One of the cliches in Catholic apologetics is that the Bible belongs to "the Church". "The Church" produced the Bible (so we're told), so only "the Church" has the right to interpret the Bible. The Bible can only be understood by the community of faith, within the community of faith.
This is set in contrast to Protestant "individualism," "pervasive interpretive pluralism," and "30,000" denominations.
However, the fallacy of shifting to a communal emphasis is that if "individualism" and "interpretive pluralism" are such a problem, then that that simply relocates the same problem. The "30,000" denominations aren't 30,000 individual interpreters or voices, but 30,000 interpretive communities. So they, too, can lay claim to the same slogan. They don't interpret the Bible "individualistically" but "communally". Appealing to a communal standard of comparison does nothing to solve or mitigate the perceived problem, for "interpretive pluralism" is just as much a communal phenomenon as an individual phenomenon. The Catholic church is just one more religious community among thousands.
In addition, the contrast between individuals and communities is often deceptive, for communities can be and often are characterized by possessive and aggressive groupthink. Their like-mindedness codifies a particular individual interpretation. Within religious communities, powerful, influential individuals vie for supremacy, to make their particular vision the dominant vision. Indeed, the larger the community, the greater the perceived need to impose unity through topdown structures and peer pressure. Conformity to the outlook of the reigning individual or oligarchy at the top of the pyramid. That's a highly selective, elitist individualism, which is then magnified the herd instinct.
Of course, the response is that these 30,000 'interpretive communities' aren't really interpretive communities at all but were the result of the work of individual 'founders' who convinced groups of people (some small, some large) that their interpretations were correct. One 'founder' builds on the interpretation of previous ones and puts their own stamp on doctrine so you have a long succession of breakaway groups with their own 'founder' somewhere along the line.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the argument of this article changes anything. The reality is that in Protestantism it is impossible to objectively know whether a specific intertretation of Scripture is right or wrong, because there is no authority which is capable of such determination - all we have are fallible, private interpretation of individual believers or denominations. Thus, the doctrinal chaos which includes disagreements on the meaning of Eucharist, Baptism, role of women in the church, predestination, election, Lordship vs. non-Lordship salvation etc.
ReplyDeleteProtestants often tend to reply: we agree on essentials. The immediate question is - who has authority to define what is essential and what is not? Again, no one can make objective determination what is essential and what is not. Plus, many disagreements within Protestantism are most certainly on salvation issues, such as Lordship vs. non-Lordship salvation. Even in case of discussions with the Unitarians all you have is his vs. your private interpretation of Scripture. Wthin Protestant epistemology there is no way to say with absolute certainty that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, because it is supported only by private interpretation of Scripture (which is by its very nature fallible).
Thus, without infallible Magisterium, such as excercised by St. Peter in Acts 15, there is no way of having absolute certainty about any doctrine. It is similar problem as with atheism - within their epistemology atheists cannot determine for sure whether anything is true or whether anything actually exists, while Protestants within their epistemology can't determine with absolute certainty whether any doctrine is true (because there is no higher level of authority than private interpretation of Scripture).
"I don't see how the argument of this article changes anything. The reality is that in Protestantism it is impossible to objectively know whether a specific intertretation of Scripture is right or wrong, because there is no authority which is capable of such determination - all we have are fallible, private interpretation of individual believers or denominations."
DeleteWhat make you imagine someone has to be infallible or have authority to be correct? Moreover, your objection is regressive. You then need an authority to interpret papal encyclicals or church councils.
"Thus, the doctrinal chaos which includes disagreements on the meaning of Eucharist, Baptism, role of women in the church, predestination, election, Lordship vs. non-Lordship salvation etc. "
The Catholic church adds to the "chaos." That just one more competing voice.
"Even in case of discussions with the Unitarians all you have is his vs. your private interpretation of Scripture."
Your position amounts to self-refuting relativism. You act as if all arguments are equal. But that disqualifies you from arguing for Roman Catholicism. In your private opinion, Roman Catholicism is true. You have your private arguments and Protestants have private counterarguments. Therefore it's a stalemate.
"Wthin Protestant epistemology there is no way to say with absolute certainty that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, because it is supported only by private interpretation of Scripture (which is by its very nature fallible)."
The case for Roman Catholicism is based on appeal to the evidence of church history. But how do you establish claims with "absolute certainty" based on historical evidence? You have to be able to interpret your historical sources. Interpret the church fathers, &c. And you have to be able to do that on our own before you can appeal to the Magisterium, since the authority of the Magisterium is the conclusion of your argument. You can only argument from the Magisterium after you argue for the Magisterium.
"Thus, without infallible Magisterium, such as excercised by St. Peter in Acts 15…"
That wasn't a one-man proceeding. Peter was one speaker, Paul and Barnabas were other speakers, the stepbrother of Jesus presided.
How to you establish your authority source in the first place? By what authority do you determine that the Magisterium is what God intended? By your logic, you can only appeal to the authority of the Magisterium if you have some authority independent of the Magisterium to validate the Magisterium. So you're stuck in an infinite regress. How do you ever get started? What's the higher level of authority to demonstrate the Magisterium?
"What make you imagine someone has to be infallible or have authority to be correct?"
DeleteOf course it does not, I never implied that you can't properly interpret the Bible without an infallible authority. However, you can never be sure that your interpretation is correct (even if it actually is), because you have no way of objectively verifying it.
"You then need an authority to interpret papal encyclicals or church councils."
We have a living Church authority which can do that and clarify things, you just have the Bible which cannot interpret itself.
"The Catholic church adds to the "chaos." That just one more competing voice."
Not if it is infallible and established by Jesus Christ as the only true Church.
"Your position amounts to self-refuting relativism. You act as if all arguments are equal. But that disqualifies you from arguing for Roman Catholicism. In your private opinion, Roman Catholicism is true. You have your private arguments and Protestants have private counterarguments. Therefore it's a stalemate."
So basically you articulate tu quoque argument here. The problem is that your argument dissolves not only the authority of the Catholic Church, but also any authority at all, including that of the Bible and of God. Muslim will tell you that it is your private, fallible opinion that Bible is the Word of God, and atheist will tell you that it is your private, fallible opinion that God exists. Following your above argument in order to be epistemologically consistent you have to agree and admit that it is possible that the Bible might not be the Word of God after all, and we don't have absolute certainty that God exists. The reality is that there are always certain facts which are axioms.
"The case for Roman Catholicism is based on appeal to the evidence of church history. But how do you establish claims with "absolute certainty" based on historical evidence? You have to be able to interpret your historical sources. Interpret the church fathers, &c. And you have to be able to do that on our own before you can appeal to the Magisterium, since the authority of the Magisterium is the conclusion of your argument. You can only argument from the Magisterium after you argue for the Magisterium."
Another version of tu quoque argument - see above.
"That wasn't a one-man proceeding. Peter was one speaker, Paul and Barnabas were other speakers, the stepbrother of Jesus presided."
St. Peter made the major decision not to corcumcise new believers, and he did this without any explicit teaching of Scripture or tradition to support it. Other decisions (like prohibition of meat from strangled animals etc.) were temporary and do not apply today - only St. Peter made an infallible decision which is binding today at the Council of Jerusalem.
"How to you establish your authority source in the first place?"
How do you establish authority of the Bible in first place? How do you establish that God exists in first place? You see, what you call "an infinite regress" applies not only to the Catholic Church, but also to the Bible and existence of God (and to any authority whatsoever), thus the argument is invalid.
Arvinger "Of course it does not, I never implied that you can't properly interpret the Bible without an infallible authority. However, you can never be sure that your interpretation is correct (even if it actually is), because you have no way of objectively verifying it."
DeleteWhat do you mean by "objective verification"? It's still up to you to assess whether the purported verification is successful.
"We have a living Church authority which can do that and clarify things…"
Still regressive since you must interpret the "clarifications" of your "living church authority".
"…you just have the Bible which cannot interpret itself."
Which is no deficiency.
"Not if it is infallible and established by Jesus Christ as the only true Church."
If you wish to assume what you need to prove. By what "authority" to do justify that claim?
"So basically you articulate tu quoque argument here. The problem is that your argument dissolves not only the authority of the Catholic Church, but also any authority at all, including that of the Bible and of God."
The problem with your argument is the assumption that all claims must be adjudicated by a higher authority. That commits you to an infinite regress, and disqualifies you from arguing for your authority source.
"Muslim will tell you that it is your private, fallible opinion that Bible is the Word of God, and atheist will tell you that it is your private, fallible opinion that God exists. Following your above argument in order to be epistemologically consistent you have to agree and admit that it is possible that the Bible might not be the Word of God after all, and we don't have absolute certainty that God exists."
That only follows on your self-refuting assumption that we need a criterion to justify whatever we believe.
"The reality is that there are always certain facts which are axioms."
In your private fallible opinion?
"Another version of tu quoque argument"
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with tu quoque arguments.
"St. Peter made the major decision not to corcumcise new believers, and he did this without any explicit teaching of Scripture or tradition to support it."
Naturally, since he was an apostle. We could say the same thing about St. Paul.
Sola Scriptura doesn't imply that apostles needed explicit Scriptural warrant. They were operating in the age of public revelation. They themselves were writing Scripture.
"only St. Peter made an infallible decision which is binding today at the Council of Jerusalem."
You might as well say St. Paul made an infallible decision.
BTW, Peter didn't make an "infallible decision". Rather, he received a vision.
"How do you establish authority of the Bible in first place? How do you establish that God exists in first place? You see, what you call 'an infinite regress' applies not only to the Catholic Church, but also to the Bible and existence of God (and to any authority whatsoever), thus the argument is invalid."
I don't grant your assumption that we need an authority to warrant whatever we believe. Hence, my alternative position doesn't generate an infinite regress, unlike yours.
Moreover, you haven't shown how your own position doesn't generate an infinite regress.