Paradigm shift

I. Paradigm shift

Converting from the Protestant faith to the Catholic faith, or vice versa, involves a paradigm-shift. I'm defining a theological paradigm as a comprehensive interpretive grid. A way of viewing, integrating, and simplifying a mass of issues by reference to a particular conceptual scheme. One impediment which prevents some Catholics from conversion is that they are used to filtering everything through their theological paradigm, and they can't imagine an alternative. They don't know the explanatory power of a Protestant paradigm. They don't know how it answers the same questions. They don't think it can answer the same questions. 

In this post I'm going to compare and contrast Catholic and Protestant paradigms. This is a thumbnail sketch. I've provided documentation in other posts. 

Of course, there's no one Protestant paradigm–although they share a family resemblance with many common assumptions–so I'll be speaking for myself. In addition, there's no one Catholic paradigm. So I'll be selective and generalize. My analysis deliberately oversimplifies some issues, but the basic contrast remains the same after we add some caveats. Sometimes we need to see the forest rather than the trees. We can revisit the trees at a later date. 

II. Criteria

It's natural for Catholics to use their paradigm as the standard of comparison. They contrast what they deem to be the theoretical advantages of their paradigm with what they deem to be the theoretical disadvantages of the Protestant alternative. 

But at one level that begs the question, for unless your theological paradigm is true, it is illegitimate to use it as a yardstick to measure the competition. Even if one paradigm has theoretical advantages compared to another, that's not the same thing as having factual advantages.

Consider an analogy: some Christians never go to the doctor because they have a faith-healing paradigm. They think God has made a promise to miraculously heal every medical condition in answer to prayer. 

Now the faith-healing paradigm has theoretical advantages over the medical paradigm. For one thing, it's free! In addition, some medical conditions are incurable. There are genetic defects and degenerative illness that medical science can't correct or cure. Likewise, people can be irreparably mangled in accidents. Medical science can't restore them. Medical science can't fix every broken body. Miraculous healing is clearly superior. 

But there's a little problem: the theoretical advantages of the faith-healing paradigm aren't factual advantages. In reality, God doesn't answer every prayer for miraculous healing. Hence, it is illegitimate to use that as a yardstick to measure the medical paradigm since the faith-healing paradigm isn't true (which is not to deny that God sometimes intercedes to heal). So you can't merely handicap claimants based on which has better (hypothetical) consequences. 

III. Traditional Catholic paradigm

1. Tradition

Oral apostolic tradition. Stuff Jesus taught the disciples which isn't recorded in Scripture. In that regard, tradition is static and overlaps the deposit of faith. Tradition is a thing of the past.

2. Infallibility

Ecumenical councils can infallibly resolve doctrinal disputes. Likewise, the pope is a tiebreaker or referee who intervenes to resolve intractable, high-level disputes. This is a safeguard against damnable errors. 

3. Priesthood and sacraments

i) Saving grace is channeled through the sacraments. Salvation is contingent on access to Catholic sacraments. 

ii) Humans are born under the curse of original sin. Born in a state of mortal sin. Born hellbound. Infant baptism shifts them to a state of grace. However, that's unstable because saving grace is resistible. Salvation can be lost. There's the constant peril of reverting to a state of mortal sin. So a cradle-to-grave maintenance program is required to keep Catholics in a state of grace, viz. baptism, confirmation, penance, the Mass, last rites. 

iii) The Catholic priesthood has a monopoly on the sacraments. Valid sacraments depend on validly ordained priests, which in turn depends on apostolic succession.

iv) To be saved, you must be a communicant member of the Roman Catholic church. 

v) There are certain strands of Catholic tradition that soften that paradigm, viz. invincible ignorance, implicit faith, Limbo. Those stand in tension with the austere inner logic of the primary paradigm. 

4. Cult of the saints

i) The good works of Catholics have (congruent) meritorious and satisfactory value, feeding into the treasury of merit, which can be tapped into (indulgences).

ii) As Queen of Heaven, the intercession of Mary has particular efficacy. 

IV. Modern Catholic paradigm

1. Living tradition

Tradition evolves in unforeseeable ways (doctrine of development). The pope is a living oracle who provides up-to-the-minute guidance in doctrine and ethics. 

2. Hopeful universalism

The Roman Catholic church is the universal sacrament of salvation. Non-Catholic Christians can be saved. Non-Christians can be saved. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even atheists can be saved. Perhaps hell is empty. 

3. The Bible is only infallible in matters concerning salvation. 

V. Protestant paradigm

1. Sola scriptura

i) The primacy of revelation. Divine revelation (i.e. public/propositional revelation) is the supreme source and standard of doctrine and ethics. Public revelation is now codified in Scripture. 

ii) Hermeneutical, doctrinal, ethical, and factual questions (e.g. the scope of the canon) can't be leveraged by appeal to an authority figure or magisterium. Truth, reason, and evidence are the criteria, rather than an argument from authority.

2. Fallibility

i) According to one Protestant paradigm (e.g. Lock, Butler), we must settle for probability rather than certainty. It's possible that our answers are mistaken. 

ii) That's okay since God won't damn us for innocent mistakes. We can only form judgements based on the evidence that God has left at our disposal. If God wanted us to form a different judgment, he could provide more evidence or better evidence. 

iii) Catholics are in the same boat. Catholics must rely on fallible reason to arrive at their belief in Rome or defend it. Although they believe that Rome is infallible, that's a fallible belief in the infallibility of their denomination. A bottom-up process rather than a top-down process. Their conclusion regarding Catholicism is only as good as the fallible reasoning they use to reach that conclusion. Their conclusion is not infallible. They can't escape the vicissitudes of errable judgment. The destination can't rise higher than the process. Appeal to infallibility to retroactively validate their faith is illusory. 

3. Certainty

i) Pace (2), according to another Protestant paradigm (Calvinism), God, in his meticulous providence, is able to cultivate true, justified beliefs by putting his people in an epistemic environment where they will be exposed to orthodox doctrine and ethics. Special providence is a reliable belief-forming process. It's possible to have beliefs that are uninspired but infallible. Beliefs that could not be mistaken. Not merely inerrant but without possibility of error–if God is guiding the process to yield that intended result. 

ii) Apropos (i), consider the question, "Is it a sure thing?" That's ambiguous. To take a comparison, a Christian's salvation might be a sure thing at a metaphysical level. If he's elect, his salvation is inevitable. Conversely, his salvation might be unsure at an epistemic level. Suppose he lacks the psychological confidence in his salvation. But that doesn't mean the outcome is uncertain; rather, he's uncertain about the outcome. Self-doubt doesn't affect the outcome. 

4. Clarity of Scripture

i) The fact that Scripture won't answer all our questions doesn't mean Scripture is unclear. There's a difference between giving an unclear answer and leaving a question unanswered. The problem is that some people demand answers when answers are unavailable, because it's not that important or because reason will suffice in those cases. 

ii) Sometimes people ask the wrong questions. Sometimes people have the wrong priorities. A Protestant paradigm seems defective to a Catholic because it doesn't answer some of their questions, or because the answers are unsatisfactory from a Catholic standpoint. But that's circular. It's using the Catholic paradigm as the yardstick. But that begs the question. 

5. Word & Spirit

The Protestant paradigm doesn't rely on historical continuity. It doesn't depend on a chain of custody. So long as people have access to revealed truth, the Spirit can start or restart the church at any time and any place. 

6. Sola gratia

Christians are saved by God's unilateral grace. We don't make an independent contribution to our salvation.