Friday, June 11, 2010

Whitaker’s Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton’s Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 3)

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit and External Testimony to the Veracity of the Canon

Stapleton’s third argument is that Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture; therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify Scripture for us. He explains this in more detail, using an example I’ve seen in various forms online discussion boards over the years:

Should any one, [Stapleton] says, deny Paul’s epistles to be canonical, it cannot be proved either from the old Testament, or from the gospel, because there is nowhere any mention there made of them. Then he goes on to say that neither the whole scripture, nor any part of it, can be proved from scripture itself, because all proof is drawn from things better known than the thing to be proved. Therefore (says he) to one who denies or knows not either the whole scripture or any part of it, nothing can be proved from scripture itself. But here, according to him, the church comes to our help in both cases. For, should any one deny a part of scripture, the church persuades him to receive these books upon the same ground as he hath received the others: he who is ignorant of the whole scripture, it persuades to accept the scripture in the same way as he hath accepted Christ.¹

We accept Christ by faith in the same way we accept the Scriptures. We’re persuaded by the authority of those who claim to be in a position of authority, whether as Catholics we look to the Magisterium or as Protestants look to biblical scholars. Protestants deny the canonicity of the book of Wisdom but what will they answer when I appeal to the internal witness of the Holy Spirit concerning this wonderful book? It will come down to authority.

Whitaker’s response contains too much material to effectively summarize all of it, so it seemed best to draw out just a few relevant points–that we can recognize Scripture as God’s voice through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and that there are external testimonies available to prove the canon as well (although to a lesser, different degree than the certainty provided by the Holy Spirit).

You say to a lesser degree yet in practice this is not true.

Scripture as the Recognizable Voice of God

Whitaker describes Scripture as recognizable, as one voice is recognizable from another or from other sounds:

From these² and similar passages, we reason thus: There is the greatest perspicuity and light in the scriptures: therefore the scripture may be understood by the scripture, if one only have eyes to perceive this light. As the brightest light appears in the sun, so the greatest splendour of divinity shines forth in the word of God. The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun; nor can they distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not illuminated. But those who have eyes of faith can behold this light. Besides, if we recognize men when they speak, why should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word? For what need is there that another should teach that this is the voice of somebody, when I recognize it myself; or should inform me that my friend speaks, when I myself hear and understand him speaking?³

But I recognize God speaking in the book of Wisdom. Will you grant me that I hear my friend speaking?

So the identification of Scripture for Whitaker is much like being able to discern between external stimuli using the relevant sense. If presented with a variety of sounds, people with proper hearing will be able to distinguish between the various noises and identify which is someone speaking and which is, say, merely the sound of the wind blowing through trees.

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Now, it seems Stapleton and other Catholics objected to this position because Scripture is not like hearing someone else speak. Yet Whitaker here says that the Holy Spirit gives an internal witness to the believer so that he may understand that God is speaking through Scripture (emphasis in original):

But they object that we cannot recognize the voice of God, because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God: these can recognise the voice of God as much as any one can recognize a friend, with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice. Nay, they can even hear God. For so Augustine (Ep. III.), “God addresses us every day. He speaks to the heart of every one of us.”⁴ If we do not understand, the reason is because we have not the Spirit, by which our hearts should be enlightened. With respect to us, therefore, the authority of scripture depends upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit; without which, though you were to hear a thousand times that this is the word of God, yet you could never believe in such a manner as to acquiesce with an entire assent.⁵

This seems reasonable enough. If, indeed, the Holy Spirit is real, then its internal testimony is valid enough for individual Christians to know that Scripture is true.

And if the Holy Spirit testifies to the truthfulness of Scripture, the role Stapleton wishes for the Magisterium to play is no longer appropriate or even possible.

What shall I say? That you do not possess the Holy Spirit because you do not hear the voice of God speaking in the book of Wisdom. Far be it from me to say such a thing. For while (drawing from your previous argument) you may not hear maybe it’s because you are not obedient enough and therefore do not have the measure needed to hear. I can give however two more probable reasons why you don’t accept this book. 1-because it’s Catholic or rather accepted by Catholics and 2-because you were told not to through external sources.

External Testimony

Now, the testimony of the Holy Spirit might very well be sufficient for the individual Christian, but how would an external case be made for the truthfulness of Scripture? Whitaker’s reasons can be summarized as follows⁶:

1. The majestic and unique nature of the doctrines of Scripture as compared with the writings of the greatest of pagan philosophers or Christian theologians. This is true even for those works that were doubted by some early Christians, such as Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.

If it’s so true for these books then why were they doubted to begin with?

2. The “simplicity, purity, and divinity of the style” in which Scripture is written as compared with the philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, etc.

3. The fact that the books of Moses are older than any other work, containing the oldest and purest of all historical knowledge, giving it more authority than any other work.

4. The fulfillment of prophecies such as 1 Kings 13:2, Isaiah 44:28, etc.

5. The prodigious miraculous accounts contained in Scripture.

These could all be objected to.

6. The repeated and failed attempts of God’s enemies to destroy the documents (perhaps copies) of Scripture. These enemies sometimes came to see that God wrote Scripture after suffering punishments for attempting to destroy them.

This is interesting and I’d like to know to whom you’re referencing.

7. The blood and confessions of martyrs to its truthfulness.

Now you appear to be equating faith in Jesus with Scripture. Did these die for Scripture or for Jesus?

8. The changed or unexpected character of many of the authors of Scripture:

Who was Moses, before he was called by God? First, a courtier in Egypt, then a shepherd, finally, endued with the richest outpouring of the Spirit, he became a prophet, and the leader of the people of Israel. Who was Jeremiah? A man, incapable, as himself testifies, of any eloquence. Who was David? A youth and a shepherd. Who Peter? A fisherman, an ignorant and illiterate person. Who John? A man of the same low rank. Who was Matthew? A publican, altogether a stranger to holy things. Who was Paul? An enemy and persecutor of that doctrine which he afterwards professed. Who was Luke? A physician. How could such men have written so divinely without the divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost? They were, almost all, illiterate men, learned in no accomplishments, taught in no schools, imbued with no instruction; but afterwards summoned by a divine call, marked out for this office, admitted to the counsels of God: and so they committed all to writing with the exactest fidelity; which writings are now in our hands

This is all well and good but is no substitute for the authority given by Christ to His Church.

While the list contains some rather valid reasons, not all of these will be acceptable to all persons (for example, the third is, perhaps, a fallacious appeal to antiquity), and we might very well employ refined versions of these arguments (or different ones altogether) should we be pressed to make our own attempt at the question of external verification.

However, if any readers wish to object to this list, it would be best to recognize that Whitaker seems to be making a cumulative case. All the various reasons must be considered together and in relation to one another. We cannot, as some skeptics do with respect to the Resurrection, object to, for example, the seventh reason by noting that many people have died for beliefs we know to be false, therefore, the seventh reason is completely worthless and may be discarded as such. No, the purpose of the seventh reason does not seem to be merely to say that martyrdom proves that a position is true. Rather, it seems to suggest that martyrdom demonstrates the sincerity of those who die for their cause, making it more likely that the position to which they attest and willingly die is true.

All this to say that this is an effective list, but we are cautioned still:

All this does not undermine the argument for the authority of the Church.

These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added. When this is added, it fills our minds with a wonderful plenitude of assurance, confirms them, and causes us most gladly to embrace the scriptures, giving force to the preceding arguments. Those previous arguments may indeed urge and constrain us; but this (I mean the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) is the only argument which can persuade us.⁸

I accept a larger canon than do Protestants and am therefore persuaded by the authority of the Catholic Church.

A useful reminder for those of us involved in apologetics.

_____________________________

1. Whitaker, Disputations, 288-289.

2. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:12, 19; Psalm 119:105-112.

3. Whitaker, Disputations, 289-290.

4. The citation for this quote is “Ep. 137. Opp. T. II. 528. Bassan. 1797.” If anyone knows where to find this in a modern work, I would be grateful to read it in its fuller context.

5. Whitaker, Disputations, 290.

6. Ibid. 293-294.

7. Ibid., 294.

8. Ibid., 294-295.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Whitaker’s Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton’s Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 2)

We are continuing our series on Whitaker’s Disputations. This post will look at Stapleton’s second argument defending the assertion that we need the Church, specifically the Catholic Magisterium, to identify the canon for Christians, and that this identification gives the Church the most “certain” authority possible.

(For those interested in the earlier sections of Disputations, Green Baggins has begun analysis on the first chapter–the number of books contained in the canon.)

I’ve left all of these postings intact so to preserve context and all hyperlinks and notes.

Stapleton’s Second Supporting Argument

Stapleton’s second argument¹ can be summarized as follows:

P₁ The canon cannot be discerned by appealing to style, phraseology and other criteria without the additional judgment of the Magisterium.
P₂ The Magisterium knows best how to judge style, phraseology and other criteria.

C₁ Therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify the canon.

Even if Protestants don’t rely on the Catholic Magisterium (or at least admit to it) they rely on their own or rather a Magisterium of their own making.

A Simple Reply

Whitaker levels three counter-arguments, but only the second (and a directly related part of the third) will be discussed here, perhaps because it is the most practical and powerful:

Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,— The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how I can know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same?²

Because being separated you hear as it were a voice off in the distance. You know someone is speaking but the words are not clear.

This argument is further supplemented:

But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms deliver and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church’s voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church.³

And what’s wrong with being certain of the Church? Did not Jesus commission the Church to teach ALL that He commanded?

Two observations for now:

1. The point is well-received. If the Church gives us the canon and we cannot come to know it any other way, what of it? How does it logically follow that the Church is now the most authoritative body in the life of the believer? How does it follow that we should now submit our interpretations of Scripture to the Magisterium?

By the very promises of Christ, and the very nature of the Church.

Whitaker uses an analogy to shore up this point (which I have slightly tweaked): There were Jews who could not have known (intellectually or by faith) Christ as the Messiah had not John the Baptist revealed him to them. Does it therefore follow that John the Baptist was the best interpreter of Christ’s commands? Should these Jews have submitted their interpretations of Christ’s words and commands to John’s first and foremost? It’s not obvious how that would be the case.³

The answer would be yes if Jesus had not been there in person.

It is also instructive for Whitaker to remind us that however the Church gains knowledge of the canon, laypersons should also have access to those means. If the Church identifies the canon through historical inquiry, why are we not allowed to engage the same texts with the same tools and come to the same conclusions independently? What, specifically, is it about the Magisterium that allows it identify the canon? Should the methods and reasons used to arrive at this knowledge remain inaccessible to everyone outside of the Magisterium? It’s not obvious why this should be the case.

You’d be building on what the Magisterium has already founded.

Athanasius is a fine example of this. Before any council met to recognize (or “determine” as some Catholics would argue) the canon, the famous father had successfully identified the New Testament canon:

…it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance…Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.⁴

But your wrong and proved wrong by Athanasius own words. First, Athanasius was a Catholic bishop a part of the very Magisterium that Whitaker (and you) rail against. Second, Athanasius uses words such as “handed down” and “accredited as divine” these are not words of someone who figured out the canon all by himself. To say that he identified the canon without recourse to the Magisterium is a stretch at best.

1. William Whitaker, Disputations, 286-287.

2. Ibid., 287.

3. Ibid., 288.

4. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.

If Athanasius was able to identify the canon without recourse to the determination of the Magisterium, why are Protestant Christians any different?

Sunday, May 23, 2010
Whitaker’s Disputations: A Refutation of Stapleton’s Arguments on the Authority of the Church (Part 1)
Preliminary Remarks

(For those with limited time, I suggest skipping down to “Whitaker’s Refutation of Stapleton’s First Supporting Argument” near the bottom of this post. Future entries will likely be significantly shorter.)

Whew, that’s good to know! Just kidding

We live in an age where Roman Catholic apologists aggressively attempt to convert Protestants to Catholicism. Not only are Protestants in general targeted, but some groups, such as Called to Communion, work to bring Reformed Protestants in particular into submission to Rome.1

Protestants are pretty aggressive too.

Whitaker lived in a similar age. The Catholic Church, reeling as it did from the initial blast of the Reformation, eventually rallied and issued, among other courses of action, an intellectual response to Protestantism through the Counter-Reformation. As far as Whitaker is concerned, Bellarmine and Stapleton are useful representatives of this effort. Their works set out to refute the distinctive Protestant beliefs and doctrines that Luther and Calvin had developed and refined, and to defend and promote the authority and authenticity of the Magisterium of Rome to define the limits of the canon and to officially interpret Scripture.

Lord Jesus, give me the grace you’ve given to your servants Bellarmine and Stapleton.

It must be noted that the debate has changed in some respects since Whitaker, Stapleton and Bellarmine. There have been a series of Catholic ecumenical councils and authoritative documents produced since the sixteenth century and these have some bearing on the official position of Catholicism since the Counter-Reformation. I do not wish to suggest that Disputations serves as a definitive work on contemporary challenges to Sola Scriptura, even if some of its arguments and discussions will be rather instructive and helpful in addressing them. (Indeed, it seems a variety of the Catholic arguments of the Counter-Reformation have merely been recycled, instead of improved or reformulated in any meaningful sense.)

We’ll see.

Yet far from rendering Disputations obsolete in any way, these differences serve an unique purpose in critiquing modern Catholicism. Catholics like to claim a continuous succession from the Apostolic tradition of the Scriptures and early church, yet those readers intimately familiar with the post-Vatican II theological landscape might notice some significant differences between modern, liberal Catholicism and the rather conservative positions of Stapleton and Bellarmine as expressed in Disputations.

Though there are liberal Catholics, Catholicism is still the Catholicism of Bellarmine and Stapleton.

With that said, let us look at a dispute Whitaker considers to be not only “difficult and perplexed,” but so critical that he does not “know whether there is any other controversy between [Papists and Protestants] of greater importance.”2

(Readers will discover that clicking the previous footnote hyperlink will direct them to the location of this quote in the Google version of Disputations. I have endeavored to do this with all relevant footnotes. I hope this will encourage both Protestants and Catholics alike to further research this work of Whitaker.)

As far as I’m concerned all the disputes we have are critical because they keep us divided.

The First Controversy: Concerning the Authority of Scripture

The whole of the third section of Disputations deals with the single question of whether the church or Scripture enjoys more authority. This question finds itself fleshed out in whether we need the church to know the canon. If we do, then the Papists will be free to claim that Protestants need the Catholic Church, and specifically the Magisterium, to identify the source of all doctrine. Whitaker summarizes all of this as follows:
The state of the controversy, therefore, is this: Whether we should believe that these scriptures which we now have are sacred and canonical merely on account of the church’s testimony, or rather on account of the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit; which, as it makes the scripture canonical and authentic in itself, makes it also appear such to us, and without which the testimony of the church is dumb and inefficacious.3

Without the Church Protestants would not have had the Scriptures to begin with (at least the New Testament).

As to which document or apologist best represents Catholicism on this point, Whitaker selects Stapleton4 and summarizes his assertion as follows:
To have a certain canon of scripture is most necessary to faith and religion. But without the authority of the church it is impossible to have a certain canon of scripture; since it cannot be clear and certain to us what book is legitimate, what supposititious, unless the church teach us.5

Stapleton is referring here to the difficulty Christians might have in knowing the canon of Scripture without reference to some body identifying it for them. There is some power in this argument. Indeed, forms of Stapleton’s argument are still popular, although its particulars and consequences are drawn out in greater detail in our present day than by either Stapleton or Whitaker. While our contenders seem content to merely discuss the truthfulness of the question rather than what effects it has on the Christian (perhaps because all parties already understood what was at stake), modern Catholic apologists assert or suggest that the identification of the canon by the Catholic Church carries with it a validation of the Magisterium as the official interpreter of that canon:

By default Protestants trust the Church for the canon but won’t admit it. You walk into a book store, pick up a bible and viola. The same was true in the 16th century; the books of the bible were already known because they were preserved by the Church.

I can show you plenty of [required extra-scriptural traditions which refute Sola Scriptura], but the one that’s most likely to get your attention is the canon of the New Testament. That’s part of God’s revelation to the Church that comes down to us entirely outside of the Bible…Think about it: You must rely on that Tradition to know what the New Testament itself is, and you do accept it, by virtue of the fact that you have a Bible…And remember, too, that those epistles and Gospels are inspired by God himself and were given to the Church through revelation…The Church did not make those books [of the canon] inspired; God did. Similarly, the Catholic Church did not make them ‘canonical’; God did, by the very fact that He revealed them. But it’s no less true that the Catholic Church received this revelation from God and that the Church – which, don’t forget, had been commissioned by Christ to authoritatively teach the meaning of the Inspired Scriptures – was charged with the twofold task of both interpreting Scripture as well as organizing and perpetuating its existence…under the sola scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of its contents ‘dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church.’ If that’s true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is you can’t. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the magisterium, endowed with Christ’s own teaching authority, and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not.6

So the argument has some serious consequences. The claimed conclusion is no less than admitting the Magisterium of Rome is the valid interpreter of Scripture.

Which is the truth of the matter; I don’t believe Whitaker has refuted this but let’s see.

Whitaker’s Refutation of Stapleton’s First Supporting Argument

Stapleton adduces three arguments to support his assertion that we need the church to identify the canon, and thus the authority of the church is greater than the authority of the Scriptures. We will look at the first of these three here, and leave the other two for future posts. The first argument can be written as follows7:

P1 Nothing is more authoritative than God’s teaching.
P2 God teaches only through the church.

Therefore,

C1 There is nothing more authoritative than the teaching of the church.

(It should be noted that Stapleton equates the church with the Magisterium.8)

Whitaker makes a variety of responses, some of which will be noted here (these are not in order as they appear in the text):

1. The only way Stapleton’s argument can be truly successful is if he proves that “God and the church are the same thing.” (It seems this can’t be done without some kind of serious doctrinal error, so Stapleton’s argument is rendered fallacious.)

Your conclusion is simply not true. All that has to be proved is that Jesus gave His authority to the Church (which he did)
Mat 28:18 Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.’

2. Whitaker states an obvious truth–”that the authority of him who teaches is greater than that of him through whom one is taught”–and applies it to Stapleton’s argument: Since the church is taught by God, the authority of the church is less than the authority of God. Therefore, there is something more authoritative than than the church. The conclusion is shown to be false.

Obvious to who? It doesn’t stand to reason that the Church’s authority is any less than that of God Himself if it is His will.

3. And “it will more correctly follow from this reasoning, that nothing is more certain than the word of God and the scriptures, because it is God who addresses us in his word, and teaches us through his word.” Not only is there something more authoritative than the church, but this Authority speaks to us directly through the Scriptures.

If this were true then there would only be one Church.

4. From this it follows that “we are not bound absolutely to receive whatever the church may teach us, but only whatever it proves itself to have been commanded by God to teach us, and with divine authority.” In other words, the church is never free to claim that its doctrinal conclusions are absolute by virtue of its authority. It must demonstrate that it has successfully related the doctrine of God.

And how else could it do this but through Scripture?

But when we use Scripture you cry foul because you disagree so that when we put forth proofs they are not proofs.

Whitaker’s counter-argument may be summed as follows:

P1 The one who teaches is greater in authority than the one who is taught.
P2 God instructs the church through Scripture.

C1 Therefore, Scripture is more authoritative than the church.

Here Whitaker accomplishes what Stapleton could not. Stapleton wished, in some sense, to equate the authority of God with the authority of the church. Yet if that relationship belongs to anything, it belongs first and foremost to Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed; the church enjoys no such status.

I suspect this can be considered a critical underlying aspect of any defense of Sola Scriptura: The source of God’s specific and explicit instructions to His people is the God-breathed Scripture, not the church.

Are the Scriptures God? No they are God breathed and in many ways so is the Church. Think about it.

_____________________________

1. “Our aim is to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition.” Called to Communion, “What is the Purpose of Called to Communion?”, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/ (accessed May 22, 2010).

2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 275. Readers will find that the pagination of this version matches the Google books version.

3. Ibid., 280.

4. Ibid. Whitaker remarks, “Of all the popish authors, Stapleton hath treated this question with greatest acuteness: we shall, therefore, examine him specially in this debate.”

5. Ibid., 285.

6. Patrick Madrid, Answer Me This (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003), 127.

7. Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture, 285-286. Unless otherwise noted, all of the material in this section is drawn from these pages.

8. “Meanwhile let us see what they mean by this word, the ‘church.’ Now, under the name of the church the papists understand not only that church which was in the times of the apostles (for Thomas of Walden is blamed on that account by Canus, Loc. Comm. Lib. n. c. 8, and also by Stapleton, Doctrin. Princip. Lib. ix. c. 12, 13), but the succeeding, and therefore the present church; yet not the whole people, but the pastors only. Canus, when he handles this question, understands by the church sometimes the pastors, sometimes councils, sometimes the Roman pontiff. Stapleton, Lib. ix. c. 1, applies this distinction: The church, as that term denotes the rulers and pastors of the faithful people, not only reveres the scripture, but also by its testimony commends, delivers down, and consigns it, that is to say, with reference to the people subject to them : but, as the church denotes the people or the pastors, as members and private persons, it only reveres the scripture. And when the church consigns the scripture, it ‘does not make it authentic from being doubtful absolutely, but only in respect of us, nor does it make it authentic absolutely, but only in respect of us.’ Hence we see what they understand by the term the church, and how they determine that the scripture is consigned and approved by the church.” Ibid., 279.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Asking the Wrong Marian Questions …

It seems as though whenever we bring up the subject of Roman Catholics worshiping Mary, someone who is a Roman Catholic will say: “Go to your local parish, and as people are leaving Mass, ask them if they worship Mary!” Their expectation, of course, is that the folks at the local parish will say that they do not worship Mary.

And what would you expect? We don’t worship Mary!

The problem with this question (beyond the fact that folks leaving Mass don’t really want to be nagged with questions, they have places to be!) is that if we changed the question to: “Do you say the Hail Mary,” we’d get exactly the opposite result – and praying the Hail Mary to Mary is one way by which people worship Mary. If we changed the question to: “Did you place any candles at Mary’s side altar,” we would still get a lot of affirmations. That too is an act of worship – an act of religious devotion.

An act of devotion is not worship. I’m devoted to my wife and all I can say of Christ, my devotion to Him, I can say of my wife without thinking that I’m worshiping her. I know my wife is a creature and not to be worshiped (I ask her for her prayers alsoJ).

The importance of asking the right Marian question is highlighted in this paragraph:

What’s more important, asking the right questions or getting the right answers? You want answers that prove Catholics worship Mary; I’d rather see answers that show a person has a grasp of theology and understands that God alone is to be worshipped.

I asked the women I talked to as part of my research, “Do you think that she’s more important than God?” and they say, “Oh, no.” But if you say to them, “When you pray, whom do you pray to?” they say, “Guadalupe, Mary.” I say, “Why would you go to her with things that you would not go to God with?” “Because she’s a woman, she understands.”

(source)

So the people do understand that God is more important but they misunderstand Mary’s role, even though there is some truth to what they say. She is a woman and does understand. It also stands to reason that they do not believe that she understands better than God understands. They probably just could not think of a better answer at the moment.

It is great that the women recognize that Mary is less important than God – it is sad that they think that Mary is more understanding than God – it is sad that when they pray, they pray to Mary. This particular researcher does not seem to have asked the direct question, “Do you worship Mary,” but the question is answered indirectly by identifying the object of the women’s prayers.

Like I said nowhere do they say Mary is more understanding than God.

I realize you may still have doubts. Consider the story told at the conclusion of the same article:

I’ll tell you this story. I was with a Spanish priest, and he was showing me around the basilica and there was this old man on the side. The priest said, “Hombre, what are you doing here?” And the old man said, I want to pray to the Lady.” The priest replied, “Well, I don’t see you praying.” And the old man admitted, “Oh, Father, I don’t know how to pray.” So Father said, “OK, here’s a prayer book.” The old man said, “I don’t know how to read,” and then the priest starts yelling at him, “Well, what are you doing here?” And the old man said, “You know, it’s just enough for me to look in her face.”

Shouldn’t those words, “it’s just enough for me to look in her face,” help people to see that what is going on here is not the Christian religion but idolatry?

I don’t see anything wrong with the use of icons to help us reflect upon our faith and deepen our prayer life.

The author of the article, a Roman Catholic, explains in the article how people ask him to pray for them to Mary – so many that he keeps a notebook with their requests. He even suggests that, though he did not pray for it, a serious illness he had may have been cured by making the pilgrimage to the shrine where this particular idol is displayed.

Reminds me of some New Testament stories.

At that point he said:

I was able to surrender, to say to Guadalupe, “You more than anyone know what it is that I need or want. Just give me the strength to be open to that.”

Is not the blasphemy of that claim transparent?

How?

Contrast:

Ephesians 3:20-21
Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

And following that up with a similar manifestation of the Christian religion, I shall conclude this article.

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

I couldn’t agree more.

-TurretinFan

Augustinefan

Hi James,

Another beautifully written piece – thanks for that.

Your knowledge of Luther provides for an interesting critique of Mr. Brown’s thoughtful paper but I find that there are other “areas for discussion” within it, too. Too many perhaps to be detailed in this forum, but there is one that readliy catches the eye. And that is his misquote of Augustine in his opening line! A proper understanding of this quote rather negates Mr. Brown’s thesis while it is still in the starting gates.

As we shall see, it is you Constantine who has misquoted Augustine.
This is the oft-quoted snippet from Augustine’s “Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, called Fundamental” (from which Brown quotes chapter 6, but which in Schaff’s edition is chapter 5). Stated thusly: “I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.”

The quote should read “For my part I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Church had induced me.” (Emphasis mine) And there you have your misquotation.

(St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)” What Brown misses– and most others, too – is that this quote is part of the opening of Augustine’s case against Mani and is not his conclusion. Augustine’s conclusion in this piece is not that the Catholic church is the authority that upholds the Scripture, but rather his point is the diametrical opposite. And the irony is that that position undermines Brown’s paper before the second paragraph is read.

It is not Brown who has missed it but you. The quote is not Augustine’s conclusion but rather his firm belief. So we see from the start your position undermined.

A brief synopsis shows that Augustine is demanding verification from the Manichaeans to support their claim of Mani’s apostleship to Christ. And his framework is simply this:

Augustine knows from the start that he is asking the impossible from the Manichaeans.
a. You tell me Mani was an apostle but I don’t believe it – now what?

The question you need to be asking is why Augustine doesn’t believe he was an apostle. You’ll find the answer in the reasons that he gives for remaining Catholic; reasons by the way sound familiar to modern day Catholics.

b. You could quote Scripture but that won’t convince somebody who doesn’t believe the Scriptures – now what?

It had a little more to do with just quoting scripture. Augustine was asking for explicit testimony from scripture that Manichæus was an apostle; again the impossible request.

c. I believe the Scriptures because my Catholic buddies told me to and not because you told me to. So to convince me “you must put aside the gospel.” If you keep trying to use the gospel, I’m gonna have to side with my friends, because, well, their my buddies.

Again, Augustine has given reasons for why he is Catholic, having buddies was not one of them. You quote “you must put aside the gospel” but on what grounds does he say this? He puts aside the gospel on the grounds that it was the Catholics who brought him the gospel through authority.

But at this point, Augustine’s analysis takes a decisive turn. What if, in the range of epistemic possibilities, the Manichaeans could really find scriptural support for their position? What would that do to Augustine’s current understanding of both the gospel and the Catholic church? This is the part that Brown (and others) miss.

And this is the part that you miss. In Augustine’s mind this is an epistemic impossibility, as I have already noted.

d. “But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you;” Whoa! Stop the bus! What is Augustine’s ultimate authority here?

The Church! Or more specifically the authority of Catholics; see below.

If you can find scriptural support for the Manichaean position, “you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics…” Scripture is the standard by which the church is to be judged and not vice versa!

This is a big leap in logic. This isn’t Augustine’s point at all. First, he wasn’t asking for scriptural support for their “position” but explicit testimony that Manichæus was an apostle, there’s a big difference here.

Augustine finishes this thought by noting that should the Manichaeans find true scriptural support for his position it would lead him to the unacceptable conclusion of skepticism: “But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them (the Catholics) nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars.” It is an epistemological possibility for Augustine that the Catholics could be wrong and be, in his words, “liars”.

You say that this would lead Augustine to an “unacceptable” conclusion, yet it was his only conclusion. He didn’t believe the Catholics on the authority of scripture but vice versa. He believed the Catholics for other reasons than scripture alone, reasons that the Manichean’s could not supply.

But does he hold out that possibility for the Scriptures? No.

On the contrary, if the Manichean’s are correct then in Augustine’s mind the scriptures become irrelevant.

e. “But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too.” Notice what is not said. Augustine does not say, “But far be it that I should not believe the Catholics…”

But he’s already stated that he believes the gospel on the authority of the Catholics. Did you forget already what you’ve read?

Augustine’s point in all of this is that while he was introduced to the Scriptures by the Catholics,

By their authority!

it is possible that they could err and be “liars”.

No, he does not concede this.

Therefore, if he were to place the Catholic authority ahead of Scriptural authority and the Manichaeans were to find Scriptural support for their position, both the authority of the Catholics and Scriptures would be undermined thereby resulting in skepticism.

If they were to find support for the testimony of Manichæus then scripture would be of no value because the authority of the Catholics has been undermined.

And Augustine was no skeptic.

Yet in your mind he can be a skeptic regarding the authority of the Catholics. Your conclusions boggle the mind.

And his solution to this dilemma was to return to the Scriptures and read them more fully and faithfully: “But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded do not include the name of Manichæus.” The ultimate refutation of Mani’s claims is the gospel – period.

First, as I said already, there is no explicit testimony of Manichæus. The ultimate refutation of their claims is the gospel as given on the authority of the Catholics.

Because Mr. Brown’s point is essentially that we cannot know the canon without following the dicates of the Roman Magisterium, he ironically places his trust in an organization that Augustine clearly allowed could be wrong all the while quoting him to the contrary!

It is you who have quoted him to the contrary. ” For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

Lastly, this understanding of Augustine laid against Mr. Brown’s thesis, requires the answer to the following questions:

1. If Augustine knew the canon because of the authority of the Catholic Church and, as we have seen, it is possible for the Catholics to be “liars” how could Augustine have used the Scripture with any certainty at all, in your view?

As noted above, Augustine has not conceded that they could be liars.

2. If Catholic authority is required to rightly discern the Scriptures, why did Augustine even allow that the Manichaeans could do so without Catholic authority?

Where has Augustine allowed that they could discern the scripture apart from the Catholics?

3. Given the possibility that someone could “weaken” Augustine’s “regard for the authority of the Catholics” but nowhere does he allow for a “weakening” of his regard for Scripture, do you think Augustine thought it right to subject what cannot be weakened (i.e. Scripture) to that which might be weakened (i.e. Catholic authority)?

His whole argument is that if the authority of the Catholics is destroyed then scripture is irrelevant.

The use by Mr. Brown of this quote by Augustine is anachronistic and undermines his position. Borrowing from our host, we might conclude, “Not being careful to dig a bit deeper into history with [Augustine] can often lead to caricature and distortion.”

It is you who should be a little more careful.

Context