Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia: An Interaction with Chapter 41 of the Reverend Peter Lampe’s Book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries.

But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?

And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone to preach?

And how can people preach unless they are sent?

As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring

 (the) good news! (Rom. 10:14-15).

I.  Introduction.

✝ Dear Lord, Grant to me keenness of mind, capacity to remember, skill in learning, subtlety to interpret, and eloquence to express my thoughts. Amen. (Prayer taken from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas with slight modification).

Over the last couple of years, John Bugay, a fallen away Catholic, has been using the name of Peter Lampe, a Lutheran theologian and scholar, against Catholic apologists as often as Romanian witches use talismans to curse their victims. Recently, Mr. Bugay used this Lampesian talisman against myself (here, here, and here), my friend, David Waltz and fellow Catholic, Sean Patrick, one of the stalwarts at Called to Communion not to mention over on David Armstrong’s popular website, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism. In my case, Mr. Bugay saw fit to challenge me in a comm-box to interact with Chapter 41 from Lampe’s book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press (2003), after I deconstructed Mr. Bugay’s misuse of quotes from Lampe’s book to attack the Catholic teaching on annulment which advances the following hypothesis:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor ( c.. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus ( c. 175-89), Soter ( c. 166-75), and Anicetus ( c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship (Pg. 397).

Mr. Bugay does not suggest how I should interact with Chapter 41 of Lampe’s book. However, from skimming the various occasions that Mr. Bugay has cited Lampe across the internet and on the Beggars All website that he posts on, it would appear that Mr. Bugay feels that Lampe’s book, an expansion of a sociology paper he wrote in graduate school, somehow refutes Catholic doctrine that the Bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Peter because, according to Lampe, there was no monarchical bishop for the Church at Rome until the latter half of the second century. On this basis, I will interact with Lampe’s book. Before doing so, I must offer the following necessary caveats:

1. I do not claim the mantle of a scholar nor do I play one on television. Thus, the reader should expect my analysis (if my rambles may be so considered) of Lampe’s work to be “all over the map” as one Protestant polemicist recently wrote about my style. I do not hope to refute Lampe’s work head-on because to put it bluntly, I do not have time or resources to do so and, perhaps more importantly in my view, there is little to disagree with up to part where he offers his conclusions based on the inferences he draws from the evidence he considers in the fifth part of his book. Rather, I intend to offer more modest fare-that is I intend to interpose a series of objections along with the grounds upon which I interpose such which will be more in line with my personal training as a meat-and-potatoes-type trial lawyer as opposed to anything that smacks of a systemic philosophical or scientific approach. That said, I do have an undergraduate degree in political science which essentially boils down to a study of how people wield and apportion authority in the context of governing themselves. Thus, while I do not have the alphabet soup before and after my name that Lampe sports, my particular educational background does offer me a slight measure of grounding on what to look for in analyzing the systems that Roman church put into place to govern itself.

2. I would note in passing that I seriously question the utility or the propriety of using an inductive scientific or sociological methodology to determine a question that is fundamentally a matter of faith. It is not the Catholic way of evaluating theological matters and I do not intend to stray to far from the path that Catholics should use in considering doctrinal matters. One’s faith in the doctrines and teaching of the Catholic Church shapes the inquiry rather than is shaped by the outcomes of such inquiry. I will explain this further later.

3. I am a lay Catholic writing here as a part of my lay apostolate. Nothing I write here should be considered as a part of the magisterial authority of what the Church holds and teaches, although I will zealously try to set before the reader in a persuasive manner my understanding of what the Church does permit its adherents to hold and profess and still call themselves Catholic. Please accept my apologies beforehand if I am not able to express the position of the Catholic Church accurately and definitively to the reader’s satisfaction. I would ask that you ascribe such failure to my personal limitations and not lay my deficiencies and failures at the feet of the Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. On the other hand, if the reader is edified and finds anything that I write here to be laudatory, please ascribe such to the Author rather than this most humble and useless of His styluses.

4. Nothing I write here should be considered as a criticism of Mr. Bugay’s character or of his integrity. I am addressing his opinions, conclusions, and arguments. I am assuredly not passing judgment on him as a person. Accordingly, interact with the material, not with the personalities. As it is, issues involving the papacy tend to annoy Protestants as much as deer flies annoy a moose. Unnecessary adjectives attached to people’s names or character will annoy unduly and detract rather than offer anything of benefit to the aims of discourse. I warn the reader in advance that this will be the first post that I will exercise my right to moderate comments if anyone takes the time to do so. If someone elsewhere chooses to attack me personally over this, I would have it be an occasion of shame to them rather than to me.

5. At the end of this paper, I will provide the reader with a bibliography of the sources I drew upon in formulating my responses herein. I urge the reader to read these sources for themselves and draw their own conclusions on the soundness of what I write. However, nothing I write here should be construed or taken as an indication or suggestion that I disagree in any way, shape, or form with the de fide teachings of the Catholic Church and upon being shown that I have written anything that could be construed as such, I will correct same immediately. I would note though that I do not intend to withhold criticism of some of the positions certain Catholic scholars advance that are antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

PART ONE: A Book Review

Now before I get started on addressing the stated hypothesis of Mr. Bugay that the Bishops of Rome are not the successors of St. Peter for which he relies upon From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries as evidence, I will offer this short review of the book itself in case that was what Mr. Bugay was actually looking for when he asked me to interact with it.

From a Catholic layman’s perspective, Lampe’s book is an exemplar, good or ill, of how liberal Protestant and Catholic theologians apply modern-day social constructionist theories to endeavors touching upon theological subjects. Using a methodology that presupposes that archeology and secular history take precedence over Biblical historicity, Lampe’s notions mirror those of many of the Christian ecumenicists that litter the landscape these days minimizing the biblical basis for the authority of bishops and the importance of apostolic succession and for me are just as about as persuasive. Frankly, one could learn as much about the social conditions from whence the Church in Rome grew out of reading the historical novels, The Robe or Quo Vadis, or watching the large screen adaptations of same on DVD as from reading Lampe’s book and reading or watching same would be a tad less tedious. I do not expect Lampe’s book to be turned into a movie.

That said, as a scholarly endeavor, it is admirable how Lampe sorts through various groups of evidence to paint a more fuller picture of how early Christians lived, but like similar scientific endeavors, it overemphasizes how social interactions shape religious belief, but minimizes or even trivializes how religious belief shapes social interactions. One example of this is found on page 383 of the book. For Lampe, orthodoxy of religious views of Romans Christians in the first and second century are the result of social background and education of the majority of the Roman adherents at that time, thus making what was to be believed more of a majority decision than whether the beliefs that had been transmitted and taught (paradosis) and were truly apostolic in nature or not.

Additionally, the Reverend Lampe’s book is definitely not for laymen as he does not attempt to define important terminology. Terms, such as “monarchical episcopacy” and “fractionation,” are not defined. Lampe presupposes that his audience knows of these things, and perhaps they do, but since the book was made available to the general public, he should have foreseen that amateur Protestant apologists would misuse his work to attack Catholic doctrine and defining terms would have prevented such apologists from erroneously attempting to make square-blocked conclusions fit into round-hole arguments.

Another problem as I see it, is that Lampe ignores the catholicity of the Catholic Church in the first and second centuries AD. Because he used inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive analysis, that is arguing from the specific to the general instead of from the general to the specific, he ignores or understates the import of the wider pool of Christian and non-Christian sources. His sparse interaction with the Scriptures, the Didache and St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to the other churches besides Rome on the issue of the authority of the leaders of the Church seems to me designed to limit the definition of bishop to that of an anachronism that equates the term bishop to mean a single person having jurisdiction over the church in one geographical area (I will expand on this argument further). To be fair, this may be more of a quibble with how Mr. Bugay uses Lampe’s claim as opposed to the work itself. However, I would note that when Mr. Bugay is making his argument against the papacy, he often makes sure to let the reader know that the Reverend Lampe dissented from a joint Catholic/Lutheran understanding on justification so as to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Reverend Lampe’s argument is contra-Catholic just like his.

Finally, the biggest flaw I see in the Reverend Lampe’s book is his dismissal of the historicity of the succession lists of Hegesippus, Irenaeus and Eusebius as “fictive constructions” (Pg. 406) which smacks more of wishful thinking than any actual argument. While the reader of today find such lists as contained in the Bible to be boring verbiage to be skipped over during most systemic devotional reading, such lists to ancient peoples were powerful pieces of evidence and served as important testimony to the validity and credibility to the witness being given by the inspired writers that Jesus was both the Messiah and the Son of God (Mt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The succession lists of Hegesippus, Irenaeus and Eusebius held similar evidentiary value for the early Church in combating the Gnostic heresies. If these lists were fictive accounts as Lampe opines (based on embarrassingly little evidence), the Gnostic leaders would have easily been able to exploit the falsity of such and would have used their falsity of such lists to counter the credibility such lists gave to the arguments of Irenaeus and Hegesippus on how apostolic succession ensured the orthodoxy and truth of the doctrines held by the Catholic Church. Further, given that less than a hundred years transpired between the age of the apostles and the rise of the gnostic heresiarchs, Marcion (140 AD) and Valentinus (160AD), there should have probably been at least some individuals alive during those times who would have known and/or remembered whether Linus, Anencletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, and Soter, all of whom were listed by Irenaeus as the successors of Peter in his treatise Adversus Haereticos 3:3 before Eleutherus became the Bishop of Rome in 175 AD, were truly the Bishops of Rome or not. Apparently, either Marcion, Valentinus and their followers never thought to ask any of those folks or perhaps the heretical groups did not dispute the succession lists because most likely they happened to be true and accurate historically. As an attorney who understands the notion of onus probandi, it much more probable that the latter is true. Unfortunately, the Reverend Lampe does not share with us why we should consider his conclusions more trustworthy than the paucity of objections to these “fictive” bishops by their Gnostic opponents. Reliance on an argument from silence in the manner that Lampe does is not as persuasive as he would like the reader to believe and in my view does not meet the burden of proof to show that Irenaeus, Hegesippus and Eusebius were liars.

I will acknowledge that Rev. Lampe makes an argument that is similar to some Catholic writers.  Moreover, I am certain that Reverend Lampe never intended his work to be misused as a polemic weapon by American Protestant e-pologists against their Catholic foemen as the work was more in nature of a historical survey designed to encourage other scholars to conduct more intense studies on the issues he raised therein. And for what it is worth, I found many of the conclusions he made on social stratification and status of the early Christians to be both highly informative and corroborative of other works that I had read on the subject. That being said, I found Bernard Green’s Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries [London: T & T Clark International (2010)] and Fr. William Moran’s doctoral thesis, The Government of the Church in the First Century [NY: Benziger Brothers (1913)] provided more insightful and in-depth treatment of the issues for which Mr. Bugay is artlessly using From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries.

In closing, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries is a book that I would check out of the library or even purchase it if I came across it at a thrift store, but it is not one that I spend my money to purchase new.

I will try to have the rest of my argument up later this week.  God bless!

Posted on the Memorial of St. Francis of Assisi, 2010.

Revealing the Mystery Behind the Magisterium

This post started out as a quick response to something that Mr. Fan wrote about my friend, fellow Catholic, and apologist, Matthew Bellisario, in an article Bellisario Swings and Misses after Mr. Bellisario criticized Mr. Fan’s article entitled, Test Case of the Infallible Magisterium: Ordination of Women in an article posted on his Catholic Champion blog captioned Another “Expert” on Catholicism Misrepresents Church Teaching. After trying to keep track of the all the articles, the various positions taken by Messrs. Fan, Bellisario, and the individuals who left comments, and writing this out, it turned into something a bit more expansive than a comment.

Leaving aside the digressions on the use of certain forms of rhetoric to persuade, I thought I would focus on the issues presented by Mr. Fan on his speculations over the possibility of whether some future pope could determine that a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church that was considered infallibly held is not actually an infallible teaching because it was not formally defined and to address the particular matter that led to his speculations~the Catholic Church’s teaching with respect to the ordination of women to the priesthood.

TF stated:

The document itself is not an exercise of papal infallibility. The document merely alleges that the teaching is something "set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." But this document itself is not the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This document is fallible.

So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document.

This post will attempt to answer Mr. Fan's objection and clear up any misunderstanding on how doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium can be infallibly held.  To provide some context, here is the letter that he was referring to in its entirety:

COVER LETTER TO BISHOPS' CONFERENCE PRESIDENTS

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 8, 1995

The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.

This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure).

In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed.

The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November.

With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain,

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Mr. Fan's comments suggest that the above cover letter is not a document constituting an example of a doctrine infallibly defined by the pope. True, but that does not decide the question. Here is the responsum ad dubium which in conjunction with Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does CONFIRM an infallible doctrine that already has been established by the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church:

Responsum ad Dubium

10/28/1995

Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

--------------------------------------------------------

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published. Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

+ Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

Secretary
1/21/95

(Source)

Turretinfan’s article states that he has difficulty with how a non-fallible document can state that a doctrine is infallibly established. Such is understandable as Calvinist apologists most often wrestle over Catholic dogmas infallibly defined in a papal encyclical or by an ecumenical council. However, these are but two ways that the Catholic Church uses to infallibly determine dogmas-two examples of the way dogma is defined through the exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. There is a third way as evidenced by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s correspondence-doctrine can be infallibly taught by the universal and ordinary Magisterium on occasion as well. While it is true that neither Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis nor his permitting Cardinal Ratzinger to issue the above letter are the kinds of document utilizing the formulaic statements to which Catholics and Protestants apologists are most familiar when interacting with teachings of the Catholic Church, nevertheless, the matter that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women is just as infallibly held as any of the dogmatic expressions from the Council of Trent or papal determinations that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived and was assumed to heaven.

As I outlined above, there are three ways that the Church defines doctrines infallibly. They are:

1. Papal infallibility. That dogma, defined by the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX in 1870, affirms that God preserves the pope from error when he definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals. The dogma of papal infallibility was decisively reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965) in Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). By way of clarification, the Second Vatican Council makes this important point. Infallibility is essentially a gift of God to the Church. When the pope teaches infallibly, he is not acting by his own prerogatives. He is exercising this divine gift as a steward on the Church's behalf.

2. Ecumenical Councils. When the Pope and bishops convene in an ecumenical council, they join in a solemn teaching act which is considered infallible. When the Pope ratifies the actions of the bishops when they convene in council. The actions so ratified also become infallible teachings as well. The Second Vatican Council is an example of the former. The First Council of Nicea is an example of the latter.

3. Ordinary Magisterial Teachings. Certain teachings of the bishops of the Catholic Church may be treated as infallible teachings as well. As pointed out in Section 25 of Lumen Gentium:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

As this passage demonstrates, four criteria must be met for an infallible exercise of the ordinary Magisterium of bishops around the world:

1. That the bishops must be in communion with one another and with the Pope.

2. That they are teaching authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.

3. That they are virtually in agreement in one judgment.

4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful

.Now lest Mr. Fan may object to this latter method of determining doctrine infallibly, many, if not most, of the doctrines of the Church are infallibly taught this way. Among the doctrines recognized as infallible teachings of the Church in this manner include that Jesus is the sole savior of the human race, that man has a soul and is of a spiritual nature, the verity of individual particular judgment after death, the truth that guardian angels are entrusted to protect human souls, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the spiritual mother of all Christians, that abortion can never be condoned, that the use of evil means (commission of sin) can never be justified by the good that might come from it, and as shown in this particular case, that women can not be ordained as priests. Recourse to the use of the extraordinary Magisterium is used only when doctrines are no longer peaceably held by the Church and such doctrines need to become explicitly defined. A more detailed and systemic explanation of this can be found here in this article and here.

As shown above, doctrines to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively through actions which are either defining or non-defining. Defining actions are truths solemnly defined through the exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Pope or by the promulgation of defining documents by an ecumenical council. However, the ordinary and universal Magisterium determines doctrine infallibly through non-defining acts. Such doctrines may be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Pope without resorting to an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine. Such declarations of confirmation or reaffirmation through means of a dubium ad responsum, as utilized in the case of women’s ordination, or through an Apostolic letter, such as the case in Evangelium Vitae § 57ff , are not to be viewed as new dogmatic definitions, but serve as formal attestations of the truths already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church. In other words, the Pope’s affirmation or confirmation is sort of like a notary seal on a document already attested to be true by a signatory. I would note that Dr. Michael Liccone, in an article entitled Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, offers a much more thorough presentation than I have set forth here and more importantly I heartily urge the reader to review it as well as Lumen Gentium, particularly Chapter 25.

One can only deduce that Mr. Fan finds this to be confusing because he later brings up the doctrine of Immaculate Conception as an example of how dissent becomes dogma. However, linking the subject of the Immaculate Conception to this one is not appropriate as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a dogma that developed over the centuries and was pronounced by the Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, not as a result of the teachings of the ordinary magisterium (which he notes were varied), but from the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) which is a concept that it is the Holy Spirit who matures sensus fidei of the Christian people enabling it as a community to a spontaneous understanding of the revealed fact and inward maturing of the fact thanks to reflection, experience and preaching. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated by Pope Pius IX in response to the unanimous acclaim of the members of the Church at that time. That said, sensus fidelium is not a notion of majority vote where if enough Catholics support the notion, the Pope can be made to change or add doctrine. Rather it is something that is considered in rendering decisions.

Thus the issue of whether women can be ordained is a closed issue and dissent on this issue is illegitimate. The doctrine has been infallibly held by the ordinary universal magisterium and confirmed by the Pope. The responsum ad dubium which he authorized is a papal pronouncement of confirmation showing that the doctrine being confirmed enjoys the same charism of infallibility shared by other doctrines infallibly defined by the Magisterium.

So Mr. Fan’s test case scenario turns out to be nothing more than an open book quiz, I will leave it to the reader to grade my response.

God bless!
 
Posted on the Feast of Saints Cosmos and Damian.

Update:  Mr. Fan objected to my characterization of his argument over on his blog.  In the interests of fairness, I have altered the statement that I have highlighted in red to reflect his assertion, "But in my article, I wrote: "I didn't say that it is possible for a pope to come along and change an infallible doctrine" and reconcile that with what he did write, "So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."

Doing the Callixtus Calypso with John Bugay: The Real Reason Why the Catholic Church calls It Annulment and Not Divorce.

O God, who seest how we fail by reason of our weakness,

have mercy, and through the examples of thy saints,

renew our love of thee.

                                 ~The Collect from the Feast of Pope St. Callixtus (October 14)

Mr. Bugay, a stalwart on the Beggars All team, has been taking time out of his busy day to read history books about the origins of the Catholic Church lately and has decided to share with all what he has learned from those books. The reason [rooted in history] why the Roman Catholic Church calls it annulment and not divorce is but one example of what Mr. Bugay thinks that he has learned from his reading. This time he chosen to focus his efforts on all things, what he believes to be the alleged historical antecedents of the Decree of Nullity aka an annulment. Frankly, it was refreshing to see that he has sought to engage this subject from a historical perspective particularly when on the rare occasions that the sons and daughters of Geneva do touch upon this particular subject they usually engage in the fallacious practice of pointing to the seemingly lax oversight of the juridical process used to obtain an annulment as “proof” of its falsity. While Mr. Bugay does that too, at least he he waited until the end of his smear piece to obligatorily raise the matter. I commend him for at least offering something in addition to his derision.

In order to address the contentions raised by Mr. Bugay, a survey of the entire article he wrote is necessary:

At some level, even the Roman Catholic Church feels it is beholden to its history. In this case, it is beholden to an early bishop of Rome, Callistus, who made a decision that would enable the Roman church to retain its appeal to women from wealthy families.

On the topic of marriage as a sacrament from the earliest times, Peter Lampe notes the origin of the practice by which the Roman church operated outside of civil rules for marriage: "...it is crystal clear in Hippolytus that from aristocratic circles more women than men found their way to Christianity. The disproportion was a social problem that Callistus during his term as Roman bishop (c. 217-22) attempted to solve. The problem undoubtedly had existed since the end of the second century, if not longer.

When women from the noble class were unmarried and in the heat of their youthful passion desired to marry and yet were unwilling to give up their class through a legal marriage, he [Callistus] allowed them to choose a partner, whether slave or free, and to consider him to be their husband without a legal marriage. From that time on the alleged believing women began to resort to contraceptive methods and to corset themselves in order to cause abortions, because, on account of their lineage and their enormous wealth, they did not wish to have a child from a slave or a commoner.

From Peter Lampe, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries," pg 119.

Mr. Bugay then offers this second quote from Peter Lampe:

A Christian woman [from a wealthy family] who wished to retain the title "clarissima" had two options. She could marry a pagan of the same social status and forego marriage wtih a socially inferior Christian. Or she could live in concubinage with a socially inferior Christian without being legally married. This second option received the blessings of Callistus in Rome. In this way he prevented two things: mixed marriages with pagans and the social decline of Christian women. Both were in the interests of the community. (121)

Utilizing the above quotations ripped out of context from the Rev. Lampe’s book, Mr. Bugay forms the following conclusions:

This is why Rome can say that it has mastery over marriage -- why, even though a couple may take vows, have any number of children, ask for and pay for an annulment, and voila, "the marriage never existed."

And that's why they can say they don't permit divorce. Because if they were to use the usual sense of the language, then they would have to admit that Callistus's end-run around the usual definition of what was a legal marriage was really an instance of permitting unmarried couples to live in sin. And of course, the pope is infallible. So they're stuck defending this set-up.

While I commend Mr. Bugay for his effort, I can not commend the product of his efforts.  There is so much that is wrong with Mr. Bugay’s argument, that is practically impossible to respond in piecemeal fashion. For starters, Mr. Bugay’s conclusory statement above is so sparse of actual argument it is difficult to determine from his paralogism whether it smacks of causality fallacy, non sequitur or ignoratio elenchi. However, it is not my intent to turn this article into a disquisition. Instead, I have chosen to address only two points. First, I would like to touch upon the propriety of citing an authority for a proposition that the authority was not actually writing about. Second, I wanted to address the underlying conclusion that but for the Church’s arbitrarily re-defining of marriage, there is no difference between divorce and an annulment.

Let us first address Mr. Bugay’s use of the From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Minneapolis: Fortress Press (2003), trans. Michael Steinhauser, written by the Reverend Peter Lampe, a German Lutheran theologian and professor. The chapter where Mr. Bugay pulled his quotes is found in Chapter 13 entitled “Social Stratification at the Time of Commodus.” A survey of the chapter reveals that the author was not addressing the issue how the Church defined marriage or how at the end of the second century and beginning of the third century the Church at Rome regulated the practice of obtaining a Decree of Nullity finding that a sacramental marriage had not occur. In truth and in fact, one would find after a review of the chapter that the Reverend Lampe does not address the “topic of marriage as a sacrament from the earliest times” in any way, shape or form contrary to Mr. Bugay’s intimation. In other words, the gratuitous statement Mr. Bugay makes in introducing Reverend Lampe’s work to us is entirely fraudulent.

One of the issues that Chapter 13 of Reverend Lampe’s book does address is the problem the growing Church in Rome faced with individuals of the senatorial class of Roman society converting to Christianity at the end of 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries. Lampe notes in his book how the Church mainly drew believers from the lower strata of Roman society at its start but by the end of the second century that situation was changing. The appeal of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by the Church was beginning to resonate with the cream of Rome. So by the end of the second century, out of the 10,000-30,000 Christians living in Rome at the time (pg. 143), 40 or so members of that class had converted to the Christian faith by this time, two-thirds of such individuals were women. This disproportionate ratio of women to men in the noble classes apparently gave rise to a social problem which Pope Callixtus (or as referred to in Lampe’s book as “Callistus ... the Roman bishop”) sought to address as these women sought to find marital partners among their fellow Christians. Lampe then presents his readers a watered-down version of a quote from St. Hippolytus’ Philosophoumena to document the matter. Here is another, albeit more sanguinary, version of this same quote:

And the hearers of Callistus being delighted with his tenets, continue with him, thus mocking both themselves as well as many others, and crowds of these dupes stream together into his school. Wherefore also his pupils are multiplied, and they plume themselves upon the crowds (attending the school) for the sake of pleasures which Christ did not permit. But in contempt of Him, they place restraint on the commission of no sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce (in Callistus' opinions). For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church.

Of course, what both the Reverend Lampe and Mr. Bugay left out in both of their presentations is context. While scholars do know that St. Callixtus had written on a number of subjects, none of his writings have survived or at least to date have not been found. What we do know of him and his pontificate is mainly found in the writings of his detractors and from early martyrologies and biographies such as the Liber Pontificalis. At the time he wrote the above polemic, St. Hippolytus had vigorously opposed Callixtus’ election as pope and the majority of the Christian adherents in Rome who had elected him as “pope.” Hippolytus, the erudite and well-educated student of the great Irenaeus himself, and his followers did not accept the decision of the majority and had himself set up as bishop in opposition thereby becoming the first anti-pope in the history of the Church. Further it should be noted at this point of time, Hippolytus’ theology was very rigorist (and perhaps had even fell in with the Montanists like Tertullian) in outlook in contrast to the more compassionate policies of Callixtus who preached a gospel of forgiveness and repentness. Hippolytus took every opportunity to vigorously attack the character of Callixtus, an ex-slave himself, for embracing what Hippolytus perceived to be moral laxity. On one such matter for example, Hippolytus had labeled Callixtus as a follower of the heresies of Sabellius while Callixtus countered that Hippolytus was a ditheist which may have some basis in fact if Hippolytus was actually an adherent on Montanus’ doctrines at that time. Tertullian, an actual Montanist, had also challenged Callixtus for teaching that sinners could receive forgiveness of their sins through the sacrament of confession more than once after baptism. Neither Lampe nor Bugay share with us their opinion as to whether Callixtus’ teachings or those of Hippolytus were more correct. And it is suggestive that Hippolytus attacked Callixtus more out of wounded pride than on doctrine as history does not indicate to us whether Hippolytus ever actually anathemized Callixtus for holding the view he did.

It is also interesting to note that Reverend Lampe elsewhere in his book suggests to the reader that one must take into account Hippolytus’ polemic glosses against his opponents in examining his writings (pp. 27-28). Mr. Bugay apparently has chosen to ignore this warning because he is not interested in history; he is only interested in selectively mining the historical record so he may calumniate against Catholicism. But what is so detestable however about Mr. Bugay’s article is that he forms conclusions that the Church somehow has redefined marriage to be something that it isn’t and implies to the reader that Reverend Lampe has formed that conclusion as well when there is nothing in the Reverend Lampe’s book that indicates that this is the case at all. Reverend Lampe does not cite to Hippolytus’ polemic as the “origin of the practice by which the Roman church operated outside of civil rules for marriage.” as is represented by Mr. Bugay’s article. Rather, Lampe, rightly or wrongly, concludes on page 121 of his book:

That with Callistus’s decision Christianity declared itself for the first time unequivocally in favor of “equal rights for slaves outside the liturgy and and the arena,” is the unquestionable consequence of the decision. It can not be proved, however, that this was the primary motivation for Callistus’s action. Callistus wished to avoid mixed marriages [between pagans and Christians] and to prevent the social decline of aristocratic women from his community.

Stripping away the vituperative rhetoric from Hippolytus’s statement quoted above, what Hippolytus was railing against Callixtus for was his insistence that two Christians regardless of their legal status in Roman society could sacramentally marry even if the civil authorities did not recognize it as such. Callixtus re-asserted that it is the Church and the Scriptures, not the state, that decides what impediments prevent two consenting Christians from marrying and recognized that within the Church two parties could marry even if the civil authorities did not so recognize the union as a marriage.  Here, Callixtus determined that slavery was not an impediment preventing two Christians from marrying each other. In other words, Callixtus opposed a form of anti-miscegenation that was practiced in ancient Roman society, something one should think Mr. Bugay would find to be laudatory instead of an occasion for derision.

The second passage from Reverend Lampe’s book does not need to be similarly explained. In no possible stretch of the imagination could one infer from the quoted passage that Callixtus was re-defining sacramental marriage by then permitting Roman women (who had already married in the Church) to hold themselves out as legally as living in concubinage. Regardless of what the state held to be a marriage, the Church has the right to hold parties to the biblical standard that a valid marriage is indissoluble. Again, reading this particular passage from Lampe’s book does not suggest anything about the Church’s authority to grant a decree of nullity of a marriage. All Callixtus did was to uphold the biblical injunction imposed by Christ Himself that the marriage relationship between two Christians is indissoluble. Perhaps because neither Bugay nor Lampe as Protestants recognize marriage as a sacrament, it is beyond their comprehension.

Mr. Bugay writes:

“This is why Rome can say that it has mastery over marriage -- why, even though a couple may take vows, have any number of children, ask for and pay for an annulment, and voila, "the marriage never existed."

And that's why they can say they don't permit divorce. Because if they were to use the usual sense of the language, then they would have to admit that Callistus's end-run around the usual definition of what was a legal marriage was really an instance of permitting unmarried couples to live in sin. And of course, the pope is infallible. So they're stuck defending this set-up.

Ignoring Mr. Bugay’s blustery hyperbole here, the commentary left over constitutes a gross misrepresentation of the Church’s process of annulment, if not outright false witness. However, I do not intend to treat with that. Rather, I would urge the reader to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article VII §§ 1601-1666 and the Catholic Code of Canon Law §§ 1055-1165 which explain the process far better than I could.

What I will address here is Mr. Bugay’s assertion that an annulment is somehow an end-around the legal definition of marriage for such an assertion demonstrates a profound ignorance of what annulment is, what a divorce is and most importantly, what marriage is. I will endeavor to provide this corrective.

First, let us deal with some definitions. What is a contract? A contract is an agreement entered into between two or more competent parties in which something of value is offered and is accepted in exchange for the performance of a promise from which each party benefits. Legally (at least in Ohio), for a contract to exist, there must be mutual assent, an offer and acceptance of the offer, and consideration. See, Nilavar v. Osborne (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d. Under law, a contract is only valid if the necessary elements of an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration, a manifestation of mutual asset, legality of object and of consideration are present. Further, there must be a meeting of the minds as to the meaning of all of a contract's essential terms before a contract is formed. McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. L.P.A. v. First Union Management (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 613. Thus, unless all of the terms of the contract are present and unless there is an agreement as to the meaning of those terms, there is no contract and the parties may annul the contract as being void ab initio.

What is marriage? Marriage, simply put, is a relationship borne out of contract. Within the Church, a man and a woman are free to enter into an agreement to get married, but once they do, God attaches certain consequences. As F.J. Sheed, the famous Catholic apologist of the 20th century, and an attorney, states:

[Marriage] is a relationship resulting from a contract. For when the relationship comes into being, the contract has done its work; it has produced a relationship of marriage, and the parties are now governed in their common life, not by the contract (which they made), but by the relationship (which God made in ratification of their contract).

Sheed, F.J., Nullity of Marriage. New York: Sheed and Ward (1959), pg. 4.

The consequence that God attaches to the marital relationship is that it is indissoluble. When Catholics get married sacramentally, the Holy Spirit embues the couple with a grace that permanently seals the marriage until death and gives the parties the grace to live out their vows. When the parties receive the sacrament of marriage, the "indelible" seal that is created can NEVER be broken, regardless of any decree from any human authority, including the Church or even the Pope himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1640 states:

Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

Now before Mr .Bugay voices his protest here, let us look at what annulment of marriage actually is. In fine, an annulment is the process by which the Church after one or both of the parties to the marriage ask it to do so reviews the man-made contract to marry. Now it must be emphasized that God alone seals the marriage relationship and God alone can set down the conditions as to when that bond ceases. Once the relationship comes into being, the parties can not alter the conditions, the Church can not alter those conditions, and the state can not alter those conditions. However, the Church when it considers annulling a marriage, does not examine the God-made relationship. Rather it limits itself to the examination only of the contract to marry itself (man-made). The Church does not pretend that it has the right to terminate the marital relationship as does the state for when the state grants the parties a divorce, the state claims that it has the right to interfere and terminate the marital relationship which it acknowledges was validly entered into. The law of divorce merely provides a remedy for a breach of the marital relationship. In contrast, the law of nullity merely provides that the Church can determine whether the parties actually entered into a contract to marry and if the parties did not do so, the Church merely recognizes that fact by issuing a Decree of Nullity.

Again F. J. Sheed:

The difference between divorce and nullity is therefore about as wide as it is possible to conceive. Divorce claims to break up a marriage actually in being. Nullity means that the marriage never came into being; it is the discovery that the contract to marry did not exist. Marriage is not only a contract; but it results from a contract, and if there is no contract no relationship can result.

Id. at pg. 8.

At this point, I should like to make it known that while the law of divorce does not exist in every civilized society in the world, in every society known, the law of nullity does. The Church claims nothing more than this: that it has the right in the context of the sacrament of marriage to determine whether the elements of a contract to marry were validly fulfilled. Where the Church differs from the state is that it denies on the basis of the Scriptures that it, the parties, or even the state, have the right to put asunder the sacramental relationship created from two parties validly enter into a contract of marriage that has been ratified by God.

Now, Mr. Bugay might raise the issue of pauline privilege at 1 Cor. 7:10-15 because the Church is dissolving a real marriage and not opining that a marriage never existed. What St. Paul recognized is that a “natural” marriage, not a sacramental marriage, can be dissolved by the Church if the pagan partner leaves the marriage because the other partner converts. In contrast, Callixtus did not attempt to interfere with the marriage relationship; rather he merely confirmed that the Church could not interfere with the relationship when two Christians chose to marry even if the state frowned upon the relationship.

Simply put, Mr. Bugay’s claim that the Church claims a “mastery over marriage” is simply false. In truth, Protestants who claim that marriage is not a sacrament at all (which amounts to a denial that God created and ratifies the relationship through grace) and who permit two parties to marry after divorce (which denies the biblical injunction that marriage is indissoluble) claim a non-biblical mastery over marriage far more overreaching than anything that the Catholic Church does. Every time the various flavors of Protestantism allow homosexuals to marry each other in ceremonies mimicking a marriage ceremony, every time they allow  two divorced persons to marry, it is they, and not the Church, who ignore the usual definition of what constitute a legal marriage.

That said, one must wonder what Mr. Bugay thinks about the present day “civil rules of marriage” which are trending to allowing two men or two women to marry each other. Does not the Church have the right to stand against such definitions of marriage which are in opposition to the Scriptures as Callixtus did long ago or must we kowtow as some Protestant denominations already have to a re-definition of marriage that is in fact a perversion of the special covenant between two persons and God. If the United States Supreme Court were to consider the issue of “gay marriage” in the near future (a very real possibility) and were to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry thereby altering the “civil rules for marriage,” how could he argue against such without being labeled a hypocrite? Or in his zeal to attack all things Catholic as is his wont, did he even think through his argument? And what will Mr. Bugay say when the civil rules of marriage contradict Article 25 of the Westminster Confession of 1689? Will he cede the authority of his denomination over to the state and propose that homosexuals should now be allowed to marry withing the confines of the walls of the sanctuary of his particular church of the state where ever he lives were it to declare that homosexual marriages are now encompassed within the civil rules of marriage?

What Mr. Bugay’s argument really proves is that he does not recognize the difference between a sacramental marriage that occurs in the Church and a marriage that is sanctioned by civil authorities. He further demonstrates his ignorance of what marriage even is. The Church does not pretend to put asunder the God-made marital relationship, rather it professes the competence and the right to examine the underlying man-made contract to marry and determine whether there were any scriptural or other impediments to that marriage.

In dancing with Callixtus here, Mr. Bugay tripped over his own feet. Better luck next time.
God bless!

Responding to a Super-Super-Super Bad Argument about the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

“If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.” From the Nisi Dominus (Ps. 127:1)

...

It has been awhile since I posted here, the reasons of which I hope to disclose in the near future. However, upon coming across a number of articles that written by one of the luminaries in the constellation of apologists known as Beggars All, an anonymous gentlemen who goes by the handle of “Rhology,” I felt compelled to reply to them since they all involve comments that I made in response to the treatment of the Catholic doctrine appertaining to the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the bishops in communion with the Catholic Church. I hope the reader will find this article helpful in seeing how the polemics employed by those who contend for faith can affect one’s consideration of the issues being discussed.

While I was trying to finish my next installment of Managing Marian Misogyny, I happened across an article on the Beggars All blog posted by John Bugay entitled Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium in which he argued that the OT did not contain any notion of a Magisterial authority. Of course, such a notion is patently inaccurate as is plainly shown in 2 Chronicles 19:5-11 and Ezra 8:7-8, for example, where a clearly established magisterial teaching authority in OT Israel was used to teach the people how to interpret/understand Scripture and other religious matters. I decided to comment on the premise of that article challenging Mr. Bugay’s assertions with a number of scriptural citations. At that point, Rhology decided to opine on some of my comments in a separate article captioned The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority. Since Rhology’s article was spawned specifically by my comments to the previous article by Mr. Bugay, I offered a response by commenting on it. Apparently, some of my comments struck a nerve with him and he decided to write a sequel, aptly entitled The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority, part two (hereinafter referred to simply as the Sequel or ROUND TWO). While I am hesitant to make a sur-reply fearful that such will generate another sequel from Rhology, I felt it necessary in the end to do so because his arguments are premised on fallacy and misapprehension of what the Magisterium actually is and how it functions.

While this twin-pronged approach to attacking Catholic teachings is a common tactic utilized by some Reformed apologists to highlight the various distinctives which distinguish their particular flavor-of-the-month Protestant denomination from the multitude of Catholic doctrines they do choose to accept, “it is a very bad and stupid one,” to borrow a phrase. Ultimately, the aim of all arguments should be to get at the truth of the matter rather than clouding issues through the use of fallacious reasoning. As I hope to show, the tactics employed by Rhology in ROUND TWO smack of a sort of skeptical rationalism as opposed to a reasoned defense of the basis for our hope. On a more practical level, it is rather hypocritical to claim one hand that logical argumentation should be the measure of truth, and then use fallacious reasoning in its place. I offer this article in the hopes of highlighting Rhology’s errors and sophistry and offer in their place this corrective.

For the ease of reading, I will group the various threads of argument together (Some of the hyper-links are excluded and some of the poor grammar and typos (particularly mine) are cleaned up).

ROUND ONE:

louis said (in a comment made on the Article captioned Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium):

It's almost as if he thinks those scripture passages are perspicuous or something. He also evidently thinks he understands Marbury v. Madison, but unless an infallible interpreter explained it to him, I'm not sure how he can.

Paul Hoffer said (in response made as a comment on the same article):

Louis, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. Where the perspicuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them? Fortunately, the Scriptures does point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a magisterial authority was established that people could take such disputes to.

Rhology joins the fray now with his own article now. For his opening salvo, he begins with:

Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed.

Paul Hoffer queries:

How so? There is nothing in your article that refutes anything that I wrote unless you are claiming some sort of magisterial authority for yourself.

Here, Rhology begins to parrot my words:

There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree.

PH writes:

Since you do not mock this, I infer that you do agree with my contention that there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.

Rhology continues:

Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute.

PH responds:

Thank you kindly for making my point for me. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.

Rhology writes:

Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?

PH responds:

Let’s test your hypothesis with the Missouri method. SHOW ME as Space Bishop (another commentator remarking on the article) asked where a Magisterial document(s) of the Catholic Church on these two points you raise here that says anything that would allow two people relying upon it have a “sincere” difference of opinion about abortion or what extent the Church should have material wealth.

Rhology continues:

One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.

PH writes:

Using the definition of Magisterium as “The Church's active competence, juridically embodied, to prolong by its witness God's self-communicative self-revelation in Christ, which necessarily inheres in the Church (as the eschatologically definitive community of believers in Christ, founded by him as an hierarchical society, empowered by a mission to bear testimony to Christ), and which demands obedience." (Concise Theological Dictionary. p. 268 Burns and Oates, Herder and Herder, New York, London, 1965) one can find the notion of the Magisterium expressed in the NT from a number of passages (citations only and not recitation of the passages so as to not offend either Mr. Bugay or Louis) to support it, to begin with: Mt l6:15, 18; Mt. 28: 18-20; Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15:6-8, 28; Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:13. So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.

It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and his plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it to real life situations (CCC 85-86). The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.) "Faithful and respectful obedience" to the Magisterium is something presupposed (Cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26) as the consent given to belief, is a consent not to what is just the word of men, but rather is held to be the Word of God. See, Lumen Gentium 12 and 25.

Rhology writes:

And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority. And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...

PH replies:

Unlike Protestantism which holds that each person is his own magisterial authority, we recognize that Jesus is the final arbiter as head of the Church, who is exercising through those that are placed in authority by Him to lead/serve the Church. Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur. If you disagree, prove it that Catholics do not believe in the concept that "the buck stops here."

Rhology writes:

What is really ironic is that in this kind of argumentation that Paul uses here and that RC’s (Roman Catholics) ignorantly use all over the place, they echo atheists as well. Here's a recent example:

Whateverman said: It matters that other Christians wouldn't agree with your attribution (of God's influence) because that demonstrates the subjectivity of the assertion.

PH replies:

Reliance on an existential appeal to one's own self as one’s own ultimate authority does not impress me as a sound notion as you yourself point out and is as subjective as claiming that God’s influence is a subjective assertion. Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.

[Rhology’s] response there [to Whateverman]:

You know, there are people who think they can float by Yogic meditation. Their mistaken thoughts of gravity's application does not mean that gravity is subjective. You're making man the measure of truth. I'd recommend making logical argumentation the measure of truth, myself.

PH responds:

Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “Contra factum non valet argumentum,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. PERIOD. Since the Word of God (Christ Himself) shows as a fact that it is to be interpreted by those placed in authority of His Body, no amount of argumentation will prevail against it.

Rhology concludes:

And that's what I'd recommend for our Romanist friends like Paul Hoffer. For one thing, when you argue like an atheist, but you're a theist, and when you denigrate the clarity of what God spoke, just like atheists do, shouldn't that raise a bit of a red flag?

PH concludes:

No it doesn’t raise any flags at all. I would suggest to you that parsing the Word of God to come up with your own notions is a far worse denigration than my acknowledgment that while there are many things I do understand in the Scriptures applying the graces God has given me, I do recognize that as a humble sinner, there are things that I do not understand like my namesake points at 1 Cor. 13:9 and that I am thankful to My Lord and Savior Christ Jesus that He gave us the Church in which the magisterial authority rests as an infallible means to gain more understanding of His Word and to grow deeper in my faith.

ROUND TWO:

In this Sequel, Rhology decides to expand upon the remarks set out above and offer additional commentary to some of my comments. Unfortunately, in doing so, he engages in one of Protestantism’ favorite past times, cherry-picking an opponent’s argument and responding to only a distorted version of my argument. I apologize for repeating the statements already made above, but I could not think of a different way to demonstrate Rhology’s egregious misuse of fallacious argumentation to counter the statements I made above. Please note that the statements of mine that Rhology responds to will be bold-faced, the parts he leaves out will highlighted in red and my replies and rebuttals to this new round of remarks will be set off in blue.

Rhology writes:

Paul Hoffer was kind enough to comment at length on my last post, but unfortunately between his original comment that spawned the aforementioned post and his comments on the post, he forgot his own argument, and ironically in many places ends up affirming my own point. For that, I thank him for tacitly disavowing his argument. I commend the practice, of course, for while it is a common argument, it is also a very bad and stupid one.

PH responds:

Sophistry to buttress an otherwise untenable argument will not win the day. Rhology’s verbiage is hardly evidential in nature and neglects to address the point that I made originally: OT Israel had recourse to an official magisterium to interpret Scriptures. Rhology’s apparently loses sight of that fact and to this day has failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever that rebuts my original argument. Instead he engages in the old lawyer trick of “if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.” Rather than addressing the arguments I made, he instead practices a little ad hominem and to abuse me and my argument.

Rhology wrote:

Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed.

PH replied:

How so? There is nothing in your article that refutes anything that I wrote unless you are claiming some sort of magisterial authority for yourself.

Rhology parroting my words originally wrote:

There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree.

Rhology now adds:

Paul Hoffer, I'm sorry you didn't understand that I parroted you for a specific reason, that is, to show how the same "problem" of individual fallible interpretation is true for your position as well. Positing a Mag[isterium] only moves the question back a step, which is why I'm saying you'd need a super-super-Mag[isterium] to fix the problem. But then you'd need ANOTHER level back to which to move the question, and on and on unto infinity.

PH now adds:

I am glad that Rhology did not parrot my words as an attempt to mock me. For that I am much thankful and take this moment to heartily commend him for treating me as a brother in Christ (although unlike Mr. Bugay, a fellow stalwart of his on Beggars All, I doubt he would ever consider a Catholic “a brother in Christ”). His explanation as to why he makes like a psittacine, however, does not ring quite true as I will show below.

I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them. I do not accept Rhology’s premise because unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation. The Church as the living witness and guardian of the Word of God is limited to examining the text of the Holy Scriptures or previous magisterial documents. The Magisterium continues to speak authoritative and interpret the Word of God and prior Magisterial texts to determine what was meant and will continue to do so until the meaning is clear. Regardless of what some might say, the Scriptures are not self-attesting, not self-authenticating, and especially not self-interpreting. This fact is verified by history. Their veracity are attested through the Church’s constant use of them in the Mass, in the Sacraments and in its prayers. The Church authenticates through its testimony over the centuries that the Scriptures are in truth and in fact the Word of God. Most importantly, they have been interpreted by the Church and those interpretations have been preached to the faithful since Christ founded His Church. There is only One Body of Christ, that is the Catholic Church, and it speaks from one head with one voice which is the voice of Jesus Christ.

This fact is verified by history. The docestists first questioned Christ’s humanity which was responded to by the Ordinary Magisterium. The Arians questioned His Divinity and were answered by the First Council of Nicea. Later, additional misunderstandings about what Nicea held were corrected at the Council of Ephesus and then at the Council of Chalcedon; so on and so forth. While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them and offer additional insight and clarification to assist the faithful.

Moreover, as doctrine was infallibly defined by the Church by a Council or by papal pronouncements, the adherent benefited by such because each time a new benchmark had been established, the adherent could start their inquiry into questions of faith at that benchmark rather than start over with a study of the Scriptures. Certainly one needs to read the Scriptures, but one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them. Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.

One sees this in the law all the time. Over time, the courts defined how promises were kept whether by covenant, promise, debt, or vow. Then because of the notions about the exchange of hostages, notions of consideration began to creep into the legal system. Later, issues over mutual assent, offer and acceptance, and adequacy of consideration, damages or remedies, etc. had to be decided. Nowadays, we attorneys do not have to start over with the days of Justinian’s Code or Charlemagne to understand where the idea of consideration was invented. All we have to do is apply the facts to see whether they meet the elements of contract that have already been argued, weighed, measured and decided over hundreds of years of jurisprudence. If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract, even whether one could enter into something called a contract each and every time before filing a suit.

Yes, new questions arise which require additional clarification, but as a result of adhering to a Magisterial system, we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again. While it is true that as a law student I did have to learn all of that old stuff about the history of contract so I could better understand how the law of contract is where it is at today and where and how the law may develop in the future, but the difference is I do not have to re-litigate all of the old questions that have been already decided.

PH wrote:

Since you do not mock this, I infer that you do agree with my contention that there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.

Rhology responds:

Yes, not everything in the Scr is perspicuous. What's really funny about this is that the RC doctrines related to salvation and election and all that are pretty much impenetrable in their internal inconsistency, biblical illiteracy, and tradition-bound-ness. As James White likes to say: Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law.

PH replies:

Thank you Rhology for the admission that not everything in the Scriptures are perspicuous. It’s too bad that you have to go off the tracks with your next statement~ more question begging nonsense without any evidence. I must say though that the James White allusion you use is a bit vague. When I googled it, I found where James White made this statement ten years ago in a debate, but I don’t see any more recent reference where he says it or that it is one of his favorites or that he “likes” to makes this particular statement. Perhaps this is something he has shared with you personally or have learned of this through a private revelation of sorts.

For what it is worth, as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law, is just that, a legal code for governance of the Church. That said being said however, I must ask you what particularly about the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law you feel contradicts of the law of the Spirit that is reflected in Romans 8? Or is this just some bilious rhetoric thrown in? Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?

Rhology, after eating a cracker, rawps:

Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute.

PH responded:

Thank you kindly for making my point for me. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.

Rhology now adds:

Through written documents. Thus you bolster my point. Thanks! Also, in oral proclamations, a lot of the time they get written down. Then, see above. Oral proclamations, BTW, are not immune to this. So you need a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-...

PH replies:

Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE? And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.. In short, we need only one Magisterial authority. As St. John Chrysostom puts it, "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." ("Hom. de capto Euthropio," n. 6.)

Squawking some more, you wrote:

Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?

PH responded:

Let’s test your hypothesis with the Missouri method. SHOW ME as Space Bishop asked where a Magisterial document(s) of the Catholic Church on these two points you raise here that says anything that would allow two people relying upon it have a “sincere” difference of opinion about abortion or what extent the Church should have material wealth.

Rhology responds to only the statement in bold:

Now you're moving the goalposts. You had originally made PEOPLE AT LARGE the measure of truth, and now you want me to show two Mag docs that disagree. I probably could, and I know Carrie could easily, but that's not what we're discussing.

PH replies:

Rhology presents the classic strawman statement here. Take a statement of one’s opponent out of context and then comment on it. Not a good endorsement of the claim that logical argumentation is the measure of truth I think.

Rhology originally gave two examples of how different Catholics could sincerely come to different opinions on what the Magisterium teaches on abortion and to what extent the Church should have material wealth. I merely asked him to show me the magisterial documents upon which he bases his contention. Asking for proof of an assertion is not moving goal posts. It is asking for a little evidence to go with that dash of opinion he tossed into the bouillabaisse he offers us as fare for thought.

Moreover, I would ask the reader to go over all of my comments and see if I ever made people at large the measure of truth. It is true that Rhology accused me of adhering to such a notion, but never did I ever say that. I did say that Christ is the way, the truth and the life and He is the measure of truth. Misrepresenting what another person’s argument is also fallacious just so we are all clear. Like a modern-day Rumpelstiltskin, Rhology is trying to spin some more gold out of straw here.

Molting your feathers to make a real point, you wrote:

One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.

PH wrote in response:

Using the definition of Magisterium as “The Church's active competence, juridically embodied, to prolong by its witness God's self-communicative self-revelation in Christ, which necessarily inheres in the Church (as the eschatologically definitive community of believers in Christ, founded by him as an hierarchical society, empowered by a mission to bear testimony to Christ), and which demands obedience." (Concise Theological Dictionary p. 268 Burns and Oates, Herder and Herder, New York, London, 1965) one can find the notion of the Magisterium expressed in the NT from a number of passages (citations only and not recitation of the passages so as to not offend either Mr. Bugay or Louis) to support it, to begin with: Mt l6:15, 18; Mt. 28: 18-20; Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15:6-8, 28; Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:13. So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.

Rhology addresses only the portion in bold:

Unless the Mag[isterium] infallibly interp[ret]ed those Scr[iptures] [passages], you're relying on private fallible interp[retation] in order to prove your position that the Mag[isterium] is necessary to correct for people's private fallible interp[retation]s. Something is ironic about that...

I reply:

Of course, Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood. Perhaps Rhology can point to a dispute that has arisen among sincere Catholics because they have differing interpretations of the above referenced passages so we can all see the irony that he sees in quoting such. Now, I can point Rhology to the magisterial source (Ordinary) where I got some of my ideas used in responding to Rhology’s comments. It was an oral address entitled The Magisterium, the Bishops, and the Theologians given at a Catholic symposium on the Magisterium by the Most Rev. David M. Maloney, Bishop of Wichita, a holy and learned gentleman who actually assisted in writing some of the conciliar documents at Vatican II.

And while I am it, here are a couple of infallible magisterial sources that do reference these citations listed above which I found without any difficulty in case anyone was wondering (I am sure that I could find many more with a little work):

Mt l6:15, 18      First Vatican Council, Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter 4., The Infallible “Magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff

Lk. 10: 16        Canon 21 of the Council of Constantinople IV

Acts 15:6-8      This is the scriptural account of the Council of Jerusalem that actually set the pattern as to how the Church is to conduct a council to settle disputes over doctrine.

Acts 15:28        Ditto.

Gal. 4:19          Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, Chapter 1:7.

1 Cor. 4:15       Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3:21, 28

1 Tim. 3:15      Council of Trent, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter 1

2 Tim. 1:13.     Pius IX, Exiam tuam on the False Doctrines of Anton Guenther (1857)

Redacting a major portion of my argument, Rhology takes the following statement of mine out of context:

It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God.

Rhology responding only to the boldfaced part:

So why does it get the Gospel wrong? And posit Purgatory? And the Immaculate Conception of Mary? And the Assumption of Mary? And worshiping pictures of dead people? And the treasury of merit and indulgences? And other examples of exceeding what is written all the time?

PH replies:

Talk about question begging and strawman argumentation (we do not worship pictures of dead people anymore than Rhology does)! Of course Rumple-rhology’s whole argument is based on the premise that he can actually demonstrate these doctrines as taught by the Church are erroneous. As a Calvinist, Rhology may take issue with the above doctrines, but the question here is whether he can show that Catholics disagree with them after these doctrines or dogmas were defined by the Magisterium. He may link us to a bunch of articles where he and his cohorts address various misrepresentations and misapprehensions about what the Church teaches on these subjects claiming to have refuted them, but he certainly did not do so here.

Rhology offers the following quibble to a portion of the statement I wrote, “The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority.” (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring):

Since YOU were the one who introduced the idea that a teaching authority is apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it, that would be YOUR red herring. And again, thank you for acknowledging that this argument is stupid.

PH writes in reply:

No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above. Looking at the entire statement I made and not just the cherry-picked squib that Rhology responds to one sees he left out the major thrust of the statement:

"It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and his plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it to real life situations (CCC 85-86). The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.) "Faithful and respectful obedience" to the Magisterium is something presupposed (Cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26) as the consent given to belief, is a consent not to what is just the word of men, but rather is held to be the Word of God. See, Lumen Gentium 12 and 25." 

NOTE that the argument states that “Faithful and respectful obedience to the Magisterium is something presupposed” so Rhology’s ad hominem claim of stupidity is a response to a straw man argument of his own construction that he labors to huff and puff to blow down.

As demonstrated from the entire statement I wrote as opposed to the squibs Rhology presented, I never wrote or even inferred that the teaching authority of the Church is “apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it teaching.” Not at all. What I was trying to indicate was that folks who did not give “faithful and respectful obedience” to the teachings of the Church can not be said to be sincere nor really Catholic for that matter.

And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful, there is no such thing as “sincere” differences of opinion on this issue. As for the other issue about the Church owning wealth, perhaps Rhology could point us to an actual schism or heresy on that point to see where he going with it as I am not aware of any such thing (I do acknowledge that I am not a know-it-all as to the causes of heresy or schism). If Rhology misunderstood my argument as opposed to misrepresenting it, I hope this little piece of non-magisterial clarification aids his understanding as to the advantage of a Magisterium that can do likewise when misunderstandings occur.

Setting up the claim that the Catholic Magisterial system is circular, Rhology wrote:

And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority. And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...

PH responded:

Unlike Protestantism which holds that each person is his own magisterial authority, we recognize that Jesus is the final arbiter as head of the Church, who is exercising through those that are placed in authority by Him to lead/serve the Church. Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur. If you disagree, prove it that Catholics do not believe in the concept that "the buck stops here."

Rhology now writes:

How do strawmen help the Roman cause? Is it Mag[isterial] teaching that strawmen are the best strategy? Is that in Lumen Gentium too?

PH replies:

How does cherry-picking statements and taking them out of context, help your cause? More to the point, how does making a “fallacy fallacy” argument actually advance the aims of argumentation at all? Since I have been accused of fallacy, let us see if that is the case. I have made the claim that each Protestant through the exercise of his own private judgment holds himself up as his own magisterial authority. I will go one step further and state that the practice of private judgment as exercised and abused by Protestants is an exercise in idolatry as the individual places himself above the Word of God instead of being subject to it.

How can I make this claim? I will elucidate:

Let us first define what I mean by “private judgment.” In his book, What Faith Really Means, Bishop Henry Graham, a former Calvinist minister who converted to Catholicism, wrote:

So far, then, from being debasing or dishonoring to our intellect, we consider the Catholic attitude to be the most beautiful and sublime act of homage to Our Divine Lord; we are honoring and adoring Him Who is the first and essential Truth.

Renouncing our own judgment! Giving up our freedom! Of course we renounce our own judgment when God has spoken; of course we give up our freedom to believe the opposite of what God teaches. Protestants do the same. A Protestant who believes in the Blessed Trinity because God has revealed it -- does he not renounce his own judgment upon it? A Protestant who believes in Hell or in the Incarnation -- where is his freedom to reject it, without sin? So, if God declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, 'I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?' Let who will take upon themselves such a responsibility.

On matters, indeed that Almighty God has been pleased to leave open questions, we are free to hold our own opinions, and there is a wide field here where discussion is not only permissible, but right and proper, and, it may be, even laudable. Thousands of volumes have been written on such subjects by theologians and priests. In such a sphere they have perfect liberty; the Church allows it. Moreover, not only does the Church allow, but she gladly encourages, the wisest, the most devout and learned of her sons to undertake researches into the mysteries already defined to be doctrines of faith; not, of course, for the purpose of finding whether they are true, but for the purpose of explanation, instruction, edification; of discovering and unfolding to the faithful more and more the inexhaustible treasures of Heavenly truth that lie embedded in any one of the articles of the Faith.

The world has been enriched by whole libraries of Catholic theology -- dogmatic, moral, ascetical, mystical, and the rest. To speak, then, of the intellect being paralyzed and of the spiritual faculties being deadened by the 'Romish system' is simply ludicrous. Neither the religious literature of Protestantism, nor the finished product of their spiritual system as seen in the lives of its devotees, is to be mentioned in the same breath with that of the Catholic Church.

When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Do people imagine that the Son of God, having revealed a body of truth definite and explicit, eternal and unchangeable, left it to us to cut and carve, and to pick and choose here and there such bits of it as suited our taste? What the better should we be today, what advantage would the Incarnation have brought to us, if, after all, we were still floundering about in doubt and uncertainty?

"Far other is the Catholic conception of Christ's mission. So soon as Our Divine Lord, speaking through the voice of His Church, solemnly declares, 'This is My teaching: this is included in the Revelation I made to the Apostles.' -- what Christian, I ask, or rather, what man that fears God, Christian or not, will dare to hesitate to bow in acquiescence, and say, 'O my God, I believe because Thou hast said it' ? ....

The use of private judgment, on the other hand, in the sense of an inquiry into the 'motives of credibility,' and a study of the evidences for the Faith, to enable you to find out which is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ -- this is permissible, and not only permissible, but strictly necessary for all outside the Fold who wish to save their souls. But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?

Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived...Renouncing our own judgment! Giving up our freedom! Of course we renounce our own judgment when God has spoken; of course we give up our freedom to believe the opposite of what God teaches. Protestants do the same. A Protestant who believes in the Blessed Trinity because God has revealed it -- does he not renounce his own judgment upon it? A Protestant who believes in Hell or in the Incarnation -- where is his freedom to reject it, without sin? So, if God declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, 'I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?' Let who will take upon themselves such a responsibility.

'Be convinced,' says Cardinal Newman in his great sermon, 'Faith and Doubt' -- 'be convinced in your reason that the Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is enough....You must come to the Church to learn; you must come, not to bring your own notions to her, but with the intention of ever being a learner; you must come with the intention of taking her for your portion, and of never leaving her. Do not come as an experiment, do not come as you would take sittings in a chapel or tickets for a lecture-room; come to her as to your home, to the school of your souls, to the Mother of Saints, and to the vestibule of Heaven.'"

[N.B.: Please note that the above extract was copied from an excellent article written by Philip Porvaznik entitled On Private Judgment and Catholicism found on his “Evangelical Catholic Apologetics” website. While I own Bishop Graham’s book, I was too lazy to retype the section.] 

The eminent 19th century Catholic American apologist, Orestes Brownson, adds:

[P]rivate judgment (in the Protestant sense) is only when the matters judged lie out of the range of reason, and when its principle is not the common reason of mankind, nor a Catholic or public authority, but the fancy, the caprice, the prejudice or the idiosyncrasy of the individual forming it. (Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October 1855).

Basing my argument on the above-referenced understanding of what private judgment is, the problem I have with private judgment is the believer always starts out by accepting some of the teachings of the established faith and rejecting others and then ends up accepting as legitimate the most dissenting or divergent views of others rather than defined teaching. One sees an example of this when Protestant apologists attack Catholic doctrines by quoting from the likes of a Küng, Wills, Greeley, or McBrien rather than from the host of orthodox Catholic theologians, like Ratzinger, Bouyer, Brown, Newman, Knox, Sheen, Congar, Hahn. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, “the way of a heretic is to restrict belief in certain aspects of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure” (Summa II-II, 1.a.1).

Seriously, this “selection” and “fashioning” is nothing less than private judgment at work. When truth and falsehood in religion becomes a matter of private opinion, one doctrine becomes as good as another. What right does Rhology have to claim that his view of Calvinism is any better than my view of Catholicism if ultimately it all boils down to our respective opinions. If I have sincerely exercised my private judgment and have decided on those grounds to believe and hold what the Catholic Church teaches, upon what basis could Rhology deny the validity of my decision? How is quoting a couple Scripture passages going to help when I myself are relying upon my own personal interpretations of the same?

Dr. Brownson once more:

The so-called Reformers supposed at first that they could maintain dogmatic religion by means of the Bible, without any divinely authorized interpreter or teacher, for they were not aware at first how much their interpretation of Scripture depended on the tradition of the Church in which they had all been educated. When shown this by Catholics, and shown still further that the Bible, interpreted by tradition, supported the claims of the papacy and the Catholic Church, from which they had separated, they were forced, in order to be consistent with themselves, either to return to the Catholic Church or to reject the traditional interpretation of the written word, and to rely henceforth solely, in their interpretation of the sacred text, on grammar and lexicon. But interpreted solely by grammar and lexicon, it was soon discovered that no uniform and consistent dogmatic system could with any tolerable degree of certainty be educed from the Holy Scriptures. There is no denying the fact. The variations of Protestantism, even during the lives of the reformers, the multiplication of Protestant sects, all appealing alike to the sacred text, and the experience of three hundred and more years, render it indubitable. Hard pressed by their Catholic opponents, Protestants were driven to the sad alternative of either condemning their separation from the Church and returning to her communion, or of giving up dogmatic religion as unessential and falling back on interior feeling or sentiment.

And again:

The reformers imagined that they had opposed a truth to the authority of the Church when they asserted the authority of the Bible; but in doing this they only changed the form of their denial. Their assertion of the authority of the Bible was purely negative, simply the denial of the authority of the Church to interpret it or declare and apply its sense. It meant neither more nor less; for the Church asserted and always had asserted the authority of the Bible, interpreted and applied by the divinely instituted court in the case. The Bible, Protestant experience has proved, without the Church as that court, is as un-authoritative as are the statutes of a kingdom or republic, left to the private judgment of the citizen or subject, without the civil court to interpret and apply them to the case in hand. They, then, did not oppose to the Church as the principle of their denial any truth or authority. Nothing but pure denial, historically as well as logically, Protestantism, in spite of every refuge or subterfuge, has reached its inevitable termination - the negation of all authority, external or internal, spiritual or secular, and therefore of all faith, of all objective truth, and of all religion; for the very nature of religion is to bind the conscience, or the obligation of man to obey God. 

Brownson, Orestes Augustus, and Henry F. Brownson. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson. Detroit: T. Nourse, 1882, pp. 441-442, 451.

St.  Alphonsus Liguori stated things a bit more succinctly:

To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated.

Council of Trent, Appendix.

When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion. We hear all of the time the claim that Protestants agree on the “essentials,” yet in all of my years on this earth, I have never seen Protestants actually ever agree on what the “essentials” are. They are protesting something, but they don’t know quite what they are all protesting. Aside from a shared animosity (to one extent or another), Protestants don’t seem to think that doctrinal matters are really all that important unless it happens to be the ones they are opposing. But, that is a post for a different day.

Now once doctrine is tossed out (in accordance with the old Protestant “agreement on the essentials” notion) what follows is that morality itself loses its objective character. This truth is so aptly demonstrated by the Protestant tendency to redefine sin as not sin as evidenced by their embracing and celebrating adulterous re-marriage after divorce, contraception, abortion, validation of homosexual relationships as marriages, and clergy who actively engage in homosexual behaviors. Not too long ago, I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter? I find it personally fascinating what their own Reformers found to damnable sin is now a mere “tradition of man” that can disregarded at will and indulged in. And should our Protestant friends want to raise the issue of the well-publicized clergy abuse scandal, regardless of whatever else they want to say, at least the Catholic Church still declares the actions of those offending clergy to be sinful.

Such attitudes fomented by the Protestant notion of private judgment demonstrate that man, not God, becomes the center of the universe and the criteria for truth. What need does one have for truth, for doctrines, for God when authority is discarded. Anticipating the notion of private judgment as the measure or right or wrong, Satan was only being prophetic when he told our first parents that “Ye shall be as gods” at Gen. 3:5. As I have stated before, private judgment is nothing more than a disguised idolatry where man decides what God teaches as opposed to the other way around. Man lives according to his own lights and only accepts what is true based on what he himself has established through his own “careful” study of Scripture as a way to make Christianity conform to their personal needs and whims.

I am sure that Rhology, if he even reads this, will continue to protest that the above argument is a straw man. However, did not Rhology himself say in the FIRST ROUND that logical argumentation should be the measure of truth? That’s idolatry my friends, pure and simple. Using Rhology’s standard for the truth, how then does not private judgment make oneself rather than God the source of truth when it is left to the individual to decide what the Word of God means. The Beggars All folks claim on the pages of their blog to see idolatry behind every Catholic tree, yet are they so blind that they can not see the real thing when strolling through their own Protestant forest? As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation. 

Having waxed on too long, let us get back to the discussion. After writing, “Quoting PH, “Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur.” Rhology then adds this little gem of Christian charity:

“One wonders how you make it work every day with your head stuck that far in the clouds.”

PH replies:

I know Rhology did not mean it to be so, but I will take his criticism as a compliment, even a badge of honor. It is sort of interesting, even fascinating, that Rhology accuses me of having my head in the clouds because I actually believe what the Word of God and my Church teaches me. Rhology’s attitude certainly reveals the disguised skepticism at the core of Calvinist thought. BTW, in case Colossians 3:1-5 has been redacted from Rhology’s Bible, here is St. Paul’s view on the subject:

Therefore, if you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above; where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth. For you are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, who is your life, then you also shall appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols.

If having my head in the clouds allows me to seek and mind the things that are above, who is Rhology to gainsay me?

But, back to that private-judgment-is-idolatry thing...Note how St. Paul links certain sinful behavior to idolatry: fornication (divorce and remarriage); uncleanness (openly homosexual clergy); lust (homosexual marriage) –all things which many Protestant denominations have accepted and even embraced into their flavor of Christianity as idolatrous. I wonder how long it will be before they start disregarding the rest of what St. Paul wrote.                          

Rhology quotes me some more, “Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.”

Rhology then adds this:

For those who've not spent much time arguing with atheists (as Paul apparently hasn't), atheism IS pantheism and vice versa, esp when it comes to questions of authority. Which makes it worse for him - now the RC position isn't just echoing atheism, but pantheism as well. Wow, have fun with that.

PH replies:

The Catholic Church’s position does not echo Atheism or Pantheism at all. If one reads Rhology’s article that he links to, one would see that the anonymous atheist as merely exercising his version of Protestant private judgment when he declares that he is his own god. The atheist is merely exercising his own fallible judgment in deciding what is true.


Now as to the notion that atheism is pantheism, especially when it comes to authority is bunk. It seems to me that Rhology threw it out there as a fluff bunny to make his thoughts sound intellectual. Sure, there is a similarity between the two, systems of thought, but one can find similarity between Protestantism and Atheism as well as both are based philosophically on the premise that man is the final decider of what is true and what is not. But, it has been my experience in discoursing with the few dozen or so atheists and pantheists that have crossed my path that the difference between Pantheism (which boils down to the notion that all men are god) and Atheism (which holds that no man is god) is that atheists, like Calvinists, in the end ultimately do not recognize any higher authority than themselves (regardless of how they try to dress up their claims) as the measure of truth whereas pantheists consult every authority other than themselves looking for truth. Pantheists litter their lives with “authoritative” figures-seers, gurus, teachers, masters, etc.- to obtain insight into the truth. Such people instinctively know in their hearts that they should be looking for God and Christ Jesus, but they simply do not know where to look.


In the end, Catholicism is not like Atheism, Protestantism or Pantheism at all when it comes to authority because Catholics recognize a higher interpretative authority other than ourselves. As I pointed out in the original discussion with Rhology, Jesus Christ is the Catholic’s Way, Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.

Rhology in preparation of making another straw man argument through reductio ad absurdum redacts a portion of this statement I made:

Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “Contra factum non valet argumentum,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. PERIOD. Since the Word of God (Christ Himself) shows as a fact that it is to be interpreted by those placed in authority of His Body, no amount of argumentation will prevail against it.

Rhology then offers the following insight:

Ah, then Jell-O has farley bones and the further they 9 the much. That reminds me; maybe we should add this to the long list of confusion and internal dissent within Rome - whether logic is the measure of truth or not.

PH replies:

If Calvinists such as Rhology truly believe that logical argumentation rather than the Logos the measure of truth, one must wonder why their apologists have to resort to fallacious tactics of distortion, omission, and fabrication in order to respond to the arguments presented by “Rome.”


Further, it is telling that during the above interaction between Rhology and myself over whether using one’s private judgment is superior to the Catholic doctrine appertaining to the Magisterium, Rhology never once quotes Scripture thereby demonstrating that the Protestant version of “Only a fool is his own lawyer” works no better in apologetics than it does in legal fora.


Rhology’s gibberish statement above epitomizes the arrogance shown by men who fetter God’s Word with their own personal subjective views rather than trust in God speaking through the Church as the criterion of truth. When men make themselves the center of all things, when all truth becomes both subjective and relative, soon thereafter God’s Word is either forgotten all together or becomes as meaningless as the gibberish Rhology spouts. Rhology may call me stupid, but words from a man such as him will never cause me to abandon Christ, my hope and my salvation nor will gibberish comments from such a man ever persuade me that logical argumentation, not Jesus Christ, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Amen.


Now if Rhology ever gets around to actually defending the notion of private judgment rather than to just denigrating the Magisterium, he will need to address what John Henry Cardinal Newman, yet another Catholic convert with Calvinist leanings and card-carrying member of the Magisterium, wrote in his great work, Anglican Difficulties:

T]he very idea of the Catholic Church, as an instrument of supernatural grace, is that of an institution which innovates upon, or rather superadds to nature. She does something for nature above or beyond nature. When, then, it is said that she makes her members one, this implies that by nature they are not one, and would not become one. Viewed in themselves, the children of the Church are not of a different nature from the Protestants around them; they are of the very same nature. What Protestants are, such would they be, but for the Church, which brings them together forcibly, though persuasively, "fortiter et suaviter," and binds them into one by her authority. Left to himself, each Catholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and his private judgment just as much as a Protestant; and he has it, and he maintains it, just so far as the Church does not, by the authority of Revelation, supersede it. The very moment the Church ceases to speak, at the very point at which she, that is, God who speaks by her, circumscribes her range of teaching, there private judgment of necessity starts up; there is nothing to hinder it. The intellect of man is active and independent: he forms opinions about everything; he feels no deference for another's opinion, except in proportion as he thinks that that other is more likely than he to be right; and he never absolutely sacrifices his own opinion, except when he is sure that that other knows for certain. He is sure that God knows; therefore, if he is a Catholic, he sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, speaking through His Church. But, from the nature of the case, there is nothing to hinder his having his own opinion, and expressing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, the oracle of Revelation, does not speak.

In closing, logical argumentation, private judgment, Christian liberty or any other such notions of flawed Protestant thinking can not be the measure of truth because religious truths rely on faith as proof. Truth is a reality that we seek through faith to understand or as some members of the Magisterium put it, “Faith seeking understanding," says St, Anselm or "I believe in order to understand" says St. Augustine. Or as the Scriptures state, “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (Heb. 11:1) Logical argumentation may aid one’s faith, it can never be a substitute for it.

The fatal flaw with private judgment is this: while the ability to reason is common to all men, private judgment is the special act of the individual. Private judgment is not called such because it is a judgment of an individual, but because it is a judgment rendered by virtue of a private rule of principle of judgment. What constitutes the truth can never be determined thusly because there is no objectivity. As one critic of private judgment puts it: Father Smarius, S.J., puts it thus:

“Protestants opine that Holy Scripture is Divinely revealed (this cannot be proved without the Church); they opine that it is to be interpreted by each individual for himself; they opine that their opinion as to its meaning will be sufficient for their salvation; and each and every interpretation they make of its meaning (except where no conceivable doubt exists from the text) is no more than an opinion." John Daly. Michael Davies - An Evaluation, Britons Catholic Library, 1989.

"The chief cause of this moral degeneracy may be traced to the principle of private judgment introduced by Luther and Calvin, as the highest and only authority in religion and morality. Since the time of these Reformers, religion ceased to be the mistress, and became the slave of man. He was no longer bound to obey her, but she was bound to obey him. His reason was no longer subject to her divine authority, but she became the subject of his prejudices and passions. The Scriptures although cried up as the supreme authority, lost their objective value, and men no longer listened to the words 'Thus saith the Lord', but gave ear to the freaks and fancies of every upstart prophet and doctor, whose best reason for the faith was, 'I believe so', 'it is my impression', 'it is my opinion'. Reason itself was dethroned, and feeling became the exponent of truth. Men judged of religion as they did of their breakfasts and dinner... new fashions of belief became as numerous as new fashions of dress..." Points of Controversy, O'Shea: N.Y., 1873.

When the church in Corinth was in danger of being ripped apart by the exercise of private judgment, St. Paul wrote to them saying:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10)

Unless Rhology or any of his co-religionistsMagisterium of the Catholic Church.  After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.  How many dogmas have ever been infallibly defined using private judgment or to use Rhology’s words, logical argumentation?

God bless!