Roman Catholics often fail to apply their arguments about church authority consistently. I gave some examples in a recent thread started by Matthew Schultz.
We often see Catholics suggest that it's unacceptable to follow an authority that wasn't handed down in unbroken succession or an authority that you chose to submit to, for instance. If the authority can't trace itself back far enough, or you chose which authority to submit to, then what's the significance of submitting to that authority?
Think about how Catholics do the same things in their own lives. Many state authorities originated through revolution, the exploration of uninhabited parts of the world, or some other means that didn't involve an unbroken succession going to back to some figure who already had state authority or was in submission to higher state authorities. Yet, Catholics who live in such parts of the world submit to those government entities today. And Catholics often choose to become Catholic. They also often choose which local Catholic church to attend.
What an odd argument. How the choice to submit to a government says anything about the rationality of choosing religious belief is absurd.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteWhat an absurd response. Clearly the choice to submit to a government says quite a bit about the rationality of choosing religious belief.
If you had made an argument, perhaps you'd had a point worth considering. But given what you've said about Triablogue elsewhere, maybe it's safe to assume you're not here to argue in good faith, but here only to mock and ridicule (I suppose a kind of petty revenge for how your previous assertions at this blog were utterly crushed).
> We often see Catholics suggest
ReplyDelete> that it's unacceptable to follow
> an authority that wasn't handed
> down in unbroken succession or
> an authority that you chose to
> submit to, for instance. If the
> authority can't trace itself
> back far enough, or you chose
> which authority to submit to,
> then what's the significance of
> submitting to that authority?
sw: Assuming you're asking this question of Catholics, I'm trying to figure out the significance of the question. Catholics trace their authority all the way back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself - the "if" seems rather nullified at this point. I'm not asking you to agree with us, but that's our faith.
> Think about how Catholics do the
> same things in their own lives.
> Many state authorities
> originated through revolution,
> the exploration of uninhabited
> parts of the world, or some
> other means that didn't involve
> an unbroken succession going to
> back to some figure who already
> had state authority or was in
> submission to higher state
> authorities. Yet, Catholics who
> live in such parts of the world
> submit to those government
> entities today. And Catholics
> often choose to become Catholic.
> They also often choose which
> local Catholic church to attend.
sw: Scripture tells us to yield to our local authorities insofar as their jurisdiction applies (Rom 13:1-5). We are also told to "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" (Matt 22:17-21). So Catholics yielding to governmental authorities is what ALL Christians are expected to do.
sw: I'd say Mr. Engwer is trying to sell us a pig in a poke here, but now that cat is out of the bag.
Scott<<<
"Clearly the choice to submit to a government says quite a bit about the rationality of choosing religious belief."
ReplyDeletePerhaps that makes sense to Mr. Schultz and the poster. That they do not see the absurdity of connecting submission to government to the choice of religious belief is not a surprise.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why you chose to comment. Using the standards of the post's author, you are not a published author that can be used to support his analogy, you are not a Catholic and so have no standing in the Church to comment on the rationality of Catholic belief. What in the wide wide world of sports were you thinking?
Scott Windsor said: "Catholics trace their authority all the way back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself."
ReplyDeleteThis statement based on faith, belief and tradition. It is not a foregone conclusion.
It is tradition only, that Peter was in Rome (common belief). Historically, there's no proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome, though there's a ton of evidence for Paul and Linus.
If John and Scott want to know more about what I'm referring to, they can read the context I provided in the thread I linked. I'm addressing some common Catholic claims about the nature of authority. The fact that church authority is different than state authority is irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that they're different in a sense that invalidates my comparison. And making historical claims about the alleged origins of Roman Catholicism, as Scott has done, is to change the subject. I've addressed the historical argument elsewhere. What I'm addressing here are more abstract issues, like the implications of choosing what church to submit to, whether authorities need to have an unbroken succession, and whether authorities need to be infallible in order for submission to them to make sense and be significant.
ReplyDeleteJohn writes:
"Using the standards of the post's author, you are not a published author that can be used to support his analogy, you are not a Catholic and so have no standing in the Church to comment on the rationality of Catholic belief."
Document where I said that.
As Matthew said, John seems to be upset over how poorly he did at this blog in previous discussions. Any readers who are interested in seeing an example of his poor performance can read threads like the one here.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteShoot, I thought I did rather well in my past comments. Obviously you and your more sympathetic readers think otherwise. As for my commenting on your standards, please, as Steve Hays once said it is not my job to educate you. A hint: read your blog and your responses to the many that have commented.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"As for my commenting on your standards, please, as Steve Hays once said it is not my job to educate you."
And a good thing that is. If John were Jason's tutor, Jason would be poorly educated. Thankfully, Jason has far superior teachers.
Stevie,
ReplyDeleteI am so glad you chimed in, you being the master of the "tu toque" and "lexical semantics."
Jason,
ReplyDeletePutting aside our mutual barbs for the moment, I would like to address your analogy again. You stated,
" The fact that church authority is different than state authority is irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that they're different in a sense that invalidates my comparison."
Since this is your analogy, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that church authority is the same as state authority in order to validate your comparison. You would also need to show that a Catholic chooses to submit to state authority for the same reasons he chooses to submit to church authority and that, perhaps, those reasons are in fact a requirement for his submission to the state. The Catholic could use the argument of apostolic succession as one of the reasons for his belief, and, as you have said you have addressed that issue elsewhere, and indeed, one can make legitimate arguments against the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. However, the implication of your analogy is that if a Catholic chooses to submit to a state, his reasoning must be the same as his reasoning for submitting to the Church. There are many reasons one may choose to submit to a state or the Church, but there is no requirement that the reasons for the choices need to be identical, lest the chooser be called inconsistent in his reasoning.
John wrote:
ReplyDelete“Putting aside our mutual barbs for the moment, I would like to address your analogy again.”
What’s going on here is what happened in our previous discussion linked above. You frequently don’t know how to respond to what your opponent is arguing, so you try to turn the readers’ attention to something else. The reason why you’re “putting aside” your previous approach is because you now mistakenly think you’ve come up with a good response to what your opponent has argued.
You write:
”Since this is your analogy, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that church authority is the same as state authority in order to validate your comparison.”
As far as I’m addressing issues like authority and personal judgment in general, a general comparison is all that’s needed. And both church authority and state authority qualify as types of authority. Submission to both types of authority qualify as types of submission. Judgments about both matters qualify as examples of personal judgment. Etc.
Since you’ve suggested that the two are different in some way relevant to the subject I was addressing, why don’t you explain how they’re allegedly different in that manner?
You wrote:
“However, the implication of your analogy is that if a Catholic chooses to submit to a state, his reasoning must be the same as his reasoning for submitting to the Church.”
No, that’s not an implication of what I said. As I explained, I was addressing some abstract issues apart from the involvement of other factors.
In fact, a lot of Catholics have made precisely this argument about America after 1776 and Britain after 1688. There's a sub-faction who think the surviving heir of James II (currently a German Euro-MP, I believe) is the rightful King of England. No doubt they like to mock Landmarkist Baptist sects for their small numbers and lack of historical influence.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this squares with the Vatican supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War - John Calhoun's heirs being doubly treasonous rebels, even worse than John Calvin's - but historical sides are rarely all that logical. (eg, realising that the Pope of the day supported William of Orange in the Battle of the Boyne would probably make both sides in Northern Ireland spit out their coffee).
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou said, " You frequently don’t know how to respond to what your opponent is arguing, so you try to turn the readers’ attention to something else." No, I continue to focus on your analogy
You said, "Since you’ve suggested that the two are different in some way relevant to the subject I was addressing, why don’t you explain how they’re allegedly different in that manner?" No, I suggested that the rationality of choosing was the issue. You falsely believe that for your comparison to be invalid one must show that the two authorities are suitably dissimilar. The similarity issue has nothing to do with showing the flaws in your analogy. The analogy is flawed because it assumes that a Catholic must use the same reasoning or judgement he uses to submit to state authority that he uses for submitting to the Church, and that failure to not use the same reasoning or judgement leads to questions about his judgement ability.
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"No, I suggested that the rationality of choosing was the issue. You falsely believe that for your comparison to be invalid one must show that the two authorities are suitably dissimilar. The similarity issue has nothing to do with showing the flaws in your analogy."
In your last response, you wrote:
"Since this is your analogy, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that church authority is the same as state authority in order to validate your comparison."
Why would you tell me to demonstrate that similarity if you agreed with me about it and didn't think it was part of "the issue"?
You write:
"The analogy is flawed because it assumes that a Catholic must use the same reasoning or judgement he uses to submit to state authority that he uses for submitting to the Church, and that failure to not use the same reasoning or judgement leads to questions about his judgement ability."
I've explained to you, more than once now, that I was addressing some abstract issues independent of other factors. If a Catholic suggests that choosing which church to submit to is problematic, for example, I can address the issue of choosing which church to submit to without also addressing the historical reasons a Catholic might cite for choosing Roman Catholicism. I don't have to address every aspect of a choice in order to address one aspect of it or two aspects out of five, for example. If a Catholic gives, say, one philosophical argument and two historical arguments for being Catholic, I can address the philosophical argument without addressing the historical ones. If I say that the philosophical argument is bad, it doesn't make sense for you to respond by saying that I'm wrong to argue that Catholics don't use any other arguments. I wasn't claiming that they don't use any other arguments.
The point, which I shouldn't have to keep explaining to you, is that it's insufficient for Catholics to object to Protestantism on bases such as those I described in my initial post here and in the thread I linked. If a Catholic adds other objections, or attempts to supplement the objections I mentioned by adding other aspects to them, then those additions would have to be addressed accordingly. If a Catholic tells me that it doesn't make sense to submit to a fallible authority, then I can respond to that argument by citing a fallible authority that Catholics submit to. If the Catholic then supplements his argument by citing alleged Biblical evidence that the church is infallible, whereas the other authority in question isn't, then I can address that addition to his argument at that point. But it makes no sense to object to my first response on the basis of what was added later, as if my first response was intended to address all later additions as well.
You keep giving us your own tendentious summaries of what I allegedly argued without demonstrating that I actually made such an argument.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Why would you tell me to demonstrate that similarity if you agreed with me about it and didn't think it was part of "the issue?" I agree it is not part of the issue. But you attempted to make it a part of the issue. If" you had said "the moon is green" and I disagreed, the burden of proof would be on you.
You said, "I've explained to you, more than once now, that I was addressing some abstract issues independent of other factors." While you continue to say that, I am only concerned with showing the flaw in the analogy of this particular post.
You said, "
"You keep giving us your own tendentious summaries of what I allegedly argued without demonstrating that I actually made such an argument." Even your sympathetic compatriot, Matthew Shultz understands the argument you are attempting to make using this particular analogy when he stated, "Clearly the choice to submit to a government says quite a bit about the rationality of choosing religious belief." I have clearly shown that it in fact says nothing whatsoever about the rationality of choosing religious belief.
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"I agree it is not part of the issue."
Then explain why you made the comment I quoted from your earlier post.
You write:
"Even your sympathetic compatriot, Matthew Shultz understands the argument you are attempting to make using this particular analogy when he stated, 'Clearly the choice to submit to a government says quite a bit about the rationality of choosing religious belief.' I have clearly shown that it in fact says nothing whatsoever about the rationality of choosing religious belief."
Your quote of Matthew Schultz doesn't prove that he said what you're claiming, much less does it prove that I said it.
There's a difference between:
1. comparing choices about submission to authority without regard to the reasons behind those choices
2. comparing choices about submission to authority with regard to the reasons behind those choices
You keep confusing the two.
I gave you an example of the difference in my last post, in the last paragraph before the final sentence, and you've ignored that example.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "then explain why you made the comment I quoted from your earlier post." I consistently have addressed the argument about the rationality for choosing.
You said, "Your quote of Matthew Schultz doesn't prove that he said what you're claiming, much less does it prove that I said it." I did not say he proves what I am claiming, only that he correctly identifies the argument you are trying to make. I hope that clears up your continued confusion.
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"I consistently have addressed the argument about the rationality for choosing."
I asked you to explain what you said about subject A. You're now telling me "I consistently have addressed subject B." That doesn't make sense. You aren't explaining your comment that I quoted.
You write:
"I did not say he proves what I am claiming, only that he correctly identifies the argument you are trying to make. I hope that clears up your continued confusion."
That's an evasive response. Since I'm not Matthew Schultz, and since even what he said can be interpreted in more than one way (I explained the distinction again in my last post), quoting him isn't a sufficient response to me.
Jason, Jason,
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that there is truly no sufficient response to you. I have decided to claim victory for now and not to beat this dead horse further.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I have decided to claim victory for now and not to beat this dead horse further."
Give me regards to Baghdad Bob.
John writes:
ReplyDeleteI did not say he proves what I am claiming, only that he correctly identifies the argument you are trying to make.
The response of mine from which you are trying to draw support was simply a parody of your initial comment in this thread. My second paragraph should have been a sufficient explanation of that; you made a gratuitous assertion, and I simply mirrored the quality of your response back at you.
If you want to try and pit my statements against Jason's position, at least draw from the post I wrote over at Beggars All.
John said:
ReplyDelete"I have decided to claim victory for now and not to beat this dead horse further."
That's what you did in our previous discussions as well. You "claimed victory" without demonstrating it.
Not only was your use of Matthew Schultz's comments unreasonable to begin with, but now he's told you that you misrepresented what he wrote. But you can still "claim victory" with the same disregard for truth that you've exhibited so far.
As I said I do not really wish to beat this dead horse further, but I do wish to take this opportunity to thank Matthew for explaining his original comments. I now understand that when he said, " clearly the choice to submit to a government says quite a bit about the rationality of choosing religious belief, he was not saying that, but saying, clearly the choice to submit to a government says nothing about the rationality of choosing religious belief. I am not sure that his original comments strictly meet the standards of what could be considered parody, but I appreciate them nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteJOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"As I said I do not really wish to beat this dead horse further."
Doubtless it's painful for the ghost of John to witness his own embalming at the hands of his undertaker, Jason Engwer. No wonder he fled the scene of the mortuary.