say a giant asteroid strikes earth wiping out all REC but some catechumens who hold to CIP survive)
Could a Protestant (Or Hindu or Muslim) hold to CIP and not join the Catholic Church?
This is an interesting question and I agree that not everyone comes into the Catholic faith with the same amount of study. But they do all come into the faith with SOME study (RCIA anyone?). And what if from that limited study they find something that just doesn’t seem right to them. Let’s say they’re like Charles Sanders Peirce and the more they think about transubstantiation, the more they study about it in RCIA, they just can’t help but believe it’s a distinction without a difference. Could they still become Catholic? I mean the Bishops going to ask you questions like, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?” How do you answer that without examining sources?
So what you’re saying is that the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist) are not sufficient to be a REC. So CIP is, along with the sacraments (I would hope!), a necessary condition of REC. Would that not then make CIP the source and summit of the Catholic faith?
This is honestly completely new to me and I’ve been Catholic going on ten years.
Andrew (re 367), Iâm saying that the one claiming to possess infallibility must also possess divinity. We both agree that the Bible passes this test. We disagree that any human being does. And I donât see how this poses any problem for the infallibility of the Bible since, as Iâve said, the efficacy of the Bible does not depend on the inherent natures of its authors. To say so seems to be a form of Donatism.
Michael – Are you prepared to argue that Bryan is summarizing the discussion inaccurately?
Erik – Yes, and I think Cagle does it adequately. If Cagle hadn’t, why does Bryan have to resort to appealing to charity? He would have just kept appealing to logic and reason.
One question for you guys: If Catholicism is inherently rational and Protestantism is inherently irrational, why does it seem that the primary way that CTC dismisses Protestant criticisms of Catholicism (and defenses of Protestantism) is to dismiss the Protestant “paradigm”? If it’s purely a case of one system being rational and the other irrational the paradigm shouldn’t matter. Just demolish the Protestant arguments using reason and logic.
The truth is you can’t do it because the rationality of your Catholic position is in the same position as our Protestant position. It rests on faith-based propositions that cannot be confirmed purely by logic and reason. This is why we have a 500 year stalemate. Duh.
You guys suffer because you have so much to defend (3,000 Q&A’s in the Catechism) and your method of defending them is informed by your past as Protestant Fundamentalists. You’re playing a huge, unwieldy game of whack-a-mole that, as Sean frequently points out, is not necessary if you will just embrace sacerdotalism and the Mass apart from reason and logic. This makes it tough to win over skeptical Reformed guys like me, though.
Steve,
I do not understand what you mean by “possess divinity,” so I am not sure that we agree that the Bible passes that test. In my view, the Bible is not God, but it is the word of God written by human beings in such a way that it is also their words, written at particular places and times and for reasons of their own. These human beings were not inherently divine, nor infallible in general. Yet they produced an infallible and inerrant text, under the guidance (specifically, the inspiration) of the Holy Spirit. In a similar way (though with crucial distinctions that I have noted elsewhere) the pope sometimes teaches infallibly, though he is not inherently divine nor infallible in general. In short, you have yet to raise an objection to papal infallibility that is not also an objection to biblical infallibility, nor have offered an explanation of the latter (except for the qualification of being “inherently divine” or “possessing divinity”, which I still do not understand) that would not also apply to the former.
Erik, (re: #374)
Because truth as a value, depends on love for the truth. Only those who love the truth have the right motivation to avoid fallacies, such as the straw man fallacy. Without charity, no one would have an internal reason to avoid fallacies. So what motivates vigilance to avoid fallacies is ultimately charity.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Cormano (in #354) makes a lot of sense. If you guys agree that the truth of Catholicism can not be proved solely by reason and logic I think I’m happy.
I wonder if Michael Liccione is a cradle (lifetime) Catholic or a convert? I admit my question is biased by his last name. In Des Moines there are a lot of Italian-Americans who are very much Catholics and have been their whole lives. Big football rivals (Dowling Catholic) of my alma mater, Ames.
The reason I ask is that I suspect that this need to defend Catholicism purely via reason and logic is more important to the Protestant converts here than the lifetime Catholics. Why? Because I suspect that many of these guys (Jason being one) suffered a severe epistemic crisis as Reformed Protestants that was a huge factor in their conversions. They found themselves in small, marginal Conservative Reformed Protestant denominations, ignored by the larger pentecostal and evangelical churches that many of them had come out of, perhaps discouraged in ministry by infighting and slow or non-existent growth, troubled by the fractured nature of Protestantism, sincerely wishing for something more. Roman Catholicism became very appealing because if its antiquity, claims to be the one true church that Christ founded, and its large size and cultural influence. The biggest hurdle they faced, however, was overcoming their own previous skepticism of Catholic claims and training as Reformed Protestants, skeptical of religious truth claims that can not be clearly proven from Scripture. The antidote to these hurdles is proof that Catholicism is objectively true apart from their sincere WISH that it be true so they could have relief from the shortcomings of Protestantism that they were suffering under. If Catholicism is no more than a different system, a different paradigm that is no more rational or logical than Reformed Protestantism, then the epistemic crisis is not ultimately resolved and their minds can not be fully at rest. Maybe they will rest for a time, while in the honeymoon stage, but ultimately those epistemic doubts will re-emerge and who knows where the next stop will be. Perhaps atheism or nihilism? Very unpalatable choices indeed for one who has been in churches their whole lives.
Bryan – Because truth as a value, depends on love for the truth. Only those who love the truth have the right motivation to avoid fallacies, such as the straw man fallacy.
Erik – I don’t know, plenty of really nasty people can do high-level math. I don’t see the relationship.
You guys need to make your case for Catholicism based on a “preponderance of the evidence” as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Lower burden of proof and enough for most people. Maybe not enough for yourselves, though. Most of the people at CTC (and at Old Life) are smarter than the mean.
Dan (re #310),
You wrote:
Neither is Raymond Brown the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Our intention is to be faithful to the Magisterium in presenting and defending Catholic doctrine, which is defined by the Magisterium. In the case of Apostolic Succession and the episcopacy, I have provided a few links to magisterial statements on the matter (comment #308). As can be gleaned by perusing those documents, the Church does not subscribe to a “non-literal” view of AS in any sense that dispenses with Apostolic Succession via sacramental ordination by bishops, themselves ordained by bishops, in unbroken succession from the Apostles.
You wrote:
You will need to be more specific about places in which we have claimed that a particular argument we are making is *the* Catholic argument, rather than an argument intended to support the claims of the Catholic Church. As for the latter, those claims are a matter of record. There are, of course, many different kinds of arguments that can be made in support of those claims, and certainly each of the arguments made on this website can be rejected by anyone. But to reject any argument on good faith requires making an honest and charitable attempt to refute the argument in question. Blanket statements or generalizations do not suffice for that purpose.
Erik (re: #378)
True. But the need for love of truth in order to pursue mathematical truth is not refuted by the co-presence of disorder or deficiency of love in relation to other goods, persons, or even in relation to Truth Himself. The disorder or deficiency of love in relation to other things does mean or entail that love for truth is not necessary for pursuing truth.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dan H (#372):
You write:
Your question is ambiguous. Taken in one sense, it calls for a negative answer. Thus the CIP is an interpretive paradigm, employed by both the Magisterium and Catholics loyal to the Magisterium as they interpret the “sources” of divine revelation: Scripture and Tradition. If there were no “really existing Catholics” who are members of the Magisterium and/or loyal to it, there would be no CIP. But there are and always have been such Catholics, and the CIP does not “exist apart from” them. So the CIP exists, and will exist, as long as the gates of hell do not prevail against the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, there are many Catholics who either don’t use, don’t understand, or don’t accept the CIP. The CIP certainly exists “apart from” those “really existing Catholics.” Thus, regarding those Catholics, your question calls for an affirmative answer.
You write:
For the reason already stated, my answer to your first question in that paragraph is “Yes.” To the second, my answer is also “Yes.” It is possible for a non-Catholic to believe that the CIP is the correct way to receive and interpret the “sources” of divine revelation, but at the same time to fail to join the Catholic Church for either lack of opportunity or plain old fear of the consequences for their lives. I actually know several such people personally.
I should point out first that when I speak of the “sources” of divine revelation, I am using a theological term of art. So used, the term denotes Scripture and Tradition; and given as much, I agree that a non-Catholic cannot choose to become Catholic without some “study” of those sources. For without some degree of such study, one cannot know what it is one is supposed to be assenting to. But that is beside the earlier point of mine to which you are responding.
My point was that it is not necessary, in order to choose to become a Catholic, that one conduct a study of Scripture and other ecclesiastical documents from the sub-apostolic period so as to answer, on one’s own, the question: “Is the Catholic Church, as that phrase is understood today, the Church Christ founded?” There are many respectable ways to reach that conclusion without conducting, for and by oneself, a specific study of that sort. I truly doubt that you, as a Catholic, would deny that.
All the same, an inquirer’s doubt about this-or-that Catholic doctrine, such as transubstantiation, should normally be addressed by both further study of the sources and sustained prayer. Such a one might indeed reach the conclusion that transubstantiation is “a distinction without a difference.” Thus, many Catholic theologians believe that that technical term is only one possible, accurate way to formulate the Church’s ancient conviction that the consecrated elements of the Eucharist are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. As long as one believes that ‘transubstantiation’ is an “appropriate” (Trent) term for the mystery, one is within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. But if one rejects the term on, say, a Peircean basis, then one’s prior philosophical commitments preclude one from embracing Catholic orthodoxy. One then needs to decide between the two.
You write:
Once again, your summation of my point is ambiguous. It is possible–and indeed, in the Eastern-Catholic churches, it is typically the case–that a person receive the three sacraments of initiation without even having reached the age of reason. Such a child is certainly Catholic–and one who may well be in holier than you or I, because they have not yet reached that stage of cognitive development in which actual sin is even possible. When we’re talking about freely choosing adults, however, the matter is a bit different.
I was an RCIA director for several years; we followed the published norms for the reception of adult catechumens and candidates. Thus, when such a one is received into the Church, they profess believe in “all that the Holy Catholic Church professes and teaches.” That phrase refers to all that the Church has taught with her full authority. Even if the one being received does not know each and every such teaching, they are at least professing docility to such teaching whenever they are or become aware of it. If they are not thus docile, then their profession is insincere. If their profession is insincere, then even though they are formally Catholic by virtue of their receiving the sacraments of initiation, they are materially heretical, so that their faith is radically defective.
That said, the CIP is not “the source and summit of the Catholic faith.” Jesus Christ is, as God the Son and Revealer. Of course, as Vatican II said in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is the Mass that is “the source and summit of the Church’s life,” which is a much larger reality than that aspect of faith which consists in intellectual assent. Thus without the Eucharist, there would be no Church. But without the Church, there would be no Catholic faith to assent to. Now the Catholic faith includes the CIP. Without accepting and using the CIP, one would not be able to receive and understand the “sources” of the Catholic faith precisely with the gift of faith, as opposed to the vagaries of human opinion. So in that sense, the CIP is objectively indispensable for the Catholic faith, even though it is quite possible for many to be Catholic without even being aware of the CIP.
Best,
Mike
Erik (#374):
I had asked whether you’re “prepared to argue” that Bryan has summarized his discussion with Jeff Cagle accurately. Here’s your answer:
Well, Bryan kept showing how Jeff kept committing a category mistake: treating what are really only “motives of credibility” as “articles of faith.” I think Bryan was correct. He “resorted” to an appeal to charity because Jeff simply refused to admit he was misrepresenting Bryan’s position and thus erecting strawmen. Now fruitful dialogue is possible only when each participant makes a sincere effort to understand and state the other’s accurately, instead of erecting and re-erecting strawman, as if the other guy simply does not understand his own position. Making such an effort is an act of charity, while standing with strawmen is an act of uncharity. For that reason, I believe Bryan was perfectly correct to appeal to charity. Not that it did much good….
You write:
Your question is loaded because its premise is a strawman. Neither I nor anybody else I know who writes articles for this site–and I know a number of them personally, as well as online–believes that “Protestantism is inherently irrational.” As far as I know, however, they do believe that the CIP is more reasonable than the PIP, by virtue of the CIP’s affording, unlike the PIP, a principled distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinion. If you want to know how I argue that the CIP has and deploys a needed distinction of the sort the PIP lacks, you can focus on sections IV and V of this CTC article I wrote a few years ago.
That the CIP is more reasonable than the PIP, if true, does not entail that it’s irrational to be Protestant. I’ve know plenty of intelligent Protestants, for example, who agree the PIP has no “principled means” of making the aforesaid distinction while the CIP does, but who think that’s perfectly OK. That’s because they think Catholicism is untrue, so that even if the CIP can make the aforesaid distinction while the PIP cannot, it’s better to be right than to be able to make such a distinction, if one has to choose between the two. Now of course I reject that position, but I don’t think it’s “inherently irrational.” Careful argument is necessary to show what’s wrong with it, and not all reasonable people are going to appreciate or accept such arguments.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
I think I’ve got it. Let me know if I’m being fair here with this outline (I’ve added #5):
1. Magisterium (the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him CCC#100) – Proclaim/develop/elucidate CIP +Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders)
2. Catholics Loyal to the Magisterium – CIP + Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist)
3. Catholics who have not yet reached the age of reason/cognitively impaired or otherwise unaware of CIP – Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist)
4. Catholics that are materially heretical – Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist)
5. Catholics that are formally heretical – (Baptism, Confirmation, should not receive Eucharist)
6. Catholic that are formally heretical and also fall under Canon 915 (“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”) – (Baptism, Confirmation, denied Eucharist)
It’s really easy to determine who #1 is and it’s really easy to determine who #6 is if they have been excommunicated or interdicted by #1.
It’s actually pretty difficult to tell the difference between #’s 2-6b (Excluding, of course 6a).
And this brings us to Andrew at #381.
The late Fr. Raymond Brown did not hold to literal Apostolic succession in the way that Andrew interprets CIP requiring. But Andrew is not the magisterium (Either himself the Pope or a Bishop in communion with the Pope), and Fr. Brown was never excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and I’ve never even heard it alleged that he ever obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.
So while I understand the categories you’ve outline and appreciate them at a theoretical level on a practical level how do we determine if and where CIP exists outside of the magisterium itself?
Darryl (#368):
Addressing Brent, you wrote:
I infer you haven’t noticed that there was an article on CTC mentioning the “sexual abuse scandal”: Children and the Catholic Church. Also, that issue has been broached many times in the comboxes, both as an objection to Catholicism and by those of us who defend Catholicism. I myself broached it more than once in the comboxes by stating that I too was a victim of sexual abuse as a pubescent at the hands of a priest. I explained why that crime alienated me from the Church for years, and why all the same I returned to the Catholic Church toward the end of my college years, having double-majored in philosophy and religion. I add here something I have not said at CTC before, but have publicly said elsewhere: I found out after college, when I tried to enter the seminary, that the abuser’s superiors had at first tried to deny the abuse and then, when that didn’t work, blamed me for it. That blaming, which was a gross calumny, was why I didn’t get into the seminary.
Of course we can’t expect you to have read every single thing posted at this site or by me elsewhere. Thus I’m neither surprised nor offended that you didn’t notice what I’ve cited above. Nor do I expect from you any curiosity as to why I returned to the Catholic Church after being a victim of clerical sexual abuse. But it is rather disedifying that you posted your potshot without having done your homework.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
Would you say that :
(1) The Motives of Credibility are objective evidences for the truth of Catholicism that any reasonable, open-minded person should be able to understand, and in so doing, should grasp and affirm the truth of Catholicism based on the Motives of Credibility alone.
or
(2) The Motives of Credibility are objective evidences for the truth of Catholicism that those who are willing to have faith that Catholicism is true can look at as evidence that their faith is reasonable.
or neither?
If neither, can you put in your own words what one is supposed to ascertain from the Motives of Credibility?
Maybe another way to phrase the question: Am I supposed to look at the MOC and say “Catholicism is obviously true!” or do I put my faith in the truth of Catholicism first and then look at the MOC and say, “I knew my faith made sense!”. Do you see the difference?
As Calvinists we would say that no one can grasp the truth of Christianity without the Holy Spirit first convincing them of it. A work of the Spirit proceeds belief. I’m not sure if you affirm that notion or not.
Dan H (#384):
Your summary of my points is largely accurate, and I don’t want to spend time quibbling about where it is not. What interests me is your last two paragraphs:
I shall let Andrew himself speak to how far Fr. Brown’s explication of apostolic succession differs from his own. Unless and until he does, juxtaposing their views does not present a difficulty for the CIP as I present it. All it means is that they respectively include somewhat different opinions on the matter. The CIP does not rule out differences of theological opinion, so long as neither party maintains a thesis that’s logically incompatible with what the Church has irreformably taught.
As to your question, I think it’s misframed. The CIP certainly does “exist outside the magisterium itself,” if by that is meant that some Catholics who are not hierarchs accept and deploy it. I do myself. Many theologians have. The real concern behind your question, it seems to me, is the difficulty of determining, in many cases, when a given Catholic is materially heretical if they have not been convicted of formal heresy under canon law.
Well, sometimes that is difficult to determine. Perhaps the person has not given voice to views which are materially heretical, but holds some such views anyway. Or perhaps they have published views whose orthodoxy is questionable, but which have not been shown to be logically incompatible with what the Church has irreformably taught. Then there are cases where it’s pretty clear that a person’s stated views are materially heretical, but not at all clear that they can be held morally accountable for that–either because they’ve never been taught the truth of the matter, or because, even though they have been so taught and believe what they’ve been taught, they don’t realize that the truth they accept is logically incompatible with what they have said.
My response to all such cases is that none of them cast doubt on the “existence” or usefulness of the CIP as a theological norm for non-hierarchs, any more than sin casts doubt on the “existence” or usefulness of the moral norms given us by God. To me, that seems self-evident.
Best,
Mike
Jason (#325) – Itâs a lot easier for a Catholic to know what counts as de fide dogma than it is for a Protestant to determine what counts as an âessential doctrine.â There are official documents he can consult, and there are priests and bishops from whom he can seek clarification. Itâs not that hard, and itâs not as if the presence of disagreement proves the impossibility of there being an answer. Your liberal slip is showing again.
Erik – Ahem, do you remember the Reformed Confessions? That’s what I subscribe to and consider “essential doctrine”. You can even check me on it by reading them yourselves (and the book isn’t even that fat).
It’s also ironic that you say, “Itâs not that hard, and itâs not as if the presence of disagreement proves the impossibility of there being an answer.” because I hear you guys saying that one of the big reasons you left Protestantism is that there wasn’t agreement on correct answers. You just didn’t like that there were a lot of opinions with the possibility of the number of people with correct answers being small. So you went to a big church with one guy purporting to have the correct answers and a lot of people agreeing with him. I don’t see that your epistemic problem is solved.
Jason (#325) – Yeah, the way I put it for the purposes of pithiness and brevity is saying that the Reformed view is âThe church is where the gospel is,â while the Catholic position is that âThe church is where the bishop is.â
Erik – I have no problem with that notion.
Jason (#325) – That said, the idea that a lack of piety, or the presence of bad fruit, negates ecclesial authority is both Donatist and non-Reformed (at least if the second Helvetic has anything to say about it).
Erik – Looking at Fruit is valid, although we are told in the Heidelberg that our fruit will be a small beginning. When we see rampant scandal or immorality (without pointing fingers at any particular scandal or acts) I do think we have to take note and ask if something is badly off at the core of that particular religion.
Jason (#325) – Cool. I would humbly suggest, though, that both the OT and NT teach that the new covenant is to be greater than the old, and that the Church (whatever is may be) is to be a worldwide and universal thing. Just saying.
Erik – You hung around with Peter Leithart and the postmillennialists too long. Think aliens and strangers, brother.
I do enjoy reading you & talking with you. Thanks.
Ray (# 364),
Catholic unity is a motive of credibility and is expressed in the corporate creed (we believe). Similarly, the individual creed (I believe) expresses the unity between habit and act for the individual. Habit and act together evidence the credibility of the confessor and are subject to public investigation. It is true that subsisting catholic unity is not a firm habit, but both are supported by divine omnipotence. Also, it seems that one does not have knowledge of possessing the habit unless he can identify which acts are from habitual or actual grace.
Eric
Michael,
This has been super helpful, thank you for all of your responses.
This brings me back full circle to my original expressed frustration that the views expressed by CtC do not necessarily represent the magisterium (and by extension) CIP. I realize and appreciate that that is what CtC is striving to do but I think it’s important to stress the sort of difficulties you’ve outlined (I believe these difficulties are more substantial than you do but that is, in many ways, beside the point).
There’s a lot of theological issues which CIP doesn’t solve and there are a lot of tensions in Catholic theology, it’s a big church in more ways than one. I count that to be a feature and not a bug.
Darryl,
I asked you once over on the “Evangelicals getting high” thread about your reasons for affirming Reformed Protestantism over Catholicism. You never answered the question there, but I’ll repeat it here.
I think that in your view “intellectual satisfaction” is elusive in either tradition, and that a fair measure of “cognitive dissonance” is unavoidable in any religion. You don’t actually assert this, but it seems to me that you think theological coherence is not achievable. Have I accurately represented your position?
If so, then I’ll ask again, “Why choose one tradition over the other?”
Thanks,
David
Michael,
Re. #385
First off, I admire your ability to forgive your abusers and I’m sorry that happened to you.
Secondly, Tate’s “mentioning” the scandal is not really adequate. In the thousands and thousands of words that you guys have written here, if that’s all you can point to as far as addressing the scandal, you have a long way to go. What is needed is a full article or articles in which you help people understand how something as devastating and apparently widespread could take place in the Church that Christ founded.
In #325 Jason says: “Cool. I would humbly suggest, though, that both the OT and NT teach that the new covenant is to be greater than the old, and that the Church (whatever is may be) is to be a worldwide and universal thing. Just saying.”
You guys have very high expectations for (and contentions about) your church and the scandal does not match those expectations and contentions. You can’t get selectively gnostic on us if you hope to win us over.
Erik (#392):
I can’t speak for other CTCers, but the reason I don’t spend much time talking about the sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church–which is being energetically addressed by the hierarchy–is that I don’t believe it’s theologically significant. For it does not follow, from any Catholic doctrine, that clerics are likely to be better or holier people than the rank-and-file laity in the pews. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that one will find every sort of sin among clerics, just as one does among the laity. As we do, in fact.
Of course, it is also reasonable to expect that clerics will at least strive for holiness more consistently than others of similar education and professional training. That the measured rate of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is lower than that among public-school teachers is, I believe, evidence that priests do so strive.
Best,
Mike
Hey Zrim (#365),
Glad I understood you well. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, I think that such an argument as yours is unsuccessful. Hereâs why :-p
As you probably recognize, the premise doing the most (controversial) work is the one I labeled 1). Other than it, everything else is pretty straightforward. So why is 1) false? The reason is that texts are essentially static while persons are not.
Lookit, we both agree that, when St. Luke wrote Acts, he wrote infallibly. But we also both (I think) agree that, for the vast majority of his whole life, he did not write infallibly. (His grocery lists, if he had any, were not preserved from error). ;-) So why is the text of Acts infallible despite the fact that, for most of his life, St. Luke could err in his writings? Itâs because at the time he was writing Acts he could not err. Having written Acts, St. Luke could âslip backâ into his normal (able-to-err-when-writing) mode and, since Acts was already written, the book of Acts remained free from error.
The same is what we Catholics would assert takes place when Popes pronounce ex cathedra. The overwhelming majority of the time, when Popes write, what they write could err. But when theyâre making the ex cathedra proclamation, they canât err. Having made the proclamation, they return to able-to-err status. Kinda just like St. Luke when he was writing Acts (which is, I take it, what Bryan was getting back in his original comment on this matter).
So, when you wrote:
I think you misstep. Infallible texts donât just pop out of thin air. They are written by people, and the texts are only as infallible as the author. So âif the human source may err at any point then why not the textual source â? Because the human source needs to be infallible only so long as heâs doing the writing. He can be fallible before and fallible after – but so long as heâs infallible while writing, the textâs words will remain infallible even if the author goes back to being fallible. And again, thatâs presumably what you think happened with St. Luke. St. Lukeâs writings could err at many points in his life (like when writing his grocery lists), but when writing Scripture his writings couldnât err. So too Pope Franceâs writings could err at many points in his life, but if Pope France were to proclaim an ex cathedra dogma he couldnât err.
Or, to say the same thing a different way, âif the human source may err at any point then why not the textual source â? Because both St. Luke and Pope Francis could *not* err at any point – St. Luke could not err when writing Scripture, and Pope Francis could not err if he were to make an ex cathedra proclamation. And the texts (Scripture/ex cathedra pronouncement) resulting from those periods when they could not err will also be preserved from error through the power of the Holy Spirit
Does this help at all? Do you sense Iâm still accurately understanding you? (Iâm trying to!) Do you have any thoughts in reply? I do hope these writings are of some small service to you.
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Dan H (#390):
You write:
Well, here’s how I described the CIP a few years ago on CTC:
Now with the exception of my very first sentence, almost all of that presentation consists in either quoting, citing, or summarizing what the Magisterium says. And I know of no magisterial document or representative who would be inclined to contradict my first sentence. So I don’t believe you should be “frustrated” that ” the views expressed by CtC do not necessarily represent the magisterium (and by extension) CIP.” I’m the one who coined the phrase ‘Catholic Interpretive Paradigm” and described that paradigm as above. No CTC author disagrees with me, any more than the Magisterium itself does.
You write:
The “sort of difficulties” I’ve “outlined” are those posed by material heresy, whether intended or unintended. I don’t understand how the frequency of such heresy is supposed to pose a problem for the CIP. It poses a pastoral problem, but not a doctrinal problem. Of course you seem disinclined to draw that distinction as sharply as I do. You seem inclined to think that, if the pastoral problem of material heresy is widespread enough, that casts doubt on the usefulness of the CIP. But in my previous comment, I explained why I don’t believe that to be so.
Best,
Mike
Michael (#393) – That the measured rate of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is lower than that among public-school teachers is, I believe, evidence that priests do so strive.
Erik – Are you suggesting that public school teachers teach in the Schools that Christ Founded? Of course you aren’t. I just think your apologetic for the glories of Rome break down at this point. If you are constantly defining down the expectations for the one true church supposedly led by an apostle, the expediency of conversion gets really low. An apologetic that devolves to such an abstract, intellectual level is appealing to very few people. In fact, it’s pretty much only people like me who primarily live their lives between their ears (and we’re rare).
It’s also ironic that Tate’s post is all about experiencing the glories of Catholicism in a visible, hands on way. Those who suffered at the hands of deviant priests had very damaging, negative experiences of the church in a visible, hands on way.
Erik Charter:
Like I said elsewhere, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Either the abuse scandals are a sign of the humanity of the Church, a mirror of society, or they are the sign of the pseudo-Church’s demise. Heck, this all went down in the new media age – or at least has come to light in as much. Nobody can claim some long term medieval coverup. So, heads, I win and the Church goes on even emerges stronger because She is who She says She is, or tails I lose (you don’t win) and bye-bye Catholic Church.
Let’s call it a rational draw. We can disagree. But let’s not make one of us into a kool-aide kid while the other gets to throw punches to a tide up target. Fair?
Erik – I’m not sure what belief background you come from, but the arguments that you are adducing are the same that atheists employ against any religion whatsoever. “You say ‘My religion is from God’? How do you explain the Crusades? The repeated televangelist scandals? The adulterous pastor? The Westboro Baptists? They’re all solid Bible believers! Ergo, Bible is wrong.”
You state that the apologetic for Rome has ‘devolved to such an abstract intellectual level’. The expectation that all members of a religion/church act perfectly at all times with the official teaching of its head is itself a very abstract (read: unrealistic) intellectual conceit. To my understanding (I am not a Catholic), Rome’s understanding of infallibility is very limited and operates only in certain situations. These situations are similar to those the apostles and their scribes were in when they wrote the NT – protected from error doctrinally, but not everywhere else. Witness Christ’s rebuke of “Get behind me, Satan,” or Paul’s rebuke of Peter over fraternising with the Judaizers. Yet we hold 1 and 2 Peter as infallible. Remember too that Paul secured Peter’s sanction before embarking on preaching and teaching – if Peter hadn’t been infallible when checking Paul’s doctrine, all our Pauline epistles could be flawed.
Why is the idea of fallible men acting infallibly to produce an infallible book less of an abstract intellectual concept that that of a fallible church adhering to a sometimes infallible head?
Erik (#386):
Sorry, I overlooked that comment as this combox quickly grew.
You ask me:
I would say “both”–if (1) be suitably reformulated as
(1*) The Motives of Credibility (MOCs) are objective evidences for the truth of Catholicism that any reasonable, open-minded inquirer should be able to understand, such that, if presented to her as a body in substantial depth and breadth, she should inductively infer the truth of Catholicism from them.
I say “both” because, if (1*) is true as I believe it is, then (2) is true as well, even though the converse does not hold. And I reformulate (1) as (1*) because I think (1) is too much of a stretch.
You write:
I see the difference. And my answer to your first question is this: One can legitimately do either or both. But God does not require most people to do the first because, given (1*), it is not practically possible for most people to do it–though it is possible for a privileged minority, who should do it. I should say that the second is normally required of Catholics, who are expected to be able to give “reasons for the hope that is in you” (2 Peter 3:15). It’s sad that many Catholics see no need to equip themselves for that.
Finally, you write:
I’m not sure what that means. Perhaps it means that one cannot understand the reasons for believing that Christianity is true without already being convinced, by the Holy Spirit rather than by reason, that Christianity is true. If that’s what you mean, I’d say that it’s true only in a sharply qualified sense. Thus, if somebody is presented with the body of MOCs as a whole, but still is not moved to believe that Christianity is true, that is because she does not want to believe–probably because she has declined the gift of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit. But perhaps the Holy Spirit wills to use her reason, not just her will, to help her come to believe the truth. In fact, with adult converts, I’d say that is often the case. It’s not as though the Holy Spirit convicts us rather than reason; more often, he convicts people partly by means of reason. But reason alone never suffices. That’s because faith is a gift of the Spirit, freely accepted or rejected. What leaves room for such freedom to be exercised is the fact that the MOCs do not establish the truth of Christianity with apodictic certainty, but only with moral certainty, which is not always available anyway prior to the assent of faith.
Best,
Mike
Erik (#396):
I asserted, in #393, that “it does not follow, from any Catholic doctrine, that clerics are likely to be better or holier people than the rank-and-file laity in the pews.” You have not gainsaid that assertion. Nobody I know of does–because it is clearly true. Hence, there’s no reason to expect that one won’t encounter some degree of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics. It is reasonable to expect only that one won’t encounter as much of it among Catholic priests as among other groups of people with a similar degree of education and training. So it is not reasonable for you to claim that my approach to the sex-abuse scandal “breaks down” my “apologetic” for the “glories of Catholicism.” Of course there are “glories” in Catholicism–such as the saints and miracles–but I have not cited those specifically in this thread. In general, my arguments for Catholicism over against both Protestantism and Orthodoxy are strictly epistemological.
As to scandals in the Church, sexual or otherwise, my attitude is pretty much that of Cardinal Consalvi, Pope Pius VI’s Secretary of State. When informed that Napoleon was threatening to destroy the Church, Consalvi replied to this effect: “We bishops have been trying to do that for centuries. He cannot succeed where we have failed.” I believe that one MOC for the divine origin of the Catholic Church is how well she has managed to survive her leadership. A business or secular government run like the Church wouldn’t last very long. The Church has lasted two millennia and shows no sign of going away.
Best,
Mike
Dan (re #384),
We have found some common ground: Raymond Brown is not the Magisterium, nor am I. Certainly we could add many more names to this list, agreeing all the while. But it might be more to the point simply to identify the Magisterium; specifically, to cite magisterial teaching on Apostolic Succession by way of coming to understand the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession (over and above any individual’s understanding of AS, at any stage of development). Thus, the links in comment #308.
Naturally, I am glad to hear that Brown was “never excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty”, and that you’ve “never even heard it alleged that he ever obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” Nevertheless, his theories about AS and the episcopacy in the first two Christian centuries do not amount to anything binding upon Catholics. Brown’s views can be taken or left based upon merit, judging from the quality of his arguments and (for Catholics) the consistency of his conclusions with the doctrinal formulations of the Catholic Church. The same goes for any non-magisterial arguments and conclusions, including of course the ones made on this website, which brings us back to the point I made at the end of #380.
Dr. Hart:
This blog, unlike other blogs, deals primarily with doctrinal issues. Nevertheless, as Mike pointed out, there was an article on this site addressing the sexual abuse scandal. So I guess the double sided tails coin came up tails again. We lose. : – (
I wish you would just answer David Anders. That might help me understand what you mean by “intellectually satisfying.”
Steve (zrim):
You agreed to Benjamin’s summary of your argument as:
Let me redact this argument to this, where:
1. A is Biblical authorial infallibility.
2. B1 is Biblical inerrancy
3. B2 is Magisterial inerrancy
If A, then B1
therefore
If not B2, then not A
Which is more or less what Benjamin’s criticism was. It is a basic formal fallacy (affirming the consequent). What you would have to demonstrate is that B2 is entailed or implied by B1 and why A follows necessarily from B and not just the converse. However, that is a part of our dispute. To prove your criticism, you (would have to) prove B2. If your argument stands (whatever it would be), then not-B1 is true, which should make us both uncomfortable. I would argue that B2 is not entailed or implied by B1 nor does B follow necessarily from A because A is circumscribed to a finite period of time, but rather that B2 is more plausible because of B1. In other words, an inerrant (at times) Church is not a necessary consequent of an inerrant Scripture but rather a plausible consequent. This means that my Protestantism makes reasonable my Catholicism. The same act of faith that says St. Peter, petulant as he may have been at times, was graced by a special charism and wrote 1 Peter without error, can be applied to the Teaching Office (Magisterium) of the Church at those times when She teaches with her full authority.
As another noted, saying that A follows from B, therefore, not B leads to not A, is the argument of the atheists.
Here’s my argument against A necessarily following from B. Where T stands for time.
1. Someone acts infallibly at T1 (A)
2. Therefore (from A) there is some inerrant product (B)
3. At T2, the same person acts contrary to B
4. It does not follow that B is impossible at T1
Let me put it another way by example.
1. Jim runs a mile under 5 minutes.
2. Therefore he wins race “X”
3. Jim runs a mile over 5 minutes
4. Therefore, he did not win race “X”
This is false. 4 does not follow from 1-3.
It could be cleaner, but it is my best attempt this morning. Thanks for your patience.
Peace!
David, I am a Protestant because I am a sinner who needs an alien righteousness if I have any chance of ever standing before God’s throne. Rome had a chance to embrace the Reformers’ teaching at a time before Trent “fixed” Rome’s dogma of salvation. No offense, but the Roman scheme is no salve to a sin-plagued soul. It puts way too much power in the arbitrary decisions of a Roman pontiff (who if he has the power to get people out of purgatory with indulgences should — if he were really loving — just let them go anyway).
Darryl, (re: #405)
If you think God is incapable of making you righteous now, then what reason do you have for thinking He will acquire the ability to do so in the future? (Or do you think you will you be unrighteous eternally, always under the cover of an alien righteousness?)
On the contrary, that’s exactly what it is, the removal (not just the hiding, but the actual removal) of sin from the soul, and the infusion of the divine agape which is Christ’s righteousness.
That’s a dangerous thing for a Calvinist to say, because since Calvinists believe in monergism and irresistible grace, such a claim entails that if God were “really loving” He would save everyone. And since Calvinists deny that God saves everyone, such a claim entails that God is not “really loving.” (A.W. Pink comes quite close to admitting this, as Jerry Walls shows.)
But regarding the pope, he does not have the power per se to “get people out of purgatory.” He has authority (as steward) over the administration of the sacraments, and thus through the sacrament of penance to grant indulgences to the faithful, who can, through charity and the communion of the saints, apply the *temporal* benefit they have received to souls in purgatory.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Solemnity of the Assumption, 2013
“1. If an infallible person can be errant, then an infallible text can be errant”
You need to make some clarifications here. When we say a person is infallible do we mean in every aspect of their life and at all times (e.g. Jesus ) vs infallible for a specific task(e.g. apostles )? The text is equivalent of the former, because it is static. It will not be inerrant one day and make a mistake the next.
Michael,
Thanks again for the clarification. I’m new to these debates and CtC. I think it’s safe to say I’m out of my element on what exactly is meant by CIP and I’ll look into the link you’ve provided.
When I say that the disclaimer, the views expressed by CtC are not necessarily those of the magisterium I was particularly thinking of Andrew’s comments which I interpreted as stating that Fr. Raymond Brown’s beliefs on apostolic succession go against the teachings of the magisterium. Andrew corrected that misunderstanding @402. I never claimed that a more literal view of apostolic succession was against the teaching of the magisterium but merely that the teaching didn’t exclude all other interpretations.
Andrew,
Thanks for the clarification!
I’m trying to figure out exactly how you’ve using subscribe here (Is this in the way Protestants subscribe to confessions?). The Church has taught many things, in many ways, at various times about apostolic succession. As the Church as grown and developed its presentation of the deposit of faith has also grown and developed.
Brown’s work, I submit, is an example of that growth and development. Again, his work has recieved both a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. The Pope Emeritus has also stated that he, “”would be very happy if we had many exegetes like Father Brown”.
His theories are certainly not binding but they most certainly do not go against magisterial teaching.
He is to legit to quit.
Darryl,
I’m reminded of the ol’ Baltimore Catechism:
361. What are the purposes for which the Mass is offered?
The purposes for which the Mass is offered are: first, to adore God as our Creator and Lord; second, to thank God for His many favors; third, to ask God to bestow His blessings on all men; fourth, to satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against Him.
Dan,
I am using “subscribe” in a way similar to that in which Protestants subscribe to confessions. But I would have been better off using the word “believe” since Catholics are supposed to receive Catholic doctrine with the full assent of faith, whereas Protestants only subscribe to their respective confessions as human opinions which do not, of course, warrant faith, as Mike L. has been pointing out.
Brown’s work may be helpful in some respects, but I am sure you know that neither the “nihil obstat”, “imprimatur”, nor the approbation of a pope raises anyone’s work to the level of magisterial teaching. My point is very simple: In order to understand *the* Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession, and not merely someone’s opinions about AS at some point in its development, one should turn to those documents in which the Church has expressed its mind concerning the same.
Andrew,
What do you think a Nihil obstat, Imprimatur, and mad props from a then sitting Pope “do”?
Where do you think Magisterial teaching comes from?
Where do Nihil obstats, Imprimaturs, and mad props from the Pope come from?
I’m not saying that Fr. Brown’s writings have been enshrined as dogma merely that it seems pretty clear that they do not run counter to “*the* Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession” and that should inform how we interpret the teaching.
Dan (re #412),
Here are my answers to your questions:
1. In this post, Taylor Marshall has pithily explained what a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur do. In short, they indicate that a local bishop or bishops did not find anything objectionable in the book. What Pope Benedict’s remarks do is to express his personal opinion, namely, that he wishes we had more exegetes like Fr. Brown. As Fr. Brown was scholarly and insightful, this opinion is unsurprising.
2. Magisterial teaching comes from the Magisterium.
3. Nihil obstats and Imprimaturs come from bishops, and “mad props” from the Pope come from the Pope.
But again, to get the horse before the cart: To understand Catholic teaching, we should first and foremost read those documents in which that teaching is given.
Lest this exchange should spiral further down a chasm of useless generalities, or simply recapitulate your exchanges with Bryan and Michael, I invite you to continue the discussion, with reference to the Christian Ministry and Apostolic Succession, under my recent post on Apostolic Succession or Tim Troutman’s article on Holy Orders.
Andrew,
I think we just have different ways of reading Catholic teaching.
I follow Rahner in making an anthropocentric turn on these matters. To understand what it is to be Catholic we have to begin with our experience *as* human person, then *as* persons existing in our cultural context, then proceed to our experience *as* a concrete religious community (Parish life), etc.
I think it’s hermetically impossible to, “first and foremost read those documents in which that teaching is given.” And if one could where would ones reading begin? Does one begin reading the tradition on the Assumption of Mary with the Book of Revelation, Ethiopic Liber Requiei, or Munificentissimus Deus?
But these are big shaggy baggy questions that take us pretty far afield.
Thanks (Also thanks to Bryan and Michael) for helping to illuminate CtC contributors methodologies. I’ll continue to follow the dialogue with interest but will limit any commentary to points of fact or questions.
It’s been a trip and you learn something new every day.
Hi DGH,
I appreciate the response, but you only obliquely get at my question. You have objected several times over several threads that the CTC apology for Catholicism is illegitimate because it posits a spurious coherence, and fails to take account of the real (to your mind) divergence between traditional Catholic thought, and contemporary Catholic faith and practice. You have also stated that this kind of “cognitive dissonance” is basically ubiquitous across religious communities. This makes it sound like rational considerations must be ruled out in choosing a religious tradition.
From your response it would seem (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that you prefer Reformed Christianity because it provides more of a balm for the wounded conscience, but not necessarily because you think it is true, or rational, or coherent. Am I representing you accurately here?
thanks,
David
Darryl,
The God of Calvinism also had the power to elect all men to eternal life, but chose not to. Is he as unloving as the pope?
Dan (re #414),
We might have different ways of reading Catholic teaching, but I was trying to point out the surest and simplest way to identify Catholic teaching, as such.
You go on to talk about understanding what it is “to be” Catholic. That is a much broader topic than the one we had been discussing; i.e., identifying and understanding Catholic teaching and presenting arguments in support of that teaching. I believe that there is a sense in which understanding anything must begin with experience. However, I do not agree that it is “hermetically [hermeneutically?] impossible” to do what I suggested doing when it comes to understanding Catholic teaching; namely, “first and foremost read those documents in which that teaching is given.” By “first and foremost” I do not mean first in the order of time (either sequentially or quantitatively), but in the order of priority.
Regarding where to begin in reading those documents in which Catholic teaching, as such, is set forth, one could begin with whatever topic he is most interested in (or skeptical about, etc), and find those instances (if any) where the Magisterium has taught on that matter, with particular attention to instances in which the Magisterium has taught with its full authority (i.e., a manner that calls for the full assent of faith). For example, regarding the Assumption of Mary, one could begin by reading Munificentissimus Deus, in which it is declared and defined as a divinely revealed dogma “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Erik,
I wrote, âItâs a lot easier for a Catholic to know what counts as de fide dogma than it is for a Protestant to determine what counts as an essential doctrine.â You responded:
That doesnât help you. Do you consider âin the space of six daysâ as essential? Or the idea that casting lots is one way to determine Godâs will? If not, then you either donât subscribe to the Westminster Standards, or you exclude those parts from the core of their teaching. And either way, what âyou consider essentialâ is beside the point (especially if your neighbor âconsidersâ Joel Osteenâs books as âthe essentialsâ).
The difference is that Protestantism, by its own admission and according to its own rules, cannot definitively settle a doctrinal matter with anything that transcends fallible human opinion. The Catholic paradigm claims to be able to do that, and therefore appealing to disagreement about what the Church teaches proves no more than what liberals accomplish by appealing to disagreements about what Jesus taught. IOW, just because some people didnât like or obey what Jesus taught doesnât mean he taught nothing in particular. And likewise, just because people donât like or obey the CCâs teachings doesnât mean those teaching canât be known.
I wrote, âThat said, the idea that a lack of piety, or the presence of bad fruit, negates ecclesial authority is both Donatist and non-Reformed (at least if the second Helvetic has anything to say about it).â You responded:
This is just special pleading. There are HUGE scandals, both moral, sexual, and financial, within evangelicalism as a whole. Does this mean they are wrong about their non-Catholicism? There are scandals in politics on both sides of the aisle, does this mean their view are incorrect? Moreover, there is also an abundance of positive fruit in Catholicism that outnumbers its scandals in a huge way. Why doesnât that get factored in?
Again, a lack of piety does not negate ecclesial authority, both according to Augustineâs anti-Donatist writings and the second Helvetic Confession. Just admit that the real problem you have with the CC is that you consider her teachings false. Thatâs at least an honest position that can be debated.
I wrote, âI would humbly suggest, though, that both the OT and NT teach that the new covenant is to be greater than the old, and that the Church (whatever is may be) is to be a worldwide and universal thing. Just saying.â You responded:
You are welcome.
And Leithart had zero influence on me, especially with regard to postmillennialism. There is nothing triumphalistic about insisting that the NT speaks of the Church as something bigger than the remnant of eight soul on Noahâs ark (which is what I was responding to). It numbered in the thousands and was universal from the day it was born in Acts 2.
Infallible texts donât just pop out of thin air. They are written by people, and the texts are only as infallible as the author.
Benjamin, agreed they donât just pop out of thin air. But it may be more accurate to say that they are at once penned by men and inspired of God. And if thatâs true then they are only as infallible as they are inspired of God. The way you put it, their infallibility depends not on the divinity of God but on the infallibility of creatures. In other words, Protestants put the emphasis on Godâs divinity while Cats put it on the piety of men. In which case, I still donât see how you guys avoid a form of Donatism.
Dan H (414),
You wrote:
I donât want to misrepresent you, but the notion you are advocating seems self-destructive precisely due to its overly (in my estimation) anthropocentric emphasis. If one hundred different people all consider, and then describe and compare their personal experiences as individual humans, then as members of this or that cultural milieu, then as members of this or that parish; how would that bring one closer to understanding what it âis to be Catholicâ? Given the wide variances in personalities, individual experiences, cultural mores and institutions, parish atmosphere, etc; it seems likely that such a procedure will yield nearly 100 (or at least many) different answers to what it âis to be Catholicâ; in which case one would be no closer to under-standing what is meant by the term âCatholicâ.
I have great respect for much of Rahnerâs theological work but am substantially less enthused about the fundamental epistemology and ontology which underwrite some of his theological theses. He strikes me as sometimes exhibiting a tendency toward overplaying the degree to which human knowledge is necessarily modified by cultural contextualization.
Obviously, one does not want to deny that human understanding of reality is often colored or obstructed in significant ways by cultural influences. That fact largely drives the need for engaging in careful philosophical analysis â i.e. to reflect so as to distinguish between what we think we know and what we really know.
But on the other hand, one does not want to champion the notion that our grasp of reality is entirely conditioned by culture, for the obvious reason that such a proposition would be self-nullifying. But if some aspects of reality are in fact knowable as such, and in spite of cultural influence (even if differentiating the two takes some effort on our part); then it seems possible that understanding the meaning of the term Catholic may be one such aspect of reality.
That is why myself, and presumably others on this site, think it possible in many cases to actually know what the Catholic Church teaches on a given matter â i.e. to know what beliefs or propositions fall within, and which fall without, the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy (at this date in human history) on this or that issue. Which, of course, is not to deny that cultural influences have played a part in the formation of Catholic teaching over the centuries; or that such influences continue to significantly form the way in which individuals perceive or relate to the Church and her teaching.
I wonder, then, if part of your discomfort with the approach you encounter here at CTC does not arise from deeper epistemological divergences?
Pax Christi,
Ray
Ray,
Totally agree. I’m reluctant to go to deeply into this as I think it would exceed CtC’s posting guidelines maximum word count!
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Assumption today (Go figure) and thinking about all the poor Saints who denied it, sometimes vigorously, before Munificentissimus Deus. I’m thinking about all the people today making arguments back and forth about Mary as Mediatrix of all graces and/or Co-Redemptrix.
And I’m thinking of how exactly we can best think about the “teaching of Church” while at the same time having and experiencing a “Church that teaches”.
Is our responsibility to the teaching of the Bishops and Pope to the teaching of the Bishops and Pope of 800 A.D., 15oo A.D., 1880 A.D., 1950 A.D., 2013 A.D., or 3000 A.D.?
I want to say all of them but I know that’s impossible.
So I wind up thinking being Catholic is messy, I say a Hail Mary, and try and not make baby Jesus cry.
Jason (#418) – The difference is that Protestantism, by its own admission and according to its own rules, cannot definitively settle a doctrinal matter with anything that transcends fallible human opinion
Erik – Why do we need someone to definitely settle a doctrinal matter with anything that transcends fallible human opinion?
I imagine that you go through the day making lots of decisions for yourself on which you have no one to guide you who transcends fallible human opinion.
Jason (#416) – The God of Calvinism also had the power to elect all men to eternal life, but chose not to. Is he as unloving as the pope?
Erik – This really isn’t a good answer unless you are willing to equate the Pope’s holiness with God’s holiness. I think Hart’s question is a good one.
Is it Catholic doctrine to say that Protestants (Calvinists) worship a different God than Catholics (“The God of Calvinism”)? This wouldn’t allow us to be considered as separated brethren, would it?
Some of you above point to the longevity of the RCC as evidence for it’s truth. Have you considered the impact of Christendom on that being the case? You generate a lot of inertia when you have a monopoly for 1,000 years. Exactly how would the church unwind it’s affairs today when (1) so many people depend upon it for their livelihood, and (2) The people who are living off donations hold the power of heaven & hell over the heads of the donors? Sounds like a perpetual motion machine.
Jason, God is inscrutable. The pope is supposed to clarify.
You guys keep comparing the pope to God, and the magisterium to Scripture. Talk about drinking the kool aid good and hard.
David (#415),
I’ll answer your question. I am a Reformed Protestant because I learn of Christ from Scripture and the churches that I find to be most in line with Scripture are Reformed Protestant Churches. I find what they teach to be “true, rational, and coherent”. I can read & understand 129 Q&A’s in the Heidelberg, 37 articles in the Belgic, and 5 Heads of Doctrine in the Canons of Dort way easier than the 3,000 Q&A’s in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Someone needs to explain to your leaders the difference between a catechism and an encyclopedia. Private judgment? Absolutely, but I’m not alone in my judgment.
Oh, and I am not troubled by the lack of “one to guide me who transcends fallible human opinion”.
Jason, btw, you wrote, “The difference is that Protestantism, by its own admission and according to its own rules, cannot definitively settle a doctrinal matter with anything that transcends fallible human opinion.”
So Rome by its own admission and according to its own rules can settle a doctrinal matter with something that transcends fallible human opinion. That’s like, Rome’s opinion, dude. And Rome would have a tad of vested interest in construing of itself this way.
And you wonder why the church creates a culture that protects the hierarchy. Hmmmm.
Brian speaks above of limits placed on the Pope with regards to granting indulgences. Who has placed those limits upon the Papacy?
Would Popes in the past have said “who am I to judge?” when asked a question about homosexuality by a journalist? If not, it appears that Pope Francis may be throwing off limits. If so, please provide precedent.
Steve –
The way you put it, their infallibility depends not on the divinity of God but on the infallibility of creatures. In other words, Protestants put the emphasis on Godâs divinity while Cats put it on the piety of men.
Infallible texts do depend on the infallibility of creatures at the time of inspiration, which in turn depends on God’s divine powers. Catholics also rely on the same powers of God to protect the Magisterium, and would readily acknowledge ‘there but for the grace of God goes the Magisterium’. I’m not sure how that leads to Catholics putting the emphasis on the piety of men, since both Catholics and Protestants rely on God to prevent their sources of knowledge from teaching error.
Dan,
Thanks for the response. I agree that this is not the forum (or a least not the thread) in which to discuss fundamental epistemological differences and their impact on theological method or science.
However, you wrote:
ISTM that the answer is, in fact, all of them. For so long as there are no inherent contradictions between the teaching of the bishops and pope throughout post-apostolic history, a Catholic is bound to adhere to the Magisteriumâs authoritative teaching at whatever stage of development that teaching happens to stand during his day and age. There are no retroactive heretics, only here and now heretics; for one is only responsible to give the assent of faith to the teaching of the Church as it is known to him in his own time and place. Nor, obviously, can one assent to a teaching not yet promulgated.
Hence, before the Assumption was promulgated, Catholic theologians could legitimately debate its status as part of the de fide deposit of faith without fear of being labeled heretical. However, after it was promulgated as a dogma, the option to deny its truth is off the table (for Catholic theologians). So I am not sure what is necessarily messy about understanding the relationship of Catholics to Catholic teaching across time. Of course, if one thinks that the teaching of the Church over time on some issue has given rise to logically incompatible dogmatic statements, then that would indeed be messy, and would, in fact, be a grave problem for Catholic theology generally. But I don’t think you are suggesting that scenario.
Pax Christi,
Ray
Erik,
You wrote:
That is an extraordinary response. I am curious, would you be willing to stand before your congregation next Sunday and openly confess – with no hedging – that both the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide are merely “fallible human opinions“? How do you think most Reformed pastors and congregations would respond to such an admission? I think your stance toward doctrinal matters would come as a real “shocker” to most (conservative) Reformed Christians. I think many Reformed Christians would be quite surprised to learn from their theologians or pastors that a careful evaluation of their fundamental theological principles entailed that they must acknowledge that all doctrinal matters, all creeds, all statements of faith, come down to fallible human opinion. Of course, I think your stance is indeed necessitated by Reformed theological principles, and I respect your consistency in acknowledging what must be acknowledged. However, I think the unavoidable conclusion (on Reformed principles) that doctrine=human opinion is something poorly advertised – and understandably so – from a pastoral POV.
Pax Christi,
Ray
Bryan, if God can remove the the pollution of the soul apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ, then why have Christ die for sinners. Why not simply send the Holy Spirit to infuse righteousness? If you give up imputed righteousness, you give up the vicarious atonement and turn the cross into a big flannel graph about how God hates sin.
As for the pope’s power, its all arbitrary. Sometimes he’s bound by the “rules,” sometimes though he can turn Christians into saints (of course, after vetting the proposed saint through the bureaucracy of the Italians who run the Vatican).
Dan H., like the author to the Hebrews, I don’t believe the mass is a sacrifice but that Christ offered one sacrifice — full stop.
David, what I believe about Reformed Protestantism I believe to be true and capable of defense — though I also believe that no one believes without the work of the Holy Spirit because the gospel is folly to fallen human reason. What I believe to be dishonest about Jason and the Callers is the partial evidence they give for the truth of Roman Catholicism, and the neglect of those historical realities that could (and do) give even reasonable Roman Catholics pause about the claims of the papacy or those of high papalists. Whether they (or you) read Roman Catholic historians (like John O’Malley, John McGreevy, Mark Massa, or Francis Oakley), I don’t know. But I do think these Roman Catholics (some lay, some priests) would guffaw at the allegedly air-tight arguments that Jason and the Callers make for Rome. It would be like my reaction to the arguments of young-earth creationists. Even if I can see the use of reason, logic, and evidence, I find creationists to be simplistic.
In other words, I think it is better for me to be modest about the truth claims of Reformed Protestantism. I see no such modesty on Jason and the Callers part. And this comes at a time when the RC hierarchy itself has abandoned its former immodest claims. But then again, no one here ever acknowledges the detour that Rome took with Vatican 2. (It’s as if Jason and the Callers believe post Vatican 2 is really no different from the church for which SSPXer’s pine.)
Ray, how could a modest take on all doctrinal matters, all creeds, all statements of faith be shocking with WCF 31.4 in mind: “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
Ray, Erik, and Darryl:
Going by their most recent responses, it seems to me that both Erik and Darryl admit that, from their point of view, all these things are a matter of opinion. To me that’s pretty devastating for whatever opinions they happen to hold. Clearly, they think there’s no sensible alternative. But I suppose that’s why Ray and I are Catholic and they are Protestant.
Best,
Mike
Darryl (re: #432)
Because Christ’s sacrifice is that offering of love by which He obtained for us the grace and love that is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (and by which sin is removed from our souls). There is a third possibility besides (a) the extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness from Christ’s work on the cross and (b) Christ’s work on the cross being superfluous. See “Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Darryl,
Thanks for the response. I understand your criticism of CTC and what you take to be our naive approach to the evidentialist challenges to Catholic faith. I also understand that you think Reformed Protestantism is true and defensible, though ultimately dependent upon the Spirit’s witness.
What I do not yet understand is this: Do you think that Reformed faith is in a superior intellectual position to post-Vatican II Catholicism when considered against evidentialist challenges? Does Reformed faith do a better job of accounting for the biblical, philosophical, and historical data? And would this be a reason to prefer the Reformed to the Catholic faith?
It seems to me that this is crucial in order for me to appreciate fully your critique of CTC. For unless you answer my questions in the affirmative, I cannot see how your preference for Reformed Protestantism amounts to anything other than fideism and/or illuminism.
Thanks,
David
Steve,
You wrote:
WCF 31.4 does not cover all the items you list in your first sentence. That line from the WCF does not, in fact, include âall doctrinal mattersâ. Rather, it asserts that all ecclesial bodies since apostolic times may err and many have. It was penned to establish a contrast between Catholic or Catholic-like notions of the rule of faith and the Reformationâs foundational doctrine of sola scriptura (upon which the Reformation is said to stand or fall). It explains that ecclesial sources cannot be looked to as the ârule of faithâ. In so doing, it implies that the ârule of faithâ is something distinct from post-apostolic synods and councils, and is thereby not covered by this WCF clause.
It is (generally speaking) a theological principle (read doctrine) of Reformed Protestantism that the ârule of faithâ is ultimately the bible, which is just another way of stating the doctrine of sola scriptura. That doctrine is not, I believe, normally viewed as subject to err within Reformed Protestantism. On a practical level, neither is the doctrine of sola fide (to deny it one is said to be denying âthe gospelâ). To see my point, suppose you were to reword WCF 31.4 to read as follows:
âAll doctrinal matters, since the apostlesâ times, whether general or particular, are subject to err; and many doctrinal matters have been errant. Therefore, the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide might be in error; therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.â
How many Reformed congregations would receive such a position with a casual ho hum?
Pax Christi,
Ray
Ray, the point isnât that such statements would be received with an ho-hum. Itâs that whatever is confessed is done so at once with confidence but also without the brazen arrogance that it could never ever ever ever be wrong no matter what black magic infinity (cross my heart hope to die).
So, yes, I take both the formal and material principles of the Reformation to be included in WCF 31.4âs statement. They could be wrong, but theyâre not. Evangelicals take that kind of confidence as evidence of arrogance. Catholics take that kind of modesty as proof that Protestantism cannot assure anybody of anything. But the Reformed know how to toggle between confidence and humility. It’s all in the wrist.
What if?
What if the terms of the RCC-Protestant dialogue here were NOT:
1. Centered on answering the question âwhat is the church that Christ foundedâ, (with CTC folks asserting the best answer being the RCC)
2. About âwhether Catholicism or Protestantism has the better and more robust, principled way of determining ultimate truth?â (with the CTC folks asserting the best answer being the RCC)
3. âto what extent does the available historical evidence support (or not) any variety of RCC claims about Apostolic Succession or other dogmaâ (with CTC folks arguing that the evidence does comport with RCC claims about itself)
Each of those questions merits study and thoughtful discussion, to be sure.
But rather, what if the following very simple question were the most important question that each of us should answer?
To wit, âHas the cause of Christ in bringing redemption to a fallen world been well served because of the efforts of Billy Graham, or not?â
[I use âBilly Grahamâ as âshorthandâ for all Protestant evangelical outreaches â whether by churches, parachurch organizations, or individual believers.]
It can be entertaining and at times instructive to parse out perfectly logical and reasoned methods for discerning truth. CTC does this quite well.
But, I suspect Iâm not the only schismatic evangelical who believes this question is (or should be) far more influential in our personal decision of which church with which we should affiliate.
May I ask how Jason and other CTC folks would respond to that question, and why. It seems to be a question that, amidst all the argumentation and dialogue on the CTC site, has been âbeggedâ to date, and yet its answer has many implications.
Many thanks.
Steve (#440):
OK, so it’s a set of theological opinions you feel confident are true. That’s not the same as believing oneself to be confessing divinely revealed truth. If one really believes one is confessing divinely revealed truth, then allowing that what one confesses might be wrong would make no sense.
Best,
Mike
CC (#441)
Hmm… I wonder if this doesn’t actually assume that ‘bringing redemption to a fallen world’ is simply a matter of numbers. Perhaps you don’t mean that – but it seems possible to think that what you are asking is whether more men come to Christ in some sense of the word through evangelicalism, Catholicism, etc.
If so, I would think it essential to know in advance what ‘bringing redemption to a fallen world’ actually means.
Of course in one sense one does not have to bring redemption to anyone; it is already there. Christ died for all men.
Nevertheless, we do not assume that the fornicating agnostic is in as close a relation to Christ as the devout … well, that is the point, isn’t it? a devout what? Catholic? Evangelical? Jehovah’s Witness? Mormon?
If it is in fact true that the fulness of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church – and that bringing redemption to men means uniting them with Him in that Church – then I think your alternatives ultimately point to the same thing. The factual question is still there: what is the Church that Christ founded?
jj
Corn-Czar (re: 441),
I see where you’re coming from. Another question: what church has been in the business of producing saints? (not pronouncing but making, you get the idea.) I am familiar with shining stories of Protestants – Hudson Taylor and Brother Andrew come to mind. But the Catholic Church’s track record of heroically virtuous men and women shouldn’t be taken lightly. Remember Moody’s quote, “The world has yet to see what God can do with a man fully consecrated to him”? Actually, we have seen this, and many times over. The golden legend continues to astound me!
Mike (re 442), you’ve heard we are to live by faith and not by sight. But since sight is the opposite of faith, faith necessarily includes doubt. The way you speak, though, it’s as if to live by faith is to live by sight, as in nothing you believe could ever possibly be wrong. Some may wonder how one whose faith includes doubt can be maintained. The Reformed emphasize the power of God to do so; the Reformed are fine with living with doubt. The Catholic conception seems unsatisfied with that and replaces the power of God with the power of sight to swallow up all doubt. Appealing maybe, but it’s just not how faith works in the present age.
Steve, (re: #445)
Starting points are important. Why assume that faith is the “opposite” of sight, or the “opposite” of reason? That is, why presuppose a Manichean conception of the relation of faith and reason right from the start? If grace builds on nature and perfects nature, then faith is not the opposite of reason, but the perfection of reason beyond its own light, by a divine revelation that one accepts on divine authority because God is supremely trustworthy and can neither lie nor err. In that case there is no doubt intrinsic to faith. Not seeing for oneself does not entail doubt *if* one has the sure testimony of God Himself. Doubt means either one does not know *whether* God has spoken, or *what* has God spoken. So if doubt is intrinsic to the Reformed conception of faith, it entails that the Reformed do not know whether or what God has spoken. That is altogether different from the Catholic paradigm, in which we know *that* God has spoken and *what* God has spoken (i.e. the content of divine revelation), because God spoke for that very purpose (i.e. that we would know what He said), but as pilgrims on the way we do not yet see the *object* of divine revelation (i.e. God Himself, face to face).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Steve (#445):
In addition to Bryan’s apt and incisive reply, I want to acknowledge a phenomenon that Protestants and Catholics share as believers in Christ: the “journey of faith.”
Objectively speaking, and for the reasons Bryan gives, the assent of divine faith is inconsistent with doubt. All the same, that assent belongs to the “virtue” of faith, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit to be freely accepted or rejected. Even when accepted, that virtue needs to grow over time, and requires nurturing like anything that grows. If we do not nurture the gift of faith through prayer, worship, sacrifice, and study, it atrophies. Intellectual or existential difficulties can easily morph into doubt, at which point faith is destroyed. That is exactly what happens to many Christians–Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. That is how they “lose their faith,” even when they remain nominally Christian. As divine grace is necessary for the initial gift of faith, all the more is it necessary for the restoration of faith. That too happens sometimes. So the journey of faith can be one of loss and return.
Among those who never quite lose their faith, however, the journey takes other forms. Regardless of the particular form, it always involves deepening one’s surrender to God in trust. For Catholics, that occurs in part and necessarily by submission to the Church’s divine authority. But for all of us, it occurs mainly through prayer, self-denial, and growing out of selfishness through the divine gift of “charity” or agape-love. Growth in love drives growth in faith; indeed, faith without love is dead, even when intellectual assent to the truths of faith remains.
From a Catholic standpoint, however, Protestants have an additional task. Sincere, believing Protestants have the gift of faith to a degree, by virtue of believing and striving to live by much of what is, in fact, divine revelation. What they lack, however, is assent to the living teaching authority of the Church which Christ founded, which is his Body, and to which he gave his own infallible teaching authority. Thus they lack the principled means by which divine revelation precisely as such is to be distinguished from human theological opinions about what the “sources” of revelation are and about what they mean. They often profess what is in fact divinely revealed truth, but without accepting the means needed to believe it on divine authority, as opposed to that of the opinions of men, and thus with the assent of divine faith, rather than that of always-fallible human opinion. Consequently, to the extent Protestants have the gift of divine faith, they have not because of, but in spite of, their epistemology. To grow in the gift of faith, then, Protestants also need to accept that authority submission to which is what makes the assent of divine faith possible, even for those who do not accept that authority.
I have noticed, however, not only that most Protestant not do that–otherwise, they wouldn’t be Protestants–but also that some Protestants think it’s just fine and dandy to admit that religion is a matter of opinion and leave things at that. (In fairness, some ignorant Catholics think that way too.) For the reasons Bryan and I have given, to think that way is to remain mired in a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s objectively necessary even for the assent of faith. It reduces the confession of faith to nonsense, even when the confessor has the gift of faith to a degree, without being aware of what makes it possible. For such a confession presents what are admittedly opinions as if they were divinely revealed truth. One cannot advance far on the journey of of faith, and thus grow consistently in the virtue of faith, without becoming aware of that cognitive dissonance and doing what’s needed to resolve it.
Best,
Mike
Bryan, if ” Christâs sacrifice is that offering of love by which He obtained for us the grace and love that is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit,” that doesn’t answer the question of why God became man. There’s no reason God could not have infused love without Christ’s death. Plus, if infusion depends on Christ’s death on the cross, what happens to the OT saints (yes, they didn’t need a pope to determine their sainthood).
David,
“Do you think that Reformed faith is in a superior intellectual position to post-Vatican II Catholicism when considered against evidentialist challenges?”
Yes.
“Does Reformed faith do a better job of accounting for the biblical, philosophical, and historical data?”
Yes.
“And would this be a reason to prefer the Reformed to the Catholic faith?”
Yes, but I would not use the word preference (intentionally) to describe anyone’s faith.
The fideism comes in when folks at CTC attempt to use logic and reason to show Reformed Protestantism’s errors and motives of credibility to make it seem that becoming Roman Catholic is as easy as algebra. In other words, I don’t see enough modesty in CTC’s truth claims, not simply in a contested polemical environment (which voila at CTC becomes “ecumenism”). But I don’t see enough acknowledgement that becoming Roman Catholic is more an act of faith or a mystery than following a syllogism. Ultimately I would not believe without the work of the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit use means like words and reason and authority, sure? But those aren’t the primary agent of creating saving faith.
What’s curious about the conversion narratives at CTC (the ones I’ve read), I don’t hear much about the Spirit. A lot about reason, authority, intellectual satisfaction, but not much about how once I was blind but now see thanks to the wonder-working power of God.
Steve Z. (#445)
On the contrary, faith and doubt cannot co-exist. I think that by ‘doubt’ you mean the sense of lack of fulfilment that goes with faith.
Faith is not believing something that might be false. It is believing something on the word of a trustworthy witness. In the case of theological faith, the witness is God, Who is absolutely trustworthy, and cannot lie or be mistaken. Thus Thomas Aquinas’s famous faith is more certain than knowledge. Excellent on this point are Newman’s classic Grammar of Assent, and Josef Pieper’s Faith, Hope, Love (which isn’t available on-line as Newman’s book is, but that reference there is to a Kindle edition, in English translation).
jj
Ray (#431), Michael (#436),
What Darryl said (#434).
Can I assume that Jason was 100% convinced of the truth of Reformed Protestantism when he made vows as a Presbyterian minister? And now he is 100% convinced of the truth of Catholicism?
In reality, if we’re honest with ourselves (and not typing on a blog for public consumption) we really aren’t 100% convinced of the truth of much in this life. We don’t have to be 100% convinced, though, and we don’t need an alleged fallible interpreter to find something to stake our lives on. We only need to be convinced that what we have found is better than the available alternatives. Reformed Protestantism is clearer and better than both atheism and Catholicism. That’s why I’m a Reformed Protestant.
As I’ve said many, many time, I think you guys have epistemological problems that you think Rome has an answer to. I disagree.
Michael (#444),
If the Catholic church has produced saints has it not also produced scoundrels? If it has produced both, what does that prove?
Corn-Czar (re: #441)
I know you want to discuss the answer this question, but it seems to me more important to discuss what is presupposed by the combination of the question and the notion that the answer to the question is determinative regarding “which church with which we should affiliate.” This combination presupposes certain things, among which are (a) that what it means to “bring redemption” to a fallen world is entirely vertical and does not include the horizontal dimension of reconciliation and union with one’s fellow human beings, and (b) that Christ did not found a Church into which all men are called to be united in full communion, as the very expression of that horizontal reconciliation and union. Both those presuppositions themselves presuppose the falsehood of Catholicism. So the question-answer combination you offer is not neutral, but theologically loaded. Regarding the horizontal dimension of redemption, see “Pentecost, Babel, and the Ecumenical Imperative.” From a Catholic perspective, an essential part of the Gospel is the call to incorporation into the Body of Christ. In this way the Church is not merely that which is entrusted with the Gospel, but is part of the Gospel itself. (Jason Stellman touches on this in “Evangelium et Ecclesia.) My point is simply that the notion that “which church with which we should affiliate” should be determined by asking which “church” best serves “the cause of Christ in bringing redemption to a fallen world” is theologically loaded (not neutral), because of what it assumes about what it means to bring redemption.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Darryl, (re: #448)
It does answer that question, because Christ made this sacrifice (by which He obtained for us the grace of redemption) through His human nature, which He wouldn’t have had if He had not become man.
I assume that by “what happens to the OT saints” you mean “How would they benefit from Christ’s sacrifice?” The grace they received, and by which they were brought to faith and walked by faith, was also through Christ’s sacrifice. (God is not limited by time.) Unless you think they worked their way to heaven Pelagian style, you also must believe that the benefit of Christ’s work was applied to them ‘retroactively.’ So this retroactive application of Christ’s work isn’t a problem, even according to your own position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
God became man (and died as a man) not only to atone for our sins, but also to show us His love for us. If you want to show someone your love, you show them in person. This example of God’s love for us -from his humble incarnation as a human child all the way to His sorrowful atonement for our sins on the cross – shows us His great love and inspires a greater love in our hearts than if we did not know that example.
Perhaps God could infuse love into our hearts without knowledge of Christ’s death, and surely with the saints of the Old Testament, they loved Him without direct knowledge of Christ’s example. But for us, He chose this channel of grace so that we would know His love in a very tangible way with our hearts and minds. So that we would _really_ know what He means when He says – “No one has greater love than this, to lay down oneâs life for oneâs friends.”
dghart, #449
You said, “Whatâs curious about the conversion narratives at CTC (the ones Iâve read), I donât hear much about the Spirit. A lot about reason, authority, intellectual satisfaction, but not much about how once I was blind but now see thanks to the wonder-working power of God.”
The Holy Spirit has been working in my life, opening my eyes to see the truth about who God is and where his Church is. Thus the Spirit moved me to become Catholic. Hallelujah! Praise Jesus! I was blind, but now I see!
Does this satisfy you? Would you not challenge me with reason, my view of authority, and intellect now?
One of the obvious purposes of this site is to engage in reason and intellectual discussion. There are many other Catholic blog sites that the main purpose is sharing their faith and sharing what God is doing in each others lives.
I dont see how this is any kind of argument.
Hunter
Erik (#451, 452):
In response to my last few comments, you write:
That comment by Darryl makes two main points. The first is:
Leaving aside the ad hominem accusation of dishonesty, that overlooks a deeper epistemological issue: What should be counted as evidence for and against Catholicism? Having been Catholic most of my life and read my share of church history, I am well aware of the sorts of problems that have plagued the Catholic Church, both today and over the centuries. As I’ve pointed out before, I was even sexually abused as a pubescent by a priest. That counts as a pretty big negative right there. In fact, I’d say for myself what Jason has said elsewhere for himself: I am Catholic not because I like it–my feelings are mixed, to say the least–but only because I believe Catholicism to be true. But my reasons for for reaching that conclusion include no belief to the effect that Catholics in general are better than other people, or that the Catholic hierarchy generally consists of better people than either Catholic laity or other clergy. Even if those beliefs are true–which I doubt–I would not know how to argue for them. My reasons are strictly epistemological, and I have repeatedly explained what those are. So, without speaking for Jason, I’d say that I on the one hand and you and Darryl on the other simply disagree is about what would count as evidence for and against the truth of Catholicism.
That disagreement is of course epistemological, but the epistemological issue runs still deeper. Again, and as I often say, it arises from a fundamental difference of interpretive paradigm (IP). We simply have mutually incompatible ways of interpreting the relevant data-sets for theological purposes, before we even get to the question of relative evidential weight–a question that cannot be usefully addressed without first addressing the overall difference of IP. So if we’re going to discuss what counts as evidence for and against Catholicism, we need first to assess the CIP and the PIP against each other, without begging the question by evaluating either one in terms of the assumptions characteristic of the other. But I can detect little interest, on your part or Darryl’s, in doing that. You merely proceed as though the evidential criteria characteristic of your IP are the only ones worth bothering with. To my mind, that begs the question and is thus a waste of time.
Darryl’s other main point was this:
Now for one thing, it is simply false that “no one here ever acknowledges the detour that Rome took with Vatican 2.” Bryan has posted several articles which, among other things, address that issue; both he and I have addressed it repeatedly in the comboxes since this site started. In my experience–which is far broader than my experience at CTC–it is one of the most common objections to Catholicism I face from people who consider themselves believers. And it’s worth taking seriously, because at its heart, it holds that the Magisterium teaching with its full authority has contradicted itself–which could not be the case if it were infallible when teaching with its full authority. But Bryan, I, and many others have repeatedly addressed just that point–as have many contemporary Catholic authors–showing that the Magisterium has not contradicted itself when teaching with its full authority about ecclesiology.
Of course, the critics’ response to that defense typically is that we defenders are “re-interpreting” the pertinent ecclesiological claims so as to make them appear mutually consistent, when they actually are not. That is basically what the SSPX’s response to Pope Benedict was, which is why that organization is not reconciled with Rome, and still considers itself more Catholic than the Pope. I can assure you that they won’t fare any better with Pope Francis. But notice once again that the dispute is about how to interpret certain statements and facts. One can do that in terms of the “hermeneutic of continuity” (HoC) advocated by Ratzinger and the consensus of the Catholic hierarchy as a whole, or one can do it in terms of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” (HoD) advocated by Catholic rad-trads, Catholic progressives, and many conservative Protestants such as Darryl. I favor the HoC because I believe it takes account of a wider range of theologically relevant facts, and explains them in a way that makes more sense, than does the HoD. Of course Darryl, the SSPX, et all disagree. But my main point is that one cannot even address the disagreement rationally if one simply assumes, as Darryl et al do, that the HoD is correct and that the advocates of HoC are simply burying their heads in the sand. Once again, it’s an issue of clashing IPs; and once again, the question is being begged by the critics of the Roman Magisterium.
You write:
Although, like Darryl, you’re suggesting that we at CTC are being dishonest, I would not say you’re being malicious (though, for all I know, you might be). I just think that the way you conceive the nature of the assent of faith, which fundamentally differs from ours, is so obvious to you that you simply cannot imagine that we might honestly adopt ours for reasons we honestly believe to be good. Once again, that’s a paradigm difference. But once again, you’re not not really addressing that sort of difference; you simply assume that our paradigm must be a dishonest fiction.
In reality, it is nothing other than the teaching of the Catholic Church. Consider these two paragraphs from the CCC, especially the second:
You ought to have some sympathy with the first paragraph at least. Thus you finish the above-quoted paragraph as follows:
So we agree that one ought to have reasons for making whatever religious commitment one chooses to make. But in view of what I’ve just quoted from the CCC, we disagree on three points: (a) What should the reasons should be? (b) What is the relative strength of the reasons for and against our respective religious commitments, and (c) Can a faith commitment entail certainty? That kind of disagreement points up still-more-basic epistemological differences. So when you conclude:
you are quite right. But if this discussion is to make any progress, you need to understand how the basic disagreement is one of IP, and what is involved in assessing our mutually incompatible IPs against each other. You’re not there yet, any more than Darryl is.
Best,
Mike
Michael (#457) – But Bryan, I, and many others have repeatedly addressed just that pointâas have many contemporary Catholic authorsâshowing that the Magisterium has not contradicted itself when teaching with its full authority about ecclesiology.
Erik – Why would the Magisterium waste its own and everyone else’s time by teaching WITHOUT its full authority about ecclesiology (or anything else)?
Michael (#457) â That is basically what the SSPXâs response to Pope Benedict was, which is why that organization is not reconciled with Rome, and still considers itself more Catholic than the Pope. I can assure you that they wonât fare any better with Pope Francis.
Erik â How do you know what Francis will or will not do without being able to predict the future? Bryan touches on the subject of the unpredictability of future popes in his own conversion story. Is there truly any Papal action that could shake your guysâ faith or would you merely adjust your faith to match any future Papal action? Itâs a serious question.
Michael (#457) â Although, like Darryl, youâre suggesting that we at CTC are being dishonest, I would not say youâre being malicious (though, for all I know, you might be).
Erik- I donât think many people promote religious dogma that they know to be wrong. Itâs possible you have such cynical people in your midst, but I have no reason to think that you do. I think you guys have bought into something that you have a deep need to be true and you do what you can to put things in the best light to convince yourselves and others that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is true. What is the next stop for many of you if itâs not true? Back to Protestantism? Atheism? The public nature of your conversion stories makes these options difficult and quite humbling.
Michael â (#457) â 157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but âthe certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.â31 âTen thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.â32
Erik â Ironic that Rome would ground faith in âthe very word of Godâ when she promotes things that are not found in the Word of God. Why should that not shake my faith in Rome?
Michael,
Your whole discussion of HoC vs. HoD shows how much you presuppose that Rome is what it says it is. This is why we say that all you guys have done is substitute “Sola Ecclesia” for your prior faith commitment of “Sola Scriptura”. Nothing that is superior to the “Protestant Paradigm” is in effect. It’s just a different “Catholic Paradigm” that rests on faith. Epistemologically you are no better off than before.
Look at this from the Motives of Credibility:
“But if the history of the Church since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvellously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain, viz. Divine revelation. And more than all, that Person Whose life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament, must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God. His work, therefore, must be Divine. . Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, and we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine, the marvellous propagation of His teaching in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs, the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives, the history of the Church herself since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X. ”
How many of these things are truly self-evident without PRESUPPOSING that Rome is who she says she is?
(1) “But if the history of the Church since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms the New Testament itself.”
Not self-evident. We find Roman Catholic practices and doctrines with no New Testament precedent.
(2) “The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching”
Not self-evident.
(3) “the marvellous propagation of His teaching in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs, the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives”
Not self-evident. One would have to compare Christ’s teaching to that taught by the Roman Catholic Church to establish that what has been propogated is “marvellous”.
In order to assess martyrs, saints, and those who have led heroic lives one would also need to take into account Catholics who were scoundrels who led unheroic lives. Examining actions of Catholics has to work both ways.
(4) “the history of the Church herself since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X.”
Not self-evident. If we’re doing history we need to look at the bad along with the good.
And no fideism allowed as we undertake all this.
Bryan, I’m still going to stand by the vicarious atonement and its forensic nature (against your infusion view). Here I would remind you of what the old Encyclopedia conceded:
“In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ’s sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen.”
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
Michael,
I am genuinely sorry to hear of your experience as a teen and I do respect your commitment to Rome despite your circumstances. I don’t think that confessional Protestants necessarily think that RC’s believe they are more virtuous than others, nor that the authority of the church hangs on the morality of its clergy. I do think that CTC does set up the problem of Protestantism in such a way that RC’s wind up being the smartest guys in the room because of all that coherence. And that’s where the problem precisely lies. If you want to say that you believe in the church because you trust God, fine. But then you go and say that the issue is really epistemological and about paradigms and then it does look like you are truly the smartest guys in the room. But it doesn’t look smart to us when Rome is incoherent in a number of ways, such that you guys become the true interpreters and take over the duty of interpretation (from the magisterium).
For instance, you write: “Bryan, I, and many others have repeatedly addressed just that pointâas have many contemporary Catholic authorsâshowing that the Magisterium has not contradicted itself when teaching with its full authority about ecclesiology.” Well, when does the magisterium turn on the light to let you know when its speaking with full authority as opposed to the times when it’s only “just saying.” Just because you and Bryan say so doesn’t mean a thing. It really depends, in your paradigm, on the church being that clear about when it’s teaching with full authority and when it’s not. And if, as I constantly hear, we have only two instances of infallible teachings from the papacy, then what happens to all the talk about church councils and early church fathers? In other words, where does the magisterium provide a program for understanding the rank of church authorities and their teachings in descending order, like a baseball lineup.
The weakness of your paradigm approach is really evident when you write: “the criticsâ response to that defense typically is that we defenders are âre-interpretingâ the pertinent ecclesiological claims so as to make them appear mutually consistent, when they actually are not. That is basically what the SSPXâs response to Pope Benedict was, which is why that organization is not reconciled with Rome, and still considers itself more Catholic than the Pope. I can assure you that they wonât fare any better with Pope Francis. But notice once again that the dispute is about how to interpret certain statements and facts. One can do that in terms of the âhermeneutic of continuityâ (HoC) advocated by Ratzinger and the consensus of the Catholic hierarchy as a whole, or one can do it in terms of the âhermeneutic of discontinuityâ (HoD) advocated by Catholic rad-trads, Catholic progressives, and many conservative Protestants such as Darryl. I favor the HoC because I believe it takes account of a wider range of theologically relevant facts, and explains them in a way that makes more sense, than does the HoD. ”
What’s curious here is that you started by contrasting the (R)CIP with the PIP. But it turns out there is no single (R)CIP. But you have several, the HoD, the HoC, the trads, the SSPXers, the Augustinian Thomists, the Whig Thomists, not to mention the very gifted historians (like Oakley and O’Malley) who are Roman Catholic. That makes CTC just one paradigm out of many, which is a lot like the diversity you disdain among Protestants. Plus, not even your holy father can reign it all in even though he has the authority to insist on one paradigm. All JPII and BXVI could do was “advocate” the HOC, not demand it the way Leo XIII or Pius X did with the condemnations of Americanism and Modernism. And then you have your own “preference” of paradigms. Really, for all the CTC talk of a single RC paradigm, you just blew it into several different bits.
You conclude: “But if this discussion is to make any progress, you need to understand how the basic disagreement is one of IP, and what is involved in assessing our mutually incompatible IPs against each other.” Well, Protestants are not the ones who are calling for this conversation. You guys are. And if you want progress, you may actually want to get the RC paradigm straight. But as it stands, there is no (R)CIP except what CTC says it is. But CTC has no authority to make that determination. It’s merely a preference.
This is (in part) the dishonesty that I detect here among Jason and the Callers. You have all of this antithesis between Protestants and Roman Catholics and yet RC’s have a fair amount of interpretive antithesis among themselves. And you guys are supposed to be on the same page because you have one interpretive authority.
The disorder in your house is not moral. It is epistemological. Frankly, I don’t care as much about philosophy as theology. And there the disorder in your ranks is even greater. Honesty about that situation might bring back down to earth those claims about intellectual superiority and satisfaction.
Re: #453, in response to my #441 query.
Bryan, thank you for your thoughts.
On my end, I would not say, as you asserted, that I presuppose that bringing redemption to a fallen world is “entirely” vertical and does not include the horizontal dimension. I would say bringing redemption to a fallen world is “primarily” vertical, however. Only by having a right relationship with God can one have right relationships with the church and right relationships with the world. That is, get the “vertical” part right and you have a shot at getting the horizontal part right. But, absent getting the ‘vertical’ part right, the horizontal part is futile. Do you disagree?
Further, no Protestant (I don’t think, anyway) would make an argument that there is not a call to incorporate into a local fellowship of believers in the Body of Christ (aka ‘church’).
The main thing my question in #441 is getting at, is this: If the overarching narrative of the Bible is that God is in the business of redeeming the world, and that this redemptive work of His is paramount and primary to His heart (I’m hoping that you’ll accept both of these assertions/presuppositions as axiomatic, but I believe they can be easily demonstrated from Scripture), then should we not each be committed to that cause and join with other similarly like-minded believers in churches (of whatever ‘brand’ name) who are committed to that cause? In my fallible, reasoned, and fideistic opinion, ecclesiological concerns are secondary. (Phil 1:15-18)
I hope sometime you or other CTC’ers might elaborate your thoughts on the Billy Graham’s of the world. Are they “good” guys or “bad” guys in the RCC worldview?
Erik (#459):
You write:
The first sentence in the above paragraph is an assertion for which you offer no argument. The second does not apply to me–the person whom you are, after all, primarily addressing. I have never held any “faith commitment of Sola Scriptura” because, even when I did not consider myself Catholic, I did not find that doctrine credible in the slightest. Nor is my present faith commitment “Sola Ecclesia.” The claims of the Catholic Church herself are intelligible only in the context of Scripture and Tradition, whose joint content, by her own confession, is “the word of God” that she did not invent but serves, as their bearer and interpreter (see, again, Dei Verbum, which I quoted at length in #396). Hence, your last three sentences are assertions which are not warranted by what precedes them. Your tu quoque argument fails.
I do not know whom you are quoting under the title “Motives of Credibility.” Whomever you’re quoting in that passage, my reaction to it is that it’s not the sort of argument that would convince anybody who isn’t already convinced on other grounds. But perhaps you might try a little thought experiment. Remove any distinctively Catholic ideas and references from that passage, and ask yourself whether you would then believe it. I’d be interested in reading about the result. Perhaps then we could start having a useful discussion.
Best,
Mike
[…] Over at Called to Communion, Darryl Hart has once again criticized me and my pals for our conspiratorial plan wage a huge cover-up of all the Catholic Church’s misdeeds over the past 2,000 years. He wrote in a comment in this thread: […]
Corn-Czar (re: #462)
In my previous comment I was trying to communicate that there is a paradigm difference here, though I wasn’t very clear. I understand and agree with you that from the Protestant point of view, the horizontal and vertical are related, and your statement “get the vertical part right and you have a shot at getting the horizontal part right” sums up well that point of view. But in the Catholic paradigm, by contrast, you cannot love God while hating your brother. You cannot be forgiven by God while not forgiving your brother. There is no such thing as getting the vertical right without at the same time getting the horizontal right. He who hates his brother (or does not forgive his brother) does not have love for God, no matter how much he might claim to love God. Moreover, apart from invincible ignorance, there is no getting the vertical right without entering into the Church Christ founded; that’s what baptism does — it incorporates one into Christ’s Body. That’s *how* we’re redeemed. It is through baptism and union with Christ’s Body that we are reconciled to God. So from a Catholic perspective a message of redemption that does not include incorporation into the Church Christ founded is deficient. That’s why the notion that “which church with which we should affiliateâ should be determined by asking which âchurchâ best serves âthe cause of Christ in bringing redemption to a fallen worldâ is theologically loaded (not neutral), because of what it assumes about what it means to bring redemption.
I agree. But again, there is a paradigm difference here. Protestants would not urge those they evangelize to avoid joining a schism from the Church Christ founded, because Protestants do not believe in a visible catholic Church. ‘Church’ is defined very loosely as those who sufficiently agree with my interpretation of Scripture to be counted as ‘Church’. Union with the local church is not *how* one receives redemption (one does that by saying a sinner’s prayer), but is rather how one’s salvation is maintained and nourished by praying and studying Scripture with other believers.
And my point is that the notion that “ecclesiological concerns are secondary” presupposes the falsehood of Catholicism, and is thus a question-begging presupposition. It assumes that “Church” is not part of the Gospel, and not the very means by which we receive redemption. It would be like saying to Noah that boat questions are secondary to salvation from the flood. From the Catholic point of view, the Church is the ark of the New Covenant, as the Church Fathers teach.
The notion that they must be either good guys or bad guys already makes it a loaded question, because the truth may be more complicated. There is also the matter of motives, and of actions. Actions can be good in one respect, but deficient in another, all while motives may be very good. And so forth, so it is not so black and white. It is good, all other things being equal, for persons to be told about Christ and His love for us, and that He died for our salvation. It is not good for persons to be in schism, to be deprived of the Eucharist, to “assemble in unauthorized meetings” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.2), to be taught false doctrine (e.g. to be taught that they can never lose their salvation), not to know who is their rightful bishop, to be deprived of the sacrament of reconciliation, to be deprived of the *fulness* of the truth handed down by the Apostles and developed by the Holy Spirit over two millennia, the communion of the saints, and all the other aids to our salvation available within the Church. So far as I know, people like Billy Graham are doing the best they can with what they know, and bringing a message of Christ to many people. And in that way, they are ‘good guys.” At at the same time, from a Catholic perspective, there is much more to the message of Christ. We’re not saved by words alone (that would be a kind of gnosticism). We’re saved in and through the Church and the sacraments Christ has placed within her.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Darryl (#461):
You write:
Oh man. That calls for some untangling.
First, I’m afraid I don’t “believe in the church” because I “trust God.” Rather, I see myself as able to do the latter–which is what faith as such is primarily about–largely because I do the former. I hold that it is only by accepting some claim of the sort the Catholic Church makes for herself that we, who have not walked the Earth with Jesus, can have divine revelation, as distinct from our opinions about divine revelation, as an object for the assent of faith in the first place. Thus the Church, as the “Body of Christ” which shares his authority as her Head, is the primary (though not the only) sphere in which I encounter God’s authority as Revealer, so that I can trust him accordingly. I’m sorry if that picture seems backwards to you. But that, of course, only points up the paradigm difference.
Which brings me to the next tangle. You complain that it only looks like we’re “the smartest guys in the room” by talking about paradigm differences, when in reality “Rome is incoherent.” Well, for one thing, and for reasons I’ve often explained before, that just begs the question. Rome only looks incoherent when you interpret certain “statements and facts” in certain ways; to us, Rome looks coherent enough when those same statements and facts are interpreted in other ways. Those opposed sets of ways just are results of paradigm differences; for purposes of this kind of discussion, neither of us should simply proceed on the assumption that our own paradigm is correct, as you assume yours is. But our talk of paradigm differences is not an attempt to “take over the duty of interpretation from the magisterium.”
The Magisterium issues teachings that are to be received by the faithful. Since all linguistic communication requires interpretation, one cannot receive those teachings without some measure of interpretation. Those of us disposed to submit to the Magisterium generally receive and interpret those teachings as intended by the Magisterium. But sometimes, it turns out, we do not. When we do not, the Magisterium itself affords the means to correct us over time. In the ecclesiological cases that concern you, the HoC is that means. The Magisterium has made clear that we are to be hermeneuts of continuity, unlike the hermeneuts of discontinuity one finds on both the Right and the Left. There’s a very good reason for that, which I shall explain below. We at CTC think and write accordingly. That is not an effort to arrogate a magisterial duty to ourselves. It is an effort to do what the Magisterium itself urges, for the sake of truth and unity.
You write:
I begin to understand why you see CTC presuming to act as if it were a mini-magisterium: You seem unaware that the Magisterium actually does “provide a program for understanding the rank of church authorities and their teachings in descending order…” See, eg., Lumen Gentium §25 and then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Doctrinal Commentary on the concluding paragraph” of the Professio Fidei promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1998. Neither of those sources says anything substantively new; they were just presenting anew what has long been understood, by theologically educated Catholics, as the applicable set of magisterial norms. Now, does that “program” suffice for settling any and every relevant question straight off, as if it functioned like software? Of course not. The sensus fidei is also needed for getting everything right over time, which is not just a matter of having the right software; and that’s exactly what the Church, as the Body of Christ, has. But the program is clear enough as far as it goes, and affords a template for addressing the unresolved questions over time–as, e.g., Ratzinger and his then-boss did with the women’s-ordination issue in 1994 and 1995. So “If you “constantly hear” that “we have only two instances of infallible teachings from the papacy,” you haven’t heard it from me or the listed authors at CTC. For what you hear is not true, and we haven’t said it is. We’ve just gotten with the program.
You write:
The error in that is one that I often encounter in debates with Protestants, and for that matter with Catholic advocates of the HoD, whose approach is materially Protestant. The error take the form of a non-sequitur: inferring, from the empirical variety of IPs one finds among Catholic thinkers, that there is no magisterial IP which, precisely as magisterial, is normative for Catholics. But that simply doesn’t follow. For one thing, I described the CIP in #396. That description consists mostly of quotations from and citations of the Magisterium, and the part which does not is not controversial in the eyes of the Magisterium. Thus the CIP just is magisterial, and in that sense normative. For another, one cannot successfully apply the CIP so described without the HoC. What’s problematic about the opposed hermeneutic, the HoD, is that it has the Magisterium contradicting itself when teaching with its full authority–which, if true, would render the CIP incredible. So Ratzinger’s advocacy of the HoC, both before and while he was pope, is logically necessary for the credibility of the CIP. For that reason, the fact that the HoC does not itself belong to the deposit of faith, and thus is not an object for the assent of faith, is simply irrelevant.
You conclude:
If, as I have argued, there is a normative CIP, then the empirical variety of IPs among Catholic thinkers does not present a primarily “epistemological” problem for the Magisterium. What it presents is a moral problem: the infidelity of many Catholic thinkers to the Faith. Since, however, that infidelity both evinces and generates confusion, one could say that the moral problem is how the confusion inhibits knowledge of the true Faith. Among members of the Catholic Theological Society of America, I have noticed, there’s a tendency to regard the guild of theologians, if not as the only magisterium that matters, at least as a legitimate alternative to the Magisterium. That sort of problem has obtained before in the Church’s history. I don’t know whether it’s worse now than ever, though I seriously doubt it. In any case, nothing of epistemological moment follows from it.
It would behoove you to ease off on the accusations of dishonesty. We are well aware of the facts you cite; we just draw different conclusions from them and proceed accordingly. We focus on the unity of the norm, not on the variety of empirical deviations from it. That is not dishonest. It’s just presenting the Faith.
Best,
Mike
Michael (#457)
You wrote:
Michael, there are two sorts of issues with the Catholic and Protestant: philosophical (especially epistemological) and historical that need to be distinguished. Can you speak more to your philosophy of evidence? Are you suggesting that all the evidence for/against RCC is theory-laden? For that matter, are all facts and evidence theory-laden?
I get the sense that the historical claims ground the CIP (esp. AS), but then it seems that criticisms of the historical claims are rejected as question-begging because (it is alleged that) the CIP is being rejected. But then that seems to mean that the claims of RCC are not in principle defeasible, because the historical grounds the CIP but one cannot assess the historical claims unless one first adopts CIP. But if one is not using the CIP, then one’s criticisms are dismissed as question-begging.
At the heart of the Christian religion is defeasibility: find the bones of Jesus and it’s all over. That is, there is a fact of the matter that is in principle defeasible, irrespective of paradigms. Would you agree or not? If you do agree, what does it look like in the case of AS? Is AS defeasible?
Sorry for the rambling thoughts; I hope that all makes sense.
Pax
WW (#467):
Those are fair issues to raise, though I have addressed them more than once before (presumably when you were not involved). I’ll try to present my responses as succinctly as possible.
You ask:
A body of knowledge about some subject-matter what the Greeks called episteme. That is distinct from, albeit related in certain ways to, knowledge by direct experience–for which the word gnosis is typically used. When the subject-matter is not purely formal–as it is in logic and mathematics–but is at least partly empirical, all “evidence” is “theory-laden.” (Some philosophers of science argue that even the purely formal disciplines are theory-laden, but that’s not a topic that need concern us.) That is to say, what we count as evidence is determined in part by the theory with which we organize empirical observations and facts into an explanatory and thus intelligible whole. E.g., astronomers count the “red-shift” recorded when observing distant galaxies over time as evidence that those galaxies are receding from us at a rate which increases with their distance from us. Counting red shift as such evidence assumes the validity of general relativity as a theory; in that sense, the evidence is theory-laden. Theory-ladenness becomes even more evident in less rigorous disciplines such as history, where the significance of various bits of documentary and archeological evidence depends in part on the explanatory narrative or theory into which the historian is trying to fit them.
Now astronomy, history, and every other “discipline” save theology are purely human disciplines. They explore subjects about which we can acquire episteme by human reason alone. Theology, however, takes special divine revelation (SDR) as its primary subject-matter. SDR consists precisely in that which cannot be discovered by human reason alone, but which God must show and tell us if we are to know its content at all. Hence, we can know it only on divine authority. A fortunate few, such as the OT “prophets” and the Apostles, have received SDR by direct experience; they had gnosis of it. But most of us can have only episteme of it. And theology, above all “epistemic” disciplines, is “theory-laden.”
That’s because one cannot determine the theological significance of various historical and other facts without a principled means of distinguishing SDR as such from human opinions about the vehicles or “sources” by which SDR is allegedly transmitted to us. Without such a means, theology is incapable of achieving its most important purpose, which is to deepen our understanding of SDR as such, not just developing opinions about where it is to be found and how to interpret it. So the data relevant to theology are “theory-laden” in the sense that, to do theology at all, one must bring some IP to the data studied, thus assigning some theological significance to them, rather than extract one’s theology logically or scientifically from the data.
That’s a misunderstanding I’ve encountered before. Often, it’s motivated by the assumption that theologically significant doctrines can be either read directly off, or logically inferred from, the data afforded us by “the sources” and other, associated historical data. That assumption is characteristic of the PIP, but I argue that it does not provide a principled means of distinguishing between divine revelation as such and human opinions about the data, and thus is inherently question-begging. That doesn’t mean, though, that “history” and “the sources” are simply irrelevant to theology. Since Christianity is, among other things, a historical religion, it means that such things are indeed theologically significant. But the particular theological significance one gives them is determined by the theological IP one brings to them. And there are of course different, mutually incompatible IPs, such as the CIP and the PIP. Then the question becomes: “Very well: Which IP? Which ‘theory’–i.e., which theological IP–is the most reasonable one to bring to the historical data, given that all theology is “theory-laden” in that sense?”
To answer that, one must do two things, in the following order: (1) Determine which IPs afford a “principled means” of doing what I said; (2) Determine which IP, among those that do what’s called for by (1), makes the most overall sense of the data. My argument is that the PIP fails at stage (1). But that doesn’t automatically leave Catholicism as the only option. Other religious traditions–such as the Eastern-Orthodox and the Mormon–contain IPs with such “principled means” too. They just differ, to this-or-that degree, from the CIP. That’s when we move on to stage (2), and that’s where historical considerations become directly and even more relevant–though not of course solely relevant.
Christianity is “defeasible” in principle, but not in practice. Here’s what I mean.
St. Paul asserted: “If Christ be not risen, then our faith is vain.” That is true. So if Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, to a form of corporeal existence for which we know no precedent, then Christianity is false. But that doesn’t mean we could discover some set of bones to be that of Jesus–even if Jesus’ bones were actually lying around somewhere. How would we know they are Jesus’ bones? We simply lack the means to establish such a thing at this historical distance–and that distance was probably too great anyhow by the time the Apostle John died, toward the end of the 1st century AD.
The same goes for apostolic succession (which is what I presume you mean by ‘AS’). In principle, if we had a much richer data-set from the first century or so of the Church’s life than we do, we could learn that the succession of leadership in what came, during the 2nd century, to be called the “catholic church” does not satisfy the Church’s criteria for valid AS. But we don’t have that rich a dataset. And even if the dataset we have got richer over time, thanks to archaeological discoveries, it’s hard to imagine it settling any question of theological significance. We would just find ourselves debating whether the new data really do show that the Church’s criteria for valid AS weren’t satisfied. And that debate would, of course, hinge on which IPs are brought to the data.
I keep trying to get some people to see that we need to be discussing stage (1) above before we get to stage (2). You can observe the results yourself in this thread. I find them frustrating sometimes.
Best,
Mike
Re: #465.
Bryan, Iâm making my assertion that âecclesiological concerns are secondaryâ not on the basis of any presupposition, but on the basis of my honest understanding of what credible Biblical exegesis would tell me about the overarching redemptive narrative of the Bible. Of course, I have never consulted the RCC Magisterium when Iâve studied the Bible and come to that conclusion. But, for you to say Iâm âpresupposing the falsehood of Catholicismâ would itself âpresupposeâ that Catholicism was ever on my mental or spiritual radar, which it never has been. Like many evangelicals, Catholicism never had a role in explaining the gospel to me. (As I reflect on it, itâs ironic that the very place that claims it is the âvisibleâ church was/is so invisible to me, and so many others.)
You said the RCC is the âvery means by which we receive redemptionâ. So, is it fair to conclude then that protestants are not merely “separated brethrenâ but indeed âunredeemedâ? Elsewhere, I seem to recall DG Hart noting that the flip flops of the RCC on that topic. Can you clarify?
Michael (#463) – I do not know whom you are quoting under the title âMotives of Credibility.â
Erik – https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
It purports to be from the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. The web site I found it on is dedicated to the “Immaculate Heart of Mary” so I would assume the site is friendly to Catholics. I think in our original debate with Bryan on the MOC at Old Life we were quoting from this passage and I don’t recall him taking issue with its content. If these aren’t part of the “official” MOC, point me to them.
Corn-Czar, (re: #469)
You wrote:
The notion that “credible Biblical exegesis” is the ultimate way to determine what the Bible teaches, is itself one of those question-begging (and non-theologically neutral) assumptions, as I showed in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”
You added:
No, one does not have to have thought about x in order for y to be a question-begging premise in an argument. What makes the premise question-begging is not whether you did or did not ever consider it before, but that it is precisely one of the points in question between Catholics and Protestants. What one is presupposing in advancing a premise is not limited only to what one is conscious of presupposing, but is precisely what is logically entailed by that premise.
Fun with equivocation!
It would not be accurate to draw that conclusion, for reasons that have been explained here at CTC countless times. See, for example, comment #85 in “Doug Wilson’s “Authority and Apostolic Succession”,” and comment #38 of “Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Eternal Fate of Faithful Catholics.”
There have been no “flip flops” on this issue. Tom Brown addresses this in “Van Drunen on Catholic Inclusivity and Change.” I addressed it also in a few of the comments under that post.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Erik (#470):
OK, so you’ve quoted from the unsigned article on “Faith” from the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia. Since that century-old reference work neither is nor purports to be a magisterial document, a Catholic may judge its articles on their scholarly merits alone. That’s what I shall do in this case. But in the meantime, I urge you once again to do the “thought experiment” I recommended, and the present the result. I had recommended that because it would facilitate discussion by giving us a basis for a mutual comparison of apologetics.
As I implied in #463, the paragraph you quote strikes me as presenting the sort of argument that cannot suffice, even in principle, to convince people to become Catholic who are not already so disposed. Its practical usefulness consists in exhibiting how one can view a wide collection of facts as convergent evidence making the Catholic assent of faith reasonable enough. But by no means does it present a case so cogent as to make the choice to be Catholic compelling. That assessment of mine is perfectly in keeping with the magisterial statements I quoted from the CCC in #457. Indeed, one of the reasons I make the sort of argument for the CIP that I typically do is to introduce a way to move beyond the limitations of the traditional presentation of the MOCs.
That said, I wonder where you’re going with this. From what I take to be your point of view, the only use of this excursus is to present evidence that the MOCs, as the Catholic Church has authoritatively characterized them, together “presuppose” that Catholicism is true. If that is your purpose, I should say you have not achieved it. Even if one does not believe that Catholicism is true, the MOCs as traditionally expounded show how the CIP can and should utilize data to exhibit the reasonableness of Catholicism. I just don’t think they go far enough. The CE article you quote is a good example of that.
Best,
Mike
Michael (#457) – Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Churchâs growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability âare the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of allâ; they are âmotives of credibilityâ (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is âby no means a blind impulse of the mindâ.30
Erik – What miracles of the saints? What proof of them can you offer me?
What prophecies? Biblical prophecies or prophecies by the RCC?
What holiness of the church? If I am to consider holiness may I also consider unholiness?
If I am to consider RCC church growth can I also consider more recent declines in membership?
What fruitfulness?
If I am to consider stability can I also consider instability (The Avignon Papacy, bad popes, etc.)?
Most certain signs of divine revelation?
Once again, I don’t see how this reformulation improves your position. These statements involve the evaluation of evidence, and unless I start out as a Catholic there is no assurance that I will evaluate the evidence as you want me to.
I need way more specifics.
Michael â But perhaps you might try a little thought experiment. Remove any distinctively Catholic ideas and references from that passage, and ask yourself whether you would then believe it. Iâd be interested in reading about the result. Perhaps then we could start a useful discussion.
Erik â Rephrase the question. Are you asking if I find any form of Christian apologetics persuasive? I do.
Mike (#468)
I was not involved, so thank you for your patience.
You wrote:
Mike, where would you place intuitions (what George Bealer calls “intellectual seemings” in his classic article “The Incoherence of Empiricism”)? Or what about qualia and knowledge of one’s own mental states? Or what about the adverbial theory of perception? I ask this because the claim that “all evidence is theory-laden” is far from accepted and these seem to be cases where theory is not at play. I’m not saying that theories do not play any role; I’m skeptical of the more radical claim, as not everyone accepts everything of Kuhn and Feyerabend.
Later you write:
I’m sure you have answered this before, so indulge me for a minute. How did such paradigms operate in the OT pre-apostolic succession? The people of Israel are continually punished for failing to heed God’s words even in times when the prophets, priests, and kings are corrupt. There seems to be a case to be made in the OT where the argument for an interpretative paradigm to distinguish between mere human opinion and divine revelation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for knowing the difference.
Later:
I don’t think you understood my question. To clarify, my question is this: the CIP is grounded in the *historical* claim of an unbroken chain of apostolic succession. It is apostolic succession and the teaching of the magisterium that provides the principled distinction between mere human opinion and divine revelation, correct? But then that seems odd that we first construct a paradigm based on assuming the truth of a historical claim and then turn around and validate that historical claim by the very paradigm that is constructed out of that claim.
Good distinction. So I take (1) to concern the de jure question and (2) to concern the de facto question, correct? So, the Protestant can do at least two things. (1) He can reject that the “principled means” is either not a necessary or not a sufficient condition for knowledge of what is divine revelation and what is mere human opinion or (2) He can put forth a de jure case of his IP. Would you agree?
I appreciate you mentioning the Mormon IP, because I think that helps illustrate the Protestant’s frustration with certain aspects of this discussion. I think it would be absolutely absurd to give Mormonism greater credence than (say) Reformed Protestantism because the Mormon allegedly can make the move from (1) to (2) while the Protestant cannot, especially when one reads enough of the Mormon church’s history and all of the things Joseph Smith made up–the guy was a total charlatan! But even if ex hypothesi, this were the case, the wildly false historical claims of Joseph Smith seem to be undercutting defeaters for the truth of Mormonism and the MIP. But then of course, Elder Smith would ride up on his bike and bash me with his question-begging club because I am failing to use the MIP. And that’s where I push back against the “all evidence is theory laden.”
Hope that helps,
W.W.
Mike,
I bet that 2 % of RCs know about the CDF Doctrinal Commentary and 1 % of the priests ever refer to this. It’s a good effort — even if it reads a little like an IKEA book case manual — but it doesn’t really solve the problem of the huge gap over what counts for Roman CAtholicism between CTC and National Catholic Reporter. It’s just hand waving (Bryan’s phrase) to point to this and say it resolves all your problems. (The thing is, I bet as many as 15 % of RC’s followed such a statement intuitively circa 1950.)
But you still have the problem of the papal history after the French Revolution (other times as well) when the theory and theology of papal supremacy was built on the shifting sand of European politics. The Syllabus of Errors was just a mulligan? The notion that the spiritual power of the papacy depended on the pope holding temporal power? And then when temporal power vanishes, Pius IX doubles down with infallibility?
The claims of papal supremacy are not spiritual. They are political through and through. Now those claims about temporal power don’t matter any more? Pius IX didn’t mean it?
At least John Courtney Murray wrestled with whether temporal power was of the essence of papal power (or merely accidental). I don’t see any wrestling at CTC. It’s a big part of Roman Catholic history for the pope to be a prince and head of the church. The fact that the subject never comes up at CTC in a serious way is either dishonest or denial.
Erik (#473):
Most of your comment consists in expressing skepticism about the Catholic MOCs pending much more detail than is given by the sources we’ve considered so far. So you want the case laid out in detail. I don’t know of any single book accomplishing that in a way that’s both comprehensive and tightly argued. If I had adequate financial support, I would do it myself. Since that support is probably not forthcoming, I probably won’t do it. But in the context of this thread, I don’t believe that further detail would be any more desirable than possible.
The focus of our discussion is the question whether a case for one’s religion can be made without “presupposing” the truth of one’s religion. Well, answering that question calls for disambiguating the term. If by ‘presupposing’ one means starting by actually asserting the truth of one’s religion, then the answer is pretty clearly yes–regardless of which religion one is making the case for. That’s because such an approach is inherently question-begging. Begging the question is a fallacy; fallacies are unpersuasive; and the apologist is looking to persuade. So if he starts by begging the question, he defeats his own purpose. But if by ‘presupposing’ one means treating one’s key religious beliefs as suppositions just for argument’s sake, rather than as assertions to be accepted without argument, then the answer is no. Indeed, the only sensible approach is to show that, supposing certain religious beliefs are true, one can develop a comprehensive account of reality that makes more sense overall than alternatives which deny one or more of those beliefs. That’s what I see Reformed “presuppositional” apologetics trying to do, and that’s how I see the Catholic apologetic based on MOCs.
Notice, however, that the procedure I recommend is essentially that of formulating and deploying an interpretive paradigm. The apologist needs to show that “supposing,” for argument’s sake, some set of religious beliefs R, a very wide range of facts is better interpreted and explained by adopting R as a conjoint set of truths than by rejecting one or more of R’s elements. That describes how I argue for adopting the CIP, and I take it that’s essentially how you would argue for your adopting your IP. Given, however, that a combox is not the place for exhibiting that “wide range of facts” in detail, our efforts are best devoted to the starting point: inquiring about what the distinctive purpose of a theological IP is and how, in principle, a theological IP can achieve the distinctive purpose of such IPs.
It is there at the beginning, I think, that our disagreement really lies. I hold that the distinctive purpose of theological IPs is to afford a principled distinction between divine revelation and human opinion, so that divine revelation as such can be reliably identified and its content stated as the “suppositions” one is adopting. That’s the distinctive purpose because, unless one achieves it, one does not have the right sort of starting point from which to draw logical consequences. My main argument for the CIP is that the CIP is fit to achieve that purpose while the PIP is not.
Best,
Mike
WW (#474):
You ask:
Things like “intutions,” “qualia,” “seemings,” “perception,” reflexive knowledge, etc. belong to direct experience and thus involve the sort of knowledge I called, for brevity, gnosis. Theology as I’m discussing it, however, is not gnosis but episteme. Since you obviously have some acquaintance with 20th-century “analytical” philosophy, we might put the same distinction in Russellian terms, as that between “knowledge by acquaintance” (KBA) and “knowledge by description” (KBD). I am making no claim as to whether, or to what extent, KBA is theory-laden. When I claim that “evidence” in empirical or quasi-empirical disciplines in general, and in theology in particular, is “theory-laden,” I’m talking about KBD, not KBA. So I don’t need to respond to the challenge you pose in the above paragraph. It is simply not relevant to what I’m doing.
You write:
I’ve often faced that sort of objection before in different forms. My answer is that, in the OT, divine revelation was still in the process of unfolding and “pointing” toward that definitive form –i.e. the “Christ-event”– which had not yet been reached, and about which anybody could actually be infallible, by virtue of inheriting Christ’s teaching authority. Accordingly, I don’t need to posit an IP for the OT Jews that would involve infallibility. When the OT Jews were morally culpable for not living by what God was giving them, that was not because their leaders were infallible, so that they should all have known better, but because their collective experience included both what was in fact a developing divine revelation and enough evidence thereof to make living by the Torah more reasonable than not.
You write:
I understood your question. I just think its premise, if not entirely false, is misleadingly stated.
The CIP is not “grounded” in the “historical claim of an unbroken chain of apostolic succession,” if by that you mean that making such a claim is needed as the CIP’s logical starting point. The CIP is “grounded” in such a chain only insofar as the historical existence of such a chain is one of the necessary conditions for the truth of Catholicism. But that is a separate question from that of the relative utility of the CIP for doing what theological IPs are supposed to do. The utility of the CIP for that purpose is that the CIP, unlike the PIP, affords a principled distinction between divine revelation and human opinion. If Catholicism, which necessarily contains and deploys the CIP, is also true, then there has indeed been “an unbroken chain of apostolic succession” in the Church. But the existence of that chain does not need to be established first in order to exhibit the epistemic utility of the CIP. Rather, the epistemic utility of the CIP, as I’ve described it, is one good reason to believe that Catholicism is true, and thus one good reason to believe that there is indeed such a chain. Independent historical evidence for that chain is an additional sort of evidence for the truth of Catholicism, and it’s also needed.
For reasons I’ve already explained, though, I don’t think that issue is in any way decisive. There’s enough evidence for such a chain to make belief in its existence reasonable enough, but by no means enough to prove it or, of course, to disprove it. In general, that’s all a case for making an assent of faith in some “historical” religion can do. So the fact that the existence of an “unbroken chain of apostolic succession” cannot be proven purely by the methods of historical inquiry is not a weakness either of the CIP in particular or of Catholicism more broadly considered.
You write:
Assuming that by ‘reject’ you mean ‘argue’, I would agree only with qualifications.
As to (1), nobody argues that a given IP’s containing a “principled means” of the sort in question is a “sufficient” condition for adopting that IP. It is only a “necessary” condition. If a given Protestant wants to argue that it’s not even a necessary condition, then he’s committed to saying that the Christian religion is essentially a matter of opinion, inasmuch as we cannot distinguish in a principled way between expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinions. I have seen plenty of Protestants recognize and accept that consequence. To my mind, that’s pretty devastating for their position. For it’s tantamount to saying that faith, as distinct from opinion, is impossible. Good luck with that.
As to (2), the only way I’ve seen Protestants as such making the sort of case you envision is their arguing that the truth of their brand of Protestantism–whatever that may be in a given case–can be understood and affirmed not merely by faith but actually as knowledge. I think that’s a bridge too far, and would be even for Catholics trying to argue similarly for Catholicism. It’s a form of rationalism that not even most Protestants accept, and Catholics certainly should not accept.
You write:
My purpose in citing the MIP was simply to indicate that there’s more than one example of an IP other than the CIP that contains a “principled distinction” of the sort needed, so that I was not inferring the truth of Catholicism just from the CIP’s containing such a distinction. Of course, showing that a given IP contains such a distinction by no means suffices to show that the religion containing and deploying that IP is actually true. If the religion in question claims at all to be historical, then its historical claims need to be at least rationally plausible. I happen to agree with you that distinctivly LDS historical claims are not rationally plausible. But that cannot be taken for granted; it needs to be shown. The LDS Church, after all, is big and growing.
I’m actually much more interested in Eastern Orthodoxy as an alternative to Catholicism. I once considered the EOIP very seriously, and Orthodoxy’s historical claims are much more rationally plausible than Mormonism’s. In fact, I’d say they are just as rationally plausible as Catholicism’s, leaving aside other, more theoretical considerations. So if you want to avoid frustration, you might want to focus on that.
Best,
Mike
Michael (#476) – Most of your comment consists in expressing skepticism about the Catholic MOCs pending much more detail than is given by the sources weâve considered so far. So you want the case laid out in detail. I donât know of any single book accomplishing that in a way thatâs both comprehensive and tightly argued. If I had adequate financial support, I would do it myself. Since that support is probably not forthcoming, I probably wonât do it. But in the context of this thread, I donât believe that further detail would be any more desirable than possible.
Erik – That’s an honest answer.
Michael – My main argument for the CIP is that the CIP is fit to achieve that purpose while the PIP is not.
Erik – You have your interpretive paradigm and I have mine. That’s not news. If you want to win over anybody but the low hanging fruit in the Reformed world, though (seminarians, recent graduates) you’ll need to do better (at least to convince me).
Thanks, Mike (#477).
A RC and EO come to debate with their respective paradigms, which, as you have suggested, meet the necessary condition for a principled distinction between human opinion and knowledge. What does that debate look like? Will the RC and EO bash each other with question-begging clubs anytime “evidence” (historical, biblical, theological, etc.) is used against the other? Can you offer some insights into what a debate such as that would look like? About how one goes about showing the superiority of RC or EO?
Best,
W.W.
Mike,
Also, you never confirmed this, but in my previous comment, I asked if the move from (1) to (2) is a move from the de jure to the de facto. Do you agree?
Darryl,
The issue you raise in #475, and tend to go back to a lot here and elsewhere, has a genuinely simple solution – that solution is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Honestly, those Catholics genuinely interested in practicing their faith and being obedient to Christ have very little trouble finding out what the Church teaches.
I almost understand your point from an outsiders perspective, but on the inside it is really straightforward.
Best,
Dave
Daryl (#475):
You begin:
That indicates that you haven’t taken my point, which was that what you describe as the “problem” is not an epistemic problem but a moral problem. Apparently a different way of framing that point is needed.
As I implied, from the empirical fact that there’s quite a variety of theological perspectives among Catholic thinkers, it simply does not follow that there’s no normative theological IP for Catholics. All that follows is that, if there is such a norm, many Catholic thinkers do not observe it. That is a moral problem. And I showed that there is such a norm all the same, of which Ratzinger’s doctrinal commentary is but one iteration. You do not actually deny that. So why do you still think there’s a epistemic problem for CTC here?
For the sake of what scholars call “charitable interpretation,” I shall frame your argument as a logically valid one, based on what I’ve just quoted from your comment:
(1) If what’s called the ‘CIP’ at CTC were actually and recognizably the theological norm for Catholics in general, then it would be generally known and observed among Catholics.
(2) But the CIP is not generally known and observed by Catholics.
(3) Ergo, the CIP is not actually and recognizably the theological norm for Catholics in general.
Now (3) follows from (1) and (2). And the argument would also be sound if both (1) and (2) were true. But (1) is, in fact, false. So even when restated charitably, your argument is unsound.
Why is (1) false? For one thing, most people who have been baptized and raised as Catholics are not theologically well-educated. Not even most loyal, practicing Catholics are theologically well-educated. Although the latter group of Catholics tends to know their faith better than the former, that doesn’t amount to very much in the typical case. If I were the betting kind, “I’d bet” that at most 2% of Catholics are theologically well-educated enough to give a serviceable account of the CIP while doing little or no research, and at most 5% of the rest would even know how to do the research. Those figures still amount to millions of people. But there’s nothing about the CIP to logically require that knowledge of it be more widespread among loyal, practicing Catholics.
A loyal, practicing Catholic is one who lives a Catholic life and is docile to the Magisterium, in the sense of having at least “implicit faith” in the Magisterium. Such a Catholic relies on ecclesial authority for her knowledge of the Faith as well as for her assent of faith. In no way does that require scholarly knowledge or ability, and I don’t think either of us would suggest that Our Lord Jesus Christ wills such a requirement for most members of his Church, whichever church that may be. Accordingly, the usefulness of the CIP as a norm consists of two things: (a) Those who actually exercise the Magisterium–i.e., the college of bishops with the pope as their head–know it and observe it; (b) Any other Catholics interested in observing said norm can do so, whether by implicit faith alone or with a faith formed by such explicit theological knowledge as they have the time, talent, and inclination to acquire. Nothing you have said shows either (a) or (b to be untrue. So nothing you have said undermines CTC’s claim that the CIP is normative for Catholics.
Here’s the rest of your comment:
I’m relieved that, rather than just double down on the charge of “dishonesty,” you allow that we might only be in “denial.” But either way, the charge is not credible. For just as your initial argument was a non-sequitur and thus a fallacy–so obviously a fallacy, that I reformulated it to make it at least logically valid–so too the above argument involves two other fallacies: the genetic fallacy and the red-herring fallacy.
First, though, some background. Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ–a 20th-century theologian for whom I have great respect–did indeed “wrestle” with the thesis, held by many theologians and clerics right up till Vatican II, that the old papal claims to “temporal” authority were doctrinally irreformable. In due course, he concluded that they are not. That conclusion is clearly implied by a magisterial document of which he was the principal de facto author: Vatican II’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom” (‘DRF’). The overwhelming majority of bishops at Vatican II signed off on DRF, which they clearly would not have done if they had thought it was logically incompatible with any “irreformable” doctrine–i.e. any doctrine which had been infallibly set forth, by any of the means traditionally understood as means by which such teaching can be set forth. Accordingly, the reason we at CTC take for granted that papal temporal authority is not of the “essence” of the Catholic Faith is that such has been the consensus of the Catholic hierarchy, from the popes on down, for the past 50 years. That is neither “dishonesty” nor “denial.” It is simply loyalty to the Magisterium.
Your reply to that, I suspect, would in part be that of the SSPX, which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre primarily because he rejected DFR, along with the liturgical reforms authorized by Vatican II. Their view is that believing what the Magisterium teaches in DRF is actually disloyalty to what the Magisterium had long before taught infallibly and thus irreformably. Bryan Cross and I are well aware of that view; though his trajectory of conversion to the Catholic Faith was different from mine, and developed much more recently, I myself have been dealing with SSPX arguments intermittently for decades. But one reason we at CTC don’t take SSPX arguments seriously enough to spend time on them here is that they’re not even on the radar of most of our intended audience. Since it’s clearly on your radar, though, it’s time for me to state and explain the other reason. The explanation will segue into an exposure of your fallacies.
That reason is, simply, that we accept the CIP, whose normativity I’ve exhibited and explained many times. If the CIP is normative for Catholics, then the SSPX deviates from the norm, and is thus schismatic. That is why, despite Pope Benedict’s arduous efforts to effect reconciliation with the SSPX, he failed. The problem is not merely that they will not accept the teaching of Vatican II as normative for them; since that teaching does not qualify as dogma, they cannot be said to be heretical just for rejecting it, although that rejection is bad enough. The bigger problem is that they actually regard said teaching as heretical itself. Thus they believe that the pre-Vatican-II doctrine of papal temporal authority is not only true but also irreformable, so that Vatican II’s treatment of it, along with that of the contemporary hierarchy, is not only false but heretical. But the teaching of Vatican II was a clear exercise of the “ordinary and universal magisterium” of the Church. By traditional criteria as well as the Council’s own (as set forth in Lumen Gentium §25), the clear teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church calls for at least “religious assent,” even when it is does not actually meet all the conditions for infallibility. So, by the CIP criterion every party to the dispute accepts, the SSPX is setting its own interpretive authority over against that of the ordinary and universal magisterium, even to the extent of treating that latter authority as heretical. For that reason, Catholics who know and observe the CIP are under no obligation, for the sake of “honesty,” to take it seriously. Since the SSPX, unlike the hierarchy teaching in council, has no authority of the sort cited and utilized by the CIP, the fact that we don’t take the SSPX view seriously is not evidence of dishonesty. It’s just self-consistency about what is and what is not normative.
Even so, I for one am certainly not “in denial” about the SSPX’s arguments. In fact, I gladly admit that DRF did a poor job of distinguishing between what in older, pertinent teaching is irreformable and what is not. But that wasn’t Fr. Murray’s fault; he did a good job of making that distinction across the board, and I agree with him. The difficulty with DRF had to do with the necessity of fudging that issue in order to get the document passed by consensus in a timely manner as other important matters pressed on the agenda. And so the DRF simply does not explain how its teaching is compatible with older teaching that is also irreformable; indeed it does not specify, at all, what is and is not irreformable. But that doesn’t mean its teaching is simply a matter of opinion for Catholics. There are no doctrinal resources for claiming that it is such a matter. Its teaching requires assent from Catholics, even though it is not de fide. It is not de fide for the same reason the older, opposed teaching was not de fide: its subject matter is not the deposit of faith, but the question whether the papacy’s having and exercising temporal power is necessary for its exercising its spiritual authority. Catholics can disagree on that question, or vary their answers by time and place, without being heretical. But one thing Catholics may not do is maintain that the ordinary and universal magisterium is teaching heresy. Yet that’s what the SSPX does. And that’s the main reason I see no need to take account of them as a loyal Catholic.
From what you say as quoted above, I infer that your counterargument would be that, since the motives for the 19th-century Magisterium’s characterizations of papal authority, culiminating in Vatican I’s definitions on that topic, were “political,” that body of teaching as a whole is not “spiritual” but merely “political.” Now one problem with that argument is that it’s inconsistent with the SSPX’s position, which you otherwise seem to think we should take seriously. The SSPX would agree with you about the content of said teaching, but disagree with your claim that its motives and significance are merely political. They think it’s every bit as much “spiritual” as any other Catholic doctrine–whatever else it may also be–and thus binds as de fide. But the other problem with your argument is logical: it commits the genetic fallacy.
Suppose arguendo that the 19th-century popes, and even the bishops at Vatican I, cared not a whit about defining the papacy’s “spiritual” authority, but were motivated merely by the political consideration of maintaining the papacy’s temporal power–which the Risorgimento would soon curtail sharply, by taking the Papal States away from the papacy and into a united Italy. It simply does not follow that their teaching on the papacy’s “spiritual” authority is false, or even incredible; to suppose that it does follow is to commit the genetic fallacy. Your conclusion would only be likely if there had been no tradition, expressed by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, of treating the bishop of Rome as chief bishop, and thus as visible head of the Church, even before the papacy had any temporal power worth talking about. In fact there was such a tradition, and Vatican I merely clarified its implications, without in any way addressing the question of the papacy’s temporal power.
Of course Pope Pius IX, who had convoked said council, was very concerned with defending papal temporal power, as was his predecessor Gregory XIII. A goodly chunk of Pio Nono’s published works as pope–the best known of which is the Syllabus of Errors–was devoted to upholding the “necessity” of confessional states with Catholicism, of course, being the confession. Now if his thesis be understood to mean that Catholic states are always necessary for people’s spiritual welfare, then, I believe, history has proven him wrong. Indeed, the first few centuries of the Church’s existence should suffice to prove him wrong, since the Church thrived and grew under persecution long before the Roman Empire became a Catholic confessional state well into the 4th century–a development which, many have argued, did the Church more harm than good. But that holds whether or not the 19th-century popes cared only about maintaining their temporal power and wealth. Whether or not their motives were what you assert they were, the doctrinal issues, as sorted out by the CIP, remain exactly as they are.
But your assertion that their motives were purely political is of no dialectical value., You offer no argument for that assertion; even if you did, it would be doctrinally irrelevant; and as things stand, it merely serves to distract attention from the issues of theological significance. Hence, your use of that assertion is merely an instance of the red-herring fallacy.
It wouldn’t take anybody who’s been formally trained in logic and critical thinking very long to see that the arguments of yours I’ve addressed in this comment are fallacies. I have taken so long to address them anyway partly because not everybody is so trained, and partly because I want everybody to understand what is more broadly at stake. The problem with your whole approach to these matters, I’ve concluded, is that it’s far less like that of a theologian than as that of a sociologist and historian. The quality of your theological arguments against Catholicism suffers accordingly.
Best,
Mike
@Mike L. (#468 and#477):
I realize that we probably can’t get into this in detail here, but there may be more to unpack here in order to get at some hidden assumptions. You said:
The thing that might not be perceived here is that the formal definition of the science itself goes back to (or at least in principle can go back to) gnosis, even if it’s particular conclusions can’t. That things exist for a reason, that there is a such thing as lawful causation of events, or that our senses respond to reality, for example, all come from knowledge by experience. At least as I understand it, the “principled means” in this case refers to the fact that the science operates in such a way that can in principle identify the underlying reality (i.e., that the formal means are in principle suited to the end). So while the evidence is theory-laden, the aptness or conformity of the tool for some particular purpose (like physics to understand the behavior of moving bodies as such) can be known.
You then said:
I agree with everything except the conclusion about relevance (not to say that I have a better idea of what you’re doing, of course!). But ISTM that you are engaging generally with a kind of naive modernism that views everything as equally theory-laden, meaning that there is a dangerous equivocation about what “principled” means. In particular, when you draw the analogy to Reformed presuppositionalism, a major distinction is that they believe that their IP is required to think correctly at all, which strikes me as a belief that could only be espoused by someone who had bought entirely into some version of the Kantian noumenal/phenomenal separation.
That’s not to say that you haven’t validly defended against the criticism, but it does not explain to Protestants why they are wrong. In particularly, it doesn’t respond to the naive modernist view that “everything is interpretation, which is fallible,” which in turn produces the question “what’s wrong with everything being fallible?” Based on my understanding, the answer would necessarily be that one can’t in principle ever advance beyond opinion in anything, even gnosis of one’s own experience, much less episteme. You might think that such a belief would be hard to swallow, but for Reformed presuppositionalists, I have seen something very similar espoused. I recently had a Reformed Protestant tell me that at “rock bottom” there was no difference between trust in one’s own senses and faith. That massive degree of confusion seems to be at the root of the complete misunderstanding of “principled means,” and it may be that the critique of the PIP will never be understood until it is uprooted.
Jonathan:
It was in (a) recognizing that confusion implicit in my Protestant “worldview” so to speak and (b) ridding myself of it that (c) led to the possibility of understanding the CIP. That is what I think a lot of interlocutors here do not understand. Most of us left Protestantism before we ever embraced Catholicism. And, as your comment points out, I think we leave the Kantian aspects of the PIP — maybe not ridding ourselves full bore of its social or theological implications. To consider the idea more broadly, being Christian can be conceived outside of the Protestant or Catholic IP — and it is being done more and more so in our world at large. Sometimes it is implied that when we stopped being Protestant, we were already Poping. That’s not true at all.
Though, I think that once you rid yourself of the PIP, you have three options: (a) some version of extreme subjectivism (“Protestantism isn’t true, but who gives a rip anyways!), (b) atheism (“None of this is true, but who gives a rip anyways!), or (c) Catholicism/EO (“Protestantism isn’t true, but there is something that is!”)
WW (#479, 480):
You write:
In my years of experience with RC-EO debate, one usually does see it devolving into “bash[ing] each other with question-begging clubs anytime âevidenceâ (historical, biblical, theological, etc.) is used against the other.” But that’s exactly why I advocate approaching the matter by characterizing, comparing, and assessing IPs. It’s the only approach offering at least an opportunity to avoid the waste of time known as “question-begging.”
So, in answer to your other questions, I shall briefly describe how I see the matter. The CIP and the EOIP each contain the same basis for making a “principled distinction” between expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinions: the belief that “the Church”–whichever communion of churches that is–is infallible when teaching with her full authority. When the Church so teaches, the teaching is an expression of divine revelation and thus calls for the unconditional assent of faith; when she does not, it does not–though it may call for provisional assent for other reasons. So, for the sake of assessing the two IPs against each other, the main question is which communion has the “superior” way of determining when the Church teaches with her full authority.
The Catholic Church has a relatively clear, consistent, and authoritative way of doing that. It’s been usefully set forth in such relatively recent magisterial documents as Lumen Gentium (§25) and Ratzinger’s Doctrinal Commentary, to both of which I linked in #466. It doesn’t work automatically like software, but it has produced a large body of settled results, and provides a reliable template for resolving disputed questions as they arise. In Eastern Orthodoxy, however, I have found no similarly clear, consistent, and authoritative way of determining when “the Church” teaches with her full authority. To be sure, EOs agree that seven “ecumenical councils” of the first millennium taught infallibly and thus, as instances of the Church teaching with her full authority, bind all her members accordingly. But there’s no clear, consistent, and authoritative account in Orthodoxy as to the necessary and sufficient conditions for treating a given council as thus binding on the whole Church. One gets several different answers depending on which Orthodox clerics and theologians one asks. Nor do EOs see any particular bishopric, patriarchate, or synod as ever infallible. So I have concluded that Catholicism has a “principled” means of making the necessary determination, while Orthodoxy has only ad hoc means of doing so.
That matters a great deal. For if there were only ad hoc ways of making said determination, then believers would have no reliable basis for distinguishing between when the Church teaches with her full authority and when she does not, and thus would not reliably know when the assent of faith, as distinct from a lesser, provisional sort of assent, is being called for. I find it impossible to believe that’s how Jesus wants things to be in that Body of which he is the Head. But Catholicism does have such a basis. So I conclude that the CIP has a better way of deploying the basic, principled distinction between revelation and opinion that it shares with the EOIP. For that reason, the CIP is a better theological IP than the EOIP. That is why I returned to the Catholic Church in college rather than become Orthodox, even though I took Orthodoxy, unlike Protestantism, very seriously as an option and had explored it accordingly.
You write:
I don’t think the language of de jure/de facto is the best way to characterize the two stages. A better way, I think, would be to say that (1) specifies the distinctive purpose of theological IPs, and (2) describes, in the broadest of terms, what achieving that purpose would need to look like.
Best,
Mike
Dave H., if the Catechism is the solution, what is the problem with the Roman Catholics who are supposed to know or the bishops who are supposed to see it taught?
You guys love to point out the differences between Protestant theories of scriptural authority and the reality of Protestant division. Why not try some of your own medicine.
Jonathan,
I had the same thought. What seems to lie at root in so many of these debates concerning the motives of credibility, the nature of faith, reason, and revelation â in short, theological first principles in general – is an implicit rejection of epistemological realism; which, of course, is part and parcel of the modern background intellectual ambiance. I think you are certainly correct in noting that the resort to presuppositionalism among many Reformed Christians arises from a lack of familiarity with the epistemological foundations of the philosophia perennis and its (successful) critique of modern tendencies toward epistemological skepticism, whether in their continental-Kantian or English-American analytical varieties.
-Pax
Mike, so it is always about epistemology? How neo-Calvinist of you. I deal with this sort of argument all the time in Reformed circles. It is not fun to be told that the real world is all in my head when I keep tripping over Garry Wills and Pope Francis.
The one big whole in your argument is that this normative CIP is — as the Big Lebowski might say — well, all your opinion, man. Please show me where the magisterium has weighed in on CIP, or where Denzinger cites it. No offense, but your telling me what is normative for the Roman Catholic Church is like John Frame telling me what is normative for Reformed Protestantism.
You also misunderstood my point about the political/temporal nature of the papacy’s claims. It was not a form of disparagement or innuendo. Again, I have lots of experience with Calvinists who assert the Lordship of Christ for theological and devotional reasons before then voting for the GOP and despising Obama. In other words, the spiritual and political are sown together in the minds of many and I believe the papacy was no different. The pope’s political power was simply an extension of its spiritual power. I get that.
The problem for RC’s is that a millennium of papal history was wrapped around that conjunction and it all came undone at Vatican 2. But nothing changed, right? It’s all the same development. I don’t think so. You don’t either since you admit Pio Nono was wrong about politics for the health of the church. But if he was wrong about a claim that goes so close to the heart of high papalism, the guts of your system are about to burst.
I guess no one will notice if you keep insisting on the right epistemology. But why don’t you insist upon it with your fellow RC’s rather than belaboring it with Reformed Protestants? It seems getting your own house in order would take at least a lifetime. But then that raises the question of where this Call is going? Why not Call all those RC’s with the wrong IP (address).
Mike (#484),
Thanks for your response and insight into RC and EO debates. Focusing on the initial part of your comment, here is where the big disagreement lies between the RC and Protestant, which, surprise, surprise, is philosophical in nature:
Let’s return to your Mormon example for a moment. A Protestant and Mormon are debating in a manner similar to the debate between the Roman Catholic and Protestant. The Protestant brings up alleged historical problems with LDS and claims made by Joseph Smith that seem questionable (and it is not “question begging” to raise concerns or doubts about historical claims that seem prima facie problematic). For example, egyptologists call into question Smith’s “translation” of The Book of Abraham. That’s evidence–specifically, an undercutting defeater (and of course, the LDS apologist can always offer defeater-defeaters, but that’s another story). And it should be noted that it is not “question begging” to introduce defeaters. That’s just the nature of justification and epistemic defeat. Now, again, I suggest that it would be absurd to ignore historical evidence that serve as potential defeaters if the Mormon and Protestant have not first discussed the evaluation of their respective paradigms in (1). If the Protestant raises these alleged historical problems and the Mormon says, “No, no, no. That’s ‘question begging.’ We need to evaluate our paradigms first,” then this essentially becomes a “heads I win, tails you lose” kind of game. But who says that this is how the game ought to be played, namely, the insistence of setting the rules that we must move from (1) to (2) and that the question of “principled means” is the question of assessing paradigms? Where’s the argument for the claim that the “principled means” is the criteria for assessing paradigms? Are there other factors in assessing competing paradigms (e.g. fittingness, simplicity, etc.)? If so, how do we weight which factors are more important? Do we now need a meta-paradigm, a 2nd order paradigm, to stipulate the necessary conditions of 1st order paradigms?
The RC insistence on moving from (1) to (2) depends (at least in part) on the philosophical claim that all evidence is theory laden. But that philosophical claim concerning the nature of evidence is itself disputable (as almost every philosophical claim). For example, there is a lot of contemporary discussion concerning the nature of evidence, especially the epistemology of disagreement:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/efcatpc.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/esod.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/mf.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/The-Epistemology-Disagreement-New-Essays/dp/0199698376
My point in raising these questions is that there are philosophical problems and disputable philosophical claims that logically precede the (1) to (2) move that you are advocating. After all, you did say that you “advocate approaching the matter by characterizing, comparing, and assessing IPs.” But your advocating already presupposes certain philosophical positions on the nature of evidence, epistemic defeat, disagreement, and so on. But there is good reason, whether Protestant or not, to question these prior philosophical moves.
Warmest regards,
W.W.
Jonathan (#483) and Ray (#485):
Thank you for those contributions. It actually hadn’t occurred to me that much of what I’m up against is an “implicit rejection of epistemological realism.” That may be true in some cases, but I’m not convinced it holds of the Reformed in general. Al Plantinga’s “Reformed epistemology,” for instance, premises no such rejection and, at the same time, is more modest than typical Reformed “presuppositional” apologetics. Unlike the latter, the former does not offer any kind of “transcendental argument” that purports to be a knockdown proof of Calvinism.
It does seem, though, that some Reformed presuppositionalists purport to do what Jonathan says: show that one cannot even “think properly” without accepting their distinctive “presuppositions” as truths. I find that both Sisyphean and question-begging.
Best,
Mike
@Mike L. (#486):
Thanks likewise for your response. I agree with your assessment of Plantinga, although I think that he ultimately ends up with many of the same problems in trying to hash out the “noetic effects of sin.” In other words, he would be vulnerable to the same critique, but unlike the folks I have in mind, there would at least be a reasonable basis for discussion. Unfortunately, Plantinga and Barth (who has an alternative epistemology that is reasonable in this sense) are rare exceptions; the presuppositionalist and Old School Princeton camps seem to be dominant.
Anyway, like I said, we won’t resolve that here. It’s just a concern that seemed to be worth noting, even if only to table it for other discussions.
Darryl:
Toward the end of #482, I wrote the sentence-fragment: “…your use of that assertion is merely an instance of the red-herring fallacy” (emphasis added here). That’s actually incompatible with what I had argued before, which was that the referenced assertion is an instance of the genetic fallacy. To restore self-consistency, I amend my quoted statement to read: “…your use of that assertion, in addition to instancing the genetic fallacy, is also an instance of the red-herring fallacy.” Two fallacies for the price of one! Economical, that. I should have given you more credit.
Best,
Mike
#489, my other favorite W.W.,
I would also like to understand how this plays out in Michael’s IP-first approach. I think the LDS is a good comparison where the Catholic (and Reformed) would hold that the historical claims to the LDS authority do not hold up to scrutiny. And while we may be looking at this debate from opposite sides, I think your example would be helpful for both of us to understand better where the IP-first approach takes us in a mutually agreed direction.
Darryl (#488):
You write:
I direct you once again to how I presented the CIP above in #396, which is a quotation from an article I wrote for this site a few years ago. After that presentation, I noted: “Now with the exception of my very first sentence, almost all of that presentation consists in either quoting, citing, or summarizing what the Magisterium says. And I know of no magisterial document or representative who would be inclined to contradict my first sentence.” So, from the fact that the Magisterium does not use the phrase I abbreviate as ‘CIP’, or formally endorse my use of that phrase, it does not follow that what that phrase denotes has no magisterial force. It does, and I proved it. It has magisterial force not because I said it, but because it reports and summarizes what the Magisterium itself holds and teaches.
You write:
You’re ignoring a pair of parallel distinctions I had explicitly made: that between what belongs to the deposit of faith and what does not. The former is the subject matter of irreformable dogma; the latter is not. Now, I claimed that what the 19th-century popes taught about their temporal authority, even if true in certain historical circumstances, did not belong to the deposit of faith. They taught that the papacy’s exercising a significant amount of temporal power–especially in the form of confessional states over which they had either direct or indirect political authority–was necessary for people’s collective spiritual welfare. Such a doctrine is but a prudential judgment about how to achieve a goal which, though certainly a goal the Church does and should have, could conceivably be secured in other ways, and sometimes had been secured in other ways. Since such judgments do not belong to the deposit of faith, they are not irreformable. If they are not irreformable, they may be reversed. And so the fact that Vatican II reversed said judgment, in light of both newer political conditions and a more developed understanding of human dignity, does not call the CIP into question. Its “guts” remain undisturbed. The only Catholics who believe otherwise are the radical traditionalists and progressives, who are both materially schismatic, and in certain cases materially heretical. You seem to think them theologically important, as distinct from just posing a pastoral challenge. I do not. And as an orthodox Catholic, I see no reason to believe I should.
“High papalism”–by which I take you to mean a view that calls for the papacy’s exercising significant temporal power as well as spiritual authority over the universal Church–may have been, and in my opinion was, necessary for a time in European history. One such time as the first several centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, when there was no other plausible center of political unity that could mitigate the conflicts of tribalism and feudalism and secure the freedom of the Church. But I also believe that, by the 19th century, papal attempts to hang on to a significant amount of temporal power had become counterproductive. That prudential judgment of mine has never caused me to doubt Catholicism. Nor did it cause my paternal great-grandfather to doubt his Catholic faith, even though Pio Nono excommunicated him for fighting on Garibaldi’s side. The Licciones have long been in the business of making the necessary distinctions. So have many Italians. They have, after all, seen the papacy up close for almost two millennia. For most of that time until quite recently, the papacy simply was Italian. We get it.
Actually, to answer your questions: I do. Much of what I address here to Reformed Protestants is applicable, with a few minor tweaks, to that army of Americans who are formally Catholic but materially Protestant. And some of them do notice. I hear from such people all the time in various venues, not just here.
Admittedly, what I and the other CTC authors do here is only a drop in the bucket that needs filling. But lots of other people are doing what Pope Francis and his last two predecessors call “the New Evangelization.” That consists chiefly in making intentional Catholics out of nominal Catholics by calling them to a deeper study and practice of their faith. For most people, a personal “encounter” with Christ, within and through the Church, is a much more important means of answering that call than intellectual debate. But this place is for people for whom such debate is one important means by which they encounter Christ.
Best,
Mike
Dr. Hart:
I was wondering, since you always claim that Bryan Cross is Mr. Logicon and wonder if that is how he communicates with his wife, as if to allude that he is some cold, heartless, computer (I’ve met him, he’s FAR from that), may I ask, are you always snippy and sarcastic in real life, making a dig every chance that you get? If you think your question is fair to Bryan, my question is fair to you.
I ask, because if I were having a real life conversation with someone who was constantly ragging my point of view, not disagreeing, just ragging, I would be inclined to tell the dude to beat it (if we weren’t already best friends or something). Maybe we should take your tone as affection? : – )
Mike, you wrote: “I direct you once again to how I presented the CIP above in #396, which is a quotation from an article I wrote for this site a few years ago. After that presentation, I noted: ‘Now with the exception of my very first sentence, almost all of that presentation consists in either quoting, citing, or summarizing what the Magisterium says. And I know of no magisterial document or representative who would be inclined to contradict my first sentence.’ ”
Wow! That’s not papal audacity. That’s audacity coming from someone without the magisterium mojo (but par for the course among Jason and the Callers).
I think you are bluffing. I doubt any bishop in the U.S. would go to the mat over CIP. If they would, then they would have to do some serious house cleaning of RC universities.
As for your distinction between the deposit of faith and irreformable dogma, this is a Monday morning quarterback distinction. I cannot read any number of papal encyclicals on papal authority and believe they thought their temporal claims were capable of reform. This is how Gregory XVI concludes his 1832 encyclical where he defends papal authority, rejects freedom of conscience and separation of church and state:
“22. We write these things to you with grieving mind but trusting in Him who commands the winds and makes them still. Take up the shield of faith and fight the battles of the Lord vigorously. You especially must stand as a wall against every height which raises itself against the knowledge of God. Unsheath the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, and may those who hunger after justice receive bread from you. Having been called so that you might be diligent cultivators in the vineyard of the Lord, do this one thing, and labor in it together, so that every root of bitterness may be removed from your field, all seeds of vice destroyed, and a happy crop of virtues may take root and grow. The first to be embraced with paternal affection are those who apply themselves to the sacred sciences and to philosophical studies. For them may you be exhorter and supporter, lest trusting only in their own talents and strength, they may imprudently wander away from the path of truth onto the road of the impious. Let them remember that God is the guide to wisdom and the director of the wise.[31] It is impossible to know God without God who teaches men to know Himself by His word.[32] It is the proud, or rather foolish, men who examine the mysteries of faith which surpass all understanding with the faculties of the human mind, and rely on human reason which by the condition of man’s nature, is weak and infirm.
“23. May Our dear sons in Christ, the princes, support these Our desires for the welfare of Church and State with their resources and authority. May they understand that they received their authority not only for the government of the world, but especially for the defense of the Church. They should diligently consider that whatever work they do for the welfare of the Church accrues to their rule and peace. Indeed let them persuade themselves that they owe more to the cause of the faith than to their kingdom. Let them consider it something very great for themselves as We say with Pope St. Leo, “if in addition to their royal diadem the crown of faith may be added.” Placed as if they were parents and teachers of the people, they will bring them true peace and tranquility, if they take special care that religion and piety remain safe. God, after all, calls Himself “King of kings and Lord of lords.”
“24. That all of this may come to pass prosperously and happily, let Us raise Our eyes and hands to the most holy Virgin Mary, who alone crushes all heresies, and is Our greatest reliance and the whole reason for Our hope.[33] May she implore by her patronage a successful outcome for Our plans and actions. Let Us humbly ask of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter and his co-apostle Paul that all of you may stand as a wall lest a foundation be laid other than that which has already been laid. Relying on this happy hope, We trust that the Author and Crown of Our faith Jesus Christ will console Us in all these Our tribulations. We lovingly impart the apostolic benediction to you, venerable brothers, and to the sheep committed to your care as a sign of heavenly aid.”
Papal politics were spiritual through and through and this is how the popes themselves understood their authority. Now you’re coming along and saying, well, we can tell which parts of the pope’s understanding were substantial and which were accidental.
Welcome to the world of Protestantism (as you construe it).
As for the work of New Evangelization, does that include instruction in CIP? I doubt it.
Darryl (#496):
In response to my argument that the CIP is magisterial, you write:
So I have “audacity” and am “bluffing”? I don’t have that good ol’ “magisterium mojo”? Your often-personal criticisms might hit their mark if you could be relied on to acknowledge applicable theological distinctions and make logically valid arguments. But my growing experience with you shows pretty clearly that you cannot be so relied on. This is another tiresome case of that.
If you had adduced an argument that the set of statements for which I claim magisterial force do not, in fact, constitute accurate reports and summaries of magisterial teaching, you would have a point. But you have adduced no such argument. Instead, you assume that I can’t credibly say what’s magisterial because my status in the Church is not that of one who actually exercises the Magisterium. Now if that assumption were correct, then no lay catechist could be said to be presenting magisterial doctrine. Lay catechists–who are the vast majority of catechists–could be said to be presenting only what, in their non-authoritative opinion, is magisterial doctrine. But that would be a silly thing to say. According to magisterial authorities themselves, the job of catechists, whether lay or clerical, is to present and inculcate magisterial teaching. That teaching remains magisterial whether or not the person presenting and inculcating it has the status in the Church of one who actually exercises the Magisterium. That’s all I claim for the content of what I call the ‘CIP’ and for my presentation of it. My effort exemplifies what used to be called “propagating the Faith”–which every confirmed Catholic is supposed to do, according to their talents and opportunities. And you can test my claims against pertinent, published magisterial documents. But rather than do that–which, of course, would fail to achieve your purpose–you resort to taunting me. Such behavior is beneath a scholar. I hope this isn’t how you behave in the classroom.
The same goes for your treatment of the American bishops. As if it were evidence that they don’t find the CIP magisterial, you assert that they won’t “go to the mat” for it by doing “some serious housecleaning of RC universities.” It does not seem to occur to you that there might be legal realities, both civil and canonical, preventing orthodox bishops–who are the clear majority of bishops–from doing that on a wide scale. From time to time, bishops do discipline theologians, chastise Catholic institutions of higher education, and make quiet efforts to bolster the Catholic identity of such institutions. But few bishops have direct control over what is taught in them; some of them are controlled by religious orders, and others have lay charters making them, under civil law, independent of ecclesial authority . And even when bishops do have nominal legal authority over a given institution, they cannot send the police to enforce their will. That’s because, on those rare occasions when they could theoretically do so, it would be counterproductive–for reasons that you, a Protestant, should have no trouble understanding. But rather than learn and take account of any of the above, you infer that the bishops just don’t believe what I say they believe. I’m afraid that says more about you than about them.
You write:
followed by a lengthy quotation from Mirari Vos, the title of the encyclical you cite.
Now for one thing, you got the applicable distinction wrong. I did not distinguish between “the deposit of faith and irreformable dogma.” That’s because the latter actually expresses the former. Rather, I distinguished between what does and does not belong to the deposit of faith, claiming that only teachings expressing the former can be irreformable, whether they are defined as dogma or not. I also argued that old papal teaching about the necessity of its temporal authority does not belong to the deposit of faith, because it expressed a merely prudential judgment about how the papacy best exercises its spiritual authority. But you simply don’t address any of that. Instead, you err at the beginning. So, your lengthy quotation from MV is simply inapposite.
You write:
Yes they were, and yes I do. My basis for saying what you say I say is the CIP. But if you can’t get the applicable CIP distinctions right, then you haven’t managed to present an argument that my treatment of this topic is erroneous. So when you implicitly claim I’m thinking like a Protestant, when you write:
your claim is unsubstantiated by any informed argument.
You conclude:
It includes such instruction when I do it, both in parishes and online. I know of others who do it too. A few of them write for this site. Of course, it often isn’t done. But it should always be done, for those capable of absorbing it.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
Your hair-splitting and use of jargon in 497 is breathtaking. Between explanations like this and your 3,ooo Q&A Catechism that Dave refers to above as a simple answer, you guys might need to do a little work to refine your apologetic to make it a bit more palatable to the common man.
When I reply with simple, straightforward Creeds & Confessions you are going to be at a serious disadvantage.
Brent, now, you’re not being charitable. Do you regularly read Oldlife? Do I rag all the time there? Does Bryan ever change his manner, or let down his cap?
But if you really want to know. I am as cuddly in person as I am at Oldlife.
Mike, more lessons in argumentation? Are a catechist for logic too? Your condescension is tiresome. Have you ever considered that if you approached a conversation like a person rather than as a professor you might not receive the snark?
But I still don’t think you see my point. No one in RC circles is calling for a CIP the way CTC is. When JPII called for greater conformity among university faculty, he wasn’t thinking of historians like John McGreevy, John O’Malley, Francis Oakley — men who do not come close to sharing your CIP. So again, your IP is not THE RC view. It’s just like your opinion, man.
As for the distinction between prudence and reformable dogma, I may have not used the exact terms but you chose to miss the point anyway. I don’t think Gregory can be read as merely thinking his application of spiritual power was prudential. It reads as very theological, biblical, and even eternal. Why do you think it took so long to sort out the Roman Question in 19th c. Italian politics? Because the popes saw temporal power as the embodiment of spiritual power.
Of course, nothing I say, whether with or without snark, will make the slightest dent in your view because your view is THE right one. Which sort of makes this Call business a fiction.
W.W. (#489),
You wrote:
I think you misunderstand Mikeâs argumentative thrust. Firstly, the point (as I understand it) of Mikeâs insistence upon first attending to paradigms before attending to evidence flows directly from the nature of the subject matter. That subject matter is not, in the first place, the truth or falsity of Catholicism; but, rather, the very nature of divine revelation per se; and the means by which men might conceivably come to know the content of divine revelation in light of its defined nature. The question certainly does concern epistemology, but not an âepistemology-of-disagreementâ. The question involves epistemological issues which are more fundamental.
The crucial part of the definition of divine revelation which drives the insistence upon paradigm considerations first, followed by evidential considerations second, is the notion that truths or dogmas which have been âdivinely revealedâ cannot â in principle â be known as such through unaided use of the native capacities of the human intellect (else why the need that they be divinely revealed in the first place). Nothing about the unaided human intellect and its relation to the world of external secondary causes can provide the intellect with notions about that which is beyond detection within the natural network of secondary causes. Examples â all articles of faith â would be doctrines such as the Trinitarian nature of God, the hypostatic union of Christ, the reality of the states of heaven and hell (or purgatory), the efficacy of sacraments, the inspired quality of a codex of 66 (73) books, etc. All such notions pertain to the content of divine revelation and are traditionally understood to flow from Godâs transcendent knowledge as the result of a positive act of divine self-disclosure. Hence, if men are to assent to such notions as being divinely revealed (as opposed to being mere human opinions or plausible theological constructs), while simultaneously seeking to avoid the charge of unmitigated fideism, men must necessarily either receive such notions personally and directly (intuition, ecstasy, Sprit-induced illumination, etc.), or else they must assent to such notions on the basis of some external proximate authority which promulgates such notions as being revealed by God.
Notice that in both cases, whether reception through direct personal illumination or promulgation by some proximate authority; given a definition of divinely revealed truths as truths which are beyond the reach of unaided human reason; whatever notions are to be assented to as divinely revealed must be understood as having originated with God, and as having been protected from error in their reception and/or promulgation. If such notions were said not to originate with God, they could in no wise be understood as divinely revealed. They would be â by the promulgator or receiverâs own admission â mere human theological opinions. But also, if such truth claims could be potentially errant in some way (on the side of the receiver/promulgator); then, although such notions might in fact have originated from God, there would remain no epistemic means by which an onlooker might distinguish between those notions which really are items of divine revelation, and those which are mere theological constructs or aberrations. In short, when considering the very nature of the content of divine revelation â de fide articles of faith â infallibility emerges as being – in some way, shape or form – of the essence. Without it, any potential noetic distinction between divine revelation as such, and mere human theological opinion, collapses.
Hence, the minimum necessary requirement for establishing that some set of doctrines are divinely revealed, is that the one who receives and/or promulgates such doctrines be understood to in some way participate Godâs infallibility, at least with respect to the reception and/or promulgation of those particular doctrines. Otherwise, no one encountering said reception or promulgation would have any reason for thinking that the doctrines received or promulgated are divinely revealed as opposed to being mere theological opinions. In other words, any paradigmatic account of how men receive divine revelation as divine revelation; which, by its own stated principles, excludes the possibility of avoiding the epistemic collapse of divine revelation into mere human theological opinion, is ipso facto, incapable of enabling men to identify divine revelation as such.
As a result, the argument for assessing general paradigmatic structures prior to assessing particular evidentiary credibility for paradigms themselves, is that proceeding in this way has the efficiency advantage of ruling out multiple paradigmatic religious options prior to an assessment of the evidential motives for affirming whether â in fact â some purported paradigmatic source really does (or does not) participate Godâs infallibility. In fact, epistemic efficiency is one principle reason given by Aristotle and others for always proceeding pedagogically from the general to the particular. In the case at hand, this method reduces the body of evidence which needs to be evaluated at the outset by directing the intellectâs attention to only those evidences which are said to support the revelatory claims of those paradigms whose working principles potentially allow for the maintenance of a real distinction between divine revelation and mere human theological opinion. Those paradigms which â in principle â do not afford the possibility of maintaining this distinction can be safely set aside without expending further evidentiary efforts.
Of course, necessity does not entail sufficiency. Therefore, in addition to merely establishing that some paradigm (supposing its claims could be evidentially substantiated) would be capable – on its stated principles – of maintaining a real distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinion; one must eventually turn to particular evidence in order to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the paradigm in question does in fact enjoy some participation in Godâs infallibility which would enables its principles to achieve their function. Nevertheless, assessing the paradigm first, to determine if its stated principles meet the minimum necessary condition for maintaining a real distinction between divine revelation and human theological opinion remains the most logical course. Protestantism â on its own paradigmatic principles â provides no means by which to maintain a real distinction between the content of divine revelation as such and mere human theological opinion (or so Mike, myself and many others, both Catholic and non-Catholic have argued). Catholicism, considered strictly as a paradigm (prescinding temporarily from an assessment of its evidential credibility) does potentially enable the maintenance of such a distinction (as do some other religious paradigms â considered strictly paradigmatically).
Accordingly, there is no point sifting through a mountain of âevidenceâ in âsupport of Protestantismâ so long as the subject at hand involves understanding how men might recognize divine revelation as such. One already knows at the outset, through a strictly paradigmatic evaluation of Protestantism, that no matter what evidence may surface, the very principles of the paradigm, as stated by the paradigmâs own proponents, can never – in principle – deliver the goods. One is then free to concentrate on other paradigms (such as Catholicism or EO, etc) to assess their evidentiary credibility.
Of course, one way to avoid the force of the argument here (the argument that a paradigmatic assessment should be made prior to an evidential assessment), is to deny that the distinction between something called divine revelation and mere human theological opinion is a religious distinction worth worrying about in the first place. Some interlocutors here seem willing to bite that bullet. To me, that option seems only a hop-skip-and jump away from denying that religion is worth worrying about.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
W.W.
Another way to get at the same point is to say that Mike’s argumentative thrust flows from his (and my) understanding of the first principles and proper method pertaining to theological science. And admittedly, one’s understanding of proper theological first principles will be necessarily formed by one’s wider philosophical outlook, especially positions taken on fundamental epistemological and ontological concerns. There is, indeed, a sense in which one can say that all theological paradigms are theory laden, but that is because of the nexus of revelation, reason, faith and grace which constitute the first principles of theological science and necessitate the evaluation and coordination of historical particulars.
But theology is not philosophy, even if it is true that theology cannot proceed (well) without clarity respecting fundamental philosophical commitments. Accordingly, the fact that theology is in some sense theory laden does not entail that all philosophical positions are necessarily theory laden. I think there are root epistemic and ontic commitments which certainly defy that characterization (i.e. theory laden). Some philosophical positions are only deniable on pain of contradiction; and non-contradiction, as a noetic first principle, can be set aside only at the price of undermining all attempts at meaningful human thought and communication.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
I’ve been following the comments in this article with great interest. While perusing another article, I came across this comment by Ray Stamper:
Ray is right. Sadly, for many, the sin and corruption in the church becomes too large a stumbling block and distracts them from the truths proclaimed by the church.
Dan
DGH,
You wrote:
The bishops of the Catholic Church who approved and promulgated âLumen Gentiumâ at VII sure seemed to be assuming something like the CIP in LG25. Ratzinger / BXVI in any number of CDF clarifications sure seemed to be working on CIP-like assumptions. The late Cardinal Avery Dulles, perhaps the best known Catholic theologian of the last 30 years, sure seemed to get the CIP in his: “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith”, a text used in seminaries and theology departments. In fact, that work is simply a consolidated account of the way in which most catholic theologians understand how knowledge of dogma or divine revelation is recognized through Magisterial promulgation. One could simply have renamed the book: âThe CIPâ.
This whole shtick about how the CTC authors are somehow presenting some far-out, novel, understanding of the nature of divine revelation and the role of the Magisterium in clarifying it for the assent of the faithful, is just silly. The CIP being argued for here is just a shorthand way of describing what has always been understood about the nature of dogma and the authority of the Church for centuries in catholic theological circles, whether German, Spanish, French, Italian; scholastic, neo-scholastic, among (most) nouvelle theologians, etc.
Last time I checked, all these folks walked in “RC circles” (some are even well known), unless, of course, you are drawing your circle very small, just to suit your argumentative needs. So your assertion that “no one” is calling for a CIP is just wrong. You don’t have to buy any of it, of course; but to speak as if something novel were going on at CTC is manifestly false.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
Erik,
You wrote:
We are not trying to win a popularity contest, but rather find the truth. If your “straightforward” Creeds & Confessions give you a rhetorical advantage among a sound-bite audience, but at the price of pat or sophistical answers to deep and messy problems, so be it.
In the words of C.S. Lewis:
Pax Christi,
-Ray
WW (#489):
For the reasons Ray Stamper expounds at length in #498 and #499, much of your criticism of my approach is simply beside the point. My approach in no way premises any general philosophical thesis to the effect that all evidence is “theory-laden,” even though I do believe that much of the knowledge-by-description we acquire in the empirical sciences depends in part on evidence that is theory-laden. If that were not the case, then it would be impossible to explain the fact that different scientific theories often plausibly treat the same set of observations in explanatorily different ways, and even as signifying different sorts of objects. Such a fact is often what makes scientific progress possible, so that we need to explain it. I also, of course, gladly acknowledge that some forms of evidence are treated exactly the same way by different theories and paradigms–for example, evidence as to the authenticity of texts. But even if you disagree with my particular position on the philosophical spectrum, as it pertains to the purely human sciences, that is irrelevant to my point about theology, and Ray explains why. Here, though, I offer a somewhat briefer way to frame the issues.
Theological disagreement, both across religions in general and within the three main traditions of Christianity in particular–Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism–just does involve interpreting the same set of known data in mutually incompatible ways. That’s what I mean by differences of “interpretive paradigms.” Such IP differences cannot be rationally assessed in terms of premises or theses characteristic of one or more of the clashing IPs but not of all of them. For doing that would just beg the questions. Clashing IPs can be rationally assessed, without begging questions, only in terms of what is common to all of them, or at least acceptable in terms of all. But in order to make such an assessment, we must also reach agreement on what the purpose of theological IPs, precisely as theological, should be. Only then can we deploy rational criteria, common to all, for determining whether a given IP achieves that purpose, and if it does, how well.
Among Christians, reaching agreement on the distinctive purpose of theological IPs, and assessing them in view of that purpose, requires premising that (a) God has definitively revealed himself in Jesus Christ; (b) what God has thereby revealed is expressible as the doctrinal content of the deposit of faith; (c) we can identify the means by which said deposit is transmitted to us who have not received it directly from the source, so that (d) we can render the assent of faith, as opposed to that of opinion, to what has been revealed and transmitted on the divine authority of the source. If not all of (a)-(d) are acceptable to you, then there isn’t much for us to talk about–at least not in the present context. But if they are all acceptable, then we can and should agree that the distinctive purpose of a theological IP is how well it enables us to do (c) for the sake of (d), granted that (a) and (b) are true.
Now I hold that we need a “principled” means, as opposed to an ad hoc means, of doing (c) for the sake of (d), because without such a means, there would no way to do it that is both reliable and non-arbitrary, so that rational assessment of IPs against each other would be impossible. If there were no such way, then the distinctive purpose of theological IPs would be unattainable, and theology would be nothing more than the retailing of more-or-less plausible opinions–which is not the same thing as knowing the content of divine revelation and deepening our understanding of it. To be sure, I have encountered many Protestants who are perfectly content with that consequence. I do not know whether you are one of them. But whether you are or not, such a stance is tantamount to admitting that faith, as distinct from opinion, is impossible, and that we should learn to live with that. To my mind, that’s a pretty devastating consequence. But if you’re cool with it, we probably have nothing more to say to each other about IPs and their purposes.
All the same, if you’re willing to grant that the distinctive purpose of theological IPs, as I’ve described it, somehow is attainable, then we need to carry out what we’ve been calling “stage 1,” before we move on to stage 2. That’s because, from the standpoint of stage-2 evaluation alone, more than one Christian IP (not the Mormon) is rationally plausible, so that none can demonstrably prove itself over against the others, and the only way to adjudicate among them would be to move beyond the plausible but self-serving historical narratives to more theoretical considerations. Given as much, we should first evaluate the clashing IPs in stage-1 terms, so as to determine which is fit to achieve the distinctive purpose of theological IPs. If a given IP turns out to be unfit to achieve its purpose, then no matter how plausible some may otherwise find its associated historical narrative, it fails precisely as theology. With that understood, my main argument is that the PIP fails utterly at stage (1), and that the CIP emerges better than the EOIP from a stage-(1) evaluation– even though Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy can each cite rationally plausible historical narratives in their own support and in their own terms, so that if all we considered is stage (2), each can come up looking pretty good.
As I see it, then, you could argue against my two-stage approach in one of two ways. First, you could argue that we need no “principled distinction” of the sort I talk about, because what I characterize as the distinctive purpose of theological IPs is unattainable and therefore unnecessary. If so, then stage (1) should simply be dropped, and we should focus simply on stage 2. That, as I’ve already implied, is a fairly common Protestant response, with the consequence I’ve indicated. Or, secondly, you could agree that a stage-(1) evaluation of IPs is needed roughly for the reasons I give, but disagree with me about how the CIP, PIP, and EOIP emerge from such an evaluation. Either way, I suspect, you’ll have some bullet-biting to do–if you want to continue this discussion at all, and move the ball. But your first option, I should think, would be a more useful one to pursue.
Best,
Mike
Ray,
It’s called “Divide and Dismiss,” and is pretty typical of how one argues when he becomes desperate.
https://www.creedcodecult.com/divide-and-dismiss/
Dan Soares (#503
I thank you for quoting Ray here. I think this is central in many cases even to getting conversation going with non-Catholics. I have been frustrated at times in discussions with non-Catholics because it is clear that they unconsciously think that one is simply proposing the Catholic Church as the best denomination to belong to. I find it easier to talk to someone who thinks the Pope is the anti-Christ. At least he knows the size of the claim. I think it is analogous to the claim that Jesus is not just a man filled with God; an avatar, perhaps the most Spirit-filled one; a wise man; but God Almighty in the flesh.
jj
Dan (#503) and JTJ (#505):
You’re clearly correct to have quoted Ray to the effect that the “corruption” of the Catholic clergy, real and imagined, was both the strongest proximate cause of Protestantism and the biggest stumbling block to considering Catholicism for Protestants even today. It may well be a weakness of my preferred way of propagating and defending the Faith that I have never quite understood why this is such a problem for so many people–not just for Protestants, I should add.
Even before I encountered Protestant arguments, and even after I was sexually abused by a priest, I never expected that Catholic clergy would, on average, be better people than other believers of similar education and social class. Given everything I learned and saw as a young person raised Catholic, I expected to observe the same sins among the clergy that one could observe in such other believers. And that’s exactly what I’ve always found. I can’t speak to the relative frequency thereof, but that is a very hard thing to measure anyhow.
Some would say that my attitude is cognitively dissonant, inasmuch as we have “a right to expect” that men of the cloth will be better people than the people they directly serve. But I don’t agree. It’s wonderful when priests and bishops are somehow and observably holier than the average among their flocks, but usually that is not the case. And there is nothing in the pertinent Catholic doctrines, taken either individually or collectively, from which it would follow deductively that we have a right to expect otherwise; nor does Catholic doctrine support an inductive inference to the same effect, since the inference is about what “should” be, not about what is, and is thus not inductive at all. All told, my attitude toward priests and bishops as men has always been that the only significant difference between them and we regular, churchgoing laity is that they have a sublime vocation which we do not, and that they are no worthier of such a vocation than we or anybody else. The Church is not a meritocracy, and never has been.
Perhaps, though, I’m just missing the wider, theological issue. Many people find it much easier to believe ecclesial docetism–i.e., that the “real” Church of Christ is the invisible, uncountable collection of the “saved,” or the elect, or all good and right-thinking people, or something like that–than to believe that she is the visible Body of Christ nonetheless comprising sinners and governed by sinners delegated by Christ for the task. But I find that latter idea no more scandalous than that scandal of the Cross which was “a stumbling block for Jews, foolishness to the Greeks.” Indeed, given the Incarnation as well as the Cross, I find easier to believe Catholic ecclesiology than any Protestant ecclesiology. That same Body of Christ through which we are to be saved is the one we crucify to the extent we are not yet saints.
I don’t know, though, how to get that idea across to people who don’t already get it. There’s too much static to cut through. Any suggested reading for the purpose, anybody?
Best,
Mike
Ray and Dan, it may be called divide and dismiss by you guys, but Ray has a lot of “sure seems” in his comment which “sure seems” like the flimsy argument we see from Protestants.
But if you think folks who actually get around think Jason and the Callers novel, have any of you read this book https://www.amazon.com/The-Crisis-Authority-Catholic-Modernity/dp/0199778787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377217505&sr=8-1&keywords=lacey+crisis+of+catholic+authority.
Maybe Jason and the Callers are merely the Baptist wing of Roman Catholicism and they don’t believe in reading the books of eggheads and academics (even if they are Roman Catholic) because that is not where the truth is. Lacey, Oakley and others are merely liberals and schismatics even though in plenty of good fellowship with the Bishop of Rome.
But so far, more Roman Catholics and book readers know more about these books than about CTC or CCC. https://www.ucanews.com/news/book-review-the-crisis-of-authority-in-catholic-modernity/33040
https://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=10&id=58875
Dr. Hart –
You said:
If I might add to the other responses to this point, no Catholic here that I have seen denies that there is a disunity within the Catholic Church. But this disunity is a different kind of disunity than there is in Protestantism. Protestant disunity is a disunity based on confusion. People don’t really know whether or not infant baptism is ok in the bible or not. They are confused about what the Bible teaches. Similarly, protestants lack unity on whether or not the lords supper should be celebrated regularly, often, sometimes, rarely, or never. There are many opinions on the subject because of confusion.
Catholic disunity, on the other hand, is not confusion based. Dissenting Catholics aren’t confused about what the authority teaches. They know full well what it teaches and because of sins of pride, they rebel from it.
Do you see the distinction that I see?
Ray (505) – We are not trying to win a popularity contest, but rather find the truth. If your âstraightforwardâ Creeds & Confessions give you a rhetorical advantage among a sound-bite audience, but at the price of pat or sophistical answers to deep and messy problems, so be it.
Erik – “Concise” does not necessarily mean pat or sophistical. Maybe the gospel is just a lot simpler than you guys make it out to be?
When I see extreme wordiness I usually conclude that whatever is being defended is not terribly consistent or coherent.
Jason (#507) â Itâs called âDivide and Dismiss,â and is pretty typical of how one argues when he becomes desperate.
Erik â How many iterations of Christianity do you have to adhere to before you find one that yields some maturity? No one is desperate â weâre Calvinists â you know that.
âMessy problemsâ in a church with an infallible head?
dgh (#510),
The funny thing about the book you linked to, which apparently is intended as some kind of confirmation for your previous claim that “no one” is calling for a CTC style CIP; is that one of the primary points the authors make concerns the tension which exists between the desire for doctrinal/moral autonomy among modern laity (and some modern theologians) over against the recognized traditional claims of the pope and bishops, etc. with respect to authoritative treatments of faith and morals. The book review link you provided is a case in point, for it begins like this:
It may well be that the authors regret the demise of the conciliarists, or in other ways think that the traditional position on doctrinal / moral authority needs to be modified or dialed back. But, clearly, they are quite aware that one side of the coin which gives rise to the so-called “crisis” is the fact of an actually existing notion of magisterial authority of the very sort discussed here at CTC. The CIP defended here is nothing else than the traditional understanding of the authority of the Magisterium with respect to doctrinal and moral teaching. That many Catholic laity, living amongst the intellectual ruins of modernity, and some theologians as well, would like to see that authority undermined or mitigated in some way, is hardly a surprise. As Father Bryan just pointed out, those who dissent against the CIP are perfectly aware that it exists and well understand its implications. By this very recognition, your suggestion that the CTC position is an anomaly is shown all the more to be false.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
Fr. Bryan O. (re: #511),
You said:
I don’t think it is fair to say it is “based on confusion”. Rather, the disunity is based on disagreement and difference of opinion. What is the cause of this disunity among Protestant Christians? Sin is certainly a primary cause (cf. James 4). The problem with Christianity is Christians. Also, 2 Peter 3:16 says there will be untaught and unstable men who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.
Also, you said:
In many cases, the disunity may be an act of rebellion. This is the case in Protestantism too. For example, some churches acknowledge that the Bible clearly teaches something but they are going to oppose it anyway. But what about the cases that are not rebellion? Protestant Christianity may indeed be full of people who want to follow what the Bible teaches but are not sure about certain doctrines. But, to my knowledge, Catholic Christianity is in similar boat.
That is, regarding non-rebellious Catholics, they are only obligated to (1) believe the dogmas of the faith and (2) obey canon law. Within this paradigm, many disputes may arise that do not result in denominationalism but do foster disunity amongst believing Catholics. (1) leaves lots of room for disagreement about things that have not been dogmatically defined (e.g. Mary is co-redemptrix, Molinism vs. Thomism, the material sufficiency of Scripture, the permissibility of the death penalty, etc.). Additionally, (1) may result in disagreement over the meaning of what has been defined (e.g. some Catholics argue that the canons of Vatican 1 imply that man could not have evolved from lower life forms). (2) opens the door for much disagreement, because Catholics are not required to believe canon laws are fitting and good but rather they must obey them. For example, the appropriateness of receiving communion in the hand can spark debate (Catholic Apologist John Salza voices disagreement with the practice: https://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703038688/9-what-are-we-to-think-of-âcommunion-in-the-handâ/). Since these differences are not always based on rebellion, would it be fair to say they are based on confusion?
Peace,
John D.
JohnD:
Thanks for the response.
You said, “I donât think it is fair to say it is âbased on confusionâ. Rather, the disunity is based on disagreement and difference of opinion.”
That’s sort of what I mean by confusion. If you don’t like the word confusion then feel free to substitute. The point still stands. Protestantism as a whole can’t figure out what it believes about many important things like, for example, what baptism is and what it does to the believer, if anything.
You also said, “In many cases, the disunity may be an act of rebellion. This is the case in Protestantism too. For example, some churches acknowledge that the Bible clearly teaches something but they are going to oppose it anyway.”
Yeah. I’ve certainly seen this in practice as well with very progressive Christians. But this is another dilemma addressed by Bryan Cross elsewhere (I can’t find the actual thread). If Protestantism is true, there isn’t anyway Church discipline really works because we choose who we submit to. A Lutheran bishop deciding to excommunicate a Presbyterian really doesn’t do anything. Bishops can excommunicate Catholics when feel it is best for the Church to do so.
Yes, which harkens back to my original statement. Presbyterians and Lutherans and Methodists all have members who want to follow what the Bible teaches… but they can’t agree on what it says. This is a huge, huge, huge problem? Nobody Sola Scriptura believing Christian I have seen has been able to explain why this is and maintain that Sola Scriptura works.
Oh?
Ok, I’m following you.
Yes, I agree, but I don’t see how this demonstrates your point, because the Church could one day dogmatically define these things. Lets go back to the time prior to Nicea. Certainly, there was disagreement on whether or not Jesus was really God. The Church then dogmatically defined it.
(See Ray Stamper’s article here: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/06/the-catholic-and-protestant-authority-paradigms-compared/ )
The thing is, as time goes on Catholic unity has seemed to grow. Understanding has been sharpened. I just don’t see this in Protestantism. It seems to me (no matter how many different denominations you think there are… whether its in the dozens, hundreds, or thousands) that since the reformation there are more and more and more opinions. Not fewer. Am I wrong to expect that a workable system of faith would lead us towards a sharpened understanding of who God is and how man should act in the world?
Again, see Ray Stamper’s article I linked above. Sure there might be disagreement over what the Church means about something, but if this happens the Church can just clarify itself again. It can always sharpen its language and focus the content with greater precision. The Bible alone does not seem to me like it is able to do this. Am I missing something?
Yes. There is room for legitimate disagreement on certain things. Nobody disputes that and nobody disputes that different times and places call for different pastoral practices. All this really is is a misunderstanding of Big T tradition and small t tradition. Its a misunderstanding of Sacred Tradition and Church customs. It isn’t a question of what the Church believes, but how she spreads the faith and how she lives the faith.
This is not the type of disunity I’m concerned with, and I don’t think you are either. I’m concerned with unity over doctrine what we believe.
So, back to my original point, are you able to see the distinction that I see?
John D (#514):
It seems to me that your epistemic tu quoque argument, like that of many Protestants with whom I’ve had this conversation, simply misses the point we’re making. Our point is not that the Protestant world has, while the Catholic world lacks, “rebellion,” “confusion,” and “differences of opinion.” Both worlds have an abundance of all that. It is that Catholicism as such has, while Protestantism as such lacks, a principled means of distinguishing between expressions of divine revelation and mere theological opinions.
That means is the CIP, whose content is magisterial even if the name is not. Now the Magisterium claims to be infallible under certain conditions. If one accepts that claim, then one acknowledges that what it teaches under those conditions is an expression of divine revelation rather than of mere human opinion. It is precisely in light of such a norm that “rebellion” and “confusion” in the Church can be, and are, exposed precisely as such. That many rebellious and/or confused Catholics either fail to recognize the norm or, if they do recognize it, fail to conform their thought and life to it, does not mean it doesn’t exist, or isn’t recognizable as, just such a norm. It does, and it is–and any Catholic who cares to know that does know it, whether they observe the norm or not. The widespread confusion and rebellion in the Catholic world is therefore not an epistemic problem, but a moral problem: the sins of pride and willful ignorance.
Protestantism, however, contains no such norm. For it is of the essence of Protestantism to deny that anybody after the Apostles and those who canonized their writings is ever infallible by divine gift. That entails that even those Protestants who affirm scriptural inspiration and inerrancy can, by their own lights, only affirm that fallibly. Indeed, by their own lights, they can only affirm fallibly what even counts as Scripture. Now they can’t plausibly maintain that such affirmations qualify asknowledge established, like scientific truths, simply by the exercise of fallible human reason. For even if one could establish, by such means, that all and only the writings comprised by the NT are “apostolic”–which I seriously doubt–that would not suffice to establish that they are divinely inspired and thus inerrant. That would follow only if the affirmation: “Those wrote the works in the NT were divinely inspired” were, itself, inerrant by virtue of being infallibly taught by those who came after those writers. But on Protestantism, we can only make that affirmation fallibly, and we can’t know by any “scientific” or other purely human method that it’s true. Given, therefore, that the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture are not simply items of established human knowledge and are otherwise affirmed fallibly, then the status of Scripture and whatever else may be posited as a norm by this-or-that Protestant community must remain a matter of opinion. That means that Protestantism as such lacks a principled means of distinguishing between expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinion, Protestantism as such simply cannot posit a norm of orthodoxy as if that were, itself, an expression of divine revelation. One Protestant’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy, and nobody, on Protestant premises, has either divine or epistemic authority to say who’s right and who’s wrong about that. So the “confusion” and “rebellion” in Protestantism is not just a moral problem, but an epistemic one as well. And that problem is irresolvable in principle, given Protestant premises. That’s why there are as many Protestant denominations as Protestant theologies.
Now the difference, as I’ve described it, between Catholicism and Protestantism does not mean that all “differences of opinion” within Catholicism are going to be resolved, or even that they are all resolvable in principle by the CIP. Some issues, after all, just are matters of opinion, and the Magisterium has never said otherwise. But if the Magisterium’s claims for itself are true, then we can reliably distinguish, if we care to, between what is and what is not a matter of opinion, even if we never end up sharing the same opinions about the issues that are matters of opinion. For the reasons I’ve just given, that can’t be done in Protestantism.
Hence, your your epistemic tu quoque argument fails.
Best,
Mike
Erik,
Of course, I have no wish to defend wordiness for wordiness sake. But brevity is the soul of whit, not necessarily the soul of explanation. For if the subject matter is sufficiently difficult (as discussions surrounding theological first principles and method, in fact, are because of the many presuppositions which underlay oneâs approach to theological science), then use of many words to explain or approach that subject matter from different angles, highlighting different dimensions of the subject matter, is sometimes necessary.
By your âwordinessâ criteria, even things in the natural world, such as relativity theory or any number of scientific and philosophical truths which do not admit of brief or summary explanations, would be dubbed inconsistent or incoherent. If the way things are with respect to nature sometimes requires a good deal of dialectic to explain, a fortiori with respect to supernatural truths.
It is also important to note that there are different levels of explanation. The Nicene Creed is, I would say, a rather pithy summary of Catholicism. But as you well know, the devil is often in the details. When someone challenges some point of a Creed or Confession, the mode of explanation necessarily transitions from summary statements to a more careful detailed analysis. This is true also for any Protestant Creed or Confession, even the non-denominational âjust accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviorâ lowest-common-denominator theology. Well what – exactly â does that mean? If one begins to âcrack that nutâ and press for the theological specifics bundled (or more often jumbled) within that summary catch-phrase; one immediately experiences encounters âwordinessâ. I could compose a brief summary of the Catholic cosmic narrative easy enough, capable of standing up rhetorically against a traditional confessional Protestant creed, or even against the famed âRomanâs Roadâ, etc.
But naturally, as a Protestant, you would not be satisfied with my summary as an adequate defense of Catholicism. You would be inclined to immediately start picking apart my summary by pointing out that my summary explanation glosses this or that, presupposes this or that, doesnât provide a full-bodied defense of its narrative, or in any number of ways is insufficient to prove the case for the Catholic Church; indeed, you might well remind me that âthe devil is in the detailsâ. But then what? The moment I begin to get wordy in an attempt to answer your (necessarily wordy questions), I would be accused of obfuscation, incoherence and inconsistency â just because much must be said to address the detailed issues you raise? So on the one hand, if Catholics do provide a concise creedal or confessional summary of the Catholic position, we are told that it hardly suffices to prove its case. On the other hand, if we enter into serious and good faith dialectic to answer detailed objections (as this site is designed to do), we are accused of bogging the gospel down in verbiage! That is a case of âdamned if you do, damned if you donâtâ if I have ever heard one.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
Mike (#506),
Thank you for your response.
In #468, you wrote:
And now you just wrote:
Returning again to the Mormon/Protestant case. According to you, the MIP is fit and the PIP is unfit in light of the desideratum you have specified at stage 1. One succeeds, the other fails theologically. But at stage 2, you said that the MIP is rationally implausible but the PIP is rationally plausible. One fails and the other succeeds historically.
Given the conjunction of stages 1 and 2, which one is more rationally plausible than the other?
WW (#518):
Addressing me, you write:
I’m a bit puzzled as to why you find that closing question worth posing to me. I hold that the PIP fails at Stage 1 and that the MIP, while getting past Stage 1, fails at Stage 2. So, speaking for myself, I haven’t taken either of them seriously as intellectual options for quite some time. But to satisfy whatever your concern might be, I’d say that the PIP is more rationally plausible than the MIP, because how the MIP fails at Stage 2 is easier to understand than how the PIP fails at Stage 1. While the PIP doesn’t get off the ground and the MIP does, it’s inherently easier to explain why the MIP crashes than to explain why the PIP doesn’t fly. That, in turn, is because the epistemological criteria by which the MIP fails are more broadly shared by otherwise incompatible theological IPs than those by which the PIP fails.
To that, you might object that the epistemological criteria employed by Stage-1 evaluation are less obviously applicable to IPs than are the Stage-2 criteria, so that the latter are more cogent as well as more broadly shared, and hence merit priority over the former. If so, then the order of evaluative stages could just as well be reversed. But even if said objection were a truth–which I don’t believe it is–it does pose a problem for the following the order I prefer.
Suppose we reverse the order. It is evident that, once historically implausible IPs such as the MIP are eliminated, several historically plausible ones–the CIP, the EOIP, and the PIP–remain. The question then is how we are to evaluate those against each other. The answer emerges at Stage 2, which is my old Stage 1. And that’s fine. But I think it saves a lot of time and energy to keep my old order. On either order, stage-2 evaluation entails much study of primary and secondary sources. If we can eliminate a candidate at Stage 1, that’s one less candidate we need to consider at Stage 2; and if one particular candidate emerges as best at Stage 1, then all we need consider at Stage 2 is whether that winner is rationally plausible from a historical point of view, whether or not any other candidates also are.
That, in fact, is the concrete picture as I see it. The PIP doesn’t survive Stage 1; the MIP doesn’t survive Stage 2. That leaves the EOIP and the CIP to consider at Stage 2. At that stage, they both seem rationally plausible. So the only way to choose between them is to see how they fare at Stage 1. But we can and should do that at Stage 1 to begin with. The EOIP could then conceivably beat out CIP only if the CIP could not survive Stage 2. But the CIP does survive Stage 2–even granted that some people find the EOIP more historically plausible than the CIP, which I do not. Case closed.
Best,
Mike
Mike (#519),
Thank you for your patience.
My point is simply this: given your order of (1) to (2), here we have an example where we cannot simply dismiss the PIP because it fails at stage 1 even though the MIP doesn’t. There is data in (2) that provides serious defeaters for the MIP such that, given the conjunction of (1) and (2), PIP is more rationally plausible. That’s all to say, in the case of the MIP and PIP comparison, (1) is not a necessary condition for being more rationally plausible.
It also seems that you would agree that there is historical evidence in (2) that one can raise as epistemic defeaters for the MIP without being bashed by the MIP “question-begging” club, correct?
Yours,
W.W.
To state my first observation another way, whatever weight the MIP had over the PIP in (1) is lessened so much by the preponderance of evidence against the MIP in (2) that the PIP turns out to be a far more rationally plausible option given the conjunction of (1) and (2).
WW (#520, 521):
Let me see if I now understand what you’re after. You write:
Since we agree on rejecting the MIP as an intellectual option, I infer that your real concern is not to prove that Protestantism is more reasonable than Mormonism, but to argue on behalf of the PIP more broadly. So you first want it understood that the PIP is “far more rationally plausible” than the MIP even though the latter survives Stage-1 evaluation while the former does not. If that is the case, then a given IPs surviving Stage-1 evaluation is less important than its surviving Stage-2 evaluation. And if that is the case, then the mere fact, if it is a fact, that the CIP survives Stage-1 evaluation while the PIP does not, by no means shows that the CIP is a more reasonable IP to adopt than the PIP.
Is that the argument you want to make?
Best,
Mike
Brian O, at 511: what you say about Protestants is what Presbyterians say about Pentecostals and Charismatics all the time.
Mike and W.W.,
I am a bit confused by this exchange. If the question being raised were something like âwhich religious paradigm more likely or more probably captures or explains the ways in which God may have revealed Himself – if He has revealed Himself?â: well, then, it might be more difficult to determine whether assessing the principled structures of IPâs is of greater epistemic weight than assessing evidence, or which of the two should take priority in attempting to answer that question.
But that is not what the question has been. The question – at least as I have understood it throughout your exchange â is: âwhich religious paradigm (if any) is capable of yielding a principled distinction between divine revelation as such, and mere human theological opinion?â
The former sort of question already concedes that religion and dogma can only be a matter of more or less educated guesses, since the sort of answer sought pursues no higher goal than mere likelihood or probability.
However, the later sort of question seems quite obviously to favor Mikeâs approach of assessing IPâs first, since by the very nature of the question, and the definition of the terms within the question; if a religious paradigm fails the IP assessment test, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to go exploring all sorts of historical matters said to relate to that religious paradigm. Such an evidential inquiry would be entirely beside the point, given that the question raised concerns distinguishing between divine revelation and human theological opinion â however probable.
If I want to know if either person A or person B can speak German, why in the world would I begin by researching their profiles and academic histories online, or rummaging through their house for German music, German dictionaries, etc? Would not the obvious place to begin simply entail asking them: âhey, do you speak German?â If by his own admission (that is, on his self-described principles) person A makes it clear that he does not speak German, one can avoid the hassle of trying to prove otherwise through evidential labor â unless one thinks he is lying.
Am I missing something here?
Pax Christi,
Ray
Ray, you wrote: “That many Catholic laity, living amongst the intellectual ruins of modernity, and some theologians as well, would like to see that authority undermined or mitigated in some way, is hardly a surprise.”
People would be surprised by this reality if they read CTC or CCC where Jason and the Callers don’t acknowledge this crisis of authority even while ridiculing Protestants for having no legitimate authority.
All I asking for is truth in advertising.
Mike, where do you get this stuff from? Are you saying that it is the essence of Roman Catholicism — even though the doctrine was not formulated until 1870 and even though the ecumenical councils that you think gave us the canon did not even see the pope — it is the essence of Roman Catholicism to affirm that somebody after the Apostles and those who canonized their writings is infallible by divine gift? That would be hard claim to square with the Eastern Church, the early church fathers, and many of the faculty at the University of Paris from 900 to 1550.
But it’s ambitious. Good for you and your team.
W.W.,
You wrote:
The PIP fails to present itself as a plausible candidate for distinguishing between divine revelation and mere human opinion on analysis of its paradigmatic principles; accordingly, there is not a thing which any further consideration of evidences can do to enhance the PIPâs âplausibilityâ as an IP capable of distinguishing between DR and human theological opinion. The MIP fails to present itself as a plausible candidate for distinguishing between divine revelation and mere human opinion, not through a failure of its own theoretical principles; but through a failure to provide sufficient evidence that it, in fact, possesses the principles it says it does. At least in the case of the MIP, it was worth taking a look at the evidence, even if the evidence came up short.
But as I say, given the nature of the inquiry (to see if an IP can distinguish between DR and human opinion) the fact that the PIP failed the theoretical test already and necessarily entails that it fails any possible evidential test. In no way, then, can any conjunction of (1) and (2) entail that the PIP is more plausible than the MIP. They are both implausible, but for different reasons. Nevertheless, (1) remains a necessary (though by itself insufficient) condition for the plausibility of any IP as an IP capable of yielding a principled distinction between divine revelation per se, and human theological opinion.
Pax Chrisit,
-Ray
dgh,
I, for one, am all for truth in advertising. But are you not able to acknowledge that the kind of crisis being pointed out by CTC and CCC is different than the kind of crisis you keep pointing to in the Catholic Church? Although you surely disagree with the arguments, you must acknowledge that the Catholic critique of Protestantism is that it has an authority crisis rooted in its theological working principles. The authority crisis you are pointing to in the Catholic Church (which is very real), is not at the level of Catholicismâs theological working principles; but at the level of dissent arising from obstinacy or ignorance.
But I spent the first 30 years of my life in Protestant circles, and am perfectly aware that there is plenty of doctrinal obstinacy and ignorance circulating among the troops. Both Catholics and Protestants share that kind of authority crisis, and I would be the last to go wagering bets as to which camp has the worst of it in that respect. But, it is, to my mind, a distinct disadvantage to be in a camp which has both an obstinacy/ignorance authority crisis and an authority crisis seated at the root of its theological principles; as opposed to a camp which only suffers from one of those two evils. So yes, Catholics share some serious authority problems with Protestants. But there are also some serious authority problems unique to Protestant approaches to theology which Catholicism (so the argument which you reject goes) resolves. I think it is this later sort of authority problem which CTC and CCC are focused upon.
Pax Christi,
-Ray
Darryl, (re: #525)
What you need to realize is that we’re not in the business of “advertising.” We make and present and evaluate arguments. If you think any of our arguments are unsound, please feel free to show where they are flawed. Insofar as you think that we are attempting to engage in “advertising,” you are misunderstanding what we are doing.
Moreover, if you had been part of the discussion here between 2009 – 2011, you would have known that we talked about dissent-by-Catholics almost ad nauseum, in large part because PCA elder Andrew McCallum repeatedly raised this in our comboxes as an objection to arguments we were making about the unity magisterial authority makes possible (and actual), in contrast to the fragmentation entailed by the absence of magisterial authority. So we addressed it dozens of times in those years.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
dghart:
I’m not sure where you are going with all of your comments. I don’t think anyone here, or anyone that comes here is ignorant of the crisis among poorly catechized or openly rebellious Catholics. Most of us spent our lives witnessing to the former and shaking our heads at the latter — as Protestants!
As Mike has said once before, this site is a presentation of the Catholic faith. “Truth in advertising”, for St. Paul as an example, would not be, “Jesus came, died, but a bunch of his followers left him, and he let Judas hang out with him too long, and you should have seen that time when…” For St. Augustine, it would not be, “The faith is, you know, maybe this, but then again, you know, the Donatists, they say, and you know, of course there are the Arians, and…” That is not how presentations of the faith go.
If you want “The Callers” to call to attention the sins of Catholics, that’s not what we are here to do. Love does not do that. The irony, to me, is that you have the where withal to without exception always reference some poorly catechized Catholic or openly dissenting Catholic. You know they are, they know they are, and it does not take a rocket scientist to point them out. Which goes to show that Catholic orthodoxy is easy to understand. If it wasn’t, you would be calling us The Heretics. The CIP in action.
Ray (#524):
Addressing the discussion between WW and me, you write:
I’m not sure that’s correct. For one could answer the first question thus: No theological IP which lacks a principled distinction between divine revelation and human opinion should be considered one which “probably captures or explains the ways in which God may have revealed Himself â if He has revealed Himself.” That’s because such an IP doesn’t even enter the batter’s box, much less hit the ball–which is what you and I argue. But I’m not sure either that WE wants to deny that. That’s why, in my previous comment, I simply formulated an argument on his behalf and asked him whether he really wanted to make it.
We’ll see how this goes.
Best,
Mike
Darryl (#526):
You write:
Since there’s a lot more to the “essence” of Catholicism than papal infallibility, I am not saying that papal infallibility is “the” essence of “Roman” Catholicism–or, for that matter, the essence of the ecclesiology of the sui juris churches of the East which are in full communion with Rome and, together with the Latin Church, make up the Catholic Church. But the affirmation of ecclesial infallibility in general, and eventually of papal infallibility in particular, is of the essence of Catholicism. For that is integral to the CIP, whose content I have presented and explained many times on this site. And I didn’t “get this stuff” from anywhere save the Magisterium itself.
According to the CIP, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which consists not only of the bishop of Rome, but of all the bishops in full communion with him, teaches infallibly under certain conditions. The broadest of those conditions is this:
That comes from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, §25. (Since I have referred you to LG §25 more than once in this thread as a key source for describing the CIP, it shouldn’t be necessary for me to do this. But apparently it is. I cannot, after all, expect every scholar to actually read the documents I refer to.)
The above-stated condition was satisfied as the Apostles’ Creed, which originated as an expanded baptismal formula in the Latin Church in the 2nd century, came to be adopted throughout the whole Church by the end of the 3rd century. Yet none of that creed’s affirmations were, or ever have been, unilaterally defined by the papacy as dogma. In fact, given the CIP, the entire deposit of faith was infallibly transmitted from the beginning of the episcopate, with varying degrees of explicitness, solely by the criterion set forth above, until the first “ecumenical” council of Nicaea in 325. And it wasn’t until centuries after that the bishops of Rome even endeavored to define dogma unilaterally.
The most important work of the first Council of Nicaea was to expand the Apostles’ Creed to include, in response to the Arian heresy, the affirmation that the Son is á˝ÎźÎżÎżĎĎΚον Ďῡ Î ÎąĎĎÎŻ: “consubstantial with the Father.” On the CIP, that expansion satisfies the next condition on episcopal infallibiity, which obtains, as specified by LG §25,
Now the bishop of Rome did not convoke that council; Emperor Constantine did. Nor did the bishop of Rome attend that council; he sent delegates. Nor do we have evidence that Rome formally ratified the Nicene Creed in the decades that followed. Yet the evidence we do have pretty clearly indicates that the popes of Rome concurred with it; and in due course, that further expansion of the Creed which emerged from the second ecumenical council, that of Constantinople in 381, was formally adopted into the Roman liturgy in Latin translation and remains there–with one brief clause added in the early Middle Ages–to the present day. Yet at no point have the popes of Rome unilaterally taught or defined any of the affirmations of that text as it emerged from that council.
So ecclesial infallibility, as understood by the CIP, is not limited to the bishops of Rome. In fact, even according to Vatican I, papal infallibility is but an expression of “that infallibility with which Christ willed his Church to be endowed in matters of faith and morals.” Papal infallibility is but a special and rarely invoked case of ecclesial infallibility.
Now I could go on about how and why the doctrine of papal infallibility developed over time, but I doubt such an exercise would be helpful in this discussion, at least at this stage. That’s because, it seems to me, your real difficulty is with the fact that the things I’ve been quoting from LG were never formally taught centuries ago. That’s the sort of objection I expect from an adherent of a non-Catholic but Christian IP. For such people, if a given doctrine D is neither explicitly stated in Scripture, nor explicitly held by the consensus of pre-Nicene writers who revered Scripture, nor readily inferable even from the consensus patrum after that, then D is simply not a legitimate development. That’s the IP issue we need to address before we get to discussing distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Best,
Mike
Dr. Hart –
You said, “what you say about Protestants is what Presbyterians say about Pentecostals and Charismatics all the time.”
Sorry but I don’t see the point of this comment. If there is a point you’ll have to help me get it.
I came via DG’s blog so there’s my background. My question is, how can it be called a “conversion” if we’re “separated brethren”? Certainly Protestants can speak that way since we don’t consider you brothers in Christ, but where’s the consistency if you were already “saved”? I mean, do RCs think prots are going to hell? If so, we certainly aren’t “brethren”. And if we are brethren, why call it conversion?
Bryan, no advertising at CTC? That is rich.
Mike, you wrote: “Now the bishop of Rome did not convoke that council; Emperor Constantine did. Nor did the bishop of Rome attend that council; he sent delegates. Nor do we have evidence that Rome formally ratified the Nicene Creed in the decades that followed. Yet the evidence we do have pretty clearly indicates that the popes of Rome concurred with it; and in due course, that further expansion of the Creed which emerged from the second ecumenical council, that of Constantinople in 381, was formally adopted into the Roman liturgy in Latin translation and remains thereâwith one brief clause added in the early Middle Agesâto the present day. Yet at no point have the popes of Rome unilaterally taught or defined any of the affirmations of that text as it emerged from that council.”
What I’m saying. This does not follow from “this is the church Christ founded.”
Your comment also shows why Bryan’s decision to join Rome instead of Orthodoxy was like a Protestant switching from a Methodist to a Presbyterian Church. He had a view of ecclesiology that he found in Roman Catholicism and he joined the church that fit HIS view.
Thanks.
Bryan O., my point was that Presbyterians say that other Protestants are confused and that is the reason for disunity, just like you say Protestants are confused. In other words, I don’t think your account of the diversity among Roman Catholics is a good form of disunity as opposed to Protestant (the bad) disunity. Protestants make the same claim.
dghart:
As Bryan has pointed out, CTC serves to consider arguments. It is not for a wide audience by any stretch of the imagination. I remember sending one of the articles to an evangelical friend of mine. He responded, “That’s quite a bit over my head. Not really sure what they were talking about.” So, I agree, the content here is rich, too much to stomach for many.
If advertising is what you think we are after, the rules of advertising dictate a much more simple approach than CTC. That you want the theological waters muddied with simple approaches to moral problems is both beside the point of this site and beyond your influence. We don’t have to become like a heart medicine commercial, where the list of side effects would have you believe you are far better off to keep whatever illness you started with. While the propositional statements CTC seeks to defend might be simple (Apostolic Succession for example), her method of defending them appeal to a particular audience, scholarly that is, and the citations and links under the articles speak for as much.
As a website seeking as much, it would be your opportunity to provide counter-evidence, using links and citations to prove your point. Entering the fray here with freshman antics, “cuddly” as you may be, does nothing to move the conversation forward here as so defined.
Darryl (#536):
I had written:
To that, you reply:
First, that misses my point. Second, and without my speaking for Bryan, you obscure the IP issue involved in choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy.
My point in writing the above-quoted passage was to provide evidence that, even on the CIP, ecclesial infallibility is a much wider category than papal infallibility. The Nicene Creed is a very good example of that. And you have not disputed that point. It is true that ecclesial infallibility, considered apart from specifically papal infallibility, does not distinguish the CIP from the EOIP. Thus you’re right to suggest that it “does not follow,” from the CIP’s acknowledgment of ecclesial infallibility so considered, that the CIP has something better to offer than the EOIP. But I never said it did follow. Additional considerations are needed. So, you’ve criticized an argument I did not make in the comment you’re replying to.
But actually, I have thought of and, on several occasions, discussed such “additional considerations.” Indeed I summarized them, for WW’s benefit, in #485 above. If my approach is sound, then those who choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy need not and should not do so in a CIP-specific and thus question-begging way, as you implicitly accuse Bryan of doing. All we need to do is reach prior agreement on what the purpose of theological IPs in general is, and then assess how whether and how well competing IPs achieve it. That’s what I did decades ago, and the results are what caused me both to reject Protestantism early on and to choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy. And that’s what I summarized in #485.
But of course, I suspect that you and I have reached no such agreement on the distinctive purpose of theologial IPs. As I said to WW in #506:
The impression I’ve developed over the course of our interactions is that you are the sort of Protestant who is “perfectly content” with the consequence I therein described. I see that as very unfortunate, for the reason I gave. But I hope I’m wrong to see you as that sort of Protestant.
Best,
Mike
Nate,
The CTC definition of “conversion” is a “change in belief.” Nothing more. See here:
https://oldlife.org/2013/07/do-jason-and-the-callers-think-much-about-wadi-al-kharrar/comment-page-3/#comment-92710
Regards,
AB
Nate (#534):
You write:
First, I point out that not all Protestants refuse to consider Catholics “brothers in Christ.” In my experience, which goes back four decades, some Protestants do acknowledge Catholics as fellow Christians, while others do not. In general, it is unwise to generalize about “Protestants,” except to say they are “not Catholics.” And some “confessional” Protestants would even dispute even that, arguing that they are the real “Catholics,” while people like us at CTC are sectarians who only call themselves Catholic. The overall picture is very confusing, and nowhere near as clear as you imply.
Second, we need to avoid equivocating on the term ‘conversion’. In its broadest sense, all Christians are called to continuing “conversion” (NT: metanoia) to Christ just by virtue of their baptismal calling. Very few people can even be plausibly said to have completed that process–which some call “spiritual growth”–in this life. None of us here at CTC think we have undergone all due conversion in that sense. Nor, I’m sure, do you think you have yourself. We all need to undergo conversion in the broad sense.
But then there’s a more specific and widespread meaning of the term ‘conversion’: changing, for whatever reason, one’s formal religious affiliation. At CTC, we believe that a Christian’s changing his formal religious affiliation to Catholicism is, all other things being equal, a very important means of facilitating conversion in the broad sense I’ve just described. That’s because we believe that the Church Christ founded “subsists” as a unitary whole only in the Catholic Church, and as such is the visible “Body of Christ,” which is necessary for salvation. But that doesn’t mean we think “Prots are going to hell.” What we believe on that topic is what Vatican II taught. Thus I present the pertinent teaching:
That’s from the Council’s “Decree on Ecumenism”: Unitatis Redintegratio, §3.
I hope I’ve helped.
Best,
Mike
Nate,
In addition to what Mike wrote in reply to you, I would like to say that I have known many Reformed folk who speak of their âconversionâ from non-Reformed Protestantism to the Reformed view of things. So it is not unusual to use that language even amongst yourselves, and just like those Reformed who donât suspect the faith or salvation of non-Reformed Protestants despite their use of the language of conversion, so too with us.
Peace,
Fred
Dr. Hart (#537)-
I guess I’m still not seeing the point, but perhaps you don’t quite get the point I’m making. No type of disunity is good. Its all bad. My point, however, is that the type of disunity you find in Protestantism is different than the type you typically find in Catholicism. That’s it, at last for now. You say that you experience the same thing as a Reformed, confessional protestant towards other types of protestantism. You have unity and these other Churches experience confusion.
But the problem with this, from your perspective, is that you really aren’t as different from them as you think because you have the same Rule of Faith which is the Bible alone. This is the point that Jason Stellman makes in his conversion story. He was hit with the reality that he wasn’t really all that different from the charismatics that he had previously made fun of. The point here is that the more people you convince through your confessions that Sola Scriptura is true, then the more “Lone Ranger” protestants you will inevitably have, and disunity will increase.
[“Oh, but you don’t understand the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. Well, again, they just aren’t as different as you think, and last I checked, this post from Neal Judisch and Bryan Cross remains completely un-refuted. Its been dismissed, but if its as ridiculous as people say, it should be pretty easy to refute, right? Well out of everything written here by “The Callers,” that’s the big one, and I think anyone whose been following this site knows it.]
Catholics actually ARE different from the “other protestants” you mention because our Rule of Faith is actually different. The more people we convince that the Church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture, the greater unity we have. Now, do a lot of people in our own pews need to be convinced of this? Yes, which is one of many things I do as a priest. (But, I’ll be bold and point out that one of the reasons there are so many “Bad Catholics” (a term I use only because its an argument that many here make against the Church) in our Churches is because they have been influenced by the protestant notion that they have the right to make their own opinions about God and the human person apart from the Rule of Faith).
At least that’s what it seems like to me.
But Michael,
Your church anathemitized Sola Fide/imputed righteousness at the concil of trent. That’s what was significant in Stellman’s account of his “conversion” story – he rejected Sola Fide / imputed righteousness. Stellman certainly knew (or at least seemed to) that trusting in Christ’s imputed righteousness alone put him out of fellowship with Rome. And if you’re not in fellowship with Rome then you aren’t saved (unless you’re going to equivocate on that one too).
You can’t be both in and out of fellowship with Rome; you can’t be both anathemitized and not anathemitized. Stellman says he believed in Christ’s imputed righteousness alone and now he doesn’t. And thats how CTC portrays all their “conversion” stories. If we’re “separated brethren” why the fuss?
The matter doesn’t center primarily on one’s veiw of ecclesiology but the gospel. And that’s what Stellman said he had a new understanding of – no longer did he hold to an anathemitized version of the gospel. And if you go from an anathemitzed gospel to a true gospel – you’re converted – not in a “communion” sense as you attribute other people using it, but in a renewal of your nature; “I once was blind but now I see”.
And I don’t doubt that those in Reformed communions use “conversion” in a sense of what happened from their evangelical (or otherwise) situations. There are a slew of Evangelical and other denominations that either do not preach the Gospel (Sola Fide) or in fact preach a false gospel. But this is a red-herring either way. The question is whether or not the gospel Stellman now believes is different from the one he used to believe. And if it’s a different one, then his conversion is not in the definitions you use, but in a true “not saved to saved”.
Fr. Bryan O (#543):
You write:
Spot on! The Catholic “rule of faith” is the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, where the elements thereof are understood to mutually interdependent, and where the function of the third is to interpret authoritatively the “Word of God” transmitted to us jointly by the first two. Protestants always either pit one of the three against the others, or endeavor simply to eliminate the second and/or third. But I’ve never found such strategies any more plausible historically than theologically.
Best,
Mike
Michael –
Yes. And because of Tradition, our unity as Catholics (and Orthodox could of course say the same thing) extends through time. We are united with Christians of every age past, and in ages to come.
I also had a thought today that struck me. Without Tradition, the living word is completely dead. It just becomes another set of laws written on stone. The Bible – the Living Word – just becomes exactly like the Old Covenant and it becomes another set of rules we have to follow. But Tradition helps show us that the Word of God is actually alive and has informed Christians throughout the centuries. The reason we don’t turn our back on Tradition is because the word of God was actually effective in times past.
Do you see what I’m saying? To deny Tradition is, in a certain sense, to deny that the Word of God was alive and at work informing Christians in times past.
This needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but its at least the seed of something good, I think.
Nate (#544):
You’re treating the concept of communion with the Catholic Church as if it were binary: one is either all the way “in” or all the way “out.” That’s a common misunderstanding, but that’s not the concept the Church herself employs. If you look carefully at the quotation from Vatican II that I offered you in #541, you’ll readily see that the Church treats communion with herself not as binary, but as a matter of degree. Thus she says that non-Catholic Christians, just by virtue of their baptism, are in “real” but “imperfect” communion with the Church. Thus it’s possible for them to be saved without becoming formally Catholic–so long as they strive to do such truth as they believe, without being culpable for not believing the whole truth.
I think what drives your conceptual error is another conceptual error: one about “anathematization.” When the Church condemns a given view with a dogmatic canon containing an anathema, that should not be understood to mean that everybody who holds that view is going to hell, or even that they are culpable for holding such a view. It means that the Church turns over to Satan for chastisement people who are culpable for holding such a view. Yet nobody but God really knows who is and is not culpable for failing to accept this-or-that aspect of divinely revealed truth. I suggest you read this brief article for further corroboration and clarification.
Best,
Mike
Mike –
Good point here:
Our relationship with the Church is like a marriage. Despite what many modern westerners think, Husband and wife don’t merely enter into a contract with each other. Husband and wives enter into communion with each other, and if they live their marriage correctly, their communion should deepen over time. I have a great example of this in my grandparents. They’ve been married 69 years, and as my grandmother is becoming more and more frail, my grandpa is growing in greater communion with her through his service to her in old age. They’ve always been “married” but today they are a greater sign of what marriage is.
Such it is with my own relationship with the Church. I have always been Catholic, but today I am a greater sign of my Catholicism than I was 15, 10, 5 or 1 year ago. God willing, 10 years from now I’ll be a greater sign of it still. But its because my Communion with Jesus has increased.
Trent sure looks binary to me…
And that’s precisely the problem – your church makes binary statements and then equivocates on them. You can obstinately believe anathemitized teaching (as I certainly do) and yet be “in comunnuion.” Where’s the logic? I don’t think when the RC wanted to put Luther to death they thought he was simply a misled brother.
Degrees are nice but unfortunately we’re not talking about weather here (which would be nice – it’s a lovely 75 degrees right now). It’s not a matter of whether faith is present or the degree to which it is, but the object to which it trusts. I rest in Christ’s merits alone and believe nothing of my merits contributes (or any such language) to that salvation. According to Trent, I’m grabbing at air. If I have a misplaced faith (whether in an anathemetized (i.e., false) gospel or in a different god entirely) it’s all the same. It’s not the presence or degree of faith, but the object to which one trusts. And that’s why it’s “C”onversion (not a “c”onversion).
Mike, I am still not buying your assertion of the (Roman) CIP. Why is yours any more authoritative than Michael Lacey’s?
“A second important difference from the Leonine church is evident in the [Second Vatican] councilâs opening to the ecumenical and interfaith relations and with it the continued softening of the traditional belief that there is no salvation outside the church. If that doctrine suggested service to a jealous God, trimming it suggests an appropriate emerging sense of theological and historical humility. For Leo, it was fundamental that âthose who refuse to enter the perfect society or leave it are separated forever from life eternal.â In the Decree on Ecumenism (1964), on the other hand, heretics and schismatics have become âseparated brethren.â They âhave a right to be called Christians and with good reasonâ to be âaccepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.â While all the elements necessary for salvation are said to âsubsistâ in their âfullnessâ in the Catholic Church, âwhich in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic,â it is nevertheless true, according to Lumen Gentium, that âmany elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.â In other words, there is no sacred monopoly on holiness and truth, a teaching that Leo would have regarded as undermining the basic mission of the church. As Karl Rahner made the point, there has been a growing recognition that âmany whom God has, the Church does not have; and many whom the Church has, God does not have.â
“The transforming response to the new universalism is evident here as well. The late Avery Cardinal Dulles concluded a recent review of the development of church teaching on the question of who can be saved with these observations: âCatholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether Godâs promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. Godâs saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.â Theologically speaking, while Dulles holds that all grace is mediated through the one, triune God, he does not insist, as Leo felt he had to do, that is it mediated exclusively through the one true church. The post conciliar church reads history and culture differently from the way the Leonine church read them.” (79-80)
See that, a Roman Catholic layman (like you) thinks you to two Roman CIP’s, one pre- and one post-Vatican II. Who am I supposed to believe? You can keep throwing your interpretation at me. But it’s a lot like a Calvinist trying to convince an Arminian.
Rahner asserted that a Catholic can affirm Scripture as an unmediated norm. Since Vatican II at least, carefully constructed Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura (in which the role of the Holy Spirit and the Church are taken seriously) are not inconsistent with what Rahner taught. The teaching role of the Roman office is obviously still a matter of profound disagreement, but (some) Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura per se are not out of line. Indeed, some Catholic ideas out there which are overly defensive of the Magisterium actually go astray of true (Vatican II) Catholic teaching.
Btw, the same is true for sola fide, if Rahner and Ratzinger are trustworthy guides. (B16: “Lutherâs expression sola fide is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love”.) Sola gratia has long been conceded, with almost no qualifications (again, read Rahner).
The arguments made on this site against Protestants are not as nuanced as they seem, and I would say they’re needlessly severe. While major differences remain between us, we should try harder to maximize areas where we can find more agreement.
Fr. Bryan and Mike, you don’t know the Protestant rule of faith. You see the Bible does have the pastoral epistles. So pastors and elders have a responsibility to shepherd the flock and interpret Scripture. I know you think that our conciliar tradition (which sort of aggravates your high papalism) won’t give you the unity that you so richly enjoy in the post-Vatican 2 world. Then again, church councils saved the papacy’s backside in the 15th century (see Oakley, The Concliarist Tradition, the author of which happens to be another Roman Catholic layman who has a different IP address than Mike.)
Nate (#549):
I’ve explained to you what the Catholic Church means by several words and concepts she uses. You have rejected that explanation in favor of your own interpretation of those words and concepts. But that doesn’t mean you’re right; it just means you’re a Protestant. Thus you prefer your own interpretation of Catholic teaching to that of the Magisterium itself. That’s exactly why many people are Protestants.
Now when I was discerning whether to be Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, I didn’t do that. That’s because I learned, as a student of philosophy and religion at secular universities, that if one wants to understand a given system of thought or belief, it’s best to understand its expressions as its adherents use and understand them. Only then can one evaluate it fairly. I suggest you adopt that attitude yourself. That may not lead you to become Catholic, but it will enable you to make a more informed decision.
Another manifestation of the attitude I’m criticizing is what you say about your own beliefs. You say you “obstinately believe anathemitized teaching,” as if you knew you met all the criteria for being, from a Catholic standpoint, culpable for not being Catholic. But given your misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, I doubt you have such knowledge. You can’t be held culpable for rejecting what you do not understand, unless you’re culpable for refusing to understand it. But neither you nor I are in a position to know whether you’re culpable for that. That’s something one can know, if at all, only in hindsight, from the standpoint of fuller truth discovered after the fact.
Another example is how you run with a theological ambiguity. You say: “I rest in Christâs merits alone and believe nothing of my merits contributes (or any such language) to that salvation.” Well, there’s a sense in which I can affirm that as Catholic. Whatever merits I may have derive solely from divine grace, by which the indwelling Spirit transforms my deeds into his own. It is in that “synergistic” way that I become what St. Peter called a “partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). That’s how both Catholicism and Orthodoxy view the relationship between grace and human action. As a certain sort of Protestant, of course, you believe that only by affirming “monergism”–i.e. that divine grace operates to sanctify us instead of and despite any of our deeds–that you can acknowledge the sovereignty of grace and be saved. Now I believe that monergism is another conceptual error: it posits yet another “either-or” that should be a “both-and.” But in my experience, firm adherence to monergism is usually explained by the fact that monergism is a key component of the Protestant traditions in which many people are raised. Perhaps that describes your case; if it does, then I doubt you can be deemed culpable from a Catholic standpoint. And as a non-Catholic, you’re certainly in no position to judge your own moral responsibility for your position in Catholic terms.
I suggest you just relax and not feel yourself condemned by the Catholic Church. You are not.
Best,
Mike
Michael,
I am curious to know how one can read the stipulations laid down in the Council of Trent if they really did not apply to anyone. If a modern day Protestant denies that works are necessary for justification, how does he not fit in the condemnation leveled by the Council of Trent?
The Gooch –
I studied Rahner a bit in Seminary (I struggled greatly to make sense of most of it. He’s a brilliant man, but it was a bit beyond my capabilities). Still, I never encountered anything he wrote inferring Sola Scriptura. Could you point me to where it is? If I have the book, I’ll check it out.
Nate (re: #549)
Welcome to CTC. Following up what Michael said, I’ve addressed this same question (or at least one very similar) recently in comments #52 and #53 of “Van Drunen on Catholic Inclusivity and Change.” And in addition I think this basic ground rule is essential for the fruitfulness of ecumenical dialogue.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
The Gooch, (re: #551)
Which arguments might those be?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dr. Hart –
Now is your chance to educate me. I’m listening (reading).
Darryl (#550):
I have demonstrated that what I present as the CIP is magisterial, and that I’m merely the reporter, not the authority. It’s a bit ironic, though, that you pose that long passage from Lacey as a counterexample to my claim. Most of it is factual reportage that I find accurate, and I doubt you’d dispute his reports yourself. What I disagree with are two points he implicitly makes that go beyond reportage into interpretation that is not magisterial. Those are points you seem disposed to agree with. Let’s examine them.
The first is this:
The quotations are accurate, but the giveaway is Lacey’s little phrase ‘on the other hand’. He’s implying that Leo’s doctrine, as expressed in his quoted statement, is incompatible with that of Unitatis Redintegratio. But it is not. (Lacey may have explicitly argued elsewhere in his book that they are mutually incompatible, but as I’ve haven’t read the book, I can’t speak to that.)
Consider this statement from Lumen Gentium §14:
Now the main difference between Leo’s statement and LG’s is the latter’s addition of the phrase ‘knowing that (or, more precisely: ‘not ignorant that’, which is a canonical term of art) the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ’. But that was no mere innovation of Vatican II. Leo’s predecessor, Pius IX, had said something logically equivalent to what UR later said when he asserted:
Given the bracketing magisterial context, then, Leo’s language should be understood with the implicit qualification that his predecessor had made explicit and the later Vatican council would also made explicit. Nor can it be argued that Pius IX himself was a mere innovator. As Tom Brown showed in the article Bryan references in #556:
There is no logical contradiction, therefore, between Leo’s ecclesiology and Vatican II’s. The Council did, to be sure, drop the old language describing the Church as a “perfect society.” There was a very good reason for that. Although there’s a technical sense in which the phrase conveys a truth–namely, that the divine constitution or “order” of the Church is exactly as God wills it to be, in terms of her hierarchy and sacraments–the phrase itself had taken on unfortunate connotations: the idea that there’s nothing in the Church that could possibly need reforming, which is absurd. So the Council dropped such language. But it did not repudiate the associated doctrine.
The other interpretive move Lacey makes that I reject is this:
While it is true, to some extent, that “the post-conciliar church reads history and culture differently from the way the Leonine church read them,” that does not mean there are two churches with incompatible theologies. Nor did the late Cardinal Dulles–whom Lacey quotes and with whose body of work I’m familiar–think it did mean that. I fully agree with what Lacey quotes Dulles as saying, which comes from an article that he published in First Things, and that I read when it was published. But it does not follow from what Dulles wrote that grace is not “mediated exclusively through the one true church.” That’s because it does not logically follow, from the affirmation that grace is exclusively mediated through the Church, that all grace is offered to and received by people exclusively through their formal membership in the Church. All that follows is that whatever grace is offered and received without formal membership in the Church is so offered and received by virtue of “His Body, which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation” (LG §48).
I see this discussion circling back to our original theme: the clash of the hermeneutic of discontinuity (HoD) with the hermeneutic of continuity (HoC). Like the dissident Catholic traditionalists, progressives such as Lacey subscribe to HoD. The difference between them is that the trads prefer the old Church from which the new Church is taken to be a radical break, whereas the progs prefer the new Church, precisely as such a radical break. Thus the “discontinuants”–to borrow a term from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus–are all about division: they pit the new Church against the old, and then divide against each other about which of the two churches is best. Yet from the standpoint of the HoC–of which most of this comment is an example–the only significant shift of theological outlook between the pre- and post-conciliar Church is that the latter dropped the presumption, characteristic of Catholic thought for centuries, that those who know about Catholicism but choose not to become Catholic are culpable for that choice. That is a significant change, to be sure. But it is not an instance of doctrinal discontinuity. It’s an organic development of doctrine driven by a shift in pastoral outlook.
Thus, in the wake of that shift and the accompanying ecumenism, the HoC fosters unity both within and outside the Catholic Church. That’s the kind of hermeneutic the previous two popes urged on Catholic thinkers. That’s why I’m confident that, when I present the CIP and use it to defend the coherence of Catholic ecclesiology before and after Vatican II, I am only doing what the Magisterium urges people like me to do–which is unlike what people such as Lacey do.
Best,
Mike
Bryan, thanks for the link on ground rules but I think you sent them to the wrong person. Apparently Michael gets away with discerning my “attidude” – but I’m simply going off logical conclusions a Protestant would make about Stellman’s “conversion”. If I’m in violation of some rules let me know which ones.
Michael,
I understand that Vatican II made some broadening statements about who falls into the brotherhood, but from where I sit there seems to be some serious flaws. I find it really odd (to put it mildly) that a church that used to anathematize, no longer does, but seems to be ever broadening the circle of who “communes”. It sounds like a toothless authority to me – what does it mean if you have the keys to “loose” but you don’t ever “loose”? Why anathematize in the first place if you aren’t going to enforce it?
As far as my “theological ambiguity” – I think you, being an intelligent person and able to deduce what a person intends, can understand what I mean by “(or any such language) ” – but let me make it plain if I wasn’t plain enough – my merits, even those wrought by the Spirit, in no way count towards my justification, but solely Christ’s own merits imputed to me. That view was anathematized by Trent – and according to Trent, if I tried to commune with your church, I would be anathematized, would I not?
Furthermore, the essence here is the gospel, and that is what I have been trying to push towards. Protestants (I hope) believe in Christ and his imputed righteousness alone. Catholics (you hope, as I understand) believe in Christ’s imparted righteousness. We believe in different modes of salvation. And the mode of salvation I believe in has been anathematized by the Catholic Church, so your conciliation for me to relax because I am not condemned by the Catholic Church, sounds quite contradictory.
Nate, (re: #560)
I think it is not a matter of “discernment” in the sense of reading between the lines and surmising something about your character. Rather, it is simply a matter of observing your approach here of presuming to know better than Catholics, what is the teaching of the Catholic Church, rather than allowing Catholics to explain and define Catholicism. (Hence my mentioning the ecumenical ground rule.) Your argument (regarding conversion and anathema) is not a sound argument, because the premises are mistaken. Your argument presupposes that the term ‘conversion’ can only mean from a non-saved state to a saved state. But the term is not limited to that meaning. It can also mean changing from one set of beliefs to another, and that’s how it is being used in this context. Your argument also presupposes that there is some inherent contradiction between the anathematization of certain doctrines at Trent, and the claim that persons holding those doctrines are “separated brethren.” But I have explained the compatibility of those two claims in the two comments at the link in comment #556 (and the two Akin links therein).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Erick (#554):
You write:
I would not go so far as to say that Trent’s anathemas don’t “apply to anyone.” I would say that they apply to people who are culpable for holding the doctrines it condemns. But with Pope John Paul II, I’d also say that we may no longer presume that anybody in particular is culpable for holding such doctrines. Hence, we may no longer say that Trent’s anathemas apply to anybody in particular. What remains condemned are the doctrines.
Best,
Mike
Nate:
Just so I can be certain I understand your position, do you believe it is necessary to hold to a certain particular conceptual knowledge of salvation in order to be saved? In other words, it is impossible for someone to believe in imparted righteousness – on your view – and be saved. Is that true?
Or, could it be possible that someone believes in imparted righteousness, when in fact (for arguments sake) the truth of the concept of salvation/justification is imputed righteousness? While they trust in Christ, their concept is wrong, but they can still be saved (by imputed righteousness, nonetheless).
I think your answer to these questions will help me understand your position.
Mike (#548)
But what if a spouse commits adultery and serves divorce papers? Marriage is binding because of vows before God and fidelity to those vows. When a spouse breaks those vows the contract is no longer binding (through adultery or severe neglect/abuse) and a spouse can divorce and therefore you are no longer in communion. Your example breaks down (as does Michael’s)’ because if a party violates the terms of the contract then they are no longer in fellowship.
Certainly there are degrees of fellowship within a marriage but there are actions that actually sever that relationship.
The essence of the disagreement has to do with how one enters into that contract (covenant) in both marriage and the church. If you place your faith in the wrong object (faith: the mode by which you enter into that contract) then you can’t be said to be part of a communion.
Fr. Bryan O. (re: 558),
While you wait, you can check out chapter 6 of Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology (which I will make a point of reading, myself, in light of your question, and the discussion you are having with DG Hart).
https://www.audiowebman.org/start/books/charles_hidge/intro/intro_06.htm
Regards,
AB
Brent, (#564)
Yes, it is impossible.
What one actually believes and what they may profess to believe may be in contradiction, but since I cannot know a man’s thoughts only insofar as they express them, then all I have to operate is their confession (and deeds, to some extent). In addition, ignorance is one thing, but defiance is another. Just as we believe people to be saved when they profess faith in Christ, so we believe them to be not saved when they deny or profess an anathametized gospel. A man may or may not be actually saved, but how can I know – I am not God, I can only go off what they profess. And if a man actively denies (and persists) I must judge and treat such a man as not saved (even though he may actually be).
Paul states “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:9), and this is only of a person preaching such a gospel – how much more pernicious would it be to believe this false gospel?
Scripture (as far as I know) does not distinguish between a profession of faith and whether or not such a person is saved or not: “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Rom 10:9).
Nate,
Right, and I see nothing in there about imputed righteousness.
Can you show me a Scripture where it says you must believe in imputed righteousness, as opposed to imparted righteousness, in order to be saved? I could not gather as much from Romans 10:9. Thanks!
Nate (#565):
It’s interesting that you cite marriage as an analogy to that of “communion” with the Church. This is yet another case in which you’re looking at Catholic teaching through Protestant lenses. As I often say, what we have here is a clash of interpretive paradigms. And that’s OK. What’s not OK is that you’re also judging the Catholic IP in terms of the Protestant. That begs the question.
Specifically, you speak of marriage as a “contract” which, like any legal contract, no longer binds if one party breaks the promises that each made to form the contract. That’s how most Protestants think and speak of marriage. But that is not how the Catholic Church does. She conceives of marriage as a “covenant” like that between God and his people–between both the Old Israel and the New, the Church. Both are the Bride of which God the Son is the Bridegroom. Their union constitutes his Body, and is indissoluble. Likewise, once validly made, the marriage covenant is indissoluble–even if one party commits grave sin against the other, and thus against the covenant. The Church sees such a covenant as a “sacrament” or “mystery,” inasmuch as St. Paul said: “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5: 32). Just as the bond between Christ and his Church is indissoluble, so is that between husband and wife in marriage. And that bond is a “communion” in the Lord because, in establishing their marriage covenant, the spouses give themselves to each other completely, just as God and his people do.
Given as much, the appropriate analogy to our “communion” with the Church is not legal but sacramental. When we are baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, we are joined indissolubly to Christ and thus become members of his Body, the Church. Even if we sin against that bond through heresy, schism, idolatry, or other grave sins, the bond remains–though imperfectly. That is how the Catholic Church sees the relationship of non-Catholic Christians to her. Although, for various reasons and in varying degrees, their communion is imperfect–like that of marriages that go sour–they belong to Christ and thus to her, his Body, indissolubly. They are “in” the Church to a degree even if they don’t want to be, like a wife who separates from her husband and divorces him. Much as she may want to, she cannot validly remarry because her marriage bond with her husband is indissoluble. That is why the Catholic Church disapproves of divorce-and-remarriage. Divorced people who remarry are, objectively, committing adultery whether they see it that way or not–unless it can be demonstrated that their marriage had not been validly entered into to begin with.
I know by experience as well as study that the Catholic way of looking at spiritual realities is in many respects quite alien to Protestants. So before you start judging the Catholic way in terms of the Protestant, you need to understand it in its own terms. Otherwise you’re just assuming that the Protestant way is normative–which begs the question against me, a Catholic. Begging the question is not only a logical fallacy; it’s a very frustrating method to be faced with.
Best,
Mike
Fr. Bryan,
Reformed Protestants read Acts 15, I Tim., 2 Tim., and other biblical texts and prescribing how church officers are to minister God’s word. I know its not exactly a full blown argument here but a comm box is not the place to do it. One of the richer biblical theologies of Presbyterianism is Stuart Robinson’s The Church of God: An Essential Element of the Gospel. https://store.opc.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=Church-of-God
Darryl (#552):
You wrote:
That’s because I’ve never been able to discover anything with positive content that can fairly be described as anything more than “a” Protestant rule of faith. Protestantism ranges from the most freewheeling pentecostal churches to (mostly) liberal mainline denominations to evangelical “non-denoms” to conservative-confessional (which is roughly where you seem to be) denominations to low-church, broad-church, and high-church Anglicanism. You should have no trouble understanding my problem. It’s not unlike the problem you ascribe to Catholicism, and criticize me for not taking seriously enough!
Best,
Mike
The only thing I can discern as “the” Protestant rule
Michael,
I actually meant that for Fr. Bryan. He’s the one that brought up the metaphor not me. I’m not trying to show that our relationship to the church is like a marriage, just trying to show Bryan his metaphor breaks down.
I would disagree that marriage is not indissoluble. Both Jesus and Paul cite reasons to divorce. But that’s immaterial to the post at hand.
I don’t understand the question-begging. Your ecclesial documents say that Sola Fide is anathema yet also I’m a separated brother. I read your posts and links but still think its contradictory. Your links help me to understand your views but I still disagree.
Brent, (#568)
https://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XI_fn.html#fn0
Dr. Hart –
I understand the protestant rule of faith (Sola Scriptura) as it is defined and explained in this article from Neal Judisch and Bryan Cross. They are using the definition given by Dr. Keith Mathison, who attempts to show that there is a difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. Judisch and Cross demonstrate that there isn’t really a difference between the two.
So I’m aware that Reformed Christians such as yourself do see the Church as an essential part of the Gospel and Scripture interpretation and that you recognize some Church councils binding and some confessions binding. But as Cross and Judisch explain, it really isn’t as different as you might think. This article, again, is the most important article on CTC and in order to make any real progress here, you will have to demonstrate that there is in fact a principled difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura AND you will have to convince me why the Westminster Confessions are more binding to my conscience than the Confessions of other denominations.
Getting back to the point here, my purpose is this. I am asserting that the more people you convince that Sola Scriptura is true, the more division we will inevitably have within the body of Christ. On the other hand, the more people I convince that the Catholic Rule of faith is true the more unity we will have in the body of Christ. This, of course, does not mean that the Catholic Church is true. It is just to make it clear that Sola Scriptura does not work as a means of maintaining unity in the Church.
If you respond to this post, you will have the last word and I’ll read your response. I’m heading out for a couple much needed days of prayer and reflection and won’t be taking up this conversation again, at least not for a while.
Blessings.
AB –
Thanks for the link. As I said in my previous comment, I’m heading out of town for a couple days for a bit of prayer so I’m bowing out of this one. Thanks for the brief interaction.
[…] a recent comment in this thread at Called to Communion, Ray Stamper provided what I think is a helpful distinction with respect to […]
Nate:
Since you sent me a link to a catechism, I guess you are referring to Chapter XI, the second footnote. Again, I see nothing in that footnote that proves your point or answers my question. Even if I were to interpret the pertinent Scriptural texts as you do, that would only lead me to an understanding of how Chris saves us. That would not, even for a moment, give me any more understanding about who was saved – especially those who have faith in Christ but simply believe that His righteousness is something infused.
Further, I cannot recollect seeing a Scripture that says, “Depart from me you believers in infusion, I never knew you.” I remember that passage being about works.
I refer you to two articles:
1. A Study on Imputation of Righteousness
2. Imputation and Paradigms…
If you wish to dialog about your position, I would be happy to. If not, we can leave it at this.
Peace
Fr. Bryan O., you are welcome, and since I follow the happenings here at CTC and a few other blogs like DG Hart’s, I’m sure I’ll see you around. As for me, my work week starts Monday, so I typically only get “fired up” around Friday afternoon or so. Otherwise, I’m a lurker for that Mon-Fri grind. Have a good few days of prayer, and until next time, AB
Fr. Bryan, you think the consequences of sola scriptura is dangerous. I think your estimation of unity is equally dangerous. It is possible that you can maintain unity — though I don’t think the papacy has done that, think Avignon — and lose the truth. Just think about the universalism of Roman Catholic teaching since Vatican 2 on salvation outside the church.
Mike, I’m well aware of the problems within Protestantism. Much of my energy here has been trying to get you and others to see the problems within Roman Catholicism. That would truly be fair play. And it would take away the dominant conversion narrative here and elsewhere that when landing in Rome it’s going to be a safe, clean, and unified environment.
Just admit we all have our problems and we’re all trying to do what we can in our Christian platoons. But that is not the m o here are at CCC. It is come to communion with Rome and Protestantism’s problems go away.
The problems only get bigger. https://oldlife.org/2013/08/a-blustering-bigot-who-cant-string-together-a-cogent-argument-if-his-life-depended-on-it/
Brent,
1) Romans 10:9 isn’t seeking to establish the detailed content that one must believe (or come to believe) in order to be saved. To assume that is niave – Paul just spent 8 chapters explaining what the gospel is. Like I said, ignorance is one thing, difiance is another. One may simply believe Jesus died for their sin, but as they “grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ” they certainly would not deny an imputed righteous.
2) If you’re trying to lure me into a discussion about imputation -vs- impartaion, thanks but no thanks. There are hundreds of books that deal with this topic. And simply dismissing imputation because “you see nothing that proves [my] point or answers [your] questions” is hand waving. I can say the same about Impartation. Imputation is not simply built on proof-texting, but on the framework of the sacrificial system, the nature of God, and demands of justice, hence why I’m not going to spend the time unpacking it here in a comm box.
Darryl,
You wrote:
The “dominant conversion narrative” here is that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ founded. This is a truth claim, and as such it is either true or false. Of course, this presupposes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, and that he founded one universal Church. You can find plenty of people who reject both claims. But as Protestants, we accepted both claims, and it is from there, as Protestant Christians, that we severally began to ask about the nature and identity of the universal Church.
Your critique misses the point in a fundamental way. We are not arguing that the Catholic Church is superior to or has fewer problems than any single Protestant denomination or autocephalous Orthodox or Oriental church, in the sense of comparing apples to apples and choosing a better apple. For that matter, we are not arguing that Jesus Christ is a superior Savior among other saviors. We are arguing that just as there is only one Savior of the world, and this Savior is Jesus, there is only one universal Church that Jesus founded, and this Church is the Catholic Church.
You wrote:
In order for this advice to apply, we would first have to agree that the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church) is just one among many “Christian platoons”, rather than the one universal Church that Christ founded. As it stands, your advice amounts to an invitation for us to become Protestants. And if in fact both the Catholic and Orthodox claims to be the one universal Church that Christ founded are false, that is exactly what we should do, or else abandon the Faith altogether. But you cannot expect us to “just admit” that one or the other (or both) of those claims is false, any more than we expect you to just admit that one or the other is true.
This brings me to your criticisms regarding our lack of attention to the problems in the Catholic Church. Certainly there are serious problems in Church. The past half century has been, in some obvious ways, one of the dark periods in Church history, though during this time there have also been some healthy developments and changes for the better. But how one assesses the problems, and how one responds to them, will be, or at least should be, determined by more fundamental considerations about the nature and identity of the Church. For this reason, it has seemed good to us to address ecclesiological principles before moving on to ecclesial problems.
Of course, in the ensuing discussion, going back to the very beginning, the problems have often been adduced as undermining the principles, at least with respect to the claim the Catholic Church is the one, visible, universal Church founded by Christ. As anyone can see from looking at our working outline, we have long intended, in this connection, to address the changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council as well as the unofficial “spirit of Vatican II” that has informed the minds of many Catholics who in various ways have used the Council as a pretext to advocate the very modernism that had been condemned in the century prior to the Council (cf. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).
So the concerns that you are raising have indeed been anticipated. In many cases they have already been raised and discussed here, and we look forward to discussing them further. In the meantime, please bear in mind that we are not claiming that Catholicism is better than Protestantism in the way that one apple is better than another. Our claim is both more and less offensive than that:
Darryl (#580):
I entirely agree with that post of Jason’s you criticize in the post of yours you’ve linked me to. It would have been better, of course, if he hadn’t let himself goad hominem in the combox; that just gave you and your friends an opportunity to seize on it and respond in kind. I understand Jason’s frustration very well, but I’m not interested in the ad hominem game, which anybody can generate more heat than light by playing. What interests me is refuting the substance of your argument. I have repeatedly done that. But you have not rebutted my responses; you just keep restating your core argument in different ways. That core is a version of the epistemic tu quoque we so often hear from Protestants.
And it’s not hard to sum up. It goes roughly like this:
(1) CTC claims that Catholicism has, while Protestantism lacks, a divinely established and thus normative principle of doctrinal and ecclesial unity, and that CTC is simply espousing that principle.
(2) Now if there were such a principle, then there would be much more doctrinal unity among Catholics than among Protestants, even allowing that there’s more ecclesial unity among Catholics than among Protestants.
(3) But clearly, there is as little doctrinal unity among Catholics as among Protestants–or at least, not enough doctrinal unity among Catholics to establish evidence of a significant and principled difference.
(4) Therefore, the claim that the Catholic Church has a divinely established and thus normative principle of doctrinal unity is undermined by generally known facts, even if said church maintains the appearance of ecclesial unity. [From 2, 3]
(5) People who won’t acknowledge that what they espouse is undermined by generally known facts are intellectually dishonest.
(6) Therefore, CTC is intellectually dishonest. [From 1, 4]
I think that’s a fair summary of your argument. If you don’t think it is, then feel free to supply a more accurate version within the above logical framework, and I’ll work with that.
In the meantime, I point out that the argument is unsound. For even though it’s logically valid, premises (2) and (3) are each false.
(2) is false because it does not follow, from the fact that a large group of people X has a normative principle P for establishing Y, that most members of X know P and observe it, so that Y is established within X. All that follows is that those who do know and observe Y aren’t getting some of those who don’t know and observe Y to do so. A principle P for establishing unity can be a valid and discernible norm prescribing what people in the group should do, without P’s also being an empirical norm describing what most of them in fact do. Hence, from the fact that many Catholics don’t know or don’t observe the CIP, it doesn’t follow that the CIP is not the sort of principle CTC claims it is, or that CTC is going too far in claiming it is. All that follows is that a lot of people get away with carrying on as though it were not. (2) would be true only if authority automatically translated into power–which it does not.
(3) is accordingly false. The most salient epistemological difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that, by virtue of the CIP, Catholicism as such has a unitary set of norms for distinguishing between expressions of divine revelation and human opinions, while Protestantism as such lacks such a set. Thus Protestants disagree not only about which doctrines are true, but also about how such differences can be resolved. For since everybody is deemed fallible all the time, nobody claims they can’t be wrong, and thus everything remains a matter of opinion. And opinions are provisional, not irreformable. So even if there were as little doctrinal unity among Catholics as among Protestants–or as little difference as would make no difference–it does not follow that Catholicism lacks the sort of norm in question, as Protestantism does. All that follows is that many Catholics carry on like Protestants–which is exactly what the dissident traditionalists and progressives do.
What you need to do is actually defend (2) and (3) with arguments–or at least propose your own, suitably reformulated versions of them–instead of just marching on the spot as if you could get away with assuming (2) and (3) are true. If you did that, progress might be possible. Until you do, this discussion isn’t going anywhere.
Best,
Mike
Michael (re: #583)
The objection summarized in your premise (3) is precisely the objection my post “The “Catholics Are Divided Too” Objection” addresses, and what you then say regarding (3) is also explicated in some detail in that post.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thanks for pointing that out, Bryan. I hope that some readers will follow up.
Best,
Mike
Re: #580. Michael, if person A were describing a politician named Hitler a) as a phenomenal orator, b) as a charismatic leader, c) as a guy who revived his nationâs economy, and d) instilled a sense of national pride amongst the citizenry, person A may be unassailably accurate, wouldnât you agree? The problem, however, is this: people who only heard person Aâs version of Hitlerâs biography would come away with a very distorted view of him. Agree?
Your articulation of the CIP is solid and clear. The CIP may be the most logically reasoned and flawless IP known in the annals of religious hermeneutics.
Nonetheless, it seems that Dr. Hart is serving a very valuable purpose in the dialogue here by raising very relevant and important historical considerations, lest CTC readership gain a distorted understanding of what powers the CIP really has (or not) to effectuate doctrinal consistency or foster practical spiritual fervor amongst its adherents. Great theories do not always work out great in practice. It sounds like CTC, whilst firmly holding to the ultimate validity of its CIP, may be preparing to admit that its CIP hasnât worked out so well in history to date? If so, thatâd be a great step forward in the dialogue.
Sorry, my last submission should have referenced Michael’s #583, not #580.
Fr. Bryan O. (Re: #515),
Thanks for the reply.
It seems you argued that Catholicism is fundamentally immune to the disunity problem of Protestantism because (A) it has an infallible, living magisterium that can dogmatically define doctrine and (B) the living magisterium is able to clarify and refine its answers to certain questions that arise over the time. Clear enough. It follows from (A) and (B) that Catholics may have doctrinal unity in all areas explained by (A) and (B). However, it seems that if Catholics are consistent in their critique of the Protestant paradigm, they may only have doctrinal unity in areas explained by (A) and (B). So, there can be no unity in Catholicism as to the answers of the following questions (only a random sample):
(1) Are the Scriptures materially sufficient?
(2) Could a Christian prior to Trent have infallible knowledge as to the contents of the canon of Scripture?
(3) How many Esdra’s are inspired?
(4) Is John 7:53-8:11 Scripture? Is 1 John 5:7 Scripture?
(5) Does God elect individuals independently of His foreknowledge? Does God have middle knowledge?
(6) Are the documents of Vatican II free from all error? [John Salza says yes here: https://scripturecatholic.com/evolution.html%5D
(7) Does Vatican I anathematize the belief that man’s body evolved from lower forms?
(8) When is it morally acceptable to give criminals the death penalty?
(9) Do babies who die in infancy go to Heaven? Does Limbo exist?
(10) Is Mary Co-Redemptrix?
(11) Is the Anselm-Aquinas satisfaction theory of the atonement correct?
Perhaps you will respond as you did before:
I agree that the church could do many things, but they could also pass over many of these questions (and others), leaving Catholics in disunity on these issues. Moreover, if only infallible clarifications are in principle able to provide unity, then there has not been as much clarification on a wide variety of issues as Catholics might hope.
You said:
First, sin is the primary reason for disunity among Christians who are ready and willing to follow the Lord (cf. James 4:1). For example, a Christian might experience prideful arrogance in being able to defend a specific doctrine, and thus, even if he discovers clear, compelling, beyond-reasonable-doubt, exegetical and historical evidence against it, he simply cannot relinquish belief in it. Second, determining whether or not Sola Scriptura works will depend on one’s more fundamental beliefs. A Reformed Christian may believe that Sola Scriptura works in that it allows the Spirit of God to work in His people who are saved by virtue of their union with Christ. His people do not need a an external, infallible authority in order to believe on Jesus Christ; His sheep hear His voice. Surely a Catholic would not deny that the all-powerful Trinity could draw the Christian church on a Sola Scriptura paradigm if that was how the Triune God wanted to operate. Perhaps that Lord has a glorious purpose in allowing denominational disunity among genuine Protestant believers.
In summary, you are correct to assert that Catholics have significant doctrinal unity, especially on those doctrines that have been infallibly clarified. Nonetheless, Catholics are not united on many issues (see the random sample above). You have voiced the opinion that denominational disunity is a huge, huge problem. I agree that sin is a huge problem, which in turns causes such disunity, but I would not agree that such disunity demonstrates that Sola Scriptura is unworkable. A Reformed Christian can believe that Christ draws His people to Himself on a Sola Scriptura paradigm, even if those people do not have perfect doctrinal unity while on earth.
Peace,
John D.
**I made an error in post #586**
Sorry. In the link I posted, John Salza says yes to question (7) not question (6), though He may say yes to both but the link is only relevant to (7).
Sorry again,
John D.
Mike (Re: #516),
Thanks for the reply.
You said:
My understanding is that the “principled means” in Protestantism is exegesis and the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who are being saved. You might reply that is not a proper “principled means” because it reduces everything to opinion. Reformed Christians would not agree with you here in that they would assert that the essentials of salvation are clearly set down in Scripture (cf. WCF I:VII). That which the Lord has spoken is not a matter of opinion. There are things in Scripture that are not plainly propounded, but that does not mean all Scripture is incomprehensible in and of itself.
Reformed Christians interpret Scripture; Catholics interpret magisterial documents and Scripture. Catholics trust the (sometimes infallible) correction mechanisms of newer magisterial documents that can shed light on older ones as well as exegesis of Scripture and the Fathers. Reformed Christians trust the correction mechanisms of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit and exegetical debate. It would seem difficult to nail down which “principled means” is better apart from a discussion concerning God’s purposes in this world.
Peace,
John D.
Nate:
I only brought up Romans 10:9, because in your previous comment, you said:
I was just trying to understand what your Scripture was proving in relationship to my question about imputation. I think I get it. One may not understand imputation, but if they are *really* saved, then they will never deny it – because only *really* saved people believe in it.
First, I don’t want to lure you into anything. I’m glad to know you don’t want to talk about imputation vs. infusion – and rehash all them books. Second, I’m sure the phrase “there are hundreds of books…” can end a lot of conversations that go on profitably, but I understand. Time is finite. I hope my above summary of your position regarding the relationship between believing in imputation and salvation makes sense. It is what I call “not so certain certainty” or salvation by gnosis. At least, that is my impression. If you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, but later believe that Scripture does not teach imputation, but rather an infusion of Christ’s righteousness, then you never came to faith in Christ. Summer camp never happened. Tolle lege never happened. Confusing. Again, my impression, but it would have been nice if Jesus would have said something like, “unless you believe in an alien righteousness, you are not really saved.” You know, kind of like, “unless you eat my flesh…”
;-)
Peace to you on your journey,
Brent
Brent,
What you said: “If you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, but later believe that Scripture does not teach imputation, but rather an infusion of Christâs righteousness, then you never came to faith in Christ. Summer camp never happened. Tolle lege never happened. Confusing. Again, my impression, but it would have been nice if Jesus would have said something like, âunless you believe in an alien righteousness, you are not really saved.â You know, kind of like, âunless you eat my fleshâŚâ
I thought that question out myself while I was wrestling about the question of the church. I came to faith in Jesus while I was outside of organized Religion. The bearer of the gospel was a young Southern Baptist seminarian who intoduced me to Christ in a parking lot, telling me that Jesus died for me personally, and I had a true conversion. I wasn’t informed about how it was that I was” really saved “until later on when I entered the Reformed camp. So apparantly the understanding of imputation was not requisite the state of my being actually saved.
To accept sola fide as understood by the Reformers was to concede they were the only ones who got it right, and that did damage to divine protection of the church and the doctrines the church was charged to keep. I wondered what happens to all the Roman Catholics who had never , ever been formally taught imputation? The church either never understood the central message or did, but failed to keep it safe for very long which means they were catechizing very poorly;or they did understand it but traded it for a mess of pottage anyways; or it never existed as the Reformers articulate it. To believed that the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, lost the true gospel at some unknown time in its history is probably the great conspiracy theory ever.
Really enjoy your imput.
Susan
Brent,
I wouldn’t argue that one must confess “I believe in imputation!” Since belief (or at least the articulation of it) can at times be a messy thing, as I think you are alluding. But, the belief of a person who rests in Christ for salvation, their “concept” (whatever this means), will not be in contradiction to imputation.
You set up an artificial distinction between what someone believes and the “concept” of what someone believes. Its like you asked “what if someone believes in imputation, but really believes in infusion?” That’s why I quoted Romans 10:9 – scripture doesn’t make the kind of distinction you’re trying to make.
@JohnD:
I think you’re missing the point.
If we’re being sheerly fideistic, then we might believe that God has a purpose in everything. We might believe it permissible that God can be the author of evil because He has some hidden purpose in being evil, for example. But we are surely impious to assume that God is behaving irrationally or arbitrarily; we reasonably presume that He does things for a discernible purpose unless there is some natural limitation on our ability to understand it (e.g., the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, God’s omniscience or omnipotence), because we would otherwise be accusing God. Hence, while it is logically possible that God could have intended to make revelation into a mere opinion, which is believed or not by sheer fideism, it is not really possible. This is an excellent distillation of why we object to the Protestant paradigm, however; there is no good reason to think that God did or would do so.
Therefore, the following statements strike me as completely fideistic:
I have no reason to believe any of those things are true. Moreover, because your theory appeals to the Spirit of God working in His people who are saved, you’ve rendered yourself vulnerable to a critique based on doctrinal disunity to which Catholicism is not vulnerable. In other words, I can not only deny that any of these assertions are true but also point to evidence that they are not. The problem is not sin, but a paradigm that makes disagreement unavoidable on any doctrine.
What you mean by “perfect doctrinal unity,” I would simply call truth. In other words, it isn’t a question of lacking perfect doctrinal unity in a collection of beliefs, but by definition lacking perfect doctrinal unity with respect to any belief, because your paradigm allows no way to avoid that. Every belief about God is only conditionally true if no dogma is “perfect” in the sense of being true and irreformable.
In short, you have basically confirmed every objection that Catholics have to your theory and likewise demonstrated why it is not a theory anyone should endorse.
John D.
This is not true, expressed as such. We have, here and elsewhere, discussed this tu quoque objection. There are first order “interpretations”, and then there are second order “interpretations.” A first order interpretation would be where one determines the meaning of “x”. A second order interpretation would be how everyone comes to an understanding of “x”. Second order is where you must use your noggin. You cannot escape second order interpretation. I could just as easily say:
“You interpret the interpretations of the interpretations of the interpretations. And then you interpret those, which leads to an interpretation, which then leads you back to an interpretation, followed by two more interpretations.”
That’s what I read when I read the tu quoque objection. I hear no acknowledgement in the fundamental difference. Protestant interpretation is not second order, but rather first order on issues like: communion, baptism, and justification. Your list of things Catholics may not be able to know (#588) completely misses the point. The point of the Church is not to satiate our desire to know everything. That was Satan’s temptation in the garden. The point of the Church is to authoritatively teach, like Christ, what we need to know. Christ did not clear up a lot of things while He was here, that does not mean he somehow taught imperfectly. Does it? Of course it does not. However, he did not leave us a book to do that either. He left us His Church (which gave us an amazing, inerrant and inspired text, I might add!). So, I would like to see somewhere you acknowledge the different senses of the word interpretation. The CIP focuses on first order, understanding a Magisterial statement is second order. The WCF is first order. Understanding the WCF is second order.
John (#590):
You write:
What you offer as your “principled means” is the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture as understood by the Reformed, as if perspicuity so understood were the only alternative to Scripture’s being per se “incomprehensible.” But that’s a false dichotomy. And in any case it doesn’t really address the argument I made in #516.
It’s a false dichotomy not just because nobody says that Scripture is per se “incomprehensible,” but also and primarily because saying so is not the only alternative to saying that Scripture is perspicuous. Any text is comprehensible at least to a degree, because texts are written in public, human languages that are thus intelligible to many, and the human authors’ specific words are addressed to a readership that has at least some idea of what they mean. Some texts, such as a math textbook, are indeed completely perspicuous per se, in that the axioms, formulas, proofs, problems, and answers can be fully understood by anybody who understands how the words and symbols are being used. But Scripture is not like that. It is a collection of texts of various literary genres written over a nearly-1,000-year period by people in different historical circumstances. Even at a purely human level, such a collection is not completely perspicuous. Although its contents are comprehensible to a large extent by people fully familiar with its original languages and historical contexts, few people have ever had that familiarity, and even they would not have said their understanding is complete. So it’s not as though Scripture is either fully perspicuous in se or incomprehensible per se. Its meaning is comprehensible in degrees that vary with the historical distance, scholarly knowledge, and literary sensitivity of the readers. And most of the audience to which it’s addressed–namely, the human race–is not in particularly good position by those criteria.
That’s just the human level. Then there’s the belief that God is actually the principal author of Scripture, who moves the secondary human authors by a means we call “inspiration.” But there’s no reason to believe that God intends, by any particular book or passage, only what the human author did–even assuming that we fully understand what the human author intended, which often we do not. What Jesus and, under his tutelage, the Apostles claimed God meant by “the Scriptures” was in some respects similar to, but in others different from, what most Jewish scholars of their time thought it meant. That sort of disagreement cannot be resolved by scholarship and logic. Any attempt to do so would leave things at the level of debatable opinion only. The only principled way to resolve the disagreement, which persists to this day, was and is to appeal to the personal authority of Jesus as divine. Similarly, if there’s going to be a principled way to resolve any of the manifold interpretive disagreements among Christians that persist and widen after centuries of scholarship and debate–yes, even on matters some deem “essential”–that will have to involve appeal to some personal authority embodying that of Jesus as divine. Otherwise we’re left with a cacophony of more-or-less plausible opinions that is irresolvable even in principle.
Of course, you think you’ve got that appeal ready-to-hand: “That which the Lord has spoken is not a matter of opinion.” As a Catholic, I affirm that too. But we disagree about how to recognize “that which the Lord has spoken” precisely as such. You don’t seem to appreciate the fact that, if all of us are fallible all the time, then the affirmation that Scripture inerrantly conveys “that which the Lord has spoken”–or even that Jesus is Lord, in that he has divine authority–might be wrong. We don’t even agree entirely about the content or determination of the biblical canon. So without some form of ecclesial and/or individual infallibility, all those matters remain ones of opinion; for we can’t plausibly claim that either the contours and inerrancy of the biblical canon are items of purely human factual knowledge that can be acquired by fallible human reason alone, like what one finds in a math or physics textbook. The contours and inerrancy of the canon are articles of faith, which are neither mere opinion nor human knowledge. As expressions of divine revelation, articles of faith can only be proposed and accepted on divine authority. But if all of us are fallible all the time, then such beliefs are not being held and taught on divine authority. There are simply human opinions–ones that it might be more-or-less reasonable to hold, but which cannot command the assent of faith.
You write:
That’s another version of the epistemic tu quoque, and I applaud you for its fair-mindedness. But it too fails. You posit the “inward testimony of the Holy Spirit” as well as “exegetical debate” as necessary for resolving interpretive disagreements. Now all Christian parties engage in exegetical debate, and disagree with each other; if there were no disagreement, there would be no debate. That only shifts the burden of your argument to the question who’s interpreting by the inward testimony of the Spirit. But when the question is what God means by this-or-that passage of Scripture, all the debating parties who claim to have an answer appeal to the testimony of the Spirit for their view. Yet they still disagree. So already we know that most of them are wrong. And without some person or group’s being infallible at least some of the time, everybody’s claim to such testimony might be wrong.
Given as much, you still haven’t answered the argument I made in #516, which I’ve just restated. You have not offered a principled means, of the sort needed, for distinguishing between authentic expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinions.
Best,
Mike
Corn-Czar (#586):
You write:
Dr. Hart’s core argument, which I summarized and criticized in #583, is unsound. He needs a further argument to secure the premises of his that I argued are false, but I don’t think he can successfully make such subsidiary arguments in their defense. And your above-quoted paragraph, I believe, makes the same mistake he does.
It tacitly assumes that, unless the authority posited by the CIP is manifest through the power to impose itself on most of those who should accept it–i.e., Catholics–then its claim to authority is not credible, or at least not as credible as my argument for it would suggest. That assumption is generally correct when context is political philosophy and the topic is secular government, but not when the context is revealed theology and the topic is church order. If it were correct in theology, then the only credible IP would be the one most people actually abide by; but it cannot be said, of any theological IP, that it’s the one most people abide by de facto, even when they are nominally required to de jure. So comparing IPs, to determine which is the most credible, cannot and should not be a matter of sociology, by which we’d tote up who buys which IP. It’s a matter of how well-suited a given IP is for achieving the distinctive purpose of theological IPs. And you have acknowledged that the CIP might do the best job of that.
Best,
Mike
Brent (re #395),
You wrote:
This is not true, expressed as such. We have, here and elsewhere, discussed this tu quoque objection. There are first order âinterpretationsâ, and then there are second order âinterpretations.â A first order interpretation would be where one determines the meaning of âxâ. A second order interpretation would be how everyone comes to an understanding of âxâ. Second order is where you must use your noggin. You cannot escape second order interpretation.
Response:
Whenever some part of scripture is axiomatic or functions as a definition, then first order interpretation is satisfied. This places the protestant, catholic magisterium and an individual catholic in the second order. I admit this does not apply to every part scripture.
Thanks,
Eric
Brent (re: #595),
Thanks for the reply. I do not intend to avoid acknowledging the obvious. I readily admit that the RC Church claims to have much more infallible stuff than Reformed Christians claim to have. I readily admit that the RC Church has in principle a way of providing infallible interpretations that the Reformed folk do not have.
1. Please explain your first order interpretation and second order interpretation distinction, and particularly, why only second order necessitates the “use of the noggin”. Also, if only infallible interpretation counts as useful second order interpretation, then RC’s don’t have nearly as much of that as they may believe.
2. You said:
Clear enough, but in the WCF I:VII it states that what we need to know is clearly propounded in Scripture so that the people of God may come to an understanding of it. Moreover, check out question (7) in my list in post (#588), isn’t that something RC’s need to know?
Peace,
John D.
Mike (re: #596),
Thanks for the lengthy reply. Although I wish you were a little more concise, I must humbly admit that you are a good writer.
You said:
I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence is lacking the idea of the Spirit of God working in those who have faith. Regarding the third sentence, I would only reply with WCF I:VII and maintain that certain things are clearly understandable to all men, but will only be professed by those who are being saved.
Also, you said:
I certainly am humbled by such a thought. But, that is what faith is all about. That is why the Reformed affirm that the Spirit of God must testify in the heart of believers so that they might recognize the Truth. His sheep hear His voice (cf. John 10).
You further state:
Tu quoque. See questions (3) and (4) in post #588 which relate to canon issues about which Catholics disagree. [Semi-related: Is there a clear, infallible teaching on biblical inerrancy on the RC view? Don’t RC’s differ on whether the Gospels (and other books) may contain historical errors?]
You continue:
Here you underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to work in fallible human beings. God not only commands the assent of faith, He efficiently causes it in whom He has chosen from the foundations of the world (Thomistic Catholics agree?).
You conclude:
Would you grant that exegesis is a principled means that works in some cases? Moreover, the question presupposes that divine revelation cannot be clearly understood through faithful men that interpret the Scriptures and the work of the Spirit of God. Are the uninspired words of the magisterium that much clearer than the inspired Word of God?
Peace,
John D.
Eric:
I think your point holds, except I would add two more distinctions:
1. Except for when a clear passage of Scripture is adduced or made to imply something not directly stated in the text.
2. Your fact cannot establish what counts for Scripture and what does not.
This does not take into account the role of Sacred Tradition, making it incomplete.
John D:
In first order distinctions, the noggin is used, just not my noggin. In the case of the WCF, for example, noggins were used, but not your noggin or mine. The WCF acts Magisterially without being Magisterial, a kind of pelegian text – all work and no grace. Second order interpretations are not what we need, we need first order interpretations. Second order interpretations are for guys like you and me to do. In our case, as you point out, the RC can infallibly declare doctrine “x” as such (first order interpretation), and therefore it is our job to understand (second order) that irreformable doctrine. When you and I do first order interpretations, we get stuff like the WCF – interesting theological opinions. When we try to understand our own stuff, we get denominationalism.
I’m glad that WCF “clearly states.” Think about it, it is doing a first order interpretation because Scripture does not just come right out and say what the WCF claims it teaches. However, WCF is just a theological opinion. Regarding question 7, I recommend you read the section of the Catechism on man. Even if God created us through some evolutionary process, it must be the case that when we evolved as we are now, we were uniquely given His image and likeness. We are the only creatures that can “know and love his Creator.” As Humani Generis states:
Brent (re: #602),
Are either of those sources infallible? If not, how can you in principle determine if RC’s openly affirming evolution are under Vatican I’s anathema?
Peace,
John D.
John D:
Can you maybe point to me where you believe the Church anathematized evolution?
Brent,
Forgot to thank you for clearing up the first order and second order interpretation distinction. I think I have a better handle on it. So, in essence, one reason you would argue the Catholic view is superior is because it can supply more infallible first order interpretations?
I am not committing myself to the view that the RC Church anathematized evolution. I am pointing out that there are conservative RC’s who hold to that view. They base such a view mainly on the following two infallible declarations:
Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 1: “…The Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal, the one principle of the universe, Creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal, who from the beginning of time and by His omnipotent power made from nothing creatures both spiritual and corporeal, angelic, namely, and mundane, and then human, as it were, common, composed of spirit and body…”
First Vatican Council, Canon 1.5: âIf anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing…let him be anathema.â
Also, the non-ecumenical Council of Cologne in 1860 states more directly: Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.
Peace,
John D.
John D (#600):
I had written:
To that, you reply:
That largely misses my point. As I said in the very next sentence after the paragraph to which you reply: “That’s just the human level.” Thus, up till then I had been speaking of the Bible only as literature. That point is important because, whether or not the reader believes the Bible to be the Word of God, we can safely say that the Bible is comprehensible to varying degrees, but not wholly perspicuous in itself. You do not contest that point. Instead, your reply assumes that the Bible is the Word of God and its message, precisely as the Word of God, can only be “professed by those who are being saved.” But that reply does not contradict my point; in fact, it illustrates my point. It is possible for some to reach, on purely literary grounds, what happens to be a correct understanding of this-or-that theme in the Bible; but in order to see and affirm that as the Word of God, a correct literary understanding is not enough. Something beyond the text–namely, being saved by grace–is also necessary. Thus even and especially as the Word of God, the Bible is not perspicuous per se; understanding and professing its message–whatever that may be–as the Word of God requires something more than a correct literary understanding.
I had written:
To that, you reply:
Again, that misses my point. Of course we agree that “the Spirit of God must testify in the heart of believers so that they might recognize the Truth.” But if everybody’s fallible all the time, then anybody’s belief that the Spirit is so testifying in their heart might be wrong. And as a plain matter of fact, lots of people who claim to have and follow such testimony disagree with each other as to the content of what the Spirit is allegedly testifying to. What’s needed is a principled means of determining who’s right and who’s wrong when they lay claim to such testimony. You do not provide such a means.
I had written:
To that, you reply:
There’s a lot packed into that little paragraph, whose tu quoque argument is invalid. So this may take more time than you’d like!
The questions you re-pose are those: “(3) How many Esdraâs are inspired? (4) Is John 7:53-8:11 Scripture? Is 1 John 5:7 Scripture?” As to (3), none of the books of Esdras are contained in the Catholic canon as defined by Trent. That doesn’t mean that God did not inspire their author(s); all it means is that we are not required to affirm, with the assent of faith, that God inspired their author(s). As to (4), the answer is yes, assuming that the verses to which you refer are the same in the Catholic canon as they are in whatever you may recognize as the canon. That’s because those verses are included in the text of John that Trent defined as canonical.
Your next question: “Is there a clear, infallible teaching on biblical inerrancy on the RC view?” is ambiguous. If by ‘clear’ you mean ‘resolves all questions’, the answer is no; if by ‘clear’ you mean there’s a statement that is intelligible enough to be understood and believed, with the assent of faith, for what it says, then the answer is yes. Here’s the teaching that satisfies the conditions for being infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium:
What’s clear, then, is that “everything asserted by the inspired authors…must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” and that whatever is asserted by the Holy Spirit is inerrant. But that by no means suffices to settle every exegetical dispute about just what is being “asserted” by the inspired authors.
An example of such a dispute is posed by your last question: “Don’t RC’s differ on whether the Gospels (and other books) may contain historical errors?” Of course. But we need to disambiguate the question. If by “historical errors” is meant assertions which are intended as historical reportage as we have come to understand that genre, then I should say that the Gospels contain “historical errors” in that sense. But if one is talking about history as that genre was understood and followed in ancient religious texts generally, then I should say that the Gospels do not contain historical errors. For so understood and followed, “history” was not limited to historical reportage, but incorporated both myth and authorial interpretation of the merely empirical facts. That is why what appear to be obvious historical discrepancies among the four canonical gospels did not disturb the early Church. She understood the genre implicitly, and accordingly operated with a more nuanced understanding of historical truth than that of pure reportage.
Now, does all that suffice to resolve all exegetical disputes? Of course not. But that poses a problem for the CIP only if the CIP claims, or its adherents claimed on its behalf, that it settles all such disputes definitively with a judgment commanding the assent of faith. But no such claim has ever been made. What’s been claimed is only that the CIP can be and has been used to settle some disputes about the meaning of biblical texts. And my claim is that the CIP has a principled means of doing so, while your IP does not. Your questions and counter-examples thus fail to sustain the sort of tu quoque objection you pose. It’s not even addressing what I actually claim for the CIP.
I had written:
To that, you reply:
Again, misses the point. I claim that some humans are infallible not by nature–no merely human person is– but precisely by “the power of the Holy Spirit to work in fallible human beings.” What we’re disagreeing about is how to tell who’s making affirmations by that power and who is not. I claim that the CIP enables us to tell that in a principled way, while your IP does not. Your objection does not address that claim.
You conclude:
Exegesis suffices, in some cases, for discovering what the original human authors of Scripture intended. It never suffices to tell us what God thereby intends. To infer the latter, one needs two further premises: (1) What counts as the inspired canon has been infallibly specified; (2) It has been infallibly taught that what’s asserted within that canon is inerrant. The CIP contains those premises.
On the CIP, moreover, the term ‘inspiration’ is reserved for Scripture, but that doesn’t mean that inspiration so understood is the only instance of infallibility. Whatever assertions are inspired are inerrant, but it doesn’t follow that only such assertions are inerrant. Inspired Scripture is inerrant in that God caused the human writers to assert whatever it is they asserted; the teaching of the Magisterium is inerrant in the sense that, under certain conditions, God prevents the Magisterium from asserting what is false.
Now according to Dei Verbum (linked above), the Magisterium is the “sole authentic interpreter” of “the Word of God” transmitted by Scripture and Tradition. That entails, among other things, that when the Magisterium teaches infallibly, its teaching is, by divine grace, materially equivalent to what is conveyed to us by the pertinent content of the Word of God, and that such a claim cannot be made for any other visible human agency. Ordinarily, such teaching clarifies the Word of God by settling interpretive disputes. So the Magisterium is what enables us to understand said Word better over time, by settling disputes about what it means, regardless of the degree to which Scripture may or may not be intelligible in itself. And my claim is that, without some such agency, such disputes cannot be addressed with anything more than opinions.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
Ray Stamper made a similar point earlier in this thread, which I piggybacked on here:
https://www.creedcodecult.com/on-the-magisteriums-sort-of-superiority/
In short, there are two kinds of authority crises (which I call AC1 and AC2). The former is simply due to ignorance or rebellion, and the Catholic IP is in no better a better position to fix that than the Protestant one (even Jesus, humanly speaking, failed to fix that problem).
The second kind of authority crisis is more serious, for it rules out the very possibility of true authority and therefore true submission. AC2, moreover, is unique to Protestantism and is even built into its ecclesiology from the get-go. It is this kind of authority crisis, and not the former, that we are claiming Catholicism can resolve.
Brent,
1. Many things may be virtually contained in one thing. If a substantial thing is signified directly, then whatever is virtually contained in the substance is stated indirectly. This avoids deviating from axiom and definition characteristics. I think, with a cautious attitude, that a type would be direct and the anti-type indirect. In this case we remain within the first order.
2. No fact can establish what counts, but acknowledging it as a fact supposes counting or establishing. I can count this or that text as scripture, which contains divine revelation, before I count it as an object of catholic faith. Initially, it is sufficient to see it as an object of my faith. Distinguishing scripture from non-scripture requires a supernatural principle. This principle is faith.
I understand “making it incomplete” as a response to shore up my own admission. Does this mean that all of sacred tradition is clear and on par with axioms/definitions found in scripture ?
Quite so, Jason. I appreciate that blog post of yours on the topic. I haven’t commented because I don’t have all day to spend debating that “Robert” fellow, who just doesn’t get it yet spends what, to me, is an amazing amount of his time at your blog.
Best,
Mike
Mike (re: #606),
Thanks for the reply. I apologize for missing so many of your points, but I will respond to a few that you further clarified.
1. You said:
Your second sentence is false. Even though all are fallible, those who have the Spirit testifying in their heart could not possibly be wrong in their claim that the Spirit is testifying in their heart. Moreover, Reformed Christians would assert that Scripture, the only infallible rule of faith, is the principled means of determining right and wrong. True, people disagree about what Scripture means, but people also disagree about the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent (e.g. see 2 below).
If it is wrong to consider the principled means in the CIP false because people disagree over the interpretation of Church statements, then it is also wrong to consider the <principled means of the RIP false because people disagree over the interpretation Scripture.
2. Regarding by questions in post (#588): Your answer to (3) admits that Catholics cannot have an infallible knowledge of the entire canon of Scripture because the 73 books may not be the whole canon. I don’t think you satisfactorily answered (4), because the problem is identifying what exactly in what Vulgate vulgate Trent has canonized. Does inspiration extend to the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7) or the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11)? I just don’t think the RC Church has an infallible answer to (4) based on the evidence we have. I am open to evidence that would show an infallible decision has been made on either those portions of Scripture.
3. You said:
I agree that the CIP can be used in that way but who knows if it has been used in that way. Do you know Mike? If so, how many biblical texts have been infallibly interpreted?
4. You said:
That first premise is not supplied by the CIP as I point out above. That second premise is retained in the RIP as well (e.g. Hebrews 6:18 and Titus 1:2). Also, if exegesis can suffice to discover the authorial intent of the human author, and if one has faith that the human author spoke from God as he was carried along by the Spirit, then it follows he can discover what God intends on the RIP.
5. You conclude:
Let’s be clear. On the RIP, if a Christian asserts what Scripture asserts, then he is not expressing opinion but rather infallible Truth. If a Christian asserts what is logically deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence, then he is not expressing opinion but rather infallible Truth.
On the CIP, if a RC asserts what Scripture or the RC Church asserts, then he is not expressing opinion but rather infallible Truth. If a RC asserts what is logically deduced from Scripture or the RC Church, then he is not expressing opinion but rather infallible Truth.
The only differences left that I can see is that (1) the CIP has more infallible stuff and (2) the CIP will claim to be clearer in propounding doctrine than Scripture is. Both IP’s have their share of opinion which they try to reduce by conforming to their rule of faith.
I’m sure you will let me know all the points I’ve missed =)
Peace,
John D.
@JohnD (#610):
To make Mike’s sentence false, you would have to also show that someone who did not have the Spirit testifying in his heart could not possibly be wrong in the claim that the Spirit is testifying in his heart. For example, the Spirit testifies in my heart that Reformed Christianity is heresy. Therefore, you should not be Reformed, because I am actually led by the Spirit, and I cannot possibly be wrong in my claim.
Not if you apply your own principle consistently. On the CIP, it simply doesn’t matter if people disagree, because the principle simply doesn’t involve them. The CIP can only be falsified if the Magisterial documents, rightly interpreted according to the CIP, contradict one another. But if you rely on the testimony of the Spirit in the heart, then the fact that people of good will whom you believe to be led by the Spirit disagree is fatal. Effectively, for the RIP to be true, people led by the Spirit can literally never disagree about any doctrine, not even about what is and is not doctrine. This is the AC2 problem that Jason points out, to which the CIP is immune but the RIP is not.
Again, infallible knowledge of the canon is not necessary for the CIP. but it is for the RIP, which depends on Scripture interpreting Scripture. Any gap is knowledge is therefore an interpretive gap in principle. This is also why the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, for example, is irrelevant to the CIP but potentially fatal to the RIP. If such mistakes can be made in the RIP, then there is no way to reasonably rely on any particular teaching, because there is always a chance (however unlikely) that the authorship is spurious, so it can in principle fail on its own terms. Likewise, the infallibility of Scripture in the RIP only applies to original autographs, which are written in languages that no one today speaks as a native language in a culture that no longer exists, so it is impossible to have certainty about what the author intended. By contrast, the CIP can say that some translation or some interpolation of the meaning is sufficiently close that it matches the original apostolic deposit, and thus retains the infallibility with which the original text was inspired, even if it is not absolutely verbally identical to the original autograph. So even these kinds of claims are problems for the RIP but not the CIP.
In one sense, all of them have been infallibly interpreted simply by non-contradiction with what the CIP counts as Catholic dogma. If there are infallible dogmas that cannot be contradicted, then the divine sense behind the passage is necessarily limited to what is consistent with these. That is generally the way that the triad of Scripture-Magisterium-Tradition operates; they mutually interpret one another. Hence, it generally would not make sense to say “this source of dogma definitively says X” except in cases where there is a common heretical interpretation, and even then, that is generally not exclusive of other senses of the same passage.
That doesn’t follow unless one accepts either verbal inspiration or some other premise that God’s intent reduces to the author’s intent in writing the passage. Otherwise, God may have intended more by the passage than the human author intended, and one would have no way of knowing that.
If “what Scripture asserts” cannot be infallibly defined in principle, much less what is “logically deduced … by good and necessary consequence,” then these statements do not avoid the AC2 problem that I pointed out earlier. You are simply appealing to the same personal infallibility of the Spirit that you did early; such appeals are always vain.
We’re talking about people’s assent, not people’s assertions. I may assert all kinds of things, and I may be right or wrong, but my assertions are not entitled to the assent of faith. What is entitled to the assent of faith is what is defined by the Magisterium. That is not to say that a Catholic cannot teach what the Magisterial teaching is, but faith is not placed in what such a Catholic teaches, but in the authority behind him from which he teaches. That authority lacks nothing in principle, unlike the interpretation of Scripture, which does.
Again, this is not about clarity in propounding doctrine, but the object of assent. The difference between the RIP and CIP is one of kind, not degree. Nor is the goal reduction of opinion, which is a perfectly valid way of thinking in its proper scope. Rather, the CIP prevents absolutely everything from being reduced to a matter of opinion; it distinguishes in principle between divine revelation and opinion. Opinion may be a perfectly fine judgment to have, but it won’t suffice for divine revelation.
Michael @609,
Actually, it’s no more time than you spend here writing your tomes. :)
No, I essentially get what you are saying, I just reject it based on your assumed and unargued for premises:
1. That the only way to have a principled distinction between truth and opinion is a visible infallible body.
2. That one can properly invoke infallibility in one part of a Magisterial teaching but not another.
3. That accepting the infallibilty of the Magisterium gets you around the problem of your fallibility in locating the infallible source of truth.
It also seems horribly inconsistent to me to think we need a visible infallible body under the new covenant, wherein the Spirit’s ministry is greater than under the old covenant but that the old covenant community had no need of such a body to recognize the Word of God and His appointed messengers.
Respond to this comment if you wish. I most likely will not.
Eric:
1. Okay
2. I would say it is grace – a gift.
I wasn’t “shoring up” anything, nor admitting anything that needed shoring up. I was just be meticulous.
Robert,
If I understand the argument correctly this should read “principled distinction between truth claims regarding divine revelation and human opinion.”
And, how can this not be the case? Divine revelation by definition cannot be know through human reason alone. Short of direct revelation from God we must rely on the witness of a divine authority.
Robert, item 612: “It also seems horribly inconsistent to me to think we need a visible infallible body under the new covenant..”
The Yellow Pages under Church in my neck of the woods
Assembly of God
Baptist
Baptist Missionary
Baptist Primitive
Baptist Southern
Bible
Catholic
Charismatic
Christian
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Christian Science
Churches of Christ
Church of God
Church of God Cleveland
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Community
Episcopal
Evangelical
Full Gospel
Interdominational
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Lutheran
Lutheran ELCA
Lutheran Missouri Synod
Methodist
Methodist United
Non-denominational
Orthodox
Pentecostal
Pentecostal United
Presbyterian
Presbyterian USA
Reformed
Swedenborgian
I am glad I don’t live in NYC. I’d hate to type that one out.
Of note the above list of churches do not believe the same things while reading the same scriptures.
Please contrast the above list with the idea that it seems horribly inconsistent to think we need a visible infallible body under the new covenant.
“wherein the Spiritâs ministry is greater than under the old covenant but that the old covenant community had no need of such a body to recognize the Word of God and His appointed messengers.”
What is the Sanhedrin? What was its role in the life of the Jews in Jerusalem, in Palestine, and further afield?
If the Church is the fulfillment of Israel, of the Kingdom, and of the Temple with its sacrifices and feasts, then a visible body under the King of the Jews, the new High Priest and the living Passover, must exist in order to extend His kingdom, and to bring the new Passover to His people.
For the record, I was an evangelical Pentecostal, and I was outside of the Church Jesus founded.
John D (#605):
Why not? Do you find the “conservative” argument compelling? I might add, giving them the adjective “conservative” gives away too much. I think these positions (and attitudes) are fundamentalist, and fundamentalism, unlike conservatism and like liberalism, destroys the truth. Fundamentalism, by ignoring one truth in a desire to preserve another, negates the value of truth, whereas liberalism makes all statements true, negates the value of truth. Therefore, for the fundamentalist, truth is lost, and that is not conservatism.
Looking back at all three of your citations, I don’t see anything incompatible with evolution, at least the kind of evolution that (a) does not claim to have explanatory power regarding origins and (b) does not require a materialist worldview.
Peace to you on your journey
John D (#610):
There’s only one point in Jonathan Prejean’s reply to you (#611) that I feel inclined to put differently. Not that I disagree with him; I just want to frame his point from another angle.
I had written:
To that, you reply:
I fully agree with you that “those who have the Spirit testifying in their heart could not possibly be wrong in their claim that the Spirit is testifying in their heart.” That’s not the issue between you and me. The issue is how to tell who has “the Spirit testifying in their heart” in matters of doctrine, and is thus infallible in matters of doctrine. If everybody is fallible all the time, then of course nobody can be said to have the Spirit testifying in their heart. So, we actually agree that some people are infallible in matters of doctrine, and that some such people, professing and teaching what the Spirit thus testifies to, are needed in order for us to know divine revelation as distinct from human opinion. What we disagree about is how to answer the question by what principled means those people are to be identified and believed.
As I understand your position, you hold that we can identify them by a combination of exegesis and personal testimony. But of course, plenty of well-informed people across the vast Protestant spectrum do exegesis and claim to have the Spirit testifying in their hearts to the truth of their exegetical conclusions yet still disagree with each other about essential matters of doctrine–and even about what counts as an essential matter of doctrine. That is why I argue that you don’t have a principled means of making the distinction between authentic expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinions. In your IP there is no norm, independent of what people claim for their scholarship and their subjective belief that the Spirit is with them, for determining who speaks with the infallible authority of the Spirit and who does not. In the absence of such a norm, everything necessarily reduces to a matter of opinion. For even when the content of this-or-that professionhappens to be an authentic expression of divine revelation, it cannot be held and taught as anything more than provisional opinion. And that defeats the main purpose of positing and citing infallibility.
Best,
Mike
Brent (re:#616),
You said:
What about the kind of evolution that claims explanatory power regarding the origin of ALL HUMAN BODIES? Many Catholics think it is just fine and dandy to hold to such a view. Should they be concerned?
Peace,
John D.
Mike (re: #613),
You said:
It’s not about a principled means that can identify who actually has experienced regeneration by the Holy Spirit. On a Reformed view, there can be evidence of saving faith but only God can judge a person’s heart. The principled means comes into play in identifying whether the content of what the person is claiming is in line with Divine Revelation. One reason I brought up the testimony of the Holy Spirit is that, on the RIP, it helps to counteract sin which causes disunity. Those who are trusting more and more in Christ, by His Spirit, will tend to follow His Word rather than holding on to warped expressions of His Word for sinful reasons (selfishness, apathy, pride, etc.).
You said:
We can come to a knowledge of the Truth through exegesis and the work of the Holy Spirit. That may be what you meant, but when you say “personal testimony” it rings of subjectivism. The Reformed view holds that God’s people will hear His voice; they will follow Him, and it is the Spirit’s doing that causes them to follow. The Spirit’s work in the regenerate is objective in that God has promised it.
Lastly, you said:
Herein lies the rub. If the fact that people disagree implies that no principled means exists, then such an implication cuts both ways. People disagree on a whole host of things in the Catholic world, even things that have been dogmatically defined (e.g. my discussion with Brent above about evolution). So, if you are consistent, the RC Church can articulate things without error (as God can do), but it cannot provide a principled means for differentiating between authentic divine revelation and human theological opinion. If all RC Church statements must be interpreted, and people disagree about the interpretations, then it seems the RC Church is without a principled means on your view.
Peace,
John D.
Jonathan (re: #611),
Sorry, I only have time for a partial reply.
Mike’s sentence was:
This is false. Since there are people who have the Spirit who testify to having the Spirit, then Mike’s claim that anybody might be wrong is not correct because there is a group of people (the elect) who if they make the claim to, then they can’t possibly be wrong.
You said:
This is why James White calls it sola ecclesia, meaning the RC Church alone is the ultimate authority. What if there is debate over how to “rightly interpret” magisterial documents? What if magisterial documents appear to anathematize the belief that human bodies did not evolve from lower forms? My point is that disagreement does not imply a fundamental problem with the source of information.
Peace,
John D.
John D:
If that explanation deprived God of a unique and singular role, then, yes, that is against the faith. Though, I do not think this is some kind of scandal in the Church that requires Magisterial clarification. Can you link to the view you have in mind?
John D (#620, 621):
Let’s get the red herring out the way first. I had asserted that “if everybodyâs fallible all the time, then anybodyâs belief that the Spirit is so testifying in their heart might be wrong.” To that, you reply:
Your criticism evinces an elementary logical misreading of what I had said. I did not claim “Everybody is fallible all the time; therefore, anybody might be wrong.” I claimed: “IF everybody is fallible all the time, then anybody might be wrong,” which is analytically true even if some people are infallible. Indeed, as I said in my previous comment, I agree with you that some people are infallible, when they testify by the Spirit. Therefore, the antecedent of my conditional statement is false. But in basic propositional logic, when the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, the whole statement is true. Therefore my sentence, which is conditional statement, is true.
You write:
Well, of course I agree with your last two sentences. But they don’t specify the “principled means” you need. What’s needed, I’m sure you’d agree, is a principled means of determining what’s “in line with Divine Revelation” prior to any claim, made by anybody in particular, that they testify by the Spirit. Thus, before we accept anybody’s claim to so testify, we need an objective criterion for determining whether their claim is correct. But if that’s so, then an appeal to infallibility does no work in the RIP, as it does on the CIP. On the RIP, people are infallible only when they testify by the Spirit; but we can’t say, just by their exegesis and their claim to such testimony, that they are infallible. Hence, adherents of the RIP can only hold and teach doctrine as opinions, even when some of the doctrines happen to express divine revelation.
As stated, that’s a view I can accept as a Catholic. But again, by itself it doesn’t tell us the principled means for distinguishing between who is “hearing God’s voice” and who isn’t.
Finally, you write:
Your first sentence, again, contains a misconstrual of what I said. I did not claim that the mere fact of disagreement “implies that no principled means exists.” That’s what Dr. Hart implies, as part of his own epistemic tu quoque argument against Catholicism. But if you peruse my interactions with him, you’ll see that my claim is that the CIP is a principled means for resolving disagreements definitively, whereas no PIP is. So, from the fact that many Catholics disagree about how to interpret magisterial teachings proposed as definitive, it does not follow that there is no means of resolving such disagreements in a principled way. All that follows is that some Catholics don’t observe it, either because don’t know it or because they don’t care about it. That means is the CIP.
That’s why your last sentence doesn’t follow either. Your mistake comes at the beginning of the paragraph.
Best,
Mike
Donald @615
If you can’t tell the difference between the Mormons and the Lutherans without the help of an infallible interpreter, I don’t know what to tell you. Rank pagan sociologists of religion can.
The fact of the matter is that the same diversity you see among Protestants exists for Roman Catholics, the issues are just different. Protestants don’t typically differ among themselves as to whether or not Mary died before she was bodily assumed, but it’s up for ripe debate among Roman Catholics.
I don’t know how long you’ve been a Roman Catholic, but I can go to fifteen different parish priests in my home town and get fifteen different answers as to what I must believe as a Roman Catholic. Having the veneer of visible unity is not helping Rome stay unified doctrinally.
Robert #623 “If you canât tell the difference between the Mormons and the Lutherans without the help of an infallible interpreter, I donât know what to tell you. Rank pagan sociologists of religion can.”
Just to be sure, Mormonism is another version of Protestantism. Instead of deleting books out of scripture, they added books to scripture, which the template of Protestantism permitted them to do. Who could deny them? Luther? Calvin? Henry VIII? Wesley? Mary Baker Eddy? It might be noted that none of those individual’s consulted the others on breaking away or seeking a method of holiness.
The template of Protestantism is that one can make up one’s own version of religion to suit one’s self by making the scripture say whatever that individual wants it to say. The list in 615 makes that clearly obvious.
Catholicism is built around our Lord’s selection of Peter and is maintained by the connection with Peter and his successors through the local ordinary (bishop), who is also a successor to the apostles.
“I can go to fifteen different parish priests in my home town and get fifteen different answers as to what I must believe as a Roman Catholic.”
1. Have you gone to 15 different parishes and gotten 15 different answers? I actually suspect not because if you had, you’d probably find the priest consulting a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Had that happened you wouldn’t have avoided the issue by making an unwarranted claim.
2. As an intelligent lay Catholic, I have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I can and do reference. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is readily available and not very expensive. It will give you the “Catholic” answer assuming you really have a question.
In 615 I copied your items and addressed them directly. If you are going to respond to this, use real ideas and real questions. Don’t make up things to avoid the real issues, and for me the real issue was this: Was I inside of the Church as an evangelical? Since, as an evangelical the mere idea of “church” was virtually an undefined object, we had no real use for the Body since we knew we were directly attached to the Head, the answer is no. How we knew we were attached to the Head is beyond me now. I don’t remember how we justified that bit of business but we did. I did too, until I could not.
Mike (re:#622),
You said:
To my chagrin, you are correct. Vacuously true is the phrase I have heard people use to describe such conditionals. Sorry for the blunder and getting sidetracked with Jonathan about it.
You also said:
I may have misled you slightly with my argument, so let me try to clarify. On the RIP, only God is truly infallible. The Apostles, prophets, and those writing Scripture certainly expressed the living, infallible Word of God, but they did not become truly infallible persons to do so; rather, they temporarily spoke infallibly in speaking God’s word. On the RIP, God’s Word is infallible and His speech is in a category of its own because all He asserts must be True. Thus, the meaning of the God’s Word (discovered through clear passages, exegesis, historical/linguistic study, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the principled means on the RIP for judging anything to be true. Moreover, Reformed Christians would assert that God’s Word shall always accomplish its purpose, and it can do so without the means of an external, visible, infallible body if God wanted to do it that way.
Also, it is not mere opinion when a person states what Scripture says or what can be logically deduced from Scripture. You might reply, the mere opinions come into play in determining whether a person is stating what Scripture says or misinterpreting what it says. To that I reply, tu quote since all you have is mere opinion regarding whether you have interpreted dogma correctly and reached proper conclusions based on that interpretation. The argument cuts both ways. But it is a bad argument on both ways, because if God wanted people to possess and understand His Word, He theoretically could do so by means of the RIP or the CIP.
I think your last paragraph helped me understand your argument better. You said:
Ok, but let me take it one more step. From the fact that Catholics will disagree about the documents that “definitively resolve a previous disagreement”, it follows that no principled means exists on the Catholic view either. At least not in the way that you are calling for such a principled means. It appears then the burden is on you to show how the CIP allows for definitive resolutions that people cannot possibly disagree over.
Perhaps I’m just missing some important things =)
Peace,
John D.
Donald said:
“Just to be sure, Mormonism is another version of Protestantism”
Donald, please don’t bear false witness here against Protestants. Even your own church recognized the difference between Protestants and Mormons. Protestants are considered separated brethren and fellow Christians by the Catholic Church and are recognized by Catholicism as having valid baptisms. Mormons are not, and have to be re-baptized if they become Catholics. To call Mormons Protestants is a falsehood.
(#625):
You write:
As a Catholic, I can and should concur with your first two sentences. The Church does not teach infallibly under all conditions; when she does so teach, that is not because the Magisterium consists of infallible but non-divine persons; it is because the Holy Spirit preserves her from teaching error under those conditions.
Your third sentence, however, only dodges the issue. What you describe as the RIP’s “principled means for judging anything to be true” does not do what a theological IP is supposed to do: provide a principled means for distinguishing between authentic expressions of divine revelation and human theological opinions. All it does is describe how an adherent of the RIP forms his “judgments”–i.e., his theological opinions. It does no good here to appeal to “the testimony of the Spirit” as the means by which the adherent of the RIP is rendered temporarily infallible, so that his judgments are not mere opinions but authentic expressions of divine revelation. For the RIP affords no means, other than some people’s exegetical opinions, for assessing anybody’s appeal to such testimony with an objective, external criterion for determining whether his opinions are “in line with divine revelation.”
It is of course possible, as you say, that “Godâs Word shall always accomplish its purpose, and it can do so without the means of an external, visible, infallible body if God wanted to do it that way.” That, however, leaves open the question whether God has in fact provided “the means of an external, visible, infallible, body.” One reason I believe he did provide such a means is that there is no alternative which does not devolve ultimately into subjectivity and opinion.
To that, your reply would seem to be this:
There are two problems with that.
When “a person states what Scripture says,” that is indeed not “mere opinion”; it is actually knowledge of what “Scripture” says–or, in the usual case, knowledge of what is said by a translation from a critical edition of copies of books included in the traditional biblical canon, which is an adequate approximation of what Scripture says. But knowing that is not, by itself, enough for knowing the content of divine revelation. To know the content of divine revelation by knowing what is said by a translation from a critical edition of canonical books, one would also need to know that that is what God says to us, and that whatever God says to us is somehow contained in Scripture. But those two propositions are not items of knowledge: the first is an article of faith, and the second is only a theological opinion. Hence knowing what Scripture says, and what can be logically deduced therefrom, does not and could not suffice for knowing the content of divine revelation as such. It suffices only for knowing something of what many have believed to express divine revelation.
So much for the question what Scripture says; there remains the question what it means. If your tu quoque argument were valid, we could have only opinions about what Scripture means; for it would remain a matter of opinion whether the RIP or the CIP, which in some respects are mutually incompatible, is the IP that God wills we use. If that were just a matter of opinion, there would indeed be no principled means of distinguishing between interpretations that authentically convey divine revelation and interpretations that are only theological opinions. But of course, neither you nor I believe that the question which IP God wills we use is simply a matter of opinion, any more than we believe the content of divine revelation itself is a matter of opinion. On both IPs, some people are infallible under certain conditions when interpreting the date of divine revelation. My argument is that the CIP identifies those people and those conditions in a reliably applicable way, while the RIP does not.
Given as much, it is simply not the case that the CIP can yield only “mere opinion regarding whether you have interpreted dogma correctly and reached proper conclusions based on that interpretation.” For the full argument to that effect, see Ray Stamper’s article “The Catholic and Protestant Authority Paradigms Compared.”
In closing, you write:
There is no such “burden” on me. For in any field other than the formal disciplines of mathematics and logic, people can and do find ways to “disagree” whether or not there is any reasonable basis for disagreement. From the fact that people can and do disagree, however, it does not follow that there is no principled means for resolving the disagreement. All that follows is that, if there is such means, some people observe it and some do not.
I think your tu quoque argument here would benefit from an example–i.e., a specific counterexample to the claim I’m making on behalf of the CIP. Then perhaps I could show you how the CIP resolves disagreement about the meaning of “definitive” magisterial statements.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I have 2 questions related to the CIP concerning how adherents grasp the infallible content and non-infallible yet authoritative content promulgated by the authority of the Church. I see you and JohnD touched on this quite a bit above, but just wanted a bit more clarification in the practical realm.
First, Jonathan Prejean commented over at CCC that “I am flat out telling you that the popes are not always infallible even when they might think they are infallible.”
I then asked him:
“If popes can think theyâre infallible when they really arenât, do you allow that they can then promulgate doctrine to the faithful *with an intent and interpretation* they consider infallible at the time (and enforce accordingly at the time), but upon reflection much later it is determined by the church not to have actually been so?”
To which he replied:
“Sure. Infallibility has been both ignored and overrated at times, and not just by popes. There was a Franciscan theory that the establishment of religious orders was infallible, which theory was rejected by a Pope. As with many concepts, the Church had to work out the parameters by experience.”
Do you agree with Prejean’s stance? If so, my issue is that this seems to undercut a bit of the epistemological advantage CIP is supposed to bring. A common refrain is that the CIP gives a principled manner in which to distinguish divine and binding (infallible) revelation from opinion, even if that might take a long time on a certain issue. But if a teaching is promulgated which is thought to be infallible, but later is deemed not (which given the premise, that decision could itself just as easily be erroneous which would lead to the teaching actually being infallible after all!) because the “parameters by experience” were still needing to be worked out, the advantage seems to have vanished; how is one to know if the parameters still need to be worked out when the “infallible” teaching was first given? Essentially it boils down to what another said in the dicussion with Prejean that “if the infallible Magisterium can be wrong about when it is infallible, the Magisterium is fallible even when it says it is infallible” which seems to undermine the CIP severely; the Magisterium becomes a Magisterium of the moment.
Secondly, and somewhat related – I had always thought teaching on faith and morals was infallible, but Prejean corrected me with:
“Infallibility does not apply generally to anything that has to do with faith and morals. The actual definition of when infallibility applies is âwhen, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.â Doctrines are principles, eternal unchanging truths. Practices simply cannot teach doctrine; practice by definition deals with specific cases, and one canât define an eternal unchanging principle from a single case.”
which makes some sense and I appreciated the clarification. But I still wonder how this plays out at a practical level with people’s souls in terms of papal/church-endorsed teaching or practices throughout history that seem to have an impact in the faith/morals realm even if they were not infallible. For example, the Jewish ghettos and anti-semitic actions endorsed by lateran council and subsequent popes for centuries. One can say these are not infallible in the same way disciplinary canons are not infallible and that they were practices of the time/environment and not reflective of unchanging doctrinal principles. But certainly these impacted in a very real way the moral sense of the faithful â would a catholic who stood up and protested these actions not be punished and viewed as going against the faith? How would a faithful Catholic at the time discern whether to follow the protester or the Church teaching/practice at that time for the benefit of their soul?
Similarly, the oft-cited example of indulgences for the crusades. If this was viewed as a mistake in retrospect, what of all the faithful who followed authority sincerely? Do not indulgences directly relate to faith and morals? And again if someone protested this teaching at the time, would he not be punished and viewed as disobeying divinely-given authority?
You can multiply this out to many examples of authoritative teaching that may or may not have been viewed as infallible at the time, but later was viewed as mistaken. Is the thought that since RCs are to submit to church authority even when not infallible (as laid out in lumen gentium and donum veritatis), that although the authority might be in error in certain disciplines/practices/ideas it endorses/promulgates at certain times, those errors would never be so grave or wrong to such a degree as to be harmful to oneâs soul who follows it? That might be plausible, but given the above examples and others throughout history that seem to have a direct (and negative/sinful) impact on oneâs moral sense and guidance, it seems it cannot satisfy the historical record entirely.
Thanks.
JD (#628):
You raise three epistemological difficulties for the CIP. First:
I don’t know which comment by Jonathan Prejean you refer to, but you cite no example of a teaching on which any pope mistakenly thought he was teaching infallibly. And I know of no other instance when the college of bishops as a whole, which is also infallible under certain conditions, mistakenly claimed to be teaching infallibly. So you’ll have to present a pertinent example before I can respond substantively.
Second, you write:
The applicable distinction here, and in the subsequent examples you cite, is not hard to grasp and deploy: that between moral precepts and the prudential application of those precepts. The former can be and often is a subject of infallible teaching; the latter cannot be, because a correct prudential application of moral precepts depends on knowledge of the relevant facts, which can be absent or defective, and about which the Magisterium is in any case fallible.
The third difficulty is this:
The sort of case you’re posing is that in which the Church, authoritatively but fallibly, tells Catholics to approve and do something objectively so wrong as to “harm the soul” of Catholics who do them. But that sort of case can be known to present an epistemological difficulty for the CIP only when we know whether, and if so how much, the actors are culpable for believing that such an action is objectively right and doing it accordingly. So let’s address that latter issue first.
For instance, until after the Shoah, most Catholics believed that the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus and should be treated accordingly. That belief was a traditional conclusion drawn from Matthew 27:25. Should the Church be thought of as harming people’s souls by often encouraging that belief? Only if it can be fairly said that popes and bishops had no excuse for not knowing better, and were therefore culpable for misleading Catholics in general. It seems easy to say that from our historical vantage point, but it’s not that easy.
Thus, many Jewish scholars today argue that Jesus was tried and convicted fairly according to halakhic principles. If they’re right, then according to Jewish law Jesus deserved to die, and any faithful Jew should believe that. But if, despite that, the Jews are not collectively guilty for Jesus’ death, then it would simply be unfair to say that the popes and bishops, and Catholics who followed them, were collectively guilty for holding that the Jews deserved to be treated badly and acting accordingly. It just took a long time to figure out how to view this “other” appropriately, given the deepest Christian principles–just as it did in the case of slavery. If so, then it’s doubtful that Catholics were “harming” their own souls for acting on the traditional belief.
The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the case of “indulgences” for the “crusades.” Popes who offered that did so in the belief that they were giving men incentives to fight in a just war on behalf of truth and justice. The question whether the original idea behind the Crusades sufficed to make at least the first two crusades just ad bellum is widely debated, even though all agree that the Crusaders did certain things that were definitely not just in bello. So even if Pope Urban II and St. Bernard of Clairvaux were wrong to think that the First Crusade was just ad bellum, it does not follow that they and the Crusaders were “harming their souls” for thinking it was and acting accordingly. Given the reality of Christendom, it just took Christians in general a long time to figure out that religious violence is counterproductive and therefore never advisable.
In conclusion, then, the third sort of difficulty you pose for the CIP is artificial. We cannot verify the counterexamples as such.
Best,
Mike
@Mike:
And just to clarify, the context of the discussion was whether the popes’ subjective belief in their own political power as part of Catholic dogma was relevant to infallibility. I argued that it was not, because regardless of what was believed (say, in Unam Sanctum), no one was bound to the pope’s subjective belief or reasoning, which can err, but only what he had the power to bind (which are precepts of faith or morals formally taught ex cathedra). The “another” mentioned above is Robert Rothwell, so nothing he says there should be given any weight as a description of my position.
Mike and Jonathan,
Guys, you are making a distinction without a difference. That is my whole point to Jonathan. If the pope and Magisterium are fallible about when he they are infallible, you have no meaningful difference between a fallible church and an infallible church. If you have a document like Unam Sanctum that was thought infallible and that defined certain beliefs and practices that is only later seen to be fallible, then you are left with a situation where a future Magisterium could always attribute fallibility to even some of its formerly believed-to-be-infallible statements. That creates a situation where doctrine is not truly fixed but is determined by the magisterium of today, which might wrongly think itself infallible.
That utterly destroys any advantage that the Roman concept of infallibility is supposed to have over Protestantism’s concept of fallibility. Now I grant that you could say that the church would never attribute fallibility in any sense to what it formerly said ex cathedra, but that is a purely fideistic stance for which the only evidence is the Magisterium, and you’re left with a viciously circular argument. It’s also no different in principle than the Mormon belief that the current prophet cannot err. Besides, where’s the evidence that Unam Sanctum is not an ex cathedra pronouncement on faith or morals. Boniface certainly thought it was. If what a pope or Magisterium thought or taught formerly is up for revision, you’re left with a church that is fallible through and through.
Robert (#632):
You assert:
That would be true if there were at least one case in which the Magisterium explicitly taught, about a given doctrine D, that D had been infallibly set forth when in fact D had not been so set forth, according to the Church’s own stated criteria for infallibility. But the only conceivable candidate for such a mistake that I know of would be this (bold emphasis added):
Now on the CIP, there’s nothing untoward about that judgment. It is in fact a clear application of the CIP. And Pope Francis even said a few weeks ago that the question of women’s ordination is accordingly “closed.” True, many Catholic theologians continue raising doubts. But that doesn’t mean the CIP is useless for its purpose. It only means that some theologians don’t follow it.
Your objection to that line apparently is that, in order to show what’s defective about the CIP, it is not necessary to cite an instance of the Magisterium’s explicitly teaching that a given doctrine D has been infallibly taught, and is irreformable, when D is actually reformable according to the Church’s own settled criteria. It would instead suffice to cite a case in which those who exercise the Magisterium are unclear about the issue, so that some of them are wrong. But that would not suffice. The CIP has long allowed that those who exercise the Magisterium, including even popes, can be privately wrong about D’s level of authority, or even about D’s truth, without undermining the Magisterium’s claims for itself. Given the CIP’s criteria for determining whether D has been infallibly set forth, and is thus irreformable, the objector would have to cite a specific teaching about which such a mistake has itself been explicitly taught as binding on Catholics. But I know of no such case.
Nor have you succeeded in citing one. You adduce the case of Unam Sanctam, writing:
That challenge evinces ignorance of the CIP’s criteria for distinguishing teaching that is irreformable from teaching that is not. On the CIP, whatever doctrine a pope defines as binding on the whole Church is irreformable. In US, that doctrine is expressed only by the last sentence: “…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Now on the CIP, that is not “up for revision.” It just isn’t. What is and has been up for development is the Church’s understanding of what it means to be “subject to the Roman Pontiff.” But to show that such a development undermines the CIP, you would have to show that the development is logically incompatible with the dogmatic definition I’ve just quoted from US. I can assure you that you won’t be able to show that.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
Thanks for the reply, but I hope you realize that all of that looks like special pleading that allows the Roman Church to maintain its infallibility through the use of language that is so heavily qualified that Rome can say anything it wants to. I don’t mean to be so crass, but it’s why Protestants view papal infallibility especially as a slippery thing that can’t ever be pinned down absolutely. It also explains why Rome has been so hesitant to declare things infallible and why there is no infallible list of infallible decrees.
Essentially, you’re having the church say “Well, at the time we though x about y but we were wrong about x, so that should have no impact on whether y is right or wrong.” If I’m supposed to trust the Magisterium but the church can fallibly interpret or apply its infallible statements (as you admit was once done with Unam Sanctum), then you are left with an essentially Protestant epistemology. We just say the only infallible statements are found in Scripture.
But thanks anyway.
@Mike:
I would also add that the statement as binding can only be directed to Catholics. In other words, even if the principle being articulated here was subjectively intended or believed to apply to everyone in the world at the time, it would by its nature be limited to Catholics, because the Pope does not speak ex cathedra outside the boundaries of the Church. In other words, when the Pope says that no one can be saved who is not subject to the Roman pontiff, this is a teaching addressed to Catholics (that is, no one in the audience, i.e., Catholics), that is, those who can be subject to the Pope. Even if Pope Boniface himself believed that no one putside of the Catholic Church could be saved then, the scope of his infallible declaration would be limited to the flock.
This is even more pronounced in the declaration Cantate Domino by the Council of Florence. If it is not read in that limited context, then it would be hard to see how it would not contradict Vatican II.
Hi Mike,
You said:
“In US, that doctrine is expressed only by the last sentence: ââŚwe declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.â Now on the CIP, that is not âup for revision.â It just isnât. What is and has been up for development is the Churchâs understanding of what it means to be âsubject to the Roman Pontiff.â
Hmm this seems a bit shaky in that you seem to be absolutely divorcing bare words/syntax from their intended meaning. The last sentence is not up for revision. Okay, but sentences and words must *mean* something right? What good is it (in terms of epistemological advantage) to say the words/syntax is infallible but the accompanying intended meaning with which they were issued is (or to be fair, may) not?
I can understand things develop, but for it to develop to where it opposes/negates (rather than supplements or enhances) the promulgators’ original intent seems to make things sketchy for the RC epistemological advantage.
IIRC from previous discussions I’ve read, this is your (and I would guess most RCs) approach to infallibility – if the promulgators and contemporary interpretations of the infallible decrees were against later developed and accepted views, the developed view can still be valid if consistent with the wording of the decrees as that wording is what is guided by the Spirit, not necessarily the perspectives driving the crafting of those words. Unam Sanctum is a classic example, but others would include the partim-partim vs material sufficiency view of Scripture (the Trent fathers drafting that decree did not think the last-minute change of the wording that opened the door for material sufficiency negated their intent of promulgating it as a partim-partim view and that interpretation was followed by the majority of interpreters/theologians afterwards).
You said:
“That would be true if there were at least one case in which the Magisterium explicitly taught, about a given doctrine D, that D had been infallibly set forth when in fact D had not been so set forth, according to the Churchâs own stated criteria for infallibility.”
I’ll let you and Robert tangle over Unam Sanctum, but I am curious what your view on canonizations and infallibility is. Ott and others think they have to be infallible, and that certainly seems reasonable to me. If so, how is that reconciled with ancient saints who have been removed or âdemotedâ based on study indicating much of their life sprang from legends or dubious history and they may not have ever even existed? Iâm aware that infallibility would not apply to the reasoning/justification for the canonization of a saint (similar to how arguments leading to an infallible declaration are themselves not infallible), but the fact that a saint could be widely approved/invoked for centuries, but then be noted as more of a legend or someone who may not have even existed seems problematic (especially since infallibility does not simply extend to bishops/popes but can at times be reflected in the common faith of the church, of which saint veneration would be a huge part).
Thanks again.
Robert (#633):
Addressing me, you assert:
I’m afraid I can’t address that bit of polemic without your being more specific. On the CIP, no development may negate any doctrine that satisfies the criteria for having been infallibly taught, and thus for being “irreformable.” Which ecclesiological development do you believe negates a doctrine which, on the CIP, is irreformable?
You write:
The reason why Rome rarely uses the language of infallibility, and has produced no formal list of the sort you seem to think would be desirable, is that statements about which doctrines are irreformable are second-order statements which do not, themselves, belong to the deposit of faith and thus do not, themselves, belong to the subject matter about which the Church is understood to be infallible. That doesn’t mean, of course, that such statements could be false; when the doctrines such statements are about are in fact irreformable, then statements to that effect must, derivatively, be true. But such statements do not render the doctrines they’re about “more” infallible, or even more credible, than they already were. So, a purportedly precise and exhaustive list of such doctrines would resolve no debates. It would merely introduce another topic for debate.
That said, it is uncontroversial among adherents of the CIP (i.e., among orthodox Catholics) that a good many doctrines do meet the criteria for irreformability: the numerous dogmatic canons of “ecumenical” councils, i.e. councils whose decrees are meant to bind the whole Church; unilateral papal definitions of dogma, which are rare but also so meant; and various doctrines which, though never formally defined as dogmas, have always been taught by the Church as belonging to the deposit of faith (such as those contained in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).
Best,
Mike
JD (#635):
You write:
That description is correct. It isn’t clear to me, though, how that is supposed to pose a problem for the CIP. You seem to pose the problem thus:
Consider Unam Sanctam. It teaches, irreformably, that one must be “subject to the Roman Pontiff” in order to be saved. In light of previous ecclesiological dogma, that statement bears meaning that was and is clear to a certain extent. The clarity derives from the logical context established by such dogma. Thus, “outside the Church there is no salvation”; the visible head of the Church is the Roman Pontiff; therefore, being saved requires that one be subject to the Roman Pontiff. But that doesn’t mean that what’s involved in being so subject cannot vary to some extent by time, place, and circumstance. For instance, US was issued in a region (Western Europe) and at a time (the Middle Ages) when most people were “cradle” Catholics and the culture at large was thoroughly Catholic. Accordingly, Boniface VIII presumed (rightly or wrongly) that the audience to whom he was addressing US had no excuse for rejecting his spiritual authority, and thus could not be saved if, like King Philip “the Fair,” they rejected it. But does that entail, logically, that every non-Catholic in the world is doomed to perdition unless they formally become Catholic–even those who die knowing little or nothing of the Catholic Church? Of course not. For all we know, Boniface may have believed that (though we don’t actually know); but that’s not what he said, nor does it logically follow from what he said. Hence Catholics are not bound to such a belief, even if in fact Boniface held it. They are bound only by what he defined, and by what logically follows from what he defined. I do not understand why that’s supposed to pose such a problem.
Now consider the material-sufficiency/partim-partim issue. The fathers of Trent did indeed revise their language at the last minute for the reason you give. And they did not think that posed a difficulty–because, in fact, it does not. For asserting that the deposit of faith is transmitted “partly” by Scripture and “partly” by unwritten tradition does not entail denying that the whole deposit of faith is somehow contained in Scripture. It only entails denying that the deposit of faith is transmitted and expressed solely by Scripture. Thus the fathers of Trent left the material-sufficiency view (which had been the majority view among Catholic theologians, including Thomas Aquinas) open as an acceptable theological opinion that, as such, is logically compatible with the partim/partim language used in their decree. Again, I do not understand why that is supposed to be such a problem.
You ask:
I agree with Ott et al. They merely repeat the traditional view, which is the only view consistent with both the language of canonization and the CIP. But when, after Vatican II, the Church removed the feast days of certain saints from the liturgical calendar, that did not logically entail any negation of infallibly issued canonizations. For many of the saints thus removed had never been formally canonized to begin with. The removed who had been formally canonized were “demoted” only in the sense that their feast days were merely removed from the “universal” liturgical calendar required to be celebrated by the whole Latin Church. Instead those feasts were left as “optional memorials” for local celebration.
Best,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Appreciate these responses – gonna jump around a bit here. You said:
“Should the Church be thought of as harming peopleâs souls by often encouraging that belief? Only if it can be fairly said that popes and bishops had no excuse for not knowing better, and were therefore culpable for misleading Catholics in general. It seems easy to say that from our historical vantage point, but itâs not that easy.”
I am wondering here what your opinion is in cases of Catholics who obeyed a teaching/endorsement (e.g. slavery, anti-semitism, torture) that later was abrogated/negated based on their desire to be faithful to Church authority (even if they had misgivings) versus those who might have either internally resisted, or even externally resisted (and perhaps suffer associated punishment) – is one more virtuous than the other in your view?
You had said you agree that canonizations are infallible. I understand by this, you mean formal canonizations – presumably all of those from the 11th century onwards when papal ratification become part of the process – and so reject infallibility of canonizations by acclaim (though they could be infallible after all, but only after papal ratification). By papal ratification, I assume you do not count issuances of the Roman Martyrology to the universal church by popes (from which formerly venerated saints have been struck and “unsainted”, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 17th cent) but rather explicit individual and formal canonizations by the pope?
You had said earlier:
“The applicable distinction here, and in the subsequent examples you cite, is not hard to grasp and deploy: that between moral precepts and the prudential application of those precepts. The former can be and often is a subject of infallible teaching; the latter cannot be, because a correct prudential application of moral precepts depends on knowledge of the relevant facts, which can be absent or defective, and about which the Magisterium is in any case fallible.”
My question is how you except canonizations from being a matter of correct prudential application/judgment. Is it not a case of the pope judging the personal sanctity (largely based on evaluation of historical evidence and testimony which can be very fallible) of a person where there is always the possibility of hidden evidence and motives that would prove the person to be a heretic or immoral and hence not a saint?
It seems it is very much like the approval of apparitions – the pope cannot infallibly approve an apparition or bind believers to it because it is private revelation and thus can never be part of and is outside of the deposit of faith. Similarly, how can canonizations be included within the deposit of faith from which infallible teaching comes forth? What differentiates canonizations and apparitions in infallibility?
I will say you are in good company with your view – Ratzinger agrees in his commentary on the Professio Fidei:
“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …”
I sense his distinction between divinely revealed truths, and teachings derived from historical-logical necessity which are to be held definitively but *also infallibly* is the bridge between my understanding and yours, but to be honest this distinction between two tiers of infallible teaching he makes in his commentary is not overly referenced in RC discussions I’ve come across, so I admit my likely ignorance here. Actually surprising RCs don’t make more of it as it seems significant in their defenses of development of doctrine as well.
Thanks.
Mike, (re:#627)
You said:
What if there are objective, hermeneutical principles for interpreting written words?
You said:
Do you see the tension in your first and third sentence here? You argue: it is possible for God to do it that way, but one reason you think He didn’t is because it would devolve to subjectivity and opinion. Let’s load the question up a bit. Is it possible for God to divinely reveal information without the means of an external, visible, infallible body such that His people can grasp the information without devolving into subjectivity and opinion?
You said:
Ok, how about the example of whether theistic evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching. See Comment #605 for the citations that lead some conservative Catholics to hold the view that theistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
John (#639):
I had written:
In response, you ask:
When we’re interpreting works of this-or-that genre written by purely human, individual authors, there certainly are such principles, as well as a considerable measure of agreement about how to apply them. But as I’ve said before, the Bible is not quite like that. It is a canonical collection of writings of different genres composed by many people over a period of at least 1,000 years, the last writing of which was composed nearly 2,000 years ago. Beyond that, what makes the Bible more than just a library of ancient religious literature, and actually a normative expression of divine revelation, is that God is its principal author. Thus, in order to interpret the Bible for doctrinal purposes as its principal author intends, it is not enough to know, in any particular case, what the human authors consciously intended to assert–though even that is sometimes problematic, since many of the sentences in the Bible are not “assertions” in the strict, logical sense of that term.
For one thing, one must know on other grounds why the human assertions–to the extent those can be ascertained–must, in general, be understood as divine assertions. In other words, one must know the grounds for saying that the Bible is an inerrant expression of divine revelation. Even more pertinent, one must also know when and why certain assertions made by the original human authors are actually meant by God to mean more than what those authors consciously intended–e.g., the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 as interpreted by Matthew 1:23, or the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Jesus rose from the dead “in accordance with the Scriptures,” which would certainly have been news to the original OT authors when they wrote. The ordinary principles of literary hermeneutics simply do not suffice to supply either sort of knowledge.
You ask:
That is not only possible; God has actually done it, in the case of all those biblical figures who experienced divine revelation directly. But that’s not the situation I’m talking about. I’m talking about our situation: one in which the public, definitive, and once-for-all revelation in Jesus Christ occurred long ago, and is only transmitted to us, who have not experienced it directly, by means of Scripture and Tradition. My argument is twofold: absent the sort of authority the Catholic Church claims for herself, both the content and the meaning the divine revelation so identified must remain a matter of opinion. Absent such authority, even when individuals happen to hold and teach the tenets of divine revelation infallibly, by virtue of being enlightened by the Spirit, there is no basis other than their own feeling of certainty and others’ opinions for affirming that they do so.
Finally, you pose the issue of evolution as a problem for the CIP. Thus:
Some Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists” do indeed believe that “theistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith.” They are mistaken. As evidence for that claim, I offer two citations from papal documents.
The first is from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950):
The second is from Pope John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996:
Although both popes certainly upheld the two binding dogmas you cite in #605, they do allow that the human body is the product of “evolution” in the sense of genetic mutation and natural selection. In so doing, they contradict what the non-ecumenical and thus non-binding Council of Cologne had asserted.
That is a very good example of how the CIP works, and of how the Church has learned from her mistake in the case of heliocentrism. No defined dogma is denied, but a widespread and weighty theological opinion has been rejected in light of the progress of science.
Best,
Mike
Mike (re: #641),
Thanks for the reply.
You said:
I think the Reformers were fairly united in their belief that there is no better grounds for saying that the Bible is an inerrant expression of divine revelation than it is God Himself who has revealed it. While there are other lines of evidence for confirming Godâs Word (reasoned philosophical arguments, the harmonization of certain passages, archaeological evidence, historical arguments), these are all subordinate grounds to the fact that it is God Himself who has spoken, and when He speaks, His people hear His voice.
In response to my question, you said:
Letâs see if I can load up the question a bit more. Would it be possible for God to make a public, definitive, once-for-all revelation in Jesus Christ long ago and still bring His people of all generations to an authentic understanding of such revelation without an external, visible, infallible body?
Lastly, thanks for responding to the problem of evolution. While I must admit Pope Pius XIIâs encyclical and JPIIâs address are both authoritative, what reason is there to believe that they spoke infallibly in those instances? And if they did not speak infallibly, then, by your own standards, the CIP is stuck with the problem of determining whether or not theistic evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith.
Peace,
John D.
John D (#641):
As your grounds for saying that the Bible is an inerrant expression of divine revelation, you write:
So the Bible should be regarded as an inerrant expression of divine revelation because God has revealed that to be the case, and is believed by the people who listen to him? As an answer to my challenge, that is singularly unhelpful. For what we’re disagreeing about is, precisely, the grounds for saying that “God has revealed” that the Bible is an inerrant record of divine revelation. As such grounds, I cite the Tradition of that Church whose Magisterium is divinely authorized to teach in Christ’s name and, as such, is preserved from error under certain conditions. Under such conditions, it has taught both what belongs in the the Bible and that such a collection is an inerrant record of divine revelation. Thus, on the CIP, the FPOF is the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, understood as mutually attesting and interdependent. On the RIP, the FPOF is the Bible alone, so that anything else cited as grounds for taking the Bible as an inerrant record of divine revelation is not an FPOF, but is both fallible in itself and fallibly cited. Hence, on the RIP or any CPIP, the status of the Bible can only be held and taught as a matter of opinion. And opinion is not the same as divine revelation.
You write:
The more you “load up” the question, the more useless it becomes. We are not discussing the question what it’s logically possible for God to do, but the question what God has done in fact. When confronted with different answers to that latter question, the question then becomes which answer it’s more reasonable to believe. Saying that God could have done what you say he’s done, as opposed to what I say he’s done, does not answer that question.
Finally, you argue:
The fact you cite is that some Catholic traditionalists disagree with the papal magisterium on a matter of interpretation: to wit, the question whether the theory of “theistic evolution” is logically compatible with what the Catholic Church has taught with her full authority, and thus infallibly. Yet you have cited no grounds for holding that theistic evolution is incompatible with such teaching, other than the fact that some Catholic traditionalists say so. But that’s not a reason to believe they’re right. Thus you have not posed a problem for the CIP.
Best,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Don’t mean to interrupt your convo with JohnD (no relation) too much but saw you wrote:
“For what weâre disagreeing about is, precisely, the grounds for saying that âGod has revealedâ that the Bible is an inerrant record of divine revelation.”
and
“Thus, on the CIP, the FPOF is the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, understood as mutually attesting and interdependent. On the RIP, the FPOF is the Bible alone, so that anything else cited as grounds for taking the Bible as an inerrant record of divine revelation is not an FPOF, but is both fallible in itself and fallibly cited. Hence, on the RIP or any CPIP, the status of the Bible can only be held and taught as a matter of opinion. And opinion is not the same as divine revelation.”
I’m not clear on why a person cannot put faith in Scripture’s claims based on motives of credibility just as a person can put faith in the STM triad’s claims based on MOC. Can’t I simply ask you
“For what weâre disagreeing about is, precisely, the grounds for saying that âGod has revealedâ that the Church/STM-triad is an infallible vehicle of divine revelation.”
And how would your response differ from someone claiming MOC for Scripture’s claims?
Similarly, cannot the other statement be posed to you:
“On the CIP, the FPOF is the STM-triad, so that anything else cited [i.e. the MOC + faith] as grounds for taking the STM-triad as an infallible vehicle of divine revelation is not an FPOF, but is both fallible in itself and fallibly cited. Hence, on the CIP, the status of the STM-triad can only be held and taught as a matter of opinion. And opinion is not the same as divine revelation.”
Also, not sure if you missed my post 638 but am interested in your response there also. Thanks again.
JD (#643):
You wrote:
“Scripture” makes no claim that it is an inerrant record of divine revelation. To accept it as such, one must accept, as divine and thus infallible, the authority of those who wrote the works it contains and of those who collected those writings into a canon. Such authority is personal; the authority of a library–which is what Scripture is–is entirely contingent on such personal authority; a library per se has no such authority, because it is merely a composite, inanimate object produced by persons, who alone are a fit subject of such authority. On the CIP, the Magisterium of the Church is the authority by which we affirm that the human authors of Scripture were inspired and thus infallible when they wrote, and is the authority by which we affirm that such-and-such writings are thus, collectively, an inerrant record of divine revelation. On the CPIP (or one of its variants, the RIP), there is no such authority.
You wrote:
As you’ve noted, on the CIP (as described by Ratzinger), the infallibility of the Magisterium extends not merely to the deposit of faith as such, but also “to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively,” which includes, among other things, ” the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts).” About that instance you raise a difficulty.
I had posited a distinction “between moral precepts and the prudential application of those precepts,” arguing that “[t]he former can be and often is a subject of infallible teaching; the latter cannot be, because a correct prudential application of moral precepts depends on knowledge of the relevant facts, which can be absent or defective, and about which the Magisterium is in any case fallible.â In view of that, you wonder why the same cannot be said of “dogmatic facts,” such as the canonization of saints. My answer is that, in the case of the prudential application of moral precepts, the variables affecting the correct application of those precepts can vary uncountably and do not always suffice to yield a clear and correct judgment; whereas in the case of the canonization of saints, the variables are pretty limited: unquestioned Catholic faith, outstanding virtue, and martyrdom by death or miracles performed either while alive or by intercession from heaven. None of those factors suffice when taken one by one; but it is the tradition of the Church from the beginning that, taken collectively, they do suffice to justify a definitive judgment, divinely protected from error, that the holy person’s soul is in heaven interceding for us.
Best,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Got 3 followup questions if ya don’t mind.
You said:
“âScriptureâ makes no claim that it is an inerrant record of divine revelation. To accept it as such, one must accept, as divine and thus infallible, the authority of those who wrote the works it contains and of those who collected those writings into a canon. Such authority is personal; the authority of a libraryâwhich is what Scripture isâis entirely contingent on such personal authority; a library per se has no such authority, because it is merely a composite, inanimate object produced by persons, who alone are a fit subject of such authority.”
In another thread you had said in reference to OT rule of faith:
“For the Jews at the time, the FPOF was such writings as they believed to be divinely inspired, which for practical purposes amounted to the Torah or Pentateuch.”
It seems you’re saying that there is no logical way for Scripture to be the FPOF for the NT church, but allow it for the OT/intertestamental period? You can of course argue other reasons why the NT church has to have the STM triad as the FPOF, but I’m not seeing how you can argue as above in the first citation without undermining the second.
Secondly, you also said:
“The reason why Rome rarely uses the language of infallibility, and has produced no formal list of the sort you seem to think would be desirable, is that statements about which doctrines are irreformable are second-order statements which do not, themselves, belong to the deposit of faith and thus do not, themselves, belong to the subject matter about which the Church is understood to be infallible.”
And I cited Ratzinger on infallible truths derived by historical necessity which you agreed with:
âWith regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations âŚâ
It seems an infallible list of infallible decrees/teachings would fall under this purview no? Why does the legitimacy of the election of the Pope or the celebration of an ecumenical council not fall under statements that do not belong to the deposit of faith (as you said “which doctrines are irreformable are second-order statements which do not, themselves, belong to the deposit of faith and thus do not, themselves, belong to the subject matter about which the Church is understood to be infallible.”)
Thirdly, I had mentioned in post 638:
You said
âShould the Church be thought of as harming peopleâs souls by often encouraging that belief? Only if it can be fairly said that popes and bishops had no excuse for not knowing better, and were therefore culpable for misleading Catholics in general. It seems easy to say that from our historical vantage point, but itâs not that easy.â
I am wondering here what your opinion is in cases of Catholics who obeyed a teaching/endorsement (e.g. slavery, anti-semitism, torture) that later was abrogated/negated based on their desire to be faithful to Church authority (even if they had misgivings) versus those who might have either internally resisted, or even externally resisted (and perhaps suffer associated punishment) â is one more virtuous than the other in your view?
Still curious on your viewpoint there. Thanks.
Mike (re: #642),
Last time, I asked a loaded question: Would it be possible for God to make a public, definitive, once-for-all revelation in Jesus Christ long ago and still bring His people of all generations to an authentic understanding of such revelation without an external, visible, infallible body?
To which you responded:
One of your main arguments against the plausibility of the RIP has been that there could be no principled means of distinguishing divine revelation from mere human opinion. It seemed to me that you were arguing that such a thing was logically impossible on a RIP.
For example, you have stated:
. I would contend that unless you answer my loaded question in the negative, you must abandon your in principle argument. Since if you answer in the affirmative, then your statement that it “must remain a matter of opinion” is false. Let me know if I am missing something in this analysis.
As for the Traditionalist argument against theistic evolution being compatible with the Catholic faith, the following is cut from John Salza’s website:
According to your strict rules about principled means, no one could affirm compatibility of theistic evolution with Catholicism unless there was an infallible statement refuting Salza’s interpretation of Church dogma. Am I wrong?
Peace,
John D.
John D:
Before I resume our lengthy and increasingly intricate discussion, I need to understand your motivation. Is your primary motive simply to understand these subtle aspects of Catholic theology, so that you can then go on to decide for yourself whether Catholicism is at least reasonable enough to accept? Or is your primary motive to keep probing for a difficulty that I am not able to resolve, in the hope that your Reformed viewpoint will thus be vindicated?
A sincere answer is important to me. If your primary motive is the former, then we are companions on a path of inquiry, and we are conducting dialogue in that spirit. I would see that as potentially quite fruitful. If your primary motive is the latter, however, then we are opponents in a debate. Now the purpose of a debate as such is to win, or at least to hold one’s own. But rarely does one ever see the loser in a debate publicly admit they have lost, even if they believe internally that they have lost. It’s a matter of saving face. Accordingly, if what we’re having is primarily a debate, I do not believe the outcome would be fruitful and would not wish to engage further. Either nobody will have “won,” or the loser won’t concede they have lost.
So, which is it going to be?
Best,
Mike
Hi Mike,
I don’t know if you’re responding to me or JohnD (since I was the one who pinged you in the other thread), but if you’re referring to me and my last post 3 posts up, I am not trying to win any debate. I am just trying to understand your perspective and engage in discussion – that’s why each of my posts has built upon your responses as I get more and more clarification. I find your answers thoughtful and interesting which is why I pinged you to resume, not to force you into some battle or something or catch you with some gotcha, which is why I have always tried forming my followup questions charitably with room for misunderstanding on my part and always try to take into account what you’ve said in your previous replies.
If I was some hyper Reformed zealot, I don’t think you’d find me quoting Garrigou-Lagrange’s criticisms of Jansenism in the other thread. So there is no need to fear disingenuity.
Mike (re: #647),
I appreciate your interaction throughout the discussion.
1. My initial primary motive was to show that your argument was not an airtight, knockdown winner. That, in itself, would not vindicate the Reformed view.
2. The sinner I am, there were probably several times when I was trying to score debate points rather than engage in meaningful dialogue. Jason Stellman has mentioned this phenomenon is why he doesn’t love formal debates.
3. I am a kid behind a computer who is open to Catholicism. I’ve learned a lot from you, Bryan Cross, Jason, Prejean, CatholicNick and others. Sometimes I press because I see that you have a good argument, and I want to see if it holds up under strict scrutiny.
So, I think it would prob be good to end our discussion for now. With work I have trouble keeping up with these threads. Obviously, feel free to respond if you would like, but I will not offer a rejoinder any time soon. If you have any reading recommendations on the topics of Scripture, Tradition, Authority, Canon, Infallibility, etc. then I am all ears. If Catholicism is true, then I want to be Catholic. If Reformed Christianity is true, then I want to be a Reformed Christian.
Peace,
John D.
John D,
I would like to offer you some reading recommendations, but I’m not sure what you have already read. Have you read Rome Sweet Home? Have you read Steve Ray’s book on the primacy of Peter? Have you looked at some of the arguments on fisheaters.com? There’s a section there called “for Protestants” that does a good job in dealing with a lot of these questions individually, and it helped me out a great deal. I am praying for you, that you go wherever the Lord is leading you. I have enjoyed our back-and-forth discussions on my blog, because your feedback has helped me to think about lines of defense for my faith that I might not have considered before. At any rate, if you have any questions or want feedback or dialogue in any way, or are looking for different types of reading recommendations, please feel free to contact me through my blog. I will just try to answer your questions as best and honestly as I can, without trying to push you in a particular direction. The important thing is your love and desire for the truth. Ask all the questions you need to and get them answered and be satisfied with the answers you find. You will never go wrong if you’re honestly looking for the truth above all other things. I am praying for you.
In Christ,
Scott
JD and JohnD:
I apologize for confusing the two of you with each other. It had been awhile since I looked at this thread, and your handles are quite similar. In my next few comments, I shall respond to each of you separately.
Best,
Mike
JD (#645):
1. Addressing me, you write:
Your challenge is ambiguous in two ways. First, if by ‘Scripture’ you mean the biblical canon recognized as such now by the Catholic Church, of course Scripture in that sense couldn’t have been the FPOF for the NT Church, for it was not yet fully written and canonized at that point. But if by ‘Scripture’ you mean the Septuagint canon–which is what the NT Church meant by ‘Scripture’–then THAT was part of the FPOF for the NT Church. For Jesus, who as the incarnate Word is the primary object of faith, used and cited it as divinely inspired Scripture within the living memory of the Apostles, the leaders of the “NT Church.”
Second and more generally, the “STM triad” as the Catholic Church understands that today was not exactly the FPOF for the Church while the Apostles were alive. The purpose of the STM triad in the divine economy is to reliably transmit the deposit of faith to those of us who did not experience divine revelation directly. Yet that very revelation was still in the process of unfolding until the last Apostle died; thus the STM triad, which is part of that revelation, was too. Therefore, what is now transmitted to us by the STM triad as FPOF had not yet been completed as the deposit of faith–including, of course, itself.
2. You quoted Ratzinger’s 1998 “Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei thus:
and observed:
As to “an infallible list of infallible decrees/teachings,” two apparent misunderstandings need to be cleared up.
First, no document or form of words is infallible; only persons can be infallible. When documents or other forms of teaching contain teachings set forth infallibly by those who exercise the Magisterium, those teachings are called “irreformable.” Once produced, the documents themselves can only be called “infallible” by analogy of attribution. But I advise against such usage. It often causes people to treat the documents or words themselves as the bearers, rather than as manifestations, of infallibility. That’s an error because what makes a given teaching irreformable is not its medium of expression, but rather the grace by which it is infallibly taught.
Second, there can be no complete-and-infallible list of irreformable teachings, although there can be a partial list of such teachings, such as the sort Ratzinger gave. For at any given time, not all teachings which are in fact irreformable have been explicitly recognized as such by the Church; and not all authentic expressions of divine revelation that the Church will set forth infallibly have been formulated yet.
As to the category of “dogmatic facts”–which is the category to which the examples you cite belong–those are not part of the deposit of faith because they are not part of what’s been handed on from the beginning of the Church. They only came to be true later.
3. You ask:
Answering a question like that requires relying on a particular interpretation of Vatican II’s use of the phrase “religious assent,” which Ratzinger explained a bit in the Doctrinal Commentary. As I interpret it, religious assent is the disposition to render sincere, inward assent to magisterial teaching that is not “proposed definitively,” but with the proviso that one is not blameworthy if one’s conscience does not permit one to render such assent. That proviso means that, if sincerely believes that following a given non-definitive teaching T would be immoral, one is not blameworthy for withholding one’s assent to T.
In the cases you mention, then, the Catholics in question would not have been blameworthy for withholding assent. At the same time, however, they cannot be presumed blameworthy for rendering such assent. For one cannot say, of any particular Catholic, that they are morally obligated to anticipate the judgment of the Church that a particular moral teaching or practice was, in fact, erroneous.
Best,
Mike
John D (#646, #649):
You had asked:
To that, I had responded:
You find that answer unsatisfactory. Thus you “contend” that “unless you answer my loaded question in the negative, you must abandon your in principle argument,” i.e. my argument that Catholicism has, and Protestantism lacks, a principled means of distinguishing between authentic expressions of divine revelation and mere human theological opinions. But you have offered no actual argument for that contention–and if you did, it would be unsound. That’s because I don’t have to rule out the schema you hypothesize as impossible in order to show that the CIP has, while the RIP lacks, a principled means of the sort in question. And why is that?
Part of what Catholicism claims is divinely revealed is that God wills the triad: Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium as the means of transmission, to those of us who have not experienced divine revelation directly, for the rest of what’s divinely revealed. That indeed is necessary for saying that Catholicism offers a “principled means” for distinguishing between divine revelation and human opinion. For in order to be able to identify such-and-such data as those of divine revelation, the dataset must include authorization, from its ultimate originator, of its own means of transmission. If the medium does not bear the stamp of divine authority, there’s no principled reason to say that the message does. That’s why even Jesus was always talking about being “sent” by the Father, saying and doing nothing simply on his own, and that’s why even the RIP has it that Scripture bears just such a stamp.
Now if there is no “external, visible, infallible body” telling us what belongs in Scripture and what it means, then if it is not to be purely an opinion, the conviction that such-and-such a collection of writings is an inerrant record of divine revelation must be validated by a divine, interior witness enjoyed by individuals taken severally. That indeed is how the RIP would have it, and something of the sort is required by your postulate. But if such individuals are not themselves infallible, by virtue of inheriting divine authority to say what does and does not belong to divine revelation, then their conviction that their interior witness is divine, and thus validates Scripture as an inerrant record of divine revelation, lacks divine authority. If it lacks divine authority, then it is either human knowledge or human opinion. But it can’t be human knowledge, because its very subject matter–i.e. special divine revelation–is precisely what cannot be discovered by by any of the methods through which we acquire knowledge, but what we must be shown and told by God, on his authority. And it cannot be held and taught simply as opinion, for whatever the content of such revelation is, it is not a matter of opinion. So, to sustain your postulate, you have to say that what bears the needed stamp of divine authority is the interior witness of individuals who, in just that respect, are infallible because their interior witness is self-authenticating. And that scenario is indeed possible. But even if such individuals happen to be infallible in just that respect and for just that reason, there is no reason beyond than their own word for believing they are, unless they can be said, on independent grounds, to have inherited the same teaching authority that Jesus bestowed on the Apostles. Which, of course, you do not claim.
You write:
Yes, you are wrong. Salza’s interpretation of the Catholic dogma of creation is neither held nor endorsed by the Magisterium itself. In fact, Pope John Paul II affirmed the compatibility of theistic evolution with Catholicism; by contrast, Salza’s is a minority interpretation that does not follow deductively from the teachings he cites. If I have to show you in detail why it doesn’t follow, I will. But, for the reason I’ve just given, that should not be necessary.
I appreciate everything you said in #649. Having said you’re not likely to respond further, you’ve indicated that you would appreciate more resources for understanding Catholic teaching. The best I can do now is recommend that you read Vatican II’s two “dogmatic constitutions”: the one on divine revelation, called Dei Verbum, and the one on the Church, called Lumen Gentium. They are available free online. If you have further questions–as you doubtless will–feel free to return with them.
Best,
Mike
Bryan,
Quick question. Above in comments you say “the infusion of the divine agape which is Christâs righteousness.” You’ve written a lot about agape with various definitions – Christ’s righteousness, participation in the divine nature, indwelling of the Trinity, love of God (for Himself I think?), and similar statements (not that they are mutually exclusive of course). If we take the “Christ’s righteousness” definition, when Trent says:
I get a bit confused. I understand “whereby He maketh us just” affirms infusion as opposed to extra nos imputation, but if we are infused with “Christ’s righteousness”, is that not the righteousness whereby He Himself is just as well? We then share in it and can grow deeper in it yes – it is not extra nos – but it seems that His righteousness is indeed the one infused into us. I feel like Trent should’ve said “not that whereby He Himself is just which remains outside us” and maybe that would be clearer?
Also, if someone asked you for a single unified definition of agape, how would you define it?
And Mike,
Thanks for the reply – informative and precise as always. I need to mull it over :)
JD (re: #654),
I’ve addressed this in comment #156 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread.
As for “a single unified definition of agape,” that’s not a neutral (non-question-begging) question, because what we mean when we say that God is agape is not exactly the same as what we mean when we speak of the infusion of agape, as I explain at the link I just provided. In God, agape is that primary movement of His will toward the universal good which is Himself, both as knowing Himself (i.e. Father) and as known by Himself (i.e. Son), and thus proceeding from both. But in graced creatures, agape is the supernatural infused virtue in our will by which we participate in this same movement of the Spirit, i.e. desiring above all things (or resting in) the universal good illuminated to our intellects by the supernatural light of faith (or beatific vision) to see God with God as God sees Himself for God’s sake, and thus in our will share in the same motion of the Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son, by which movement we in this present life seek to do all in our grace-infused capacities to bring glory and honor to God, to make His Name known and hallowed, and to advance His Kingdom and His will on earth.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Bryan,
Thanks. So a kind of related question. Infused agape is 100% righteous – hence no further sanctification/meriting/growth in charity after death. But most are still saved with temporal punishment (from mortal and venial sin) and guilt of venial sin still on their soul. Purgatory sanctifies us not in the first sense (growth in charity/agape) but in the sense of both conforming our lower appetites (concupiscence) to our will which has been formed in and seats charity and also in the sense of satisfying temporal punishment through purgatorial suffering (perhaps the 2 are exactly correlated – i.e. our suffering/temporal punishment eliminates concupiscence, but I’m not sure).
A few questions:
1. If agape is in the will, and venial sin can be still acts of the will how is agape not wounded or diminished, as opposed to being extinguished like in mortal sin? I can understand concupiscence not affecting agape as it is not in the will, but venial sin is more than just concupiscence and can, although not always, be willed. Or is it just that our *growth* in agape is wounded/diminished due to venial sin?
2. How does Purgatory satisfy not only their debt and temporal punishment, but their guilt as well? Acts of charity and love cover venial sin in this life, but there is no further room for merit/acts of charity in Purgatory so why does our suffering therefore remove the guilt?
3. I see in the ST Aquinas talks about venial sin expiation in Purgatory and says:
“After this life there can be no merit in respect of the essential reward, but there can be in respect of some accidental reward, so long as man remains in the state of the way, in a sense. Consequently in Purgatory there can be a meritorious act in respect of the remission of venial sin.”
Perhaps this touches on my previous question – but I don’t understand the reasoning for there being this “merit” of accidental reward in Purgatory – it seems ad hoc though surely not given its Aquinas. I could see the accidental reward being satisfying the debt of temporal punishment and perhaps the removal of concupiscence, but don’t see how guilt/remission of venial sin could be merited as well.
Thanks.
JD (re: #656)
St. Thomas addresses this in Summa Theologica II-II Q.24 a.10.
As for venial guilt, purgatory purges from us the attachments we have (in the will) to venial sin. As for merit in purgatory, this isn’t merit properly speaking, because the decisive choice of the will is already fixed definitively at the moment of death, but only merit per accidens, namely, that by remaining in the state of the way (though not yet seeing) man receives the ‘reward’ of purification, both from temporal punishment and venial guilt.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the ST link – informative as to be expected from Aquinas. Few more questions.
1. Would you agree that venial sin does not diminish charity, but does impede our growth in charity/merit?
This part is more speculative – since Mary had no venial sin, would she therefore be constantly meriting reward and hence merited the “maximum” amount any human possibly could? (I’m aware Trent mentions the degree of agape infused at justification can vary according to person, but I would think she would likewise have a higher degree infused at conception than any human possibly could).
2. You said about purgation of venial guilt – “by remaining in the state of the way (though not yet seeing) man receives the ârewardâ of purification, both from temporal punishment and venial guilt.”
Is this reception of the reward of purification cooperative or synergistic as it is with initial justification during life? Or is it operative at all?
3. You have raised the question to Protestants before I believe that if extra nos imputation was granted, why could God not continue to view you under imputation after death in eternity rather than making you fully righteous internally – so the legal fiction just goes on for eternity. Similarly, in RCism, if agape is 100% righteous and the divine life and indwelling of the Trinity is within you so that your works in agape are truly good and the like, why can’t God continue to see you in that way (since you are indeed truly just and partaking of His nature) eternally? Why must purification take place (I’m assuming here purification is actually necessary for divine communion, not just a gift)?
Thanks.
JD, (re: #658)
Yes.
Yes.
Cooperative.
God sees things as they are, when they are. So the “why can’t God continue to see …” question is a misguided question, because it doesn’t get to what is fundamental. The more fundamental question is why can’t we continue in that condition? And the answer to that question is we cannot be perfectly happy until every remnant of sin is removed from every part of us. And we cannot see God until that is the case.
This conversation is veering off track from the topic of the post, so may I request that you keep any future comments on the topic of the post. Thanks!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Mike (re: #653) [or anyone who has pondered these things],
I would like to revisit our dialogue from last year, but I still need to do more homework. That being said, I’ve had a burning question that I wanted to ask for a while. I can ask it in response to this:
My question might sound odd and off-topic, but believe or not, this is one question thing that originally led me (a born and raised Catholic) to reexamine the Catholic position. Here’s the question: Would you say that any interpretations of the words of the U.S. Constitution are purely opinion?. As I read discussions about how to interpret certain portions of the U.S. Constitution, I was constantly struck by how certain interpretations seemed demonstrably correct and others demonstrably false. I was even further rattled when I realized that I agreed with certain authors that the visible teaching body (the Supreme Court) wrongly interpreted the text in key cases. That is, all my reading led me to the conclusion that the original text could be faithfully interpreted apart from infallibility. This same reasoning seemed to apply to Scripture as well.
Thoughts?
PS – I still intend to do my homework so I can better understand all you explained in #653 and argued in our discussion last year.
Peace,
John D.
JD (#660):
Sorry I didn’t notice your comment till now. I’ve been busy with job hunting, which is a full-time job. When I start getting into CTC, almost everything flies out the window. So I’ve been paying little attention lately.
You write:
In much of the original text of the Constitution, the interpretation is straightforward and thus supplies knowledge of what the original framers intended. Those are the interpretations that are “demonstrably correct,” and hence the opposite interpretations are “demonstrably incorrect.” In a few cases, the written text is vague enough to permit differing but reasonable interpretations, which are thus opinions. That very elasticity seems, in some cases, to have been what some of the framers intended. In the case of the Bill of Rights and certain subsequent amendments–especially the 14th–there is considerable room for interpretation at the margins. So much room, in fact, that many statutes and practices assumed to be “constitutional” when the amendments were passed are eventually ruled otherwise. Some of those rulings, in my view, are unreasonable, and thus demonstrably incorrect. But that remains a matter of opinion, not of knowledge.
Now the Bible is a much more difficult text to interpret than the U.S. Constitution. For one thing, the latest of the writings it comprises is about 2,000 years old, and the earliest is arguably about 3,000 years old. Although the Bible is an important contributor to our contemporary American cultural milieu, it is much more historically distant from that milieu than the Constitution, and emerged from milieux quite different from ours. So, a greater proportion of interpretations aiming at what the original human authors intended, and at what the original audiences understood, are opinions than in the case of the Constitution. All the same, though, there are certain interpretations that do constitute knowledge of those intentions and understanding. So, whether we’re talking about a secular text such as the Constitution, or a sacred library such as the Bible, such knowledge as we can acquire of what the human authors intended, and of what the original audience understood, does not require infallibility. To that extent, your analogy holds.
But that is not what is at issue between the CIP and the CPIP in general, and thus not what is at issue between the CIP and the RIP in particular. The question is not whether, when we know by literary and historical investigation what the original authors intended and the original audience understood, we know it infallibly. Of course we don’t. The question, rather, is whether we can know what God intends as the principal and inspiring author, and know it infallibly. But if what I have long been arguing is correct, we cannot know that infallibly–for the simple reason that we cannot know it at all. That’s because, even on the assumption that the Bible is an inspired and thus inerrant record of special divine revelation, the very subject matter of special divine revelation is precisely we cannot know by human reason or methods, but which we can only apprehend on divine authority. Accordingly, when we are correct about what God intends as principal author of the Bible, we are correct either because we have formed a reasonable opinion that happens to be correct, or because we believe that very content by the divine gift of faith in the authorities who wrote, received, collected, proclaimed as inspired, and still interpret the writings comprised by the Bible.
Now what God intends is unalterable, and unalterably true. But if the authorities in question are always fallible, and the subject matter is a sphere of knowledge, then we have no principled way of distinguishing what we believe by faith in them from mere human opinions, which are always and in principle open to revision pending further evidence and argument, even when the opinions happen to be correct. So, reliably identifying what God intends and reveals by the Bible, as principal author thereof, requires faith in such authorities as infallible under certain conditions.
Best,
Mike
As a point of reference, it is very often that atheist interlocutors feel this necessity when criticizing religious faith. They dually recognize its necessity and the absence of it in their interlocutors position (evangelical, protestant, etc.). The lack of admission of this necessity leads to a further ridiculing of the faith because it (the necessity of the reliability of the authorities) is obvious for both historical and epistemological reasons.
What a Protestant would have to do is posit a great apostasy, whereby they could and did trust the authorities then, but that authority was lost somewhere between then and now. In fact, many do posit this theory. Patrick Vandapool has evaluated one such theory of apostasy in his new, short read, “Wandering into Myths: Problems with the Protestant Church of Christ’s Theory of Apostasy and Restoration.”. I’ve included the link for anyone who might be interested.
Mike (#661),
Thanks for your response. I have recently come back to it and reread it. A couple quick comments/questions.
Here you seem to acknowledge that Scripture is perspicuous in at least some cases, and perspicuous enough to lead to knowledge for the believer. Is that correct?
Ok, but it still seems that on the CIP people mainly have recourse to “reasonable opinion”. It’s just that on the CIP, the reasonable opinions will be fewer and narrowed by parameters set up by the magisterium. Nonetheless, if the magisterium has not “officially interpreted that verse” (as some Protestants like to say), is the RC position really much different than the Reformed?
Peace,
John D.
Maybe inquiring minds would like to read the follow-up from Jason’s blog:
https://www.creedcodecult.com/two-years-a-catholic/
Maybe David Anders should give Jason a shot on the radio show.
Chortles and Darryl,
Jason makes a couple appearances in the following video trailer:
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan