The Authority Debate Between Jimmy Akin And The Other Paul

You can watch it here. Paul made some good points, but I want to add some points of my own, in response to Jimmy and in response to what came up in the question and answer segment.

Pope squared

Recently there was a satirical Catholic/Protestant meme war on Facebook. That generated feedback in the combox. Here's one of the exchanges on one of the memes:

Daniel Vecchio 

If only Jesus could have anticipated that some of his sayings would appear obscure to us, and could have established, in a solid, granite-like way, a teaching authority who would help us to "be of one mind".

Raymond Blaine Stewart 

If only Jesus could have anticipated that his teaching authority would not be accepted by all people and could have established in a solid granite like way a meta teaching authority who would help us "be of one mind."

Daniel Vecchio 

Meta teaching authority?

Raymond Blaine Stewart 

Yeah a teaching authority that would help us accept know which teaching authority to accept. That would have been nice.

Did you have something in mind?, because my point is that Jesus did anticipate such things.

Yeah I'm thinking we could call him the Pope squared, or maybe the straight dope.

My point is this: division happened. So if you're saying that Jesus gave us this rock solid granite teaching authority to prevent division. Well then what Jesus gave us to prevent division failed.

Daniel Vecchio 

Well, the only meta-teacher I think we have is the reductio of rejecting the teaching authority we have.

Raymond Blaine Stewart 

The meta teacher thing was a joke. The whole point was the teaching authority didn't do its job. So if Jesus was interested in preventing this kind of division he should have left us a teaching authority about the teaching authority.

Daniel Vecchio 

So I am saying that Jesus did enough... you, a Protestant, are complaining that Jesus didn't do enough. ;-)

Raymond Blaine Stewart 

Do you understand how jokes work?

Daniel Vecchio 

When we get to heaven (and you may have to wait 10,000 years for when they release me from Purgatory), I am going to remind Jesus how you wanted a meta-teacher, and were complaining.

The "if only" joke is funny because he did, not because he didn't.

Raymond Blaine Stewart 

No I wasn't. Like I'm not sure whether you're joking or really don't understand the point. The whole point–as with all parody arguments–is that if your reasoning were correct, something obviously false would be true. The joke was that we would have a meta-pope. We don't do your reasoning is bad. I wasn't actually suggesting that we should have a metapope any more been Swift was actually suggesting that the Irish should eat babies.

What is sola scriptura about?

Catholic apologists routinely raise uncomprehending objections to sola scriptura. In fairness, this isn't entirely their fault. During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, both sides were making things up on the fly, so there's room for improvement. We can refine our positions and tighten our formulations.

1. Sola scriptura is a two-stage principle: the fundamental principle concerns the primacy of divine revelation. Nothing is higher than or equal to the authority of divine revelation/communication.

In the context of sola scriptura, divine revelation means public revelation. Revelation for the church. Obligatory for God's people. As distinguished from private topical revelation.

That by itself isn't sola scriptura. There are phases in redemptive history where revelation was oral as well as written.

2. Sola scriptura is an extension of the primary principle (the primacy of public revelation): the era of public revelation is past. The record of public revelation is only found in Scripture. Indeed, Scripture was written for posterity. Certain things committed to posterity because we no longer have public revelation and memory is too unreliable and subject to manipulation.

3. Notice that sola scripture is an abstract principle. Sola scriptura is a claim about the status of the Bible but not a claim about the content of the Bible or how we know the content of the Bible. It could be expressed in conditional terms: If the Gospel of John is Scripture, then it outranks uninspired sources.

4. We might compare sola scriptura to the rules of poker. The rules of poker are about the nature of poker, but they're not about a particular game of poker. They don't describe or predict any particular game of poker. The rules of poker are norms that dictate what's permissible or impermissible in poker, but they don't tell you how many cards are still in the deck halfway through the game or which players hold which cards, or which players have a winning hand or losing hand or if a player has a gun up his sleeve.

5. To illustrate the point, imagine a parallel universe in which all the books of the canon are different. But that wouldn't invalidate the principle of sola scriptura since the principle operates at a more abstract level: the primacy of revelation. In a parallel universe, the revelatory books might all be different from the Protestant canon, but the principle remains the same. It's just that the parallel universe has an alternate religious history.

What's the target of sola scriptura?

i) A Catholic trope is that sola scriptura is self-contradictory. Unless you can establish the canon of Scripture from Scripture alone, sola scriptura is false. The cliche formulation is to claim that unless the Bible contains its own table of contents, sola scriptura is false. Unless Scripture itself lists the books of Scripture, sola scriptura is false. 

It's striking to see the copycat mentality among Catholic apologists in that regard. They all repeat this trope as if it's self-evidently true. 

ii) I've never seen a Catholic apologist quote a classic Reformed or Lutheran creed which says sola scriptura excludes extrabiblical evidence for the canon. I've never seen a Catholic apologist quote a major 16-17 Reformed or Lutheran theologian who said sola scriptura excludes extrabiblical evidence for the canon. What historical documentation do Catholics have that sola scriptura was ever intended to exclude extrabiblical evidence for the canon? 

iii) Perhaps, though, the objection is that while sola scriptura doesn't rule out extrabiblical evidence for the canon by design, that's a necessary implication of the principle, and Protestants are simply inconsistent in that regard. They artificially exempt the canon of Scripture from sola scriptura. 

Problem is, I've never seen a Catholic apologist present an argument for why that's a necessary implication of sola scriptura. Rather, they just assert that to be the case. 

iv) What is the target of sola scriptura? Is the target extrabiblical evidence for the canon? No. The target of sola scriptura is a particular view of church authority. Sola scriptura stands in opposition to the view that the Roman Magisterium is God's oracle on earth. That God instituted a living oracle in the Roman Magisterium.

Put another way, the target of sola scripture is a rival revelation and superior revelation. In Catholicism, the Magisterium is the functional equivalent of divine revelation. Indeed, progressive revelation, which effectively abrogates the authority of Scripture. 

Understood that way, including extrabiblical evidence to establish the canon is entirely consonant with sola scriptura. That's not an ad hoc exception to the principle. 

v) Another problem with the Catholic trope is the idea that the only alternative to exclusively internal evidence for the canon is exclusively external evidence for the canon. They think the case for the canon is completely dependent on tradition. In my experience, they never even consider the internal evidence for Scripture. And their neglect makes sense, given their Catholic outlook. After all, if the canon of Scripture is ultimate determined by ecclesiastical fiat, then evidence for the canon is superfluous–be that internal or external. 

vi) Part of the problem is a failure to distinguish between tradition and evidence. When Protestants cite "traditions" as evidence for the canon, that's not an argument from authority but an appeal to historical or testimonial evidence. They aren't citing Jewish or patristic sources because, say, Josephus or some church father is an authority-figure, but because they're a good source of information. Protestants aren't implicitly falling back on ecclesiastical authority when they include patristic testimony for the authorship of certain NT books. Authority involves the notion of the power or prerogative to obligate or compel asset or behavior. That's a different principle than evidence. 

vii) A final problem is that because Catholic apologists default to the Magisterium, they neglect to appreciate the extent of internal evidence for the canon. But it's striking to consider how interwoven the books of Scripture are. To take a few examples, the Pentateuch and Historical books are interwoven. A continuous, cross-referential history. The Prophets are interwoven with the Pentateuch and Historical books, given all the cross-references. The Synoptic Gospels are interwoven. Luke/Acts are interwoven. The Pauline Epistles are interwoven. John's Gospel and 1-3 John are interwoven. The Gospels and Epistles are interwoven with Acts, due to the same participants. So there's a huge amount of internal evidence for the canon.

I'm not claiming that internal evidence is sufficient to establish the canon. I don't think that's necessary. But the canon of Scripture is a unit in a way that Catholic apologists fail to notice. 

Peregrinations of infallibility

According to the traditional Catholic apologetic, Rome provides infallible interpretations of an infallible book whereas Protestants only provide fallible interpretations of an infallible book. However, at Vatican II, Rome downshifted to limited inerrancy, so she now holds the anomalous position that Rome provides infallible interpretations of a fallible book!

Ecclesiastical arbitration

The question of "arbitration," then, lies at the heart of the matter–its necessity, and also its nature–and the theologians of the magisterial Reformation found themselves having to defend their position on two fronts. On the one side, notable Roman Catholic scholars questioned "both the reliability of the received biblical text when compared to the Vulgate and also its perspicuity, arguing that without the church hierarchy's guidance the unbridled interpretation of these texts would only lead to heresy." The Church could provide this guidance not least because it possessed alongside Scripture (according  to the Council of Trent) oral traditions "concerning both faith and conduct, as either directly spoken by Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit, which have been preserved in unbroken sequence in the Catholic church" I. Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Baylor 2017), 285.

What's striking about this historical description is how subsequent reversals in Catholic theology have rendered obsolete these planks of the Counter-Reformation polemic:

i) It's been a long time since Rome made the Vulgate the gold standard of comparison for the biblical text. Catholicism came around to our side on that issue. 

ii) While debates over perspicuity still rage in popular Catholic/Protestant apologetics, the Tridentine solution has been mothballed. The historical fiction of "oral traditions either directly spoken by Christ or dictated by the Holy Spirit, which have been preserved in unbroken sequence in the Catholic church" was abruptly replaced by Newman's theory of development. 

iii) It's true that in the wrong hands, sola scriptura can lead to heresy. However, it begs the question to make Catholicism the standard of orthodoxy. And sola scriptura can also correct the errors and heresies of Rome. So it cuts in several directions. 

On the other side, supporters of the Radical Reformation…argued strongly for a different arbiter, namely the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believing Christian…The Spirit-filled reader is the proper judge in the exegesis of Scripture. Ibid. 286. 

It's my impression that this has tricked down into the folk theology of many lay fundamentalists. It is used as an intellectual shortcut to sidestep scholarly exegesis. But a basic problem is that it fails to explain the diversity of interpretations. 

Jesus, Paul, and perspicuity

As to Scripture, Jesus himself constantly appeals to the OT as the measure of what is true and right, and he evidently does so "not only with the expectation that this testimony will be accepted by faithful Jewish men and women, but that it will be intelligible to them. What use would there be in quoting texts no-one was able to understand?" When he quotes Hos 10:8 in Lk 23:28, for example, he appears to believe that "the images of this OT text would be both recognizable and intelligible" to his hearers. 

The apostles appeal to the OT Scriptures in the same way as Jesus, and what is initially striking here is that "the appeal is not reserved for Jewish audiences where some familiarity with the Scriptures…might be fairly assumed." It is also made in respect to Gentiles audiences. Paul, for example, displays "general confidence in the accessible meaning of the OT" so far as the church of Rome is concerned, I. Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Baylor 2017), 308-9.

Given that they were writing in Greek to an audience in which knowledge of Greek was widespread (see below), the apostles unsurprisingly used the LXX as a major source in citing the OT Scriptures. There is no e evidence that, like Philo, they believed the LXX to be inspired in itself. Paul, for example, appears to translate directly from the Hebrew on at least six occasions where the LXX does not agree with it; on at least twenty-eight occasions his citations reflect neither the MT nor the LXX. He and the other apostles were not bound to the LXX, I. Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Baylor 2017). 234.

What is perspicuity?

1. In classic Protestant theology, Scripture has four attributes: necessity, sufficiency, clarity, and authority. And these are related to the case for sola scriptura.

2. As I've often remarked, it's important to distinguish between traditional theological positions and traditional supporting arguments. With the benefit of hindsight, we might conclude that a traditional supporting argument isn't very good, but maintain the traditional position. We might replace an old argument with a new argument. There are sometimes opportunities to improve our case. Some apologists try too hard to defend a traditional argument rather than defending the traditional position. But the point of a supporting argument is to defend the position in question. 

3. The sufficiency of Scripture overlaps with sola scriptura. Those are closely related concepts. If Scripture is sufficient, then Scripture is all you need (for whatever Scripture is sufficient for).

4. By contrast, perspicuity is more like a supporting argument for sola scriptura. The substantive position is sola scriptura whereas perspicuity is more of a justification. 

It's possible that the Protestant Reformers exaggerated or oversimplified the clarity of Scripture. If so, that admission is not a fatal concession. My Protestant faith is not invested in perspicuity since there is no real alternative. If the Catholic alternative is false, then the justification of sola scriptura is independent of Scripture's clarity. If there is no Magisterium, no divine teaching office in the Catholic church, then that moots debates over the clarity of Scripture. The alternative to sola scriptura is a chimerical ideal. 

5. This doesn't mean perspicuity is entirely irrelevant to the case for sola scriptura. If the Bible was pervasively ambiguous or incomprehensible, then it couldn't function as a moral and theological guide. However, perspicuity is a diverse concept. 

6. In my experience, when Catholic apologists attack the clarity of Scripture, what they sometimes mean is that Scripture is unclear because it fails answer certain questions posed to it by the reader, viz. What words should be used at a baptismal ceremony? What kind of bread should be used for communion bread? Leavened or unleavened? Wheat? What about cornbread or rice cakes? 

The unclarity due not to what is stated but to what is left unstated. A Catholic apologist can always concoct a stipulative definition of perspicuity, although he can't impose that on evangelicals.

However, that objection to the clarity of Scripture begs the question. Perspicuity is only defective if we're supposed to have a particular answer to such questions. One right answer. If God requires that of us. If it's necessary to discharge our moral or religious duties. If, however, we're not responsible for having a definitive answer, then its not a deficiency of Scripture that it lacks clarity on that definition. 

7. Another way a text (or speech) might be unclear is if the author has expressed himself obscurely. This differs from the definition in (6). On this definition, it doesn't leave the question unanswered; rather, it provides an answer but the answer is obscure. The writer may provided a detailed exposition or explanation but it's hard to understand. And there are variations on this definition:

i) Studied obscurities. The writings of James Joyce are intentionally obscure. He makes great demands on the reader. But he knows exactly what he's doing. It's not incomprehensible in principle. Rather, it requires specialized background knowledge

ii) By contrast, a text (or speech) might be obscure because the author is a poor communicator. The problem lies at his end rather than the reader's end. 

8. Perspicuity involves a relation between the communicator and the audience. In that regard, there can be degrees of clarity or unclarity. Take an article in a physics journal or medical journal. That might be perspicuous to a reader with the requisite understanding of physics or medical science, but incomprehensible to a reader who lacks the requisite understanding of physics or medical science. They physicist may express himself with utter clarity, but what he writes is unintelligible to the uninitiated. So perspicuity has an objective side and a subjective side. Both author and reader have responsibilities. 

9. On a related note, perspicuity is not a static property:

i) A text or statement may become more clear or less clear to the reader. As a kid I used to watch Laugh-In. That contained lots of topical political satire. But the jokes have become obscure with the passage of time because the references are so ephemeral. 

ii) Conversely, a text may become clearer. I understand an annotated edition of a Shakespeare play better than the straight text.

10. The salient question is whether the Bible is it clear enough to achieve its divinely intended purpose. God has different purposes for different readers. 

41,000 denominations

My side of a recent Facebook exchange:

Why don't we drop the 41K denominations figure. That's highly misleading. Most Christians belong to handful of major denominations, viz. Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Pentecostal. You might say there are different Baptist or Presbyterian denominations, but these are families of denominations. They often have identical theology. The substantive distinction is between confessional/conservative and progressive Baptists, Presbyterians, &c. Most Christians belong to a handful of larger denominations that represent a historically stable package of theological beliefs. Even independent churches are apt to have a doctrinal stance identical to one of the standard denominations. These distinctions are necessary to correct a Catholic apologetic trope against sola scriptura and "pervasive interpretive pluralism".

This trades on equivocal usage regarding what constitutes a denomination. Do we count all Baptist denominations as separate denominations or as representatives of the same faith tradition? It's really a species/subspecies distinction.

Once again, I already anticipated the distinction between confessional/conservative denominations and progressive denominations, so you're objection is behind the curve. While local Baptist churches are technically autonomous, what makes them Baptist is affiliation with a particular faith-tradition.

I also don't know what you mean by "this is how chaos happens". Denominations that don't have autonomous local churches, denominations that are technically confessional and have a degree of hierarchy (e.g. Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian) can also liberalize. There's nothing about Baptist polity that makes it more susceptible to theological drift. That's easily paralleled in denominations with a more authoritarian polity.

Once more, the doctrinal requirements for elders are naturally stricter than for laymen since elders are the primary teachers and doctrinal enforcement officers. How is that germane to the rubbery 41K figure?

"I am not the one counting, I am simply using sources. So you will have to take it up with them."

I don't concede your fallacious argument from authority. We're discussing a substantive issue, and not how a reference work happens to list churches or denominations.

No denomination has a more elaborate authority structure and accountability system than Roman Catholicism, but that hasn't preserved it from "chaos" over the centuries.

You've now made clear that you have an antagonistic agenda regarding autonomous churches. That's your prerogative. You then use that to prop up a standard talking-point used by Catholic apologists. That may not be your intention but that's the effect.

But the attack on autonomous churches is invalid since there are parallel problems in churches with a more structured polity. So your objection is inconsistent. 

There is no "simple fact". There's no one criterion or set of criteria to classify denominations and faith traditions. You have chosen to focus on the most superficial. 

Yes, Baptists split. So do Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, &c. A particular polity is not a safeguard against schism or institutional apostasy. 

i) Your response is confused. I wasn't commenting on your post but your statement to Vlad about 41K denominations. You are undeniably antagonistic towards "autonomous" denominations.

ii) It's hardly frivolous to point out that your arguments in that regard are inconsistent. "Autonomous" denominations split and/or liberalize, but so do more hierarchal denominations. The UMC is about to split over homosexuality, and it split in the 19C over slavery. Yet it has bishops.

iii) It's not frivolous to point out that there are different ways to count Protestant affiliations. For instance, you can count them by faith traditions or denominations. Denominations typically exemplify particular faith traditions. It's a one-to-many relation. So do you count Baptists (or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Lutherans, or Pentecostals, or Anglicans) as one each, according to the faith tradition they share in common, or do you count them as so many separate denominations? Likewise, if denominations group into theological families, do you count them as individuals or families?

That's not frivolous. Rather, that's a theologically and philosophically discriminating analysis. And it's not asking too much that an apologetics forum operate according to high standards of rational analysis.

Sorry, but Catholicism is still wrong–dead wrong!

Catholic apologist Trent Horn has posted a running commentary on a video by Mike Winger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coQ3Ag9yQzc&t

There will be a part 2 and possibly part 3. I'll evaluate some of his statements:

The church doesn't say only the Catholic church can interpret the Bible and individual believers are not able to interpret…Catholic biblical scholars interpret the Bible, theologians, priests interpret the Bible all the time. The church has given us guardrails, however, to know specifically where our interpretations cannot go. 

1. But that boils down to the principle that the Catholic church determines what Scripture really means. It means whatever the Magisterium says it means. Priests, theologians, Bible scholars, and layman are allowed to interpret the Bible, but that's just their personal opinion. If you want to know what Scripture really teaches, it's up to the magisterium. 

So that subordinates biblical revelation to the Roman Magisterium. In practice, the Bible has no independent teaching authority. It cannot function as a check on what the Catholic church teaches. It's a dummy for the Magisterial ventriloquist. This reduces the Catholic church to an unfalsifiable cult, because the Magisterium is beyond correction. 

2. It generates a dilemma. Assuming the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Scripture, its teaching is unquestionable, but how do you establish that it's the authentic interpreter of Scripture in the first place? You can't appeal to Scripture to validate the Magisterum if ascertaining the true interpretation of Scripture hinges on the authority of the Magisterium. So how do you verify that the Magisterium is a divine teaching office rather than an impious fraud? 

The presence of God

In traditional Catholicism you need the guidance of the magisterium to steer clear of damnable error. The claim is circular since the damnable error is dissenting from Catholic theology.

By contrast, Protestant theologians appealed to the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as a kind of epistemological shortcut. To Catholic theologians that's an ac hoc appeal, but here's a sophisticated defense:

https://www.proginosko.com/2017/01/the-internal-testimony-of-the-holy-spirit/

You also have charismatics who claim to have up-to-the-minute guidance from God. So that's another paradigm, a flawed paradigm, though no less flawed than the Catholic alternative. In addition, "the presence of God" is invoked very loosely in popular and/or folk theology. 

On a different, but related note, some Christians say they've had an unmistakable experience of God's presence. Likewise, some unbelievers say they had the same kind of experience, which was instrumental to their Christian conversion.

Unlike the loose use of the term, this refers to something overwhelming and undeniable for the person who had it. Not a visual or auditory apparition, but nevertheless a powerful, transformative encounter with God. I'm certainly not vouching for every claimant, although I think it's undoubtedly the case that God has manifested himself to some Christians or converts to Christianity in that way.

Now some paradigms I outlined conceive of divine guidance in terms of specific ongoing directives. They view the Christian pilgrimage like a dark, narrow, winding mountain road where drivers can easily veer off on either side and plunge to their death hundreds or thousands of feet below. To make it safely to heaven, you need the road to have street lights at regular intervals. Somewhat parallel to this is the charismatic belief that God gives his people signs on a regular basis. 

The presumption of the traditional Catholic paradigm is that because there are so many different ways to be damned, we need regular up-to-date warnings every step of the way. One swerve and you hurtle down the cliff. 

Of course, Protestants believe God gave us a roadmap in Scripture, and the roadmap doesn't need to be updated every year. 

But in addition to that, suppose a Christian who's at the end of his tether has an unmistakable experience of God's presence. That gives him timely confirmation that he's still on the right path. So he doesn't need to be constantly shown that he's on the right path. Rather, if he strayed, if he was now on the wrong path, he wouldn't have that confirmatory experience.

So that reverses the presumption. You're going in the right direction unless you have a sign that tells you you took a wrong turn. It's not like GPS where you're shown at every juncture which turn to make. You can read a roadmap for yourself. At best, you only need to be warned if you're about to take a wrong turn–or assuming you already got off course, have an indication of how to get back onto the right path. 

Now I'm not suggesting that most Christians experience God in that dramatic fashion. I'm just pointing out that not every Christian has the same experience. God is sovereign. And divine direction can take different forms. Scripture is fundamental. But God guides his people through the providential orchestration of events. And occasionally in more direct, individual forms. A Magisterium isn't the only paradigm. 

No hard feelings, right?

One of my objections to the doctrine of development is that it's so flippant. To take a few examples:

1. The medieval papacy authorized the use of torture on "heretics":

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_%27Ad_Extirpanda%27,_EN.pdf

That's admitted in a roundabout way in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but Rome now repudiates the traditional policy:

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

But what good does that do for all the victims of papal-sanctioned torture? How does that restore all the victims who died under papal-sanctioned torture–or survived, but where maimed, mutilated, and/or disabled, living in chronic pain or psychologically broken from the effects of torture? 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

2. For centuries, grieving parents were told that unbaptized babies went to Limbo rather than heaven. While that's better than hell, it also means the parents will be permanently separated from their deceased children. Even if the parents are ultimately saved, they occupy a different place than their children. 

When you consider the number of miscarriages alone, that's a huge number of unbaptized babies who died in the womb. Not to mention unbaptized dying newborns and toddlers. 

That centuries-old pastoral counseling has now been mothballed:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

But what good does that do for all the bereaved who were indoctrinated in the traditional teaching? It's too late for them. 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

3. In traditional Catholic teaching, suicides were presumptively damned, denied a Catholic funeral service and consecrated burial in a Catholic churchyard. For instance:

Q. 1274. What sin is it to destroy one's own life, or commit suicide, as this act is called?

A. It is a mortal sin to destroy one's own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson33.htm

Until just a generation ago and for many centuries before, controversy over homilies delivered at the Catholic funerals of suicides was unheard of for the simple reason that Church law forbade all funerals for suicides, so, no funeral homilies on suicide could have been preached. See 1917 CIC 1240 § 1, n. 3.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/15/about-that-funeral-mass-homily-some-points/

So grieving survivors had a doublewhammy: the suicide of their loved one and Mother Church shunning their loved one. 

Yet the centuries-old policy has now been softened:

2282 Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

But once again, what good does that do for all the grieving survivors who lived under the traditional policy? It's too late for them. 

We changed our mind. Sorry about that. No hard feelings, right?

My immediate point is not to evaluate the positions in question. I'm not commenting on whether I think the new positions mark an improvement over the traditional positions, or vice versa. The point, rather, is that here's a denomination which lays claim to unique divine guidance and protection from error. 

Catholic apologists will counter that these changes go to show that the traditional teaching and practice never were infallible or irreformable. Yet these concern fundamental moral and pastoral issues. Not torturing religious opponents is hardly a marginal issue in social ethics. 

Likewise, what's more important than not telling grief-stricken family and friends the wrong thing about the fate of suicides and dead babies? Religion is centrally concerned with what happens after we die.

If the Catholic church wasn't protected from error on such crucial issues, why believe it enjoys any special protection from error? Why trust it with your immortal soul?

I'm not suggesting that Christians are obligated to give confident answers if we don't know the answer. But that's not what Rome did. Rather, Rome came down firmly on both sides of the issue at different times. It changes its mind: "We were mistaken, but that's water under the bridge." That's so flippant and callous.   

Cardinal Müller on Catholicism and Protestantism

This will be a long post. The length is mainly due to the fact that it's running commentary on some things that Cardinal Müller said is three recent articles. If you wish to expedite the reading process, you can just skip the quotes.

Cardinal Müller represents the conservative, intellectual wing of the hierarchy. So it's useful to see how he defends Catholicism and critiques Protestantism. I always like to study the best of the competition:

Standing in judgment of the Magisterium

The Magisterium must seek to present a convincing case, showing how its presentation of the faith is in itself coherent and in continuity with the rest of Tradition. The authority of the papal Magisterium rests on its continuity with the teachings of previous popes. In fact, if a pope had the power to abolish the binding teachings of his predecessors, or if he had the authority even to reinterpret Holy Scripture against its evident meaning, then all his doctrinal decisions could in turn be abolished by his successor, whose successor in turn could undo or redo everything as he pleased. In this case we would not be witnessing a development of doctrine, but the dire spectacle of the Bark of Peter stranded on a sandbank.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/02/development-or-corruption

I quoted this once before, without comment, but now I'd like to tease out the implications of the statement. Cardinal Müller is one of the premier Catholic theologians of his generation. Benedict XVI appointed him prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but Francis sacked him. So he represent the conservative wing of the church. 

1. The first implication of his statement is that the veracity and legitimacy of Catholicism depends on historical continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition. Likewise, popes don't have the authority to abrogate the binding teachings of their predecessors. 

2. The second implication is lost on many converts and Catholic apologists. Continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition must be demonstrable. The Magisterium must be able to show continuity, not stipulate continuity. The argument can't be that it's consistent because the Magisterium says so. No, that has it backwards. For the authority of the Magisterium hinges on continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition. So whether or not there is historical continuity at the level of Sacred Tradition is an independent judgment that must be made apart from the Magisterium. Hence, private judgment is indispensable, and prior to the Magisterium. 

A Catholic conudrum

The Magisterium must seek to present a convincing case, showing how its presentation of the faith is in itself coherent and in continuity with the rest of Tradition. The authority of the papal Magisterium rests on its continuity with the teachings of previous popes. In fact, if a pope had the power to abolish the binding teachings of his predecessors, or if he had the authority even to reinterpret Holy Scripture against its evident meaning, then all his doctrinal decisions could in turn be abolished by his successor, whose successor in turn could undo or redo everything as he pleased. In this case we would not be witnessing a development of doctrine, but the dire spectacle of the Bark of Peter stranded on a sandbank.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/02/development-or-corruption

Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller is former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

What makes a problem a problem?

A stock objection to the Protestant faith is that sola scriptura is a problem for Protestants because it generates "pervasive interpretive pluralism". There are endless variations on that objection. 

Let's take a comparison: there are idealist strands in Buddhism and Hinduism. On that view, the problem of evil is illusory is the sense that moral and natural evil (or what we ordinarily take to be natural evil) only exist in the mind. Which means, moreover, that they only exist in individual minds. Hence, it's possible to make evil disappear through the right kind of psychological conditioning. 

It's like dreamers who suffer from chronic nightmares. Nightmares only exist in the mind. Moreover, they only exist in the mind of each dreamer. I don't experience your nightmare. Your nightmare can't hurt me. 

So, from their frame of reference, evil isn't a problem for Indian idealism. It's only a problem for physicalists and dualists who lack enlightenment. 

Of course, that only works if metaphysical idealism is true. But if, to the contrary, evil exists outside the mind as well as inside the mind, if evil is external to individuals, then evil isn't a problem for dualists and physicalists; rather, it's a problem for everybody. The problem isn't embedded in a particular philosophy but in reality. 

By the same token, Catholic apologists and theologians think "pervasive interpretive pluralism" is a problem for the Protestant faith. But like Indian idealism, it's only a problem for our position if there's an alternative. If God instituted a living teaching office, and that's located in the Catholic church, then "pervasive interpretive pluralism" is a problem for the Protestant faith.

But what if that frame of reference doesn't exist? What if God never instituted a living teaching office? Then the point of contrast is chimerical. Catholicism becomes just one more competing interpretion in the mix of "pervasive interpretive pluralism". 

In that event, even if you think "pervasive interpretive pluralism" is still a problem, it's not a problem for Protestants but a problem for everybody. It's not a problem internal to Protestant theology but a problem embedded in reality. So it does nothing to discredit Protestant theology because everyone is in the same boat. 

In that regard, Catholic apologists and theologians have it backwards. They shouldn't be starting with the alleged problem of "pervasive interpretive pluralism", because that's only a problem for Protestants provided that there's a living teaching office located in the Catholic church. If, however, that point of contrast is chimeerical, then "pervasive interpretive pluralism" is either a problem for everybody or a problem for nobody in particular. 

Just like it's backwards to say evil is a problem for dualists but not for Indian idealists. It may not be a problem if metaphysical idealism is true, but there's where the argument must be engaged. Is that assumption correct?  

Refuting Catholic authority

This is a generally skillful presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsPuOxVZKw&t=163s

A few quibbles:

i) The contemporary Catholic church doesn't affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. It gave up on that at Vatican II. The council was about to reaffirm the traditional Catholic position on biblical inerrancy when Franz Cardinal König, a well-known progressive, gave a speech convincing enough bishops that the Bible contained errors, that the Council declined to reaffirm the traditional position.

And this is borne out by the way Scripture is handled nowadays among Catholic Bible scholars. The hierarchy has no problem with Catholic theologians and Bible scholars who deny the inerrancy of Scripture. So this is not common ground between Catholics and evangelicals. 

ii) Although he only says so in passing, he seems to think that the alternative to a living teaching office is the indwelling of th Holy Spirit. If we need a makeweight to interpret Scripture, that's it.

But that appeal doesn't work since Spirit-filled Christians disagree on how to interpret Scripture. I've detailed what I regard as the alternative to the Roman Magisterium.

iii) Although his discussion of Mt 16 is quite good in many respects, it would benefit from the added insight of scholars like Michael Heiser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3BrVkmKELo

Driving a wedge between reason and authority

A convert to Catholic attempted to rebut my post:

http://scottericalt.com/steve-hays-posits-false-dichotomy-between-authority-and-reason/

He calls his site Triablogue, for optimistic reasons known to him alone. 

I didn't name the blog. Ryan MacReyolds did. 

His latest screed is entitled “Catholic apologetics is self-destructive” — which must explain why it’s been around since Justin Martyr.

News flash: Justin Martyr wasn't Roman Catholic. 

At this point I am curious. Have Protestant apologists given up on sola scriptura? Maybe I’ve been otherwise engaged in recent years and missed the news. But I thought that the authority of Bible — and just the Bible, that’s it, sir — was one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation. We judge everything by the authority of those seventy-three sixty-six books. Every doctrine must be found there or it’s just a vile tradition of men. Have Protestants given this up now? I only ask questions.

Mr. Hays goes on: “Notice how often a Catholic apologist reframes an issue in terms of authority … Human reason is so untrustworthy that we need the pope to play referee.”

Well, yes and no. I don’t really need to pull out Proverbs 14:12 here. If Mr. Hays and I are in an argument about sola scriptura, it’s fair for me to point out that the Bible must be interpreted and how does he know his interpretation is right? The meaning is not just there; the Bible does not interpret itself, Westminster notwithstanding. After all, Protestants differ even among themselves about many key verses. If that were not so, Arminians and Calvinists could not both be Protestant. That’s how unreliable “the Bible alone” is.

But that does not mean that Catholics have abandoned, or even given small importance to, “human reason.”...Does Mr. Hays have reason to believe that the Orthodox behave like Calvinist bloggers and make stuff up as they go?

Mr. Hays has a lot to explain when he cites Aquinas’s appeal to reason on the Real Presence. Aquinas was Catholic, sir.

All these objections suffer from the same confusion. I don't erect a dichotomy between reason and authority. Rather, that's what Catholic apologists typically do. Catholic apologists have resorted to skepticism since the Counter-Reformation:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/catholic-fideism.html

And it remains a fixture of Catholic apologetics right up to our own day. Take my recent exchange with Michael Liccione:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/08/running-in-place.html

Or take Ed Feser's essay, "The God of a Philosopher," in the recent Faith and Reason anthology, edited by Besong and Fuqua. Unlike Catholic apologists, I don't impugn the general competence of reason. Likewise, I'm not the one who says communication is so ambiguous that we require the pope to play referee. 

The strategy of Catholic apologists generates a dilemma. They can't tear down reason to attack the Protestant faith, then turn right around and appeal to the same untrustworthy faculty to defend Catholicism. 

And it’s a caricature to say that the pope plays referee all the time between warring Catholics. Not in my experience. First of all, Catholics don’t have that kind of hotline to the Vatican. Half the time, we can’t even get the local bishop to pay us any mind. Second, too many Catholics these days are full of pride and hiss like feral cats at anything the pope says. Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome is a real problem. But Catholics don’t send the pope an email every time Boodle and Coodle get in an argument about Luke 22:36 and the second amendment. The pope’s role as teacher of the whole Church is more about preserving the unity of the faith than answering every question that comes up.

I appreciate Alt's frank admission regarding the general uselessness of a living teaching office. I wish him success in persuading his fellow Catholics to share his dim view regarding the general uselessness of a living teaching office. 

And here, dear reader, is where the false dichotomy emerges. To give evidence at all means that the evidence has some authority, in your view.

Now he's resorting to his own homespun redefinitions. 

Apart from not knowing the meaning of “hiatus”—incongruity is closer to Mr. Hays’ meaning...

I'm using "hiatus" the same way dictionaries do: "a rift, break, gap, hole, discontinuity, where something is missing". An apt descriptor for how the dogma of transubstantiation drives a wedge between appearance and reality. 

 — no Catholic apologist I know defends, say, the Marian dogmas by telling us that the Church teaches the Marian dogmas and stopping there…In a similar way, when Pope St. John Paul II wrote in defense of the teaching that the priesthood is restricted to men (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), he didn’t say “the Church has always taught this” and stop there. He explained why the Church has always taught it…And when Pope St. Paul VI reiterated the ban on artificial contraception (Humanae Vitae), he gave several arguments from reason, including an appeal to natural law.

i) He has yet to wrap his head around what the actual argument is. Catholic apologists constantly assert that human reason is so unreliable, interpretation is so unreliable, that we need the pope to play referee. They deploy Pyrrhonian skepticism to create an opening for the argument from authority (i.e. the magisterium) as the necessary backup. When, however, they do an about-face and appeal to the same discredited reason to prop up Catholic dogmas, the contradiction is blatant. 

ii) Yes, popes attempt to defend their dogmas by appeal to reason, but that's a throwaway maneuver because when it fails to persuade, they fall back on the fideism of naked ecclesiastical authority. 

…and simply use logic, you are appealing to the authority of some logical formula…One can not possibly argue anything at all if there weren’t first an agreement about what counts as proof. That’s what authority is.

Once again, we're treated to Alt's idiosyncratic redefinition of standard terms and concepts.