Why I Hate Roman Catholicism, Part 2

@TDC, a scholar isn’t just one that studies. When scholars publish, for example, they are peer reviewed by other scholars. As a Catholic, a scholar might be able to peer review the writings of another peer, and can present a scholarly paper on why they thing some friar or priest got something wrong, but they have their hands tied with it comes to doing any kind of skepticism or testing or validating anything from the Vatican. If the Pope comes out tomorrow with a stance on something, you can’t really challenge that and remain in good standing in the church. Beckwith couldn’t write a book about how the Pope’s position on stem cell research was unbiblical or immoral and remain in good standing in the Catholic Church. Yet, as a protestant and ETS president, if a leading pastor (say some current or former head of the the SBC or some well known guy like Rick Warren or Billy Graham) he could have written a book in disagreement with one of their position and still remained in good standing in evangelical protestant circles. “Free to disagree” is something that Protestants have that Catholics don’t. And the inability to disagree is a limitation. If you can’t see that, I can’t think of a way to explain it in any simpler terms. Rob Bell is free to challenge an eternal hell and get challenged back by folks that won’t loose their church membership over it. But if the Pope comes out and says something about hell, the same kind of scholarly examination and possible disagreement with it is not possible by Catholics.
In OT times, a prophet was able to be tested to see if he was legit. If the prophesy didn’t come true, you could label him as a false prophet. Catholicism has brought this “mouthpiece of God” kind of position forward, but one is not allowed to challenge it. If you are a Catholic and think you DO have the same freedoms to challenge and test what comes from the Vatican, then test *that* and see where it gets you. Stand up after mass some day with your own 95 thesis of things you think the current or prior popes are wrong about. Let us know how that works out for you. 🙂

Daniel,
Evangelicals have their hands tied when it comes to doing any kind of skepticism or testing or validating any of the evangelical essentials. Patton couldn’t write a book on how Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead and remain an evangelical.
If you are a Protestant and think you DO have the same freedoms to challenge and test the essentials, then test that and see where it gets you. Stand up after church some day with your own list of biblical contradictions and arguments against the resurrection. Let us know how that works out for you =).
Don’t take the above as an insult as I don’t mean I that way. My point is that so much of what you say can easily be turned around and pointed right back at you. That’s why your strategy is just an example of picking and choosing which beliefs to spotlight for your argument.
Remember, catholics don’t believe everything the pope says is infallible and binding. Catholics have plenty of “non-essentials” over which they are allowed to disagree. Many verses of the bible have not been infallibly defined. People are free to believe or disbelieve in the marian revelations. Catholic biblical scholars do not have to follow everything the pope argues in his book on Jesus.

You have your “essentials” and non-essenitals and catholics have their own. Both are free to disagree on the non-essentials and remain in good standing, and both are free to disagree with the essentials (or for catholics, dogma) and cease to be in good standing. The difference is only a difference of degree.

Brian, if you think when the Pope says “CAN” that he means “CANNOT”, then we are not dealing in the same realm and I don’t think discussing the pope’s statement any longer is going to move the conversation forward. It isn’t really the topic anyway. The point is that Catholics ABIDE by what the pope says. They are not allowed to CHALLENGE what the pope says. So when the vatican comes out with a “clarification” and says CAN really still does mean CANNOT, that’s just accepted. It is the acceptance or ability to challenge that notion that is the topic at hand, not my trying to convince you whether the two words are the same or not.

@TDC: I will try to put this in small words because prior efforts to explain this have failed. In BOTH cases, if you challenge a basic orthodox belief of Christianity, you are out. But a Protestant can challenge something that their pastor says as not being in the Bible. A Catholic can’t challenge the Pope if he were to make the same comment about something not in the Bible. Since the RCC is seen as the official interpreter of Scripture AND can add to it with further teaching, you cannot be a skeptical scholar and challenge that. Protestants are able to disagree over things like the age of the earth and evolution. But if the Pope gets up tomorrow and says that the earth is millions of years old, no Catholic scholar could write a book endorsing young-earth flood geology and saying that science shows that the Pope is wrong and remain in good standing. And since the Catholic and Protestant view of “church” are so different, getting kicked out of it is a lot more consequential. They are just not the same.

I’ll give you a personal example. I’ve been a deacon before in some churches. In one rather large church with a well-known pastor that I attended, I was nominated to be a deacon by one of the staff members. I didn’t become one because it was a position of leadership and I didn’t agree with the pastor on a couple of issues and let the staff know. But that was the extent of it. I was still a member in good standing and was even allowed to take on different roles in the church. BUT, had I been a Catholic and believed the Pope was wrong, that alone not only challenges something taught in the church, but the papal authority and infallibility. And as a core belief of the church, I would not longer be in good standing in the church. A protestant can disagree with some doctrinal stance in the church and still be an evangelical. A Catholic that disagrees with what the RCC teaches cannot remain a Catholic because one of the core beliefs is that the RCC is always right. Protestants don’t have that “My pastor is infallible” belief and are therefore able to disagree.

Daniel,

“I will try to put this in small words because prior efforts to explain this have failed.”

Thank goodness you’re using small words, your superior language was so confusing to me!

I have affirmed over and over again that I know that catholics have more constraints and fewer things they can challenge. I’m not arguing against that! I am arguing that both catholics and protestants have constraints and limitations. I don’t deny that there are differences of degree.

Nevertheless, your description of the Pope’s power is not correct. Catholics are not required to believe everything the pope says. It has to be dogma to absolutely required. So if the pope just gets up and says the earth is millions of years old, there will still be catholics in good standing who challenge that.

You keep talking about how Protestants can disagree with their pastor. You’re picking and choosing again. We both know there are SOME things you cannot challenge and remain an evangelical in good standing. Sure, there are some things you can disagree about too. Likewise, there ARE things that Catholics can disagree about. Most catholic churches and popes believe that there are genuine marian apparitions and even preach on them. However, catholics are free to disagree about that and remain catholics in good standing. Both sides have their essentials and non-essentials. You may not have an infallible pope, but you have certain essentials that will exclude you from evangelicalism by definition if you disagree with them. Catholics have more, but that is only a difference of degree, not of kind, and thus does not exclude a scholar from being roman catholic.

Having read through this and thought about it more, I think I would revise my position due to some very good conversation that you all have provided.

I would say this: 1) All scholarship is affected by the amount of presuppositions we bring to the table. To the degree that they see dogma as a presupposition, Roman Catholics will have a more difficult time in scholarship due to the amount of dogma to which Roman Catholics are required adhere. 2) Submission to Catholicism requires ultimate trust to be placed in the magisterial authority of the Church. When this authority conflicts with modern understanding, science, and scholarship, the Church trumps the scholarship. 3) Since Roman Catholic dogma is much more extensive than that of other Christian traditions, they are going to be more affected when it comes to being open to alternative interpretations of the data more often than other Christian traditions. 4) But this is only to the degree that they wish to stay faithful to Rome.

The whole idea that the teachings of the Pope can be challenged unless he’s speaking “from the chair” are a bit of a cop-out. There is an issue of the authority of the church that doesn’t exist in Protestant circles. So it isn’t just the matter of the rare “from the chair” decrees. It’s a matter of the church being seen as an official interpreter of theology. To the Catholic, God speaks via the apostolic succession of the church leadership. To challenge it is to challenge God. To quote the catechism, “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” This “remarkable harmony” of “always agree with the teachings of the church” is the kind of limitation that Protestants don’t have. It also speaks of the church’s infallibility. “Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on [the church] a share in his own infallibility” “”The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.” And that is why something isn’t just official doctrine if stated “from the chair”. When the Vatican “clarifies” the Pope’s comments about condoms, for example, that is an official position. And when the Pope or some group of bishops or cardinals teach something, it has the weight of apostolic succession behind it. Is it possible for the pope to have a personal opinion about something? Of course. But when he speaks AS THE POPE in a mass or something, a Catholic just doesn’t have the same level of ability to disagree as a Protestant would. You are, for example, much freer to tell me that I am wrong about this topic than you are if the Pope himself was stating his position no matter what chair he was sitting in at the time. There is a reverence for his position and office that extends beyond his furniture. And I can guarantee you that if my first post on this topic had been written by the Supreme Pontiff, Beckwith would not have responded with a Hugh Heffner quote. He had the freedom to challenge me that he would not have had if it had been the Pope saying it.

To the point of “it’s not from the chair”, here is another quote from the Catholic Catechism that speaks directly to that (I was running out of characters before).

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, IN A PARTICULAR WAY, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT arriving at an infallible definition and WITHOUT pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ORDINARY teaching the faithful “ARE TO ADHERRE TO IT WITH RELIGIOUS ASSENT” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is NONETHELESS AND EXTENSION OF IT.”

Now THAT is the official teaching of the church. Even if the Pope isn’t speaking “from the chair”, the faithful are to agree with it. End of story. And end of my comments on the matter.

Daniel,

I’m glad you’re reading the Catechism. So, why do you value your freedom to disagree more than you value the truth and the authority of Christ’s Church? Why do you believe your personal understanding of the faith is superior to 2000 years of lived wisdom of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit? How is that a more authentic version of Christianity?

I’ve dug through the catechism many times. Really see the benefit of well articulated official doctrine like that. But it isn’t a matter of valuing of freedom versus “the truth and authority of Christ’s Church”. While I *do* like freedom, it is more of a different in belief in what is “the church”. Just as I wouldn’t, as a Christian apologist, argue that we should believe the Bible because it says it is true, I wouldn’t argue that we should believe “the church” as some official organization just because it teaches it is both true and an official organization. Yet support for that position seems to ultimately be based on that begging of the question or anecdotal evidence of some NT example. I don’t know if you have ever seen Michael’s presentation of the “Stage of Truth” that he did in the 4th session of Intro to Theology in The Theology Program (it’s online), but it is the clearest expression of the differences between how protestants and catholics see things fundamentally different that I have ever seen. And it is that fundamental difference that is at the core of CMPs post here. If I see my church as A source of truth as opposed to THE source of truth, I’m more open to examination of it to test it (like a Barean) than to just accept it and adhere to it without question. There is just a big difference between “My pastor preaches truth as he understands it and I accept it” and “My priest/pope said it so it is therefor true and I *must* accept it”.
As far as “superior to 2000 years of lived wisdom” goes, it’s a nice talking point, but doesn’t reflect reality. The whole “Bishop of Rome is always right” thing has been an issue since it was first brought up. Just ask the Orthodox. It isn’t a belief that everyone in Christianity has always agreed with for 2,000 years. The very fact that one can believe that truth comes both from the pope as well as an agreement among the bishops and, way back when, not all the bishops agreed with this doctrine, should provide some level of self-refutation of the idea that there has been 2,000 years of agreement on this.

Daniel,

I actually don’t disagree a whole lot with your last two comments (about agreement with the pope and what not). I think there are more complexities to the matter, but its not really our main point of disagreement anyway.

So let’s say you’re right. Catholics are morally obligated by their church to agree with the pope even when its not infallible, etc. So that would increase the number of limitations on catholic scholars, right?

But you never really gave an argument defending the main point of the article. That is, you never made an argument that shows that “roman catholic scholarship” is an oxymoron. Wasn’t that the what we were discussing? If that isn’t your position, then we shouldn’t have even argued. If it is your position, where’s the argument? Simply listing limitations that catholics have that protestants both doesn’t show how the limitations that catholics have make “roman catholic scholarship” impossible or an oxymoron.

So let’s clarify here. Do you believe faithful roman catholic scholarship is impossible, or just more difficult? If the former, why? If the ladder, we have no disagreement to argue about.

Michael,
Your most recent formulation of his position is much more defensible, even if it may still be disputed. It was just the oxymoron thing that gave me pause.

I posted on your Part 1, but this post reveals a whole new set of presuppositions that you would be wise to challenge.

That you “looked and looked for loopholes” reveals that your inquiry into Catholicism can not properly be called discernment. Discernment is seeking God’s will regardless of your own will, desires and prejudices. Instead, you tested Catholicism against a standard of your personal creation: whether or not you could disagree with a Catholic dogma and still be a “good Catholic.” Real discernment would have set even this personal standard aside.

“What if I disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that John 6 was not to be taken literally? Could I teach and believe accordingly? No. Well, not if I expect to be a true Roman Catholic.”

Buried here is the presupposition that the “freedom” to teach and believe something contrary to your church is a thing to be sought and a good standard with which to choose ecclesial affiliation. But is it?

Remember what scripture says of Jesus’ Church. Jesus promised that she would be guided by the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He gave her the authority to loose and bind and Acts depicts her doing so, depicts her settling doctrinal disputes. Paul called her the pillar of foundation of Truth.

The “freedom” to contradict the Church as scripture defines her is no freedom at all. It is like the “freedom” to sin. It is only the freedom to reject God’s truth. Your presupposition guarantees that you will not join yourself to the Church described by scripture.

An additional presupposition here is that your personal conviction is a good and reliable arbiter of Truth. Put aside for the moment whether or not the Catholic Church is actually who she claims to be. Every piece of dogmatically defined belief within Catholicism rests upon numerous minds at least as good as the best minds available today, spending more time on that one isolated bit of dogma than any of us have spent on this planet. (And note, this is before the belief was even dogmatized, so your “the only good Catholic scholar is a bad Catholic scholar argument really doesn’t apply even if it were sound.) Your conviction is based on your personal opinion, including your personal opinion of the scholarly work of others. In this post, I can identify at least three significant errors as to Catholic belief. If your conviction that you understand Catholic belief is so manifestly false, if your personal opinion is so fallible when it comes to things that can be known with certainty (such as what the Catholic Church teaches) why should it be the ultimate standard of Truth for those things that cannot, or perhaps even cannot, be known with certainty? To what can be appealed to justify this premise, this presupposition?

I believe true and full scholarship is more than just being a student. A scholar is seen as one that adds to the depository of knowledge. That is why tenured professors are often required to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals and students wanting to graduate with one of those scholar-level degrees have to write dissertations. So, from a Catholic standpoint (as Mormon as well), you can have a “scholar” in the sense that they can write some deep paper with big words defending what their church teaches, but are limited is seriously questioning it. When you think of scholars”, you think of universities where both education and inquiry takes place. That is particularly the case in areas of science where inquiry and testing is a large part of the scientific method. And that is a BIG problem that I had with some of the teaching my kids were taught. It may as well have been the Pope in the lectern. When my son challenged the teacher on something and asked why a particular argument was valid in one case when used against “the opposition” (evolutionists) and not another (what the teacher espoused), the response was of the “because I said so” variety to a “Why” question and he was told he had a “heart problem” or spiritual issue for even questioning the teacher on it. So, while they said they TAUGHT science, they didn’t PRACTICE science. They practiced indoctrination without question. They went so far as to have a commencement address where the graduating students were told that they were to hold on to and defend what they had been taught in high school and not “compromise” their beliefs based on what they were taught in college. That isn’t being a student where inquiry and further exploration is allowed. And telling 17-yr olds that they now have leaned the truth and shouldn’t listen to anything contrary to it is the last thing they need to hear and Proverbs 18:17 speaks directly to that. And the same can be said at the upper levels of education for a “scholar”. When you can’t ask why or say “that makes no sense”, you can’t really explore knowledge. How valid would our judicial system be if you only were allowed to hear from one side or, by law, you had to totally believe whatever one side said? The whole idea that X is true because Y said so is a fallacious appeal to authority and if learning and education is going to be illogical at it’s core and not allow for testing or validation or challenging questions, then it isn’t scholarly learning and exploring of a topic. And it isn’t scholars having the ability to increase their understanding in any kind of “iron sharpening iron” kind of way. It is little more than acceptance by faith regardless of any facts to the contrary. Not really what a true scholar would do.

Daniel,

A couple of notes about infallibility. You are missing a very important detail here: the meaning of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium is the successors of the bishops teaching in accord over both time and space. It is differentiated from the extraordinary magisterium which is an ecumenical Council or the Pope teaching “ex cathedra.” The ordinary magisterium is understood by Catholics to be infallible. So the quote you offer essentially says, “the pope is infallible when he teaches the same thing that is already infallibly taught.”

So no, Catholics do not have to accept every single thing the pope says, nor every single thing a bishop says. We are only bound to accept what has been infallibly defined, regardless of how it is infallibly defined.

[…] Beckwith probably wasn’t too happy with Michael Patton’s post on Rome Hate, but at least he […]

Daniel,

I’m with you on the idea that scholarship involves inquiry that we can’t only listen to our side or base knowledge purely on appeals to authority.

But i’m not sure you answered my question. Is faithful roman catholic scholarship just difficult or is it impossible?

If you say difficult, I’m with you. If you say impossible, I want to know why it isn’t equally impossible for protestants to practice true scholarship with regard to their essentials.

TDC, you asked “Do you believe faithful roman catholic scholarship is impossible, or just more difficult?” I believe one can approach Catholic doctrine BY FAITH, or AS A SCHOLAR, but not really BOTH in the full sense of what a scholar normally does. By definition, being Catholic means accepting BY FAITH all the teachings of the church. So unless you speak FOR the church, you are not really allowed to add anything to the knowledge base of theology. I guess may it is possible for a Bishop to write some official position or clarification of something, and in that sense he’s adding theological understanding, but even then he’s not allowed to challenge the validity of some position and offer an alternative understanding of something. So his ability to do “scholar stuff” is limited. In a sense, it comes down to a Catholic being Catholic first and scholar in submission to that. Whereas a protestant can be both protestant and scholar equally. One isn’t subject to the other. And again, it really isn’t the same about “essentials”. Like CMP laid out in his marriage example, Protestants have few. We don’t have the huge catechisms. But Catholics have, AS an essential, the requirement to believe what the Pope says even if he’s speaking about something non-essential. It is an extension of faith, not some scholarly approach. That “adhere to what the Bishop of Rome says with religious assent” is not mere suggestion. Its binding. It not only makes full scholarship difficult, but makes it impossible if “scholarship” is going to mean anything other than “accept this as true”. And since I don’t see it as the ability to do FULL scholarship, I don’t see it as TRUE scholarship.

As a Protestant, I can approach the text in one of two ways. I can approach it for spiritual insight or apologetic/scholarly insight. And there is validity to both approaches. But I need to keep them in balance so both my heart and head get fed. But when a Catholic approaches tradition and church teaching, the scholarly academic study is done with the precondition that it is true and cannot be disagreed with. The unity that provides has merit. But it is like the unity of only letting the state have a say in any court case. It isn’t the best way of obtaining truth when dealing with fallible men. And that is the big difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of tradition and church teaching. Protestants don’t assume infallibility. Catholics do. As the catechism says, it is promised to the church. So to doubt the church is to doubt God’s promise. When you can’t doubt/test your teaching because that is to doubt God, you can’t really scholarly investigate it. You just accept it by faith. And faith is religion, not scholarship. I’m not saying one approach is better than the other, but they are definitely not the same. Make sense?

Daniel,
Yes, I understand. But then that also applies to the Protestant essentials, whether there are many or few. Thus, the difference is a matter of degree. Both have their limits.

So when it comes to the divinity of Christ, the existence of God, or the resurrection, evangelical christians can’t be truly scholarly without suspending their belief for a while.

So anything written by william lane craig on the resurrection is not true scholarship, since he’s been convinced for decades, and knowingly uses his abilities as a servant, not a judge, of the gospel. In fact, he’s convinced that reason and faith can’t contradict, and says he would believe even if the evidence was against christianity due to the witness of the Holy Spirit. So his new stuff on the existence and coherence of God also ceases to be true scholarship as well. Are you willing to say that?

If my application of criteria is faulty, where did I go wrong?

OK. Let me try to address this from the difference in essentials then. My list of essentials are very short. And it is NOT essential that I agree with my local church on all that it teaches because not everything is an essential belief. For Catholics though, part of their essentials is that they have to affirm, by faith, and agree with the infallible teaching of the church in ALL things. As such I can disagree with something my pastor says. If he teaches something about the tithe or predestination or sanctification, it isn’t essential that I have to agree with his interpretation of that. In that sense, it isn’t a matter of degree as in some are essential and some are MORE essential. There are essentials and non-essentials. But, for the Catholic, you have essentials “from the chair”, and non-essentials that you have to essentially believe just as if they WERE from the chair. At least that is my understanding from my my study of Catholicism and the quotes I posted from the catechism.

William Lane Craig is a great example. I’ve met him several times and am a huge fan. And I can see where he might say if there was no evidence for something or there was evidence to the contrary that he’d still believe it by faith. The witness of the Holy Spirit is evidence in than case and would trump some other evidence that seems to contradict that. But he’s a great example of a scholar because he also questions and challenges belief. His work as it relates to God and time, for example, push the envelope and don’t always agree with what others believe. He also believes in Monilism. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand all of that or even know the Catholic position on Monilism. But the point is that it IS a controversial topic and not all evangelicals agree on it. But he’s still free to have and defend that position. Were he a Catholic though and there was/is a position on it, I don’t believe he would be free to offer some controversial thing like that. So he won’t be kicked out of protestantism for having some controversial opinion and neither would the calvinists on the other end of the spectrum, but to stir up controversy like that within the Catholic church could end up with him (or the calvinists) being kicked out of “the one true church”.

In short, the Protestant can disagree over non-essentials with his church. It is *essential* though for the Catholic to agree with his church. It whole repository of tradition and teaching is essential. So if WLC disagrees with his pastor, he’s fine. If Beckwith disagrees with his Pope, he’s not. They are not in the same boat because WLC and CMP can respectfully disagree over the monilism/calvinism thing and remain in the same protestant boat. But everyone in the Catholic one has to believe whatever the Captian says or you’re out of the boat.

Many years ago I found Jesus through the Catholic Carismatic Church, there I once understood that Jesus was alive and had to be received by each one. Even being a Catholic during all my life, going to Church every Sunday and having Eucharisty every Sunday also, I did not know Jesus as my Savior and less than my Lord, until I understood there that faith was the way.
You can read many books but here in South America (living in Peru and Bolivia) the common Catholic think that Mary and the Saints are the one that bring the healing or restauration asked, and not Jesus.
As Erico Rempel said at the begining of this block, idolatry is part of the Catholic view of life to Mary and the Saints.
Clerics may say that they only venered her or the saints but in their minds they belief she / them is / are the provider and bring all they need.
The common Catholic doesn’t even know their doctrine and cathecism. There are many Catholics divorced, and married or living new lifes and participating in the Church without any fear, they don’t care about the Church doctrine.
Also you know that the actual Pope declares that his church is the savoir arc and no one has salvation outside it. There are so many diferences with the Holy Scriptures, and that is why Jesus demands His believers to run out of it in Revelations. Of course there are many believers and justified people and the bottom of their hearts are only know by the Holy Gost.
I belief that it is impossible to be a catholic scholar and a christian at a time, as being a real Catholic requires many works of flesh to get to heaven…
God bless you always…

Daniel,

I know Catholics have more restrictions. I know they can’t disagree with the Church on an awful lot of stuff. There’s no need to continue telling me about Catholic restrictions. I am well aware of them.

However, if those restrictions prevent catholics from being scholarly on those issues (to which their restrictions apply), than William Lane Craig’s essentials prevent him from being scholarly on the resurrection and the existence of God.

I’ve never denied Protestants have more freedom with their pastors (in theory). But if you fairly apply your criteria to both sides, you must say Craig cannot be a scholar when it comes to his essentials.

@TDC, your analogy to WLC doesn’t hold because that would not be a case of a Protestant challenging church beliefs on non-essentials, but a case of a non-Christian challenging Christian beliefs. Anyone that says that Jesus isn’t God, for example, is neither Protestant OR Catholic. They’re lost. So it just isn’t a valid comparison. The point is that a Protestant goes to a church where non-essentials are taught and are free to disagree with them. A Catholic goes to a church where it is essential to agree with whatever is taught. As such, there is a whole realm of theological topics (say anything not specifically spelled out in the Nicene Creed) that they can have different opinions on and offer alternative understandings of. By definition a Christian cannot deny certain core beliefs. But we can’t pretend that that list of core beliefs is the same as the entirety of Catholic catechism, tradition, and teaching so therefore Craig and Beckwith are equally free to disagree with their pastor. When EVERYTHING is an essential, there is just not the same level of freedom as there is when the only essentials are some bare bones basics that both Protestant and Catholic believe in.

You’re basically suggesting that the guy that walks into the local car dealership today has the same ability and freedom of choice to select the car of his choice as the guy did back when your only choice was black Model T’s because in both cases they were limited to what was made. Freedom to choose though only exists if there are other choices. Freedom to disagree only exists if there ARE things that are non-essential. The guy today has multiple choices of make and color of car. The guy dealing with Henry Ford didn’t have true freedom of choice. It was “buy what everyone else is buying or you’re not a car owner”. The Catholic church is like Henry Ford or AT&T only selling black rotary phones. You had them or didn’t. You were in or out. The Protestant Phone Store though has a ton of options. And you are welcome to choose a different one from your pastor. It boils down to Protestant Diversity and Catholic Unity. Catholics can’t brag about the unity and criticise all the Protestant diversity and then also claim that both Protestants and Catholics have the same level of freedom to dissent.

@wineinthewater: Sorry to be late to responding to you. You point about infallibility MIGHT be the valid interpretation of that quote, but I think the actions speak louder than the words. Just look at the Great Schism. As such, I think it is more properly understood that the Bishops are also infallible when they agree with the Pope (“in communion with the successor of Peter”), not that the Pope is only infallible when his off-the-chair positions agree with all the Bishops. Not all the Bishops agreed with the supremacy of Rome. Didn’t matter. You basically ended up with a conflict between the infallibility residing among the united agreement of the Bishops and the infallibility residing in the office of Bishop of Rome. They both can’t be right because they disagreed. So it isn’t just a case of the Pope only being infallible when he’s in his chair or in agreement with all the Bishops. It doesn’t say “with the approval of” or “in agreement with” the ordinary Magisterium. It says “in the exercise of” the ordinary Magisterium. So it’s when the Pope is teaching (the role of the ordinary Magisterium), or when He’s “from the chair”, or when “THEY”, the ordinary Magisterium, teach “in communion with the successor of Peter” (the Pope). And we should not confuse the “ordinary Magisterium” with the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. The distinction shows that infallibility resides in the Pope when he’s “from the chair”, OR when he’s in the role of teaching (“ordinary Magisterium”), OR when a Bishop teaches and it agrees “with the successor of Peter”, OR when the united Bishops (“ordinary and universal magisterium”) do something like come up with a creed. In other words it is ALL of church teaching and tradition. It is ALL either accepted as infallible or rejected by those who are in turn rejected. Look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Levels). The first five all require assent and for the faithful to adhere to. And while you don’t have to adhere to the teachings of the last two, since they too have to adhere to the first five it’s all the same thing. “Free to disagree” just isn’t there.

I think you can put the conversation re: Catholic Scholarship to bed with a simple quote. “Obsequium religiosum” requires adherence to the teachings of the church with a “religious submission of mind and will”. Can a Scholar even BE one if they don’t have mental free will? The official vatican source for “Lumen gentium 25a” this is at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.

The fat lady sings….

Daniel,

Don’t know about any fat lady, but a fat man (G. K. Chesterton) once said: “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Once you redefine the word scholar from “seeker of knowledge” to “holder of opinions” further debate is purely semantic.

I’m still interested to know if you believe that your version of Christianity is more authentic and more efficacious to my salvation than that of the dogma-bound Church. How would I benefit (in an eternal sense) from embracing your way?

I’m not redefining scholar to “holder of opinions”. That’s a straw man. I disagreeing with the prior assertion that a scholar is nothing but a student. They *are* students and *do* learn, but there is a big difference between learning and being indoctrinated. One allows for reason and choice of belief. The other does not. One one has to submit their mind and will to that of another and always agree with and believe whatever they say, that isn’t true learning, being a real student, or having the ability to be a scholar in the true sense of everything that that title entails.

As far as “my version of Christianity is more authentic” or whatever, that is a red herring and definitely outside the scope of the original post. So I’ll pass on the “authentic Christianity” aspect of that. But I will address the benefit of embracing my way. Besides the fact that you’d be in great company, not to mention being right (and yes that is a joke), the benefit is that you actually become a thinking Christian in a more wide range of thought. I’m not saying that Catholics turn their brains off, but a Protestant is able to “test everything” in a 1 Thess 5:21 way and “reason together” in a Isaiah 1:18 way to produce a “iron sharpening iron” in a Proverbs 27:17 way that a primary focus on unity doesn’t really allow. Take Michael’s current examination of gifts with Sam. Because they have been able to struggle with the topic and had to defend their positions and address the strengths of the other position, they are stronger for it. The struggle has brought a deeper understanding of what they believe in the same way a James 1 trial increases one’s faith. So it is almost like the Protestant side of the house has a deeper and more solid understanding of doctrines because they’ve actually had to study it and make a choice. The Catholic side has a deeper respect for unity and church history. There are benefits to both, and we can both learn from that, but they are different. And I took that as Michael’s whole point. You can’t really do Catholic Scholarship in the same way you do Protestant Scholarship. A child that asks “Why” and is given an answer usually learns more because it leads to further “Why” questions. The one that is told “Because I said so” hasn’t really learned anything other than “always obey and agree”. And I think the “have to agree with the church” position does the same thing. It doesn’t mean that what they are teaching is wrong, but it’s a different teaching/learning style and doesn’t have the same mental exercise as the other approach.

[Continued from last post]
When my kids were young, I had a different parenting philosophy from my wife. She had a focus on teaching them what to do. I had a focus on teaching them how to learn and how to make the right decisions. My wife’s list of rules is like the Catholic Catechism. Her “Do this” is like the long list of “This is true”. But that can never be complete. It, like the Bible, can be true, but doesn’t answer every single question we have. My wife’s approach lead to tons of “But what if…” kinds of inclusions and exclusions. And it let my the child that followed that kind of instruction being more dependent, to this day, on her for truth. The “Mom told me” approach led to an inability to really figure out things on her own. My son, on the other hand, took more to my approach. He’s more of the skeptic and tester. And he’s made more mistakes. I’ll admit that. But he’s wiser FROM those mistakes and experiences and choices. The other approach may protect from more harm, but doesn’t lead to the same kind of wisdom as the “learn this list” approach. So, in the same sense that experience leads to wisdom and that is different from knowledge, a Catholic Scholar can be very knowledgeable, but hasn’t taken the same path as the Protestant one. The choice and diversity in the Protestant camp doesn’t mean we are less likely to make mistakes, but we end up better because of learning from our mistakes. So, if you can see the benefit of my approach and the fact that while he may sometimes get it wrong he doesn’t always have to call home for a decision over my wife’s approach where my daughter doesn’t trust her own abilities and lets Mom do it if possible, then you’ll understand a bit of what I was trying to express when it comes to the benefits of my approach. Hope that makes some sense. 🙂

Daniel,

Thanks for your response. I guess I see the disadvantage of your way as an over reliance on own ability to figure things out for ourselves (Rationalism + Americanism) which can easily lead to error.

It seems common in the Protestant world to quote isolated Bible verses – like you did with Isaiah 1:18 since it includes the word “reason”.

18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

But look at the next two verses to see what is meant by “reason”:

19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; 20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

What you call “freedom to disagree” is a euphemism for “refuse and rebel”. In the present age, “the mouth of the Lord” is his Church, led by his Holy Spirit. We’re called not to mindless conformity, but to willing obedience. This is true metanoia – a change of heart and mind – the freedom to disagree with our old self-centered way of believing and acting. To “trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”.

Teaching your children to think for themselves in their worldly affairs is great, but I’m sure you also taught them to “honor your father and mother”. Cyprian wrote “You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the Church for your Mother” and John Calvin wrote “‘For what God has joined together, it is not lawful to put asunder,’ so that, for those to whom he is Father the church may also be Mother.”

Whatever your definition of “church”, I hope you’ll reconsider your definition of “freedom”.

Daniel,

Upon rereading, I see that my comment was far from precise, I apologize for that. There are a lot of theological concepts packed in here.

There is a weakness in your Great Schism argument. The bishops cannot be in union with each other if they are not in union with the pope. Throughout early Christian history, being in communion with the pope was the sign of unity. So, bishops not in union with the pope are incapable of infallibility. This you do see in play in the real world. Since the Great Schism, the Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council. Since Communion with the pope was lost, so was the ability to teach infallibly. (Of course, they may be right that the Patriarch of Rome has fallen into heresy and needs to return to orthodoxy, but they still cannot teach infallibly.) So, to say that the disagreement of bishops who had withdrawn from communion with the rest of the bishops sets infallibility against infallibility is to misunderstand the process.

Yes, there are three levels of Catholic teachings that Catholics are “obliged” to accept. Your quote is about the third and lowest level: the religious submission (obsequium religiosum) due to non-infallible, non-definitive, yet authoritative teachings of the ordinary megisterium. First, we need to establish that obsequium religiosum does not preclude questioning. Donum Veritatis allows for the possibility of questioning of these teachings and gives guidance on the spirit in which this questioning is to be done.

I think that our culture may have difficulty with the concept of simultaneously questioning and assenting to a teaching (as I think Michael’s original post and the subsequent comments demonstrate) but not so in Catholicism. And that is at the heart of all of this. See my comment (#14) at Michael’s previous post. A truly good scholar is able to engage in study and inquiry while “suspending” any of his first principles, premises and presuppositions. A good scholar can “question while assenting.” In that way, the Catholic approach actually arms the scholar, does not disarm him.

Your parenting example sets up a false dichotomy. I doubt your parenting approach included absolutely no definitives. Likewise, the fact that Catholicism includes a “list” of definitives, no matter how long, does not mean that Catholicism does not also teach about how to come to good decisions, theologically or morally, for those things not definitively defined.

Daniel,

In regard to this: “So it is almost like the Protestant side of the house has a deeper and more solid understanding of doctrines because they’ve actually had to study it and make a choice.”

I don’t think this assertion really stands. You have to remember that every Catholic teaching went through exactly the process you describe before it was definitively taught. But in the case of Catholicism, we are talking about thousands of minds sometimes over hundreds of years.

As to those of us contemporary Catholics who have received those teachings, there are other ways to establish depth than just hashing it out and establishing the conclusion yourself. Peter tells us to always be prepared to offer an answer and a reason. We cannot be prepared if we do not understand and we cannot understand if we do not examine.

Plus, we have all those non-Catholic Christians challenging our beliefs for us. 😉

Daniel, (response to comment 22)

I don’t claim they necessarily have the same freedom to dissent or the same level of freedom. It seems your entire response is against that claim and its not one i’m making.

I claim that, if you use your criteria to decide of someone can be a scholar on a particular topic or not, then WLC can’t be a scholar on the existence of God or the resurrection. My claim is that both sides have limits, as you seem to imply yourself in your car analogy. Your only response has been to continuously point out how protestants can disagree on more and focus on the essentials, but this doesn’t really touch what I said about WLC. Sure he has freedom with regard to a lot of protestant non-essentials. How is that relevant to whether he can be a scholar with regard to the resurrection or the existence of God?

“Freedom to disagree only exists if there ARE things that are non-essential.”

There are things that catholics believe are non-essential. The roman catholic church doesn’t say you have to be a thomist or a molinist, for example. But this isn’t my main point, in any case. My main point is the one above.

The Great Schism is a messy topic and I hesitated to even bring it up because the Catholic view of it is remarkably different than the Orthodox view of it. But the point is that if a bunch of Bishops get together and say the Bishop of Rome is wrong about something (like a power grab), they are not seen as being infallible because they are all agreed. They are seen as “out of communion” with the Bishop of Rome – which begs the question that he IS the successor to Peter. So it is an example of how dissent or criticism is handled. Agree or get out.

And I know my analogies are not universal equivalent examples. Like all analogies, they are not perfect. There’s just a difference between knowledge gained by memorization or acceptance by faith and the kind of depth of wisdom that is gained by some kind of experiential learning process. There are pros and cons to both, but we can’t pretend that the process and outcome are identical. And that is the kind of thing we are dealing with in this area.

I really liked Pope John Paul. Thought he was really wise. So it is not like I’m suggesting there is no wisdom in the Catholic Church. In that way, the analogy falls flat. So let me try to clarify that with another analogy. The prosecutor in a murder case, assigned by the District Attorney, can be sincere and honest and well versed in a case where he prosecuting what he believes to be and has been told is a murderer. But his approach is not going to be the same as the investigative reporter that has no loyalty to the police and no assumption that the grand jury reached a valid indictment. He’s objective and faces the case with no bias about guilt or innocence. He’s kinda like the jury in the fact that he can consider evidence from ANY source, not just the prosecution’s case in an open and objective manner. The guy starting with a list of assumptions isn’t going to go through the same objective examination of the evidence where each of those assumed elements must be examined and decided upon. In that same way, a Catholic CAN examine their beliefs. And they can have wisdom. But they are going to start with a foundation of assumptions that the protestant isn’t going to have. The protestant is going to have BUILD that foundation. And in that sense, his study is going to get deeper. And that is a benefit. And the fact that he is allowed to come to a different position than the one the assumptions lead to is a difference.

@TDC, my continued reference to freedom to disagree is to try to keep things within the context of the topic at hand. And I agree that WLC can’t challenge the resurrection and remain a protestant. And that is because if he did, he wouldn’t be an example of a Protestant challenging belief, but one of a non-Christian doing so. So he doesn’t prove your point. He proves mine. And I appreciate you continuing to bringing him up to remind everyone that a protestant can have a controversial opinion that differs from his pastor and still remain a member in good standing. Not everything his church teaches is essential and he can disagree. The Catholic can’t say the same. The Catholic MUST submit his mind and will to the teaching of the Catholic Church. WLC doesn’t have that requirement. The issue is NOT that both have limits. The issue is that since the Protestant doesn’t have the “everything is essential” assumption, the Protestant has both limits and freedom. The Catholic only has the limits. And if you can’t see the difference there, I’m wasting my time. I know you want to limit this to WLC being a scholar in the resurrection, but MY example was his work as it relates to molinism and eternity. That is more of an area of scholarly study than him being known as a great debater on the topic of the resurrection. In the example of the resurrection, he’s an apologist. He’s not proposing a doctrine and defending that interpretation in the sense that a scholar would propose molinism.

Daniel,
What do yo mean he doesn’t prove my point? He proves that Protestants, by your own standards, have limits to what they can be true scholars about based on their “essentials”. That’s my only point with Craig, and it seems as if you agree with it, just as I agree with you on your point given the truth of your criteria for scholarship.

And just like catholics must submit to the teachings of the catholic church or cease to be orthodox catholics, craig must submit himself to the essentials or cease to be an orthodox christian. And your criteria of scholarship therefore precludes him from being a true scholar with respect to the essentials.

You say you’re trying to keep things in within the context of the topic at hand by constantly referring to the freedom to disagree. Remember though, I don’t necessarily disagree with you there. That’s why I ask why you keep bringing it up. It isn’t relevant to my point, and its not really a point of contention between us. So let me make it clear, I agree that, on your criteria, protestants have more freedom than catholics (though catholics do have some freedom on things like molinism and thomism).

I am well aware that Protestants have fewer essentials, fewer things they have to agree on, etc. I’m not trying to limit Criag’s scholarship to the resurrection as you said. I’m only trying to show you that your criteria means he cannot be a scholar “with respect to” the resurrection or the existence of God. Sure he can be a scholar in other areas outside his limits. So can catholics, even though they have more limits. You seem to imply that you agree that by your criteria he is an apologist, rather than a scholar, on the resurrection.

That’s the bullet your criteria forces you to bite. If you’re willing to bite it, thats fine. I wanted to see if you would, because I don’t think everyone would want to. But if you have no problem with it, then I commend you on your consistency.

I say protestants have more freedom. You hear protestants have no limits and try to prove otherwise. Serious breakdown of communication. The reason your “no limits” interpretation doesn’t make sense is that if WLC denied the resurrection, he wouldn’t be Protestant *OR* Catholic – but something else. So it is a straw man all around. Whether he’s a scholar or apologist in the realm of the resurrection is really a red herring and doesn’t address the fact that he has a lot more scholarly freedom in areas he can explore and positions that he can take than anyone that has to submit their mind to the beliefs of another.

Daniel,

Yes, there is serious miscommunication.

I don’t think you’re saying protestants have no limits. I keep repeating that protestants have limits cause I have felt throughout this conversation that you have argued against me while ignoring the only claim i really care about. My point has been that if catholic scholarship is an oxymoron, then certain aspects of protestant scholarship falls under the same umbrella, though I realize not all.

You continuously responded by pointing out that protestants have more freedom, which I don’t deny given your criteria. I keep trying to tell you that I agree with you given your criteria, because it is not a point of contention between us. It’s a red herring.

What I am doing is showing you the logical conclusion of your criteria for scholarship using WLC as an example. IF the catholic limits and constraints make it impossible for them to be truly scholarly in the areas on which they have those constraints, then protestant limits and constraints make it impossible for them to be truly scholarly in the areas on which they have constraints.

Thus, the result of your criteria for scholarship is that Craig cannot be a true scholar in the areas of the existence of God or the resurrection.

The reason this is important is because most people DO see craig as a scholar in those areas. So most people would not be willing to accept the conclusion of your criteria, so would not be able to accept your criteria.

But if you’re willing to bite the bullet, that’s fine.

I need you to be clearer on why Craig ceasing to be a Christian if he challenges the resurrection affects the argument I have laid out. I don’t see the difficulty.

OK. I’ll try. Christians believe certain things. Depending on who you ask, you may come up with slightly different lists of what those essentials are, but for the sake of the argument let’s go with the Nicene Creed. If you deny those things, you are not a Christian. If you affirm them, you are. So if WLC denied that Christ was God or denied that He rose again, he would not be an example of protestant freedom, but of a non-Christian skeptic. Same could be said of Beckwith. He would not fit in the characterization of Catholic Scholar. Where this impacts your argument is that WLC has both that list of essentials that his church teaches AND a long, long list of non-essentials. Beckwith does not. If his church teaches it, it is essential to believe it. As such, WLC has a freedom to explore lots of areas that Beckwith does not. So again, the fact that both have limits is irrelevant. It’s the fact that one only has limits on a small set of things that, by definition, would make him non-Christian to challenge. Since Protestant, by definition is Christian, he can challenge things as a Protestant. The only things he can’t challenge wouldn’t make him a Christian Protestant anyway. Beckwith though can’t challenge ANYTHING his church teaches. So Catholic is, by definition, aligned with unity and the antithesis of dissent. For WLC, the entire systematic theology taught at Johnson Ferry Baptist (or wherever) covers a wealth of information not articulated in the creed. He’s welcome to explore any of that which still defines him as Christian. But since Catholic requires unity with the catechism and traditions of the Church, Beckwith doesn’t have that same ability. WLC can challenge anything other than what makes him Christian. So you can have “Protestant Scholar”. Beckwith isn’t allowed to challenge anything Catholic OR Christian though. So you can’t have “Catholic Scholar” in the same way.

And, BTW, I know many would consider WLC a “scholar” with regards to the resurrection. In the sense that he’s a student of that and knowledgeable of the topic, the definition fits. But that isn’t in the same level of detail and distinction that we’re trying to make here of what makes someone a “scholar” versus just a student or apologist. As such, and with those distinctions in mind, I’d say that Catholics can have knowledge, wisdom, students, apologists, defenders, and what have you, but any kind of “scholarship” that would include challenge of a belief or fleshing it out some doctrine. That kind of behavior, in the Catholic world, is limited to the organization of the church. In the Protestant world, it is open to the organism that is the church. And if none of this makes sense, I apologize. I don’t think or express my thoughts as clearly as I once did. I don’t even understand what about this is so hard to understand. 🙂

Folks,

You simply cannot compare the obligations to Evangelicalism in the same way as the obligations to Rome. One is an Evangelical organically. One is a Roman Catholic institutionally. The parallel simply does not work.

It would be better if you used denominational affiliation such as Baptist or Presbyterian. But, again, the parallel is not strong since association with these organizations does not amount to being in or out of the “one true church” with the land beyond the borders being anathema.

Frankly, the best parallel you are going to be able to find, with regard to the subject of this post, is Church of Christ (though they have lightened things up), Seventh Day Adventist (though they are not as ridged as Rome), Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. While the latter two are the closest, I just want to reiterate, the comparison is simply with their authoritative (sometimes infallible) structure and the consequences of falling outside their borders.

As well, I would only say this concerning post Trent Catholics (possibly post VI). So Aquinas does not qualify!

@Michael,

Yes, I’ve engaged Roman Catholic dogma; you presume too much, methinks, in re. to your own development or something.

The issue I am highlighting is not tangential to your premise, but deals with the “principle” and theory of authority upon which you wrongly critique the Roman Catholic. My point has been, and is, is that your critique can be levied just as easily at the power-structures inherent to Protestantism as Roman Catholicism. Marc Cortez has written a post (which I’ve only seen the title of thus far, but that alone has great illustrative force) discussing whether or not a “Confessional Protestant” needs to check his brains at the door (I can only imagine his post is a parody of yours … although I don’t know since I still need to read it). But this is the point I’m driving at in re. to your point on RC’s and scholarship; it is a non-starter, and absurd to think that what you are saying does not apply to you or any other Protestant. Can Peter Enns be in good standing with the Westminster Confession of Faith and WTS? Obviously not. Can he still be considered an Evangelical? Yes, by some at least.

I would suggest that you attempt to think through your logic a bit more; as of now all you’ve done is dug in your heels (in lieu of the many attempts to correct your thinking on this in the blogosphere) into the sand of your own wrongly construed thinking.

@Michael,

Here’s that post by Cortez if you haven’t read it yet: Check Your Brain At The Door

His point in the post is mine, at least in principle.

Daniel,

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think I understand where you’re coming from. A protestant can challenge his churches teachings and can remain protestant, while a catholic can’t challenge official church teachings and remain catholic, right? Then, I think, you see the stuff that is required to be a christian (resurrection, god, etc.) as in a different category, so you think my comparing the catholic and his catholic limits to a protestant and his mere christianity essentials is like comparing apples and oranges. Correct me if I misunderstood.

I agree that beckwith has more limits to his scholarship given your criteria. But whether Craig’s limits are mere christian essentials or something broader, by your criteria he is limited and can’t practice that particular kind of scholarship that includes challenging that belief. I disagree that Beckwith can’t explore ANY non-essentials. What about molinism and thomism? As far as I know catholics are free to explore on that issue. I also don’t see why they can’t “flesh out” some doctrine as long as it stays in line with past church teaching. They both have their list of required beliefs, and the catholic one is longer.

So…if my point is that both have limits to their scholarship by your criteria, do you disagree? It seems like you would agree, as long as it is clear that catholics have many more limits, given your criteria for scholarship.

Honestly, if all you’re saying as that protestants can disagree with their church while catholics can’t, and all I’m saying is that both have their limits, do we really disagree?

Michael,
I’m glad you don’t include aquinas. It would be really strange to say he wasn’t a Christian scholar.

I’m not trying to say that catholics and protestants are the same. My concern is that the underlying criteria/presupposition that is driving your criticism of catholic scholarship will also end up hitting your own side if you’re consistent.

Bryan set out the challenge quite well. There needs to be a clear criteria that does not end up challenging your own side but is not just an ad hoc criteria designed to target catholicism.

But…maybe we just don’t see eye to eye on this issue.

I’ll give an example. I was once arguing with a prochoice girl who said that as long as the unborn is inside the woman, it is not a separate person but just a part of the woman.

I asked her what location had to do with personhood.

So she backpedaled and said that it was because the unborn was connected to the mother.

I pointed out that so are twins.

Realizing that neither criteria worked, she said that it works when they are put together. When something is inside and connected to someone, it is only a part of that someone and not a separate person.

The problem is that was clearly an ad hoc attempt to save her faulty criteria. The criteria was designed solely for the purpose of excluding the unborn from personhood.

I think (though I could be wrong) that some catholics think you’re unfairly doing something similar to them.

sorry, I meant some twins, not all twins are connected physically, obviously.

Daniel (#32),

The Great Schism IS messy. But you have to remember, popes die, popes are forced out, popes are declared anti-popes (which means that they never really held the office and therefore never really had the authority) and popes are beholden to the magisterium just as much as any other Catholic. We’re talking a long game here, so an individual pope’s authority is very limited. The Great Schism was great in size, but only a minority of bishops broke communion with the Pope (even if a large minority). A pope facing the majority of bishops wouldn’t stand a chance, and history supports that, that’s how the Western Schism was settled and the Avignon Papacy was ended.

But to you central point, I think it is a fair one. The approach you describe does have the advantage of leading to a certain deeper grasp of the conclusions. But that approach comes at a couple of disadvantages as well.

First, there is the issue that this process requires the time to build the foundation. What of the walls, the towers, the roofs, the furnishing? Catholicism came to each of its infallibly defined beliefs after centuries of study by thousands of the best minds in the Church. The Catholic may stand on the shoulders of those giants standing on the shoulders of giants. Since he isn’t spending time re-inventing the wheel, he can invent the turbo-charger. And additionally, to continue to metaphor hop, the Catholic examining and wrestling with something not definitely taught by the Church must still understand what is definitively taught.

Second, there is the risk of pride of authorship. The conclusions that we come to ourselves do have a deeper hold upon us. But what about when they are wrong? They are also then all the harder to correct. And ultimately, isn’t the aim to discover and embrace Truth, not just come to scholastically defensible conclusions?

And finally and perhaps most importantly, it isn’t the process described in scripture. Scripture calls the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth, it says nothing about individual believers building the foundation of Truth. Scripture sets the precedence for how doctrinal dispute is settled, it is taken to the apostles and elders. The guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit is promised to the whole body of the Church, not to each individual member. The individual going through the process you describe does not benefit from gifts Jesus promised the body of the Church.

I see the advantages of the process you describe. But frankly, I think the disadvantages outweigh them.

@wineinthewater: I too see the risks and disadvantages. So while I would agree that there are some benefits, I wouldn’t say my approach is universally better. That is kinda what I liked about the parenting example I gave. It’s two different processes that produce different results and which one is better probably depends on when you ask. 🙂 Thinking long-term though, the teachers that I learned the most from challenged how I thought more than just added to what I thought. And that is why I love CMP’s Theology Program so much. It tears down all the “whats” and makes sure you have a proper “why” built on a proper foundation of “how” to do theology. You end up with something a lot deeper, richer, and more firm in your mind that you can defend from the bottom up. It just a lot more solid to me that a foundation built on strength of belief or faith in the infallibility of what one man or one church teaches.

@TDC: I agree that a Catholic could explore some topic outside of what the church teaches. But that is more of a case of them being both Catholic and Scholar than it is “Catholic Scholar” in the sense that they are coming up with some alternate understanding of anything that Catholicism teaches. But I see scholarship in areas outside of “Catholicism”, which would include all theology, is a different thing than scholarship within Catholicism.
That being said, I think there is an exception to the general rule that Michael proposed. And I suspect that he’d agree with me on this. Scholarship as it relates to alternative understandings or dissent on something is not possible as a lay person in the Catholic church, but I can see where what the magisterium does. In that sense, the individuals involved are doing scholarly theology. But, since they are speaking AS the church, it is more of a case of the CHURCH doing theology and expressing theology and clarifying theology than it is a MEMBER of the church in no official capacity being able to do that.
As far as limits go, I do agree that both have limits. But I’d say that Protestant or Baptist is not a limit. Christian would be. Catholic or JW or Mormon would be a limit thought. I’ve been in Baptist churches where belief that baptism had to be by immersion wasn’t even a requirement. I’ve even seen Baptists sprinkle folks. As such “Baptist” or “Protestant” doesn’t equate to a list of essentials. There are lots of different flavors of “Baptist”. But Catholic equates to essential in a much more rigid way. And that produces unity and uniformity. But it is totally different than what most protestant denomination members experience. Baptist, in a way, is like a stereotype of broad generalities and exceptions. Catholic isn’t like that. You are in agreement and in communion with the church or you are not.

Daniel (#45),

I think the only problem I have with your parenting example is that it sets things forth as an either/or. I think that is one of the consistent differences between Catholicism and the progeny of Protestantism, Catholicism tends toward both/and and is less mutually exclusive about ideas. A parent can parent with a synthesis of the two approaches you describe, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.

And I don’t think Catholicism is one or the other (what or why) when it comes to those things definitively taught. Catholic teaching contains not just whats, but the whys and hows behind the whats. All of Catholic belief is so interconnected, that you cannot move past the “whats” of definitive teaching to the whats of the undefined realm *without* understanding the whys and hows behind the definitive teaching. In fact, you often cannot even understand the whats at all if you do not understand the whys and hows. I think this a big part of why non-Catholics often have such difficulty accurately understanding Catholic teachings: they usually don’t have the whys and hows that interconnect that Catholic teaching to myriad other Catholic teachings. Often, they insert their own whys and hows, at worst they have no whys and hows at all.

For example, it may not be obvious, but the Catholic (and historical Christian) belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary isn’t really about Mary at all, it’s about the Incarnation of Jesus. To call Mary theotokos tells us very little about Mary, but tells us a lot about Jesus. All Catholic teaching about Mary is actually an assertion about Jesus. To really understand what Catholicism teaches about Mary, you have to understand why she teaches about Mary in the first place, you have to have something deep, rich and firm.

Daniel,

I’m afraid you’ve lost me.
So…wait, a Catholic layperson using the bible and philosophy to analyze molinism and thomism doesn’t count as Catholic scholarship? Even though they are both theological topics, both stem from catholic theologians, are extremely related to settled catholic doctrine,and are being done by a catholic academic?

I don’t know what Michael would say about your proposed exception to the rule, but I’m curious how your criteria allows for that. Could you lay out, as succinctly as possible, preferably in a sentence or two, what you require for true scholarship?

If baptist and protestant have no theological limits, then they are theologically meaningless. Most of the time, though, people who call themselves protestants mean something by that: they reject roman catholicism, they believe in sola scriptura, usually sola fide, etc. It doesn’t really matter though. I don’t care whether protestants or baptists have limits as protestants/baptists or as Christians. As long as we agree they have limits to their scholarship by your criteria, which I think we do. And I agree that, by your criteria, protestants have more scholarly freedom.

If molinism is outside of Catholic teaching, then I think a Catholic can study it all they want and determine if it is valid or not. But when one believes that theology comes through the church, than the church at some point has made comments on that topic that are binding. It kinda comes down to whether one is learning theology or *practicing* theology in a way that could lead to a private interpretation. Private interpretation is not really possible when your mind is in submission to the church. True submission requires that where you have reservations about something, you have to relinquish that and believe by faith that your church is right. Sola Scriptura is a huge part of this topic. Someone that studies something knowing that there are multiple interpretation available of a topic is going to go through a different process of study and investigation than one who has the “right” view pre-supplied. Is a scholar truly a “scholar” in every sense if they are not allowed a private interpretation or original position on something? I would think that would be a requirement for true scholarship. I’ve referenced it before in the context of adding to the body of knowledge on something. But I think “private interpretation” is a more theological term for the same thing.

Daniel,
Molinism and thomism are theological positions that flow from established soteriology. Those studying it are not bound to one or the other, so far as I understand, but at the same time the topics are not separate Catholicism. They are explorations, interpretations, etc. of established teaching.

I’ve gathered from your reply that the possibility of private interpretation and an original position are necessary for true scholarship, and that true submission by faith precludes that possibility. Is that a fair assessment?