tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6347600501884490113..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Catholic auguryRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65228779200658102302008-09-04T16:41:00.000-04:002008-09-04T16:41:00.000-04:00My comments are interspersed amongst Steve's. ...My comments are interspersed amongst Steve's. <BR/><BR/>>In a typical exchange between a >Catholic and a Protestant, a >Catholic will say that we need a >Magisterium to rescue us from the >vicissitudes of private judgment—>to which a Protestant will counter >that a Catholic must apply his own >private judgment to the >interpretation of Magisterial >statements. <BR/><BR/>>Since this reply answers the >Catholic on his own grounds, the >Catholic ought, at that point, to >withdraw his objection. Instead, >it doesn’t make a dent.<BR/><BR/>First, the problem is not that one has to use or rely on judgment. We cannot but make judgments that are personal. Second, the problem is not that one cannot but rely on *personal* judgment. Third, the problem is not that one has to rely on *individual* judgment to some extent, but that Protestant principles tend to elevate individual judgment to the status of king when one interprets Scripture or forms a theology based on Scripture. On matters of faith and morals, on Protestant principles, the individual is king when it comes to interpreting Scripture and forming theology based on Scripture. It is the elevation of the individual to such a high status over and against the authoritative Church that is being criticized. Further, Protestant principles insist on a type of judgment, which we refer to as 'private judgment', which further emphasizes the tendency to be one's own private king-judge when it comes to Scripture. Some Protestants take this so far that they not only make themselves the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture and forming a systematic theology based on Scripture, but also when it comes to determing what Scripture itself should be. Other Protestants are not quite so kingly and private about the matter, looking to others and relying on groups and leaders to help form the theology and influence their own interpretations. This is less private, and more open, but many times when a disagreement comes up over what the interpretation should be or what the theology should be based on this or that interpretation, some Protestants assert their own kingship again, resorting back to self as king on matters of interpretation and theology building given this or that interpreation or set of interpretations. There is no Protestant principle to keep this from happening and Protestant principles actually encourage this. That is what peoople are criticizing when they talk about private judgment. But that is different than some imagined need to completely rid ourselves of individual, personal and even to some extent private judgment. <BR/><BR/><BR/>>I think a major reason for this >reaction, or lack thereof, is >that the Protestant response too >abstract. The whole point of the >Catholic appeal to a Magisterium >is to offer an intellectual >shortcut. <BR/><BR/>No. The point is to recognize what Christ started and provided for us. And why would Christ not have given us an enduring living tradition that could guide us along the way in the form of an authoritative Church. In fact, the Bible is clear that Christ did start a Church and that it was to be authoritative, which would mean that it would have more authority than the individual lay Christian on matters of faith and morals, just as the Apostles did. <BR/><BR/>>Hence, Catholics who use this >argument don’t conduct serious >research in church history or >canon law.<BR/><BR/>Over-generalized. Non sequitar. <BR/><BR/>> As such, they exhibit a very >naïve attitude towards the >interpretation or application of >Magisterial pronouncements. They >act as if it’s no different than >reading the local newspaper.<BR/>>But the interpretation of a >Magisterial document or >pronouncement often requires a >highly specialized knowledge of >arcane church history, historical >theology, and canon law. And >beyond the interpretation is the >question of how to apply a past >Magisterial teaching to the >present. What abiding value or >timeless truth, if any, can we >extract from the historical >formulation?<BR/><BR/>Difficulty does not equate to impossibility. Further, it is fairly easy to read the systematic theology offered by the Catholic Church in _The Catechism of the Catholic Church_. The fact that one might struggle with this or that example does not mean that the entire affair is such a struggle. Moreover, one can ask if one has questions. There is a living tradition that one can go to. Having it does not eliminate all problems, but it does eliminate the kinds that continue to divide Protestantism into fragments. <BR/><BR/><BR/>>Catholics delude themselves when >they suppose that they can >sidestep the ambiguities of >Biblical exegesis by punting to >the Magisterium. Magisterial >tradition generates its own >hermeneutical layers. Its own >imponderables. <BR/><BR/>An authoritative Church does not have to remove all ambiguity. It does not even have to interpret every line in Scripture. In fact, the Catholic Church does not. It has formed a systematic theology which narrows the field. One can now interpret the Bible within that narrower field. Does that mean that there will not sometimes be issues with understanding the authoritative Church? No. But on a great many issues the field is clearly narrowed and we can return to the Bible with that theology in mind and have a better idea of how then to understand the Bible when we read it. Does that take out all ambiguity? No. Does it have to be helpful? Not at all. Direction is given. The field is limited. A certain range of motion is still allowed. <BR/><BR/>>And, at least in the case of >Scripture, it is God’s will that >he rule his people through his >word. So we have more reason to >believe that our exegetical >efforts will be more successful >in the case of Scripture than in >the case of tradition. <BR/><BR/>This depends on how you define success. If you think fragmentation and division are signs of success, then Protestant principles are very successful. <BR/><BR/>>I suspect many Catholics vainly >imagine that they don’t have to >sift through Magisterial >tradition since a compendium like >the Catechism has already >winnowed the wheat from the >chaff. But that’s an illusion.<BR/><BR/>The quotes offered to support this did not support it. Further, the Catechism does help narrow the field and things to choose from. Protestantism has no authoritative way of really narrowing the range or number of interpretational possibilities. Further, it has no way to authoritatively narrow the number of theologies that might be built based on a given interpretation. Moreover, it has no way to choose between any of them. <BR/><BR/>In Christ, <BR/>EricEric Telferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10747957049183341114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88785488788805779892008-08-26T16:39:00.000-04:002008-08-26T16:39:00.000-04:00James said:Antipelagian, while one can contradict ...James said:<BR/><B>Antipelagian, while one can contradict Catholic teaching and choose to call oneself a Catholic, the Church itself would probably differ. That Rome chooses not to act in a punitive manner in all cases is most likely due to practical reasons as well as financial. However, one cannot be a Catholic in "good standing" and differ with very much, if any, of its defined moral theology.</B><BR/><BR/>To be clear, I'm speaking of Catholic Social Theory...which involves morality, but also economics.<BR/><BR/>Further, when you speak of Roman Catholics disagreeing with the Church, you are dismissive of that fact as if it has no bearing on the veracity of Rome's claims...yet when Protestants disagree over items, it says *volumes* about Protestantism.Antipelagianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08927734975794920598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9358863664202057292008-08-26T16:24:00.000-04:002008-08-26T16:24:00.000-04:00Antipelagian, while one can contradict Catholic te...Antipelagian, while one can contradict Catholic teaching and choose to call oneself a Catholic, the Church itself would probably differ. That Rome chooses not to act in a punitive manner in all cases is most likely due to practical reasons as well as financial. However, one cannot be a Catholic in "good standing" and differ with very much, if any, of its defined moral theology. <BR/><BR/>The reality is that most Catholics don't believe everything Rome states but choose to remain in the Church for personal reasons, and the Church generally ignores the rebellion of its laypeople unless they become too vocal and outspoken in their opposition.<BR/><BR/>Truth Unites ... yes, there's a legalistic aspect of Catholicism, but I don't know it's very different from the spiritual legalism of Calvinists like those at OutsideTheCamp.org who insist one MUST believe EVERYTHING they do if one does not wish to be considered an apostate (and this list includes Spurgeon, I might note). <BR/><BR/>That's the thrill of religion for many people: they believe they get to define who's in and who's out of not just a soccer game but Heaven and Hell. It's high school all over again ... just with higher stakes.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37436852754902047842008-08-26T14:00:00.000-04:002008-08-26T14:00:00.000-04:00James: "You obviously don't understand Catholicis...<B>James</B>: "<I>You obviously don't understand Catholicism. The whole point of the Magisterium is to move the esoteric and abstract into the concrete: thus, there are (or were) prohibitions against eating meat on certain days, attending Mass, giving alms, etc.<BR/>Every human activity is defined (while considering intent and motive, knowledge, mental capacity, etc.) into buckets of mortal and venial sins."</I><BR/><BR/>James, do you think there might be a correlation between the "whole point of the Magisterium" in providing "concrete" prohibitions against eating meat on certain days, attending mass, giving alms, etc... with [virtually] "every human activity defined"<BR/><BR/><I>with</I> the passages in Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:3,9?<BR/><BR/>Matthew 15:3 "Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"<BR/><BR/>Matthew 15:9 "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87830574925380472762008-08-26T10:21:00.000-04:002008-08-26T10:21:00.000-04:00To piggyback on antipelagian's point, another illu...To piggyback on antipelagian's point, another illustration is the way in which many conservative Catholics broke with the Vatican on the proper response to 9/11.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34566872622374209812008-08-26T10:09:00.000-04:002008-08-26T10:09:00.000-04:00James,I don't have to look very far to find differ...James,<BR/><BR/>I don't have to look very far to find differences amongst Romish members. Consider Catholic Social Theory.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, you have Rome's official positions, on the other, you have members outrightly declaring that Rome has *no authority* in economic matters...going so far as to say that the Romish position is an embarrassment...Specifically, I'm referring to the staunch Roman Catholic, Tom Woods.<BR/><BR/>Does Tom Woods' disagreement say something about the truth claims of Rome, or does it say something about Tom Woods?<BR/><BR/>I would say it says something of Tom Woods...I would also say that the blatant contradictions in infallible Romish documents makes Rome's claim to authority invalid.<BR/><BR/>That's the problem with claiming to be the objective standard...correcting yourself is refuting your own claims...maintaining the contradiction does the same.Antipelagianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08927734975794920598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78843042645822075592008-08-25T23:34:00.000-04:002008-08-25T23:34:00.000-04:00You obviously don't understand Catholicism. The w...You obviously don't understand Catholicism. The whole point of the Magisterium is to move the esoteric and abstract into the concrete: thus, there are (or were) prohibitions against eating meat on certain days, attending Mass, giving alms, etc.<BR/>Every human activity is defined (while considering intent and motive, knowledge, mental capacity, etc.) into buckets of mortal and venial sins. <BR/><BR/>Protestants do that only to a degree (most agree that homos are sinful), but will disagree on the use of contraception, masturbation, tithing, baptism by immersion, war, snake handling (sorry, had to throw that in there) etc. etc. etc. For every issue involving human BEHAVIOR, you can find a contrary position within Protestant thought (except for a widespread agreement that you can't be a homo).Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73002393844173672352008-08-25T19:14:00.000-04:002008-08-25T19:14:00.000-04:00Thanks, Steve!Thanks, Steve!Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70767265190177161862008-08-25T19:13:00.000-04:002008-08-25T19:13:00.000-04:00Hello Steve,You wrote:>>In a typical exchang...Hello Steve,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>>>In a typical exchange between a Catholic and a Protestant, a Catholic will say that we need a Magisterium to rescue us from the vicissitudes of private judgment—to which a Protestant will counter that a Catholic must apply his own private judgment to the interpretation of Magisterial statements. <BR/><BR/>Since this reply answers the Catholic on his own grounds, the Catholic ought, at that point, to withdraw his objection. Instead, it doesn’t make a dent.>><BR/><BR/>Me: I must be atypical then, for affirm that there exists a positive Catholic sense of “private judgment”, as well as a negative one (see my comments <A HREF="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-private-judgment.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A> and <A HREF="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-early-church-fathers-on-private.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>). <BR/><BR/>Lane’s assessment concerning “private judgment” is worth repeating:<BR/><BR/>“The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. <B>The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics</B> and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Luthern or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ <B>By the end of seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent</B>.” (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, <I>Vox Evangelica</I>, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.)<BR/><BR/>For me the real issue is SCHISM not “private judgment”; I exercise “private judgment” on a regular basis, putting certain limits on its use by always stopping short of SCHISM.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67752853046384775692008-08-25T18:34:00.000-04:002008-08-25T18:34:00.000-04:00MATHETES SAID:"Yeah, that Ratzinger quip surprised...MATHETES SAID:<BR/><BR/>"Yeah, that Ratzinger quip surprised me. Do you have a direct quote and source, Steve? I'd be interested in seeing it."<BR/><BR/>"Ratzinger’s commentary on the first chapter of Gaudium et Spes contains still other provocative comments. The treatment of conscience in article 16, in his view, raises many unsolved questions about how conscience can err and about the right to follow an erroneous conscience. The treatment of free will in article 17 is in his judgment 'downright Pelagian.' It leaves aside, he complains, the whole complex of problems that Luther handled under the term 'servum arbitrium,' although Luther’s position does not itself do justice to the New Testament."<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=86<BR/><BR/>The whole article is worth reading.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I still owe you an answer to another question you posed a while back. It was overtaken by subsequent controversy. When I get around to it, I'll answer you here.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49445235494624359332008-08-25T18:33:00.000-04:002008-08-25T18:33:00.000-04:00What the individual needs is togetherness. Without...What the individual needs is togetherness. Without togetherness we decay and become less persons and less humans. Without it, we do not become beings, less so human ones.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74682255172582968602008-08-25T18:09:00.000-04:002008-08-25T18:09:00.000-04:00Thanks Steve.I know many Catholics (friends and fa...Thanks Steve.<BR/><BR/>I know many Catholics (friends and family) and know for a fact that they do not examine Magesterial pronouncements. They were simply born into the RCC and they stay there because that's where their family friends are.<BR/><BR/>It's mostly converts who have latched onto the chimera of 'certainty' that are always nattering on about the need for an Infallible Teacher.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69387106768420170322008-08-25T17:25:00.000-04:002008-08-25T17:25:00.000-04:00Yeah, that Ratzinger quip surprised me. Do you hav...Yeah, that Ratzinger quip surprised me. Do you have a direct quote and source, Steve? I'd be interested in seeing it.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53567646458911535982008-08-25T16:59:00.000-04:002008-08-25T16:59:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,Thanks very much for this post. Triablog...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks very much for this post. Triabloguers previously puzzled me with this often-used remark (roughly paraphrased): "Catholics are just pushing the problem of <I>private interpretation</I> back one step with their appeal to the Magisterium.<BR/><BR/>Now I understand what you guys are talking about when you're duking it out with Catholic apologists. Thanks!<BR/><BR/><I>Since this reply answers the Catholic on his own grounds, the Catholic ought, at that point, to withdraw his objection. Instead, it doesn’t make a dent.</I><BR/><BR/>Hearty laughter.<BR/><BR/><I>I think a major reason for this reaction, or lack thereof, is that the Protestant response too abstract.</I><BR/><BR/>More hearty laughter. <BR/><BR/><I>Catholics delude themselves when they suppose that they can sidestep the ambiguities of Biblical exegesis by punting to the Magisterium. Magisterial tradition generates its own hermeneutical layers. Its own imponderables.</I><BR/><BR/>Your post provides abundant evidence of that from just one little snippet of Magisterial writing.<BR/><BR/><I>For example, Ratzinger, now pope, thinks that Vatican II teaches the Pelagian heresy.</I><BR/><BR/>Really?! Wow.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com