We have been talking about dogmatic certainty in Christianity, and across both paradigms, whether Protestant, or Catholic. Understand that the use of those particular terms may include those who use the Catholic interpretive paradigm but are not in union with the Catholic Church, or conversely, someone may use the Protestant interpretive paradigm without considering themselves to be Protestant. The respective terms are therefore broadly descriptive of methodologies for discerning truth revealed by God in Christ.
The first assertion of the Protestant interpretive paradigm is that the purported authority of the Catholic Church, rooted in the Magisterium, the ecumenical councils, and fundamentally in the sacramental (perhaps better, but redundantly said, "sacerdotal") priesthood secured by apostolic succession, is unnecessary. We can call the bluff of anyone who makes the argument that certainty is unnecessary, because we know that the spiritual fathers of those who carry on the Protestant Reformation were quite serious about certainty, as David Anders has noted, and as we linked earlier. Indeed, by what means would someone even begin to declare that Catholic faith and practice was marred by so many accretions, distractions from the unfettered glory of God, if there was no expectation or belief (e.g. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 7) that the alleged method by which we remove these accretions was able to produce certainty?
Understanding this implicit need for certainty, even if it is never explicitly acknowledged, helps explain why Catholic interlocutors tend to challenge the alleged certainty and clarity provided by Sola Scriptura. A lack of agreement among those who profess loyalty to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in itself an argument for the bad faith of those participants. It is not a case of simple point scoring on the part of Catholics; it is an invitation to reevaluate the clarity and certainty of particular dogmatic beliefs, especially against the backdrop of a relatively stable and long-standing Sacred Tradition. As an adherent of the Protestant interpretive paradigm, I cannot hold every non-Catholic belief simultaneously, but only that which I believe to be true. This is why any purported Protestant unity is an illusion: its only common denominator is non-Catholicism. That is, Protestant theologies diverge at mutually exclusive points as well. If I lose 1. Dogmatic certainty via the failure of Sola Scriptura to deliver what it promises; 2. ecclesial stability because of the resulting disagreement; and 3. the ability to honestly account for the first millennium of Church history, I have two options:
1. Give in to skepticism/atheism. I could say that no one has revealed truth, because if we can't agree on what it is, maybe there is no "it." Or,
2. Re-evaluate my process for how I've come to know what I know. Every past, present, and future Catholic chooses (2). I realized this rather quickly. I saw atheism as my only other option, precisely because if I couldn't know the difference between divine revelation, and my own opinion in a principled way, I knew the trappings of church authority wouldn't stem the tide of individual dissent, repeated millions of times over, every day. And it will dissolve into a consumeristic hodgepodge in short order, and probably naturalism and paganism, too. If you claim the authority, you'd better be holding the guns, or in this case, the keys. To use another metaphor, if you say, "All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both", (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31, paragraph 4) that's a tell, and that bluff will be called. Solo Scriptura is nothing more and nothing less than ecclesial fallibility (Sola Scriptura) applied to the ecclesial communities of the Reformation, and against their feigned authority!
Therefore, it's a question of head, heart, and hands, but definitely of the heart: Did God Himself establish the Catholic Church, and is continuing to protect it today? Whether you kick and scream, or whether you sprint, everyone who seeks full communion with the Catholic Church rightly must answer this question in the affirmative.
The first assertion of the Protestant interpretive paradigm is that the purported authority of the Catholic Church, rooted in the Magisterium, the ecumenical councils, and fundamentally in the sacramental (perhaps better, but redundantly said, "sacerdotal") priesthood secured by apostolic succession, is unnecessary. We can call the bluff of anyone who makes the argument that certainty is unnecessary, because we know that the spiritual fathers of those who carry on the Protestant Reformation were quite serious about certainty, as David Anders has noted, and as we linked earlier. Indeed, by what means would someone even begin to declare that Catholic faith and practice was marred by so many accretions, distractions from the unfettered glory of God, if there was no expectation or belief (e.g. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 7) that the alleged method by which we remove these accretions was able to produce certainty?
Understanding this implicit need for certainty, even if it is never explicitly acknowledged, helps explain why Catholic interlocutors tend to challenge the alleged certainty and clarity provided by Sola Scriptura. A lack of agreement among those who profess loyalty to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in itself an argument for the bad faith of those participants. It is not a case of simple point scoring on the part of Catholics; it is an invitation to reevaluate the clarity and certainty of particular dogmatic beliefs, especially against the backdrop of a relatively stable and long-standing Sacred Tradition. As an adherent of the Protestant interpretive paradigm, I cannot hold every non-Catholic belief simultaneously, but only that which I believe to be true. This is why any purported Protestant unity is an illusion: its only common denominator is non-Catholicism. That is, Protestant theologies diverge at mutually exclusive points as well. If I lose 1. Dogmatic certainty via the failure of Sola Scriptura to deliver what it promises; 2. ecclesial stability because of the resulting disagreement; and 3. the ability to honestly account for the first millennium of Church history, I have two options:
1. Give in to skepticism/atheism. I could say that no one has revealed truth, because if we can't agree on what it is, maybe there is no "it." Or,
2. Re-evaluate my process for how I've come to know what I know. Every past, present, and future Catholic chooses (2). I realized this rather quickly. I saw atheism as my only other option, precisely because if I couldn't know the difference between divine revelation, and my own opinion in a principled way, I knew the trappings of church authority wouldn't stem the tide of individual dissent, repeated millions of times over, every day. And it will dissolve into a consumeristic hodgepodge in short order, and probably naturalism and paganism, too. If you claim the authority, you'd better be holding the guns, or in this case, the keys. To use another metaphor, if you say, "All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both", (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31, paragraph 4) that's a tell, and that bluff will be called. Solo Scriptura is nothing more and nothing less than ecclesial fallibility (Sola Scriptura) applied to the ecclesial communities of the Reformation, and against their feigned authority!
Therefore, it's a question of head, heart, and hands, but definitely of the heart: Did God Himself establish the Catholic Church, and is continuing to protect it today? Whether you kick and scream, or whether you sprint, everyone who seeks full communion with the Catholic Church rightly must answer this question in the affirmative.
Comments