This article, unlike most of what I intend to post, will not be heavily concerned with exegesis of the Scriptures; rather, I'll be looking at the historical separation of the Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches, and some of the Roman and Protestant church's arguments.
There are two common reactive attitudes from the Protestant world towards Roman Catholic teaching: instinctive opposition, and acceptance of their terms for the debate. This article by the excellent theology blog Parchment and Pen attempts to correct the first problem, but errs on the other side by defining the debate in Roman Catholic terms, as though Protestants needed to accept Roman Catholicism in order to accept Roman Catholics as brethren. I've responded in the comments to the original poster's misconceptions (there are some excellent comments in that discussion, as you'd expect when Beckwith becomes involved in a discussion), so I won't recap here; rather, I'd like to respond to a Roman Catholic commenter, "Micah", who accurately and elegantly distilled the issues in a short post; and unlike the original poster he gives criteria for accepting the Roman church's claims.
The question, to Micah, is whether the Roman Church objectively and exclusively has apostolic authority. After some discussion, Micah made an elaboration, which nicely establishes his claim as requiring three points of proof. He explained that the Roman Catholic Church has objective authority because it has unbroken apostolic succession by holy ordination; because it is a single unified institution; and because it is "catholic" (universal) in not being tied to any particular ethnic origin or nation. He identifies how several other classes of local churches might have one, but lack another of these.
We can examine each of these three alleged marks of a true church to see how closely the Roman church adheres to the standard Micah requires of it. We can then examine the teachings of the Church throughout the ages to see whether it is in agreement with the Roman church on what the marks of the true church are.
The following posts, and hopefully comments, will dive into this issue more thoroughly. I plan to post four more posts in this series, but I will alter these plans based on trackbacks and/or comments.
What I would say is not that, as you put it, "Protestants need to accept Roman Catholicism," but that they at least understand what it is they disagree with, instead of attacking strawmen that arise from unintentional misrepresentation and misconceptions, in which case one is attacking an imaginary opponent. (This is what I was talking about in that thread when I mentioned "the fallacy of incomplete analysis.") Thus, many of Protestant criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church end up begging the question by assuming in advance just the ideas (such as sola scriptura) they would need for their criticism to succeed, instead of putting those very ideas up for debate. I don't think I've ever heard a Protestant criticism of the Catholic Church that even demonstrated an understanding of what is being criticized (including my own criticisms when I was a Protestant).
ReplyDeletemicah, I hope I don't fall prey to the common fault of attacking a strawman. I've certainly seen that from my side, and I've argued against some of my own family members who were attacking Catholicism using faulty logic and/or bad premises.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued that you've never heard a Protestant criticism of Catholicism that demonstrated any understanding of Catholicism. When you were considering converting, where did you search for such a response? Once you began to realize that your own personal response was insufficient, did you search for someone who was?
I can understand failing to find an adequate response to Catholicism (since that would be the case if Catholicism were true), but if all you found were completely fallacious arguments, it seems likely that you were simply looking in the wrong places -- asking fools instead of the wise.
My first reaction should have been to ask what you think of my post -- for example, am I mischaracterizing you by saying that you're claiming three points of proof? If you're not really doing that, then I'd be wasting my time responding to each point with a single post and then wrapping up with a fourth post (that was my plan).
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing.
No, I'm not claiming you're mischaracterizing me personally, and that's not what I'm intending to focus on anyway.
ReplyDeleteI was certainly open to finding out that the RCC really was just wrong, and being shown that in some way that didn't flatly beg the question against them, but have never found any. As it happens, my Presbyterian pastor was far more well-versed in Catholic doctrine than even most professing Catholics (he had read the Catechism "two and a half times," as he was more than ready to tell people), but even though he didn't fall into the most obvious misunderstandings (like saying that they preach a "gospel of works" or anything like that), he still had a list of disagreements that were really nothing more than just that - disagreements. They were things that, if I were to just go on my own judgment, I could say, "well, I could see how you might go either way." But if there's to be a one, holy, catholic and apostolic *Church*, then it *can't* any longer be simply a matter of examining specific doctrines to see if they're exactly what I would have come up with on my own steam, just like one does when adjudicating between Protestant competitors. Instead, I'm going to give a sizable benefit of the doubt to the thing that looks just like it is that Church, before I simply take one man's word (even mine) over another. And then I can say, "Well, is it more likely that you're right that indulgences are inappropriate, or that the idea of purgatory is false, or that there is now, and has not been for some time, one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?"
There's no way to defend an absolute claim that Catholic doctrines are in error without it also entailing that most things about the faith are continually up for grabs with no objective way to tell who is right; just each person's personal convictions, in the end. Or maybe the "Church" should be run simply by the cleverest and most scholarly among us? Great, except representatives of this elite within Protestantdom disagree with each other, too. The only thing that unites Protestants is disagreement with the RCC (and maybe also with the EO). In that case, it's hardly impressive to be told that every Protestant disagrees with specifically Catholic doctrines - they would have to, wouldn't they, or else they'd be Catholic. And the way many Protestants talk, it almost sounds as if they think themselves closer to Jesus *just* because they're *not Catholic* - hardly impressive company to be in.
At the end of the second paragraph, that should be "...or that there is NOT now, and has not been for some time..."
ReplyDeleteThank you -- glad to hear I'm not obviously on the total wrong track. I haven't had much time recently, but I've got one of my replies almost ready.
ReplyDeleteI will say in advance, though, that your all-or-nothing logic above won't be rebutted in my detailed replies. I'll just say here that the choice isn't between the perfect and infallible authority of the Catholic church and total individualistic chaos with no authority whatsoever. Most churches believe that although the local churches have real authority based on the Head of the Church, they are each fallible and subject to correction (I believe that even conciliar decisions are fallible, although my opinion on that topic is also fallible and stated with more humility than can be expressed in a short message like this). I will also be examining how the Roman Catholic church fails to live up to her claims as an infallible guide in everyday reality (I'll primarily cover that in my post on Unity, which I expect to be the first one published).
The claim that "how the Roman Catholic church fails to live up to her claims as an infallible guide in everyday reality" seems to involve a fundamental confusion: you seem to think that if certain people choose not to obey the Church's teachings, that means that *the Church* has failed (as opposed to it being those people's own responsibility). I responded to this claim on the thread at Parchment and Pen in my comment #166, but you don't seem to have responded to it.
ReplyDeleteI also hear an implicit appeal to what has been called "The Tu Quoque" objection, which is addressed here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/. I would like to hear a substantive response to it. Please note that if I can't tell that you've read and understood these points that have already been made elsewhere, this exchange will necessarily result in a standoff since I unfortunately can't commit the time to repeat myself, or indeed others who have already discussed these matters better than I could have.
I posted a response to your charge of fallacy. Thank you for stating it graciously.
ReplyDeleteI'll also try to respond to your post regarding tu quoque, although frankly I see too many fallacies to make quick progress.
-Wm
Thinking about your "tu quoque" post...
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem with it is that it's a "red herring". You made the claim that Protestant doctrine causes disunity; I responded that Catholic doctrine does the same by any doctrinal measure. Your post titled 'tu quoque' contains many issues that are worth discussing, but it in no way supports your consequentialist claim that PDoc is chaotic, nor does it rebut my claim that RDoc is chaotic.
We can discuss your tu quoque post either if you'll concede that you were wrong in your consequentialist argument; or if you'll admit that the consequentialist argument is less important than your argument in 'tu quoque'.
Personally, I'd suggest the latter; but I'm not the one who made the consequentialist argument, only the response to it.
I'm afraid I can't take credit for having written the article "The Tu Quoque"; that's what falls under, as I said above, "others who have already discussed these matters better than I could have."
ReplyDeleteYour use of the term "consequentialist" is very odd indeed in this connection, so I'll try to ignore it.
It's not primarily a matter of this or that substantive doctrine, but of foundations. Protestant foundations of individualism in interpretation and "sola Scriptura," in theory and in fact, lead to chaos and disunity and nothing that could for any good reason be called "the Church". To say that the foundations of the RCC--historical continuity of apostolic succession--lead to the same problem, is frankly insane. It is as if I were to point out to you that you have two noses, and you were to respond by saying "well, that's your fault for having one nose and therefore making it conspicuous that I have two." *IF* any doubt arises along the way as to who's right, it's manifestly not *because* of the RCC's structure and foundation, but in spite of it.
Thanks, Micah.
ReplyDeleteConsequentialism is the belief that one is obligated to believe or follow something because of consequences, rather than because of any inherent goodness, rightness, or other property. Your argument was that Sola Scriptura is wrong because it led to division in the Church (or division from the Church); that is a purely consequentialist argument.
It's odd that the only part of your argument I respond to is the part you "try to ignore", but the rest of your argument is logically vacuous. It's fine to make analogical arguments, but your analogies start by assuming sheer insanity, and so painfully beg the question.
I will say that you contribute one new argument: the unsupported claim that "foundations" of sola Scriptura lead to chaos and disunity "in theory". (By the way, individualism may be problematic, but isn't inherent to anything about protestantism or sola scriptura.) Unfortunately, the opposite is true: the unchanging expression of Scripture forms a common authoritative foundation to which all generations can appeal, and to which all are accountable. When there is disagreement (and the known history of the Church says that there often is), both sides can meet together to appeal to the commonly respected an unambivalent authority of Scripture -- or both can appeal to different cherry-picked historical contexts, or (as in the doctrine of the Assumption), the church has to appeal to its own presumed authority in defiance of its own history and tradition.
-Wm