The Vatican issued a document Tuesday ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict reasserting that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "true" church and that other denominations do not hold "the means to salvation." [article]
Next is his immediate reaction to Benedict’s statement—or rather, since he gives no sign of having read the document itself, to the article about Benedict’s statement.
Well isn't that precious.
Notice the ironic use of the word “precious.” The word does not mean “of high value” but the opposite. Yet as amusing and effective as irony can be, it is not a substitute for thinking or reasoning. For example, rather than critiquing this post I could have said, “Gee, your profound insights, thoughtful reactions, and well-informed opinions in this post are precious.” But I would rather use reason than irony since the calm, passionate defense of a belief more easily opens the way for response or even refutation. In the next sentence, he clarifies his personal reaction.
And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then.
Here are two implied arguments. The first is that Matthew 25:31-46 somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. The second is that the history of the papacy somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. Neither argument, however, can be refuted because neither argument is clearly presented.
I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity.
Here the author lets us know which emotional states he passed through in the moments immediately after reading the news article.
It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.
This is the second most interesting part of the whole post because he manages to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. The first is the Appeal to Incredulity (e.g., “I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity”) and the second is the Appeal to Vanity (e.g., “You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity”) [SOURCE]. Interestingly, the author manages to blend both of them into a single appeal that we can, for the sake of accuracy, call the Incredulity-Vanity Appeal. However, no honest thinker can accept the argument that because this writer does not understand how intelligent Catholics assent to their faith, that faith must therefore be wrong.
Also, according to this author, the “nature of the Roman bishop” is “[quite literally] self-righteous.” Due to an ambiguity, this charge may be taken in two ways. The first way is if Roman bishop, which properly denotes the pope’s person, is a metonym for Roman bishopric, which denotes his office. Or, if the words are taken as they stand, that the any pope is, presumably in the exercise of his office, self-righteous. What then is meant by “quite literally” self-righteous? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-righteous” as “piously sure of one's own righteousness” [SOURCE]. The word “piously” here is pejorative, meaning not “marked by earnest devoutness” but “marked by false devoutness” [2b]. The question at hand then is whether the papal office as such is sure of its own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness, or whether every pope as a pope has been sure of his own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness. And the second sense must be universal to every bishop of Rome, for a flaw in the nature of a thing must be universal to all instances of that thing.
The first sense, while supported by a later correspondence in which the author said “the papacy in and of itself is a self-righteous post,” is quite literally impossible since an office, having no consciousness, cannot be sure of anything. And the second sense—that in the exercise of his office the pope acts in a manner marked by false devoutness—begs the question, assuming that the bishop of Rome has not been granted his office by Christ.
Now we come to the most interesting part of post, the imaginary conversation between a Protestant and the pope.
Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"
Pope: "Because I said I was!"
In this passage the author has the pope claim that the ground of papal infallibility is the pope’s own assertion rather than, as Catholic’s believe, Christ’s promise to his Church. This is distortion number one.
Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."
Pope: "Take it back!"
Here the author implies that every pope is merely a petty, power-hungry person incensed by disagreement. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the popes, however, easily refutes this notion (vid. J. N. D. Kelly’s Dictionary of Popes). Distortion number two.
Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."
Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."
Finally, in his third distortion, the author suggests that in his condemnation of error every pope secretly wishes that those in error burn forever in hell. There is no evidence, however, to support such a wild claim.
Thus we have three distortions of Catholicism, two fallacious appeals, and two implied arguments. (Apparently, I miscounted the number of appeals earlier.)
4 comments:
[these numbers to not reply to yours in my comment portion; rather, they are simply an itemization of things I have to say.]
1.) "Distortion" number one is really "disagreement" number one. Surely you must grant that it is, in fact, the pope's assertion--the disagreement concerns whether or not said assertion is a responsible exegesis of the biblical text.
2.) Not "every" pope, but plenty...so much so that your "easily" bit is simply out and out denial.
3.) The "unless..." quote mentioned was Luther's rejection of the demand that he recant--which was met with condemnation to hell.
4.) If you were to say that Protestants worship the Bible, I would readily confess that many do! "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just...". By the way, I would reference anyone following this drivel to read N.T. Wright's article on the Bible's authority (which I have linked under "Bible" on my blog).
5.) There was no ad hominem. Rather than simply come out and clearly and directly interact with what I had said, you did, in fact, bait me into asking. Which was and is a drag. If you're going to do that on my blog, I get to say that it's a drag.
6.) Speaking of drags, it is exceedingly irksome to have you pull chat text out and rip on it as though it were an extremely poor academic argument. Granted: If it were an academic argument, it would, in fact, be a poor one. However, in light of the conversational nature of our chats (up until now, anyway, since I have little interest in being zapped like this in the future), I stand by what I've said and the ways in which I have said them. One might just as easily find themselves confused and disappointed at otherwise intelligent people such as Tom Cruise believing fervently in Scientology; and, one might then find themselves saying, somewhat bewilderedly, "Tom! What's the deal! You're...y'know...a smart guy! I mean...how do you buy into this shit?" If he were to then post a secret tape-recording of that conversation on his blog and then 'triumph' over it because I didn't follow proper academic protocol...well, that would also be sad. I can't prove you're retarded (though, I did at least argue you into a concession that Rome's position on birth control is wrong). I can't force you to yield to much of anything: there is a "those who have eyes to see" element here which simply cannot be undone by, say, me.
I think I've had about enough of [what I understood to be] private chats 'examined' in this way. I have neither the time nor interest in dealing with someone to whom the Roman project makes sense, nor do I possess the expertise to roll with you on a tit-for-tat level such as you are seeking. I have pointed these points out a few times now, Ben, and I'd appreciate it if you'd look elsewhere for public debate material. If you want to engage with me privately, I'll tell you privately that I think you're as nuts for buying the Rome schtick as Tom Cruise is for buying into Hubbard. But, for you to run off and 'engage' with my private comments as something to be trounced by way of formal logic...that's frustrating and not something I shall continue to indulge you on.
1.) To say the Catholic Church mistakenly teaches that according to Christ’s promise she has been preserved from error in her final decision on matters of faith and morals——and this because of a misinterpretation of biblical texts——would be to disagree. But to say that the Catholic Church rests her claims to infallibility only on her own assertion is a distortion.
2.) If the fact that plenty popes were wicked and power-hungry means the papacy is wicked, then the fact that plenty popes were holy and humble should (by your logic) mean that the papacy is holy and humble. However, neither argument suffices since an office is distinct from its officials (as the presidency is distinct from the president).
3.) Excommunication is not condemnation to hell.
4.) Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say not Protestants but Protestantism (i.e., Protestantism as such).
5.) First, sarcasm and other forms of derision undercut the possibility of a clear and direct interaction and also imply a moral failing in the one derided. Second, I assumed by “bait” you meant “entice by deception or trickery so as to entrap or destroy” (AHD, 8). If this was your meaning, then you have implied base motives for my comment (and so committed a personal attack); if this was not your meaning, can you clarify it?
6.) I did not hold your writing to “proper academic protocol” (whatever that means), but to an objective standard of clear thinking. In the future I will refrain from any such reasonable expectations while reading your anti-Catholic rants.
1.) It is only 'her' assertion that such an exegesis is, in fact, responsible.
2.) The net result is that there is nothing unique or exclusive about the nature of those filling the papacy or otherwise: We are fallen, sinful people in need of a savior (and not his mom). My argument isn't that "they're all evil"; rather, it is that there is nothing unique (e.g., infallible, etc.) about the office. I will readily grant that there have been reasonably fine individuals in the papacy; however, I still argue that the B.S. negates any claim to being wholly set aside and protected in any sort of unique spiritual capacity.
3.) It's strange, that. Supposedly, only Rome possesses the "means of salvation," and yet that (apparently) doesn't weigh on one's eternal destiny. Likewise, excommunication is—at least in the specific case of Luther (as I was discussing, not the broad concept which you addressed)—expulsion from the One True Church, who exclusively possesses said "means of salvation," and yet he's still eligible for a non-Hell eternity? What good (i.e., importance) is Rome's exclusivity and judgment if there is no eternal bearing? In short: Why should I, or Luther, or whoever, care?
4.) Unlike Rome, there is no universal "Protestantism" posture on much of anything, certainly not the Bible. Some Protestants have a healthy view of it, others don't—we can really only speak of specific behavior rather than a universal doctrine of "Protestantism." Again, my personal posture is most in line with N.T. Wright's (himself Anglican for whatever that's worth):
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
5.) First, lighten up. It's this very notion that sarcasm is illegitimate reinforces the contrast of approach I have a problem with (or "with which I have a problem"). My tone with you was a private, conversational one—one where sarcasm and stream-of-consciousness are, in fact, appropriate. You, however, zing me for doing so and have gone on to drag this into a public sphere.
Second, this exceedingly tiresome "gotcha" thing is a drag. By "bait," I mean that anyone who bothers with reading your comments (to which I my "bait" comment was aimed) will grant that, rather than make your points, you bait(ed) me into asking clarifying follow-ups. This is stupid, though. You did it, it's really F'ing clear that you did, and here you are playing "gotcha" with a dictionary. Your academic douchery is no less decidedly douche-ish. You're not a victim of a "bait" ad hominem; you're a guy who baited me and to whom I said 'twas loathsome. Get over it.
6.) "Bait" as in, you had somewhere you wanted to go (namely, making further points of criticism of my post), but kept it so vague that one couldn't help but be forced to ask follow-up questions, thus opening the door for you to talk more. You should've just made your points rather than laying down the "bait" (i.e., vague post) for me/us to have to do the follow-up dance with.
...sorta like Tom "baiting" conversation about his mat:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yhdyxTAhz3U
As for your expectations of "reasonable," you need to ask yourself (and perhaps clarify to the class): reasonable to what standard? ...or, say, protocol? Is sarcasm always unreasonable, or only unreasonable within certain contexts?
1.) The question at hand is not whether such exegesis is responsible or irresponsible but whether according to the Catholic Church the claims of papal infallibility rest only on the pope’s assertion or on some other ground as well. Your caricatured pope claims that papal infallibility rests only on his own assertion; the Catholic Church, however, teaches that it is revealed in sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition (cf. Vatican I Dei Filius). Whether they are right or wrong is an important, though separate, question: my point here is only that, contrary to your caricature, the Catholic Church does not teach that papal infallibility rests only on her own assertion - rather she teaches that it rests also on the authority of Scripture and, primarily, on Christ’s promise to His church.
2.) I certainly agree that there is nothing unique or exclusive about the nature of those filling the office: every pope has possessed a fallen human nature in need of Christ’s healing and saving. Yet an office and those who fill it remain distinct. An office can have special charisms associated with it even though those who fill it are wicked. In John 11, for example, Caiaphas prophesied by the Holy Spirit "as high priest that year." This unique spiritual capacity was held on account of his office, not his personal virtue (for he was plotting Jesus' death). Therefore, charisms may nevertheless be associated with an office that is filled by sinners. Moreover, the B.S. of Caiaphas' plot did not negate or wholly set aside his ability "as high priest that year" to prophesy (just as the B.S. of Clinton's affair did not negate or wholly set aside his ability as president to veto a bill).
3.) Interestingly, this very point was made in the article from which this conversation stemmed. Vatican II teaches that the fullness of the Christ’s Church and the means of salvation "subsists" in the Catholic Church, although "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church. "It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them" (2). So while those separated visibly from the Catholic Church are not excluded necessarily from the mystery of salvation, they are nevertheless not fully incorporated into the economy of grace.
4.) Although I agree with you on the disunity of Protestant teaching, my point was only that if I had unknowingly distorted what you hold dear, you would have (I hope) called me out on it.
5.) First, lighten up. Second, as for the dictionary, I was merely explaining how your use of "bait" appeared to me.
6.) My comment was intended, primarily, as a dry, rational "summary" of your post, but done in such a way as to suggest that, although you criticize others for not thinking, little thought stood behind the post’s sarcasm. It was, only secondarily, an invitation to further conversation, supposing you were open to it. That you would invite it without being open to it, I had not considered. Nevertheless, I stand by what I've said and the ways in which I have said them. Ah, the hyper-ironic.
Post a Comment