As far as infallibility goes, there are a few things to sort out. The first thing is the clear need for it. From where I stand, Protestantism (and I speak as a former Protestant) depends on a form of epistemological Pelagianism, as odd as that might sound. If anything in the Christian religion were beyond the possibility of revision, this would imply that there was some article of belief that was not a product of the human intellect and the materials that it works up to construct a faith for itself (crypto-Kantianism). If it were formally constructed only by us, it would therefore be fallible. For the Protestant, everything must meet the standard of a clear and necessary inference. The perspicuity of the Scriptures ends up as nothing more than the perspicuity of the human mind, and that is the case whether it be the Westminster minds together or Finney’s mind individually. If there isn’t a “clear” text for it, then toss it out. This regulative maxim can be anything as sophisticated as the historical-critical method or the “See Jesus Run” hermeneutic of some fundamentalists. The bed is clearly Procrustean. Protestantism is Christianity made safe for the Enlightenment. This is why in principle, there is no article of belief that is beyond the possibility of revision. Every doctrine is up for grabs, be it the Trinity, the Canon, Sola Fide, etc. Protestantism is the religion of the Raft, where every part can be changed out while one is on one’s autonomous journey. You don’t need tradition since you alone can reach up and lay hold of the epistemic merits of Christ.
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1464
J.A. McGuckin's seminal work on Cyrillene Christology remains a force to be reckoned with for those who would impugn the coherence of Cyril's Christological position. Through careful attention to the relevant texts, McGuckin systematically rebukes the notion of Harnack, Seeberg, and other liberal Protestant historians that Cyril was a crypto-Apollinarian throughout his career. Moreover, he criticizes the idea that the Council of Chalcedon represented a vindication of Antiochene logos-man Christology against Alexandrian logos-sarx Christology. The latter concept appears to have been inspired by the distinction between Alexandrian and Antiochene views drawn by Grillmeier, even though Grillmeier himself admitted that this was hardly a perfect categorization and specifically denied that the later Cyril was Apollinarian. Subsequent scholars (e.g., R.A. Norris) had sharply questioned whether the Antioch/Alexandria paradigm was meaningfully applicable at all.
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2005/09/zoobie-review-st-cyril-of-alexandria.html
I don't believe in Scotism, Banezian Thomism, OR Molinism (either the original, or per Suarez). That's part of the problem with Perry's argument. Banezian Thomism in particular is based on Cajetan's theory of analogy, which more or less everyone concedes to be a Scotist reinterpretation of St. Thomas; a similar charge could be leveled at Suarez's version of Molinism. Now that people are getting back on board with the philosophia perennis more rigorously and treating St. Thomas's doctrines of analogy, divine simplicity, and the like more rigorously, the Thomism/Molinism debate has been practically rendered obsolete as a fundamental misconception of God's metaphysical operation.
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2006/12/lesson-in-logic.html
Respecting the first quote, I’ve commented on various aspects of Robinson’s argument in the past.
For now I’d simply like to draw attention to the relation between his argument and the two quotes just below, by Jonathan Prejean—Perry’s sometime ally and sometime disputant.
To the extent that our interpretation of Scripture is subject to revision, this same principle holds true for any text whatsoever, be is secular, Scholastic, papal, patristic, or conciliar, &c.
There’s nothing which privileges Perry’s dogmatic sources from this same contingency.
The argument for the NEED of infallibility never made sense to me (and I say this as a former communicator). If we cannot read a text infallibly, what makes us think we can hear a pope infallibly (and I say that as a former pope)? In either case, the individual is still left with "private interpretation" (and I say that as a former private interpretation).
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, when the pope speaks ex cathedra it's not like YOU have any special access into understanding what his mind is. All you have are his words. Words spoken or words written still need to be internalized by the hearer/reader. The infalliblity of the source has no bearing on whether or not the inidividual will internalize the message infallibly.
So adding infallible interpreters solves absolutely nothing. (And I say that as a former solution....)
"There’s nothing which privileges Perry’s dogmatic sources from this same contingency."
ReplyDeleteWith respect to claims of knowledge, this is quite right and i have said this for now many years. But that is not what I was pointing out. One can be fallible and still know. Big deal.
Fallibly knowing about formal theological statements is not though the same thing as producing them. The conditions for the latter seem to go beyond the conditions for the former, unless of course one wishes to admit that every single doctrine that one professes is in principle revisible and that all formal theological statements are completely our constructions from the biblical material.
C.D.,
ReplyDeleteI’m with you in your claim that everything (and I mean everything) is subjectively filtered by the hearer (reader). But the allure of Orthodoxy/Catholicism (over Protestantism) is that these models still seem to provide far more assurance that one has gotten his beliefs straight.
Catholics do, of course, have to *interpret* the Pope’s decrees, but I don’t think there are too many internal disputes among Catholics over what the Pope *actually* said versus what they *think* he said. And when such disputes do arise, the Pope can always clarify.
Sure perfect epistemological access is a myth, but from a practical perspective, *real time* communication issuing from an infallible source provides an arguably superior (though admittedly subjective) grounding for one’s faith.
Putting to rest confusion or misunderstanding regarding religious proscriptions or theological propositions is far easier among Catholics, would be my guess.
The Catholic (or the Orthodox believer), takes the infallibility of the Church as his starting point and only has only doubts about the veracity of communication (about truly *knowing* that he understands what he hears/reads) to overcome. Fortunately for the Catholic, the ‘problem of communication’ is not, for most people, a serious hurdle. It is real enough, but *no* religious system can overcome it.
The Protestant, on the other hand, must believe the infallibility of the Bible AND that his interpretive grid is infallible enough to steer him clear of heresy. Unfortunately, the tools with which to achieve the latter are not definitive, *very* widely disputed (as is well known), complex and numerous. And he has all this *in addition* to the ‘problem of communication’.
So (in theory at least) it does appear that the Protestant has a greater epistemological burden to overcome; he has many more subjective layers to peel away to get to the infallible source of his belief. He has the infallible Bible but must mine for its truths by fallible means, whereas the Catholic has his Church and its putative infallible pronouncements right up front, so to speak.
Andrew
“Catholics do, of course, have to *interpret* the Pope’s decrees, but I don’t think there are too many internal disputes among Catholics over what the Pope *actually* said versus what they *think* he said. And when such disputes do arise, the Pope can always clarify."
ReplyDelete1) This is naive. I suspect that your range of interaction among Catholics is rather limited. Speaking from personal experience, I have witnessed as much theological diversity among Catholics as among any other ecclesiastical communion.
2) How many Catholics have personal access to the Pope? Even if what you are suggesting were practically possible (which it is not), what guarantee is there of successful communication between the Pope and his hearers? For example, does the Pope speak Chinese? What if a Chinese person wants access to this infallible fount of knowledge? Can the Pope "clarify" and ensure that our Chinese friend is interpreting everything he says correctly? I’d be curious to learn how the Pope can ensure that his words are interpreted correctly by others (especially by others who do not speak his native tongue). I'd also like to know how he does this personally for the billion folks who think of themselves as Catholic. Is it by means of magic?
"Sure perfect epistemological access is a myth, but from a practical perspective, *real time* communication issuing from an infallible source provides an arguably superior (though admittedly subjective) grounding for one’s faith."
1) There is not just one pope's communication to consider & interpret, but papal communication from the past as well and none of that qualifies as "real time" communication. Further, much of this literature is in tension with itself when the entire corpus of papal literature from every era is considered and most probably it is hopelessly incoherent if the attempt is made to consider it as a unified work (this, in part, explains the great theological diversity among professing Catholics).
2) Further, how many Catholics have access to this "real time" communication on which to ground their faith?
"...whereas the Catholic has his Church and its putative infallible pronouncements right up front..."
All of which must be personally interpreted by people who possess various levels of intelligence & communicative ability, which is why, of course, there is no such thing as "Catholicism."
If you think this assertion is in error, perhaps you could define "Catholicism" for me, and then explain why your personal understanding is normative for anyone else.
In reality there are only millions of Catholicisms - each variant instantiated in the life and beliefs of individual Catholics. Many of these Catholicisms lay claim to some stream of current or past tradition and almost all of them are in conflict with one another in some way.
Acolyte4236 said:
ReplyDelete"With respect to claims of knowledge, this is quite right and i have said this for now many years. But that is not what I was pointing out. One can be fallible and still know. Big deal."
Which puts all Christians in the same boat, be that Catholic, Orthodox, or Evangelical.
"Fallibly knowing about formal theological statements is not though the same thing as producing them. The conditions for the latter seem to go beyond the conditions for the former, unless of course one wishes to admit that every single doctrine that one professes is in principle revisible and that all formal theological statements are completely our constructions from the biblical material."
The difference in production doesn't change the fact that whether or not the interpretation of your rule of faith is revisable is irrelevant to what rule of faith you prize.
So even if we conceded the Orthodox claim at the productive end of the process, it confers no advantage over sola Scriptura at the receiving end.
Hence, these scholarly debates over Cyril and Chalcedon.
Der Fuersprecher said...
ReplyDelete1) There is not just one pope's communication to consider & interpret, but papal communication from the past as well and none of that qualifies as "real time" communication. Further, much of this literature is in tension with itself when the entire corpus of papal literature from every era is considered and most probably it is hopelessly incoherent if the attempt is made to consider it as a unified work (this, in part, explains the great theological diversity among professing Catholics).
****************************************
I'd like to piggyback on this observation:
1. Even if we accept the claims of Rome at face value, we're talking about something Popes.
2. You also need to to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary magisterial layers within papal teaching.
3. You also need to distinguish between Popes and Anti-Popes.
4. Don't forget 21 ecumenical councils.
5. You also need to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary magisterial layers within conciliar teaching.
6. You also need to distinguish between ecumenical councils and local councils.
7. Adding more and more interpretive layers doesn't bring you any closer to certainty.
To the contrary, you have to sift through all the strata.
Perry,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about your personal access to un-revisable & infallible doctrine.
Which one of the theological doctrines that you personally have come to know is infallible & un-revisable?
I am not speaking of the doctrines themselves, of course, but of your own personal understanding of these doctrines.
Which one of them is un-revisable and infallible?
-------------------------
ReplyDeleteThis is naive. I suspect that your range of interaction among Catholics is rather limited. Speaking from personal experience, I have witnessed as much theological diversity among Catholics as among any other ecclesiastical communion.
-------------------------
Among Catholics who truly take papal infallibility seriously my experience is that they are more uniform in their beliefs on matters like abortion, bioethics, and gay rights, for example.
-------------------------
How many Catholics have personal access to the Pope?
-------------------------
I don’t believe *this*. Besides, I don’t think personal access to the Pope is any more necessary than is personal access to the members of the Supreme Court in order for me to have reliable knowledge of *their* pronouncements.
-------------------------
…what guarantee is there of successful communication between the Pope and his hearers? For example, does the Pope speak Chinese? What if a Chinese person wants access to this infallible fount of knowledge? Can the Pope "clarify" and ensure that our Chinese friend is interpreting everything he says correctly? I’d be curious to learn how the Pope can ensure that his words are interpreted correctly by others (especially by others who do not speak his native tongue).
-------------------------
I addressed the ‘problem of communication’ already. We manage to overcome it quite successfully every day. Invoking skepticism at this most basic level is unfair, since it impugns Protestantism no less than Catholicism (as I already stated).
-------------------------
I'd also like to know how he does this personally for the billion folks who think of themselves as Catholic. Is it by means of magic?
-------------------------
Again, this caricatures my claim. Personal contact of any kind is *not* what I’m arguing the Catholic has, nor do I think it is necessary.
-------------------------
There is not just one pope's communication to consider & interpret, but papal communication from the past as well and none of that qualifies as "real time" communication.
-------------------------
I mean ‘real time’ as in far more contemporary (contemporary or nearly contemporary papal edicts, for instance) than an infallible but 2000 year old historically fixed account that can’t be clarified, qualified, or translated but by an equally infallible *living* entity (which, for the Catholic, is the Church).
-------------------------
Further, much of this literature is in tension with itself when the entire corpus of papal literature from every era is considered and most probably it is hopelessly incoherent if the attempt is made to consider it as a unified work (this, in part, explains the great theological diversity among professing Catholics).
-------------------------
This is irrelevant to my point. Whether or not Papal Infallibility is cogent in the first place is a subject for another thread. Yes, the arguments go round and round about whether a Catholic can be consistent in his claims (of P.I.), but Catholics, nonetheless, resist criticisms (as do Protestants who deflect similar criticisms coming from the other side). I’m not addressing *that* debate.
-------------------------
Further, how many Catholics have access to this "real time" communication on which to ground their faith?
-------------------------
Again, that misrepresents my claim. My point is not that Joe Catholic can ring up the Pope whenever the need arises, but that (relative to Protestants) Catholics do have recourse to a much more contemporary, specific, and culturally relevant body of (infallible) teachings, prohibitions and mandates with which to clearly identify normativity regarding beliefs and practices.
-------------------------
All of which must be personally interpreted by people who possess various levels of intelligence & communicative ability, which is why, of course, there is no such thing as "Catholicism."
-------------------------
By the same standard, there is no such thing as Protestantism (or any species thereof).
Again, you seem to suggest that unless Catholicism can demonstrate something like “God knowledge” for any or all of its members, then it is thusly refuted. That is unfair. For me, it is a question of the degree of confirmability. For the Catholic confirmation is indexed to Church authority embodied in ‘official decrees’ that can be easily corroborated and clarified by the inquiring Catholic. Yes, he has to take communication at the most basic level for granted to do this, but that is all he needs. The Protestant needs far more than just this: an interpretive framework. But, unfortunately, no *definitive* framework, fallible or not, is available to him. He, therefore, has many more subjective hoops to jump through.
-------------------------
If you think this assertion is in error, perhaps you could define "Catholicism" for me, and then explain why your personl understanding is normative for anyone else.
In reality there are only millions of Catholicisms - each variant instantiated in the life and beliefs of individual Catholics. Many of these Catholicisms lay claim to some stream of current or past tradition and almost all of them are in conflict with one another in some way.
-------------------------
By true Catholic I have in mind one who submits (or at least attempts to submit) himself fully to Papal authority. My thesis is that two Catholics of *this* type are far more likely to have uniform beliefs regarding *essentials* (as defined by the Church, of course) than two Protestants who regard the Bible as our *sole* infallible source of authority. Again, cookie-cutter Catholics aren’t necessary for my argument, for it is a matter of ‘degree of uniformity’.
A much higher level of uniformity is a hallmark, not only of Catholicism, but any church considered by its followers to be infallible (Orthodoxy, Mormonism, JWs).
Disclaimer: I don’t pretend to be an expert on Catholicism (or Protestantism, or the epistemological difficulties they each face), so I can’t be overly dogmatic about claims, which, admittedly, come “from the hip”.
For me, I guess the question is really a theoretical one: which system, Protestant or Catholic, would provide greater certainty (certainty being an obsession of mine) if I could manage to accept their respective core claims (Sola Scripture and Papal Infallibility) as my point of departure. When I think in these terms, Catholicism is the winner…for all the reasons I’ve already given.
Andrew
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf you're claiming that identifying (or deciphering) the teachings the Church considers absolutely binding on its members is an exercise in tail chasing, I guess I'd need more supporting evidence.
Andrew
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
If you're claiming that identifying (or deciphering) the teachings the Church considers absolutely binding on its members is an exercise in tail chasing, I guess I'd need more supporting evidence.
Andrew
***********************************
Here's an example of the multi-layered quality of Catholic teaching. You have to sift and sort through different levels of church teaching. What's authoritative and what's not? To what degree?
And you have to exercise private judgment in doing that. So you're thrown back on your own resources.
http://www.catholicism.org/magisterium.html
I never claimed at this point that it gave an advantage over SS at the receiving end, though I think it does. We do end up with two different products, regardless of how they are received. On Steve’s view not only is the interpretation of the rule of faith revisable but so is the rule of faith itself. That seems to be a significant difference.
ReplyDelete2ndly. Scholarly debates don’t on my model drive the formulation of formal theological statements. This is because theology is not a science and not driven by dialectic. That was the whole problem with Arianism, Apolliarianism, Nestorianism, et al. Moreover, the 19th-21st century debates about Cyril and Co. are post facto and therefore hardly relevant to the actual formulation of said statements.
As for the question of which theological formulae I have come to know as infallible, I’d proffer the Nicene Creed or the Canon of Scripture. I never claimed that my understanding of them was infallible. I can know about something that is infallible without being infallible. All that is relevant is whether I meet the conditions on knowledge so as to know about some thing that is infallible. If it is infallible, it is so whether I know about it or not.
What I think critics of Protestantism are worried about is not so much something epistemological, but the idea that the Faith could be altered over time in light of new reasons which seems to imply that the Faith is not of divine origin but a purely human construction. The Protestant viewpoint seems to imply that viewpoint.
-------------------------
ReplyDeleteDF
This is naive. I suspect that your range of interaction among Catholics is rather limited. Speaking from personal experience, I have witnessed as much theological diversity among Catholics as among any other ecclesiastical communion.
ANDREW
“Among Catholics who truly take papal infallibility seriously my experience is that they are more uniform in their beliefs on matters like abortion, bioethics, and gay rights, for example.”
-------------------------
What you are asserting, in essence, is that there is “more uniformity” among a certain group within “Catholicism.”
More specifically, you are seizing upon individual Catholics who share a certain “family resemblance” on a particular doctrine (i.e., those who “truly take papal infallibility seriously” [whatever this ambiguous statement means – I am assuming you are most likely referring to Western fundamentalist-like Catholics of the modern era]), and then assuming that this identifying factor is somehow normative for others around the world and of other eras who have identified themselves as “Catholic,” and whose beliefs differ from other self-professing Catholics on substantial ethical issues.
I am assuming then that if specific diversity of belief is pointed out within Catholicism, a move undoubtedly will be made to label these Catholics as somehow “unorthodox” or as something less than a “truly Catholic” because they allegedly don’t “take papal infallibility seriously” (and I am quite curious by what criteria one would judge this suggested norm) in order to maintain the desired [but quite artificial] sense of unity.
Interestingly enough, unless such a charge of heterodoxy comes specifically and personally from the Pope himself, one’s certainty with respect to the correctness of the judgment is about as tenuous as the poor protestant chap who doesn’t have an infallible interpreter to appeal to.
I’ll grant that there are probably certain theological similarities among contemporary individual Catholics on specific beliefs which would allow someone to group them together based upon [what they consider] a significant theological commitment. However, even among a group with professed allegiance to one specific doctrine, there’s bound to be diversity on thousands of other beliefs (to say nothing of the varying orthopraxy that would exist among this group) which would render the coherence of such a sub-group tenuous at best.
So “Catholicism” has varying groups of individuals who share certain “family resemblances” with respect to their beliefs about certain doctrines.
As Perry so eloquently & powerfully put it in response above:
Big deal.
This does nothing to establish that “Catholicism” has a coherent identity. I would suggest that rather than appeal to what “Catholics” believe, you qualify the type of Catholics you are referring to (and based on what you’ve written so far, I am assuming you have in mind the more militant Western fundamentalist Catholics who might feel more comfortable in the Tridentine era than our current age). At least then you will be more precise in your communication.
By the way, the diversity among Catholics that I was referring to was primarily theological rather than philosophical & ethical (although there is great diversity among Catholics here as well).
-------------------------
DF
How many Catholics have personal access to the Pope?
ANDREW
I don’t believe *this*. Besides, I don’t think personal access to the Pope is any more necessary than is personal access to the members of the Supreme Court in order for me to have reliable knowledge of *their* pronouncements.
-------------------------
This statement reveals more about you than anything else. It reveals that you seem to believe 1) that papal communication of the past and present is perspicuous (and this assumption of yours is particularly revealing about your overall familiarity with the entire corpus of Papal communication), 2) that there is some (presumably supernatural) consistency among the papal communication of the past & present which allows it to be understood reliably by billions of fallible interpreters (and in spite of your analogy to the often contradictory verdicts of the US Supreme Court which are quite evidently not understood “reliably” by fallible interpreters who keep their case load quite busy demonstrating this very point – and imagine if they had to arbitrate for the entire world!).
But apart from all that – how does the individual Catholic (without personal access to the Pope) connect with this infallible source to ensure that he/she has successfully put the proper “Catholic belief package” in his/her head after plumbing the depths of past & present papal communication?
-------------------------
DF
…what guarantee is there of successful communication between the Pope and his hearers? For example, does the Pope speak Chinese? What if a Chinese person wants access to this infallible fount of knowledge? Can the Pope "clarify" and ensure that our Chinese friend is interpreting everything he says correctly? I’d be curious to learn how the Pope can ensure that his words are interpreted correctly by others (especially by others who do not speak his native tongue).
ANDREW
I addressed the ‘problem of communication’ already. We manage to overcome it quite successfully every day. Invoking skepticism at this most basic level is unfair, since it impugns Protestantism no less than Catholicism (as I already stated).
-------------------------
Are we discussing Protestantism? If so, perhaps you and I can join together in questioning the utility of the term “Protestantism” in terms of describing a group with a coherent identity. I would personally like to know what, exactly, “Protestants” believe.
Further, I thought the argument was being made that a living infallible interpreter provides some sort of epistemic privilege to “Catholics” that is unavailable to “Protestants.” You now seem to be acknowledging that the interpretive playing field is the same with this objection.
-------------------------
DF
There is not just one pope's communication to consider & interpret, but papal communication from the past as well and none of that qualifies as "real time" communication.
ANDREW
I mean ‘real time’ as in far more contemporary (contemporary or nearly contemporary papal edicts, for instance) than an infallible but 2000 year old historically fixed account that can’t be clarified, qualified, or translated but by an equally infallible *living* entity (which, for the Catholic, is the Church).
-------------------------
The problem, of course, is that the vast majority of papal communication is antiquated historically fixed accounts from previous Popes. Comparatively, the communication put out by any current Pope is miniscule when considered along with the papal literature of the past. Further, apart from your reification of “the Church” (which must mean “the Pope”) how exactly does this infallible interpreter ensure reliable interpretation of his own edicts (not to mention the reliable interpretation of ancient edicts) with the billions of interpretive agents who encounter them?
-------------------------
DF
Further, much of this literature is in tension with itself when the entire corpus of papal literature from every era is considered and most probably it is hopelessly incoherent if the attempt is made to consider it as a unified work (this, in part, explains the great theological diversity among professing Catholics).
ANDREW
This is irrelevant to my point. Whether or not Papal Infallibility is cogent in the first place is a subject for another thread. Yes, the arguments go round and round about whether a Catholic can be consistent in his claims (of P.I.), but Catholics, nonetheless, resist criticisms (as do Protestants who deflect similar criticisms coming from the other side). I’m not addressing *that* debate.
-------------------------
Forgive me, but the assumption of internal consistency seems to be a necessary component of the argument that Joe Catholic can reliably have beliefs about the true nature of “Catholicism” since so many voices of the past and present speak/have spoken to that topic. If there are contradictory voices at this point, then reliable knowledge of Catholicism is a fortiori impossible.
-------------------------
DF
Further, how many Catholics have access to this "real time" communication on which to ground their faith?
ANDREW
Again, that misrepresents my claim. My point is not that Joe Catholic can ring up the Pope whenever the need arises, but that (relative to Protestants) Catholics do have recourse to a much more contemporary, specific, and culturally relevant body of (infallible) teachings, prohibitions and mandates with which to clearly identify normativity regarding beliefs and practices.
-------------------------
Once again, you are assuming perspicuity (“…with which to clearly identify…”), which is fine, provided you demonstrate the point rather than merely assert it.
If the living breathing infallible source is obscure or equivocal in his own communication, then you’ll forgive me for my skepticism concerning the personal appropriation of “reliable” knowledge by the billion or so faithful.
Perhaps the Pope had better speak in the most simplistic way, employing qualification upon qualification – just so as to make it more likely that the faithful don’t fall into implicit Nestorianism with their beliefs concerning determinism.
-------------------------
DF
All of which must be personally interpreted by people who possess various levels of intelligence & communicative ability, which is why, of course, there is no such thing as "Catholicism."
ANDREW
By the same standard, there is no such thing as Protestantism (or any species thereof).
Again, you seem to suggest that unless Catholicism can demonstrate something like “God knowledge” for any or all of its members, then it is thusly refuted. That is unfair. For me, it is a question of the degree of confirmability. For the Catholic confirmation is indexed to Church authority embodied in ‘official decrees’ that can be easily corroborated and clarified by the inquiring Catholic. Yes, he has to take communication at the most basic level for granted to do this, but that is all he needs. The Protestant needs far more than just this: an interpretive framework. But, unfortunately, no *definitive* framework, fallible or not, is available to him. He, therefore, has many more subjective hoops to jump through.
-------------------------
1) How is the viability (or lack thereof) of “Protestantism” related to the coherent identity of “Catholicism?”
2) Since this is the second time “fairness” has been invoked, I'd better address it. At risk of stating the obvious, one's personal perception of "fairness" is rather irrelevant to the truth/reality question.
3) I still fail to see the epistemic advantage the Catholic has over the Protestant. You've tried to provide such an advantage by appealing to official decrees (most of which are fixed historical documents of the ancient past btw) and then merely asserting that the proper interpretation can be "easily" corroborated and clarified by the inquiring Catholic.
For me, this is where it gets problematic. Perhaps you could be more specific in your assertion at this point. How, exactly, do the billion Joe Catholics ensure they are properly thinking like a "true Catholic?" How, exactly, does this living breathing infallible interpreter help China Joe Catholic who is struggling to rightly understand whether his beliefs concerning determinism render him Nestorian or not? By what criteria does China Joe Catholic determine whether the authorities claiming to represent the "Magisterium" are really in line with "true Catholicism" or not?
-------------------------
DF
If you think this assertion is in error, perhaps you could define "Catholicism" for me, and then explain why your personl understanding is normative for anyone else.
In reality there are only millions of Catholicisms - each variant instantiated in the life and beliefs of individual Catholics. Many of these Catholicisms lay claim to some stream of current or past tradition and almost all of them are in conflict with one another in some way.
ANDREW
By true Catholic I have in mind one who submits (or at least attempts to submit) himself fully to Papal authority. My thesis is that two Catholics of *this* type are far more likely to have uniform beliefs regarding *essentials* (as defined by the Church, of course) than two Protestants who regard the Bible as our *sole* infallible source of authority. Again, cookie-cutter Catholics aren’t necessary for my argument, for it is a matter of ‘degree of uniformity’.
-------------------------
Thank-you for the definition – it is helpful in terms of understanding what you personally have in mind with regard to “Catholicism.” Perhaps now you can explain why that definition should be normative for others.
I am also curious though, based on your own personal understanding of “Catholicism,” where is this list of “essentials” as you put it? Further, what degree of precision in terms of personal understanding of these “essentials” is necessary for someone who identifies him/herself as Catholic to qualify as “truly Catholic.” What “degree of uniformity” is necessary in these beliefs for someone to maintain their “truly Catholic” status?
-------------------------
ANDREW
A much higher level of uniformity is a hallmark, not only of Catholicism, but any church considered by its followers to be infallible (Orthodoxy, Mormonism, JWs).
Disclaimer: I don’t pretend to be an expert on Catholicism (or Protestantism, or the epistemological difficulties they each face), so I can’t be overly dogmatic about claims, which, admittedly, come “from the hip”.
For me, I guess the question is really a theoretical one: which system, Protestant or Catholic, would provide greater certainty (certainty being an obsession of mine) if I could manage to accept their respective core claims (Sola Scripture and Papal Infallibility) as my point of departure. When I think in these terms, Catholicism is the winner…for all the reasons I’ve already given.
-------------------------
You’re certainly welcome to your personal beliefs but I certainly can’t see the epistemic advantage, nor do I think you’ve successfully demonstrated such. A living breathing infallible *speaker* on the giving end of communication provides no epistemic advantage (theoretical or practical) to a fallible interpreter on the receiving end of communication.
If anything, I think Catholicism is saddled by greater epistemological burdens due to the multitudes of competing voices from the past and the present (to say nothing of the multitude of "authorities" which must be understood and assimilated), all of which must be sifted through, prioritized, and understood – a Herculean task to say the least.
"As for the question of which theological formulae I have come to know as infallible, I’d proffer the Nicene Creed or the Canon of Scripture. I never claimed that my understanding of them was infallible. I can know about something that is infallible without being infallible. All that is relevant is whether I meet the conditions on knowledge so as to know about some thing that is infallible. If it is infallible, it is so whether I know about it or not."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. Let's see how far down this rabbit hole goes if you don't mind.
Would you clarify what you mean when you refer to the canon of Scripture as an infallible theological formulae that you have come to know?
Do you mean that you have come to know what is the written Word of God versus literature which is not and that this doctrine (of the canon) is infallible and un-revisable?
I think the canon of scripture is unrevisable in the face of any future experience. It is irreformably fixed. I have come to know that the judgment concerning what books are in fact inspired is irreformable and unrevisable in the face of any future experience.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Protestant judgment regarding the canon of Scripture of 66 books is in principle beyond revision, or is it possible for the Protestant body that you belong to, to some time in the future alter its judgment about what is inspired? That is, is the sole rule of faith and doctrine fixed or could it change over time?
"I think the canon of scripture is unrevisable in the face of any future experience. It is irreformably fixed. I have come to know that the judgment concerning what books are in fact inspired is irreformable and unrevisable in the face of any future experience."
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious about the specific content of this knowledge of "irreformable theological formulae" you claim to have.
1) What "judgment concerning what books are in fact inspired" are you referring to?
2) Do you believe that this knowledge of the "irreformable theological formulae" concerning the canon allows you to distinguish between inspired literature and non-inspired literature?
"Do you think the Protestant judgment regarding the canon of Scripture of 66 books is in principle beyond revision, or is it possible for the Protestant body that you belong to, to some time in the future alter its judgment about what is inspired? That is, is the sole rule of faith and doctrine fixed or could it change over time?"
I'll be happy to entertain this question after we finish discerning the cash value of an ecclesiastical tradition capable of allegedly producing un-revisable and infallible doctrine (which is, after all, the subject of this thread).
D.F.,
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
A living breathing infallible *speaker* on the giving end of communication provides no epistemic advantage (theoretical or practical) to a fallible interpreter on the receiving end of communication.
------------------------------------
Do you really feel this way? Why?
For me, direct access to God would be ideal. Second best would be an “infallible *speaker* on the giving end of communication”. A distant third, at best, would be an ancient document whose truths are mediated via a manmade method of interpretation that makes no claims to infallibility.
I'll give an example form personal experience:
When I was a kid I struggled w/ the idea that belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit was 'essential' to salvation.
Why? Because, while the personhood of the Father and Son 'jumped off the pages' of the Bible for me, I considered it a *possibility* that the term 'Spirit' is only used in the Bible as a metaphor. Given that fact, I felt it was unfair to brand dissenters as heretics.
Quite naturally, my own agnosticism on this matter, especially in the face of the certitude of the (fallible) church I belonged to, caused me to fear that I might not be saved as well.
Catholics, however, needn't suffer this anxiety, since their beliefs are, in a very real sense, chosen for them, not by them. As to the specific question of whether the Spirit is personal, the Church’s answer is a resounding “yes”. To the degree that the Catholic believes the Church is infallible, that answer is sufficient, even as an empirical investigation of scripture comes up inconclusive.
I’m open to correction, but I'm taking it for granted that it is quite easy for the Catholic to find out what the current Pope's views are on this matter (the question of the ‘personhood’ of the Holy Spirit) as well as on other critical theological matters (especially those critical to salvation).
But even if it is hard for them to some degree, it must be easier than arriving at conviction, one way or the other, with only the fallible G.H.M method as their my guide.
If I believe the Pope is infallible and the Pope tells me (directly or indirectly) that biblical references to the Sprit are *not* metaphorical and that the Spirit is a Person on a par w/ the Father and Son, then there is no ambiguity about the matter and no room for dissent on my part.
In short, being left to my own epistemological devices is always inferior to the blessings of an infallible representative of God.
Andrew
Der Fuersprecher,
ReplyDelete1. The judgment made in the liturgical practice of the church & by various local synods then ratified by general councils.
2. Yes it does so allow me to distinguish between inspired and uninspired literature.
Andrew,
ReplyDelete[leaving aside the caricature of Protestant hermeneutics to keep our focus upon Catholicism...]
The point that I have labored to make is that the certainty you think the Catholic Church provides is merely illusory. Having one “infallible interpreter” only advances the hermeneutical dilemma one tiny step forward (and, as I’ve pointed out, the multitude of “infallible voices” that Popes from the past represent actually causes the situation to regress).
I think I’ve made the point beyond any possible doubt, but you seem willing, nevertheless, to blindly accept that the Catholic can “easily” find out the infallible truth (which you have indexed, singularly, to what the current Pope thinks and somehow he mysteriously is able to convey this into the mind of the individual Catholic apart from the private judgment the poor Protestant is left with).
In the final indisputable analysis, apart from personal dialogue with the Pope himself (which still would not resolve the dilemma even were this possible), every Catholic is left to that same accursed private judgment concerning whether the authority claiming to represent the “Magisterium” is, in fact, teaching the infallible truth (how would a Catholic determine, for example, whether or not the Bishop, Priest, or lay apologist who is teaching is some rogue like Luther?).
In any event, according to your hierarchy of preferences, direct access to God is the most desirable. Why not just join a charismatic church and have God speak directly to you?
Of course, the certainty possessed by the charismatic participants concerning the voice of God is fanciful, but no less so than what you’ll get in the fundamentalist forms of Catholicism you seem so intrigued with.
And by the way, you will be required to check your intellect at the door in order to accept papal infallibility in light of historical evidence to the contrary (e.g., the Arian Liberius, the Monthelite Honorius, the Geocentricist Paul V, et al).
Like Loyola, you inevitably must come to accept the maxim: “That we be altogether of the same mind with the church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.” (Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 260)
If you’re willing to embrace obscurantism in order to achieve an illusory sense of “certainty” so be it.
For my part, I have to travel a different path.
"1. The judgment made in the liturgical practice of the church & by various local synods then ratified by general councils.
ReplyDelete2. Yes it does so allow me to distinguish between inspired and uninspired literature."
Thanks again for the reply.
1) Could you be more specific? I'm not as interested in the verdicts of provincial councils at this point, although it might be helpful to list the one's you have in mind nonetheless. I am asking, more pointedly, which ecumenical council(s) "ratified" this un-revisable, irreformable, & infallible doctrine of the canon that you've come to personally know.
2) Would you mind cataloguing for me the inspired literature you've come to know?
1. 2nd Nicea, 4th Constantinople, etc.
ReplyDelete2. The books of the Bible as delineated in above sources.
Acolyte4236 said:
ReplyDeleteWhat I think critics of Protestantism are worried about is not so much something epistemological, but the idea that the Faith could be altered over time in light of new reasons which seems to imply that the Faith is not of divine origin but a purely human construction. The Protestant viewpoint seems to imply that viewpoint.
*****************************
But other issues aside--which I have in fact addressed elsewhere--how is Orthodoxy immune to revision?
Prejean keeps drawing our attention to cutting edge scholarship on early Christological controversies.
So, in principle, it would seem possible for a scholar to come up with a revolutionary, yet compelling, reinterpretation of what had been the received interpretation of some article of faith in Orthodox theology.
On its own principles, formal theological statements are not capable of being produced on purely human effort. This is because what is produced is not a purely human thing. Consequently, the formal theological statements of Orthodoxy are not capable of revision.
ReplyDeleteSo the formal doctrine of Chalcedon, Nicea, etc. are not revisable in the face of future experience.
What Prejean is talking about is a revision in the judgment of western scholarship with regards to the role of Leo’s Tome and Saint Cyril at Chalcedon. I fail to see how that would amount to a revision in the judgment of the church in any relevant doctrinal statement. In point of fact, the Orthodox have always maintained the view that current scholarship is coming to. This is in part due to the influence of Orthodox scholarship and arguments made available and taken seriously by Anglo and Continental scholars.
In any case the revisions that occur in scholarship do not amount to a revision in the formal theological statement by the church. And that is for a simple reason-said statements are not the pure product of reason and hence supersede the domain of scholars. The judgment of scholars is irrelevant when it comes to the content of the faith. It takes more to be a Father and a theologian than a formal education.
If you wish to deny or argue against Orthodox claims that the church is a theandric entity and does not in fact possess divine powers, you are free to do so. But on its own principles I see good reasons (biblical, theological, historical) for why an Orthodox would think that its judgments are immune from revision.
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDeleteOn its own principles, formal theological statements are not capable of being produced on purely human effort. This is because what is produced is not a purely human thing. Consequently, the formal theological statements of Orthodoxy are not capable of revision.
So the formal doctrine of Chalcedon, Nicea, etc. are not revisable in the face of future experience.
What Prejean is talking about is a revision in the judgment of western scholarship with regards to the role of Leo’s Tome and Saint Cyril at Chalcedon. I fail to see how that would amount to a revision in the judgment of the church in any relevant doctrinal statement. In point of fact, the Orthodox have always maintained the view that current scholarship is coming to. This is in part due to the influence of Orthodox scholarship and arguments made available and taken seriously by Anglo and Continental scholars.
In any case the revisions that occur in scholarship do not amount to a revision in the formal theological statement by the church. And that is for a simple reason-said statements are not the pure product of reason and hence supersede the domain of scholars.
*******************************************************************************************
Sorry, but this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You keep shifting the focus to the production end rather than the receiving end of the process.
Formal theological statements are subject to interpretation. In principle, a received interpretation is subject to revision.
Are you denying the possibility that formal theological statements could ever be vulnerable to traditional misinterpretation?
The question I'm posing is not whether the original statements are revisable, but whether the interpretation of said-statements is revisable.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteDF and I are making statements that seem to bounce right off you.
I think the reason may be that while he and I have very specific examples in mind, our statements don't register with you beyond mere abstractions since you lack the same familiarity with Catholicism.
Here are some concrete examples of what DF and I have in mind:
http://firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/articles/dulles.html
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/dulles.html
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1993/v50-1-bookreview6.htm
I do keep focusing on the end product because I think the real focus of the argument is not epistemological. The skeptical arguments deployed only serve as to highlight the fact that what Protestantism produces is not sufficient to bind the conscience and makes the rule of faith revisable. While it may be true that purely human theological constructs can be veridical in terms of semantic content, the connection between them is never beyond possible revision.
ReplyDeleteGranted that formal theological statements are subject to interpretation. I grant that on Protestant principles any received interpretation is subject to revision and this is so because any received Protestant interpretation is only as good as the demonstration that accompanies it. On Orthodox principles such is not the case because “received” means something different. To be received means that it is tradition, and hence normative. To be received in the appropriate way then is sufficient for some interpretation to be beyond revision. In this way it is analogous to externalist epistemologies such that the recipient may not have access to the reasons for the interpretation, but just so long as it is received in the appropriate way, it is correct and beyond revision.
Consequently, to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by “traditional misinterpretation.” Is it possible for individuals to get the teaching wrong? Yes. Is it possible for the tradition to be lost? No.
On your view I think you have to deal with both questions, are the interpretations of scripture codified in formal theological statements like creeds and confessions revisable, as well as the question, is the rule of faith revisable since the formal canon is also fallible? So I think you have to deal with the question of whether even the original statements are revisable as well.
I hope that clarifies my position.
acolyte,
ReplyDelete1) How did you come to know that the doctrine of the canon (as you've come to understand it) is irreformable, infallible, and un-revisable?
2) Is your personal understanding of the canon irreformable, infallible, and un-revisable?
3) Since the canon has allegedly been un-revisably, infallibly, and irreformably fixed, can there be any modifications (by either addition or subtraction) to the canon as you understand it?
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing a bit about your religious background. It helps us to suggest a solution when we know the diagnosis.
It's not always a bad thing to become dissatisfied with your Christian upbringing if there were obvious inadequacies in your religious experience.
That can be a step on the way to rebuilding your faith on a firmer foundation.
1. I came to know it in a similar fashion that I know other things, namely investigation-historical, philosophical, theological, etc.
ReplyDelete2. I already denied at least two times that my knowing is infallible. But that is harmless since I don’t have to be infallible to know. I just have to know. All that my belief forming mechanisms are trying to do is produce knowledge and for that, they don't have to be infallible. If you think otherwise, please indicate so.
3. What part of “irreformably fixed” did you miss?
"1. I came to know it in a similar fashion that I know other things, namely investigation-historical, philosophical, theological, etc.
ReplyDelete2. I already denied at least two times that my knowing is infallible. But that is harmless since I don’t have to be infallible to know. I just have to know. All that my belief forming mechanisms are trying to do is produce knowledge and for that, they don't have to be infallible. If you think otherwise, please indicate so.
3. What part of “irreformably fixed” did you miss?"
1) I'm not asking how you came to know the doctrine itself, but *specifically* how you came to know that the doctrine possesses an un-revisable and irreformable quality. How, exactly, did you come to believe that the canon as you us you understand it is un-revisable? Go ahead and just anticipate my follow-up question with respect to the fallibility and revisability of your belief in this quality of the canon doctrine.
2) Yes, you have attempted to deny that your fallible epistemological situation is “harmless,” however, I remain unconvinced. We are attempting to assess the epistemic advantage you allegedly have over the Protestant with respect to your personal connection to infallible knowledge. If your own personal understanding is fallible, revisable, and reformable then you’re left, ultimately, in the same sad state – possessing knowledge & understanding that you may personally believe to be “reliable,” but which is always subject to revision and reform, perhaps radically so.
3) Since we’ve established that you believe your infallible and unrevisable doctrine of the canon allows you to distinguish between literature which is inspired and that which is not, and since we’ve also established that you believe the canon is not subject to any future modification (having been irreformably fixed in the past), would you tell me whether the following literary text is canonical or not:
Everyone went to his home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."
1. I came to know it the same way I come to know other things, as I said before. Don’t you think that things taught by God have an irreformable character? If things taught by God didn’t have an irreformable and an absolute normative character, how would knowledge of God be possible at all?
ReplyDelete2. I have yet to articulate the epistemological advantage that I think my view gives. I do think that it is obvious that what it produces is superior. Which is better? Theological statements which are in principle never beyond revision, always in principle negotiable, that may be known but may never be since they might be false, etc? or theological statements that not only can be known but are beyond possible revision in the face of all future experience and for which it is impossible that they be in error? I think the latter.
If my epistemic situation with respect to my abilities is the same as the Protestant, it doesn’t follow that the objects which can be known on the respective models are identical in their normativity. On my view the rule of faith is not revisible but on your view it is. How can fallible and provisional normativity leave us in the same epistemic position? Consequently, it would be better to say that I can hook up with infallible statements which I fallibly grasp. I don’t have to be infallible to know them, but I would have to be to produce them.
If I can be wrong, not much follows from that. It doesn’t follow that I am in fact wrong. My charge against Protestantism is not that their epistemic position is worse because they are fallible but that the object of their profession is inadequate with respect to being normative because it is purely human. The question is not whether my epistemic situation is reliable but whether in fact I can know. Reliability of itself doesn’t undermine my knowing but in fact contributes to it. You seem to think that reliability is somehow detrimental to knowing. Please explain why you think so.
I never denied that my claims to knowledge were beyond possible revision, but from that no claims concerning global skepticism follows.
3. Yes I think John 8 is part of the canon. Do deny that it is? Do you know that it is or merely believe that it is?
"I never denied that my claims to knowledge were beyond possible revision, but from that no claims concerning global skepticism follows."
ReplyDeleteHere I mistyped. It should read,
"I never affirmed that my claims to knowledge were beyond possible revision, but from that no claims concerning global skepticism follow."
----------------------------
ReplyDelete"1. I came to know it the same way I come to know other things, as I said before. Don’t you think that things taught by God have an irreformable character? If things taught by God didn’t have an irreformable and an absolute normative character, how would knowledge of God be possible at all?"
----------------------------
You continue to speak in generalities and to avoid the specifics that I am asking for, which I suspect is a cover for weakness of position.
Again, what *specific* historical, philosophical, and theological data produced this belief in the "irreformable" and "un-revisable" quality of the canon? Did you arrive at this belief by intuition? Did Bishop Snuffleupagus personally tell you? Did your personal interpretation of some literary text lead you to this knowledge? Did God magically zap this knowledge into your head? Did “the church” call you up last night and tell you?
Also, you avoided my follow-up question – Is your personal belief about the irreformable character of the canon reformable? Could you come to believe that the canon doctrine is, in fact, revisable?
I think it is becoming evident that our dialogue thus far is revealing far more about you and your personal beliefs than anything about an allegedly infallible, irreformable, and un-revisable doctrine (which is, of course, the point of this exercise).
----------------------------
“2. I have yet to articulate the epistemological advantage that I think my view gives. I do think that it is obvious that what it produces is superior. Which is better? Theological statements which are in principle never beyond revision, always in principle negotiable, that may be known but may never be since they might be false, etc? or theological statements that not only can be known but are beyond possible revision in the face of all future experience and for which it is impossible that they be in error? I think the latter.”
----------------------------
You have yet to articulate what epistemological advantage your view confers because there is no advantage, something that is obvious to all but the most naïve. Your singular accomplishment thus far is that you have successfully bored us with incessant prattle with respect to the allegedly superior doctrinal producing capability of your particular ecclesiastical communion. Even if this capability is granted, however, it is about as irrelevant as your communion itself. To wit, if your personal understanding of this “irreformable & un-revisable” doctrine is indefinitely reformable and revisable than it really matters not whether your communion, can in fact, “produce” such doctrine – you have no un-revisable or irreformable access to it.
Thus, when someone like yourself speaks of “the church,” & “irreformable & infallible doctrine,” you’re really just telling us about yourself and your own personal eccentricities rather than the Ding an sich.
----------------------------
“If my epistemic situation with respect to my abilities is the same as the Protestant, it doesn’t follow that the objects which can be known on the respective models are identical in their normativity. On my view the rule of faith is not revisible but on your view it is. How can fallible and provisional normativity leave us in the same epistemic position? Consequently, it would be better to say that I can hook up with infallible statements which I fallibly grasp. I don’t have to be infallible to know them, but I would have to be to produce them.”
----------------------------
As I have pointed out, this silly drivel is irrelevant. Since your current grasp of this infallible knowledge is revisable and reformable, the possibility exists that you will personally come to believe something about these infallible statements (including that they are in fact, fallible, rather than infallible) which is mutually exclusive to your current beliefs about them – and this situation could occur an indefinite number of times.
----------------------------
“If I can be wrong, not much follows from that. It doesn’t follow that I am in fact wrong. My charge against Protestantism is not that their epistemic position is worse because they are fallible but that the object of their profession is inadequate with respect to being normative because it is purely human. The question is not whether my epistemic situation is reliable but whether in fact I can know. Reliability of itself doesn’t undermine my knowing but in fact contributes to it. You seem to think that reliability is somehow detrimental to knowing. Please explain why you think so.
I never [affirmed] that my claims to knowledge were beyond possible revision, but from that no claims concerning global skepticism follows.”
----------------------------
No claim has been made concerning whether your fallible condition renders you necessarily wrong. Nor have I asserted that “reliability undermines [knowledge].” The point has always been that your finite contingent condition seriously calls into question what sort of connection you can personally have with respect to this supposed “infallible doctrine.” Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are wrong (and perhaps radically so) in terms of your personal understanding of this “infallible doctrine.”
I have been attempting to help you come to terms with the indisputable fact that your current beliefs are indefinitely revisable and reformable, and that your undeniable epistemological situation renders your current beliefs about the [real or imagined] capability of your communion irrelevant. You are certainly welcome to continue to believe that you have personal irreformable and un-revisable access to infallible doctrine, of course. You’re also free to believe in sugar plum fairies if you’re so inclined.
If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that your current knowledge claims are reformable and revisable:
Is it possible that you will revise your current beliefs concerning the infallible and irreformable nature of the canon doctrine?
“3. Yes I think John 8 is part of the canon. Do deny that it is? Do you know that it is or merely believe that it is?”
Could you be mistaken with regard to the canonical status of the pericope in question? While we’re at it, since we’re discussing the canonical status of a text that occurs only in later manuscripts, is it possible for further investigation to discover additional chapters to the Gospel of John?
And as always, rather than merely offer personal opinion, tell us exactly why you believe so and whether your belief is infallible and irreformable.
If my position is weak, you shouldn’t need examples (or derision) to show it. You should be able to show it in terms of a faulty inference or some factual error. Moreover, I speak in general terms because I am grading final exams and this venue isn’t exactly the place to give a lengthy explanation of the process by which I came to the position I hold. I have put forward an adequate sketch of my position. You bear the burden of proof to show that it is weak, suspicions do no argumentative work for you.
ReplyDeleteAs for phone calls from the church, specific documents which I mentioned before (and others)indicate that the canon was established infallibly so in a sense, the church bears witness to its divinely conferred power. As for my “personal” interpretation, I am not clear on what “personal” adds to interpretation. Is there “impersonal” interpretation? As for philosophical arguments, a specific set of transcendental arguments helped lead me to the necessity for unrevisable judgments as well as an unrevisable text. I note that how I came to this belief says nothing as to its coherence or the fact that your position commits you to believing that the rule of faith as formally professed is revisable.
I don’t believe I avoided your follow up question. I stated quite clearly that my belief *about* the canon being irreformable is revisable. But that only implies that my belief *about* the canon is revisable and not that the canon is. If the canon is irreformable, it is so regardless of whether I believe it is or not. And so yes I can come to believe that the canon is in fact revisable by making some mistake in reasoning or some false belief regarding some thing that I might think is a fact when it is not a fact at all. I did hold such a belief at one time, specifically when I was a Calvinist.
A discussion of my beliefs would naturally reveal what I have stated up front, namely that I know things fallibly. Such should hardly be a surprise. At that point our positions agree. Where they diverge is over the nature of the theological statements produced by our respective bodies. From my understanding, every formula put forward by any and all Protestant bodies is fallible and therefore revisable, and this would include the rule of faith, Scripture itself.
I am surprised that you are beginning to balk at this point. Surely you also think that you are a fallible knower and that you fallibly know about something that is infallible. At there should be nothing controversial between us. What should be though is the idea that the church can produce anything infallible and that the church is anything more than a human entity and that therefore the formal statements it makes can bind the conscience because it carries a normativity greater than that which accompanies knowledge.
If there is no epistemic advantage to my view then you need to give an argument to that effect rather than simply assert that it is so. Boring or not, the question is whether what I say is true and whether I have good reasons for thinking so. Using rhetoric such as “incessant prattle” does no argumentative work for you either but only displays your frustration or some other moral or intellectual deficiency.
I would think it would be obvious to you that on their own principles, of the two models, the one that can produce a formally irrevisable rule of faith along with other unrevisable statements is superior. So far this is an idea that you have left untouched, despite my questions to you. And given that I have done the majority of the answering, it wouldn’t be too difficult for you to address a few questions. I never denied that my knowing about infallible things was fallible, but you have yet to show how this is problematic. If you think it is, I can’t see how this would help your position.
Consequently, when I speak of having fallible epistemic access to infallible statements the question is not whether I have unrevisable access but access. If I know it and all that is required is knowing, then there is no problem.
This is why your statement to Kant is irrelevant, unless of course you wish to deny epistemic realism and affirm Kantian Transcendental Idealism, in which case you would be precluding any propositional revelation and practically all of Classical Protestant theology regarding Scripture, not to mention little things like God, the hypostatic union, etc. If I satisfy the conditions on knowledge, then I know the thing in and of itself, rather than a construct based on human autonomy as Kant believed.
If what you seemed to imply were correct, it would certainly be a serious problem for Protestantism just as much as for my view, showing that any problem that you think is present is not generated by my view per se and therefore not a defect of it but of some shared principle between us. If your personal understanding of infallible scripture is indefinitely reformable and revisable then it really matters not whether God can produce such a text-you have no un-revisable access to it. When you speak of what Scripture teaches then “you’re really just telling us about yourself and your own personal eccentricities rather than the Ding an sich.”
Labeling my comments “silly drivel” is not an argument and hence doesn’t show that I am mistaken. While the propositions that, x is fallible, and, x is infallible are mutually exclusive propositions, this leaves the real difference untouched, namely x is infallible regardless of what anyone believes concerning it. Pointing out numerous times that I could be wrong does no real work for you since it only shows what I stated at the outset, that I am not sufficient to formally produce an unrevisable rule of faith or any other unrevisable theological statement. On your own principles, even the rule of faith is revisable. Protestants revised it in the past and I see no reason why they could not do so again.
While my claims to know what my church teaches are revisable it is certainly an advantage over the Protestant view. First, if I do end up denying the truth, it is I who bear the direct responsibility and not the Church. On the Protestant view, any given or even all Protestant bodies could formally preach gross heresy since nothing they now or ever have professed is beyond revision-from the Trinity and the canon of Scripture to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Second, on my view what is formally proclaimed is not a mere human construct from the matter of Scripture, otherwise known as the “teachings of men.” Third, if the church is infallible then it can bind men consciences and “hand them over to Satan” by excommunication. Fourth its members can know that what it teaches is not the best reasoning regarding Scripture *so far* and so disputes settled are forever settled. How can Protestantism formally settle any theological dispute with the requisite normativity that say St. Paul and the other Apostles display?
My finite condition does not of itself generate any worry about having epistemic access to infallible statements, unless of course you also think that it calls into question anyone knowing any infallible statements, which would include your epistemic claims concerning knowing that the Bible is infallible. If you think it does, please articulate the inference from finite and contingent knowers *to* either an insufficient or non-existent epistemic relation to infallible statements. So in the absence of any argument as to why the epistemic connection is seriously undermined or problematic, your assertions are idle and therefore bake no bread and cut no sushi.
“Perhaps” is irrelevant. Questions of knowledge aren’t left to “perhaps” or luck but to questions of whether I or anyone else in fact meets the conditions on knowledge. I don’t see why it would be in principle any more difficult to know about and that there are infallible formal theological statements than about and that there is an infallible text, namely the Bible.
I don’t see why the possibility of revision in terms of knowledge renders *what* I know about my church to be irrelevant. How exactly do we get from one to the other? Where was that argument again? It would only be the case if I in fact did not have knowledge concerning them.
And it is at this point you create a straw-man. You state “You are certainly welcome to continue to believe that you have personal irreformable and un-revisable access to infallible doctrine, of course.”
I never stated such a view and in fact repeatedly denied that I had “personal irreformable and un-revisable access to infallible doctrine.” Consequently, your comments constitute a straw-man or rather a belief of yours in “sugar plum fairies.”
What I claimed was that I had fallible access to it but that the kind of fallible access (knowledge) was sufficient in terms of epistemology, but was inadequate to grant the statements *that I know about* sufficient normativity to bind anyone’s conscience. Why? Because the requisite level of normativity surpasses the normativity of knowledge. Why? Because I am obligated to believe something from a divine source even if I do not understand it or know it. I don’t see how in principle any formal theological statement produced by any given Protestant body or the collection of them could obligate me to believe anything that they state in their formal theological statements in that way and so they are inadequate to serve as a basis to perform the biblical practices of definitive theological adjudication (Acts 15) or excommunication (per Jesus and Paul). Protestant bodies take themselves to be in fact performing these biblical practices but are inconsistent.
In answer to your questions, yes it is quite possible that I can revise my beliefs concerning the infallible characteristic of the canon. But on my view it is not possible for my church to revise the canon of Scripture. On your view it is entirely possible, and in fact has happened, that the canon of Scripture, the rule of faith be subject to revision.
Sure my beliefs about John 8 could be mistaken, which would require that my beliefs about the church and the Bible were mistaken, along with my beliefs about the transcendental necessity for a historical revelation and the Christian God. And you will need to spell out the inference from it being located in later manuscripts to being non-canonical and non-inspired. Moreover, do you mean to suggest that it is possible to find out that nothing in the New Testament or any given text of the New Testament and the Old Testament are not inspired? If this were so and there were no revelation, how would knowledge of anything be possible? If God has not revealed himself and is silent, how is language possible? To paraphrase and adjust Nietzsche, I believe in God because I believe in grammar.
Perry, should I be surprised at this latest display of obscurantism given your ecclessiology?
ReplyDeleteCiting specifics will help others assess the probability (or lack thereof) of your belief in the allegedly irreformable, un-revisable, and infallible character of the canon. Specifics also will help others assess the practical benefits your theory provides.
Perhaps when your schedule lightens up you can provide these specifics.
Perhaps then we can resume our dialogue and discern the cash value your "epistemic advantage" provides.
I have a hard time believing that you are sufficiently familiar with Orthodox ecclesiology to even justify such an insult.
ReplyDeleteCiting specifics may do the work that you mention, but what matters are the arguments and the concepts.
Answering a few questions of your own might help others as well.
I have 8 month twins and a four year old. I teach a full load of four classes a semester, take classes, pick up a language or two, teach sunday school and try to keep the house picked up. My schedule never lightens up.
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete"Sure my beliefs about John 8 could be mistaken, which would require that my beliefs about the church and the Bible were mistaken, along with my beliefs about the transcendental necessity for a historical revelation and the Christian God."
It's an extraordinary admission on Perry's part that his entire worldview would implode were he to concede the validity of textual criticism and its application to Jn 8.
Moreover, there are textual variants *within* a given MS tradition as well as *between* alternative MS traditions. So even if he clings to the LXX or the Alexandrian and/or Byzantine witness to the NT text, he will still be confronted with textual variants.
What edition of the LXX does he regard as preserving the canonical text of the LXX?
I concede the validity of textual criticism and yet my paradigm doesn’t implode. :) First, I am not a Muslim when it comes to inspiration. 2nd. You’ll need to spell out the inference from, variant texts, to, not knowing which text is correct. A variety of readings doesn’t imply that it is impossible to know which text is correct. It seems odd that a conservative Protestant would be implying that we can’t know the text of the Bible. So I perfectly grant that there are variants in any given textual tradition. And? So?
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the Calvinist view could implode should Calvinist’s decide to revise their canon once again based on some new discovery, say that Romans isn’t Pauline along with tossing out some of the Johanine literature, as a number of Protestant scholars argued last century.
Say hullo to Heraclitus.
I think the point that is being made is that, once again, you're not in any sort of privileged position with respect to the canon - infallible doctrine producing factory or not.
ReplyDeleteYou only know that "John" is canonical, but you have no un-revisable knowledge with respect to the actual contents of said document. The content could vary from the inclusion/exclusion of one disputed chapter to the possible inclusion of additional chapters as additional manuscripts are discovered.
But this discussion would bring us back around to specifics and our previous dialogue wouldn't it?
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete“To be received means that it is tradition, and hence normative…just so long as it is received in the appropriate way, it is correct and beyond revision.”
You keep making these grandiose assertions, but all they boil down to is that in Perry Robinson’s *opinion*, formal dogma is normative and irreformable.
To say that formal dogma is normative and irreformable is simply an abbreviated statement of the claim: “Perry believes that formal dogma is normative and irreformable.”
But if Perry’s belief could be false, then formal dogma is not normative and irreformable.
That’s why your appeal to the normative and irreformable character of dogma is viciously circular.
And your fallback position that even a fallible agent can get it right is to no avail since an Evangelical could lodge the same appeal for his own belief.
“You’ll need to spell out the inference from, variant texts, to, not knowing which text is correct. A variety of readings doesn’t imply that it is impossible to know which text is correct. It seems odd that a conservative Protestant would be implying that we can’t know the text of the Bible. So I perfectly grant that there are variants in any given textual tradition. And? So?”
Now you’re having problems following either your own argument or mine.
On the one hand, I never said or implied that we cannot know which text is correct.
On the other hand, you were the one who said or implied that if Jn 8 were a spurious interpolation, the following consequences would ensue:
“Sure my beliefs about John 8 could be mistaken, which would require that my beliefs about the church and the Bible were mistaken, along with my beliefs about the transcendental necessity for a historical revelation and the Christian God.”
Moving along:
“On the contrary, the Calvinist view could implode should Calvinist’s decide to revise their canon once again based on some new discovery, say that Romans isn’t Pauline along with tossing out some of the Johanine literature, as a number of Protestant scholars argued last century.”
We’ve been over this ground before. Both sides and float hypothetical defeaters to either Orthodox theology or Protestant theology.
DF,
ReplyDeleteI think I am in a better position, assuming I do in fact fulfill the conditions on knowledge. My rule of faith is not revisable-yours is. Even if I end up having a false belief concerning it, it is still formally fixed whereas yours’ is altered. I think you are being a bit careless when you speak of “un-revisable knowledge.” I think you mean an un-revisable knowledge claim.
In any case, it’d be nice to see how you deal with the fact that your formal rule of faith is revisable. Also, it’d be interesting to see how this comports with a presuppositional apologetic. Do you think it is possible for textual criticism to falsify the inspiration of the bible or any given book of it?
Steve,
I am not making grandiose assertions, but rather am spelling out the concept. I am not making claims as to whether the concept is true, I am simply spelling out the respective conceptual schemes and gesturing at an internal critique. As for “opinion” I take that word to mean some proposition, the truth of which is beyond finding out. I don’t think you think that my views are opinion in that sense. If they were, none of your arguments could touch them. If you mean that it is some belief for which I have no reasons, then that is clearly false. You may think I have no good reasons for thinking such, but that is a different level of critique yet to be engaged. Your attempt to tar me with “opinion” is therefore dismissive and irrelevant and fails to engage the argument in question.
While all opinions may be beliefs the converse is not true-not all beliefs are opinions, so it doesn’t follow that “Perry believes that formal doctrine is normative and irreformable” is identical in content with “It is Perry’s opinion that formal docotrine is normative and irreformable.” You need to show that it is an opinion and not just a belief.
The fact that one of my beliefs could be false only shows what I have claimed already, namely that I am not infallible. Do you think that any and all Christian beliefs could be false? Is it possible for Christianity to be false? Is it possible for the Bible not to be God’s revelation in history? Is it possible for God not to exist? What do you think Van Til’s answer is?
I do not see how my appeal to normative and irreformable character of formal doctrine is circular. It may have a possible defeater, but that doesn’t imply that it is viciously circular. Even if I didn’t fulfill all the conditions on knowledge and my belief was merely true, namely that formal doctrine was irreformable, it still would not be circular reasoning. Your statements only point out what I have repeatedly stated, that my belief in a body that produces irreformable doctrine is fallible. That of itself is idle with respect to whether there is such a thing, for I could fail to meet the conditions on knowledge in lots of ways irrespective of truth value. That is, there could be irreformable doctrine even if I fail to know about it. The revisability of my belief doesn’t imply a revisable state of affairs. The contingency of my epistemic relations to the world says little if anything about the nature of the world to which I may be epistemically related.
My claim that a fallible agent can get it right is not my fallback position, but my originally and repeatedly stated position. I think Protestants can get the interpretation of the Bible correct and sometimes they have and sometimes they have not. (This is practically tautological since Protestants from day one have formally disagreed implying that some Protestants have gotten the interpretation right and some wrong.) But even if Protestants get the interpretation right, none of their knowledge claims are beyond possible revision, which implies that their formal statements lack the normative force of divine teaching. This is why no formal theological statement from any or all Protestant bodies can bind the conscience because the level of normativity on knowledge is significantly less than for divine teaching.
So my disagreement with Protestants is not over whether they can have the correct interpretation of the Bible. My disagreement is with their intuition that nothing taught by God is revisable and that some of their Protestant beliefs, including the canon, the very rule of faith, is beyond revision, and that their formal theological statements have the force of divine teaching, which by definition as human constructs they could not have. So again, that is not my “fallback position” to which I am retreating, but rather it is the case that you have just now come to grasp more fully what my position as originally articulated in fact is.
If we can in fact know what text is correct, then all I have to say is that I think I know which textual variant is correct, assuming there is conceptual divergence between at least any two variants. I think what you are trying to say is that the fact that we could find out that say John 8 might not be canonical functions as a defeater for me. I don’t think it does. If I know or at least have true belief, that the canon is irreformable, and John 8 is in it, then we could never find out that John 8 isn’t canonical. In a similar way following Van Til, we could not find out that Christianity was false. Not because of some epistemic limitation, but because it is impossible for it to be so.
Yes I did say that if we found out that John 8 was not canonical that such and so consequences would follow. But I do not take that to be a genuine defeater anymore than I take any proposed fact or argument for the falsity of the Resurrection or the Existence of God to be a real defeater, for it would be impossible to construct such an argument without assuming the truth of the views for which the defeater is to function.
An allegedly infallible doctrine producing factory has indicated that X is canonical. The Protestant thinks that X is canonical as well, albeit without the benefit of an AIDPF. Both may be right about the canonical status of X – both may be wrong about the canonical status of X (the AIDPF may, in reality, turn out to be only a FDPF despite the beliefs of a credulous few).
ReplyDeleteHowever (granting the reality of the AIDPF for the sake of argument), when the actual & specific content of X is considered, what advantage do you possess over the Protestant?
Has the AIDPF told you which edition of X is canonical or how to discern canonical X in light of the multiplicity of editions of X now extant?
You might want to anticipate the related question about possible future editions of X that turn-up, the content of which may be multiplied by a factor of Y when compared to current editions of X.
How, exactly, would you know which X is the genuine & authentic canonical X?
As for your repeated attempts to shift the discussion to my own answer to the dilemmas I've raised (not to mention your tiresome & irrelevant appeals to my allegedly revisable rule of faith) - let's recall that this discussion is centered around the advantage (real or imagined) an infallible doctrine producing factory has over competing ecclesiastical theories that have only fallible (but possibly true) doctrine producing capability.
I understand this discussion poses a threat to the stability of your entire worldview (and the very existence of the universe itself no doubt), but can we at least try to stay focused on the discussion at hand?
Also, since we do indeed desire to be careful and precise in our communication, I think when you said:
ReplyDelete"My rule of faith is not revisable-yours is."
What you really meant is that your church's rule of faith is fixed.
Your rule of faith, of course, is subject to an indefinite number of possible future revisions.
"Do you think that any and all Christian beliefs could be false? Is it possible for Christianity to be false? Is it possible for the Bible not to be God’s revelation in history? Is it possible for God not to exist?"
ReplyDeleteYou're trying to change the subject from truth to truth-conditions. That simply begs the question of whether an infallible church (which happens to coincide with the Orthodox church) is a necessary truth-condition of Scripture or the Christian faith or the existence of God.
Your blocking maneuver would only work if there were no alternative to an infallible church—not to mention the identification of the true church.
"Your statements only point out what I have repeatedly stated, that my belief in a body that produces irreformable doctrine is fallible. That of itself is idle with respect to whether there is such a thing, for I could fail to meet the conditions on knowledge in lots of ways irrespective of truth value. That is, there could be irreformable doctrine even if I fail to know about it. The revisability of my belief doesn’t imply a revisable state of affairs."
You're evading the question by substituting different questions. The point is that if your belief in irreformable doctrine could be false, then a false belief would falsify the proposition of irreformable doctrine.
If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, and my belief is false, then it's false to believe in the cheesy composition of the moon.
Put another way, if the moon isn't made of green cheese, then that falsifies my belief. So there is an internal relation between a false belief and the object of belief.
You say you "concede the validity of textual criticism."
Yet you also said: "Yes I did say that if we found out that John 8 was not canonical that such and so consequences would follow. But I do not take that to be a genuine defeater anymore than I take any proposed fact or argument for the falsity of the Resurrection or the Existence of God to be a real defeater, for it would be impossible to construct such an argument without assuming the truth of the views for which the defeater is to function."
So when, exactly, do you think that textual criticism is valid? When a blue moon falls on a leap year in the House of Aquarius?
According to the standard reference work, "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse MSS as..."
After ticking off the all Greek MSS from which it is missing, Metzger goes on to tick off the ancient versions from which it is missing, concluding with the statement that "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (12C) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it," B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek new Testament (UBS 1994), 188.