Wednesday, December 03, 2008

The unanimous consent of the fathers

One of the stock objections which Catholic apologists like to use against sola Scriptura is to try to generate a dilemma: How can sola Scriptura be true unless we can use Scripture alone to identify Scripture?

Here’s a recent example:

“Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in scripture—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-biblical knowledge…The belief that the Bible consists only of 66 books is not a claim of scripture—since one cannot find the list in it—but a claim about scripture as a whole…If the 66 books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that scripture consists of 66 particular books is an extra-biblical belief,” F. Beckwith, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic (Brazos 2009).123-124.

“Because there can be no scriptural test for canonicity unless one first knows what constitutes scripture, one must rely on extra-scriptural tests in order to know the scriptura to which sola scriptura refers. But then one is not actually relying on ‘scripture alone’ to determine the most fundamental standard for the Christian, the Bible,” ibid. 135n10.

Now, I’ve responded to this sort of objection on multiple occasions (including my review of Beckwith), so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I’m going to approach this issue from a different angle.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that this poses a genuine dilemma for the Protestant rule of faith. If so, then it’s easy to construct a parallel dilemma for the Catholic rule of faith.

Take the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Both Trent and Vatican one invoke the unanimous consent of the Fathers as a criterion for the true meaning of Scripture.

Suppose we substitute the unanimous consent of the Fathers for the Scriptural synonyms which Beckwith uses in his argument. What’s the effect if we plug the unanimous consent of the Father’s into his argument?

Because the list of consensual patristic interpretations is itself not found in the church fathers—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-patristic knowledge. Appeal to the unanimem consensum Patrum is not a claim of the church fathers—since one cannot find the church fathers unanimously listing their consensual interpretations—but a claim about the church fathers as a whole. If the church fathers are a final authority on matters of interpretive belief, and patristic consensus is a belief, and one cannot find where their consensual beliefs are listed by them, then the belief that the unanimem consensum Patrum is a criterion of true interpretation is an extra-patristic belief.

Because there can be no patristic test for unanimous patristic consent unless one first knows what constitutes the unanimem consensum Patrum, one must rely on extra-patristic tests in order to know the unanimem consensum Patrum to which the unanimem consensum Patrum refers. But then one is not actually relying on “unanimous consent of the Fathers” to determine the true meaning of Scripture.

In sum, where do the church fathers unanimously consent to where the church fathers unanimously consent? If we have to go outside the church fathers to identify their consensual core, then we aren’t really relying on the unanimem consensum Patrum.

If the unanimem consensum Patrum is a claim about the whole—a claim concerning all the church fathers—yet the church fathers as a whole don’t identify the unanimem consensum Patrum, then we can’t identify the parts from the whole, or the whole from the parts. We can’t identify the consensual core from within the consensual core, but only from without—by appealing to some extra-patristic consensus concerning the patristic consensus. So the patristic criterion ceases to be a self-contained criterion.

How would a Catholic squeeze out of this conundrum? Would he fall back on the authority of the church? But that only pushes the dilemma back a step.

How do we know that the church whose authority he invokes is the true church to which Scripture or the church fathers refer? And how does he know what the Bible or the church fathers truly refer to apart from the unanimem consensum Patrum?

If, ex hypothesi, sola scriptura is self-contradictory, then the unanimem consensum Patrum is equally self-contradictory. If sola scriptura can’t be self-referential, then the unanimem consensum Patrum can’t be self-referential either. But what does a consensus amount to unless the consenting parties consent to their own, mutual consent?

14 comments:

  1. That's why they've got the Magisterium now -- real human beings to interact with, instead of just "the pages of a book".

    ReplyDelete
  2. On another subject, but one that Triablogue seemingly exists for: it seems to me you Triabloguers could have some fun at this blog:

    http://secularright.org/

    They are atheists and conservatives and they are the usual mix of juvenile and vain. They believe all Christians are Lee Strobel (I don't know him, but they toss his name around).

    John Derbyshire of the National
    Review started the blog. Here are the contributors:

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?page_id=149

    They do engage commentators, but they havn't encountered any of you types thus far, I don't suspect. Some of the commentators come close, but it is mostly a site swarming with arrogant atheists of the Dawkins level variety.

    I can tell Derbyshire would be a bit shell-shocked if he engaged a Hays and company over there. He might run though or claim important National Review column writing business to do... He writes as Bradlaugh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Check this thread:

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=393

    and this, for to get a sense:

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=413

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Bugay, I can't figure out if your comment is meant sarcastically or not, but just for the record, the post addresses exactly that sort of fall-back position.

    You can't justify the existence of a Magisterium without referring back to the unanimous fathers and scripture; and, according to the rule of the Catholic argument, you have to go outside both those sources to justify them...so that the Magisterium becomes exactly as self-authenticating as we claim the Scriptures are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Trollmeister:

    This is excellent Stuff! While it has an unusually high Cuss-O-Meter rating for a religious site, you may still want to feature this blog in one of your articles. It's got everything you're looking for!

    est! est! est!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mongol: [Triablogue] has an unusually high Cuss-O-Meter rating for a religious site.

    Vytautas: If you cannot take the heat, then get out of the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you kidding me, Vytautas? The Trollmeister LOVES this Blog!!! He may even give this blog one of his Awards!

    BTW: Martin Luther did a lot of cussing as he penned "Bondage of the Will".

    ReplyDelete
  8. MONGOL DRONGO SAID:

    “BTW: Martin Luther did a lot of cussing as he penned ‘Bondage of the Will’.”

    You’re confusing what Triabloggers say with what commenters say. There’s not much cussing among the Triabloggers. But we allow for a certain amount of cussing (at our own discretion) among commenters since they expose their own character in the process.

    It’s also possible for Christians to be a little too Victorian about these things.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think he's referring to this blog:

    http://trollblagues.blogspot.com/

    "Once a month, I plan to select the worst blog I can find for recognition. My criterion will be Profanity measured by the Cuss-O-Meter, the number of Troll Wars, the repeated partisan denials of obvious proven facts, the failure to maintain (or abandonment thereof) of an otherwise obsolete blog, hogwash, illiteracy, etc. I intend to this with good cheer."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry Gordan, I address Catholicism with as much cynicism as I can possibly muster.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mongol: Martin Luther did a lot of cussing as he penned "Bondage of the Will"

    Vytautas: So what?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "... so that the Magisterium becomes exactly as self-authenticating as we claim the Scriptures are."

    People do not like it when you put the same charge that they have levied against you... right back onto their lap.

    Their facial expression changes and they tend to resent it. Have you ever noticed that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "... so that the Magisterium becomes exactly as self-authenticating as we claim the Scriptures are."

    That's exactly it. And, yes, they will resist this conclusion with all their might. Let the sophistry begin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Forget the secularright John Derbyshire blog I mentioned above. Derbyshire is not very bright. He also refuses to be drawn into anything resembling a conversation. I mean, he responds, but he doesn't respond to anything you say to him. He just gives the most shallow atheist boilerplate one can imagine. Over and over.

    The woman over there, Heather MacDonald, with all her academic resume (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford) is also a bit of a brick. Though in her case she uses the delete function in the place of boilerplate responses.

    They seem to be of the extremely scared atheist variety.

    ReplyDelete