A Response to Steven Nemes’s “Why Remain Protestant?”
Nov 1st, 2021 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsSteven Nemes is a Protestant theologian and phenomenologist who teaches Latin at North Phoenix Prep, a Great Hearts Academy. He is also an adjunct professor at Grand Canyon University. He received his Ph.D. in Theology in 2021 from Fuller Theological Seminary. This fall Steven has uploaded two videos in which he argues that Protestants should remain Protestant. Below I present Steven’s arguments and provide a Catholic response.
Steven Nemes
Why Remain Protestant?: Part I
Steven has presented his argument in two parts, one video for each part. Below I lay out and respond to the arguments in Part 1, and then do the same for Part II. All quotations from Steven’s videos are referenced by the minute from which they are taken from the video from which they are taken.
Steven’s first argument for why Protestants should remain Protestant begins with the claim that the “Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches associate themselves with particular teachers in a way that goes contrary to Christ’s teaching.” (2′) To defend this claim he refers (3′) to Matthew 23:8-10, where Christ says, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father — the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.”
After describing how Christ’s words applied to the Scribes and Pharisees (5′ – 9′), Steven then claims that while the Catholic Church agrees that “in the truest and ultimate sense” that there is only one teacher, namely, Christ, in practice the Catholic Church contradicts this by prioritizing “tradition to Scripture.” (9′) He adds that the Catholic Church “set[s] up teachers alongside Christ, contrary to what Christ says to His disciple.”(9′) Here he is referring to the Magisterium, namely, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.1 Steven then claims that Catholics put bishops “alongside Christ rather than under Him as His students.” (10′-11′) He claims that the Catholic church puts forward “certain students as though they were just as reliable as the Teacher Himself, namely the holy fathers and the Magisterium of the Church when speaking under certain conditions.” (12′)
In order to explain the flaw in Steven’s argument, I need to say something first about the Catholic understanding of the relation between Scripture and sacred tradition. In the Catholic tradition we rightly approach Scripture in the Church and through sacred tradition. That is because in the Catholic tradition, Scripture belongs to the Church, and comes to us through the Church, and through the shepherds Christ has established in His Church. This relation between Scripture and the Church is illustrated by the fact that the Church determined which books belong to the canon of Scripture and which do not. Although scholars can and do study Scripture as if it is not sacred, and outside of its ecclesial context, nevertheless, as a sacred text it belongs properly to the divinely established community who received it, namely, the Church, and is understood rightly according to the tradition handed down within that community. This is a very different paradigm from the Protestant paradigm regarding the interpretation of Scripture. See, for example, my essay “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”
This paradigm difference can be seen in Tertullian’s statement that “heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures.”2 Hence as I wrote in my dialogue with Michael Horton in 2010:
Tertullian here shows that those who are not in communion with the Apostolic Churches have no right to appeal to Scripture to defend their positions, because the Scriptures belong to the bishops to whom the Apostolic writings were entrusted by the Apostles. Since the Scriptures belong to the bishops, those not in communion with those bishops in the universal Church have no right to challenge what the bishops say that the Scriptures teach. The sacred books do not belong to them, but to the bishops to whom the Apostles entrusted them. Since the Scriptures belongs to the bishops and have been entrusted to them, they have the right and authority to determine its authentic and authoritative interpretation.
In the Catholic tradition heresy is not determined by interpreting Scripture apart from Scripture and sacred tradition, and then measuring candidate doctrines against one’s interpretation of Scripture. Rather, before we even get to the interpretation of Scripture, we have to consider to whom Scripture belongs, who has the authority to determine how it is to be interpreted, and by what rule or tradition it is to be interpreted.
Now consider Steven’s argument. Steven is making use of a notion from the Protestant tradition, according to which Scripture is not to be understood through what Catholics understand as sacred tradition, to arrive at an interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10. In Steven’s interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10, based on this Protestant notion, to be a student of Christ entails not having Magisterial authority, and not having what the Catholic Church refers to as the gift of infallibility, since those two qualities would place certain students of Christ “on the same level as the Teacher.” (13′) On the basis of this notion from the Protestant tradition regarding how to approach and interpret Scripture, Steven infers that what Jesus said in Matthew 23 in criticism of the way the Scribes and Pharisees used their traditions, applies also to how the Magisterium of the Catholic Church treats sacred tradition, which, according to the Catholic Church was received orally from the Apostles and preserved in the liturgies and the writings of the Church Fathers. In this way Steven treats his interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10 as the authoritative standard by which to determine that the Catholic Church contradicts Christ, and that therefore Protestants should remain Protestant.
But Steven has not shown that Matthew 23:8-10 contradicts Catholic doctrine; he has only shown that his interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10 contradicts Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church, and I as a Catholic, assent by faith to the authority and truth of Matthew 23:8-10, but not to Steven’s interpretation of Matthew 23:8-10. By presupposing the Protestant tradition in his hidden premise, i.e. that Scripture is not to be understood through sacred tradition, Steven’s argument presupposes the point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church, namely, it presupposes the truth of Protestantism and the falsehood of Catholicism. His argument concludes that Catholicism is false, on the basis of an assumed premise that Protestantism is true, and that is circular reasoning. What leads him to make this mistake is not ignorance of logic, but the faulty assumption that his Protestant approach to Scripture is theologically neutral when in fact it is theologically loaded.
Later in his video Steven addresses one objection to his argument:
“Now the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic will say Christ has given authority to the teachers of the church to define dogma and to establish the limits of the faith against heretical opinion. It’s as if they were to say the teacher has given certain students the authority definitively to establish certain teachings as unquestionable. But this point has to be qualified. After all the scribes and pharisees could have claimed the same thing for themselves in response to Christ’s criticisms. It is true that the Church has the calling and the authority to define its faith but it doesn’t follow that every purported exercise of that authority is valid or true.” (16′)
Steven is correct that we should avoid credulity. But he implies here that the only way to avoid credulity is to disbelieve claims to Magisterial authority. And that conclusion does not follow from the obligation to avoid credulity. The motives of credibility give us reason to believe that God has given divine authority to the Apostles and their successors. In this way we (Catholics) are neither in a condition of credulity, since we have motives of credibility, nor are we rationalists, since by faith we obey God by obeying our divinely appointed leaders and submitting to them. (cf. Hebrews 13:17)
Regarding the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where Jesus says “whatever you bind on earth shall be should be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Steven says:
“but I respond that what Christ says applies to Peter and to the Apostles since He was talking to them but not necessarily to those who come after them.” (17′)
Here again Steven is using the Protestant approach to Scripture (i.e. apart from sacred tradition), to interpret it as he thinks best, and then using that interpretation to oppose Catholic teaching regarding the authority of bishops and the Magisterium. Since he does not find in Scripture a clear prescription for apostolic succession and the continuation in the episcopal successors of the Apostles of the binding and loosing authority Christ gave to the Apostles, he concludes that the episcopal successors of the Apostles do not necessarily have this binding and loosing authority. But in the Catholic tradition, part of what belongs to sacred tradition, through which we come to Scripture, is the insight that this authority does remain in the Church through the successors of the Apostles.3 So here too Steven’s argument is built on a hidden premise, namely, that Scripture is not to be understood through the sacred tradition. And for this reason, just as above, his argument presupposes the very point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church.
Steven claims that the only appropriate way for the Apostles to bind and loose was by seeing what God had already bound or loosed in a public manner. (19′-20′) He gives some examples of cases where God had manifest His will, and St. Peter made ecclesial decisions based on some public and obvious manifestation of God’s will. Steven then claims that the Magisterium in later centuries did not follow this pattern. I’m going to respond to this argument under Part II below, because in Part II he goes into more detail concerning this argument.
Steven next appeals in support of his thesis to three excerpts; one from Origen, one from St. Augustine, and one from St. Cyril. First he quotes Origen:
If there be anyone indeed who can discover something better and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures let his opinion be received in preference to mine. (23′)
Then he quotes St. Augustine:
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve to condemn and reject anything in their writings if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have by the divine help discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (23′ – 24′)
And lastly he quotes St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the holy Scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me who tell you these things give not absolute credence unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning but on demonstration of the holy Scriptures. (24′)
Origen is here speaking in his capacity as theologian. And what he says is the correct attitude of the theologian as theologian. Origen is not denying that what has been laid down definitively in the Church by an ecumenical council can later be rejected or contradicted. Nothing he says here entails that the Catholic Church goes against Christ’s teaching, either in its teaching about the authority of the Magisterium, in its doctrine of infallibility, or in its teaching on the relation of Scripture to sacred tradition. In short, since the quotation from Origen is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine, it is not evidence that the Catholic Church goes against the teaching of Christ.
And St. Augustine too is speaking here in his capacity as a theologian; he is making no claim here, in the quotation Steven cites, against the authority of a plenary council to give a definitive decision regarding a question, or against the authority of sacred tradition. Elsewhere he appeals to the authority of the tradition distinct from Scripture.4 He appeals to the authority of the Church when speaking of the interpretation of Scripture (On Christian Doctrine 3.2). And he appeals to the authority of the apostolic tradition regarding the baptism of infants. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10, 23:39; and On Baptism 4,24,32.) So again, because what St. Augustine says here is fully compatible with Catholic teaching, it does not show that Catholic teaching goes against the teaching of Christ.
As for St. Cyril, his statement is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine, because St. Cyril is affirming, as the Catholic Church does, that the content of our faith is located in the divine Scriptures; he is not denying the authority of a plenary council to definitively decide a question regarding the faith, or denying the existence and authority of sacred tradition. His exposition of the liturgy (Lecture 23) illustrates the authority of sacred tradition. He explicitly says “But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.” (Lecture 5) If the Scriptures were the only source of faith, then there would be no appeal to the Church when determining what does or does not belong to the faith.
Steven comes back to Origen, and quotes him again:
The holy Apostles in preaching the faith of Christ delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge. … The things that the Apostles did not make clear were left for the investigation of later generations. (26′)
From this quotation Steven concludes:
Thus Origen takes the explicit and clear teaching of the Apostles to be the absolute guide for all Christian theology while everything else is a matter of continual investigation and correction as he mentioned in the passage that I quoted earlier. (26′)
The problem here is that Steven’s [sola scriptura] conclusion does not follow from Origen’s statement. To see that, observe that Origen’s statement can be true and all Catholic doctrine can be true, without any contradiction. Moreover, notice what Origen says elsewhere.
The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth, which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (On First Principles, I.2)
Origen affirms the authority of ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, preserved through apostolic succession. So he is not claiming that tradition is not authoritative or that Scripture should be approached apart from that tradition. Hence here too Origen’s statement is fully compatible with Catholic teaching, and therefore does not show that Catholic teaching contradicts Christ’s teaching.
Next Steven tells a just-so story to explain the emergence of Catholic magisterial authority:
It seems to me that if you have a group of people who, (1) place tremendous emphasis on the unity of the group, and (2), who center the identity of their group of their community around an ambiguous and debatable topic which can produce multiple perspectives, it seems to me that with these two conditions in place you can find something like this traditionalist structure emerge. Differences in opinion compromise the evident unity of the group and people become identified with the opinions that distinguish them. But the problems of debate cannot be definitively resolved or established to everyone’s satisfaction. So self-identifying authoritative voices emerge whose word must on at least some occasions be unquestionable so that the matter is settled and the unity of the group is preserved. A procedure then is devised which will purportedly lead to the truth so long as it is followed correctly. In other words I am suggesting that the Scribes’ and Pharisees’ traditionalism is a social phenomenon that could in principle emerge anywhere as long as the conditions are right. But Christ identifies its weak point. People can confuse opinions for the things themselves, binding themselves to false ideas simply because of the purported authority of the persons propagating them, and in this way they place themselves on a harmful trajectory. The only way out of this spiral is for someone to come along and to say no, this tradition is bad and it has no authority unless what it says is true and an idea is not true because the tradition says it but rather because it is adequate to its object. But of course the traditionalist can’t hear this because in his mind the truth is too tightly bound up with the tradition and its procedures. (27′ – 29′)
Here Steven is by implicature using this sociological speculation about how authority structures arise to explain the development of Catholic ecclesial authority. This presupposes that Christ did not authorize the Apostles and instruct them to authorize successors. So here too Steven’s argument presupposes the falsehood of the Catholic position. The problem with just-so stories is that they are just-so stories. They persuade only by way of suggestion, and only if the hearer knows of no contrary evidence to the just-so story. But there is lots of evidence in the Church Fathers that ecclesial hierarchy was present from the beginning of the Church.5 Likewise, implying that Catholics “can’t hear” the truth because in our minds the truth is “too tightly bound up with the tradition and its procedures” again begs the question, by presupposing the falsehood of Catholicism.
Finally, Steven compares (by implication) the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to government bureaucracies in France and Romania. (29′ – 33′) He gives an example of a government bureaucracy getting itself into a situation requiring it to deny reality. He then claims, without any argumentation, that this is what has happened in the Catholic Church regarding doctrines like transubstantiation, Catholic teaching on Scripture and tradition, the veneration of images, Mary, and justification. I need say no more here because Steven has not here demonstrated his claim that these Catholic doctrines are not true. He has only claimed that the Church’s defining of these doctrines is like a state bureaucracy claiming that a living person is dead. And this claim presupposes the very point in question between Protestants and Catholics.
Why Remain Protestant? Part II
Steven opens his second video by summarizing his second argument:
Now my second argument for remaining a Protestant is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are sectarian. And what I mean by sectarian is this: I mean that in order to welcome someone into their fellowship they demand that a person assent to the truth of doctrines which are highly contentious and not obviously supported by any properly authoritative sources. (1′)
To illustrate his claim he picks three dogmas: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the dogma of the Assumption, and the dogma defined at the Second Council of Nicea concerning the veneration of sacred images. (2′) He writes:
My argument is rather that such doctrines are highly contentious and not at all clearly supported by the most authoritative sources, and because they are not reasonably clear it is sectarian to set them up as conditions of fellowship with the Church. Scripture does not explicitly teach that Mary was conceived without original sin nor that she was assumed body and soul into heaven neither does Scripture teach that it is obligatory to venerate icons of Christ and of the saints. (5′)
He grants that these doctrines follow a trajectory set “in certain quarters.” (6′ – 7′) But he argues that these doctrines are neither clearly taught in Scripture, nor were they universally held. And therefore to make assent to them a condition of fellowship is sectarian, and thus a justification for remaining Protestant. Here, to support his point regarding the veneration of sacred images he quotes Origen regarding the practice among Christians of scorning “idols and all images.” (7′ – 8′) These three doctrines are sectarian, according to Steven, because “highly contentious and disputable points of view which cannot be established on the basis of the most authoritative sources are being put forth as non-negotiable conditions of fellowship.” (9′ – 10′) Steven then gives an uncharitable interpretation of the reasons why the Church has proposed these doctrines as dogma, saying:
Now what I think is happening is that a particular church or community of churchmen prefers its own ideas convictions and opinions so much to those of others that it is willing to exclude them from its fellowship unless they agree.” (10′)
This is an example of the bulverism fallacy, but Steven’s argument does not depend on this bulverism. He next says:
The church or community of church men in question takes itself as the standard of truth as though the mere fact that it has come to believe something is a proof that it is right. (10′)
Here Steven’s argument begs the question. His argument presupposes that the only reason the Magisterium of the Catholic Church believes these three dogmas to be true is that it has come to believe them. But in the Catholic tradition, the Magisterium has been given the promises of Christ regarding divine guidance into all truth. Steven’s argument here presupposes that the Magisterium did not receive this divine promise, among others. And in this way his argument presupposes the very point he is attempting to show, namely, that Catholicism is false.
Steven’s argument begs the question again in his following criticism of the Catholic Church:
And this can be seen in Ineffabilis Deus which says “The Catholic Church directed by the Holy Spirit of God is the pillar and base of truth.” Now note well this is not merely a citation of the words of Paul from I Timothy 3:15. It is an identification of a particular Church, namely the Church of Rome and those associated with it, as the Church. (10′)
First, Pope Pius IX is not equating the particular Church at Rome with the Catholic Church. The particular Church at Rome is a particular Church within the Catholic Church. But in Catholic doctrine schism is defined in relation to the bishop of this particular Church.6 Second, Steven’s criticism of Pope Pius’s claim to speak for the Catholic Church presupposes that the papal office is not what the Catholic Church teaches it is, and thus that Catholicism is false. So here too Steven’s argument presupposes the very point in question.
Next Steven says:
And instead of measuring its statements against the things themselves and coming to a moderate conclusion about the truth of what it says, the Roman Church takes the truth of its thoughts for granted and declares its belief an infallible dogma and a condition for fellowship. Now to my mind this is sectarian behavior. It is putting oneself forward as the criterion of truth in a matter in which one appears to have no special access to the reality of the matter.” (11′)
Notice that last line “one appears to have no special access to the reality of the matter.” Here’s the dilemma for Steven’s argument. If Steven’s claim remains at the mere phenomenological, the conclusion of his argument does not follow. If to him it does not appear that the Church at Rome has no special access to the reality of the matter, that leaves open the possibility that it does have special access to the reality of the matter, and he has not demonstrated that the teaching of the Catholic Church goes against the teaching of Christ. But on the other horn of the dilemma, if Steven claims that the Church at Rome has no special access to the apostolic deposit, or no certain charism of truth, then his argument presupposes the point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church. Either way, his argument fails.
Regarding the Second Council of Nicea, Steven next says:
But the Council then descends into sectarianism when it continues by saying the following: “This promise, however, He made not only to them but also to us who, thanks to them, have come to believe in his name.” Now notice once more this us does not refer to all Christians but rather to these persons who have gathered at the Council and perhaps also to those who agree with them. Thus the bishops gathered at the Council take for granted without adequate reason that they are the inheritors of the original promise of divine guidance to the early Church. (12′)
Steven’s argument presupposes the very point in question when he claims that the bishops at the Council “take for granted without adequate reason that they are the inheritors of the original promise of divine guidance to the early Church.” If the bishops are what the Catholic Church teaches about bishops, and this teaching and authority have been handed down to them from the Apostles, then the bishops do have an “adequate reason” to believe that they are the inheritors of the original promise. My point here is not to establish the authority of the bishops, but only to show that Steven’s argument presupposes the very point in question, namely, that the Catholic Church is false.
Next Steven claims the following:
Of course an unwritten tradition is a word that comes from nowhere in particular and can be traced back to no one with certainty. Who can know if an unwritten tradition is genuinely apostolic?(13′)
His claim that an unwritten tradition is a “word that comes from nowhere” is not a theologically neutral claim. It presupposes the falsehood of the Catholic Church, for which there is an unwritten tradition that comes to us from the Apostles. So here too Steven presupposes the point in question. As for his question, this is not a question that baffled the early Church. St. Augustine, for example, in multiple places identifies traditions that were not clear in Scripture (e.g. infant baptism) but were universally practiced as originating from the Apostles.7
Steven next writes:
That is the attitude of a sectarian. He takes himself as the measure of truth and excludes all those who refuse to agree with him rather than putting himself on the same level as those with whom he might disagree and submitting together with them to the truth of things such as they seem.” (13′ – 14′)
Again, for reasons that by now should be obvious, Steven’s argument presupposes the very point in question. If Christ did give ecclesial authority to His Apostles, and they in turn gave this authority to their episcopal successors, and not to the laity, then when the bishops think, speak, and act as though they have this authority, this is not at all sectarian. These are rather acts of faith in Christ and obedience to Him.
Steven summarizes his argument for Part II:
So this is my argument. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are sectarian because they impose as a condition for fellowship assent to highly contentious and debatable ideas that cannot be clearly established on the basis of the most authoritative sources. That is sectarian behavior. It is an unconditional and relentless privileging of one’s own perspective in some matter of dispute rather than simply submitting to the truth and admitting ambiguities where they where they exist. (14′)
In response, first, two of the criteria Steven is using here to determine whether the Catholic Church is sectarian are “contentious” and “debatable.” Although I could, I’m not going to argue that since the notion that these two qualities are among the criteria for determining what is “sectarian” is itself contentious and debatable, Steven’s argument is self-refuting. Rather, I’m simply going to point out again that the notion that these two qualities are among the criteria for “sectarian” is not theologically neutral, but presuppose the point in question.8 A careful study of the Arian controversy shows that for many years it was contentious and debatable. The same is true of Marcionism, Novatianism, Montanism, as well as the Donatist schism, and many others. If ‘contentious’ and ‘debatable’ were the criteria for sectarianism, there would be no schisms, only branches. But that’s not my fundamental point. The fundamental point is that Steven’s argument in Part II presupposes the very point in question by presupposing loaded (i.e. non-neutral) criteria for determining what is and is not sectarian.
Second, Steven here presupposes that the bishops’ perspective in matters of faith and morals is no more authoritative than that of any other Christian. That’s an implicit premise in his charge that the Catholic bishops are unjustifiably privileging their own perspective. But that implicit premise presupposes the very point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church, and so Steven’s argument is question-begging.
Next Steven says:
Let me say that I agree that the Apostles and the leaders of the Church that come after them were given the authority to bind and loose but it does not follow that this authority is always exercised properly. (15′)
Steven is arguing that infallibility does not follow merely from the authority to bind and loose. But if on the one hand he is claiming implicitly that the Church did not receive the gift of infallibility, he is presupposing the point in question.9 If on the other hand he is simply claiming that sometimes bishops do not exercise their authority properly, then from this premise it does not follow that the Catholic Church is sectarian, since this weaker claim is fully compatible with the truth of Catholic doctrine.
Steven next says:
So let’s take as an example. Christ promises Peter that whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. That is Matthew chapter 16 verse 19. Now from this perfect passive construction being used here we can discern that the binding and loosing in heaven come before the binding and losing on earth. (16′)
Here Steven is again using a Protestant approach to Scripture, according to which its meaning is determined entirely by exegesis, and not by sacred tradition. In the Catholic tradition, however, the mood and voice of these verbs does not entail that prior to the binding or loosing of something on earth, God will have already bound and loosed it in heaven. That’s because in the Catholic tradition exegesis by itself underdetermines interpretation, and Scripture must be interpreted in light of sacred tradition. My point is that Steven’s argument is here too presupposing the point in question, namely, the falsehood of Catholicism in his argument for the falsehood of Catholicism.
Now Steven comes back to the point he made in Part I, and which I mentioned above but to which I did not yet respond. Here Steven uses the examples of Sts. Peter and Paul making decisions on the basis of God having made a prior, clear and public manifestation of His will, to argue that the Magisterium can rightly make authoritative decisions only on the same basis. (16′ – 20′) That conclusion does not follow from the premise. Even if Steven’s premise is true regarding these decisions Sts. Peter and Paul made, it could still be true that the Apostles had (and the Magisterium has) the authority to make decisions without a public divine manifestation of God’s will. Here too Steven is using his own interpretation of Scripture, apart from sacred tradition, to argue against Catholic teaching concerning Magisterial authority. And that presupposes the very point in question.
Then Steven claims that “nothing like this was happening in the three cases he is considering (i.e. the two Marian dogmas, and the teaching of Second Nicea on the veneration of icons). (20′) That is, for these three dogmas, he claims that there was no prior, clear and public manifestation of God’s will, that could be verified by other Christians. But this claim that to be legitimate, Magisterial decisions must be able to be independently verified by other Christians presupposes the very point in question. Yes there is a sensus fidelium, but as Pope Benedict XVI explained, it is not “a form of ecclesial public opinion, and it would be unthinkable to refer to it to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, since the ‘sensus fidei’ cannot truly develop in a believer other than to the extent to which he participates fully in the life of the Church, and it therefore necessitates responsible adhesion to her Magisterium.”10 As I mentioned above, Steven grants that these doctrines follow a trajectory set “in certain quarters.” (6′ – 7′) But Steven treats the development of a tradition, and what in the Catholic tradition is understood as development of doctrine, as something only arbitrary in its starting point and in its development. The Magisterium, however, recognizes and affirms authentic developments.11 And this is part of the paradigm difference between Protestants and the Catholic Church, in relation to what I’ve referred to as ecclesial deism, since believing that the Holy Spirit is the ‘soul’ of the Church leads us to expect development of doctrine, and further illumination and defining of the deposit. So by denying that the Magisterium has the divine gift by which to recognize and affirm authentic development of doctrine, Steven’s argument presupposes the point in question.
As for the development in relation to the three dogmas Steven has chosen for examples, the earlier Catholic opposition to images was never universal, never a moral consensus, and was never defined. Nor was it based on iconoclastic principle but rather on the prevalence of the pagan culture of idolatry. As that changed toward theism in the Roman empire, and as the two natures of Christ were defined at Chalcedon, the veneration of sacred images came to be seen as an affirmation of the Incarnation and its implications, in opposition to Arianism. Regarding the developments that led to the Church defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, I have briefly discussed here. And I discussed here the developments that led to the Church defining the dogma of the Assumption.
Finally Steven writes:
But I say that it is sectarian to put them forth as conditions of fellowship. To do that would be a matter of taking one’s own tradition one’s own perspective as if it were uniquely identical to the tradition of the Apostles without adequate argument than evidence. (21′)
Here too Steven’s argument presupposes that the Catholic Magisterium is not composed of the successors of the Apostles, and has not faithfully handed down the Apostolic deposit, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In short, here too Steven’s argument presupposes the point in question. As for his claim that the Catholic Church is sectarian because its contentious and debatable teachings are not “clearly supported by the most authoritative sources,” this criterion presupposes that Magisterial teaching must be “clearly supported” by Scripture. But that criteria is not itself part of the sacred tradition. The material sufficiency of Scripture is part of the tradition, but that is not the same thing as “clearly supported by Scripture.” So here too Steven’s argument presupposes the point in question.
In my opinion, Protestants often do not recognize that their arguments against the Catholic Church presupposes the very point in question because the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is a paradigmatic difference, such that the paradigmatic nature of the difference often remains invisible.12 In the Catholic tradition, faith is not itself established by reason or evidence accessible to reason. If I could see for myself the truth of the faith, my act of belief would not be an act of faith. Hence in the Catholic tradition an essential part of the act of faith is believing Christ by believing the successors of those whom He chose and authorized to speak in His name. Through these successors we receive also the content of faith. In the Protestant paradigm, by contrast, the personal and communal is downstream of the hermeneutical, as Neal Judisch and I argued elsewhere. I hope and pray that my response here will be helpful to Steven and also serve in the task of Protestant-Catholic reconciliation.
All you Holy Saints of God, pray for us.
Solemnity of All Saints, 2021.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 100. [↩]
- Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 37. [↩]
- St. Augustine writes, “if you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognize that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, though the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.” (Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 33:9) [↩]
- “As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful….” St. Augustine, Epistle to Januarius, 54:1. [↩]
- See our “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison.” [↩]
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089. [↩]
- Cf. Letter to Januarius 54.1.1. On Baptism 2.7.1 and 5.23.31. [↩]
- I have addressed the charge of sectarianism in 2011 in “Ecclesial Unity and Outdoing Christ: A Dilemma for the Ecumenicism of Non-Return.” [↩]
- See B.C. Butler’s The Church and Infallibility (Sheed and Ward, 1954) and Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser’s The Gift of Infallibility (Ignatius Press, 1986). [↩]
- Vatican Information Service, December 7, 2012. [↩]
- See comments #29 and #31 under “The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lérins.” [↩]
- I attempted to illustrate one aspect of the paradigmatic difference in “Imputations and Paradigms: A Reply to Nick Batzig.” [↩]
The other great person to reference here is Saint Basil. His work ‘De Spiritu Sanctu’ has Apostolic Traditions that he believes descend from the Apostles including things such as facing the East when praying, the sign of the cross, standing for all prayer on Sunday, etc. He says that to deviate from these traditions is to deviate from the faith.
Unfortunately though, whilst refuting Protestantism, these quotes run the risk of refuting Catholicism, which has changed some of these traditions from those practiced by Basil. Perhaps Basil was wrong and his traditions were local and not universal? This is hard to know with certainty.
Bryan,
Great article! I also wrote responses to Steven. In one, I laid out how his methodology leads to theological anarchy. I would love your take on it.
http://www.thelatinright.com/2021/10/the-latin-rights-response-to-dr-steve.html
If this post violates any rules, please delete. Thanks!
Dr. Nemes compares non Christian sources Aristotle, scribes, Pharisees to Catholicism which is obviously disingenuous and dissolves his argument.
Hello Diana, (re: #3)
There is a more charitable interpretation. He is using an argument from analogy. Arguments from analogy are weak, and do not demonstrate the truth of their conclusion. So the Catholic can respond by showing how the authority and role of sacred tradition is disanalogous in the relevant respects to the cases of Aristotle, and the Scribes and Pharisees. Treating his argument as a [flawed] argument from analogy is more charitable than going after his person by claiming that he is disingenuous.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
I am not sure how he can state in his opening video that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox follow particular teachers in contrary to scripture. This is totally bizarre. The basis of Protestantism in its many and conflicted forms is following a particular person whether it be Luther or Calvin or the many other early reformers or current crop of self promoted teachers. I am just floored that this is the focus of his first video. What a shaky way to justify staying “protestant”. He seems like a thoughtful serious man to use this as his opening argument. One wonders what happen in his RCIA class that he mentioned.
Hello Robin (re: #5)
He has an argument. I’ve laid out that argument in my essay above. I’ve shown that his argument presupposes the point in question, but he does actually lay out an argument.
He addresses this objection. He makes a distinction between following divinely authorized persons (authorized through apostolic succession) regarding what is the interpretation of the apostolic deposit (i.e. what we Catholics call magisterial authority), and following persons on the basis of their faithful exposition of Scripture as judged by the person’s own examination of Scripture (i.e. what Protestants call ministerial authority). On ministrial authority see “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.” See also the section titled “The Ground of Magisterial Authority” in my dialogue with Michael Horton. The kind of person-following he is criticizing as contrary to Scripture is that of magisterial authority, not ministerial authority. So the tu quoque (i.e. Protestants follow people too) doesn’t undercut his argument.
My recommendation, and our practice here at CTC, is not to criticize the person, but to evaluate the argument. So let’s keep our focus on his arguments, and not criticize his person. Thank you.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Bryan,
My apologies. I didn’t think I was criticizing the person.
peace and thank-you
In response to my essay, Steven wrote elsewhere:
The problem here is that Steven’s criterion for determining whether Scripture belongs to the Catholic Church presupposes the Protestant paradigm. His criterion presupposes that all Church authority is ministerial authority, and that no Church authority is magisterial. (See comment #6 above for the distinction between magisterial and ministerial authority.) His criterion presupposes that the only possible way for the Scripture to belong to a Church is for that Church to prove to others that its interpretation is “natural and intelligible.”
However, there is another way for Scripture to belong to the Church. And that is for Christ to found the Church, incorporating it into Himself as His mystical body with Him as its Head, and to give Scripture to the Church as one of the many gifts He gave to the Church. And that’s precisely what the Catholic Church has always claimed for herself regarding her identity and the relation of Scripture to her. So Steven’s criterion is not a theologically neutral criterion; his criterion is theologically loaded because rather than demonstrating the falsehood of the Catholic way of understanding how Scripture belongs to the Church, it presupposes that Christ did not found a Church as His mystical Body, and did not give Scripture to the Church He founded, and did not give to the Apostles and their episcopal successors interpretive authority with respect to Scripture.
Steven then gave what [I think] he believed to be an analogous hypothetical scenario:
Below is my reply to Steven:
In my essay I’m not using the phrase “begging the question” to mean gainsaying the claim of the interlocutor. Contradiction is not begging the question. That’s why in the parable of the blind men and the elephant, when each man contradicts the other, saying “No, it is a rope,” or “No, it is a snake,” they are not begging the question. Rather, I’m using “begging the question” (or “presupposes the very point in question”) to refer to an argument for Y and not X, that in its premises presupposes the truth of Y and the falsehood of X. In your hypothetical scenario, if your argument is for the truth of Y and not X, and your premises presuppose the truth of Y and not X, then your argument begs the question. For example, if a premise is “Y is true and X is false” then your argument begs the question. But if your premise is “I see Y and I don’t see X” then your argument is not question-begging, although then it will not entail the original conclusion. So in order to answer your question about whether your arguments (in your hypothetical scenario) beg the question, I would have to see those arguments. I cannot evaluate arguments to which I have no access.
Regarding your statement:
Sure, but that’s not how I’m using the phrase “begging the question.” In my opinion, that would be misusing the phrase “begging the question.”
As for your statement:
I agree with that. But the intention of comparing a claim to the world does not justify begging the question in the sense of presupposing in one’s premises the truth of the conclusion one is seeking to demonstrate through one’s argument. In other words, if I’m trying to compare two theories to determine which better explains reality, I cannot rightly compare them against reality by presupposing in my criteria the truth of one of them and the falsehood of the other. I wrote about this in 2008 in “On Starting Points and Reconciliation.”
Regarding his claim that “there is no avoiding the comparative interpretation of Scripture in adjudicating between traditions,” Steven makes this same point in the 7th minute of another video titled “Scripture and Tradition: Understanding Sola Scriptura” (September 8, 2021).
There he says:
He’s right that just because the early Church produced the New Testament, that does not answer the question: Which Church today is that Church? However, he’s mistaken when he claims that “interpreting Scripture” is the “only way” to demonstrate a Church’s continuity of thought and life with the early Church. The other way is what I’ve called “tracing matter.” (See also comment #139 under the “Clark, Frame, and the Analogy of Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow” essay.) This is the notion that the Church herself is sacramental, and that the form comes to us through the matter.
When there are two ways possible of doing something, presupposing that only one of them is possible is a mistake. And in this case that leads to unintentionally presupposing the very point in question. I think that’s what is happening in Steven’s case because he’s not seeing the “tracing matter” way as a possibility. So that’s why he’s asserting that “interpreting Scripture” is the “only way” to demonstrate continuity of thought and life with the early Church.
Saint Charles Borromeo, pray for us.
The circular reasoning problem can be seen also in Steven’s video titled “How to understand Matt 16:19? A “retrospective” reading.” (August 14, 2021)
There Steven says:
Implicit in Steven’s statement and action is the assumption that the Church does not have interpretive authority with respect to Scripture. Steven is treating himself as superior or at leas equal in interpretive authority to the Magisterium of the Church, or, what is the equivalent, as if Christ established no interpretive authority in His Church. But this presupposes the very point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church, by presupposing the Protestant paradigm. It uses a Protestant assumption to try to argue against Catholicism. And that’s circular reasoning: i.e. Protestantism is true because Protestantism is true. When we peel away the circular argumentation, what remains is mere assertion. But it is mere assertion that presents itself as giving good reasons and making good arguments.
Bryan – Your content is magnificent. I find myself reading articles from almost ten years ago. A question that I’m trying to wrap my head around is in the Protestant paradigm it’s said that the conclusion for anyone who disagrees with the individual Christian (Assuming Scripture is clear) is that they must be either ignorant or malicious. Why don’t we assume this about those who do not accept the Catholic paradigm or even Christianity in general? Because we are not claiming the evidence itself is clear? I hope that question makes sense. Thanks!
A Catholic friend recommended me to calvin2catholic which led me here. So, I think one of the main parts I disagree here is that Scripture comes from the Church. I view Scripture coming from God. When I say Scripture I mean the 66 book part that Catholics and Protestants all agree on despite differences. Literally more than half of that was not during time of the Church established at Pentescost, but before then; all was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the triune God. Several of the books we are not exactly sure which humans even wrote them, such as Job and Esther. Also, I do not see church tradition superior to scripture or even equal, though they can be helpful ( for example, my church has all the grape juice substitute for wine come from one cup, no mandate in Scripture to do that ). Acts 17:11 is a good demonstration of using Scripture to check doctrines. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 on equipping of Christians. I view Scripture as the foundation, anything else can be helpful, but anything else more superficial. In regards to disunity, I find that Chrisitans are unfied in the essentials such as the creeds, while having nonessentials like praying to the saints, drinking from one cup, and having a bunch of minor doctrinal disagreements like details of the apocalypse. Even if Christians may seem separated physically (just drive down a street with multiple churches along it) they are united by Christ, Scripture, creeds, etc.
A tad off topic but I recommend Rick Joyner of Morningstar Minstries to y’all who also believes in uniting Christians. He is of the Order of St. John.
Hello Jacob (re: #12)
You wrote:
The Catholic Church also teaches that Scripture comes from God, and not simply like all created things, excepting sin, come from God. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is divinely inspired, and is thus the very words of God: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 11). One common theme in the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that often what is treated in Protestantism as an either/or is treated in Catholicism as a both/and. And that applies here too. In the Catholic tradition the notion that Scripture comes to us from either God or the Church is a false dichotomy; Scripture comes to us from God as its divine author and from the Church as the community to whom Scripture was entrusted (Dei Verbum, 10), and by whom was determined which texts were Scripture, as Dei Verbum says, “Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known ….” (Dei Verbum, 8) Regarding the determination of the canon of Scripture see Tom Brown’s article titled “The Canon Question.
You wrote:
The Catholic teaching that Scripture comes to us from the Church does not mean that all Scripture was written after Pentecost. Nor does it require that we know the name of each author of each book of Scripture. The people of the New Covenant hand on what they received through Christ from the Old Covenant. And this includes the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The saints of the Old Testament retroactively, through the death of Christ and faith in the promised Messiah, were made members of the Catholic Church. This is depicted in what is called the “harrowing of hell.” This is why the fact that the Old Testament was written before the birthday of the Church (i.e. Pentecost) is compatible with the truth that Scripture comes to us through the Church.
Right. When we speak of Church tradition, we have to distinguish between Tradition which comes from the Apostles, and local traditions that come not from the Apostles but from pious custom. The Catholic position is not that non-Apostolic tradition is equal to Scripture, let alone superior to Scripture. Rather, the Catholic position is that we must interpret Scripture in light of Apostolic Tradition. See the “VIII. Scripture and Tradition” section of my reply to Michael Horton.
To avoid presupposing the very point in question, by using a Protestant approach to Scripture to support Protestantism, see “The Bereans” section of comment #69 under the “Christ Founded a Visible Church” article. Likewise, regarding 2 Tim. 3:16, that can be interpreted according to either paradigm, and therefore doesn’t support either one.
Right. That is the Protestant paradigm, and makes sense within the Protestant paradigm, because within that paradigm there is nothing else having divine authority, other than God Himself.
That was also the position held by Mark Galli, then editor of Christianity Today. See my explanation of the problems with this position in the section titled “Confidence and the Consensus Criterion” in the post titled “We don’t need no magisterium: A reply to Christianity Today‘s Mark Galli,” and comments 11, 16, and 29 under that post. (Scroll down to comment #87 there to see how that turned out.) Regarding the problem of ad hoc ‘catholicity,’ see the section with the heading “Ad hoc catholicity” in Matt Yonke’s article “Too catholic to be Catholic?: A Response to Peter Leithart.” See also the last paragraph of my reply to Carl Trueman in comment #89 under Brantly Millegan’s CTC review of Brad Gregory’s The Unintended Reformation.
Then what do you do with what the early Church taught about schism?
In light of “IX. Apostolic Succession,” what’s the basis for his ecclesial or theological authority?
In view of our posting guidelines, comments should be on the topic of the article at the top of the page. So unless you want to talk about my reply to Steven, please post subsequent comments under the relevant post, or in the open forum. Thank you.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Bryan,
You wrote, “We have to distinguish between Tradition which comes from the Apostles, and local traditions that come not from the Apostles but from pious custom.”
Can you point me to one historically verifiable word or act of the Apostles—tradition—that never got written down? Has Rome ever defined any of this content officially?
Hello Robert,
Bryan may offer other examples, of course, but just to pick three somewhat random ones for your consideration:
1. The all-male priesthood – The Apostles handed on their authority to men only. This was a Tradition, but it isn’t explicitly taught by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament. (Obviously, you can make a case that it is implicit, but I’m not sure what standard you are thinking of when you ask for something that “wasn’t written down.”)
2. The canon of Scripture – The Apostles handed on books of Scripture that they used, but they didn’t enumerate these books in the New Testament or other non-canonical writings. Rather, tradition was used to determine the canon of the two testaments.
3. The practice of baptizing infants – We know from Tradition that the Apostles baptized infants, but this isn’t clearly articulated in the New Testament, which speaks only of the Apostles baptizing “households.”
As far as whether the Catholic Church has defined this content, some of it has been defined and some hasn’t. Typically the Church does not formally define a doctrine until there is need. Usually, when this happens, the Church relies on both Scripture and Tradition in making the definition. Tradition and Scripture form a single deposit of faith which the Church meditates on in order to define doctrine.
Hope that helps!
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi, Jordan,
Thanks, but I’m still looking for something historically verifiable from the Apostles that never got written down.
1. All male priesthood/elders is very clearly taught in Scripture. See 1 Tim. 3, for example.
2. Can you tell me where and when Peter or Paul (or another Apostle) give us the list of inspired books. Did Peter preach it in Rome, for example? Where is the record of this? Maybe Paul gave it in Ephesus? Where is the historical record of John giving this?
3. Baptism of infants is a good and necessary consequence of the biblical record.
“As far as whether the Catholic Church has defined this content, some of it has been defined and some hasn’t.”
But if the church hasn’t defined the content of tradition, how do I know it is actually following the tradition when it claims to? Blind trust?
You guys want me to submit to Apostolic tradition. That’s a good impulse, I think. But we need some way to historically verify what is Apostolic and what isn’t. Lots of things are claimed as Apostolic. You all and the East, not to mention the Protestants, don’t agree on what comes from the Apostles. All three of those traditions agree on the New Testament. Can you give me something I can historically verify that never got written in Scripture.
Sorry Bryan, did not mean to break the guideline. Thanks for your response though.
So, in regrads to Scripture entrusted to the Church, again I view the Church as the body of Christ, invisible, not necesarrily visible. I do not think I made my point too well on the 66 books of the Bible, I do not even remember what I was trying to say lol. I think it was more that not all Scripture is from the Church. I would disagree that one must view Scripture from Apostolic tradition, are there certain documents that the Apostles wrote to establish Apostolic Tradition? Just curious. In regards to schism, I view the Catholic Church in leadership at the time of the Reformation as deviating from Christian doctrine in several areas… honestly some of the leaders at that time seemed to care more about money and power (such as selling indulgences, glad yall fixed that one), and then they excommunicated and tried to execute people for heresy (which of course kind of defeats the purpose of dialogue). So, some Chrisitans, such as Huss, Luther, Calvin, etc. basically embodied the Church in a separate way. I think my point is the Catholic Church started the split by leaving Biblical fundamentals and twisiting teaching at that time (which I am aware has been corrected generally though some is still wrong, but that is irrelevant right now).
In regards to RIck Joyner he is a Protestant, but he does believe in Christians working together to bring in the harvest.
Thanks again for talking.
Robert, (re: #16)
Your question is not a neutral question, but is a theologically loaded question. Your question presupposes implicitly that the oral Apostolic Tradition must be “historically verifiable.” And typically this means that something is independently (i.e. independently from the Church) verifiable by the natural light of human reason through the discipline of historical research. In this way your question presupposes that the content of the faith delivered by Christ to the Apostles and from the Apostles to the early Church is something knowable by the natural light of human reason. But in the Catholic paradigm, at the level of grace and faith we know the Father only through the Son, and we know the Son only through the Apostles, and we know the Apostles only through their successors. Just as listening to Christ requires listening to those He sent, and rejecting those He sent is a rejection of Christ, so listening to the Apostles requires listening to those they sent, and rejecting those they sent is a rejection of the Apostles, and thus of Christ. We know the Apostolic Tradition not from outside the Church by the natural light of human reason, but from the inside, by the light of faith. This is what is meant by faith seeking understanding. The Tradition is “in-house” as something handed down from within, unveiled and rightly interpreted from within, not from without. (I’ve written about this, in part, in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”) Its identity and content are not something determined by historians by the natural light of human reason, but are determined by the successors of the Apostles and known by the gift of faith that receives what they themselves have received from Christ through the Apostles. So your question implicitly presupposes the falsehood of the Catholic paradigm, and is therefore a contradictory question, i.e. appearing to ask openly about the truth of Catholicism while simultaneously in the criterion of your question presupposing the falsehood of Catholicism.
Since this seems to be off the topic of my reply to Steven Nemes, please use the open forum for any follow up questions.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Andrew, pray for us.
Jacob (re: #17)
That’s why in comment #13 above I mentioned the article I co-authored with Tom Brown titled “Christ Founded a Visible Church.” So I recommend reading that first.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Andrew, pray for us.
@Robert:
Just out of curiosity – how would you expect to find historical verification for something other than by its having been written down? It does seem to me that the form of your question ensures that there can be no answer to it.
Bryan,
“Your question is not a neutral question, but is a theologically loaded question. Your question presupposes implicitly that the oral Apostolic Tradition must be “historically verifiable.'”
It’s not neutral, but it’s also not dishonest. If I’m supposed to determine that Rome is the only Church Christ founded based on Apostolic traditions not found in Scripture, I need some kind of independent way of verifying the content of that tradition beyond the church’s say so. Otherwise, I’m fideistically assuming that Rome is true before coming to that conclusion itself, am I not?
This is not out of line with your reply to Steve since part of your critique is his failure to distinguish Tradition from the Apostles properly.
So, can you give me any word or action from the Apostles that can be historically verified. I’ll even do you one better, has Rome ever dogmatically defined any word from the Apostles that never got written down in Scripture? I don’t know that it has.
If I have to use Apostolic Tradition to determine that Rome is the true church (and I do in order to know continuity of teaching and other such things), but the way to know what is tradition is to believe what Rome has identified, however incompletely, as tradition, it seems that I’m stuck in a vicious epistemological circle.
Robert (re: #20)
The antecedent of this conditional is false. In the essay at the top of this page I referred to the motives of credibility, and linked to our essay discussing them. The Apostolic Tradition per se is not one of the motives of credibility, nor is it intended to function as a motive of credibility, for reasons following from what I said in comment #18. Rather, only its wisdom and beauty in relation to what is knowable by human reason.
Again, this is a straw man, because the antecedent of the conditional is false. See the link in the post at the top of this page to the essay on the motives of credibility.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Campion, for for us.
Hello Robert,
With respect to Bryan’s comment above, I’m happy to continue our conversation in the Open Forum . I will wait for you to post something there if you want to. We could dive more into one of the examples I gave if that’s helpful. I have a feeling that quite a bit hinges on what you mean when you say “historically verifiable.” If you’re finished with the conversation for now, that’s fine too! Just thought I’d offer.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Bryan,
So I shouldn’t care if continuity between Rome and the non-inscripturated Apostolic traditions can be demonstrated before I become Roman Catholic? That seems a little backwards. You have a faith claiming to be standing on scripturated and non-inscripturated historical events and traditions. Is the inquirer not responsible to do any historical inquiry whatsoever? That can’t be right since the church’s endurance and stability, proof thereof anyway, demands historical study of some kind. Why is historical inquiry of the non-inscripturated traditions ruled out but not historical inquiry of other things?
One motive of credibility is the wisdom and beauty of God’s revelation. How can I know that wisdom and beauty if you can’t tell me what the non-inscripturated part of it is? How can evaluate the beauty and wisdom of Christ and the Apostles non-inscripturated words and deeds unless someone can tell me what those are?
Robert (re: #23)
I never claimed that, nor does it follow from anything I said.
Again, I never claimed that the inquirer is not responsible for doing any historical inquiry, nor does that conclusion follow from anything I said. In fact, the motives of credibility article I pointed you to entails just the opposite.
As I explained in comment #18 above, some things are known in their fullness only from within the Church, by the supernatural light of faith. Historically, this is why mystagogy comes after baptism. But other things, such as the motives of credibility, can be known from without, and hence by the inquirer.
Now you have changed the question. You’ve changed the question from what is one constituent of the oral Apostolic tradition that is historically verifiable, to the question where can I find the oral Apostolic tradition. A good summary of the Apostolic Tradition, both from Scripture and from the oral Tradition, as it has been more fully unfolded by the Holy Spirit over the millennia, can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want to know the content of the oral Apostolic Tradition as it existed in the first millennium, then read the Church Fathers, because it is contained in the Church Fathers. As for its beauty and wisdom, that isn’t something broken down into the beauty and wisdom of the oral Apostolic Tradition as distinct from the beauty and wisdom of Scripture. The beauty and wisdom that serve as a motive of the credibility are of the whole Apostolic Tradition, both written and oral, taken together, and inasmuch as it is intelligible by the natural light of human reason (e.g. in harmony with the natural law, etc.).
These questions are not about my reply to Steven, so any further questions should be directed to the motives of credibility article or the open forum.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Campion, pray for us.
Bryan (re:#19)
I think this goes down to my belief that Christ did not establish a papacy nor a specific line of on bishops and priests whcih is also why I do not believe in such.
Hello Jacob (re: #25),
The purpose of this site is to reason together so as to resolve disagreements, not merely state opinions. (See the guidelines.) If you think something in our “Christ Founded a Visible Church” article is incorrect, then please provide your reasons in the comments section under that article. If you think something I said above in my reply to Steven Nemes is incorrect, then please provide your reasons here in this thread. Merely stating what you believe is not a reason for anyone else to believe that what you believe is true.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. John Damascene, pray for us.
Steven has responded to my post with a post of his own, titled “Do Protestants beg the question against Roman Catholics?” (January 19, 2022)
I’ve responded below with my comments interposed. He writes:
That last sentence isn’t true even on the level of nature. If you have experienced an event, and it was not recorded by way of some technology or residual physical evidence, then to know about that event I can go only by your testimony regarding what happened in the event. I can evaluate the credibility of your character based on actions to which I do have direct access, but I have no direct access to the thing itself (i.e. the event). Your testimony is my only access to it.
I agree.
Here Steven’s argument begs the question against the Catholic position by assuming that there is no such thing as epistemic privilege and epistemic authority. He assumes that dogmatic Magisterial definitions can be nothing more than “multiplying instances of speech.” He is correct that from the point of view of the Catholic the faith is something that starts from what others say. It starts with what God the Father says eternally, in His Son the Logos. That is handed on in what the Logos says to His Apostles. That is handed on in what the Apostles say to the bishops and the faithful in the first century. Finally through their successors and those in communion with them, that deposit is handed on in the present to us. This succession includes epistemic privilege and epistemic authority. Thus by using as an implicit premise the assumption that there can be no epistemic privilege and epistemic authority, Steven’s argument begs the question against Catholicism.
This conclusion does not follow from that premise. Yes speech and being (that is not speech) are distinct. But from that distinction it does not follow that there can be no epistemic privilege or epistemic authority, or that all knowers in principle have equal access to all truth. In the Catholic tradition, for example, the whole angelic hierarchy is also an epistemic hierarchy.
I agree that the Protestant is applying to matters of biblical or church historical interpretation the same general method one would use in studying rocks or trees or viruses or chemical reactions. And that’s why it is rationalist, which is epistemic Pelagianism. What has been given in divine revelation is not merely at the level of natural. It is at the level of grace; it is supernatural. This is why faith requires grace. We cannot get to it by our own rational or volitional power. To approach it in the method of rationalism is for that reason to presuppose that it is at the level of nature, and not supernatural. And this begs the question against Catholicism, according to which divine revelation is supernatural. Moreover, the notion that there can be no supernatural revelation, a notion on which rationalism rests, itself presupposes atheism.
For the Catholic it is not an “assumption.” It is part of the divine revelation that has been handed down to us. To treat the Catholic belief that we know the Father only through the Son, and that we know the Son only through the Apostles, and that we know the teaching of the Apostles only through their successors as a mere “assumption” is to construct a straw man of the Catholic faith. And to use that straw man in an argument against the Catholic faith is to beg the question against the Catholic faith by presupposing a Protestant denial of the Catholic faith in the premises of one’s argument against the Catholic faith.
Again Steven’s argument begs the question by presupposing that the Catholic belief about how we know the revelation of God through Christ is a mere “assumption.”
The very notion that some article of the faith must be “proved” to an outsider is itself a presupposition of rationalism, and thus begs the question against Catholicism. The articles of faith are not proven by some rational standard or inference. They are divinely revealed, and accepted by faith.
Here Steven’s argument presupposes some ‘neutral’ God’s-eye-view criteria by which we can evaluate whether results are “better” or not “better,” and that comparing results by way of such criteria is the right way to judge between rationalism and Catholic teaching. That presupposition is itself rationalistic, and this indicates once again the question-begging nature of Steven’s argument against Catholicism.
I agree. The truth of the Catholic faith cannot be proved on the basis of Protestant principles.
This is a straw man. We do not simply assert the truth of Catholic doctrines. Rather we point to the motives of credibility to show that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.
Steven’s argument here assumes that the only way to show the truth of Catholic teaching is to show that “it provides a better and truer interpretation of the things themselves than the alternatives.” But we do not prove or demonstrate the truth of the Catholic Church’s doctrine. Otherwise her doctrine would not be believed by faith. Divine revelation is given to us on divine authority, including the divine authority of the Church, from whom we receive it by faith. So Steven’s argument here begs the question against Catholicism, by assuming a rationalistic methodology in which there is no epistemic privilege or epistemic authority, and thus assuming the falsehood of Catholicism.
The notion that such a non-demonstration is a “failure” itself presupposes the point in question, by presupposing both the truth of rationalism and the falsehood of Catholicism.
This is a claim the Sanhedrin could have made to the Apostles. The Apostles did not prove the truth of their testimony about Christ by providing video recordings of His life and teachings. They were witnesses of what they had seen and heard and touched, and what they gave was testimony of what they had seen and heard and touched.
The Sanhedrin could have said the same thing to the Apostles. But if this argument is not a good argument in the mouth of the Sanhedrin against the Apostles, then neither is it a good argument in the mouth of Steven Nemes against the successors of the Apostles.
The point in question here isn’t whether Catholic arguments beg the question against Protestantism, but whether Steven’s arguments against Catholicism beg the question. Nevertheless, there is an asymmetry here, because Protestantism has the “burden of proof.” See Carl Trueman’s explanation referenced in “Reformation Sunday 2011: How Would Protestants Know When to Return?.” But Steven’s notion that the Church Fathers have no authority is a logical implication of Protestant principles, as I’ve argued in “Sola Scriptura Redux: Matthew Barrett, Tradition, and Authority.”
Steven continues:
The flattening of all authority, to solve the rebellion and ecclesial deism problem is consistent with Protestant principles. In placing himself on the same level as Sts. Augustine, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus, Steven is following Protestantism to its logical conclusions. And the last stop in this chain of reasoning is the atheism underlying its rationalism. But the last stop in the reverse direction is the Catholic Church.
Here Steven uses the criterion of ‘convincing.’ On why that is problematic as a criterion for evaluating evidence and argumentation see paragraph 14 in my Logic Pointers.
Everything is disputable. (See paragraph 14 in my Logic Pointers.) So this is not a criterion by which to evaluate the motives of credibility.
This claim that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded, but some [false] development from something called “primordial Christianity” begs the question against Catholicism.
This is the fallacy of the argument from silence. Just because one can read the Didache and not find anything in it that is not also found in at least one other Christian sect, it does not follow that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded. (On the conditions necessary for an argument from silence to carry evidential weight, see the section titled “b. Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight” in “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison.”) And St. Irenaeus’s teaching that it is a matter of necessity that every particular Church should agree with the particular Church at Rome, “on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies III.3.2) is something distinctively Catholic (as opposed to Protestant), as is St. Irenaeus’s teaching that “It was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.” (Against Heresies III.22.4), as well as St. Irenaeus’s teaching on justification.
Steven continues:
Those arguments show only that those excerpts can be read that way, when abstracted from their broader theological and ecclesial context. Those arguments do not entail that these early authors held a memorialist position or denied the Real Presence.
Here too that argument does not entail its conclusion. It makes use of an argument from silence, and a straw man of the Catholic teaching on apostolic succession by treating it as epistemic, namely, that the Catholic bishop must be able to trace his ordination all the way back to the apostles.
Here the fallacy in Steven’s argument is the false dilemma. He claims that the lack of explicit theological explanation of the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is either because this doctrine did not exist or if it did exist it did not matter. Steven’s dilemma overlooks a third option: it did exist and it did matter but it was so widely accepted that it wasn’t under dispute. And that’s why his argument is a false dilemma.
By “these arguments” he is referring to his fallacious arguments from silence and his argument by way of a false dilemma.
Here Steven simply asserts that reading the early sources as if [ecclesial deism is false] is “anachronistic and inappropriate”. But this claim begs the question against Catholicism, since Catholicism rejects ecclesial deism. As for his claim that the notion that the Roman Catholic tradition is continuous with the early Church is “questionable,” see paragraph 14 of my Logic Pointers. Nor has he shown that the claim that the Roman Catholic tradition is continuous with the early Church is “circular.” He has merely asserted this. The motives of credibility argument is not that Catholicism is true and therefore that the earliest sources should be interpreted through Catholic lenses. Rather, the relevant Catholic claim pertaining to the motives of credibility is that arguments attempting to show discontinuity presuppose the very point in question. And that is true of all of Steven’s arguments that attempt to show discontinuity between the earliest Christian sources and later Catholic Fathers.
In relation to the motives of credibility the claim is not that there are no miracles elsewhere. What Pharaoh’s magicians performed did not undermine the evidential witness of the miracles performed by Moses and Aaron. The same truth applies to the person referred to in Mark 9:38-41.
This could be said of Jesus and the Apostles. But if it is not a problem for Jesus and the Apostles to know things to which others had no direct access, then it is not a problem for the successors of the Apostles and their flocks to know things to which outsiders have no direct access. If Steven’s argument here were a good argument, it would destroy Christianity, by not allowing Jesus and the Apostles to know anything that others could not verify for themselves by their own rational powers.
It cannot persuade anyone except the 1,344,403,000 presently living Catholics, (source) and all those millions of Catholics who preceded them over the last two millennia.
Here Steven presents a dilemma. Either the Catholic Church must assert that divine revelation must be understood according to the Catholic method because only in this way will one arrive at a Catholic interpretation, or the motives of credibility have nothing to do with the truth of Catholic teaching. This is a false dilemma. The reason the Catholic Church teaches what she teaches about how divine revelation is to be understood is because this too is part of the divine revelation she received, not because only in this way will people reach Catholic conclusions. So that provides a third horn, and shows why Steven’s dilemma is false. Moreover, the notion in the second horn that the motives of credibility have nothing to do with the truth of her teaching presupposes rationalism and the rejection of epistemic authority, and thus begs the question. If there is such a thing as epistemic authority, and the motives of credibility do point to epistemic authority, then the motives of credibility do have something to do with the truth of Catholic teaching. So the “epistemic quandary” Steven refers to is the product of a false dilemma and a question-begging premise.
Regarding that last sentence it would be difficult to come up with a strawier straw man.
Again, this is not true even at the level of nature, on account of the evidential character of testimony. And at the level of grace, the rationalism here would put Jesus and the Apostles in the dock, to be disbelieved until they prove by argumentation that what they say is true. To such an entailment, “He who sits in the heavens laughs.” (Ps. 2:4)
That is never the Catholic position. Steven’s argument here attacks a straw man.
It is true that we need the supernatural virtue of faith and the help of the Holy Spirit. But from this need it does not follow that Catholics merely take for granted (i.e. fideistically) the truth of the Catholic faith or are inventing a story, just as the need of the Apostles for the supernatural virtue of faith and the help of the Holy Spirit did not entail that they were being fideistic or inventing a story.
Just to be clear, no one here, myself included, has claimed or argued that Steven’s arguments are faithless, godless, or evidence of a corrupted or unenlightened mind. As for considering whether Catholicism is wrong, I believed that for 36 years, so I have certainly “considered” it. What Steven has not given me is any non-question-begging reason to believe that Catholicism is wrong.
Steven’s post shows that the paradigmatic nature of the Protestant-Catholic disagreement is very difficult to see from the Protestant perspective. He’s still arguing from Protestant premises, as though these are neutral (non-question-begging) premises.
St. Fabian, pray for us.
I found nothing of substance in Steve’s premises or arguments. To be fare, I only listened to the first 20 minutes of the first video. I have heard similar arguments before and I had heard enough to know that, not only would I hear nothing new, neither would I hear anything convincing. It’ s like one team attempting to analyze the inner workings of another team. The attempt is easy to see through as less than authentic.
This article grieves me, to the point I couldn’t finish it. Let me just address the first part, “Heretics can’t use Scripture.”
1) In the first place, the Reformation was partly about the accusation that the church was misusing Scripture. You cannot dodge that argument by saying “heretics can’t use Scripture,” because then what you are really saying is “I’m not open to correction from the Scriptures.” And isn’t that the wisdom from below?
2) In the second place, aren’t we all Christians? We are carrying on our petty little beetle bottle puddle paddle battles, when half the world is less than five percent Christian, and one in twelve believers is suffering for our Lord’s sake. We cannot increase the population of heaven by converting one another. But maybe we can by loving one another.
The flaw in the original argument is the premise that you have to be either Catholic or Protestant. You can be either. We are not heretics. We both believe the Creeds, and have valid baptism, and ordain faithful men. We are schismatics. There’s a difference.
My considered opinion is that God has placed these differences in the Body for a reason. The ways we are different are not wrong, just because they are different. If they don’t contradict Scripture and the Creeds, we are commanded to let each other alone about them. In fact, if we were all the same, how could we learn and grow from one another?
Please, my brothers, stop this ungracious wrangling! Scripture forbids it, while we’re on that topic.
Hello Coby, (re: #29)
I’m sorry to hear that.
Notice that this reply presupposes the very point in question, by presupposing the Protestant paradigm. This is how deep the problem is — we often cannot even see when our objections are begging the question, i.e. presupposing the truth of one side over the other. In the Catholic paradigm, as I’ve explained elsewhere, we come to Scripture in and through the Church, not on our own; we rightly understand Scripture through the Tradition, not apart from the Tradition. So it is not naked Scripture (or the Protestant canon) that corrects me as a Catholic; it is Scripture interpreted in and through the Tradition, under the authority of the Magisterium, by which I am corrected by Scripture. To claim that this is not being willing to be corrected by Scripture commits the fallacy of begging the question, i.e. presupposes the very point in question.
This notion that it doesn’t matter whether we are Protestant or Catholics, as long as we are Christian, also presupposes the truth of Protestantism. In the Catholic paradigm, forming a schism from the Church, or knowingly remaining in a schism from the Church, is a grave sin, as I’ve explained here. And see the Catechism on schism in paragraph 2089.
See my comment directly above.
Merely not disbelieving the Creeds is not the Catholic definition of ‘heresy.’ So here too your argument presuppose the truth of Protestantism. Do you affirm the canons of the Council of Trent?
If you baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then all other things being equal your baptism is valid, but as for ordination, do those in your denomination have Holy Orders, such that they can ordain? If not, then your claim that your denomination “ordains” presupposes the truth of the Protestant paradigm, and the falsehood of the Catholic paradigm.
I agree. But see here.
God allows many evils, and always does so for a reason, by which He brings good out of the evil. But that does not justify our participating in or perpetuating those evils. So God allowing schisms is not a justifying reason to form one or remain in one.
That claim begs the question, i.e. presupposes the truth of Protestantism and the falsehood of Catholicism.
Commanded by whom?
To the best of knowledge, no one here, either Protestant or Catholic, thinks we cannot learn from each other, or grow through our engagement with one another.
If I were a Protestant, I would point out that you’re using your own interpretation of Scripture, which you’re treating as Scripture itself, as a way of attempting to control my behavior. I would also point out that my interpretation of Scripture does not forbid what we’re doing, i.e. reasoning together regarding our disagreements. As a Catholic, my reply to your imperative is, as I explained above, to point out that you’re begging the question, by presupposing the truth of the Protestant paradigm concerning Scripture, and attempting to impose that paradigm as normative on a Catholic, i.e. me. Part of the challenge of resolving the Protestant – Catholic schism is learning the paradigmatic nature of the disagreement, such that we can at least see when and how our objections presuppose the falsehood of our interlocutor’s position.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
I will say one thing. I am learning a lot from this discussion.
I’m reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:12,13, where Paul says, “Each of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” “I follow Christ.” And that’s what I see us doing. Some of us, like the Protestants, want to follow somebody who is a respected scholar. Others of us, like the Evangelicals, need a powerful sermon and an emotional appeal. Some of us lean for our certainty on the authority of Peter, and others–like me, I guess–just want to get back to the basics.
It seems to describe our different denominations pretty well. The theologians are the Reformed, the orators are the Evangelicals, the traditionalists are the Catholics and Orthodox and the Eastern churches, and the no-name churches are the Charismatics. I think that’s a good broad description of the camps we like to find ourselves in.
My thought is, that if God left this in Scripture, it might be a useful insight. My question would be whether or not we ought to be trying to convert one another to our various traditions, or lack thereof, or whether we ought to look at our differences as a godsend, an opportunity to see ourselves in the mirror of another’s eyes.
I completely reject your argument from Tertullian. You say I am begging the question. But I reply that you have to overcome the presumption that your “apostolic authority” is predicated and modeled on Roman imperial authority, and shares the same faults. You have show that you are not in error the old-fashioned way, that is, by “the Scriptures and the power of God,” and by an appeal to conscience. “You shall know them.”
I know you feel attacked. Other Christians, especially in America, treat Catholics like second-class Christians, if they think they are Christians at all. And that must hurt. You used to be the only church on the block. But the answer to that is not to quote Tertullian and make us feel like second-class Christians in return. Let’s try building bridges, not walls.
Hello Coby, (re: #31)
Catholics, such as myself, fully affirm the truth of that passage of Scripture. In the Catholic understanding of the passage, what St. Paul is opposing is not obedience to Church hierarchy, but personality cults that divide the Church. That’s altogether different from obeying the ecclesial authority Christ Himself established. So understood according to the Catholic tradition, that passage of Scripture is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine.
That application of the passage presupposes a Protestant interpretation of the passage, and thus begs the question as a way of adjudicating the Protestant-Catholic disagreement.
I certainly agree that every passage of Scripture contains insights.
If that is an actual question you are asking of me, then yes, I think we should try to bring people out of heresy, false teaching, and schism.
Ok.
First, it is not a Catholic belief that apostolic authority is predicated or modeled on Roman imperial authority. We believe that Christ gave this authority to His Apostles, and they to their successors. Second, the claim that our [Catholic] conception of apostolic authority is a “presumption” presupposes a point in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church. Third, the posting guidelines have something to say regarding the use of imperatives.
This imperative presupposes that biblicism is true, and that the tradition Tertullian is representing is false. And that presupposition begs the question. (Comments #4, 7, 9, and 12 in the “Clark, Frame, and the Analogy of Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow” thread show the question-begging use of biblicism against Catholicism.) From the Catholic point of view, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself, and birthed on Pentecost fifty days after His resurrection, and so there is no prior biblicist tradition in the Church’s history.
This is not about me or my feelings. And no, I do not feel attacked or hurt.
The question is not how Tertullian makes us feel, but whether what he says is true. If what he says is true, we all should believe it, no matter how it makes us feel. I certainly agree about building bridges. But we can’t build bridges by subordinating truth to feelings. We can build bridges only on the basis of truth.
In the peace of Christ,
Sts. Cletus and Marcellinus, pray for us.
Been thinking about this, and driving along in my car, I had an insight.
Maybe you’re not intending to shut down the dialogue. Maybe we honestly, sincerely see things differently.
For example, based on this conversation, it seems like Catholics look at truth this way:
1) Jesus promised to guide his church into all truth.
2) Guidance results in a decision.
3) Therefore, the decisions of the Church are true.
Whereas Protestants look at truth this way:
1) Jesus promised to guide his disciples into all truth.
2) Guidance is a result of the Holy Spirit illuminating our mortal imaginations.
3) Therefore, the decisions of the church are based on truth, but also fallible, just as individual mortals are fallible.
Now, this is a situation where neither side is wrong. They are two sides of a coin. In Jungian personality studies we call this “Judging” and “Perceiving.” One type of personality emphasizes decision-making, while another type of personality emphasizes information-gathering. But they are two faces of the same trait, the decisiveness continuum. Catholics emphasize the end result as being true, whereas Protestants emphasize the inputs as individual insights leading us toward the truth.
But overall, the insight that I had–besides the relief I felt at realizing my brother was not simply being a jerk–was that we are thinking in two temporal aspects. Because the crux of the statement in John 16:13 is the verb “will guide.” Both sides agree that the “will” points to the future. But Catholics see that future as fulfilled in the church, whereas Protestants see it as fulfilled at the resurrection, in the sense of 1 Corinthians 13:10, “when the perfect comes, then the partial will be done away.”
To a Catholic, “he will guide you into all truth” gives a sense of confidence that the Spirit has already guided the church to teach what is correct. To a Protestant, it gives a sense of confidence that he will guide us today, to make more and more sanctified decisions as we wrestle with life.
I hope that this insight helps crack the nut of our problem. I hope it also lets my brothers forgive me for any harsh words I may have written. I would note for the record that this also exposes the slippery problem that Steven Nemes has been trying to put his finger on. Saying that the Spirit has already guided the church into all truth does involve some significant presuppositions, and we ought to be able to identify them. Not that they cannot be proven, but they ought to be made explicit, so that we (who are amateurs, and not the Magisterium ourselves) can examine our logic and see whether it is useful.
Grazacham.
I have been reflecting on this issue a lot this weekend. I’m going to imagine that’s a good thing. But one of the thoughts it sparked in me (thank you, Holy Spirit) was that we are seeing the future in two different ways. Catholics, at least with regard to this verse, see the future from Jesus’s point of view. The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth when he has ascended and sent him. Protestants see things from the disciples’ point of view. They will begin to be led into truth when the Holy Spirit comes.
One way to look at it is that Catholics are seeing the church in a temporal sense. We are led into all truth now. Protestants are seeing it in an eschatological sense. “Hope that is seen is not hope.” We are being led into all truth, but we are not there now. When you look at it that way, it seems less important to argue over one another’s frame of reference, because they are both valid. We may profit simply from appreciating one another’s point of view, and gaining thereby a sort of binocular perspective.
The word “temporal” reminds me of “Unam Sanctam,” where the Church affirmed she has both spiritual and temporal authority. The visible institution is Christ’s, and the invisible Body is Christ’s also. Protestants object (rightly or not) that our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” and “It shall not be so among you.” But if you accept that the church has temporal authority, then you should find it easy to admit, from a scientific perspective, that with temporal authority comes a political and social ideology (thank you, Catholic social teaching). And the gist of that ideology is that, Rule #1, “The Church is always right,” and Rule #2, “If the Church is ever wrong, please refer to Rule #1.”
What you have done here, by insisting that the decisions of the Church are infallible, is that you have set them up as unfalsifiable.
And I could digress and elaborate on the negative social and philosophical consequences, but let me just mention one. A healthy organism has certain characteristics. One of them is an immune system. Even a single-celled organism has the ability to recognize and eliminate harmful substances, or fight enemies. But if you are above criticism, you have a sort of spiritual AIDS. You are unable to detect and defend against the tares in your own wheat field.
Obviously, the Church has defended against error, to the point of “the use of force and even violence in the service of truth. (John Paul II)” But it is a plain fact that sometimes you have defended against heresy and schism, and sometimes you have acted to protect your privilege. You have defended against blatant threats to truth, but you have also defended against more subtle threats, such as remonstrances against sin.
What I am trying to say is that honest discourse abides by the rule, “whoever loves correction loves wisdom.” And this one facet of Catholic ideology, that the tenets of the Church are unfalsifiable, is the fly in your ointment. The only thing wrong with the Catholic Church is that she is never wrong. We can’t have dialogue, much less unity, as long as you keep clinging to what Oswald Chambers called “my right to myself.”
You are correct that the use of the Scriptures has to be subject to the wisdom of the church, but you are wrong when you act like the Church is not subject to the wisdom of the Scriptures. In fact, you misquoted Tertullian. What he said was not, “Heretics cannot use the Scriptures,” but “they cannot challenge our use of them.” To say that a criticism of the Church is invalid because only the Church can rightly use Scripture is not only fallacious, it is against the spirit and tone of the Scriptures themselves.
If you want my vote, I say that Steven Nemes convinced me of the wisdom of “blooming where you are planted.” My recommendation is that we look at our differences, not as threats, but as opportunities to love and to learn.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/german-synodal-way-backs-same-sex-blessings/
Should German Catholics follow the “living voice” of their bishops on homosexuality, or use their private interpretation of what they think Scripture and historical Christian teaching is, Bryan?
Hello Allegro, (re: #36)
You present this as a dilemma, as if for Catholics there are only two options: following the “living voice” of the German bishops, or engaging in private interpretation of Scripture and historical Christian teaching. That’s a false dilemma, because there is a third option: following the magisterium of the Church, which is not the same as a local synod. (See CCC 100.) Throughout Church history there have often been groups of bishops that went astray. Fourth century Church history is in itself enough to show that. The divine promise of indefectibility is not to some group of local bishops, but to the magisterium.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
But the apologetic strategy deployed by Catholic apologists is that “Once you’ve entered the Catholic Church, you just Submit to The Authorities. Doesn’t that sound more humble than having to engage in private judgement over what is true teaching?” whereas in reality, because of undisciplined heretical bishops, you are going to be engaged in an ongoing process of comparing the proclamations of your bishops with the written documents from the past.
Hello Allegro (re: #38)
It is possible that some Catholic apologists make that claim. That’s not a claim we make here at CTC.
That’s true, but that does not put the Catholic in the same epistemic state as the Protestant with respect to private judgment, for the reasons laid out in section V. A. of “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority,” and “The Tu Quoque.”
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
In comment #27 above, in January of 2022, I pointed out the rationalism in Steven’s position, and I wrote, “Moreover, the notion that there can be no supernatural revelation, a notion on which rationalism rests, itself presupposes atheism.”
A year earlier, on February 8 of 2021, I wrote the following in a conversation with Steven:
Then in response to his claim that “every claim has to be measured against the things themselves about which the claim is made” I wrote:
Steven thought that merely a bit of rhetoric, so I replied:
Then I clarified:
Steven now (March 2023) explicitly denies special revelation as a category. To deny special revelation as a possibility is to deny theism. And to affirm theism is to accept the possibility of special revelation as a category, for the reasons explained above. In order to reject the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, Steven adopted a rationalism that entails not only the rejection of special revelation, but also the rejection of theism. That’s like solving a headache with decapitation. The implication of his basis for rejecting the Catholic doctrine of infallibility should be seen as a reductio. Likewise, the rejection of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural is also a rejection of theism, because theism entails not only the Creator-creature distinction, but therefore also the distinction between what is natural to man and what is above human nature. To deny that there is anything above the nature of man is to deny theism. When a person holds two incompatible propositions, and one of them is true, it is good that he still holds the one true proposition, rather than being consistent in his error. Steven currently also claims that “In principle God can do just about anything.” (source) That’s the true claim Steven still believes. But that’s incompatible with the impossibility of special revelation, and thus with his denial of special revelation as a category.