What assumptions are being made at the start of the discussion? For example, when somebody like Cameron Bertuzzi is assuming the truthfulness of Christianity, that certain individuals of past generations were Christians, what writings attributed to those individuals are genuine, etc., did he get to those conclusions by a means he's criticizing Protestants for utilizing? Cameron has made a series of canonical judgments, about canons other than the canon of scripture, before he begins his criticisms of Protestantism on canonical matters. How does he know which documents attributed to Athanasius or Augustine, for instance, are genuine and which aren't? What's the canon of Athanasius' writings or Augustine's, Jerome's, Innocent I's, and so forth? Cameron probably frequently relies on Protestant scholarship on patristic issues, much as he relies on other sources who aren't conservative Catholics on patristic issues and issues pertaining to the Bible, church history, and so on. That includes scholars who are highly antagonistic toward Christianity, like Bart Ehrman, a source Cameron recently cited on canonical issues. Ehrman not only has been a scholar in the field of New Testament textual criticism, but also has done work in related areas. His doctoral thesis was on textual issues in Didymus the Blind, a church father. So, Cameron's conclusions on matters related to the Bible, church history, the church fathers, church councils, etc. depend on fallible, probabilistic judgments derived largely from scholarship that isn't part of conservative Catholicism (moderate Catholics, liberal Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, agnostics, etc.).
When conservative Protestants are faulted for depending on sources they have significant disagreements with, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. When conservative Protestants are faulted for relying on fallible, probabilistic judgments about controversial and complicated issues, keep in mind that conservative Catholics do the same. Etc.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article. This makes me think about the case of the Council of Rome. Some apologists will point to its canon being reaffirmed at Trent (even though the Council of Rome was itself a local, not ecumenical, council). Some others say that there is no proof of a canon being presented at the council. What's your take on this? And how do you feel the Council of Rome affects debate about the canon?
Hi,
DeleteA regional council wouldn't settle the canon by any of the most popular canonical standards people argue for today. The councils of Hippo and Carthage, which occurred in the last decade of the fourth century, after the alleged council in Rome, probably didn't define 1 Esdras in the Old Testament the way Roman Catholicism does. They seem to have accepted a book Catholicism rejects (see Augustine's use of 1 Esdras in The City Of God 18:36). And other later sources contradict the canon the council of Rome allegedly advocated, as discussed here.
Thanks!
DeleteAnd such fallible judgements become all the more urgent for them in light of recent developments. For example, Pope Francis wrote some ambiguous things about the nature of marriage and homosexual relationships, and these had to be reinterpreted so as to say that he was not undermining church teaching. Even the far more orthodox Pope Benedict called in an encyclical for a world government "with real teeth." Roman Catholics who were not in favor of a world government with real teeth had to decide that this wasn't really declared infallibly. Pope John Paul II *strongly* implied that retributive punishment is not a good reason for the death penalty, in conflict with hundreds of years of Church teaching. This, too, had to be explained away. Yet they fault Protestants for using "private judgement."
ReplyDelete